Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

 Dear Lee,

Thank you for your interest in my Tilburg paper and for your comment.
What you suggest seems OK. Antecedent information, circumstance, contrast or specification are semantic categories, and we may well disagree on them.
BTW I did not take "circumstance (or comparison) - contrast (or specification)" as synonyms.
My point was to review clear cases in which verb-second sentences have disticntively different functions from verb-first sentences. The difference between verb-first and verb-second sentences is the basic problem of BH syntax as I repeatedly tried to show.

Similarly, emphasis or non-emphasis on the X element, i.e. the element preceding a finite verbform, is a semantic category; the decision depends on context and interpretation. Syntactically, however, sentences with a verbform in the second place--whether "emphatic" or not--have in common the fact that the verb is demoted from its usual role of the predicate and from the first place in the sentence.

Correspondence between morphology and function is the domain of syntax. For instance, wayyiqtol has a distinct morphology from all other verbforms and constructions; it also has a distinctive function in the text. Thus, it is a verbform on its own right. This means, among other things, that it is not a waw+yiqtol, it is a wayyiqtol. The same is true of the other distinctive verforms and constructions, i.e. qatal, x-qatal, yiqtol, x-yiqtol, weqatal, weyiqtol, imperative and the non verbal sentence.

Place in the sentence--first or second--is one basic factor in my description of the BH verbal system. The other is level of communication--main or secondary. These two principles supplement each other. For instance, x-qatal in oral report can be shown to be a mainlevel construction; it therefore constitutes a verbal, independent sentence although it is a verb-second construction.

Peace and all good,

Alviero Niccacci



On  03/12/99 (Tilburg Paper) Lee R. Martin wrote:


> Dear Professor,
> I have just finished reading your "Basic Facts and Theory..." from the
> Tilburg Conference, and I have a couple of observations and questions.
> 1) I enjoyed the paper and find it very helpful.
> 2) On pages 173-74, you give examples of x-qatal as
>      2.2 circumstance (or comparison), Ex. 19:2-3; Gen 4:2-5
>      2.3 contrast (or specification), Job 32:2-3
> Regarding the examples above, maybe we have different understandings of
> the English "contrast," but I do not understand "contrast" to be the
> equivalent of "specification."  I would prefer to call Gen 4:2-5
> "contrast."  Abel was a shepherd, *but* Cain was a farmer; Cain brought
> fruit *but* Abel brought firstlings; the Lord favored Abel, *but*  Cain
> he did not favor.   It seems that Abel and Cain are contrasted in all
> three statements. Some other examples of contrast (all from Judges) are
> Judges 1:25; 3:18-19; 6:10; 7:6; 8:20; 11:17; 15:1; 20:32.  Do you see
> these as contrast? or Circumstance?
> I like the word "specification" for 2.3, but when we look at all the
> examples together, couldn't 1.1; 1.2; and 2.3  be grouped under the
> title "specification"?
> 1.1 specifies the answer to an imagined question "Who are you?"
> 1.2 specifies the answer to the explicit question "Who will do this?"
> 2.3 specifies the answer to the imagined question "Who is the object of
> this anger?"
> I would prefer the following descriptions for x-qatal:
> 1. Antecedent information (setting or previous actions) 2.1
> 2. Circumstance (contemporaneous actions) 2.2
> 3. Comparison / contrast Gen 4:2-5;
> 4. Oral Report 2.4
> 5. Specification (1.1; 1.2; and 2.3)
> 
> Only number 5 has emphasis on X.
> Lee R. Martin