Summary Introduction Introduction Summary

106 The cognitive orientation implemented here has been particularly influenced by Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By 1980, Jackendoff’s Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature 1994, Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance: Communication and Cognition 1995, Lambrecht’s Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents 1994, and Fauconnier’s Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language 1985. Rather than go into further detail here, the reader is referred to these publications for broader conceptual background.

5.3 Summary

Within this functional, typological, contextual and discourse-pragmatic framework, text analysis requires sensitivity to the various intersecting networks within which linguistic entities from every level function in communicative situations. The goal is not just analysis of the discourse structure of a text, but attention to the communicative nature of language use. PART II: ANALYTICAL PRELIMINARIES 108 CHAPTER 6 ANALYTICAL PRELIMINARIES

6.1 Introduction

There are specific analytical preliminaries that require comment before getting to the actual analysis of . The main sections in this chapter are: 6.2 The Verb in Biblical Hebrew 6.3 Clause Syntax in Biblical Hebrew 6.4 Narrative Time and the Hebrew Verbal System

6.2 The Verb in Biblical Hebrew

The analysis of raises a number of questions that make it necessary to step back and get the big picture of the whole verbal system. Since is the WAYYIQTOL form of , the bare minimum is to understand how that form is used. Once that is done, however, it becomes clear that the WAYYIQTOL form is only one element in the whole verbal network of biblical Hebrew. In order to understand how functions, it is necessary to see how it fits in the whole verbal system. The goal here is not to review the 109 entire history of the study of the Hebrew verb, but rather to give adequate background for the present study of . For greater detail on the history of the study of the biblical Hebrew verb, see McFall 1982, Waltke and O’Connor 1990, Hatav 1997, and Garr 1998.

