Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

The problem I see with your sort of approach is that it explains 
nothing. At least you are trying to make some sort of syntactic 
distinction between wayyiqtol and X-qatal. Some contributors seem to 
be trying to say that there is no semantic difference between the 
different verb forms but all is a matter of pragmatics.

When you put forward your hypothesis on X-qatal, I may well try to 
shoot it down. Doubtless (unless it is so vague as to be 
unfalsifiable) I will find possible counter-examples, and you will 
explain them according to your hypothesis and/or modify your 
hypothesis. But I will not feel that I have been set up, rather that 
you are the one who has made yourself a target. Surely this is part of 
normal academic debate.

Peter Kirk

PS I was not trying to make a Jacob-Esau and Ephraim-Manasseh parallel 
based on linguistics, but on general theological themes. Sorry if that 
goes beyond the scope of this list, but it is here (unusually!) a 
valid part of the argument for a linguistic point.


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)
Author:  dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date:    09/02/1999 15:46
<snip>

> You wrote "the idea of wayyiqtol as sequential - chuck that one, too": 
> Are you really suggesting discarding an idea which explains 97% of the 
> very many occurrences just because not all can be proved to be
> sequential? OK, we need to deal with the 3%, but that's another 
> matter.

What exactly do you mean by "explains"?  The question is not 
whether 97% of them narrate sequential events in their contexts, 
but whether sequentiality is a *necessary* component of the verb
form.  I think not; this is where my hypothesis of the wayyiqtol, that 
it is a simple statement not syntactically connected with what 
precedes (semantic and pragmatic connections are a separate
matter) deals with the instances where it does appear in 
sequences and also deals with the instances where it doesn't.  It
also explains why it can be used so flexibly in poetry, because it is 
the unmarked form; it is remarkable for its unremarkableness, so to 
speak.  This type of view generalizes the usage in such a way that
it deals with both the 97% and the 3% as well.  Sequence is a 
pragmatic feature of many wayyiqtols, but it is not a *necessary 
syntactic* feature of the form itself.

As for x-qatal, I'm still working on that, but I would tentatively 
suggest that it denotes an "aside," an "oh, by the way" type of 
clause or "incidental" clause.  I'm still coming up with a good term 
for it, but I hope that communicates the direction my hypothesis is 
going at the moment.

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

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.