Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

 On  04/16/99 (Re: Job 1) Paul Zellmer wrote:


> Studium Biblicum Franciscanum wrote:
> 
> > 20 wayyiqtol, narrative = It happened
> > hayyom, protasis = one day
> > 21 wayyiqtol, apodosis = that the sons of God came
> >
> 
> <snip>
> 

> 
> Professor,
> 
> Perhaps I'm hung up on collocation suggested by terminology, and perhaps my understanding of the terms are too narrow, but aren't "protasis" and "apodosis" suggesting modality?  I see nothing in these cases to suggest a subjunctive mood.
> 
> Also, why is "hayyom" considered to be the protasis?  It appears to be merely setting the time, which would appear adverbial to me.  If there is a "protasis," would it not rather be the *wayehi* with the implied "the fact"?
> 
> Please excuse my confusion on the matter,
> 
> Paul


Dear Paul Zellmer,

Sorry for using a terminology that is uncommon today. "Protasis" and "apodosis" are traditional terminology to indicate, respectively, a circumstantial clause and a main clause that are linked together and are not separable.
The syntactical unit composed of protasis + apodosis I call "double sentence".
In my view, it is necessary to posit this syntactical unit because it behaves in a specific way.
For a full discussion I would refer to my _Syntax_ esp. ##107-112 (different constructions attested in the protasis), and 113-118 (different constructions attested in the apodosis). The so-called "casus pendens", or topicalized element, which functions as the protasis, is illustrated there in ##119-125.

I consider *hayyom* as protasis because it is paradigmatically interchangeable with *ki* or *'im* etc. + finite verb. E.g. in the text of Job discussed in the previous posting, we find the following two passages:

(1) Job 1:5    wayehî---kî hiqqîpû yemê hammi$teh--wayyi$laH
(2) Job 1:6    wayehî---hayyôm--------------------wayyabo'û

Other comparable cases are as follows:

(3) Gen 26:32  wayehî---bayyôm hahû'---------------wayyabo'û
(4) 1Sam 11:11 wayehî---hanni$'arîm---------------- wayyapuTSû
(5) 1Kgs 13:20 wayehî---hem yo$ebîm 'el-ha$$ulHan-- wayehî debar-YHWH
(6) 2kgs 8:21  wayehî---hû' qam laylâ---------------wayyakkeh 'et-'edôm

In all these examples, we have a *wayehî* at the beginning and a wayyiqtol as the second member (apodosis, or main sentence).
In the first member we find the following constructions: *kî* + finite verb in (1), a noun used adverbially in (2), a prepositional phrase in (3), a noun phrase (casus pendens, or topicalized element) in (4), a nonverbal clause with participle in (5), a x-qatal in (6).
Clearly, these six constructions play the same function--they constitute the first member (protasis, or circumstance) of a double sentence having a wayyiatol as its second member (apodosis, or main sentence).
The six constructions are different grammatically by syntactically equivalent.

We conclude, first, that a noun used adverbially (2), and a prepositional phrase (3) are functionally equivalent to a complete sentence; second, a *compound nominl sentence* type x-qatal (6) is functionally equivalent to a nonverbal sentence (5), and  to a noun or a prepositional phrase, and to a casus pendens. Third, this is one of the proofs that the sentence with a finite verb in the second place is different from a sentence with a finite verb in the first place; the former has nominal, nonverbal function in historical narrative (in direct speech, we have to consider special cases).

Further, all the six types illustrated above are also found without a preceding *wayehî*. See my _Syntax_ ##97-98 for type (1) above, #103 for type (2), #102 for type (3), #99 for type (4), #100 for type (5), and #105 for type (6).

Finally, this means that *wayehî* is not an integral part of the protasis. The double sentence is complete without it; however, its syntactical functions changes accordingly. With *wayehî* the double sentence is verbal and is tied to the mainline of communication, because *wayehî* is a wayyiqtol. Without *wayehî*, the double sentence is nonverbal, because it does not start with a finite verb, and as such it breaks the main line of communication indicated by narrative wayyiqtol.

What has been said for *wayehî* "mutatis mutandis" also holds true for *wehayâ*.

Sorry for the long explanation. Peace and all good,

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