The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach form Discourse Analysis [1 ed.] 9023230930, 9789023230939

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Preface
Abbreviations and Sigla
1. Introduction: A Survey and Method
2. One-Clause Verbal Utterances
3. Two-Clause Verbal Utterances
4. Three-Clause Verbal Utterances
5. Syntactic Relationship in Multiple-Clause
6. Syntactic Relationship in Volitive Clauses
7. Syntactic Relationship in Narration
8. Tense in the Subordinate Clause
9. Summary and Conclusions
Bibliography
Index of Authors
Index of Biblical Passages

Citation preview

THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF CLASSICAL HEBREW IN THE JOSEPH STORY

STUDIA SEMITICA NEERLANDICA edited by dr. W.J. van Bekkum, prof.dr. W.A.M. Beuken s.j., prof.dr. H. Daiber, dr. C.H.J. de Geus, prof.dr. J. Hoftijzer, prof.dr. T. Muraoka, prof.dr. K.A.D. Smelik, prof.dr. K. van der Toom and prof.dr. K.R. Veenhof. For publication in the series see page 351.

Submission of manuscripts

- Manuscripts should be submited to the senior editor of Van Gorcum Publishers, P.O. Box 43, 9400 AA Assen, the Netherlands. - Each manuscript submitted is reviewed by two reviewers. - The reviewers will not be identified to the authors.

Y oshinobu Endo

The verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story An Approach from Discourse Analysis

1996 Van Gorcum

©

1996 Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V., P.O.Box 43, 9400 AA Assen, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Publisher

CIP-DATA KONINKLUKE BIBLIOTHEEK, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

Endo, Yoshinobu The verbal system of classical Hebrew in the Joseph story : an approach from discourse analysis / Yoshinobu Endo. - Assen: Van Gorcum. - (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, ISSN 0081-6914; 32) NUGI 639 Subject headings: Hebrew ; verbal system ; Joseph story (Old Testament). ISBN 90 232 3093 0

Printed by: Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations and Sigla 1. INTRODUCTION: A SURVEY AND METHOD .................................................. 1 1.1. The Aspectual Approach ......................................................................... 2 1.2. The Historical-Comparative Approach ........................................... 11 1.3. The Discourse Analysis Approach .................................................... 18 1.4. Remarks ....................................................................................................... 26 1.5. Method and Corpus ................................................................................. 29 2. ONE-CIAUSE VERBAL UTTERANCES .......................................................... 34 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 34 2.2. The Suffix Conjugation........................................................................... 34 2.2.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) ....................................................... 35 2.2.2. Tense ................................................................................................ -36 2.2.3. Aspect ................................................................................................ 42 2.3. The Prefix Conjugation .......................................................................... 45 2.3.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) .......................................................46 2.3.2. Tense-Aspect-Modality.............................................................. 47 2.4. Overall Issues (the Suffix and Prefix Conjugations) ................. 50 2.4.1. Type of Clause ................................................................................ 50 2.4.2. Affirmative and Negative ......................................................... 51 2.5. An Additional Note on One-Clause Verbal Utterance from Gen.1-36 .................................................................................................... 52 2.5.1. TheSuffixConjugation................................................................ 52 2.5.1.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) ............................................. 53 2.5.1.2. Tense ........................................................................................ 53 2.5.1.3. Aspect ...................................................................................... 55 2.5.2. The Prefix Conjugation ............................................................... 56 2.5.2.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) ............................................. 56 2.5.2.2. Tense ........................................................................................ 57 2.5.2.3. Aspect ...................................................................................... 60 2.6. Summary and Remarks......................................................................... 62 3. TWO-CIAUSE VERBAL UTTERANCES ......................................................... 65 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 65 3.2. With the Suffix Conjugations .............................................................. 71 3.2.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) ....................................................... 72 3.2.2. Tense ................................................................................................ _72 3.2.3. Aspect ................................................................................................ 7 4 3.3. With the Prefix Conjugations .............................................................. 77 3.3.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) ....................................................... 78 3.3.2. Tense ................................................................................................ _79 V

3.3.3. Aspect ................................................................................................ 80 3.4. The Suffix Conjugation and the Prefix Conjugation................... 81 3.4.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) ....................................................... 81 3.4.2. Tense ................................................................................................ _82 3.4.3. Aspect ................................................................................................ 82 3.5. Syntactic Relationship (Non-Sequential or Sequential) ........... 82 3.5.1. WithoutConjunction .................................................................... 83 3.5.1.1. Without Any Connectives ................................................ 83 3.5.1.2. With Particle ......................................................................... 84 3.5.2. With Conjunction ........................................................................... 85 3.5.2.1. QATAL- waw-VERBLESS................................................. 85 3.5.2.2. QATAL- waw-(x-)Active PTC ....................................... 92 3.5.2.3. VERBLESS - waw-x-YIQTOL............................................ 93 3.5.2.4. IMPV. - waYIQTOL ............................................................. 94 3.5.2.5. YIQTOL - waQATAL............................................................ 95 3.6. Summary ..................................................................................................... 97 4. THREE-CIAUSE VERBAL UTTERANCES .................................................. 100 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 100 4.2. With the Suffix Conjugation ............................................................. 100 4.2.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) .................................................... 101 4.2.2. Tense ............................................................................................... 102 4.2.3. Aspect ............................................................................................. 103 4.3. With the Prefix Conjugation ............................................................. 104 4.3.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) .................................................... 105 4.3.2. Tense ............................................................................................... 105 4.3.3. Aspect ............................................................................................. 107 4.4. With the Suffix Conjugation and the Prefix Conjugation ..... 107 4.4.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) .................................................... 108 4.4.2. Tense ............................................................................................... 108 4.4.3. Aspect ............................................................................................. 108 4.5. Syntactic Relationship (Non-Sequential or Sequential) ........ 109 4.5.1. With the Suffix Conjugation .................................................. 110 4.5.1.1. WithoutConjunction ....................................................... 110 4.5.1.2. With Conjunction .............................................................. 111 4.5.2. With the Prefix Conjugation .................................................. 111 4.5.2.1. Without Conjunction ....................................................... 111 4.5.2.2. With Conjunction .............................................................. 112 4.5.3. With the Suffix and Prefix Conjugations.......................... 113 4.6. Summary ................................................................................................ -115 5. SYNTACTIC RELATIONSHIP IN MULTIPLE-CLAUSE ........................ 117 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 117 5.2. Sequential Forms .................................................................................. 118 5.2.1. In the Past Context.................................................................... 118 5.2.2. In the Future (or Modal) Context........................................ 125 VI

5.2.3. Summary ( 1 )................................................................................ 129 5.3. Circumstantial Clause in the Sequential Context ..................... 130 5.3.1. In the Past Context (QATAL _..., waYYIQTOL) .................. 130 5.3.2. In the Future Context (YIQTOL _..., waQATAL) ............... 141 5.3.3. Nominal Clause as a Circumstantial Clause ..................... 142 5.3.4. Summary (2) ................................................................................ 145 5.4. Goal/Explicative Clause in the Sequential Context ................. 146 5.4.1. In the Past Context (waYYIQTOL _..., (wa)QATAL) ........ 146 5.4.2. In the Future Context (waQATAL __.., YIQTOL) ............... 151 5.4.3. Nominal Clause as a Goal Clause .......................................... 153 5.4.4. Summary (3) ................................................................................ 153 S.S. Excursus: Sequence in the Present Context ............................... 154 5.6. ComplexSequences .............................................................................. 161 5.6.1. Combination (Circumstantial and Goal) ............................ 161 5.6.2. Chain of Non-Sequential Forms ........................................... 162 5.6.2.1. QATAL - QATAL in the Past Context. ...................... 162 5.6.2.2. YIQTOL- YIQTOL in the Future/Modal Context_ 169 5.6.3. Conditional Sentence in the Sequence .............................. 172 5.6.4. With "l"'i"i and l"'i"l"'ii (Temporal) Clauses ............................ 176 5.6.4.1. With "l"'i'i .............................................................................. 179 5.6.4.2. With l"'i"l"'ii ............................................................................. 182 5.6.5. Summary (4) ................................................................................ 186 5.7. Summary and Remarks ...................................................................... 188 6. SYNTACTIC RELATIONSHIP IN VOLITNE CLAUSES ....................... 191 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 191 6.2. IMPV - IMPV ......................................................................................... 193 6.3. JUSS - JUSS ............................................................................................... 204 6.4. COH - COH ................................................................................................. 207 6.5. With waQATAL ...................................................................................... 210 6.5.1. IMPV - waQATAL...................................................................... 211 6.5.2. JUSS - waQj\TAL ........................................................................ 212 6.6. waQj\TAL(s) as the Pseudo-Independent Form(s) ................ 215 6. 7. Combinations .......................................................................................... 219 6.7.1. IMPV with Other Independent Volitive Form(s) ......... 220 6.7.2. With waQATAL as the Sequential Volitive Form......... 227 6.8. Summary ................................................................................................ _ 230 7. SYNTACTIC RELATIONSHIP IN NARRATION ....................................... 232 7.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 232 7.2. Non-Sequential Form .......................................................................... 238 7.2.1. QATAL for Off-the-Line Material ....................................... 238 7 .2.2. NominalNerbless Clause as Off-the-Line Material .... 241 7.2.3. Summary (1) ................................................................................ 244 VII

7.3. Sequential Form .................................................................................... 244 7.3.1. waYYIQTOL for On-the-Line Material... ............................ 244 7.3.1.1. Simple Succession (Temporal/Logical) ................... 246 7.3.1.2. Simultaneous Action ....................................................... 250 7.3.1.3. Complex Link ..................................................................... 252 7.3.1.4. The waYYIQTOL as an Ending Form ......................... 260 7.3.1.4.1. Foreshadowing/Fade-Out.................................... 260 7.3.1.4.2. Insertion of Embedded Direct Speech ........... 264 7.3.1.4.3. Insertion of Material Using the NonSequential Form.......................................................................... 266 7.3.2. waYYIQTOL for Off-the-Line Material.............................. 266 7.3.2.1. Pseudo-Independent Form .......................................... 266 7.3.2.2. The Temporal Clause with waYYIQTOL. ................. 270 7.3.2.3. waYYIQTOL with a Stative Sense .............................. 271 7.3.2.4. yhyw Clause as a Temporal Clause........................... 273 7.3.2.5. Antithetical Linkage ....................................................... 27 4 7.3.2.6. Preview/Explication/Insertion by waYYIQTOL_ 276 7.3.3. Summary (2) ................................................................................ 280 7.4. Sequential Forms Followed/Preceded by Non-Sequential Form .................................................................................................................... 282 7.4.1. QATAL/VERBLESS/PTC for Off-the-Line Material ...................................................................................................... 282 7.4.1.1. (x-)QATAL--+ waYYIQTOL(s) ....................................... 282 7.4.1.2. VERBLESS/PTC--+ waYYIQTOL(s) ............................... 285 7.4.2. QATAL/VERBLESS/PTC for On-the-Line Material....... 285 7.4.2.1. waYYIQTOL(s)--+ (x-)QATAL....................................... 285 7.4.2.2. waYYIQTOL(s) --+ VERBLESS/PTC. .............................. 290 7.4.3. Summary (3) ................................................................................ 292 7.5. Link by Non-Sequential Forms (Two-Member Chain) .......... 292 7.5.1. Two-Member Chain .................................................................. 293 7 .5.2. Summary (4 )................................................................................ 295 7.6. Summary and Remarks ...................................................................... 296 8. TENSE IN THE SUBORDINATE CLAUSE ................................................... 298 8.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 298 8.2. Subordinate Clause with One-Clause ............................................ 299 8.3. Subordinate Clause with Two or More Clauses ........................ 314 8.4. Summary ................................................................................................ _ 31 7 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ _ 319 9.1. Word Order, Tense and Aspect ....................................................... 320 9.2. Sequentiality & Non-Sequentiality ............................................... 321 9.3. Composition of Hebrew Verbal Utterances ................................ 322 9.4. Background vs. Foreground .............................................................. 324 9.5. Tense in the Subordinate Clause .................................................... 324

VIII

Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 326 Index of Authors ................................................................................................. 341 Index of Biblical Passages ................................................................................ 344

IX

PREFACE This is a revised version of my dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1993. The completion of this monograph is surely a time for gratitude to God for his "iOM in enabling this work to be completed. I should like particularly to express my sincere thanks to Dr. G.J. Wenham, my supervisor, for his painstaking reading of many preliminary drafts of this work and numerous suggestions for improvement. Also I am indebted to my second supervisor Rev. Prof. J.C.L. Gibson of University of Edinburgh for his helpful criticism and warmhearted encouragement. My thanks are due also to Dr. D.T. Tsumura, who introduced me to the world of Semitic languages and discourse grammar at Japan Bible Seminary. My interest in this topic was originally aroused by him. I am also grateful to Prof. T. Muraoka, Dr. W.G.E. Watson and Mr. D.F. Payne, who offered many valuable criticisms and corrections. For the remaining obscurities and imperfections, I must be held wholly responsible myself. A generous research grant from Tyndale House Council and both physical and spiritual support from the congregation of St. Matthew's church in Cheltenham also made it possible to complete this work. I thank the Evangelical Alliance Mission churches in Japan for their support and for allowing me five years leave of absence for my study abroad in U.S. and U.K. To my parents, Rev. and Mrs. M. Endo, and my parents-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. I. Takashima, in Japan, goes my hearty gratitude for their neverfailing support and prayer. Last but not least, with a full heart I thank my God for the unfaltering love, support, encouragement of my wife Yoshiko, who has shared both suffering and joy ever since our ministerial life began in Japan. 7"~!l', •::::i', ji")i1i "!l-,i~N ji3i', i"i1"

,~ ~· c•',m,

•',N)i •ii3 i1ii1•

Yoshinobu Endo August 1995 Japan Bible Seminary

X

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA

Bibliographical

AB

Anchor Bible

AAL Acor AHw AJSL

Mroasia tic Linguistics Acta Orien talia W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch, 1965-81 American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

AnOr

Analecta Orientalia

ASTJ

Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

ATSAT

Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament

BASOR BASS

CCC

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Beitrage zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft Biblica Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Orientalis Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies The Bible Translator Beihefte zur ZA W Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Catholic Biblical Quarterly College Composition and Communication

EA

El-Amarna tablets

FLg. FuF GKC

HS

Foundation of Language Forsch ungen und Fortschritte, Berlin W. Gesenius and E. Kautzsch. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Trans. A.E. Cowley, 1910. Hebrew Annual Review Hebrew Studies

HSS

Harvard Semitic Studies

HUCA

lBHS

Hebrew Union College Annual B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 1990.

ICC

International Critical Commentary

Bib BN

ro

BSO(A)S BT

BZAW CAD

C«2

HAR

XI

!OS !TL JAAR JANESCU JAOS ]BL JBLMS ]NFS

JNSL ]QR JSDP

JSOTSS

Israel Oriental Studies J. Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, 1968. Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review R.E. Longacre, Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence, 1989. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies P. Joiion, Grammaire de l'hebreu biblique, 1923.

JSS Joi.ion JoiionMuraoka P. Joiion - T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 1991. KAI H. Donner & W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramaische Jnschriften I-III, 1962-1968. King James Version KJV Lambdin T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 1971. Lg. Language LXX Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Academiae Litteratum Gottingensis editum. Gottingen 1931. Ma MAARAV NASB New American Standard Bible NIV New International Version Orien talische Literaturzeitung OLZ Oud-testamentische Studien ms Orientalia Or OrSuec Orien talia Suecana Revue des Etudes juives REI RSV Revised Standard Version RSO Rivista degli Studi Orien tali

XII

SBFA SBFLA SBH Scand]OT ScrHier

SSN

ssu SVCHP

ThDiss

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta St]Jdii biblici franciscani liber annuus

F.I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 197 4. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scripta Hierosolymitana

Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studia Semitica Upsaliensia A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 1990. Theologische Dissertationen

UF

Ugarit-Forschungen

UT

C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 1965.

VT VTS

Williams ZAH

ZAW ZDMG ZP

Vetus Testamentum

Vetus Testamentum Supplementum R.J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 1976 Zeitschrift fiir Althebraistik Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift fiir Phonetik

Other

adj. coh. conj. impf. impf. cs. impv. inf.ab. inf.c. juss. pf. pf. cs.

adjective ptc. ! (or---) cohortative conjunction J (or-) imperfect imperfect consecutive imperative infinitive absolute ,on 'ilnn

C'l1ll17 ~;,iT ·rr~iT A'

:•

,TT

_, .•.

cii y-:

Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot (pf.). And also behold, she is with child by harlotry.

42:28a '90:> JW1iT 'nnno1tJ iT3iT c1, •

A"

:

-

:

-

:

J-

-

J .. •

:

,-:

My money has been returned (pf.). And behold, it is even in my sack.

40:Sa

iJo?n cit;,n ifl~ l'J ,~!31 J :

-

T

J

-:

We have dreamed (pf.) a dream, but there is no one to interpret (ptc.) it.

In the first two examples both utterances are simply juxtaposed and the suffix conjugations (i.e. QATAL), which denote the past tense, can be clearly considered as independent forms. This observation is strongly supported by the presence of i1rr CJ after the conjunction. Here, again in the deeper sense the second utterance supplies supportive (or additional) information for the first one. On the other hand, so far as the third example (40:8a) is concerned, the second utterance is the antithesis of the first one.30 There are two possible interpretations of the relationship between these clauses: 1) to see two assertions which are equally important facts, which are simply juxtaposed with the conjunction (i.e. "We had dreams; And there is no one to interpret it.") In this case we observe that the second utterance is the speaker's main intention in the deeper sense; 2) to see a single assertion in which the leading clause functions as a circumstantial clause3 1 (or subordinate clause) for the second (i.e. "Though we had dreams, 30cf. SBH, 181-182. 3lcf. SBH, 82-83. Here Andersen tries to see the second utterance as a

circumstantial clause probably in the deeper context, and he does not treat the relationship with the preceding clause.

86

there is no one to interpret."). In this case the speaker's main intention may be signified syntactically, and we do not need to come down to the deeper level in order to observe the relationship between the two clauses. Either way it seems that in the past context the leading clause, which includes the suffix conjugation (i.e. x-QATAL), is supportive information for the following clause. This is the reverse of the case of coordination in 38:24 and 42:28a. Furthermore, in this example, the latter interpretation might be appropriate, since the word order of the second utterance is inverted (i.e. not waw- ·'en - ptc., but waw- ptc. - ·'e,1, probably, in order to secure the closer link with the preceding clause. ConsiderGen.41:15, in which a quite similar construction may be observed: Gen.41:15

9Qi'-?~ 'il!Jl~ ,~~~] ,f,l!l1 '~'?7rJ ci7q n >

J'J ,tiN:7 9'7~ '~~~~ '~~]

ifl~

:in~ ,n!l? ci?" I

,

:

•

'

-:

(2)

!i.!~wri ,-

:

•

And Pharaoh said (impf.cs.) to Joseph, "I have dreamed (pf.) a dream, but there is no one to interpret it; But I have heard (pf.) it said about you, that when you hear (impf.) a dream you can interpret it.

Here, it is obvious that the relationship between '~'?711 ci7q and ,f,)!31 is different from the relationship between (1) and (2) (i.e. coordination). In fact, (2) starts with the stated subject (i.e.'~~]), beginning the new literary unit. From this point of view, (1), which includes two clauses, can be considered as a single unit. Again, in (1) the first clause might function as a circumstantial clause for the second:

ifl~

r,

(1) a. Though I have dreamed a dream, [circumstantial]

b. there is no one to interpret it; [main clause] (2) a'. But I have heard it said about [main clause] you, that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.

87

7__

~

or

:] coordination

I

However, in the above examples (including 40:8), F.I. Andersen considers the second (i.e. ipN: T'J ,~!>~) a circumstantial clause.32 R.E. Longacre also observes that the thesis (i.e. Ci?Q '':1~7f]IIJQ71J), which has a noun + perfect, outranks the antithesis (i.e. if!N: J'J ,~!>~), which has a nominal clause, according to his "verb rank" theory.33 He calls this example "fore-weighted."3 4 That is, he considers that the thesis is closer to the story line, and the antithesis serves as subsequent information. According to him, these examples belong to the staging of the episode, and these utterances are used for broaching to Joseph the subject that was troubling the speakers. In this sense he has given greater prominence to the thesis rather than to the antithesis. Thus, especially for the latter example he draws the following diagram, saying, "Here the embedded paragraph is of the fore-weighted variety, while the embedding paragraph is equi-weighted (noun+ perfect in thesis of thesis and in the main antithesis). The whole unit serves Pharaoh as an opening to broach to Joseph the subject that is bothering him."35 Thesis: Narrative Antithetical Paragraph Thesis: !)ifkim (lalamtl I've dreamed a dream Antithesis: Opoter Jen and interpreter [there is] none of it Antithesis: ~Vi?·'anl samactj cafeka /e9nor t ism;;7c (la/om but I I heard concerning you that you hear a dream lip tor coto to interpret it

32SBH,83. 33JSDP, 64-82. As mentioned, Longacre's theory is based on the so-called

"Foregrounding - Backgrounding Hypothesis." P.J. Hopper, who originally suggested this theory, says that it is evidently a universal of narrative discourse that in any extended text an overt distinction is made between the language of the actual story line and the language of supportive material which does not itself narrate the main events." And he called the former "foreground" and the latter "background". Longacre says, " ...one particular tense is favored as the carrier of the backbone or storyline of the story while other tenses serve to present the background, supportive, and depictive material in the story ( 64)." And he draws a verb rank scheme, describing this verbal hierarchy. 34JSDP, 104-105. 35 JSDP, 105.

88

In fact, the subject that is bothering both speakers may be the fact that they had a dream rather than the fact that there is no interpreter. On first sight, the former clause narrates a fact that belongs to the main stream of events and the latter may be considered a speaker's comment. This may be because QATAL in the first clause is an action verb and the latter is static (i.e. Verbless clause is used for indicating a state rather than an action.). In this sense we may say that the former outranks the latter, or the latter functions as a circumstantial clause. Thus, Andersen's definition of a "circumstantial clause" or Longacre's way of describing the relationship between these two clauses may be different. J. Blau defines "circumstantial clause" as follows: Circumstantial clauses exhibit the transition from coordinate to subordinate clauses. As a rule, they begin with the subject, and are connected by W8with the preceding main clause ... [Or] the circumstantial clause may precede the main clause, which is connected to it by wa.. [And] a (preceding) circumstantial clause may serve as an adverbial clause in the pattern wayhT- adverbial clause ii:...36 He lists Gen.39:11 as an example of circumstantial clause, explaining, "Sometimes, they can be distinguished from coordinate clauses by change of tense, as Gen 39,11 ...~~~iJ l!t)!l

n~;:pi c~ n~#iJ ,W.~~ W'~ T'~J (note that in this case the subject of the circumstantial clause does not enjoy frontal position!) "he came into the house... , while nobody [sic] of the men of the house was there in the house", exhibiting wayyq_t /in the main clause in contrast with a nominal circumstantial clause."37 In fact, the nominal clause like "None of the men of the house was there in the house." may, at least, function as a setting or supportive information for the entire story (i.e. The story of 36J. Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Porta Llnguarum, Series Practica 231 (1976), 108. Cf. J.F.A. Sawyer, A Modern Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, (1976), 137. 37J. Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 108.

89

Joseph with Potiphar's wife). However, it is difficult to decide whether we should translate it as "(When) he came into the house ... , nobody was there... " or as "He came into the house ... , while nobody was there ... ". In the former case the first clause comes to be considered as a circumstantial clause for the second. In fact, in the narrative sequence, the early clause may often function as supportive information for the following. In addition, Blau and other scholars define circumstantial clauses as beginning with the subject, and even if the word order of this nominal clause, which begins with is normal, the following examples differ:

r~.

Gen. 41:8

ib,n-n~ 'oil, iT~is itl0'1

m;,1~7 crii~- ,n;e..'.r~~J -~ -:-

Pharaoh told (impf.cs.) them his dreams, but no-one could interpret (VERBLESS) them for him.

Gen.41:24

C'D!!liniT-,~ ,~~,

:;~·- ~;i~ l'~J i

IT

I told (impf.cs.) this to the magicians, but none could explain (VERBLESS) it to me.

These two examples appear at the end of literary unit. It is difficult to say that the second clause functions as a circumstantial clause. In fact, F.I. Andersen observes that the second clause (especially in 41:8) is consequential.38 In any case, we should not confuse the semantic position of the clause within a smallest expression of a complete thought such as a sentence with that of the clause within a discourse or a story as a whole. Now, let us return to the examples of Gen. 40:8a and 41:15. Here, we should examine the deeper structure between these two utterances within the dialogue; we consider the relationship between the speech and the response by the addressee as a speech act. It is not determined by the relationship between the speech and the story line which is intended by the author or the 3BsBH,83.

90

narrator.39 On our understanding what bothers them is not the dream, but the lack of an interpreter. Here, as mentioned above, the thesis and the antithesis (i.e. ' :'11?71J/~ll?71J ci7q and iflN: ,~!>~) may be considered to be a single unit. We should note that both examples are, in fact, individual direct speeches which are self-contained literary units. Thus, especially the syntactic structure may independently be determined within the direct speech itself. Therefore, in direct speech we have to consider the plot (i.e. main line) which is intended by the speaker rather than the overall structure intended by the author. Otherwise, we conclude that the syntactic structure or verbal forms in the direct speech is also always determined or controlled by the author's overall intention. It may not allow us to consider the possibility of embedding original spoken words into the narrative, though, of course, it may be often modified by the author. However, we do sometimes quote someone's speech directly in nonfiction or report. At any rate, in the case of Gen.40:8, the response by Joseph as an addressee shows how he received the speaker's main message. Here, Joseph says, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" That is, therefore, it is clear that this addressee accurately responds to the speaker's main intention, "There is no one to interpret their dream." In the latter example (41:15) we have to observe the relationship between (1) and (2) within the direct speech (see our diagram above.). Both (1) and (2) are equally important facts (i.e. equi-weighted or coordination) (or (1) as a whole functions as a circumstantial clause for (2)) at the surface level, and they (i.e. (1) and (2)) form an antithesis. 4 0 Here we clearly observe that the fact that there is no one to interpret Pharaoh's dream is in antithesis with the content of (2) (i.e. Pharaoh heard that Joseph can interpret it!). Thus, from this point of view, the x-QATAL

r~

391n these examples it is ambiguous whether the main story line/plot is recognized by Longacre in the text itself (i.e. in the author's mind) or in the speaker's mind. 40cf. D. Michel, Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen, 99.

91

clause functions as a supportive material (i.e. circumstantial clause) to the nominal clause.41 Now, returning to the issue of the verbal form in 40:8a, even though we acknowledge an antithetical link/sequence between the two clauses (i.e. x-QATAL --+ waw-VERBLESS) as observed above, the suffix conjugation is employed for the sphere of the past with a complete sense. In other words, in this case the suggested system of tense and aspect works in this conjugation. Also there is enough evidence to prove that the suffix conjugation in the past context functions as a non-sequential form (e.g. QATAL in 38:24a, 26; 41:41; 42:28a, etc.). Thus, one may explain that in a particular situation the non-sequential form could be used in a verbal chain.

3.5.2.2. QATAL - waw-(x-)Active PTC. 37:9

,;:i., 'ci?n 'rlO?n iT~iT ,, c'innwo c,i:,i:> ',w~ ,n~, ni~i'T, ~-~~~, if~~, I'

.._. -: -

:

I"

"

T

I

T

T

,c- -

:

-

""T -

:

"." J"." -

I"" " :

Lo, I have dreamed (pf.) still another dream.

And behold, the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down (ptc.) to me.

In this example two utterances are simply juxtaposed. The suffix conjugation (i.e.QATAL) is also an independent form because of the presence of i!~iJJ in the second utterance, though at

41In this connection, Longacre treats various antithetical paragraphs. But most of his examples are either juxtaposed clauses or sequential clauses (see JSDP, 102-106). In a sense it is true when he says, "Both the coordinate and the antithetical paragraph types are broadly coordinate in structure, that is, neither part is semantically subordinated to the other (JSDP, 100)." His first three examples (i.e. Gen.41:13, 44:12 and 45:22) may, however, be classified in the category of coordination, since both word order and verbal form are the same in the first and the second clauses, where both parts are equally important (cf. "equi-weighted" = Either have equal rank according to Longacre's verb rank scheme; see JSDP, 80-81, 100 and 106107). In fact, Andersen classifies all of them not as antithesis, but as either coordination or apposition (cf. SBH, 50, 68, 152 and 158 for 41:13; 49 for 44:12; SO and 100 for 45:22). Longacre's examples are actually different from our example. It seems that his other examples (i.e. 37:34-35, 37:11 and 40:21-22) should be treated as a sequential form, since the first clause is followed by the narrative (verbal) form (i.e. waYYIQTOL). We shall discuss this matter in detail in the study of the narrative section (chap. 7).

92

the deeper level the content of the second clause is the embodiment of the leading clause.

3.5.2.3. VERBLESS - waw-x-YIQTOL

41:44

its,,!! C~J~~ y~-7~~ i7r,-n~J i1~-n~ W't.t C'7~-N:7

'lit

9'7~~j,

I am Pharaoh. And without your permission no one shall raise (impf.) his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.

In this example there are two possible interpretations of the syntactic relation between the two clauses: 1) If we take the first clause (i.e. iT~l!;I ~~~) as an idiomatic authoritative expression ("Hoheitsaussage" cf. Westermann, Genesis 37-50, 99.) when the king or Pharaoh declares a decree or commandment with implicit sanctions,42 we see a simple juxtaposition in this utterance. In this case we can say that waw-x-YIQTOL, which has a modal sense, is an independent form. Probably LXX, RSV and KJV adopt this interpretation (i.e. "I am Pharaoh; (and) without... "). 2) If we understand that in the first clause there is a deeper meaning like "I am the only Pharaoh or king who essentially holds authority over Egypt.", impressing on Joseph Pharaoh's sovereignty, we may observe an antithetical relation between the two clauses (i.e. "I am Pharaoh, but without ... " cf. NASB; NN; AB, etc.). In this case we may say that the first clause (i.e VERBLESS) is a circumstantial to the second clause (i.e. waw-x-YIQTOL) which has a modal sense. However, interpretation 1) is more likely because of its social context and analogies such as "I am YHWH." in Ex. 6:2, 6, 8, etc. 43

42cf. E.I. Lowenthal, The Joseph Narrative in Genesis (1973), 57. C. Westermann, Genesis 37-50, Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 13 (1982), 99. 43towenthal, The Joseph Narrative in Genesis, 26 in notes to Gen.41, 178.

