Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Shalom Haverim,

Randall Buth wrote:
>John Ronning wrote:
>> 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).  
>
>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.:
>1. sequentiality has nothing to do with the "aspect" of a verb [two
>different sequential systems are used], 

You shot past me here, Randy.  I thought perfective aspect is inseperably
tied to sequentiality.

Have you guys read Hatav _The Semantics of Aspect and Modality_,
recommended to us recently by one of our list-mates Matthew Anstey?  Is
that you she's talking about, Dave Washburn?  She maintains that wayyiqtol
is essentially a sequential form.  (Is wayyiqtol = sequential form the
'party line'?)

<noted and snipped>

>
>at gn 2.19 an author must either choose a form like vayyitstser Y"Y-elohim

>(which does not MARK pluperfectivity) 
>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)
>
>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.] 
>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). 
>two obvious answers are (1) lexical/semantic repetition/reference and (2)
>the inherent nature of the events [e.g. Ju 11.1].
>

Of course Randy's comments are very helpful.  I might add a couple
perspectives which might amount to a rewording of some of his comments. 
First, Randy and others have worked on criteria vis-à-vis discourse
analysis for a pluperfect interpretation of wayyiqtol.  (Shall we have some
fun by naming it a perfective pluperfect?   ;-)   )  In other words, his
good work is an example of how the discourse analyst does not settle for a
wooden approach to the functions of the verb forms whereby one form is
always limited to one function.  (Or is one form = one function the 'party
line'?)  The study of the distribution of verb forms in discourse is a
study of the constraints, not only the obligations, of the linguistic
system.   There is a lot more flexibility in constraints than there is in
obligations.  Just ask my 17 year old son!   ;-)

Next re the 'pluperfect' wayyiqtol in general:  Sometimes I would say that
a wayyiqtol which continues the sense of a qatal in a dependent clause or
which continues the description of a state of things prior to a narrative
by a qatal (i.e., as background) adds a fairly large number wayyiqtols that
we may say are sort of pluperfect.  E.g.,  Gen 31:34 or 39:13.

Re the wayyiqtol in Gen 2:19(wayyicer) specifically:  If I understand
Randy's thesis in his "Methodological Collision..." article correctly, the
wayyiqtol of Gen 2:19 cannot be interpreted as a pluperfect because it does
not fall under the criteria that allow such an interpretation.  This
wayyiqtol therefore must be interpreted as a seam between documents from
two sources.  However, C. John Collins ("The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect':
When and Why" _Tyndale Bulletin_ 46.1, 1995) tweaks Randy's criteria for
the pluperfect wayyiqtol and reverses the decision on wayyicer--unmarked
temporal overlay it is!  The idea is that such a  wayyiqtol, without any
warning or fanfare, jumps back to pick up the story line at previous point.
 The criterion for which the pluperfect interpretation is allowed is as
follows: "The logic of the referent described requires that an event
presented by a wayyiqtol verb form actually took place prior to the event
presented by a previous verb."  It's a slightly broader concept than
Randy's, says Collins.  I'll re-word Collins' criterion:  "Text-knowledge
allows the use of a wayyiqtol with pluperfect value."  The idea is based on
Grice's cooperative principle, the idea that there exists a communicative
cooperation between the writer and reader.  The writer can count on the
reader to come to Gen 2:19's wayyicer equipped with the knowledge of Gen
1-2:4.

lehitraot,
Bryan



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

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