Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Paul Zellmer wrote:

> John Ronning wrote:

> > It looks to me like hayetah can't be background information
> > for the
> > previous evening, neither can it be disconnected from the
> > preceding and taken non-sequentially; it does not seem to be
> > "a break in the flow of communication" (Niccacci) at all,
> > but seems to
> > move the story along in exactly the same way as a
> > wayyiqtol form would).
>
> But it *is* background information if background information is defined as 
> that which
> moves the story along.  By seeing this X-qatal as a mainline actually does 
> disconnect
> it (or, to be more precise, distances it more) from the preceding clause 
> than would
> treating the two as part and parcel of the same extended event.  Please 
> don't hang too
> much on your interpretation of a technical term, "background information."

John, you led me down a rosy path, and I must have had my tongue over my eye 
teeth.  The
theory does not require the X-qatal to be "background," but it does state 
that the X-qatal
is "off-line."  *This* is the term for a clause not advancing the mainline.  
And this is
what we see happening here.  The clauses are still closely tied together in a 
single large
"event," but the X-qatal does it's normal, wonderful job of showing that 
there is
something different about this part of the event from the other part which it 
is tied to.
In this case, the time has shifted from evening to morning.

Sorry 'bout that,

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph