On Monday 29 November 2004 16:15, B. M. Rocine wrote:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your good question. I am always pleased when we discuss
specific
texts on this forum. You wrote:
> On Sunday 28 November 2004 06:57, B. M. Rocine wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Take your example of two wayyiqtols in Jer 51:29. The consensus among
>> the
>> five or six modern translators I checked is that the wayyiqtols are
>> non-past; they differ on whether to translate them as present or >> future.
>> I
>> quickly vote future with you. I do not, however, think the text is
>> evidence that the wayyiqtols are not perfective. The perfectivity of
>> the forms is utilized to explicitly embed sequentiality into the text.
>> I think
>> translations should use the word *then* or *so*: "Then the land will
>> quake, then it will writhe for the thoughts of YHWH stand against
>> Babel."
>
> Bryan,
> Would you insist that they use the word "then" or "so" in Judges > 12:9-14
> as
> well?
>
> --
> Dave Washburn
I suppose we might use "then," but I surely wouldn't insist on it or even
recommend it in all cases in the passage.
That's good, considering the mess it would cause :-) Starting in v.8, we
would have "Ibzan...judged Israel...then he had thirty sons and daughters,
then he married them all off, then he judged Israel [again!]...Elon judged,
then he judged [huh?]...Abdon judged, then he had 40 sons, then he judged [he
must have been exhausted by the time he reached this second judgeship!]"
I think you may be asking whether I think wyyqtl always represents a
sequence. I do not, but I still the best explanation of the form is that
it *means* sequence. I do *not* think the meaning of a form is only that
which is uncancelable. Such a standard does not allow for the chaos which
is bound to be evident in language use. So I can tolerate a fair handful
of exceptions to a verb form's meaning, especially if they are distributed
in a regular manner (patterned chaos? oy vey, have patience with me!).
You correctly discern my real question. Based on this paragraph, I'm not sure
what your definition of "meaning" is. I don't want to do a Clinton here, but
it seems to me that you're defining "means" in a somewhat different way than
several others here do. So I could do with some clarification so I can
follow you correctly. If "meaning" is not something uncancelable, what are
the circumstances in which (by which?) that "meaning" of a form may be
canceled? If sequence is encoded in the verb form, how does a speaker or
writer get around that?
If meaning is something other than something encoded
in the form, what exactly is it, and if it's not a hard-and-fast feature of
the form, how can we discern that it's there at all? These sorts of
questions are at the heart of my research, and I anxiously await your input.
Take for instance Jdg 12:11 vayyishpot 'axarav 'et yisra'el 'eylon
hazzebuloni vayyishpot 'et yisra'el `eser shanim
The same story time is covered twice by two successive wayyiqtol clauses.
In other words, stroy time does not move forward as we expect from a series
of wayyiqtols. It's easily negotiable for the reader though because both
clauses have the same kernel witht he same subject. If we have this series
in English:
Sam hit a homer.
Bill hit one out of the park.
we understand that first Sam hit a homer, and then Bill hit one. If we
have this series:
Sam hit a homer.
Sam hit one out of the park.
we understand that the second clause is elaborating on the first, even
though in English story telling, a second clause with a simple past verb
usually moves forward story time. (I am only speaking of English simple
past as an analogy. I am not equating the English simple past with the
wayyiqtol, even though both are used as the mainlines of narrative in their
respective languages.)
So if I follow your reasoning correctly, sequence (at least in the English
simple clause) is more a semantic and pragmatic matter than a syntactic one,
since in the first set we have a change of actor and in the second we
(presumably) don't. Am I with you so far?
I think the majority of the wayyiqtols that do not advance story time may
be found in one of the following three categories:
1. wayyiqtol of 'mr after a wayyiqtol expressing a verbal event, like
vayyiqr'a 'el YHVH vayyo'mer...
2. a second wayyiqtol paraphrases the first, like many times in the flood
narrative.
3. an identicle wayyiqtol covers the same story time as a previous
wayyiqtol.
We have a reference for 3, Judges 12:11 above. Could you just toss out one
for each of the others so we have something more concrete to play with?
Such cases do not negate the basic meaning of the wayyiqtol as a sequencer.
This is where I get bogged down in the question of what constitutes "meaning"
and how it may be canceled. Just to throw a couple of other grammarians into
the pot, Hatav's view of the wayyiqtol is that it advances R-time. The
Judges verse would seem to question that. Waltke-O'Connor describe the
wayyiqtol as "usually successive and always subordinate to a preceding
statement." F. I. Andersen, in his monograph "The Sentence in Biblical
Hebrew" way back in 1977, found profuse examples that call this into
question, particularly his "begin a new line of thought" use. For that
matter, Jonah 1:1 might easily contradict this idea, though that one is a
WYHY, and the verb "to be" behaves in strange and unpredictable ways in every
language with which I am familiar. Anyway, my point is that these various
grammarians have sought to find a solid "meaning" in the form, without real
success. So I'm interested to see how you have gotten around this problem
with your idea of "meaning" (basic or otherwise ;-)
Looking forward to your response,
--
Dave Washburn
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.