The Sentence In Biblical Hebrew
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
More details
- Words: 81,801
- Pages: 213
Series Practica, 231
THE SENTENCE IN BIBLICAL HEBREW by FRANCIS L ANDERSEN
MOUTON PUBLISHERS · THE HAGUE · PARIS · NEW YORK
First edition: 1974 Second printing: 1980 ISBN 90 279 2673 5 © Copyright 1974 by Mouton Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers Printed in Great Britain
PREFACE
Recent advances in linguistic theory and method make desirable a fresh examination of the sentence systems of natural languages. Ancient Hebrew is practically a virgin field for such research. The existing literature contains no systematic treatment of the subject. I am grateful to the Church Divinity School of the Pacific and to the National Endowment for the Humanities of the United States Government for supporting this project--the former by its generous policy of sabbatical leave, the latter by a grant (#R0-5068-72-155). The findings and conclusions presented here do not necessarily represent the view of the Endowment. Thanks are due to many persons. To Dr. Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Languages, University of California, Berkeley, and to Dr. William G. Dever, Director of the William Foxwell Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem, for hospitality in their respective institutions. To the Reverend Esther H. Davis for help in typing. Last and best, to my wife Lois for unfailing encouragement and support. It is a pleasure to dedicate this study to John Arthur Thompson, my first Hebrew teacher, whose lifelong devotion to biblical studies has been a constant inspiration. Jerusalem October, 1972
CONTENTS
PREFACE
5
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
14
THE TRANSLITERATION OF HEBREW
16
1. INTRODUCTION 1.0. Traditional Grammar 1.1. Discourse Grammar Notes
17 17 18 19
2. THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW 2.0. Definition of Sentence 2.1. The Clause as a Sentence Element 2.2. Sentence Types 2.3. Complex Sentences 2.4. Compound Sentences 2.5. Relationships Between Sentence Types 2.6. Surface Grammar and Deep Grammar 2.6.0. The English Relative Clause 2.6.1. Head is a Proper Noun 2.6.2. Head is a Pronoun 2.6.3. Head is a Definite Noun 2.6.4. Head is an Indefinite Noun 2.6.5. Coordination as Alternative Realization. . 2.6.6. An Exception 2.6.7. Naming Two Persons 2.6.8. The Use of the Nominalizer 2.6.9. Conclusions Notes
21/ 21 22 24 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 34 34 35
3. APPOSITION SENTENCES 3.0. Deep Grammar of Apposition 3.1. Surface Grammar of Apposition 3.2. Verbal Repetition in Apposition 3.3. Synonymous Apposition
36 36 37 37 38
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.4.
Epic Repetition in Apposition 3.4.0. Introduction 3.4.1. Verb Patterns in Epic Apposition 3.4.2. Discourse Function of Epic Apposition. . . 3.4.3. Alternative Realization in Sequential Clauses 3.5. Apposition for Emphasis 3.5.0. Formal Features 3.5.1. Antithesis in Apposition 3.5.2. Apposition in Another Perspective 3.5.3. Climactic Repetition in Apposition . . . . 3.5.4. Coordination of Emphatic Repetition. . . . 3.6. Resumption and Distribution in Apposition . . . . 3.6.0. Resumption 3.6.1. Distribution 3.7. Explanation in Apposition 3.7.0. The Semantics of Apposition 3.7.1. Specifying Apposition 3.7.2. Exposition in Apposition 3.7.3. An Example of Explication 3.7.4. A Summary in Apposition 3.7.5. Titles and Colophons 3.8. Curses and Blessings 3.9. Multiple Apposition 3.10. Apposition Instead of Other Constructions . . . . 3.10.0. Alternative Deep Relationships 3.10.1. Coordinate Commands in Apposition . . . . 3.10.2. Coordinated Declarative Clauses in Apposition 3.10.3. Coordinate Questions in Apposition. . . . 3.10.4. Antithetical Clause in Apposition . . . . 3.10.5. Apposition Instead of Subordination . . . 3.10.6. Apposition Instead of a Relative Clause . 3.10.7. Apposition Instead of Sequence Notes 4. COORDINATION 4.0. Kinds of Coordination 4.1. Upper-level Coordination 4.1.0. Heterogeneous Speeches 4.1.1. Coordination of Units of Narrative . . . . 4.1.2. Stories in Juxtaposition 4.1.3. Coordinated Stories 4.1.4. Story-level Episodes 4.1.5. Episode-level Paragraphs 4.2. Paragraph-level Coordination 4.2.0. Introduction 4.2.1. Sequential Coordination 4.2.2. Paragraph-level Circumstantial Clause. . . 4.2.3. Paragraph-level Adjunctive Clause 4.2.4. Paragraph-level Surprise Clause
39 39 39 40 42 43 43 43 44 44 45 45 45 45 46 46 47 49 50 53 53 54 55 56 56 56 57 57 57 58 59 59 59 61 61 61 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 64 64 65 66 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9
4.3. Sentence-level Coordination 4.3.0. Sentence or Paragraph? 4.3.1. Conjunctive Coordination 4.3.2. Chiastic Coordination 4.3.3. Alternative (Disjunctive) Sentence . . . . 4.3.4. Contrastive Coordination 4.3.5. Antithetical Coordination 4.4. Inclusive and Exclusive Coordination 4.4.0. Deep Grammar 4.4.1. Inclusive Coordination 4.4.2. Exclusive Coordination 4.5. Inter-clausal Relationships in Precative and Predictive Discourse 4.6. Summary 4.7. Back-looping (Rank-shifting) 4.8. Alternative Surface Realizations 4.9. Empirical Testing Notes
66 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 70
5. CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES 5.0. Introduction 5.1. Episode-marginal Circumstantial Clauses 5.1.0. Nucleus and Margin 5.1.1. Episode-initial Circumstantial Clauses . . 5.1.2. Episode-final Circumstantial Clauses . . . 5.1.3. Circumstantial Clause Beside an Episode. . 5.2. Sentence-level Circumstantial Clauses 5.2.0. Sentence versus Paragraph 5.2.1. Clauses Circumstantial to Time Margin. . . 5.2.2. Circumstance of a Circumstance 5.3. Pseudocircumstantial Sequential Clauses 5.4. Pseudosequential Circumstantial Clauses 5.5. Circumstantial Clauses as Alternatives to Noncircumstantial Constructions 5.5.0. Introduction 5.5.1. Circumstantial Form for Deep Subordination 5.5.2. Circumstantial Form for a Relative Clause. Notes
77 77 78 78 79 80 82 86 86 86 87 87 88 88 88 89 90 91
6. ADJUNCTIVE CLAUSES 6.0. Structure 6.1. Function 6.2. Adjunctive Clauses Used Circumstantially. . . . . 6.3. Other Forms Notes
92 92 92 93 93 93
7. SURPRISE CLAUSES 7.0. Form 7.1. Participant Perspective 7.2. Dream Reports 7.3. Other Uses 7.4. Other Forms
94 94 94 95 96 96
71 73 74 75 76 76
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8. CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES 8.0. The Form of a Conjunctive Sentence 8.0.0. Optimum Realization 8.0.1. Double-duty Items 8.0.2. Multiple Coordination 8.1. Declarative Conjunctive Sentences 8.1.0. Introduction 8.1.1. Reports of Accomplished Fact Using 'Perfect' Verbs 8.1.2. Conjoined Predictive Clauses 8.1.3. Conjoined Verbless Clauses 8.1.4. Reports of Present Facts Using Quasiverbal Clauses 8.1.5. Circumstantial Conjunctive Sentences . . . 8.1.6. Conjoined Clauses in Poetry 8.1.7. Dissimilar Clauses Conjoined 8.1.8. Successive Events in Conjoined Clauses . . 8.2. Distributive Coordination 8.3. Conjoined Precative Clauses 8.3.0. The Variety of Combinations 8.3.1. Conjoined Verbless Precative Clauses . . . 8.3.2. Conjoined Imperative Clauses 8.3.3. Conjoined Jussive Clauses 8.3.4. Conjoined Cohortative Clauses 8.3.5. Mixed Linkages of Precative Clauses. . . . 8.4. Negation in Conjunctive Sentences 8.5. Conjoined Prohibitions 8.6. Coordination of Questions 8.7. Conjoining of Surprise Clauses 8.8. Coordination of Subordinate Clauses 8.9. Coordination of Relative Clauses 8.10. Conjunctive Sentences Instead of Other Constructions 8.10.0. Introduction 8.10.1. Hendiadys in Conjunctive Sentences. . . . 8.10.2. Coordination Instead of Apposition. . . . 8.10.3. Coordination Instead of Subordination . . Notes 9. CHIASTIC SENTENCES 9.0. The Form of Inter-clause Chiasmus 9.1. The Surface Grammar of Chiastic Sentences . . . . 9.2. The Deep Grammar of Chiasmus 9.3. Chiasmus in Narrative Prose 9.3.0. An Illustration 9.3.1. Chiasmus in Poetic Discourse 9.3.2. Chiasmus in Epic Narrative 9.3.3. Three-clause Chiasmus 9.4. Grammatical Aspects of Chiasmus 9.4.0. Introduction 9.4.1. Verbless Predicators 9.4.2. Perfect Verbs
97 97 97 98 98 99 99 99 99 100 101 101 101 102 103 103 104 104 107 108 Ill Ill 112 113 113 114 115 115 116 117 117 117 117 117 118 119 119 120 121 122 122 123 123 126 127 127 127 127
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9.5.
9.6. 9.7. 9.8. 9.9. 9.10. 9.11. 9.12. 9.13. Notes
9.4.3. Subjects in Chiasmus 9.4.4. Objects in Chiasmus 9.4.5. Indirect Objects in Chiasmus 9.4.6. Other Clause-level Elements 9.4.7. Other Verbal Patterns 9.4.8. Chiasmus with Negation 9.4.9. Chiasmus not Involving the Verbs. . . . Chiasmus in Predictive Discourse 9.5.0. Verb Patterns 9.5.1. Subjects in Chiasmus 9.5.2. Objects in Chiasmus 9.5.3. Mixed Constructions 9.5.4. Indirect Objects in Chiasmus 9.5.5. Other Clause-level Tagmemes in Chiasmus 9.5.6. Other Verb Forms in Chiasmus Chiasmus in Precative Discourse Chiasmus in Prohibition Incompletely Formed Chiasmus Discontinuous Chiastic Sentences Chiasmus as a High-level Node Chiastic Sentence as Nucleus Chiasmus a Distortion Sequential Clauses in Chiasmus
10. DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES 10.0. Disjunctive Coordination 10.1. Phrase-level Disjunction 10.1.0. Introduction 10.1.1. 10.1.2. 10.1.3. 10.1.4.
A or Β Either A or Β Either A and Β whether A or Β
10.2. Disjunctive Coordination above Phrase Level. . 10.2.0. Transformations up and down the Hierarchy 10.2.1. Disjunctive Sentences 10.2.2. Paragraph-level Disjunction 10.2.3. Disjunction of Paragraphs 10.3. Disjunctive Questions 10.3.0. Fully Formed Disjunction 10.3.1. Interrogated Disjunctive Sentence. . . 10.3.2. The Normal Construction 10.3.3. Phrase-level Disjunction of Questions. 10.3.4. Redundant Antithetical Tag Question. . 10.4. Disjunctive Realization of Conjunctive Relationships ' 10.5. Coniunctive Realization of Disiunctive
11 127 128 129 129 130 130 131 131 131 131 132 132 133 133 133 133 135 135 136 136 139 139 139 140 141 141 141 141 141 142 142 142
142 142 146 146 146 147 147 147 147 148 148 148
12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11. CONTRASTIVE SENTENCES 11.0. The Degree of Contrast 11.1. Contrastive Sentences and Other Constructions . 11.2. Contrast with Pronoun Subjects 11.3. Contrast with Nouns as Subjects 11.4. Contrast with Objects 11.5. Other Items in Contrast 11.6. Exceptions 11.7. Contrast Sentence with Asyndeton
150 150 151 151 152 152 152 153
12. INCLUSIVE SENTENCES 12.0. Inclusion and Addition 12.1. Phrase-level Coordination Using GAM 12.1.0. Introduction 12.1.1. Inclusive Phrases 12.1.2. Compound Conjunction 12.1.3. Duals 12.2. Trans-sentence Inclusive Phrases 12.3. Double Coordination 12.4. Inclusive Coordination and Sentence Types 12.4.0. Introduction 12.4.1. Inclusive Chiastic Sentences 12.4.2. Inclusive Conjunctive Sentences . 12.4.3. Inclusive 'Contrast' Sentences 12.4.4. Circumstantial Clauses 12.4.5. Surprise Clauses 12.4.6. Paragraph-level Inclusive Linkage 12.4.7. Predictive Discourse 12.4.8. Other Constructions 12.4.9. Inclusive Complex Sentences 12.4.10. H p Equivalent to GAM 12.5. Inclusive Coordination and Negation 12.6. The Implication of Inclusive Coordination 12.7. Noninclusive Uses of GAM 12.7.0. Introduction 12.7.1. Coordination 12.7.2. Compound Inter-clause Conjunction 12.8. GAM not a Conjunction 12.8.0. Introduction 12.8.1. Appositive GAM 12.8.2. Emphasizing GAM 12.8.3. Focussing GAM 12.9. The Hierarchical Significance of GAM Notes
154 154 154 154 155 155 155 155 157 157 157 158 158 159 160 161 161 161 162 162 162 163 163 164 164 164 165 165 165 165 166 166 166 167
. . . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
13. EXCLUSIVE SENTENCES 13.0. Signals of Exclusive Relationships 13.1. The Form of the Exclusive Relationship 13.2. Phrase-level Exclusion 13.3. Trans-sentence Exclusive Phrases 13.4. Exclusive Sentences 13.5. Exclusive Forms used for Antithetical Relationships
150
168 168 170 172 172 173 173
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
13.6. Exclusive Forms Used for Coordination or Apposition 13.7. Exclusive Relationships Realized by Antithetical Forms 13.8. Phrase 'Adverb* and Clause 'Adverb' 13.9. Limitative 'Adverbs' 13.10. Limitative Clause-modifier 13.11. Summary Notes
13
174 174 175 175 177 177 178
14. ANTITHETICAL SENTENCES 179 14.0. Antithesis between Clauses 179 14.1. The Form of Antithetical Sentences 179 14.2. Antithesis with Implicit Negation 180 14.3. Antithesis by Means of Antonyms 181 14.4. Antithesis by Negation 181 14.5. Antithesis After Negation 183 14.5.0. Introduction 183 14.5.1. Antithetical WÜ183 14.5.2. Antithetical Sequential WÄW 183 14.5.3. Antithetical ΚΪ 183 14.5.4. Antithetical ΚΪ 1 1M 184 14.5.5. Antithetical 1 1M LÖ"1 184 14.5.6. Antithetical ^IM. 184 14.5.7. Antithesis Using Exclusive Forms. . . . 185 14.6. Antithetical Questions 185 14.7. Antithesis in Apposition 185 Notes 185 15. SURFACE REALIZATIONS AND DEEP RELATIONSHIPS 15.0. Introduction 15.1. Alternative Surface Realizations 15.2. Limitations in Alternative Realizations . . . . 15.3. Juxtaposition and Concatenation 15.4. Coordination and Subordination
186 186 186 186 190 190
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
192
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
*
+ +
11 <
>
A Aj Adv Alt Ant AV Ch Cir Cj CI Cn Co D Dc Dj Ep Eq Ex Exc Hb ΙΑ If Inc Int L Μ Mg
Unattested form Obligatory Optional Paragraph (enclose) Symbol of a relationship or syntagmeme Apposition Adjunctive Adverb Alternative Antithes is Antithetical Authorized (King James) Version Chiasmus Chiastic Circumstantial Conjunction Conjunctive (Clause or Sentence) Clause Contrastive Coordination Discourse Declarative Disjunctive Episode Equative Equivalent Exclamative Exclusive Hebrew Infinitive Absolute Infinitive Inclusive Interrogative Locative Modification (Member -- Dik) Margin Marginal
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS Ν Nd Ni Nom Np Ns Nuc 0 OC OT Ρ Pc Ph Pp Pr Pt Q QV Rel Res S Se Seq Sub Sur Sus sy Τ Ti V VC VI VJ VL VP VS Wd WP WS
Noun Definite noun Indefinite noun Nominalized construction Nominalizer Proper noun Suffixed noun Nucleus Object Object complement Old Testament Predicate, Predicator Predication Precative Phrase Preposition Pronoun Participle Quotation Quasiverbal Relative Resumption Subject Sentence Sequence Subordinate Subordination Surprise Suspended, Casus pendens Syntagmeme Tagmeme Time Verb Cohortative verb Imperative verb Jussive verb Verbless (clause) Prefixed (imperfect) verb Suffixed (perfect) verb Word Wäv-consecutive with VP (sequential past) Wäv-consecutive with VS (sequential future)
15
THE TRANSLITERATION OF HEBREW
I apologize to Hebraists for not citing texts in Hebrew characters. Inflation has been hard on books with exotic scripts. The use of transcription should make this study more useful to linguists who do not read Hebrew, and the taxonomy of the Hebrew sentence system is not altogether without interest for universal grammar. For purposes of syntax the finer points of Massoretic phonology are not often pertinent. The original can always be consulted. The system of transliteration used here is a normalized quasi-phonemic representation of the conventional orthography. Variations in spelling due to the inconsistent use of matres lectionis have been ignored. All long vowels are represented as v, no matter what their historical development has been; for example, long /o/ is δ whether <*u, <*aw, <*a, and whether spelled with or without a mater lectionis. In fact the matres lectionis are represented only by vowel length, never by consonants, except in the case of a few historical spellings like zö">t this. This will be noticed particularly in the omission of matres lectionis from the ends of words. Thus n.T this is ze not zeh. Dägei is shown by doubling the consonant when this is indicated, but the spirantization of stops is ignored as subphonemic. The standard equivalents of the consonants are used. The 1/atef vowels are shown a, e, δ, but unfortunately "β" was not available, and e has been regretfully used for shewa.
1
INTRODUCTION
1.0. TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR The Hebrew SENTENCE (Se) as the domain of inter-clausal relationships has not been studied systematically on a full scale since the volume on syntax in Eduard König's monumental grammar. 1 The established approach is found too in several briefer works. Thus A. B. Davidson's Hebrew Syntax (Edinburgh, 1894) has brief sections on "The Conditional Sentence" (pp. 175-179), "The Conjunctive Sentence" (pp. 184-185), etc. These writers use 'sentence' where we would use 'clause.' The categories are taken for granted, as if the criteria for classification were obvious. Each clause type is illustrated by means of a few selected examples. No attempt is made to establish a general theory of inter-clausal relationships , and the evidence of the texts is not presented in a comprehensive way. Other presentations of Hebrew syntax above the level of PHRASE (Ph) or CLAUSE (CI) are only sketches. Even Joüon's Grammaire de l'Hebreu biblique2 (Rome, 1947), w i t h its admirable overall treatment of Hebrew syntax, often has but one page on sentence types to which we devote a whole chapter. The best recent syntax is Carl Brockelmann's Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen, 1956). He devotes Book Three (pp. 130-165) to Der Zusammengesetzte Satz. The treatment is brief; for instance, he devotes only seven lines (§§ 142, 159d) to clauses in apposition (Chapter 3 below). The method is essentially a listing of an inventory of clause types, more by reference to their inner structure than to discourse function. So far as the latter is concerned, the categories are assumed, and criteria for their identification are drawn from logic, psychology or etymology. 2 König's work is still impressive, and a rich source of organized data. In the Second Part of the Syntax he studies first individual 'sentences' (that is clauses) and then die Satzzusammensetzungen under two headings --coordination (pp. 489546) and subordination (pp. 546-620). Clauses in apposition he does not examine, except as asyndetic coordination. This lack is made up partly in Ewald Kühr, Die Ausdrucksmittel der Konjunktionslosen Ein Beitrag zur
Hypotaxe historischen
in
der ältesten hebräischen Syntax des Hebräischen:
Prosa: Beiträge
18
INTRODUCTION
Semitischen Philologie und Linguistik Heft 7 (Leipzig, 1929). Yet even here it is hypotactic clauses as such, not the extended relationships between successive clauses in hypotaxis, that are examined. In effect what Kühr does is (in our terminology) to study the use of apposition and coordination to realize subordinate relationships. In any case, the method is based on Wundt's Völkerpsychologie, and his interests are strongly historical-comparative, as the title indicates. In English-speaking scholarship the preeminence of S. R. Driver as a Hebraist remains uneclipsed. His great work, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew2 (Oxford, 1891), and all his commentaries still repay study. But many of the concerns of nineteenth century scholarship no longer motivate us, and many of its presuppositions no longer guide us. From this distance it is possible to see the limitations in this earlier work. In the light of twentieth century linguistics the approach was too metaphysical (grammatical categories are derived from 'ideas'), too physchological (a variety of clauses may be gathered under a rubric like 'wish'), too etymological (diachronic explanations take precedence over synchronic descriptions) . There are excursions into text criticism and sometimes regrettable attempts to correct difficult readings to conform to the regularities of text-book grammar. Each of these concerns is valid in its own way, but they can distract research from the immediate task of describing what is there. Comparison of traditional grammars soon reveals that an agreed theoretical foundation was never laid. Without explicit and methodologically rigorous definitions of basic units and relationships the classification of a linguistic datum remains whimsical, and the same clause will often be described differently by different writers, with no discussion of the reason for doing so. For such reasons we have not considered it profitable to document everything that others have said on a particular construction, nor to enter into debate with existing literature. This would only add to the size of the book, without increasing its substance. zur
1.1. DISCOURSE GRAMMAR The main stimulus for the present monograph has come from contemporary linguistics. The last decade in particular has seen spectacular progress all along the line. Pertinent to the task in hand is the emergence from tagmemic circles of a model of language structure capable of handling the functions of clause, sentence and PARAGRAPH (A) in terms of a hierarchy of syntagmemes. The groundwork of tagmemic theory was laid by Kenneth L. Pike, 3 who has continued to develop the grammar of discourse along hierarchical lines. Robert E. Longacre has forged ahead, exploring the hierarchy of discourse in dozens of languages." I am indebted also to Dr. Joseph Grimes for the idea that alternative surface realizations are a matter of 'staging.'
IHTHODUCTION
19
The strong points of tagmemics are its empirical approach, its respect for living language data, its concern for analytical description rather than generation, its search for units and for classes, its interest in relationships within specific constructions rather than abstract functions as such. All this serves the present study, which is essentially a taxonomy of Hebrew inter-clause constructions. To keep this aim in view has required resistance to temptations to go off into all kinds of theoretical discussion. Simon C. Dik's stimulating study of coordination 5 shows how much work has to be done on even such a familiar and apparently straight-forward word as "and." At this stage of the investigation of Hebrew syntax, I have been content to point out a dozen different ways in which "and" is used to join clauses together in that language. This is only a beginning. An enormous amount of additional work is called for, especially on three fronts. First, the theoretical basis must be strengthened by more careful work on deep grammar. The present quest for language universals will assist this, and open up the way for the investigation of comparative syntax within the Semitic family. Secondly, empirical testing must be expanded to cover all known ancient texts. (Most of our examples come from the Torah, and abundant evidence has not been traced very far.) Thirdly, when the evidence is organized, we must look at the dynamics of structural changes in the sentence repertoire, and higher up the hierarchy, in order to write the history· of Hebrew discourse and in particular the history of Hebrew conjunctions. When this work has been done we will be able to return to problems of translation and exegesis, and such knowledge will equip us for the task of literary criticism and for the application of linguistic arguments to the identification of sources and the dating of documents. NOTES 1 Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der Hebräischen Sprache mit comparativer Berücksichtigung des Semitischen überhaupt, a u s g e a r b e i t e t v o n F r . E d u a r d K ö n i g . 2. H ä l f t e , 2 . ( S c h l u s s - ) Teil: Syntax (Leipzig, 1897). 2 For example fB lest is t r e a t e d as an i m p e r a t i v e v e r b j o i n e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g v e r b in a s y n d e t o n (p. 1 3 l ) , w i t h t r a n s l a t i o n s t h a t r e f l e c t t h e o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g of t h e p u t a t i v e root . Quite apart from the d u b i o u s e t y m o l o g y , t h i s o b s c u r e s the fact that f r o m a s t r u c t u r a l p o i n t of v i e w |S is a c o n j u n c t i o n . 3 F o r t h e b i b l i o g r a p h y o f t a g m e m i c s s e e K e n n e t h L . P i k e , "A G u i d e t o P u b l i c a t i o n s R e l a t e d to T a g m e m i c T h e o r y , " Current Trends in Linguistics: Vol. Ill: Theoretical Foundations, Thomas A . S e b e o k , e d . (The H a g u e , 1 9 6 6 ) : p p . 365-39 1 *; R u t h M . B r e n d , " T a g m e m i c T h e o r y : A n A n n o t a t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y , " Journal of English Linguistics, 1» ( 1 9 7 0 ) : p p . T - U 5. M o s t r e c e n t l y in R o b e r t E . L o n g a c r e , Hierarchy and Universality of Discourse Constituents in Hew Guinea Languages. Vol. I: D i s c u s s i o n ; V o l . I I : T e x t s . (Washington, Georgetown Univer-
20
INTRODUCTION
sity Press, 1972), where the bibliography will give sufficient guidance to preceding discussion. 5 Coordination: Its implications for the theory of general linguistics (Amsterdam, 1972).
2
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
2.0. DEFINITION OF SENTENCE The term SENTENCE (Se) has been used in linguistics in several different ways. The traditional definition of a sentence as "a complete thought expressed in words" fell on evil times when description of language data began with forms rather than ideas. It was easier to observe a sound than a thought, and it was impossible to tell when a thought was 'complete.' As a unit in the phonological component of a language, sentence is the name for a set of elements whose distinctive identity is marked by phonological features. Each element in the set is a sentence. The contrastive-distinctive features of a phonological sentence, while language-specific in detail, are characteristically melodies of tones and stresses, with certain contours having particular importance as signals of sentence termination. Segments of speech with such melodies are often uttered in complete isolation from other speech, or in conversation as the alternating contributions of individual speakers. Unfortunately we know nothing whatever about these matters, so far as biblical Hebrew is concerned, for it is a dead language. There is a reasonable presumption, however, that the complex Masoretic systems (there are two quite distinct ones) 1 preserve some of the traditions of living speech, for the scriptures never ceased to be read. The systems are unfortunately of little value, for they are geared to written texts, they reflect liturgical artificiality and the units of 'verses' and subverses bear only partial correspondence to sentences as grammatical units. As a unit in the grammatical component of a language, a sentence may be defined as a construction that is grammatically complete or self-contained; that is, the grammatical functions of all the elements in a given sentence can be described in terms of relationships to other elements within the same sentence. Such definitions take us somewhere, but they do not take us very far. The set of sentences for any language, identified as units in speech by phonological criteria, is likely to include a variety of construction types from the grammatical point of view, ranging from a single word to an extended text. (We use TEXT to refer to any given specimen of a language, spoken or
22
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
written.) Grammatical completeness, as a sine qua non of sentence identity, may prove as hard to establish as completeness of thought. If we can identify parts of a sentence as elements of that sentence, then these ingredients, in their own way, will have some measure of internal integrity that permits their isolation. A WORD (Wd) , a PHRASE (Ph) , a CLAUSE (CI) has its own internal structure or completeness. And few sentences, however complete within themselves, are likely to be as entirely without relationships to their context as the definition requires. Bloomfield's famous definition--"a sentence is an independent linguistic form, not included by virtue of any grammatical construction in any larger linguistic form"--if applied strictly, would identify the unit we call DISCOURSE (D). Most sentences function within larger discourse of some kind, to say nothing of the nonlinguistic behavioural context. Grammatical completeness is therefore a matter of degree, and cannot be made an absolute criterion for the identification of sentences. Nevertheless the definitions are not without value. Many phonological sentences are able to stand by themselves in speech because they have some measure of grammatical completeness. Hence the need to distinguish the kinds of grammatical relationship that have their realization within the structure of a sentence as such from the kinds of grammatical relationship that operate between sentences in larger chunks of discourse. While their hierarchies have their own characteristic structural features , the phonological and the grammatical components of a language are likely to have some measure of congruence. Together with the semantic component, they have such an ineluctibly concomitant operation in the one thing that any language is, that they cannot be separated, even though they can be talked about separately. But the hierarchies are not isomorphous. Hence sentence, as a unit in each component--a meaning complex, a grammatical construction, a sound pattern--needs an appropriate definition in terms of the features of that component, and we should know what we are doing when we bring together the results of these definitions. 2 2.1. THE CLAUSE AS A SENTENCE ELEMENT We can stalk the sentence from another direction by talking first about the clause as a unit in the grammatical component of a language. Many languages afford constructions which contain two parts which can be described as the TOPIC and the COMMENT. Again, many languages afford constructions which, in terms of formal grammatical features, can be described as made up of a SUBJECT (S) and PREDICATE (P). It often happens that the topic is realized as the subject, while the predicate realizes some comment on the topic. Readers of linguistic literature will know at once that we are already on slippery ground, but we do not intend to explore the familiar yet treacherous frontier between meaning and form in this regard. We accept for the time being subject and predicate as mutually self-defining co-occurring grammatical functions whose forms of realization are specific for
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
23
each language. When the language has the means of realizing a relationship of PREDICATION (
) between a subject and a predicate, then the construction in which S
Ρ is realized is definitive of a clause. We are careful not to define a clause as +S
+P, for this minimum NUCLEUS (Nuc) may have in addition various MARGINAL (Mg) elements which are not part of either subject or predicate and also inter-clausal CONJUNCTIONS (Cj). Hence CI = ±Cj +Nuc ±(Mg) n More precisely, a construction in which predication is realized once is a clause. A more rigorous definition would have to protect this statement by restricting the form of realization of predication to surface structure. John is crazy is an ascriptive clause; crazy John is an attributive phrase. In each construction we are talking about John and we are saying that he is crazy. But the difference lies in the use of the explicit formal (surface) equative predicator is for a clause, but not for a phrase. So all kinds of 'deep' predication, as well as merged or embedded clauses which realize various kinds of clause-level tagmemes on the same level as the main predication, do not count for purposes of the definition. A single clause may therefore have more than one explicit predication realized in its surface structure, but it is only one clause so long as the main (or lead) predication can be distinguished from predication in clauses which, by recursion, realize clause-level tagmemes within the predicate of the lead clause, or which, by further recursion, are included within an included clause, or which, by back-looping (rank-shifting) are part of a clause-level noun phrase; etc. A problem lurks here also, of course. For how firmly does a second clause have to be attached to a lead clause before we say that it is 'inside' it and not just 'alongside' it? We shall return to this question when we have developed the means for handling it. Meanwhile we assume, without more ado, that the clause is an identifiable unit in the grammatical hierarchy. If we then identify in a given text the elements which are clauses, and compare them with the elements identified as sentences, the set of sentences is likely to consist of three subsets: a subset of sentences, each of which is less than one clause; a subset of sentences, each of which is just one clause; a subset of sentences, each of which is more than one clause. Even if we continue to call all of them sentences, we will still need to recognize that there are three distinct kinds of sentence, so far as their inner structure is concerned.3 In traditional grammar a one-clause sentence is called a simple sentence. This is unobjectionable; but we prefer to call such a construction simply a clause, and to restrict the use of the term '(grammatical) sentence' to a unit higher than clause in grammatical rank. This can be done without confusion if we call the set of 'complete' utterances PERIODS. The period is the minimum unit of discourse. For a start we shall say that there are some constructions in which two clauses are related to each other in certain ways and which we propose to call sentences. This is not a definition of
2h
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
sentence. It leaves open for study three questions: (i) What kinds of two-clause constructions are sentences --all, or only some? (ii) If only some, then what kinds of inter-clause relationships are sentence-level, and what kind are not? (iii) Are other elements besides clauses related to each other in sentences? 2.2. SENTENCE TYPES Sentences containing two or more clauses have been traditionally classified as COMPOUND or COMPLEX on the basis of a broad distinction between COORDINATION (Co) and SUBORDINATION (Sub). APPOSITION (A) was included under 'compound.' As we shall see, this simple distinction cannot do justice to the range of inter-clausal relationships provided for in the sentence repertoire of the natural languages. But the problem is not solved simply by multiplying categories. On the one hand, an absolute distinction between coordination and subordination is not easy to nail down; on the other, there are different kinds of coordination sentences and different kinds of subordination sentences. The differential diagnosis of sentence types can be carried on to any desired degree of delicacy, with both surface and deep grammar helping to establish the typology. But if no limit is set for the descent into semantic structure, a point may be reached where each individual sentence has its own grammar. This is what one must do eventually in exegesis. The present task must strike a compromise, aiming at useful generalizations on the basis, in the first place, of contrastive-distinctive features in surface grammar. The price paid for standing back to see the big picture is that finer details have to be left for close-up viewing. As a first step towards the classification of sentences, we shall remove from the scene some construction types which do not qualify as sentences according to our definition. There are some clause-like constructions which do not qualify for recognition as sentence-level clauses, and so are not constituents of sentence structure as such. Hebrew has three kinds of verbal noun-an INFINITIVE (If), a PARTICIPLE (Pt), and names of agents and activities which have deep-structure affinities with their cognate verbs. The participle is the most verbal of these, in that it can form the predicate (or function as the head of the predicate) in the nucleus of a well-formed clause, that is, a clause with an explicit grammatical subject. Such participial clauses do enter our purview when they are sentence constituents (#5.1. 3.1). A participle can also be used alone, that is unmodified, or as the head of a predicate-like construction (a PARTICIPLE PHRASE [PtPh]) in which other clause-level tagmemes, such as OBJECT (0), LOCATION (L) , TIME (Ti), etc., are realized in relationships typical of well-formed clauses. Such a participial phrase (incomplete clause) generally functions as a NOUN EQUIVALENT (NEq); the participle is verbal within the phrase, nominal outside it. The noun-like functions of a participial phrase include the realization of such clause-level tagmemes as subject,
THE SENTENCE
IN
HEBREW
25
object, OBJECT COMPLEMENT (OC), etc. Some linguists call such incorporation of an incomplete clause into a larger clause 'merging' or 'embedding.' By defining a sentence as a construction with at least two well-formed clauses, we exclude merged sentences from consideration. The same applies to all infinitival constructions, even though in some infinitival phrases an explicit subject is realized, the infinitive being the predicate.'* Although such a construction might seem to qualify as a well-formed clause, it is a clause type to be studied in its own right. Its hierarchical functions are only marginal to our present discussion. An infinitival phrase rarely manifests the clause property of occurring alone as a complete utterance or as a simple sentence. (We are not talking about well-formed clauses in which the predicator is an INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE [IAJ, functioning as a universal verb.) And since an infinitival phrase is not normally coordinated or subordinated in the usual way with a regular clause, it does not figure as a sentence constituent. On the contrary, infinitival constructions are typically clauselevel, realizing such tagmemes as Time, Purpose, Result, etc. For this reason we do not need to go outside the domain of clause to describe their grammatical functions. An infinitival phrasj can, however, be the head to which a clause may be coordinated. See #5.2.1. Example:
wayyism?^ü (+Cj +S+P):WP and they heard mithallek
^et-qöl yhvh ^elöhlm +0:PpPh the sound of Yahweh God
baggän
+0C:PtPh walking around
in the garden
(Ge 3°)
Mithallek baggän is a predicate-1 ike construction (P = +V:Pt +L: PpPh) which can be transformed into a surface predicate by 0 + S and OC P. The resulting cl ause is (qol) yhwh ^elShlm mithallek baggän, (the sound of) Yahweh God Zisl walking around in the garden. This has deep structure in common with Ge 3°. In Ge 3° the object of the verb is the (deep) subject of the participle. It is a merging of the coordination sentence: They heard the sound of Yahweh God fand) Yahweh God was walking around in the garden. We do not include such alternative realizations of deep-structure coordination in the present study. In a QUOTATIVE (Q) clause the reported quotation is the object of a quotative verb, and may be practically anything, including a clause. Such a quoted clause simply realizes a clause-level tagmeme, like any other object, and is integral to the total clause, so that the whole construction cannot be compared with one in which two distinct clauses are put together in coordination or even subordination. Hence we do not call a quotative clause a sentence. A 'relative' clause may be used as an adjectival modifier of a noun head. Such clauses, NOMINALIZED (Nom) in Hebrew by the use of "lWK, exercise other noun-like functions, realizing such clauselevel tagmemes as subject or object, or in prepositional phrases which realize various phrase-level or clause-level tagmemes. None
26
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
of the relationships into which these nominalized clauses enter is inter-clausal, that is, sentence-level. So these are eliminated from the present discussion. If is used as a subordinating conjunction, an exception will have to be made. This problem can be shunted into the lexicon by recognizing in "iwk a pair of homonyms, the nominalizer ('relative') and a conjunction.
2.3. COMPLEX SENTENCES A complex sentence is a two-clause construction in which a SUBORDINATE CLAUSE is dependent on a principal or LEAD CLAUSE. Like many other languages, Hebrew has a set of SUBORDINATING CONJUNCTIONS (SubCj) which help to signal the various dependent relationships of subordinate clauses to lead clauses. There can be no objection to calling such a construction a sentence, but the primacy of the predication in the lead clause permits the whole construction to be described as one entire clause, whose nuclear predication is that of the lead clause while the subordinate clause realizes some marginal clause-level tagmeme or other within the lead clause. The subordinate clause is clauselevel, not sentence-level. Such constructions can be advantageously classified with clauses which have only one predication in surface structure rather than with sentences whose structure is above clause level. Detailed justification of this tactical decision need not be given here; a few remarks will give an idea of the lines along which such a justification would proceed. A typical clause-level but non-nuclear tagmeme like TIME (Ti) can be realized by a variety of forms. Potential fillers of the Ti slot are members of several parts of speech or form classes, such as PRONOUN (for example, r ättä, now), ADVERB (yömäm, by day), NOUN (layla, by night), NOUN PHRASE (yöm yöm, day by day), PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE, etc., all unquestionably clause-level and integral (albeit marginal) to the clause that they are in. There is no great shift in construction type when a time tagmeme is realized by a subordinate clause such as ki zärefcä hassemes, when the sun rose. To call the latter sentence-level means that the form rather than the function of the time tagma has been used to classify the construction. There is no need to argue about the use of words. If a construction which includes a subordinate clause is called a (complex) clause, it is a member of a distinct subclass of clauses that is worth studying on its own. If it is preferred to call such a construction a complex sentence, it is still a special subclass of sentences distinct from other kinds of two-clause construction. In so far as a subordinate clause is optional, that is, not part of the nucleus of the main clause, the complete construction minus the subordinate clause is itself likely to be an acceptably complete clause. Hence the subordinate clause can be described as a second clause added to the first to make a two-clause construction (sentence) rather than included in the first to be an integral part of a whole which is still only one clause.
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
27
The point is a fine one, and we shall return to it again. Meanwhile we recognize a distinct construction type (call it clause or sentence) which is the domain of such relationships as Cause or Reason (the subordinate clause states the reason for what is stated in the lead clause)(Cj:»3, because), Effect or Result (73V, therefore), Purpose (jyeV, so that), Negative Purpose ( T®f lest, so as not), Concession ( »3, although), Condition (ox, »3, if), Time (»3, when; in*, after; riy, until), etc. The characteristic conjunctions shown signal these relationships.
2.4. COMPOUND SENTENCES The traditional definition of a compound sentence recognizes in it two 'principal' clauses. It does not matter whether they are coordinated or stand in apposition. But the picture is not nearly so simple. It would be better to make a distinction between COORDINATION (
28
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
dent without being subordinate. Everything that contributes to the interdependence of clauses in a sentence has to be studied as a part of sentence grammar.
2.5. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SENTENCE TYPES So far, using conjunctions as our chief clue, we have recognized three main kinds of sentence. Apposition
Coordination
Subordination
<Sub>
The connection between the constituent clauses is increasingly tight as we descend the series, and we could continue into even tighter attachment when an embedded clause is merged right into the structure of the main clause, as in an infinitival construction that is used as an alternative realization of, say, a subordinate clause of Purpose. The connection is not uniformly tight within each main type. In due course we shall distinguish several kinds of apposition sentences, ranging from those in which the clauses are closely linked to those in which the connection is quite loose. Similarly, there may be varying degrees of dependence in coordination sentences, and the most dependent coordinated clauses might just as well be called 'subordinate.' We have quantized the spectrum into three bands on the basis of differences in gross surface features, namely, the use of conjunctions. Formal criteria for distinguishing coordination from subordination are discussed in Dik (pp. 34-41). There are three tests, (i) If M! co co? M 2 then co? is not a coordinator. (ii) The lead clause in coordination cannot have anaphora. (iii) If Mi co M 2 then M 2 co M! is possible. The permutation and the anaphora test won't work on one and the same construction. As we shall show in Chapter 12, test (i) is not decisive for Hebrew. Furthermore, Hebrew does tolerate anaphora in the lead clause of a coordination sentence. And not all Hebrew subordinate clauses can switch order with their head. Dik's criterion is admirably empirical. But the price paid for this objectivity is that it is too language specific, and too many surface features are arbitrary in natural languages to be taken as a guide to universals. Attention to deep structure relationships would keep English 'for' and 'because' together. Dik's criterion separates them. We shall be interested to discover for Hebrew to what extent the different parts of the spectrum correspond to a continuum in deep structure. The example we have chosen to illustrate this is particularly interesting, because the dependent clause involved is attributive to a preceding noun, and could be realized as a phraselevel relative clause.
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
29
2.6. SURFACE GRAMMAR AND DEEP GRAMMAR 2.6.Ο.
The English
Relative
Clause
In English, information about a person's name can be supplied in various ways. Λ girl, Mary by name; a girl named Hary; a girl they call Mary; a girl whose name is Mary; a girl--her name is Mary; etc. We shall not attempt to discuss the English grammar of all these constructions. They represent different formal (surface) means of realizing essentially the same (deep) relationships between Mary, name and girl. This aspect of language has been extensively discussed in recent linguistics, especially in transformational-generative grammar. We shall not attempt to review the question of how much the different surface structures, each of which is a transform of any of the others, secure differences of meaning. All we need to do, in a general way, is to distinguish surface realizations (texts) from underlying semantic materials and deep grammatical relationships. In particular, we shall not attempt to locate the interface between semantic structures and deep grammar. We need only the general ideas that the same deep grammar may be realized in various surface constructions, and that the same surface construction may sometimes realize more than one deep grammar relationship. Consider the phrases in English: a man, the king, Esau, you,
whose whose whose whose
name name name name
is/was Job is David is Edom is Yahweh
These all have the structure
(antecedent)Head:NEqModifierTRelCl They differ only in the class-membership of the various fillers of the Head slot, which are, respectively, an indefinite noun, a definite noun, a proper noun and a pronoun. The relative clause, nominalized by 'whose', is in apposition with the Head nominal, and realizes a phrase-level tagmeme. English relative clauses of this kind are now confined to phrase-level functions, and an explicit antecedent is obligatory. *whose name is David is king He, whose name is David, is king In view of the availability of a widely used 'relative' nwK, who, which, etc., in Hebrew, one might have predicted the grammaticality of literal translations. In Hebrew the corresponding constructions would be 31 »X ΊΒΒ 1WK vx* η » π low nwx i>an* ο ι "iK iaw -iwx iwy* πίπ' law i w πηκ*
30
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
In fact, no phrases with this structure are attested anywhere in classical sources. They are, however, found in Aramaic. Example: Daniyye^l di s?meh Belte^a"155 ar, Daniel, who his-name (is) Belteshazzar (Da Z 2 6 , 4 8 , 1 '). In the Hebrew part of Daniel there is a construction that looks like an attempt to translate this Aramaic phrase into Hebrew: Däniyye^l ^äSer niqrä^ 55mö Belt5?a^ssar,
Daniel
who
is-called
his-name
Belteshazzar
(Da 10 1 ). This clause is without parallel in the rest of the Bible. As we shall see in what immediately follows, in specifying a name, the relative pronoun as used in both English and Aramaic is avoided (except in #2.6.8). In Da 10 1 the structure of the presumed Aramaic original has been followed, except for the addition of the verb, even though verbless clauses are commonplace in Hebrew, and are otherwise used for such statements. 2.6.1.
Head
is
a Proper
Noun
An alternative proper name for a person or place in f esäw hü 1 ^edöm, Esau, he (is) Edom (Ge 36 1 ) , hl 1 qädes, En Mishpat, she (is) Qadesh (Ge 14 7 ) , struction is best construed as a verbless clause in the discourse, or in apposition with the head
is given as or 'en miSpä^ etc. This conin parenthesis noun.
NPh Head N : N p ^
\Modifier:Cl S: Pr
2.6.2.
Head
is
a
Ρ:Np
Pronoun
The only instance in the Old Testament in which the antecedent is a pronoun is Ps 8 3 1 9 : ^attä Jimkä yhwh, you (who) your-name (is) Yahweh. This has the same structure as #2.6.1 with S:Ns. 2.6.3.
Head
is
a Definite
Noun
The only construction which has a definite noun as antecedent is hammelek yhwh 5?mö, the king, Yahweh Sebaoth (is) his name (Je 4 6 1 β , 4 8 1 5 , 5 1 s 7 ) . This has the structure NPh
2.6.4.
Head
is
an
Indefinite
Noun
When the antecedent is an indefinite noun, two different constructions are available. Zee 6 1 2 resembles #2.6.3 above: ^ϊδ semah SSm5, a man. Branch (is) his-name.
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW Other examples:
31
ISa 1 7 " · 2 3 , 2Sa 20 2 1 , IKi 1 3 2 , Job l 1 , 2Chr 28 9 .
The sequence SP is used in the apposition clauses in #2.6.1 and #2.6.2; the sequence PS is used in the apposition clauses in #2.6.3 and #2.6.4. The latter two invite comparison with the liturgical yhvh äfSmö, his name is Yahweh, which comes at the end of a list of titles. These compositions have been analysed grammatically in various ways. Ex 15 3 is generally taken as two clauses- -Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name. We suggest it is more likely to be a recitation of three names (or a threefold name)--Yahweh, Man of War, Yahweh is his name. The hymns in Am 4 1 3 , 5', 9 s are generally explained as CASUS P E N D E N S — H e who shapes the mountains...--Yahweh is his name. It is more likely that they are of the same genre as Ex I S 3 , and that the entire list is the name of God. See also Ex 3 4 ' V Yhvh qn 1 Smv is correctly construed as He whose name is Yahweh ßannä'. 2.6.5.
Coordination
as Alternative
Realization
Otherwise the information about the name is supplied in a circumstantial verbless clause (#5.1.3.3) with sequence SP as in #2.6.2, that is the reverse of #2.6.4. Example: veläh siphä misrlt üsemäh hägär, and she had an tian slave, and her name was Hagar (Ge 1 6 ) .
Egyp-
The structure is Antecedent:Ni
CirCl S:Ns
Ρ:Np
The antecedent head indefinite noun, which may be a phrase like f ebed misrl, Egyptian slave (IChr 2 i " ) , gives the class membership of a new character. man (Ge 3 8 1 » 2 , Jdg 13 2 , 1 7 l , ISa l 1 , 9 1 , 1 7 1 2 , 21°, 2Sa 1 6 s , 2 0 1 , Est 2 5 ) H S s ä , woman (Ge 25 1 [compare Ge ll 2 '], 38®, Jdg 16", Jos 2 1 , IChr 2 2 S ) ben, son (ISa 9 2 , 2 2 2 0 2Sa 4", 9 1 2 , 1 7 2 5 ) 2 bat, daughter (2Sa 14 ') ''ah, brother (Ge 24 2 9 ) ^ äljöt , sister (2Sa 1 3 1 ) bafal, master (Je 3 7 1 3 ) möda^, acquaintance (Ru 2 1 ) r e f , friend (2Sa 1 3 3 ) f ebed, male slave (2Sa 9 2 , IChr 2 3 1 t ) siphä, female slave (Ge 1 6 1 ) piliegeS, concubine (Ge 22 2 *, 2Sa 3 7 )
32
THE S E N T E N C E
IN
HEBREW
The construction is highly favoured in narrative prose for introducing a character at the beginning of a story, or for bringing in a new character along the thread. The preference for a circumstantial rather than a relative clause brings the construction tc a higher level in the hierarchy and highlights the name. Compare the similar circumstantial clauses in Ge 4 ? 1 and IChr 7 1 β . 2.6.6.
An
Exception
Is 57 1 5 is usually interpreted as if it were a variant of #2.6.3 and #2.6.4 above, with, however, coordination rather than apposition. In this latter regard it resembles #2.6.5. But the sequence PS is as in #2.6.3 and #2.6.4, not as in #2.6.5. Räm weniSSä' Söken ^äd veqädö? äf?mö, the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity, whose name is holy. This is dubious. The sequence is wrong for comparison with #2.6.5; the use of the coordinating conjunction deviates from #2.6.3 and #2.6.4. The problem can be solved in terms of established structures by recognizing another recitation of the names of God as in Ex 15 3 , etc., except that here the titles are coordinated and not just listed. There is but one clause, with sequence PS. The predicate consists of four names, coordinated in two pairs. He whose name is Elevated and Exalted, Occupier of eternity and Holy One. In the light of this, the constructions cited in #2.6.3 above, together with Am 5 2 7 and the like, are to be construed in the same way. This leaves #2.6.4 and #2.6.5 as the normal ways of supplying a character's name, that is, alternative realizations of relative clauses. They are syntactically quite different; but there are no distribution patterns that enable us to assign them to different historical periods, to different regional dialects, or to different literary genres, except that #2.6.4 is not used in the Pentateuch. 2.6.7.
Naming Two Persons
It often happens that protagonists are introduced as a pair whose parallel destinies will be played out in the following narrative--two wives (Ge 4 1 9 , 1 1 , ISa l 2 Ru l1*) ; two daughters (Ge 29 1 6 , ISa 14*t9) ; two sons (Ge 1 0 2 i , IChr l 1 '); two men (Nu l l 2 6 , 2Sa 4 2 ) , etc. The construction preferred for this kind of material is illustrated by Ge 4 1 9 . o»WJ
»η®
my nnxn ow π^ϊ n»iwn obi two wives the name of the one - Ada and the name of the second - Zilla
THE SENTENCE IN
Antecedent:NPh
HEBREW
33
Conjunctive Sentence
The differences between this construction and those in #2.6.4 and #2.6.5 are remarkable. Both of the conjoined clauses have the same sequence (SP) which is the same as that used in #2.6.5. But the conjunctive sentence is in apposition, as in #2.6.4. So the result is not the same as either, while partly resembling each. If #2.6.4 had been followed, we might have expected *sete näslm ''ädä vegillä Jimötehen. If #2.6.5 had been followed, we might have expected *sete näSIm üäSmötehen fädä wesillä. But constructions of this sort are never found in the Bible, even though there is no reason to suppose that either of them would have been considered ungrammatical by native speakers. It is not a frozen device. A variety of vocabulary is used for referring to the participants. hä^ ehäd hä^ eljäd 1 ah at hä^ ahat hä^ ehäd haggödölä habbSklrä 1 eSet-^ abräm
..hä^ehäd (Ex 183 . ISa 141*) ..ha??lnr (Nu 1 1 2 ί , 2Sa 4 2 ) ..haSSenlt (ISa l 2 ) ..hassenlt (Ge 4 1 9 , Ex l 1 5 , Ru 1") • ·^ ahlv (Ge 10 2 5 , IChr l 1 9 , cp . Ge 4 2 1 ) . .haqq^anna (Ge 2 9 l s ) . .haqqStannä (ISa 14 ) . .">e?et-näl}ör (Ge I I 2 9 )
Similar patterns are found in ISa 8 2 (Samuel's two sons), ISa 253 (Nabal and Abigail). Compare IChr 7 1 5 , and the names of Job's three daughters in Job 421 **, where, however, the construction is the object of a verb. A similar pattern of apposition followed by coordination is used for the names of the four rivers of paradise in Ge 2 1 1 " 1 * , but the fourth clause switches to the use of a SUSPENDED
(Sus) followed by a RESUMPTIVE
(Res)
subject. The names of Azel's six sons are given quite differently: Sissä bänlm wS^elle semStäm..., six sons, and these (are) their names (the list follows) (IChr 8 3 β , θ"''). Ru l 2 also shows that #2.6.7 is not used for more than two names. Here three clauses are coordinated as in #2.6.7, but the whole is coordinated as in #2.6.5. 2.6.8.
