lationship between b-nouns and clauses

Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Thu Mar 21 20:04:13 EST 2002


> Moon,
> 
> Thanks for your post. I'm at loss to know how construct 
> and absolute states are applicable to the relationship 
> between time locative phrases bywm, br'$yt, etc and the 
> clause which follows. (You'll note that not all bywm 
> plus clause follow yhy -- or wyhy --: see Lev 7:35,6 
> and Deut 4:15.)
> 
> 
> >    the problem is not whether BYOM can be qualified by more
> >    than one clauses. It is whether two clauses qualifying BYOM are COORDINATED
> >    clauses or SEQUENTIAL clauses.  For all the BYOM clause debate between you
> >    and Peter, I tend to agree with Peter, because for now I adopted
> >    the grammar of Hatav and Niccacci. They do not analyize  WAYYIQTOL into
> >    W + IQTOL, but consider WAYYIQTOL as a "tense" on its own. They consider
> >    WAYYIQTOL basically sequential in the sense that it introduces a new event
> >    in the narrative relative to the current reference time. 
> >
> >(5) Now, I would like to put a conjecture as follows:
> >    WAYYIQTOL  cannot be used when there is no reference time to refer to.
> >    [Peter seems  to accept it, while you reject it.] If this hypothesis
> >    is right, in sentences of the form WAYHI + BYOM + QATAL/QOTEL/Inf +
> >    WAYYIQTOL, QATAL/QOTEL/Inf and WAYYIQTOL cannot be coordinated and
> >    thus cannot both qualify YOM, 
> >    because QATAL/QOTEL/Inf is used to introduce the reference time, 
> >    and WAYYIQTOL introduces a new event relative to the introduced
> >    reference time.
> 
> I always have difficulty imagining things in the hypothetical without 
> examples. How do you find the following examples?
> 

Ian,
the following examples show that BYOM can be qualified by two COORDINATED
clauses. 
 
> Isa 30:26b
> bywm xb$ yhwh 't-$br `mw
>      wmxc mktw yrp'
> 
Here we have BYOM+INF+X W+X+IQTOL. I was talking about the pattern
BYOM+INF+X WQATAL (or WAYYQTOL) + X.
But again, your examples above are better for the argument that BERESHIT 
in Gen 1.1 could have been qualified by more than one clauses, than
the other examples you cited whose pattern is BYOM+INF+X WAYYQTOL + X. 
  
> Obadiah 11
> bywm `md:k mngd 
> bywm $bwt zrym xyl:w 
>      wnkrym b'w $`r:w 
>      w`l-yrw$lm ydw gwrl 
> gm-'th k'xd mhm


Here the pattern is BYOM + INF + X W+X+QATAL W+X+QATAL. The three clauses
following BYOM are coordinated clauses and thus all of them qualify BYOM.

Moon
Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
> 
> 
> Ian



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list