93

3.5.2.4. IMPV. - waYIQTOL44 38:24b

.

irnt'::£iil ' .

9:l~".11

J

Bring her out (impv.), and let her be burned (impf.).

48:9b ,i,N: N:J-cm, r,T c:::>,::iN:i -:T -:, - ••

~T

"."

I""

Bring (impv.) them to me, please. And 1 will bless (impf.) them.

In 38:24 one may observe that the two clauses form a successive link (i.e. Impv.- waYIQTOL). However, the waYIQTOL form with modal sense (i.e. cohortative) in 48:9b may not be functioning as a sequential form. Thus, it is difficult to classify the waYIQTOL form with modal sense (i.e. jussive) as a sequential form. In this case some translators observe that the second clause is consequential. This may be correct in the deeper sense (see our English example d) in § 3.1.). However the first clause (imperative) may be an independent form since it has a precative particle N:~- which often appears with a single independent clause (e.g. 24:17; 30:14; 32:30a; 38:25; 45:4,.etc.). Therefore, the imperative form and the waYIQTOL form are both non-sequential forms in the modal/hortatory context. But, again, in a particular situation the non-sequential form seems to be employed in a verbal chain.

44cf. H.M. Orlinsky, "On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew," ]QR 31-32 (1940-1941, 1941-1942), 371382, 191-205 and273-277.

94

3.5.2.5. YIQTOL - waQATAL 50:25 (cf. Ex.13:19) c~~~ 'c,if,~

,p~? ,p~

i1°!~ 'E]b~~n'l~ Cf.:)7~iJJ l

(When) God will surely take care (inf.ab. + impf.) of you, you shall carry my bones up (pf.cs.) from here.

In the above case, there are two possible observations about the syntactic relation between the two clauses: 1) the two clauses are simply juxtaposed (coordination). The first clause expresses a future event in which Joseph assures his brothers of God's promise on the one hand, and on the other hand the second clause is a request of Joseph (e.g. NASB; RSV; KJV, etc.); 2) The first clause works as a circumstantial (or temporal) clause to the second (e.g. AB; Westermann; LXX; probably NN, etc.). waQATAL in the second clause is taken as a continuation form, which is preceded by a modal form x-YIQTOL.45 Either way the expression of the first clause (i.e. ,p~?: "take care") is premised on Joseph's previous assurance/prediction in the fulfuiment of the divine promise, i.e. God will take Israel up out of Egypt to Canaan (50:24; cf. 15:16, 18; 46:4). One could also see that Joseph's speech in verse 25 is a continuation from verse 24 where Joseph already mentions God's future promise to his brothers. Joseph's entire speech (i.e. verse 24 plus verse 25) is interrupted by the narration "And Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath and said... ". This means that the content of the other half of his speech (i.e. the direct speech in verse 25 as a whole) is his request. Otherwise his speech may be redundant, especially if we take the first clause to have more or less the same content as the one in verse 24. To be more exact, Joseph's request (i.e. swearing) has something to do with the second clause rather than with both two clauses in the direct speech of verse 25. Thus, the above second interpretation seems preferable. In fact, one can often observe the sequence YIQTOL -+ waQATAL in the future/modal context where the first clause functions semantically as a stepping stone (or circumstantial 45Cf. SVCHP, 88-96. 95

clause) for the second. In other words, the first clause (YIQTOL) may function as a verbal complement to the following main clause (waQATAL). Consider: Gen.50:24b

mtliJ

C~~~ 11?~~ 1/?~ C'~?~J f7fi:q~ 'c:?,~~ iT~~iJJ i

But God will surely come (impf.) to your aid and take you up (pf.cs.) out of this land...

Deut.8:12

~~.d4'J ?~lttrq~

:n:nz;,, m::m T :

ITT:

,:: :

'

C'J ;~ C'nJ, >"' /" T

Lest, when you eat (impf.) and are satisfied (pf.cs.), and build (impf.) fine houses and settle down (pf.cs.),

Moreover, there is enough evidence to prove that the waQATAL form is a sequential form46 in the Hebrew Bible. As we shall observe in detail in the next chapter, some waQATAL forms are often employed to form a sequence in the non-past context. For example: Gen.48:4

: c~il'

1~,,~li'.TJ

O'P~ ?_r.rp7 9'~~~~ mt?iJ f7~iTrl~ '~~}J t t}llJ~ '9'::)0lt ;[~717

i

and make you numerous (pf.cs.), and make you (pf.cs.) a company of peoples, and give (pf.cs.) this land to your seed after you for an everlasting possession.

However in 50:25 (also Gen.50:24b and Deut.8:12) we should also pay attention to the function of the YIQTOL form as a nonsequential form. When a non-sequential form is followed by a sequential form, the "standing still" nature of the non-sequential form is highlighted in a contrast with the sequential form. This 46 Note our definition of the concepts 'sequential' and 'non-sequential' (see

§ 3.1.): non-sequential (stable): it stops the flow of the story, standing still; sequential (unstable) : it lets the story flow on, looking forward to the next clause. Because of this definition even the first verb in a tread of discourse can be sequential.

96

feature might be skilfully exploited to signal the difference in the discourse level between clauses. In this connection as we shall also discuss in detail later (see § 5.3.1 ), it is interesting to note that in the past context in the sequence QATAL--+ waYYIQTOL the QATAL form functions as a circumstantial clause or a temporal clause. Consider: 1Sam.14:52b47

t;,~rrp-t;,~J -,;J.~ w,~-t;,~ t;,~iq; iTi$lJ

:,,i~ n~9lt~J J

And (when) Saul saw (QATAL) any mighty man or any valiant man, he attached (waYYIQTOL) him to his staff.

To sum up, as in Gen. 50:25, in the future context the suffix conjugation instead of the YIQTOL form may be employed. In this case, as noted above, tense and aspect do not appear to determine the choice of the YIQTOL form or the waQATAL form. However, the waQATAL form, which expresses future/modal sense (e.g. obligation, etc.), seems to function as a sequential form, while the YIQTOL form with modal/future sense works as a non-sequential form. In other words, the sequentiality seems to signal the functional difference between two forms.

3.6. Summary The results of our present observations are basically the same as those of one-clause verbal utterances: The fronting of a constituent of the clause (e.g. subject, object, adverbial, etc.) seems to function as a topicalization, i.e., placing it in a position of informational prominence. The following broad tense distinction can basically be observed in the conjugations: past for the suffix conjugation and non-past (present and future) for the prefix conjugation. However, the suffix conjugation is usually employed for the 47The frequentative sense is read in this first QATAL form by those who takes it as a consecutive form (e.g. S.R.Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tense in Hebrew, § 114). However, it could be understood as a bare QATAL form preceeded by waw, and the frequentative sense may still be read at the semantic level.

97

sphere of non-past with incomplete sense in the following cases: 1) in the stative verb or the verb which has a stative sense; 2) in the performative utterance; 3) in the passive form. However, as far as the stative verb and the passive construction are concerned, they may also be rendered by the past or the (present) perfect according to the context (see 38:26 and 42:28a). That is, the range of tense is extended in the stative verb and the passive construction (i.e. either present, past or perfect). Performative utterances must always be present tense, though we have to discern whether the utterance is performative or not, not only morphologically but from the context. Moreover, the traditional aspectual opposition complete vs. non-complete basically corresponds to the difference of the conjugations except for the following cases: 1) the stative or the verb which has a stative sense; 2) the performative utterance. (However, in the passive construction this aspectual opposition seems to work.) However, we should note that in spite of the fact that the temporal distinction past vs. non-past and the aspectual opposition complete vs. incomplete basically work in the freestanding conjugations (i.e. the suffix conjugation vs. the prefix conjugation), these parameters do not distinguish any functional difference between the YIQTOL and wJQATAL forms in the future/ modal context. Where two clauses are juxtaposed, usually the first clause is the main clause and the second clause functions as supportive or additional information at the deeper level. On the other hand, in the antithetical relation the situation is reversed. The first clause (in our example x-QATAL) usually functions as a circumstantial clause for the second. A similar phenomenon may be observed in the sequence YIQTOL-+ wJQATAL in the future/modal context. Here the former clause functions as a circumstantial clause or a semantic stepping stone for the latter in the deeper sense. wJQATAL with future/modal sense may be classified in the category of sequential form. On the other hand, (waw-x-)QATAL with past meaning, or with present meaning when the verb has a stative sense (or sometimes in the passive construction) or is used as a performative utterance, and (waw-x-)YIQTOL or wJYIQTOL 98

with future/modal sense may be classified as non-sequential form. Thus, sequentiality may explain the functional difference between the YIQTOL and W8QATAL forms in the future/modal context. In addition, the chain may also be observed between QATAL and waw-VERBLESS (40:Sa) or IMPV and w8YIQTOL (38:24b), in which, however, the suggested system of tense and aspect (i.e. past vs. non-past and complete vs. incomplete) works in these conjugations. It may be assumed that in a particular situation the non-sequential form could be employed in a verbal chain. This issue will be discussed in detail later (see § 5.6.2.).

99

CHAPTER 4

THREE-CLAUSE VERBAL UTTERANCES IN DIRECT DISCOURSE

4.1. Introduction In this chapter we shall treat three-clause verbal utterances. Again, like two-clause verbal utterances we shall also consider not only their own verbal functions according to the parameters which we have used for the previous observations, but also the syntactic interaction between three clauses as a possible element in the choice of tense. In this case, the following linking patterns may be expected: 1) Three clauses are simply juxtaposed (i.e. C1 = C2 = C3); 2) Two clauses form a sequence and one clause stands independently (i.e. C1 -- C2 = C3 / Cl = C2 -- C3, etc.); 3) Three clauses form a sequence (i.e. C1 --c2 --C3).1

4.2. With the Suffix Conjugation 37:33

,j:i,

mn::,

nn~:,~ ~~, ~~n :ATT-:

,T

T

_,T-

:99.i' 9'.J~ 9J'P

It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured (pf.) him. Joseph has surely been torn (inf.ab.+ pf.) to pieces.

1However, unfortunately, in the three-clause verbal utterances in the Joseph story the sequence Cl - C2 - C3 does not occur.

100

38:222

iJ'!l~~I? 11t7 r,1?, 'cip~iJ ,W.~~ ciJ :ilW1P it!~ ilJ:l~iJ-~?

I did not find (pf.) her. And furthermore, the men of the place said (pf.), "There has been (pf.) no temple prostitute here."

4.2.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) As listed above, there are only two cases of the three-verbal utterance from the Joseph story, which contain the suffix conjugation. The suffix conjugation of these examples is either in clause-initial position (i.e. inf. ab.+ QATAL or~?+ QATAL) or not in clause-initial position (i.e. (waw-)x-QATAL). Again, there seems to be no semantic difference between these two forms. In this connection, Niccacci considers waw-x-QATAL as a form of recovered information (retrospective _QATAL), differentiating it from the 'report' QATAL (i.e "The announcement of information which the addressee does not yet know.").3 However, '~~~ ciJ r,1?, 'cip~iJ in Gen.38:22, in whichwaw-x-QATAL construction can be observed, does not seem to function as recovered information. This utterance is a report of a speaker's (i.e. Judah's friend Hirah) experience at Enaim to the addressee (i.e. Judah), even though that incident is recorded in the preceding clause. In fact, Judah did not know that there was no prostitute at Enaim until Hirah reported it. Here, again, the word order seems to be related to topicalization. The subject fronting can be observed in both utterances. Especially in 38:22 by employing the subject-fronting the speaker (i.e. Hirah) effectively uses the word of the men of the place as his supportive information for his failure in finding the temple prostitute.

Zone may consider that the third clause is embedded in the second clause (i.e. two-clause verbal utterance). 3SVCHP,43.

101

4.2.2. Tense

These suffix conjugations are rendered by (present) perfect, simple past (including aorist) or present tense: 37:33

38:22

NIV

p.pf- p.pf.

past - past - p. pf.

NASB

p.pf - p.pf.

past - past - p.pf.

RSV

p.pf - pres.

past - past - p.pf.

KJV

p.pf - pres.

m. - past - past

AB

past - past

m. - past - p. pf.

LXX

aor.- aor.

aor.- pres.- inf.

Here, again the difference between the simple past (or aorist) and the (present) perfect is not marked morphologically, but is a matter of translation. Thus, it is not clear whether the suffix conjugation can be rendered by simple past or perfect, which may be determined by the reader (or addressee) from the context. As mentioned in the previous chapter,4 in the passive construction the present tense can be denoted by the suffix conjugation like stative verbs. In fact, in 37:33 the suffix conjugation i:TJ!!I ("be torn") can be considered as the Qal passive, and RSV and KJV render it by the present tense. In 38:22 KJV and AB translate iJ'flN:~~ N:7 with a modal sense like "I cannot/couldn't find her." It may be possible to see a modal sense (e.g. possibility) also in the suffix conjugation at the deeper level. Here, again it is noteworthy that linguists sometimes classify negative clauses as modal (see § 2.4.2.). Besides, in a particular context even an affirmative utterance with the suffix conjugation may be used to denote a modal sense at the deeper level. That is, for example, suppose there is an affirmative utterance such as iJ'flN:~~ ("I found her!"), this affirmative utterance may also connote a modal sense (i.e. possibility) and might be translated "I could find her!". Thus, we should note that mood can be realized not only morphologically (i.e. by 4see chap. 3, 73-74 and 97-98. 102

inflecting the verb or by using a verb which has a modal sense as the inherent meaning like?::>', etc.), but also semantically (i.e. by the context).S (For the third clause in 38:22, see our discussion of Gen.38:21 in chap. 2.). Therefore, apart from the above issues at the translation level, we may say that the suffix conjugation is basically employed in the sphere of the past.

4.2.3. Aspect The following results may be obtained according to our parameters: 37:33

38:22

perfective

+I?

+!+!?

complete

+I+

+!+!?

stative

- I?

- I - I +/-

fientive

+I?

+I+ I-/+

durative

- I?

- I - I+

punctual

+I?

?!+!?

progressive

- I-

- I- I-

Especially in 37:33 we have to put question marks against most of the parameters. Because, there are two ways of interpreting it: (1) this suffix conjugation (i.e. Q;ll passive6 ) may have a flentive sense, in which case it is simply transformed from Set. ITL , 307. Here, Lyons notes, "... a particular language has a set of one or more grammatical devices for 'marking' sentences according to the speaker's commitment with respect to the factual status of what he is saying (his emphatic certainty, his uncertainty or doubt, etc.), it is customary to refer to the 'unmarked' sentences also (by courtesy as it were) as being 'in a certain mood'; and the traditional term for this 'unmarked' mood is indicative (or declarative). 6Many scholars have become aware of the existence of the so-called "~ passive." For example, Lambdin notes, "there are several forms, taken by the Masoretes as Pual or Hophal, which must rather be viewed as survivors of an obsolete passive of the~-" See Lambdin, 253. See also IBHS, 373-376; Jou.on and Jou.on-Muraoka, §58. 103

the active construction with emphasis on the fact that the agent is not indicated, but suggested. It would then have a perfective aspect, a complete and punctual sense in this suffix conjugation; (2) However, if we understand that this suffix conjugation denotes a state rather than an event, seeing an adjectival function in this construction (i.e. Qal passive), it could be rendered by a non-perfective aspect and durative sense (But note that it is also rendered by complete aspect.). RSV and KJV adopt this latter understanding, which may be preferable (see § 3.2.3.). Here, Waltke & O'Connor's explanation of the passive is noteworthy: "By "passive" we mean that the subject is in the state of being acted upon or of suffering the effects of an action by an implicit or explicit agent. "7 In addition, they also note, "... stative verbs in the suffix conjugation may signify a present (effected) state by noting the historical connection in many languages between the perfective tense and the passive voice, and between the passive voice and stative forms. Comrie has shown that the perfect state and passive voice frequently go together because both refer to such an effected state. He notes that "the older forms of the passive in many languages are likewise stative [Comrie, Aspect, 86]."" 8

In fact, this may be a good example for illustrating that aspect, after all, more or less depends on our observation of the tense. In other words, we cannot isolate the issue of aspect from that of tense. Concerning the third clause in 38:22, as already discussed in the previous chapter, a stative or durative sense could be read not in the verbal form itself (i.e. iTJ)~iJ), but in its clause structure which includes the so-called 'dummy verb'.

7JBHS,382. BIBHS, 492-493.

104

4.3. With the Prefix Conjugation 37:13 CJ~~~ Cl't-'"'l 9;q11_t

~i7Lf

il:::)7

CiJ'7.~ TI07~~·J

Are not your brothers pasturing (ptc.) the flock in Shechem? Come (impv.); and I will send (impf.) you to them.

37:22 (cf. 38:8; 49:2; 50:6; etc.)

,:ii~J

·bi-~:::,9wn-7~

,w~ 'mil ,i:iil-7~ ';n~ ·~;~7W~

• ' · - •.,-, ·, -

· -;:1-~n?wn-7~- ;,; :

A

:

•

-

,,-:

Shed no blood (juss.). Throw him (impv.) into this pit that is in the wilderness; but do not lay (juss.) hands on him.

48:209

?~l~~

1:rr -fr~

,6~7.

iTW~l?~J C~'J~l(p C'H7~ Til?W~

By you Israel shall pronounce blessing (impf.), saying (inf.c.), "May God make (impf.) you like Ephraim and Manasseh."

4.3.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) There are three examples which contain the prefix conjugation as listed above. These examples are either in clause-initial position (i.e. (wa)YIQTOL) or not in clause-initial position (i.e. (waw-)xYIQTOL). However, these verbal positions do not seem to affect the functional or semantic difference of the conjugations. Both (wa)YIQTOL in 37:13 and 48:20 and x-YIQTOL in 48:20 may express a future/modal sense. Again, rather, the fronting of a constituent of a clause seems to place it in a position of informational prominence. Consider, for instance, 37:22. Here, in the third clause the object-fronting (xYIQTOL) marks topicalization. 9one may consider that the third clause is embedded in the first two clauses (or the first clause with the inf. phrase, i.e., one-clause verbal utterance).

105

4.3.2. Tense These prefix conjugations are rendered by the future (simple future or volitional future), negative command (with ?lt), imperative (first person imperative: cohortative), and modal (i.e. may, shall, can, etc.):10 37:13

37:22

48:20

NIY

fut.

impv.l impv.

fut. Im.

NASB

fut.

impv.l impv.

fut. Im.

RSV

fut.

impv.l impv.

fut. Im.

KJY

fut.

impv.l impv.

fut. I m.

AB

impv.

impv.l impv.

fut. Im.

LXX

fut.

aor.impv.l aor.impv.

fut.(pass.)I aor.opt.

:i~,

10cf. :';,~~ P7.IJ': :17~71 ,}1 ';,~; ,p,~ 91~ 'rr.i:µ "Benjamin ravens (impf.) as a wolf; In the morning he devours (impf.) the prey; And in the evening he divides (impf.) the spoil (49:27)." This example is in the poetic section, but is worthy to be considered. Though KJV and LXX render the prefix conjugations as future tense, other translations imply that they indicate present (durative/progressive) situations. There seems to be no morphological clue to choose between the alternatives. Here, it is interesting to note that J.F.A. Sawyer says, "Examples like The ship sails next week and If you found it tomorrow, would you use it? make it clear that in some contexts the so-called "present tense" of the verb does not always point to present time, and the so-called "past tense" can also express hypotheticalness in the future." See J.E.A. Sawyer, A Modem Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, (1976), 79; In addition, Comrie notes, " ... many languages, including most European languages, have a clear grammatical distinction between past and non-past (the latter subsuming present and the future time reference), but either no grammatical distinction or a much less clear grammatical distinction between future and non-future, in particular between future and present. In many European languages, the so-called present tense is in fact the normal verb form used to indicate future time reference, as for instance in German ich gehe morgen or Finnish mina menen huomenna 'I will go [literally: I go] tomorrow'. These languages do also have specific constructions with exclusively future time reference, e.g. German ich werde gehen, Finnish mina tulen menemaan or mina olen meneva 'I will go', but such constructions are normally only used where there would otherwise be danger of misunderstanding in the direction of present time reference, especially in Finnish, where the socalled present tense is by far the most usual form to express future as well as present time reference." See B. Comrie, Tense, 44-45; note also that in Japanese the present form refers to both the present (habitual action) and the future, which is determined by the context.

106

Here, again it seems right to say that the temporal opposition past vs. non-past corresponds to the morphological distinction the suffix conjugation vs. the prefix conjugation, where the latter is used for future and present (or 'timeless'/'eternal') statements.

4.3.3. Aspect The following results may be attained according to our parameters: 37:13

37:22

48:20

+

+I+

+I+

complete

- I-

- I-

stative

- I-

- I-

+I+

+I+

- I-

?I-

?I?

?I?

- I-

- I-

perfective

fientive

+

durative punctual progressive

?

These prefix conjugations have either a modal sense (including future sense) or an injunctive sense. These types of the prefix conjugation do not refer to their progress or course as in the examples of both one-clause and two-clause verbal utterances. Thus, we classify them in the category of perfective aspect according to Comrie's definition of aspect. Again, from this observation one can say that the aspectual opposition complete vs. incomplete corresponds better to the morphological distinction the suffix conjugation vs. the prefix conjugation.

107

Suffix Conjugation

4.4. With the Conjugation 47:25

and

the

Prefix

Url'rTiT AT"".":"."

'h~ ~'-'~~ 'rr:nr~~~

:iT~!JC, C'1J~ U''iT1 I

: -

:

, . T -:

, . T:

You have saved (pf.) our lives. We will find (impf.) favor in the sight of my lord; and we will be (pf.cs.) Pharaoh's slaves.

4.4.1. Verbal Form (Word Order) 47:25 is the only example of the three-clause verbal utterances to include both conjugations in the Joseph story. Their verbal forms are QATAL, YIQTOL and waQATAL respectively, all in clauseinitial position.

4.4.2. Tense The major translations render 1JD~IJiJ by present perfect, N:~~ by modal sense or cohortative (i.e. 1st person imperative) and ~l~~iJJ by future (modal) respectively (cf. Gen.50:25 in § 3.4.). The observation that the temporal opposition past vs. non-past basically corresponds to the morphological opposition QATAL vs. YIQTOL does not hold good in the third clause.

4.4.3. Aspect Especially in the third clause it may be difficult to tell whether this so-called "inverted" suffix conjugation (i.e. 1~~iJ1) has durative sense or not because of the inherent meaning of the verb. Particularly expressions such as "to become something," "to be involved in a certain situation," "to fall into a certain condition," etc., may connote two things, both an earlier situation and the resulting state. However, in this case note that this observation is 108

based on the deep structure, and perfective aspect may still be read in this suffix conjugation which has modal/future sense. (Note that this i1'i1 behaves like a regular active verb with a modal sense rather than like a dummy verb.) In any case, here whereas complete vs. incomplete nicely corresponds to the opposition between the suffix conjugation vs the prefix conjugation in the first two clauses, in the third clause the suffix conjugation indicates incomplete aspect.

4.5. Syntactic Relationship (Non-Sequential or Sequential) As observed above and in previous chapter, 'tense' and 'aspect' particularly do not answer the following question: If the suffix conjugation (especially in W8QATAL form) may indicate a future/modal sense, what is the difference between the w8QATAL and the YIQTOL form with future/modal meaning? Are there any functional differences between them? Because of the above mentioned situation, quite a few scholars reject the temporal (or aspectual) character in the conjugations. However, it is too hasty to say that biblical Hebrew has no tense.II Rather it is preferable to say12 that in biblical Hebrew llJBHS, 347. Here, they say, "Biblical Hebrew has no tense in the strict sense; it uses a variety of other means to express time relations. This is not a rare situation. 'Many languages lack tenses, i.e. do not have grammaticalised time reference, though probably all languages can lexicalise time reference, i.e. have temporal adverbials that locate situations in time [Comrie, Aspect, 6].' Hebrew uses adverbials to some extent, but much more important are various syntactic means. Because these means are so well known and because the pressure of real-world understanding is so great, we are tempted to say that, for example, wayyiqtol is a past tense ...the grammar is more complex.'' Cf. S.R. Driver ( 1892), R.Meyer (1972), etc. who think that the biblical Hebrew finite verb forms signify aspects rather than tenses. P. Kustar (1972) rejects all the hitherto proposed tense and aspectual theories, saying, "Die qtl- und jgtl- Formen unterscheiden sich voneinander nicht hinsichtlich der Dreizeitigkeit oder des Charakters der Handlungen, sondern sie wollen das Urteil des Sprechenden im Zusammenhang mit dem Verhaltnis der Handlungen zueinander bezeichnen (Aspekt im Hebrmschen, 42). " However, as noted in chapter 1, Kustar's approach is quite similar to that of D. Michel (1960). On the other hand, H. Bauer (1910), S.H. Siedl (1971), J.F.A. Sawyer (1976), M.H. Silverman (1973), A.F. Rainey (1986), Z. Zevit (1988), etc. regard conjugations, to some extent, as denoting time. It is interesting to note that especially Z. Zevit considers that biblical Hebrew marks tense, but does not mark aspect. For him, 'aspect' is a logico-semantic problem but not a

109

the conjugation indicates the time of the action in a broad sense (i.e. past vs. non-past). In fact, according to the observation in chapter 3 (two-clause verbal utterances), it seems that the matter of "sequentiality" in the conjugations signals the functional difference between two conjugations in question and is to be added to the above parameters (i.e. tense and aspect) as compensation. Thus, we shall again observe the syntactic interaction among three clauses, and reexamine the relationship between the sequentiality and the choice of verbal forms.

4.5.1. With the Suffix Conjugation 4.5.1.1. Without Conjunction 37:33

nJh:> ~iln?:>~ ~~, ~~n ,j:i,

:ATT-:

,T

T

:99.;, 9~

_,,T-

~

It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured (pf.) him. Joseph has surely been torn (inf.ab. + pf.) to pieces.

In this case three clauses are linked with each other not by the conjunction, but in a deeper sense (i.e. paratactic relation). However, one can observe no sequential relationship (e.g. grammatical one. In addition, F.C. Fensham (1978) says, "The time aspect cannot be totally be left out, but there is much more to the Hebrew verb than tense, e.g. habituality, the way in which an action is performed, by whom it is performed, the relation of the verbal forms to each other ("The Use of the Suffix Conjugation and the Prefix conjugation in a Few Old Hebrew Poems," JNSL, 6 (1978), 9-18, 18.)." Cf. J.A. Hughes, "Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses," JNES, 29, (1970), 12-24, 13. Here, Hughes thinks that originally two conjugations were unrestricted with respect to time (i.e. timeless or omnitemporal), saying,"Hence certain forms which meet us in the Hebrew Bible may be vestiges of the old timeless use, whereas others may be true tenses representing a later stratum in the development of the language ...At any late, the Old Testament reveals the use of both tenses in all time sphere (past, present, and future)." F. Rundgren (1964), M. Eskhult (1991), etc. insist that the tense does not reside in the verb, but in its context. 12 cf. M.H. Silverman, "Syntactic Notes on the Waw Consecutive", 167-175, at 175.

110

temporal or logical succession) among these three clauses. Three clauses are simply juxtaposed (Thus, VERBLESS = x-QATAL = inf.ab.+ QATAL).

4.5.1.2. With Conjunction 38:22

il'nl!t::m N:? TA"

T

:

J

r,l?~ 'cip~iJ 'W.~~ ci) :ilW1P itJ~ ilf.l~iTN:? -

I did not find (pf.) her. And furthermore, the men of the place said (pf.), "There has been (pf.) no temple prostitute here."

In this example there is a conjunction in the second clause. However, because of the presence of the particle ci ("furthermore" or "also"), it is clear that the second clause brings additional information to the preceding. Thus, in fact, this conjunction) does not stand in the purely sequential context (cf. "initial" wawB). In addition, the third clause may be considered not as a syntactic subordinate clause for the preceding, but as an embedded dialogue in the dialogue, which could stand independently. Thus, again we consider that these three clauses are simply juxtaposed (Thus, x-QATAL = waw-x-QATAL = ~? + QATAL]). Here, one can say that (x-)QATAL and waw-x-QATAL (and probably VERBLESS as well) in the past context are independent (non-sequential) forms.

13 For "initial" waw and "sequential" waw, see D.T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation, (1989), footnote 9 of 119 (see also 120).

111

4.5.2. With the Prefix Conjugation 4.5.2.1. Without Conjunction 48:20

,b~, 9~

?~l~~ 7:J~~

iTW~l?:;)) C~'J~~? Cl'jJ?~ Til?W~ -

By you Israel shall pronounce blessing (impf.), saying (inf.c.), "May God make (impf.) you like Ephraim and Manasseh."

In this example there is no conjunction linking these three components. Probably, scholars would disagree whether this utterance which includes the infinitive phrase should be regarded as a three-clause verbal utterance or a two-clause verbal utterance. However, one may say that the first clause behaves rather like a adverbial clause to the following infinitive. That is, emphasis may not be put on 7:J~\ but be laid on ib~7 which introduces an embedded direct discourse. One cannot simply take this infinitive (i.e. infinitive of result) as a subordinate to the preceding, but rather consider that the first x-YIQTOL clause subordinates to this infinitive which behaves like an another verbal clause. Of course, this does not mean that x-YIQTOL in the first clause is a sequential form. Again, the third clause may be considered not as a syntactic subordinate clause for the preceding, but as an embedded direct discourse in the direct discourse, which could stand independently. Thus, x-YIQTOL in the first clause and YIQTOL in the third with modal (including future meaning) sense may be classified in the category of nonsequential form.

