...Dave, are you denying that WAYYE$EB (at least in most cases) means "(and) he sat down", an action, and that W:HU' YO$EB (what we have in Gen 18:1) means "(and) he was sitting", a state? Or are you claiming that there is no semantic difference and that we can only tell from the context which was meant?
Surely I don't. Even before I understood the concepts of the various
grammatical
meanings, the word "wayye$eb" intrinsically conveyed to me, as a kid
reading the Bible in Hebrew, an *act* of sitting and not some stative verb
form.
So what? As a kid, you might have misunderstood it. I don't see the point here.
This is conveyed solely by the verb form.
Hardly. In nearly all places where it carries that connotation, it's conveyed mainly by context.
...
I think some of the discussions here should separate between personal theories that may be advanced by individual members on the
list, and which those same members may discuss, and the standard accepted
understanding which is what someone new to Biblical linguistics is
interested in knowing.
Excuse me? Are you trying to declare personal theories, which incidentally have been published in refereed journals and elsewhere, out of bounds? I guess you want to silence Rolf too, then, because he definitely has a personal theory that he presents often and politely here. My theory is another one. ...
...No, Yitzhak's interpretation does not require this, even if perhaps his wording was not clear. The rule of sequentiality applies only between two WAYYIQTOLs. A stative clause followed by a WAYYIQTOL does not, on anyone's interpretation, require that the state was terminated before the action of the WAYYIQTOL. Indeed I would suggest the opposite, that it implies at least in most cases that the state is still continuing at the time of the action.
YHWH appearing. That's an awfully short line! And the business about "aYes. Abraham was sitting, and then he looked up. What's the problem?
new line of events" ignores the fact that the next verb, "he lifted," is
another wayyiqtol. What's it sequential to? Abraham sitting?
Hardly. To get thatHuh? Why? How? Why does "lifting one's eyes" require Abraham to
you'd have to assume that Abraham stood up and then lifted his eyes,
stand up?
Because it's a wayyiqtol, and according to your presentation, the action of a wayyiqtol presents the next item in a sequence taking place after the previous action is completed. That's what you said, go back and reread your post. So the wayyiqtol "he lifted up his eyes" according to your own theory means that the action of being seated had to have been completed first, i.e. he stood up.
In addition, what's the first wayyiqtol in verse 1It is sequential to anything that happened previously. Being sequential
sequential to? Ishmael's circumcision? I think not. It begins a new
pericope, and isn't sequential to anything.
doesn't mean you have to know what the previous episode in the story
was. What you do assume is that anything that happened previously
is over. And that is the basic assumption of a new pericope.
Oh, nice cop-out! The fact is, it begins a new pericope, and in that position, sequentiality has nothing to do with it. ...
...
Hinneh is not a verb. Look at my other message. "wa" or "w:" will always
be there. But generally in conjuction with a verb it suggests serial,
sequential action. As a reprecussion of this, when it does not appear in
conjuction with a verb, it suggests non-sequential action.
I have no idea what you just said. First, I never said HINNEH was a verb. If you hadn't snipped the rest of my comment, that would have been clear. Second, I have no idea what you just said.
So what is your alternative, Dave? That he ran towards them before he saw them, while still looking down? The sequence of events given by the WAYYIQTOLs is in fact the only pragmatically possible one, that he looked up, he saw the three, and then he ran towards them. Of course there is a slight problem about how far away they were when he saw them, but that doesn't go away if you make this non-sequential.
...
Okay, you still haven't explained how a form that is always sequential to"Standing before him" doesn't mean they were an inch away. They could have
something else can begin a new line of events. You also haven't
explained why, if it's true that "by the time he looked up and sighted
them, they were already standing before him," he had to run to them. Running to them suggests that they were still a ways away.
been a yard or two away.
So he ran a yard or two? I hope he didn't wear himself out too badly. It still doesn't make sense. And I notice you conveniently skipped over the first part of that paragraph.
...
Huh? You don't like the theory because you have your own theory. However,
until your theory is accepted by most linguists, you should discuss your
theory amongst linguists. But if a new person comes and tries to
understand the passage, it is only reasonable to say, "Look, this is what
most linguists and almost everybody thinks it means. But I think something
else, based on various exceptions." And only then discuss your ideas.
Once again, I'd like to know what qualifies you to try and suppress someone else's theory on this list. If we're going to limit ourselves to supposedly standard theories and only stick alternate theories off in their own little ghetto, we're going to have a problem because there are about half a dozen such alternate theories running around here. ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.