The Use of the Nominalizer
There are two passages in which information about two names is connected to an antecedent by the relative "WK.
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW nnayn nna® ηηκη ο® (Ex l 1 5 ) nyio n*urn osn to
the
Hebrew who
midwives the name and the name
of of
tbx
the the
one (was) Shipra second (was) Pua
Also Moses' two sons (Ex 18 3 ). It could be significant that the antecedents here are definite, but this is not enough to explain the use of ibx ; for the antecedent is definite in ISa 14 2 9 and nwx is not used, and can be used in other constructions when the antecedent is indefinite. The use of the nominalizer brings the construction down the hierarchy to the level of phrase, as the following diagram shows. NPh
2.6.9.
Conclusions
To sum up. The deep construction χ - his name is y can be realized by several different surface structures in Hebrew. For one person: or
+X +C1:(+P:Y +S:55mo)(#2.6.4) +X
For two persons: +X's +Se: (+C1![SP]
THE SENTENCE IN HEBREW
35
impression is given. The formula will be overproductive. Thus SP and PS sequences are both used;
William Wiekes, Λ Treatise on the Accentuation of the three so-called Poetical Books of the Old Testament, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (l88l); and. A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twentyone so-called Prose Books of the Old Testament (1887). Reprinted in one volume by KTAV Publishing House (1970). 2 Harris' definition of 'sentence' is at once phonological and grammatical: "sentences may be characterized as those segments of speech (or writing) over which certain intonations occur or within which certain structures occur" (String Analysis of Sentence Structure: Papers on Formal Linguistics [The Hague: Mouton, 1962D: p. 7). The two alternative criteria yield two sets of segments called 'sentences'. Even if the two sets largely overlap, as they'probably will, the fact remains that we are talking about two distinguishable, albeit inseparable, components of language. 3 Confusion can be diminished if we call a unit in discourse that is 'complete' a PERIOD. A period may be non-predicative (less than one clause); it may be one clause; or it may be a 'sentence' defined grammatically as an integral coirstruction of two or more clauses. * Or head of the predicate (predicator) . If predicate is defined as all in the clause nucleus that is not the subject, then a predicate without a subject is a contradiction in terms, at least so far as surface structure is concerned. Infinitives often realize deep-structure predication without surfacestructure clause formation.
3
APPOSITION SENTENCES
3.0. DEEP GRAMMAR OF APPOSITION Sentence-level apposition resembles phrase-level apposition. A typical phrase-level apposition places in juxtaposition two words or phrases with a common referent, or at least some overlap in their fields of reference. Examples: Dr. Livingstone, the explorer;
red
apple.
Dr.
Livingstone
and
the
explorer
are
identical.
The phrase in apposition identifies the Head. In Dr. Livingstone, an explorer, the apposition phrase classifies the Head. Red and apple are both class names; the apposition phrase refers to the overlap class of objects which are both red and apple. Juxtaposition without a conjunction is found also in phrases which may be called lists. These are alternative realizations of some, kind of coordination. Conversely, when two items in apposition are joined by a coordinating conjunction, the resulting construction embodies a figure called hendiadys. Thus we can distinguish the normal surface realization of a deep structure relationship from aberrant, but not ungrammatical, alternative surface realization. Surface form
Juxtaposition Concatenation
Deep relationship
Apposition
Coordination
An apposition sentence consists of two or more clauses in juxtaposition (no conjunction). Such sentences may be arranged on a spectrum depending on how much semantic overlap there is between the constituent clauses. At one end of the spectrum the two clauses may be completely identical (#3.2). At the other end, the two juxtaposed clauses may have nothing in common at all. At this extreme we have incoherent discourse, and there is no point in talking about a sentence when there is rio coherent structure. Most apposition sentences lie somewhere between these two extremes.
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
37
3.1. SURFACE GRAMMAR OF APPOSITION The juxtaposition of two clauses is the simplest form of apposition sentence. Resumptive kl, yea'. may sometimes intervene (Ex 31 1 ). Se
Although we have used clauses in apposition to illustrate the construction, there is no constraint on the items in juxtaposition. The lead item and/or the apposed item could be clause, sentence, paragraph, episode, etc. Two-clause apposition sentences are, however, the easiest to talk about for a start. The ubiquitous Hebrew 'and' is less common in vernacular speech than in narrative and other more literary discourse. This may account for the rather jerky effect of the high level of asyndeton in Pharoah's speech. Your father and your brothers have come to you the land of Egypt is at your disposal in the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers let them reside in the land of Goshen (Ge 4 7 s " 6 ) . The preamble to the speech in De 5 contains four clauses (or sentences) in apposition (De 5 2 " 5 ) . This is unusual. Such conjunctionless transition within a rather disjointed speech will not be considered as sentence-level apposition, especially when a speech is a heterogeneous concatenation of discourses of different genres, such as DECLARATIVE (Dc), INTERROGATIVE (Int), PRECATIVE (Pc). Examples: Ge 2 2 3 , 4 S > 1 0 , 1 8 2 * , etc. But conjunctionless transition between a curse (Pc) and a prediction (Dc) will be regarded as apposition when the prediction expounds the curse (#3.8). Conjunctionless juxtaposition which formally resembles apposition is also used to insert in a text extraneous remarks which, in modern punctuation, would be placed in parenthesis, or glosses which, in modern books, would be printed as footnotes. Examples: Ge 61*, 39 8 , De 3 9 . These do not belong in the present treatment. Nor do we include the rare instances when a new paragraph begins without conjunction. Examples: Ge 8 s , 221*. A construction may present an appearance of apposition when three clauses are coordinated. While 'and' may be used twice-Cli and Cl 2 and C l 3 , it is equally acceptable to use 'and' only once — Clj, C l ? , and Cl 3 . It would be a mistake to say that Cl 2 is in apposition in the latter instance. The term 'asyndeton' is properly used for such conjunctionless coordination (#3.10).
3.2. VERBAL REPETITION IN APPOSITION The simplest kind of apposition is the repetition of an entire clause. The nearest approach to this in Genesis is Ge 4 8 1 9 : yäda^ti b?ni yäda^tl, I know, my son, I know. Note the repeti-
38
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
tion of nelek in an apposition clause in Ex 10®. mille^ repeats waySmalle"1.
In Ex 35 3 5
3.3. SYNONYMOUS APPOSITION When two clauses in apposition are identical in both meaning and grammatical structure, the result is the parallelismus membroram so highly favoured in Hebrew, especially in poetry. Example:
f
ädä vesillä sema^an qöli n??e lemek ha^zennä ^imrätl
Ada and Zilla, heed my-voice'. Wives of Lemek, hear my- speech'.
(Ge 4 2 3 )
Everything occurs exactly twice, and corresponding items come in the same sequence. Example:
hSmälök timlök 'älenü 1im-ma?01 timäföl bänü Will
you
really
Will
you really
reign rule
over over
us? us?
(Ge
378)
A question may be repeated in apposition. Example:
ma-ppis^I ma hattä^tl What
is my
offence?_
What
is my failure?
(Ge
3136)
The parallel items may be arranged in chiasmus. Example:
yaqnl'ühü 'bfzärlm b?t0^eböt yak^isühü They With
Example:
made him jealous with foreign gods: abominations they infuriated him. (De
32ls)
hahödes hazze läkem rö 1 ? hodäsim rl^äfön hü^ läkem lffhodse haS?änä This head
Other Examples:
month for you (is) head of months it (is) for you of months of the year
(Ex
122)
Ex 302 5 , Le 2 1 3 t , De 2 2 7 .
In Ge 41 3 3 311 Joseph reinforces his advice to Pharoah by repeating it in apposition, but with different vocabulary and different grammatical constructions.
APPOSITION SENTENCES
39
3.4. EPIC REPETITION IN APPOSITION 3.4.0.
Introduction
In this construction the same (or very similar) semantic content is expressed twice in two items in apposition. The items in apposition may be single clauses; but entire sentences, paragraphs or episodes might exercise the same functions. There may be some measure of verbal repetition. Unlike the use of identical grammatical sequences as in #3.3 above, however, similar grammatical elements are characteristically placed in chiasmus. If coordination rather than apposition connected the clauses together, the result would be what we call below a chiastic coordination sentence (Chapter 9). The use or non-use of 'and' is not a matter of chance. Chiastic apposition is a feature of high style in the old sagas, and this is why we have called it 'epic.1 The result is not a poetic bicolon, because the two parts can be of any length, and may be quite disproportionate. 3.4.1.
Verb Patterns in Epic
Apposition
When the lead clause in epic apposition is a familiar paragraphlevel WP clause, the clause in apposition often uses the same root in a VS. Example: wayyäbS^ nöh...^el-hattebä... min-habbehemä... bä^ü ^el-nöh ^el-hattebä, and Soah went...into the ark...: animals ...went in to Soah into the ark (Ge 7 7 " 8 ) ; wayyese^-nöh... kol-hahayyä...yäs5^ü min-hattebä, and Noah went out...: all the animals...went out from the ark (Ge 8 l e ~ 1 9 ) . The composition of these apposition sentences matches commands and predictions made in other parts of the same story. Ge 7 7 " 8 obeys the command: bö^ ^attä... mikkol habbShemä...tiqqählffkä..., you will go in..., some of all animals.... you will take to yourself... (Ge 7 1 " ) . Compare the similar prediction in Ge 6 1 9 " 2 0 . The verbs, however, are not the same. Similarly, Ge 8 1 β " 19 obeys the command: se1 min-hattebä...: kol-hahayyä... hawse^ ^ittfik, go out from the ark...: all the animals...bring out'with you (Ge 8 1 6 " 1 7 ) . In both 8 1 7 and 8 1 9 the versions point to wkl (coordination, not apposition). It is easy to see what has happened here. Archaic chiastic apposition has been modernized to classical chiastic coordination. Ge 7 2 and 7°, however, have escaped this, and support the authenticity of MT against the versions in Ge 8 1 7 and 8 1 9 . An apposition sentence is used to make a prediction in Ge 6 1 7 . The lead clause is infinitival. lelahet kol-bäsär ^äser-bö rüh hayyim mittahat hassämäyim köl ^aSer bä^äres yigwa^, to obliterate all flesh which (has) living spirit in it from under the sky: all that (is) in the world will expire. The two parts are synonymous. In the subsequent reported fulfilment, a similar apposition sentence is used, but the pattern of verbs is different: vayyigva^ kol-bäSär... köl ^ääfer nismat ruh hayylm b?^appäyw mikkol ^ä?er behäräbä metü, and expired all
1*0
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
flesh...all that (had) breath of living spirit in its nostrils from all that (was) in the dry land died (Ge 7 2 1 ' 2 2 ) . Besides the chiasmus within each apposition sentence, there is also some chiasmus between prediction and fulfilment. Ge 4 6 6 * 7 has an apposition sentence exactly like Ge 8 1 8 " 1 9 in grammatical structure: wayyäbö^ mi^räymä ya^Sqöb...: bänäyw... hebi^ ^ittö misräymä, and-went to Egypt Jacob...: his sons... he brought with him to Egypt. Compare Ex l 1 . This is highly repetitious; the complete text also reiterates and all his seed with him. The significance of this kind of construction has generally escaped literary critics. Either they assign parallel passages to different 'sources' as 'doublets', thus destroying the fabric of the composition; or else they speak disparagingly of its tedious redundancy. But if the text is left as it is, and its grammatical structure is taken seriously as serving artistic purposes, more positive conclusions about the integrity of a passage and the solemnity of its style are possible. Sentences from the Flood Epic used in the present chapter cut across passages generally assigned to the 'J' and 'Ρ' documents. The same is true of the chiastic coordination to be described in Chapter 9. This means that if the documentary hypothesis is valid, some editor has put together scraps of parallel versions of the same story with scissors and paste, and yet has achieved a result which, from the point of view of discourse grammar, looks as if it has been made out of whole cloth. The epic of the rape of Dinah (Ge 34) is considered a patchwork of J and E 1 . But if the text is left as it is, the climax displays several examples of the chiastic epic repetition we are describing here. In Ge 3 4 2 7 vayyäbö^ü and bä^ü are in chiasmus. In Ge 3 4 2 6 wayyiqhü and läqähü are in chiasmus. And so on. The clause-terminal VS is particularly striking, since most Hebrew clauses begin with the verb. This extreme of chiasmus, which amounts to an inclusio for the entire sentence, which then begins and ends with a verb with the same root, is a hallmark of epic, whether apposition or coordination is used. In Ge 411,8 the objects are chiastic with the verbs (vayyitten ... nätan). Other examples: Ex 8 1 3 (vay?hi... häyä), Ex 8 2 0 (different verbs). In prediction the corresponding sequence of verbs is WS... VP. Example: w ^ ä k e l ü ^et-habbälär ballaylä hazze: seliges... yö^kelühü, and they will eat the meat this night: fireroasted... they will eat it (Ex 12°). Similarly Ex 12 1 ". 3.4.2.
Discourse
Function
of Epic
Apposition
The rhetorical effect of this kind of epic repetition is to slow down the pace of the narrative. It holds the picture a little longer and enforces it on the mind. This may be done at the beginning of a story to achieve a slow build-up. This is illustrated by the opening clauses of Ge 14, a chapter that
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
Iii
is full of archaic epic devices. There is a preliminary statement of the time setting which also anticipates some details of the major battle to be described later (Ge 1 4 1 " 3 ) . This serves as a kind of title for the whole epic. It consists of two clauses in apposition. Then the narrative proper begins, again in apposition, building up slowly by means of a traditional numerical series. In the and in and in
12th year they paid the 13th year they the 14th year came
homage to refused, Chedorlaomer.
Chedorlaomer,
. . (Ge 141*"5)
Then the pace suddenly quickens, and a series of WP clauses develops the narrative in a classical manner. A similar drawnout list of initial circumstances, using apposition, is found in Ge 4 4 3 . The Flood Epic has an elaborate and suspenseful prelude to the onset of the deluge. In Ge 7 1 0 _ l e there are four references to the date, all in apposition. after a week in the 600th on that day on that exact
(710) year...
(7llb) day
(7lla) (713)
Compare the similar repetition of b e r e s e m hayyöm hazze, on that very day, at the beginning of clauses in apposition in Ge 1721* and 2 6 . Again, the slackening of narrative pace by means of epic repe tition in apposition can sustain tension at some high point in a story. The climax of the Flood Epic is a majestic description of the rising of the waters. Two whole and parallel paragraphs are placed in apposition. wShammayim gäberü me"* öd me'Sd ^al-hä^äres wayekussü kol-hehärim haggeböhim ^aser-taliat kol-haäfs ämäyim hamei 'esre ^ammä milma^lä gäb?rü hammäyim wayekussü hehärlm and and
the waters prevailed very very over the were covered all the high mountains that all the sky: 15 cubits upwards prevailed the waters and were covered the mountains (Ge 719-20)
earth are
under
There is chiasmus of SV... VS (the words are identical) between the first and third clauses. Ex 3 5 2 1 " 2 9 is a similar climactic passage full of repetition. The ten verbs all have the same root bw^ , came, brought. The clauses are either conjoined or in apposition. The relaxation of the pace of narrative by means of epic repetition in apposition can also be used to wind down a story at its end. Thus Ge 4 6 7 , already referred to above, marks the
h2
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
end of a major episode. The apposition clause at the end of Ge 25 l e similarly marks the end of the life of Ishmael. The repetitive ken räää, thus he did (Ge 6 2 2 , Ex 1 2 2 8 » 5 0 , 39 3 2 ' 113 ) marks the end of a paragraph. Contrast Ge 7 s . 3.4.3.
Alternative Realizations
in Sequential
Clauses
Epic repetition in apposition halts the movement of a story by giving two pictures of the same situation. Time stands still. When the same thing is done by means of two WP clauses in succession, violence is done to their normal function of reporting events which come after each other in time (past perfect sequential). The result is a striking alternative presentation without apposition. Chiasmus is possible only if a VS clause comes first. At episode onset. Example:
weyhwh päqad ^et-Särä ka^Sser ^ Smar vayya^al yhwh lesärä ka^&ser dibber, And Yahweh visited Sarah as he had said: And-did Yahweh for Sarah as he had spoken
(Ge 21 1 )
Compare Ge 47 1 3 . At episode climax. Example:
vayyimah ^ et-kol-hay?qüni. . . wayyimmähü min-hä^äre?, And he wiped out everything that stood... And they were wiped out from the earth (Ge 7 2 3 )
Compare Ge 4 s b . In Ge 1 4 1 1 " 1 2 there is epic repetition of consecutive verbs (WP) at the climax: vayyiqhü... wayyelekü wayyiqtyü wayyelekü. In Ge 343 there is a three-fold repetition in WP clauses to underscore the intensity of Shechem's passion. At episode end. After a note on his testamentary disposal of his property (Ge 25 s " e ) and another on his age at death (25 7 ) , the account of Abraham's life ends by piling up clauses reporting his decease. wayyigwa ( wayyämot ^abrähäm b5Sebä töbä zäqen νes\äbe f wayye^äsep ^el-'ammäyw, And he
expired
And died Abraham
in good old-age venerable and satisfied And he was collected to his relatives (Ge 25 e ) Compare Ge 3 5 2 9 , 49 3 3 . There follows an elaborate description of his burial, again with repetition in apposition. The resump-
APPOSITION
SENTENCES 10b
tive use of ?ämmä there in Ge 2 5 resembles the use of ken thus in Ge 6 2 2 . A new story begins with 2 5 1 1 . As in poetry, so in this epic prose, the repetition may involve the use of the same vocabulary (repetitive parallelism), or it may use conventional synonyms (synonymous parallelism), which often come in an established sequence. Example:
vayesall5]jehü yhvh ^elöhim miggan-^eden... wayegäre? ^et-hä^ädäm, and Yahweh God expelled him from the garden and he drove out the man (Ge 3 2 3 - 2 * )
of Eden . , ,
This marks the end of the story of the Fall. Note that the lead clause has the anaphoric him, while the following clause has the explicit noun object the man. The same thing happens with the subject Abraham in Ge 25 8 quoted above.
3.5. APPOSITION FOR EMPHASIS 3.5.0.
Formal
Features
Synonymous parallelism of two clauses in the course of a piece of narrative does not necessarily mean that here we have a scrap of poetry, proving, perhaps, that the present forms· of Israel's early traditions rest on a poetic substratum, as many have surmised. The addition of an equivalent clause in apposition may be used in prose to underscore an important point. The poetic effect is real, but incidental. Although this construction may not be very different from epic apposition (#3.4), in its typical form it uses neither the repetition of the same vocabulary nor the chiastic arrangement of epic traditions. 3.5.1.
Antithesis
in
Apposition
One device used to drive a point home is the redundant repetition of the same material by means of the negation of an antonym. Example:
kenim ^änatjnü 15^ häyinü meraggellm, we are honest men: we are not spies (Ge 42 3 1 )
Example:
vattehl läray ^äqärä ^ en läh wäläd, Saray was sterile: she had no children (Ge l l 3 0 )
Example:
wehabbör req ^en bö mäyim, and the cistern was empty: there was no water it (Ge 37 2 ")
Example:
vayyäsar he^äröb... nisOar ^eljäd, and the flies departed...: not one remained similarly Ex Ι Ο 1 9 ' 2 3 , 1 4 2 " )
in
(Ex 8 2 7 ;
Μ
Example:
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
wS^ene yiSrä^el käbedü mizzöqen lö^ yükal lir^öt, Now
Israel's
see (Ge 4 8 1 0 )
eyes
were
heavy
with
age:
he
could
not
It is important to underscore this point, to bring it into line with Ge 27 l . Ex 5 8 . Ι Ο 2 6 , 1 3 2 1 - 2 2 , 1 8 1 8 b , 1 9 1 2 b with
Other examples:
( d i s c o n t i n u o u s l y ) , 25 , D e 2 2 ' 3 * » 3 6 (we took all the < A > there wasn't a city too strong for us < A > Yahweh
13ab
cities... gave us
everything), De 3", 4 2 2 , 4 2 6 (th is has an antithetical sentence in apposition with the lead clause), 4 3 5 » 3 9 5 2 " 3 (antithetical sentence in apposition), 6 1 3 " 1 * , 7 2 > 2 2 ' 2 " » 2 *.
A command may be issued as a positive injunction and then repeated in apposition as a negative prohibition. Example:
zekör "> al-tiSkäh , remember',
don't
Ge 4 5 s
Other examples:
forget:
(De
( c o m e down
97)
to me;
don't
Ex 16 2 9 (rest...don't go out...), 29 3 *, De 5 2 9 . 3.5.2.
Apposition
in Another
stay
there'.),
Perspective
What are essentially the same facts may be presented twice, from two different points of view, in two clauses in apposition. Example:
^änöki ^e^erbennü miyyädl tebaq.sennü, I'll hand
be responsible you will seek
for him [ J u d a h ' s side].· from him [ J a c o b ' s s i d e ] (Ge 4 3 9 )
my
Similar apposition sentences in which the first clause states a fact from the speaker's point of view and the second clause states the same fact from the addressee's point of view are found in Ge 3 1 $ , 1 5 1 , 3 1 s 9 . In Ge 3911* Potiphar's wife accuses first her husband, then Joseph in apposition. In Ge 8 2 1 " 2 2 two sentences are in apposition: the first (a sentence of two conjoined clauses) in first person; the second (with the verb in clause-final epic position as episode terminus) in third person. Other examples: Ex i 1 * , 14 3 , 2 2 2 6 , 2 3 1 3 , De 7 6 . 3.5.3.
Climactic
Repetition
in
Apposition
Several short clauses in apposition create tension and sometimes mount to a climax. Israel's terrible cry in Ge 3 7 3 3 consists of three such clauses in apposition: It's my son's cloak: A wild animal has eaten him: Joseph has s u r e l y been torn to
pieces.
APPOSITION SENTENCES
1+5
The postponement of the name 'Joseph' heightens the effect. The protest in Ge 4 2 1 0 " 1 1 consists of four short clauses in apposition. The commands in Ge 1 9 1 7 stand in discontinuous f
himmälet
apposition.
al-nap?ekä
hähärä himmälet Flee To
for the
your
life'.
mountains
flee I
This is also climactic, since the second clause is more specific than the first. 3.5.4.
Coordination
of
Emphatic
Repetition
Various kinds of coordination may also be used rather than apposition with this kind of emphatic repetition. Example:
Example
lema^an yitab 1Ϊ ba^Sbürek weljayetä naps! biglälek,
so that it may be Iso thatl my soul
good will
for me because of you and live on your account (Ge 1 2 1 3 )
(discontinuous): welö^-näSä^ ^ötäm hä^äre^ läsebet yahdäw...velö^ yäkelü läsebet yahdäw, and the land did not support ...: and they could not live
them to live together together (Ge 13 )
3.6. RESUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION IN APPOSITION 3.6.0.
Resumption
A clause may be repeated in apposition, using deictic or anaphoric pronouns in order to continue discourse. Example:
And
the sons of these three
all mankind 10 3 2 )
Noah...were were Noah's
spread
out
Shem, sons,
(Ge 9 1 8 " 1
Ham and
Japheth these
, compare with
Note the resumptive time reference in Ge 1 5 1 8 , 3.6.1.
and from
172S.
Distribution
A distributive subject or other distributive item is often placed in a separate apposition clause, with repetition of the verb. Example:
vayyiptär-länü ^ et-halömötenü ^ is kaljalömö pätär, and
he
interpreted
to
us
our
dreams:
each
according
U6
APPOSITION SENTENCES to his dream he in terpreted
(Ge 4 1 1 2 )
Note the WP...VS pattern of verbs with the same root, present also in the preceding Ge 41 11 . Other examples:
Ex l l , 12*, 16 1 6 « 1 8 , 28 2 I b . 3.7. EXPLANATION IN APPOSITION
3.7.0.
The Semantics of
Explanation
In the forms of apposition studied so far there has been a large measure of semantic overlap, even identity, between the two juxtaposed clauses, and also a considerable degree of grammatical similarity between them. Often the same vocabulary is used in each part. Such constructions doubtless contain redundant material, but this also serves important rhetorical functions . We have moved along the spectrum from constructions with almost complete identity in apposition (#3.3) to constructions in which the juxtaposed clauses match less closely (#3.6). If the material in apposition adds as well as repeats there is less overlap, and we have moved a little further along the spectrum. The clause or sentence or paragraph in apposition develops the theme a little further. Example:
weyitten-11 ^et-me^ärat hammakpelä äs er-ΐδ ^aser biqse sädehü bSkesep mäle^ yittenennä II betökekem la^ähuzzat qäber, V:and let him sell IO:me 0:the Makpela Cave which he owns, which is at the edge of his field: Price: for full money V:let him sell 0:it IO:to me L:in your midst OC:to be a freehold tomb (Ge 23®)
All this could have been done in one clause, without repeating let him sell it to me. But the clause would have been long, a thing Hebrew does not like. But the placing of the reference to Price at the beginning of the apposition highlights this point. Grammatically everything in the first clause is repeated in the second:
Cj
V
10
0
Price
V
0
10
L
OC
The second adds to this common nucleus the further details about Price, Location, and the role of the object (OC). Ex 252 has similar repetition and addition in apposition. Ex 30 10 repeats and adds one item. De 8 2 0 repeats tö'bedün and adds a simile. These examples partly repeat, partly develop. While there are many kinds of additive apposition--specifying, explicating, augmenting, etc.--no attempt will be made here to force all examples into rigidly defined categories. We shall
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
distinguish two-clause apposition in which the second is more specific than the first from the apposition to a lead clause of a more extended exposition in a juxtaposed sentence or paragraph. 3.7.1.
Specifying
Apposition
The second clause makes explicit some detail lacking or present only in a general way in the first clause. Example:
we^attä täbö^ ^el-^äböteykä besälöm tiqqäber besebä töbä, and you, you will go to your ancestors in peace: you will be buried in good old-age (Ge 15 )
To be buried is equivalent to joining one's ancestors; the circumstance of ripe old-age specifies what is meant by dying 'in peace.' Example:
y eme sene megüray 130 sänä me^at werä^im häyü yeme sene hayyay..., the days of the years of my sojournings are 130 years: few and evil have been the days of the years of my life... (Ge 4 7 9 )
The apposition clause adds the unexpected comment that Jacob's life-span was brief. The common subject is repeated with a minor vocabulary alteration in chiasmus. Example:
wayyitten ^el-hägär säm ^al-sikmäh, and he gave CitD to Hagar: he put tit 3 on her shoulder (Ge 21 1 *)
Other examples: Ge l 2 8 (specifies the purpose of fruit and vegetables), 6 1 6 (specifies first, second and third), 6 1 9 (specifies male and female), 8 5 (specifies the emergence of mountains --note the chiasmus SVTi TiVS), 9 6 (specifies capital punishment for murder), 1 7 1 3 (specifies that home-born and purchased slaves are to be circumcised, as well as sons), 1 7 1 $ (specifies that kings will descend from Sarah--comparison with Ge 17 6 shows that it needs only the addition of we- to make this a well-formed chiastic sentence [Chapter 9]), 1 7 2 0 (specifies the number of promised children), 18' 1 (specifies menopause as the feature of old-age that is pertinent to the narrative, Sarah's inability to have children), 20 9 (specifies that Abraham's great crime is something absolutely forbidden), 2 3 1 1 (specifies that the sale must be formalized in public), 26 2 (specifies the imminence of death as a result of extreme old age), 29 7 (specifies that the early hour is not the time to assemble flocks), 30 3 3 (specifies the exact nature of Jacob's responsibility for missing animals), 3 1 3 9 (similar), 3 4 1 2 (specifies that there is no limit to what he will pay--compaTe Ge 23 9 ), 3 5 1 1 (specifies the nature of Jacob's progeny), 39 9 (specifies Joseph's greatness), 3 9 2 3 (emphasizes total delegation--the repetition here is also climactic),
1»8
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
42 6 (specifies that Joseph was in charge of sales), 42 (specifies the aim of their spying), 48® (the apposition clause names the two sons in question and specifies in what capacity they will now be Jacob's sons), 48 6 (specifies the rights of Joseph.'s children in the matter of inheritance), 481'* (a note about Jacob's gesture), 5 0 2 3 (the apposition clause specifies the great-grandchildren), Ex 6 2 6 » 2 7 (states who Moses and Aaron are), 711* (specifies the outcome of hard-heartedness), 8 1 9 (specifies time), 12<*1:> ~ 5 (contains three successive clauses in apposition each specifying a different rule about the Passover lamb), 1 2 1 6 (explains what a miqrä"1 qödes is), 1 2 1 7 " 2 0 (four apposition clauses in succession explaining the eating of massot) , 13 2 (the rule applies to both man and beast), 14 2 (lo-' cates the camp), 1 5 2 5 ° (an aetiological note), 1 6 2 δ (spells out the pattern of manna), 1 6 3 5 (specifies the exact moment the manna ceased; this apposition clause, with its verbal repetition and chiasmus, also provides heavy rhetorical underscoring in apposition with a circumstantial clause that ends an episode, marking a climax), Ιδ 1 * (the second question is more specific than the first), 1 9 1 2 (specifies the death penalty for encroachment), 1 9 1 5 b (one specific ban), 21311 (prescribes money payment), 2 2 3 0 (torn flesh for dogs), 23 (rules for unleavened bread), 2 5 1 1 (inside and outside; note the chiasmus), 2 5 ϊ β (gold plate; this clause is inserted INTO the lead clause, a very rare event in Hebrew), 2 5 1 9 ' 2 0 (chiastic with a circumstantial clause), 2 5 2 7 (placement of the rings), 2 5 2 9 (specifies pure gold), 2 5 3 1 (two such clauses in succession), 2 S 3 S (all one piece), 2 5 3 9 (specifies weight), 26 1 (material of the curtains),26 (number of curtains), 26® (size of curtains), 2 6 3 1 (specifies embroidery), 27 1 (a clause saying that the altar is square, which is in fact redundant, is inserted parenthetically into the clauses stating the three dimensions), 2 7 2 a B (horns continuous with body) , 2 7 3 b (everything bronze), 27® (the altar is hollow) , 2 7 1 7 (materials), 2 7 l e (dimensions), 2 7 2 1 (specifies Aaron's duties), 283 2 b (binding), 283 7 b (exact location), 28" 2 b (exact pattern), 2 9 2 b (ingredients), 293 * (it's not to be eaten.'), 2 9 3 5 ' 3 7 a (specifies period), 29 3 (holiness is contagious), 3 0 l b (material), 30 2 (square — inserted in a conjunctive sentence), 3 0 3 b (location), 3 0 2 9 b (holiness contagious), 303 3 > 3 β (prescribes excommunication), 3031* (recipe), 3i Ilf bA,i5b (prescribes death), 3 1 1 7 (the sabbath a sign), 3 2 1 5 (written on both sides}, 3 4 1 β (festival rules), 3 4 ? l b (keep sabbath in busy times), 3 5 S b (death for sabbath breaking), 35 3 (an additional rule about fire), 35 s (lists materials). 36 11*' (number), 3 6 3 5 (material), 3 7 7 b > e b . 1 * > 1 7 · 2 2 > 2 \ 3 8 2 . 3 > ' b , 39". \ 40 3 *, Le l 3 b , 4 1 2 b (location), De 4 3 0 > 3 3 (specifies what 'this great thing 1 is), 9 1 6 (three clauses), etc. In Ge 4 3 2 7 the second question (in apposition)--is he still alive?--is more general than the first--Js he well?--which already assumes an affirmative answer to the second. The effect is electric. The reply repeats the pattern. Ge 6 l e shows that a specifying clause (with the dimensions of the window) can be placed in coordination rather than in appo-
APPOSITION
1*9
SENTENCES
sition (See #3.7.3). In Ge 17 1 2 specification of the age of circumcision is made in coordination, not apposition. This alternative realization is, however, rare. 3.7.2.
Exposition
in
Apposition
The main feature here is a more extended exposition in apposition of material which is not necessarily implicit in the lead clause. Instead of one clause in apposition, which we have called 'specification1 (#3.7.1), a sentence or paragraph of at least two clauses is used for exposition. Example:
wehithattenü ^ötänü bSnötekem titt?nü länü w?^et-bSnötenü tiqehü läkem, And you will inter-marry with us: your daughters you will give to us, and our daughters you will take to you ^(Ge 3 4 s )
This spells out the details of the clause of the proposed treaty dealing with inter-marriage and restricts it also to the exchange of women. The expository sentence is in the form we have called 'contrast.1 See Chapter 11. Example:
vayyippäredü ^iäf me ^al ^ähiw 1 abräm yäüfab be^ eres-k5nä^an welöt yäsab be^äre hakkikkär, And they separated each from his brother: Abram resided in the land of Canaan, and Lot resided in the cities of the plain
(Ge 1 3 1 1 ~ 1 2 ) Example:
vay?happes baggadSl hehel übaqqätön killä, And he searched: with the eldest he began and with the youngest he ended
Joiion2 calls this 'circumstantial.' comparison with Ge 12°. wayyet ^oholöh bet- 1 el miyyäm w?hä^ay miqqedem, And he pitched his tent: Bethel (was) to the West And Ay was to the East.
(Ge
4412)
The construction invites
50
APPOSITION
SEHTENCES
This too has been called 'circumstantial'--and he pitched his tent with Bethel to the West and Ay to the East.3 A single circumstantial clause is usually coordinated (#5.1.3.3), and a circumstantial sentence also can be coordinated (#5.2.2). If, however, Ge 12 8 contains a circumstantial sentence, the switch from coordination to apposition is just like the difference between the one-clause coordination in #2.6.5 and the two-clause conjunctive sentence in apposition in #2.6.7. Our interpretation of the construction as expository apposition detaches the conjunctive sentence from the lead clause, making it more parenthetical than circumstantial. Other examples: Ge 3 1 5 (gives details of the enmity between the snake and the woman), 4 1 3 (details of Cain's expulsion), 9 5 (explains that both animals and men will be accountable for murder), 1 6 1 2 (expands on Ishmael's wildness), 1 9 1 7 (two prohibitions in apposition spell out the command to escape), 27® (gives detailed instructions; but the same thing in Ge 27" 3 uses coordination), 2 7 3 6 (recounts Jacob's two fraudulent acts) 2 8 1 7 (explains why the place is frightful), 311,1 (breaks the twenty years into fourteen plus six), 3 1 5 2 (both monuments are witnesses), 4 i 1 0 " 1 3 (this is in apposition with 4l' b , and expounds it), 4 1 1 3 (the respective fates of the two slaves), 4 1 2 6 ~ 2 7 (both clauses enlarge on the fact that the two dreams have the same meaning), 4 2 3 6 (three conjoined clauses list Jacob's bereavements), 45 (lists Joseph's various presents to members of his family), Ex 7 2 (explains in what sense Moses is 'god' and Aaron is 'prophet'), 9 2 7 (exonerates Yahweh and incriminates Pharoah) , 10*11 (points out the scale of the disaster), 1 2 1 5 (liturgical details), 121*2 (two clauses in successive apposition enforce the solemnity of the vigil), 12" 3 - 1 , 9 (a string of miscellaneous Passover regulations in apposition), 1 3 6 " 7 (Passover rules), 19 s (the respective roles of Moses and God), 2 0 1 9 (how to keep the Sabbath in detail), 2 2 2 9 (time schedule for devoting the first-born}, 2 3 1 5 " 1 6 (three festivals--note the inclusio with v . 1 7 ) , 25 (keep the poles in the rings), 2 5 1 0 and 30 2 (dimens ions), 3 0 7 ° ~ 8 a (a conjunctive sentence in apposition with two specified times), 31 l , 3 4 2 1 , 35 2 (expounds the detailed requirements of Sabbath keeping), 3 6 1 5 (dimensions 37 1 (dimensions). 37 6 (dimensions), 3 7 1 0 » 2 5 , 3 8 1 , 3 9 9 » 1 0 (the four rows), De 3 f l , 6 1 3 , 7 3 , 7 5 , etc. 3.7.3.
An Example
of
Explication
Ge 6 l l f " 1 6 gives a list of instructions for building the ark. There are eleven clauses in all, joined together in various ways by means of apposition and coordination. On first appearance there seems to be no system in the formal patterns of link age with a conjunction (vS- and), or conjunctionless juxtaposition. On closer study, however, the discourse proves to be well structured. The general command, using an IMPERATIVE VERB (VI)-- r aSe lekä tebat ^ä?e-göper, make yourself an ark of gopher-wood--is fol-
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
51
lowed, in apposition, by a paragraph which explicates the command, using predictive verbs. This paragraph consists of three sub-paragraphs, each of which deals in turn with one structural feature. Each successive feature is named by the first noun in each sub-paragraph--qinnim, rooms (RSV) or reeds (NEB), ?öhar window, petalj door. The three sub-paragraphs are coordinated (conjoined--Chapter 8), but because Hebrew often coordinates three items as A, Β and C, the second sub-paragraph ( 6 1 6 a A ) gives the appearance of being in apposition. That there are three sections (sub-paragraphs) is further confirmed by the repetition of an explicit reference to the tebä ark at the beginning of each sub-paragraph, followed by the use of an anaphoric pronoun within each sub-paragraph. The stippled arrows in the tree on page 52 trace these anaphoric connections. The first sub-paragraph consists of two parts coordinated together. The first part (6*" b ) is really a mini-paragraph, since the second clause is a typical paragraph-level WP clause, the only one in the passage. That is, wekäpartä, and you will cover, is an immediate continuation of the prescriptive ta^ase, you will make, not a noncontiguous continuation of the earlier imperative ^ase, make'. The second part of the first sub-paragraph ( 6 s ) is not a new beginning, in spite of ze this (#3.7.5.1), because ^ötäh it is anaphoric to hattebä, the ark (β1"*"), and shows that we are still in the same sub-paragraph. 6 1 5 gives the size and shape of the ark by means of an expository apposition sentence of the kind discussed in #3.7.2. The exposition consists of three clauses with identical internal structure (PS). These three clauses constitute a triple conjunctive sentence (#8.0.2) with the coordination pattern A , Β and C. (Similar sentences in Ex 2 5 1 0 » 2 3 have two and's and do not repeat the noun.) This conjunctive sentence has its own inner unity marked by the use of an explicit topic noun (hattebä) in the first clause, with anaphoric pronouns in the following two clauses. The second sub-paragraph (6 1 6 ) consists of two coordinated clauses, again with noun followed by anaphoric pronoun. 16aB-t> The third sub-paragraph ( 6 ) is a specifying apposition sentence (#3.7.1)." The exposition is thus seen to be hierarchical, passing from paragraph to sentence to clause as instructions become more specific. 5 Each of the three sub-paragraphs divides into two parts, the first being a general command to make rooms, window(s) and door(s) respectively, the second giving details and dimensions. It is surprising, therefore, that apposition is not used to connect the two parts (general and specific) of each sub-paragraph. In fact coordination is used in the first two, apposition only in the third. The result, however, is a neat pattern which is probably not accidental. Lead Clause
Co=0 and
Sub-paragraph Sub-paragraph Sub-paragraph
(11 and Se) (Cle and CI9) (Clio CI11)
52
APPOSITION SENTENCES
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
53
Another systematic pattern that unifies the whole is the steady movement of the verb to the end of the clause. Recognizing the seven paragraph-level clauses, namely, the lead clause of the whole, the lead clauses of the three sub-paragraphs (Cl 2 , Cl 8 , Clio), and the first following clause in each sub-paragraph ( C I 3 , Cl 9 , e i n ) , we have the following CI 1 Cl 2 CI 3 Cl e CI, Cl 1 0 Clu
V A A A A A A
A V V V Β BC
Β Β Β Β V V V
Because of the frequent explications and the arrangement of terms and conditions in lists, the Book of the Covenant is sparing in the use of coordination. On the other hand 1 ö or is used more often here than anywhere else in the Torah. 3.7.4.
A Summary
In G e 4 1 9 b
in
Apposition
t h e b u t l e r s a y s My
faults
1 recollect
today
and pro-
ceeds to supply the details in apposition. Such a summary statement can also come in apposition after the details are given. Example:
y o u have
done
evil
by
doing
what
up in apposition the preceding accusations.
you
did
(Ge 4 4 s )
sums
Other examples: Ge 42 3 6 (the obscure ^älay häyü kullänä seems to sum up the preceding), Ex 2 6 e b (all curtains the same size), 2 6 1 7 b (all boards the same). 26 2 , , t , 31 1 1 , 34 2 3 (sums up like the inclusio in 2 3 1 7 ) , De 9 " (summarizes verses 7 ~ 2 3 ) . 3.7.5. 3.7-5.0,
Titles
and
Colophons
Introduction
Hebrew commonly uses verbless clauses and sequence SP, S:Pr to describe the content of a unit of literature. 6 Example: ^ e l l e h a d d ? b ä r l m . . . , these Moses uttered... (De l 1 )
are
the
speeches
which
Without S:Pr, the predicate would be like one of our titles. Debärlm speeches is in fact the conventional Hebrew name for Deuteronomy. Such a clause used as a title may precede the work it names, or come at its end as a colophon.
5U 3.7.5.1.
APPOSITION SENTENCES Titles
A construction in which a clause title is followed by a complete literary piece is a special case of a general statement followed by exposition (#3.7.2). Example: zö^t ^öt-habberit... ^et-qastl nätattl be f änän... this is the covenant-sign...: my bow I have placed in the clouds (Ge 9 1 2 ; but in 9 1 1 the content of the covenant is coordinated). Other examples: Ge 5 1 , 6 9 ' 1 5 , Ι Ο 1 , l l 1 0 » 2 7 , 1710 , 201 3 , 2 5 1 2 ' 19 , 34 1 5 , 36 l »9,10,12, etc. 4 2 3 3 ) 4012,18) 4 1 1 β > 4 3 n f 45 ' 1 7 , Ex 3 1 2 , ό 1 " · 1 6 , 7 1 7 , 9 1 * (note repeated ba f äbür), 12* 3 , 21 1 , 29 ' 3 8 , 35 , etc. 3.7.5.2.
Colophons
A summary statement at the end of a piece (#3.7.4) may likewise function as a concluding title or colophon. Examples: Ge 2 " % 10 2 0 ' 3 1 ' 32 , 22 2 S , 2S 1 , b > 1 6 , 3 5 2 6 b , Ex 6 Y 5 i ' 1 9 ' 2 , , b ' 2 5 6 , 19 , 38 2 i .
36sb,
De 4 1 * 5-1,9 is either a colophon of extraordinary length that rounds off De 1-4, or it is the title to De 5ff. Compare Ge 9 1 7 , which acts as inclusio with a similar clause in 9 1 2 . Similarly, Ge 5 2 (bSyöm hibbäre"läm) stands in apposition as an inclusio with the similar construction at the beginning of the chapter. In De 4**** the colophon is in coordination. 3.8. CURSES AND BLESSINGS 7 It is customary for a curse or blessing to take the form of a general first statement in precative mood, followed, in apposition, by a detailed prediction, in indicative mood, of what the curse or blessing will entail. It differs from the constructions discussed in #3.7 in the switch in mood at the point of apposition. Example: ^ärür kenä^an ^ebed. ^abädimyihye le^ehäyw, cursed (be) Canaan: slave of slaves he will be to his brothers (Ge 9 2 6 ) . Other examples:
Ge 3 l k > 1 7 , 4 1 1 .
The lead curse may itself be indicative (predictive), followed in apposition by exposition. Examples: Ge 3 1 5 ' 1 6 , De 711*. A conditional prediction may be followed, in apposition, by an exposition of the alternatives using IF X,, THEN Ύι; AND (NOT ">0 or) IF X2 , THEN Y 2 . Examples: Ge 13 9 , 31*, 34 1 5 , 43 ,( " 5 . In legal texts, a series of such conditions may be listed in apposition (Ex 2 1 3 " 6 ) . When we- is used, as in Ex 21 s , it means but.
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
55
3.9. M U L T I P L E A P P O S I T I O N W h e n three (or m o r e ) clauses (or similar elements) s t a n d in app o s i t i o n , the c o n s t r u c t i o n may be formally ambiguous.
CI ι C l 2 a n d C l 3 together c o u l d c o m p r i s e an a p p o s i t i o n w h i c h , as a u n i t , is in a p p o s i t i o n w i t h Cli. Example:
sentence
w S h ä ^ a n ä s i m s u l l e h ü h e m m ä w a h ä m ö r e h e m h e m y ä s e ^ ü ^et-hä^Ir lö^ h i r h l q ü , and the men were sent away, they they had left the city: they had not gone far (Ge 4 4 3 )
and
their
asses:
The last clause specifies the s e c o n d l a s t , and b o t h together exp l a i n the first. A n o t h e r e x a m p l e : Ge J 1 7 i ' " a . Or Cli and C l 2 t o g e t h e r c o u l d c o m p r i s e an a p p o s i t i o n s e n t e n c e w h i c h , as a u n i t , has CI3 in a p p o s i t i o n w i t h it. Example:
wayyibrä^ ^ e l ö h l m ^ e t - h ä ^ ä d ä m b ? s e l m ö b ? s e l e m ^elöhim bärä^ ^δΐδ <Α> zäkär ü n e q e b ä bärä^ ^ötäni, and created God in the image of male and female
man in his image: God he created him: he created them (Ge
l27)
The first two clauses are an excellent example of epic r e p e t i tion (note the c h i a s m u s ) . The third clause is a n i c e instance of s p e c i f y i n g a p p o s i t i o n , in a p p o s i t i o n w i t h the p r e c e d i n g sentence (compare Ge 6 1 S ; see Ge 5 also). A g a i n it is p o s s i b l e for C l 2 and C l 3 to be s e v e r a l l y in appos i t i o n w i t h CI χ. A s such they are c o o r d i n a t e d , and could be conn e c t e d by AND. Example:
nöh "'i? saddlq t ä m i m h ä y ä b ? d 5 r ö t ä y v ^et-hä^elöhim hithallek-nöh , Noah Lwasl a righteous man: perfect he was in his generations: with God walked Noah (Ge 6 s )
APPOSITION SENTENCES
56
There are two aspects of Noah's righteousness --his perfection as a man (Cl 2 ), his relationship with God ( C I 3 ) . The two aspects of Cain's curse stand in successive apposition with Ge 4 l 2 --his failure as a farmer and his existence as a fugitive. In Ex 26 1 " 3 the details about the tabernacle are supplied in apposition. 2 6 l b B is a clause that specifies the material; 26 2 is an apposition sentence (consisting of a conjunctive sentence and an apposition clause) which, as a whole, specifies the dimensions; 26 is another clause in apposition. So each successive item in apposition deals with a different aspect of the lead clause. In Ex 32 7 " 8 there are three clauses in successive apposition, each more specific than the preceding (reproduced in De 9 1 2 and in De 9 1 6 but with verbs in different sequence in the latter). The piling up of four clauses in apposition has a cumulative effect in Ge 9*" 3 . The alternation of two pairs of identical verbs gives a sequence ABA'B 1 . The clauses become more and more and more specific. (Similar clauses occur in the reverse sequence in Ge 12S.) 3.10. APPOSITION INSTEAD OF OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS 3.10.0.
Alternative
Deep
Relationships
In all of the examples discussed so far there has been a connection between the two clauses or other elements in juxtaposition which permits us to speak of a relationship of apposition. There is some measure of semantic overlap between the two parts. When there is no such connection, either the discourse is incoherent or formal apposition may be used as an alternative realization of a relationship normally realized by means of a conjunction of some kind, or by means of the RELATIVE ^ i e r . 3.10.1.
Coordinate
Commands
in
Apposition
The juxtaposition of two imperative or cohortative verbs which command the first of a series of actions results in an apposition complex that could be called a VERB PHRASE, that is, a phrase consisting of closely knit verbs and functioning as a single predicator.® The first verb is typically one of movement, usually derived from bv^ come, hlk walk, yq^ , go out, yrd, go down, qwm,
stand
Example:
up, qum
swb, return
qah
(do
it
again),
^ e t - ^ iJftekä, get
up:
sllj take
send. your
wife'.
(Ge 1 9 1 5 ) . The first verb becomes semantically empty, functioning merely as a hortatory particle. So in Ge 27 1 9 qüm-nä^, please stand up, is followed by the contradictory sit down and eat: Or and come-17 go '. (Ge 45 ) . It is a token of the exclamatory function of the first verb that it rarely receives additional clause elements, except for nä^; nothing intervenes between the two verbs.
APPOSITION
SENTENCES
57
A further indication of the drift of the first imperative verb to the role of an exclamation is seen in the fact that the masculine singular form may be used for all numbers and genders, especially the long intensive foTm. So häbä give (Ge l l 3 ' " ' 7 ) is purely hortatory. Compare lkh in Ge 1 9 3 2 (which Sam. reads Iky) . Examples:
3.10.2.
bw"1 - Ex 6 1 1 hlk - Ge 19 3 2 , 27 1 3 , 29 7 , 37 l,f , 4 5 1 7 , Ex 4 1 9 , 5 s (apposition alternates with coordination in these texts), S 1 1 ' 1 7 ' 1 8 , 8 2 1 , 10». 2 \ 12 3 , 1 9 2 \ 32 7 ' 3 " , 33 , De 5 2 7 - Ex 17 s yrd - Ex 1 9 2 1 ngs - 2Sa l 1 5 qvm - Ge 1 3 l " , 1 9 » \ 21 1 8 , 27 1 9 . 1 * 3 , 28 2 , 31 1 3 , 3 S 1 , 43 1 3 , 44*, Ex 1 2 3 l a , 3 2 1 , De 2 2 \ 9 1 2 , 1 0 1 1 Svb - Ge 4 3 2 , 4 4 2 5 - Ex 9 1 9 Coordinated
Declarative
Clauses
in
Apposition
In ##3.2-3.6 there is a considerable measure of semantic overlap between two items in juxtaposition. In ##3.7-3.9 the juxtaposed material develops the discourse with new material. When all the following material is new, it is no longer appropriate to speak of an apposition. The construction is better described as asyndetic coordination. Since there is usually some connection between successive clauses, the boundary between these two kinds of construction remains indeterminate. Example: De 5 2 6 . 3.10.3. Example: 3.10.4.
Coordinate
Questions
in
Apposition
2
Ex 17 . Antithetical
Clause
in
Apposition
Example: vePattem hSsabtem ^älay rä'ä ^elöhim hasäbäh le•Jöbä, and you thought (of it) against me (for) evil: (but) God thought of it for good (Ge 5 0 2 0 ; note use of ki in Ge 45 s ). Example: contrary)
^al-ti?p?kü-däm ... hazze, don't shed blood: throw him into this cistern (Ge 3 7 2 2 ) .
