b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
- To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:32:31 +0300
Title: Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 Peter Kirk wrote:
Dear Prof Niccacci,
Thank you for your clarification about these double sentences. I am
beginning to see that your suggestion is a possible parsing of Gen 1:1-2,
although I note that in none of the examples you give does the apodosis
start with waw and a noun followed by the verb, as in verse 2. So I still
see you parsing as a rather forced one. For there is very little, only
perhaps the pointing on one vowel (the very first one!), which might suggest
to readers that they should understand the text according to this rare
construction rather than in the much more obvious sense "In the beginning
God created..." And we of course have evidence from LXX and Vulgate that
that is exactly how it was understood in ancient times. I think we need to
be very careful before preferring a construction which is a priori so
improbable over one which seems so obvious.
Dear Peter Kirk:
The point of my posting you refer to was to clarify the so-called waw of apodosis; therefore I quoted examples of double sentences having a waw-prefixed verb form (i.e. wayyiqtol or weqatal) versus similar double sentences having a non-waw-prefixed veb form (i.e., yiqtol and qatal) in the apodosis.
The point of my posting you refer to was to clarify the so-called waw of apodosis; therefore I quoted examples of double sentences having a waw-prefixed verb form (i.e. wayyiqtol or weqatal) versus similar double sentences having a non-waw-prefixed veb form (i.e., yiqtol and qatal) in the apodosis.
However examples of waw + noun + verb (i.e.
waw-x-qatal, or waw-x-yiqtol) do exist, although they appear to be
less frequent. Again, I would refer to Chap. 8 of my _Syntax_, where
the different forms of the double sentence (i.e. composed of a
circumstance, or protasis + a main sentence, or apodois) are listed
(although not all the examples are quoted). Both waw-x-qatal and
x-qatal, as well as waw-x-yiqtol and x-yiqtol are attested with no
difference. E.g.,
Jos 2:8 wehemmâ +erem yi$kabûn [protasis] -- wehî' `aletâ `aleyhem `al-haggag [waw-x-qatal, apodosis] "Before they lay down, -- she came up to them on the roof."
Judg 6:13 weye$ YHWH `immanû [protasis] -- welammâ meca'atnû kol-zo't [waw-x-qatal, apodosis] "If the Lord is with us, -- why then has all this befallen on us?"
Judg 2;15 bekol 'a$er yace'û [protasis] -- yad-YHWH hayetâ bam [x-qatalL, apodosis] "Whenever they marched out, -- the hand of the Lord was against them."
Jos 3:3 kir'ôtekem 'et 'arôn
berît-YHWH 'elohêken [protasis] -- we'attem tis`û
mimmeqômekem [waw-x-yiqtol, apodosis] "When you shall see the
ark of the covenant of the Lord -- then you shall set out from
your place"
1Kgs 1:14 hinneh `ôdak medabberet $am
`im-hammelek [protasis] -- wa'anî 'abô' 'axarayik [waw-x-yiqtol,
apodosis] "Then while you shall be still speaking with the king,
-- I will come in after you."
Gen 2:17 kî beyôm 'akolka mimmennû [protasis] -- môt tamût [x-yiqtol, apodosis] " for in the day you shall eat of it -- you shall certainly die."
versus 3:5 kî beyôm 'akolkem mimmennû [protasis] -- wenipqexû `ênêkem [weqatal, apodosis] " that when you shall eat of it -- your eyes will be opened."
Gen 2:17 kî beyôm 'akolka mimmennû [protasis] -- môt tamût [x-yiqtol, apodosis] " for in the day you shall eat of it -- you shall certainly die."
versus 3:5 kî beyôm 'akolkem mimmennû [protasis] -- wenipqexû `ênêkem [weqatal, apodosis] " that when you shall eat of it -- your eyes will be opened."
Considering these examples together with
those quoted earlier, one shall conclude that in the function of
apodosis (i.e after a circumstance clause, or protasis),
wayyiqtol, waw-x-qatal, x-qatal, and simple qatal interchange freely
(for the axis of the past), on the one side; on the other side,
weqatal, waw-x-yiqtol, x-yiqtol, and simple yiqtol similarly
interchange freely (for the axis of the future).
Finally, the various kinds of double sentences are also attested preceded by wayehî for the axis of the past and by wehayâ for the axis of the future. In order not to bother you any longer, I refer to my Syntax ## 112 and 121. When wayehî or wehayâ is present, the following double sentence is syntactically linked to the mainline of communication in historical narrative or in direct speech. That is why this wayehî / wehayâ are called "macrosyntactic." Whithout wayehî / weyahâ, the double sentences (usually) cause a break in the flow of the mainline of communication.
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://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page: http://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
-
Construct + Finite = Relative?,
Dave Washburn, 09/08/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/09/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Dave Washburn, 09/09/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/10/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, clayton stirling bartholomew, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Peter Kirk, 09/12/2000
- RE: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Liz Fried, 09/12/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 09/14/2000
- RE: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 09/14/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 09/14/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/14/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Dave Washburn, 09/15/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/18/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/18/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/20/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.