6.2.1 Approaches to the Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew

The main goal of the study of the biblical Hebrew verb has been to explain what motivates the patterns of verbal forms observed in the text. The main category employed to describe the Hebrew verb in early periods of its study was tense. As Waltke and O’Connor comment: the medieval Jewish grammarians and Christian scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures thought that qtl, qôt l, yqtl signified past, present, and future times respectively. Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 458 Concerning this early period, McFall comments that [i]t was probably assumed in Europe at that time that every language in the world had a tense system; therefore, it was natural for them to look for the Indo-European tense system in BH. McFall 1982, 16 These tense-based approaches were predominant during the time leading up to Ewald’s 1827 Kritische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache. The tense-based description of the verbal system gave rise to the waw-conversive theory in the attempt to account for the effect of on the QATAL and YIQTOL forms, yielding the WEQATAL and WAYYIQTOL respectively. According to McFall, this theory “dominated the grammars, writings and commentaries of Christian Hebraists until the grammars of Lee and Ewald broke new ground in 1827” McFall 1982, 17. 110 Ewald’s description of the verb employed not tense but aspectual categories such as “completed” and “incompleted,” and subsequently the terms “perfect” and “imperfect” came into use to refer to the QATAL and YIQTOL forms respectively. The growing sense that tense was not providing the explanatory key to the Hebrew verbal system led to broad acceptance of the aspectual explanation. Rather than merely incorporate aspectual insights into the tense model, however, aspect essentially replaced tense as the explanatory category for the Hebrew verb. Just the fact, however, that aspect is a significant grammatical category in some languages does not automatically mean that aspect is grammaticalized in the same way in another language. This is exactly the same kind of analytical fallacy into which the tense-based approaches had fallen by assuming that only one such category could explain the full spectrum of the uses of the verbal forms and how they relate to the Hebrew verbal system. The paradigm shift has been so strong that Hebrew is sometimes referred to as a “tenseless” language. Before proceeding, however, the term “tenseless” requires explanation. This term should be understood as referring to a system in which the verbal forms themselves are not morphologically marked with explicit tense indicators. As an example of explicit tense indicators, consider the following verbs from Mapudungun: amun amu-a-n dungun dungu-a-n I went, go I will go I spoke, speak I will speak The -a- in both examples is the explicit indicator of the future, contrasted with non-future. In the Hebrew forms QATAL and YIQTOL , there are regular morphological patterns, but the question is what the difference in form indicates. Those who use a term like “tenseless” mean that the suffix-prefix contrast in form is not an indication of tense. 111 Indeed, as Waltke and O’Connor comment, “Biblical Hebrew has no such simple tense forms” Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 458. Unfortunately though, the use of a term like “tenseless” can lead to widespread misunderstanding and misrepresentation, giving the impression that tense or temporal marking is not even a part of the biblical Hebrew system. This results in Waltke and O’Connor’s observation that most translators “fly by the seat of their pants in interpreting the Hebrew conjugations” and what others have observed that the tenses are “used promiscuously” Bayly 1782, 22. One of the most intriguing comments regarding the perplexing verbal system of biblical Hebrew is by Goldfajn: Ever since I started looking into this subject I have been intrigued by the evident discrepancy which one perceives between, on the one hand, the relative ease with which most readers of BH seem to understand the temporal indications of the BH verbs and, on the other hand, how difficult it has proved to come up with adequate accounts which would explain the temporal ordering of BH. Goldfajn 1998, 2 As mentioned above, aspect has essentially replaced tense as the descriptive category for the biblical Hebrew verb, but this seems to be based on the assumption that a verbal system exclusively marks only tense or only aspect. Tense and aspect, however, are interconnected systems that have been artificially separated in linguistic descriptions of verbal systems. As Payne states: Tense, aspect, and mode are sometimes difficult to tease apart. In fact, it may be that linguists have thought of these three categories as distinct only because they are somewhat distinct in the classical languages and in Indo- European generally. Payne 1997, 234 112 In practice, tense theories admit degrees of aspectual nuance and aspectual theories admit that the verbs have certain temporal features which are contextually defined. The multidimensional analysis implemented in this study does not require that there be any binary opposition between tense and aspect, since it is not expected that only one category such as tense or aspect will be sufficient for full analysis of the Hebrew verb. Tense and aspect are not mutually exclusive categories as if a “tense system” were incapable of indicating aspectual notions or as if an aspectual system were incapable of expressing temporal distinctions. The attempts to describe the biblical Hebrew verbal system as if the verbs only indicated tense or aspect have typically been made by imposing the expectations of some linguistic system foreign to Hebrew. There is no theoretical reason why a verbal system can only mark either tense or aspect; there is also no theoretical reason why the distinctions of tense and aspect must be encoded morphologically in the verbal forms themselves. More detail will come in the following sections, but in the model implemented here tense and aspect are potential dimensions of all verbal forms. Mood is another category used to capture the nuances of verbal systems. Descriptions of biblical Hebrew have started taking mood into account. Indicative of the overlap between the categories of aspect and mood is the following comment by Chisholm: “it is difficult to reduce the essence of the imperfect to a single concept, for it encompasses both aspect and mood” Chisholm 1998, 89. Mood or modality is a necessary dimension of the verb since all verbal forms characteristically indicate some type of modality. 113 In general linguistics, the acronym TAM is used to represent the Tense-Aspect-Mood system of a language. The use of this acronym is an acknowledgement of the inseparability of these systems. As Payne states: Tense , aspect, and mode TAM for short are operations that anchor or ground the information expressed in a clause according to its sequential, temporal, or epistemological orientation. Payne 1997, 233 Applied to Hebrew, the verbal system would not be analyzed in exclusive terms of tense, aspect, or mood; each verb would be considered for its potential temporal, aspectual, or modal features. To TAM, however, another dimension needs to be added, namely that of Pragmatic Role in order to represent the context-sensitive way in which verb forms indicate temporal, aspectual, modal, and pragmatic features. TAMP, then, incorporates Pragmatic Role as an integral part of the description of the verb form helps systematize the contextual dimensions of usage in text. The full description of a verb, therefore, is its TAMP profile, since no single dimension captures the whole description. For example, within an aspectual system, the WAYYIQTOL is sometimes defined as indicating SEQUENTIALITY . If this is seen as the essential character of the WAYYIQTOL , all non-sequential uses become exceptions. For example, certain WAYYIQTOL s have a summarizing character that is not sequential, whereas other WAYYIQTOL s clearly do indicate a chronological progression of events. SEQUENTIALITY is an important feature of the WAYYIQTOL , but not the defining characteristic. Likewise, if ANTERIORITY is seen as Figure 7: TAMP Profile Tense Aspect Mood Pragmatic role verb 114 the defining feature of the QATAL , apparent exceptions will need to be explained. In a dynamic, context-sensitive view, certain features will be highlighted in certain contexts and will not be in focus in others. Under certain pragmatic or narrative conditions, the SEQUENTIALITY of the WAYYIQTOL and the ANTERIORITY of the QATAL are suppressed in favor of other features which come into play under those conditions. This does not mean, however, that SEQUENTIALITY and ANTERIORITY cannot be primary or predominant features of the WAYYIQTOL and QATAL , but they are not the only ones. Consider 2 Sam 11:14-15 in this regard: In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. He had written in the letter, saying, “Place Uriah in the front line of the fiercest battle and withdraw from him, so that he may be struck down and die.” Pc-vqw3msXa Pp+Pa-ncms Pc-vqw3ms np ncms Pp-np Pc-vqw3ms Pp-ncfsc np Pc-vqw3ms Pp+Pa-ncms Pp-vqc vqvmp Po-np Pp-Pp ncbpc Pa-ncfs Pa-afs Pc- vqp2mp{2} Pp-PdX3fs Pc-vnp3ms{2} Pc-vqp3ms{2} + 5 8 I 5 5 3 8 2 Sam 11:14-15 Notice that 5 occurs in both 11:14 and 11:15. After the , there are three WAYYIQTOL s. If SEQUENTIALITY is assumed, each of these verbs should move the “narrative clock” ahead in somewhat similar fashion. This, however, is not the case, as plotted on the following graph: Text: 5 5 Time: 5 5 Figure 8: Narrative Time 115 The 5 in 11:14 and at the beginning of 11:15 refer to the same action and cannot in any way be construed as indicating SEQUENTIALITY . Analysis of the WAYYIQTOL needs to account for these occurrences as well as for those which are indeed sequential in nature. One of the ways to work toward an answer to what is happening with this WAYYIQTOL is to ask 1 what other narrative options were available? and 2 how would the narrative depiction have been affected by the use of another form? If, for example, it were a WE - X - QATAL I , what would change? 1 The answer to this question depends, of course, on what function is assigned to the WE - X - QATAL in the overall verbal system in biblical Hebrew narrative. Niccacci states that when the WE - X - QATAL is used, “the narrative flow is broken to provide information required for the communication of the actual narrative” Niccacci 1990, 40. Based on this analysis by Niccacci, I in 2 Sam 11:15 would break the flow of the narrative, providing important information about the letter. It is crucial to observe, however, that the clause initiated by the WAYYIQTOL 5 also provides information required for the communication of the narrative, i.e., the message of the letter. In BHRG 346-50, the authors comment on the “[s]emantic-pragmatic functions of fronting,” stating that [t]he fronted complement or adjunct signals that an entity is introduced, activated or reactivated to function as the topic of an utterance. The event referred to by means of the predicate of that utterance is not discourse active. van der Merwe, Naudé, Kroeze 1999, 347 1 The sequence of waw + noun object + qatal + noun subject is attested, for example, in Josh 2:25 C and Judg 7:24 +G . 116 Based on van der Merwe’s discussion, the hypothetical WE - X - QATAL in 2 Sam 11:15 would be an example of reactivating an entity. The effect of this reactivation is to heighten the level of focus associated with the nominal item in the WE - X - QATAL and this appears to be precisely why the text does NOT have a WE - X - QATAL here. Even though the WAYYIQTOL in 2 Sam 11:15 seems anomalous, its use maintains the focus on David as agent without shifting focus to the letter itself. This is a good example of a WAYYIQTOL being used where SEQUENTIALITY is not the feature in focus.