(on the
Other examples of prohibition followed by opposite command: Ge 2 1 1 2 , Ex 3 s , De 7 1 β , 9 2 6 " 2 7 . See also Ex 8 2 3 , 2 3 3 0 , De 1 3 β , 4 3 5 (but you have been shown...'). Compare #3.5.1. Deuteronomy likes to follow up the antithesis with a positive statement. Example:
And requiting his enemies (sic'.) to his face He won't be behindhand to his enemy To his face he will requite him (De 7 1 0 )
APPOSITION
58 Note the chiasmus.
De g 2 6 " 2 7
3.10.5.
I n s t e a d of
Apposition
SENTENCES
has
Neg-Pos-Neg. Subordination9
Two clauses w h i c h s t a n d in some k i n d of causal relationship to each o t h e r may be p l a c e d in simple j u x t a p o s i t i o n instead of using the usual s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s . Example: §ehö kol-haä'ä'öme ^ y i § h a q - l i , God made laughter for me; [ t h e r e f o r e ] everyone who hears it will laugh for me (Ge 2 1 6 ) . E x a m p l e : w e n i k r e t ä hannepes hahl^ m e ' a m m e y h ä ^et-berltl h e p a r , a n d that person will be cut off from his people Lbecausel he has broken my covenant (Ge 17 11 *). Example: 15^ tob h?yöt h ä ^ ä d ä m lebaddö ^ e f e s e - l l ö f ezer k e n e g d ö , It's no good for the man to be alone: CsoU I'll make a suitable assistant for him (Ge 2 1 11) . Other examples: Ge 2 4 s " ( = t h e r e f o r e ) . 4 2 l e b (Joseph's piety is the reason for his c l e m e n c y ) , Ex (the reason for sheltering man and b e a s t ) , 14 111 (the reason for the s t r a t e g y ) , 25 16 (it's sabbath : Zthereforel you won't find it in the field today), 1 8 1 8 a (gives the r e a s o n for 1 8 1 7 ° ) , 2 1 5 (therefore). Since this list is r e a s o n a b l y c o m p l e t e , it can be seen that the s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n is not o f t e n d i s p e n s e d w i t h . However in p r i e s t l y m a t e r i a l s c e r t a i n c o m m o n 'reasons' appear alternatively w i t h or w i t h o u t the c o n j u n c t i o n . E x a m p l e : (kl) pesah hu^ leyhvh (Ex 1 2 1 1 ) ; (ki ) t ä m e H ü ' , (kl) 1 ani yhwh . See Ex 29 1 " * The r e l a t e d clauses may come in either s e q u e n c e : c a u s e - - ( T H E R E FORE) - - e f f e c t or e f f e c t - - ( B E C A U S E ) - - c a u s e . But sentences of this k i n d should not be forced too c o n f i d e n t l y into temporal or logical r e l a t i o n s h i p s , just b e c a u s e c o n j u n c t i o n s are r e q u i r e d in t r a n s l a t i o n and therefore are 'understood' in H e b r e w . 1 0 To t r a n s l a t e Pr 1 8 2 2 - 31B XXO Π®Κ K X O hat man ein Weib gefunden, so hat man ein Gut gefunden obscures the equative r e l a t i o n s h i p , to say n o t h i n g of the p u n g e n c y - - h e found a wife = he found a good. To add c o n j u n c t i o n s I F . . . T H E N . . . y i e l d s a c c e p t a b l e English. But the l a c o n i c H e b r e w shares w i t h o t h e r p o e t r y the art of u s i n g a c r y p t i c s u r f a c e structure w h i c h in many instances seems to intentionally r e a l i z e more t h a n one p o s s i b l e deep structure . arx"'5 3.10.6.
Apposition
Instead
D'j?Dy of a Relative
c o Clause
A c l a u s e p l a c e d in a p p o s i t i o n to a n o u n may f u n c t i o n as an altern a t i v e r e a l i z a t i o n of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . This k i n d of c o n s t r u c t i o n has already b e e n d i s c u s s e d in #1.7 above. A further illus-
APPOSITION tration is provided by Ge 1 0 missäm
pelistlm,
and
1u
Kasluhim,
SENTENCES
59
: w«P et-kasluhim ^äser yase^ü where
the
Philistines
came
from.
In Ge 1 0 1 0 " 1 1 the same deep relationships are realized by means of apposition: bePeres äfin^är min-hä^äres hahl^ yäsä^ ^ asfs ilr. Other examples: Ge 2 1 1 ' 1 3 ' 1 " , 4 2 0 ' 2 1 , 1 0 e ' 1 2 , i 4 *»s·7,β,ι 7^ 37 39 2 19 19 » , 23 > , 3 5 s » 1 9 . 2 0 · 2 7 , 361 , 4 8 \ It is a well-known fact that ^Sser is thus dispensed with more often in poetry than in prose. 3.10.7.
Apposition
Instead
of
Sequence
This is rare. The only example I can find in Genesis is 42311 . After the brothers have established their bonafides, Joseph will return the hostage. This consequence is stated simply in apposition.
NOTES 1 The state of the question is more complicated than this, since numerous conflicting solutions of the problem have been proposed. The details do not matter. The enterprise of documentary analysis becomes less plausible- to the extent that repetitions and parallels in the texts can be accounted for as grammatical devices serving rhetorical ends. 2 Paul Joüon, Grammaire de l'Hebreu Biblique2 (Rome, 19^7): p. U87. 3 A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax3 (Edinburgh, 1901): p. 188; Carl Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen, 1956): p. 138. 11 Ge is generally taken as describing decks, although no noun is used. This would then be a fourth construction feature. Since petah door is usually masculine (it is, however, apparently feminine in 2Sa 1 7 9 ) , the last pronoun suffix refers to the ark, not to the door. U. Cassuto finds four distinct directions in this verse (A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis:
Part
II
From
Noah
to
Abraham
CJerusalem,
196U1·.
pp.
6U-65). On such an analysis the design of the passage is even more intricate; the specification of rooms, window and door alternates with measurements of the ark as a whole. Cassuto does not think that the one cubit measurement in 6 1 6 a p p l i e s to the window. The problem still needs more work. 5 Rules about the three festivals (Ex 2 3 l l , _ 1 7 ) a r e broken down in a similar way. 6
Francis
I. A n d e r s e n ,
The
Hebrew
Verbless
Clause
in
the
Pentateuch (Nashville-New York, 1970): pp. 52-5 ^ 7 Herbert Chanan Brichto, The Problem of "Curse"
in the
Hebrew
Towner,
Bible:
JBL
Monograph
XIII
(1963); W.
Sibley
"Blessed be Yahweh.," Catholic Biblical Quarterly XXX (1968): pp. 386-399; Willy Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch
: Wissenschaftliche
Testament
Monographien
zum
Band 30 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969).
Alten
und
Neuen
60
APPOSITION SENTENCES 8
Brockelmann, Op. cit.:: §133a.
9
E w a l d K ü h r , Die in der ältesten
taxe
Ausdrucksmittel hebräischen
der konjunktionslosen Prosa (Leipzig, 1929);
elmann, Op. cit.: pp. 139-l'»3. 10 Brockelmann, Op. cit.: §13^c.
HypoBrock-
4 COORDINATION
4.0. KINDS OF COORDINATION The ubiquity of the Cj :ife- and its allomorphs1 is a feature of Hebrew discourse often remarked on. Literal translation by AND makes biblical narrative monotonous to Western ears, especially when long strings of clauses begin with this word. This endless coordination has been compared unfavorably with the rich variety of inter-clause connectives found in other languages, and especially Greek, with its ample stock of conjunctions. This is hardly fair. Hebrew has its own kind of versatility and realizes a considerable variety of relationships by means of coordinations of various kinds. Only what some languages do by means of distinctive conjunctions Hebrew does by combining AND with distinctively patterned clauses. Here we shall look at phrase-level coordination only in passing. Above phrase level we shall concentrate on inter-clause, that is, sentence-level, coordination. At the same time, the coordination of individual clauses with higher-level units, such as sentences or even paragraphs, will be included. The sequential coordination of clauses on paragraph-level by means of WP and WS 'consecutive' verb constructions is only marginal to sentence grammar. 4.1. UPPER-LEVEL COORDINATION 4.1.0.
Heterogeneous
speeches
When a single speech is composed of two or more sections, each of which is a discourse of a different genre, the transition from one kind of utterance to another is marked in various ways. Simple apposition is often used, or simple coordination. Transition from declarative or interrogative to precative discourse can be marked more impressively by we^attä (or we^üläm), and now. The present study is concerned primarily with transitions
62
COORDINATION
between clauses within homogeneous discourse, so we shall not pursue the subject of heterogeneous discourse any further. 4.1.1.
Coordination
of
Units
of
Narrative
We shall illustrate the various kinds of coordinating transitions available in Hebrew by means of material from the story of Pharoah and his two servants (Ge 40). The roles of the three participants can be staged in many different ways. Any one may be made central to the drama, or the differing ends of the two servants can be brought into contrast, and so on. The study of coordination by Dik referred to in #1.1 above has shown that this construction is by no means as simple and straight-forward as commonly supposed. Keeping this caveat in mind, we shall begin with a simple representation of the coordination of two units, Β and C, into a construction A.
The coordinator both links Β and C together and also marks the boundary between them. Hebrew does not have any postpositive conjunctions, although the so-called 'emphatic' we- and ki could be cast in this role. So this simple picture is not complicated by problems of sequence. But the tree above already b£gs some questions. It supposes that the coordinator does not belong to either of the units it joins, or that it belongs equally to both. Coordination has been discussed as if Β and C could stand on their own legs if they were not coordinated, but this idea does not stand up to empirical testing, as Dik has shown. To the extent that C is dependent on Β and presupposes B, the conjunction is assigned to C rather than to Β. Β can then be called the lead unit, and we say that C is coordinated to Β rather than that Β and C are coordinated together. Many possibilities must be provided for. Coordinations differ in several ways. They differ in the level of the grammatical hierarchy on which coordination takes place. They differ in the formal means of securing coordination. They differ in the degree of tightness in the junction. They differ in the deep relationships between the coordinated units. 4.1.2.
Stories
in
Juxtaposition
The simplest way of putting two stories in juxtaposition without any formal connection scarcely deserves to be called a construction at all. To all intents, the stories are independent. We are at the extreme of apposition described in #3.1.
COORDINATION Example:
par^5 hesib ^et-masqehü par^ö tälä ^et-^öpehü, Pharoah Pharoah
4.1.3.
Coordinated
returned executed
63
'al-kannö
his butler to his his baker.
post.
Stories
If there is any continuity at all between two stories, then the signals of this continuity, such as the use of the same characters in both, serves in lieu of formal conjunctions to link them. We shall then speak of two stories in the same saga or of two episodes in the same story. In English it is not usual to begin a new story or even a new episode with AND. In Hebrew, however, this is quite common, and some books begin that way. 4.1.4.
Story-level
Episodes
In Hebrew, transition to a new episode in a story is characteristically marked by wayehl, and it came to pass, followed frequently by an episode-marginal time reference that secures a time connection between successive episodes. Example: *wayyäseb par ^ö ^et-masqehü
^al-kannö
Ep j Trans' it ion
wayehl ^ aljare-ken 'ahare haddebärim hä^eile 1 ahäre häseb par ^ö "*et-masqehü ka 1 äs er]hellt
Time Margin
^al-kannö
Ep ;
wayyitel par^ö ^et-^öpehü And-returned
Pharoah
his butler
to his
post
And it came to pass after that after these things after when returned Pharoah as and-executed
Pharoah
his butler
his
to his
post
baker
There are other options besides the ones shown here. If the baker is a new dramatis persona, and his execution is the first event in Ep2, the new episode could begin by introducing him (#2.6.5): *ül?par^ö ^öpe wayyitel ^ötö par^ö, now Pharoah had a baker, and Pharoah executed him.
COORDINATION
6k 4.1.5.
Episode-level
Paragraphs
In classical H e b r e w n a r r a t i v e prose the onset of a new p a r a g r a p h is o f t e n m a r k e d by u s i n g an explicit n o u n subject to refer to the p r i m e p a r t i c i p a n t , w i t h o u t i n t e r r u p t i n g the sequence of WP clauses. A break in the s e q u e n c e of WP clauses m a r k s e i t h e r the onset of a new episode or the d e s c e n t to s e n t e n c e level c o o r d i n a t i o n (Chapter 5). Once the subject is i d e n t i f i e d e x p l i c i t l y in the opening c l a u s e , a n a p h o r i c p r o n o m i n a l reference is likely to be p r e f e r r e d w i t h i n the b o d y of a p a r a g r a p h . By this c r i t e r i o n the following clauses c o n s t i t u t e s u c c e s s i v e p a r a g r a p h s , but w i t h i n the same e p i s o d e . E x a m p l e : *wayyäset par^ö ^ e t - m a s q e h ü w a y y i t e l par'ö ^ e t - ^ ö p e h u , And-returned And-executed
Pharoah Pharoah
his his
^al-kannö
butler to his baker.
post.
H e r e there is m o r e c o n t i n u i t y t h a n f o u n d in #4.1.4, but h e r e , as t h e r e , the stage is o c c u p i e d by only two p a r t i c i p a n t s . a t a time. 4.2. 4.2.0.
PARAGRAPH-LEVEL
COORDINATION
Introduction
The o u t s t a n d i n g feature of H e b r e w p a r a g r a p h s t r u c t u r e , at least in n a r r a t i v e p r o s e , is the e x p l o i t a t i o n of the tensea s p e c t contrasts of the verb s y s t e m to achieve d i f f e r e n t kinds of staging. Two kinds of p a r a g r a p h - l e v e l c o o r d i n a t i o n are available. O n e c o n s t r u c t i o n , u s i n g the 'consecutive' conj u n c t i o n , stages two events as if in s u c c e s s i o n ; the o t h e r , using the n o n c o n s e c u t i v e c o n j u n c t i o n , stages two events as if contemporaneous. 4.2.1.
Sequential
Coordination
The c o n s t r u c t i o n type i l l u s t r a t e d in #4.1.4 implies a time b r e a k or a time lapse (which c o u l d be e x a c t l y s p e c i f i e d in the time margin) b e t w e e n the two e p i s o d e s . Two p a r a g r a p h level WP clauses in immediate s u c c e s s i o n imply that the events they report o c c u r r e d in immediate s u c c e s s i o n in time. In contrast to the c o n s t r u c t i o n - t y p e i l l u s t r a t e d in #4.1.5, the lack of an explicit n o u n s u b j e c t in the s e c o n d of two such consecutively c o o r d i n a t e d c l a u s e s , w h e n there is no change in s u b j e c t , shows that w e are still in the same p a r a g r a p h . The c o m m o n subject does double duty for b o t h c l a u s e s , and u n i f i e s t h e m in the fabric of the p a r a g r a p h .
COORDINATION Example:
*Vayyä3eb par^ö 1 et-magqehu wayyitel ^et-^öpehü,
65 ^al-kannö
and-returned Pharoah his butler and-he-executed his baker.
to his
post
Although the action is presented in two successive moments, all three participants are on the stage. Pharoah is central throughout; the others are brought to the centre with him in turn. The episode-level paragraphs illustrated in #4.1.5. are inbetween the story-level coordination of #4.1.4. and the paragraph-level coordination of #4.2.1 in the matter of time sequence. #4.1.4 indicates a time interval; #4.2.1 implies immediate succession; #4.1.5 is neutral in this regard. 4.2.2.
Paragraph-Level
Circumstantial
Clause.
In order to stage two events as simultaneous or contemporaneous it is necessary to break the paragraph-level chain of consecutive (WP) clauses. The commonest means of doing this is the CIRCUMSTANTIAL (Cir) clause. A circumstantial clause is dependent on a paragraph-level WP clause, which it may precede or follow; or it may be marginal to a paragraph as a whole. The circumstantial clause represents a second event as occurring at the same time as that reported in the lead clause. The event reported in the lead cl ause is in the centre of the stage; the event reported in the circumstantial clause is to the side. Example: *üpar^ö hesib ^et-maäfqehü wayyitel ^et-^öpehü,
^al-kannö
and (when) Pharoah returned his butler (and) he executed his baker.
to his
post
The anaphoric pronominal reference in the second (WP) clause indicates that the same paragraph continues. The prominent explicit noun subject in the first clause is a kind of topicalization. Such a circumstantial clause often marks paragraph onset, and functions as a time margin to the paragraph. Example: *wayyä5eb par ^et-maäfqehü wehü 1 tälä ^et-^öpehü,
^al-kannö
and-Pharoah returned his butler to his and Cat the same time1 he executed his
post baker.
Here the subject pronoun in the circumstantial clause is needed to break the chain of WP clauses, for w§tälä is avoided as ambiguous. (It can be either past or future). Such a circumstantial clause often marks the end of a paragraph. A repetition of the explicit noun subject par '"ö could have achieved the same effect, but this might have suggested transition to a new paragraph. In the first example above the baker is in the centre of the stage; in the second his execution is sec-
66
COORDINATION
ondary. Considerations of tense and aspect show that several different deep-structure temporal relationships are possible. In a negative way the circumstantial clause achieves some kind of simultaneous staging of two events if only by avoiding the distinctively sequential staging of WP clauses. Even if the events must have occurred in succession, they are represented as if they had occurred at the same time. Since WP clauses represent events as completed, they have a punctiliar effect, whereas circumstantial clauses are often linear or durative. This is why the translation of the circumstantial conjunction by while is often appropriate. 4.2.3.
Paragraph-Level
Adjunctive
Clause
Another way of throwing a piece of information alongside the main thread of narrative is by means of an ADJUNCTIVE (Aj) clause containing a suspended topic and a resumptive pronoun. Example: *wayyä?eb par'ö "'et-maSiqehü ^al-kannö we'et- 1 öpehü ^ötö tälä, and Pharoah and, as for 4.2.4.
Paragraph-Level
restored his butler his baker, he hanged Surprise
to
his him.
post,
Clause
Something unexpected can be brought in alongside the main stream of narrative by using vShinne. Example: *wayyäseb par'"ö ^et-masqehü ^al-kannö wehinne par'"ö tälä ^et-^öpehü, and Pharoah restored and-what-do-you-know '.
4.3. 4.3.0.
Sentence
or
his butler --Pharoah
to his executed
job; his
baker.
SENTENCE-LEVEL COORDINATION Paragraph?
Circumstantial, adjunctive, and surprise clauses could be considered sentence-level coordination with an adjacent clause; but all of them, in another sense, are marginal to paragraph structure. The coordinations described in the present section are indubitably sentence-level, integral two-clause constructions which definitely imply simultaneity. Although we- and is used in all of them, various combinations of clause-level sequence patterns secure various relationships that bring out the similarity or the contrast between two actions performed contemporaneously by one or two participants. Once more a distinction has to be made between the optimum realization of a deep relationship of
COORDINATION
67
concomitance or contrast and the alternative realization of the same relationship in a less characteristic construction. 4.3.1.
Conjunctive
Coordination
A conjunctive sentence is the most neutral of all the coordination sentences. It is unmarked for sequence, so simultaneity is implied, but not highlighted. It does not mark the events in the two coordinated clauses for either similarity or difference, but, since a sentence is more likely to be marked to bring out differences, similarity is generally implied by the very act of coordinating the clauses. The similarity, however, is not played up. Example: *Par^ö yääiib "'et-maiqehü ''al-kannö weyitle "*et-^öpehü, Pharoah and he
will restore will execute
his his
butler baker.
to
his
post
This is quite matter of fact. The coincidence of the acts in time is not explicitly marked; but the similar grammatical structure of the two clauses and the common subject suggest that the acts are somehow similar. This has the effect of focussing on the importance of Pharoah and playing down the contrast between the fates of the two slaves. 4.3.2.
Chiastic
Coordination
This construction achieves the most complete integration of two clauses to represent actions of two participants as two sides of a single event. The simultaneity of the two actions is implied, and also their similarity; or rather, the facts that they might have occurred in sequence, and that they were indeed alike, are left out of the picture. Example: *vayyä£eb par ^ö et-ma?qehü w?'et- "^öpehü tälä, and Pharoah restored while his butler he
r
al-kannö
his butler hanged.
to
his
job,
This is like the construction actually used in Ge 4 0 2 1 " 2 2 . The author is indifferent to the contrast in the fates of the servants, and describes the events in a somewhat detached manner as a dual act of Pharoah. Classical Hebrew does not have any and
way the
o f s a y i n g Pharoah reinstated baker respectively.
and
executed
the
butler
To link the fates of the two servants more closely, it w o u l d be better to leave Pharoah out of the picture altogether, and make the servants the subjects of the chiastic clauses.
68
COORDINATION
Example: *wayyüäab hammaä'q.e ^al-kannö wehä^öpe nitlä, and the butler was restored to his job and the baker was executed. 4.3.3.
Alternative
(Disjunctive)
Sentence
Two actions are only likely to be represented as alternatives if they are in someway similar. Pharoah will do one of two things. Example: *üpar^ö yäSIb 1 et-ma?q.ehü ""ö yitle ^ t - ^ ö p e h ü ,
^al-kannö
and Pharoah will either return his butler to his post or he will execute his baker. This is strained because the two acts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 4.3.4.
Contrastive
Coordination
If it is desired to state two related events so as to bring out a contrast in the involvement of the two participants, the words referring to them are both brought into a position of prominence before the verb. Example: * 1 et-hammasqe heslb par^ö we^et-ha^öpe tälä,
^al-kannö
The butler he restored to his job, and (but) the baker he executed. This is like the construction actually used in Ge 41 1 3 . butler was obviously impressed by the difference! 4.3.5.
Antithetical
The
Coordination
The contrast between Pharoah's two actions is already secured by the fact that heSIb. . .^al-kanno and tälä are to some extent antonyms. To bring out the antithesis more forcibly, some kind of negation would probably be used. Example: *wayyäSeb par^ö ^et-masqehü vre ' et--* öpehü lö^ hesib ki tälä ^ötö ] wayyitel ^ötöj
^al-kannö
I
and Pharoah restored his butler to his job; (but) he did not restore his baker; on the contrary, he executed him. Compare the construction in Ge 4 0 2 3 .
COORDINATION
69
In Chapter 14 we shall examine in m o r e d e t a i l the v a r i o u s kinds of a n t i t h e t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and their typical surface realizations . 4.4. INCLUSIVE A N D E X C L U S I V E 4.4.0.
Deep
COORDINATION
Grammar
The story of P h a r o a h and his two slaves does not c o n t a i n deep relationships a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e a l i z e d by inclusive and exclusive constructions. We shall b e g i n w i t h p h r a s e - l e v e l c o o r d i n a t i o n . 4.4.1.
Inclusive
Coordination
Simple c o o r d i n a t i o n resembles Example:
kol-häfäm all the
addition.
(=) h ä ' ä n ä S i m w e h a n n ä s l m
the people infants.
consist
of
the
men
weha^^ap, and
the
women
and
The deep grammar of inclusive a n d exclusive c o o r d i n a t i o n can be i l l u s t r a t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g a set of, say, three elements. A = {Αι, A 2 , A 3 > Example:
(kol-)hä^äm - O ä n ä s i m , n ä s l m , tap} (all)
the
people
consist
of
{men,
women,
children}
Inclusive c o o r d i n a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y includes an item implied by the use of a c o m p r e h e n s i v e n a m e for the set. Thus k o l - h ä r ä m gamh a t t a p , all the people also the children, a l t h o u g h Strictly speak ing r e d u n d a n t , makes it clear that c h i l d r e n are included. It counteracts the p o s s i b i l i t y of restricting the m e a n i n g of k o l f h ä ä m to adults b u t , in that very a c t , ironically drives kolh ä ^ ä m further into that s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . (In some t e x t s , the spec i f i c a t i o n of w o m e n and c h i l d r e n restricts f am further to adult m a l e s . ) The phrase thus becomes a regular c o o r d i n a t i o n - - a l l the CadultJ
people
together
with
the
children.
Yet
even
in this
con-
s t r u c t i o n gam h i g h l i g h t s the i n c l u s i o n of the children. For this reason we study all the uses of gam together in Chapter 12 u n d e r the h e a d i n g of inclusive c o o r d i n a t i o n . It s h o u l d be added that e v e n in the d e f i n i t i v e inclusive coord i n a t i o n c o n s t r u c t i o n , w ? - can alternate w i t h gam a n d s h o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d even or the like. It is also p o s s i b l e that the inc l u d e d item is not just an element of the set (the children are part of all the peopleJ, but comprises the whole set. The use of a c o n j u n c t i o n is t h e n s t r i c t l y a p p o s i t i v e , as in h e n d i a d y s . Since this is a phrase t y p e , w e do not study it further here. The m a i n point to be e n f o r c e d is that simple c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d inclusion
70
COORDINATION
differ in deep structure, with we- the normal surface conjunction for the former, gam for the latter. But gam can be used atypicälly in the former and we- can be used atypically in the latter. To call gam a conjunction, THE inclusive conjunction, applies only to its use in a construction A gam-B. If, however, there is no trace of anything corresponding to A, not even implicitly, some other function must be ascribed to gam. By such a negative test it may, in some occurrences, be called a phrase-level modifier, or a clause-level modifier ('adverb') 0 r emphasizer. 4.4.2.
Exclusive
Coordination
Exclusive coordination resembles subtraction and, in well-formed constructions, represents a qualification of the comprehensive use of kol. Example:
kol-ha^am MINUS hat^ap , all the people except the infants.
Quite a number of conjunctions are used to realize this exclusive relationship-- 1 ak , 1 ak ki , "*im lo1 , 'epes, "'epes kl , bilfädl , bil^äd.1 raq, biltl, biltl U i , züläti, ki ^im, 15bad, lebad min, lebad me^aser (Est 4 1 1 ) , raq, raq 1 ak. The length of this inventory is surprising. Finer distinctions within the set, and constraints on interchangeability, await investigation. Some are characteristically phrase-level rather than inter-clause. The ones which are etymologically negative label an exclusion after an assertion (all the people except Ciut not] the children); others label an exception after a negation (none of the people except Lbut onlyl the children). If the excluded item is contrasted, not with the complete set, as in well-formed exclusive coordination, but with the residue of the set after the exclusion, we have moved to antithetical coordination--hä 1 anäsxm wehannäslm welö^ h a ^ a p , the men and the women but not the children. Some exclusive conjunctions can be used as alternatives to we- in this kind of antithesis. So here again, deep grammar, and not the conjunction as such, must be diagnostic of coordination type. To call the 'particles' above conjunctions implies their use in a construction A
COORDINATION
71
To sum up Typical
Not a Cj
Anternative
Exegetical
we-
gam
Emphatic
raq
<Exc>
Restrictive
4.5. INTER-CLAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS IN PRECATIVE AND PREDICTIVE DISCOURSE The examples used in 4.2 - 4.4 above, and most of the prime illustrations used in the following treatment are drawn from narrative prose which uses declarative clauses in which verbs are indicative. The same relationships are found, mutatis mutandis, in precative discourse which uses VI, VJ, or VC. But prescriptive and predictive discourse are not easy to distinguish in Hebrew, on account of the fact that any declarative clause in future tense can be used precatively in the right context. The use of the various devices of apposition and coordination in an extended precative discourse is illustrated in the instructions given for making the tabernacle (Ex 25-30). Here the same kinds of construction occur again and again, and not all the examples are cited in this monograph. Ex 25 1 -27 19 is reported as a single speech. It begins speak ( V I ) to the Israelites they will make (WS) me
and let a shrine
them
get
(VJ)
materials...and
(Ex 25 l " e ). After that, each successive instruction for each new item or for each new stage in the work is given in a WS clause. There are 75 of these. Most of them are precative, in continuation of the lead clause, and their use implies the performance of the actions they describe in temporal sequence. A few of them, however, notably 2 5 2 2 » 2 8 t > 3 7 , predict standing results, and do not prescribe specific acts. Apart from these divagations, the chain of sequential WS clauses is broken only at 25 1 9 , where we- + VI is an optional variant (va fase is equivalent to the usual wef äsitä, but does not imply sequence), and at 26 1 , where veto +VP:tarase is another optional variant^ (The VI's in 25"° are in a parenthetical exhortation; the we- +0 +VP clauses in 26 29 serve to return to the topic of the frames.) The line of WS clauses is thus clear and strong. It gives the entire speech a texture that is almost uniform from beginning to end. The division into paragraphs and sub-paragraphs must be guided by content, by changes in topic, or grammatical signals of explicit noun subject followed by anaphoric pronominal reference, These topics are the ark (25 10 " 2 ), the table (252 3 " 3 0 ), the lampstand (253 1 -1,°), the tabernacle (26α "3 °), the curtain (26 3 1 " 3 7 ), the altar (27 1 ' 8 ), the court (27 9 " i9 ). The only break in the uniform series of WS clauses is at 2 6 1 . Within each topic there may be several subtopics, such as the
COORDINATION
72
parts of the ark--the box, the rings, the poles, the covering, etc. But here too the discourse moves along from one to the next without a break in the chain Of WS clauses. In other words, the arrangement of the architectural topics is hierarchical, but this is not reflected in the grammatical structure of the discourse. Shrine furniture
Apart from the break at 261 a uniform string of WS clauses handles all three levels of this hierarchy. But the lower levels, dealing with materials and dimensions, are handled by grammatical constructions below paragraph level, notably apposition and coordination. The commonest device for doing this is apposition. Nearly 20 individual clauses and 10 conjunctive sentences are thus used to specify (#3.7.1) or expound (#3.7.2). There are three summarizing clauses in apposition (#3.7.4), and five examples of an apposition sentence used in apposition (#3.9). 25 2 0 even has a paragraph in apposition, for here the WS clause is equivalent to a subclause of 'Result'. Of more interest in the present context is the use of sentence-level coordination. 25 1 2 and 3 8 have a conjunctive sentence and an apposition sentence used circumstantially, although such material is more often placed in apposition. But most of the circumstantial constructions in the passage are bonafide, whether clauses ( 2 5 2 0 a B > 3 2 , 26* b » 2 e ) or sentences ( 2 5
35,3β-39>
2 6
12-13)i
This leaves the few chiastic sentences for special notice. Their use is not just an arbitrary stylistic variation. They bring together pairs of related actions: 25 2 1 (put the kappöreth on the box and put the redüt in the box), 26 s 5 (the symmetrical locations of the table and the lampstand)^ There is a more intricate pattern of chiasmus in 261 2 2 , we^äsitä the
frames and
-- 20 frames for the Ν side
and for
the W side
ta^ase
for 20
the S frames
6
frames
side
The fulfillment in Ex 3 6 2 3 " 2 7 has ^äiä in each of the chiastic clauses. Other material is interspersed with this material. The result is complex but not chaotic. 26 1 8 is simultaneously and independently the lead clause of two distinct sentences. With 26 1 9 it makes a circumstantial sentence (and all this is repeated in 2 6 2 0 " 2 J , but without verbs). With 2 6 2 2 , 26 1 β makes a discontinuous chiastic pattern, the one verb governing all three objects. The further reference to the two corner-boards in 26 2 3 is then chiastic, in another way, to 26 2 2 . There can
COORDINATION
73
hardly be a question of artistic decoration of such, dry facts. The careful use of chiasmus in an architect's specifications suggests that it has a precise grammatical meaning and a special discourse function as well as a pleasing aesthetic effect. That a chiastic sentence blends two activities into a single scene is confirmed by the structure of the speech in Ex 40 1 " 1S . It consists of a marginal time reference (40 2 a ) followed by 34 clauses describing 34 acts to be performed in succession. There are no apposition clauses and no circumstantial clauses. The first clause is prescriptive, with VP. This is followed by a string of WS clauses, 32 in all. These continue the prescription in the usual way. This chain is broken only once, at 40 1 1 , a , which is chiastic with 4 0 1 2 a . The effect is to stage the ordination of Aaron and his sons as a single, two-sided, event. Otherwise all the events are singular and sequential. In the fulfilment that follows the same pattern is preserved. The time margin ( 4 0 1 7 a ) is followed by a VS clause (40 17t> ) and then by a string of sequential WP clauses, broken only by a chiastic VS clause in 4 0 2 9 . This presents the placement of the incense altar and the holocaust altar as two aspects of a single arrangement. A curious result follows. When the material in two coordinated clauses contrasts, this relationship is realized primarily in a sentence in which the clauses are arranged with symmetrical patterns. When there is balance between the content of two coordinated clauses, this relationship is realized primarily in a sentence in which the clauses are arranged a-symmetrically. 4.6.
SUMMARY
The preceding discussion has recognized that the Hebrew raconteur had at his disposal several different ways of telling essentially the same story about Pharoah and his two slaves. And it has also included under the broad rubric of coordination various kinds of disjunctive, inclusive, exclusive, and antithetical relationships, making ten kinds of nonsequential interclausal coordination in all.
The system has two axes, polarized for similarity versus dissimilarity and for succession versus simultaneity.
COORDINATION
Tfc
C o n j u n c t i v e sentences are neutral in all r e s p e c t s . Furtherm o r e , interclausal r e l a t i o n s h i p s not p o s i t i v e l y m a r k e d for time s u c c e s s i o n by the u s e of sequential c o n j u n c t i o n - v e r b c o m b i n a t i o n s (WP a n d WS) stage events as c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s , or at the v e r y least as not s u c c e s s i v e , in all other sentence types. S i m i l a r l y the staging of two events in c o n t r a s t i v e , e x c l u s i v e , a n d antithetical sentences m a r k s them for d i s s i m i l a r i t y and so, by d e f a u l t , implies that events r e p o r t e d in other s e n t e n c e types are in some w a y s i m i l a r , or, at least, n o t d i s s i m i l a r . The chart above implies, h o w e v e r , that s i m u l t a n e i t y is m o r e to the fore in c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , a d j u n c t i v e a n d surprise c l a u s e s , w h i l e only i m p l i e d in the other n o n s e q u e n t i a l s e n t e n c e types. S i m i l a r l y w e suppose that the m a t c h i n g pairs (chiasticcontrastive, inclusive-exclusive, disjunctive-antithetical) s t a n d at the extremes of the s i m i l a r - d i s s i m i l a r p o l a r i t y , all six sentence types in the m i d d l e c o l u m n being neutral in this regard. 4.7.
BACK-LOOPING
(RANK-SHIFTING)
So far w e h a v e i l l u s t r a t e d the ten kinds of c o o r d i n a t i o n s e n t e n c e in their simplest form. T h r e e (circumstantial, a d j u n c t i v e , a n d surprise) are p a r a g r a p h - l e v e l , a n d w e have i l l u s t r a t e d them by m e a n s of examples in w h i c h the c o o r d i n a t e d element is a single clause. The r e m a i n i n g s e v e n are s e n t e n c e - l e v e l , a n d w e have i l l u s t r a t e d them by m e a n s of the simplest k i n d of t w o - c l a u s e c o n s t r u c t i o n s , emphasizing in p a r t i c u l a r the c o n t r a s t i v e - d i s t i n c t i v e features of the s e v e n kinds of c o o r d i n a t e d c l a u s e , a n d in some instances the total p a t t e r n that the c o o r d i n a t e d c l a u s e m a k e s w i t h the lead clause. Fuller study w o u l d n e e d to track d o w n all the c o m b i n a t i o n s , w i t h a list of c l a u s e types that m a y be leads in each s e n t e n c e type as w e l l as a list of c l a u s e types that m a y be c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h them i n e a c h s e n t e n c e type. The following chapters r e p r e s e n t a b e g i n n i n g of this w o r k , w i t h o u t being exhaustive . But m o r e is involved t h a n simple t w o - c l a u s e s e n t e n c e s . By b a c k - l o o p i n g (otherwise k n o w n as r a n k - s h i f t i n g ) a s e n t e n c e , a p a r a g r a p h , or e v e n t h e o r e t i c a l l y a w h o l e episode m i g h t f u n c t i o n just like a single c l a u s e in any one of these s e n t e n c e types. We have a l r e a d y seen, esp e c i a l l y in #3.7.2 and # 3 . 7 . 3 , that a s e n t e n c e or p a r a g r a p h c a n be in a p p o s i t i o n w i t h a c l a u s e . In #3.7.3 w e s h o w e d that a n entire p a r a g r a p h consisting of ten clauses stands in a p p o s i t i o n w i t h a single lead c l a u s e . T h e same k i n d of thing h a p p e n s in c o o r d i n a t i o n and s u b o r d i n a t i o n . 'cr Se IT
Cl' Se H
COORDINATION
75
This creates a terminological difficulty. Longacre surmounts this by calling any filler of such a 'sentence1-level slot a base.1 Furthermore, if such constructions are called 'sentences', our initial definition of a sentence as a construction relating two clauses together works for only some of them. This is why we began with an ostensive definition (#2.1), and now that our list of illustrations is more complete, we can enlarge the definition to include constructions in which any two bases are related together by the kinds of apposition and coordination we have described. A 'complex' sentence, which we prefer to describe as a kind of clause (#2.3), is a construction in which any two bases are related together in some subordinative way. So, while constituent clauses may be diagnostic of sentence type, and formal linkage by means of a conjunction or by none is demarcative, it is really the deep-structure relationships between the constituent bases that are definitive of sentence types.
4.8.
ALTERNATIVE SURFACE REALIZATIONS
This rich apparatus of sentence types equips the speaker of Hebrew with diverse means for staging the details of discourse in all kinds of ways. In narrative prose the options of succession or simultaneity and of similarity or dissimilarity are available, together with neutrality in both respects. These options are not completely open. In telling a story there may be relationships inherent in the deepest semantic structure that can be properly realized in only a certain number of sentence types. Thus the opposite fates of Pharoah's two slaves contrast in fact. The raconteur may choose to highlight or to play down this contrast, but there are constraints. To attempt to stage antithetical facts as if they were similar, by using, say, an inclusive sentence, imposes too great a strain on the surface structure. Either the deep structure forces its way into the surface, and twists it into another meaning (as when exclusive sentence by form have antithetical meaning by semantic content); or the surface structure holds its own, filtering out or transmuting the semantic structure, frustrating the intention of the speaker. In #4.4 above we have recognized three degrees of correspondence between deep and surface structure. There is an optimum surface realization of a deep relationship which we have called 'typical'. Then there may be an alternative realization by means of a surface structure which is compatible with that deep relationship but which is either neutral or typical of another deep relationship. Thus the form of a conjunctive sentence can be used as an alternative albeit insipid realization of, say, an inclusive relationship. Finally there are some sentence types which are incompatible with certain deep relationships, and their use in an attempt to realize such relationships would only betray the incompe-
76
COORDINATION
tence of the speaker. 4.9.
EMPIRICAL TESTING
In keeping with the empirical thrust of this study, we begin with surface structures in classifying constructions. By using artificial sentences to illustrate the various sentence types, we have been able to exhibit the contrastive-distinctive features of each in optimum form. Not all natural examples are so clear-cut. The validity of the theory outlined above can be tested only by listing texts from the sources to see if the distinctions made serve as a guide to their correct interpretation. Here there are traps for the unwary. While the incidence of a construction of a given type is not an entirely reliable index of its grammatically, it does not follow that a construction rarely used is necessarily less grammatical. Chance factors are at work here. When atypical usage is recognized as an alternative realization of a different deep structure, the clash in usage is resolved, and the atypical form cannot be adduced as evidence against a general rule based on the use of the same form as the typical realization of its deep structure. A further untidiness in the results arises from another cause. Many natural examples fall short of the maximum contrast achieved in well-formed constructions. There may be enough redundancy in the optimum realization to preserve its categorical identity even when it is not fully realized. This is why we regard form features as diagnostic rather than definitive. When two constructions are contrasted by only one or two distinctive features, a falling short of full realization can reduce both to formal identity. The discovery of such ambiguity does not mean that only one category should be used; it only means that some constructions are indeterminate as to category. The present study admits the existence of boundaries where categories merge. It helps to explain the differences of opinion among Hebraists in such matters as the labelling of individual clauses as 'circumstantial '. NOTES 1
T h a t t w o m o r p h e m e s a r e i n v o l v e d is p r o v e d b y t h e c l a s s i c al t e s t of m i n i m a l c o n t r a s t . T h e d i f f e r e n c e in t e n s e b e t w e e n we^eq-föl, a n d I shall kill, a n d w ä ^ e q t ö l , and I killed, is s e c u r e d s o l e l y by the c o n t r a s t i n g forms of t h e c o n j u n c t i o n s . W e r e f e r t o t h e 'väv-consecutive' b y m e a n s of t h e s y m b o l W . The sequential verb forms W +VP (past) we call b r i e f l y WP and W +VS (future) we call WS. 2 Hierarchy and Universality..., p. xiv.
5
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES
5.0. INTRODUCTION The classic treatment of the circumstantial clause is found in Driver's study of the tenses. 1 It is no derogation of this felicitous work to point out its lack of the theoretical insights of present-day linguistics. Previous studies of Hebrew syntax have not approached the clause hierarchically. Hence Driver did not perceive some of the discourse functions of circumstantial clauses. For instance, the construction which we identify as a formal marker of episode boundaries (#5.1) is not distinguished from a clause in chiasmus, and its adoption is traced to "emphasis or the love of variety" (p. 200). He does recognize, however, "the commencement of a new thread" (p. 201) by means of a circumstantial clause. Since Driver defines the circumstantial clause rather vaguely as "a subordinate thought" (p. 202), he includes under the same heading constructions with quite diverse surface features, including apposition. On the other hand this approach helped Driver to see what is now called deep structure by means of correspondences or "transpositions" (p. 249), a procedure remarkably like the transformations of modern grammar. The workhorse of Hebrew narrative prose is the väw-CONSECUTIVE WP clause. Each such clause marks one successive event in a story. It is possible for a paragraph, even a book, to begin with such a clause. WS clauses do the same thing in predictive discourse (#4.5). 2 WP and WS clauses cannot be negated. A negated clause in the chain of events will use welö 1 +VS... (or welö^ +VP...). Such a clause generally stands in the main stream of narrative (or prediction). Examples: Ge 2 2 5 , 8 9 " 9 (clearly sequential), 8 1 2 (end of paragraph), 9 1 1 , 9 1 5 , 38 2 0 , etc. 3 Otherwise, any other kind of clause which breaks the chain of WP (or WS) clauses interrupts the sequence of events, and generally reports an event contemporaneous, concomitant, or 'circumstantial' to the main stream. The clauses used in the main stream begin with V (unless negated), so if there is a subject, the clause has sequence PS. The usual way to break this succession is to reverse this PS sequence by inserting
78
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
some clause-level tagmeme between the conjunction and verb. This inserted item is generally the subject, hence +w5- +S +P is considered normal for circumstantial clauses. But other items beside the subject can, on occasion, precede the predicator. If the circumstantial clause is negated, some item besides lo"1 has to be inserted between the conjunction and Ρ to secure the same effect. Example: Ge 9 2 3 b B . (But the clause in Ge 31 3 2--w?lö'1 -yäda ( y a f a q ö b . . . — i s clearly circumstantial, even though it does not bring the subject as well as the negator before the verb.] Various kinds of predication are possible in circumstantial clauses. In narrative prose, VS is compatible with WP, and in predictive discourse, VP has the same tense as WS. But participial, quasiverbal, and verbless clauses can also be used circumstantially, especially in past-tense narrative. Circumstantial clauses can be attached to other constructions besides paragraph-level WP or WS clauses to refer to some simultaneous event or accompanying circumstance.
5.1. EPISODE-MARGINAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL 5.1.0. Nucleus
and
CLAUSES
Margin
A circumstantial clause is structurally marginal to a paragraph. When the paragraph is episode-initial, the circumstantial clause may be marginal to the rest of the episode (its nucleus) as a whole.
EpNuc
Mg:CirCl
This tree implies nothing as to the physical sequence of nucleus and margin. A circumstantial clause may come anywhere in an episode, either as its opening clause (#5.1.1), or as its closing clause (#5.1.2), or inserted somewhere along the string of paragraph-level clauses. A circumstantial clause at the beginning or end of an episode can be an important signal of episode onset or episode closeout. It becomes a matter of some importance, then, to distinguish circumstantial clauses at episode boundaries from circumstantial clauses which stand beside the body of an episode somewhere along its length but do not dissect it. In #5.2 we shall study circumstantial sentences, properly so-called. These are strictly two-clause constructions, consisting of a head clause and a dependent circumstantial clause. The head clause in such a construction may, of course, be paragraph-level, and through it the circumstantial clause is attached to the paragraph as a whole. So the distinction between an episode- (or paragraph-) level circumstantial clause and a sentence-level circumstantial clause is a fine one.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
Head:
Ep H Se CI
CLAUSES
79
But the point is worth making because circumstantial clauses at episode boundaries mark major transitions in discourse, whereas circumstantial clauses "which are integral to a sentence are quite unobtrusive and often a mere aside. A paragraph can consist of a single sentence. If it is a twoclause circumstantial sentence, the distinction between a paragraph-level and sentence-level circumstance vanishes. 5.1.1.
Episode-Initial
Circumstantial
Clauses
The body of an episode in narrative prose is likely to consist of a string of WP clauses. (Predictive discourse correspondingly is built on chains of WS clauses.) Such a string is likely to be preceded by some marginal material, such as a time reference realized as adverb, noun phrase, prepositional phrase, infinitive phrase, or clause (#4.1.4). Another way of opening an episode is to state a preliminary circumstance, and the usual way of doing this is by means of a circumstantial clause. The onset of a new episode is often marked by introducing a new dramatis persona by means of a circumstantial clause. In Ge 3 1 a new dramatis persona (the snake) is introduced, and a new episode inaugurated, by means of a circumstantial clause: wehannähä? häyä 'ärüm mikköl hayyat hassäde... now the snake was the cunningest animal... Other circumstantial clauses which introduce a new character at the beginning of a new episide are Ge 2 1 0 (Because a participle is used rather than a suffixed verb, this could be circumstantial to preceding, but the criterion is not sure-fire.), 231 0 , 24 2 9 (introduces Laban) , 24 6 2 (change of scene), 2 6 1 5 ' 2 6 , 29 1 6 , 3 4 * ' 7 , . 3 6 1 2 , 4 1 1 2 ' 3 2 (moves on to the question of why the dream came twice), 4 5 1 6 , 46 2 8 , 47 2 ' 1 3 , Ex l 7 , 2 1 6 , etc. A new development in a story may be marked by a circumstantial clause, even though the subject is not a new character. So the story of Cain begins: vehä^adäm yäda^ "'et-hawwä ^iüitS, and Adam knew Eve his wife (Ge 4 1 ) . After that, regular WP clauses continue the story. Other circumstantial clauses which mark a new point of departure: Ge l 2 (NEB translation; but this is not desirable, since there are counter-arguments that it is circumstantial to the preceding--s.ee #5.2.1), 2 1 0 a (As usually interpreted, with critics regarding it as an interpolation. From the grammatical point of view it could be conjoined to 2 9 b [Chapter 8] making two coordinate circumstances of the garden, namely, the special trees and the river system. It is also possible that
80
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
it is chiastic with 2 e so that the garden [or oasis] consists of vegetation and water.), 2 2 0 b (This is usually taken as adversative to the preceding [v5- but], but it is possible that the repetition of ^ezer kSnegdö links this clause with 2 1 . 2 l e b introduces the first attempt to supply Adam with a companion; 2 2 0 introduces the second attempt. Neither solution is entirely satisfactory. The problem is the inherent subject of masä"1 . If it means But CAdamD did not find Lamong the animalsl a suitable helper, then le^ädäm would have to be ethic, which is hard to believe. Comparison with 2 l e b suggests that Yhwh ^elöhim is the subject of mäsä 1 , but this breaks the continuity between 2 2 0 a and 2 2 0 b , for the change in subject does not become explicit until 2 2 1 . This is all right if 2 2 0 b is the preliminary circumstance to 2 2 '--And when he LGodl did not find a
suitable
helper
for
the
man,
Yahweh
God
made
a deep
sleep
fall on the man... A third solution avoids the question of a subject altogether by reading *mussä^ [GPas] [synonym of nimsä"1 existed] so S:(ezer. This also points to a new paragraph at 20z°k--now so Yahweh
there was istilll no helper like an equal for Adam, God made...), 7 6 (supplies a d a t e ) , 8 5 , 9 2 , 1 2 1 6 ,
llf
13 (Note the less usual positioning of marginal time after the verb, where normal narrative would have *way5hl ^al}ar hippäred..,wayyö 1 mer yhwh... See also Ge 1 8 1 7 . ) , 1 4 1 0 » 1 8 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 1 7 , 21 1 (The fact that the ensuing WP clause repeats the names, rather than using anaphora, is atypical, as comparison with other examples shows.), 24 1 (This begins the story with the relevant circumstance that Abraham was old. In Ge 1 8 1 1 a similar fact is brought out by means of a circumstantial clause alongside the main stream [#5.1.3]; in Ge 27 l a similar datum is cast in a time clause after wayShi.), 2 6 1 5 » 2 6 , 27 6 , 3 1 s ' 1 9 , 32 2 , 333., 3 4 5 a > 7 , 373a , 39 l , 4 1 5 0 ' 5 6 , 42 2 0 (in prescriptive discourse), 4 3 1 . 4 5 1 6 . Ex 3 1 , I I 1 0 * 1235. 1410&, I710^.12a, 19 3 , 241 > , 26 , 27 , 29" ' 15 ' 1 7 ' i1 , 33 έ , 36 3 (This leads on to the deputation rather than being a further part of the preceding relative construction.), De 4 2 1 , 9 2 1 , 10 6 , etc. This device is not always used when it might have been expected. The chain of WP clauses can continue right through a natural break in the story. It is entirely an option of the speaker (or writer) whether to highlight this new point of departure by using a circumstantial clause, or whether to smooth it over. Thus at Ge 2 1 1 1 , _ 1 5 there is a new development --And
when
the
water
from
the
bottle
was
used
up,
she
threw
the boy under one of the bushes. But the chain of WP clauses is unbroken. A major new episode begins with a WP clause in 10 Ge 2 8 , and this kind of thing often happens. The means for optimum marking of episode onset are not always availed of. 5.1.2.
Episode-Final
Circumstantial
Clauses
It is usually supposed that a new paragraph begins at Ge 6 9 . This leaves Ge 6 , a circumstantial clause, as the close-out of the preceding material to which it is adversative--But
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
81
Noah found gxa.ce in the eyes of the Lord. On the other hand, in view of Ge 37 1 " 2 , we must ask (#5.1.1) whether 6 8 hegins a new paragraph in spite of the traditional punctuation. The first episode in the story of Noah's drunkenness ends, after an unbroken chain of eleven WP clauses, with a pair of conjoined circumstantial clauses: ügenehem ^ahörannit we^ervat ^äbihem lö^ rä^ü, And their faces were backwards and their father's nudity they did not see (Ge 9 2 3 ) This is repetitive, echoing the language of the two preceding clauses. This is another device of Hebrew story-telling, whether the grammatical form of a circumstantial clause is used or not, to recapitulate some climactic point as an episode closeout. Sometimes a marginal time reference at the opening of a story is a note about someone's age at the time of the events, as in Ge 17 1 . Similar information may be supplied by means of a circumstantial clause at the end of a story, to round it off. Examples: Ge 1 6 1 6 , 17 21 ·- 25 (two clauses conjoined), 25 2 6 , Ex 7 7 . The same kind of clause sometimes comes in the middle of a story, but always at some juncture between episodes (Ge 12 3 , 21 5 , 41"®). It is sometimes unclear whether such a clause ends one episode or begins the next (Ge 7 6 ) . Other examples of circumstantial clauses ending an episode or paragraph are Ge 18 2 2 , 3 3 (Note the chiasmus.), 19®, between 1 9 ™ and 1 1 (Note the chiasmus of ^et-lS-fc and ^ethä^änäslm.), 24 2 1 (The new episode begins with vayehl.), 27 s , 3 0 ä 6 b (Note the repetition of the subject in the next clause, whereas the anaphoric bö in Ge 32 2 shows that veya^aqob hälak. . . begins a new episode, even though its chiasmus with the preceding clause suggests that it ends the preceding episode. The same relationships obtain between Ge 33 1 6 and . See also the extended discussion of Ge 18 2 2 below [#5.1.3.2 (ν)].), 3 2 2 2 , 37 1 1 (Note the chiasmus. Furthermore, this clause makes an inclusio with veyiSri^el ^ähab ^et-yösep [37 3 ], the circumstantial clause which opens the episode.), 37 3 6 (This clause is a detached and delayed epilogue to the episode almost concluded in 37 2 e ; note particularly that ^öt5 in 37 3 6 is anaphoric to ^et-yösep in 37 2 8 .) , 415If, 5 7 , Ex 1 s t , 12" 0 , 16^ s , 36 7 (Repetitious and redundant, but its effect is to mark majestically the end of the episode.), etc. The majority of these circumstantial clauses at paragraph and episode boundaries have VS in narrative prose. In future tense discourse (predictive or precative) VP has a similar role. Example: Ge 46". Ge 47 1 3 has a quasiverbal circumstantial clause at the onset of a new episode, followed by WP.
