265 the three examples in §23.3 are evidence of verb first word order describes the surface
form, but does not take into account the syntactic and contextual factors that motivated the occurrence of these verbs in first position. When claims are made that certain
syntactic patterns or word orders are characteristic of a language, extreme care needs to be exercised to control the variables in order to make the most valid statement possible.
The desire to present “the most basic issues of sentence structure” is valid, but certain fundamental concepts and theoretical notions must always be operative. All of the
examples in §23.3 should have come from narrative, or some comment should have been made acknowledging the different text-type sources from which the examples came.
The second comment in §23.3 is that the “verb may be preceded by a temporal clause beginning with
or . Two examples are given, one with and the other
with , which give the impression, unfortunately, that very little difference, if any, exists between these two prepositions. This is congruent with the statement cited above that
“the prepositions and are translated either ‘when’ or ‘while,’ ” which also indicates that these prepositions are assumed to be interchangeable. This matter will not be
discussed further here, but will be dealt with later in this chapter after the occurrences of and
have been displayed.
9.2.1.9 van der Merwe et al, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
In BHRG §39, the diverse uses of the prepositions are discussed. Among the many uses of the various prepositions, the temporal uses of and are discussed, stating
that: 1 “The preposition + infinitive construct often refers to events that provide the temporal frame of an event or events referred to in a subsequent sentence” van der
266 Merwe, Naudé, Kroeze 1999, 281 and 2 “ + infinitive construct is used to indicate that
an event referred to in the main clause following the temporal clause with the + infinitive construct immediately follows it in time” van der Merwe, Naudé, Kroeze 1999,
284. These comments reflect the type of distinction between and found in GKC and Joüon-Muraoka, but they are expressed more clearly here in BHRG. The display of the
occurrences of - and -
later in this chapter will provide a good basis for evaluation of this proposed distinction. This matter will then be discussed in more detail
in 9.3.2.2.1.5. One of the insightful comments in BHRG that reflects awareness of the important
role of syntax is that a “distinction must be made between the preverbal field ‘Vorveld’ and main field ‘Hauptveld’ of a BH verbal clause” van der Merwe, Naudé, Kroeze
1999, 337. An “adjunct of time” van der Merwe, Naudé, Kroeze 1999, 339 is given as an example of the type of item that can occupy the preverbal field, claiming that it is
typically “used to provide the temporal point of orientation of the subsequent events” van der Merwe, Naudé, Kroeze 1999, 339.
The significance of BHRG’s distinction between the preverbal and main fields may not be immediately apparent here, but these concepts have important implications
for understanding the function of in temporal expressions. More detailed discussion
will come in later sections.
9.2.1.10 Summary
The preceding review of how temporal clauses are dealt with in the selected grammars reveals basic agreement as to the linguistic items in biblical Hebrew that
267 participate in the expression of temporal relations. There is significant variation,
however, in the meanings attributed to the prepositions and with infinitive constructs. Some of the grammars appear to make no distinction in meaning, while others seek to
differentiate them. In the grammars that attempt to differentiate from with infinitive constructs, the explanation of the use of typically seems easier to understand than the
explanation of . As stated above, however, BHRG is an exception to this statement. The following chart displays various views of and :
Grammar Joüon-Muraoka:
“inclusion of an action in the time of another”
“the time of one is like that of the other”
Waltke and O’Connor: “denotes in general the
temporal proximity of one event to another”
“denotes more specifically the more immediately
preceding time”
van der Merwe et al: “refers to events that
provide the temporal frame of an event or events
referred to in a subsequent sentence”
“indicates that an event referred to in the main
clause following the temporal clause with the
+ infinitive construct immediately follows it in
time.”
Figure 21: Views of and
One of the common characteristics in the grammars reviewed in this section is the attention paid to the connection of the temporal clause to the main or independent clause.
Another feature they share is the lack of attention paid to the connection of the temporal clause to the broader textual context.
From this review, the following issues surface in the analysis of temporal expressions:
1 Greater clarity is needed in differentiating the uses and functions of the prepositions with infinitive constructs
268 2 Further exploration is needed of the connection of the temporal clauses
to the broader context 3 The role of
needs further analysis to evaluate the claim that it is a temporal modifier, providing the temporal value for the infinitive
construct It will be important to keep these issues in mind as the following sections move
through the different categories of ’s uses in temporal expressions.
9.2.2 Theoretical Background for the Analysis of Temporal
