Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Re[3]: wayyiqtol test, dave:necessary

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Moon-Ryul Jung" <moon AT computing.soongsil.ac.kr>
  • To: b-hebrew
  • Subject: Re: Re[3]: wayyiqtol test, dave:necessary
  • Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:42:56


Dear Peter,

>One more difference is that
> in Hebrew X-qatal is continued with wayyiqtol, whereas English
> continues with past perfect.
>
> Peter Kirk

In relation to Dave's confirmation that simple past can continue past
perfect, I would like to recall what Niccacci posted on Feb 23. He said:

1 Sam 25:1 gives the historical information with a chain of NARRATIVE
wayyiqtol:
(1)
(a) And Samuel died [wayyiqtol]
(b) and all Israel gathered [idem]
(c) and they made lament for him[idem]
(d) and they buried him [idem]

1 Sam 28:3 retrieves the first piece of information with a non-narrative
construction [x+qatal]; then it goes with CONTINUATION wayyiqtol:
(2)
(a) Now Samuel had died [x+qatal]
(b) and all Israel had made lament [wayyiqtol] for him
(c) and they had buried him [Idem].

Niccacci, Peter, Bryan, Dave, Galia and others have showed that x+qatal is
a way to introduce a "digression" into the narrative. Wayyiqtol clauses
that appear in a
digression are called CONTINUATION wayyiqtols by Niccacci. I think that the
distinction between NARRATIVE wayyqtol and CONTINUATION
wayyiqtol is helpful. But the distinction is not absolute because a
narrative may have a several layers of digressions.

To preserve the similarity or symmetry between the mainline of the
narrative and a digression, I would translate 1 Sam 28:3 as follows:

(3)
(a) Now Samuel had died [x+qatal]
(b) All Israel made lament [wayyiqtol] for him
(c) They buried him [Idem].

Notice that wayyiqtols after x-qatal are translated to simple past
clauses.
If many English speakers like (3) better than (2), it may be considered
another evidence that English simple past is quite similar to wayyiqtol.

I like (3) better than (2). Let me try to analyze (2) and (3), and see why
(3) is preferred.

In (3), the reference time is given by the preceding narrative. Clause (a)
describes the situation at the reference time by referring to an event
that
produced the situation. The candidates for the reference time for clause
(b)
are the current reference time and the event time of Samuel's death, which
has been introduced by clause (a). In general, it is possible for
clause (b) to pick up its reference time AFTER the current reference time.
But in this case, the reference time of clause (b) is set to the event
time
of clause (a). Clause (c) picks up its reference time AFTER the reference
time
of clause (b).

However, in (2), where clauses (b) and (c) have past perfect forms,
clauses
(b) and (c) do not introduce a new reference time. All three clauses
describe
the situation at the current reference time by referring to past events. In
this
respect, (2) would correspond to three x+qatal clauses. The temporal
ordering between these past events are not "respected" by these past
perfect forms, though, because of world knowledge, the temporal order is
visible to the reader. In general, it is all right not to respect temporal
ordering between situations; aspectual catergory exists in language to
depict real situations subjectively and selectively. But in this case,
some readers may be bothered
by the verb forms that do not respect so obvious a temporal ordering.

But because I am not a native English speaker, my intution may not be
correct :-)

Sincerely,

Moon-Ryul Jung, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University,
Seoul, Korea




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page