Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Galia wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >Galia wrote:
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>
> >> >Prof Jung wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Dear Peter,
> >> >> unitl I see a strong evidence for Galia's assumption that
> >> >> wayyiqtol is different from English simple past (minus stative verbs),
> >> >> I would agree to what you wrote below. But I think that in English
> >> >> simple past clauses can continue past perfect clauses. Consider:
> >> >>
> >> >> a. John went into the florist shop.
> >> >> b. He had promised mary some flowers.
> >> >> c. She said that she wouldn't forgive him if he forgot.
> >> >>
> >> >> Clause a establishes the reference time for clause b.
> >> >> The reference time of clause c is set to the event time
> >> >> of clause b, which is before the reference time of clause b.
> >> >>
> >> >> If this example can be acceptable to English speakers, then
> >> >> we must say that simple past can continue past perfect.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, clearly it can.  And as Galia points out in her book, we know
> >> >this from pragmatic considerations, not syntactic ones.  Examples
> >> >such as these keep me believing that, while it's true that all
> >> >features of the grammar - syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
> >> >discourse frame and all the rest - have a hand in forming clauses (I
> >> >avoid the term "sentence") and larger units, if we're going to make
> >> >real progress in understanding the syntax of Hebrew verbs we have
> >> >to keep them separate for purposes of study.  [climb down off
> >> >soapbox]
> >> >
> >> >WRT the above clauses, I would suggest that Hebrew would have
> >> >had the first one in a WP (wayyiqtol), the second with an x-qatal,
> >> >and the third with another WP.  What do you think?
> >> >
> >> >Dave Washburn
> >>
> >>    I agree, except that (c) has TWO clauses. The second one would be
> >> in qatal.
> >
> >Hmm, now that you mention it, (c) has THREE clauses.  I agree
> >that the second one (more or less indirect speech) would be in
> >qatal, if by KIY, or possibly an infinitive clause if not.  Things are
> >further muddied by the fact that it's a negated clause.  Your theory,
> >if I understand it correctly, predicts that the third clause would be in
> >yiqtol preceded by )IM.  That sounds good to me.
> >
> >Dave Washburn
> 
>       Yes, (c) has THREE clauses; what was I thinking? Now what would I
> predict for (c)? Gee, this is tough. I cannot recall an example of indirect
> speech with a conditional. So let me first see how it would be with direct
> speech.
>       (c') She said: "If you (had) forgot(ten) I would not have forgiven
> you."
> Would you agree that (c') is the direct speech equivalent of (c)? So what

Possibly.  Another possibility, one that I think fits the (admittedly 
limited) context a little more, is
(c'') She had said, "If you forget I won't forgive you."

> we have here is a counterfactual. Counterfactuals in BH are expressed
> (usually) by qatal, and therefore I expect both clauses within the direct
> speech to appear in qatal.  I don't recall an example of counterfactual
> within indirect speech, but I would have to assume that in such case, too,
> the verbs will be in qatal. 

If (c') is the direct-speech equivalent of (c), agreed.  If (c'') is the 
direct-speech equivalent, then we have a simple if-then condition.  If 
I follow the theory correctly, we would be looking at something like 
this for the latter:

WAT.O)MER )IM $FKAXTF LO) )ESLAX

i.e. WP - )IM + qatal Lo) + yiqtol

Were the last clause not a negated clause, it would be possible for 
a weqatal to appear there, since it is often used as an apodosis.  
However, since these can't be negated, I would expect a yiqtol.  
What do you think?

And of course, if your representation of the direct-speech equivalent 
is correct and mine isn't, all of the above is academic :-)
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.