From: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Double sentence--or topicalization
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:43:48 +0200
Title: Double sentence--or
topicalization
Dear BH-listmmbers,
In the previous days there has been some discussion about Exod. 16:6b
*`ereb wîda`tem*, and 1Kgs 15:13 *wegam 'et-ma`akâ 'immô
wayesireha*. I suggested that both are to be analyzed as "double
sentence" (protasis + apodosis) or constructions with
"casus pendens". Discussion is still going on in this list
concerning 1Kgs15:13 and its parallel 2 Chron. 16:15. From the
comparison of these two texts some scholars conclude that qatal is on
its way to replacing wayyiqtol as happens in Mishnaic Hebrew (not
however in Qumran Hebrew).
I think that this is not the case. I shall try again to show that
those two texts are actually double sentences or pendens
constructions.
Note that in both 1Kgs 15:13 and 2 Chron. 16:15 we find a feminine
pronominal suffix resuming the initial proper name, i.e. in
*wayesireha* as in *hesîrah* the suffix *ha / ah* resumes
*ma`akâ*. This means that in both cases the initial noun phrase
containing *ma`akâ* can not be the object of the verbs since they
already have an object. What is then the function of the initial noun
phrase?
Let us compare 1 Sam. 2:13 and 2:15:
- (13) [noun phrase] *kol-'i$ zobeax zebax* [main sentence] *ûba' na`ar hakkohen* "(As for) any man offering sacrifice
(i.e. when any man offered sacrifice), the priest's servant used to
come"
- (15) [complete sentence] *gam beTerem yaqTîrûn 'et-haxeleb* [main sentence] *ûba' na`ar
hakkohen* "Even before they burned the fat,
the priest's servant used to come".
We learn that, first, the noun phrase in 1 Sam. 2:13 is
interchangeable with a complete sentence having a subordinating
conjunction in (15), i.e. both play the same syntactic function
although they are grammatically different. Actually they have the
same main sentence.
Second, the noun-phrase is called a "casus pendes", or
"extra-posed", or "topicalized", or
"dislocated" element. It is not part of the main sentence.
Usually, but not always, it is represented in the main sentence by a
resumptive pronoun or adverb as is the case in 1Kgs 15:13 // 2 Chron.
16:15.
Third, the casus pendens preposed to the main sentence can be a noun
phrase as in 1Kgs 15:13 // 2 Chron. 16:15 and in 1 Sam 2:13, or noun
used adverbially as in Exod. 16:6b (*`ereb... boqer*), or a
subordinated sentence as in 1Sam. 2:15.
It can also be a preposition + infinitive as in 1 Sam. 17:55, 57:
- (55) [prepositional phrase] *wekir'ôt $a'ûl 'et-dawid* [main sentence] *'amar 'el-'abner* "As soon as Saul
saw David..., he said to Abner"
- (57) [prepositional phrase] *ûke$ûb dawid* [main sentence] *wayyiqqax 'otô
'abner* "And as soon as David returned..., Abner took
him".
We also learn from these passages that the interchangeability of
qatal and wayyiqtol is not a characteristic of late language. I
suggest that it is a characteristic of the "double
sentence", a special construction having the main sentence in
the second place. This is the reason why in this construction--and in
this construction only--the usual distinction between wayyiqtol
(mainline) and qatal (secondary line of communication) does not
apply. Both play exactly the same function.
May I add that both *wehayâ* and *wayehî* can be prefixed to the
double sentence. Consider Num. 21:8-9:
- (8) [direct speech] *wehayâ* + [casus pendens]
*kol-hanna$ûk* [main sentence] *wera'â 'otô
waxay* "And it shall happen: As
for every one who shall be bitten, he shal see it (i.e. the bronze
serpent) and shall live".
- (9) [narrative] *wehayâ* + [subordinate sentence] *'im-na$ak
hannaxa$ 'et-'î$* [main sentence] *ehibbiT 'et-nexa$
hannexo$et waxay* "And it used to happen: If a
serpent would have bitten someone, he would look at the bronze
serpent and would live".
Note that, first, the casus pendens in (8) interchanges with a
subordinate sentence in (9).
Second, weqatal functions both in direct speech and in historical
narrative; in the first case, it indicates simple future, in the
second custom (imperfective aspect, as opposed to qatal which
expresses perfective aspect).
Third, *wehayâ* is prefixed to the whole
of the double sentence, i.e.: It shall happen / used to happen
the-fact-that + double sentence.
Forth, qatal in the subordinate sentence of (9) indicates anteriority
to weqatal of the main sentence.
There is considerable disagreement among scholars regarding the
analysis of the double sentence, or whatever they prefer to call it.
Briefly, I think that the casus pendens (or the topicalized element)
does not carry any emphasis, or focus; it is not part of the
sentence; it amounts to a subordinate sentence. It is taken out of
the sentence to which it belongs (or plain sentence) to become a
topic that is afterwards explained in some way.
Here is how I would explain this process--a plain sentence is
topicalized in two different but equivalent ways:
- [plain sentence] The bitten person shall look at the bronze serpent
and shall live.
- [double sentence with casus pendens] As for the person who shall be
bitten, he shall look...
- [double sentence with subordinate sentence] If a person shall be
bitten, he shall look...
Ch. Bally, _Linguistique générale et linguistique française_
gave exactly this analysis for French (p. 65). The same applys to
every language:
"Cette dernière [i.e. the subordinate clause, or protasis]
peut être explicite: «Quant il pleut, je reste à la
maison» - «Si vous désobéissez, vous serez punis»,
etc. Ou bien on peut la mettre en lumière par échange fonctionnel
: «Il fait froid, nous ne sortirons pas» (=
«Puisqu'il fait froid»); «Par ce moyen, je
réussirai» (= «En procédant ainsi, si je procède
ainsi»); «Lentement, il avançait sur la route» (=
«En marchant lentement, pendant qu'il marchait lentement»)
() «Cet élève, je l'aime bien; cet
élève, je lui ai donné un livre; etc.»; ce cas a été
appelé nominativus pendens () mais () il est lui aussi
assimilable à une subordonnée (= «Pour cet élève, quant à
cet élève, puisqu'il est question de, s'il est question
de», etc.".
See my paper "Marked Syntactic Structures in Biblical Greek in
Comparison with Biblical Hebrew" in _Liber Annuus_ 43 (1993)
9-69.
Peace.
Alviero Niccacci
Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972
- 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax
+972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Professors Email
mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
Students Email
mailto:sbfstud AT netvision.net.il
o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o
Double sentence--or topicalization,
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 03/02/1999