Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

RB wrote:
> re: gen 2:19 vayyitser
> a string has formed:
> 
> > > > You would not normally use a waw consecutive
> > > > form to say, "X had happened." You would use a waw consecutive to
> say,
> > > > "Then X happened."
>  
> [I agree--RB]
> 
> (Dave Washburn:)
> > > The key word there is "normally."   [...]  [WP] is a simple declarative
> > > sentence, not because it carries a value of consecutivity.  As such
> > > it can carry just about any meaning including past and pluperfect.
> [...]
> > > Dave Washburn
> 
> [I suspect that I might disagree, but there are ways to expand this
> acceptably--RB]

I developed this view based on a transformational-generative 
approach to the syntax and a strict separation between syntax and 
semantics.  See my paper, the details are too extensive to try and 
reproduce here.

> (John Ronning:)
> > Coincidentally I'm just finishing reading an article on Genesis 2 which
> > cites a paper by Randall Buth on the subject, so I'll look forward to
> > hearing what Randall has to say (and Bryan).  In the meantime, I recall
> > S. R. Driver's explanation for the waw-consecutive along the lines of
> > the Greek imperfect - it's consecutive, Driver said, because when you
> > say such and such began to happen, then it implies there is a sequence
> > with the next verb.
> > 
> > But since we know the "waw-consecutive" is built off the jussive (which
> > is more like the Greek aorist than the imperfect), not the imperfect, I
> > have often wondered why people still insist on the "party line," as
> > someone else said.[end quote]
> 
> glad to see you point out what is/was a glaring fault in samuel rolles
> driver. however, i'm not sure what the 'party line' is. e.g.:

The "party line" is that the WP marks for consecutiveness, i.e. it 
must "follow" something previous either in time, sequence, or 
"logical consequence" (Waltke-O'Connor's term).  Trouble is, 
examples that don't fit any of these categories abound and have 
never been adequately explained by the basic party-line 
approaches.

> 1. sequentiality has nothing to do with the "aspect" of a verb [two
> different sequential systems are used], 

Two different sequential systems?  Can you expand on this?

> 2. nor does it carry on a tense/aspect from any previous verbs. [beginning
> students and even some published grammarians sometimes do not see #2, is it
> party line?]

Not sure.  Party line usually declares that the WP in particular 
marks for both completed aspect and consecutivity/subordination.

> 3. vayyiqtol is certainly aorististic in its aspectual orientation. driver
> had things backwards, 
> and is an example of how far people can go in creating a 'system' from the
> outside. 
> and further illustrates how misleading it can be to call vayyiqtol an
> "imperfect" consecutive.

That's why I use the abbreviation WP.  It actually comes from 
Francis Andersen, "The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew" published by 
Mouton, and stands for "waw-prefix," i.e. a prefix-form of the verb 
with attached waw.  And it's easier to type than w/vayyiqtol...

> so what about from the inside? what could or would or should a biblical
> hebrew speaker 
> have done with gen 2.19, given their impoverishment of not having access to
> english? 
> {we can have a little fun on list, as long as its recognised as fun,
> right?}

:-)

> the word 'translation' has a tendency to take us away from their
> perspective. we have a tendency to say translation "a" is possible and
> translation "b" is possible, so take your pick. 

Perhaps, though my tendency is to say that either one is possible, 
so which best fits the context and is more likely what the speaker 
or writer had in mind?

> in real languages, things don't work that way. 
> there is always a 'give and take' 
> with default understandings 
> and more nuanced, refined, marked, rare understandings. 
> something is needed for a person to break out of a default understanding. 
> something is used to process a communication and some assumptions are made 
> by the encoder of a communication. 
> encoders assume that minimal clarity is achieved, though in real
> conversations the listener has an opportunity to question a missed cue.
> 
> at gn 2.19 an author must either choose a form like vayyitstser Y"Y-elohim 
> (which does not MARK pluperfectivity) 

I would argue that the WP doesn't mark anything.  Agreed, it 
doesn't mark pluperfectivity, but it doesn't mark lack thereof (or 
some other tense) either.

