Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Alviero wrote:

> <snipped first point, which I agree with>

> 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).

Dear Alviero,

I agree that the two events are conveyed as a single event, as you say.  
If we had two wayyiqtol clauses, though, I don't think we could 
necessarily say that we have two "consecutive" (chronologically) events - 
(I was quite happy to see you state in another post that wayyiqtols don't 
have to be taken sequentially).  

> 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.

Methodologically and theoretically that sounds fine, except that it seems 
to me that if BH "allowed" wayyiqtol to be used without the conjunction, 
you would (or could) have yiqtol (the old preterite) used for "and the 
darkness he called night."  I.e. I see qatal function in some cases at 
least as wayyiqtol without the conjunction.  Perhaps you would still call 
that a different verbform?

It strikes me that there are not a few cases where a wayyiqtol clause 
would fit a common sense definition of "background" or "aside" 
information; e.g. Num 13:16 wayyiqra' Moshe leHoshea` ben Nun Yehoshua`. 
(I doubt it is the "next event" in the story, since it is sandwiched 
between two wayyishlax's [vv. 3, 17] and a shalax [v. 16] which all refer 
to the same event).

Conversely it seems to me that not infrequently the "next event" in a 
story is relayed to us via an X + qatal in a clause which to me at least 
would be indistinguishable in meaning (as opposed to emphasis) from a 
wayyiqtol clause.  E.g. Num 14:10 ukebod Yhwh nir'ah be'ohel mo`ed . . . 
(again, I would not like to call this "background information" - it 
strikes me as the most "foreground" or "mainline" part of the story, 
and to my way of thinking the departure from normal word order is what 
brings it to the foreground).
 
<more snipped>
>
> 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.

I'm sorry I've lost your message that I was thinking of (something to do 
with instructions for the tabernacle or maybe offerings for the 
dedication of the tabernacle or consecration of Aaron and his sons) - I 
thought you had shown that in the instructions both weqatal and x-yiqtol 
were used, and in the description of the completion, both were described 
with wayyiqtols; thus both weqatal and x-yiqtol were "mainline."  I was 
suggesting the same is true for historical narrative - both wayyiqtol and 
sometimes x + qatal are mainline.  I was asking what type of evidence you 
would have to see to agree that x + qatal can be "mainline" in historical 
narrative.

> 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.

I meant what you call "historical narrative."  I have no problem seeing 
qatal as mainline in oral narrative (or historical narrative either).

On a related point, how would you handle Num 11:8, where it looks to me 
like you have clause initial qatal in historical narrative (though the 
verse is problematic for mixing qatals and weqatals)?
sha+u ha`am, welaqe+u we+axanu . . . 'ow daku . . . ubishelu, etc.

Or is this "OK" because the sentence itself is part of a long "side 
comment"?

> - 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.

And I appreciate your sharing the results with us on-line.  I will study 
your book when I have the opportunity.

Yours,

John Ronning