6.2.2 The Multi-Dimensional Verb Analysis Implemented in this Study

For the analysis of the biblical Hebrew verbal system, the descriptive, functional- typological, discourse-pragmatic model presented in this study provides many beneficial perspectives. First of all, modern Linguistics, especially in the tradition of Saussure, Boas, Sapir, etc., insists that each language system be analyzed in its own right. The “precision” or “elegance” of some other language is not the standard by which another language is measured. The existence of a particular verb form or tense or aspect in one language does not imply that it will necessarily be present in another language. More important than the presence or absence of some idealized grammatical or syntactic entity is consideration of the whole system of the language. The difference between vowel systems is a case in point. The phonetic description of a vowel system places all the vowels on a matrix of articulatory tongue positions from front to back and from high to low. The following charts show the vowels in a typical three-vowel and five-vowel system. The vowels of a natural language are not defined acoustically by precise frequencies, but rather by their characteristic frequencies in systemic relationship to the 117 other vowels of that language. The consequence of this is that [i] in the three-vowel system [i] in a five-vowel system, because [i] is defined in each system by its relationship in the matrix with the other vowels. The three-vowel system will likely permit a wider range of phonetic variation than that permitted in the five-vowel system. If a system has a greater number of vowels, less variation is possible because each vowel operates within a more restricted part of the total matrix. It is important to recognize, however, that there is no difference in communicative efficiency between languages with different vowel systems. At an abstract level of acoustic phonetics, a vowel in the five-vowel system may appear to be more precisely defined in contrast to one from the three-vowel system, but this neither impairs the ability of the speaker of the three-vowel system to speak precisely, nor does a five-vowel system enhance the ability of the speaker in any other language. In parallel fashion, verbal systems may differ in terms of the number and type of forms attested, but each language will be able to use its system to efficiently communicate. When one language is compared to another, or when translation from one language to another is attempted, the differences may seem insurmountable, but each language within its own system is capable of efficient communication. front central back high [i] [u] mid low [a] Figure 9: Three-vowel system front central back high [i] [u] mid [e] [o] low [a] Figure 10: Five-vowel system 118 Just as a vowel from a three-vowel system cannot be equated with one from a five-vowel system, there should be no expectation that the verbal forms of one language will directly map onto the verbal forms of another. Each system needs to be understood in its own right before comparisons are made. In terms of verbal systems, this means that the study of forms and conjugations needs to be carried out within the whole system, realizing that languages differ as to what is grammaticalized or encoded in the various subsystems. For example, the verbal forms in Mapudungun, a language spoken in Chile and Argentina encodes a two-way distinction between non-future and future. This does not imply, however, that speakers of Mapudungun make no distinction between present and past. The present-past distinction is not grammaticalized in the actual verb forms, but other mechanisms are used to contextually indicate past or present temporal reference. In the description of the verbal system of biblical Hebrew, the verb forms have often been analyzed in isolation from the whole system within which they function. In 1990, in The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, Niccacci recommended that “a verb form needs to be studied in texts, not in isolation but in connection with all its associated linguistic markers” Niccacci 1990, 10, but much remains to be done before this type of contextual study is fully integrated into the study of biblical Hebrew. What needs to be avoided at all costs is the insinuation that the use of the verb forms is random or that the biblical Hebrew verbal system is impoverished, as seen in the following quote from GKC: While the Hebrew verb, owing to these derivative forms or conjugations, possesses a certain richness and copiousness, it is, on the other hand, poor in the matter of tenses and moods. The verb has only two tense-forms Perfect and Imperfect…, besides an Imperative but only in the active, 119 two Infinitives and a Participle. All relations of time, absolute and relative, are expressed either by these forms hence a certain diversity in their meaning… or by syntactical combinations. GKC 1910, 117 Even though this standard grammar acknowledges a “certain richness” of the Hebrew verb, the implication is that of inadequacy compared to some other linguistic system. The complexity of the verbal system is seen in that there is no single category which adequately explains the choice of verb forms. The approach here is, in a sense, to embrace the temporal, aspectual, and modal dimensions of the biblical Hebrew verb, combining them all with discourse-pragmatic considerations of the narrative role of the verb in context. Certain syntactic or discourse-pragmatic contexts will have their preferred verb forms, certain optional verb forms if other factors come into play, and also certain verb forms which are excluded from those contexts.

