Fw: <wayyiqtol> again (B. Rocine)

Bryan Rocine brocine at earthlink.net
Sun Jan 2 08:19:47 EST 2000


Forwarde on behalf of Alviero Niccacci,

> On  01/01/00 (Re: <wayyiqtol> again (B. Rocine)) Bryan
Rocine wrote:
>
>
> >Dear Alviero,
> >
> >Greetings in the new millenium!  Thank you for your
> >comments.  Did you send your response to me off-list
> >intentionally?  Would you like to share our discussion
with
> >the list?  You wrote:
>
>
> < ... >
>
> >I see your reading of Pro 31 as a possibility, however
three
> >things seem to fight against it a bit for me.  I am not
> >suggesting that my points are especially weighty or
> >conclusive, but I think they are sugnificant.  One is the
> >pragmatic purpose of the poem which seems to be more
> >intended to describe than narrate as you are taking it.
A
> >description of this sort comes under the genre I call
> >Expository Discourse, which defaults for a present time
> >understanding.  A second thing is the yiqtols in the
> >passage, the preponderance of which seems to violate
typical
> >narrative convention and ask for a present time
> >understanding.  Thirdly, the wayyiqtol in a present time
> >gnomic situation in the Proverbs is fairly well attested.
> >See 11:2, 11:8, 12:13, 18:22, 20:26, 21:22, 22:12, 25:4.
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> My reply was sent to you directly by fault; when I
realized it, I
> also sent it to the list. So please feel free to send your
reply as
> well as my present one to the list.
> Regarding your three points, I would comment as follows.
>
> 1) As you know, I do not work with the four text-types.
IMO, the use
> of several verbforms overlap from one to the other and
they are not
> useful for my approach. So I can not comment on your first
point.
>
> 2) I would not say that the yiqtols used in Prov 31:10 ff.
violate
> typical narrative convention because yiqtol is used with
that
> function in prose when it refers to the past. Indeed, a
pair of qatal
> // yiqtol is characteristic of poetry--especially of
archaic as well
> as Canaanite poetry, as recognized by scholars. When I
wrote _Syntax_
> I followed the current understanding that the two verforms
were
> interchangeable (see Chapter 10), but presently I doubt.
Presently I
> try to simply apply the verbal system of prose to poetry,
and se what
> happens. I am checking that possibility, and I think it is
worthwhile
> to do so.
>
> 3) After checking the examples you quoted for gnomic
wayyiqtol in
> Proverbs, I remain convinced that a different analysis is
possible in
> every case according to the usual function of the
verbform. (In your
> list, 20:6 and 21:2 shoud probably be corrected as 20:26
and 21:22,
> respectively.)

Thank you for the corrections.  I have made the corrections
in the copies of our posts that I have forwarded to
b-hebrew.

> More than that, if the author(s) intended a gnomic saying,
he/they
> had specific verbforms at his/their disposal, i.e.
x-yiqtol and the
> nonverbal sentence. Logic demands that different verbforms
play
> different functions. We should be careful not to assume
otherwise
> without solid proof.
>
> >Narrative Discourse,
> >while it is fairly common in Direct Speech in the prose
> >sections of the HB, is quite rare in poetry.
>
>
> Examples of what you call Narrative Discourse may be found
in some
> *historical* Psalms such as 107, 114, 135, and 136.
Something can
> also be found in prophetic literature--that does not
always speak of
> the future.
>
> Again, my best wishes.
>
> Alviero Niccacci
>
> Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282
936
> POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264
519
> Israel
> Home Page:
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
> Email  mailto:sbfnet at netvision.net.il
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list