Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

"I couldn't have said it better myself." (Sorry, Bryan!)

A complete list of exceptions to strict sequentiality of wayyiqtol 
must include hendiadys idioms, not just the "finished" one we looked 
at recently which could be sequential but others for which 
sequentiality is rather far-fetched. Lambdin section 173 lists 
examples e.g.

way.osep )ab:rfhfm way.iq.ax )i$.fh - Gen. 25:1

This is one action, not two in sequence.

As for Young's idea, I would cut even more deeply with Occam's razor 
and say that wayyiqtol in prose narrative is a preterite, period. As 
we know, in this construction the verb is always first, and it always 
starts with a waw, whatever significance that might have. But I would 
say that any other construction is not a simple preterite but is 
marked in some way e.g. marked temporal overlay.

Peter Kirk




______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: wayyiqtol test, Gen 42:6-17
Author:  ronning AT ilink.nis.za at internet 
Date:    19/02/1999 14:48


Dear Bryan,

Thanks for your detailed response re. Gen 42:6-17.  I don't 
agree that I have presented a caricature of the position 
that wayyiqtol is inherently sequential - I'm just assuming 
that you mean what you say (like Peter does).  It looks to 
me like you make a good case that wayyiqtol is not 
inherently sequential, but then you want to call it such 
anyway, and I don't understand why.

If I may summarize what you said (as I understand it): 
wayyiqtol is inherently sequential, except for
1. temporal overlay
2. paraphrase
3. leitmotif
4. slowing narrative time
5. parallel threads

<snip>

(I think you left out simple flashback, change of subject, 
and probably a few other cases where wayyiqtol is not 
sequential).

<snip>

I just ran across an essay for non-technical types by G. 
Douglass Young, in which he says simply that wayyiqtol in 
prose narrative is a preterite that is used when clauses are 
joined with waw and the verb is placed first - isn't it that 
simple?  Doesn't Occam's razor come in here?
(simplest explanation that explains the data is to be 
accepted)

Yours,

John Ronning