Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Galia Hatav <ghatav AT aall.ufl.edu>]

Dear colleagues,

First I want to thank Bryan Rocine for acquainting me with the group.

I have been following the discussion on the form of Wayyiqtolfor the last
month or so, and I would like to finally join in.

Dave Washburn quoted my book that the forms of *wayyiqtol* (WP) and
*wqatal* will not appear in non-sequential clauses. He sees this as a
contradiction to the idea I took from him that each WP clause has its own
"thought". He then suggests that maybe he misunderstood what I meant by
"potential." I believe that this, indeed, what happened. I realize now that
I did not make myself clear enough. I would like to try again.

Hans Kamp defines sequence not as a primitive notion but as a RESULT of
sequential clauses being put together.  I understand Kamp's definition of
sequential clauses to be not necessarily part of a sequence but to have the
POTENTIALITY of forming a sequence. What does that mean? First, I think
Washburn's idea that WP has its own 'thought' is correct. However, *qatal*
clauses would also have their own 'thought'.  The difference between WP and
*qatal*, I argue, is that a WP clause introduces a new R(eference)-time
into the discourse.  Thus, each WP clause has its own R-time. In contrast,
*qatal* clauses do not introduce R-times. Now a sequence, as analyzed by
Kamp and other people who adopt his DRT (Discourse Representation Theory),
can be formed only by introducing a new R-time. Thus, I argue, WP can
contribute to forming a sequence, but *qatal* cannot.  The emphasis here is
on CAN or HAS THE POTENTIALITY to form a sequence.  A sequential clause
would not appear in ACTUAL sequence if the discourse in which it appears is
irrelevant, e.g., in lists such as (1) below:
        1. A: What did you do last night?
           B: A lot. I did my grading, I wrote the abstract for the
conference,
              I answered all ny e-mail letters, and even managed to play with
              the kids.

Since the answer of B in (1) is a list, not a narrative, the order of the
events is not relevant, and therefore potentially sequential verbs (WP in
BH) may (would?) appear, although they don't form an actual sequence.
Crucially, here, too, WP verbs would have their own R-time.  In narrative
discourse the potentiality to form a sequence is realized, and therefore
sequential clauses will necessarily appear on the time-line, as bids of the
sequence.  The very same clauses are not necesserily understood as part of
sequence in discurse such as (1). Does that mean that a sequential clause
ceases to be sequential when it appears in lists (or other discourse where
sequence is irrelevant)? NO!!!  It did not loose its potentiality to form a
sequence, since it still introduces its own R-time.  I would like to
explain the idea by the following analogy.  People have the potentiality to
form lines. This happens when we board a plane, buy tickets for the opera
or get coffee at conferences. Mary and John will also contribute to forming
a line in such cirdumstances. Assuming now that they are inside the movie
theater, watching a movie. Now they are not part of a line, but they did
not loose their potentiality to be part of one. Now assume that Mary went
to get tickets for the movie, but no other person was there to do the same.
So Mary is alone, and therefore is not a "link" on some line, yet she has
not lost her potentiality to be one.  To go back to WP - it always has the
potentiality to participate in forming a sequence, but it actually does it
only if it is relevant. One clear relevant enviroment is a narrative
discourse. In this case, not only does WP participate in forming a
sequence, but moreover, it NECESSARILY does so.  This might seem circular,
but it is not.  The definition of what is a narrative discourse is taken
from linguists and literature people such as Labov and Reinhart,
independently from the forms in BH.  So, when checking narrative stretches
in BH, I expect all and only the WP clauses to appear on the (actual)
time-line. The question remains, How do WP clauses behave in
non-narratives.  There, too, as I said above, they form an R-time. However,
for a lack of independent analyses for genres other than narrative we
cannot determine their function.

The other forms, natably *qatal* are not sequential in the same sense as WP
is. I.e., *qatal* does not introduce its own R-time in the discourse, and
therefore it cannot move the time forward and contribute to forming a
sequence in the narrative.  However, this does not mean that we do not find
actual cases of *qatal* clauses which are understood to report an event
which occurred AFTER the previous one. Suce case is Gen. 30:21: "And
afterwards" she bore a daughter". In this case, however, not the verb but
the conjunction "afterwards" is what moves the time forward. The question
is if this does not contradict my claim that only WP appears in sequence in
the narrative. The answer I gave in my book was that this clause is not a
bid on the time-line but serves in the background. Now I think I have a
more precise answer (work in progress).  One of the *qatal*'s functions, I
believe, is to mark the discourse topic (DT). In this example it marks the
digression from the current DT (which is Leah's bearing sons to her
husband, hoping this will earn her his love).  In Gen. 22:1 the clause with
the *qatal* verb cannot be understood as the first link of the story (the
Binding of Isaac). The first bid is the event of God calling Abraham. It is
clearly the case that the *qatal* clause marks the DT: God tests Abraham.

Now I would like to answer the question of why WP is inherently sequential.
In my book I stated it as a mere stipulation. Now I am working for an
explantion.
Again, within the line of Washburn (1994), it seems to me that WP has in it
the component *yiqtol*, which I show to be modal. The notion of modality I
adopt is the one suggested by modal logic: a modal clause quantifies over
possible worlds (PW).  Now, *wayyiqtol* itself is understood to report
NON-modal events. How can we explain it, then, to consists of a modal form?
This is my hypothesis: The form of *wayyiqtol* consists of three morphemes
(not just two, as Washburn suggests): W-AY-YIQTOL.  The morpheme *W* builds
a new R-time (which makes the form sequential in the sense described
above).  The morphem *AY* (i.e., the vowel patah and the dagesh geminating
the prefix) specifies the PW to be the actual one (I'll call it AW). This
needs some explanantion. Coinsider the difference between (2a) and (2b)
below:

        2. a. Mary must have gone to the beach.
           b. Mary went to the beach.

As analyzed in modal logic, (2a) says: In Every PW Mary went to the beach.
Now we understand that she went also in AW because AW is a member of the
set PW. (2b), on the other hand, claims that Mary went in AW, not
necessarily in other PW (but it is possible that she went in other PW).  My
argument is, that in the case of *wayyiqtol* the morpheme *ay* specifies
that the event took place in AW. The function of *ay* is similar to the
definite article attached to NPs. Consider (3a-b):

        3. a. Students work hard.
           b. The students work hard.

In (3a) the predicate "work hard" applies to EVERY student. By inference we
understand it to apply also to the students who are taking BH. In (3b) the
predicate applies specifically to certain students. How did we get the
difference - by the article "the" attached to the non-specific plural NP
"students".  This is how *ay* works. It applies to the non-specific
*yiqtol* to make it specific to the actual world.  This may explain why we
understand *wayyiqtol* to refer to past tense events.

Beat wishes,

Galia Hatav