Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

 On  04/30/99 (Re: Re[2]: Tidbits from Ruth (Alviero)) John Ronning wrote:


> Alviero wrote:
>  
> 
> <snipped part of discussion of methodology> 
> 
> 
> > Gen. 1:5, 10 for mainline information with *wayyiqra'* versus
> > background, coincidental information with X + *qara'*--"God called the
> > light day while the darkness He called night.". . .
> > x-qatal's main function of conveying background information
> > remains in every case.
> 
> Dear Alvieri,
> 
> I appreciate your informative posts since you began contributing to this 
> list, but I have difficulty believing that someone who has not prejudged the 
> issue would see "and the darkness he called `night'" as "background 
> information."
>	 1)
> While it may be true that the naming of light and darkness are simultaneous, 
> it seems likely from the context that the purpose for the construction of v. 
> 5 is not to express simultaneity but to contrast light and darkness (or if 
> you prefer, their naming), and thus both "And God called the light `day'" and 
> "while the darkness he called `night'" are on equal footing - both brought 
> center stage in order to contrast them.




2)
Similarly v. 10 and also Gen 4:4b-5a 
> where you have this same "chiasm of indirect object" (to use F. Andersen's 
> terminology), where again the context would seem to be not focusing on 
> simultaneity or "background" information but on contrasting Cain and Abel:
> 
> The LORD looked to Abel and to his gift
> But to Cain and his gift he did not look
> 
> Again, I don't understand how the second line can be "background information" 
> (or do you analyze this one differently because of the negative?).
> 
3)
> I think you have suggested in a previous post that both weqatal and yiqtol 
> are mainline forms for future situations.  So, a methodological question - 
> what evidence would lead you (if you found it in the Bible) to conclude that 
> qatal functions as a mainline form in written past narrative?
> 

=========================REPLY=============================================
Dear John Ronning,

1) Concerning Gen. 1:5, 10, I would say, first, that the sentence "and the darkness he called night" does not show the normal word order in English, if I am not mistaken. As I suppose, nobody would begin a narrative in this way. The way the sentence is structured (and not only because of the "and") shows that it is connected to a preceding, narrative, mainline sentence like "God called the light day."
Second, the BH verbforms used In Gen. 1,5, 10 show that the two pieces of information are conveyed together as single event. If, on the contrary, we had twice wayyiqtol, the translation would be: "God called the light day and then called the darkness light." In the latter case, the two pieces of information are independent, coordinated, and sequential. In the biblical text, however, the naming of the night is conveyed in the offline, or in the background of the mainline naming of the day. I would add that *uleHo$ek qara' laylâ* is not and independent sentence, although it has no subordinating particle. Actually it can not be alone in a text. It needs to rely either on a previous wayyiqtol (as background to foreground) or on a following wayyiqtol (as antecedent, or setting, to the narrative mainline).
Third, the difficulty you feel believing that that is "background information" may be due to a personal understanding of (or refusal of) "background" and "foreground." I would stress, however, that it is not the reader that determines what can or can not be background; it is the writer, and he does it by using appropriate verbforms.
You may say that the purpose of Gen. 1:5 "is not to express simultaneity but to contrast light and darkness." I have no objection to that. In other words, I do not argue on interpretation -- i.e. contrast, or simultaneity, or background. I rather insist that since different verbforms are used, different functions need to be detected.

2) Concerning Gen. 4:4b-5a -- a text that has been discussed more than once in the past -- I would say that it is not the chiastic structure that determines the verbforms used but, viceversa, it is the verbforms that determines the chiastic structure. Call it as you may wish, the main purpose of that presentation of Cain and Abel is, in my opinion, that the two characters are compared one against the other; they are not presented as separate as if wayyiqtol was used in both cases. In sum, wayyiqtol is mainline in historical narrative while all other verbforms and constructions are offline, each one having a specific function.
I would add that in BH mainline verbforms are real tenses and point to a specific reference in time, while offline verbforms and constructions are not tenses but rather indicate aspect -- i.e. contemporaneity versus anteriority, or perfectivity versus imperfectivity.

3) Concerning your last question about weqatal, yiqtol, and qatal, I am afraid I do not see your point. I shall try to briefly describe my idea, and may be you will find an answer.
In direct speech, weqatal indicates the mainline in the future (simple future, not volitive). However, weqatal is not found at the beginnig of a direct speech; at the beginning one finds a non verbal sentence (esp. with participle) or a x-yiqtol construction. While weqatal indicates the mainline, and occurs in a chain of selfsame verbforms (as does wayyiqtol in historical narrative for the past mainline), when a circumstance or other offline information needs to be conveyed, the witer shifts from weqatal to x-yiqtol. Thus, the situation is complex, i.e. x-yiqtol is both mainline (at the beginning of a direct speech only) and offline (only in the course of a direct speech, after a weqatal). In conclusion, to say that "both weqatal and yiqtol are mainline forms for future situations" does not quite represent my opinion.
As for qatal, it is not quite clear to me what do you mean by "written past narrative." I distinguish oral narrative, or report (i.e. in direct speech) from historical narrative -- both of which are written. In oral narrative qatal functions as a mainline form -- although in the course of a narrative it functions as offline. Evidence for that, and I repeat, is e.g. *nilHamtî* in 2Sam. 12:27 (other cases in my _Syntax_ ## 22-23).
In historical narrative qatal (actually x-qatal, because it is not found in the first place of the sentence) is not a mainline form but rather an offline form.

- As a last point I would say that what I am writing in this and other postings are conclusions from an analysis of a series of data that are published. In order to get a comprehensive picture of the BH verb system, one needs to gather many bits of information, evaluate them, and bring them together.

Tank you for your attention. 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