Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Hi Kirk,

You wrote:
> The syntax of 1 Kgs 1:40b can be read a couple of different ways. Without
> prejudicing this audience with my ideas ;-) , how would you understand
where the
> clause boundaries are, and how we are to understand the participles here
> (functioning as nouns, verbally, or perhaps even adverbially)?
> 
> 1:40a way.a`:alw. kfl-hf`fm 'ax:arfyw -- no problems here V + Su + Adv
phrase
> (direction)
> 
> 1:40b w:hf`fm m:xal.:liym b.ax:aliliym w.&:m"xiym &im:xfh g:dowlfh --
?????
> 
> 1:40c wat.ib.fqa` hf'frec b.:qowlfm -- this is also no problem: V + Su +
Adv
> phrase (instrumental)
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Kirk
> 

You have found the clause boundaries for us by labeling a and c .  b is the
clause between a and c.    ;-)   

You must mean that the challenge is to decide whether  b is an independent
clause or a phrase continuing  a.   ha`am has tracking value.   I.e., it
would be the linking feature of  b  to  a  .  But tracking *within* a
clause is usually performed by a pronoun, right?  Here we have tracking by
a definite noun, I guess elevating the linking to an *inter-clausal* level.
 In addition, ha`am + pl. part. is used several times in Kings, et. al.
where it cannot be "resumptive" or tracking because an antecedent is
missing in the previous clause.  E.g. this expression is common:  habbamot
lo' saru `od ha`am mezabb:xiym um:qa++:riym  1 Ki 22:43  Perhaps the
participles are  more clearly verbal in such a case as this example, and
suggest a verbal interpretation of the participles in the verse about which
you ask.

I vote  b  is an independent clause with verbal participles for a
predicate.  Even so, I consider the  b  clause to be connected "upwardly"
to  a  (rather than "downwardly" to c  )  by virtue of the
re-nominalization of ha`am.  In terms of *discourse*, I would say the a-b
composite of two clauses is notionally equivalent to "And all the people
followed him up playing with pipes and making great merriment."

Is there a rule lurking here?  Say, "a pronoun for inner and inter-clausal
tracking  and a definite noun for inter-clausal tracking only."  ???  I
looked at den Exter Blokland for a few minutes to see if he suggests a rule
so plainly but could only find hints.  Maybe Anderson's _The Sentence_
might also be helpful on this topic but I don't have a copy on me.

Another idea:  economy.  The more economically tracking is done the more
conjunctive is the effect.  The less economically, the more disjunctive is
the effect.

Take ha`am as the reference point.  hem would have been a more economical
way to track the subject than ha`am.  No pronoun or noun at all(just the
plural participles with an "understood" subject) would have been more
economical yet.  What would be less economical than ha`am?  kol-ha`am . 
Even less economical?  b:ney yisra'el  .  So the subject tracking in  b  is
economically equal to the referent in  a   Rule:  subject tracking of equal
or less economy than the referent means a new clause.

Sincerely,

Bryan

B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)