Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

B-Haverim,

I really don't think many discourse analysts are trying to get at the
verbal semantics of BH using a discourse model, so some of the heat in our
discussion of this matter is really moot.  They're after the pragmatics of
the verbal system, i.e. how the lexicon, morphology, and syntax(not only
the verb forms) are chosen to perform certain
functions in discourse.  Most discourse analysts either claim verbal
semantics of BH to be irrelevant to their model ( pretty much the Niccacci
position who focuses on morpho-syntax) or they are working with a pretty
traditional view of the four
component/vav-conversive understanding(e.g., Longacre)  I guess the closest
person we have to a researcher into verbal semantics via discourse is
Eskhult.  On the other hand, discourse analysis is asserted to be an
essential component of TAM study by aspectniks such as Hopper, Comrie, and
Smith, non of whom work specifically with BH.  Joosten seeks to relate a
careful consideration of the BH verbal
semantics at the clause level to discourse in his "The Indicative System of
the BH verb and its Literary Exploitation" in _Narrative Sysntax and the
Hebrew Bible_ Leiden: Brill, 1997. 

Oh, another "on the other hand":  I do think discourse analysis acts as a
sort of check on TAM theories.  The pragmatics of the system are in some
ways easier to find than the semantics.  Pragmatics is more on the surface.
 But there *should* be a harmony between the pragmatics and the semantics
of the verb.  When there is a glaring dis-harmony, such as IMHO, the idea
that X-qatal = wayyiqtol, discourse analysis should make you go back to the
drawing board on your TAM theory.


Shalom, 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)