Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Double sentence--or topicalization

Dear BH-listmmbers,

In the previous days there has been some discussion about Exod. 16:6b *`ereb wîda`tem*, and 1Kgs 15:13 *wegam 'et-ma`akâ 'immô wayesireha*. I suggested that both are to be analyzed as "double sentence" (protasis + apodosis) or  constructions with "casus pendens". Discussion is still going on in this list concerning 1Kgs15:13 and its parallel 2 Chron. 16:15. From the comparison of these two texts some scholars conclude that qatal is on its way to replacing wayyiqtol as happens in Mishnaic Hebrew (not however in Qumran Hebrew).
I think that this is not the case. I shall try again to show that those two texts are actually double sentences or pendens constructions.

Note that in both 1Kgs 15:13 and 2 Chron. 16:15 we find a feminine pronominal suffix resuming the initial proper name, i.e. in *wayesireha* as in *hesîrah* the suffix *ha / ah* resumes *ma`akâ*. This means that in both cases the initial noun phrase containing *ma`akâ* can not be the object of the verbs since they already have an object. What is then the function of the initial noun phrase?

Let us compare 1 Sam. 2:13 and 2:15:
- (13) [noun phrase] *kol-'i$ zobeax zebax*
  [main sentence] *ûba' na`ar hakkohen*
   "(As for) any man offering sacrifice (i.e. when any man offered sacrifice), the priest's servant used to come"
- (15) [complete sentence] *gam beTerem yaqTîrûn 'et-haxeleb*
     [main sentence] *ûba' na`ar hakkohen*
   "Even before they burned the fat, the priest's servant used to come".

We learn that, first, the noun phrase in 1 Sam. 2:13 is interchangeable with a complete sentence having a subordinating conjunction in (15), i.e. both play the same syntactic function although they are grammatically different. Actually they have the same main sentence.
Second, the noun-phrase is called a "casus pendes", or "extra-posed", or "topicalized", or "dislocated" element. It is not part of the main sentence. Usually, but not always, it is represented in the main sentence by a resumptive pronoun or adverb as is the case in 1Kgs 15:13 // 2 Chron. 16:15.
Third, the casus pendens preposed to the main sentence can be a noun phrase as in 1Kgs 15:13 // 2 Chron. 16:15 and in 1 Sam 2:13, or noun used adverbially as in Exod. 16:6b (*`ereb... boqer*), or a subordinated sentence as in 1Sam. 2:15.

It can also be a preposition + infinitive as in 1 Sam. 17:55, 57:
- (55) [prepositional phrase] *wekir'ôt $a'ûl 'et-dawid*
[main sentence] *'amar 'el-'abner*
      "As soon as Saul saw David..., he said to Abner"
- (57) [prepositional phrase] *ûke$ûb dawid*
    [main sentence] *wayyiqqax 'otô 'abner*
"And as soon as David returned..., Abner took him".

We also learn from these passages that the interchangeability of qatal and wayyiqtol is not a characteristic of late language. I suggest that it is a characteristic of the "double sentence", a special construction having the main sentence in the second place. This is the reason why in this construction--and in this construction only--the usual distinction between wayyiqtol (mainline) and qatal (secondary line of communication) does not apply. Both play exactly the same function.

May I add that both *wehayâ* and *wayehî* can be prefixed to the double sentence. Consider Num. 21:8-9:
- (8)  [direct speech] *wehayâ* + [casus pendens] *kol-hanna$ûk*
   [main sentence] *wera'â 'otô waxay*
     "And it shall happen: As for every one who shall be bitten, he shal see it (i.e. the bronze serpent) and shall live".
- (9) [narrative] *wehayâ* + [subordinate sentence] *'im-na$ak hannaxa$ 'et-'î$*
   [main sentence] *ehibbiT 'et-nexa$ hannexo$et waxay*
    "And it used to happen: If a serpent would have bitten someone, he would look at the bronze serpent and would live".

Note that, first, the casus pendens in (8) interchanges with a subordinate sentence in (9).
Second, weqatal functions both in direct speech and in historical narrative; in the first case, it indicates simple future, in the second custom (imperfective aspect, as opposed to qatal which expresses perfective aspect).

Third, *wehayâ* is prefixed to the whole of the double sentence, i.e.: It shall happen / used to happen the-fact-that + double sentence.
Forth, qatal in the subordinate sentence of (9) indicates anteriority to weqatal of the main sentence.

There is considerable disagreement among scholars regarding the analysis of the double sentence, or whatever they prefer to call it. Briefly, I think that the casus pendens (or the topicalized element) does not carry any emphasis, or focus; it is not part of the sentence; it amounts to a subordinate sentence. It is taken out of the sentence to which it belongs (or plain sentence) to become a topic that is afterwards explained in some way.

Here is how I would explain this process--a plain sentence is topicalized in two different but equivalent ways:
- [plain sentence] The bitten person shall look at the bronze serpent and shall live.
- [double sentence with casus pendens] As for the person who shall be bitten, he shall look...
- [double sentence with subordinate sentence] If a person shall be bitten, he shall look...

Ch. Bally, _Linguistique générale et linguistique française_ gave exactly this analysis for French (p. 65). The same applys to every language:

"Cette dernière [i.e. the subordinate clause, or protasis] peut être explicite: «Quant il pleut, je reste à la maison» - «Si vous désobéissez, vous serez punis», etc. Ou bien on peut la mettre en lumière par échange fonctionnel : «Il fait froid, nous ne sortirons pas» (=  «Puisqu'il fait froid»); «Par ce moyen, je réussirai» (= «En procédant ainsi, si je procède ainsi»); «Lentement, il avançait sur la route» (= «En marchant lentement, pendant qu'il marchait lentement») (Š) «Cet élève, je l'aime bien; cet élève, je lui ai donné un livre; etc.»; ce cas a été appelé nominativus pendens (Š) mais (Š) il est lui aussi assimilable à une subordonnée (= «Pour cet élève, quant à cet élève, puisqu'il est question deŠ, s'il est question deŠ», etc.".
See my paper "Marked Syntactic Structures in Biblical Greek in Comparison with Biblical Hebrew" in _Liber Annuus_ 43 (1993) 9-69.

Peace.
Alviero Niccacci

Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     Professors Email  mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
      Students Email mailto:sbfstud AT netvision.net.il
o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o