6.2.3 Description of the Hebrew Verb Forms

A variety of terms are used in the literature to refer to the biblical Hebrew verb forms. In this study the terms QATAL , WEQATAL , YIQTOL , WAYYIQTOL , and QOTEL are preferred because the terms themselves make no reference to temporal, aspectual, or modal categories. The following statements are brief and may appear to be somewhat vague, but this is more appropriately seen as the provisional nature of forms which are context-sensitive. QATAL : commonly referred to as the suffix conjugation, QATAL most typically occurs in contexts with past temporal reference 120 WEQATAL : the form referred to as WEQATAL occurs most typically in contexts with future temporal reference YIQTOL : commonly referred to as the prefix conjugation, YIQTOL most typically occurs in contexts with future temporal reference WAYYIQTOL : the form referred to as WAYYIQTOL occurs most typically in contexts with past temporal reference QOTEL : this term refers to the participle, which is an integral part of the verbal system even though it shares certain characteristics with the noun. The temporal value most typically associated with QOTEL is the present. Context-sensitivity does not, however, open the Hebrew verbal system up to the kind of apparent randomness of usage that is characteristic of certain analyses. For example, Kelley states that [t]ime tense is not inherent in the form of a Hebrew verb, but is determined by the context in which it stands. Therefore, the same verb form may be translated as past in one context, as present in another, and as future in still another. Kelley 1992, 82-83 The problem with this statement is not necessarily its truth value, but rather the unqualified way in which it states the possible translation values for the Hebrew verb forms. One of the unfortunate results of this type of statement is reflected in Waltke and O’Connor’s comment that “[m]ost translators, we think it is fair to say, fly by the seat of their pants in interpreting the Hebrew conjugations” Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 55. Talstra’s comment is also insightful: The impression one gets from this practice of translation is that exegetes tend to exploit the existing theories of ‘tense’ and ‘aspect’ according to the needs of an ad hoc textual interpretation. Talstra 1997, 91 121 But context-sensitivity is not “flying by the seat of one’s pants” or “ad hoc interpretation.” A context-sensitive approach to the biblical Hebrew verbal system provides a principled basis for understanding the uses and functions of the verb forms. In addition, the form WE X - QATAL merits special comment. The X in this form represents some other element, typically a noun, that occurs with , followed by a QATAL form of the verb. This is a more accurate description than saying it is a WEQATAL interrupted by a noun, because the WE X - QATAL is more than just a WEQATAL with an interposed noun. In the narrative structure of the biblical Hebrew text, WE X - QATAL performs an important function. All of these forms will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters.

6.3 Clause Syntax in Biblical Hebrew

Understanding clause syntax in biblical Hebrew is a fundamental part of reading and interpreting the text. This not only involves the temporal organization of the text, but also the other kinds of logical, spatial, and relational connections within the text. This is especially important because the temporal, logical, spatial, and relational connections of biblical Hebrew will not necessarily have direct equivalents in other languages into which the biblical text is translated. As shown in Figure 11, the challenge that faces the reader, interpreter, or translator is, first of all, to understand the function of the connections and transitions in the biblical text; then, secondly, to understand the function of the receptor language’s connections and transitions before, finally, deciding on the appropriate form L 1 L 2 form form function function Figure 11: Function to Function 122 in the receptor language to most appropriately communicate the function of the original text. This is, in fact, one of the most basic principles of translation. Specifically with regard to , this principle may seem to be at the heart of the recommendation to avoid and it came to pass for every . The recommendation to leave untranslated, however, short circuits the process in Figure 11. The move has been made directly from L 1 form to L 2 form without mapping L 1 function to L 2 function, as in Figure 12. In English, the form and it came to pass is arguably clumsy, and as such may appear to be superfluous in the text. It is sometimes argued that a more literal, direct translation is not as susceptible to error as a more dynamic translation, but literal translations often transfer forms into the receptor language that carry very little meaning. The repetition of and it came to pass gives the Old Testament text a different feel, but does not help the reader know why it is in the text. The opposite approach which would leave untranslated does not fare much better, since some English versions don’t leave even a trace of its occurrence. In both approaches the end result is very similar, since whatever function may have is not represented in the text. is just one of the many items that requires careful scrutiny at the level of clause syntax. Full attention to clause syntax involves careful examination of the differences between independent and dependent clauses, as well as the patterns of all clause types such as relative clauses, temporal clauses, conditional clauses, concessional L 1 L 2 form form function function Figure 12: Form to Form 123 clauses, etc. Clause sequences and the forms of the verbs found within them are also important areas of the study of biblical Hebrew.

6.3.1 The Role of Waw in Clause Syntax

6.3.1.1 Introduction

Analysis carried out in a traditionaldescriptive approach to the study of biblical Hebrew will typically discuss a linguistic entity like as a conjunction and then list various meanings. For example, Pratico and Van Pelt’s discussion presents “the basic form of the conjunction and, but, also, even” Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 43, listing the various meanings that may be necessary to properly render in its various contexts. One of the difficulties with this type of definition is that it seems perplexing to the beginning learner that a word like “and” can also mean “but.” Often, in the attempt to keep the description simple and brief, there is no discussion of the parameters by which the choice between “and” and “but” needs to be made. It is presumably not the intention of authors like Pratico and Van Pelt to make it appear that any meaning is possible wherever occurs, but unfortunately this unintended result is too often the case. Even if the learner has an intuitive sense of the contexts which might call for one or another “meaning,” it would be better if the learner were alerted to the fact that the varied senses are indeed context-sensitive. Miller’s “The Pragmatics of waw as a Discourse Marker in Biblical Hebrew Dialogue” is a good example of research which explores the functions of in text Miller 1999. It is exactly this type of research in other areas of clause syntax that will advance understanding of the syntax of the biblical Hebrew text. 124 is a functor, and is best identified by its function rather than its meaning. From this perspective, then, functions as a conjunction, syntactically conjoining either similar or dissimilar items. This more general function of as conjunction avoids the need to say that “means” and, but, or, etc. This is not mere semantics, but rather reflects an analytical perspective that focuses on morphosyntactic function in order to simplify the description of certain problematic linguistic items. It is not a different with different meanings, but the same linguistic item for which the syntactic function is context- sensitive. This perspective is also beneficial for the analysis of at the clause level. By focusing more on the function of rather than a lexical meaning such as and, the tendency will be to look for the clause level function rather than to default to translating every with and. Cognitively, the analysis of does not focus on its meaning, but rather on its potential effect on the interpretation or processing of the text. From this perspective, the occurrences of will be read in terms of the connections they establish and maintain throughout the text. As Halliday and Hasan state, the function of conjunction is “a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before” Halliday and Hasan 1976, 227. The description of as conjunctive or disjunctive states a fundamental distinction, but there are many context-sensitive nuances that need further analysis. The following three sections discuss some of the basic functions of . 125

6.3.1.2 Nominal Conjoining

One of the most straightforward examples of in its function as nominal conjoiner is the coordinate NP N N which can be either S or O in a biblical Hebrew sentence. In the following example, the coordinate NP is the Object. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth - ? : Gen 1:1 In examples like these, the function of is always CONJUNCTIVE and, not ALTERNATIVE or, or DISJUNCTIVE but. In this syntactic pattern, will not mean God created the heavens OR the earth. In nominal conjoining, the ALTERNATIVE and DISJUNCTIVE functions are realized by other syntactic mechanisms. For instance, the ALTERNATIVE function is realized by + as in the following example: a man or a woman - + Exod 21:28 There are, of course, variations on this basic pattern and numerous examples of more complex structures. For more detail on the syntax of with nominal items see, for example, BHRG §31.