4.5.2.2. With Conjunction In the following examples two or three clauses are linked with the conjunction 1in each utterance.

112

37:13

CJ~~;) CJ'}'-, 9~~ CJ,IT'7~

N:i?O

iT:h

Tirf7~~J ;;· ,

Are not your brothers pasturing (ptc.) the flock in Shechem? Come(impv.), and I will send (impf.) you to them.

In this example the first clause, which is an interrogative sentence, is clearly independent from the following two clauses. The syntactic relation between the second and the third may be taken as consequential like "Come, so that I will send you to them." (il;,7 could, however, be taken as an interjection). However, we already observed that the imperative form and the prefix conjugation both which denotes volitional future and which functions as cohotative (i.e. the 1st person imperative) could be considered as non-sequential forms (see § 3.5.2.4.). Thus, we should admit the fact that in a particular situation the nonsequential form could be employed to form a chain. As will be discussed in detail in chapter S, this kind of chain seems to be limited to between two clauses (i.e. two-member chain). Thus, PTC = IMPV (INTERJECTION) - waYIQTOL(COH.). 37:22

'·CJ,-~:,ewn-?N:

,:i,~:i. ,wN: 'mil ,i:i.iT-?N: ';n~ ,~)~?W~ T

: •

-

J•: -:

•: -

iJ.-~n~wn._?N: ,,, A

:

:

•

-

J :-

.._T:

Shed no blood (juss.). Throw him (impv.) into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay (juss.) a hand on him.

Here, while the first clause can be considered an independent clause, the second and third clauses may form an antithetical link. Again here two imperative forms (i.e. IMPV and JUSS) as nonsequential forms can be found in a sequence (two-member chain). Thus: ?N: + YIQTOL = IMPV. ++ waw-x- ?N: + YIQTOL.

113

4.5.3. With the Suffix and Prefix Conjugations 47:25 ~Jrl'"iT AT"•::•:

'h~ ~J'~~ 'Jr:'.nt~~~

: iT!J-ifl, C'i::l~ ~J"iT1 ! I

: -

:

VT-:

~- T :

You have saved (pf.) our lives. We will find (impf.) favor in the sight of my lord, and we will be (pf.cs.) Pharaoh's slaves.

In this example it is clear that the first clause, which is declarative (affirmative) with the suffix conjugation in second person masculine singular (2ms), stands independently. On the other hand, the syntactic relation between the second clause and the third clause needs careful consideration. In fact, this text has been translated in various ways: thus, "May we find favour in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh." (NIV); "May it please my lord, we will be slaves to Pharaoh." (RJ (with subject switching) can be observed. The clause "you and your children and your children's children and your flocks and your herds and all that you have." as supportive information (or additional information for the suggested subject of the preceding clause) is inserted into this sequence.27

5.2.3. Summary (1)

In the past context the prefix conjugation (either YIQTOL or waYYIQTOL) is used as a sequential form. On the other hand, in the future (or modal) context the suffix conjugation (either QATAL or w;:iQATAL) is used as a sequential form. In both cases the sequence can be observed between two adjacent semantic clusters or chunks of thought. Furthermore, an embedded direct discourse or background information may be inserted into the sequence without disturbing the sequence of conjugations. We also observe that if subject switching occurs, the sequence will be consequential at the deeper level.

27cf. SBH, § S.1.3.3. Verbless circumstantial clauses (85).

129

5.3. Circumstantial Clause in the Sequential Context28 5.3.1. In the Past Context (QATAL

---+

waYYIQTOL)

In the past context the first clause with the suffix conjugation may function as a circumstantial clause29 (or depictive and/or marginal information) for the following prefix conjugation(s) in the sequence: 39:14

,ti~ ::i:,w, ,''lot lot:i. :,;,~. Sip~ ~JP~l J J~

ci·,~s~~,

I am about to die (ptc.); But (when) God will surely take care (inf.ab. + impf.) of you, and bring you up (pf.cs.) from this land to the land which he swore (pf.) to Abraham.to Isaac and to Jacob.

141

One can observe this sequence even in the subordinate clause. Here the first clause functions semantically as a stepping stone for the following clause: 37:26

~l'rt21t-r121t 't1iTl ,::, N:-,Jw? l""T:

"."A

T

:

"¥T-

'

"

and behold, each man's money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full; so we have brought it back (impf.cs.) in our hand, but we have also brought down (pf.) other money in our hand to buy food (inf.c.);

In this past context the first verbless clause functions as a circumstantial clause (i.e. reason) for the following clause. 70 This second clause is continued by the clause with the suffix conjugation, which functions as a full stop. In fact, the next clause, which is the last clause of this utterance (43:20-22), starts without waw, standing independently with the suffix conjugation. (The suffix conjugation is a non-sequential form, usually appearing as a free-standing form in the past context.) In addition, in the goal clause of this waYYIQTOL-+ QATAL sequence, as we can usually observe, an inversion (i.e. objectfronting) occurs for the purpose of "topicalization," which may compensate for the sequential linkage with the preceding clause. 44:20

n~ 1'r:r\tJ

;~~? ;1,7 tlt1\l ,tt,!J (J) : i?iJ'~

,,~,J !

70Note that at the same time this verbless clause functions as a goal clause for the preceding. See § 5.5.4.1..

161

Now his brother is dead (pf.), so he alone is left (impf.cs.) of his mother, so his father loves (pf.) him;

Again, in the above case the first clause functions as a circumstantial clause for the following, and the last clause functions as a goal clause. Here, we should note that both suffix conjugations in the circumstantial clause and in the goal clause (or at least the latter) have present tense value because of their stative sense, which indicate durative-situations. Interestingly enough a present (durative) meaning can also be rendered in the waYYIQTOL form (Niphal as a passive construction) here. In fact, we have already observed that in a passive construction (e.g. Qal passive, the Pual, the Niphal, the Hophal, etc.) the present tense could be indicated by the suffix conjugation just like stative verbs (see § 3.2.3.). Thus, one may say that both verbal forms (i.e. the QATAL and waYYIQTOL forms) have the same tense value, but they are different in syntactic function: the former is a nonsequential form which appears as a freestanding form or occurs in a circumstantial/goal clause, etc., and the latter is a sequential form which usually occurs in a sequential context. 71

5.6.2. Chain of Non-Sequential Forms

5.6.2.1. QATAL - QATAL in the Past Context

The suffix conjugation as a non-sequential form may be used to form a chain in the past context in special circumstances. E.J. Revell's comment on this is noteworthy: 4. Forms of the lcs or 2ms perfect with prefixed waw are used with the value of qtl (waw "simple") in a rather restricted set of circumstances: 4.1. As the second of a pair or longer series of perfect forms acting as a semantic unit, that is, representing 71 ct. W. Gross, Verbform und Funktion: W8.J')7(Jtal fiir die Gegenwart?, 163165. And also see T.J. Finley, "The Waw-Consecutive with "Imperfect" in Biblical Hebrew: Theoretical Studies and Its Use in Amos," 241-262, at 252253.

162

different aspects of the same event, not different actions in a sequence of events, as A1nfm _q1dd§!tl i-verc'.>m§mtl("Children have I reared and raised", Isa 1:2). 4.2. Where verbs semantically related in the same way occur in a series of short parallel clauses, as hobastl ce_s la() wehi,ora'/Jtl ct5$ _yabes("I have dried up the fresh tree, and cause the dried tree to sprout", Ezek 17:24) [sic]. Such verbs sometimes refer to actions which could be regarded as sequential, but even in cases like wehikk!tlw i-vehiJJaltl m1,o,olw("I struck [the predator] and saved [the sheep] from its mouth", lSaml 7:35) the verbs can also be regarded as describing the same event ("by striking.. .! saved), rather than as separate acts in sequence ("I struck. .. then I saved") ... .72 Revell's first set can often be recognized as a so-called "idiomatic hendiadys" which we may call a "two-member chain." 7 3 Thus, this chain usually consists of two verbal forms, but not more than that. However we have no clear example in the present corpus. 74 On the other hand, the following two examples (i.e. (1) and (2)) may fit into Revell's second set, though his definition seems to be rather broad: ( 1) Coordinative two-member chain: 37:7

'P~?~ ilQf? iJ~iJJ il~~~-c~J J 72E.J. Revell, "The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew," HAR 9(1985),277-300,at 279. According to E.J. Revell and others, the "simple" suffix conjugation and the "consecutive" suffix conjugation are distinguished by stress (in first singular and second masculine singular) and by semantics. See also McFall, 189-210 and IBHS, 540. 73cf. Lambdin, 238. Here, he treats the "verbal hendiadys," but note that this is different from our category. So far as Lambdin's verbal hendiadys is concerned, "in the construction the two verbs are simply coordinated, both having the form as required by the narrative sequence in which they occur, but in meaning the first serves to qualify the second and it best translated adverbially in English." 74cf. IBHS, 540. He lists some examples for this use.

163

and lo, my sheaf rose up (pf.), and (also) stood upright (pf.);

As in this case, two successive suffix conjugations in nonsequential forms, whose clauses have "a common referent, or at least some overlap in their fields of reference," 7 5 may also be used to form a sequential link. In fact, in the above example we may observe the following temporal sequence: "Sheaf rose up."-+ "It stood upright." However we should note that this sequence is observed not syntactically, but at a semantic level, that is, by the associations of the words. This explanation might be supported by the presence of the particle oi in the second clause. In addition, according to T. Muraoka, "the particle gam almost always retains its additive force. "76 Thus, though one cannot simply say that the second clause is additional information because of the above mentioned semantic sequence, an explicative function can be observed in the second clause. This type of chain seems to consist of two verbal forms (thus, "two-member chain"). Consider also the following: Gen.31:7a

'~ ?~IT 'J;;>':;t~l

O!~b ri7~~ ,~-p~•rn1~ 9,7CTCTJ

J

But your father has cheated (pf.) me,

and changed (pf.) my wages ten times;

The first clause describes generally Laban's treatment against Jacob, and, on the other hand, the second clause explicates the former. Also examine the following case: Judg.16: 1Sb

,j n?riil 'c,m,e W?W :?i"'f¼ :ri:r:, il~, '7 (l~i'.f-~~1 :J- • • T

:


~ ~Jf ~v) 'It happened 1 Sam.10:9 ?~~D~ C}.'~ as soon as he turned his back to leave Samuel...' Between this clause and the preceding clauses which are on the main story line (i.e. ?N1DW np'i --+ p~,, --+ 1iTpfD'1 --+ ,mt'1) there can be observed no logical sequence.

1 Sam.13:22 rl~~t?~ Ci~~ i"T!iJJ 'It happened on the day of the battle... ' We can observe no action of progress, but rather this clause and the preceding are simply juxtaposed as background information. 1 Sam.17:48 1Jl rl~JP,7 J,')P,~J 1?.!J 'i:lU,7~iJ c~-,?. i"T!iJ) 'It happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David... ' It is possible to observe that the writer unfolds the story from different angles after the description of the dialogue between David and Goliath.

109M. Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose, 31. IIOcf. EJ. Revell, "The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," 8 and 18-19.iT!tf} in 1 Sam.10:9; 13:22; 17:48; 25:20; 2 Sam.6:16; 2 Kgs.3:15, and '1'.1'1 in 1 Sam.10:5, 2 Sam.S:24, 1 Kgs.14:S (Cf. 1 Kgs. 13:33). However, actually, the examples, 1 Sam.25:20 and 2Sam.6:16, do not belong to this category. Those construction with the participle should be considered as "periphrastic construction (past/perfect progressive)."

184

2 Kgs.3:15 Ji1?i) ti~=? h:iJJ 'It happened as soon as the harpist played... ' We can observe no logical sequence between this clause and the preceding main line clause (i.e. ~,i,llt ,~'1). (2) 'i'.f'J introduces a future/modal section: 1 Sam.10:S ,,iJiJ 0~ ,~j? "',i'J'J 'It will happen as soon as you approach the town ... " The preceding clause ends with the prefix conjugation which functions as a goal verb. 2 sam.s:24 C'~;,~iJ

'W.11t"P i1J~~ ?ir?-n, l'!t~l?q;?] 9~1?q;~ 'i:r'1

'It should happen when [as soon as] you hear the sound of

marching in the tops of the balsam tree ... ' The preceding clauses show the sequence, Impv. ---+ W.}QATAL which can be considered as a self-contained unit. And these clauses and the clause in question are simply juxtaposed. In other words, the content of the preceding sequence are taken as the lord's general command: "(You shall not go directly up;) circle around behind them and come (nlltJ.) at them in front of the balsam trees (v.23)." And the next clause may be taken rather as His specific command. 1 Kgs.14:S i-1\tj? '~'J 'It will be when? she arrives ... ' The preceding clause ends with the prefix conjugation which functions as a goal verb in the modal context. On the other hand, compare Revell's above examples with the following cases, where one can observe a quite smooth flow between the il~iJ) or 'i'.f'J clause and the preceding clause(s): (1) In the past context: Gen.39:14-15

He came in (pf.) to me to lie with me, J. so I screamed (impf.cs.), J. and it happened (impf.cs.) as soon as he heard...

Gen.39:17-18

The Hebrew slave came in (pf.) to me... J. and it happened (impf.cs.) as soon as ...

Gen.43:20-21 Oh,mylord,

we indeed came down (inf.ab.+ pf.) the first time to buy food,

J. but it happened (impf.cs.) when ...

185

Gen.44:23-24

But you said (impf.cs.) to your servants ... l so it happened (impf.cs.) when we went up (pf.) ...

(2) In the future/modal context: Gen.46:31-33

I will go up (coh.) and tell (coh.) Pharaoh and say (coh.) ... l so it shall happen (pf.cs.) ...

Gen.47:23-24

and you may sow (pf.cs.) the land, l and it shall happen (pf.cs.) ...

Revell's examples (i.e. il'~iJJ initiates a past sequence and 'D''1 initiates a future/modal sequence.) could be understood as typical sequences initiated by the circumstantial clause; QATAL -. waYYIQTOL(s) in the past context and YIQTOL -. waQATAL(s) in the future/modal context. In these cases the clause with the temporal circumstance might be one more step away from that of the above mentioned frequent case as background information. In other words, the function as a background material is more emphasized. Thus, probably, this construction cannot appear in the middle of a sequence like Ex.1:10 which we mentioned before. In any case, this observation may support that il"il' in question has the verbal function as a sequential form. 5.6.5. Summary (4)

Both phenomena, that is, the sequences: non-sequential form (as a circumstantial clause) -. sequential forms and sequential forms -. non-sequential form (as a goal clause), may be observed in a single sequential literary unit concurrently. In the past context: QATAL (circumstantial clause) -. waYYIQTOL(s) -. QATAL (goal clause); [in the future/modal or non-past context: YIQTOL (circumstantial clause) -. waQATAL(s) -. YIQTOL (goal clause)]. We should note that if a verbal form has a stative sense because of either the inherent meaning of the verb or the passive construction, a present sense can be required even in the waYYIQTOL form by the translation. This suggests that both 186

QATAL and waYYIQTOL forms have the same tense value, but they are different in syntactic and/or discourse function; the former functions as a non-sequential form and the latter functions as a sequential form. Two, not more than that, non-sequential forms, whose clauses have a common referent, or at least some overlap in their fields of reference, may form a sequential link. In this sequence a strong semantic binding force may play an important role in their connection. Thus, we call this "coordinative two-member chain." In addition, two non-sequential forms, whose clauses are linked antithetically, may form a sequence. This sequential link might be generated from the combination of the above mentioned two phenomena of the non-sequential form: a circumstantial clause and the goal clause (i.e. "antithetical two-member chain"). Some non-sequential forms can be asyndetically juxtaposed in order to produce a vividness as a literary technique (i.e. "asyndetical chain"). Moreover, two non-sequential forms, in which especially a socalled movement verb such as 7'?iT, i7', iT'?!J, :mu, etc. is employed in the first clause, may form a sequential chain. Here, this first clause clause supplements the second clause with a sense of directional movement (i.e. "idiomatic hendiadys"). From the text linguistic point of view, it may be said that 'iT'1 and iT'iT1 mark the main segments of a narrative, but they also distinguish the main story from the embedded stories. But, probably, we can consider this construction as a kind of "cleft sentence" (i.e. a thematically partitioned construction), in which both thematic and focal prominence are given to the temporal circumstance after iT'iT. 'iT'1 and iT'iT1 may not be a 'fossilized' form of waYYIQTOL, but essentially function as sequential verbal forms (often in the beginning of a thread of discourse). We should note that in this construction the particle after 'iT'1 or iT'iT1 plays an important role in colouring the temporal clause. Thus, this construction comes to emphasize the temporal setting with various sense for the incident which is described afterwards. Basically, 'iT'1 initiates a sequence in the past context and iT'iT1 initiates a future/modal sequence. But iT'iT1 with the conjunction 187

waw may initiate a past sequence and

'ir'J with the conjunction

waw may initiate a future/modal sequence. In this case, the temporal clause is one more step away from the above mentioned temporal clause as background information.

5.7. Summary and Remarks The distinction between "non-sequential" and "sequential," which is related to the aspectual contrast 'stable' and 'unstable,' also plays an important role in the choice of verbal forms and the composition of Hebrew verbal utterances. Thus: OONIEIT

NON-SEQUENTIAL

SEQUENTIAL

PAST

QATAL

(waY)YIQTOL

NON-PAST

YIQTOL

(wa)QATAL

(complete) (non-complete)

Basically the non-sequential form (which may include participle and other nominal clauses) is used to describe or depict an action or a state by a single statement. On the other hand, the sequential form is usually employed to narrate a series of actions or situations as a unit by forming a sequence (e.g. logical and/or temporal succession) with other sequential form(s). However, the non-sequential form may be used in the sequential context to produce a special literary effect, i.e., a vividness or the like (e.g. 'asyndeton', 'articulo,' etc.). In addition, we should also note that two successive non-sequential forms, not more than that, where a strong semantic binding force functions in their connection, may form a semantic link (we call this a "two-member chain"). Both forms can start the description of a new event or new thread of discourse, and probably both may be used for a "flashback" (resumption) "to the point where the previous thread was interrupted," 111 though the non-sequential form is more often used in this way. When the non-sequential form, which is usually (but not always) preceded by a non-verbal element (e.g. a stated 111 see F.I. Andersen, A Book Review of Mats Eskhult, Bib 72 (1991), 575-580. Especially pp. 577-579 are instructive for our following remarks.

188

subject, etc.), begins a new thread, it basically functions as a setting or a semantic stepping stone for the following material with a clear-cut start (i.e. circumstantial clause). On the other hand, the sequential form tends to be used at the onset to fade in a new topic or scene. Moreover, both forms may be also used as a close-out (rounding off) clause. As Andersen notes, "a close-out clause could be a climactic final event or simply a fade-out." Here, the nonsequential form is used for a climactic final event as we observed as a goal (full stop) clause. In addition, as Andersen also points out, this independent form "could be transitional, marking both the end of one episode and the beginning of the next." On the other hand, for the latter (i.e. a fade-out) the sequential form is used, which may be also used for foreshadowing (a) forthcoming clause(s). In this case we should also consider the situation that a certain thread of utterance is interrupted or disturbed by another action or event. Usually the non-sequential form is used for a literary insertion (interruption), which introduces a "background, supportive and depletive material" for the main thread. But occasionally the sequential form may be used for this purpose, where the insertion is clearly marked. The following sequences with both forms may be observed in any temporal context: (1) Non-sequential form (as a circumstantial clause in a broad sense) ---+ sequential form(s), whose relation is usually either antithetical or logically and/or temporally successive; (2) Sequential form(s) ---+ non-sequential form (as a goal clause), whose relation is also basically either antithetical or logically and/ or temporally successive; ( 3) Combination: non-sequential form---+ sequential form(s) ---+ nonsequential form; Possibly (4) Sequential form(s) -+{either form (as a literary insertion)}---+ sequential form(s). In addition, as we mentioned above, the thread of discourse in biblical Hebrew consists of various combinations of the sequential clause and the non-sequential clause and/or their single use. Thus the distinction between "foreground" and "background" does not simply correspond to the choice of tenses or verbal forms (either the suffix conjugation or the prefix conjugation). Such a

189

distinction may be a secondary phenomenon or by-product from the above mentioned aspectual contrast (i.e. 'stable' and 'unstable'). Here, S. Makino's criticism is also noteworthy: He says, "If we cannot find a certain independent criterion to measure the degree of distance from the mainline narrative, this theory [i.e. Foregrounding-Backgrounding Hypothesis] may be simply connected with the choice of tense and fall into circular argument." 112

112s. Makino, "Monogatari no Bunsho ni okeru Jisei no Tenkan (Tense Variation in Narrative)," Gengo (language) 143 (1983), 109-117,at 114.

190

CHAPTER 6

SYNTACTIC RELATIONSHIP IN VOLITIVE CLAUSES IN DIRECT DISCOURSE

6.1. Introduction At this point we shall also analyze the verbal forms in the volitive context. In fact, we did not discuss the volitive form in detail in the previous chapters especially with our parameters such as 'tense' and 'aspect' (particularly in chap. 2), since this form should be treated as a matter of mood which must be essentially distinguished from these categories. I First of all, we note that scholars basically agree that there are three volitive forms: the jussive (mainly for the third person), the imperative (for the second person) and the cohortative (for the first person), which rarely overlap in their uses.2 Thus we may consider that these three forms are equivalent in function as the volitive form, which can be observed at the same linguistic level. Therefore, what we have to examine primarily here is not the choice of the volitive form in a single independent clause, but the syntactic relationship among adjacent clauses in the volitive context. In fact, the presence of w;:iQATAL forms in the volitive context suggests that in this context there may· also exist the syntactic distinction between 'non-sequential' and 'sequential.' In addition, it is interesting to note that no (w;:i)QATAL form with an imperative sense is found in one-clause verbal utterances of the Joseph story, and the following forms may occur instead: the imperative (in 38:25; 39:7, 12; 43:31; 45:1, 4; 47:31); the jussive (in 45:24 (?~+jussive)); and the cohortative (in 37:21 (~? + cohortative) ). This fact may suggest that the above mentioned three forms are non-sequential, independent forms.

1However, "the categories of mood and tense may 'intersect' in various

ways." See ITL, 309.

2cf. IBHS, 564-565; SVCHP, 88, etc.

191

In this examination, especially F.I. Andersen's observation about "Double-Duty Items" might be useful for the identification of a sentence in the volitive context: A common subject of two successive clauses is seldom repeated on sentence level. It does 'doubleduty' in both clauses and helps unite them. Other items may similarly appear in one or other of the clauses while functioning equally in both. While this diminishes the measure of formal similarity between the two conjoined clauses, it actually enhances the grammatical integrity of the resulting sentence, since neither clause is grammatically complete without material in a neighbouring clause. This feature of Hebrew composition can be exploited to a high degree of sophistication, especially in poetry. 3 Here (the same is true in the previous chapters) the conjunction waw may be classified into the two groups in function:4 ( 1) A conjunction which connects syntactically dependent clauses, which, for example, appears between two conjoined clauses (like "comma" + and in English); (2) A conjunction which connects syntactically independent clauses, sentences, paragraphs and so forth, which usually appears in the beginning of the new literary unit (like "And" with a capital letter "A" in English). Though this distinction is unmarked in biblical Hebrew, it would have been clearly identified when a text was read or uttered by the native speaker (see also the last paragraph of§ 6.7.1.). But we shall be forced to discern it by the above mentioned "double-duty items" or by semantic interpretations, which examine the syntactic dependence among adjacent volitive clauses.

3SBH, 98. 4cf. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation, footnote 9 of 119 for "sequential" waw and "initial waw."

192

6.2. IMPV - IMPV To begin with, we shall examine the following examples: 44:1-2

n1~ P?:;>,, 7Wt9 ~~~ 'o,w~~cr ntr';ll?~-n~ 1it;~ (1)

.,

fl!li?iJ nr:rJJl?~

,

'~~

:i~~~l?~ 'F~ W'~-r:i_9;;- 0'W1 (2) O'W~ 99~iJ ~'_?~ '~':;1rn~1 (3) i1=;lW 99? n~J

Fill (impv.) the man's sacks with food as much as they are able (impf.) to carry (inf.c.). And put (impv.) each man's money in the mouth of his sack. But my cup, the silver cup, put (impf.) in the mouth of the sack of the youngest, and his money for the grain:

43:lld-12 (IMPV - IMPF)

:O''Jp~, o~~'P~ ~?J n1it1~w~7 l!l~l?, ',7~ l!l~l? (1) O?T=;l ,!:Jp ip~~ 99?J O~T=;l ,:i,,~~ 'o~,~~';ll?~ '~~ J~,~iJ 99?iJ-n~J (2) :1it,i'.1' il}~~ 'J,llt (3 )

A little balm and a little honey, aromatic gum and myrrh, pistacho nuts and almonds; and double the money, take (impv.) in your hand. And the money that was returned (ptc.) in the mouth of your sacks, you should take back (impf.) in your hand. Perhaps it was a mistake;

In these example each clause with the imperative or imperfect stands independently, though they are connected lightly with the conjunctive waw (i.e. initial waw), whose semantic link may be reinforced by the chiastic structure (but not like the linkage within a compound sentence).S That is, they are, more or less, juxtaposed, constituting a kind of enumeration. In fact, in (3) in 44:1-2 and (2) in 43:lld-12, as already discussed, the prefix conjugation with modal sense is a non-sequential (independent) form (see§§ 3.5.2.3. - 3.5.2.5.). Besides, the imperative forms are used, which regularly appear in the independent clause (e.g. oneclause utterances) as noted above. Thus, it is quite probable to consider the imperative form as a non-sequential (independent) form in the volitive context.

Scf. SBH, 108-110.

193

However, consider the following example: 37:14

~l-1? l~~iJ ci7~-n~J ~,q~ ci7tfn~ ·iT~7 iJ1 'JJWili J AT

T

. ,••

" -:-

GO nOW(impv.). See (impv.) about the welfare of your brothers and the welfare of the flock, and bring word back (impv.) to me.

One may consider that the first imperative clause syntactically stands independently because of the presence of the precative particle6 and the absence of the conjunction in the second imperative clause. On the other hand, the second and the third imperatives form a unit, in which a linkage can be recognized. Here, E.J. Revell's observation of the suffix conjugation (see § 5.6.2.1.) is instructive. He observes that in the past context the suffix conjugations which are semantically related (which are basically non-sequential forms) occur in a series of short parallel clauses.? Probably the situation is the same in the imperative form. That is, two successive imperatives (as non-sequential forms in the volitive context) may be used to form a chain (i.e. two-member chain). Here, it is noteworthy that, for example, F.I. Andersen says, "A precative conjoined sentence usually has two verb-initial clauses joined by we- and."B But note that this logical link is detected not syntactically, but by the associations of the words.

6for example, see Hans Gottlieb, "The Hebrew Particle na," Acor 3 (1971), 47-54, at 47. Here, Gottlieb says, " ... there is a tendency towards using especially the forms with nun as pausal forms." 7cf. E.J. Revell, "The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew," HAR 9 (1985), 277-300, at 279. See also IBHS, 540-541. BsBH, 106. Note, however, that Andersen see two stages in this utterance (108).

194

Consider also the following: 43:11

1;.rc~

1

·~w~ n11t! ltiEJ~

C~'7?~ 'fi\tiJ rlJ~t~ ~lip iTJH~ W'~? 11':JiiTJ J

If it must be so, then do (impv.) this. Take (impv.) some of the best products of the land in your bags, and carry down (impv.) to the man as a present;

In 43:11 the first clause of the apodosis with the imperative syntactically stands independently, and the following two clauses form a two-member chain, forming a semantic unit. 42:18 : !!ti' 'lilt C'ii?l!tiT-rll!t ~,n, r•T

;'" -:

.._.

•:: T

"."

~wi, rll!tl

J-,

A :1•

~

Do this (impv.), and live (impv.) for l fear (ptc.) God;

Here, again two imperatives form a two-member chain in which the first clause functions as a semantic stepping stone for the following. 9 Again we should keep in mind that this sort of chain always consists of two verbal forms, not more. Let us also examine the following: 43:16 iTrl'J.iT C'Wll!tirrll!t l!tJ.iT T:i,o,.T-

,·T-:T

•:

;'""T

"~!.? 11t'P~ 1;.iiJJ J

: C'iiT~J. C'Wll!tiT ~7:::>N:' 'rll!t ':> "ITT: T 1-

.._. T-: T

,1'

:

:I""

"

-""

Bring (impv.) the men into the house. And slay (impv.) an animal, and make ready (impv.) for the men are to dine (impf.) with me at noon.

In this case apparently three imperatives form a linear sequence like "Bring the men ... " --+ "Slay an animal," --+ "Make ready... ". 9see E.J. Revell, "The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," HUCA 60(1989), 1-37,at24.

195

However, the linkage between the second clause and the third clause is semantically much tighter than that between the first clause and the second clause. Thus, it is likely that the first clause syntactically stands independently and the following two clauses form a two-member chain (i.e. IMPV1; [IMPV2 ++ IMPV3]). On the contrary, the following examples may be classified in a slightly different category: 43:2

lJW :?::>iln~i:ir.i ll?_l,JW J..,.. "." I

-

:

.,,.T

:

"

Go back (impv.), buy (impv.) us a little food.

44:4 Olp

o'Upw(impv.), ~~cr 'Jcrtt 911 J

follow (impv.) the men;

50:6 i1?!J ,,. .....:

';'r~~n,, ,fpl J

:9~,~~i'.f ,;~~ Go up (impv.),

and bwy (impv.) your father

as he made you swear (pf.).

In these examples our observation of "Idiomatic hendiadys" (see § 5.6.2.2.) may be instructive. Here, two non-sequential forms, especially where the so-called "movement verb" is employed in the first clause, may form a sequential two-member chain. In this case, the first clause with the movement verb such as 7?i1, i1', i1?!J, J1W, (01p), etc. supplements the second clause with a sense of directional movement.lo In particular, the imperative oip may simply be used as an interjection,11 for it is not necessary to 10see E.J. Revell, "Standard Biblical Prose," 22. And consider the English expression such as "Go get the ball!" etc. 11 cf. H.M. Orlinsky, "On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew," ]QR 31-32 (1940-41, 1941-42), 31: 371-82, 32: 191-205, 273-77. Especially see 31:371-72. (See also GKC § 105 and Joiion § 105.)

