Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 998 non-past wyyqtl's, Dave

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 998 non-past wyyqtl's, Dave
  • Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:13:59 -0500

Hi Dave,

I'm going to try to answer the questions from your post below in one continuous missive because I think it is easier for the forum to enjoy. Let me know if I have left any important answers out.

About the meaning of the "meaning" of forms ;-) :
In talking about verbal semantics we are talking about the language rules native speakers have internalized. In other words we are talking about rules for human behavior. Human behavior is less mathmatically reliable and predictable than the rules by which we understand the orbits of heavenly bodies.

Example: If a being from another planet observed upstate New York drivers through his telescope, he could acurately deduce the meaning of the traffic signals and markings--white lines for road boundaries, red lights for stop, turn signals predict direction of movement, etc. The markings and signals communicate in a rudimentary way to and between drivers, and the alien can learn the code by the 90+% of folks who follow the code 90+% of the time. (I am sure the alien would err on one point. He would be sure that all speed signs mean about ten m.p.h. above what they read!) When a driver, in order to go around someone who is waiting to make a left, goes outside the white line to get around the stopped car, the white line has not stopped *meaning* "here is the edge of the drivable space." In fact, if an learner's permit holder were to drive outside that white line on his New York State driver's exam, he would fail the exam for not respecting the meaning of the line. In spite of the meaning of the line, it is a common exception for drivers to vere into the shoulder of a road to get by a standing car.

Likewise, perhaps wayyiqtols can retain their meaning as sequencers even though there are some explainable exceptions and even an occasionally unexplainable exception. Speaking of unexplainable "violations," have you ever seen people ignore a traffic marking for no good reason? It's the inevitable chaos that seems inherent to the fallen human race! ;-)

Take paraphrasing with wayyiqtol as an example of "crossing the white line." When a second wayyiqtol paraphrases or is identicle an earlier one, the writer and reader's shared world knowledge cooperate with the meaning of the wayyiqtol. Writer and reader know the same event doesn't happen twice. Writer and reader both realize we are back-looping with the second wayyiqtol to cover the same sequence again.

About the meaning of the wayyiqtol specifically:
I think Hatav has said it as well an anyone. It's meaning is to create a new R-time. She has found something like 93-95% (I forget exactly)to do so in the typical prose corpus. If she were to add other, most notably poetic, texts, I believe she would find nearly as high a percentage.

I don't believe the conclusion that wayyiqtol clauses are the "simple, active propositions" of BH quite accounts for the data satisfactorily. Critical to me is that the X-Qatal, the wayyiqtol's partner in story-telling, is not used as merely the alternative consctruction when the writer wants to promote an element to the first position of the clause. We see that the X-qatal is strategically distributed within stories in places where context indicates non-sequence. It makes sense therefore, that X-qatal's partner indicates the presence of sequence.

In your below letter, you ask for examples of explainable examples when wayyiqtol does not express a sequence. I'll give them in another post.

Shalom,
Bryan

You wrote:
On Monday 29 November 2004 16:15, B. M. Rocine wrote:
Hi Dave,

Thanks for your good question. I am always pleased when we discuss
specific

texts on this forum. You wrote:
> On Sunday 28 November 2004 06:57, B. M. Rocine wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Take your example of two wayyiqtols in Jer 51:29. The consensus among
>> the
>> five or six modern translators I checked is that the wayyiqtols are
>> non-past; they differ on whether to translate them as present or >> future.
>> I
>> quickly vote future with you. I do not, however, think the text is
>> evidence that the wayyiqtols are not perfective. The perfectivity of
>> the forms is utilized to explicitly embed sequentiality into the text.
>> I think
>> translations should use the word *then* or *so*: "Then the land will
>> quake, then it will writhe for the thoughts of YHWH stand against
>> Babel."
>
> Bryan,
> Would you insist that they use the word "then" or "so" in Judges > 12:9-14
> as
> well?
>
> --
> Dave Washburn

I suppose we might use "then," but I surely wouldn't insist on it or even
recommend it in all cases in the passage.