6.3.1.3 Verbal Conjoining

When conjoins verbal items V V, it is crucial to take careful note of the verb forms which are “linked” in this way. The conjunctive function of is operative when the successive verb forms are identical in form—the most typical example of this in narrative are sequences of WAYYIQTOL . This is where ’s function of conjoining coordinate syntactic items is fundamental— should not be read as “and” or “then” with every 126 WAYYIQTOL , but rather should be seen as the syntactic indicator which signals the conjoining of these similar verbal items. When coordinate verbal items are conjoined by , caution needs to be exercised to avoid superimposing the logico-temporal structure of another language. Consider Exod 4:31: So the people believed; and when they heard that the LORD was concerned about the sons of Israel and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed low and worshiped. F 1 85 Exod 4:31 The four WAYYIQTOL s in Exod 4:31 are linked by the . The question to ask is on what basis did the translator’s decide to use “when” in English? The point is not that every independent clause in Hebrew must be represented by an independent clause in English or any other language. However, since Hebrew does have a means of explicitly stating when they heard: , there needs to be a principled basis by which these translation decisions are made. In English, “when they heard … then they bowed low,” implies a particular logical and temporal dependency that is not an inherent part of the syntactic arrangement of the Hebrew linkage of WAYYIQTOL forms. It is appropriate to avoid a mechanical rendering of every with “and,” but it is important to proceed on the basis of awareness of clause syntax and the function of . A crucial difference in approach can be seen in the following two alternatives. The translator might say: 127 1 At some abstract, literal level, seems to mean “and,” so the proper gloss for every occurrence is “and.” The repetition of and, and, and does not sound like good English, so some occurrences of can be translated “then” or “so” and others can be left out so that the English is not too clumsy. 2 The function of is to conjoin coordinate nominal or verbal items. “And” is usually the appropriate translation in compound nominal and verbal phrases. Some occurrences of , however, indicate other types of syntactic relationships. The function of these syntactic relationships needs to be determined so that an appropriate, equivalent relationship can be expressed in the translation of the Hebrew clause. In the model implemented here, the second approach is preferred, since the function of linguistic items is fundamental to their proper analysis. A good example showing different uses of is Gen 24:30: When he saw the ring and the bracelets on his sisters wrists, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, “This is what the man said to me,” he went to the man; and behold, he was standing by the camels at the spring. Pc-vqw3msXa Pp-vqc Po-Pa-ncms Pc- Po-Pa-ncmp Pp-ncfdc ncfscX3ms Pc-Pp- vqcX3ms Po-ncmpc np ncfscX3ms Pp- vqc Pd-vpp3ms PpX1cs Pa-ncms Pc- vqw3msXa Pp-Pa-ncms Pc-Pi vqPms Pp- Pa-ncmp Pp-Pa-ncfs ; J ; ; 8 , G Gen 24:30 The second in Gen 24:30 is an example of nominal conjoining, namely the compound direct object of the verb to see. The next joins two infinitive constructs, conjoining two coordinate verb forms. The first and fourth occurrences of are another 128 case of the conjoining of two coordinate verb forms, i.e., two WAYYIQTOL s. The final occurrence is not the standard nominal or verbal conjoining, but is rather an example of one of the other functions performed by , discussed in the following section.

6.3.1.4 Other Functions of

The N N and V V examples in the above sections are only a part of the overall function of . In both cases, it is crucial to keep in focus that conjoins coordinate nominal elements or coordinate verbal elements. When is not used to syntactically link coordinate elements, its function changes. This is not a different , but rather is evidence of the context-sensitivity of in a different syntactic environment. The typical use of in this syntactic environment is the WE - X - QATAL as seen in the following example: All the persons who came from the loins of Jacob were seventy in number, but Joseph was already in Egypt. 4 ; 8 9 + Exod 1:5 In this example and others like it, the does not link either coordinate nominal or coordinate verbal elements. The use of the WE - X - QATAL primarily indicates that the relationship between the verbal element of this clause and the preceding verbal element is not the same as the relationship between two verbs of the same form, such as two WAYYIQTOL s conjoined by . What effect would there be on the narrative if the second clause of Exod 1:5 were 9 + ? The NASB reflects the WE - X - QATAL by using “but” and placing already in italics: “but Joseph was already in Egypt.” Presumably, if this clause had , it would be translated “and Joseph was in Egypt.” The use of more than one in close proximity is attested as in Gen 39:2, so the use of 129 in this last clause of Exod 1:5 would be conceivable. The question, however, is what the effect would be on the narrative depiction of the events referred to in these clauses. Questions like this underscore the need for the present study. Further discussion is postponed, however, until later sections of this study.