196

assume that the addressee is sitting when this expression is uttered. In addition, it is interesting to note that two imperatives are linked to each other either with waw (50:6) or without waw (43:2 &44:4). 42:19

c:::,,r.iwr.i n'J.~ A":

: -

:c:;;;,,~~

:

0

J••:

Crll!t . .,. .. ·: - C'JYCl!t

,011t, 1tr11t _-'crri~, ~,;?c:::,,n11t , .. T""

J

fi;i~i ,~~ :il!t'~iJ J

:

... -

:

If you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined (juss.) in your prison; But as for the rest of you go (impv.), and carry (impv.) grain for the famine of your households;

In the apodosis of this conditional sentence the first clause with the x-jussive is loosely connected to the following twomember chain (i.e. l:?7 - ll!t'~iJ) with the disjunctive waw. 38:8

°1'P'' n~~-?~ lit~ rTnN: c~,, J

:1'~7 !JlJ c~·iJJ J

Go (impv.) into your brother's wife, and perform (impv.) your duty as a brother-in-law to her; and raise up (impv.) off-spring for your brother.

Probably in the above case the first two clauses form a semantic unit, in which the first clause contains the movement verb.12 Yet the third clause does not directly link with the second clause, but rather connects to this two-member chain as a whole, forming another two-member chain. Thus, [IMPV .-. IMPV] ++ IMPV. Or it may be also possible to think that the final clause stands independently, seeing a juxtaposition between the first two clause and the last. In this case the last clause is considered as an alternative realization of the preceding (synonyms).1 3: [IMPV .-. IMPV]; IMPV. lZor the expression ...?lit for sexual intercourse. Bcf. SBH, 108 and 117.

lit:!

in the first clause could be taken as an idiom

197

The following example is similar: 43:13

:W'~iJ-7~

1"f2 C?,'r:r~-n,7 ll1W - 1l.l1f?7 J

And take (impv.) also your brother, and arise (impv.) and return (impv.) to the man;

In this case the first clause with the imperative directly links with the following two-member chain (i.e. 17.:11(?7 - ll1W), 14 i.e., IMPV - [IMPV - IMPV]. Or 1l.l1f?J may be taken as an interjection which is inserted into the two-member chain (i.e. 1"f2 - 1J.1W), thus, IMPV +- [!ll.l1f?7 as INTERJECTION] -+ IMPV. In this connection, note that F.I. Andersen lists many examples of "Conjoined Imperative Clauses."15 He simply classifies them into the following four divisions, defining in § 8.0.0. of his monograph that the conjunctive sentence "is unmarked for sequence," contrast, or antithesis ... (His detailed analysis of Gen.43:11-14 is also noteworthy.): 1) Two VI (= Imperative verb) clauses, 2) Three VI clauses, 3) Four VI clauses and 4) Five VI clauses. Now, it is worth examining especially his three clauses, four clauses and five clauses examples in detail (We shall ignore the examples which we have already treated above.): 1) Andersen's three-clause example:

Gen.1:22

1,a ~:

1:lll J c,b~:1 'c,~iT-mt 1~?l.l1 ·-·•·:c:·

:y7~~

J.T

9i~iJ7

Be fruitful (impv.) and multiply (impv.); And fill (impv.) the waters in the seas.. And let birds multiply (juss.) on the earth.

In this case, the expression 1YJl 1,51 can be considered as an idiomatic hendiadys, describing a single action (i.e. be abundantly

14Note that in this case one stage/action is described by two clauses. 1Ssee SBH, § 8.3.2., at 108-110.

198

frl.!itful ), which is also admitted by Andersen.16 c~hiJ-rll$ ~~?Q~ Cl'l;I~~ and the last clause with the jussive form a chiastic

structure, which can be observed as a detailed alternative realization ofll"'J~ n~. Here, the chiasmus17 (or object-fronting in the last clause) may function as glue to connect these two independent sentences. Gen. 9:1

~,a,

~::i,~ J

:

:r1~iJ-n~ ~~7Q~

Be fruitful (impv.) and multiply (impv.). And fill (impv.) the the earth.

Again, in this case the first two imperatives should be considered as an idiomatic hendiadys, in juxtaposition with the following clause, where no succession is observed. Note that the expression 1::171 1,~ in Gen.1:22 is paraphrased not just by the following immediate clause, but by the following two clauses as a whole. This suggests that this expression in Gen.9:1 is syntactically independent from the following clause. Gen.19:2

,j·nnt~ mil

r,-~o . . , , - . . . ·,n'7J

c:i,::i~ rl'J-~~: ~i

c:!),~n, r:~rr,, ...

••

:

-

J

-:

-:

J ·

ClrlO:'IWill

Cl,??717 Clfl:;>~qJ- i .: Behold, my lord. Please tum aside (impv.) into your servant's house. And spend (impv.) the night, and wash (impv.) your feet. Then you may rise (pf.cs.) early, and go on (pf.cs.) your way.

Here, the first two clauses stand independently because of the presence of the precative particle~~- Moreover, 1l'7J ++ Cl~'7~'1 16 SBH, 117 (See§ 8.10.1.). 17SBH, 108. 199

1~r:fjJ may be considered as a two-member chain, though we do not need to see particularly a temporal sequence here. Probably the expression Cl~'?.~ j 1~r:fjJ is used here loosely in a figurative sense like "Feel at home!" or "Make yourself comfortable!" 2Sam.11:8 (see also Gen.18:4) may support this interpretation, where David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." In addition, the above two-member chain is followed by two sequential forms (i.e. waQATALs). Gen. :22:2

'

..

.

...

pr:r~~-n~ ~:;i.iJ,-,~~ Til'tr-n~ ;yp-n~ iJ.!7biJ

.e..

~~

n~

Tltr?~ 97-771

CJ'7iJIT ~ ?~. il?~ 'c~ 1iT7.~iJJ :;y'?~ ,~~ ,~~

J

Take (impv.) now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac. And go (impv.) to the land of Moriah, and offer (impv.) him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will (impf.) tell you.

In this example the first clause can be taken as an independent clause because of the precative particle. The second clause with the movement verb and the following clause may form a twomember chain. (cf. Andersen notes that "all in one complex, although time succession is involved."18) Gen. 34:10

m,no1 T

T

:

'1~~

J

:rT!l 1l~iTl IT

, - : TI"":

Live (impv.) and trade (impv.) in it; And acquire property (impv.) in it.

Here, the first two clauses can be considered as a two-member chain as a semantic unit, and this unit and the third clause are in juxtaposition. This observation may be supported by the presence of two pronominal suffixes (The last pronominal suffix appears with the preposition; See SBH, § 8.0.1. Double-Duty Items.).

IBsBH,108.

200

Gen. 35:1

c,~

?~-rl'::l .,.. -: ... iT?~ ,.. crt::i~] J

__ninr.i cw-mv~, - ••: •

.IT

•• -:-

Arise (impv.); go up (impv.) to Bethel, and live (impv.) there; And make (impv.) an altar there••.

In this case the first imperative c,p may be taken as an interjection which stands independently (cf. 44:4). The second imperative clause with the movement verb and the third clause may be considered as a two-member chain. The syntactic relationship between this semantic unit and the following clause can be observed as a juxtaposition. Consider C~ in both sentences (see SBH, § 8.0.1. Double-Duty Items.). Gen. 35:2

c:,::,ri:i, : '.':

,w~ ',::iliT 'ii?~-ri~ ,,oiT J•:-:

T"'-

: C;;?'O?i;l~

,C"'

•::

•:

'T

,-iiT'9iT1

,a,7qiJ] J- .

=

Put away (impv.) the foreign gods which are among you. And purify yourselves (impv.), and change (impv.) your garments.

Jacob's utterance can be divided into two thematic parts: the first clause refers to an outer purification of Jacob's whole family on one hand, on the other hand the following clauses refer to an inner, more individual purification by members of Jacob's family. Thus, one may see that the first clause stands independently and the second and the third clauses form a two-member chain as a single semantic unit. Perhaps the expression "changing garments" may be a figurative demand for individual purification. According to G. von Rad, "changing clothes is in religion a widespread cultic, symbolical act by which man represents himself as renewed by the divinity." 1 9 Therefore, one may observe a successive sequence like 'purification' __.., 'confirmation' here. It is interesting to note

19G. von Rad, Genesis, trans. by J.H. Marks and J. Bowden, (1972), 331.

201

that a response of Jacob's family was not changing their garments, but giving their earrings to Jacob (see Gen.35:4.). 2) Four-clause example: Gen. 42:33-34

,t,~ 1rT'liT 'imtil C::>'mt 1rrp C~'f9 Ji;i~1-n,J •

"

J' -

T •: IT

w, -

-:

•

•

c~,¥~~ -,~~~~~ CDl~P;;L ,~~-9p~

:

-

i

IT:

But (when) I lie down (pf.cs.) with my fathers, you shall carry (pf.cs.) me out of Egypt. And bury (pf.cs.) me in their burial place.

It is clear that the first two clauses are successively linked, which can be taken as a protasis with a future sense and as an apodosis with a precative sense respectively. The last clause may also be considered as a member of the apodosis in this conditional sentence in the deeper structure. However, one could assume that there is a short interval between the last two clauses, supported by the fact that the same pronominal suffix (lcs) is employed in these consecutive clauses. (In addition, this sequence may illustrate that the decision whether we should take waQATAL as a command or as a prediction largely depends on the context.42)

6. 7. Combinations If necessary, the imperative, the jussive and the cohortative as independent volitive forms and the suffix conjugation as the 42Note here that we do not view using waQATAL for the imperative "as a switching of the hortatory form into the surface structure of the predictive form while retaining the hortatory intent." Again see JSDP, 123 and 130-132.

219

sequential volitive form may appear concurrently in a single discourse unit. The basic discourse functions of these volitive forms are the same as those we observed above.

6.7.1. IMPV with Other Independent Volitive Form(s) 37:27

157

~~,:,~J, . \:i-,i1i,~s~ '1ii,,

a'?~~~w~? •

•• =

•

:

-

"'T:

Come (impv.), and let us sell (coh.) him to the Ishmaelites. But, not lay (juss.) our hands on him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.

The first imperative 1::,7 can be taken as an interjection, which is directly linked with the following cohortative. This unit and the third clause with the jussive may loosely be connected in chiasmus. 42:19-20

ctt~ c~p-c~

~,;? 'en~,

a::,,r.iwr.i n'J.J. ,o~' iii'~ a::,,n~ N."

, -

= •

J··,

: a::,'nJ. JiJ.~, ,J.w

--- •··

1~':1i1 J J

:

._. -

:

,._. ... '7~ -=~;'}~ -::-l~RiJ. c;;rr:rtrn~J

If you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined (juss.) in your prison. But as for the rest of you go (impv.), and carry (impv.) grain for the famine of your households. But you shall bring (impf.) your youngest brother to me;

One may read that in the first conditional sentence the clause with the jussive syntactically stands independently, taking the conjunctionwawofCl~~) as an initialwaw(see § 6.1. and n.4). Yet it is connected loosely with the following two clauses by the initial wawand the inversion (or chiasmus), where a two-member chain with the movement verb can be observed. Again the last clause with the prefix conjugation with a modal sense is linked with the preceding by the initial waw and the inversion. 220

It is interesting to note the following observation of H.M. Orlinsky, who says, "Whenever the verb that follows an imperative or interjection is preceded (1) by its subject or (2) by a negative particle, that verb may then be imperfect, rather than the normal cohortative/jussive, in form. This is due, apparently, to the fact that the emphasis was felt to be no longer so much on the cohortative-jussive element as on the new element, since the latter was strong enough to upset the usual word order, verbsubject-etc."43 (Moreover, he observes that "when two or more verbs follow an imperative or interjection, all of them will usually be in the cohortative/jussive, as opposed to the imperfect."44) Consider the following, where the second clause with the prefix conjugation (0-waYIQTOL) expresses a command, which is cohortative in form (two-member chain): 44:21

'7ilt 1iii1iiT

: ,,i,!J 'l'!J iT~~~, ITTV

..

TrT:

.t .

"Bring (impv.) him down to me, and let me set (coh.) my eyes on him;"

On the other hand, in the next example the second clause with the prefix conjugation which is preceded by a stated subject should be interpreted as a statement rather than a command according to the context, which may also follow Orlinsky's observation (imperfect in form): 42:37

,,,-7!.1 'irtlt iTlrl :9'~~ 1i~'~ ~i~J

Put (impv.) him in my care; (so that?) I will return (impf.) him to you.

43H.M. Orlinsky, "On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew," JQJ?.. 31, 32 (1940-41, 1941-42), 371-82, 191205 and 273-77; 273. Cf. E.J. Revell, "The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," 21. Here, he also says, "...an imperfect form ..., which begins its clause has modal value; and imperfect form which stands within its clauses (and is not preceded by ?It or followed by ltl) has indicative value." 44H.M. Orlinsky, "On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew," 275(-277). 221

But in the last two clauses of the following examples (in the last three clauses in case of 47:19) it is a little difficult to discern whether the 0-w;}YlQTOL can be understood as a command or as a statement, but the fact that in the clause ml;ZI~ l-1:7) not?~, but ~? is used may show that the preceding clause should be also taken as a statement. As usually recognized, these clauses can be taken as purpose clauses (or consequential clauses). However, according to Orlinksky's view, should we still take ifJm as a cohortative in function?:45 42:2 ([IMPV (movement verb)

il~'tz;-~,,

CW7.l

~J?-~,:i~, J :

:mr.lJ I T

l-1i?i J

T

"

IMPV] (-+) [COH ++ IMPF])46

i(,m o)

JT

,,r

++

:

":

:

Go down (impv.) there,

and buy (impv.) some for us from that place; so that we may live (coh.), and not die (impf.).

43:8 (IMPV

!~]~~-c~

++

[INTERJECTION ++ COH](-+ )[COH ++ IMPF])

il~l!_t-c~

'n~ ,~lil il"?W ilim :.: mi-i~~J J' ·

~]FJ~trc~ m61

rr~rm

~?,

0)

J

Send (impv.) the lad with me, and let us arise (coh.) and go (coh.); so that we may live (impf.), and not die (impf.), we as well as you and our little ones;

4Scf. H.M. Orlinsky, "On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew," 274-275. See footnote, 24: Orlinsky says, "It may be noted that the expression n'll~-',lt) I it"',) i1m), perhaps already conventionalized, occurs no less than four times." Here, however he does not pay attention to the functional difference between ',1t and 1t',, i.e., ',1t for the negative in commandments and 1t', for the negative in statements. Cf. IBHS, 565 and 567; J. Huehnergard, "The Early Hebrew PrefixConjugations," HS 29 (1988), 19-23 at 21-22; "Asseverative *la- and Hypothetical *lu / law in Semitic," JAOS 103 (1983), 569-93. 46cf. SBH, 108.

222

47:19 (IMPV (-+) COH = IMPV (-+) [COH++ IMPF CIJ_1~ Uf,)~71!.n"I~) ~JJ:l~n1~p

~1j-J~)

rr~rm

mb~ ~7) j. · :cwn lli? iTD1N:m IT••

.'

,T

IMPF])

il57n

~JrJn~

iT!i.17~7 c'::r~~ -~~l~J

=

0)

T-: T :

Buy (impv.) us and our land for food, so that we and our land will be (coh in meaning.) slaves to Pharaoh. And give (impv.) us seed, so that we may live (coh in meaning.), and not die (impf.); and that the land may not be desolate (impf.):

Consider also the following examples, in which the prefix conjugation that is the cohortative in form appears, but may express a statement rather than a command in meaning: 42:33-34 (IMPV = [IMPV ++ IMPV] = IMPV (-+ )COH)

,m1i1 'mN:iT C:>'nN: irrp C?'f9 Ji;t~·:rn~J

'rlN: '

'

T '." IT

J' -

(",'

' -:

:1:>71 J

;7~..J~'?iJ C~'i".T~-~ 1N:'~iJ1

lli?

C~!;_t 'c,7nf? '.? iT~l~) 0) CrlN: C'J:) ':) A"." -

'Ii.".,

JI"

leave (impv.) one of your brothers with me; and take (impv.) grain for the famine of your households, and go (impv.). But bring (impv.) your youngest brother to me; so that I may know (coh.) that your are not spies, that your are honest men;

47:16 (IMPV (-+)COH) C~'~pl;I

,;liJ

Cl'~pl;I~ Ci°J i°H';J~) (! ) :99;- o~,-c~ Give up (impv.) your livestock, so that I will give (coh.) you food for your livestock, since your money is gone (pf.).

Here, we should note that Rainey nicely summarizes Orlinsky's view as follows: "Orlinsky recognized that once the syntagma was understood as requiring the cohortative for first person and the jussive for second and third, then all verb forms in such a chain 223

of purpose clauses after an imperative or an exclamation were by definition cohortative/jussive whether or not they exhibited any morphological distinction (Orlinsky 1940-1942:378-379)." 47 This may also be supported by the historical understanding that "yaqtul, yaqtula and yaqtulu fell together morphologically in the singular of sound verbs (verbs without weak radicals) because of the loss of final short vowels." Furthermore, Waltke and O'Connor note that "in his work on the Byblian dialect of Late Bronze Age Canaanite, W.L. Moran isolates two uses of yaqtula as primary, accounting for about twothirds of the examples: (a) the "direct volitive," to express a wish, request, or command, and (b) the "indirect volitive," in clauses of purpose or intended result." 48 It is also noteworthy that Moran says, "Of the many views proposed, that of H. Bauer and Jouon turns out to be correct: the cohortative is a remnant of the earlier "subjunctive."" 4 9 Thus, probably one can say that the prefix conjugation that is a cohortative in form may also be used to express a statement rather than a command, forming a purpose clause. One can observe that this type of cohortative (i.e. "indirect volitive") may be followed not by ?N: + jussive, but by N:? + non-perfective in the purpose clause(s). The following case may show that it is also difficult to decide whether especially the last verbal form (i.e. m~f#-?)) can be rendered by a command (jussive) or a statement (imperfect) in meaning:

47A.F. Rainey, "The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite," HS 27 (1986), 4-19, 10. 48JBHS, 573. Cf. W.L. Moran, "Early Canaanite yaqtula," fr 29 (1960), 1-19 and W.L. Moran, "The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background," 54-72, at 64. 49w.L. Moran, "The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background," 64. See H. Bauer und P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der Hebraischen Sprache 1, (1922), 273, §36d and Jouon, 315, n.1. See also J. Blau, "Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation," HUCA 42 (1971), 133-158 at 133146. Cf. G.R. Driver, Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System, 77-79; McFall, 131-132.

224

42:16 ([IMPV - JUSS] = [IMPV - JUSS ?])

n7~

~ ~~ 'b~'n~-~ n~~J J

~'101tiT 'crtlt1

~

~l c~,,~,,~~~J

:.IT..

",." -

:

J

Send (impv.) one of you, and let him get (juss.) your brother. You remain confined (impv.), so let your words be tested (juss.?) whether there is truth in you;

In fact, according to the above mentioned observation of Orlinsky, this prefix conjugation (i.e. ~:iu,~~J) should be rendered by a jussive since it begins its clause. However, probably it is possible to take it as a future statement that forms a purpose clause from the context: "So that your words will be tested... "? Thus, this example also shows the difficulty of making a clear distinction between the command and the statement linguistically. In fact, it is interesting to note that, as Lyons points out, "a difference between giving a command [such as "Come here!"] and making a statement [such as "I want you to come here."] cannot be sharply drawn. "SO In this connection, note again that Rainey supposes two sets of prefix conjugations in early Canaanite, which are defined by their mood, i.e., the "indicative" yaqtul (-u /-unna) and "injunctive" yaqtul (-a /-anna ):Sl

INJUNCTIVE

INDICATIVE Preterite yaqtut - 0 Imperfect yaqtulq - Ona yaqtulur( 1 a Energic

Jussive Volitive Energic

yaqtut -0 yaqtul,:l -0 yaqtular(1a

If, however, after admitting the above mentioned difficulty of making a clear distinction between giving commands and making 50see ITL, 307. Slsee A.F. Rainey, "The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amamah Canaanite," 4-19; A.F. Rainey, "Further Remarks on the Hebrew Verbal System," HS 29 (1988), 35-42. Cf. E.L. Greenstein, "On the Prefixed Preterite in Biblical Hebrew," HS 29 (1988), 7-17; Z. Zevit, "Talking Funny in Biblical Henglish and Solving a Problem of the Yaqtul Past Tense," HS 29 (1988), 25-33.

225

statements, we accept Moran's view that the cohortative is a remnant of the earlier "subjunctive," which can be used for expressing both command and statement (though he still calls the latter "indirect volitive," which, of course, can be morphologically distinguished from the indicative counterpart), we have to confess with Huehnergard that "there are obviously some difficulties in the arrangement of Rainey's paradigms as neat indicative and injunctive sets."52 We should also note that Huehnergard says, "... both the zero form yaqtul and what we have been calling the imperfect, Central Semitic yaqtulu, were probably unmarked for mood: both could occur in both statements and injunctions...The distinction between statements and injunctions, therefore, had to be marked in some way other Jhan by the morphology of the verb and probably occurred at the level of the phrase." In addition, we should also consider the fact that a modality (e.g. obligation, volition, promise, wish, etc.) can be, more or less, recognized in the prefix conjugation which is used for expressing a future statement, though we may need to distinguish yaqtulu with a modal sense from yaqtul with a precative sense (i.e. jussive). In any case, it may be safe to say at the moment that when an imperative clause is followed by a clause with the cohortative or the jussive, one may observe that these two clauses form a twomember chain in which either both clauses have injunctive sense or the latter clause functions as a purpose clause with a volitional sense for the former imperative clause, which could be discerned by the addressee from the context-of-situation53 which is not 52J. Huehnergard, "The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations," HS 29 (1988), 19-23at22. 53Jt is one of the key terms in the Firthian theory of meaning. See J.R. Firth, "Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930-1955," Studies in Linguistic Analysis, (1957), 1-32. Here, Firth notes the details of the context-ofsituation as follows: A. Participants (persons, personalities, and relevant features of these) (i) their verbal actions. (ii) their nonverbal actions. B. Relevant objects, the nonverbal and nonpersonal events. C. The effect of the verbal action.

226

formally indicated in the text itself, by the tone of the speaker's voice, by the relatively longer pause between clauses or like rather than its syntax. In fact, it is difficult to say that the written language is self-contained and depends only on the context which is formally indicated in the text itself especially in this direct discourse section. Even in the written utterance of the Hebrew text we should take a (culturally determined) context-of-situatio n into account, since biblical text might be essentially aural, i.e., "it was intended to be understood with the ear, and not with the eye."54

6.7.2. With waQATAL as the Sequential Volitive Form 37:20

1ili.1cm -

l?'? , iTJJ~J

ni,jil imtJ '1if:::>?w1, ..Jll~\tJ ! :,,f.lb?q 1~ry~-il~ iltln i -

J- -

:

1:

•• •

: -:

Now, come (impv.) and let us (coh.) kill him. And let us throw (coh.) him into one of the pits, and say (pf.cs.), ... , and then let us see (coh.) what will become (impf.) of his dream:

In this case the first imperative can be taken as an interjection which directly connects to the following cohortative with a pronominal suffix. On the other hand, though one can still observe a temporal and/or logical sequence with the preceding clause by the associations of the words, the third clause probably starts a new semantic unit (or a new sentence), since this verbal form has also the same pronominal suffix. Or it is probable that the first imperative stands as an interjection independently, and the next two clauses form a twomember chain, i.e., "Let us kill him and throw him ... ", where the former clause functions as a semantic stepping stone. The third clause is followed by the w'3QATAL, where the former might also function as a semantic stepping stone for the latter (i.e. "And let Also see ITL, 413 (§ 9.3.2.); J. Lyons, SemanticsvoL2, 607-613 (§ 14.4.), etc. 54H. Van Dyke Paru.nak, "Some Axioms for Literary Architecture," Semitics 8 (1982), 1-16. See especially 2-4.

227

us throw... " -- "and say, ... "). Probably the last clause with the cohortative as a non-sequential form functions as a goal clause. Thus, [INTERJECTION++ COH] = (And) COH-- waQATAL -- CilI or INTERJECTION= [COH ++ COH]-- waQATAL --COH. 45:17-20

;prr~-i,~ ,~

,w~ niitl c:>,,~:rniit '1l~~ :J~P il;~, J-, ,A-:

J

C?,'f9-n~J C_;?'::)~~ ltyf?l

'?llt 11it:n J C?i¥~ fl,!$ ':il~-ni i!~';l~J :r1,o :11:?r.rn~ 17?~J

·c~i..;

ilrl'l~ ilrtllt1

,w~ niitl T , •• •..

C~'~tn C:?,f/Ul?

rli?~~

C?"J¥~ f~l;I c~5-,np

.,T -

-

:

C?,'::)~-n~ Cf..)llt4'~l i :C~llt~l i C:>'?Y?~ otm-?llt C:>l~1 :lltli;f c~7 c?~~ ·r 1~-i,~ :i ~ T

,i-,:;>-.. · . ·

Say (impv.) to your brothers, "Do this (impv.). Load (impv.) your beast, and go (impv. - impv.) to the land of Canaan. And take (impv.) your father and your households, and come (impv.) to me; so that l will give (coh.) you the best of the land of Egypt; and you shall eat (impv.) the fat of the land;" And you are ordered (pf.) [to tell them ?],55 "Do this (impv.); Take (impv.) wagons from the land of Egypt for your little ones and for your wives, and bring (pf.cs.) your father, and come (pf.cs.). And with your goods do not concern (juss.) yourselves, for the best of all the land of Egypt is yours."

In this example it is evident that the first two imperatives stand independently. The next clause C~l'~~-n~ 'u~~ and the following J~P il;71 (with two imperatives) might form 5Ssee E.I. Lowenthal, The Joseph Narrative in Genesis, 107-108. Note that Lowenthal assumes an ellipsis here. Cf. LXX.

228

a two-member chain where the former functions as a semantic stepping stone. In this case ~~~n:::::,7~, which are both movement verbs, may be taken as an hendiadys. c;ro~-n~J c;.r::)~rn~ ~t'P~ and the following imperative clause '1~ ~~t~ might also form another two-member chain. Actually one can observe that these two two-member chains are juxtaposed structurally (i.e. VP (impv.) + n~ + Obj. - VP (two impvs.) + [Direction]// VP (impv.) + n~ + Obj.1 + n~ + Obj.2 - VP (impv.) + [Direction]), though one can read a temporal and/or logical sequence between the two units. The next cohortative clause functions as a purpose clause (i.e. "indirect volitive"?). And the following imperative clause may stand as an additional order, since it is grammatically difficult to include it in the preceding purpose clause. iitl'J.~ iirJ~J signals a beginning of new literary unit, in which the conjunction may, however, still link not with the previous clause, but with-?~ 7~~ '9'CT~- Here, note that iitl~~~ is written in full form, which may be considered as a pausal form (cf. Josh.13:1; Mal.2:14, etc.).56 Note also that this passive construction (i.e. Pual) in suffixed form is used to express a command or an instruction. In this case the lexical meaning of this word may play an important role.5 7 Again ~~~ n~! stands independently. And the next imperative clause is followed by two waQATALs, forming a sequential link, i.e., "Take wagons... "-+ "and bring your father ... "-+ "and come.", where the first imperative clause functions as a semantic stepping stone (i.e. Pharaoh's main intention is to bring Jacob and come back to Egypt, and the first clause simply serves to inform its method which is proposed by Pharaoh.). Probably the last jussive clause stands independently again as an additional order. Here, the inversion may signal a change of the point of view. 58 S61t could be taken as a precative perfect (cf. Ps.4:8, etc.), though this is a passive form? For the precative perfect, see I.W. Provan, "Past, Present and Future in Lamentations III 52-66: The Case for a Precative Perfect ReExamined," 164-175. 57or we may take that the expression iTt)'J:;!, iT~lt) is also a part of Pharaoh's order which Joseph has to tell to his brothers, where the pronoun iT~~ (2ps) is used collectively. SSsee T. Giv6n, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, 1 ( 1984), 208 at footnote 34. He says, "The more discontinuous/disruptive word-order, SY, in Early Biblical Hebrew is used to code either topic discontinuity or action/theme discontinuity - or, since they most commonly coincide,

229

6.8. Summary In the volitive context the prefix conjugation (i.e. the jussive and the cohortative) and the imperative basically function as nonsequential forms. The suffix conjugation, i.e., (wa)QATAL, on the other hand, is used as a sequential form. However, two successive injunctive forms, not more than that, where a strong semantic binding force functions in their connection, may form a two-member chain as a semantic unit. Strictly speaking, this two-member chain may be classified into the following four cases: ( 1) The first injunctive clause functions as a semantic stepping stone for the latter and the latter functions as a goal clause; (2) Idiomatic hendiadys; (3) The so-called movement verb (as the injunctive form) is employed in the first clause; (4) The first injunction functions as an interjection which directly connects to the following injunctive, though one can usually take the interjection as an independent form. We should note that sometimes a long string of commands may be observed with several imperatives, but, on closer examination one might find that even in such long string the two-member chain functions as a minimal cell. One can also observe the following sequences in the volitive context: ( 1) Non-sequential form -+ sequential form(s) (Le. waQATAL(s)), where the first clause functions as a semantic stepping stone for the following; (2) Sequential form(s) -+ nonsequential form, where the last clause functions as a goal clause; (3) Combination, i.e., non-sequential form-+ sequential form(s) -+ non-sequential form. The sequential form can appear in a free-standing sentence (i.e. "the pseudo-independent form") for the following purposes as literary effects: (1) Foreshadowing a forthcoming clause(s); (2) Fading-out an utterance or to press the addressee for affirmative reply in a gentle manner, where a literary reverberation is produced by the sequential form.

both." See T. Giv6n, "The Drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: the Pragmatics of Tense - Aspect," Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, (1977), 181-254.

230

The prefix conjugation which is a cohortative in form may also be used to express a statement rather than a command, forming a purpose clause. One can observe that this type of cohortative (i.e. "indirect volitive") may be followed not by?~ + jussive, but~?+ non-perfective in the purpose clause(s).

231

CHAPTER 7

SYNTACTIC RELATIONSHIP IN NARRATION

7.1. Introduction In the analysis of the direct discourse section we have observed that parameters such as 'word order,' 'tense' and 'aspect' were not always decisive in the choice of verbal forms in biblical Hebrew. In fact, 'word order' (especially the fronting of a constituent within the clause) seems to function rather as topicalization, which may directly be related to the flow of the topic, the action or the theme in a thread of discourse. 1 So far as 'tense' as the time reference is concerned, the temporal distinction between 'past' and 'non-past' may be marked in the conjugations. However, we should note that at the translation level the distinctions between the present and the future (or modal), between the past and the non-past in the modal context, between the simple past and the (present/past) perfect and so on fully depend on the context. We also observed that the matter of 'aspect' and that of 'tense' as the time reference were mutually related. In this sense, also we should not neglect the matter of 'aspect' for the choice of the verbal forms. But even the binary aspectual opposition such as 'perfective' vs. 'imperfective' (or non-perfective) which is defined by Comrie2 does not seem to correspond neatly to each conjugation. For instance, one cannot observe imperfective aspect in the prefix conjugation in the future/modal context, which could actually be considered as perfective (i.e. The narrator or the writer "looks at the situation from outside, without necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation."), Icf. T. Giv6n, "The Drift from vso to svo in Biblical Hebrew: the Pragmatics of Tense - Aspect," 181-254; T. Giv6n, Syntax: A Functional-Typological lntroduction.1, 206-210; G. Payne, "Functional Sentence Perspective: Theme in Biblical Hebrew," ScandJOT2 (1990), 62-82; T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew , 1-46, etc. Zsee B. Comrie, Aspect , 1-40.

232

though it does not hold 'complete' sense.3 Rather the traditional aspectual opposition 'complete' vs. 'incomplete' may basically correspond to the suffix conjugation and the prefix conjugation respectively, which appear in free-standing clauses. However, it is difficult to say, for example, that the suffix conjugation which expresses a stative sense or a durative situation has perfective aspect, even if we define 'perfective' as complete situation rather than 'completed action•4 or it has complete aspect. In fact, linguists generally observe that in the stative verb or the verb which has a stative sense the implication of duration is contained in the general meaning of the verb. In biblical Hebrew the suffix form is usually used for this type of verb and basically the prefix form does not appear as the imperfect form as its counterpart, which may also support that this suffix conjugation has imperfective aspect rather than perfective aspect. This phenomenon suggests that we should also consider the inherent lexical meaning of the verb itself. Moreover, we have argued that especially the parameters of "tense" and "aspect" do not describe the functional differences between QATAL and (waY)YIQTOL (= short form) or between YIQTOL (= long form) and (wa)QATAL, since it is a discourse phenomenon rather than a phenomenon at the level of the isolated clause or sentence. In this respect, we saw that the contrast between "nonsequence" and "sequence" played an important role in the choice of the verbal forms and the composition of Hebrew verbal utterances. Here, we should note that when we use the terms "non-sequential" and "sequential" (see § 3.1.), they are also different from the terms "independent" and "dependent" used by W.L. Moran or M.S. Smith, etc.s For them "independent" means the usages in which the verbal forms do not belong to protases or apodoses of conditional/temporal sentences and "dependent" 3Cf. IBHS, 476-477. Thus, Waltke and O'Connor suggest the term 'nonperfective' with the sense "a more than opposite" of the suffix conjugation instead of the term 'imperfective.' 4JBHS,476. Ssee M.S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit and Qumran, 6-8; W.L. Moran, "A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets." PH.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins Unversity (1950).

233

means the usages in which the verbal forms are in protases or apodoses of conditional/temporal sentences, though Moran himself seems to have a hunch that there are cases which are implicitly dependent. 6 However, their concept of "independent" and "dependent" as coordinate may have some theoretical problems. For example, in the case of an implicit conditional/temporal sentence, where several consecutive forms are successively linked, but whose protasis is not marked with a particle, we do not know whether we should classify it as "independent" or as "dependent." Here, it should be noted that even Moran himself, for example, classifies dl7kOm/ e_t/akunu u lB.-4SSATUNU kfma _,.vat/nu u PASijATUNU, "Kill

your lord, and then you will be like us and have peace." [EA 74:25-27] as "(implicit) dependent." 7 However, Smith argues that "the implicit marking of a conditional context provided a middle stage from the use in conditional sentences to the consecutive perfect in independent sentences."8 This is quite interesting. But, as a result, he neglects the single instance of fientic *qatala in the present/future context, i.e., ul t/!J°'lt7017c7 m/mma u Sc7/Jrt~ "they never hear anything, but they write." [EA 82:10-12], which can be classified as "independent" according to his definition.9 Because, for Smith *qatala which refers to a future time-frame in independent usage must be stative with one hundred and twenty-two instances in the Amarna letters. We agree with this. However, in biblical Hebrew one may often observe the sequence (x-)YIQTOL -+ waQATAL(s) (sometimes in an antithetical link) where the first clause functions as a circumstantial clause (or a semantic stepping stone) for the following in the future/present context (see§ 5.3.2., § 5.3.4., etc.). And in spite of his definition of "dependent", our definition as "sequential" does not exclude this *qatala. 6see W.L. Moran, "The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background," 54-72, 65. 7see W.L. Moran, "The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background," 64-65. BM.S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit and Qumran, 13. 9see M.S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit and Qumran,, 7.

234

Furthermore, Moran himself also notices some examples like u laqO alanisu, "and they have taken his cities" or u tid0kl7na, "and they will kill," where the fientive verb, which occurs in temporal/conditional sentence, does not "convert" the tense, and he regards them as exceptions.IO However, it is quite possible on our definition mentioned above for such fientive verbs, which we call "non-sequential" forms, to occur in conditional/temporal sentences (see § 5.6.3.). In any case, the phenomenon of the tenses in biblical Hebrew is deeply related to the complex interaction of the above mentioned parameters. And, above all, the interaction between the contrast of "non-sequence" vs. "sequence" as a discourse factor, which is connected to the flow of the topic, the action or the theme, and the tense as the time reference may play the most important role in the choice of the conjugations. Therefore, also in this chapter we shall examine primarily this interaction and its relationship with the composition of Hebrew narrative. Before we discuss the phenomenon of the tenses in the narrative section we have to identify each intrinsic literary unit. Otherwise we cannot examine the relationship between the flow of the topic, the action or the theme and the choice of the conjugations accurately. However, the identification of a certain literary unit in the narrative section may be more difficult than that of the direct discourse section. Once we admit that the biblical text is essentially aural, that is, "however it was recorded and preserved, it was intended to be understood with the ear, and not with the eye," 11 we can hardly expect that biblical writers employed graphic signals such as chapter headings, paragraph indentations or the like to delimit a discourse, a paragraph, a subparagraph or even a sentence boundary.1 2 Thus, to some extent our analysis cannot avoid the so-called semantic interpretations.13 lOsee W.L. Moran, "The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background," 65. 11H. Van Dyke Parunak, "Some Axioms for Literary Architecture," Semitics 8 (1982), 1-16, 2. 12cf. H. van Dyke Parunak, "Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure," 153-168. Bcf. J.H. Sailhamer, "A Database Approach to the Analysis of Hebrew Narrative," Ma 5-6 (1990), 319-335 at 327. Sailhamer notes, "the "markers"

235

But still one may use the following markers to delimit literary units in the present analysis (They have already been employed in our analysis of direct discourse, though they are not always decisive.): (1) Temporal/Conditional markers or temporal expressions, e.g. 'iT'1, iT'iT1, CN:, etc., which usually stand at the beginning of a literary unit.14 However, we should note that especially 'iT'1 or iT'iT1 may occur in the middle of a sequence (see § 5.6.4., e.g. Ex.1:10, etc.); (2) iTJiT-clause, which also usually initiates a sequence, but not always so. Though iTJiT functions to draw the addressee's attention (i.e. an attention-getter) or as an indicator of point of view, it does not always mean that it introduces a new literary unit. Consider, for example, 40:9, 16; 41:17; 43:21, etc.; 1 5 (3) waYYIQTOL (or waQATAL) with a stated subject often initiates a new subparagraph (discourse unit).16 However, we may observe a sequence, which is usually a logical rather than a temporal succession, among clauses where each clause has a different stated subject (see § 5.2.1., e.g. 42:31-33; 44:19-27, etc. cf. Gen.1:3: wayyomer "elo/Jlm [ya/Jl "or] ---+ waya/Jl -'or); (4) The absence of the conjunction in the clause may mark the initiation of a new unit/episode (e.g. 37:6, 8-10, 13-17; 37:33; 48:20, etc.). But there is the case in which the clause without waw does not initiate a unit, where chiasmus is usually involved (e.g. 41:11-13, etc. See also § 3.1.) ; (5) Double-Duty items (see §

of distinct segments within a text are likely to be both thematic and formal.'' In addition, he observes the following "text-segment markers,"

which belong to the "narrative world": (1) changes in persons; (2) changes in time; (3) changes in place (328-333). See also S. Bar-Efrat, "Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative," Vetus Testamentum 30(1980),154-173at168-172. 14cf. JSDP, 66-68. IScf. A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Bible and literature Series 9 (1983), 62-63 and 91-95; SBH, 94-96. 16Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation, 119, n. 9. Here, he proposes the following assumptions: (1) a new subparagraph (discourse unit) is begun by every new wayqtol with a stated subject; waw here is "initial"; (2) wayqtol without a stated subject indicates that this action or event is in sequence with the previous action or event; wawhere is "sequential.'' These assumptions may be supported, to some extent, by Longacre's observation: He says, "Local reciprocities may occur anywhere along the storyline. That is, we have a situation in which A does something and B in return performs an action. Usually the conditions are specific enough lexically that the change of subject need not be formally marked." See JSDP, 72-73 and also 74.

236

6.1.);17 (6) The parallelism or the chiasmus (e.g. 41:30-31, etc.; see § 5.4.2.);18 (7) "Meta-communicational marker," e.g. wavvomer,

which signals the beginning of a communication act within a narrative. However, "there is no explicit marker to signal the end of a meta-communication plane begun with wayyomer" 19; etc. Here we should note that in many cases these markers may function not to delimit a literary unit as semantically selfcontained, but to indicate that a unit may be said in one breath by the speaker/narrator or the like (i.e. one-breathing unit). Again, as we mentioned, these markers, unlike graphic ones, are not always decisive in identifying the (literary) unit, but, in any case, we shall pay attention to them in our study, though detailed comment on the delimitation of each unit may not always appear in the following analyses. Furthermore, we shall use the terms "off-the-line material" and "on-the-line material." These are the terms proposed by R.E. Longacre based on the so-called "foregrounding - backgrounding hypothesis," which mean various kinds of supportive, descriptive, and depictive material and the backbone or storyline material respectively.20 However, our analysis in the direct discourse section has already shown that this dichotomy does not simply correspond to the choice of the conjugations, which may be, rather, a by-product from the aspectual contrast 'stable' vs. 'unstable' in relation to the contrast between "non-sequential" and "sequential." Therefore, we shall simply use these terms, i.e., "off-the-line material" and "on-the-line material," in order to reexamine this result in the direct discourse section in the present study.

17SBH,98. 18cf. H. van Dyke Parunak, "Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure," 153-168, at 156-160. 19see J.H. Sailhamer, "A Database Approach to the Analysis of Hebrew Narrative," 326. Cf. S.A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible, VI'S 46 (1992). 20see JSDP, 64-82 and also R.E. Longacre, "The Discourse Structure of the Flood Narrative," JAAR 47 (Supplement B) ( 1979), 89-133, at 96-97.

237

7 .2. Non-Sequential Form We shall now investigate the choice of the conjugations in the clause which stands independently, that is, in the clause which has, for instance, no explicit temporal and/or logical sequential relationship with the adjacent clauses (with either the preceding clause or the following clause or with both of them). Here, as we mentioned above, we should keep in mind in our investigation that even if a clause has a conjunction waw , it could be considered as an independent(= free-standing) clause.

7.2.1. QATAL for Off-the-Line Material We observed in the direct discourse section that the suffix conjugation usually functions as a non-sequential form in the past context. However, it is not so easy to find the independent clause in the true sense in the narrative section. Unlike the case in direct speech, each clause is more often linked together to form a thread of discourse, and each thread is interwoven in a larger discourse structure. Probably this is typical of the nature of the narrative, in which the narrator may unfold one story after another without pause, keeping his audience's attention. However, the following w a+ x-QATAL may be taken as an independent clause: 37:36

:c'r.r~~iJ ,~ il~l~ O'J9 ,,~,~;~7 c~J~lr?I$ ;~tit ~"J:;>Q c'~1l?CT1 And the Midianites sold (pf.) him in Egypt to Potiphar, Pharaoh's officer, the captain of the bodyguard;

In fact, this clause does not semantically link with the preceding thread of discourse (w.31-35) since both are different in stage (i.e. in Egypt and in Canaan). But one may see a contrast as a writer's literary device between two contemporary episodes, i.e., selling Joseph in v.36 as the true fact and brothers' deception in w.31-35 as a whole, in which the inverted word order (i.e. subject-fronting) and the disjunctive waw play an important role

238

(i.e. It is used to code topic discontinuity.21 ). In this sense the clause in question (i.e. v.36) may be taken as a part of the larger unit (i.e. w.31-36). For example, R. Alter tries to see a "nearly seamless transition" from v.35 to v.36. 22 However, at the same time, this wa+ x-QATAL clause functions as a resumption of the episode of selling Joseph (i.e. w.25-28) after the parenthetical episodes, i.e., Reuben's perplexity (w.29-30) and brothers' deception (w.31-35 ). In addition, it can also be taken as an anticipatory clause for the following episode in chapter 39. In this sense it is better to consider this wa + x-QATAL clause as an independent clause which does not directly connect to the preceding clause. If we pay attention to the anticipatory function of this clause, we may take this clause as off-the-line material. However, it is questionable when we see it as a resumption of w.25-28. It may be possible to take this clause as a goal (full stop) clause of this thread (i.e. the episode of selling Joseph). If so, it may be on-the-line material from this point of view. Let us also consider the following case: 41:50

J}}liJ ']J~ 11ti;tt1 07~~ CJ'~~ ~~~ 'i7.~. 99.i'?1 :1;~ 1.ITZI l'l~ ,~;~-n~ n~9~ 'fri117.: iW~

And to Joseph two sons were born (pf.) before the year of famine came (impf.), whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore (pf.) to him.

In this case, again wa+x-QATAL stands independently, since this clause and the preceding clauses (i.e. w.47-49) are different in staging (i.e. "Joseph's two sons" and "7 years of plenty"), and the following clause (i.e. v.51) is initiated by waYYIQTOL with the 21T. Giv6n, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, 1 (1984), 208, at footnote 34. 22cf. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981), S. Here, he says, "In this cunningly additive syntax, on the same unbroken narrative continuum in which Jacob is mourning his supposedly devoured son, Midianites are selling the living lad: "And his father bewailed him and the Midianites sold him" - for even the sentence break would not have been evident in the ancient text. The original syntax, to be sure, does indicate some opposition and perhaps a past perfect sense of the verb by placing the subject before the verb ("and Midianites sold him"), not the normal Hebrew order, and by switching the verb form when the Midianites are introduced. In any case, the transition from Jacob mourning to Joseph sold is more nearly seamless, less relationally marked, than modem translations make it seem."

239

,w~

+ QATAL clause as a same stated subject "Joseph." Here, subordinate clause explicates the preceding. (We shall discuss the verbal form in the subordinate clause including the prefix conjugation after c,t!l::i. in detail in chapter 8.) In addition, we should note that the inverted word order (i.e. adverbial-fronting) in this clause is used to shift the topic from "fruitfulness" of y,~il (w. 4 7-49 and esp. see v. 4 7 ) to that of Joseph (vv.50-52 and esp. see v. 52).23 If we see such a contrast here, it may be difficult to see that this waw + x-QATAL clause functions as off-the-line material, though w.50-52 as a whole could be taken as a digression.2 4 However, it is evident that this clause (i.e. v.50) provides circumstantial information for the next unit (w.51-52). Thus, one may say that this independent clause functions as a sort of "hinge" at the semantic level, which has the following double function: it functions as on-the-line material with the preceding thread and as off-the-line material for the following thread. Also consider the following:

41:56

f "l!$iJ ~~!1)-7~ 7~ il!iJ J~liJ)

And the famine was spread over (pf.) all the face of the earth.

In order to understand the semantic position of this wa + xQATAL clause, let us examine the discourse structure of 41:53-57. The sentence flow of this thread is a little difficult to follow. For example, Westermann notes that "in particular the statements about the famine in and outside Egypt do not stand in any clear relationship to each other."25 However, the discourse structure of 41:53-57 has a clear temporal/logical flow as follows:26

23cf. T. Giv6n, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, 208. 24Then we may observe that the waYYIQTOL is used in this digression (v. 51) as off-the-line material. zsc. Westermann, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, 98. Here, he proposes that the sentence in v.54b should be bracketed as a subsequent insertion, and v.56a should be read at the end ofv.56 and before v.57. However, if we take the chiasmus in vv.53-57 into consideration, this kind of modification might be unnecessary. 26u

= unit

240

vv.53-54a v.54b v.55 v.56a v.56b v.56c-57

Setting: The seven years of famine began to come. Ul: The famine was in all the lands, but Egypt has grain. U2: The famine was also in Egypt (Presupposition: Egyptians also have no grain.). U3: So the famine was over all the face of the earth: U4: Thus Joseph opened the storehouses to Egyptians (P.:Joseph has grain.). US: Though the famine was also severe in Egypt (P.: but Joseph has grain), all the earth also came to Joseph.

Here, we observe the following symmetrical pattern: Ul: (The famine) m~~iT 7:::> -+ u2: c,,~~ / / U4: (The grain.) c,,~~ -+ us: y,1tiT 7:::>. Therefore: A : The neighboring countries B : Egypt +- the famine C: So the famine was B': Egypt+- Joseph sold the A': The neighboring countries

+- the famine over all the face of the earth. grain. +- Joseph sold the grain.

Thus, taking the chiasmus into consideration, the semantic position ofv.56a (U3) might be understood as the consequence of the preceding incidents as a whole. Or we may say that v.56a explicates the preceding two clauses. At the same time, again this clause may function as a circumstantial clause for vv.56b-57 as a whole rather than for v.56b only. In this sense, One can say that this w a+ x-QATAL clause is a free-standing clause and fully functions as off-the-line material here. (We shall see the syntactic relationship between v.56c and v.57 later.) Other examples: 37:2 (iT'iT + PTC, cf. 39:22); 50:13b, etc.

7 .2.2. Nominal/Verbless Clause as Off-the-Line Material We also observed in the direct discourse section that a nominal/verbless clause usually functions as a non-sequential form, which basically is not used for a sequential link, but for a single statement. The same is true in the narrative section. The following is an example of the PTC clause:

241

39:23

i'1!~ 'ilftillt~-7~-n~ il~7 7iJOiTn':~. 7gJ inllt mil' 7Wllt:J.

I

r1

:rJ'7~~ iJlil~ ~~:., ~,~--,~il

The chief jailer did not supervise {ptc.) anything under Joseph's charge because the Lord was with him, and whatever he did (ptc.) the lord made (ptc.) to prosper.

In the above case the absence of the conjunction marks the beginning of a new sentence. The following clause (40:1) starts with the temporal expression (i.e. 'il'1 clause). One may observe that 39:23 functions as off-the-line material, which explicates the preceding main episode (i.e. The chief jailer put Joseph in charge of all those held in the prison.). We have also some iTJiT + PTCNerbless clauses in the narrative section ("dream reports" 27 ), which may be considered as independent clauses: 41:lb

:7N:'il-?~ io:., mm I : -

-

.,..

..._., • !

And behold, he was standing (ptc.) by the Nile.

41:Sb

mi:;i~J n;~,7~ iQ'~

iJ~7~

ni7:.,

C'?;i.~ ~J~ 1i!~iJJ

And behold, seven ears of grain came up (ptc.) on a single stalk, plump and good.

41:7

:ci?" mm I

-:

.,., •

:

Behold, it was a dream.

42:27c

:in"nollt I

:

-

:

-

'!IJ. .,.

:

1tiil-mm '

•• • :

And behold, it was in the mouth of his sack.

In the first two examples each clause functions as a setting or a circumstantial clause for the following episode. On the other hand, in the last two cases iTJil + Verbless clause explicates the preceding incident. Thus, iTJiT + PTCNerbless clauses here may be considered as off-the-line materials.2 8 However, a illil + 27see SBH, § 7.2., at 95. 28cf. JSDP, 75-76.

242

PTC/Verbless clause may contain material which is extremely close to the mainline of the story, though also in this case it may indicate not only a narrator's point of view, but also a character's point of view (e.g. 37:29; 38:27; 42:35, etc.).29 (We shall discuss this matter in detail later.) Moreover, the following pure verbless clauses also stand independently, and function as settings or circumstantial clauses: 42:6

f":)~iJ-?~ t!l'J~iJ ~,i; 9¢i'J fl..~iJ 0~-i,:;,7 ,,~~~iJ ~,r

And Joseph was the ruler over the land; He was the one who sold to all the people of the land.

43:1

:r1,~ i]~ :1~1iJJ

And the famine was severe (adj.) in the land.

46:8 (cf. 46:15a, 18a, 22a, 25, 27) ...11~~, :lf?~~ ilr;i~J~Q C',t.9iJ ?!nq,~-~~~ n~

iT7~J

And these are the names of the sons of Israel, Jacob and his sons who went to Egypt ..

Especially in the first example it is evident that two verbless clauses are juxtaposed, which are linked semantically with the repetition of ~,iT. Here, 9Qi' functions as a double-duty item. These two clauses as a whole function not only as a setting for the following incident, but also as a resumption of chapter 41.30 In addition, we should note that the 'casus pendens' construction

might be used here to code topic discontinuity rather than for emphasis.31 291n this connection, it is interesting to note that A. Berlin observes the following three functions of iTliT in the Book of Ruth: 1) In direct discourse, as an emphatic, registering attention or surprise, and best translated by 'Look' (1:15; 3:2). 2) In narration, as an indicator of point of view. A character or characters are perceiving what is contained in the JJiJzoeb clause (3:8; 4:1). 3) In narration, a way of introducing a new figure into an ongoing scene, best translated by 'at that point' (2:4). See A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 95. Cf. S. Kogut, "On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of i1FT in Biblical Hebrew," ScrHier 31 (1986), 133154. 30see C. Westermann, Genesis 37-50: A Commentaiy, 106. 3lsee T. Giv6n, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, 206-210. See also SVCHP, 148 and note 81 (204-5). Cf. T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and

243

7.2.3. Summary (1)

In the past context, QATAL, which is usually preceded by the non-verbal element (x-element), may stand alone as a nonsequential form. The nominal clause, PTC clause and ill,, + PTC/Verbless clause also function as a non-sequential form. These constructions often serve to introduce off-the-line material in the narrative.

7 .3. Sequential Form

Now, we shall examine the conjugation in the clause which appears in a sequence, that is, in the clause which has, for instance, explicit temporal and/or logical sequential relationship (like the syntactic relationship with "comma" + and in English) with the adjacent clauses (with either the preceding clause or the following clause or with both of them).

7.3.1. waYYIQTOL for On-the-Line Material

We observed in direct speech that the prefix conjugation (mostly waYYIQTOL form) functions as a sequential form in the past context. As has been suggested by scholars that waYYIQTOL is used most frequently as the "narrative tense,''32 this form is far more dominant in the narrative section than in direct discourse. (Note that waQATAL as a sequential form in the present/future context does not appear in the narrative section of the Joseph story.) It may be partially true in the narrative section that chains of waYYIQTOL convey the storyline or the backbone of a discourse, as observed by Longacre,33 Niccacci,34 Eskhult,3Setc. Structures in Biblical Hebrew, 18 and 72; W. Gross, Die Pendenskonstruktion im Biblischen Hebrai.sch, (ATSAT 27; St. Ottilien: EOS,

1987), 124.

32e.g. GKC, 326. 33JSDP, 65-66. 34svCHP, 175-180. 35 M. Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose, 34-36.

244

In spite of the usual observation that the waYYIQTOL form signifies "succession,"36 the term "succession" may be too restricted. In fact, as we shall see below, the waYYIQTOL form not only signifies temporal and/or logical succession, but also links simultaneous actions, antithetical actions and so on. In this sense, Giv6n's terminology, "topic-continuity" or "sequentialaction"("theme continuity")3 7 may be more comprehensive and appropriate. In addition, it is significant that he says, "The central matrix of such an aspectual system is one binary feature which controls the flow of the story: The opposition between unmarked or sequential narration as against counter-seguentialnarratio n."38 Moreover, we should also be aware, as Longacre notes and as we also observed in the direct discourse, that a chain is not necessarily simple, but two or three links may form a complex link.39 What Longacre means here is similar to the case that we have called the "two-member chain" especially in the hortatory context, though in our "two-member chain" non-sequential forms are used (i.e. not waQATAL, but COH, IMPV or JUSS; See§ 6.7.1.). Thus, a certain linkage or linkages in a sequential chain or a certain chain itself (e.g. with waYYIQTOLs) may be formed by semantically more tight juncture(s). Furthermore, if we admit that the aspectual binary oppositions "stable" and "unstable" or "non-sequential" and "sequential" are realized in the conjugations, which control the flow of the story, it is reasonable to assume that the sequential form which stands at the end of a thread or stands alone still holds an unstable character. Therefore, it seems highly probable that such a sequential form, which does not have an implicit succeeding clause, is used for some special literary effects.

36e.g. Jou.on, 320; IBHS, 547-551. 37T. Giv6n, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction ,296-297. 38T. Giv6n, "The Drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: the Pragmatics of Tense - Aspect," 181-254 at 198. Note also M.S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit and Qumran, 14. 39see JSDP, 70f.

245

7. 3 .1.1. Simple Succession (Temporal/Logical) In the narrative section there are many examples of "simple succession," in which the conjugation signifies succession and each clause is simply temporally and/or logically linked. Consider, for example, the following case: 37:29b-30

:,,-;n::rn~ ~'JP~J

,,mri,~ :J~:J * ...l_~~~J +

so he tore (impf.cs.) his garments, and returned (impf.cs.) to his brothers, and said (impf.cs.) ...

Here, three clauses are successively linked (i.e. temporal succession), where waYYIQTOLs are employed to express past actions. Other examples: 37:9, 17b, 31-32, 33; 38:1-8, 10, llb, 14; 39:8, 16-17; 40:9; 41:56; 42:1?, 6b, 26; 43:19-20, 27, 28, 30; 45:25; 46:1; 47:10, 11; 48:12, 13, 14a, 15; 49:1, 29a; 50:1, 13, 18, 21, etc. On the other hand, the next case involves a slightly different sense in its sequence: 38:16

il..nil' mt,~,

:iJ~~~ ilDQ:;> '? i]il? iJ~~~~~Ji ,·-

TJicr-7~ iJ'?~ ~~J ...i~l-t~J +

+

And (when) Judah saw (impf.cs.) her, he thought (impf.cs.) she was a harlot, for she had covered (pf.) her face, so he turned aside (impf.cs.) to her by the road, and said (impf.cs.) ...

In this case, it is possible to consider that the link between the second clause and third clause is consequential rather than temporal. Thus, waYYIQTOLs may be employed to form a sequence in which an action of the antecedent clause logically and temporally affects that of the following with the same topic/subject at the semantic level.

246

37:S

Ci?q '9Qi' 07(1~] iJ~l i : i~N: N:~~ ii~ ~!:J.9i~] +

,,n,7

And Joseph had a dream (impf.cs.), and told (impf.cs.) it to his brothers, so that they hated (impf.cs.) him even more;

Here, the linkage between the second clause and the third clause is consequential rather than simply temporal, where subject switching occurs (i.e. Joseph-+ brothers). (Of course, it is also possible to see a temporal succession here.) Also examine the following: 41:42-43

,~r.i

';ri~::t~-riN: i'U179 ,o;, • ~-~Qi' ·-~ti~ 'iriilt W;.1-7~l + :i7N:J~-',~ :l{:J'"?iJ i_;l.7 C~!l + ii;-,~~ -iT~~~ij ri~?lQ~ iniit J..?.7~l i

i"T'

T-:,~

w~-,,p

J~!] i '-

lJ~tt ,~~~7 ~~7R!J + :c~J~Q r1~-,~ ,;i inilt 1~~J i

Then Pharaoh took off (impf.cs.) his signet ring from his hand, and put (impf.cs.) it on Joseph's hand; And clothed (impf.cs.) him in garments of fine linen, and put (impf.cs.) the gold necklace around his neck; And he had him ride (impf.cs.) in his second chariot, so they proclaimed (impf.cs.) before him," Abrek;" And he set him (inf.ab.) over all the land of Egypt:

Apparently, in this case seven clauses appear in one literary unit, which is one of the longest units in this narrative section. Note that this unit begins with the waYYIQTOL form with the stated subject iT:J7~ and ends with the nominal clause (i.e. the infinitive absolute, standing at the sequential position) which may explicate the preceding actions. However, iriilt in the third, fifth and seventh lines may signal the beginning of each new subunit. In this case, the difference between the "initial" waw and the "sequential" waw 40 may be blurred. In any case, we observe that 40fsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation, 119, n. 9.

247

the sixth clause is logically connected to the preceding (i.e. consequential) by subject switching. In fact, we have already observed the same phenomenon in the direct discourse section (see§ 5.2.1.), that is, subject switching may imply a logical succession, and it seems also to be true in the narrative section. It allows two or more subjects/topics to be employed in a single sequence, particularly when an action of the antecedent topic logically affects that of the following topic. However, we should be aware that this is strictly a matter at the translation level. Let us also consider the following: 38:18b-19

rr!rl~?]

iJ'i~ lit?!] i

:i7 7iJfJ] i

CRf.lJ

170]

iJ'...7~ rT~,~~ 7Q_£1] i :rTt)~ll?7~ 'JP w~7':IJ i

i

So he gave (impf.cs.) them to her, and went in (impf.cs.) to her, so she conceived (impf.cs.) by him.

Then she arose (impf.cs.), and departed (impf.cs.), and removed (impf.cs.) her veil, and put on (impf.cs.) her widow's garments;

Again, between the second line and the third a logical succession can be observed with a subject switching (i.e. Judah --+ Tamar). 41 Note that the first clause ofv.19 (Tamar's action) is not necessarily considered as the one which is directly linked with the preceding. Rather, it is linked with the preceding unit (Judah's action or incident with Judah) as a whole. In this sense, one may say that the third clause with a subject switching functions as a transitional device from one unit to the other, in which, interestingly enough, waYYIQTOL as a sequential form is used. (Also note that in v.19 the first two clauses may be considered as 41 Note here that it does not make any difference whether subject switching is marked by the stated subject or merely by the verb.

248

a semantically more tight linkage.) Other examples (i.e. logical succession with subject switching): 37:10, 12-13, 14, 28, 29-30, 34-35; 38:3, (38:1-8), 6-8, 18b, 28; 39:4, 5, 20; 40:4, 21; 41:14, 42-43, 45, 55; 42:25 (cf. GKC § 120 t); 43:24-25; 44:6-7; 45:2; 4 7:7, 27, 31 b; 48:2, 1O; 50:2, 10, etc. However, we should also note that there are some examples in which no implicit logical succession can be observed, even though subject switching occurs: 38:12

C'r.liil '1:11i1

il.J1il~-~~ !al,q;-n, rlQ£1J i • T-

:il~~':1 'P71.~:r 1il~7 il::J'r:rJ ~,fr 'il~~

: ·-

ili1il' cmi1 ~nt?i ?~~J -..;--

And after a considerable time (impf.cs.), Shua's daughter, the wife of Judah, died (impf.cs.). And Judah was comforted (impf.cs.), and he went up (impf.cs.) to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite;

The above verse may be divided into two chains (Probably each chain may be considered as a sentence.) for the following reasons: Firstly, the second chain begins with the stated subject il11il~ (with subject switching). Secondly, one may assume that there is a relatively long interval between the two chains. Consequently each chain consists of two clauses, in which waYYIQTOLs form a simple succession. (Here, we can assume that waYYIQTOL in the second clause also holds an unstable character suggests linkage with the following unit.) Note that especially in the first unit with subject switching the sequence is not like a logical succession. Rather the first clause functions as a temporal setting for the following. The same is true in the following: 41:53-54a

:c:.J~ TlJP· if.~v ,~~ ~.d•:r ~J~ ~~~ ilr?~J ~il? ':lilv ~J~ ~~~ ilr'?r:r".n i

9-Qi' ,~, ,~~

And the seven years of plenty which had been (pf.) in the land of Egypt came to an end (impf.cs.), and the seven years of famine began (impf.cs.) to come, just as Joseph had said (pf.);

249

The next case is also interesting. In it, though one can observe subject switching from Joseph to Benjamin's portion, the linkage is not consequential, but probably antithetical. Or the first clause may act as a temporal setting for the next clause. 43:34

~w~, rti1~ WP.rJ c~~ n~~~· JP~~~ ~~~ :ii-jt.iJ i .Cii?~ 1'l9

~i';)

rtltWl;)

And (when) he took (impf.cs.) portions to them from his own table, but Benjamin's portion was (impf.cs.) five times as much as any of theirs;

In other words waYYIQTOLs as sequential forms may also be employed to form a sequence in which an action of the antecedent clause does not logically or temporally affect that of the following at the semantic level, where consequently the subject switching merely marks a new topic: For in some cases the antecedent clause simply functions as a setting for the following, or two or more simultaneous actions are staged in sequence. This will be examined in the next section. (The former case shows that the waYYIQTOL can be used as off-the-line material.)

7.3.1.2. Simultaneous Action Two or more waYYIQTOLs may be employed to link events/actions which are partially or wholly simultaneous. Let us examine two examples: 39:21

:,iJ9i:r-n'~

9Q;,-n~ 'ilJil~ 'r.r~J ii;)J!

1']~

tq~J !

,w :r~~ ;~r:r lf'J~J i

But the Lord was (impf.cs.) with Joseph, and showed (impf.cs.) him steadfast love, and gave (impf.cs.) him favor in the sight of the chief jailer;

In this example it is difficult to see any temporal or logical succession among these clauses. Though probably one may observe a smooth flow of thought from general information to 250

specific (Generic - specific paraphrase42) here, clauses substantially overlap in meaning (cf. 39:2-3, 23). One may also see a logical succession between the first two clauses as a whole and the third clause, but still it is rare that an actor's action to someone else causes his next action to the same person (However, see Jer.31:3 " .. .I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with loving kindness."). In fact, here all three clauses hold the same actor and target (i.e. iTJiT~ and 9Qi') which are referred to in the first clause of this thread. Let us examine the next case: 45:2

';,:p i7/:,-n~ lf.J~J

C~i~~ ~~!?~~] : iT~7~ '1'}. ~~~~) +

(J)

+

But, he wept (impf.cs.) so loudly, that the Egyptians heard (impf.cs.) it, and the household of Pharaoh heard (impf.cs.) of it;

In this case, the relation between the first clause and the following two clauses as a whole is consequential, and subject switching may be observed (i.e. Joseph ---- [the Egyptian - the household of Pharaoh]). On the other hand, in both the second clause and the third clause the same root verb ~r.iw is employed in the waYYIQTOL form, indicating the synchronism of the two events in a linear text. Another subject switching, the Egyptian -+ the household of Pharaoh, appears here, but a logical succession

can hardly be observed. Note that, for example, Westermann translates it "But he wept so loudly that all the Egyptians and the house of the Pharaoh heard him."43 However, LXX sees a temporal succession here, rendering: "...J1Kouoa.v 6E nciviES ot A( )'UTTi~o~. Koi &ouoiov E:)'EVEiO Els iov ofKov cl>ctpaw." Moreover, E.A. Speiser,44 N.M. Sarna,4Setc., who, more or less, follow LXX, take the third clause as a consequence of the preceding two clauses. Thus, they 42R.E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse (1983), 119-121. Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, 139(-140). 44 E.A. Speiser, Genesis, The Anchor Bible 1(1969),336. 45N.M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary 1(1989), 308. Here, he notes, "The report was quickly bruited about so that it reached the court."

43c. Westermann,

251

translate "But his sobs were so loud that the Egyptians could hear, and so the news reached Pharaoh's palace." In this case, the main intention of the writer here concerns the incident which is referred in the last clause, that is, that Joseph's sobs (or the news of Joseph's brothers' arrival?) reached Pharaoh's palace (cf. 45:16). As long as we examine only this single verse, such translations may be grammatically possible. However, in the light of other passages such translations would weaken the significance of the existence of the preceding circumstantial clause, i.e., tz;,~ ,r.:i:rllt?J 1'tnr?~ 99.;, :!J;Il~iJ:;;i ;t,~ ("And no man stayed with him when Joseph made him known to his brothers."). In fact, not only this circumstantial clause, but also verse 1 as a whole clearly leads us to take the last two clauses as the writer's main intention, that is, "They heard Joseph's sobs (i7(:n"I~) (rather than the news of Joseph's brothers' arrival)," unless a clear-cut division between these two clauses is marked or at least the object in the latter clause is clearly different from that in the former. Also note that this circumstantial clause also suggests that "they [the Egyptians] take no part in what now happens between the brothers."46 Other examples: 42:7; 43:17, 34(?); 45:14-15(?), 21; 47:27b; 50:21, etc.

7.3.1.3. Complex Link As we mentioned before, a chain is not necessarily simple, but two or more links may form a complex link.47 In this case it is important to note that in each intimate link two or more clauses are usually used to depict a single stage or action. Thus, this combination and the above mentioned link (i.e. simultaneous link) may, to some extent, overlap in the concept. Consider the following:

46c. Westermann, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, 142. 4 7See JSDP, 70f.

252

38:llb

!i'J'?'

"lQ~ ltfJJ

rl'}. J.~J ~

So Tamar went (impf.cs.), and lived (impf.cs.) in her father's house;

In this sequence the first clause can be considered as carrying less significant information than the second. The so-called movement verb is employed in the first clause, supplementing the following with a sense of directional movement. In this case one may consider that the two clauses are used to depict one stage or one action. In fact, the first clause with this movement verb does not indicate any explicit direction, but takes it from the second clause. Note that the movement verb such as c1p, iT?!J, i,', N:1:J, 7?iT, J.1W, etc. may simply initiate the following main action with a sense of directional movement (i.e. up, down, forward, backward, etc.). Other examples: 42:6 (with N:1:J); 45:14, etc. Besides, Longacre lists 37:17, 29, 30; 42:24, 29; 44:14, etc. 4 8 However, all of them may be considered as simple sequences, since both clauses are semantically equally significant. Consider, for example, "...And Joseph went (l?iT) after his brothers, and found (N:~t.l) them at Dothan (37:17)." Here, both clauses are equally important, depicting two stages rather than one. Note that the first clause refers to an uncertain direction, but, on the other hand, the second expresses a definite place. Now the above mentioned intimate link may appear as a part of a long chain to form a complex link: 38:19

Ci?f.lJ

11m •

iJ',?¥Q. rT~~~ ,QjJJ • :rTtJU1?7~ 'JP w;7':IJ •

Then she arose (impf.cs.), and departed (impf.cs.), and removed (impf.cs.) her veil, and put on (impf.cs.) her widow's garments;

48JSDP, 72 (§ 1.3.3.).

253

Here, the first two clauses more or less express a single action, where the first clause supplements the following. Though the second movement verb does not specify any explicit direction, it does not supplement the next action. That is, in this case the second movement verb, which is supplemented by the preceding, is employed as a full verb, simply indicating that Tamar left the roadside at Enaim (or Judah). Thus, this chain as a whole might be observed like [ACT1 - ACT2] ---+ ACT3 ---+ ACT4 (ACT= action). 49 (A similar case can be observed in 43:15b with cnp.) Also, as Longacre observes, this phenomenon, i.e., intimate link, can be often seen with verbs of speech or verbs of sensation.so For the former case, Longacre explains, "... we first are told the nature of the speech act; then we are told the words that are spoken in the implementation of the act":5 1 Thus, "he told (7El0'1) it to his brothers and said (71J~'1) ... (37:9; See also 40:9 and 43:19-20)"; "and he rebuked (7!Jl'1) him and said (71J~'1) ... (37:10)"; "and tried to rescue (1iT?'.::l:'1) him and said(71J~'1) ... (37:21)"; "but he refused q~n'1) and said (71J~'1) ... (39:8; but 37:35?)"; "Joseph answered (J!i:1'1) and said (71J~'1) ... (40:18)"; "and he asked (?~W'1) them about their welfare and said (71J~'1) ... (43:27)"; "And he blessed (77~'1) Joseph and said (71J~'1) ... (48:15; cf. 48:20)"; "Then he commanded (1'.::l:'1) them and said (71J~'1) ... (49:29)." (Gen.37:21 will be discussed in detail later.) However, the example such as "Then he examined it (iT7':::)'1) and said (71J~'1) ... (37:33)" (JSDP, § 1.3.1.) may be excluded from this category, since this example depicts two stages in action rather than one stage. In any case, in these above cases two clauses depict one stage in action, where the first clause complements the second. In fact, the first clause signals a type of utterance (i.e. Whether it is a report, an expression of anger, a reprobation, a rejection, a response, an inquiry, a blessing, a command, an instruction, etc.) or a purpose of utterance (e.g. 37:21 ). 49cf. D.T. Tsumura, "A Discourse Analysis of Gen 1-4: with a Special reference to the phenomenon of wayqtl," Dansk Bibel Institut, Copenhagen, 1987. See also JSOTSS 83 ( 1989), 120. 50JSDP, 71 (§ 1.3.1.). SIJSDP, 71 (§ 1.3.1.).

254

In addition, in the following example the second clause o:,~l?~.D signals the method of the following primary action (cf. 38:14 and 43:34): 37:28

C'7nb c,f,,r.i C'Wl~ 'liJ~Pl 1:,wr.i~, i •-:1

"T:'

0

T•:

:•1••

7iili:qi;i '9Qi'-rll!_!: 17~~] 'i: ·,991 C'J~~~ C'7~~~~7 9,Qi,-rl!!_!: 17?1?~] l !iTlt?'J~l;I 99.i,-rll!_!: 1~']:J l

Then some Midianite traders passed by (impf.cs.), so they pulled (impf.cs.) and lifted (impf.cs.) Joseph out of the pit, and sold (impf.cs.) him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver, so they brought (impf.cs.) Joseph into Egypt;

The following example may also be worth considering: 42:7

l'tJ!!_!:-rll!_!: 9,Qi' ~,~] l -Ai. CiJ'7~ ,~~t:I~] rliW[? c~~ .,?.i?J l . ...CiJ7~ 7~~~J l

c,:,~,

And (when) Joseph saw (impf.cs.) his brothers, and recognized (impf.cs.) them, but disguised himself (impf.cs.) to them, and spoke (impf.cs.) to them harshly, and said (impf.cs.) to them ...

Here, the function of the clause rliW[? C~~ 7?.TJ in the fourth line is quite interesting. Apparently this clause and the following clause depict one stage in action, forming an intimate link. However, the third clause CiJ'71$ i~i~!J may also be included in this stage. In other words, these three clauses depict one stage in action. However, note that each clause repeats the same indirect object (i.e. Joseph's brothers), which may suggest that the three clauses are in a simple chain. In fact, the fourth clause functions as a sort of semantic hinge among these three clauses. Thus, [ACT1 -+ ACT2]-+ [ACT3--. ACT4-+ ACTs]. Furthermore, in the case of verbs of sensation, Longacre says, "Also, in a very similar manner, verbs of sensation may be 255

followed by a verb that introduces what is perceived (as the object of the verb) or the field of vision (in a 17/nne/J construction)."52 Thus, for example, "And they lifted up their eyes (Cil'J'~ 1~W'1) and saw (1~1'1) ... (37:25)." In this case, Longacre's following observation is noteworthy: He notes, "The second verb wayyir'u; 'and they saw', is somewhat parallel to 1-vayy1Ymer4 'and they said', in that the former introduces the field of vision, that is, what was seen, while the latter introduces a quotation, that is, what is said."53 At least, here two or more clauses depict one stage in the action. Probably this sort of lexical combination has already become an idiomatic expression. Other examples: "and he fled (0J'1) and went out (~'.::::'1) ••• (39:12)."; "Then they hurried (11ilr.l'1) and each man lowered (1111'1) ... (44:11; cf. Gen.24:18, 465 4 )," (where the first clause enjoys the subject of the second clause, i.e., W'~, "each man"); etc. Let us also consider the following case: 43:30

,,~-?, '1'001 rJl?:;>P?. 96i' ~~l r,;;97 fD~J~l i illltJiJ ~~!] i :ill~ 1~~] i

And Joseph hurried out (impf.cs.) for he was deeply stirred (pf.) over his brother. and sought (impf.cs.) a place to weep, and entered (impf.cs.) his chamber, and wept (impf.cs.) there;

It is interesting to note here that the intimate link wa.vma/Jerwaybaqqes is interrupted by a ':>-clause, in which, however, still the function of im:i is adverbial. Here, Tsumura's "AXB Pattern" may be instructive. He defines it as follows: "A and B stand for two words, phrases, clauses, or even discourses which constitute grammatically and/or semantically either a composite unit [AB] or a compound unit [A & B]; X is an affix, word, phrase, clause, or

52JSDP, 71 (§ 1.3.1.). 53JSDP, 71 (§ 1.3.1.). 54JSDP, 71-72 (§ 1.3.2.). 256

discourse which is inserted between A and B and yet limits the complex A-Bas a whole grammatically or semantically."55 Thus, the following AXB Pattern may be recognized in 43:30: A&B (VP with adverbial force - VP), X ( kl-clause) 9Qi' ,f.!'0~] :A :X 1'rTN:-7N: '1,r.in, 1,r.i:>P:>

·· ,. · ni;>:;i~ ~rj~1

i

:B

A: And Joseph hurried out (or quickly) (impf.cs.) for he was deeply stirred (pf.) over his brother, X: sought (impf.cs.) a place to weep, B:

In this case, one can say that wa,vma/Jer- waybaqqes as a compound unit (or an intimate link) is interrupted by a ':>-clause which limits the complex A-B as a whole grammatically and/or semantically. In fact, we can observe that ':>-clause as X modifies both the preceding clause A and the following B. Especially in examples like the above where the first clause clearly shows its grammatical and/ or semantic dependency on the second and plays simply an adverbial role, it may be easy to insert other material(= X) between the two clauses without breaking their intimate link. In an idiomatic combination it may be even easier. In addition, there are some cases where two clauses depict two stages in the action and yet can be considered as a linked idiom. These may have come into being due to their frequent employment by the biblical writers. For instance, "And she conceived (,iTm) and bore (,?m)...(38:3; also see 38:4, S)."; "and he sent (n7W'1) and called (N:,p'1) ... (41:8, 14)";etc. In the following cases, however, the first clause simply functions to highlight the target of the following main action: "and took (1iTITP'1) him and threw (1:>7W'1) him... (37:24)"; "and took (iTITP'1) her and went in (N::l'1) to her (38:2)."; "And he took 7~ ,l;IN:tJ

-·l'rJ~ i7. ,,l?~tJ

i

:1,,::1,-7~1 l'nb7n-7~ itlN: ~JiD ',;~ ,Eioit1 ITT:-:

'T

-:

J:

-

•C'""

And Joseph had a dream (impf.cs.), and told (impf.cs.) it to his brothers, so that they hated {impf.cs.) him even more; And he said (impf.cs.) to them ... so his brothers said (impf.cs.) to him... Thus they hated (impf.cs.) him even more for his dreams and for his words;

Here the first unit (i.e. 37:5) as a whole seems to functions as a summary preview for the following conversation between Joseph and his brothers, which is repeated in the last clause (i.e. 37:Sb) with additional information. Other examples: 37:35; 39:20, etc. Finally, the clause with waYYIQTOL which does not function on the mainline of the thread may be inserted into a sequence by waYYIQTOLs. As we already observed in § 7.3.2.2., the temporal clause with waYYIQTOL may appear in the middle of a thread of discourse (i.e. 45:24 ). This is a good example of this category. Consider also the following: 46:29

il~~~

itl:;L~l~ '9Qi' ,9,:J l';l\t 7Jnq,~-n~JP7 7~~J i

1'7~ ~J~l

1,,~,~-7~ 751t1 • :1i¥ l'J~,~:~~ 1i~J l ·-

( l)

And Joseph prepared (impf.cs.) his chariot, and went up (impf.cs.) to Goshen to meet his father Israel; and (when) he appeared (impf.cs.) before him. he fell (impf.cs.) on his neck, and wept (impf.cs.) on his neck a good while;

In the above case, note that the narrator's (perceptual) view point in 1'?~ ~,ti in the third line is different from that of the other T

••

JT .. •

277

clauses (i.e. a shift in point of view). In other words, the narrator suddenly takes a shot from a different angle here. The expression il~, "appear" (niphal) may signal that this time the narrator sees this scene with the same eye as that of Israel.7 2 But in the next clause the narrator's view point returns to that of the mode of simple narration. Thus, we could consider that the temporal clause "when he appeared before him." is inserted after the second clause of the main thread "Joseph prepared his chariot."---+ "and went up to Goshen ... " ---+ "and he fell on his neck." ---+ "and wept. ... ". It is also interesting to examine the following case: 43:24

9-Qi' il~'}. O'W~~~n,~ W').tiJ ~}.!l o~~-l~~l i O~'~j 1~rf7~l i : 0r.:f'7~07 ~i~ 9~ J}J~J O)

Then the man brought (impf.cs.) the men into Joseph's house, and gave (impf.cs.) them water, so they washed (impf.cs.) their feet; And he gave (impf.cs.) their donkeys fodder;

In this example the narrator seems to pay attention to the action of the steward of Joseph's house (W'~ij) rather than that of brothers. In fact, this thread opens with waYYIQTOL + the stated subject W'~ij. which continues in effect until the last clause without restating, jumping over the third clause where the subject switching can be seen. Under this circumstance the clause in question "so they washed their feet" may have the explicative function. Examine also other examples: 40:21-22; 45:24; 46:1, etc. Furthermore, consider the following: 37:21

1;.,~7 llp~~l

o:r.~ 1il?.~~l i __,~lit;J i

But Reuben heard (impf.cs.) this, and rescued (impf.cs.) him out of their hands, and said (impf.cs.) ...

72consider, for example, the difference between "come" and "go."

278

In this case CJ!l;I n7.~~J may require a rendering such as "and he tried to rescue him from them" rather than "and he rescued him from them." by the context (NIV; AB; Westermann, etc.). This is known as an example of the so-called "conative imperfect."73 But it is also possible to understand that Reuben delivered Joseph from his brothers' murder conspiracy (see 37:23-24.).74 In any case it is evident that this clause is subordinate in sense to the following (GKC §111 d). In this sense this clause with waYYIQTOL may be considered as off-the-line material. Longacre himself also admits that certain waYYIQTOLs belong to Setting or Terminus. He, however, tries to find a reason for this phenomenon in lexical conditions (i.e. preterites of motion, sensation, or psychological state), treating them as the exceptions to his theory. 75 In fact, as observed above, the stative verb, other verbs with a stative sense, the existential verb il'il, possibly the passive construction, etc. may be employed for the so-called background information, since these verbal forms are rather depictive, that is, they indicate 'state' rather than 'event'. But, as also observed earlier, this phenomenon is not limited to these categories. It seems to be rather related to the contents of each clause and the flow of the story or the associations of the clauses. T. Giv6n also observes a strong probabilistic correlation between the varioustense-aspect-modality distinctions and the foreground/background distinction, emphasizing, however, that "they are not absolute but rather probabilistic.":76

73p_p_ Saydon, "The Conative Imperfect in Hebrew," VT 12 (1962), 124-126. Here, for this usage he lists the following other examples: lKgs 20:1, 2Kgs 9:23, Jer 37:12, 2Chr 14:5, etc. Or note the fact that the perfect form could have an irreal sense (e.g. lSam.13:13; 25:34; 2Sam.6:6, etc.). 74cf. D. Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 1(1967), 182. 75 JSDP, 87-88 (§ 1.1.2.). 76T. Giv6n, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, 1 (1984), 288.

279

DISCOURSE FOREGROUND/BACKGROUND CORRELATIONS OF TENSE-ASPECT-MODALITY

feature tense sequentiality

foreground past in-sequence

durativity perfectivity modality (activeness) (syntax)

compact/punctual perfective/completive realis (action/event) (main clauses)

background present, future, habitual out-of-sequence, anterior, perfect durative/continuous imperfective/incompletive irrealis (state) (subordinate clause)

Thus, again, we have to say that the same sequential verbal form (i.e. waYYIQTOL) may be employed for the various discourse levels of information without breaking its sequence. In other words, even in a thread of discourse which is only formed by several waYYIQTOLs the narrator may have various options for staging the story. Since the sequentiality or non-sequentiality of the verbal form is a syntactic function (i.e. syntactic linkage) rather than a semantic one, it is primarily used for controlling the flow of the story (i.e. to begin, to stop or to continue the story), even though this function may exaggerate the foreground/background distinction. Thus the waYYIQTOL form is used to link some clauses, forming a certain (literary) unit. This unit may be a selfcontained unit or part of it in terms of topic or theme ("topic/theme-continuity"), or it may be a chunk which is uttered in one breath by the narrator.

7 .3.3. Summary (2)

The waYYIQTOL form not only signifies simple succession (temporal and/or logical succession), but also links simultaneous actions, antithetical actions and so on. A chain formed by waYYIQTOLs is not necessarily simple, but two or more links may form a complex link. Consequently two clauses (usually two) are used to depict one single stage or action, in which usually the first complements the second. In addition, two clauses may depict two stages in the action, and yet they can be considered as a single idiomatic intimate link.

280

Thus the function ofwaYYIQTOL as the sequential form should be understood not at the semantic level, but at the syntactic level: the waYYIQTOL seems to have an unstable nature which always lets the story flow on. It is reasonable to assume that the waYYIQTOL which is at the end of a certain thread of discourse or which stands alone (i.e. "Pseudo-independent form") has still the same function with its unstable nature (i.e. sequentiality). Thus, when it lacks a direct succeeding clause, this unstable nature may produce the effect of "literary reverberation," which may give a hint that something would happen afterwards, or which may produce a durative sense or simply fade out the scene. Or this unstable nature may play an important role when a direct speech or other information is inserted into a thread which is traced by waYYIQTOLs; this unstable nature maintains the sequence. Moreover, as mentioned above, waYYIQTOL may function as if it were an independent form (i.e. "Psudo-independent form"). Thus, for example, it is used as a preview, an explication, an interpolation (or literary insertion) for the adjacent clauses. At the translation level a waYYIQTOL clause besides a 'iT'1 clause as a cleft sentence may sometimes be taken as an implicit marking of a temporal clause. One can say that all these cases plus stative verbs in the waYYIQTOL form, antitheses in the antithetical linkage by the waYYIQTOL clauses and so on, which are rather depletive, do not function on the storyline of a narrative. Even in a thread of discourse which is only formed by several waYYIQTOLs the narrator might have various options for staging the story. Thus the waYYIQTOL form is simply used to link some clauses, forming a certain (literary) unit. This unit may be a selfcontained unit or its part in terms of topic or theme ("topic/theme-continuity"), or could be a sort of chunk which is uttered in one breath by the narrator.

281

7.4. Sequential Forms Sequential Form

Followed/Preceded

by Non-

As we observed in the direct discourse section the non-sequential

form may appear in a sequence which is formed by waYYIQTOLs. This case can be observed in the following two patterns: ( 1) the non-sequential form opens a sequence; (2) the non-sequential form closes a sequence. Interestingly enough while in the former case the clause with the non-sequential form can be usually considered rather as off-the-line material, in the latter case the clause in question often functions on the storyline of a narrative.

7.4.1. QATAL/VERBLESS/PTC for Off-the-Line Material 7.4.1.1. (x-)QATAL

---+

waYYIQTOL(s)

In the following examples the non-sequential form (x-QATAL) which opens a new sequence functions as a temporal setting (i.e. circumstantial clause): 38:30 ~~~ij i1!-?~

:rn.?

,~ ,,~

It~ 'irJ~) ;~~ llt::Jf?~J J

And afterward his brother came out (pf.) who had the scarlet thread on his hand. and he was named (impf.cs.) Zerah;

39:1

ill;l~J~~ iJ~iT 9!?.i') '7~~ u;,, 'c'r:r~~iJ 1YJ il!Jl~ 0'79 ,~,~is ~iT~f?!J J :ill!IW mi1iiT ,wi C'"N~DW' 'm TIT

"C•."

,•:-:

"

..

::•

_,

And (when) Joseph had been taken down (pf.) to Egypt, Potiphar. an Egyptian officer of Pharaoh. the captain of the bodyguard. bought (impf.cs.) him from the lshmaelites, who had taken him down (pf.) there;

Niccacci also observes the same phenomenon. He says, "The narrative chain ofWAYYIQTOLs is sometimes broken by a WAWx-QATAL type construction expressing a circumstance not of the foregoing but of the following WAYYIQTOL and it can be 282

translated by a circumstantial clause." 77 Here, the stable nature of (x-)QATAL (or a non-sequentiality), i.e., a nature of standing still rather than of flowing toward the following clause, may play an important role in drawing a clear dividing line between supportive information (i.e. setting, circumstance, etc.) and the main sequence. A similar example may be seen in 45:16. Thus we should also interpret even the following examples in a similar manner, though we can hardly consider the first clause with w ~x-QATAL as a temporal clause: 46:28 ~~~ 1!~~7 tl"')ii17 9(>;,-i,~

,,,~~? ~~ iT"!liT~.l~J

:1~~ ~7J

~~:J J

And Judah he sent (pf.) before him to Joseph. to point out the way before him to Goshen: and they came into (impf.cs.) the land of Goshen;

47:2

C'W~~

iT~~q l'T(27 ,,~~ iT~p~l : iT~,l!I 'Jl!I? Cl~tl J I

: -

,,r••:

•

, .. • - -

And from among his brothers he took (pf.) five men; and presented (impf.cs.) them to Pharaoh;

In the above examples the initial waw-x-QATAL clause functions as a sort of "semantic stepping stone," expressing an "antecedent circumstance" 7 8 or a "method" for the following main action. In this respect, the x-QATAL here is one step away from the mainline at the discourse level. Other examples: 40:23; 45:1, 2 (antithetical); 48:10. In this connection, note that Niccacci uses the same term "antecedent circumstance," but he may consider the opening waw-x-QATAL construction and the following waYYIQTOL clause(s) as a whole as an antecedent circumstance in relation to each preceding thread, seeing no difference at the discourse level between these two constructions within the unit (see SVCHP, § 89 and § 91.). According to him, in such cases the tense of waYYIQTOL(s) retains (or depends on) the preceding tense value (SVCHP, § 141). Thus, for instance, when waYYIQTOL continues 77SVCHP, 66 (§ 45). 7Bcf. SVCHP, 63 (§ 40).

283

the retrospective construction waw-x-QATAL, it could have the value of the pluperfect. However, especially in 46:28, though the opening waw-xQATAL construction could have the value of the pluperfect, the following waYYIQTOL clause hardly retains the preceding tense value.79 As noted above, we should, rather, pay attention to the functional difference at the discourse level between those two conjugations: When a non-sequential form is followed by a sequential form, the non-sequential form creates a pause in the flow of the story which is effectively utilized to discriminate between clauses which are intended to fulfil different functions in the discourse. In addition, the stable/static character of the suffix conjugation in the past context depicts a situation rather than an action. Therefore, the first clause should be treated as one step away from the mainline in relation to the following. Moreover Niccacci thinks that the tense shift waYYIQTOL(s) --+ waw-x-QATAL is for expressing an antecedent circumstance (see SVCHP, § 40). The fact that a certain whole "short independent narrative" after a series of waYYIQTOLs, which is comprised by waw-x-QATAL + waYYIQTOL(s), can be observed as a prior event may, however, be related to a matter of arranging some events in a linear text. Events are not necessarily arranged chronologically in a narrative text. However, even the chronological order is not clearly marked, it can be identified by the context. Thus, it is difficult to prove that "antecedent circumstance" is expressed by the tense shift waYYIQTOL--+ waw-x-QATAL. On the other hand, the construction shift rather than the tense shift waYYIQTOL--+ waw-x-QATAL with the inversion (x-fronting) may simply function as a marker of "topic shifting" and/or "topicalization."

79A theoretical inc.onsistency may be unavoidable, when Niccacci treats waYYIQTOL and waw-x-QATAL at the same discourse level, though he usually sees the difference of discourse level between these two constructions.

284

7.4.1.2. VERBLESS/PTC

--+

waYYIQTOL(s)

The verbless/participle clause may also open a sequence with the same function as (x-)QATAL: 47:13

1!tl? J~liJ ,~~-'? r1~0-,~~ 'r~ cr:;r;J :J*'lv ~J~~ r~t~ fl~J 'c~,~~ fl~ i176] J

And there was no food in all the land, because the famine was very severe; so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished (impf.cs.) because of the famine;

In this case the first clause is providing a circumstance for the following. Other examples: 39:11-12; 40:6-7. In addition, we should also note that a il.~i'.f-clause with PTC also opens a sequence, which functions as a circumstantial clause.BO Thus, consider the following:

:!J'~

41:2

'ri?l' ,~~iJ-f~ iJ~i'.fJ "1.Wi n~,-p, il~l~ ni~~ nf1~ :,n~i ilr~l':l] J

And behold, from the Nile there came up (ptc.) seven cows, sleek and fat: and grazed (impf.cs.) in the marsh grass:

In the above case the first clause indicates a state rather than an event. On the other hand, the second clause with waYYIQTOL may be observed as a main action.Bl (Note that a durative sense can be read in the waYYIQTOL form here.) Other examples are 41:3, 6-7, etc.

7.4.2. QATAL/VERBLESS/PTC for On-the-Line Material 7.4.2.1. waYYIQTOL(s)

--+

(x-)QATAL

As also observed in direct discourse (see § 5.4.1.), the QATAL form, which is usually preceded by the non-verbal element (xelement) in a clause, may serve as a "goal verb" (full stop) in a BOsee A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 62-64.

Blcf. SBH, 95.

285

thread of discourse. This close-out clause might be "climactic final event" rather than "simply a fade-out."8 2 In this case one can observe that the QATAL form functions on the storyline of a narrative rather than as supportive material. Consider the following: 37:4 1'111lt-?:11:I 'cil'::lllt Jilllt iniit-,:, 1'rillt 11lti~, T

"."

T

"

,c- T

" -:

"."

I"

iflilt

T "."

,~~i?'~.J

:c:i7~7 ;·p1 17?: ~7)

: ·-

J

i

i

And his brothers saw (impf.cs.) that their father loved (pf.) him more than all his brothers, and they hated (impf.cs.) him, and could not (pf.) speak to him on friendly terms.

Verse 4 closes the exposition of the Joseph story (37:1-4),83 where the sequence waYYIQTOL-.. waYYIQTOL-.. wa- ~?-QATAL can be recognized. In this case scholars may say that since waYYIQTOL cannot be negated, the suffix conjugation is used in this last clause. However, as already discussed in the direct discourse section (see§ 5.6.2.1. (2)), it is possible to negate it in the form 1,,va - ~?-YIQTOL (short form), which functions as a sequential form (e.g. Ex.39:21?; 1 Sam.27:9; 2 Sam.2:28; 1 Kgs.1:1; 2 Chr.23:19; Job 20:19, etc.). There is an example of this in the Joseph story: Gen.48:10

lPl~ 1l?f ?~li?'~ ~~'~n n~17 ?~,, ~7 i

1'7~ 'c~i!t WJ~J ( i ) 01]7

p~~J

:cg7 p;.m~J i

i

And the eyes of Israel were so dim (pf.) from age, that he could not (YIQTOL) see; So he Uoseph] brought (impf.cs.) them close to him, so he kissed (impf.cs.) them, and embraced (impf.cs.) them;

82see F.I. Andersen, "A Review of Mats Eskhult," Bib 72 (1991), 575-580, at 578. 83see G.W. Coats, Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 1(1983), 263-268.

286

Here WcH6-YIQTOL can be observed in the second clause, where the stative verb appears in the prefixed form (cf. 43:32; 44:22, 26). Note that this clause is continued by three waYYIQTOLs in the past context. Other examples of the sequence waYYIQTOL(s) ---+ wa-N:?-QATAL: 38:20 (antithetical); 38:26; 39:6, 10; 42:8 (subject +N:?); 45:3, etc. Besides, the non-sequential verb form can be preceded by xelement (e.g. subject, object, object+ subject, adverbial element, etc.). Consider the following case: 37:11

:,~1cr-n~

1'!!~ i?-~~~p~J ,~~ 1'?~)

i

And his brothers were jealous (impf.cs.) of him, but his father kept (pf.) the matter in mind.

Here, one can recognize the sequence waYYIQTOL ---+ wa -xQATAL, forming a literary unit, where QATAL is preceded by the subject 1'?~). In fact, this unit can clearly be considered as functioning as rounding off the preparatory episode, and the main episode begins from the next verse (i.e. 37:12). Thus, the rough discourse structure in chapter 3 7 is as follows: The Structure of Chapter 3 7 Unit 1. Exposition (37:1-4) Unit 2. Preparatory episodes (5-11) Subunit 1. First dream (5-8) Subunit 2. Second dream (9-11) Unit 3. Main episode (12-36) Thus each discourse unit is rounded off with the 1-va-x-QATAL form (see § 7.2.1. for the discussion of 37:36.). Note that at the end of Subunit 1 interestingly enough the waYYIQTOL form (sequential form) is employed in the last clause, which explicates the preceding story (see § 7.3.2.1.). This may indicate that the transition from Subunit 1 to Subunit 2 is almost seamless, and both subunits seems to have been intended to be treated as a single set. Other examples for the sequence waYYIQTOL(s) ---+ wa-

287

x-QATAL in which xis the subject: 41:56-57; 45:14; 50:23, etc. (cf. 38:25; 47:26). In this connection, T. Giv6n made a significant observation of "tense-aspect shift and word-order change" in biblical Hebrew.8 4 According to Giv6n, "[while] the IMPERFECT [(in this case waYYIQTOL)] ... [is] the main continuity aspect used for advancing the narrative, ... the PERFECT ( and to a lesser degree the PARTICIPLE) ... [are] used for marked topic shifting." Furthermore he writes as follows: "The SY syntax of the latter [PERFECT] may be seen as a direct result of their marked topic-switching function. The syntax of the IMPERFECT-CONTINUITY never changed from VS to SY." ss Though basically we agree with his observation of IMPERFECT (i.e. waYYIQTOL), the following points should be considered: (1) We already noted examples in which the waQATAL form in the last clause of a thread simply functioned as a goal (full stop) verb without the inversion (without the VS-to-SY shift), i.e., without the topic-subject-shifting (see § 5.4.1.; e.g. 2 Kgs.21:3-4; 23:4, etc.); (2) In the case of the sequence waYYIQTOL(s) ---+ 1,,v2 -N;C,QATAL no topic-subject-shifting can often be observed; (3) For instance, Gen.41: 11 in the direct discourse section seems to be one of the the examples in which the VS-to-SY shift appears in a sequence, and yet no topic-subject-shifting can be observed: 41:11

l!t~m 'll!t ,nl!t A

iT'''J ci,n iT~,m,

':ij~~r:r'';'~,ci :Ji")~~? -~,f i-,--

And we had a dream (impf.cs.) on the same night, he and I, each of us dreamed (pf.) according to the interpretation of his own dream;

(4) In addition, the sequence waYYIQTOL(s)---+ wa-x-YIQTOL with the VS-to-SY shift accompanied by the topic-subject-shifting may be observed in the past context. Thus consider the following:

84T. Giv6n, "The Drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: the Pragmatics of Tense -Aspect," 181-254, 240-241. 85T. Giv6n, "The Drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew," 240.

288

2 Sam.15:37

1'!JiT ili iT!J1

'W~n

lit':l~,

:o.?~r1? ·1it~~-.. c-,,ij~ttJ ,. ·so Hushai, David's friend, came into (impf.cs.) the city, and Absalom came into (YIQTOL) Jerusalem;

2 Sam.23:10

i°1! iT~~!-'?. I i~ C'':1~7~~ ,~, bp lit~~

::i.7,:riJ-"' 'ii! p;rf':ll • 1it~rriJ ci~~ iT~ii~ iT*'~w'11 i!)~ w~~J :t!l~~tltt i'jrflt ~::i.~.! ~iJJ +

He arose (pf.) and struck (impf.cs.) the Philistines until his hand was weary (pf.), and clung to (impf.cs.) the sword, and the Lord brought about (impf.cs.) a great victory that day; and the people returned (YIQTOL) after him only to strip the slain;

Isa.6:4

litJipiJ ?if?~ C'$QiJ rl~lt '~!J.~_!]

:JW¥ 1it7.~~ n~~iJJ +

And the foundations of the thresholds trembled (impf.cs.) at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filled (YIQTOL) with smoke;

These are listed by Waltke and O'Connor as examples of the prefix conjugation (i.e. YIQTOL) which are considered as expressing the notions of commencement and continuation (see also 1 Sam.1:10). According to Waltke and O'Connor, this differs from the participle, which represents a situation as continuing without interruption but does not focus on the inception of the situation.86 However, especially in the case of Isa. 6:4 if we consider that the second clause with YIQTOL expresses a sense of commencement, then the first clause could also be viewed in the same sense. In any case, it is difficult to say that the verb form QATAL itself is used to switch topic in the narrative. Rather we have to say that the topic-shift is directly related to the V1x1-to-X2V2 shift with the subject switching in the sequential context. Again the function of the QATAL form here might be simply to mark the end of a thread as a goal (full stop) verb because of its stable nature (non-sequentiality). Other examples: for x = object: 39:4; 40:21-22; 41:48, 51-52; 42:3-4; 43:15; (47:21); 50:7-8; for x = Obj. 86/BHS, 504. Cf. SVCHP, 67-69.

289

+ Subj.: 39:22; for x = others: 40:1 (x = 0); 41:54; 45:15; 48:14 (x = 0); 49:28, etc.

Furthermore, as Andersen notes, a w2-x-QATAL clause "could be transitional, marking both the end of one episode and the beginning of the next."87 One may observe in the following example that the first two clauses waYYIQTOL--+ w2-x-QATAL as a whole as a single unit function as a circumstantial clause for the following actions: 43:15

rl~liJ ilml;l;:r-ri~ 'c,w~~i! ~i:rp~] tp~p-ri~J CJ~:;l ~r'IP7 99.#-iT~~~~ i

. C~i~~

:99.i' ~J~7

~1:)p:J

(J)

~lTJ l

111?~~] l

So the men took (impf.cs.) this present, and double money they took (pf.) in their hand, and Benjamin. Then they arose (impf.cs.), and went down (impf.cs.) to Egypt, and stood (impf.cs.) before Joseph;

7.4.2.2. waYYIQTOL(s) -- VERBLESS/PTC

The verbless/participle clause, which can be considered as a nonsequential form, also functions as a goal (full stop) clause in the past sequential context. Thus consider: 41:8

ir.i?n-ril!t 'cil? il!Jis ,~ o,, :il~7~7 citi;~- 1J:Jis .:1;~1 .i =-

And Pharaoh told (impf.cs.) them his dreams, but there was no one who could interpret (ptc.) them to Pharaoh.

87F.I. Andersen, "A Review of Mats Eskhult," 72 (1991), 578.

290

,o~,

41:42-43

;-,, ?~r.i ';ri~Jf!I-~ il!J7B . J-99.i' l~.:r,~ --~D~ l~!J ~ ·u;~-'1P 'irnt w~7~J + :illl!tJ~-r,~ :liJ-?iJ ,~7 ~!l +

;i,-,~~ 'il~~~iJ n~?7Q~ ;~ J?.l~J +

lJ~~ 1!~~7 1~7P!J +

:C?J~~ flf-?;> ?~ itlit fi§'m +

Then Pharaoh took off (impf.cs.) his signet ring from his hand, and put (impf.cs.) it on Joseph's hand, and clothed (impf.cs.) him in garments of fine linen, and put (impf.cs.) the gold necklace around his neck, and he had him ride (impf.cs.) in his second chariot, so they proclaimed before him, "Bow the knee," and he set him (inf.ab.) over all the land of Egypt.

Or the verbless clause could be also transitional, marking both the end of one scene and the beginning of the next: 39:11-12

il·lil ci,il:> ''il'l

ifl~~71? nig,~7 il~i~cr ~?~J

:n?it, cw n?;J.iJ

'~~~~

u;,~

r~J O)

i,-

...7b~? iilJJ iiltDDnm ' •• :II': • : s·· : : . - (J) 'iip J?~~J O)

rTt~

01:1 +

: il~1r;TiJ ~;$.~J +

And it happened (impf.cs.) one day, that he went into (impf.cs.) the house to do his work, but none of the men of the household was there inside. So she caught (impf.cs.) him by his garment, saying... But he left (impf.cs.) his garment in her hand, and fled (impf.cs.), and got (impf.cs.) him out;

Here, the verbless clause functions as a goal clause within the first three clauses for the time being, but these clauses as a whole can be considered as a setting for the following main thread. Other examples may be listed as follows: 37:29; 38:27; 39:11; 40:5, 6; 41:1, 7; 42:27, 35; 44:14; 48:14, etc.

291

7.4.3. Summary (3) The independent form (or non-sequential form) may appear in a thread which is followed by waYYIQTOL(s). This case can be observed in the following two patterns: (1) the independent form opens a sequence, i.e., (waw-x-)QATAL/Verbless/PTC ---+ waYYIQTOL(s). As Niccacci notes, "the narrative chain of WAYYIQTOLs is sometimes broken by a WAW-x-QATAL type construction [or Verbless/PTC clause] expressing a circumstance not of the foregoing but of the following WAYYIQTOL and it can be translated by a circumstantial clause." Here, the stable nature of the independent form (or a non-sequentiality), i.e., a nature of standing still rather than of flowing toward the following clause, may play an important role in drawing a clear dividing line between supportive information (i.e. setting, circumstance, semantic stepping stone, etc.) and the main sequence; (2) the independent form closes a sequence, i.e., waYYIQTOL(s) ---+ (wawx-)QATAL/Verbless/PTC. The function of the last independent form may simply be to mark the end of a thread as a goal verb/form because of its stable nature (non-sequentiality). This clause "could be transitional, marking both the end of one episode and the beginning of the next." Interestingly enough while in the former case the clause with the independent form can usually be considered rather as off-the-line material, in the latter case the clause in question seems to function on the storyline of a narrative. Thus we should note again that since the sequentiality or nonsequentiality of the verbal form is a syntactic function (i.e. syntactic linkage) rather than a semantic one, it is primarily used for controlling the flow of the story (i.e. to begin, to stop or to continue the story), even though this function may exaggerate the foreground/background distinction.

7 .5. Link by Non-Sequential Forms (Two-Member Chain) As also observed in the direct discourse section, a chain may be

formed by independent (i.e. non-sequential) forms in the 292

narrative. We should note, however, that this chain usually consists of two verbal forms (or two clauses), but not more than that. 7.5.1. Two-Member ChainBB In the following example the first clause can be observed as a circumstantial clause (or a temporal setting) for the following: 44:3

,;~ ,p~iJ

:OiT'1bm r: .. -:- iTDiT T'-"" 1rT7W : •.. O'WlltiTl .rT-:T: J

As soon as the morning was light (pf.), the men were sent (pf.) away, they with their donkeys:

The participle clause as a non-sequential form may be involved in this kind of chain: 38:25 ri~d1l:) N:lt7

...ibN:7. 'iJ~r:r-~~ iT0-7~ ;,f:q

J"

(When) she was brought forth (ptc.), she sent (pf.) to her father-in-law, saying...

Here, also the first clause functions as a temporal setting for the second clause. In addition, the antithetical link may become a two-member

chain, in which the first clause functions as a circumstantial clause for the second clause: 45:22

n79q, rii~7q u;,~7 lf.J~ o'x-:)._7 :n79q, ri~7q wooJ 99~ rii,0 w~'1011p:p71 .i

To each of them he gave (pf.) changes of garments, but to Benjamine he gave (pf.) three hundred pieces of silver and five changes of garments:

BBcf. J.F. Maloney, "The T-Perfect in the Akkadian of Old-Babylonian Letters, with a Supplement on Verbal Usage in the Code of Hammurapi and the Laws of Eshnunna," 325. See also Jodon-Muraoka, § 166c.

293

These examples can be considered as the minimal sequence which is generated by the combination of a circumstantial clause and a goal clause. Furthermore, in the two-member chain an inverted word order may be involved. Or one may consider that two nonsequential forms are forced to be linked by the inversion in the second clause. Thus, consider the following: 44:12

Wf:lrT'1

?~iJ ?il~~ l .. - ,il]~ l~i?Jl

J

And he searched (impf.cs.); at the eldest he began (pf.), at the youngest he finished (pf.):

In the above case, interestingly enough the first clause with the waYYIQTOL form can be viewed as a preview for the following two clauses of which link is supported by the parallel structure and the inversion in the last clause. Or one may say that the last two clauses as a single unit explicates the preceding waYYIQTOL clause. Thus the discourse structure of this unit may be drawn as follows: waYYIQTOL (--+) [x-QATAL//waw-x-QATAL]. A two-member chain as a whole can be a circumstantial clause for the following clause(s): 44:4

...;ti,:;,-?~

7':!Jil-mt ll!t:::£' CiT

,w~?

~P'r'.TliJ ~7 J ,~~ 9Pi'J J

:IT

••

When they had just gone out (pf.) of the city, but were not far off (pf.); Joseph said (pf.) to his house steward...

This example is also interesting; the first two clauses form a twomember chain, functioning as a temporal setting, which is followed by another independent clause (a goal clause). Thus: [xQATAL ..., ~?-QATAL] ..., waw-x-QATAL. Or the second clause could be taken as an interpolation, which may be supported by the fact that no conjunction appears in this clause. Therefore, xQATAL -~?-QATAL] --+ waw-x-QATAL. 294

Furthermore, a two-member chain as a whole can be a goal clause for the preceding clause(s): 45:21-22

99~

iT~l~ ,~-i,~ ni7~~ 9,Qi' crr7 JO~J !77;!7 iTJ~ cp7 JJ.J~J i lf-1~ c';rl? i ri.?~~ rii;17q ni~0 w7~f10~ JP:~i?~ J

w,,7

:ri?r.iw riE>?n wr.im I

T

:

~

• -:

.._•• T:

And Joseph gave (impf.cs.) them wagons according to the command of Pharaoh, and gave (impf.cs.) them provisions for the journey; To each of them he gave (pf.) changes of garments, but to Benjamin he gave (pf.) three hundred pieces of silver and five changes of garments:

Here, the last two clauses form a two-member chain in which the antithetical linkage with the inversion may be observed. This two-member chain explicates the preceding clause (i.e. the 2nd clause) as a goal construction. Thus: waYYIQTOL -+ waYYIQTOL -+ [x-QATAL - waw-x-QATAL] (cf. 44:12).

7.5.2. Summary (4) A chain may be formed by non-sequential forms (e.g. (waw-x)QATAL, PTC, Verbless clauses) in the narrative. This chain usually consists of two verbal forms (or two clauses), but not more than that (Hence, "two-member chain"). The two-member chain could be a minimal sequence which is generated by the combination of a circumstantial clause and a goal clause. This may also be observed in an antithetical link. Or two non-sequential forms may be linked by inversion in the second clause (chiastic structure, etc.). Moreover, the two-member chain as a whole may function as a circumstantial clause, serving as depictive material for the following clause, or as a goal clause, explicating the preceding clause.

295

7 .6. Summary and Remarks

To sum up, in the past narrative context [basically in the sphere of the past] the (waY)YIQTOL form (probably the short YIQTOL form) functions as a sequential form, whereas the QATAL form, which is often preceded by a non-verbal element, and the verbless clause (including PTC clause), function as non-sequential forms. Here the binary aspectual opposition "unstable" and "stable" distinguishes the functional difference between the past YIQTOL and the past QATAL. The combination of those two verbal forms controls the flow of the story. Therefore, there is no major functional distinction of the conjugations between direct discourse and narrative; but in direct discourse there is more variety in the choice of verbal forms and more freestanding verbal forms are available than in narrative. 89 Sequentiality or non-sequentiality should strictly be described as a syntactic function, not as a semantic function. The terms such as temporal/logical "succession," "consequence," or "explanation," which are used to describe the function of the sequential forms by, for instance, Jouon,90 Waltke and O'Connor,91 etc., are not comprehensive. In fact, at the semantic level one can observe not only a simple succession, but also simultaneous actions, antithetical link and so on. Also these terms do not cover the sequential form which has no preceding clause, standing at the beginning of a literary unit (i.e. waYYIQTOL in discourse-initial position). Therefore, one can only say that the sequential forms are used to link some clauses, forming a certain (literary) unit, though the non-sequential form can also be employed in special sequences 89Pace SVCHP, 30 and 73, etc. Cf. M.S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit and Qumran, 21-27. Smith says, "Narrative describes succession of events in

converted forms and interrupts such sequences with other verbal forms. In contrast, direct discourse uses converted forms to express sequences, perhaps betraying a scribal hand, but it also employs other forms occasionally in sequences (27)." However, we have seen that the nonsequential form may appear in spedal sequences and/ or linkages (e.g. for the circumstantial clause, the goal/full stop clause, two-member chain, etc.) in both categories. 90Joiion, § 118, h-j. 91JBHS,477.

296

and/or linkages (e.g. for the circumstantial clause, the goal/full stop clause, two-member chain, etc.). Note that this unit may be a self-contained unit or part of it in terms of topic or theme ("topic/theme-continuity"), or could be a chunk which is uttered in one breath by the narrator. Temporal/logical "succession," "consequence," "explanation," etc., are signified simply by the association of the words. We should also note that though the non-sequential form often appears in the isolated clause, in the circumstantial clause, in the last clause of a unit, etc., the sequential form may appear in the same situation for several literary effects because of its unstable nature. So far as the "backgrounding - foregrounding" theory is concerned, this distinction seems not to be a determinative factor for the choice of the verbal forms. Such a distinction may be observed rather as a secondary phenomenon or by-product of the issue of the sequentiality and non-sequentiality. In fact, foreground information tends to be described with a chain of actions, but even sequential forms (e.g. waYYIQTOL, etc.) may be employed for background information.

297

CHAPTER 8 TENSE IN THE SUBORDINATE CLAUSE 8.1. Introduction The criterion for the choice of the verbal form in the subordinate clause has not been discussed yet. However, this is one of the most important issues for a fuller picture of the Hebrew prose verbal system. Before taking up the main subject, we have to clarify the definition of the subordinate clause, making a clear distinction between coordination and subordination. It is usually understood that "while coordination is a linking together of two or more elements of equivalent status and function, subordinatio n is a non-symmetrical relation, holding between two clauses X and Y in such a way that Y is a constituent or part ofX ": 1

I like John

and

John likes me

I like John because John likes me

COORDINATION

SUBORDINATION

Moreover, it is often explained that "a coordinate relationship may have more than two members, while only two clauses enter into the relationship of subordination." 2 However, we should note that the subordinate clause may consist of two or more clauses as we shall see later. Note also that the subordinate clause is generally introduced by a subordinate conjunction (e.g. 1Wllt(:::>), ':::>,

lR. Qµirk, et al., A Grammar of Contemporary English (1972), § 11.2. 2R. Qµirk, et al., A Grammar of Contemporary English,§ 11.2.

298

J!I, c,~0), i~, ,,mt, etc.),

which is "subdivided by function as nominal, adjectival, adverbial, etc."3 At first sight, the criterion for the choice of the verbal form in the subordinate clause seems to be the same as that in the main clause. That is, in the past context QATAL (as non-sequential form) and (waY)YIQTOL (as a sequential form) are selected, and YIQTOL (as a non-sequential form) and (wa)QATAL (as a sequential form) are chosen in the modal/present context. However, as will be observed below, a verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen not from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator, but from that of the immediate participant in the main clause. 4

8.2. Subordinate Clause with One-Clause First of all we shall examine the choice of the verbal form with regard to the time reference and modality in the subordinate clause which consists of one clause. As mentioned above, the criterion for the choice of the verbal form in the subordinate clause seems to be the same as that in the main clause in the following two cases: a) iWilt-clause: QATAL YIQTOL

NON-PAST

PAST + (+)S

(+)

e.g. QATAL: Gen 38:10; 39:19; 41:48, 50, 53; 42:9; 43:2; 44:2; 45:27; 46:15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27; 50:13; (37:6, 10; 39:17; 41:28; 43:27, 29; 45:4b; 48:6; 50:24); YIQTOL: (41:36; 42:38; 44:5, 34).

3JTL, 178. 4cf. E.J. Revell, "The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," HUCA

60 (1989), 1-37, at4-S and 9-12. 5( ) = Direct Discourse section.

299

b) ,wN:::::>-clause: PAST

QATAL YIQTOL

NON-PAST

+ (+) (+)

e.g. QATAL: 43:17; 47:11; 50:12 (41:13; 43:14); YIQTOL: (44:1). However, in the following '::::>-clauses, especially the case of the YIQTOL form in the narrative section needs closer examination: c) '::::>-clause: PAST

QATAL YIQTOL

NON-PAST

+ (+)

+

+? (+)

e.g. QATAL: 40:16; 41:57; 42:4, 5; 43:18, 30; 45:3, 26; 47:20; 50:15 (37:17; 40:15; 41:21; 43:5; 44:27; 45:5; 46:32; 47:15); YIQTOL: 38:9a; 43:25b, (32); 48:17a (38:16; 43:7; 44:15, 26; 46:3). To begin with, let us consider the following: 38:9a !J1liJ i1~~~

;7 11t:7 '?. J~iN: !Jl,~)

And Onan knew (impf.cs.) that the offspring would not be (impf.) his,

43:25b

:C"? 17::::>ilt' cw-,:, 13'l:IW ':> "." IT

:

,'

"'.T

O

:

IT

.,r

for they had heard (pf.) that they were to eat (impf.) a meal there.

These two examples seems to show that the so-called "back-shift" or "sequence of tenses" (i.e. the phenomenon particularly in English that after a main clause verb in the past tense the verb in the subordinate clause usually takes a past tense form (i.e. simple past or past perfect)) does not occur in biblical Hebrew. In other words, according to English grammar for instance, when the past tense forms (waYYIQTOL and QATAL) are chosen in these main clauses, the verbal forms with the same tense value should be expected in each subordinate clause. However in the above subordinate clauses the prefix conjugation which has a modal/future sense (i.e. the long form of YIQTOL) appears in the 300

past contex~. Note that 43:2Sb is more complex: The suffix conjugation ~:!J~f/j after the first '::;) can be rendered as 'past in the past' (i.e. the pluperfect). Yet this phenomenon in the subordinate clause does not support the view that the Hebrew conjugation expresses the aspect and that only the context signals the "tense." The same phenomenon can be also observed, for instance, in indirect speech in Slavonic languages such as Russian where the time aspect cannot be left out.6 Comrie notes, "In Russian, the verb in indirect speech remains in the same tense as in the corresponding direct speech, i.e. there is no shift whatsoever. This means that tenses in indirect speech in Russian are interpreted not from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the here-and-now, but rather with the deictic centre of the original speaker. "7 Here even when we say that tenses in indirect speech are interpreted with the deictic centre of the original speaker, we need to be aware that the original speaker is generally indicated in the main clause. Thus, we should treat this phenomenon as an aspect of the relation between the main clause and the subordinate clause. In fact, indirect speech per se can be syntactically considered as a subordinate clause, and, therefore, one may say that the tense phenomenon in the indirect speech is the same as that of the subordinate clause. In biblical Hebrew the verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen not from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator, but from that of the immediate participant in the main clause. J. Blau says, "In general, a subordinate clause may exhibit a usage of tense relative to the main clause.... "8 This may be a natural consequence of the principle of economy in the language which has no auxiliary.9 Thus:

6Toe same is true in Japanese: they almost always use the present form in the subordinate clause as in the above examples (i.e. 38:9a and 43:25b). 7B. Comrie, Tense , 107-117. See especially 109. BJ. Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew,§ 121. 9Jt is interesting to note that for an irreal situation in the past context (like "would + have + past participle" in English) the suffix conjugation is used. See, for example, 1 Sam.13:13: -,~ ',~111/~....,l\t :J~~t;,i;i~-n1;t ;u;i: r~u i1~~ '? 071!J "for now the Lord would have established (pf.) your kingdom over Israel forever." Other example: Gen.21:7, 1 Sam.25:34, 2 Sam.6:6, etc. (cf.

301

Narrator: present (D.C.) ......1

Past

.,,, ......

/

future relative

~ li.:::#''-----------11... Immediate participant: present (D.C.)

Reference point

future

*D.C. = the deictic centre

The following example may be explained similarly: 48:17a

C~'J~~ rziN:·r~~ irt.)~-,~ 1'?1$ n'w~-,~ 9¢.,;, N:l~J

And (when) Joseph saw (impf.cs.) that his father laid (impf.) his right hand on Ephraim's head,

In this case, for instance, AB sees a pluperfect sense in the prefix conjugation after ,:,_10 However, this verbal form is a long form, viz., n'W' rather than nrzi', which stands alone in this subordinate clause.11 Thus, here we should not read the complete aspect which is represented by the short form (i.e. preterite), but the incomplete aspect with the present/future time reference from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the immediate participant Joseph (cf. Moabite Stone (KAI 181), at line 5; ... k.v r!JP kms "T

•• T

b -'!;,--Ji).

Narrator: present (D.C.) ......1

Past

.,,, ......

~

/

future relative Reference point ___...,~

Joseph as LP.: present (D.C.) *I.P.

future

= the immediate participant

Here, it is interesting to note, for example, that Sarna, at least, sees the incomplete aspect in n'W~, when he translates "When Gen. 37:21, where the waYYIQTOL is used.). Cf. wp:i + ', + inf.c.: Ex.2:15, 4:24; 1 Sam.19:10; 1 Kgs.11:40, etc.; il?:> + ', + inf.c.: 1 Sam.20:33, etc .. lOAB, 356. Cf. P. Jou.on-Muraoka,§ 113 ga. 1 1Cf. S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tense in Hebrew,§ 39, at 44.

302

Joseph saw that his father was placing [italics mine] his right hand on Ephraim'shead.... ", 12 though he uses the past tense form here according to the rule of back-shift in English. d) JS-clause: QATAL YIQTOL

PAST

NON-PAST

0

+

(+)

e.g. YIQTOL in the past context: (38:11; 42:4); YIQTOL in the future context: (38:23; 44:34; 45:11). In the above case, it could be explained that YIQTOL is regularly employed because of the sense of "fear" or "precaution" (or "negative purpose") in this particle,13 where "aspect" (in this case "incomplete") plays an important role in the choice of this verbal form. In fact, the clause with Jfl expresses an incomplete action/situation. However, consider the following examples: 38:llb

l'!J~9 ~,iJ-ci mp:-1~

,r;i, ':>

For he thought/feared (pf.) that he would die (impf.) like his brothers.

42:4b

:Ji9l$ 13~1[??-l~

,r;i, '?.

for he thought/feared (pf.) that harm might befall (impf.) him.

Note in the above examples that the English translation requires the past modal form in the subordinate clause according to the rule of back-shift. Yet, as above, one can say neither that YIQTOL (as a long form) has a past tense value nor that only the context signals the "tense." Rather, in this case also one may say that in biblical Hebrew the verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen not from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator, but from that of the immediate participant in the main clause. Thus again:

12N.M. Sama, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary 1,329. Bsee, for example, GKC, § 152 w.

303

Narrator: present (D.C.) ......1 /

future relative _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..,,~ Reference point IF-,,,,Y'

Past

.,,, ...,..

Judah/Jacob as I.P.: present (D.C.)

future

In this connection, the following difference between the subordinate clause with 71DN:/'::> and that ofl!l should be noted. In the subordinate clause with 71DN:/'::> in the past context either conjugation (i.e. QATAL and YIQTOL) may be chosen according to the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the immediate participant in the main clause. That is, if the action/event clearly happened in the past from that viewpoint in the main clause (i.e. pluperfect), the suffix conjugation might be chosen. On the contrary, in the case of J!l, since this particle already has a future implication (negative teric) or an irreal/hypothetical sense from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the immediate participant in the main clause, theoretically the suffix conjugation cannot be selected (cf. In 2 Kgs.2:16, J!l, which is followed by the suffix conjugation, is however used in a different meaning.). In this sense, it may be considered as the special case where the verbal form is conditioned by the particle.I 4 Before leaving the case of J!l, examine also the following example: 2 Sam.20:6d

ni~~~ C':J1' i7 N:~JrJ~ : ~~J'~ 7'~i'.fJ i

Lest he find (QATAL) for himself fortified cities and escape (waQATAL) from our sight."

14The following Comrie's observation of Russian may be also instructive:

"It seems...that Russian...has a constraint preventing collocation of a given

tense with an adverbial whose meaning is incompatible with the meaning of that tense. Thus it is impossible to collocate the past tense (which has past reference as its meaning) with zavtra 'tomorrow', because the meaning of zavtra ('day after today') includes future time reference and is thus incompatible with past time reference .... " See B. Comrie, Tense , 110.

304

Here the suffix conjugation appears after J!l, which seems to violate our rule that the prefix conjugation should occur after this particle. However, in this case the sequence QATAL--. waQATAL might be considered as our typical sequence in the non-past context. That is, one can take both suffix conjugations (QATAL and waQATAL) as sequential forms (i.e. converted QATAL) which is equivalent in tense and aspect to the non-sequential YIQTOL form. J.A. Hughes, for instance, also sees the same tense value in both conjugations by saying, "If one admits that the simple Perfect is used exactly like the Perfect with waw which follows (both in construction with the particle -1~). there is no problem; but if one tries to distinguish the use of the two forms, the problem becomes perplexing indeed."15 Thus even in this example one can say that the non-past tense form appears after the particle J!l. The following cases will be also considered as the special case where the verbal form is conditioned by the particle. e) c,~::i.-clause: QATAL YIQTOL

NON-PAST

PAST 0

(+)

+

e.g. YIQTOL in the past context: 37:18; 41:50; YIQTOL in the future context: (45:28). With other particles such as l\t16 the frequent occurrence of the prefix conjugation after the particle C")t,?(~) is often lSJ.A. Hughes, "Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses," ]NES 29 (1970), 12-24, at 23. 16However, we should be aware of the functional difference between the particle 111$ and the other particles which introduce the subordinate clause. The particle 111$ actually functions as either a coordinate conjunction like "(and) then" (e.g. 1 Kgs.9:11, 24?, etc.) or an additional time-determination like "at that time" (e.g. Gen.39:5; 49:4, etc.), which does not initiate the subordinate clause. Thus, we should consider the choice of the conjugations in the 111$-Clause in the same way as we have examined that of the main clause. In this sense, it seems highly probable that the short form yaqtul occurs after this particle, though we should also take the socalled "historical present" or the like into account. Cf. Isaac Rabinowitz,

305

introduced as a vestige of an old preterite or a short form yaqtul.17 For example, A. Niccacci says, "[the] archaic use of YIQTOL for the past has also been preserved in biblical prose, in certain fixed constructions, for example lilt + YIQTOL...and c,!!I + YIQTOL ..."18 J.A. Hughes goes a step further, in saying, "The particle and the verb constitute a stereotyped syntactical construction. The preteritive (aoristic) use of the imperfect is not restricted to instances with waw consecutive and other particles such as l~ and C'j~: additional particles are also used with the Imperfect as a preterite tense." 19 However, as Waltke and O'Connor, at least, admit, 20 the long prefix form rather than the short form usually occurs after c,!!l::i in the past context, though one cannot always clearly distinguish between the two prefix conjugations. See, for instance, the following: Ruth 3:14

,p:iij-i~ r,,~i?r-)~] in7n~ ::J.#~':lJ ..Ji1~7-n~ u;,~ ,,?~ [07,,~~] ci,!f!::;t Cf?~J i

So she lay (impf.cs.) at his feet until morning, and rose (impf.cs.) before one could recognize (impf.) another...

Here,,,?~ (hiphil) instead or,:;;,~ is used after C(i),!!IJ. in the past context. In addition, this prefix conjugation stands alone in the subordinate clause, i.e., it does not function as the so-called "sequential form." Thus, it is doubtful that the prefix conjugation after c,!!l(::J.) should often be considered as a short form yaqtul

">AZ Followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redactional Device in Biblical Hebrew," VT34(1984),53-62;J.A. Hughes, "Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses," 15-16; E.J. Revell, "The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," HUCA 60(1989), 1-37,atll-12. 17see Jouon, § 113 i and j; IBHS, 498, 501 and 513-514, T. Fenton, "The Hebrew "Tenses" in the Light of Ugaritic," 31-39, at 32 and 37, etc. Cf. McFall, 73-75. 1ssvcHP, 194. 19J.A. Hughes, "Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses," 24. ZOJBHS, 501. Here, however, he says, "The use of the long prefix forms [italics mine] of weak verbs with a preterite value after 1~, Clit!I, and Cl7t!l:l is syntactically conditioned and cannot be used as evidence for the same use in other situations."

306

which has a preterite value. Here, also the deictic centre analysis may shed some light. Before examining this phenomenon (i.e. The incomplete prefix conjugation occurs after c,!!l(l) in the past context.), it is important to note the following: 1) c,!!!(J,) has basically the two translational values and functions: "not yet" as an adverb, which modifies the verb within the independent (or main) clause; "before" as a conjunction (not as an adverb as in a sentence like "I have studied Hebrew before."), which initiates a subordinate clause;Zl 2) These two values are, however, functionally exclusive. The former can be used to modify the verb to indicate a negative situation as a main action/event (e.g. "He has not studied Hebrew yet."), while the latter cannot occur in the independent clause, rather it initiates the temporal setting to link with the clause of the main action/event (see the following example a).). Of course, if we add a temporal conjunction such as "when" to the "not yet" clause, the clause can be also a temporal setting for the main clause (see the following example b).). Here, it is worth comparing the following two English sentences: a). John studied Ugaritic before he studied Hebrew. b). John had studied Ugaritic when he had not studied Hebrew yet. In fact, these two sentences are similar in meaning. However, there is the following functional difference between them: In example a), the time reference of studied Ugaritic is located in the past and that of studied Hebrew (in the subordinate clause) is in the future relative to the reference point in the past, which is established by the tense of the verb of the main clause. Action 1 before Action 2: a) Action 1: [studied Ugaritic]

=Action 2: [studied Hebrew]

21see F.Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, ed., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (1907), 382 and L. Koehler und W. Baumgartner, Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, (1974), 363 orW.L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament(1988), 125.

307

On the contrary, in sentence b), the reference point of had studied Ugaritic is located in middle of the negative situation "John had not studied Hebrew yet.": Action in the middle of the negative situation: b) Negative Situation: [had not studied Hebrew yet]

t Action: [had studied Ugaritic] Therefore, sentence b) indicates no clear relation in time axis between this negative situation of the subordinate clause and the action of the main clause. From the viewpoint of the deictic centre of John the time reference of the subordinate clause is located in the present perfect (i.e. present and past) or in the present. Returning to biblical Hebrew, it is important to be aware of this functional difference which can be observed in the single particle CJ~(~). One can see that CJ~ rather than CJ~~ tends to be used as the adverb which modifies the verb in the independent (or main) clause with the meaning "not yet." Consider, for example, the following: Gen.2:5

f7i9 i!~iT c7~. ili$J rr~ 1 '?J ...rT~~, c,t!l il,wil ::iw~-;:::,, AT:"

".".,I"."

,·:T-

._..,, •.

T:

And no shrub of the field was (YIQ'.fOL) yet in the earth, And no plant of the field was yet sprouted (YIQTOL) ...

Note here that this particle functions as the adverb "not yet," which appears in the main clause. These prefix conjugations seem to appear as non-sequential forms, since the verb in the first clause is a long form (i.e. it is not 'i'.T\ but il~i;f~). Thus, in this case both prefix conjugations should not be rendered by the preterite. However, one can take these two clauses as examples of "historical present" (see § S.S.). Here the present tense form substitutes for the past form (i.e. the suffix conjugation) as a stylistic device to produce a sense of participatory immediacy. Therefore, c7~ as an adverb is functionally nothing to do with the choice of these prefix conjugations. This interpretation may 308

explain the difference between the cases of Gen.24:15 and 24:45 well.2 2 Gen.24:15

,:li? i1?ZI b,~ N:~il-'i1'1 .. J,N:~; i1(?. ~ "') iWTJ t ••

-

:

JT •

• :1-

•: •:

And it came about when he had not finished (pf.) speaking yet, that behold, Rebekah ... came out (ptc.) ....

Gen.24:45

,5?-?N: ,:li? i1~::,N: c,~ .,1~ i-7~:;>W-?~ .i-TJ~J 'n~i~ i1~ ~7 i1}~-j i-, i1~~~v i-:J.m J J~Wm ! AT

:

" -

(When) I had not finished (YIQTOL) speaking in my heart yet, behold, Rebekah came out (ptc.) with her jar on her shoulder, and went (impf.cs.) down to the spring, and drew (impf.cs.) ...

In Gen. 24:15 the suffix conjugation is chosen after Cj!,9. In this case 'i'.T~.l is the main verb of this clause, which is linked with the following i1li1-clause. That is, 'i'.T~.J instead of i1_;?~ functions as a sequential form. Here, one may say that the suffix conjugation is selected in the subordinate clause according to the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the immediate participant or the episode per se in the main clause (i.e. "Rebekah" or "Rebekah came out"). That is, from the deictic centre of Rebekah the time reference of the sobordinate clause is located in the present perfect. Episode in the middle of the negative situation: Negative Situation: [He had not flnished speaking yet]

t Episode: [Rebekah came out]

22cf. E.J. Revell, "The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," 12. Here, he contends with the examples of Gen.24:15 and 45 that the same action can be presented from either point of view (i.e. seen as future in relation to its context or as past, giving the time of the potential event relative to the speaker or narrator.).

309

But, of course, in this case the prefix conjugation may possibly appear in this subordinate clause. Because the negative situation and the episode partially overlap in time, these two could be seen as contemporaneous facts. Thus, from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of Rebekah or the episode per se the time reference of the negative situation can be located in the present. On the other hand, in Gen.24:45 the prefix conjugation appears after the adverb C~ in the main clause, which might suggest that this form is chosen according to the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the speaker in the past context. Thus, this YIQTOL should be considered as a short form which has a preterite value, functioning as a sequential form. In this thread (i.e. YIQTOL PTC. - waYYIQTOL---+ waYYIQTOL) we can naturally perceive by the context that the YIQTOL in question functions as a temporal clause as often observed in a thread which is traced by several waYYIQTOLs. Other examples: Gen.19:4; F.x. 9:30; 10:7, etc.. But c-:,~:i, usually functions as a conjunction "before," and initiates a subordinate clause, probably because of the temporal preposition ~- Examine the following: 41:50-52

:ljliJ EP-~ ltW Cl~~

C'~ ~J~ 'i1:?.?.

99.;,71

And to Joseph two sons were born (pf.) before the year of famine came (impf.),

In this example the prefix conjugation is selected after C~~. which stands alone in the subordinate clause. Here it is structurally difficult to consider that this particle functions as the adverb which modifies the verb lti:lrl. The fact that this verb does not function as a sequential form could suggest that this form should be understood as an incomplete form, since according to our observation the suffix conjugation should be a non-sequential form in the past context. From the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator the time reference of two sons were born is located in the past and that of the year of famine came in the subordinate clause is in the future relative to the reference point in the past, which is established by the tense of the verb of the main clause. However, as mentioned above, again in biblical Hebrew the verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen not from the '

310

T

viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator, but from that of the immediate participant in the main clause. Thus the time reference of the subordinate clause is located in the future in this sense, and therefore the prefix conjugation is selected:23 Narrator: present (D.C.) ....-1

Past

_,,, ....-

/

future relative

i::::;1,..---'------------...-~ Joseph as I.P.: present (D.C.)

Reference point

future

Other examples: Gen.27:4, 33; 37:18; 45:28; Ex.1:19; Lev.14:36; Deut.31:21; Judg.14:18, etc. However, this difference may be blurred, when C")~ seems to initiate a subordinate clause with the sense "before" (e.g. Ex.12:34; Num.11:33; Josh.2.4?, 3:1, etc.), and when C")~~ may literally function as the temporal preposition "when" q) + the adverb "not yet" (C")~) (e.g. Ps.90:2; Prov.8:25, etc.). In these cases, the semantic change ofC")~ "not yet"> conj. "before"> prep., which is suggested by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner,24 might be useful. Especially in poetry C")~ seems to be used with the old sense "not yet." In sum, in the choice of the conjugations after c,!!l(J), whether c,w(:l) is rendered by "before" as a conjunction or is rendered by "not yet" as an adverb should be taken into consideration, since the sense "not yet" as an adverb seems to be compatible with past time reference in biblical Hebrew. The time reference of the "not yet" clause as the negative situation could be located in the past and also in the present from the viewpoint of the immediate participant (see the above example Gen.24:15). However in the past context the time reference of the subordinate clause with 23cf. E.J. Revell, "The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," 12. He says, "Imperfect forms are similarly used after c,~ and c,~::i, suggesting that an event which had not yet occurred was seen as future in relation to its context." 241. Koehler und W. Baumgartner, Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 363 or W.L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 125.

311

"before" as a conjunction cannot be theoretically located in the past from the viewpoint of the immediate participant. The particle i~ also introduces the subordinate clause, which is usually rendered by "until" in English. We have only examples in the future context in the Joseph story, always using the prefix conjugation after i~, which can be explained without effort. The infinitive form usually appears after i~ in the past context, which is no problem. f) i~-clause:

PAST

QATAL YIQTOL Nominal

NON-PAST

0

(+) (+)

+

e.g. QATAL: 0; YIQTOL: (38:11); Nominal clause: 39:16; 43:25 (38:17; 48:5). However, we should deal with the following example, where the prefix conjugation occurs after i~ in the past context: Josh.10:13

WO!Bil

+

••• ·: -

c~~,

--

iQ¥' 11:;:!~J + ... l'~~~ ''iii. Cf?~-i~

And the sun stood (impf.cs.) still, and the moon stopped (impf.cs.), until the nation avenged (impf.) themselves of their enemies.

Here, the YIQTOL form, which does not function as a sequential form, appears after i~ in the past context. The above understanding that in biblical Hebrew the verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen from the viewpoint of the immediate participant in the main clause will also explain this phenomenon. See the following diagram:

312

Narrator: present (D.C.) _-1

present pf. _ -

~

Sun & Moon stopped LP.: present (D.C.)

past as future relative . I Re fierence pomt future

From the viewpoint of the narrator the time reference of the main clause (i.e. And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped) is located in the present perfect (not just the simple past) and that of the subordinate clause (i.e. The nation avenged themselves of their enemies) is in the future relative to the reference point in the past, which is established by the tense of the verb in the main clause. But from the viewpoint of the immediate participant in the main clause the time reference of the subordinate clause is located in the future. This explains well why the prefix conjugation is selected in this sentence.ZS It is also worth considering the choice of the conjugations in 'inl't-clause, though there is no example in our corpus except for a case with the infinitive (50:14). It is quite reasonable that even in the future/present context after the particle '70~ the suffix conjugation appears. Examine the following: Lev.25:48a ; 1,-iT'iTrt " A

".':

iT?l'tl i:)m 'inl't -..T '•,:

-

:

'

.I""-: -

after he is sold (pf.) he may be (impf.) redeemed;

From the viewpoint of the immediate participant in the main clause "he may be redeemed" the time reference of the subordinate clause is located in the past. Thus the suffix conjugation is selected after '70~ even in this non-past context. 26

2Ssee Josh.2:22, where the suffix conjugation occurs after ,~ in the past context. However the subordinate clause in question with ,~ + QATAL is absent in LXX, which may show it to be secondary. Also note that after the compound preposition such as 7fliit ,~ (e.g. Ex.32:20; Deut. 2:14; 9:21; Judg.4:24, etc.) or •:::i ,~ (e.g. Gen.41:49; 2 Sam.23:10, etc. cf. Gen.49:10) the suffix conjugation always appears in the past context, which may suggest that these compound prepositions should be treated differently. 26see Deut.24:4 and 2 Sam.19:31, where even after the compound preposition 7Wit '71'Tlt the suffix conjugation occurs in the non-past context.

313

Narrator: present (D.C.)

"

......

......

......

'

past relative , ...... future ------....foll.,_ R.P. )'..I past present(D.C.):country man as I.P.

8.3. Subordinate Clause with Two or More Clauses The subordinate clause may also consist of two or more clauses. Note that also in this case the verbal form is chosen from the viewpoint of the immediate participant in the main clause. a) QATAL----. waYYIQTOL in the past context Gen.39:13

i-TrliN:,:> ''i1'1 T

: •

i-T1'J. i11J. , : • ,:mr':> -TI" : i1~1r;,iJ 01:1 J

• :-

ATT:

It happened (impf.cs.) as soon as she saw that he had left (pf.) his garment in her hand, and had fled (impf.cs.) outside,

Other examples: 39:15; 43:21; 44:24, etc. (in the direct speech section). In fact, the non-sequential form is generally followed by the sequential form(s) in the subordinate clause. Also the nominal clause often appears immediately after the relative particle, which is followed by the sequential waYYIQTOL form(s) (e.g. 39:18, etc.). This may suggest that in the subordinate clause under the influence of the relative particle the stable verbal form (or the nominalized form), which is usually employed to depict a fact or a situation rather than to narrate an action, is selected immediately after the particle. 27 That the particle or the

27Note, however, Gen.28:6 where the second thread in the subordinate clause seems to be only traced by the waYYIQTOLs in the past context, or 1

314

preposition usually stands before a noun or noun equivalent may have something to do with this phenomenon. As mentioned before, "subordinate clauses are subdivided by function as nominal, adjectival, adverbial, etc." M. Eskhult also says, "The noun-like character of the subordinate clause is ... conspicuous, when it serves as subject or object to the main clause, or constitutes some kind of attribute, be it a genitive attribute or an attribute in clause-form."28 Compare the above example (i.e. Gen.39:13) with Gen.39:12 (see also 39:15) in which the main thread is only traced by the waYYIQTOLs: Gen.39:12

.. i1'1'J 'i1lJ Jl~~t -c-:-TT:

: iT~~iJ

:•

Ol!] i

N!~~]

i

But he left (impf.cs.) his garment in her hand, and fled (impf.cs.), and got (impf.cs.) out;

Rarely the sequence YIQTOL--+ w8QATAL in the subordinate clause can be observed in the past context: Gen.6:4

.. . .. . .. oils..,;·~,, J •

c"TN:iT niJr'?N: 'c,ii'?N:iT 'lJ iN:'.:i' iwN: ... A"." T

.. -=

' : T!

... when the sons of God went to (impf.) the daughters of men, and they bore (pf.cs.) children to them ...

Here, we should observe the incomplete aspect with the present time reference from the viewpoint of the immediate participant Nephilim. Or this example could be interpreted as "... when the sons of God were going to the daughters of men, and they were about to bear children to them... ".

Kgs.21:6 where after the particle':::> the sequence YIQTOL--+ waYYIQTOL(s) is observed in the past context. 28M. Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose, 30.

315

b) QATAL-+ waw-x-QATAL in the past context Gen.38:14

i?

:iTWN:7 IT "

:

'

iT?W 7il-':> 'm1N:i ':> iTlnnt:7 ~;~, JT .. T-, T •· a'T: "

I

" :

for she saw (pf.) that Shelah had grown up (pf.), but she had not been given (pf.) to him as a wife:

Note that in this case one can observe that two clauses are linked antithetically (i.e. "antithetical two-member chain"). Other example: Gen.42:21 with 1WN:-clause in the direct speech section. Or the first clause may compensate the second clause ( e.g. Gen.28:6, etc.). In this respect consider also Gen.39:3 (Verbless -+ PTC) and Gen.47:22 (Verbless -+ waQATAL) in the past context. c) YIQTOL-+ weQATAL in the non-past context Gen.37:26 (in the direct speech section) ~J'nN:-riN: 't1iTJ ':> ~~:ti.-m:i :i~'1-'1N: ~l'0:::>1 J •

I

T

"."

T

"."

._.

-:-

,c•

-

"."

-

" :

What profit is it for us to kill (impf.) our brother, and cover (pf.cs.) up his blood?

Here, in the non-past context again the non-sequential form is followed by the sequential form. Consider also Gen.27:45; Judg.6:18; 1 Sam.12:23; 1 Kgs.2:37, 42, etc.,29 where the infinitive construct is followed by the waQATAL form(s) in the non-past context. Thus, one may say also in the non-past context that under the influence of the relative particle the static verbal form or the nominalized form is preferably selected immediately after the particle. The following case is also worth noting, where in the subordinate clause, which is, however, not introduced by the particle, the non-sequential form is followed by four waQATALs:

29These are listed in Jouon-Muraoka,

§

316

124 q.

2 Kgs.5:11 (in the direct speech section)

~i::£' T

,n,6~ ilJil ...

~::£' I ~?~ ..1••••

T

•••

.,1- ••

1~1') J

,,ijt;,~ i!lil~-c!?,i~ '~lr?J i cip~iJ-?~ i1~ i l'J~l?iJ 9,Q~) t

~e~m

... "Behold, I thought (pf.) (that) he would surely come out (impf. + inf.ab.) to me, and stand (pf.cs.), and call (pf.cs.) on the name of the Lord his God, and wave (pf.cs.) his hand over the place, and cure (pf.cs.) the leper."

8.4. Summary A verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen not from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator, but from that of the immediate participant in the main clause. This is a natural consequence of the principle of economy in a language which has no auxiliary. Moreover, the time reference of the subordinate clause introduced by the particle f!l, c,t!l(l) and 1l1 is theoretically located in the non-past and that after ,,n~ is located in the past from the deictic centre of the immediate participant in the main clause. Therefore for the former the prefix conjugation (the nonpast form) is usually selected and the suffix conjugation (the past form) is chosen for the latter. Thus one can say that when a particle which has a temporal deictic function is used, the choice of the verbal form is also conditioned by the particle per se. The subordinate clause may consist of one or more clauses. In the latter case the non-sequential form is usually followed by the sequential form(s) in any temporal context. That the nominal clause (usually the infinitive clause) often appears immediately after the particle may suggest that the stable verbal form or the nominalized form, which is usually employed to depict a fact or a situation rather than to narrate an action, is preferably selected under the influence of the particle. The noun-like character of the subordinate clause may support this view. 317

In the subordinate clause the two-member chain can also be observed, in which the linkage may be antithetical or the first clause may compensate the second.

318

CHAPTER 9

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study has investigated the function of the verbal forms in biblical Hebrew prose, using the Joseph story (Gen.3750) as a corpus. The 'word order,' 'tense,' 'aspect,' 'modality,' 'clause type' and 'sequentiality' were used as parameters for this investigation. The distinction between direct discourse and narrative was taken into account. The investigation began with the former because of its possible resemblance to real speech. It was hoped to apply results from its study to narrative to obtain a fuller picture of the verbal system; chapters 2-6 dealt with direct discourse; chapter 7-8 with narrative. While no major functional distinction between direct discourse and narrative could be observed, in the former there was a greater variety of verbal forms (e.g. modal, hortatory forms, etc.) and more freestanding verbal forms. The the present study began with an examination of oneclause verbal utterances in direct discourse, followed by the utteraces of two or more clauses. In the case of one-clause verbal utterances (chap. 2) we discussed several issues related to translation into English, and concentrated on the factors which

influence the choice of the verbal form within a single clause/sentence. This provided a basis for what follows in subsequent chapters (chaps. 3-7), where syntactic interaction with adjacent clauses is considered. Volitive clauses were examined separately in chapter 6. The distinction between main clause and subordinate clause was also taken into consideration; the investigation of the former was followed by the latter (chap. 8).

319

9.1. Word Order, Tense and Aspect The verbal form may appear either in clause-initial position (i.e. 0-QATAL/0-YIQTOL) or non-clause-initial position (i.e. xQATAL/x-YIQTOL) without any temporal/aspectual difference. Thus the position of the verb does not seem to affect the function of the conjugation. Rather, the fronting of a constituent of the clause seems to function as a topicalization (cf. "casus pendens"), placing it in a position of informational prominence or indicating a topic-switching function (i.e. topic-discontinuity). The conjugations in biblical Hebrew do not distinguish between (present-, past-, plu-) perfect and simple past or between future, modal and present. Such distinctions entirely depend on the context or the inherent lexical meaning of the word. However, the following tense distinction can clearly be drawn, particularly in the free-standing conjugations, except for stative verbs or verbs with a stative sense, passive constructions, performative utterances, and some other cases: Past: QATAL vs. Non-Past: YIQTOL We may also distinguish the conjugations on the basis of the traditional aspectual opposition Complete vs. Incomplete (this is preferable to the opposition Perfective vs. Imperfective suggested by Comrie and others): Tense Past: QATAL vs. Non-Past: YIQTOL (exc. stative verbs, etc.)

Aspect Complete: QATAL vs. Incomplete: YIQTOL (exc. stative verbs, etc.)

Though one cannot be sure which category presupposes the existence of the other, there may not be much difference between these oppositions in describing the function of, particularly, the freestanding conjugations. A state of affairs which is complete can be viewed as past, one which is incomplete can be viewed as either present or future:

320

._ ____ Complete ___ ___,.._ __ Incomplete ----+

------------------1-------------------+ Past

Present Future (Non-Past)

In addition, so far as a statement such as 'eternal truth' is concerned, this is obviously perceived as Non-Past. In this sense, it may also be best viewed as Non-Complete rather than as Incomplete.

9.2. Sequentiality & Non-Sequentiality Although the temporal distinction Past vs. Non-Past and the aspectual opposition Complete vs. Incomplete works in the freestanding conjugations, neither distinction helps us to explain the functional difference between YIQTOL and (wa)QATAL in the non-past context, between QATAL and (waY)YIQTOL in the past context, or between the IMPV forms and (wa)QATAL in the volitive context. However the functional .opposition NonSequential vs. Sequential, which is based on an aspectual contrast Stable vs. Unstable, can be applied to the conjugations as follows: 1 NON-SEQUENTIAL

SEQUENTIAL

PAST QATAL (Complete) NON-PAST YIQTOL (Incomplete) VOLITIVE IMPV, JUSS & COH

(waY)YIQTOL

CONrnIT

(wa)QATAL (wa)QATAL

The parameter of sequentiality and non-sequentiality is purely syntactical, relating to the flow of the story as a discourse function; the non-sequential form stops the flow of the story (i.e. stand still), whereas the sequential form lets the story flow on. l1t is quite plausible that in biblical Hebrew there are two sets of conjugations in each temporal-aspectual distinction, which could have originally been distinguished by stress position ( e.g. qallilta for nonsequential vs. qataltJi for sequential; yiqt