Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:

> B-Haverim,
>
> there's a principle of economy at work in stylistics/pragmatics we can call
> over-specification.

<snip>

>
>
> it seems to me that the Hebrew writer's stylistic/pragmatic sensibilities
> are a little different than ours in that he may use *under*-specification
> as well as over-specification as a marking device.  Over and
> under-specification are both used in  Exodus 2:21-25
>

Bryan,

Is there a reason why you take an example that crosses narrative boundaries?  
Other
than the phrase placing the narrative in relative time:

WaY:HiY BaYYfMiYM HfRaBBiYM HfH"M,

there appears to be no continuity between the happenings to Moses and the 
happenings
in Egypt.  "Meanwhile, back on the ranch" normally indicates a separate 
episode,
doesn't it?<snip>

> I think v. 21b grates a bit against our sensibilities in terms of
> participant tracking.

I agree that the unmarked switching of clause subject is more obtuse than 
normal.  The
initial reading (until one gets to L:Mo$eH) would keep Moses as the subject.  
And, of
course, unless we are dealing with a reflexive, that isn't the case!  But we 
have a
similarly unmarked switching in the next clause, saved only by the new 
subject being
feminine.

I don't see this as dealing with the relative importance of the participants. 
 Rather,
it would appear to indicate the relative importance of the material under 
discussion.
Since we know the full story as presented in Exodus, we recognize that this 
section
introduces us to some characters that have a role in future stories.  It also
establishes the relationship between "the man" and Moses.  But it has little
relationship to the story at hand (other than showing the degree to which 
Moses was
accepted in the community).  In short, it's foreshadowing.  Therefore, it is 
dealt
with in the briefest, most unmarked manner.

The quote, though, *does* slow down the narrative a bit, and so probably marks
something more important to the story at hand.  It shows Moses' state of mind 
at this
point in his life, his "homesickness," which could well explain why he took 
his
father-in-laws sheep all the way to the "backside" of the desert, the side 
nearest to
his family in Egypt.

<snip>

>  we can actually rank the
> participants in the narrative by their relative centrality:
>
> low: re`u'el, tsipporah
> middle: mo$eh
> high: 'elohim
>
> we now have linguistic grounds for the claim that the narrator intends to
> give 'elohim the greatest share of glory for His providential care of Moses
> and Israel, Moses the second, and Reuel, some leftovers.
>

Again, I see this "over-specification" as indicating importance of the 
*episode* to
the overall story more than importance of a participant.  Verses 23-25 are 
just plain
wordy--look at the three terms for the complaint of the people:

*WaYY"'fN:XuW* B:N"Y-Yi&:Rf'"L MiN-Hf`:aBoDfH *WaYYiZ:`fQuW* *WaTTa`aL 
$aW:`fTfM*
'eL-Hf':eLoHiYM MiN-Hf`:aBoDfH

This section is marked, but not for importance of a participant.  It is 
marked for the
importance of the subject matter to the overall story.  It reminds the reader 
of the
purpose of the (first half) of Exodus by reminding us again of the 
problem--God's
people were being held in bondage against their will.

It's possible that your hypothesis of participant reference is correct 
(although I
think we *do* do it in English to a greater degree than you indicate).  But I 
don't
think that's what's going on here.

Happy New Year, friend!

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph