Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I suppose I should step into the waters of this discussion with a good dose
of trepidation, for I have not followed all the related threads that have
transpired in recent days, time not permitting.  Nonetheless, upon reading
this post and the ones that followed it, I hope I may interject a few
thoughts that are coherent within the ongoing discourse.

Comments marked JAF below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 8:00 AM
Subject: WAW the conjunction


<<
Dear list-members,

Today I have been working with the YIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs of Joshua, and I
found three verses illustrating the conjunctive force of WAW. In my view
the WAWs have exactly the same function both when prefixed to the
WEYIQTOLs, the WAYYIQTOLs, and to the IMPERATIVEs.

The first WEYIQTOL (§LX) of v 4 illustrates the importance of WAW. This is
the first WEYIQTOL in a chain, and as a conjunction it is therefore
superfluous (there are some examples of WAWs where the conjunctive force
even is used first in a clause; the meaning in such cases is "so"). It may
be used to signal that the verb is not modal. I see only two different
"events" expressed by the five WEYIQTOLs,i.e. two different RTs (reference
time): (1) "send","rise","go", and "write" ("Map"), and (2) "enter". It is
impossible to say that first Joshua would send them, then they should rise,
then they should go (throughout the land),and then they should map it, and
then they should enter the place where Joshua was.

>>

JAF:
I am with Peter in that I do not see how these 5 events must be or even can
be collapsed into 2 events or RTs.  The whole process must have been quite
extended.  There are 5 different events.  True, there is some, or at times
even a lot of overlap between certain of the events, but there remains a
*prototypical sequencing* involved in the relationship between these events:

1. 'sending' precedes the whole expedition.  In a sense, it also encompasses
the whole expedition; from the perspective of Josh., he does one act, which
is then carried out by the sendees, and this contrast is also marked by the
change in subject/agent that you mentioned later.  Yet the actual
commissioning meeting preceeded the expedition both causally and
termporally.  Even inasmuch as the 'rising' would occur within the scope of
that meeting, it would occur at or near the end of that meeting.  There is
still a prototypical sequencing involved!
2. 'rising' is an initiating or even preparatory event, and precedes the
'going' through the land, which was an extended matter.
3. 'mapping' is also an extended event, and you are right that it clearly
overlapped the 'going'.  But it clearly did not *precede* the going!  The
purpose of the going was to enable the mapping.  And there is both a causal
and a termporal sequencing to the process: a little going followed by a
little mapping....  In the end, after the going was finished, the mapping
would be consolidated and recopied.  Again, there is *prototypical
sequencing* involved!
4. Rolf is in agreement that the follow-up meeting sequentially followed the
expedition.

This sequencing is based on the *pragmatics* of the context, not on the
WEYIQTOL verb forms used.  The more interesting questions, however, involve
the WAYYIQTOL forms below, since this latter verb form is so closely tied to
past tense narrative that it does also have the appearance of connoting
sequence by its very use.  I have addressed the pragmatic, prototypical
sequencing of these 5 events because I disagree Rolf's initial assertions on
v4.

<<
If you agree with the points above, PLEASE keep that in mind when you read
further, in order to prevent preconceived ideas to cloud your mind!

In vv 8,9 the time reference is different; it is past, but the seven
WAYYIQTOLs play the same role (I exclude modality from the discussion on
this level) as the WEYIQTOLs in v 4, as far as sequence is concerned. I
find only two "events" expressed by the six WAYYIQTOL with the same roots
as the WEYIQTOLs of v 4, and a third event expressed by CWH, (1)
"send","rise","go", and "write" ("map"), and (2) "charged",and (3) "enter".
So again,I see no way to draw the conclusion that the men (v 8) "rose up",
and then "went", and then Joshua charged them, (v 9) and then the men went,
and then went through the land, and then mapped it, and then they entered
the place where Joshua was.

The last half of v 8 from the WAYYIQTOL CWH is a part of the threefold
symmetry of the account. I v 4 Joshua asks the people to bring men that
will be sent out etc, in the last part of v 4 Joshua addresses the men and
tell them what to do, and in the first part of v 8 and v 9 it is reported
that the have completed the task, but the same roots are use in all three
instances. The imperatives also reveal two different events: (1) "go",
"walk throughout" the land", "write" ("map") it, and (2) "return".