82
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
Since the same kind of circumstantial clauses can be used to mark either paragraph or episode onset or paragraph or episode end, the direction in which such clauses are attached may sometimes be in doubt. Compare the discussion of Ge 1 2 a and Ge 2 20ΐ) in #5.1.1 above. In most cases the content shows whether the circumstantial clause gives preliminary circumstantial information, such as the time setting or something about a new dramatis persona, or whether it gives a summary wrapup. When two such clauses come in succession, the episode boundary is likely to be between them. Thus Ge 13 , although it anticipates a later theme, ends an episode because a new episode obviously begins with the next clause. A similar sequence of clauses marks a paragraph boundary between Ge 18 16 and 1 7 . 5.1.3.
Circumstantial
5.1.3.0.
Circumstance
Clause as
beside
an
Episode
parenthesis
The best-known circumstantial clauses are those which come alongside the main thread of discourse. They generally report some coetaneous event or state, hence the name 'circumstantial'. For the same reason they are sometimes described as subordinate or 'adverbial', and not always distinguished from parenthetical information placed in apposition. We pay more attention to surface features, and distinguish circumstantial clauses carefully from conjunctionless apposition. It is a token of this standing alongside the main time stream that predicators in such circumstantial clauses are predominantly tenseless, neither past nor future, even when the rest of the discourse is either past or future. Verbless clauses, and clauses with participles or quasiverbals as predicators, when used circumstantially, take their tense from the lead clause or from the paragraph as a whole. 5.1.3.1.
Participial
circumstantial
clauses
Example: vayyitten lipnehem wehu^-^ömed ^alehem tahat h ä ^ e s , and he [is/was]
he put [it] in front of them, and [=while] standing beside them under the trees CGe 1 8 " ) .
Other examples: Ge l 2 t . 2 1 0 , 13 7 , 14J 2 , 1 3 a , 1 βΐ3, 15 2 , 246 2 , 25 , 28 12 , 32 3 2 , 372 5 , Ex 2 5 , 5 1 3 , 1 8 i iob 19i 9 2 * (like Ge l 2 b ). 132 1 , 148t>,*7 a S ,25 t , 18 i,,bB , 20 1 5 , 25 32 , 371 β , De 4 1 1 , 9 I 5 a , etc. 5.1.3.2.
Quasiverbal
circumstantial
clauses
Since the commonest quasiverbal predicator used in circumstantial clauses is U n , is not, does not exist,
something
should be said here about its syntax. It has three dintinct
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES
83
functions. Ci) It is the negative of existential yes,, (it)
Example: yes-ll
r ä b , exists
to-me
abundant,
exists.
I have
plenty
(Ge 33 9 ); Negative: ^en läh wäläd, does-not-exist to-her child, she had no children (Ge l l 3 0 ) . As an existential predicator, ^en or yes is clause-initial, and is used in independent declarative clauses in apposition or conjoined or else subordinated by kl (Ge 4 4 3 1 ) . Cii) It is the negative of the locational-temporal predicator hinne, it is present here and now. In particular it resembles the use of hinne in surprise clauses, which are coordinated (Chapter 7). Negative surprise clauses begin we 1 en... Example: w(P en mayim listöt h ä ^ ä m , and
there
was
no
water
for
the
people
to
drink
(Ex 17 1 ). Other examples: Ge 3 9 1 1 , 41", 2 ", Le 26«. It is even possible to combine the two predicators, hinne emphasizing the ingredient of surprise. Example: vehinne 1
e n y ö s e p b a b b ö r , and
tern
(Ge 3 7 2 S ) .
behold,
Joseph
was
not
in
the
cis-
(iii) It is the negator of verbless clauses, and, when such a clause is used circumstantially, '•en comes after the subject, in contrast with its clause-initial sequence pattern in (i) and (ii) above. Example: we^arba r -jne^öt 'Is
^ i m m ö , and
four
hundred
men
[are]
with
him
(Ge 3 2
7
;
negative: wehanna^ar ^enennü ^ittänü, and the lad is not with us (Ge 4 4 3 0 ; note the redundant optional pronoun subject suffix, and compare Ge 4 4 2 6 , 31*). Other examples: Ge 1 9 3 1 , De 1 . This kind of clause can also realize antithetical coordination (see Chapter 14). The correlation of the sequence pattern we- +S + ^en + ... with the functions of circumstantial clauses while the sequence w e 1 e n +S +... is more independent explains the subtle but important difference between the otherwise similar clauses in the dream episodes of the Joseph s t o r y . In Ge 40° a n d 4 1 1 5 no one who could interpret
ü p ö t e r ^en ^ ö t S , and there it, is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l b u t
was
matter-of-fact. After all, you would not expect to find a qualified oneiromancer in a prison. But iii Ge 41°
(compare 41 2 l t ) w i P e n - p ö t i r ^ötäm l e p a r ^ S , and no one able to interpret them for Pharoah, is c o n s e q u e n t i a l
was
but with a touch of surprise -- (ii) above. After all, where else would you expect to find a good dream interpreter, if not in Pharoah's court? (iv) The same patterns are met with the temporal quasiverbal predicator f 5d, still (or now) is.^Contrast the independent declarative clause r öd-yösep benl fcay, Joseph 28 my son is still alive (Ge 4 5 ) , with the circumstantial clause wehü^ ^ödennü ssun, and (while) he is (was) still there (Ge 44 1 *), where the use of both the explicit subject pronoun hü' and the subject pronoun suffix -ennü makes possible the circumstantial sequence we- +S +P.
81»
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
Cv) With these patterns in mind, we can take a closer look at Ge 18 22t) , already listed in #5.1.2 as a circumstantial clause marking the close of an episode. There is discontinuity between 182 2 t and 1 8 2 3 a . The repetition of the subject noun Abraham supports the conclusion that there is a major break between these verses and that 18 2 2 rounds off the preceding paragraph. But this is not the main problem. Ge 18 2 2 also stands in chiasmus with 1 8 2 2 a , a pattern compatible with its concomitant function of ending the episode which began with the arrival of the three 'men' in Ge 18 2 . Here the travellers part. Two go to Sodom (Ge 19 1 ), one remains. Seen in this light, the obvious subject for the circumstantial clause is the third member of the party -- Yahweh, not Abraham. Furthermore, this would secure chiasmus of the two subjects the men and Yahweh within Ge 18 2 2 followed by a further chiasmus in the subsequent treatment of these topics in the sequence Yahweh ( 1 8 2 3 " 3 3 ) and the men (Ge 19 1 ). Everybody knows that this is the first of the celebrated Tikkun sopherim, allegedly altered in the interests of piety. All the versions agree with MT and Ge 19 2 7 supports it. The first hint that it was ever any different is given in Bereshith Rabba, which quotes the opinion of Rabbi Simeon (2nd century A.D.), that the original reading *vyhvh fvdnv... had been altered by the scribes. How can we decide the correct reading? Hitherto discussion has relied on general arguments. The authority of the (late) notices about the Tikkun sopherim is countered by arguments that the scribes had too much reverence for the text to tamper with it, even when motivated by concern for the dignity of God. But if that be so, where did the competing reading come from? How could the scribes decide between reverence for the text and reverence for God? The piety that removed it as abhorrent would never have invented it. R. Simeon must have known a variant tradition if not text. And variants are known from the earliest recensions which betray theological anxiety. If the unanimity of the versions is not quite overwhelmed by the principle of lectio difficilior, an argument from discourse grammar might tip the scales. So long as the two contending clauses are looked at in isolation, their grammar is identical and favours neither. But as soon as we stand back and look at sentence structure and paragraph structure, the odds are against the MT. The framework is provided by the clauses 18 1 6 wayyäqümü missäm hä^änäslm 182 2 a vayyipnü missäm hä^anäsljn wayyelekü sedömä *veyhwh 'wdnw fmd lpny ^brhm 18 3 3 wayyelek yhvh ve'atirähäm sab limqSmS
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
85
The parting of the company is delayed by Yahweh's decision (deliberated in 1 8 1 7 " --a circumstantial clause!) to confide 20 21 his plans to Abraham, which he does in 1 8 " . This episode ends by stating what the travellers do in a chiastic sentence in which Yahweh is matched more appositely with the other two than Abraham is. Then Yahweh's tarrying with Abraham (a different idiom from the objectionable 'md lpny in the posture of a servant) is matched by Abraham's initiative in approaching with his intercessions (18 2 3 ). This does not prove the point fully. But it shows how discourse grammar provides the text critic with an additional tool. 5.1.3.3. Verbless circumstantial clauses'* Example: nibne-llänü ^ir ümigdäl build ourselves a city and a tower and sky (Ge 11") .
bassämayim, let us (with) its head in the
Other examples: Ge l 2 a B , 2 19 » 1 2 , 1 2 6 , 13 2 1 4 1 3 b 2, 16> 18 9 > 7 1 obB, 11 ,1 2% 13 > 2 7 192° 20 * 24 »'* 25 29 »*7a»3'° 32 33 1 (note the unusual sequence PS. in contrast with 3 2 7 ) , 3 4 1 9 ' 3 0 , 3 7 2 \ 46 3 2 , Ex 1 4 2 2 , 15 2 *, 1 6 3 1 , 17 9 , 2 1 2 8 , 2 4 i J ' 1 7 , apposition), 26 1 *, 3 4 2 9 , 2 5 2o,3-»35,3β ( t h i s k i n d i s o £ t e n i n 3 7 2 0 , Le 23 »1 0 , De 2 1 * , 9 l s b , etc. 5.1.3.^. Circumstantial clauses with perfect verbs The circumstantial clauses described in #5.1.1 and #5.1.2 are part of the chain of events , and VS is generally used in them in narrative prose. By way of contrast, circumstantial clauses outside the stream of events (##5.1.3.1 - 5.1.3.3) do not generally use VS. But some do, and then it has special functions . (i) It may serve as a flash-back, translated by an English pluperfect. Example: verähel läqShä..., now Rachel had stolen... (Ge 31 3 ). Other examples: Ge 3 4 % 39®, Le 5 1 . (ii) It may have Stative meaning, translated by an English present. Example: wa^Äni zäqanti, and I am old (Ge 1 8 1 3 , compare zäqen in 1 8 1 2 ) . Other examples: Ge 2 4 3 1 » 5 6 , 2 6 2 7 , 2 9 I 7 ° , 4 8 1 0 , Le 5 2 · 3 ' " . The use of häyä in such clauses raises the question of whether it should be translated had been or was. So, in Ge 1 5 1 7 and it came to pass, when the sun had set, and when darkness had fallen (häyä = näp?lä in 1 5 1 2 ) , that... But in Ge 2 9 1 6 and Rachel was pretty... Does häyü in Ge 34 5 mean that Jacob's sons WERE in the field when their father heard about Dinah, or that they HAD BEEN in the field when she was raped? The latter is more probable, because contemporaneous circumstance is adequately covered by a verbless clause. Hence it is more likely that Ge l 2 a means the earth had become (or had come to be)... as a circumstance prior to the first fiat recorded in Ge l 3 , than that it means the earth was... as a circumstance accompanying the first fiat. This disposes of the argument that
86
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES
Ge l 2 a cannot be circumstantial because it is not verbless. Compare Ge 7 6 > 1 0
and E x 1 s t — a n d
Joseph
was
already
in
Egypt
(iii^ It can be used with 'present' (contemporaneous) mean ing: w e h e m lö^ y a d e T u k l . . . and (all the time they were talk ing) they (Pr for p r e v e r b a l S ) don't know that... (Ge 4 2 2 3 ) .
Other examples: Ex 1 2 3 β · 3 β 19 1 8 .
(note gam), 1 3 j e , 1 4 2 9 a , l? 1 2 *,
5.1.3.5. Circumstantial clause with imperfect verb A general concomitant future state of affairs can be placed alongside a piece of predictive discourse by means of a cir cumstantial clause using VP. Example: wehä^abänlm tihyeynä '"al-s emöt bene-yiSrä1 el. . . , and
the
stones
will
match
the
n a m e s of
the
sons
of
Israel...
(Ex 2 8 2 1 ) . Other examples: Ex^4 1 2 (simple consequence could use we"1 ehye or wehäyltl: the we- +S +V sequence is distinctly circumstan tial), 4 1 5 ' (close of speech^ 5 e , 7 1 S (0 before V), De 251 (a general truth; sequential wehäyä would be less appropriate) . 5.2. 5.2.0.
Sentence
SENTENCE-LEVEL CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES versus
Paragraph
So far the circumstantial clauses have been described as structurally marginal to paragraphs, related in some way to paragraph-level WP (or WS) clauses, or to a paragraph as a whole. Circumstantial clauses can also be related to clauses or phrases which are not paragraph-level. 5.2.1.
Clauses
Circumstantial
to Time
Margins
A paragraph or episode often begins with a marginal time ref erence, realized as a prepositional phrase, or infinitival construction, or a clause. An additional circumstance may be attached to this head. (i) After a PpPh. Example: Ge 22 1 , which reads literally, after
these
events,
and
God
tested
Abraham,
and
he
said
to
him... Also Ge 41 1 , Ex 12 2 ®. (ii) After an IfPh. The classic example is Ge 2* 6 , where the initial time is followed by a list of accompanying circumstances in the six clauses of Ge 2 5 " 6 . The first event follows in Ge 2 7 . Ge l 1 " 2 has the same structure. Ge 1 is a circumstantial sentence comprised of three conjoined circumstantial clauses, the whole circumstantial to the open ing time (Ge l 1 ). The first event is reported in Ge l 3 . Another example: Ge 44 3 0 (two clauses). (iii) After a clause. Example: The time and circumstances of the flood are r e p o r t e d
in Ge 6 1 . When
mankind
began
to
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES
87
become numerous over the surface of the land, and daughters had been born to them, the sons of the gods saw... Cj :ki governs both clauses instead of coordinating *k.I-hehel...w?ki yullSdü... Other examples: Ge 1 5 1 2 > 1 7 , 19"> 2 3 , 2 7 3 0 , 29 s . 37 2 , 42 1 6 (in precative mood), 42 1 9 (precative) , 5021*, Ex 10 3 b (the morning and the wind came at the same time). 5.2.2. Circumstance of a Circumstance A circumstantial clause may be conjoined with another circumstantial clause. Another way of describing this is to say that a conjunctive sentence (see Chapter 8) may be used circumstantially if the lead clause is circumstantial. Example: vesäray ^ elet ^abräm lö^ yäleds lö w?läh siphä misrit üä'Smäh hägär, (i) and Sara y, Abram's wife, had borne him no children, (ii) and she had an Egyptian slave, (iii) and her name was Hagar (Ge 16 1 ). Here the third clause is circumstantial to the second and these two as a whole are circumstantial to the first which, along with them, is circumstantial (episodeinitial) to the ensuing narrative. Other examples: Ge l 2 (three conjunctive clauses circumstantial to the preceding) 2l,t'"6 (three circumstantial sentences of two clauses each, the whole circumstantial to creation), 1 8 l 0 b , 19 2 3 (three coincident circumstances of the over-throw of the cities--tAe sun rose. Lot reached Zoar, Yahweh rained fire. The three-clause complex is episode-initial.), 2 9 1 6 , 31 2 5 (Compare this coordination with the apposition used in Ge 131 2 .),6 345 , etc. It is possible that the clause in Ge 2 9 has three objects (three kinds of tree). It is more likely that Ge 29t> is a circumstantial clause, the subject being the coordination phrase 'es hahayyim...v?'es hadda'at tob wärä' realized discontinuously--with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil tbothl in the middle of the garden. These two specified trees are included in the kol- f es of 2 9 a , not additional, because Ge 3 ε says that the tree of knowledge was good for food. Ge 2 1 0 is equivocal. It could be"a new circumstantial clause inaugurating a new paragraph. But we are inclined to think that Ge 2 10 " Yl * is to be coordinated with Ge 2 9 b as a sentence circumstantial to 2 9 a . The trees and the rivers go together to make up the garden. (See above #5.1.1.) 5.3. PSEUDOCIRCUMSTANTIAL SEQUENTIAL CLAUSES A string of WP clauses in narrative prose stages events as occurring in a time sequence one after the other. It is implied that one is finished before the next begins, so it is possible to speak of the verbs as 'perfective* in aspect. So the successive generations are described in Ge 5 and in parts of Ge 10 and 11 by a series of clauses beginning wayyöled, and he engendered .
88
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
Such a time sequence is normally broken by a circumstantial clause, which represents an event as contemporaneous; at least it does not place it in sequence. It is therefore surprising and unaccountable that Ge 4 l e uses clauses of the kind v?-X yälad ^et-Y, even though a sequence of generations is being traced, and simultaneity is out of the question. These pseudocircumstantial clauses are restricted to the genealogies, and are commonly ascribed to the J source. Examples: Ge 4 1 β > * 6 , 2 2 2 3 , 253 . The genealogies also alternate 10 8,13,1S,2V,26 > wayglji x with νέ-Χ hay (ll 12 » 11 *) with no evident difference in discourse function. Apart from these examples confined to genealogical texts, this happens rarely. Ge 22 l b could be an example. Ge 44" is another. Here the first event in the new episode (and not a preliminary circumstance) is vgyösep ^Smar... instead of the expected wayyö^mer yösep. This is preceded by an elaborate time margin of four clauses. In Ge 38 2 5 the sequence hi1 müs e U wShi 1 äaiShä ^el-hämihä is a strange alternative to *w?hl1 müge^t vattislah... This is the more surprising in view of Ge 38's impeccable use of WP clauses. The Flood Story contains a possible example in Ge 7 6 --wehammabbül häyä instead of *way?hl hammabbül as the first event, rather than the circumstance of the deluge. Compare the similar but more celebrated probl em of Ge l 2 with v?hä^äres hay?ta rather than *wattehl hä^äre§, if this is the first event of creation. Ge 4 2 2 is chiastic, and authentically circumstantial. Note gam-hi1 (compare Ge 4"). In Ge 4 2 5 " 2 6 , 1 0 2 1 » 2 5 the passive is used in the circumstantial clause. 5.4. PSEUDOSEQUENTIAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES The converse of the phenomenon described in #5.3 is the use of paragraph-level WP (or WS) clauses which normally place events in sequence, to represent events which can hardly have occurred in sequence but which obviously are contemporaneous. This is an artistic option for a writer, but it strains the system. It seems to have been rarely used. Thus the gift of Zilpah to Leah as a slave took place at the time of her marriage, and we might have expected this event to be staged as circumstantial to the marriage. Instead it is presented by means of a WP clause (Ge 292lt) as if it took place after the marriage, or even during the bridal night. The same for Bilhah and Rachel in Ge 29 2 9 . 5.5. CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES AS ALTERNATIVES TO NONCIRCUMSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTIONS 5.5.0.
Introduction
In most languages there seems to be a close connection in the system of complex sentences between relationships of time and relationships of cause and effect. The same conjunctions and
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSES
89
prepositions are often used with analogical meanings in both systems. The same in Hebrew; ki has several meanings, including when and because. Circumstantial clauses typically function as time margins, so we- is often fittingly translated by a time conjunction such as when or while. Whenever the time connection between two clausal statements is paramount to a logical connection a circumstantial clause can be recognized as an alternative realization of a subordinate clause — conditional, concessive, causal, etc. A circumstantial clause can also function as an alternative realization of a relative clause nominalized by means of n * < When dealing with a dead language, the categorization of a particular construction in a given text as an alternative surface realization of a deep-structure relationship optimally realized by different formal means is a risky business. For lack of a living informant, the modern scholar may fall back on his own competence. This can suggest, but it cannot decide. Optimum realizations can be distinguished from alternative realizations by testing the constraints on the interchangeability of the contrastive formal features, especially such demarcative items as conjunctions. Such a test can be addressed to extant texts, but it is not enough to show that the alternative constructions 'exist 1 ; if we assume that all surviving texts were acceptable to the scribes at some stage of their transmission and that there were limits to the degree of gibberish they were prepared to copy, and refrain from correcting their work because it seems gibberish to us, it does not follow that all the evidence should be accepted uncritically as equally grammatical. The test of substitutability of conjunctions must be aided by deeper analysis of the semantic content before we can say that two constructions are 'the same.' Fortunately the abundant use of parallel texts supplies us with plenty of material amenable to such control. Even so, when dealing with literature which is the precipitate of hundreds of years of oral and scribal transmission, factors of dialect and historical change complicate the picture with other parameters. In the dynamics of language evolution, alternative realizations may move from the margins of grammaticality to the centre, and oust the former optimum realization from its prestige. So far as Hebrew is concerned, this history has yet to be written. 5.5.1.
Circumstantial
Form for Deep
Subordination
Jeremiah protested his disqualification from the prophetic office by saying, X cannot speak, for (ki = because) I am a youth (Je I s ) . Even here, in sequal to negation, ki could be adversative, but, on the contrary. Moses expressed a similar protest differently. The cause is stated as a fact, the effect as a question: hen ^ani f aral S5pätayim we^ek yisma f 1 elay par^ö, look, I (am) uncircumcised of lips, and (=so) how will Pharoah understand me? (Ex 6 3 0 ) . The question is rhetorical, and tantamount to a negative declaration. In Ex 6 1 2 , however, the question comes first and the cause is realized in the form
90
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
of a circumstantial clause: vS^ek yisme^enl par '"ö wa^äni raral lepätäyim, and (=but) how will Pharoah understand me and (=seeing that) I (am) uncircumcised of lips? Other examples of a question that is virtually a negation because of some vitiating factor supplied in the form of a circumstantial clause are Ge 15 2 , 18 12 >'3 >17 243 1 , 262 7 , Jdg 13 l e . After negation or prohibition: Ge 24 , De 9 2 9 . If the circumstances conditioning the question are hypothetical, the equivalent conjunction in the optimum subordinate clause would be H i if. Example: For how can I go up to my father
and
(=if) the boy is not with
us?
(Ge 44 31 *; question
1S
plus circumstance, compare Jdg 16 ); But we cannot see the man's
face
and
(if)
our
little
brother
is
not
with
(Ge 4 4 2 6 ;
us
negation plus circumstance). See also #13.7. A declarative statement of fact may be followed by a statement of the actual cause in the form of a circumstantial clause. Example: You are in mortal peril and (=because) she is a man's wife (Ge 2 0 3 ) ; And you could not realize side them, and (=because) their appearance at first (Ge 4 1 2 1 ) .
that they had was just as
gone inbad as
Another function of the conjunction kl is to subordinate a concessive clause.7 A circumstantial clause can realize the same relationship. Example: Behold, I have presumed to speak to Yahweh, and (=even though) I am dirt and dust (Ge 1 8 2 7 ) ; And Israel stretched out his right hand and put it on Ephraim's head and (even though) he was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head (he crossed his arms) although (ίϊ) Man11 asseh was the firstborn (Ge 48 *). 5.5.2.
Circumstantial
Form
for
a Relative
Clause.
In #2.6.5 it was shown that a clause circumstantial in form could be used to supply the name of a person as an alternative realization of an apposition relationship whose optimum realization is a relative clause. The same thing can be done with other material. In introducing a new character, it is common to supply his address along with his name. Example: A man of the
hill
country
of
Ephraim
(Jdg 1 7 1 ) ;
a man
from
Bethlehem
(Ru I 1 )· In Ge 3 6 3 2 f · the birth (or capital?) cities of the Edomite kings are introduced in this way: Bela ben-Beor (and) the name of whose city was Dinhaba. Ge 44 20 has three conjoined circumstantial clauses equivalent to relative clauses: We have an aged father and a young 'old-age' boy (whose) brother is dead and he (who) is the only child of his mother and his (whose) father loves
and his surviving him. Deep
relationships concealed in alternative surface realizations have not always been recognized by translators. NOTES 1
brew3
S. R . D r i v e r , A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses ( O x f o r d , 1 8 9 2 ) : A p p e n d i x I (pp. 1 9 5 - 2 1 1 ) . See
in Healso
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CLAUSES
91
Τ. J. Meek, "The Coordinate Adverbial Clause in Hebrew",
Jour-
nal
of the American Oriental Society 1»9 ( 1 9 2 9 ) : p p . 1 5 6 - 1 5 9 . 2 A c c o r d i n g t o W . H . B e n n e t t (.Hebraica 5 C1888-18893 : p.203). t h e n a r r a t i v e p o r t i o n s of t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , w h i c h h e d o e s not l i s t , u s e t h e v e r b s as f o l l o w s :
VS WP
Clearly past 7,>*20 13,11*9
Not clearly past 1+2 It
WS VP
Clearly future -3,362 6 ,U35
Not clearly 272 253
future
3
On w?lö^ clauses as antithetical see Chapter lU.
11
F.
I. A n d e r s e n ,
The
Hebrew
Verbless
Clause...,
pp.
69-76.
5
Driver, Tenses..., §16. 6 When the constituent clauses of a conjunctive sentence are distributive, apposition rather than coordination may serve for circumstantial linkage according to Driver on Ge 12 e (Tenses...: p. U9). We call this exposition., (see p. k9 above). 7 Th. C. Vriezen, "Einige Notizen zur Ubersetzung des Bundeswortes
KI",
von
Vgarit
nach
Qumran,
Beihefte
zur
Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1958) CEissfeldt Festschrift]; pp. 266-273; James Muilenburg» "The Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of the Particle in the Old Testament", Hebrew
Union
College
Annual
XXXII
(1961):
pp.
135-160.
6
ADJUNCTIVE CLAUSES
6.0. STRUCTURE A well-formed adjunctive clause has a distinctive-contrastive internal structure which correlates extensively with the realization of a deep-structure coordination that is more tangential to the main stream of discourse than circumstantial coordination. There is always explicit coordination by means of we-, and, rarely gam or wegam. A marked break in the flow of discourse is achieved by fresh topicalization (casus pendens)1 whose opening sequence of we- +S resembles a salient pattern in circumstantial clauses. Because of this structural similarity, adjunctive clauses have not hitherto been recognized as a category distinct from other kinds of coordination; they have generally been classified as 'circumstantial1. But adjunctive clauses differ from circumstantial clauses, as described in this monograph, by the obligatory use of an explicit resumptive pronoun. While the suspended topic is commonly resumed by the grammatical subject, it may correspond to some other clause-level tagmeme, such as object. Casus pendens with subsequent pronominal resumption can also be used to announce a fresh topic, especially at the beginning of a speech. Examples: Ge 28 l3t> , 34 s , Le 7 3 3 , Jos 9 , 2Ki l*. There is no coordinating conjunction, so we do not regard such clauses as adjunctive. 6.1. FUNCTION The information supplied in an adjunctive clause is generally less germane to the main discourse than the information typically supplied in a circumstantial clause. It resembles the kind of material which in English would be introduced by means of By the way,... It is tangential rather than marginal, and because of this loose attachment it is not used as an alternative realization of subordinate relationships, the way circumstantial clauses can be (#5.5). Adjunctive clauses can, however, function circumstantially (#6.2).
ADJUNCTIVE
CLAUSES
93
Example: vehäm hü^ ^abl kenä^an, and (as for) Ham -- he is the father
of Canaan
(Ge 9 1 8 ) .
This clause sits loosely in the passage, which would flow on quite smoothly without it. Other examples: Ge 17 1 *, 21 13 (The adjunctive clause avoids giving Ishmael the same rank as Isaac, in spite of gam, which does link the two sons together [Chapter 12]), 261 , 28 2 2 b (makes tithing incidental), 42* (The story returns to the main thread after this as ide.), 431 , 47 1 (This is an impressive example; it has nothing to do with the rest of the story.), Ex 16 3 ®, 321 6 , 3 9 s . D e 2 2 3 (The note on the fAvwim is subsidiary.), 14 2 7 (The rule about the Levite is an afterthought.)
6.2. ADJUNCTIVE CLAUSES USED CIRCUMSTANTIALLY An adjunctive clause deviates momentarily down a little side-track, to make a remark about somebody who does not figure anywhere else in the story, like Nahor's concubine Reumah (Ge 2221*), or to say something about a character that does not contribute to the plot, like the scrap of demographical information in Ge 47 2 1 . The judgment as to whether a piece of information is relevant or not is obviously a subjective one, so that the line between an adjunctive and a circumstantial relationship to the context is not always easy to draw. Some clauses, adjunctive in form, bring in information that does contribute to the development of the plot, and may be described as alternative realizations of circumstantial clauses. Thus Jd 17s is an adjunctive clause that marks a new beginning (#5.1.1). The adjunctive clauses in Ge 21 **^, 1915 , and 31"3 have a climactic effect (#5.1.2). Ge 15 i b is simply circumstantial. 6.3. OTHER FORMS 15
In De 2 vegan introduces an extra comment without having its usual inclusive function (Chapter 12). NOTES 1 In his treatment of casus pendens (Tenses..., Appendix V), Driver found the explanation of this kind of construction largely in aesthetic considerations. Doubtless the lyrical effect provided an additional motivation for its u s e , but the g r a m m a t i c a l factor of topicalization is primary.
7
SURPRISE CLAUSES
7.0. FORM An unexpected turn of events can be marked in Hebrew by adding to a clause the deictic-exclamatory hinne, traditionally translated lo or beholdi Its quasi-imperative attention-rousing function is supported in Hebrew, not by etymology, but by limited interchangeability with VI:re^ 5 , look', and other such hortatory verbs. Its usual LXX translation χδοΰ is a verb with similar usage. The morphology of hinne is intriguing. It can be inflected with personal pronoun suffixes which realize the subject of the clause, not the object of hinne unless one insists on the imperative verbal meaning of the latter. But clauses with hinne are declarative. Hinne predicates present and local existence. Hinneni means I'm here! rather than Look at met Furthermore, the subject of hinne as predicator can be a free-form pronoun or noun, and in either case a concordant subject pronoun suffix is optional, not obligatory as with finite verbs. In some of its occurrences hinne is complemented by a predicative participle, adjective, adverb, or prepositional phrase, even VS (VP once), and for this reason is often called an 'adverb'. But there is no agreed nomenclature among Hebraists, and many are content to call it vaguely a 'particle'. 7.1. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVE The difference between a clause like Ge 18 e b -- vehü 1 ^ömed ^alehem, and he is standing beside them -- and Ge 24 3 0 -- vehinne ^ömed ^al-haggemalllm^ and behold he is standing beside the camels — is that the latter is seen through Laban's eyes. This component, that something comes into the view of one of the participants, is prominent in the commonest idiom in which a vehinne clause is used--wayyar^ vehinne..., and he looked, and behold... It is this feature of the unexpected that we describe as 'surprise' in such clauses.
SURPRISE
CLAUSES
95
Examples: Ge l " 6 1 2 . 8 1 3 . 1 8 2 , 19 2 8 , 2 2 1 3 , 24 6 3 , 2 6 e , 29 2 , 31 2 » , 33 l . 37 , 40 , 4 2 * \ Ex 2 e , 3 2 , 1 4 , 0 t , 32* , 34 3 0 , 39 ^ 3, De 9 1 3 > ' 6 , etc. In Ge 31 2 the h i s t o r i a n reports: wayyar 1 y a r ä q ö b "'et-pgne läbän w S h i n n e ^ e n e n n ü ^immS kitmöl δΐΐδδπι, as if Jacob h a d made a d i s c o v e r y . In reporting to his w i v e s , J a c o b says: r5^e ^änSkl ^et-p5ne ^äbiken k i - ^ e n e n n ü ^ elay kitmöl sil55m (Ge 3 1 s ) , w h i c h is more m a t t e r of fact. A w ? h i n n e clause c a n be u s e d to report a surprise development after other verbs b e s i d e s rä^ä, especially verbs of motion. Examples: Ge 8 1 1 . 2 4 1 5 , 3 0 , ^ 5 . 2 5 2 \ 3 7 1 5 , 2 9 , 4 2 3 5 , 47 1 , 4 8 1 1 , Ex 2 , 4 6 > 7 , ΐ 6 ι β , etc.
4321,
7.2. D R E A M REPORTS The i m p l i c a t i o n of visual e x p e r i e n c e comes to the fore in the d e s c r i p t i o n of d r e a m s . A n element of the m a r v e l l o u s is also p r e s e n t , of course. The n a r r a t i v e ingredient is not well d e v e l o p e d in the dreams r e p o r t e d in Genesis. There is usually only one event clause; all the other i n f o r m a t i o n is supplied by means of w e h i n n e c l a u s e s , w h i c h may accumulate into quite a string. O t h e r w i s e they occur one at a time. So J a c o b ' s d r e a m begins w i t h three w S h i n n e c l a u s e s , w i t h God's s p e e c h as the d r e a m event (Ge 2 8 1 2 " 1 5 ) . Each clause has the structure w e h i n n e +S:N +P:PtPh. The d r e a m in Ge 3 1 1 0 begins in the same way. The dreams in the J o s e p h story are p a r t i c u l a r l y impressive in this regard. The d r e a m of the sheaves has three w S h i n n e c l a u s e s f o l l o w e d by the event clause (Ge 3 7 6 " 7 ) . The speech even b e g i n s w i t h w e h i n n e . T h e third clause is the only instance in the entire Bible of hinne followed by a n imperfect verb. The d r e a m report in Ge 37 9 consists of one hinne clause a n d one w ? h i n n e clause. Compare the single w ? h i n n e clause in the v i s i o n of Ge IS1*. The b u t l e r ' s d r e a m consists of one w ? h i n n e clause followed by a string of four c i r c u m s t a n t i a l clauses w h i c h set the scene. This is followed by three event clauses. Then I picked And I squeezed And I put the
the grapes. them into Pharoah's cup, cup on Pharoah's palm.
In contrast to this the b a k e r ' s d r e a m consists of c i r c u m s t a n c e s only -- one w ? h i n n e clause plus two c i r c u m s t a n t i a l clauses. There is no event. In Pharoah's first d r e a m (the cows) there are three w ? h i n n e clauses (with p a r t i c i p l e s ) . The only event is the skinny cows eating the fat ones (41*"*). The s e c o n d d r e a m (the wheat) consists of two w g h i n n e +S:N +P:PtPh clauses plus the event clause in w h i c h the s h r i v e l l e d w h e a t devours the p l u m p wheat ( 4 1 5 - 7 ) . Pharoah's reports repeat the p a t t e r n s , except that the first is e m b e l l i s h e d w i t h some comments of his own (Ge 4 1 1 7 " 2 " ) . The abundant use of w S h i n n e clauses is thus a feature of d r e a m reports in classical H e b r e w .
96
SURPRISE
CLAUSES
7.3. O T H E R U S E S T h e r e are other uses of v e h i n n e clauses in w h i c h the f e a t u r e of a n u n e x p e c t e d v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e is not p r o m i n e n t or m a y b e q u i t e absent. A n e w episode o f t e n begins w i t h v a y e h l + M a r ginal T i m e + W P C 1 for the first event. In a few instances a time m a r g i n is f o l l o w e d by a v e h i n n e c l a u s e , w h i c h looks like the first event c l a u s e , a n d n o t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . Examples: Ge 1 5 ' 2 > 1 7 , 29 2 5 , 3 8 2 7 ' 2 9 . A v e h i n n e c l a u s e c a n also p r e d i c t a n impending event (Ge 6 1 3 , c o m p a r e Ge 6 1 7 " 1 9 ) . 7.4. O T H E R FORMS S u p p l e m e n t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be s u p p l i e d by a c l a u s e b e g i n ning gam hinne (Ge 3 2 3 1 ) or v e g a m hinne (Ge 38 21 *). T h e latter seems to express a s t o n i s h m e n t at s o m e t h i n g q u i t e s e n s a t i o n a l . f But gam hinne abdekä ya r äqöfc ^ a h a r e n ü in Ge 3 2 2 1 is m e r e l y a v a r i a n t of v e h i n n e gam-hiP ^ a h a r e n ü (Ge 3 2 l s ) .
8
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
8.0. THE FORM OF A CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCE 8.0.0. Optimum
Realization
A conjunctive sentence comes nearest to the ideal coordination construction defined in the grammars. At the same time, it is the least specialized of all the coordination constructions. It is unmarked for sequence, contrast, or antithesis and, while not specially marked for simultaneity or similarity, it is compatible with these relationships and generally implies them. It does not, however, highlight similarity or simultaniety. Furthermore, as the most neutral coordination construction, a conjunctive sentence can be used as an alternative but insipid realization of most of the deep coordination relationships (#4.6; see also p. 189). In a typical conjunctive sentence two clauses are joined by we- and, and each constituent clause has (or could have) the same grammatical function as the conjunctive sentence as a whole. The 'sameness' of the two conjoined clauses is functional, not necessarily semantic, although it may be semantic also. The lead clause and the conjunctive clause usually have the same kind of predication and, if the predicators are verbs, they usually have the same tense-aspect and mood and often the same subject. Furthermore, the two conjoined clauses often have other clause-level tagmemes besides subject and predicator in common, and the common tagmemes are realized in the same sequence in both clauses. The result is a kind of grammatical rhyme. We do not wish to insist on this high level of formal congruence as necessary for well-formedness in a conjunctive sentence, for the majority of conjunctive sentences fall short of this ideal. Similarity of external function, rather than similarity of internal content or structure, unites them. But obviously two clauses must be compatible in order to have similarity of external function. Hence it is unlikely to meet a change of tense-aspect, mood, or subject person in the clearer instancesof conjunctive sentence.
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
98
As already stated in #4.3.1, a conjunctive sentence typically links together two similar actions performed by one and the same participant, generally realized as subject of both clauses. It implies that the actions are contemporaneous (occurring in the same general time), if not actually simultaneous; at least, it does not represent the actions as occurring in sequence. Similar actions by two participants can also be conjoined, but such a relationship is more likely to be handled by some other form of coordination. 8.0.1.
Double-Duty
Items
A common subject of two successive clauses is seldom repeated on sentence level. It does 'double-duty' 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. Example:
and
nilbenä veniSrepä V:let V:let
lebenlm liSrepä
us brick us burn
Itheml
0: bricks 0C:to-burnt
(Ge
ll3)
The first clause supplies the object, the second the object complement. Each conjoined clause can be grammatically complete if the double-duty items are marginal modifiers. Example:
kö
tö^mar tagged
Thus
you you
weand
will will
15bet ya^aqob libne yiärä^el say report
to to
the the
house of Jacob sons of Israel
(Ex
193)
kö belongs in both clauses, not just the first. Its function can be described as modifying the conjunctive sentence as a whole. 8.0.2.
Multiple
Coordination
Unlike antithetical, chiastic, contrastive, alternative, exclusive, and inclusive sentences, all of which are strictly binary in form, conjunctive sentences are recursive. There is no theoretical limit to the number of clauses that may be coordinated. With the fondness of Hebrew for 'and' it is common to have A and Β and C and D and.·. Sometimes, however, for three, A, B, and C is used; and, for four, A and B, C and D, especially if both A and B, C and D are natural pairs. These patterns are met in phrases and sentences.
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
99
Examples: Three clauses, A, B, and C, Ge 6 ll, b-i6 (features of the ark: stories, windows, and doors [#3.7.3]), 6 l i b (d lmensions: length, breadth, and height), 4 9 3 1 , Ex 1 2 1 1 . Four clauses, A and B, C and D, Ge 9 7 (both pairs hendiadys). In Ge 2 7 a e " 2 9 eight clauses are grouped in four conjoined pairs.
8.1. DECLARATIVE CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES 8.1.0.
Introduction
These are used to make statements of two (or more) related and contemporary facts which are not contrastive nor antithetical. The facts may be past (using 'perfect' verbs--VS), future (using 'imperfect* verbs--VP), or timeless (using quasiverbals--QV--or verbless [VL] predication) . 8.1.1. Reports
of Accomplished
Fact using
'Perfect'
äfäm säm 1δ höq. ümispat wesäm nissähü, There he set a rule and a custom and there he tested him (Ex I S 2 5 )
Verbs
Examples:
lehem ümayim bread and water Another Example: 8.1.2. Conjoined
lo"1 ^ äkal lö^ äfätä, he did not eat he did not drink
for him
(Ex 3 4 2 8 )
Ge 3 1 3 8 . Predictive
Clauses
Clauses referring to concomitant or parallel future events by means of VP are likely to be conjoined. Since VP clauses rarely begin with the verb, conjunctive sentences with VP often resemble contrastive sentences (Chapter 11) , and whether such a sentence is antithetical or not is determined more by semantic content alone, more in this case than others. Example
f
al-gehönekä telek wS'äpär tö^kal Upon your belly you will walk, and dust you will eat (Ge 3 1 )
The clauses have a similar pattern of a clause-level tagmeme before VP, although it is Location in the first, Object in the second. The marginal time: kol-ySme hayyeykä, all the days of your life, modifies this conjunctive'sentence as a whole. Other Examples: Ge 3 l 7 b B - i « a (again köl ySme hayyeykä [in hinge position] goes with both clauses), 9 s (same verb repeated), 1 6 Y 2 , 2 2 1 7 (the conjunctive sentence is subordinated with kl), 27"
100
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
34® (correlative actions), 34 2 1 (chiastic in 34 1 S ), 3 5 1 2 (conjunctive sentence is nuclear after suspended topic), 411*0 (same thing from two different points of view), 42 2 (=43 , conjunction of a negated antonym), 42 3lf , 46lt (same S:Pr twice), 4 8 1 9 , Ex 9 2 9 b , 21 2 '32 , 23® (The common subject does double duty and ki governs the conjunctive sentence. The VP's express a timeless truth.), 23 1 1 ' 1 2 , 34 1 3 (three clauses), 35" , De 2 2 β , 6 1 3 (three clauses), 7 5 (four clauses), 9 3 (S:Pr), 10 i o (four clauses , effectively precative). Ge 27 3 7 has three conjoined clauses, each with an item (not subject) before VS. The three conjunctive clauses in Ge 4 5 2 2 each has an indirect object before VS, resembling a contrastive sentence (Chapter 11). 8.1.3. Conjoined
Verbless ' Clauses
Concomitant present or timeless facts can be expressed in verbless clauses and conjoined. Example:
Yhwh hassaddiq wa^ani we^ammi häres ä ''im, The one in the right is Yahweh and the ones in the wrong are I and my people
(Ex 9 2 7 )
The sequence is PS in each clause. 1 Example:
habbänöt benötay w?habbänlm bänay w?ha§?ö^n weköl ^aser-^attä rö^e li-hü 1 The daughters are my daughters and the sons are my sons and the flock is my flock and all that you see--it's mine (Ge 311*3)
The final summary is an alternative realization in coordination of a construction usually in apposition (#3.7.4), but the clause has the form of an adjunctive clause (Chapter 6). Compare Ge 211*. The sequence SP is sustained throughout, which is abnormal for classifying clauses of this kind. The whole four-clause construction must be seen as having the structure +SSus:N... +P.. . +SRes: Pr. In other words, hü"1 acts as resumptive subject for all four suspended subjects, thus securing the normal PS sequence. Ge 41 2 6 and 2 7 are conjunctive sentences with SRes:Pr explicit in BOTH clauses. In Ge 3 6 the three verbless clauses which describe the virtues of the tree of knowledge are similar in grammatical structure, at least in PS sequence. kl ^ob hä f es lSma"1 äkäl w?kl ta^avä- hü^ le f enayim we- nehmäd hä^es l?haskil
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
101
The third clause is strange because it lacks kl and because S:N:hä r es is used after the progression S:N:hä f es, SiPrihü 1 . But it süould not be discarded for these reasons! Because, on the other hand, both patterns for coordinating ki clauses are found, either coordinating two clauses each with ki, or governing a single conjunctive sentence of two clauses with a common kl (see Ge 6 5 , 11®, 22 1 2 " 1 3 > 1 6 > 1 7 , 39 3 ). In the light of Ge 1 8 2 0 and other passages, however, it is possible that here ki is not a conjunction, but the elative--she saw how utterly good the tree was, etc. In 2 s the res is both nehmäd and tob, and the idea that it was pleasant to look at is also found. Furthermore, the idea of wisdom is important in the story. We have dwelt on this problem at length in order to make the point that conjunctive sentences are the most general kind of coordination and that clauses of differing patterns may be involved. Ge 423 8 , Ex 9 3 1 , 1 6 3 1 , De 1 0 2 1 .
Other examples:
But in Ge 2 7 2 2 a similar sentence, conjunctive in form, is antithetical in meaning. β.1.4.
Reports
Example:
Present
Facts
using
Quasiverbal
Clauses
yösep ^enennü w??im^ön ^enennü,
and 8.1.5.
of
Joseph Simon
is no wore is no more
Circumstantial
(Ge 4 2 3 6 )
Conjunctive
Sentences
The function of such sentences in discourse has already been discussed in #5.2.1. Since such successive circumstantial clauses have the same function in discourse, they constitute a conjunctive sentence. It remains to make a few remarks about their internal structure. The two conjoined circumstantial clauses in Ge 2 5 are closely parallel in grammatical structure. The three circumstantial clauses conjoined in Ge l 2 have different subjects and different kinds of predication--VS, VL, and Pt. But each has sequence SP. Other examples of circumstantial conjunctive sentences are Ge 7 6 , 9 2 3 , 17 2 "· 2 5 , 241 (in the parallel Ge 243 5 the slave artfully emphasizes the fact that Abraham was rich rather than old). 8.1.6.
Conjoined
Clauses
in
Poetry
Apart from the distributive coordination of identical clauses (#8.2) the closest similarity in conjunctive clauses is met in poetry and poetic discourse. A bicolon often consists of two similar lines (one clause each) joined by AND, not in apposition as in #3.3.
CONJUNCTIVE
102 Example: ze-saml veze zikri This this
and
SENTENCES
leCöläm led3r dör
is my is my
name title
for for
ever eternity
Example^za.faqat ^äqat se sedSm wa^ämörä wehattä ^ täm i^at^a^täm The outcry of their crime
and
Sodom
and
31S)
(Ex
kl-ra'b'bä ki käbedä me^öd Gomorra
[is] [is]
very very
great grave
indeed
(Ge 182 Such parallel clauses may be noncontiguous. Example: |anl üseml and
yhwh.. yhwh..
I (am) my name
(is)
Yahweh Yahweh
(Ex 6 2
)
Recognition of this parallelism solves an old problem. Misled by the apparent Neg lö1 and the sequence ">51 sadday, interpreters translated and by my name
(of) Yahweh
I did
not make
my-
history of the word All forced. The Ariadne thread of discourse grammar can lead us through the rhetorical maze. This tradition is rich with names of God —Yahweh, its rare variant ^Ehyeh, El Shadday, the God of our ancestors, etc. The emphasis is on what God has done, not a historical note about what he did not do. The parallelism with 1 Snl yhwh shows that semi yhwh is a conjunctive clause of identical structure, and not an apposition phrase--my name Yahweh. In the following speech (6 6 ~ e ) the repeated "'änl yhwh makes an inclusio. There is similar parallelism between the interlacing clauses . self
I
known
showed
I made
to them, and made inferences about the Yahweh, about sources, and other things.
myself myself
to Abraham, known
to
Israel
and
Jacob
them.
This compels recognition of l"1 as assertative. There is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a new name revealed first to Moses. On the contrary, the success of his mission depended on the use of the familiar name for validation by the Israelites. Moses interrogated the Revealer precisely to convince himself that it really was the god of the ancestors who had called him. Pharoah, of course, had never heard of Yahweh (Ex 5 2 ), but the secret name was certainly known to the Israelites and to God himself. It should be added that be- is essentiae, not instrumental, and there is no warrant for supplying it to the following semi.3 8.1.7.
Dissimilar
Clauses
Conjoined
So far we have emphasized the similarity of conjoined clauses, especially in the matter of tense, and even in the kind of
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
103 1
predication. This is not always the case. In Ex 10 * a past fact and a future prediction are joined. lepänäyw viPahäräyv Before after
and
lö^ häyä ken ^arbe kämöhü lo1 yihye-ken,
them there had them there will
not not
been so be so.
locusts
like
them
In Ge 241,1 the two conjoined clauses both have the same pronoun before the verb, but the tenses are different. 8.1.8.
Successive
Events
in
Conjoined
Clauses
Events reported in a conjunctive sentence are usually contemporaneous. Some of the pseudocircumstantial sequence clauses discussed in #5.3 come in coordinated chains, giving a cluster of clauses in which a succession of events is represented as concomitant. Thus in Ge l l 2 7 the use of vehärän hölld ^etlot represents the birth of Haran and the birth of his son Lot as'concomitant, telescoping two generations into one moment of narrative. In Ge 14 11 " 5 a series of dates is given in this way. 12 sänä ^äbedü... we 13 sänä märädü übe-14 sänä bä^... The whole is in epic parallelism with ^äsü milhämä in Ge 14 2 (p. 41). Two dates are similarly conjoined in Ge 8 1 3 . be-601 sänä bärlsön... übahödes hassen!... and
In in
the the
601st second
härebü hammayim... yäbesä hä^äres
year... the month...the
waters earth
dried dried
up up.
Some narrative WP clauses intervene. Each conjoined clause has the same grammatical structure. The time sequence is indicated semantically by the preverbal time references, not by the kind of verb. The series of cohortative (or imperfect) verbs in De 9 1 " record sequential acts. 8.2. DISTRIBUTIVE COORDINATION Distributive constructions in Hebrew generally involve repetition. Identical constructions can be coordinated, instead of being placed in apposition like a list. Example: mizze ^ehäd ümizze ^ehäd one
on
each
side
(Ex
1712)
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
ιοί*
Example: hämi5?im lülä^öt ta^äSe bayeri f ä hä^ehät wehämi^äTm lülä'öt ta^äSe biqse hayerl^ä... (Ex 26 s , fulfillment described identically in 36 1 2 ). Example:
yäd5 bakköl wSyad köl bö, His hand against everybody's hand
and
everybody against him.
(Ge
1612)
Here the chiasmus of -ö and köl overlays the grammatical congruence of the two clauses. The conjoining of two coordinate subjects list-wise is also accompanied by chiasmus in Ge 23 1 1 . hassäde wehanme 'ärä ^ aser b5 and
the the
field cave which
is
in
nätatti läk lekä netattlhä it
I have to you
sold to you I have sold
it.
Note the chiasmus of verb and indirect object. 8.3. CONJOINED PRECATIVE CLAUSES 8.3.0.
