Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joe A. Friberg" <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <peter_kirk AT sil.org>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 3:50 PM

In responding I have rearranged some of your material and omitted some:

Regarding the meaning of aor. ptcs *following* the main verb, I find the
classification by Brooks and Winbery most telling:

> Brooks and Winbery classify 1) as a causal use of the participle, 2)
> as conditional, and 3) as telic. All of their examples of (purely)
> temporal use of the participle have the participle before the main
> verb.

That is, the salient features identified by B/W are logical rather than
termporal, and this dichotomy between logical emphases and temporal emphasis
corresponds exactly to whether the aor. ptc. follows or precedes the main
verb.

While it may be true (but could be debatable) that the participial events in
1) and 2) preced the main (verb) event and 3) follows it, this temporal
relationship (one way or the other) is not in focus.  If it is not in focus,
the construction is not determinative w/ respect to the order of the events.
In fact, I many cases, there is essential simultaneity of the action
indicated by a participial following the main verb with the main verb
action.

The exs. were:
> 1) John 20:20: echaresan hoi mathetai idontes ton kurion
> 2) Hebrews 2:3: pws hemeis ekfeuxometha telikautes amelesantes
> swterias?
> 3) Acts 8:27: hos eleluthei proskuneswn eis Ierousalem.

In 1), and 3), the action is close to simultaneous; in 2), the fut. tense
may give the definite clue as to the relative time of the events.

> So it is clear that in NT Greek the order of events is rigidly
> determined neither by the participle and main verb relationship nor by
> the word order. I think the order cannot be determined by syntax or
> morphology, or even the two working together, but has to be
> determined, if at all, from the context.

On the contrary, I have not found, nor have I even seen a purported
counterexample to the principle that an aorist ptc. preceding the main verb
indicates a preparatory action that precedes the main verb.  So I still
maintain that the syntax, which depends on both the order (preceding main
verb) and morphology (aor. ptc.) determines a sequential ordering of these
events.


Now on Russian, which I don't know, I have a pragmatically based question
regarding the relative ordering of events:

> 4) On sidel, vyt'anuv nogi
>    He sat, stretching out (=having stretched out) his legs
>
> Note that the English "having stretched out" implies prior action even
> when after the main verb.

Seems to me to be difficult to stretch one's legs out before one sits down.



Now to the main topic: Hb wayyiqtol.

> I am not sure if this helps with Hebrew or not. I still suspect that
> we have something similar to the Russian: wayyiqtols are normally,
> prototypically sequential, but occasionally may be out of sequence.
>
> Peter Kirk

I agree, and if this is indeed the case, there must be indicators of both
how and why the prototypically sequential nature of wayyiqtols are used
non-sequentially.  For discussion, I would like to look at Gen 5.1-6, a
passage you have already raised for discussion.  (If this data has
previously been exhaustively considered, please bear with me, I have only
recently started threads on this topic!)

From v2-5 there are 9 wayyiqtols narrating Adam's life, and v6 begins the
narration of Seth's life:

1 he (God) blessed them
2 he called their name man on the day they were created
3 Adam lived 130 years
4 he fathered in his likeness like his image
5 he called his name Seth
6 the days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years
7 he fathered sons and daughters
8 all the days of Adam that he lived were 930 years
9 he died.

10 Seth lived 105 years
11 he fathered Enosh...

Regarding this series, 1-2 and 3-5 are clearly sequential series.  But:
3 overlaps 1-2,
6 overlaps 5,
7 overlaps 6; and
8 overlaps 1-7 and 9, and further,
10ff picks up from 4
so pure sequentiallity appears to be lost.

However, there are in each case specific indicators that orient the
perspective and sequence of each clause, and by modified reference, actually
preserve sequentiallity.  These are indicators are:
a. Change of primary character: by the use of names as subjects (3, 10),
switching the main character and starting a new narrative sequence.
Temporal reference to the prior narrative sequence is also established via
introduction of the new character as a secondary character either created or
born in the prior sequence (4-5).
b. 6 and 8 both present length historical time periods, collapsing them down
to a single wayyiqtol.  The actual breadth of the time period is referenced
by the nominal phrase: ymeey-?aadaam.  Yet the perspective from which the
periods are viewed is different: 6 is viewed from the initiation of the time
period as indicated by the clause "after he fathered Seth", while 8 is
viewed from the close of the period as indicated by the inclusive "all"
quantifying "the days of Adam".  When viewed from the beginning point of 6
and the ending point of 8, 7 then falls between them, so the essential
sequentiallity of 6-8  is established.
c. Finally, the overlap of 6 with 5 and 8 with 9 are minimal.  When
comparing the breadth of the time periods in 6 and 8 with the almost
instantaneous nature of the events in 5 and 9, 99.999% of 6 *does* follow 5,
and 99.999% of 8 *does* preceed 9, so there is essential sequence between
these clauses.

These modifications to the basic notion of sequence are simply applications
of the basic notions of prototypes: accounting for those grey cases.

Hence, three distinct sequences are found: 1-2, 3-9, and 10ff, and these
three narrative threads are connected by a secondary character who is
promoted to primary status to pick up a new thread.

In this discussion, to relate this data to the question of R-Time-Building,
it appears that the wayyiqtols in 6 and 8 do not build their own R-Time, but
depend on the R-Time established by the clause or phrase pointed out above
(after he fathered..., all the days of Adam).

Finally, this text is interesting and unusual in that it enumerates a number
of factual events, including periods of time, with only wayyiqtols, and no
contrastive forms that might indicate backgrounded material.  In fact, I
might expect the time periods (6, 8) to be backgrounded with x-qatal
clauses, but this is not the case.  Instead, this is a rather plain vanilla
narration of historic facts, with no real plot structure, no development, no
excitement or involvement, just happenings.

What is more, the collapse of immense time-periods (6 & 8), and multiple
events (7) into a single wayyiqtol is likely to be permitted by the
relegation of these events to the distant past of history--as when depth
perception of mountains in the distance is completely lost, and they appear
to be 2 dimensional when in fact some may be scores of miles behind the
others.

In sum, it appears that the prototypical approach to the sequential nature
of wayyiqtols (viewed syntactically, not just morphologically) bears
considerable promise.  The exact nature of two events being in sequence has
fuzzy borders, and there are adverbial and even nominal referents that
clarify the perspective from which the events may be viewed as sequential.

God Bless!
Joe A. Friberg