That's good, considering the mess it would cause :-) Starting in v.8, we
would have "Ibzan...judged Israel...then he had thirty sons and daughters,
then he married them all off, then he judged Israel [again!]...Elon judged,
then he judged [huh?]...Abdon judged, then he had 40 sons, then he judged [he
must have been exhausted by the time he reached this second judgeship!]"

I think you may be asking whether I think wyyqtl always represents a
sequence. I do not, but I still the best explanation of the form is that
it *means* sequence. I do *not* think the meaning of a form is only that
which is uncancelable. Such a standard does not allow for the chaos which
is bound to be evident in language use. So I can tolerate a fair handful
of exceptions to a verb form's meaning, especially if they are distributed
in a regular manner (patterned chaos? oy vey, have patience with me!).

You correctly discern my real question. Based on this paragraph, I'm not sure
what your definition of "meaning" is. I don't want to do a Clinton here, but
it seems to me that you're defining "means" in a somewhat different way than
several others here do. So I could do with some clarification so I can
follow you correctly. If "meaning" is not something uncancelable, what are
the circumstances in which (by which?) that "meaning" of a form may be
canceled? If sequence is encoded in the verb form, how does a speaker or
writer get around that?
If meaning is something other than something encoded
in the form, what exactly is it, and if it's not a hard-and-fast feature of
the form, how can we discern that it's there at all? These sorts of
questions are at the heart of my research, and I anxiously await your input.

Take for instance Jdg 12:11 vayyishpot 'axarav 'et yisra'el 'eylon
hazzebuloni vayyishpot 'et yisra'el `eser shanim

The same story time is covered twice by two successive wayyiqtol clauses.
In other words, stroy time does not move forward as we expect from a series
of wayyiqtols. It's easily negotiable for the reader though because both
clauses have the same kernel witht he same subject. If we have this series
in English:

Sam hit a homer.
Bill hit one out of the park.

we understand that first Sam hit a homer, and then Bill hit one. If we
have this series:

Sam hit a homer.
Sam hit one out of the park.

we understand that the second clause is elaborating on the first, even
though in English story telling, a second clause with a simple past verb
usually moves forward story time. (I am only speaking of English simple
past as an analogy. I am not equating the English simple past with the
wayyiqtol, even though both are used as the mainlines of narrative in their
respective languages.)

So if I follow your reasoning correctly, sequence (at least in the English
simple clause) is more a semantic and pragmatic matter than a syntactic one,
since in the first set we have a change of actor and in the second we
(presumably) don't. Am I with you so far?

I think the majority of the wayyiqtols that do not advance story time may
be found in one of the following three categories:

1. wayyiqtol of 'mr after a wayyiqtol expressing a verbal event, like
vayyiqr'a 'el YHVH vayyo'mer...
2. a second wayyiqtol paraphrases the first, like many times in the flood
narrative.
3. an identicle wayyiqtol covers the same story time as a previous
wayyiqtol.

We have a reference for 3, Judges 12:11 above. Could you just toss out one
for each of the others so we have something more concrete to play with?

Such cases do not negate the basic meaning of the wayyiqtol as a sequencer.

This is where I get bogged down in the question of what constitutes "meaning"
and how it may be canceled. Just to throw a couple of other grammarians into
the pot, Hatav's view of the wayyiqtol is that it advances R-time. The
Judges verse would seem to question that. Waltke-O'Connor describe the
wayyiqtol as "usually successive and always subordinate to a preceding
statement." F. I. Andersen, in his monograph "The Sentence in Biblical
Hebrew" way back in 1977, found profuse examples that call this into
question, particularly his "begin a new line of thought" use. For that
matter, Jonah 1:1 might easily contradict this idea, though that one is a
WYHY, and the verb "to be" behaves in strange and unpredictable ways in every
language with which I am familiar. Anyway, my point is that these various
grammarians have sought to find a solid "meaning" in the form, without real
success. So I'm interested to see how you have gotten around this problem
with your idea of "meaning" (basic or otherwise ;-)

Looking forward to your response,
--
Dave Washburn


B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page