The
Variety
of
Combinations
The coordination of precative clauses requires special treatment for two reasons. First, a variety of clause types may be strung together in precative discourse, which may consequently become so heterogeneous in character that it might not be appropriate to talk about sentences at all. Secondly, a speaker has a variety of options in generating a precative text. A piece of discourse is marked as precative by the use of one or other of the distinctively precative verb forms--IMPERATIVE (VI), exclusively second person, JUSSIVE(VJ), mainly third person, and COHORTATIVE (VC), chiefly first person. If the first clause in a piece of discourse is precative, it may be continued in three ways. (i) by coordinating another clause that is formally precative; (ii) by coordinating a clause which uses VP and so is formally future indicative; (iii) by means of a WS clause, future sequential. +{VI,VJ,VC} {VI,VJ,VC}<^-
• vS- +VP
The top combination is homogeneously precative without equivocation, and the simple coordination of similar clauses implies contemporaneous actions. The bottom combination can also be homogeneously precative, especially if there is no change of person. (See the discussion already given in #4.5). The actions are staged in sequence; it is implied that a series of
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
105
commands are to be executed one after the other. The middle construction is neutral in both respects, but the ambiguity can be resolved in several ways. The use of a VP clause circumstantially (#5.1.3.5) or chiastically (Chapter 9) secures simultaneity; the use of temporal adverbs or other semantic signals can bring out succession in time. An illustrat ion is afforded by the fiats of Ge 1. The atmosphere is created by means of two conjoined VJ clauses in synonymous parallelism. The events are identical. yehi raqr1" wlhi mabdil and
let-be let-be
b?tök hammäyim ben-mayim lämäyim,
an expanse a division
in the between
middle water
of the waters and water (Ge
Is)
The separation of water and land is the result of two conjoined VJ clauses with different subjects. yiqqäwü weterä^e and
let let
hammayim... "'el-mäqSm ^ehäd. hayyabbäsä,
be gathered appear
the the
w a t e r s to dry land
one (Ge
place l9)
The events are concomitant. The relationships between the two events could have been brought about in other ways. As contemporaneous: yiqqäwü hammayim... *wehayyabbäsä terä^e, and
Cat
the
same
time3
the
dry
land
will
appear.
As sequential: yiqqäwü hammayim... *w?nir^ätä hayyabbäsä, and Lsubsequentlyl
the
dry
land
will
appear.
As cause and effect, the effect forecast as the purpose of the first action: yiqqäwü hammayim... *lema^an terä^e hayyabbäsä, so
that
the
dry
land
may
appear.
If it could be agreed that all four of these constructions have the same deep structure (and this is a matter for continued heated debate in linguistics, especially in the transformational-generative tradition), then the choice of one or other of them is purely a matter of staging. The creatures of air and water are made on the fifth day by means of two commands coordinated in chiasmus (Chapter 9). yiSresü hammayim ieres . . . we^öp yS^öpep ^al-hä^äres. . . and
let-swarm CinD flyers let-fly
the water over the
swarmers... earth (Ge l 2 0 )
While y§^öpep is formally ambiguous (it could be VP) its precative role is proved by yireb in Ge l 2 2 . Note that the require ments of chiasmus override the rule that a precative verb must be clause-initial. In Gen l 2 0 the events are distinct but concomitant. There is no connection of cause and result between
106
CONJUNCTIVE
SENTENCES
them. They could have been placed in temporal sequence, but this would have increased the tally of creative acts. They are staged, not only as coincident in time but, by chiasmus, as two sides of one event. The heavenly bodies are created on the fourth day by means of an utterance consisting of a VJ clause followed by two WS clauses. yehi wehäyü wShäyü
m?^ öröt . . . le^ötöt... lim"1 öröt...
let-be and-they-will-be and-they-wi11-be
lamps... (for) signs... (for) lamps (Ge
11""15)
It is likely that the precative mood carries over into the WS clauses--and-let-them-be signs. It is also possible that the subsequent clauses are predictive and merely matter of fact. Again it is possible that the consequence of an action is its purpose--Jet
there
be
lamps...so
that
they
may
be
signs...
In any case, the author has committed himself to staging these two aspects in a time sequence. If he had imitated l 6 , *w?yihyü ^ötöt, this would make signs simply a synomym of lamps. If he had imitated l 2 0 , this would have implied the simultaneous creation of two quite distinct things--lamps and signs .
It is clearly inadequate to talk about these alternative constructions as mere stylistic variants. The options available in precative discourse represent a delicate apparatus the capability of which needs to be kept in mind when interpreting sentences. Ge l 2 0 is committed to simultaneity; Ge i l l , ~ l s is committed to sequence; Ge 1 6 and l 9 are neutral in both respects. Exceptions, of course, are sometimes met. VP continuation may be used atypically for an action which obviously must follow the one just mentioned, and WS continuation can be used atypically for an action which is obviously not subsequent to the one just mentioned. Semantics settles such cases and grammar is neutralized. Then it is more appropriate to talk about 'style. ' These constructions are complicated by the fact that many verb forms are ambiguous as to mood, yiqtöl may be VJ or VP, nibne may be VC or VP. Since a precative verb usually comes first in its clause, it is assumed in the present study that an ambiguous prefixed verb is VJ or VC if it is clause-initial, but VP if it is not clause-initial. A precative conjoined sentence usually has two verb-initial clauses joined by we- and. In its present form, the verbs in a precative conjoined sentence are both of the same kind, for example, VI... weVI..., with common subj ect. But even when this difficulty can be surmounted, and prefixed verbs can be disambiguated as VP or VJ or VC, an
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
107
additional ambiguity remains when VP or WS clauses are used to continue a speech which began in the precative mood. The precative mood, established at the onset by the use of unambiguous VI, VJ, or VC in the opening clauses, may be sustained in what follows, even when the speaker switches to VP or WS clauses. But then the change to these other verb forms might mark a change to indicative mood. If the speech is not marked as precative in its opening stages by the use of one or other precative verb or clause, then there is no problem. Discourse consisting solely of VP or WS clauses is simply predictive, although the remote possibility is always present that such discourse is intended to be precative. But when VP or WS clauses follow precative clauses in continuous discourse, they could be either commands or predictions. The same time relationships of coincidence or sequence obtain whether the mood changes or not; a prediction may be staged as concomitant or as consequent to the action commanded in the lead precative clause. We do not believe that Hebrew changes horses in midstream to the extent of switching from precative to indicative mood in the transition from clause to clause within a single sentence, although in the nature of the case this is hardly capable of proof. Such a change of mood, even if it occurs after a single clause, we relegate to a much higher level of the hierarchy, and describe the utterance as a heterogeneous concatenation of discourses of diverse types. A systematic investigation of the formal signals of inter-discourse transition on that level is greatly needed, but cannot be made part of the present study. Meanwhile we must accept the fact that there is an area of formal similarity between the two kinds of transition. There is an additional complication. For reasons which have never been explained, some verbs which do differentiate VJ (short) from VP (normal) still use the VP form sporadically with evident jussive meaning. Thus tirade in Ge I s , which we considered precative (let it appeari) because it is clauseinitial and because of the parallelism, is actually VP in form (it will appear). Similarly some verbs which can differentiate VC (long) from VP (normal) still use VP precatively on occasion. How very near precative and indicative utterances are to each other is illustrated by the free fluctuation of ^al +VJ and lö 1 +VP in the realization of peremptory prohibitions, with no apparent difference in intention or meaning.'1 8.3.1.
Conjoined
Verbless
Precative
Clauses
Concomitant blessings or curses may be coordinated in a conjoined sentence. Example: bärük ^abräm... ubärük ^el ^elyön... Blessed (be) Abram... and blessed (be) El Elyon...
(Ge 1 4 1 9 " 2 0 )
108
CONJUNCTIVE
SENTENCES
Other examples: Ge 2 7 2 9 ^ (The different sequence suggests a statement of fact [Ind], but the entire speech is precative), 52 31 (assuming it means, Let this cairn be a witness...). 8.3.2.
Conjoined
Imperative
Clauses
See #3.1.0.1 for the use of apposition as an alternative realization of sentences of this kind. It is quite common to coordinate a string of commands issued by means of VI clauses. Two clauses example: hithallek 15pänay wehye tämlm, walk before me and be perfect (Ge 17 1 ). Compare Ex 2 4 1 2 . Essentially the same construction occurs in Ge 1 2 1 " 2 : lek-lekä...wehye fceräkä, you go...and be a blessing. Here, however, the sentence is discontinuous, due to the insertion of a three-clause promise. This accounts for the much discussed VI in the middle of a string of VP clauses. The MT is by all means to be retained. The same trick is played in Ge 2 0 7 , where the conjunctive sentence: häseb ^ estet-hä"1 is .. .wehye , return the man's wife ...and live', has two clauses inserted in it. There is a similar discontinuous coordination of two VI clauses in Ex 3 1 "-lekä...wehöge^..., go...and bring out... This is confirmed by the response: ml ^änökl ^elek...weki ^δςϊ^..., who am I that I should go...and that I should bring out...? (Ex 3 1 1 ) . Other examples: Ge 13 llf , 15 s , 16® (actually in succession in time), 24 3 (two parts of one action), 24 1 2 , 2 7 ? a > 2 6 . 3 1 1 2 ' 1 3 , 3711* (definitely two stages). 42 2 (two stages), 43 1 * (synchronic acts - -see below). 4 4 1 . 4 5 % 50 s . Ex 2® 79>ίβ, 81»12»16. 9 1 ' 1 3 , 1 0 1 1 ' 1 7 , 12 , 1 4 i 2 ' 1 6 ; 16 , 1 7 5 » 3 ' 1 * , 23 2 1 , 3 2 2 ' 1 * (a poetic bicolon), 3 4 1 " 2 (the lead clause is developed as a paragraph) , De 3 2 7 , 10 1 . Three VI clauses: Ge l 2 2 (followed by VJ in chiasmus), 9 1 (similar, with following VP clause in chiasmus), 19 2 (followed by WS), 22 2 (all in one complex, although time succession is involved), 34 1 0 , 35 1 »2 , 38* (synonyms), 4 3 1 6 , 4 5 1 7 " 1 8 Four VI clauses: Ge 4 2 3 3 (The first two have objects before the verb, to make a contrast sentence.). Five clauses: Ge l 2 8 , 27 3 (a definite succession of acts, where you would expect WS clauses to be used). The effect of conjoining VI clauses can be shown by a more detailed analysis of Jacob's speech in Ge 43 1 1 " 1 ' 1 . In spite of its brevity and apparent simplicity, it has an elaborate hierarchical structure, and several different inter-clause constructions are used in a variety of ways. The speech is in three parts: (i) A conditional command: if that's the wag it is, then do this...; (ii) a prayer for the mercy of God on the enterprise ( l l f a ); (iii) an act of resignation ( l l f b ). The
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
109
command consists of a general introduction, followed in apposition by detailed exposition (#3.7.2) in seven clauses. The detailed instructions are in two parts: (i) qehü... (Clj); (ii) weqümü ?ubü 'el-hä^Is (CI6 7 ) , take...and get up return to the man. We have recognized tliese two parts as constituents of a conjunctive sentence, but each is actually not a single clause but a complex of clauses. The second is an apposition sentence of the kind discussed in #3.1.0.1. The first is in three parts They are to get three things (i) some delicacies as a present, (ii) money, (iii) Benjamin. Each of these three commands is issued by using the same VI:q?hü take. (i) (ii) (iii)
^ wewe-
q.5hu + Oi + 0 2 + qShü + 0 3 + qähü
CI ι Cl 3 Cl 5
(i) continues as a well-formed conjoined clause ( C I 2 ) wffhöridü ..., the sentence being integrated just like Ge ll 3 by having the common object with the first verb and the common object complement with the second. In (ii) and (iii) we have most unusual constructions, clauses which do NOT begin with VI. The explanation is to be found in the use of chiasmus between (i) and (ii) to link together as two sides of a single action the taking of the present and the money. (ii) and (iii), however, being identical in grammatical structure, are conjoined. So both together make a conjunctive sentence. Hence Ge 43 1 1 aB-i3a is a construction in which a VI...w?VI conjunctive sentence is followed chiastically by a 0 + VI... w?-0 +VI conjunctive Se. There is an additional clause ( C I O ( 1 2 i > ) built into (iii). This has the structure we- + 0 + täslbü, so this too is chiastic, at least so far as the objects are concerned. But the use of VP rather than VI makes it a concomitant act, even though semantic content shows it to be a subsequent action. So far as time succession is concerned, the seven actions come in three stages. Stage 1
Stage 2
Clj Get delicacies Cl 3 Get double money CI 5 Get Benjamine
Cl 6 Arise
Stage 3 C I 7 Return to the man C l 2 Take down the present CI κ Return the original money
But the order in which the seven commands are given (shown by the numbers above) does not correspond to the order in which they are to be performed. The chiasm between Cli + CI2 and CI3 + Cls integrates the preparations. The conjoining of CI 3 and CI., brings out the feature that the money is in two parts. Finally a parenthetical comment (perhaps it was a mistake [12bB]) is made in apposition on the preceding CI*.
110
CONJUNCTIVE
SENTENCES
I SPEECH 1
I CONDITIONAL COMMAND K
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES 8.3.3.
Conjoined
Jussive
111
Clauses
Example: _yehl räq.1 ^ betök hammayim vihi mabdil ben-mayim lämäyim, Let-be and-let-be
expanse division
in-midst between
the-water water to water
(Ge
l6).
Each clause has identical structure, +P:VJ +S:N +L:PpPh. The verbs are identical. The two nouns are synonyms, which suggests that the second is functioning as a subject noun, not as a predicate participle, which would make the second verb periphrastic and its subject anaphoric to the first noun. Let there be an expanse...and
let
[it]
be
No!5
dividing...
The
two
clauses
are
grammatically congruent. Not all conjunctive sentences are as well-formed as this. Other examples: Ge l 9 (As pointed out above, the two events are concomitant, but the second could have been represented as subsequent to or as the consequence of the first.), 9 2 7 , 27 2 9 (synonymous poetic parallelism), 27 3 1 (Since ^abl is surrogate for 'you', these VJ's are virtually VI.)(sequence is involved), 28 3 (The WS clause in the midst of these four VJ clauses is a continuation of VI in 28 2 [#8.3.2].), 4 1 3 3 (two such sentences in apposition; note that the lead verbs are formally VP), Ex 5 2 1 ,
8.3.4.
Conjoined
Cohortative
Clauses
A series of concomitant resolutions by the same speaker may be expressed in the form of conjoined VC clauses. Example: nis^ä wenelekä wenelekä lenegdekä, let us break and
let
us
set
out,
and
let
me
go
with
you
(Ge
camp
3312).
As already mentioned, we assume that all clauses that begin with a first person 'prefixed 1 verb are cohortative, even if the verb lacks the cohortative Sx:-ä, whether because the morphology does not provide for it (stem ends in a vowel and VP and VC are homonyms), whether because the position is preempted by a pronoun Sx (even though this construction can always be avoided by using nota accusativi or some other preposition for alternate realization of a pronoun object), whether because VP is used even when a contrastive VC is available. Thus there are three cohortative conjunctive sentences in Ge ll 3 >'*·11. Each is a pair of conjoined VC clauses and each is preceded by häbä. The verbs are nilbenä, nisrepä, nibne, na^ase, neredä and näbelä, and we call them all VC for reasons of syntax, even though nibne and na f ase are formally ambiguous (they can be VP). Other examples: Ge 12 2 , 17 2 , 1 8 2 1 , 1 9 3 2 (serial acts), 22 5 (serial acts), 2 4 5 7 (serial), 26 3 (two contemporaneous acts; it then switches to WS clauses for subsequent acts), 27 7 (serial), 35 3 , 3 7 2 0 (serial), 43" (serial), 4 3 β , 4 6 3 1 , 50 s , Ex 3 3 » 1 8 , 4 i J , 5 3 , De 3 2 * .
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
112 8.3.5.
Mixed
Linkages
of Precative
Clauses
8.3.5.0. The combinations VL, VI, VJ, and VC clauses which express various combinations of precative curses, blessings, commands, wishes, resolutions, etc. can be conjoined in order to represent the combination as concomitant. We have not found examples of all imaginable combinations. 8.3.5.1· Verbless plus jussive Example:
bärük yhwh ^elöhe sem wihi kena'an ^ebed lämö , Blessed be Yahweh, Shem's god, and let Canaan be a slave for him (Ge 9 2 6 )
8.3.5.2. Cohortative plus imperative ^Ssi^ä-nnä 1 ^ethen "'alekem wa^äsü lähen ka-ftöb be^enekem, let me bring them out to you and [you] do to them what you like
Example:
(Ge 1 9 7 )
Other examples: Ge 1931* (followed again by VC). 8.3.5-3. Cohortative plus jussive Example:
na^äse ^ädäm... veyirdü... let us make man... and let them dominate...
(Ge l 2 6 )
Another example: Ge 1 9 2 0 . 8.3.5·^· Imperative plus
cohortative
Example:
hö^i^em ^elenü wenede^ä ^ötäm, bring them out to us, and let us know them (Ge 1 9 s )
The clauses in this combination are usually related in a temporal and causal sequence. If you bring them out to us, then we will know them. Or Bring them out to us so that we may know them. Other examples: Ge 183 * 5 , 19 3 ", 2 3 * > 1 3 , 24 1 "» 5 6 , 27 7 (Se + Se), 27 2 5 , 29 2 1 , 3 2 1 0 , 4 4 2 1 , Ex 1 4 1 2 , 1 7 2 , 2 0 1 6 , 24 1 2 , De 91" (a series of WS clauses might have been expected).
113
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES 8.3.5.5· Imperative plus jussive Example:
häyi le^alpe rebäbä weyiras zar^ek ^ et sa^ar söne^äyw, be thousands of myriads, and let your seed possess his enemies' gate (Ge 2 4 6 0 )
Other examples: Ge 3821·, Ex 7 2 6 . 811 (deep structure is cause and effect), 8 1 6 , 9 3 · 2 2 , 10 3 » 7 > 1 2 ' 1 7 ' 2 1 , 14 2 (content of speech), 14 1 5 (speech), 1 4 2 6 , 1 9 1 0 , 25 2 . 8.3.5.6. Jussive plus cohortative Example:
tehi nä^ ^älä benötenü benenü übenekä wenikretä berit ^immäk Let there be an oath between us (between us and you), and let us cut a covenant with you (Ge 2 6 2 8 )
Other examples: Ge 27"2
(when...then...),
30 3
(parallel).
8.4. NEGATION IN CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES It is usual for negation to be repeated in each conjoined clause, rather than negating a conjunctive sentence as a whole. lö1 welö^ You and you
Example:
t ö ^ e l ü mimmennü tigge^ü bo, will not eat any of it will not touch it (Ge 3 3 )
Example: ^lö^-^öslp leqallel f 5d... welö^-^Ssip f öd lehakköt..., I will not curse again... and I will not again smite... (Ge 8 ') Note the chiasmus. Ge 9 1 1 is quite similar. Also De 4 2 , 7 2 b ~ 3 . A single negation, however, can do double duty by modifying a conjunctive sentence as a whole. Example: ^ en ze ki ^ im bet ^elöhlm weze safar hassämayim, This is nothing but the house of God and this is [nothing but] the gate of heaven
(Ge 2 8 1 6 )
Recognition of this can sometimes make quite a difference to interpretation. 8.5. CONJOINED PROHIBITIONS It is usual for the prohibition particle to be repeated in each clause, rather than making it modify a conjunctive sentence as a whole.
llU
CONJUNCTIVE
SENTENCES
^ai-tefäsehü
Example:
we^.al-yi&ar b e f e n e k e m ..., Don't be distressed and don't be angry with yourselves...
(Ge
45s)
Other examples: Ge 19 1 7 , 22 1 2 , De 2 9 ' 1 9 . 8.6. COORDINATION OF QUESTIONS It is usual for each coordinated clause to have its interrogative function separately marked, even if it means repeating the same interrogator. Example:
lämmä härä läk
w e l ä m m ä näpelü p ä n e y k ä , Why are you angry? and why has your face fallen?
(Ge 4 6 )
The clauses are parallel. Another example: Ge 16 8 . When ha- is the interrogator in the lead clause, it is common for 1 1m to be its parallel in the conjoined clause. This might account for the apparently extraneous vePim-särä sandwiched between two ha- questions in Ge 17 1 7 . It is also possible to join two clauses together and then to question the conjunctive sentence as a whole. Example:
halö^ ze ^aser yiste ^ädönl bö wehtP nahes yena^es bö,
and
Isn't this what my master drinks out of? (isn't) it (what) he divines with? (Ge 4 4 5 )
This might help to unravel the puzzle in Ge 4 7 . hälö^ ^im-te'fclb se^et w e U m lö^ te^Iti lappetafc hatta^t rSbe? Isn't there acceptance if you do well, and doesn't sin crouch at the door if you don't
do
well?
5
Another example: Ge 20 . Recognition of the sustained long-range influence of an opening interrogator can make a difference to the interpretation of a passage. So in Ge 31 2 6 Laban asks eight questions using only two explicit interrogators. There are three interrogative paragraphs in apposition. and and
Why did you do it? [why] did you rob my mind? [why] did you drag away my daughters the sword?
like
prisoners
of
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
115
Why did you sneak away? and [why] did you deceive me? and [why] didn't you tell me, so that I could send you off with joy and song, with drum and harp? and [why] didn't you let me kiss my grandsons and granddaughters? Now [why] did you act so stupidly? 8.7. CONJOINING OF SURPRISE CLAUSES As a kind of exclamation, hinne, Beholdl is clause-initial and, when it is not primarily the predicator in a declarative clause, is grammatically attached to the following text in only a loose way. Hinne can also be used to carry a resumptive subject after a suspended topic in an adjunctive clause. But if the ensuing text consists of two conjoined clauses, that is, a conjunctive sentence, the deictic function of the initial hinne may embrace this whole construction, especially when the conjoined clauses are closely parallel in grammatical structure and so secure a well integrated conjoined sentence. Example:
hinne +S:Pr: 1 änökl Cj : ü+S:NPh:hen5t ""anse hä f Ir Behold I and the women of the city
Example:
^hinne haggal hazze vehinne hammassebä... Behold this heap and behold this stone...
+P:PtPh:nissäb... +P : PtPhiyöss"1 öt. . . am standing... are coming out... (Ge 24 1 3 ) Similarly hen in Ge 27 3 7 carries three clauses. Without the initial conjunction, such clauses are more declarative than surprise. It is possible, however, that successive clauses of this kind are conjoined with hinne repeated in each. A vehinne clause following a hinne clause is then formally like a surprise clause, but may be simply declarative, as in dream reports (#7.2). Compare Ge IS 3 . When the initial hinne is used only once, as in Ge 24 1 3 above, it further integrates the conjoined clauses. So Abraham's slave draws attention to the situation at the well as a single scene. If, however, hinne is repeated with each clause, those clauses, although still conjoined, are somewhat more independent of each other. The effect is to paint two pictures, by drawing attention to two items in succession.
(Ge 3 1 5 1 )
8.8. COORDINATION OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES When there are two clauses, two constructions are possible. (i) Each clause may be marked for subordination and then conjoined.
CONJUNCTIVE
ιι6 Example:
SENTENCES
kl ^ah.! ^äblh-ä hü"1 wekl ben-ribqä hü-1 That he is her father's brother and that he is Rebecca's son CGe 2 9 1 2 )
Other examples: Ge 91* O a k is repeated), 31 5 0 (the H m of disavowal in the oath formula is repeated for each clause in the treaty), 31 s 2 (like the preceding), 33 1 1 . In Ex 22 2 2 two conditional clauses are conjoined by kl as the coordinating conjunction. Um-^anne te^anne ^ötö yi§^aq ^elay If you degrade him and if he protests to me. ki
(ii) The two clauses may be conjoined, and then one subordinating conjunction governs the conjunctive sentence as a whole. Examples: Ge 6 5 , 22 1 7 , 286 (a rare coordination of VS with past tense meaning). The same patterns can be followed when there are more than two conjoined clauses. But with three or more it is possible to mix the patterns, as in Ge 3 6 (#8.1.3). The pattern in Ge 45 2 6 is strange because the conjunction ki is used only in the second clause. Perhaps it is assertative: Joseph is still alive, and he surely is ruler... 8.9. COORDINATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSES It is usual for the 'relative' ^aser to be repeated in each of two conjoined relative clauses. Example: v«P et-ma^äsäyv
and his deeds
^äse we 1 äser we 1 äser which and which and which and which
^äsä... he did... he did... he did... he did... (De ll 3 " 6 ) 8
Since a relative clause is a noun equivalent, the coordination of two or more of them together makes a noun phrase, not a sentence. It is possible, however, to coordinate two clauses together and then to nominalize the conjunctive sentence as a whole by means of ^äser. Example:
äser
kämShü lö nihyätä wekäjnöhü 1δ töslp of which the like never has been and the like never will be again
Other examples: De 8 3 , 9 2 .
(Ex ll6)
CONJUNCTIVE
SENTENCES
117
8.10. CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES INSTEAD OF OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS 8.10.0.
Introduction
In #4.6 it was suggested that the conjunctive sentence was available as an alternative realization of almost any other kind of more specialized coordination. Examples of this are noted, where appropriate, in the discussion of the various sentence types. See, for example, #10.5. Here we shall note only a few instances of the use of conjunctive sentences as alternative surface realizations of non-coordinate deep relationships. 8.10.1.
Hendiadys
in
conjunctive
sentences
Certain idiomatic sequences of coordinated verbs can amount to^a composite description of a single action. Thus perü
ü r e b ü , increase and m e a n s be abundantly 8.10.2.
multiply (Ge 1 fruitful.
Coordination
instead
of
,2β, 97,
3511,
etc.)
apposition
The availability of the so-called 'pleonastic' väw as a marker of phrase-level apposition is familiar to Hebraists. 7 In a similar way, a conjunctive sentence may be used as an alternative surface realization of some of the kinds of sentence-level apposition described in Chapter 3. See #3.0. Example: wehanna^arä töbat mar^e me"1 öd betülä vePis yedä^äh And the girl [she was] a and
Example: kl
no
one
was extremely virgin
had
had
sexual
good-looking intercourse
with
her
(Ge
2416)
^im-mä^en ^attä lesalleh
ve^ödekä mahäziq bäm For if you still refuse to release them and if you still hold on to them (Ex 9 2 )
For realizations in apposition of this kind of synonymous parallelism by means of a negated antonym, see #3.5.1. Other examples: Ge 1 6 1 1 , 38 8 (The explanation of the character of the act is conjoined, not in apposition [#3.7]), Le 213 (repeated a third time in apposition). 8.10.3.
Coordination
instead
of
subordination
The deep relationships between clauses that are primarily realized with the help of subordinating conjunctions are often sufficiently indicated by the content of the two clauses that are joined. The specialized subordinating conjunctions can
118
CONJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
then be replaced by and without loss of clarity. Succession in time is often enough to suggest a chain of cause and effect. This alternative is often resorted to in Hebrew composition, sometimes with effects that are subtle or coy. It is likely that the deep relationships remain elusive, or that the choice of coordination as a neutral linkage amounts to double talk that leaves it open to the listener to take it any way he likes. Example: I know that you fear God and Cwe-3 you did not withhold your son... (Ge 22 1 2 ). Here and means either because
or so that.
Example: Please don't let my lord become angry and I shall speak (VC)(Ge 18 3 0 ).
(VJ)
While it is possible that and here is conditional (Please don't become angry IF I speak), the sequence in which the clauses come, and the use of the cohortative form, suggest rather that and is consequential (if you won't be angry, THEN I would like to say something). The interchangeability of subordinating and coordinating conjunctions is illustrated by the use of lema^an in Ge 27z% while Ge 2 7 5 , 1 9 , 3 1 uses ba r äbür. But Ge 28® uses w-. NOTES 1 For discussion of this interpretation see F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (Nashville-New York, 1970): p. h2. 2 Either the mem is enclitic or the suffix -äm is f. dual, referring to the twin cities. 3 AV goes one further and supplies the name of to the preceding El Shadday, tut inconsistently does not italicize by in the following clause. ^ For evidence, and the conclusion that this leads to the abolition of the jussive, see Alexander Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Leiden, 1966): p. U36^ 5 *weyabdel (VJ) would be more likely than periphrasis in that case. And if mabdll was intended as subject complement, then le- would have been appropriate as in Ge 6 Other examples are conveniently accessible in Mandelkern's Concordance.... p. 1308f. 7 The appositional wäw needs to be distinguished from the so-called emphatic wäw. Considerable bibliography and more examples are found in Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job (Rome, 1969): p. 29.
9 CHIASTIC SENTENCES
9.0. THE FORM OF INTER-CLAUSE CHIASMUS The importance of chiasmus in Hebrew composition has long been appreciated by students of prosody and rhetoric. 1 The name comes from the resemblance to the Greek letter χ of the cross-over pattern that results when the sequence A B B ' A' is arranged in two lines. A Β'
Β X
A'
This is considered by aesthetes to be more pleasing than the repetition of similar items in the same sequence. A
Β
A*
B'
If A and Β are found in one clause, and A' and B 1 are found in the next following clause, and if these two clauses are related to each other in a sentence, then both patterns are found in both apposition and coordination. Repetition in apposition is discussed in #3.3; repetition in chiasmus is discussed in #3.4. The repetition of the same pattern in coordination is characteristic of conjunctive sentences (Chapter 8) and contrast sentences (Chapter 11). The use of chiasmus between coordinated clauses constitutes a distinct type of sentence which we call 'chiastic.' Hitherto chiasmus has been chiefly noticed on the level of literary appreciation and hermeneutics. The present chapter examines the strictly grammatical functions of interclause chiasmus as the realization of a contrastive-distinctive construction in the sentence system. Chiastic sentences are a special type simply from the point of view of discourse syntax.
120
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
9.1. THE SURFACE GRAMMAR OF CHIASTIC SENTENCES Carl Brockelmann 1 s brief account of the grammar of chiasmus is based on the statement W i e in a l l e n s e m i t i s c h e n S p r a c h e n r u f t das S c h l u s s g l i e d eines S a t z e s das e n t s p r e c h e n d e des f o l g e n d e n S a t z e s d u r c h A s s o z i a t i o n z u e r s t ins B e w u s s t s e i n , so d a s s e i n e c h i a s tische Wortstellung zustande kommt.2
This is too narrow. The item that crosses over need not be at the end of the first clause and at the beginning of the second. Furthermore, he does not distinguish chiasmus in apposition from chiasmus in coordination, and even includes examples of chiasmus in a subordinate clause. A chiastic sentence resembles a conjunctive sentence in joining together two compatible and closely similar clauses. It goes without saying that the two clauses satisfy the elementary requirement of coordination by having the same general external functions as each other and as the chiastic sentence in which they are constituents. Furthermore, the two clauses in a well-formed chiastic sentence have at least two clause-level tagmemes in common, represented by A and Β in the first and by A' and B 1 in the second. The difference between a conjunctive sentence and a chiastic sentence lies in the sequence of these similar elements when the structure of the sentence is viewed as a whole. In a typical conjunctive sentence the corresponding elements are in the same sequence in each clause; in a chiastic sentence at least two of the matching elements have a sequence in the second clause the inverse of their sequence in the lead clause. The commonest elements to be arranged in this way are S and P, that is S and V in most cases. Example: Cj
V
Β
wa+
ttehf
lähem
ci
s
ve-hahemär
SC hallebenä
lä1äben +
SC häyä
and-was for-them and-bitumen was
lahömer
the-brick for-them
for-stone for-mortar
(Ge II 3 )
Here the grammatical effect is the same as it is with a circumstantial clause, especially those which function on sentence level (#5.2). The two actions are certainly staged as contemporaneous or simultaneous. But more is involved than time relationships. The construction is more intimately interwoven and the result more integrated than one clause augmented by a circumstantial clause or than two clauses joined together in a conjunctive sentence. The latter are unified
CHIASTIC
121
SENTENCES
mainly by the fact that they have similar external functions. Clauses in chiasmus are unified by anetwork of relationships WITHIN the sentence. In contrast to a conjunctive sentence, where recursion admits no theoretical limit to the number of clauses that may be coordinated, a chiastic sentence is strictly a two-clause construction. Furthermore, apart from the banal fact that every clause (by definition) has a subject and a predicate, there is no need for the clauses in a circumstantial sentence or in a conjunctive sentence to have similar elements in common. It is not necessary for a conjunctive sentence to have similar elements in the same order; all that counts is that if they do have similar elements they will be in the same order, if only to avoid chiasmus. In other words, a conjunctive sentence is unmarked, a chiastic sentence is marked. While it does no harm to look on a chiastic clause as a special kind of circumstantial clause, the resemblance between them, for instance, the frequency of the sequence we- +S +V, is coincidental and arises from different causes. A circumstantial clause throws S (or something else) in front of V in order to break the chain of verb-initial clauses, and it is not necessary for the lead clause to have an explicit subject in order to secure this effect. A chiastic clause, on the other hand, will use the sequence SV precisely to secure a chiastic pattern with the sequence VS in the preceding clause. 9.2. THE DEEP GRAMMAR OF CHIASMUS In a chiastic sentence, a chiastic clause combines with the lead clause to give a single picture of two simultaneously occurring aspects of the same situation or event. It would be possible to ban idols by saying, 'You mustn't make yourselves silver or gold gods with me.' What Ex 20 2 0 actually says is lö^ ta^äsün ^ittl ^elöhe kesep we^löhe zähäb lö^ ta^äsü läkem, not you-will-make with-me gods of silver and gods of gold not you-will-make for-you
Β The negated verbs are the same. The accomative (^ittl) and the benefactive (läkem) do double duty. The objects are in chiasmus and are coordinated on sentence-level instead of in a phrase. The construction has the effect of a single prohibition and each clause makes an equal contribution to the total picture. The construction is balanced and symmetrical. Neither clause can be said to be in any way dependent on the other. Hence a chiastic sentence is never used as an alternative re-
CHIASTIC
122
SENTENCES
alization of any kind of subordinating relationship, as in conditional sentences or sentences of cause and effect. Even if the two clauses are antithetical in content, the chiastic arrangement subdues the antithesis. Proof of all this can be given only by placing numerous natural texts on the interpreter's workbench. 9.3. CHIASMUS IN NARRATIVE PROSE 9.3.0.
An
Illustration
The function of chiasmus in narrative may be illustrated from the text of Ge 4 2 " 5 --the story of Cain and Abel. Abel's part could be narrated: A Β C
wayehi-hebel rö ^e sö^n vayyäbe^ (hebel) mibbeköröt sö^nö ümehelbehen minhä leyhwh wayyisa^ yhvh ^el-hebel vtP el-minhätö
Cain's part could be told separately:' A' wayehl-qayin ^öbed hä^ädämä Β' vayyäbe^ (qayin) mipperl hä^ädämä minhä leyhwh C' welö^ sä^ä yhvh 1el-qayin wip el-minhäto The historian has not told his story this way. Instead he has chosen to group the six events into three closely related pairs of events, using three chiastic sentences. In each chiastic sentence a pair of similar events are joined together as circumstances of each other, using the same verb, first as WP, then as VS. A
wayehi-hebel
rö^e sö^n
A' veqayi^häyä 'öbed 'ädämä...
Β' weh^b£l^hebl^^gam-hü^ mibbeköröt sö^nö ümehelbehen C
wayyisa^ yhvh ^el-hebel ve^el-minhätö
C' w e P e l - q a y i n wep el-minhätö lö^
sä^ä
Since the story begins with the birth of Cain, then Abel, the names alternate four times. The rhetorical aspects of this pattern of names were first pointed out by Prof. D. N. Freedman
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
123
(unpublished). The three sentences are also linked by chiasmus. When the verbs are the same, the subject changes; when the verb changes, the subject remains the same. The unchanging item is always switched chiastically. One result is a further chiasmus in the vocabulary of the first four clauses--Abel, Cain, Cain, Abel, and flock, earth, earth, flock. The even clauses are, of course, formally circumstantial to the odd clauses, but there are so many other ways in which it could have been done, that the consciously motivated choice of repeated chiasmus must be taken seriously. What is achieved throughout is an emphasis on the similarity and contemporaneity of the pairs of actions. Neither Cain nor Abel occupies the centre of the stage. It is not until the end that the mysterious partiality of Yahweh emerges. The chiasmus is not achieved only by a VSSV pattern. It is as participants and not just as grammatical subjects that the names of Cain and Abel alternate. The last clause is not *veyhvh lö^ sä f ä..., which would certainly have been circumstantial and chiastic, but more patently contrastive, changing the focus to the opposite attitudes of Yahweh rather than keeping it on the correlative involvement of the two brothers. It is as indirect objects that the two names are chiastic in the last sentence. 9.3.1. Chiasmus in Poetic Discourse The two lines of a poetic bicolon often consist of one clause each in some kind of parallelism (often synonymous) with a chiastic pattern between elements common to both clauses. This phenomenon is so widespread and so familiar to all students of Hebrev literature as to need no documentation. What the present study contributes to this subject is the insight that such a construction must be viewed as a whole, as one sentence, with complex integrating grammatical relationships between them. Chiasmus is a syntactic as well as an artistic device. Example: rä^ö rä^itl ^et-^δηΐ ^amml w«P et-?a^äqätäm säma^tl, I have surely seen my people's suffering and their crying I have heard (Ex 3 7 ) Example: wayyiddSm hassemes v e y ä r e h ^ämäd,
and-stopped the sun and (the) moon stayed (JoS 1 0 1 3 ) There is a similar juxtaposition of sun and moon in Is 60 2 0 . 9.3.2. Chiasmus in Epic Narrative As already shown in #9.3.0, chiasmus is often used in epic writing, which accordingly contains many sentences which have the appearance of well-formed poetic bicolons. This has fostered the
12U
CHIASTIC SENTENCES
impression that a book like Genesis is written in classical verse, but considerable violence has to be done to the text to force it into such a rigid mold. When that fails, the poetic fragments throughout the book are explained as the remnants of an epic substratum in which, presumably,the poetic form was more sustained than it is now. As a result of this explanation, Genesis is not treated as an example of pristine Hebrew composition in many works of Biblical criticism. We want to suggest that the text of Genesis is in better shape and has more artistic integrity than this. It is neither poetry nor prose, but epic composition containing both poetic devices and extended rhetorical structures in which chiasmus plays a key part. The Flood Story affordsmany illustrations . Example : nibqe ^ü kol-ma ^yenöt t ehöm rabbä wa^arubböt hassämayim niptähü, AiVlsplit B:Slall the springs of the great abyss and B':S :the water sluices of the sky A' '.V: opened (Ge 7 1 1 ) The preceding time reference is marginal to this sentence as a whole. The Flood was caused by the confluence of waters from the two great storages--the waters above the firmament and the waters below the firmament (Ge l 7 ). The whole complex of Ge 7 1 1 is sandwiched into another chiastic sentence. üme hammabbül vayehl haggesem and Slwaters of and V:was
häyü ^al-hä^äres Cverse 11J ^al-hä^äres, the flood V'.were Lion the earth... S:the rain Lion the earth (Ge 7 1 0 " 1 2 )
Again the preceding time reference is marginal to this chiastic sentence as a whole. The world was inundated by the simultaneous action of a vast tidal wave and massive pluviation. It is precisely the use of chiasmus that brings out these two sides of a single event. In Ge 4 i _ s the sequence of verb forms in a chiastic sentence is WP...VS. In Ge 7 i o " 1 2 this sequence is reversed (compare Ge 2 1 E x 23 2 8 ). Such an attachment of a WP clause chiastically to a preliminary Ep-marginal circumstantial VS clause makes the resulting chiastic sentence as a whole circumstantial to the ensuing episode. In Ge 7 1 0 " 1 2 the chiastic pattern between verse 10 and verse 12 shows that verse 12 does not continue verse 11. Nor is the WP clause in verse 12 the first moment in the epic with other clauses circumstantial and subsidiary, as in classical prose. The episode actually begins with yäbö^ in verse 7. The whole of Ge 7*" 1 6 is an elaborate piece of epic composition, in which there are only two events both already stated at the beginning, namely, the onset of the flood and the entry into the ark. Descriptions of these events alternate--flood (verse 6), entry (verses 7-9), flood (verses 10-12), entry (verses 13 -16a), flood (verse 17). A third event (the closing of the door) is mentioned only once (verse 16b).
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
125
CHIASTIC PATTERNS IN GENESIS 7 6 ' 1 7
6
FLOOD
(Ti
ENTRY
Β
V-
V
A.
A' V Ti
Β
V
Ti
V
Β
FLOOD
1 ^
Ch
Ch
Β' V-
13 14-15
Ti ENTRY
V
Β'
V
A-
A' V-
Ch
Ch
16a
Α· V
16b
The LORD shut the door
17
FLOOD
(
V
B-
CHIASTIC
126
SENTENCES
Each of the other events has two aspects. There are two cau^ ses of the flood--the eruption of ocean waters (B) ajid the massive downpour (B1). There are two kinds of passengers in the ark--human CA) and animal (A1). These pairs as constantly repeated grammatical subjects are arranged in five chiastic patterns, interspersed with various time references. It is important not to identify verses 10-12 as two successive bicolons with synonymous parallelism, or the pattern is lost. Verse 11 is a fine chiastic sentence inserted into another chiastic sentence. The Shechem atrocities are described in epic style with frequent chiasmus of WP and VS of the same root. wayyiqehu... wayyäbö'ü... wayyahargü
0 0' häregü
and wayyiqefcu. . . wayyege 'G...
S wayyäbözzü Ο 0 and 0 wayyäbözzü 0
bä"1 G läqälyü säbü
The scheme is admittedly not symmetrical, and the chiastic clauses are mostly not contiguous. Some clauses are in epic apposition (#3.4.1). But the repetitions and parallelism are impressive all the same.3 Other examples: De 3 6 " 7 , β 2 2 " 2 9 , 9 e > 2 0 . 9.3.3. Three-Clause
Chiasmus
By its very nature, inter-clause chiasmus is restricted to a two-clause construction. The discussion on p. 120 shows that each new clause can be made chiastic to its precursor to create a closely woven fabric, but the pattern is seen by taking the clauses in pairs--Cl 2 is chiastic with Cli, Cl 3 is chiastic with Cl 2 , and so on. If, however, Cl 2 and Cl 3 are both chiastic with Clj in the same way, Cl 2 and Cl 3 will be congruent with each other and therefore typical of a conjunctive sentence. It does not make any difference, then, to call Cl 2 and Cl 3 together a conjunctive sentence in chiasmus with Clj. Example: laser hiqsapta ^et-yhwh ^elöheykä bammidbär... übeh.3reb hiqsaptem ^et-yhvh. . . Gbetab^erä...maqslpim heyitem ^et-yhvh... that you infuriated Yahweh your god in the wilderness... and at Horeb you infuriated Yahweh... and at Tabera...you were infuriating Yahweh (De 9'·.·«···»») See also p. 109 above.
CHIASTIC SENTENCES
127
9.4. GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS OF CHIASMUS 9.4.0.
Introduction
Chiasmus can occur between any pairs of clause-level tagmemes. It occurs most often between nuclear tagmemes, the predicate being usually one of them. Next to the predicate, the subject is likely to be involved. Hence S W S is the commonest pattern. But other items are eligible, and we have already seen examples of object, indirect object, or even marginal tagmemes like 'location' making the cross-over. 9.4.1.
Verbless
Predicators
It is possible for the predicate of a verbless clause to be placed in chiasmus with a verb. Example: kl ^im-tam hakkesep ümiqne habbehemä ^el-^ädönl that V:finished S:the silver and S:the stock of animals [is] Ρ '.to my lord (Ge 47 1 The two kinds of wealth are used up. In priestly discourse the dimensions of various cult objects are specified in conjoined verbless clauses with sequence either SP or PS throughout (Ge 6 1 5 , Ex 2 S 1 0 " 2 3 , 27 1 , etc.). Ex 38 l e is a rare chiastic variant of this. we'esrlm ^ammä ^örek weqömä beröhab hämes ^aramöt, and and
20 cubits height in
[is] width
[its] length 5 cubits
Chiasmus is seen at its best in verbal clauses. 9.4.2.
Perfect
Verbs
The chiastic clauses are most alike when VS is used in each. Examples: Ge 7 1 1 , Ex 3 7 (both quoted above), Ge 17 2 e , Ex 31® (identical verbs), 40 3 5 . 9.4.3.
Subjects
in
Chiasmus
The commonest kind of chiastic sentence in narrative prose embodies the pattern +WP +S:N wayyigberü hammayim we- S:N +VS vehammayLm gäberü (Ge 718
19
)
Usually the subjects are different, but the verbs are the same even having the same roots, when similar actions by two participants are reported as in Ge 4 2 " 5 . The similarity of this con struction to epic parallelism with chiasmus in apposition has
128
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
already been pointed out in #3.4. That construction, however, is more likely to be used when the subject of both clauses is the same. Example:
wayekas he^änän ^et-^öhel mö '"ed ük?böd yhvh male 1 1 et-hammiskän , and-covered the cloud the tent of meeting and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle (Ex 4031*)
Other examples: Ge 7 1 5 " 1 6 (the extreme, in which VS is right at the end of the chiastic clause), 1 4 l 6 b (VS at end. i g 3 7 " 3 « (Lot's two daughters; note reinforcement with gam-hi'), 25 2 8 (Isaac and Rebekah; the second verb is a participle in MT, making the clause circumstantial; but the roots are the same, and archaic VS:*"*ahabat may be suspected.), 311*7 , 35 1 8 , 36 s " (like 1 9 3 7 ~ 3 S ) , 3 7 1 1 (this makes an inclusio with 37 3 and closes the unit), 4 4 2 0 , 45 1 * (lead clause lacks explicit subject), Ex 9 2 3 (Concomitant actions of Moses and Yahweh are represented as simultaneous, even though a time sequence of cause and effect might be supposed. The effect of chiasmus is to abolish the time interval and to highlight the immediate response.), 9 3 3 (thunder and rain), 1 0 1 ? (like 9 2 3 ) , 20 1 " (the people and Moses). 9.4.4.
Objects
in
Chiasmus
Two objects can be arranged in chiasmus when two correlative actions are performed on different objects, especially when the actions are similar or when the same subject performs them. Example:
wayyiqqah mö5e has! haddäm wayyäsem bä^aggänöt vahasl haddäm zäraq. ^al-hammizbeh, and Moses took half the blood and put it in the basins and half the blood he threw over the altar (Ex 2 4 6 )
Other examples of objects in chiasmus: Ge 1 4 l s , 19 3 , 2 4 5 3 , 1 22 52 22 u , 40 41 " , 4315,»iE* Ex 14 6 (mobile and 39 22 ) } infantry units jointly mobilized), 36 (In the prediction in Ex 26 3 the second verb is omitted, so chiasmus is not realized and the sentence becomes a split-level clause.), 3 6 1 7 , 23-2·.,33-3·. 3 7 2 e b - 2 7 a (fulfilment of 30 3 " 11 ) , 3 9 1 7 , De 3 1 2 , 4 1 * , Jos l l i 0 , Jdg 7 2 5 , 9 * 5 , IKi 183 8 . In Ex 9 2 5 there is a more complex picture in three clauses of the joint activity of one subject on three objects. Clj Cl2 Cl 3
wayyak habbäräd...^et kol-^aser ballade v?'et kol- f e£eb halläde hikkä habbäräd we 1 et-kol-^es hasläde Sibber, and smote the hail...every man and beast in the field and all the vegetation of the field smote the hail and every tree of the field smashed (the hail)
CHIASTIC SENTENCES
129
CI2 and C I 3 , in which the subject is realized only once, are conjoined (Chapter 8). This sentence as a whole, with its OV (S) sequence, stands in chiasmus with Cli with its VSO sequence 9.4.5. Indirect Objects in Chiasmus In #9.3.0 it was pointed out that in Ge 4 2 " 5 the names of the participants are placed in chiasmus. But in Ge 4 l f ' ) " 5 a these names function, not as subjects, but as indirect objects. Such a chiastic sentence links together similar actions performed by one participant (S) on two other participants (the IO's). Example:
wayyiqrä^ ^elöhim lä'ör yöm wSlahöS'ek qärä^ läylä WP 10'
S:N
and-he-named and to-the-dark
God
Cj
10 VS
OC OC'
to-the-light he-named
day night
(Ge I s )
As in Ge 4 s , one realization of the subject as a noun does double duty for both clauses. Other examples of indirect objects in chiasmus: Ge l 1 0 , 17 2 0 (Isaac is the first topic, Ishmael the second), 2 0 l e , 2 3 1 1 , 25 s " 6 , 3 3 1 7 . Ge 3 9 " 1 9 contains an extended introversion. In conducting the inquiry, Yahweh God deals with the man, then the woman, then the snake. In pronouncing the curses, the sequence is snake, woman, man. The three are interrogated one after another, using WP clauses--wayyö^mer...wayyo^mer...wayyö 1 mer... The curses come in a bundle, by placing the indirect objects in chiasmus with the verbs. This chiasmus is realized only between the first and second clauses. The second and third are conjoined with identical patterns (compare the discussion of Ex 9 i s at the end of #9.4.4), that is, a conjunctive sentence is placed chiastically with the first clause. The A, B, and C type coordination also helps to unify the three. (Versions point to w? 1 el in the second clause; this is understandable, because the asyndeton makes it look like apposition. But MT is certainly to be preferred, and grammatical coordination recognized.) 9.4.6. Other Clause-Level
Elements
In Ge 18 s " 7 the elements that realize the goal of movement are placed in chiasmus. vay?maher ^abrähäm hä^ohelä... wS 1 el-habbäqär ras ^abrähäm, and hurried Abraham to the tent., and to the herd ran Abraham
130
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
Since a time s e q u e n c e is i n v o l v e d , it c o u l d be a r g u e d that a n e w episode begins w i t h a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l c l a u s e (#5.1.1) at Ge 1 8 7 . But w e think that the chiasmus links the two a c t i o n s together in a single p i c t u r e , playing d o w n the time succession. Other e x a m p l e s : Ge 4 1 5 ^ (Location), D e 9 2 0 . O c c a s i o n a l l y the elements p l a c e d in chiasmus h a v e g r a m m a t i c a l functions in the two clauses. Example: l ä q a h y a ^ a q o b ^et kol-^Sser l e P S b l n ü üme^äser l e ' ä b l n ü ^äsä ^et k o l - h a k k ä b ö d and
Took from
Jacob all that is our father's what is our father's he made all
different
hazze, this
wealth
, „ ^ (Ge 3 1 1 ) T h e p h r a s e in c h i a s m u s p ä s e r le'äbinü) is o b j e c t in the first c l a u s e , source in the second. S i m i l a r l y , ^ablken is o b j e c t in Ge 3 1 s and c h i a s t i c subject in 3 1 7 . 9.4.7.
Other
verbal
patterns
In c o n t r a s t to the u b i q u i t o u s and
the r e v e r s e
WP χ-
X VS
X
VS
WP
X'
pattern
sequence
is rare.
Examples: Ge 7 1 0 w i t h 1 2 , 2 1 1 , Ex 7 2 1 . It is also p o s s i b l e to have VS in chiasmus w i t h a n infinitive . E x a m p l e : benogpS ^ e t - m i s r a y i m w«P e t - b ä t t e n ü and 9.4.8.
