Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Peter,
> You wrote: "In any case, we know that wayyiqtol can be used in 
> narrative, to begin an episode, to begin a book, to resume after an 
> aside, to open a change of setting or situation, and that's just to 
> name a few." Agreed. And it can ALSO be used as a continuation, as in 
> the verse from 1 Kings. Your unified field of meaning is a fine goal, 
> but it has to account for these continuation cases as well.

I agree.  However, see below.

> Note my ALSO, which makes irrelevant your argument that "there are 
> plenty of instances where it can't possibly be a continuation" - which 
> I agree with. However, you seem to be arguing from "it is not always a 
> continuation" to "it is never a continuation", which is logically 
> false. 

Actually I have never said such a thing.  It is frequently used in 
continuous narrative, and I wrote in print that it is the form of choice 
for narrative prose.  My point, though, is that continuation is not 
encoded in the grammatical form but in the semantics and 
pragmatics of the context.  "Bill shot John.  John fell down."  These 
likely happened in sequence, but we know that based on the fact 
that people who are shot usually fall down, as well as the proximity 
of the clauses to each other.  It is not encoded in the grammar, but 
in the context.  Thus it is with wayyiqtol.

In fact it is clear that WAYYIQTOL signals neither continuation 
> nor lack of continuation, but something different. 

Agreed!  This is what I've been saying all along.

So, in a 
> translation, sometimes a period or a paragraph break is appropriate, 
> but very often no punctuation is required. 

Agreed.  Context is the determiner.

Just look at your 
> translation of the verse about Shimei. Why did you put in all those 
> periods? Because the sense demanded it? Because you were translating 
> for a 3-year-old? Or because of your preconceptions about the meaning 
> of WAYYIQTOL? Now you may want to define each WAYYIQTOL as a new 
> sentence within the structure of Hebrew. But my point is that it does 
> not always correspond to a new sentence in good English.

Again, I agree!  My goal was not to write good English, but to 
illustrate the essential force of the verb form.  Substitute 
semicolons if you like; it really doesn't matter to me.  I'm afraid 
you've gotten so focused on the periods that my point got lost (pun 
intended).  Re-punctuate it any way you like; the purpose is to 
show that the wayyiqtol is, as you so excellently and succinctly 
put it, neither continuation nor non-continuation but something 
different.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11