b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
Re: Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phrase?
- From: Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
- To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Cc: peter_kirk AT sil.org
- Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phrase?
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:44:26 +0200
Title: Re: Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phr
On 06/12/99 (Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate
phrase?) Peter Kirk wrote:
Dear Prof. Niccacci,
Are there other instances of
time phrases beginning with B-<time word> which are separated from the
main clause to which they refer by waw? This structure would seem very
odd, as the waw is usually a clause divider but in such a case it
would not be, or else the time phrase would be left on its own with no
sentence to be linked to. < ...>
There are no other cases of the structure B-<time phrase> W-<main clause>.
- bi$nat mot hammelek `uzziyyahu -- wa'er'eh 'et-'adonay (Isa 6:1)
- bi$nat mot hammelek
'aHaz -- hayâ hammaSSa'
hazzeh (Isa 14:28)
A comparison of the two examples shows
that the Waw is optional; wayyiqtol and first-place qatal play the
same function in this kind of construct having a circumstance of time
(or the like) before the main clause. In traditional terminology,
that Waw is called Waw apodoseos (Waw of apodosis)--actually the
<time phrase> (or circumstance of time) functions as the
protasis and the <main clause> functions as the apodosis of a
conditional clause.
PK: To put this another way, the examples you quote are all consistent
with an analysis of Genesis 1:1 including a null complementiser (e.g.
perhaps a missing 'ASHER) as follows:
{time phrase {preposition B-}
{noun phrase {construct noun RE'SHIT}
{noun phrase {complementiser 0}
{sentence {verb BARA'}
{...}}}}}
where {...} is 'ELOHIM 'ET-HASHSHAMAYIM WE'ET HA'ARETS. On this
analysis, the whole verse is a time phrase, and so there should be no
waw separating it from the following clause. Also the embedded
sentence is QATAL first, not X-QATAL, for BERE'SHIT is not part of it.
- beyôm bero' 'elohîm
'adam -- bidmût
'elohîm `aSâ 'otô (Gen 5:1)
- bayyom
ha$$eli$i --
wayyiSSa' 'abraham 'et-`enayw (Gen 22:4)
-
`ereb --
wîda`tem ...
ûboqer -- ûre'îtem
... (Exod 16:6-7)
- beyôm qwnôteka haSSadeh
... -- ûme'et rût
hammô'abiyyâ ... qanîta (qere) ... (Ruth 4:5)
-wayehî le$ib`at
hayyamîm -- ûmê hammabbûl hayû `al-ha'aretz (Gen
7:10)
- wayehii 'aHar haddebarîm ha'elleh --
weha'elohîm nissa' 'et-'abraham (Gen 22:1)
- wayehî
babboqer --
wayyiqqaH balaq 'et-bil`am (Num22:41)
I wonder if you can comment on whether in general pairs of X-QATAL
clauses joined by waw should be taken as simultaneous, sequential or
what? < ... >
- habboqer
'ôr -- weha'ana$îm $ulleHû ...
hem yaTSe'û 'et-ha`îr, lo'
hirHîqû-- weyôsep 'amar ... (Gen 44:3-4)
- habboqer
hayâ --
werûaH haqqadîm naSa' 'et-ha'arbeh (Exod 10:13).
Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci
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
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
-
Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phrase?,
peter_kirk, 12/06/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phrase?, Jonathan Bailey, 12/06/1999
- Re: Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phrase?, Alviero Niccacci, 12/08/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.