When he smote the Egyptians our families he rescued (Ex 1 2 2 7 )
Chiasmus
with
Example: wayebatter
Negation
^ötäm
battäwek
ve^et-!-h.assipp3r lö^ b ä t ä r , and
and the
he split birds he
them [the animalsJ down the did not divide (Ge 1 5 J 0 " 1 1 )
middle
A l t h o u g h these c l a u s e s are a n t i t h e t i c a l , the c o n t r a s t is n o t p l a y e d u p , as it m i g h t h a v e b e e n done by u s i n g , say, raq.
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
131
When two negated clauses are in chiasmus, there is, of course, no antithesis. Example: welö^- h.efdlp hammarbe vreliammam^it lo^ heh.sld, and
And the
the one
one who
who gathered most had gathered least had no
no surplus shortage (Ex
161β)
(The hip('il participles are elative.) Another example: Ex 1621*. 9.4.9.
Chiasmus
not
involving
the
Verbs
The verb is the usual pivot around which, other clause-level items are arranged in various patterns. Sometimes clause-level elements not verbs are arranged chiastically. Thus •'öd is chiastic w i t h the infinitives in Ge 8 2 1 , and w i t h the subjects in Ge 9 1 1 . 9.5. CHIASMUS IN PREDICTIVE DISCOURSE 9.5.0.
Verb
Patterns
In past-tense narrative the story marches down a m a i n road paved w i t h WP clauses. A chiastic clause added in will produce the sequence WP...VS. (See #9.3) The corresponding pattern in predictions is WS...VP. It is also possible to use 'imperfect * verbs in both clauses in chiasmus. Example: wa^äbärakä mebärekeykä ümeqallelkä and-I-will-bless and-those-who-curse-you
those-who-bless-you I-will-curse (Ge
Other examples: Ge 2 5 2 3 b , Ex 9.5.1.
Subjects
in
15263213.
Chiasmus
Example: wehäyä yhwh II le^löhlm wehä^eben hazzö^t..yihye bet and
and-will-be this stone
123)
Yahweh will be
^elöhlm,
to me as God [to me] God's
house
(Ge
2821)
(Two aspects of a single vow) Other examples: Ge 1 5 1 3 (^attä is chiastic w i t h the preceding ^änöki), Ex 19 s CS is the same), Le 5 9 » 1 6 (concomitant actions of worshipper and priest, sequential in 5 2 6 ) .
132
CKIASTIC SENTENCES
9.5.2.
Objects
in
Chiasmus
Example: Veiäreg-ü ve^8t8k and
and you
yeha.yyü,
they they
will will
slay spare
me (Ge
1212)
Other examples: Ex 1212, 2 1 3 5 , 2 6 3 5 (symmetrical arrangement of lampstand and table), 28 2 1 f ~ 2 5 , 283e (materials contrast), 28 110 , 29 3 " (Aaron and his sons), 2 9 1 2 (two parts of blood ritual), 2911( (two acts of burning flesh), 3 0 3 τ \ 3 0 2 6 - 3 0 (two acts of anointing}, Le l 8 " 9 (coordinate treatment of parts to be was hed), l 1 5 (like l®" 9 ), 4 7 (two actions with blood), 4 1 7 " 1 ' (clusters several related liturgical acts by chiasmus), 4 3 0 " 3 1 ' 3 " " 3 5 , De 5 2 1 , 1 0 1 6 . 9.5.3.
Mixed
Constructions
There are also some mixed constructions, in which subject and object, or some such combination, are in chiasmus. Examples: Ge 6 l e b ~ 1 9 a 4721* (0 and S) .
(WS + S + and + 0 + VP), 17 6
The verse divisions at Ge 3 4 9 " 1 0
disrupt a chiastic
(OC and S),
sentence.
vehithattenü ^ötänü viPittänü tesebü, and and
with
you us
will you
intermarry will
with
us
settle.
A conjunctive sentence which expounds this sentence in apposition is inserted into this. The next paragraph begins with verse 10b, hot with 10a, as its circumstantial form shows. The detailed provisions for intermarriage are stated three times in this chapter. In Hamor's proposal, the two clauses are conjoined (34 9 ). benötekem tittenü-länü w
(34 1 6 ).
venätannü ^et-ben5tenü läkem V£p et-benötekem niqqah-länü When Hamor reports to his subjects he uses a conjunctive sentence (34 21 ) , ^et-benötäm niqqalj-länü lenäsi.m we 1 et-benötinü nitten lähem
CHIASTIC SENTENCES
133
3
In De 7 the clauses which prohibit such, intermarriage are conjoined. There may be very little difference between these two patterns. But, if we are right, the Shechemites are proposing a mutual agreement in conjunctive sentences, while the Israelites are proposing a reciprocal arrangement in a chiastic sentence. The Israelites are thinking in terms of complete integration, to become a single people (34 1 6 ). Although Hamor repeats this phrase (verse 22) it is clear from verse 23 that he expects the Shechemites to preserve their identity and to absorb the Israelites. The Shechemite proposal is not entirely one-sided. There is chiasmus in the pronouns -kem -nü
-nü -kem (verse 9)
-äm -nü
-nü -hem (verse 21)
This was not obligatory. They could have said, "and you will take our women-folk from us", rather than "for yourselves." 9.5.4.
Indirect
Objects
Examples: Ex 25 9.5.5.
Other
21
, 28
in
2
with
Clause-Level 13
Chiasmus 1,0
(linking
Tagmemes
in
Chiasmus
Examples: Ge 1 5 " (Time), 3 5 (Origin), Ex 7 2 8 s1 3 11 12 35 with * (Infinitives), De 2 " (Location ). 9.5.6.
Other
Verb
16
Aaron and his sons).
11
Forms
in
(Location),
Chiasmus
In contrast to the common pattern and
WS X'
X VP
X WS
VP X'
the reverse sequence is rare.
Examples: Ex 7 1 8 , 23 2 e . It is also possible to have a VP in chiasmus with an infinitive, as in Ge 3 , or with VS, as in Ex 5 2 , 7 1 , or with a participle, as in Ex 1 3 l S (both are present tense). 9.6. CHIASMUS IN PRECATIVE DISCOURSE The production of a precative chiastic clause is remarkable because chiasmus pulls a precative verb away from the clause initial position which it almost invariably occupies. A n example already discussed in #8.3.2 is found in Ge 4 3 " . There are three commands, to take a present, money, and Benjamin. The first has
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
normal sequence;
give me the people the spoil keep for yourself
Other examples:
(Ge
14zl)
Ex 17 s , De 21*.
VP may be used in chiasmus with VI. Example:
w5slm kesep-^Is... viP et-g?t>I ^ ΐ . . . täi? Im. . . ,
and put each and my chalice...
Other examples: teljSze . . .) .
man's money... you will put...
Ge 3 2 1 7 , Ex 1 8 1 9 " 2 1
(Ge
(heye
441)
attä.. . we 1 attä
Ge 44 3 3 has an example of jussive verbs in chiasmus. yeäfeb-nä^ ^abdekä tahat hanna^ar wehanna'ar ya^al ^im-^ehäyw, and
Let-remain please your slave let the youth go up with his
instead of the brothers
youth
Other examples: Ge l 2 0 (discussed in detail in #8.3.0), l 2 2 (but the preceding text does not have a V S:N clause to make the chiasmus, although doubtless the command to fill the seawater is addressed to marine creatures). Chiasmus can also be developed in precative discourse between verbs of different kinds. In Ge 225 an ethical object stands in chiasmus with a subject--wait you here with the ass and I and
the boy
will
go to
there.
In Ge SS11* ""adönl = "'attä. and
VJ S:Pr
The chiastic pattern
S:N VC
is ä casual proposal that soft-pedals the divergence between the actions. As will be shown in Chapter 11, the contrast could have been brought out by *we^attä ^abör-nä^ .. . wa^anl ^etnähXlä. . .
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
135
9.7. CHIASMUS IN P R O H I B I T I O N The p a r a l l e l p r o h i b i t i o n s in Ge 37 2 2 are s y n o n y m o u s , and this may be w h y they are in chiasmus rather than conjoined. ^ al-tiäfpekü-däm veyad
al-tiSle^ü-bö ,
Don't
and
shed
a hand
blood
don't
send
against
him
al-tShl-bö in Ge 3 7 2 7 .
Compare w e y ä d e n ü
9.8. INCOMPLETELY FORMED
CHIASMUS
There are some sentences w h i c h throw two items into a sequential p a t t e r n that suggests c h i a s m u s , but there is no second pair of closely c o r r e s p o n d i n g items to complete the chiasmus. Example:
ki lö 1 him^Ir yhwh 1 e l ö h l m ''al-hä^äres w e ^ ä d ä m ^ayin la^äböd ^ e t - h ä ^ ä d ä m ä ,
and
for man
not made-rain did-not-exist
Yahweh God on the to work the ground
earth (Ge 2 5 )
This gives the reason for lack of v e g e t a t i o n in the world. Neither God n o r m a n was doing his a c c u s t o m e d w o r k in w h a t is essentially a joint o p e r a t i o n - - G o d sends r a i n , m a n tills the soil. The S:N y h w h 1 e l ö h l m and ^ädäm are p l a c e d for c h i a s m u s , but the verbs do n o t correspond. 'Yahweh G o d d i d n ' t make it rain on the e a r t h . ' But the n e x t clause d o e s n ' t s a y , 'and m a n didn't w o r k the s o i l . ' It denies the existence of m a n a l t o g e t h e r , and a c l a u s e to i n t e g r a t e w i t h this in a chiastic sentence w o u l d say that there was n o G o d to w a t e r the earth. In Ge 25 3 3 " 31 * s u c c e s s i v e clauses have s i m i l a r e l e m e n t s . w a y y i m k ö r ^et-bekörätö leya^äqöb w e y a ^ ä q ö b nätan le^eääw lehem... The g r a m m a t i c a l structure is Cj Cj and
V S
V
andr-he-sold Jacob paid
0 10
10 0
LEsaul to Esau
his
birthright bread...
to
Jacob
The 0 and 10 are in c h i a s m u s . Subject and verb fail to achieve chiasmus for lack of an explicit subject in the lead clause. The p o i n t is of some m o m e n t , for it leaves the d i s c o u r s e function of this clause in some doubt. Many t r a n s l a t i o n s b e g i n a new p a r a g r a p h at this p o i n t , ending the legal n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h v e r s e 33b, and making Jacob's act the first m o m e n t of Esau's subsequent meal.
CHIASTIC SENTENCES
136
There is something to be said for this. Verse 34a certainly has the form of a circumstantial clause that could begin a new episode C'5,1.1). And the brachylogy in the next clause C a n d he ate [them]) secures continuity w i t h the following, so verse 34a is not a circumstantial clause used to end an episode. There are, however, reasons for preserving continuity between verse 33 and verse 34 by recognizing > 3 B" 3 I , a a s a chiastic sentence. The formal side of the business is completed with the oath in veTse 33a. What follows is an exposition of this--Esau's side and Jacob's side. This is supported by the chiasmus already noted; supported further by recognizing the lexical meaning of nätan in such a context as paid (an agreed price). It spoils the story to say Jacob 'gave' him bread and lentil soup, and it is an added touch that Esau did not say 'give' but 'gulp' me some of that red stuff, for ten-li could mean also 'sell.' We conclude that and he swore to him is the climax, and that the tension begins to wind down after that point. Verse 33b is not parallel to verse 33a, but to 34a, in a chiastic sentence. Jacob in verse 34a is thus in chiasm with the implicit subject (Esau) in verse 33a. The same thing happens in Ge 2 7 l s where the act of disguising Jacob occurs.* 9.9 DISCONTINUOUS CHIASTIC SENTENCES The preceding discussion included incidentally several examples of pairs of clauses in chiasmus which are separated by intervening material. See especially the diagram on p. 125. Here it remains to observe that widely separated clauses in chiasmus mark the onset of two parallel or contemporaneous paragraphs. The second clause will, of course, resemble a circumstantial clause as a mark of paragraph onset, and all that was said in #5.1.1 applies to it. But its similarity to a chiastic clause further back lines the two ensuing paragraphs up side by side, so far as sequence patterns are concerned. Thus Moses' two correlative speeches to the people and Joshua are reported in De 3 1 β " 2 2 . wä^äsav "'etkem bä^et hahi^ le^mör "q" w«P et-yehosü^ §iwwetl bä^et hahl^ le^mör "Q", AND
and I commanded y o u a t that time, saying Joshua I commanded at that time, saying
"Q" "Q"
9.10. CHIASMUS AS A HIGH-LEVEL NODE On the m a i n thread of Hebrew discourse consecutive clauses CWP or WS) come one after the other like beads on a string. fWP| WPIWPIWPIWP |WP"| The effect of a circumstantial clause of the type discussed in #5.1.3 is to add on a bead beside the string.
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
137
I WP I WP | WP WP|WP WP|WP| CirCl In a chiastic sentence both clauses are equally important, and this is like incorporating two clauses side by side into the string. | WP I WP I WPWP WPIWPIWP1 •ChCl In Ge 4 2 sis
5
|WP|WP
a series of such sentences has the effect of synapWP WP WP WP1WP1 ChCl ChCl ChCl
It is quite possible for any such clause to serve as the starting point for a considerable chain of clauses, so that the pair of chiastic clauses make a fork. The verb hissämer (VI), watch yourself, in De 8 1 1 is continued by vezäkartä
(WS), and you will
remember
in De 8 1 8 . All the in-
tervening material is governed by the conjunction pen, lest. There are in fact two pen clauses in apposition. The first (8 11 ) is general (lest you forget); the second, in apposition (#3.7.2), expounds in detail what this means. By means of chiasmus this exposition branches into three threads. De 8 1 2 ΐ is a paragraph headed by a VP clause that is chiastic with 8 l z a and continued by a WS clause that is strictly sequential to 8 1 2 b A . 8 1 3 is a conjunctive sentence of three VP clauses with the same verb, and the same sequence pattern. This pattern is the same as that in 8 1 2 b A and so is chiastic with 8 l i a A . So 8 1 2 b A and 8 1 3 are each chiastic with 8 1 2 a A , making a three-fold branch. This three-fold branch reunites at β11*13, which is the sequel to all three of the paragraphs which are united by chiasmus between the clauses at their heads. This thread ends with 8 1 7 , which completes the lest 'clause1 that began with 8 1 2 . That is, the whole of 8 1 2 " 1 7 is in apposition with 8 l l b , and the whole of 8 l l b ~ 1 7 is subordinate to 8 Hence 8 l e is not the sequel to 8 1 7 , but the antithesis of giib-17 an( j t h e s e q u e i t 0 8llä--Benrare lest you forget and... but
(on the contrary)
you will
remember...
The connections secured by the hierarchical grammar of Hebrew discourse are shown on p. 138. The example is instructive, because the results are different in translation when these structural signals to the higher levels of discourse structure are not heeded. RSV, to look at only.one attempt, takes considerable liberties with the conjunctions, thus throwing the paragraphs into quite different arrangements, breaking some close linkages, and creating others where there should be a break. It omits the conjunction at the beginning of 8 l e , making a break where there is sequence. It misses completely the trio of clauses governed by pen, which, as we have seen, are unified by chiasmus. Instead, it adds a gratuitous beware lest to verse 17, severing its sequential connection with verse 14b.
138
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE IN DEUTERONOMY
11
Watch yourself (VI) '--<Sub> ~~Lest you forget +
Yahweh
your
8ll"le
God.
Lest you wil eat (VP)
and [lest] your herds and flocks multiply (VP) +
will
I
and all you- own will multiply (VP) <Seq>
<Seq> and you will become replete (WS)
<Seq>
<Seq> and you will dwell [in them] (WS)
and your mind will become superior (WS)
<Seq>
and you will forget (WS) Yahweh your God who...
<Seq>
and you will say in your mind... and you will remember
(WS) Yahweh
your
(WS)
God...
CHIASTIC
SENTENCES
139
9.11. CHIASTIC SENTENCE AS NUCLEUS Chiasmus usually takes place between nuclear tagmemes and the result is a tightly knit structure which can function just like a singular clause nucleus. It can be modified as a whole by a marginal tagmeme, or governed as a whole by a subordinating conjunction or by the 'relative.' Example: vehinne nuttas mizbeh habba^al ve-hä^äserä ^äser-^äläyv körätä, and
behold, and
broken down the Asherah
was the altar beside it was
of cut
Baal down
(Jd
628)
Another example with hinne: ISa 18 2 2 . Example: kl käselä yerüsälayim wlhüdä näpäl, and
For stumbled Jerusalem Judah fell (Is 3 8 )
Example: ^äser hehezaqtlkä miqqesöt hä^äres üme^äsileyhä qerä^tlkä, and
who I seized you from the (who) from its extremities
ends of the earth I called you (Is
419)
9.12. CHIASMUS A DISTORTION The formal requirements of chiasmus, so far as word order is concerned, may cause a perturbation in normal syntax. Example: ki kerem yhvh sebä^öt bet yiisrä^el v
For the
Yahweh men of
Seba^ ot's Judah are
vineyard is his pleasant
the House plantation
of
Israel (Is 5 7 )
The riddle is to identify the vineyard, so this is the grammatical subject of the solution. The parallel clauses are not only synonymous; they have matching grammatical elements in chiasmus. Hence the structure Cj Cj
S Ρ
Ρ S
Brockelmann analyses PSSP.5 The literal RSV gives structure SPSP. But men of Judah must be the predicate of the second clause. 9.13. SEQUENTIAL CLAUSES IN CHIASMUS We have emphasized that a chiastic sentence represents two events as contemporaneous. The construction is strained when the two events must occur in sequence. Thus the instruction of the next generation in De 4 1 < f t B is chiastic, not sequential. This must be considered atypical.
lUo
CHIASTIC SENTENCES
NOTES 1
Nils Wilhelm Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament (Chapel Hill, I9U2). This book reviews the history of the study of patterns of introversion in biblical poetry. It contains an ample bibliography of the literature up to that date. Lund's illustrations include many from the Old Testament. He had earlier published papers on chiasmus in Hebrew poetry. More recent studies include William L. Holladay, "Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XII:3-6", Vetus Testamentum 1 6 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : pp. 536b\ Υ. T. Radday, "Chiasm in Samuel", Linguistica Biblica Heft 9/10 (1971): pp. 21-31. These are primarily literary investigations, and the currently burgeoning RHETORICAL CRITICISM can be expected to yield a fresh harvest of observations. The grammar of chiasmus presented here should add another dimension to this research. It should be remembered, however, that these authors use the term CHIASM(US) to refer to all kinds of introverted patterns, whereas we restrict it to the scheme AB-B'A' between coordinated clauses. 2 Hebräische Syntax, §138. 3 The assignment of verse 26 to J cuts across this epic structure. See Note 1 p. 59 above. This chiastic sentence has the familiar pattern WP ... VS, where the verbs have the same stem — wattalbes ... hilblsä, and the same subject. An additional feature arises from the fact that this verb normally has two direct objects -- the wearer and the garment. In this passage each clause has only one object, the wearer in the first, the garments in the second. But the integration of successive clauses into sentences enables an object in one clause to do double duty (brachylogy) in the next. And Rebekah got Esau's clothes... And she made Jacob Cwearer as object is explicit} wear (them) Cgarment as object is present only by means of brachylogy from the preceding clause] And the goat-skins Cthis object is chiastically in front of the VS verb] she made (Jacob) Cthis object present only by means of brachylogy from the preceding clause] wear over his arms and neck. 5 Hebräische Syntax, §138.
10
DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
10.0. DISJUNCTIVE COORDINATION Hebrew has a conjunction ^ö, whose main meaning is or and whose primary function is disjunctive coordination. In Χ ^ Υ, X and Y are alternatives, corresponding to mutually exclusive alternatives in semantic structure. We note also (in #10.3) the use of the conjunction ^im, which usually means if, as an alternative to "'S in disjunctive questions. 10.1. PHRASE-LEVEL DISJUNCTION 10.1.0.
Introduction
In most of its occurrences, ^ is phrase-level, linking two nouns or two prepositional phrases. The phrase-level constituents linked in this way have, or could have, the same external function. As in conjunctive coordination of prepositional phrases, both constituents have the same preposition, since Biblical Hebrew very rarely used one realization of a preposition to govern both nouns in a conjunctive or disjunctive phrase. 10.1.1.
A or Β
Examples of Ni or N2: ra f ^ö tob, bad or good (Ge 24 50 ); also Ge 245 5 , 44 s ' 1 9 , Ex 21" ' 2 1 ' 3 2 ' 3 3 ' 57 , 22 ,( ' 5 ' 6 ' 9 . 2 3 % Le 3 3 , 5«,7 7I6 - Q 3 2 ' 3 2 ' 32 12 6 ' 8 132 ' 2 ' 1 9 ' 2 "'29 »3 · ' 3 8 »* 9 15 1 *' 29 202 7 ,'etc. Examples of PpPhj 1 ö PpPh2 : fal-yämin 1 ö ''al-ISmö^l, to right or to left (Ge 24"9Ί ; also Ge Si" 3 , Ex 5 3 , 2 1 6 ' 1 8 ' 2 0 ' 2 6 , 2 7 ,2 V,29 L e 1 0 , I H g2 , 2 , 2 , 1 1 , 2 1 , 2 t y21,21 12 6 » 7 2 9 , I» 2 , 4 2 , 3 | •) 7 , I. 8 , 4 β , •) ä , >t 8 , "> 9 , "f 9 , "t 9 , •» 9 ' e £ c
13 2 ' '
DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
Ik 2
Examples of IfPhj "»-δ IfPh 2 ; Ex 28" 3 , 30 2 0 , Le 5" > 2 1 » 2 1 r 23 > 23 > 2 \ 13 5 9 , etc. 10.1.2.
Either
A
or
Β
An alternative but rare phrase type uses ^ö before both disjunctively coordinated items. Compare the syntax of gam (Chapter 12). Example: ^3-yömayim ^ö-hödes ^ö-yämim, whether days
or
10.1.3.
a month Either
or A
a
and
year
(Nu
92
two
).
Β
While the use of coordinating we- and as an alternative for ^ö is not uncommon (#10.5), the use of ve·^ and correlatively must be considered a curiosity. Example: ^δ yömam välaylä, whether (Nu 9 2 1 ) . 10.1.4.
Whether
A
or
by
day
or
by
night
Β
Example: "'im-behemä ^im-^is, whether (Ex 1 9 1 3 ) .
animal
or
human
Other examples: Le 27 2 6 , De 18 3 , Jos 24 1 5 . 10.2. DISJUNCTIVE COORDINATION ABOVE PHRASE LEVEL 10.2.0.
Transformations
up
and
down
the
hierarchy
Disjunctive coordination has fascinated logicians. But disjunction as a binary operation in symbolic logic is by no means simply related to the use of a conjunction like or in natural languages.1 One property of clause-level disjunctive phrases often remarked on is the expandability of the clause containing one of them to a sentence consisting of two clauses of similar structure in disjunctive coordination. So Ex 21lf — weyäledä-ΐδ bänlm ^ö bänöt, and she will bear to^him^sons or daughters, J/iould be equivalent to *weyäledä-lö bänlm ^δ yäledä-ΐδ bänöt, and she will bear to
him
sons
or
she
will2
bear
to
him
daughters.
The matter is not as simple as that. Sentence-level disjunction seems to have moved further away from the fact that phrase-level disjunctions are not necessarily exclusive. There seems to be more room in the phrase-level disjunction for the possibility that she might bear him both sons and daughters. This has been recognized in
DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES English by the use of the barbaric "and/or", jneaning both and and or or either and or or. Such a conjunction or disjunction of conjunctions puts a strain on English, although constructions like "when and if" are tolerated, In Hebrew, however, such constructions are totally unknown, (English can also combine prepositions governing the same item, like "under and over the rope", rather than coordinating prepositional phrases -- "under the rope and over the rope". But Hebrew never coordinates prepositions in this way.) Keeping in mind that the Hebrew constructions adduced above might be realizing more than one deep structure, the transformation from clause to sentence represents a movement of "or" up the grammatical hierarchy. Movement of "or" down the hierarchy involves deletion of material repeated in the coordinated clauses. It is a curious feature of Hebrew that it insists on full repetition in phraselevel coordination, but avoids repetition in sentence-level coordination by eschewing sentence-level disjunction for the most part. Only rarely does function on sentence-level, joining disjunctively two clauses which have the same verb with the same subject. A clause of the type weki-yiggah sör ^et-^is ""δ ^et-^issä, and when a bull gores a man or a woman (Ex 21 2 8 ) is more common than a sentence of the type "'ö-ben yiggah ^ö-bat yiggah, whether it gores a son or it gores a daughter (Ex 21 3T )." #10.1.1 showed that alternative locations are readily joined by ^ö on phrase level. A rare example of the transformation of such a construction to sentence level with repetition of the verb is Nu 14 2 -- lü-matnü biPeres misrayim 'δ bammidbär hazze lü mätnü, would we had died in the land of Egypt or in this wilderness would we had died. Note the chiasmus. Another of the rare instances of the repetition of a verb when it is the subjects that are alternatives is Le 25"* 8 " 9 . ^ahad me^ehäyw yig^älennü ϊδ dödö ^ö-ben-dödö yig^älennü ^δ-misseP er besärö mimmispahtö yig^älennü ^ö-hissigä yädö venig^äl [When an Israelite is forced by poverty to sell himself to a non-Israelite] one [=any] of his brothers will redeem him or his uncle or his uncle's son will redeem him or any relative who is a member of his fratry will redeem him or, if he can raise the money, he will redeem himself. The need for a distinct clause to express the final alternative is unavoidable, since the verb is different. Furthermore the condition stated explicitly needs a verb to be attached to subordinately. But the other provisions are divided among
DISJUKCTiyE SENTENCES three clauses, each of which has the same verb, These, however, can hardly be reduced to one clause by joining all the subjects together and using the verb only once. The result would be grammatical, of course. But the listing of a set of alternative subjects in one clause would suggest that it is a matter of indifference which one does it. The listing of a set of alternative actions in four clauses in disjunction, as in the text, implies four grades of responsibility. First a member of his immediate family should redeem him. If he is unable to do it (so it is implied], then a near relative, such as an uncle, steps in. If that fails, the chain of obligation passes to more distant relatives, and only when that resort fails is the victim left to raise his own ransom. Nu 5 1 1 " 3 1 deals with the case of a man who suspects his wife of infidelity. The alternatives are simply whether she is guilty or not. In Nu 511* these alternatives are transferred to the husband. A paragraph of three clauses describes his suspicions in either case, and two such paragraphs are joined by "'δ. There is a lot of repetition. It is quite unusual to find ">ö pushed so high up the hierarchy, except in Leviticus. See #10.2.3. The tendency to keep ^ö as far down in the hierarchy as possible and to minimize sentence-level repetition results in Le 5 1 in a clause which has one common subject for three alternative verbs joined disjunctively, in one predicate. wehü^
^ed 1 δ rä^ ä ^ δ yäda ^
and he [is] witness or saw or knew Priorities are implied -- first the formal witness, then the eye-witness, and only then hearsay. It is also possible, however, that our translation is wrong. For if the construction type shown in #10.1.2 is being used, whether he saw or whether he knew is in apposition with witness and expounds it C#3.7.2). There are two kinds of witness, firsthand and hearsay. We suspect from this example that clause-level disjunction of predicates with a common subject is the least favoured alternative to sentence-level disjunction with repetition, that the use of a disjunctive subject is more acceptable, and that the use of a disjunctive phrase for object, location, etc., is definitely preferred to spreading out such alternatives in disjoined clauses. There are limits, however. In Ex 21 3 3 two clauses with common subject and object are not reduced by having onl£ the verbs in a disjunctive phrase: *wekl yiptah "'S yikre ^Is. I3r. Instead, each clause is fully generated, and even the conjunction is repeated:
DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
1^5
wek.1 yiptah H a b3r ^ö ki-yikre' ^la b5r and or
if if
someone someone
takes the excavates
cover
off
a a
cistern cistern
Other examples of ki ... ^δ kl ...: Le 5 1 " 5 , 13 J 6 , 15 2 5 . The conjunction H m , if, is not so prone to repetition in alternative conditional clauses linked by ^δ. Nu 35 1 6 " 2 3 spells out the exceptions to the provision of refuge in cases of accidental homicide. There are three kinds of circumstance, and each has three alternative conditions. (i) If the impliment used creates a presumption of premeditation -Verse 16
w P i m bikll barzel. . .
Verse 17
viPim begeben yäd ...
and
Verse 18
^ö
or
bikll ^es-yäd ...
but
if if
with
an
iron
weapon.
. .
with
a
stone
club
...
with
a wooden
club
...
These are murder. The 'redeemer' will kill the 'slayer'. (ii) If there is evidence of malice aforethought or of premeditation -Verse 20
v«P im-beSin1ä yehdopennü
and him
if
in
hatred
he
pushed
^δ hisllk ^äläyw bisdiyyä or Verse 21
^δ b«P ebä hikkähü beyädö
threw something at him from a hiding place... or in hostility struck him with his fist...
The 'smiter' is guilty of a capital offence. (iii) If the instrument is casual and there is no evidence of animosity -Verse 22
ve^im-bepeta^.. hädäpö... "'ö-hisllk
Verse 23
f
älSyw kol-kell
'3-bekol-"-eben, . .
and if on the spur of the moment he pushed him or threw something at him without hiding or made any stone fall on him without seeing...
This was presumably an accident; there must be a proper trial. The conditional conjunction ^im is always used with we-, even when the latter means or; but it is never "used with ^δ, even when the latter links disjunctively another conditional clause. The preference for coordinating nouns rather than verbs or clauses disjunctively is seen when alternative relative clauses
lit6
DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
are involved. Instead of "»Is ^aser X
Y
or
^Is ^äser X
^äser Y
use
^Is ^äser X ^ö
1
1s ^äser Y
Examples: Le 17 3 , 2 1 1 9 , 22" ,5. 10.2.1.
Disjunctive
Sentences
In view of the discussion in #10.2.0 clauses which state alternatives will be joined disjunctively on sentence level when they do not have elements in common or at least when the subject is the only clause-level tagmeme they have in common. Example:
kl s ä q S l ^ö-yärö for or
it it
yissäqel yiyyäre
will will
be be
stoned shot (Ex
1913)
Other examples: with common subject - - E x 2 2 1 3 , Nu 11®, 30 1 1 ; with change of subject -- Le 1 9 2 0 . 10.2.2.
Paragraph-level
Disjunction
When a series of future or conditional actions are described sequentially by means of WS clauses, and there is a branch in the chain due to alternative possibilities, ^ö may be used with VS and the tense is sequential future. In other words, ^ö acts just like wäv-consecutive in paragraph-level disjunction. Examples: Le 4 2 3 , 5 21 , 251'9, Nu 11®
(past frequentative).
In other contexts, however, VS after ^ö is simply past tense. 10.2.3.
Disjunction
of
Paragraphs
Whole paragraphs which represent alternative possibilities may be linked disjunctively by The commonest examples are those in which the initial clause in each paragraph states an alternative condition. Examples: Ex 2 1 3 6 , Nu 5 1 1 " 3 1 , and often in Leviticus. On this level of^the grammatical hierarchy, however, it is common to find we-, used as an alternative realization of the disjunctive conjunction. See #10.5.
DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
ll»7
10,3. DISJUNCTIVE QUESTIONS 20.3.0.
Fully
formed
Disjunction
For the disjunctive coordination of two YES/NO questions one might have expected that each clause would be marked by the interrogator hS- and then these two independentlyinterrogative clauses would be joined by But this construction is rarely realized. The only example I have found is Mai l e . hayirseks ^δ häyiisiä1 päneykä or
will will
he he
be favorable lift up your
to you? face?
Compare Job 16 3 , where the second question (af t e r is marked with ma, and Job 382 β , where the second question is marked with 11. 10.3.1.
Interrogated
Disjunctive
Sentence
Alternatively, the two clauses may be coordinated disjunctively, using^ö, and the whole questioned with ha-. Example: hateqasser ma^ädannöt kimä "•ö-möseköt kesll tepatteh Can you bind Or the cords
the chains of the of Orion [can] you
Pleiades? loose? (Job
3831)
In other pairs of questions in this passage the place of ">0 is occupied by either we- (#10.5) or ^im (#10.3.2). 10.3.2.
The
Normal
Construction
The common form for disjunctive questions is to have häon the first clause and ^im on the second clause. Example: hämälök timlSk fälenü Ί im-mäsQl ti_ms3l hänü Will [or]
you indeed reign over us? will you indeed rule us? (Ge
37e)
Other examples: 1 Ki 22 J 5 . Is ΙΟ 1 5 , Je 5 2 3 , Job 4 J 7 , 6 s ' 6 , 1 0 S 5 , ll 7 , etc. The exact role of "'im is not clear. If it substitutes for as used in #10.3.1, it is a conjunction meaning or. If it is parallel to ha- and synonymous with it, the clauses are in apposition (#3.3) and no formal mark of disjunction
ll»8
DISJUNCTiyE SENTENCES
is realized, That the second analysis is correct is supported by the occasional use of veVtm to coordinate a second question CJob 8 3 , II 2 , 211*, 22 3 ) , The analagous combination ^Im like ha- in #10.3.0 would clinch this, but it is not attested. 10.3.3.
Phrase-level
Disjunction
of
Questions
In accord with the principles outlined in #10.2.0 above, the alternates being questioned are more lilcely to be realized as an antithetical phrase in the predicate of a single clause. Example: hame^at hü^ ^im-räb Is
he
little
or
big?
CNu
13lebB)
Other examples: Nu 1 3 1 , a > i s t , Jos 5 1 3 . The phrase hehazSq... haräpe. is [he] strong or weak? is found as predicate in Nu 1 3 l S t A . The alternatives are joined by ^3 in Jos 1 8 1 9 , 2Ki 6 2 7 , and Ecc 2 1 9 . Finally Joel l 2 uses we 1 im in phraselevel disjunctive coordination of questioned items. 10.3.4.
Redundant
Antithetical
Tag
Question
A yes/ho question may be followed up by "'im 15"1, or not, which in effect restricts the YES possibility to hä-, is it
true
that?
Examples: Ge 24 2 1 , 27 2 1 , 3 7 3 2 , Ex 16", Nu I I 2 3 , De 8 2 . The antithetical correlatives yes and ^Syin yield the disjunctive combination häyes... 'im-^äyin, is there... or isn't there? (Ex 17 7 , Nu 1 3 2 0 ) . Once the combination ha-... ""im-^ayin is met (2Sa 17 6 ). 10.4. DISJUNCTIVE REALIZATION OF CONJUNCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS The disjunctive conjunction is sometimes used when the two items joined are not semantically exclusive alternatives, when "and" would seem to be more appropriate. The priests are to wash their hands and feet both when they enter the meeting tent and also when they draw near to the altar. These AND/OR conditions are joined by ^3 in Ex 281*3 and 3 0 2 0 . In Nu 15 s ^3 means and not or. 10.5. CONJUNCTIVE REALIZATION OF DISJUNCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS Items which are clearly alternatives are sometimes joined by "and" rather than by "or". Ex 21 3 7 recognizes two^things a thief might do with a stolen animal: üte.hähö ^3 jneiärS, and he
will
butcher
he
will
be
it
or
he
will
sell
it.
ButEx
2116
links
the
alternative means of disposing of a stolen human being by we-: ümekärö wenimsä 1 beyädö, and he will sell him and Tor J caught
in
his
possession.
DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES
ll+9
In studying disjunctive questions in #10,3 it was already obseTvea that a variety of means of coordination can be used, sometimes in such contiguity that questions of dialect can» not enter. The interchangeability of conjunctive and disjunctive conjunctions does not seem to correspond in any way to the deep structure relationships between the linked questions, in particular whether the questions point to mutually exclusive answers, and so are disjunctive, or whether they all have the same answer, and so are conjunctive. In seeking an explanation of Abraham's conduct, Abimelek asks him two questions, only one of which can give the right answer. But they are joined by "and" not "or" CGe 20 9 ) . The questions Yahweh asks Moses in Ex 4 1 1 all have the same answer, but they are joined by "or" not "and". Here, however, there is both sentence-level and phrase-level disjunction, complicated by the ambiguity that "or" can mean "and/or". See also De 2 32 > 3 ". NOTES 1 2
D i k , Coordination...: VS can be consecutive
pp. 259-270. future after
^δ.
11
CONTRASTIVE SENTENCES
ll.O. THE DEGREE OF CONTRAST A mild contrast between two related clauses can be secured without advancing to the outright opposition between antithetical and exclusive clauses. The participants in two parallel but in some ways different activities are brought into prominence by realizing them as grammatically similar items in preverbal positions. A common way of doing this is to refer to the two participants by means of explicit pronoun subjects. Example: hü^ yesügekä rö^s
wePattä tesüpennü ^äqeb
He (on the one hand) will crush you head and you (on the other hand) will crush him heel (Ge 3 1 5 ) Here the identical verbs point to similarity, while 'head' versus 'heel' is contrastive. But neither of these pairs is brought into prominence. The contrast is between 'he' and 'you'. 11.1. CONTRASTIVE SENTENCES AND OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS The typical sequence (we- +S +V...) in a contrasting clause is just like the sequence in many circumstantial clauses and also in many chiastic clauses. It therefore needs to be emphasized that it is not the pattern in the coordinated clause alone that determines its grammatical function. It is the total pattern of the two clauses together that determines the total effect in the resultant sentence as a single construction. The contrastive sentence is marked for contrast in that both clauses have features which are unusual from the grammatical point of view, whereas the clauses in the neutral (unmarked) conjunctive sentence are more ordinary. There is, for instance, no obligation to use an explicit preverbal pronoun subject, as in the example above. Its very redundancy focuses attention on it, and brings the two participants into contrast.
CONTRASTIVE SENTENCES
151
In assessing a clause as 'unusual', allowance must be jnade for the different sequence patterns which are 'usual' for different verb forms. The verb is usually clause-initial when it is VSj VI, VC, or VJ, so any item preceding such a verb is in a striking position. VP and Pt are rarely clause-initial, so a preverbal position in a clause with ΎΡ or Pt is less likely to be contrastive, unless.contrast is secured by content. Many such sentences are listed as neutral (conjunctive) in Chapter 8. 11.2. CONTRAST WITH PRONOUN SUBJECTS Two balancing clauses joined in this way constitute a contrastive sentence. Example: htP yihye-llekä lepe we^attä tihye-ΙΙδ le^löhim, and
He will be a mouth for you you will be God for him (Ex
416)
The same pattern is repeated in Ex 7 2 -^You f^attSj will Aaron your brother will speak. These are Moses' and Aaron's contrasting roles. But when the arrangement of Ex 4 1 6 is presented as God's act, the two parts are more closely integrated by means of chiasmus. speak...and
netatti-kä ^elöhim lepar^ö wePaharön ^ähikä yihye nebi^ekä, and
I have appointed you god for Pharoah Aaron your brother will be your prophet
(Ex
71)
Another such mixture of noun and pronoun subjects is found in Ex 21". The respective duties of two partners in a contract or joint enterprise can be spelt out in paragraphs which begin with the same contrastive device. Example: wa^änl... (Ge 6 1 7 ) wePattä. .. (Ge 6 2 1 ) Other examples: Ge 9 7 with 9 9 ; l?" with 17 i 0 ; Ex 2 5 , 1 4 1 6 " 1 7 , De 4 2 1 . 11.3. CONTRAST WITH NOUNS AS SUBJECTS Explicit preverbal noun subjects can be used in coordination to bring out a slight contrast. Example: ^abrfim yäsab b«P eres-kenü^an velöt yäsab beware hakkikkär, and
Abram settled (while, butJ
in Lot
the land of Canaan settled in the cities
of
the
plain
(Ge 1 3 1 2 )
152
CONTRASTIVE
SENTENCES
Other examples; Ge 27 17 (.Leah and Rachel), Ge 4 2 1 3 ? 3 2 (Joseph, and Benjamin), 44 1 0 , 44 l f , Ex g 2 0 ' 2 1 (the heedful and unheedful), 19 1 9 . Noun subject followed by pronoun subject: Ge 27 1 1 , Ex 1411*, 211*, De l 3 9 "*«, 3 9 , De 4 3 "* (both preposed topics are resumed). In Ex 3 2 the same subject is repeated for purposes of contrast. wehinne hassene bö'er bä1 wehassene ^enennü 1 ukkäl, and and
behold, the bush is ablaze with fire (but) the bush is not being eaten.
11.4. CONTRAST WITH OBJECTS Example: ^ötl hesib 'al-kannl vtPötö tälä, and
Me he returned him he hanged
to my post (Ge 4 1 1 )
Contrast Ge 12 1 2 , where similar material is arranged chiastically, blending the two clauses into a single picture rather than setting them against each other. Two noun objects contrast in Ge 42 3 3 , Ex l 2 2 , 16 23 (three objects), 1 8 2 2 a > 2 6 b , 21311 (compare 21 36 ), 293 9 (repeated in 29 1 to attach more details). The contrasting rules for firstborn domestic animals, asses and humans are coordinated in Ex 13 1 2 " 1 3 . De 3 1 2 " 1 3 (contrasting allocation of tribal territory; in De 3 1 5 " 1 6 the recipients are in contrastlve positions). 11.5. OTHER ITEMS IN CONTRAST Very little contrast is involved in the listing of times. Example: ben häfarbayim tö^kelü bäsär, übabböqer tiSbe^ü lähem, and
In in
the the
evening morning
you you
will will
eat flesh be sated with
bread
(Ex
1612)
Compare Ex 16 1 3 and the even more sophisticated construction in Ex 16 6t> - 7a . 11.6. EXCEPTIONS Contrast is not necessarily involved when the same item is repeated in preverbal position in two successive coordinated clauses. Example: ^δηδίοΐ ^ered 'ijnmekä misraymä ve^änSkl ^a^alkä gam-^Slö, and
I will I will
go down with bring you up
you to Egypt (Ge 46"*)
CONTRASTIVE
SENTENCES
153
Compare De 3 2 8 , 9 3 . Here the focussed pronoun is exclusive and emphatic. Another example: kl beyäd hazäqä yesallehem übeyäd hazäqä yegäräsem me^arsö, For with a strong hand he will expel them and with a strong hand he will drive them out from his land (Ex 6 1 ) Correlative items like food and drink do not contrast in preverbal position (De 2 28 , 9 9 » 1 8 ) . Similarly, heaven and earth don't contrast in De 4 3 . Compare De 81*. 11.7. CONTRAST SENTENCE WITH ASYNDETON A
striking example is Ge 502 0 . vtP attem häsabtem ^älay rä^ä ^elöhlm Ijäsäbäh letöbä, And you meant (it) against me (for) evil [But] God meant it for good
König (490) thinks the asyndeton shows the complete disparity between the two modes of operation, and regards the 'and' or 'but1 of the versions as secondary. But there is no evidence that this surface structure realizes a high degree of antithesis. Early Hebrew did not have a special antithetical conjunction. See Chapter 14.
12
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
12.0. INCLUSION AND ADDITION The Hebrew and English Lexicon of Brown, Driver, and Briggs calls 1 ap a "conjunction denoting addition" and gam an "adverb denoting addition." As we shall see, these two 'particles' are largely similar in their syntax. If anything, gam is a conjunction used secondarily as an 'adverb', while 'ap is an 'adverb' used secondarily as a conjunction. The primary function of gam is inclusive coordination, and in this ^ap resembles it to some extent. In many of its occurrences gam functions as a coordinating conjunction meaning and, and there is a considerable range of usage over which gam and we- are interchangeable without perceptible difference of meaning. But there are constructions containing we- which do not accept gam as a substitute. Thus gam can be used instead of we- in circumstantial, adjunctive, surprise, conjunctive and chiastic sentences (#12.4). But, unlike we-, gam is not used to link clauses in disjunctive, contrastive, exclusive, or anti-^ thetical sentences. Or, rather, if gam were substituted for wein such sentences, it would quite neutralize their adversative character. Furthermore, when gam is substituted for we- as the coordinating conjunction in circumstantial, adjunctive, surprise, conjunctive, or chiastic sentences, it is no longer possible to regard such constructions as alternative surface realizations of deep inter-clausal relationships that are adversative in character. Gam is the synthetic or inclusive coordinator par excellence, and when it is replaced by we-, which is not always possible, it loses some of its effect of adding and not just joining. When two clauses are linked by gam in this distinctive way, we have a construction which we call an INCLUSIVE SENTENCE (IncSe). 12.1. PHRASE-LEVEL COORDINATION USING GAM 12.1.0.
Introduction
That gam is primarily a conjunction is shown by its use to coordinate two nouns in a phrase (Ge 7 3 , 2011) . ^ ap is not so used.
INCLUSIVE 12.1.1.
Inclusive
155
SENTENCES
Phrases
The phrase-level coordination gam-X gam-Y means both
X and
Example: gam-^änahnü gam-^äbötenü, both (Ge 46 3 ") .
ancestors
we
and
our
Y.
Other examples: Ge 242 5 , 32 2 0 , 43 8 , 44 1 6 , 4 7 3 ' 1 9 , SO 9 , Ex 4 1 0 , 5 l ", 1231 , 12 32 , 18 18 , Nu 18 3 , De 32 2 5 , Jdg 8 22 , 191 9 , ISa 2 2 έ , 12 ,2 5 , 173 6 , 202 7 , 219 , 251 6 , 286 » 1 5 , 2Sa 3 1 7 , 5 2 , 162 3 , IKi 3 1 3 ' 2 8 . The first gam is almost never lacking when the phrase is continuous and NEVER replaced by we-. The following gam, however, can be replaced by we-, although this is rare. Examples: Ge 14 1 6 , Jdg 10 9 , 2Ki 17" 12.1.2.
Compound
Conjunction
In a rare variant of this phrase type, X wegam-Y is used. I
___
^
Examples: Ge 14 7 , De l 2 8 (Χ, Y wegam-Z). But gam-X wegam-Y is not found as a single continuous phrase. If X we-Y, X gam-Y, and X wegam-Y are all X
Duals
The dual inclusion in gam-X gam-Y explains gam-senehem in Ge 27"5. This cannot mean, 'why should I be bereaved of the two of them ALSO?' because there has been no previous bereavement. We suggest that it substitutes^for *gam-£aräqöb gam-^esäw. So in De 222 *gam-hä^Is
g a m - h ä ^ i s s ä = g a m - s e n e h e m (no one else ISa 2 5 " 3 . Similarly Ex 4 9 means if
pare De 2 3 , lieve
both
signs
is to die). they do not
Combe-
(there were only two).
12.2. TRANS-SENTENCE INCLUSIVE PHRASES An inclusive phrase of the form X gam-Y or gam-X gam-Y can be realized discontinuously with (gam-)X in one clause and gam-Y in another clause. Gam thus functions as a long range inter-clause conjunction which does not link the two clauses as wholes, but only single elements in each. X and Y have their own functions in their respective clauses. This means that both simultaneously realize two tagmemes. This can be avoided by replacing wegam-Y
156
INCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
by w?-Y garn-hü"* or the like. Y then realizes the clause-level tagmeme, while htO functions in the inter-clause inclusive phrase X...gam-hiO. Gam functions independently of, and side by side with, any other conjunction which links the two clauses together as wholes. The two clauses in which (gam-)X and gam-Y occur need not be contiguous, and need not be joined together at all, except in so far as gam joins one part (X) of one to one part (Y) of the other. Gam cannot be replaced by we- when it is used in this way. Example:
waye§aw ^et-härl 1 son . . . way?§av gam et-hasisenl. . . , and he commanded the first... and he commanded the second also...
(Ge 3 2 1 8 - 2 0 )
The phrase et-häri 1 sön. . . gam 1 et-hasseni spans the interval between two widely separated clauses. The clauses as such have their own conjunctions. Example:
(we-) gam-^I? ^al-yerä^ bekol-hähär garn-hasso"* η wehabbäqär ^al-yir^u "'el-mül hähär hahü"* , both a man let not appear in all the\mountain also the flocks and herds let not graze in front of that mountain (Ex 34 3 )
The two clauses are in apposition. The second gam links hassö^n to ^ϊδ; it does not link the second clause to the first. Gam-X ...gam-Y is an inclusive phrase linking man and flocks across this sentence. Gam coordinates pronouns in their free forms, not as suffixes. *gämö, he too, does not exist, only gam-hü"1 . When the item corresponding to Y is a pronoun affix, gam is attached to the corresponding free-form pronoun in apposition. Example:
+VSt +S:(PrAx gam-Pr) wayya f a§ gam-hü"1 mat ^ammim and he too prepared savoury
(Ge 2731 )
Also Ge 22 2 ", 303 » 30 , 381 1 , Le 262>t (lap is used in the same way in the preceding clause; compare De 2 1 1 » 2 0 ) , De 12 3 0 . Example:
+V + 0:(PrSx gam-Pr) bäräkenl gam- ^SnI, Bless me, me too (Ge 27 3, *> 38 )
Example:
+Pp +(PrSx gam-p r ) ^ äläyw gam-hü^ , Upon him, him also r
Contrast gam- äleyhä (Ge 26
21
(ISa 1 9 2 3 ) ).
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
157
+N +(PrSx gam-Pr) beplw gam-hü^, in his mouth, his also (2Sa 17 5 ) Also IKi 21 l 9 . Even when Y is a free form, gam is sometimes attached to a pronoun in apposition with it, rather than to Y itself. Pr gam-Pr Ge 20® Pr g a m - N
2Sa
1710
Ge 411 . 2 2 , 2 6 , 10 2 1 , 19 3 ", 222 0 , Nu 4 2 \ Jdg l 2 2 , 831 Note the unique gam-Pr Ν Ν
gam-Pr
gam-hem hartumme misrayim (Ex 7 1 1 ) 12.3. DOUBLE COORDINATION When an inclusive phrase (gam-)X... gam-Y is distributed between two clauses, and gam-Y is clause-initial, and the second^clause is coordinated, the second clause begins vegam-Y, Here vegam is not a compound conjunction. Each conjunction operates independently on a different level of the grammatical hierarchy, we- is a sentence-level conjunction joining two clauses; gam is a phras level conjunction joining Y to X in a phrase^that cuts across a sentence. Furthermore, the clause to which we- links the ensuing clause need not be the same as the clause containing X to which gam links Y. Example: wayyiSme^Tl hä^äm ^-al-hitnaddebäm. . vegam däwid hammelek lämalj iimh.5 gedölä, and the people rejoiced because they offered themselves and David the king also rejoiced with great joy (lCh 29 Here we- joins the two clauses, while gam joins the two subjects in an inclusive phrase. Dik recognizes that a construction like this does not transgress his criterion for coordinators. He says that the two conjunctions in such a combination have different "scope". 2 12.4. INCLUSIVE COORDINATION AND SENTENCE TYPES 12.4.0.
Introduction
The calculus of sentence types in Hebrew makes provision for the marking of succession or simultaneity in time sequences (tenseaspect of verbs) in one dimension, and for the marking of similarity or contrast in activities, in another dimension. The plac ing of an inclusive phrase athwart any kind of sentence serves as an additional and unequivocal mark of similarity. If the sen-
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
158
tence already expresses similarity, this is enhanced, as when gam is used in a chiastic clause. If it implies similarity, this is explicated. If it is equivocal, gam resolves the ambiguity in favour of similarity (circumstantial, alternative, surprise). If the sentence is unmarked, gam marks it for similarity (conjunctive sentence). If the sentence could imply contrast, gam cancels this (contrastive sentence). If the sentence is marked for contrast, gam cannot be imposed on it (alternative, exclusive, antithetical), as the following instance shows. In comparing Ge 1 2 1 2 with 4 1 1 3 above (p. 68) it was pointed out that the latter is contrastive. But the use of gam with a similar sentence in Nu 22 3 3 can hardly overcome the antitheses in the verbs. gam-^ötekä häragti we'ötäh heheyeti, I would spared
and 12.4.1.
