Fw: Hebrew Syntax., 2 Sam 15:37

Bryan Rocine brocine at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 16 21:56:02 EDT 2002


here it is again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Rocine" <brocine at earthlink.net>
To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Hebrew Syntax., 2 Sam 15:37


> RE: Hebrew Syntax.Hi Rolf,  you wrote:
> >>>>
> Today I have been working with all the examples of BW)
("to
> come in") realized as YIQTOLs with past reference. To
> illustrate the influence of discourse analysis on Bible
> translation, I invite you to analyse 2 Samuel 15:37 by
help
> of this method and any other method you deem fit.
> >>>>
>
> My response:
> I would interppret the x-yiqtol clause as OFF the mainline
> of the historical narrative in 2 Sam 15, and so
> inappropriately translated into the historical narrative
> mainline form of the target language (in English, the
simple
> past).  I.e.  I would *not* translate "and Absalom
> entered..."
>
> Actually, the x-yiqtol is a direct speech construction, so
> this case is the narrator's brief departure into direct
> speech in which directly addresses the audience in a side
> comment like a parenthetical comment or an aside.  I call
> this phenomenon "speaking through the ivisible fourth
wall"
> (of the narrative's stage).
>
> In effect, the narrator is breaking out of the literary
> constraint of story-telling.  The x-yiqtol is
> predictive/modal in nature:  "But Absalom would come into
> the city."  This off-line comment by the narrator is
> designed to clarify for us how the plan of David to use
> Hushai as an insider could succeed; Absalom was not in
> Jerusalem at the time to witness Hushai's meeting with
> David.  Absalom would arrive at a later time.
>
> Discourse analysis has not told me that X-yiqtol is modal
in
> meaning, only that it is off-the-line in historical
> narrative and plain vanilla direct speech.  On the other
> hand, the modality of the x-yiqtol, which I have accepted
> based on a weighty consensus of experts does indeed
> harmonize with my discourse analytical framework.  Here is
> the value of discourse analysis to verbal semantics--as a
> test of verbal semantic hypotheses.
>
> BTW, I have not known Alviero Niccacci to concern himself
> awful much with verbal semantics.  His definition of tense
> is not the same as a linguist who specializes in verbal
> semantics like Comrie.  IOW, he is the wrong guy to pick
on
> if you want to criticize discourse analysts for entering
the
> discipline of verbal semantics.
>
> As for Longacre, he also has little to say about verbal
> semantics in Hebrew.  He has himself worked with a fairly
> traditional explantion of BH verbal semantics ala Lambdin.
>
> Shalom,
> Bryan
>
>
> B. M. Rocine
> Associate Pastor
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13206
>
> (office) 315-437-6744
> (home) 315-445-3085
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list