Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Paul, 
> Dave Washburn wrote in part, in response to Peter Kirk:
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> 
> But, Dave, let's invert your English example: "John fell down.  Bill
> shot John."  Admittedly, this could be just my perception, but I still
> would see both of these events as being reported sequentially UNLESS
> there were something in the context to indicate that the shooting
> actually came first.  I.e., the use of the simple past in this type
> material indicates sequence by default, although the sequence can be
> "overridden" by other clues.  So sequence is encoded, or at least,
> hinted at in the grammar.

Not really.  As you said yourself, whether or not the inverted 
sequence of clauses would be sequential depends on the context.  
What is it about the inverted clauses that makes you suspect they 
would be sequential?  It's the lack of a context that tells us whether 
they are sequential or not.  But even without a wider context, I have 
to disagree that "John fell down.  Bill shot John." is intuitively 
sequential.  People familiar with firearms and their effects on the 
human body would most naturally supply a syntactic connector: 
"John fell down [because] Bill shot John" or "John fell down [when] 
Bill shot John."  So I don't think it's at all obvious that your inverted 
order would naturally be considered sequential.

> On the other hand, if the inverted sentences were: "John fell down.
> Bill had shot John.", then the use of the past perfect clearly codifies
> a reversal of sequential reporting.  It is not world knowledge that
> drives it, it's grammar.

Hardly.  Once again, whether an English writer used the past 
perfect would depend on the wider context, which is precisely my 
point.

> Just an observation: many times you seem to be appealing to semantics
> and pragmatics as the controlling features when these are in agreement
> with the grammatical form.  How can you know which is actually in
> control?  How can you know that semantics and pragmatics are not
> actually *limiting* factors which the writer uses to change the normal
> understanding of the grammatical form?

I frankly find this paragraph incomprehensible.  I don't know what 
you mean by "when these are in agreement with the grammatical 
form"; what sort of agreement?  My contention is that the wayyiqtol 
is the simple declarative, and the question of function in a wider 
context (sequence, beginning a narrative, etc.) is determined by 
just that: the wider context.  So I don't know what agreement you 
refer to.  As for the last sentence, can you provide some examples 
of what you mean by this?


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