Inclusive
have her
both
slain
Chiastic
you
Sentences
It has been shown that a chiastic pattern between two coordinated clauses links them very closely, and usually implies similarity between the items in chiasmus. This similarity can be placed beyond all doubt by the provision of an additional inclusive linkage between the items in chiasmus. Any two clauses which are neither wholly identical nor totally antithetical are likely to be partly similar, partly unlike. A contrastive sentence plays up contrast; a chiastic sentence plays up similarity. But a chiastic sentence can still be open to antithetical interpretation. The chiastic sentence in Ge 43'b-'*a reports the similar actions of Cain and Abel. But the gifts contrast, and if the focus is on this contrast, the sentence is antithetical --Cain
brought
vegetables
BUT
Abel
brought
animals.
This
inter-
pretation is banned by the use of gam to link Cain and Abel. They both brought gifts. Other examples: Ge 4 2 2 (Adah's and Zillah's actions similar), 4 2 6 (Seth like Adam), 1 0 2 1 (Shem like Japheth) , 1 4 1 6 (double rescue), 1 9 3 8 (both sisters alike), De 7*° (but nothing else is sent--this is an extra), Jdg 8 3 1 . Ge 5 0 2 3 has a chiastic clause in apposition; the expected v5gam is not used. 12.4.2.
Inclusive
Conjunctive
Sentences
While a conjunctive sentence is unmarked for contrast or similarity, some similarity is generally implied. This can be reinforced by means of gam. Example:
we"1 Is lö^-ya/äle fimmäk wegam-^Is "'al-yerä1 bekol-hähär,
INCLUSIVE and a man won't go also a man mustn't
and
SENTENCES
up with you appear in all
159 the
mountain
(Ex
343)
gam would go better with the verb. "Nobody must either ascend or appear." Example: gam ^äSö ta^äSe wegain yäk8l tükäl, you will BOTH ALSO succeed
and
do
(ISa 26 2 5 )
The use of gam... vegam... with the same pronoun subject in two successive clauses bespeaks a conjunctive sentence which, as a whole, is linked inclusively with the preceding text. Example: gam-hü"1 yihye-lle^äm wegam-hü"* yigdäl, He too a and 12.4.3.
he
(i.e., Manasseh as well as Ephraim) will
people, too will be
Inclusive
great
'Contrast'
become
4819)
(Ge
Sentences
If Rebekah had said to Abraham's servant *^attä sete v e l i g m a l l e y k a ^esP a b , you drink and for your camels I will
draw,
the two items in pre-verbal position would have been brought into prominence and into contrast (Chapter 11). and
(You look after I'll look after
yourself the camels).
What she actually said was gam-^attä sete vegan ligmalleykä ^esPäb, both you drink and also for the camels I will
draw
(Ge
241*'*)
The imposition of gam... wegam... on the structure of a contrastive sentence neutralizes the contrast and brings everything together. In Ex 21 28 the rules for a goring ox and its owner are stated . in chiasmus. s ä q ö l yissäq.el h a s s ö r . . . u b a 'al h a s s ö r n ä q l , The ox will be stoned and the ox's owner is not culpable
160
INCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
A l t h o u g h the fates c o n t r a s t , the c h i a s t i c s e n t e n c e plays d o w n the a n t i t h e s i s a n d t r a n s l a t i o n 'but' is not indicated. That w o u l d be done in a c o n t r a s t i v e sentence. *hass5r y i s s ä q e l ü b a ^ a l hassör näql W h e n the owner is r e s p o n s i b l e b o t h are liable to the d e a t h p e n alty. hassSr y i s s ä q e l wegam-be^äläyw yümat, and
The his
ox will be owners also
>
stoned will die
(Ex
2125)
T h e a d d i t i o n of gam links 'owner' a n d 'ox' a n d draws a t t e n t i o n to the s i m i l a r i t y of their fates. It thus r e v e r s e s the effect of placing 'ox' a n d 'owner' in j u x t a p o s i t i o n in a regular contrast sentence. W i t h o u t gam, Ex 2 1 2 S w o u l d be contrasting the d i f f e r e n t m o d e s of e x e c u t i o n . In a regular c o n t r a s t s e n t e n c e hü'1 ^ämar... wehi 1 ^ämerä... w o u l d be a n t i t h e t i c a l - - ' H e said this, but she said that.' The u s e of gam w o u l d o b v i a t e the a n t i t h e s i s , as in Ge 2 0 s . halö"1 and
hü"1 wehi^-gam-hl^
^ämar-ll äh5tö hi"! ^ämerä ^ ähl hü^
Didn't he say to me, "She's my [didn't] she also say, "He's my
sister" brother"?
Other e x a m p l e s : Ge 13 2 w i t h 5 (The p a r t i c i p a n t s , Abram a n d Lot, are in c l a u s e - i n i t i a l c o n t r a s t p o s i t i o n . [Abraham h a d silver a n d gold, but Lot h a d tents.] But gam blocks this and brings out the fact that they w e r e c o m p a r a b l y w e a l t h y , w h e r e a s Ge 13 1 , w h i c h lacks gam, contrasts A b r a m ' s a n d Lot's dwelling p l a c e s . ) , De 2 6 p ö k e l . . . w e g a m m a y i m ) . This d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a n inclusive s e n t e n c e a n d a c o n t r a s t ive s e n t e n c e (Chapter 11) is n i c e l y i l l u s t r a t e d by Ge 4 4 9 " 1 0 . T h e b r o t h e r s insist o n their s o l i d a r i t y , u s i n g a n inclusive sentence--the
one
of
us
it
is
found
with
will
will
be
die
and
we
also
(gam-"1 anahnu) will be slaves to you. But J o s e p h ' s slave rep l i e s w i t h a c o n t r a s t i v e s e n t e n c e - - t h e one it is found wih will
be my
slave
but
you
(we^attem)
clear.
In
the
former gam u n i t e s d e a t h a n d slavery. In the s e c o n d the use of gam w o u l d be i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n slavery a n d freedom. Other examples: Ge 2 1 1 2 " 1 3 (links Isaac a n d Ishmael), Ge '»'t.ite.'te (Abraham's slave a n d the camels). 12.4.4.
Circumstantial
241"'
Clauses
E x a m p l e : Ex 1 8 2 3 ; the safe arrival of the p e o p l e is c o n c o m i tant w i t h M o s e s ' survival; but the a d d i t i o n of gam implies that M o s e s also will a r r i v e in p e a c e .
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
l6i
Another example: Ex 1 9 2 2 . 12.4.5.
Surprise
clauses
Surprise clauses ( C h a p t e r 7 ) are fairly detached. But gam-Y in a surprise clause can tie it into context. Example: [God has
I never expected not only let m e
your seed as well
to see
see your face again, your face], God has
(gam ^et-zar^ekä) (Ge 4 8 1 1 )
Other examples of gam with hinne: Ge 12.4.6.
and behold let me see
Paragraph-Level
Inclusive
4222»28.
Linkage
When X and Y are explicit in WP clauses, X... gam-Y is paragraph-level . Example: wattasqeynä ^et-^ablhen yayin ballaylä hü^... wattasqeynä gam ballaylä hahü^ ^et-'ablhen yäyin, . and and
they they
made made
their father drink wine that that night also their father
(Ge 19 3 3 and
Wine
3i
night... drink
)
gam links the two similar nights. Note the chiasmus. Other examples: Ge 22 2 " (the concubine like the wife), 26 2 1 (They had already quarreled over one well; now they dug another
and
they
quarreled
over
it
TOO.),
2731
(Rebekah
had
already done the same--verse 14), 2 9 3 0 a A (as he had already done to Leah. The following clause, which has another gam, is c o n t r a d i c t o r y .
He
loved
also
Rachel
rather
than
Leah
[who
is called hated in the sequel]. But he had not previously loved someone else more than Leah, gam suggests he loved Rachel as well as Leah; hence its deletion in the versions.), 29 3 3 (she already had one son), 3 2 2 0 (as he has already instructed the first), 33 7 (the concubines had already approached), 3 8 1 0 (as he had already killed his brother), Ex and 11 " (Pharoah, like Yahweh, called his wise men and they, like Moses and Aaron, performed tricks), Nu 11" (The Israelites are like the camp followers.), De 3 3 (Og as well as Sihon), De
919
and
1010
(on
that
occasion
too,
as previously),
920
(for Aaron as for the people — linking wä^etnappal in verse 18 . with wä^etpallel in verse 20). 12.4.7.
Predictive
Discourse
When X and Y are explicit in WS clauses X... gam-Y is a paragraph-level linkage. Examples: Ge 3 2 2 (he has already taken from one tree), 2 9 2 7 (Laban has already given him Leah, referred to by the preceding z ö U ) , 3 0 1 5 (gam links to object of an identical verb),
\()Z
INCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
4 4 2 9 Can irony of the author; Jacob speaks as if he knows that they have already removed Joseph), Nu 16 J 0 (the priesthood on top of other priveleges), 27 (like Aaron, the comparison follows), De 3 2 0 (like the eastern tribes). 12.4.8.
Other
Constructions
X and Y explicit in miscellaneous constructions. Examples: Ge 19 3 * 0 ernes ...gam-hallaylä), 24 1 9 (she had already looked after the man), 38 1 1 (his brother had already died), Nu 12 2 (bemolie...gam-bänü), De 12 3 0 (haggöylm hä 1 eile ...gam-^ änl) . X implicit, with gam-Y in WP clause. Examples: Ge 3 s (She had previously given some to herself.), 50 1 8 (This suggests that the deportation was in two stages. If so, the first stage is now lost.) X implicit before gam-Y in miscellaneous clauses. Examples: Ge 19 2 1 (second boon like the first), 20 6 (I know it just as well as you do; compare 2Ki 2 3 ' 5 ) , 30 3 0 (as well as Leäh), 3 5 1 7 (this time also; the previous time it was also a son--Joseph), 4 8 1 9 (Manasseh as well as Ephraim), Ex 3 3 1 7 (second request to be granted like the first; compare Ge 1 9 2 1 ) , Nu 4 2 2 (like the other Levites already mentioned), 18 2 8 (Levites to tithe like the others), 24 1 2 (the messengers as well as you), De l 3 7 (twice)(Moses like the Israelites), 12 3 1 (they sacrifice animals [implied], they sacrifice their children as well). 12.4.9.
Inclusive
Complex
Sentences
An inclusive phrase can link together the two clauses in a complex sentence. Example: ^im-yükal ^Is limnöt ^et-^apar hä^äres gam-zar^akä y i m m ä n e , If anyone can count the dust of the also will be counted (Ge 1 3 1 6 ) . g a m c o n n e c t s Other examples: Jdg covenant.). 12.4.10
^ a p Equivalent
221
(j too to
will
not
keep
earth, your seed seed w i t h dust.
my
side
of
the
gam
The use of ^ap as an inclusive conjunction indistinguishable in meaning from gam is ullustrated by Ge 40 1 6 (x too, as well as the butler), De 2 1 1 (they also, like the Anaqim), 2 2 0 (that is, the land of Ammon, just like the land of Moab was considered a land of Eepha^im), De 15 1 7 (male and female slave alike), Jdg 5 2 9 (as well as her ladies).
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
163
12.5. INCLUSIVE COORDINATION AND NEGATION In negated clauses, (gam-)X.... gam-Y means neither X nor Y, whether in a simple phrase or in a sentence-spanning phrase. Example: gam-ll gam-läk lö"1 yihye, it will be neither mine nor yours (IKi 3 26 ) . Rxample: gam-qöb lö^ tiqgobennü gam-bärek lö^ tebäräkennü, Seither curse him Nor bless him (Nu 2 3 2 5 ) Compare Is 48®. Example: vel5^-sät libbö gam-läzöH, and he paid no thought to this one EITHER (just as he had ignored the previous disaster) (Ex 7 2 3 ; 8 29 is similar). Example: wegam-^attä -higgadtä II wegam ^änökl lö'1 säma 'tl biltl hayyöm, (and) neither you told me (and) nor I heard except today (Ge 21 2 e ) 12.6. THE IMPLICATION OF INCLUSIVE COORDINATION In a well-formed inclusive sentence the phrase (gam-)X... gam-Y lies across the sentence. Attention is drawn to the similarity of X's and Y's involvement. If X and Y are subjects they do the same thing. If objects, they have the same thing done to them. If locations, the same thing happens at both of them. And so on. Even without the optional preliminary gam to mark it, X can usually be identified once gam-Y comes up, even if there is quite an interval between them. Sometimes, however, X is quite lacking in the text preceding gam-Y. The implication of gam-Y is that there has to be a similar X in there somewhere, either implicit in the text, or presupposed in the situation. Example: wayyitten gam-liPlsäh, and she gave it to her husband also^(Ge 3 s ). There is no preceding indirect object to match le^Isäh, but it is implied that the woman is that indirect obj ect. Example: venösap gam-hü^ ( al-sönePenü, and he too will join our enemies (Ex l T o ) . This implies that someone else has already joined the enemy and now Israel will do so TOO. There is nothing explicit or implicit in the preceding text about a gathering of enemies, but use of gam makes that the presupposition of the incompletely formed inclusive phrase. There is a similar effect in Ge 1 3 1 S , 1 6 1 3 , 19 2 1 . Inclusive linkage by means of gam has its most powerful effect when X and Y are both explicit with similar grammatical func-
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
161»
tions, in contiguous clauses which are constituents of the same sentence. This happens in well-formed chiastic, conjunctive and constrastive sentences. 12.7. NONINCLUSIVE USES OF gam 12.7.0.
Introduction
There are instances when gam-Y does not link Y to any similar X in the context, and when, moreover, it is not even possible that such an X is implied or presupposed. Here gam cannot mean "also" or "too." 12.7.1.
Coordination
The use of gam as a coordinating conjunction virtually indistinguishable from we- is seen in its use as coordinator in a variety of sentence types. In inter-clause constructions, gam can be used in a circumstantial clause. This is rare. Example: gam hä^Is mSse gädöl i P o d , while the man Moses (was) very great (Ex ll3). Or in an adjunctive clause--very rare. Example: gam ^änökl hälllä 111, as for me, a curse be on me... (1 Sa 12 2 3 ). In a surprise clause (for vehinne). Example: gam hinne ^abdekä ya^äqöb ^ahärenü, behold, your slave Jacob (is) behind us (Ge 32 2 1 , which seems to be garbled from vehinne gam-hü' 'ahSrenü in 321 9 ). In a conjunctive sentence. Example: ^eres rä^äsä gam-sämayim nätäpü gam-^äblm nä^epü mayim, The earth convulsed and the sky collapsed and the clouds dropped down as water (Jdg 51*) In a chiastic sentence. Example: vayyakküm lepl-hereb... gam kol-he^ärlm...sillehü bä^es, and they smote them to the mouth of the sword... and all the cities... they sent into fire (Jdg 201*8) Other examples: Ex ΙΟ 2 ", ISa 28 l s .
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
165
gam-^attä is occasionally used instead of wi^attä in high-level discourse transitions. Examples:
Ge 4 4 1 0 , ISa 12 1 6 .
Similarly in ISa 2 1 5 gam links two paragraphs dealing with similar abuses. Gam can be placed between two clauses in apposition, as with v5- also (#8.10.2). Examples: De 23 3 ',, (specifying apposition, 286 1 , Jos 2 4 l e b (makes an inclusio with the opening clause), ISa 28 2 0 , 2Sa 12 2 7 . In Ge 30 s , gam is used as a post-positive inter-clause coordinating conjunction.3 12.7.2.
Compound
Inter-Clause
Conjunction
Just as in #12.1.2 it was shown that vegan was equivalent to a single phrase-level conjunction, so, occasionally, this combination may be used to unite two clauses when there is no indication that gam is operating independently of we- to unite two items in these clauses in a trans-sentence phrase. At least in Ex 6 3 " 5 , where three clauses as wholes are coordinated by two occurences of vegan, gam-^Snl, I too, should not be construed, as the Massoretes were aware. For this would mean that someone else besides God had heard their cry, which is not the case. In each instance gam could go with the verb: I revealed myself... and
I also
raised
up my covenant...
and
I have
also
heard...
But
in the light of the observations made in #12.8 below, it is possible that here gam ^anl means ι myself. Other examples of Cli wggam-Cl2 are found in Ge IS 1 ", 1 7 l e , 2 0 1 2 , 21 1 3 . For the construction gam-Clj wSgam-Cl 2 see Ex 1 0 2 5 " 2 6 . 12.8. GAM NOT A CONJUNCTION 12.8.0.
Introduction
In #12.7.1 above gam is called a conjunction because it can be replaced by v8-. When this is not possible, it might be necessary to call gam an 'adverb', even though the name is hardly suitable, because gam so used modifies other things besides verbs. 12.8.1.
Appositive
gam
The use of v e g a n in Ge 15Ilf is not inclusive. There is no similar preceding element to link ^et-haggöy with. Compare Ge 38 2 2 Ge 17' 6 is even more remarkable, for here v e g a n links two verbs which are partly synonymous, and, furthermore, w?gam nätattl is
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
166
future (=WS). Compare Ge 30® where v?gam iäma f beqöll specifies the meaning of dänannl ^elöhim, God has judged me and also he heard my voice, a relationship normally realized in apposition. 12.8.2.
gam"1
Emphasizing
Gam is sometimes placed before an infinitive absolute after a cognate verb, a thing which does not happen with w5-. Examples: Ge 3 1 1 5 , 461*, Nu 1 6 1 3 , ISa l 6 . the strange gm-brvx in Ge 2 7 3 3 ? ) The similarity of gam and ing g a m - ^ o m n ä , truly 13
1
Indeed
(Does this explain
a p as emphasizers is seen by compar(Ge 20
) with
1
ap
1
omnam,
really
and truly (Ge 1 8 ) . That the particles are assertative is seen by comparing ha^ap tispe, will you really destroy? (Ge 18 23 2lf > ) with hSki in Ge 2 7 3 6 - - J s n ' t he truly called Jacob? 12.8.3.
Focussing
gam
A construction like milkä gam-hl"1 , probably means Milkah herself, not Milkah she also, for there is no preceding participant for gam to link Milkah to (Ge 2 2 2 0 ) . Similarly, gam in IKi 4 1 5 is not inclusive, for no one else had married her. Other examples: Ge 20®, 3 2 1 9 , Ex 1 2 3 2 b , Nu 2 2 1 9 , Jos 9*, Jdg 9 " 9 , ISa 22 7 , 2Sa 1 2 1 3 ' 1 * . Similarly, 1 ap-hü^ means he himself in 2Ki 2 11 *, and ^ ap has the same effect in its several occurrences in Le 2 6 1 6 " . 12.9. THE HIERARCHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF GAM Gam does not have a single function, but a range of functions with associated meanings. Its various uses are not simply miscellaneous, each with its own contrastive-distinctive features. There are priorities. Its 'typical' function has first claim, and only when that is eliminated as not applicable are less likely functions tried out. Gam-Y immediately suggests a phrase, X gam-Y, and if this is found, especially in its form gam-X gam-Y (#12.1.1), the role of gam as phrase-level inclusive coordinater is recognized. Otherwise, one looks for X (or remembers it) explicitly in the preceding context, or, failing that, implicitly, and gam is recognized as a clause-spanning phrase-level inclusive conjunction. If that fails, one tries out gam as a conjunction coordinating two clauses in a sentence (#12.7). Finally, when all else fails, and no coordination is found, gam is interpreted as an emphatic particle (#12.8.2), or 'adverb.'
INCLUSIVE SENTENCES
167
NOTES 1
Coordination..., p. Coordination. .. , p. 1»0. Dik's criterion is not flexible enough, for it absolutizes the category of a given form by making provision only for its classification as either a coordinator or a subordinator, like the old lexicons. But a conjunction might vary in its role from text to text, as the frequent examples of alternative surface realizations in the present study show. In the case of wegam we must distinguish a compound coordinator (#12.1.2, #12.3) from double coordination on different levels (#12.2) and also from a residue (#12.8.2) in which gam is a 'clause adverbal' or emphasizer. 3 F. I. Andersen, Journal of Biblical Literature 88 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : p. 200. " B. Jacob "Erklärung einiger Hiob-Stellen," Zeitschrift für die AlttestamentIiche Wissenschaft, 32 (1912) :pp.279-282 . The long note on pages 281-282 contains valuable observations on the similarity between gam and ^ap in this regard, and complains that such particles have not been adequately studied. Still true sixtyyears later. 2
13
EXCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
13.0. SIGNALS OF EXCLUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS A collation of 'particles' that have been called exclusive, restrictive, or limitative conjunctions by one writer or another yields the formidable list already given on page 70. The items on this list, which includes some compounds, are by no means all the same in their grammatical behaviour. The realization of relationships of exclusion is a complicated business in which the grammatical functions of conjunctions, prepositions, and 'adverbs' are brought into play, as the faltering treatment of this subject in the existing Hebrew grammars and lexicons shows. Either the issue is obfuscated by sweeping all such items under the elusive 'part of speech' PARTICLE, or else the assignment of an item to one part of speech or another is made so arbitrarily that much disagreement results. Nothing is gained by berating previous workers. The ensuing treatment will develop criteria for distinguishing conjunctions, prepositions, and 'adverbs' from one another by finding out the hierarchical level on which each functions. In brief, a conjunction, by definition, joins things, so its minimum manifestation is in a threeitem construction X-Cj-Y which is a sentence if X and Y are clauses or a phrase if X and Y are phrases or words. A preposition, as its name indicates, comes in front of something, and this might seem at first to be just a trivial structural fact. But the construction Pp-X, a prepositional phrase, is a relator-axis, which, as a whole, functions in relationship to something else, say Z. Since Cj-Y is also a relator-axis construction, there is a formal resemblance between prepositions and conjunctions. But a preposition is always followed by a nominal (noun, pronoun, noun equivalent [the last conceals a circularity in the the definitions]), whereas a conjunction always joins two things of the same kind. These differential criteria do not settle all questions; for instance, they do not tell us whether "except" is a conjunction or a preposition in "noone except me". But at least they permit us to put our finger on the reasons for the structural ambiguity in such cases. A n 'adverb' is not a joiner and not
EXCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
169
a relator, but a modifier. The name is misleading, for while an adverb like me 1 öd, very, can modify a verb, it can also modify an adjective -- töb m«P5d, very good. Furthermore some so-called 'adverbs' modify a clause as a whole, and there is no reason to attach them specifically to the verb in the clause. It is in this regard that 'adverbs' and conjunctions are sometimes indistinguishable, or rather, that it is not easy in some particular occurrences of a given word to tell whether it is functioning as an adverb or as a conjunction. In De 12 1 β raq haddäm lö^ tS^kelu, only the blood you shall not eat, begins with a conjunction if raq relates the following clause as a whole to the preceding general statement as a limitation to be imposed on it. you can do anything you like, except that you mustn't eat blood. But raq haddäm, only the blood, could be a phrase (the object of the verb) in which raq modifies haddäm (haddäm is a noun, so raq should not be called an 'adverb') marking it for exclusion from the list of permitted foods, YOU can eat anything except (=only not) blood, where anything except blood is a phrase in which except is a conjunction, an excluding coordinator. If, finally, raq were an adverb in the strict sense, it would modify the verb and so exclude eat from the list of permitted activities, rou can do what you like with blood, except eat it. The phraselevel only blood is easier to distinguish from the clauselevel only eat and from the clause-modifying (sentencelevel) only-*(eat blood) than the last two are from each other. Since the verb is the hub of the clause, a line cannot always be drawn between a verb modifier ('adverb') and a clause relator (conjunction). The excluding relator lebad is strictly a preposition, and so is the compound lebad min. 1 So lebad me^äser should not be called a conjunction, as is usually done, for this needlessly multiplies categories and flaunts the settled function of ^aser as a nominalizer. Zülätl except is usually a preposition, but it is used once (Jos l l 1 3 ) as a conjunction. Some of the allegedly exclusive conjunctions (or 'adverbs') are negatives, etymologically nouns, whose resemblance to adverbs or conjunctions is not only derivative in the historical sense, but secondary from the functional point of view, and not easy to disentangle from matters of translation. They are ^epes, biltl, bil^äde. The deepstructure relationships of negation, exclusion, and antithesis shade into each other, and so their surface realizations overlap to a considerable extent. Some conjunctions primarily antithetical (Chapter 14) have a secondary use in alternative realizations of exclusive relationships (#13.7). These are ^ im lö1 and kl h a . This leaves ^ak 2 and raq as the exclusiverestrictive 'particles' par excellence. These conversely have secondary usage in alternative surface realizations of deep antithetical relationships (#13.5). The reasons for presenting the material in this way have been explained on page 35.
170
EXCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
^ ak kl is sometimes listed as an exclusive (compound) conjunction. But the only occurrence is in ISa 8® where "*ak kl is not a compound. Each word has its own function; ^ak is exclusive, ki is assertative -- o.-ily you will certainly warn them. 13.1. THE FORM OF THE EXCLUSIVE RELATIONSHIP An exclusive or restrictive connection is a kind of coordination between two items, one of which represents a whole, the other a part which is excluded from that whole. Thus the whole set of a man's sisters comprises three subsets. (i) Full (same father and same mother) (ii) Paternal (same father, different mother) (iii) Uterine (same mother, different father) In Hebrew nomenclature a member of sets (i) and (ii) is (iv) bat-^äbi, my father's daughter. A member of sets (i) and (iii) is (v) bat-"1 imrni, my mother's daughter. Members of set (i) are the overlap of sets (iv) and (v). Members of set (ii} consist of set (iv) minus set (v) -bat-^äbi... ^ak lö' bat-^imml, my father's daughter... but not my mother's daughter (Ge 20 l 5 ). This construction is a phrase-level exclusive coordination. In a similar manner a clause which makes a blanket statement can be subsequently limited by excluding some of what it has comprehensively embraced. Example: wayyiqen yösep ^et-kol-^admat misrayim lepar^ö... raq ^admat hakköhanlm lö^ qänä and Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharoah... except he did not buy the priests' land (Ge 47* °) There are three features to note in this fully formed exclusive construction, (i) The first clause makes a comprehensive statement of which the explicit mark is kol all. This feature is, however, often implicit; the land of Egypt in the absence of any limitation, implies ALL the land of Egypt. Furthermore, as soon as a limitation is applied, this first statement is shown to be not strictly true if it is left standing alone, (ii) The following exclusive clause negates part of the lead clause. The explicit mark is lö1 not. Negation may also be achieved by means of an antonym, (iii) The use of an exclusive conjunction (^ak or raq) to coordinate the excluded part with the comprehensive lead statement. Antithetical conjunctions may alternatively substitute for these (#13.7). Already in this example a problem emerges. As will be shown in #13.9, raq-X can be a phrase meaning only x. If this is what raq is doing in Ge 47 2 0 , it is not a conjunction joining the following clause as a whole to the preceding, exclusively. It modifies "^adrnat hakköhSnim, and
EXCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
171
the object of the verb buy is the priests' land only. In
clause-initial position, therefore, when the immediately following item qualifies for phrase-level modification, the function of rag is ambiguous. (The behaviour of "only" in English is equally ambivalent, and made worse by its greater mobility.) It could be a conjunction Cexcept, along with the negation) or an 'adverb' (only). That raq is here a conjunction is suggested by the similar clause in Ge 47 26 : raq ^admat hakkShanim lebaddäm lö^ häyetä lepar^ö, except the land of the priests^alone did not come to belong to Pharoah. The use of lebaddäm as a
restrictive 'adverb' modifying priests excuses raq from a similar role, and virtually drives it into the camp of antithetical conjunctions -- but. A similar use of "'ak with lebaddö in Ex 12 16 shows that there ">ak is an exclusive conjunction. Raq and "'ak are interchangeable in such constructions. kol-melä^kä lö-yä ^äse bähem ^ ak ^ aser ye^äkel leiol-nepes hü1 lebaddö yeräSe läkem all work will not be done among you except what is eaten for everyone, that alone will be done for you
The grammatical question is then whether raq or ^ak modifies the verb as nucleus of the whole clause (a so-called 'clauseadverb') and so governs the clause as a whole, which is tantamount to being a conjunction, since by modifying the clause as a whole in this way it gives it an exclusive function in the context, or whether it modifies merely one of the clauselevel elements, a noun or prepositional phrase, and so is a more deeply embedded part of the clause. When raq or ^ak precedes a noun or prepositional phrase and is not clauseinitial, it is certainly phrase-level (Ge 6 5 , 262®). When either of them is clause-initial and does not precede a noun or a prepositional phrase that it might conceivably modify, it is certainly an inter-clause conjunction (Ex 8 »2 s ). When it is clause-initial and also precedes a noun or a prepositional phrase that it might modify, it could be either a conjunction or an 'adverb*. This structural ambiguity can be resolved only by resort to semantic considerations, and then only sometimes. Thus Ex 8 5 they will remain ONLY in the Nile (phrase-level) is preferable to EXCEPT THAT they will remain in the Nile (sentence-level). In Ge 24® BUT you won't take my son back there (sentence-level) is preferable to my son ALONE you won't take back there (phrase-level). But
raq in Ge 19® makes equal sense on either level, but is better construed as antithetical (#13.5), since the prohibition of abusing the men does not constitute an exception to the permission to do what they like to the women. The negation in the exclusive coordination construction all x... excluding (only not) Υ can be distributed differently, using the surface features of antithesis. None of you
EXCLUSIVE
172 will
enter
the
land
(kl lim) Caleb...
that
SENTENCES
I promised
to settle
you
in
EXCEPT
and Joshua... (Nu 1 4 3 0 ) . Compare Nu 26 6 5 .
With a prepositional phrase -- There is no expiation for murder... mitted it
EXCEPT (kl (Nu 3 5 3 3 ) .
'im) by
the
death
of
the
one
who
com-
13.2. PHRASE-LEVEL EXCLUSION The preceding examples suggest that kl "'im is preferred as the excluding conjunction after negation, but that raq or ^ak is preferred when negation follows. Besides koi everything, mePümä anything can precede the exception. M e P ü m ä kl
' i m - h a l l e h e m , anything
me^ümä ki H m - ^ ö t ä k i anything
EXCEPT
EXCEPT
the
you
bread
(Ge
396);
(Ge 39®). In Ge 14 2 *
negation is repeated with the excluding conjunction raq.: I'll what me.
take nothing belonging the troops ate and the
to you EXCEPT (bil^ädl r a q ) share of the men who accompanied
We have seen that the exclusion of a subset Y from a set X consisting of Y and Ζ can be stated in two ways, ONLY Ζ = all
Χ EXCEPT
Υ or none
of
Χ EXCEPT
z. T o i d e n t i f y
Ζ as
not
Γ ONLY ζ is not exclusive, because the complete set is not mentioned. But this antithetical construction has the same surface form as the exclusive one, and this fluidity can penetrate also into deep structure. Thus Nu 26 33 lö^-häyä Ιό b ä n l m kl
^ i m - b ä n ö t , h e had
no
sons,
BUT
(only)
daughters,
is just like the exclusive constructions cited above. But h e r e sons
(Y) a n d daughters
(Z) c o m p r i s e t h e s e t
children
(Z). Here the lack of a common gender in Hebrew places a strain on the surface structure, for the use of the exclusive construction means he had no sons except daughters, which is a contradiction. But if the surface structure invades the lexicon, it gives bänim in this context the generic meaning (X) --he
had
no
children
except
daughters.
13.3. TRANS-SENTENCE EXCLUSIVE PHRASES In Chapter 12 there was considerable discussion of the spreading of an inclusive phrase across two clauses which may be otherwise joined together in a sentence. By analogy, the same kind of construction might have been expected with exclusive phrases. But this is rarely found. Unlike the double coordination realized by means of vegan, the combinations veraq and we^ak are almost totally unknown. Exclusion is secured either within a continuous phrase or entirely between clauses as wholes in a sentence. This constraint has doubtless something to do with the component of negation in exclusive constructions, but it would take more research into the deep semantic structure of exclusion than we have room for here to lay this matter bare. Example: vayyimalj et-kol-hayeqüm. . . vayyissä^er ^ak-nöh... and and
he obliterated survived ONLY
all that stood... Noah... (Ge 7 Z 3 " 2 1 f )
EXCLUSIVE
173
SENTENCES
Since ^epes has been called an "adverb of limitation"3 it is interesting to notice how Nu 23 13 says You will see nothing
of
him
EXCEPT
his
edge.
^epes qäsehü tir^e ve-kullö 1δΊ tir^e
and
only his edge you will see all of him you won't see.
13.4. EXCLUSIVE SENTENCES In the commonest exclusive sentences the lead clause states a general rule and the exclusive clause states a limiting exception, with negation. The conjunction in these instances is usually "'ak, and is equivalent to adversative however. Example: in
its
I have given you everything/ life {its blood) you will not
HOWEVER eat (Ge
Oak) 93"l>).
flesh
Note, however, that at this point the speech changes from declarative to what is virtually precative, and the use of "'ak is comparable to its use, utterance-initial, in the solemn premonitions studied in #13.10. Other examples: Le 21 2 3 , 27 2 S , 2 8 , Nu l"",18 3 , 1 5 , 1 7 , 31 2 2 . In Le ll 36 "'ak introduces the positive exception after a negation; it can also introduce a positive qualification after a positive statement (Nu 36®, Jos 311). In Jos ll 13 zülätl introduces the one positive exception to the preceding blanket negation (which is itself an exclusive clause that excludes the act of burning from the general acts of destruction just described, so that Jos ll* 3t is an exclusion from an exclusion). That zülätl is here a conjunction is shown by the otherwise redundant use of l e b a d d ä h . In contrast with ^ak as used in the above examples, raq is not so obviously a conjunction when it is used in similar constructions. Example: of in
Israel; Ashdod
W e r e n o t left Anakim r a q (but? however? they remained (Jos
in the land except?) in ll22).
of the children Gaza, in Gath, and
But this is sufficiently explained as phrase-level limitation: ONLY in Gaza,
etc. See #13.9, and the discussion of the clause-
initial position in #13.1. The same applies to Ge 50*, where clause-initial r a q t a p p ä m . . . follows a very comprehensive statement that everybody went to Jacob's funeral, EXCEPT ( c o n j u n c t i o n ) or ONLY ('adverb') in the land of Goshen.
their
infants...
they
left
13.5. EXCLUSIVE FORMS USED FOR ANTITHETICAL RELATIONSHIPS The formal similarity between exclusive constructions and antithetical constructions has already been remarked on sev-
171»
EXCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
eral times. In contrast with the preference for ak as the exclusive conjunction in priestly writings of the Pentateuch (#13.4), in the historical books and some prophets ^ak signals an adversative relationship that falls short of the outright opposition of full antithesis and is appropriately translated however, nevertheless. Examples: ISa 296 , 2Sa 2 1 0 , 3 1 3 , IKi 17 1 3 , 22"'* (In 2Ki 121* raq replaces 1 ak in an identical construction.), 2Ki 12 1 *. 136 , 227 , 23 s , 26 , 35 , Is 141 5 , 4 3 2 \ Je 26 1 5 . 2 " , 28 7 , 30 l f , Ezk 46 1 7 , Jon 2 5 , Zee l 6 . Deuteronomy uses 'ak only once in this way (De 18 2δ ); once raq (De 10 l s ) once "Upes kl (De 15"). There is outright antithesis with ^ak in ISa 20 3 9 . See also Nu Ιό 1 ", Ex 21 1 , Le ll* (= Del4 7 ). 13.6. EXCLUSIVE FORMS USED FOR COORDINATION OR APPOSITION #13.10 contains numerous examples of utterance-initial 1 ak which is assertative or an exclamation. When it comes between clauses that are in no way exclusive or antithetical it may be described as simply coordinative (Nu 26 s 5 ) or appositive (Nu 31 23 ). Also Ex 12 1 5 . 13.7. EXCLUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS REALIZED BY ANTITHETICAL FORMS The antithetical conjunction kl 1 im except is used to mark the exclusive condition that cancels a general rule. Examples: Ge 32 2 7 , Le 21 2 , 226. The variety of surface structures that can realize essentially the same deep relationships is illustrated by the several times that the exclusive condition for receiving audience with Joseph is stated. Ge 42 1 S :
im [= Neg . 1-tes?"1 ü mizze kl ^im-bebö' ^ählkem haqqätön hennä You won't go out EXCEPT when your
from here youngest brother
comes
here
Ge 433 > 5 : lö"1 tir">ü pänay bilti [= Neg.] ^ ähikem ^ittekem You won't see my face EXCEPT your brother is
with
you
Ge 44 2 6 : kl-lö^ nükal lir^St pene hä^is wePähinü haqqätön ^ enennü ^ittänü For we EXCEPT
cannot see [literally
the m a n ' s face a n d ] o u r youngest
brother
isn't
with
EXCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
175
In the last example the condition is simply coordinated. In Ge 44 2 3 the condition is stated first. ^im-lö^ yered ^ahlkem haqqätön ^ittekem lö^ töslpün lir^ot pänäy If your youngest you won't see my
brother does face again
not
come
down
with
you
13.8. PHRASE 'ADVERB' AND CLAUSE 'ADVERB' The combination raq-^ak is listed as a "restrictive particle."" Williams calls this "redundant."5 It occurs only in Nu 12 2 . häraq-^ak bemose dibber yhwh hSlö1-gam-bänü dibber, Did Did
Yahweh he not
only speak in Moses speak in us as well?
alone?
Here ^ ak bemose is a phrase of the type found in #13.9, and is the correlate of phrase-level gam-bänü. But raq is a clausemodifier of the rest of the clause as a whole, as discussed in #13.10. The two parts of the alleged compound thus function on different levels of the hierarchy. 13.9. LIMITATIVE 'ADVERBS' When ^ak and raq are used as modifiers of Y which they always precede, and there is no trace of another item X from which Y is to be excluded by the coordination X "^ak/raq Υ, X except Y, then ^ ak/raq Y is a complete construction meaning only Y. To call ^akandraq 'adverbs' in such phrases is a misnomer, since Y is not necessarily a verb. Examples with raq: raqra^, only
good
(Ge 41
110
(Ge
262®^,
raq
s
nothing but evil (Ge 6 ), h a k k i s s e \ only the throne
), raq baye'ör, they will
remain
only
in the
raq-t5b, (=1)
Nile
(Ex 8 5 » 7 ), Ex 9 2 6 (the land of Goshen was the only place where there wasn't hail), 10 1 7 (raq not clause-initial), 102,(, De 2 3 5 (we took
as spoil
only
the animals), 3 1 1
(the preceding
ki
shows that raq is not a conjunction). Examples with ^ak:
1
ak-happa r am, just the once
(Ge 1 8 3 2 , Ex 1 0 1 7 ,
J d g 6 3 9 , 1 6 2 8 ) , 3 4 1 5 ' 2 2 , E x 1 2 1 § (on the very first day), D e 1 6 1 5 ( n o t h i n g but joyous) , 2 8 2 ' ( n o t h i n g else but oppressed and robbed), I S a 18® ( n o t h i n g less than the kingship), 21s (merely from women), 2Sa 231" (with an infinitive, only to strip the slain), 2Ki 18 20 (=Is 36 5 ) (mere words), Is 167 (ut11 1 15 terly stricken), 19 ( u t t e r l y foolish), 34 *' (even there, not "yea, there. ."JTRSV]), 45 25 (only in Yahweh), Je 16 19 (noth-
ing but lies), 323 ® (definitely modifies a participle in midclause position), Hos 122 ( n o t h i n g but vanity), Zeph l l e (could
176
EXCLUSIVE
SENTENCES
be appositive, equivalent to gam), Ps 23 6 Cnothing but goodness and mercy', but usually interpreted as clause-level - <surely).
Example with bilti: Ge 21 2 6
(except
Examples with bil^ädl: Ge 4 1 l e
today).
(only God). Compare Ge 41 **".
It is rarely that ^ak is adversative on phrase-level: ^ ak lö^ kol-hayyämim, but^not forever (IKi ll 3 8 ). In Je 10 ^ak bemispat probably means with nothing but fairness.
The variety of means of securing this kind of modification is illustrated by the several repetitions of Balaam's com-
mission
from
God.
The
word
implies
every
word,
only
the
word
or nothing but the word. Each of the six clauses is different, but all have in common the suspended object and the resumptive "*ötö. The option of marking the object with a 'restrictive adverb' represents the point of greatest variability in surface realization.
w(P epes
-haddäbär
and nothing but
wePak and
the
word
aser-^ adabber that
I speak
'eleykä
''ötö tedabber
to
it
you
(Nu 22 3 5 )
^et-haddäbär ^äser ^adabber ^eleykä
only
you will speak
the
word
that
I speak
to
you
^ötö ta^aSe it you will do
(Nu 22 2 0 ) halö'* is it
Ί et not
^aser yäslm
yhwh
bepi
that
Yahweh
in my mouth
puts
ledabber to
Is ötö ^ esmör it
I shall watch
speak
(Nu 23 1 2 ) haddäbär ^aser yäsim ^elöhim bepi the
köl
all
word
that
puts
God
in my mouth
^aser-yedabber yhwh that
speaks
Yahweh
^ötö ^ adabber it
I shall speak
(Nu 22 3 8 )
^ ötö it I
shall
do
(Nu 23 2 6 )
^aser-yedabber yhwh that
speaks
Yahweh
^ötö ^adabber it I shall speak
(Nu 24 1 3 )
EXCLUSIVE SENTENCES
177
13.10. LIMITATIVE CLAUSE-MODIFIER The exclusive particles raq and ^ak are inter-clause conjunctions in an exclusive sentence when the second clause restricts the scope of the first (#13.4). When this sentence relationship is not realized, raq or ^ak may be a restrictive modifier of the clause it is in. Example: raq "'et-benl Ιδ 1 täseb sammä (Ge 24°). Here raq "'etbeni is not a phrase, as in #13.9. It does not mean: The only
person thing
you won't you mustn't
take back there is my son. It m e a n s : do is take my son back there.
Example: raq ^e^berä b e r a g l ä y , I JUST foot
[that's
all]
(De
want
22').
The
to go through
only
on
Another example: De 4 9 . In the case of ^ak, this function as a clause 'adverb' is the ground for recognizing an assertative or emphatic meaning, especially when it is utterance-initial and the clause is precative. Examples: just
agree
Ge 23 1 3 , 26 9 , 2 7 1 3 » 3 \ with
them),
44
28
,
Ex 3 1
hardly be restrictive), Le 2 3 2 7
Jdg 3 * (not " o n l y "
29 1 *
[RSV]), 7
19
13
(.surely), 34 2 3 (let's
(be sure
to...;
it
can
(like Ex 3 1 1 3 ) , Nu 14 9 , De 1 2 2 2 , (they had
just
set
the
guard
[compare Ge 2 7 3 0 ] ) , 1 0 1 5 , 2 0 3 9 , ISa l 2 3 , 1 2 2 0 » 2 " , 1 6 1 6
(surely/),
Ge 2911*), Je 2 3 5 , 3 i 3 , 5", 1 0 1 9 , 12 1 , 3 4 \ Hos 4", 12 9 [RSV]), Zeph 3 7 .
("Ah"
1 8 l 7 (just be a hero!), 2 5 2 1 , 2Ki 5 7 (Just realize...), IKi (rt m u s t be the King of Israeli), 2 K i 2 4 3 , Is 6 3 e ( c o m p a r e
2232
In one instance kl "".im seems to have the same effect: kl ^im-
z e k a r t a n l , Just
remember
me
[that's
all]
(Ge 40 1 1 1 ).
13.11. SUMMARY The inclusive and exclusive 'particles' are ambivalent in grammatical function because they act differently on different levels of the hierarchy. (i) As inclusive or exclusive conjunctions. Phrase-level Trans-sentence phrase Sentence-level
XAY or X...AY Cli-·· ...X... Cl2-> ...AY... Cli A CI2
(ii) As additive or restrictive Phrase-level Clause-level
A A
'adverbs'. <M> <M>
Y CI
1T8
EXCLUSIVE SENTENCES NOTES
1 lebad be- should be added, as its parallelism with zülät- in Is 26 1 3 shows. 2 Ν. H. Snaith "The Meaning of the Hebrew ^SS Vetus Testamentum (196U): pp. 221-225. 3 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Λ Hebrew and English Lexicon'· p. 67· 11 Davidson, Hebrew Syntax: p. 202. 5 Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto, 1967): P. 67. 6 Brown, Driver, and Briggs (p. 36) has a good discussion of asseverative versus restrictive ^ak, with examples where it could be either.
14
ANTITHETICAL SENTENCES
14.0. ANTITHESIS BETWEEN CLAUSES Ancient Hebrew had no one specialized conjunction meaning but. ^Sbäl, heard so frequently in modern Hebrew, had only begun to acquire this function toward the end of the biblical period. 1 But in English covers several kinds of antithesis, including exclusive except = but not. In the Hebrew sentence system we have distinguished a mild contrast (jbut - on the other hand) (Chapter 11) from outright antithesis (but = per contra)(Chapter 14). Between these extremes come 'adversative' sentences, for which Hebrew has no distinctive sentence type. For hut - nevertheless, however, exclusive or antithetical sentences are used. 14.1. THE FORM OF ANTITHETICAL SENTENCES The structure of an antithetical sentence involves a RELATIONSHIP between two clauses in antithesis (the following clause is the antithesis of the lead clause) and a CONJUNCTION joining them. Antithesis involves not just contrast (Chapter 11) but contradiction or opposition. The setting of opposites in contradiction usually involves a deep structure negation of some kind. This may find expression in several ways. (i) Negation is implicit in any assertion. This makes it possible for an antithetical clause to be used alone, as a denial of the contrary statement, especially in the repartee calculus. An utterance beginning But... implies antithesis, even if its contrary is not explicit in the context. (ii) Antithesis may be achieved by placing two clauses containing antonyms in opposition. (iii) Antithesis may take the form of negation of the lead clause, or of some element in it, by means of not. (iv) Or a negation in the lead clause may be followed by a contrary assertion in the antithetical clause. In all these constructions the antithetical relationship between two clauses coordinated in antithesis is
180
ANTITHETICAL
SENTENCES
sufficiently signalled by their semantic content. This explains why the neutral coordinating conjunction ve-r> and can be used to join them and properly translated but. Other more distinctively antithetical conjunctions are available, and are characteristically used when there is explicit negation, especially in the lead clause, to introduce the antithetical clause. Here kl but is to the fore, but other conjunctions may be substituted for it. It needs to be emphasized that it is the total pattern of the sentence, made up of the semantic content and sequence patterns of the constituent clauses as well as the choice of the conjunction, that realizes the distinctive syntax of the antithetical sentence. A n antithetical clause in isolation will often resemble formally a circumstantial, conjunctive, or chiastic clause. In such cases the total sentence structure will often decide what it is; but a sentence that falls short of the maximum realization of the distinctive-contrastive features of any one sentence type may have to be considered indeterminate as to type. The occurrence of such structural ambiguity, however, does not invalidate the categorizations defined in terms of optimal realizations. 14.2. ANTITHESIS WITH IMPLICIT NEGATION While a well-formed antithetical sentence is a two-clause construction, an antithetical relationship may be realized between a single clause and its general context, as when an antithetical clause is placed alongside an entire paragraph to bring out some kind of contrast. Since we- is the conjunction preferred in this construction, and since the item to be contrasted is generally in the position of prominence at the beginning of the clause, such an antithetical clause has a formal resemblance to circumstantial, chiastic, or contrastive clauses. But it is not on a side track like a circumstnatial clause (which does not involve any contradiction); it does not develop the ABBA pattern of the chiastic sentence (which highlights similarity, not opposition); it does not develop the ABAB pattern of the contrastive sentence (which usually is not so contrastive as to involve negation). Such a marginal antithesis usually leaves the negation implicit. Example: wiPetkem läqah yhwh, but O:you V'.acquired S'.Yahweh (De 4 2 0 ) . This is in antithesis with Yahweh's relationship to other nations; it is implied that he did not acquire them. The same effect could have been secured by saying you alone. Example: wenöh mäsä^ hen be^ene yhwh, but Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh (Ge 6'). This has the form of a circumstantial clause rounding off an episode (#5.1.2); but it is also antithetical, implying that Noah was not evil like the rest of mankind as just described. Other examples: Ge 1 7 2 1 (but Cwe-D my covenent I will establish with Isaac — implying that he will not establish his
ANTITHETICAL SENTENCES
181
covenant with Ishmael [Ge 6 1 8 does not develop a similar antithesis]), Ge 27 2 2 (The voice is Jacob's voice/ but Cve^l t h e hands
a r e Inot
Jacob's
hands
butJ
Esau's
hands
-- i n
Ge 31" 3 similar clauses with no such implied antithesis^are simply conjoined), 31 s (but Uwe-] God...), 31 2 9 Cbut Cwe-J God...),
4115
(but
I have
heard...),
421
0
, etc.
In Ge 28 1 9 and 4 8 1 9 the antithetical conjunction is wePüläm. 14.3. ANTITHESIS BY MEANS OF ANTONYMS Example: wa^ehl höeek-^apelä bekol-^eres^mijrayim... ülekol-bene yisrä^el häyä ^ör bemöseb3tSm And and
there was total darkness in all the land all the Israelites had light where they
of Egypt lived
CEx 10 2 3 )
This is a well-formed chiastic sentence, and the conjunction could be translated while as a signal that the actions are contemporaneous. The contrast between darkness and light secures antithesis, with but as the appropriate conjunction. The Hebrew use of and enables both these deep-structure relationships to be simultaneously realized in one sentence. Other examples: Ge 29 3 1 . Ex 20 1 0 (but the seventh Sabbath), 35 2 , De 2 1 1 » 2 6 , S 1 3 " 1 " , etc.
day is
14.4. ANTITHESIS BY NEGATION A negated clause following a matching assertative clause is generally antithetical in some way and the conjunction we-, which is the one usually used, requires but. Example: wePäkelä ^ötäm ^Xser kuppar bähem... wezär lö^-yö^kal, And BUT
those who were atoned for with them shall eat a foreigner will not eat [them] (Ex 2 9 s 3 )
them
In the optimum realization of such an antithetical clause, the item to which the antithesis applies is placed in the focal position before Ιδ"1, even if this requires an explicit fand redundant) subject pronoun. Example: weniggas m5.se lebaddäm ^el-yhvh wehem viggäsü wehä^äm lö^ ya^alü f immö, And BUT and
Moses alone will draw near to Yahweh they [the elders] will not draw near the people will not go up with him (ΈΧ
242)
182
ANTITHETICAL SENTENCES
Here the second and third clauses have the same structure and function; they are conjoined in a sentence which, as a whole, is antithetical with the first clause. Other examples of antithetical clauses with structure we-X lö 1 V...: Ge 2 1 7 » 2 0 (but see #5.1.1), 3 3 , 4 5 (see #9.3.0), 19 19 (S:Pr does not specifically contrast with anything: its position secures the pattern of general antithesis), 20 , 16b 28 . 301*2. SS 1 " CS:Pr), 38 2 3 (S:Pr), 408 . 421,'e (S:Pr), Ex 5 . 9 s »* 1 " 3 2 , 19 2 " (a prohibition), 24 1 1 , 3 3 1 J l B > 2 3 , Le 2 1 2 , Nu l1*7, De 4 1 2 (this also exploits the pattern of a contrastive sentence for greater antithesis by placing qöl versus temünä in the focal positions), De 4* 2 (but he did not hate him...), etc. This prime pattern for negation in antithesis probably explains the use of Conjunction + Infinitive Absolute + Negative + Verb in Ex 5 2 3 rather than Conjunction + Negative + Infinitive Absolute + Verb, which would keep the infinitive next to the verb. But we do not wish to insist that the contrast between these two sequence patterns is all-important. Negation itself frequently implies some kind of antithesis, so the sequence Conjunction + Negation + Verb will sometimes be found in an antithetical clause, without the additional feature of bringing the contrasted item into focal position before the negator. Example: velö^-zäkar Sar-hammasqim ^et-yösep But the chief butler did not remember Joseph (Ge 4 0 2 3 ) Other examples: Ge 22", 8 s , 3 1 7 t , 3 2 b , 38 2 6 , 391 0 b , De l 2 6 . - 5 . Occasionally the sequence pattern that is optimum for an antithetical clause (Conjunction + Contrasted item + Negator + Verb) is used when there is no antithesis. In Ex 9 2 9 the position of hatbäräd the hail before lo"1 serves the different purpose of bringing it into a conjunctive pattern (Chapter 8) with haqqSlSt thunder, while the negation is parallel to the verb cease. Similarly, if the preceding clause is also negative, the pattern ve-X Ιδ"1 V may be simply chiastic with it and not antithetical at all (#9.4.8) (Ex 16 2 ", 30 1 0 ): or two such clauses may be joined conjunctively (Ex 222 ) . in Ex 12 3 9 gam cancels the antithetical force of such a clause, making it inclusive; compare Ex 34 3 . In the Book of the Covenant clauses of the form ve-X lö1 V... are not antithetical because there is no deep-structure contrast. The preverbal position serves rather for topicalization, as each new subject in a series of prohibitions is introduced (Ex 23 a » e > Κϊ is sometimes used as the antithetical conjunction in clauses of this kind (Ge 4 4 2 6 , Ex 33 s , De 3 2 7 } On the use of exclusive conjunctions in this kind of antithesis, see #13.5.
