415
Since he came from Jerusalem to meet the king, the king said to
him, “Why did you not go with me, Mephibosheth?”
Pc-vqw3msXa Pp-vqp3ms np Pp- vqc Pa-ncms Pc-vqw3ms PpX3ms
Pa-ncms Pg Pn-vqp2ms PpX1cs np
4 3 3 5
? 3 4 3 ;
; 8
2 Sam 19:26
19:25
Because the sons of Israel had sinned against the LORD their
God, who had brought them up from the land of Egypt from
under the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and they had feared
other gods Pc-vqw3msXa Pp-vqp3cp ncmpc-
np Pp-np ncmpcX3mp Pa-vhPms PoX3mp Pp-ncbs np Pp-Pp ncfs np
ncms-np Pc-vqw3mp ncmp amp
? : F 6
5 0 3
8 ? : 4
2 Kgs 17:7
Since the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would
send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and
offering burnt offerings according to the number of them
all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed
God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.
Pc-vqw3msXa Pp vhp3cp ncmpc Pa-ncms Pc-vqw3ms np Pc-
vpw3msX3mp Pc-vhp3ms Pp+Pa- ncms Pc-vhp3ms ncfp ncmsc
ncmscX3mp Pp vqp3ms np Pd vqp3cp ncmpcX1cs Pc-vpp3cp
ncmp Pp-ncmscX3mp Pd vqi3ms np ncmsc-Pa-ncmp
5 3 1
+ , E
+ :
? : 6
+ 8
+ F
Job 1:5
9.3.4.2 Analytical Summary of the Occurrences with
One of the key concepts in Follingstad’s analysis of is metarepresentation. For the full discussion of this analysis, see Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A
Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle ki 2001. The concept of metarepresentation is central to the following analysis:
Though the semantic content of the clause may be construed as a ‘reason’ for their banishing him, does not explicitly mark the reason per
416 se, but rather that the clause content is mentioned or metarepresented as a
correcting proposition relative to the speaker’s estimation of Jepthah’s thoughtsknowledge state. Follingstad 2001, 266
The most salient phrase here is “the clause content is mentioned or metarepresented.” The unique contribution of is that the contents of the clause
following are communicated as a representation of the reason. From a slightly different perspective, Arnold and Choi discuss the function of as
EVIDENTIAL
: Although translated similarly to the causal, the evidential use of
presents the evidence or motivation that lies behind a statement, rather than presenting the cause of an action or situation. Thus, the causal link is
with the action of speech, not the contents of speech; the focus is not on what is spoken but on the reason the speaker is saying something. Arnold
and Choi 2003, 149
One of the motivations for looking for a meaning for other than temporal when is the fundamental principle of choice. The rule-governed, context-sensitive nature of
language indicates that the use of linguistic items like is motivated by contextual factors. The alternative is to say that means when, but the same has been said in many
analyses of , , and . This is perhaps considered satisfactory when the text is
approached from an atomistic, lexical equivalent approach, but if a set of examples with are compared with another set with , another set with , and yet another set with
–and they all are translated when, it is only logical to ask what difference there might be between them. The principle of choice, mentioned above, compels the analysis
to consider contextual motivations for the use of linguistic items like . Rather than go into an in-depth analysis of these occurrences here, the reader is referred to the volumes
by Follingstad and Arnold and Choi.
417
9.3.5 With Specific Temporal Reference
