Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Bryan wrote:
> 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'?)

In that order: no, don't know because I haven't read it yet, and yes.

[snip]
> 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!   ;-)

A transformational approach to syntax would agree completely, as
I do.

> 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.

I'll have to take a look at these and respond later, but for now I'd
like to know if you include Gen 12:1 among these?

> 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.

This is similar to what I said in a previous post about the fact that
the WP in Gen 2:19 brings us back to narrative after direct
discourse.  Not identical, of course, but the two views may be
pretty compatible or complementary to each other.

>  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.

Again, this is very close to what I said.  Nice to know I'm in such
good company :-)


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