> 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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.