Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Dave, even if Andrew's response were as naive as you make out (and I
don't believe that it is though obviously some clarification is needed
on Judges 12), I find it objectionable that you are putting him down in
this way. Since Andrew obviously was not aware that you had spent years
studying the grammars including including Driver, GKC, Kelly, Joüon {not
Jouon by the way, he needs a diaeresis on the u), Waltke and O'Connor
etc, why couldn't you just tell him this rather than treat his ignorance
as a personal insult? And your statement "You are clearly one of those
people who needs to "get over it."" is clear ad hominem argumentation,
which would be stamped on by the moderators of the other lists I am on,
and is probably getting through on this one only because the moderators
are too busy.

It is also objectionable that you are rejecting as irrelevant what Page
Kelly might have written on this subject without being prepared to read
it.

I agree that "Every explanation I've seen of this phenomenon [WAYYIQTOL]
is badly contrived and frankly lame." - and that includes yours!

I would disagree that anything on "Transformational Grammar" is a good
introductory text on linguistics. This is one approach among many. You
should not try to mislead Andrew or anyone else that it is the only
valid one.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Washburn [mailto:dwashbur AT nyx.net]
> Sent: 17 August 2002 14:51
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
> 
> > On 09:17 AM 16/08/2002 -0600, Dave Washburn wrote:
> > >Peter, I tend to agree with you about Gen 1:1-2 as you know, but
I'm
> > >afraid Ian has you on the matter of the WAYYIQTOL.  Your
> > >explanation of books that begin with this form is weak at best,
> > >contrived at worst and tends to ignore the whole question of
sources
> > >(which I'm not going to get into).  The fact is that Niccacci,
Hatav
> > >and other recent writers on the topic suffer from a case of
circular
> > >reasoning: we "know" that the WAYYIQTOL denotes sequence,
> > >therefore we approach texts that are simple narrative in order to
> > >prove it, and we know they're simple narrative because they use the
> > >WAYYIQTOL and it's a sequential form.  QED.
> > >
> > >Of the recent works on the topic, I find Galia Hatav's the most
> > >exciting because of her work on the question of modality.  At the
> > >same time, questions of sequentiality and syntax are relegated to
> > >lists of statistics and selected, dare I say, obvious, examples
that
> > >seem (probably unconciously) to have been selected somewhat ad
> > >hoc.  The questions I raised some 10 years ago have yet to be
> > >answered, particularly wrt to the extended passage in Judges that I
> > >presented.  The latter part of Judges 12 has several "chains" of
> > >WAYYIQTOL that cannot possibly be "sequential," in terms of time
> > >or "logical consequence" or any of the other common extensions of
> > >the term.
> >
> > I don't see the problem here at all. They seem quite clearly
sequential
> to me.
> 
> This is the funniest thing I've read here in many a day.  So what
> you're saying is, Ibzan judged Israel for an indeterminate time
> (wayyiqtol), took time off to have 60 kids (wayyiqtol) and raise them
> old enough to marry them all off, then resumed judging for 7 years
> (wayyiqtol).  Elon judged Israel (wayyiqtol) then judged some more
> (wayyiqtol).  Abdon, like Ibzan, judged for a while (wayyiqtol), took
a
> vacation to raise his children and grandchildren (wayyiqtol) and then
> resumed judging (wayyiqtol).  Oh, "clearly sequential."  Uh huh.
> Sure.  Get real.
> 
> > >   Ian mentioned the beginning of Ezekiel; Jonah 1:1 is
> > >likewise a problem, and I haven't seen any of the recent treatments
> > >deal with any of this.
> >
> > See my response to Ian. I think Page Kelly talks about this in his
> grammar
> > as well.
> 
> I didn't see a response to Ian on this subject, but the fact that Page
> Kelly might talk about it is meaningless in the present context.
> Every explanation I've seen of this phenomenon is badly contrived
> and frankly lame.  They just prove my point about ad hoc
> conventions developed in order to save the sequentiality idea.
> 
> > >The simple fact is that the WAYYIQTOL is not a "sequential" form
> > >and never was.
> >
> > Not according to virtually every other Hebrew grammarian including
> Driver,
> > GKC, Kelly, Juon Waltke and O'Connor.
> 
> Do you really suppose I haven't read them, Andrew?  You border on
> being insulting with this kind of condescension.  It was years of
> study of these grammars that pointed out to me the weakness of the
> theory.  And incidentally, it's Jouon, not Juon, and you need a
> comma after it.  I can be condescending, too <g>
> 
> > >   Even F. I. Andersen, in "The Sentence in Biblical
> > >Hebrew," while trying to preserve the idea of sequentiality, had to
> > >admit that in many, many cases the form begins a new section of
> > >narrative.  These kinds of exegetical back-flips are unnecessary
> > >unless one has some major stake in preserving the idea of inherent
> > >sequentiality.  If one does, one needs to get over it, to put it
> bluntly.
> >
> > Note that although the wayyiqtol form normally indicates sequence,
it
> does
> > on occasion begin a section which expounds the event just mentioned
ie.
> it
> > is used epexegetically. It may also have a pluperfect meaning. Both
> these
> > situations are easily detected by looking at the context.
> 
> Like Ibzan and Abdon, right?  Yup.  "Easily detected."  I suggest you
> read something beyond the basics.  You could start with Andersen,
> and then move on to my 1994 Hebrew Studies paper.  You are
> clearly one of those people who needs to "get over it."  A good basic
> book on linguistics would be a good investment, as well, something
> like Radford's "Transformational Grammar."  Andersen and I both
> show plenty of places where there is no connection between a
> wayyiqtol and what precedes.  Until your learning gets beyond this
> kind of simplistic regurgitation of what you've read, I don't think we
> can have a productive conversation.
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.