6.4 Narrative Time and the Hebrew Verbal System

The temporal organization of a text involves much more than the tense of the verbs found therein. Many other items contribute to the overall temporal organization which the speaker or writer uses to depict that which is narrated. Once the temporal setting is established, certain items are employed to interact in various ways with the temporal organization. Being aware of the temporal organization of the biblical Hebrew text is crucial for understanding the temporal moves in the text. The verb forms and their sequences are an integral part of these temporal moves and understanding how they interact with the temporal moves is fundamental. It is not enough for readers to assume that the text is framed in the past and “fly by the seat of their pants in interpreting the Hebrew conjugations”—the temporal moves of the Hebrew text itself need to be determined and then the translation needs to reflect those moves in the most equivalent way possible. This requires careful in-context examination of the verbal forms and the typical sequences in which they occur. Current reference time is the text’s “clock ticking,” moving ahead event by event. In narrative, WAYYIQTOL sequences typically move the text ahead with each successive WAYYIQTOL establishing a new current reference time. The current reference time, however, is not necessarily synchronized with the events as they happened. The temporal 130 organization of a text is a representation of the event world, not an exact synchronized match. The following sequences of WAYYIQTOL s are examples of this mismatch.

6.4.1 Time and

WAYYIQTOL Sequences One of the main problems with an aspect-based approach to the biblical Hebrew verbal system is that a certain aspectual tendency of a verb form becomes the definitive feature of that form. This is one of the main liabilities with the waw-consecutive view since CONSECUTION or SEQUENTIALITY take over as the characteristic aspectual feature of the WAYYIQTOL . The following functions of WAYYIQTOL sequences demonstrate that SEQUENTIALITY is certainly not the only use of the WAYYIQTOL . 6.4.1.1 PROGRESSION : “normal” narrative succession the LORD called Samuel; he said, “Here I am.” He ran to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” He said, “I did not call, lie down again.” He went and lay down. 8 ; , ; ? ; 4 8 1 Sam 3:4- 5 All the WAYYIQTOL verbs move the narrative along in temporal progression. The events are depicted as if they were a series of points along the same line. Figure 14: Temporal Progression in the Hebrew Bible ; 108 4 3 11 total 126 Figure 13: in the Hebrew Bible 131 6.4.1.2 EXPANSION : essentially simultaneous events Isaac replied to Esau F ; Gen 27:37 The speech event to which and ; refer is one and the same, thereby making the relationship between the two WAYYIQTOL s non- SEQUENTIAL . One of the questions that emerges from this example is whether this is merely a case of hendiadys lit., one through two or whether there is some function that would not be realized with just or ; , but not both verbs together. As a first step toward answering this question, it is instructive to consider the frequency of occurrence of . This is an example of how frequency of occurrence is a point of entry into other areas of analysis which are more qualitative and pragmatically oriented. Out of 126 third person occurrences of , only 11 occur without an accompanying verb. In certain occurrences, for example 1 Chr 21:26, the verb is used for a non-verbal response, in this case with fire. In other cases, the response is not reported speech like the other 115 cases. This is just a preliminary glance at the data, but these are examples of the types of contextual factors that need to be considered. This analysis indicates, however, that the majority of occurrences are indeed two WAYYIQTOL s used non-sequentially to refer to one event. 132 6.4.1.3 COMPRESSION : events of long duration or events separated by a long period of time a man from the house of Levi went he married a daughter of Levi the woman conceived she bore a son she saw that he was beautiful she hid him for three months 4 8 1 - 5 5 +6 ; 5 8 ? 5 Exod 2:1-2 Just the pregnancy and the three months of hiding would have taken a year, without considering the amount of time leading up to their marriage and the possible length of time prior to her conception. This is another example of how the narrative depiction does not match the event world. In the text, the events are depicted as normal progression, which does not reflect the temporal diversity of the event world. 6.4.1.4 RAPID SUCCESSION : unusual, uninterrupted sequences of WAYYIQTOL s representing a series of events Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Esau despised his birthright. F F 4 5 ; 8 Gen 25:34 This goes beyond the more common sequence of two WAYYIQTOL s considered above as EXPANSION . These sequences depict a series of actions, creating an effect of rapid succession. Even though narrative time is typically less than event time, these Figure 15: Depiction of Events in Narrative textual depiction: event world: 133 sequences are even more tightly compressed. The following chart shows the types of sequences attested in the Hebrew Bible: Sequence of 3 WAYYIQTOL s Sequence of 4 WAYYIQTOL s Sequence of 5 WAYYIQTOL s Gen 25:17; Exod 1:7; 2:16; Josh 8:14; 9:4; Judg 6:29; 9:27; 18:21; 19:4, 10, 14; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam 15:12; 18:25; 2 Sam 1:12; 17:23; 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 7:8; 10:9; Jer 26:21; Ezek 16:7 Gen 43:31; 1 Kgs 19:8; 2 Kgs 6:23; Neh 9:25 Gen 25:34 These sequences have a distinct aural impact because of the repetition of the – prefix of the WAYYIQTOL form. 6.4.1.5 INCLUSION : movement on the main timeline is suspended INCLUSION is another instance of non- SEQUENTIALITY in series of WAYYIQTOL s. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 0 F ; F C 0 - 0 - 9+ 8 8 - 9+ F 3 8 5 ;5 ; 4 - Gen 7:21-23 What is the relationship between the WAYYIQTOL s here? In 7:21-22 the first WAYYIQTOL , C , is the main verb. But when the next WAYYIQTOL , , at the beginning of 7:23 is read, the expectation of SEQUENTIALITY is not fulfilled. Upon closer Figure 16: WAYYIQTOL Sequences 134 examination, it becomes evident that is included within the event frame set up by C . 6.4.1.6 REGRESSION : going back in time This example, discussed above in 6.2.1, differs from INCLUSION since there is an intermediate WAYYIQTOL , , that moves the narrative along the timeline. The second occurrence of 5 , then, goes back in time. Now in the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. He wrote in the letter: “Place Uriah in the front line of the fiercest battle and withdraw from him, so that he may be struck down and die.” + 5 8 I 5 3 8 5 2 Sam 11:14-15 See the discussion of this example in 6.2.1. 6.4.1.7 CONCLUSION : summary of the preceding narrative In certain WAYYIQTOL series, the final occurrence concludes and summarizes the series. Consider the following example from 1 Sam 31:4b-6: So Saul took his sword and fell on it. His armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, and also fell on his sword and died with him. Thus Saul died with his three sons, his armor bearer, and all his men on that day together. 8 1 F ; 8 ;3 ; G ? 8 + G F ; 1 Sam 31: 4b-6 In 1 Sam 31:6, is non-sequential, concluding and summarizing the preceding events. In 31:5 makes it clear that, in the narration, Saul was already dead before occurs in 31:6. Rigid SEQUENTIALITY would not permit the use of in 31:6 after Saul’s death has already been narrated. In form, is just another “simple” 135 WAYYIQTOL , but the function is not to indicate the typical SEQUENTIALITY associated with the WAYYIQTOL .

