dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Dec 23 17:41:53 EST 1999
> I think Dave got acurate intuition, that <wayyiqtol> is independent, as
> opposed to <qatal>. However, I think that this independence is not
> syntactic (see the first clause in Gen 1:1 and clauses in direct speech).
In my approach, following a temporal expression as in Gen 1:1 and
beginning direct speech constitute syntactic connections. Sorry
that wasn't clear.
> Dave, I thought you "bought" the idea that this independence has to do with
> Reference-Time-Building, where <wayyiqtol> builds its own R-time but
> <qatal> does not. Let us call <wayyiqtol> and <wqatal> R-builders, as
> opposed to <qatal> and <yiqtol> (and <qotel>, too). This will get rid of
> the notion of "sequentiality," which I consider to be a derived property
> from R-building. (I might need a therapist to help me deal with this
I need to go back to your book and some of the references in it and
jog my mind about R-times, but my first instinct (admittedly off the
cuff) is that I see a lot more involved in the syntactic connections
and independencies of the various forms than just time relations.
However, I'll try to read up on it some more over the holidays and
pick this up again after the first (assuming we haven't all been
Y2K'ed by then :-)
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
More information about the b-hebrew