Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

B-Haverim,

I shouldn't be trying to explain these things so near midnight, but it's
either now or not for awhile, so I'll take a shot.  a friend wrote off-list
that he didn't see any great descriptive power to seeing some off-the-line
constructions in historical narrative as mainlines within embedded
discourses or, as suggested by our friend Vince, as sub-mainlines.  btw,
V., it hurt to propose a mainline/off-the-line dichotomy, huh?  ;-)  i'll
convert you yet  ;-)    i can see it now... Vince_DeCaen AT sil.org    ;-)

any thoughts on my response to the off-list inquirer as it follows?

all conscructions, including
the "sub"-mainline weqatal, within a procedural discourse are off-the-line
relative to its host historical narrative: scene-setting material.  but
*within* the embedded procedural discourse whether weqatal is indeed a
mainline form matters a whole lot.  for one thing weqatal and its comrade
X-yiqtol help us identify the procedural discourse with its imperfective
aspect.  one or the other (but particularly the X-yiqtol) of these two
constructions break the frame of the
historical narrative in which they are located and thereby suggest a new
beginning.   second, an embedded discourse *is* a discourse after all, and
should be appreciated as such, I think.  that is, the embedded discourse
has it's own, independent plan and purpose at the same time it serves or
supports its host.  take 1 Sam 1: 4 from wenatan to the end of v. 7.  it's
a procedural discourse with its own profile, a very interesting one at
that, with a lot of relief or depth created by the variety of constructions
within it. it can be analyzed in its own right.  here it is with its
profile represented by indentations.  mainline is to the left.

a. venatan...
b.     ulxanah yiten...
c.         ki 'et xanah 'aheb
d.         vayhvh sagar
e. veki`asatah tsaratah
f.          ki sagar yhvh
g.     veken ya`aseh $anah be$anah
h.     ken tak`isenah
i. vatibkeh
j.      velo' to'kal

the prurpose of this discourse is to establish the state of conflict in the
home of Elqanah.  the plan is to utilize a relatively large amount of
elaboration and paraphrase for emphasis.  clause d is interesting:  the
X-qatal construction would be considered a high ranking construction in
Longacre's historical narrative cline. (ranking is not a ranking by
importance; it is a ranking of distance from the mainline and discourse
speed.  the lower ranking a construction is, the farther it is from the
mainline and the more it retards, or even arrests the forward progress of
the discourse.  the low ranking constructions often given the most critical
of details.)    In this context, however, the X-qatal construction is
actually very low ranking on two counts.  it is low ranking in the
procedural discourse which have weqatal and X-yiqtol at the top.  i.e., the
X-qatal halts the depiction of the habitual behavior to which procedural
discourse is dedicated.  it is also very low ranking in the host historical
narrative **by virtue of its being part of the procedural discourse**.  By
understanding that the X-qatal is part of an embedded discourse we can
demote it to a scene-setting function.  this is an important flexibility in
the system, IMO, because it enables to systematically assign different
functions like high or low rank to one construction type like X-qatal. much
the same can be said for the wayyiqtol which is demoted to off-the-line in
historical narrative by virtue of its being *in* the procedural discourse.

why is it I know what I mean but you don't know what I mean?

be gracious with my sleepiness, please.

Shalom,
Bryan

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

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