6.4.2 Summary

One of the main implications of the preceding discussion is that the assumption that all WAYYIQTOL s are SEQUENTIAL is not congruent with the data. If all WAYYIQTOL s are not the same, then it follows that not every can be expected to be the same. Just as the preceding categories of WAYYIQTOL bring out the context-sensitive nature of this form, so also the analysis of requires a context-sensitive approach: not every will be performing the same function in the text. PART III: SYNTACTIC, SEMANTIC, AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF 137 CHAPTER 7 DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF

7.1 Introduction

In analysis of the type presented here, it is extremely important to have a principled basis on which to evaluate the different occurrences of a linguistic entity. At one extreme is the approach which assigns one gloss to the item being studied wherever that item occurs. In the more context-sensitive approach advocated here, it is expected that a slightly different sense will often be assigned to a linguistic entity based on the context in which it occurs. What is needed, however, is a set of criteria for evaluating the different occurrences while at the same time avoiding reading too much into each different occurrence. There needs to be some control mechanism to prevent ad hoc interpretation of each new occurrence. Distributional analysis involves locating each occurrence, but this differs significantly from the type of statistical analysis that would perhaps calculate the number of occurrences per 1,000 words of text. The type of distributional analysis recommended here proceeds on the basis of quantitative data and moves to qualitative analysis of the possible patterns which emerge from how the occurrences are distributed throughout the text. This analysis requires constant sensitivity to all levels of linguistic context. 138

7.2 The Distribution of

The following charts display the occurrences of chapter by chapter throughout the Hebrew Bible. These charts display the occurrences of and the occurrences of 5 with gray background. This gives an overview of where occurs, allowing certain general observations to be made regarding certain patterns of its usage. Discussion of the uses and functions of follows in subsequent chapters.