>>

JAF:
I will focus on the issue of sequencing of WAYYIQTOL forms, since that is
the real issue at stake: does it indicate sequencing?  Or to ask the same
question in an alternative form: can WAYYIQTOL be used in a non-sequential
context?

In vv8-9: (working backwards)
The verbs in v9 follow a similar prototypical sequencing as outlined above.
The sequence of the 'instructing/charging' of the men with instructions by
Josh. (v8) before the expendition (v9) is also indisputable as outlined
above.

The rub comes at the beginning of v8, for while the 'rising' and 'going' are
clearly sequential, they would appear to be subsequent to the 'instructing'
of the men by Josh.  This is really the only sequencing issue in the entire
passage.  Really, this amounts to one sequence (v8: rising--going...v9:
crossing through--mapping--coming) being interrupted by another entrance
into the overall sequencing: 'instructing'.  Or, the 'rising--going' in v8
could be viewed as interrupting the sequence from v7 to 'instructing'.
- While the is the possible solution that 'rising' and 'going'? were
preparatory actions with the 'instructing' being given right before they hit
the road, this seems rather forced, and not very appealing.
- On the other hand, if this event is accepted as being out of sequence, the
next 2 things to look for are 1) are there any grammatical indicators of the
change-up in expected sequencing?, and 2) is there a motivating reason
(probably discourse reason) for the change in order.
1) The break in sequencing is accomplished by abrupt switches in participant
reference, and by marking how the two participants (Josh vs. 'the men') and
their actions are related:  v8 begins with a switch in participants labeled
as HA)ANA$IM.  This is initiating fulfillment of all of Josh's plans laid
out in vv3-7.  It is an abrupt change that immediately alludes to the
execution of Josh's plan.  Note, however, that this is the Qal form of the
verb, and is lexically distinct fromt he hithpael form used in v4: the qal
is *not* an extended event in this content, but marks their departure, while
the hithpael indicates an extended, even repetitive act (going back and
forth).
    Next, the main participant is switched back to Josh by use of his name.
The relationship to 'the men' just introduced is maintained by use of the
substantive participle HAHOLKIM.  This participle also manages to reference
the act of 'going' just mentioned.  In this way, it points back (textually)
to the event already mentioned that was subsequent (temporally).  At this
point, based on these grammatical clues, pragmatics takes over and dictates
that the 'instructing' had to take place prior to the departure of those
going.  NOTE: the use of the participle is important; with only a pronominal
reference ('them'), the actual sequencing would not be as clear.
2) Why?  Tentatively: a) to highlight the execution of Josh's plan at the
beginning of v8, foreshadowing the completion of the task; b) to *briefly*
introduce the men who were to carry out the plan; and c) to highlight Josh's
actual giving of instructions to the men: it was important enough to be
interjected at a non-sequential position in the narrative!

There may be more, but this identifies both the indicators and a motivation
for the breaking up of the standard sequence.  There is a disruption of the
temporal sequence expected by the use of WAYYIQTOLs, but this disruption is
itself marked.  (If sequentiality were not expected, no special flags would
be needed.)


<<
But what are the WAWs doing? In all three instances the events are the
same, and it is very difficult, at least in my mind, to take them in all
instances as anything but conjunctions. The reason why the five WAWs of the
five WEYIQTOLs do not represent five events but just two,the reason why
three IMPERATIVEs  connected with waw represent one event, and the reason
why seven WAYYIQTOLs represent three events and not seven, is the same,
namely lexicon. Because of the meaning of the verbs we can see that each
WAW  does not signal a new RT (reference time),i.e. something occurring
after another event in a chain. There is of course a difference between
"going throughout" and "mapping", but still the verbs signal one event (if
we by event mean something with a new RT).

>>
<snip>

There are three sets of near-identical sequences of events.  Two are marked
by simple WAWs (conjunctions), in which case the actual sequence comes more
from pragmatics than from the conjunction itself.  The third is by
WA+gemination, which is different in form and function (is it conjunction or
verb form or both (and does that really matter?!)), in that it
*prototypically indicates sequencing*.

I hope this may be useful in the discussion.  Please bear with my
impetuousity if I have failed to mesh with the main lines of discussion on
this topic  :-)


God Bless!

Arlington, Texas
JoeFriberg AT alumni.utexas.net
MA Linguistics
MA Theology