1 Kgs 1:40, guesses at rules
596547 at ican.net
Mon Nov 16 21:56:06 EST 1998
> The syntax of 1 Kgs 1:40b can be read a couple of different ways. Without
> prejudicing this audience with my ideas ;-) , how would you understand
> clause boundaries are, and how we are to understand the participles here
> (functioning as nouns, verbally, or perhaps even adverbially)?
> 1:40a way.a`:alw. kfl-hf`fm 'ax:arfyw -- no problems here V + Su + Adv
> 1:40b w:hf`fm m:xal.:liym b.ax:aliliym w.&:m"xiym &im:xfh g:dowlfh --
> 1:40c wat.ib.fqa` hf'frec b.:qowlfm -- this is also no problem: V + Su +
> phrase (instrumental)
You have found the clause boundaries for us by labeling a and c . b is the
clause between a and c. ;-)
You must mean that the challenge is to decide whether b is an independent
clause or a phrase continuing a. ha`am has tracking value. I.e., it
would be the linking feature of b to a . But tracking *within* a
clause is usually performed by a pronoun, right? Here we have tracking by
a definite noun, I guess elevating the linking to an *inter-clausal* level.
In addition, ha`am + pl. part. is used several times in Kings, et. al.
where it cannot be "resumptive" or tracking because an antecedent is
missing in the previous clause. E.g. this expression is common: habbamot
lo' saru `od ha`am mezabb:xiym um:qa++:riym 1 Ki 22:43 Perhaps the
participles are more clearly verbal in such a case as this example, and
suggest a verbal interpretation of the participles in the verse about which
I vote b is an independent clause with verbal participles for a
predicate. Even so, I consider the b clause to be connected "upwardly"
to a (rather than "downwardly" to c ) by virtue of the
re-nominalization of ha`am. In terms of *discourse*, I would say the a-b
composite of two clauses is notionally equivalent to "And all the people
followed him up playing with pipes and making great merriment."
Is there a rule lurking here? Say, "a pronoun for inner and inter-clausal
tracking and a definite noun for inter-clausal tracking only." ??? I
looked at den Exter Blokland for a few minutes to see if he suggests a rule
so plainly but could only find hints. Maybe Anderson's _The Sentence_
might also be helpful on this topic but I don't have a copy on me.
Another idea: economy. The more economically tracking is done the more
conjunctive is the effect. The less economically, the more disjunctive is
Take ha`am as the reference point. hem would have been a more economical
way to track the subject than ha`am. No pronoun or noun at all(just the
plural participles with an "understood" subject) would have been more
economical yet. What would be less economical than ha`am? kol-ha`am .
Even less economical? b:ney yisra'el . So the subject tracking in b is
economically equal to the referent in a Rule: subject tracking of equal
or less economy than the referent means a new clause.
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208
More information about the b-hebrew