Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Galia Hatav, hello!

> 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.

I was hoping some of my comments might draw you out ;-)

> 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. 

Let me pause right there and develop further what I meant by 
"thought."  I think this may be part of the communication difficulty 
we're having in this thread.  Here is a snippet of my article:

The WP construction signals a separate thought not syntactically 
connected with what precedes it.  Note that this statement says 
"not *syntactically* connected"; it says nothing about semantic or 
pragmatic connection.  The construction will be the form of choice 
for narrative prose simply because it behaves just like the verbs in 
(a)-(d) [a list of clauses describing the minutes of a meeting - dw].  
It neither links with what precedes, nor does it contradict or force a 
break.  It simply indicates a new thought.  (p.44)

The question of syntactic connection, along with the strict 
separation of syntax from other features of language, is the key to 
this description.  In the case of the qatal, there is a syntactic 
connection of some kind with the material around the qatal clause 
(exactly what it is, of course, remains to be fully understood).  After 
reading your book, I really like the idea of a "new" R-time.  
However, see below.

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.  

Yes!  However, I would suggest that "their own R-time" has, in 
much of the literature, been assumed to mean that this R-time will 
*necessarily* be subsequent to the R-time of the previous clause (if 
there is one).  I suggest this is not the case.  The new R-time can 
be anything: subsequent (as in narrative prose), the very beginning 
of something (a la Jonah 1:1), a back-loop of the type we have 
been discussing recently, a resumptive clause after an aside (as in 
much of Andersen's material, but see also my TC article), and 
several other uses.  The critical part of my view to keep in mind is 
that these factors are NOT determined by the fact that the clause 
has a WP verb, they are determined by the meaning of the clause 
in question (in relation to the meanings [semantics] of the clauses 
around it) and the pragmatics of the discourse unit the clause is in. 
In this sense, the WP is a "simple" non-modal form.  As John R. 
put it, use of the WP is nothing spectacular, what should catch our 
eye is use of something other than the WP.  I would argue also, 
though it's not fully developed yet, that weqatal is the same 
"simple" form in a modal context.  This idea is built on your view of 
the weqatal as a modal, and I will definitely give full and profuse 
credit when I get something put together on the subject.

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.  

A good analogy, though I think it works better under my view :-)  Is 
the most basic and distinguishing feature of people their potential 
for forming lines?  Hardly.  This is just one among many 
potentialities that people have.  Likewise for the WP.

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.  

Here's where we diverge.  I don't see anything necessary about it.  
In order for a sequence to form, the discourse might necessarily 
require a WP form; however, it does not follow from this that in 
such a context the WP necessarily denotes sequentiality.  Now, 
within the context of the semantics of aspect and modality, 
sequence is certainly a major factor in narrative prose discourse.  
However, the example we have been discussing shows that even in 
an unbroken chain of WP clauses, it's possible for a new R-time to 
be previous to what has transpired and it is not necessary (or, in 
this case, profitable) to assume that it is subsequent.

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.

Well said.  At the same time, we're working at two different levels.  
When you said in your book that I "reject the discourse analysis 
approach altogether" that was true in a sense, but in another sense 
it is a bit overstated.  I think there is a lot we can learn from 
discourse analysis; my problem with it is that it assumes certain 
things about the verb forms that are not yet in evidence.  Hence, I 
do my grammatical work down at the clause level, hoping to 
discover what are the basic building blocks of discourse units and 
patterns.  To do that, I seek the lowest common denominator in 
various usages of a verbal form, and look for a unified syntactic 
explanation for why a particular form can appear in discourse types 
x, y and z.  As far as I know, this has not been done to date in BH.

> 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. 

Yes.  It introduces Dinah and sets the reader up for the episode 
involving her in chapter 38.  This, however, is a pragmatic 
consideration, not a syntactic one (obviously).  So what it can tell 
us about the generalized force of the qatal is necessarily limited.  
However, as we examine uses of the form in other contexts, your 
idea about its relation to R-time does appear to hold true and 
account for its various usages.

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).  

Would you develop this line of thought a little more for me?

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.

Yes, and the wayehi clause preceding it doesn't change this; that 
clause serves to tell us explicitly that the testing took place after 
the events reported in chapter 21.  

> 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:

Fascinating!  I understand that this is a work in progress, that 
there's a lot of material, and that you will want to publish it before 
tossing all the details out in a forum like this.  However, could you 
give a "Reader's Digest" summary of reasons for separating the 
waw from the AY?  It looks as though this idea has great 
possibilities.

[snip - good stuff, a definite keeper, but I have nothing to add]

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