mc2499 at mclink.it
Thu Mar 14 10:39:03 EST 2002
>Precisely, Ian. I deliberately specified a following w-SVO clause as
>someone else pointed out that this was a significant difference between
>Genesis 1:1-2 and the other examples you quoted like Numbers 7:1 (which
>I did discuss briefly, remember that I stated that JPS and NIV had a
>different understanding?) A WAYYIQTOL clause may perhaps sometimes be
>sequential to an infinitive construct dependent on a B-noun time
>indicator. I don't know of any examples of a w-SVO clause acting as
>sequential to an expression. That is why I was asking for further
I don't understand, Peter, why you are not willing to deal
with the numerous cases of b- noun governed clauses, which
is the main argument related to an understanding of br'$yt,
though you've come up with no better parallels for
understanding Gen 1:1.
You know that there are no examples of unqualified r'$yt
and the writers show a preference for using r'$wn for an
unqualified statement regarding a beginning.
So, you are asking for exacting requirements that you are
nowhere close to being able to fulfil for any alternative.
This suggests that you have no data to back up your opinion
of Genesis 1:1-2 and that your analysis is not from the
I have shown:
1) all uses of r'$yt are qualified (and that unqualified
beginnings can be indicated with r'$wn);
2) parallel phrases to br'$yt, such as bywn routinely
govern VSO clauses;
so there is nothing strange about subordinating br' 'lhym
You require for some unclear reason that the first verse be
syntactically attached to what follows, though there is no
need for this as many books start off with sentence
fragments, or verbless phrases, as a descriptive heading
(eg numerous prophets), so your requirement is not
warranted and you need to do with the data despite your
artificial requirement. I do think though, that, as the
first act of creation explicitly stated in the text, based
on the notion of creation in six days, is in verse three,
the start of the first day (with the first light) -- a fact
that you perennially avoid --, verse three is the first
independent clause. [Let me add:
3) time phrases can govern numerous clauses (see Eccl 12:3
along with the previous ones).
though this doesn't meet your b-noun VSO wSVO requirements.
And you've arbitrarily excluded ky with its government of
the VSO wSVO form.]
You waive the data about the subordination of an SVO clause
to a time phrase of the type br'$yt belongs, thus avoiding
the central problem.
Peter, I don't think you can justify your approach.
More information about the b-hebrew