discourse and aspect
dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Dec 20 18:39:22 EST 2001
> Dear List Members (particularly those interested in discourse analysis),
> Now that the semester has wound down, I can post a question. But, is
> anyone out there?
> Is seems to me, as I try to analyze passages according to a discourse
> approach, that I find dissimilar forms used to express a complete
> thought or action. (See examples below.)
> Historical Narrative
> Gen 1:5
> Wayyiqtol (mainline): And God called the light day
> X-qatal (offline, but completes thought): and/but the darkness he
> called night.
> Gen 4:2 b,c
> wayyiqtol (mainline) And it happened that Abel was and shepherd of a
> X-qatal (offline, but completes thought) but Cain was a tiller of the
> Gen 4:3b-4a
> wayyiqtol (mainline) And Cain brought. . .
> x-qatal (offline but completes thought) and/but Abel brought. . .
I'm getting ready to dash out the door so I can only address this one
cluster at this point, but these are all chiastic. F. I. Andersen
(The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew) explains chiasmus as a device for
tying two things into one, two sides of a coin, so to speak. Each of
these illustrates this quite well, and there's no need to
mainline/offline or anything else. This is one of my many gripes
with discourse analysis, but that's another topic...these are simple
chiasmus. Nothing more.
This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to
do with it.
More information about the b-hebrew