48 points: Firstly, in the latter case, because of this cleft construction, both
thematic and focal prominence are given to the temporal circumstance. In this sense the function of this construction differs also from that of the
simple temporal clause with the temporal particle where the temporal clause simply functions as a subordinate clause. Endo 1996, 178
Endo’s use of the terms thematic and focal prominence is evidence of influence from certain conceptual trends within Linguistics, but the terms are used without clearly
defining what thematic or focal prominence means. The term emphasis Muraoka 1983 resonates at an intuitive level—it is easy to sense or recognize that a text consists of
information that varies in its relative prominence—but it is very difficult to precisely define how emphasis or prominence actually functions in communication. Notice the
following comment by Endo: Secondly, when the impersonal verb
as a sequential form with the inherent meaning such as “happen” or “become” is combined with a
temporal circumstance especially with the particle, it emphasizes the temporal setting of the incident with various senses depending on the
following particle. Endo 1996, 179
The function of emphasizing the temporal setting is identified by Endo as a function of
, but this raises the question of what this emphasis means or indicates to the listener or reader. Also, what are the implications for the temporal clauses that do not
include ? These issues will be dealt with in Chapter 10.
3.4.12 Hatav, The Semantics of Aspect and Modality, 1997
Hatav’s The Semantics of Aspect and Modality also considers the function of ,
stating that [t]he word wayhi: and its modal parallel wha:ya: function in the Bible in
two different ways: 1 as a wayyiqtol and wqatal verb respectively of ‘be’
49 in 3
rd
person masculine singular; 2 As a segmentational particle, marking mainly temporal segmentation. Hatav 1997, 70
The description of as a segmentational particle continues the trend of
considering its role in the temporal organization of narrative. The explicit statement of ’s function as verb or segmentational particle raises the question whether it is
possible to fit all occurrences into only two distinct functional categories. Whether all “non-verbal” occurrences of
are indeed temporal segmentation particles requires further investigation.
Hatav also uses the concept of reference-time R-time to elucidate the function of . Statements like the following are representative of Hatav’s analysis:
In BH, R-time updating phrases are always prefixed by a wayhi: or wha:ya: particle when they are sentence initial. When the R-time “jumps”
forward, away from the current R-time, it is marked by wayhi:, and the adverbial phrase is preposed except for a very small number of
counterexamples…. Hatav 1997, 78
The question again, however, is whether ’s uses are this easily categorized. Is
the concept of R-time really that powerful that it can sort out the elusive functions of ? The function of
in the temporal organization of text requires further scrutiny. Notice even in the following comment, the important role Hatav assigns to the concept of
R-time to explain ’s use in adverbial clauses:
The wayhi: phrase cannnot be interpreted as reporting an event, but as an obligatory particle for the preposed adverbials, signaling a new updated R-
time. The claim that wayhi: is a marker of updated R-time can be supported by the fact that it may appear with no adverbial at all, as in
example 72b above, still moving the story line to a “distant” R-time. For this reason it can also be attached to a qatal clause. Hatav 1997, 78-79
50 Hatav’s thought-provoking analysis is significant in its implementation of
theoretical concepts used in general Linguistics. Further discussion of these claims regarding
is postponed, however, until Chapter 10.
3.4.13 Van der Merwe et al, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar,
