# agreement of attributive adjective and noun



## Ali Smith

שלום

וַיִּשָּׂ֨א דָוִ֜יד אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּ֞רְא אֶת־מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהֹוָה֙ עֹמֵ֗ד בֵּ֤ין הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְחַרְבּ֤וֹ שְׁלוּפָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ נְטוּיָ֖ה עַל־יְרוּשָׁלָ֑͏ִם וַיִּפֹּ֨ל דָּוִ֧יד וְהַזְּקֵנִ֛ים מְכֻסִּ֥ים בַּשַּׂקִּ֖ים עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם׃
דברי הימים א כא טז

The rule is that the attributive adjective must agree with the noun it is qualifying in three things:

1. gender
2. number
3. definiteness

Here the adjective is indefinite while the noun it is qualifying is not. Should the former not have had ה before it?

אני מודה לכם מאוד


----------



## Drink

Seems to be the participle is used as a verb not as a modifier here.


----------



## Ali Smith

Oh, I see. But then why is the pronoun at the end in the plural? Shouldn’t it have been פניו?


----------



## Drink

Huh? Not sure why you think it should be singular. זקנים is still plural.


----------



## Ali Smith

Yes, but that implies that זקנים, together with דוד, is the subject of ויפל.


----------



## Drink

Oh right my bad, על פניהם is referring to ויפל, you're right.

I would say מכוסים בשקים is an appositive phrase, not an adjectival modifier phrase.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Maybe it's telling us the state the elders were in at the time.


----------



## Drink

JAN SHAR said:


> Maybe it's telling us the state the elders were in at the time.


That doesn't really answer the question though, which is why it agrees in number but not definiteness.


----------



## Ali Smith

JAN SHAR said:


> Maybe it's telling us the state the elders were in at the time.


It could be similar to the following:

וְנָתַתִּי אֶת חֵן הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרָיִם וְהָיָה כִּי תֵלֵכוּן לֹא תֵלְכוּ רֵיקָם.


----------

