Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Dear John,

you wrote:
> 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).

It is off-the-line or "background" information in the main
narrative as is the entirety of vv. 13:3b-20.  At the same
time, the wayyiqtols *within* this off-the-line section are
indeed sequential within the off-the-line section.

>
> 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).

History does not happen linearly.  Two lines of development
or ten lines of development can occur simultaneously or
intertwine.  Yet language is linear because the communicator
can only say one thing at a time.  Linear language needs
mechanisms by which it can accurately talk about a
non-linear reality.  One device BH can use for this purpose
is the alternation between wayyiqtol and X-qatal.  The
writer of Num 14:10 did not want to express that *first* the
congregation said to stone Joshua and Caleb and *then* the
glory of the Lord appeared.  Rather he wanted to communicate
that at the two events occurred in seperate lines of
development, perhaps even co-occurent (I do not insist on
co-occurrence).  He does this with the use of the X-qatal
you mention as opposed to a wayyiqtol in the same place.

Re mainline vs. off-the-line (or Niccacci's
"background"--personally I use the term background a little
differently):  Mainline clauses are not any more or less
important than off-the-line clauses.  It is often true that
off-the-line clauses present critical or climactic
information.  Mainline and off-the-line clause should be
defined, IMO, by how they relate to the behavioral purpose
of the discourse.  For instance, the purpose of a Historical
Narrative is to tell a story set in the past.  The mainline
clause is the one which moves forward narrative time, and
the off-the-line clause is the one which retards the forward
movement of narrative time.  In Hortatory Discourse, the
purpose is different; it is designed to alter the behavior
of the listener.  So the mainline clause is the one that
gives a command or volition, and the off-the-line clauses
are the one which present the problems that the exhortations
address, or the reasons, motivations, and purposes for the
exhortations.

Personally, I prefer not to use the term "background" for
all off-the-line material because I think it connotes "less
important," "less emphasized," which is often not the case.
I think discourse grammarians have a special meaning for the
word background that is quite appropriate, but I think it is
difficult for English speakers to forget the more common,
colloquial signification of the word.

Shalom,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267