7.2.1 Charting the Distribution

Genesis 130 19 31 18 31 17 30 16 24 15 23 14 23 13 19 12 19 11 15 10 13 09 13 08 11 07 09 06 08 22 05 08 34 67 34 18 04 07 17 30 16 29 52 32 25 17 03 05 08 32 17 30 03 14 26 22 30 27 14 30 23 16 02 05 03 31 12 13 19 02 11 17 17 13 20 20 22 20 08 30 13 43 05 01 03 07 02 23 01 10 06 10 01 10 07 01 12 01 14 12 20 01 15 11 01 01 10 25 10 06 24 03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 CHAPTERS 139 Genesis, continued 19 18 17 16 15 21 14 20 13 19 12 18 11 15 10 13 09 11 08 10 07 07 06 29 06 05 28 05 04 27 05 51 03 24 02 13 02 07 02 20 08 21 28 01 23 01 02 01 01 35 02 24 20 01 15 09 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 CHAPTERS Exodus 44 05 51 04 41 27 03 23 24 41 22 19 02 21 11 04 21 14 24 30 17 24 13 16 30 29 01 05 10 03 28 10 13 10 22 29 15 20 02 10 12 13 16 18 19 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 CHAPTERS Exodus, continued 05 04 03 02 27 01 13 24 17 35 36 37 38 39 40 CHAPTERS Leviticus 1 01 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CHAPTERS 140 Numbers 21 06 52 05 43 04 37 03 36 02 12 35 25 23 32 01 43 01 06 11 01 31 07 41 02 19 16 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTERS Deuteronomy 7 01 03 16 23 11 05 24 05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 CHAPTERS Joshua 62 08 13 41 07 11 33 06 10 33 05 27 27 30 09 25 04 20 24 29 07 18 40 03 18 13 16 25 20 25 18 10 02 10 20 02 14 11 08 15 24 16 11 23 02 05 01 02 10 01 01 05 02 01 01 08 05 14 01 01 01 16 01 05 01 12 01 04 17 01 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAPTERS Judges 53 07 12 06 39 11 05 40 39 07 04 28 38 35 20 25 05 03 19 27 27 15 33 29 17 21 04 02 14 18 25 09 27 05 14 20 15 17 16 01 02 01 03 04 10 07 06 26 42 04 04 09 02 11 01 04 01 01 46 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CHAPTERS 1 Samuel 67 08 30 07 52 29 06 25 19 05 19 14 04 20 18 14 15 10 23 42 03 04 10 13 15 09 20 35 17 38 02 02 36 09 05 10 10 02 26 27 11 14 21 06 09 27 26 06 37 16 25 01 01 17 02 01 09 01 02 01 01 11 11 10 01 10 06 01 07 24 02 06 02 02 07 01 01 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 CHAPTERS 141 2 Samuel 56 07 20 06 20 05 15 27 38 32 19 04 23 14 16 36 12 18 03 02 17 06 06 14 30 30 07 08 26 18 02 02 11 02 04 02 02 18 23 02 27 07 10 15 19 01 01 01 01 04 13 01 01 01 01 03 01 01 16 21 06 03 01 19 11 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHAPTERS 1 Kings 81 09 29 45 08 27 40 34 44 07 26 29 31 36 06 24 25 24 29 28 05 21 24 23 17 27 40 27 04 12 20 30 20 31 17 17 39 17 03 11 54 15 22 20 28 18 08 07 29 16 33 02 39 06 11 17 10 26 04 20 06 25 29 11 07 04 26 15 32 01 04 15 18 01 02 01 10 01 14 03 02 04 06 21 01 02 01 13 12 01 02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CHAPTERS 2 Kings 57 07 40 06 25 30 05 18 26 04 27 11 25 21 28 03 11 20 08 08 24 20 15 25 25 37 27 02 09 15 08 07 20 18 05 09 11 12 07 09 35 11 25 01 01 05 06 02 05 16 03 22 07 03 07 21 05 05 03 01 01 04 03 01 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAPTERS Isaiah 17 02 18 13 01 25 01 05 02 07 03 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CHAPTERS Isaiah, continued 02 38 19 01 01 01 04 18 15 08 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 CHAPTERS 142 Jeremiah 46 05 27 04 13 23 03 11 08 23 16 02 04 06 17 12 19 12 09 13 01 03 01 03 16 01 05 03 10 04 08 01 30 26 01 12 11 01 06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 CHAPTERS Jeremiah, continued 05 13 04 07 03 06 02 04 07 08 31 01 04 01 07 01 22 04 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 CHAPTERS Ezekiel 71 05 26 34 11 04 22 21 34 07 23 27 03 25 16 17 23 06 13 23 20 23 23 02 03 16 14 08 12 19 06 02 06 17 10 15 11 20 17 21 01 01 03 01 01 01 08 06 13 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 14 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 17 01 01 01 01 01 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 CHAPTERS Ezekiel, continued 05 04 03 02 15 01 16 07 01 36 37 38 39 … 48 CHAPTERS Hosea 1 01 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CHAPTERS Jonah 5 02 04 01 01 01 01 08 1 2 3 4 CHAPTERS Habakkuk 1 01 03 1 2 3 CHAPTERS 143 Haggai 2 01 03 20 1 2 CHAPTERS Zechariah 9 05 13 04 12 03 08 02 04 18 01 08 09 01 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CHAPTERS Psalms 6 01 19 09 11 03 22 14 1 … 18 … 33 … 69 … 76 … 94 … 118 … 150 CHAPTERS Job 11 05 13 04 06 03 05 02 03 01 03 01 16 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 CHAPTERS Job, continued 05 04 03 13 02 12 01 07 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 CHAPTERS Ruth 7 03 19 02 01 16 01 01 17 08 13 1 2 3 4 CHAPTERS Lamentations 1 01 37 1 2 3 4 5 CHAPTERS 144 Esther 7 03 15 02 08 02 01 01 07 04 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CHAPTERS Daniel 5 03 21 02 16 Aramaic 15 01 06 02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CHAPTERS Ezra 1 01 04 Aramaic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CHAPTERS Nehemiah 16 04 10 03 09 02 04 38 06 16 19 01 01 01 33 01 01 01 01 17 03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHAPTERS 1 Chronicles 32 06 06 05 06 04 05 03 26 21 29 03 14 04 02 22 13 26 03 06 02 11 07 01 03 09 51 08 06 25 01 01 01 01 05 08 03 01 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 CHAPTERS 2 Chronicles 47 04 12 23 03 13 26 11 10 32 18 16 21 02 11 25 12 02 05 31 29 19 12 11 14 11 32 27 01 14 09 07 01 13 02 02 01 15 07 05 03 01 01 09 08 04 03 05 08 26 25 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTERS

7.2.2 The Relationship of Distribution and Genre

First of all, based upon the presence andor absence of certain general comments can be made. Caution needs to be exercised, however, to avoid reading too 145 much into these generalizations. For example, should not be read as if its only function is to indicate that the text in which it occurs is narrative. Even though genre is one of the factors that needs to be taken into account, the function of cannot be reduced to being the indicator of narrative. The chart of Leviticus is instructive in this regard. The only occurrence of in the book of Leviticus is in 9:1, in the only past narrative section of the book. But it is important to not overstate the significance of this occurrence of . may be in Leviticus 9 because this chapter is narrative, but the reverse is not necessarily true that Leviticus 9 is narrative because occurs there. It is also important not to overstate the significance of the absence of . For example, there are no occurrences of in chapters 12, 17, 21, 26, and 29 of 1 Samuel. At the broadest level, there is no apparent difference in text-type that differentiates these chapters from the rest of the book. These chapters are not less narrative because does not occur in them. is only one strand woven into the complex narrative tapestry. One of the questions that emerges from this distributional analysis is whether there is any significance to clusters of . For example, in 1 Sam 18, there are eight occurrences when most of the surrounding chapters have only three or four. Clusters can be seen in other books as well. The first step in answering this question would be to separate the verbal occurrences from the temporal ones and then determine whether any significant pattern emerges. This, of course, as stated previously, needs to take all levels of linguistic structure and context into consideration. 146 These questions are attempts to explore whether any kind of profile of the text of 1 Samuel—or any other book—can be derived by looking at the pattern of occurrence of . , however, is not the only motor which keeps the text moving ahead. Other mechanisms that move the text along or indicate transitions in the text need to be considered along with .

7.3 Summary

One of the most important observations made in this occurrence-by-occurrence study of is that the syntax of each of its occurrences needs to be carefully examined. One of the inherent dangers in saying that performs a textlinguistic or discourse function is that it can lead to the improper assumption that it functions only at that level. There are numerous instances of functioning as a simple verb. The analyst must determine when a particular occurrence is verbal or when a different function is being performed. This is the goal of the following chapters. 147 CHAPTER 8 THE VERBAL USES OF

8.1 Overview