b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
- To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:38:38 -0600
> Dave, I am simply repeating what I have heard about this from a
> colleague, who has a Ph.D. in linguistics. I am not trying to claim that
> WAYYIQTOL is always consecutive, simply that it often is, and that there
> is no reason to interpret it otherwise either in Gen 1:3 or in the
> opening verses of historical books which continue the historical
> narrative.
But that's precisely the point: "often is" doesn't account for all
usages. Syntax generally has some kind of unifying factor, some
common thread within a form's usage that explains all, or virtually
all, instances (idiomatic usages, such as Mark's historic present,
may provide exceptions but don't really negate the unifying-factor
principle). In the HB, it is not the *form* of the wayyiqtol that
denotes sequence, but the *context* in which it most commonly
appears. It also appears in other nonsequential contexts - relatively
often in fact, so such contexts do not appear to be aberrations or
idiomatic - which strongly suggests that its unifying factor is
something other than sequentiality. Again, the biggest problem with
recent studies of it is that sequentiality is assumed, then
nonsequential occurrences are manipulated to fit the sequence
mold. I submit that if we want to progress in our understanding of
the Hebrew verb system, it's time to throw away the mold and look
for a new one.
>
> I think this is the Niccacci article I mentioned:
>
> Niccacci, Alviero. 1995. Organizzazione Canonica Della Bibbia Ebraica
> tra Sintassi e Retorica. In Rivista Biblica XLIII: 9-29.
>
I believe I've read this, since I've read nearly everything of his. His
studies, done at the discourse level like so many other recent ones,
suffers from exactly what I've been saying: it assumes the wayyiqtol
is inherently a sequential form and proceeds from that assumption.
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
-
Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
, (continued)
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky, 08/14/2002
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Ian Hutchesson, 08/15/2002
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Yigal Levin, 08/15/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Peter Kirk, 08/15/2002
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Ian Hutchesson, 08/15/2002
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Mike Sangrey, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Peter Kirk, 08/16/2002
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Ian Hutchesson, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Dave Washburn, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Peter Kirk, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Dave Washburn, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky, 08/16/2002
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky, 08/16/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Dave Washburn, 08/17/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Dave Washburn, 08/17/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Peter Kirk, 08/17/2002
- Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky, 08/17/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky, 08/17/2002
- RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3, Dave Washburn, 08/17/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.