ANTITHETICAL SENTENCES
183
14.5, ANTITHESIS AFTER NEGATION 14.5.0.
Introduction
When an assertative antithetical clause follows a negative clause, several conjunctions can be used, interchangeably it would seem. 14.5.1.
Antithetical
ve-
Example: velö^ yiqqäre^ ^et-simkä ^abräm vehäyä simkä ^abrähäm, And your name will no longer be called Abram but (Lit. and) your name will be Abraham (Ge 1 7 s )
Other examples: Ge 2e (There was no rain... but (hit. and) a stream
used to come up from
the underworld...),
21 13 . Compare Ge 42 10 .
14.5.2.
Antithetical
Sequential
Ex 1 2 1 0 ,
wäv
It is also possible to use a sequential clause antithetically after negation. Example: velö^ ^äSü ka^aser dibber ^alehen melek misrayim wattehayyeynä ^et-hayelädim, And they did not do as the King of Egypt told them. And (—BUT) they saved the boys' lives (Ex l17)
Another example: Ge 40 23 . Compare Ge 4 1 2 , 281'2. 14.5.3.
Antithetical
kl
Example: Säray ^ istekä lö^ tiqrä^ ^ et-semäh iäray kl Särä semäb, Saray your wife -- you won't call her name But Sarah is her name (Ge 1 7 1 5 )
Saray
Other examples: Ge 3 s , 24 3 " 1 , Ex 4 1 0 , 23*5, 34 13 (after a virtual prohibition). De 4 2 2 » 2 6 , 5 s , 8 3 (note the repetition of both verb and subject), 9 s , etc. Such an antithetical clause often follows a simple negation consisting of ιδ^ so', which contradicts a statement previously made by another speaker. Example: lö^ kl ?ähäqte Sol I You're
lyinglj
But you did laugh
Other examples: Ge 192, 42 12 , 481'.
(Ge 18 1 s )
181»
ANTITHETICAL
SENTENCES
Such an antithetical sentence is not always clear for recognit i o n , because ki has a variety of m e a n i n g s , and sometimes more than one of them is compatible w i t h the context. In p a r t i c u l a r , the m e a n i n g for or because, governing a subordinate c l a u s e , may give the reason for the n e g a t i v e statement just made. Example: The last clause in De 2 s gives both the antithesis of and the reason for the p r e c e d i n g statement--i won't give you any of to the
his land as descendants
an of
inheritance Lot as an
because/but inheritance.
I have Compare
given Ar De 5 s .
The antithetical possibilities of ki have n o t always been sufficiently recognized by t r a n s l a t o r s . 2 Sometimes an antithetical meaning fits b e t t e r than a causal one. So Ge 3 1 1 " 5 does not mean you certainly won't die FOR CRSVD God knows,... The statements a r e a n t i t h e t i c a l - - y o u certainly won't die, but ion the contrary1 (as) God knows, when you eat some of it, your e y e s will open...
Κϊ can be used antithetically without a preceding n e g a t i o n , but w h e n so used it implies a n e g a t i o n . So Ex 1 6 s : [We did not die w i t h full stomachs in E g y p t , as w e w o u l d have p r e f e r r e d ] but you brought community with
us out into this wilderness to kill famine. C o m p a r e Ge 1 8 l s , 3 8 1 β .
this
whole
1
The correlatives lö" . . .ki can also realize p h r a s e - l e v e l antithesis: lö"1 attem. . .ki h ä ^ e l ö h i m , not you...but God (Ge 45®). Compare Ex 14.5.4.
Example:
12®—not
Antithetical
raw...but ki
roasted.
U m
lo"1 yiqqäre"1 äfimkä kl ^im y i s r ä ^ e l yihye
ya^aqöb iimelcl,
Your name will no longer be called Jacob but Israel will be your name (Ge 3 5 1 0 )
In Ge 3 2 2 9 the second clause is incomplete, making the tion phrase-level. Other examples: Ge 1 5 " , Le 211*, Nu 1 0 3 0 , 2 4 2 2 , De 7 5 series of p r o h i b i t i o n s ) , I Z 5 ' 1 " ' 1 8 , 1 6 s . 14.5.5.
1
Antithetical
conjunc-
(after a
im lö"1
This is rare. Ge 24 3 8 uses ""im lö"1 antithetically w h e r e the p a r a l l e l Ge 24'* uses ki. A s i m i l a r relationship is achieved by means of apposition in Ge 28 1 " 2 . 14.5.6. Example:
do this you
need
1
Antithetical Ge
30 3 1
for me; not
im
(you will
pay
me
nothing,
BUT
but conditional subordination
give
me
anything
IF
you
will
do
[hm]
you
will
is possible-this
for
me).
ANTITHETICAL 14.5.7,
Antithesis
Using
SENTENCES
Exclusive
185
Forms
See #13.5. 14.6. ANTITHETICAL QUESTIONS An antithetical question is introduced by we^ and in Ge 227 : Here's the flint and the fuel; kid for the burnt offering?
BUT
(Lit.
and)
there's
the
In Ge 31 3 0 the antithetical question stands in apposition (#8.6).
14.7. ANTITHESIS IN APPOSITION3 Example:
Don't
that Sarah
look
tells
on
it
you, heed
as
an
evil,
her voice
BUT
(=0)
everything
(Ge 2 1 1 2 ) . Another
example: Ex 14 1 3 . NOTES 1 According to König (Syntax: p. 53*0 , "'äbäl is used adversatively only in Dan 1 0 7 ' 2 1 , Ezra 1 0 1 3 , 2Ch Ι1* , 1 9 3 , 3 2 1 7 , but becomes frequent in the Mishnah. 2 Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax: §13Ub. 3 An utterance-initial'adverb' whose clause-leyel function is to mark the following statement as strongly asseverative takes on the additional role of an inter-clause conjunction when it introduces in the course of an utterance a statement that is strongly antithetical to the preceding. The syntax of 1 ä k e n is exactly like that of ki and 'ak, so that etymological connections have been suspected. If, in such a construction, they are translated surely, certainly, rather than but, however, nevertheless, just as when they are utterance-initial, then they are invariably 'adverbs', and the asseverative antithesis stands in apposition with the preceding. Distinctions between different kind of surface structure thus become arbitrary in instances like this, "'äken is utterance-initial asseverative in Ge 2 8 1 6 , Ex 2 1 " , ISa 15 32 , Is Uo 7 , U5 1 5 , Je 3 2 3 > 2 3 (but these could resume the antithesis in 3 2 0 ) , ί»10, 8 e . It is inter-clause, meaning nevertheless, in spite of that, introducing an unexpected fact the opposite of what had been wrongly supposed, in Is 1»91', 531*, Je 3 2 0 , Zep 3 7 , Ps 31 2 3 , 66 1 9 , 8 2 \ Job 32 s . But it has no exclusive function.
Causal
asseverative
antithetical
exclusive
1 äken 1 ak raq
15
SURFACE REALIZATIONS AND DEEP RELATIONSHIPS
15.0. INTRODUCTION In the preceding discussion distinctions between sentences were made in two different ways (see #4.8). In terms of the relationship secured in the sentence between the constituent clauses, which may be alternate to each other, concomitant with each other, and so on, there is a sentence construction by means of which this relationship is distinctively signalled. Each such construction in its most distinctive form is definitive of a sentence type. Each sentence type functions as the prime surface realization of one of these deep-structure relationships. RELATIONSHIP
TYPE
Consecutive
Sequential (paragraph-level) clause Adjunctive clause Surprise clause Circumstantial clause Chiastic sentence Inclusive sentence Conjunctive sentence Disjunctive sentence Contrastive sentence Antithetical sentence Exclusive sentence
Extraneous Incidental Simultaneous Concomitant Additive Neutral Alternative Opposite Contradictory Subtractive
15.1. ALTERNATIVE SURFACE REALIZATIONS The one-to-one correlation between deep relationship and surface realization shown in #15.0 is not the whole story of the Hebrew sentence system. Some relationships can be realized by more than one sentence type and conversely the same sentence type can often realize more than one deep relationship. On first sight this might seem to threaten the validity of the categorizations on both levels, reducing the neat system
S U R F A C E R E A L I Z A T I O N S AND DEEP R E L A T I O N S H I P S
187
to chaos. But this f l e x i b i l i t y w i t h i n the system does not m e a n that there is no system. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of m o r e t h a n one w a y of saying e s s e n t i a l l y the same thing gives a speaker o p t i o n s in saying w h a t he w a n t s to say. He decides how to say it. But this f r e e d o m is quite d i f f e r e n t from the formal a r b i t r a r i n e s s of any language as a code. Once the code is g i v e n , the speaker m u s t adhere to the c o n v e n t i o n s , or else c o m m u n i c a t i o n breaks down. H o w e v e r , the c o n v e n t i o n s include important c o n s t r a i n t s . Not every s e n t e n c e type can be u s e d to r e a l i z e every deep r e l a t i o n s h i p . A n immense p r o b l e m lurks in the w o r d "can" as we have u s e d it here. It sounds legislative. We c o u l d be empirical a n d say that not every sentence type is f o u n d to be a c t u a l l y u s e d to realize every deep r e l a t i o n s h i p ; but this creates other p r o b l e m s . For how do we k n o w that the m i s s i n g usage m i g h t not be f o u n d tomorrow? Both p r o b l e m s c a n be h e d g e d by using a q u a l i f i c a t i o n like " p r o p e r l y " or " a c c e p t a b l y " or " n o r m a l l y " u s e d , but this involves a j u d g e m e n t o n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y that we are not really a b l e to m a k e . The c o r r e l a t i o n in #15.0 has s e l e c t e d one sentence type as the p r i m e (normal, p r e f e r r e d , optimum) r e a l i z a t i o n of one r e l a t i o n s h i p , w i t h the i m p l i c a t i o n that the use of another sentence type as a n a l t e r n a t i v e surface r e a l i z a t i o n of that r e l a t i o n s h i p is somehow secondary or a b n o r m a l . A j u d g e m e n t of this kind is d i f f i c u l t to m a k e , especially w h e n w e are dealing w i t h a d e a d language a n d do not have access to the intuitions of native c o m p e t e n c e . In the absence of such a t o u c h s t o n e , w e m u s t do our best w i t h other m e a n s . O n the basis of o b s e r v e d o c c u r r e n c e in extant texts, all we can say is that for any g i v e n r e l a t i o n s h i p there is one s e n t e n c e type w h i c h is its p r i m e r e a l i z a t i o n , there m a y be one or m o r e other sentence types w h i c h are (apparently) u s e d as a l t e r n a t i v e (but secondary) r e a l i z a t i o n s of that r e l a t i o n s h i p , and that some other sentence types are never (so far as w e know) u s e d as a l t e r n a t i v e r e a l i z a t i o n s of that r e l a t i o n s h i p . The w r i t e r is fully aware that f r e q u e n c y of o c c u r r e n c e in extant texts is not to be t r u s t e d as a safe m e a s u r e of the n o r m a l c y of any g i v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n type. A c o r p u s of ancient literature like the O l d T e s t a m e n t offers no a s s u r a n c e that it is g r a m m a t i c a l l y h o m o g e n e o u s , so inductions are p e r i l o u s . A fact a b o u t incidence (this c o n s t r u c t i o n type is f o u n d f i f t y - t h r e e times, for example) m a y be u s e f u l l y s t a t e d as a fact, but any statistical inference is interd i c t e d . The extant texts do, h o w e v e r , offer some m e t h o d ological controls. D e a d w r i t e r s m a y still be u s e d as informants. A c o n s t r u c t i o n f o u n d a b u n d a n t l y m a y be c o n s i d e r e d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of the language, and p r o n o u n c e d " n o r m a l " a n d even c o n s i d e r e d n o r m a t i v e . This is w h a t w e imply by calling a c o n s t r u c t i o n type "primary". But it does not follow that a c o n s t r u c t i o n rarely m e t is, for that reason, less g r a m m a t i c a l than one that is o f t e n used. It m i g h t be, of course; w e have no g u a r a n t e e s that the text contains no solecisms. But a d e c i s i o n to d i s c a r d evidence b e c a u s e it does not satisfy our text-book grammar should never be m a d e h a s t i l y , and the e m e n d a t i o n of texts has no p l a c e in lin-
188
SURFACE REALIZATIONS AND DEEP RELATIONSHIPS
guistics, even though linguistics has a great deal to do with text-criticism. It may be that, in some of its occurrences, a conjunctive sentence is a misbegotten attempt to realize antithesis, but the discovery of such evidence, however interesting in itself, does not warrant the conclusion that all observed means of realizing an antithetical relationship could be used interchangeably to achieve an identical result. If one had access to a living informant, one could test the interchangeability of conjunctive and antithetical sentences by transforming one into the other and trying them out on a native speaker. In the simplest cases, one could substitute a coordinating conjunction for an antithetical conjunction, and vice versa. The risks attached to such discovery procedures are well known. In our case, all we can do is to see whether the extant texts yield such pairs of sentences which seem to have the same function in similar contexts. The frequent use of repetition with minor variations in our texts makes this test available quite frequently, and we have often applied it in the preceding discussion. 15.2. LIMITATIONS IN ALTERNATIVE REALIZATIONS There are limits to the interchangeability of sentence types as alternative realizations of the same deep relationships. A general relationship like simultaneity has many possible realizations, since this factor is involved in the deep relationships of all sentence types that are not disjunctive or adversative, and the circumstantial clause, which we have identified as the prime realization of simultaneity, should be described more exactly as realizing simultaneity in the rather negative sense of not being in temporal sequence. An 'unmarked' sentence type like the conjunctive sentence can be used to realize many different relationships, but its neutral form means that the underlying relationships are often left indeterminate. Distinctive relationships like addition, subtraction, or alternation have few formal realizations, and a highly marked sentence type, such as a chiastic sentence, secures a highly specialized staging of the relationship of concomitance and cannot properly be used for anything else.1 The material in. a chiastic sentence can, of course, be transformed into a conjunctive sentence that is quite grammatical. But this acceptability does not qualify a conjunctive sentence as an alternative realization of the kind of concomitance that is highlighted in a chiastic sentence. When a conjunctive sentence is used, the concomitance is played down, although not necessarily excluded as an implicit possibility. The ubiquity of and as an inter-clause conjunction in Hebrew is due to the readiness with which conjunctive sentences function as
SURFACE REALIZATIONS AND DEEP RELATIONSHIPS
189
CHART OF PRIMARY AND ALTERNATIVE SURFACE REALIZATIONS OF DEEP-STRUCTURE RELATIONSHIPS
SENTENCE TYPE RELATIONSHIP Consecutive
Seq Adj Sur Cir Ch Ρ
A
Extraneous
Ρ
A
Incidental
A
Ρ
A
A A Simultaneous A (#5 .4)(#6.•2) Concomitant
Ρ
Additive Neutral Alternative Opposite Contradictory Subtractive
Inc Cj
Dj
Cn
Ant Exc
A
A(#12.4 .5) A
A A (12.4.4) Ρ A(#12.4 • 1) Ρ A (#12.,4.2)
A Ρ
A (#10.5) A A
A (#10.• 4) Ρ Ρ
A Ρ
A (#13.5)
Ρ at the point of intersection means that the sentence type above is the primary realization of the relationship to the left. Thus a disjunctive sentence is the primary realization of the relationship of alternation. A indicates that the sentence type above it is an alternative realization of the relationship indicated at the left. Thus simultaneity can be realized in several ways, and the conjunctive sentence, as the most neutral coordination, realizes more relationships than any other type. There is clearly a spectrum with similarity at one end and difference at the other, and alternative realizations are largely restricted to the neighboring sentence type on the spectrum.
190
SURFACE REALIZATIONS AND DEEP RELATIONSHIPS
alternative realizations of other coordinative relationships as well as appositive and subordinative relationships. Wecan substitute for any other Hebrew conjunction, as used in a primary realization sentence, and produce an alternative surface realization of the same deep relationship. But the reverse is not true. One of the other conjunctions can replace we- used as a sentence-level conjunction only if the deep relationship between the clauses in that sentence is one for which that other conjunction is used as a signal. Thus and can replace or in any Hebrew disjunctive sentence, to yield the form of a·conjunctive sentence as an alternative realization of the disjunctive relationship. But or cannot replace and in a conjunctive form of sentence unless the deep structure relationship between the clauses in that sentence involves alternation. There are even more stringent constraints on the interchangeability of the other conjunctions among them-selves. Thus δ, gam, and raq are absolutely noninterchangeable. See also the diagram of the interchangeability of ki, ^ak, and ^äken in note 3 on page 185. Viewed in this light, the spectrum of coordination sentences shown on page 189 can be divided into four bands. Within each band the several sentence types function as alternative realizations of the deep relationships for which the others are primary. Adjunctive, surprise, and circumstantial clauses are similar in discourse function and share deep features, such as being nonconsecutive. Inclusive and chiastic sentences have much in common. The disjunctive sentence is unique. Contrastive, antithetical, and exclusive sentences constitute the adversative band of the spectrum, with considerable interchangeability between the sentencetypes. All four of these groups have the conjunctive sentence as an insipid alternative. 15.3. JUXTAPOSITION AND CONCATENATION Besides the interchangeability of coordination sentences among each other, discussed in #15.2, some apposition relationships primarily realized by means of conjunctionless juxtaposition (Chapter 3) may sometimes be realized as a surface coordination -- sequential (#3.4.3) or conjunctive (#8.10.1, 8.10.2). And coordination and subordination relationships of various kinds may sometimes be realized in apposition, that is without the use of the appropriate conjunctions (#3.10, 11.7, 14.7). 15.4. COORDINATION AND SUBORDINATION Because of the specialized conjunctions involved, some of the sentence-types grouped above under the rubric of 'coordination' might have been described as involving subordination. This is particularly so with the adversative sentences in which the antithesis is dependent on the thesis, but not vice versa. Or, again, a concessive use of
SURFACE REALIZATIONS AND DEEP RELATIONSHIPS
191
kl, although, which we have omitted along with'causal for, because, as subordinative, might have been added to its list of coordinative functions along with the appositive and antithetical functions that are included here. In #2.5 we admitted that it was hard, and probably unnecessary to draw a boundary line between coordination and subordination. Although we have not included a detailed study of subordination in this monograph, we have noted from time to time the use of coordination sentences to realize subordination relationships (#5.5.1, 8.10.3).
NOTES 1 N o t e , h o w e v e r , f r o m # ll*. U t h a t c h i a s m u s is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of b o t h c o n c o m i t a n c e a n d a n t i t h e s i s in the same sentence.
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Genesis 1 l1"2 l1 l2 l3 l5 l6 l7 l9 l10 21 Ί-1 5 l1" l15 l20 122 l26 l27 l28 l29 l31 2*-6 2" 25"6 25 2s 27 28 29 2 10 211"1" 212
105 86 86 79,82,85,86 87,88,101 85,86 129 105,106,107 111 124 105,106,111 129 106 118 118 105,106,134 105,108,117 134 112 55 47,108,117 56 86,87,95 86,87 54 86 101,135 183 86 80 79,85,87, 101 79,82,87 33,34,59 85
21" 217 2 18 21 9 2 20 221 223 22* 22 5 31 33 35 36 38 J9-19 31" 315 3 16 317-18 31 7 318 319 32 2 32 3 32" 41 42 " 5 43--. 4*~ 5 4" 45 4s 47 49 410
93 182 58,80 93 80,82,182 80 37 182 77 79 113,182 183,184 87,100,116, 162,163 25 129 54,99 50,54,150 44,54 99 54,55 55 133 161 43 43 79 122,124,127 137 158 129 88,157 42,129,182 114 114 37 37
INDEX OF BIBLICAL R E F E R E N C E S 4 11 412 4 13 4 18 419
420 421
422 42 3 425 ~ 2 6 42 6 5 5 1" 2 51 52 61 β1* 65 68 69 61 2 6 13 61* ό1" 6 15 616 6 17 6 1 7" 618 618 619-
1
6
X9 19 20
619 62 1 62 2 7i-% 72 73 7s 7 6" 1 6 76 7 7- 8 7' 78 79 y 1 0 -1 2 7 1 0 -1 6 y 10 7
11
712
54 56,183 50 88 32,33 59 32,33,59 88,157,158 38 88 88,157,158 87 55 54 54 86 37 101,116,171, 175 80,81,180 54,55,80 95 96 50,99 57 51,54,99,127 47,48,51,59 39,151 96 132 181 39 47,55 151 42,43 39 39 154 42 124,125 80,86,88, 101,124 39,124 124 39 124 124,126 41 41,86,124, 130 41,124,126, 127 124,130
71 J- I 6 7 13 7 1 5- 1 6 7 16 71 7 719-19 719-20 721-22 723-21» 72 3 85 8 8" 9 89 811 812 813 8 16 " 1 7 817 8 18" 1 9 8 18 8 19 8 2 1" 2 2 821 91 92 " 3 92 9 3- Ί 9" 95 96 97 99 9 11 912 9 15 91 7 gie-19 918 92 3 92 8 92 7 10 101 108 1 0 i o - n 1012 1013 101" 1015 IO20 1021 IO2" 1025
124 41 128 124 124 127 41 40 172 42 37,47,80 77 182 95 77 95,103 39 39 39,40 39 39 44 113,131 108 56 80 173 116 50,99 47 99,117,151 151 54,77,113,131 54 77 54 45 93 78,81,101 54,112 111 87 54 59,88 59 59 88 59 88 54 88,157,158 88 88
193
19 1 » ΙΟ25 ΙΟ26 ΙΟ31 ΙΟ32 11 II3 II" II7 IIs 1 1 " II12 II1* II27 II29 II30 121 " 2 122 12 3 126 128 12 1 2 12 1 3 12 1 6 132 13s 13 6 137 139 1311"12 131 2 1313 131 ^ 131 5 14 14 1 ~ 3 142 14 3 14*"5 14 7 14 8 14 1 0 1411 ~1 2 141 2 14 1 3 141 s 14 1 7 14 1 8 1 4 ΐ 9 - 2 ο 142 1 142* 15 1 152 153
INDEX OF B I B L I C A L 32,33 88 54 45,54 87 57,98,109,120 57,85 57 101 54 88 88 54 , 1 0 3 31,32,33 43,83 108 111 81,131 85 49,50,91 132 ,152 ,158 45 80 85,160 160 45 82 54 49 87,151,160 82 57,80,108 162,163 40 41 59,103 85 41 ,103 30,85,155 59 80,128 42 82 82,85 128,155,158 59 80,82 107 134 172 44 82,90,93 115
REFERENCES
ISIS5 IS10"11 151 2 IS13"16 1513 IS1" 1515 15 1 7 1510 161 16 s 169 1611 1612 1613 1616 171 172 17* 17s 17s 17 1 0 171 2 171 3 171" 171 5 17 16 17 1 7 1720 172 1 •j^ η 2 Ί - 2 5 172" 172 6 18 1 18 2 183 _ 5 18 6 " 7 187 18" 18 9 18 10 1811 18 1 2 18 1 3 18 1 6 18 1 7 1817" 19 18 1 8 18 1 9 18 2 0 18 2 0 " 2 1 18 2 2 ~ 2 3
95,184 108 130 85,87,96 133 131 165 47 85,87,96 45 31,80,85,87 114 108 117 50,99,104 163 81 81,108 111 151 183 47,132 54,151 49 47 58,93 183 47,165 114 47,129 180 81,101 41 41,45 82 84 , 9 5 112 129 130 94 85 82,85,87 47,80,85 85,90 85,90,166 82,84 80,82,90 85 82 184 101,102 85 84
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 1822 182 3 1 8 2 11 18 2 7 18 3 0 18 3 2 183 3 19 1 192 19 3 19" 19 5 19 6 19 7 19' 1910 19 1 1 191 * 191 5 191 7 19 1 9 1920 192 1 19 2 3 192 7 192 8 19 3 1 19 3 2 19 3 3 193 1935 29 3 7 - 3 β 19 3 7 193 8 19 3 9 20 3 20" 20s 20s 207 209 20 1 2 2013 201 6 211 21s 216 2112-13 211 2 211 3 2 1 1 '*" 211" 211 8 2126
1 5
81,84 84,85,166 37,166 85,90 118 175 81.84 82,84 108,183 128 87 112 81 112 171 81 81 57 56 45,50,114 182 85,112 162 ,163 87 84 95 83 57,111 161 112,162 161 128 59 157,158 59 90 85,154 ,182 114,157,160 162,166 108 47,149 165,166,170 54 129 42,80,124,130 81 58 160 57,185 93,165 80 47 57 163,176
221 222 22" 22s 227 2212" 221 2 2213 2216 221 7 22 2 0 222 3 2 2 2 ** 232 231* 239 2310 2311 2313 231 9 241 243 " 243 24* 248 2410 241 2 2413 24111 2415 241 s 24 1 9 242 1 242 5 2 42 9 243 ° 24 3 1 243 5 24 3 8 24"" 24 1 * 5 24"' 24 1 * 9 2450 24 5 3 24® 5 2456 24* 7 246 0 24 6 2 24s3 251 253 25"
13
86,88 108 37 111,134 185 101 114,118 95 101 99,101,116 157,166 54,88 31,93,156,161 59 112 46,47 79 47,104,129 112,177 59 80,101 183 108 184 171,177 85 108 115 103,112,160 95 117 162 81,148 155 31,79 94,95 85,90 101 184 159,160 85 160 141 58,141 128 141 85,90,112 111 113 79,82 95 31 88 54
195
INDEX OF B I B L I C A L REFERENCES
196 25s-« 257 25 8 25 1 0 25 1 1 25 1 2 25 1 β 25 1 8 25 1 9 25 2 3 2 5 2 11 252 6 25 2 8 252 9 25 3 3 " 3 " 25 3 3 25 3 26 2 26 3 26 8 26s 26 1 5 26 2 1 26 2 6 26 2 7 26 2 8 26 2 9 27 1 27 3 . 27s 27 s 27 7 27 9 27 1 1 271 3 27 1 5 27 1 7 27 1 9 272 1 27 2 2 Z72S
27 2 6 272 8 ~2 27 2 9 27 3 0 27 3 1 27 3 3 27
3
"
27 3 6 27 3 7 27 3 8 27"° 27"2
9
42,129 42 42,43 43 43 54 54 42 54 131 95 81,82 128 85 135 135,136 136 47 111 95 177 79,80,93 156,161 79,80 85,90 113 171,175 44,80 108 81,118 80 108,111,112 50 152 57,177 136 152 56,57,118 148 101,181 112 108 99 108,111 86,177 111,118,156,161 166 156 50,166 100,115 156 99 113
27-3 27-5 28 1 " 2 28 2 28 3 286 28 8 281 2 " 1 5 281 2 2813 28 1 6 28 1 7 28 1 9 28 2 1 28 2 2 292 29 7 29 9 291 2 291 * 29 1 6 2917 29 2 1 292* 29 2 5 29 2 7 29 2 9 29 3 0 29 3 1 29 3 3 303 306 308 301 5 303 0 3031 30 3 3 303 6 30"2 311 31 2 315 316 31 7 3110 311 2 3113 311 3 311 5 311 9 31 2 5 31 2 6 31 2 9
50,57 155 183 57,111 111 116 118 95 82 92 113,182,185 50 181 131 93 85,95 47,57 87 116 177 32,33,79,85,87 85 112 88 96 161 88 161 85,181 161 113,156 166 165 161 156,162 184 47 81 182 130 95 95,181 54,80,130 130,182 95 108 57 108 166 80 87 114 181
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
31 3 0 31 3 2 31 3 ^ 31 3 6 31 3 6 31 3 9 31*1 31 113 31 **7 31 5 0 3151 315 2 32 2 32 7 3210 3217 3 2 1 2 321 9 3220 32 2 1 32 2 2 32 2 7 32 2 9 32 3 0 32 3 1 32 3 2 331 33 3 33 7 33s 33 1 1 3313 33 1 * 33 1 β 331 7 34 34 3 34 5 34 7 34 8 34 9 34 1 0 34 1 2 34 1 5 34 1 6 34 1 9 34 2 1 34 2 2 34 2 3 34 2 7 34 2 8 34 3 0 35 1
0
185 78,182 85 38 99 44,47 50 93,100,141,181 128 116 115 50,108,116 80,81 83,85 112 134 156 96,164,166 155 96,164 81 174 184 161 96 82 85,95 80 161 83 116 111 134 81 81,129 40 42 79,80,85,87 79 92 49,100,132 108,132 47 54,175 100,132 85 100,132 175 177 40 40 85 57,108
35 2 35 3 35 6 3510 3511 35 1 2 3517 35 1 8 35 1 9 35 2 0 35 2 s 35 2 7 35 2 9 36 1 36s 36 9 36 1 2 36 3 2 36 3 ^ 37 1 " 2 37 2 37 3 37 t _ 7 37 8 37 9 37 1 1 37 1 ^ 37 1 5 37 2 0 37 2 2 372" 37 2 5 37 2 7 37 2 8 37 2 9 37 3 2 37 3 3 37 3 5 37 3 6 38 1 38 2 38 6 38" 38 1 0 38 1 1 381" 38,s 38 2 0 38 2 2 38 2 3 38 2 11 38 2 5 38 2 6
108 111 59 184 47,117,1; 100 162 128 59 59 54 59 42 30,54,59 54 54 54,79 90 128 81 54,87 128 95 38,147 95 128 57,108 95 111 57,135 43,85 95 135 81 83,95 148 44 82 81 31 31 31 1)8,117 161 156,162 182 184 77 165 182 96,113 88 182
197
198 38 2 7 38 2 9 391 39 3 39" 39 6 39" 39s 391 0 39 1 1 391" 3922 392 3 40s 40 β 401 2 401 k 401 6 401 8 4021 " 2 2 402 3 411-" 411 415-7 41' 41' 1 3 411 4111 4112 4113 4115 411 6 4 1 1 7 ~ 21 41 2 1 2 Ί 4 1 " 2 41 " 41 2 6 " 2 7 41 2 6 41 2 7 41 2 8 413 2 4 1 3 3 " 3 ·> 413 3 41"° 41** 41 * 8 41-" 41 5 0 52 41 5 41541 41 42
5 6 5 7 2
INDEX OF B I B L I C A L 96 96 80 101 128 172 37,85 47 182 83 44 128 47 95 83,182 54 177 162 54 128 68,182,183 95 86 95 83 50,53 50 46 46,79 50,68,152,158 83,181 176 95 90 95 83 50 100 100 54 79 38 111 100,175 176 81 40 80 128 81,130 80 81 100,108
REFERENCES
42·» 42 6 42" 42s 42 1 0 " 1 421 0 421 2 4213 421 5 421 6 4218 421 ® 422 0 422 2 422 3 422 7 422 8 42 3 1 42 3 2 42 3 3 42 3 42 3 5 42 3 8 42 3 8 43 1 432 43 3 43 1 * 43*-5 43 5 438 43' 43 1 1 _ 1 4311 43 1 2 4313 431 ^ 43 1 5 431 6
1
4321-22
432 432 44 1 44 3
1 7
44-
44 44
5 8
449-10
44 1 0 44 1 2 441 *
44 16
44
1 7
182 48,93 182 48 45 181,183 183 152 174 87 58 87 80 161 86 95 161 43 152 54,108,152 59,100 95 50,53,101 101 80 57 174 111 54 174 100,155 44 108,109 54,133 108,109 57 93,108,109 128,134 108 128 95 48 108,134 41,55 57,88 53,114 141 160 152,165 49 83 155 152
INDEX OF BIBLICAL R E F E R E N C E S 4 4 1 3 4420
44 2 1
4 4 2 3
4425
44"
4428 4429
44 3 0 44 3 1 44 3 3 4 4 3 -
45s 45" 45s 459 4510 4S1" 451 6 451 7 " 1 8 45 1 7 452 2 452 6 45 2 8 4646s-7 46 7 462 2 462 9 4631 463" 47.1
47 47
2
3 4 7 5 - 6
47s 47 1 3 47 1 s 47 1 9 47 2 9 47 2 1 47 2 ^ 47 2 6 48 5 48s 48 7 48 1 0 48 1 1 48 1 * 48 1 8 48 l s 49 49
31 33
141 90,128 112 175 57 8 3 , 9 0 , 1 7 4 , 182 177 162 83,86 83 134 83,90 114 57 184 44,108 54 128 79,80 108 54,56,57 50,100 116 83 81,100,152 ,166 40 42 85 79 111 155 95 79 155 37 47 42,79,81 127 155 170 93 132 171 48 48 59 44,85 95,161 48,90 183 37,100,159 ,162, 181 99 42
50s 50" 50» 501 8 50 2 0 50 2 3 502"
108,111 173 155 162 57,153 48,158 87
Exodus •1 1 5 1 7
110
ι 1 Ί
11 5 11 7 12 2 25 26 29 2 13 21* 21 6 22 2 31 32 33 3s 37 3 10 3 11 312 315 318 46 47 49 410 4 1 1
412 41 5 41 6 417 4 18 4 19 52 53 58 5 11 5 13 5 111 517
40,46 81,86 79 163 44 33 183 152 82 95 108,151 95 185 79 116 80 95,152 111 57 123,127 108 108 54 102 111 95 95 155 155,183 149 86 86 151 86 111 57 102,133 111,141 44,57,86 57 82 155 57
199
200 518 52 1 52 3 61 62"3 6 3"5 66 -6 611 612 61* 615 616 61 ® 62* 62 5 626 62 7 630 71 72 77 79 711 η 1 it 71 5 717 718 719 72 1 72 3 72 6
•J 2»
81 8* 85 87 812 8 13 gli 819 82 0 82 1 82 3 82* 82 s 828 91 92 93 96 91 3 916 915 g20-21
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 57,182 111 182 153 102 165 102 57 90 54 54 54 54 54 85 48 48 90 133,151 50,151 81 108 157,161 48 86 54 133 108 130 163 113 133 108 113 171,175 175 108 40 108,113 48 40 57 57 171 171 163 108 117 113 182 108 54 57,58,152 152
922 92 3 9 2 If 92 5 g2 6 92 7 92 9 931-32 931 933
103 107 108 109 1011 1012 1013 10l,( 1017 1019 1021 1023 102* 1025-26 1026 ll3 ll6 ll10 122 12 " 5 12" 12 6 12 8 12 9 12 1 0 12 1 1 12 1 2 12 1 12 1 5 12 1 6 12 1 7 " 2 0 12 2 1 12 2 7 1228 12 2 9 12 3 1 12 3 2 12 3 5 12 3 6 12 3 8 12 ^ 0 12 1 * 2 12 3 " " 9 12"3
113 128 82 128,129 175 50,100 100,182 182 101 128 113 113 57 37 108 113 87,128 50,103 108,113,175 44 113 44,181 57,164,175 165 44 164 116 80 38 48 46 171 40 184 183 58,99 132 40 50,174,175 48 48 108 130 42 86 57,155 155,166 80 86 86 81 50 50 54
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 3.2 5 0 132 136 7 13» I312-13 131 5 1 3 2 1 - 2 2 132 1 142 143 146 148 1410 141 2 1413 1411415 1416 "1 141 6 14 2 2 142 6 14 2 7 142 8 14 2 9 IS3 152 5 152 6 152 7 16 3 16* 166" 7 1610 16 1 2 16 1 3 1616"1 1618 16 2 3 16 2 * 162 5 162 6 162 9 16 3 1 16 3 3 16 3 5 16 3 6 171 172 175 17 7 17s 17 1 0 17 1 2 17 1 * 18 3
7
8
42 48 50 86 152 133 44 82 48,111,113 44 128 82 80,95 108,112 185 58,152 113 151 108 85 113 82 44 82,86 31,32 48,99 131 85 184 148 152 95 152 152 46 131 152 131,182 58 48 44 85,101 108 48,81 93 83 57,112 108,134 148 57,85,108 80 80,86,103 108 33,34
181* 18 1 7 18 1 8 1819 182 2 18 2 3 18 2 6 19 3 19 6 19s 19 1 0 191 2 1913 1915 1918 19 2 1 19 2 2 19 2 * 20 1 0 201 5 20 1 6 2018 2019 202 8 211 212 213 21" 21s 21 6 2113 211 6 211 8 21 2 0 21 2 1 21 2 6 21 2 7 21 2 8 21 2 9 2131 213 2 213 3 213* 213 5 213 6 213 7 22" 22s 22s 22 9 22 1 3 22 2 6 22 2 7
21
6
48,82 58 58,165 134 152 160 152 80,98 54,131 50 113 44,48 44 , 4 8 , 1 4 2 146 48 86 57 161 57,182 181 82 112 128 50 121 54 100 54 141,142,151,152 54,58 141 183 148 141 141 141,174 141 141 85,141,143,159 141,160 143 100,141 141,144 48,152 132 146,152 141,148 141 141 141 141 146 44 182
201
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
202
222' 22 3 0 23 3 231* 238 23 1 1 23 1 2 2313 231""17 2315 "1 6 23 1 s 231 7 232 1 232 5 23 2 8 23 3 0 24 1 24 2 24 s 24 1 0 24 1 1 24 1 2 2413 24 1 ^ 24 1 7 25-30 25 1 - 27 1 9 25 1 ~ 8 25 2 2510 "2 2 2510 "2 3 25 1 0 25 1 1 25 1 2 25 1 5 25 1 8 25 1 9 25 2 0 25 2 1 25 2 2 25 2 3 " 3 0 25 2 3 252 7 25 2 8 2529 2 531 ~ 0 25 3 1 25 3 2 25 31* 25 3 5 25 3 6 25 3 7 25 3 8 25 3 8 " 3 9
50 48 182 141 100,182 100 100 14 60 50 48 50,53 108 183 124,133 57 80 181 128 85 182 108,112 183 80 85 71 7
>
71 46,113 71 127 50,51 48 72 44,50 48 48,71 48,72,85 72,133 71 71 51 48 71 48 71 48 72,82 85 72,85 48 71 72,85 72
253 9 25"° 261 "3 0 261 ~ 3 261 262 263 26* 26s 26 7 26 8 2612 " 13 26 1 1 1 261 7 2618 "2 2 26 1 8 2619 2620-21 262 2 26 2 3 262" 2628 262 9 263 1 "3 7 26 3 1 26 3 5 27 1 " 8 27 1 27 2 27 3 27 8 27 9 " 1 9 27 1 7 27 1 8 272 0 27 2 1 28 2 28 2 1 28 2 - 2 5 28 3 2 28 3 7 28 3 9 28"° 28"2 28*3 29 1 292 293-.. 29s 291 2 29 1 ^ 291 5 291 7 29 2 3
48 71 71 56 48,56,71 56 56,128 72 104 48 48,23 72 85 53 72 72 72 72 72,80 72 53 72 71 71 48 72,132 71 48,127 48 48 48 71 48 48 80 46,48 133 86 132 48 48 132 132,133 48 142,148 54 48 132 80 132 58,132 80 80 181
INDEX OF B I B L I C A L REFERENCES 29 3 1 29 3 ^ 29 3 5 29 3 7 29 3 8 29 3 ® 291*1 301 30 2 3 0 3 " 11 30 3 30 7 " 8 3010 30 2 0 30 2 5 30 2 6 _ 3 30 2 3 30 3 3 303* 30 3 8 31 6 3111 311 3 311 3115 3117 32 1 32 2 32 7 " 8 32 7 32s 32 1 2 32 1 3 32 1 5 32 1 6 32 3 " 33 1 33 3 33 6 3311 331 7 33 2 6 34 1 - 2 34 3 34 1 3 34134» 8 34 2 1 34 2 3 34 2 8 34 2 9 34 3 0 35 1 35 2
0
80 44,48 48 48 54 152 152 48 48,50 128,132 48 50 46,182 142,148 38 132 48 48 48 48 127 53 177 37,48 48,50 48 57 108 56 57 95 108 131 48 93 57 57 182 80 182 162 182 108 156,159,182 100,183 31 48 48,50. 53 99 85 95 54 48,50,181
35 3 36* 35s 35 2 1 ~ 2 9 35 3 1 353" 35 3 5 363 367 3610 36 1 2 361 * 3615 361 7 3621 362 3 "2 7 3 6 2 3 -21* 36 3 3 " 3 ^ 363 5 37 1 37 6 37 7 37 8 37 1 0 37l* 37 1 7 37 1 8 37 2 0 37 2 2 37 2 37 2 5 3 7
2 6 - 2 7
38 1 38 2 38 3 38 7 38 2 1 39" 39 s 39 9 3910 39 1 39 1 7 39 3 2 39*3 40 1 " 40 2 40 1 2 40 1 40 1 7 40 2 9 403 2 403" 403 5
1 5
48 100 48 41 133 133 37 80 81 128 104 48 50 128 50 72 128 128 48 50 50 48 48 50 48 48 82 85 48 48 50 128 50 48 48 48 54 48 93 48,50 50 93 128 42 95 73 73 73 73 73 73 48 128 127
203
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
20k
Leviticus l
3
l10 l13 l1" 23 210 212 2 13 36 47 412 4
17-Ji
42 3 430-31 4 i<*
5 1"5 51 52 53 5* 5s 57 5s 5 11 518 52 1 52 3 52* 52 8 7 16 721 7 33 11" ll32 ll36 12 6 12 7 12" 13 2 13 1 s 13 1 9 132* 132 9 133 0 13 3 8 13*2 13"3 13*7 13* 8 13"9 13 5 9
-3
s
48 132 141 132 141 85 85 182 38,117 141 132 48 132 146 132 132 145 85,144 85,141 85 85,142 141 141 131 141 131 141,142,146 142 141,142 131 141 141 92 174 141 173 141 141 141 141 145 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 142
151* 152 5 152 9 17 3 192 0 2027 21 2 211" 2119
21 2 3 22'* 22 s 22® 2327
2 5 Ί β " <1 9
251* 9 26 s 26ιβ-2β 262" 27 2 8 27 2 8
141 145 141 146 146 141 174 184 146 173 146 146 174 177 143 146 83 166 156 142,173 173
Numbers l*7 l"9 422 42t
511 "31 51" 921 g 22
103» 11" ll8 ll23 ll28 12 2 13 1 8 13 1 9 1320 14 2 14 9 14 3 0 IS8 163 1610 161* 18 3 18 1 5 18 1 7 18 2 8 21 2 2
182 173 162 157 144,146 144 142 142 184 161 146 148 32,33 162,175 148 148 148 143 177 172 148 166 162 174 155,173 173 173 162 173
INDEX
22 1 9 2220 22 3 3 22 3 5 22 3 8 23 1 2 2313 23 2 5 23 2 6 24 1 2 2413 24 2 2 26 3 3 26 5 5 26 6 5 3011 31 2 3 3516 " 2 3 35 1 s 35 1 7 35 1 8 35 2 0 35 2 1 35 2 2 35 2 3 35 3 3 36 s
166 176 158 176 176 176 173 163 176 162 176 184 172 174 172 146 174 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 172 173
Deuteronomy
1-4 l1 12S l28 l32 l35 l37 l38 J39-μ0 22 2* 2s 2s 2 i 1-12 211 21* 215 2 19 220 22 3 22" 227 22a
54 53 182 155 83 182 162 57 152 112 134 160 114,184 133 156,162,181 85 93 114 156,162,181 93 57 38,44,182 100,153,177
BIBLICAL REFERENCES
2 32 23" 23s 23 6 33 3* 36 "7 39 311 3 1 2 ~ 13 31 2 315"1 6 3
1β-22
320 325 32 7 328 42 4»-» 49 410 411
412
41420 421
422 42 s 430 433 435
436
439
4*12 41.". 4 "t 5 - it 9 5 52 ~5 5 2 "3 S3 5s 513-1-
521 s2S 527 529 613"111 613 g22- 23 72-3 72 73 7s
78
149 44,149 175 44 161 44 126 37,152 50,175 152 128 152 136 162 111 108 153 113 152 177 139 82 182 128 180 80,151 44,183 44,183 48 48 44 153 44 182 54 54 54 37 44 183 184 181 132 57 57 44 44 50,100 126 113 44 50,133 50,100 44
206 7ιο 7 1 ** 7 " η 2 0 η 2 2 72* 7 25 82 83 8" gll-18 811 81 2 " 1 7 81 2 813 81* 81 7 81 8 8 20 92 93 95 g7-23 97 98 9s 91 2 g1 3 gl91 5 g16 g1 8 919 g20 92 1 922 92* g2 6 - 2 7 10 1 10 6 1010 10 1 1 1015 1016 102» 1021 ll3"6 12 5 12 6 12 1 * 12 1 β 12 2 2 12 3 0 12 3 1
INDEX OF BIBLICAL 57 54 57 158 44 44 44 148 116,183 153 138 137,138 137 137,138 137,138 137,138 137,138 137,138 46 116 100,153 183 53 44,126 126 153 56,57,90 95 112 82,85 48,56,95 153,161 161 126,130,161 80 126 53 57,58 108 80 161 57 174 132 100 101 116 184 169 184 184 177 156,162 162
REFERENCES
14 7 14 2 7 15" 15 1 7 16 s 1615 18 3 18 2 0 22 2 2 23 3 23" 2319 2515 28 2 9 28 6 1 32 1 6 32 2 5 34 1 6 34 2 1 34 2 2 34 2 3
174 93 174 162 184 175 142 174 155 165 165 155 86 175 165 38 155 133 133 133 133
Joshua 21 3" 513 9" 912 1013 ll10 ll13 ll32 18 1 9 24 1 5 24 1 8
31 173 148 166 92 123 128 169 173 148 142 165
Judges J22 221 3 2 ** 5" 529 62 8 639 719 72 5 82 2 8 31 gΊ s g •» 9 10 9
157 162 177 164 162 139 175 177 128 155 157 128 166 155
INDEX 51
10 13 2 13 1 8 16" 16 1 5 16 2 8 17 1 17 s 19 1 * 20 3 9 20"8
177 31 90 31 90 175 31,90 93 155 177 164
1 Samuel l1 l2 l6 l23 22 6 82 8» 91 92 12 1 4 12 1 5 12 1 6 12 2 0 12 23 12 2 12 25 14" 14 2 9 14-9 15 3 2 16 1 s 1711 17 1 2 17 23 17 3 6 18" 18 1 7 18 2 2 19 23 20 27 20 3 9 21 8 21 9 22 7 22 2 0 25 3 25 s 25 1 6 25 2 1
31 32,33 166 177 155 33 170 31 31 155 165 165 177 164 177 155 33 32,34 33 185 177 31 31 31 155 175 177 139 156 155 174 31 155 166 31 33 175 155 177
OF B I B L I C A L R E F E R E N C E S
25-3 262 5 28 6 281 5 28 1 9 28 2 0 296
155 159 155 155 164 165 174
2 Samuel l15 2s 210 37 313 31 7 42 4* 52 92 91 2 12 1 3 121* 12 2 7 131 133 14 2 7 162 3 17s 17s 17 9 171 0 1 7
25
202 1 23 10
57 31 174 32 174 155 32,33 31 155 31 31 166 166 165 31 31 31 155 157 148 59 157 31 31 175
1 Kings 313 3 26 415 ll 3 8 132 18 3 8 2119 221 5 22 3 2
155 155,163 166 176 31 128 157 147 177
2 Kings 1"
92
2 07
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
208 23 25 21" 57 62 7 12" 12 1 * 13 6 17*1 18 2 0 22 7 23 9 23 2 6 23 3 5 24 3
162 162 166 177 148 174 174 174 155 175 174 174 174 174 177
Isaiah 3® 57 10 1 5 14 1 5 16 7 19 1 1 34 1 * 34 1 5 35 6 40 7 41 9 43 2 " 45 1 5 45 2 * 48 8 49*
53" 57 1 5 60 2 0 63 β
26 1 5 26 2 * 28 7 30 1 1 32 3 0 341* 37 3 46 1 8 48 1 5 51 5 7
174 174 174 174 175 177 31 30 30 30
Ezekiei 46 1 7
174
Hosea 139 139 147 174 175 175 175 175 175 185 139 174 185 175 163 185 185 32 123 177
4* 12 2 12 9
177 175 177
Joel l2
148
Amos 413
59 52 7 9s
31 31 32 31
Jonah 25
174
JeTemiah Zephaniah l6 23 5 3 13
•520
32 3 5" 529 10 1 9 10 2 * 12 1 16 1 9
89 177 177 185 185 177 147 177 176 177 175
l18 37 37
175 177 185
Zechariah l6 612
174 30
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Malachi
Ecclesiastes 147
Psalms 23s 312 3 661 9 827 83 1 9
148
Esther 176 185 185 185 30
Proverbs 18'
219
58
4 11
70
Daniel 226 48 41 9 101 107 10 21
30 30 30 30 185 185
Job Ezra 65 66 83 ΙΟ" 10s ll2 ll7 163 21* 22 3
32" 38 2 9 38 3 1 421 *
31 147 147 147 148 147 147 148 147 147 148 148 185 147 147 33
10 1 3
185
1 Chronicles 1" 22
6
23* 715 716 836 g
32.33 31 31 33 32 33.34 33,34 157
2 Chronicles Ruth l1 l2 1* 21
90 33,34 32,33 31
1" 19 3 289 321 7
Π'Ί^Π
185 185 31 185
Related Documents
The Sentence In Biblical Hebrew
January 2021 2
Biblical Hebrew
February 2021 0
Charts Of Biblical Hebrew
February 2021 1
Zondervan - Biblical Hebrew
January 2021 1
Textlinguistic And Biblical Hebrew Dawson.pdf
March 2021 0
More Documents from "targumin"
The Voice That Is Great Within Us
March 2021 0
The Sentence In Biblical Hebrew
January 2021 2
Limiting Beliefs About Money And Success
March 2021 0
Ama Rizal Compiled
February 2021 0