> or an author can choose a form like  veY"Y-elohim yatsar 
> (which MARKS a 'break' in time flow, or packaging-structure [i.e. paragraph
> + contexualizing constituent], 
> or literary flow [i.e. dramatic pause or focal noun phrase] in descending
> probability in narrative)

This is basic discourse-analysis reasoning, and on the surface it 
looks good.  However, what is lacking is a theory of the verb 
system that truly achieves explanatory adequacy.  What this view 
describes is what we observe in a number of contexts; 
unfortunately, there are numerous contexts where the observation 
breaks down and the verb patterns don't follow this plan.  An 
example from my paper is Judges 12:8-12, where we have a simple 
chain of WP clauses that, if read as simple narrative/foregrounded 
events in simple sequence, produce nonsense.  In the case of Gen 
2:19, the WP follows a couple of clauses of direct discourse, and 
so indicates nothing more than the fact that we're back to narrative 
and the direct discourse has concluded. In this situation, had the 
author used RB's example of veY"Y-elohim yatsar, there would 
have been no indication that the direct discourse had ended and 
narrative had begun again.  The WP indicates just that, but it gives 
no indication of where this statement fits in time with the previous 
(and subsequent) statements.  A reader, having likely begun 
reading from chapter 1, would most probably recall the creation of 
animals from back there, and would understand that this meant 
"YHWH God had already created all the creatures etc."  

> it is not enough to say that 'sometimes' a vayyiqtol can be used in a
> pluperfect context. 
> [it certainly existed and is not a textual accident, as the moabite stone,
> line 7, demonstrates.]
> when can it be used? 
> how can an author use it? 
> what conditions or signals are expected to accompany such a rare usage? 
> [everyone acknowledges that it is rare.] 

Agreed on all points.

> I have provided a preliminary answer in "Methodological Collision Between
> Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis, The problem of 'Unmarked Temporal
> Overlay' and the pluperfect/nonsequential wayyiqtol" in Biblical Hebrew and
> Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert Bergen, (S.I.L., 1994: 138-154). 

I tend to shy away from discourse linguistics in favor of clause-level 
syntax, but I'd be very interested to read this.  Thanks for the 
reference.

> two obvious answers are (1) lexical/semantic repetition/reference and (2)
> the inherent nature of the events [e.g. Ju 11.1].
> 
> i don't think "the inherent nature of the events" would qualify in genesis
> 2.19 because the author has already re-oriented his time frame very
> carefully in genesis 2.4-7. 
> Y"Y-elohim formed man (first mainline event) at a time when no plant
> existed. this is very elaborately spelled out. thus, in the immediate
> context of 2.4-7 the next trajectory of events in 2.8 has a natural
> sequential interpretation. 

I have to disagree that formation of man is the first mainline event.  
This is only the case if we start at v.4, but if we go back to v.2 we 
have a number of other mainline events, events that actually set the 
stage for what follows and do indeed provide a time frame for them: 
completion of creation (with a WP), God resting (with a WP), God 
blessing the 7th day (with a WP) and sanctifying it (with a WP).  
Only then do we have a description, not of the earth before the 
creation of man, but of the earth at the very beginning, at the initial 
creation of heaven and earth (v.4), before there were plants or 
humans etc.  From there we focus on the man and his relation to 
the world around him, especially the plants and animals.  But this 
situation gives no indication about what order the respective items 
were created in.

> {no plants} > {formed man} > {planted garden}.
> 
> likewise 2.18-19
> {no partner} > {formed animals} > {no partner} > {formed woman}.

Ditto.  The formation of the animals is not in focus here, their 
naming and the lack of a partner among them is, so we still have 
no temporal or sequential indications.

> [a second email will discuss some rabbinic approaches to the texts. those
> interested in a 'pluperfect interpretation' may appreciate them.]

And it was fascinating.  Definitely a keeper.  Thanks for sharing 
that.
[snip]

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.