Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Dear Paul,

I'm combining your two responses to my last.

You wrote, concerning my examples from Exod 16:6,7,12-13:

> John Ronning wrote:
>
> > In the discussion of God giving the mannah to Israel,(Exodus
> > 16), there is a series of three references to evening (when
> > God would give the quail) and morning (when God would give
> > the
> > manna):
> >
> > 1a (v.6) `ereb *wiyda`tem*  In the evening you shall know .
> > . .
> >
> > then an identical construction for the morning
> >
> > 1b (v.7)  uboqer *ure'item*  and in the morning you shall
> > see . . .
> >
> > likewise the following pair use an identical construction
> > (different from 1):
> > 2a (v.12) beyn ha`arbayim *to'kelu*  basar  at twilight you
> > shall eat meat
> >
> > 2b (v.12) ubabboqer *tisbe`u*  laxem  and in the morning you
> > shall be satisfied with bread
> >
> > likewise another form used for the following:
> >
> > 3a (v.13) wayehi ba`ereb *watta`al*  it came about in the
> > evening, quail came up
> >
> > 3b ?
> >
> > You would think that from this sequence, 3b is virtually
> > "programmed" i.e. you should have:
> >
> > wayehi babboqer plus a wayyiqtol verb.
> >
> (Your response)
> What would make you think this?

Symmetry - identical constructions for the previous two 
morning and evening references gives some inertia to 
expect the same for the 3rd.  Evidently it didn't strike 
everyone else that way.

Concerning the use of x-qatal in my "3b":

> This would indicate in his mind that he considered to the two clauses to be 
> somehow parts of
> a single event.

I just want to know how you know this.  It seems totally 
counter-intuitive to me.  I still say this looks like the 
tail (your theory) is wagging the dog (the text).  But, 
don't answer yet - more below.

(More from mine:)

> > 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).
>
>

Your reply, from your second post:

> The theory does not require the X-qatal to be "background," but it does 
> state that the
> X-qatal is "off-line."

Apparently I misunderstood Alvieri's post to mean 
that the "background" option only pertained
to cases where you connect x-qatal to the previous 
wayyiqtol.  Thanks for straightening that out.

> *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.

A simple question, then - what would be the difference
between:

(1) uvabboqer hayethah shikvath ...
(2) wayehi babboqer wattehi shikvath ...

I find it very difficult to believe that (1) does not
advance 
the timeline in the same way that (2) does, (and just like
the 
preceding "wayehi ba`erev wata`al ..." did) and I find it
very difficult to believe native BH speakers would take (1)
as 
a break in the flow, etc., or that it is "off-line" simply
because 
the x-qatal form is used.


Another question - how do you know that the use of qatal in
(1) above is 
dictated by a desire to "go off-line" instead of by the fact
that the verb is not clause initial for some other reason? 
If the verb is not clause initial, what other choice would a
BH writer have than the qatal in this case?

Another example:
1Kgs 15:13 (following a wayyiqtol in v. 12)
wegam 'eth Maacah 'immo wayesireha...

which the chronicler modified to:
2Chr 16:15 wegam Maacah 'em 'Asa hammelek hesirah...

Did the chronicler want to demote this point to "offline" or
did he just want to get rid of the redundant conjunction and
therefore had to change the verb form as well (unless he was
going to do more radical surgery and put the verb first)?

Yours,

John