sileb26.

(1)

Digital

Resources

_{SIL eBook 26}

Exploring the Syntactic,

Semantic, and Pragmatic uses

of

יהיְ וַ

in Biblical Hebrew

Bryan L. Harmelink

(2)

E

EXPLORING THE

SYNTACTIC,

S

SEMANTIC,

S

AND

PRAGMATIC

P

U

USES

OF

IN

BIBLICAL

B

HEBREW

H

(3)



! " # $

%&' ( ) ( * + , ) ) - ( $ ( )

)& & . & / $ / % - ( %&' - ( &

%& % - - ( 0 *1 ( - & 0& ) , ) 1 ( & -& ( % /

2 %&' // & - + ( ) &/ ) ( 3% $

(4)

ABSTRACT

This dissertation seeks to identify the uses and functions of in biblical Hebrew. After an introduction to the topic and a review of the treatment of in the grammars of biblical Hebrew, the theoretical framework of the Functional, Discourse-Pragmatic model of linguistic analysis implemented here is presented. This model focuses on the interaction of linguistic forms and their functions, exploring the choices made by language users and the effects of these choices on their communication.

Before proceeding with the display of the occurrences of , fundamental aspects of the biblical Hebrew verbal system are discussed in order to establish the context within which is analyzed. After presenting a preliminary distribution of

, the occurrences are displayed according to its Verbal and Temporal uses. This detailed classification lays the foundation for consideration of the discourse-pragmatic functions of , which are discussed in the final chapter.

This research was motivated by questions that arose from examples of

encountered in the biblical Hebrew text and from the discussion of its functions in the literature. The analysis of the verbal occurrences, representing 53% of the total instances, demonstrates the syntactic connection of in these cases. This analysis shows that

has DEICTIC features that indicate its involvement in the systems of personal, spatial,

and temporal reference. The identification of these DEICTIC features of the verbal uses

provides a significant semantic and cognitive link to its functions in temporal expressions.

(5)

iii

The analysis of in temporal expressions further informs understanding of its syntactic and narrative contexts. In these cases, occurs in dependent clauses which requires attention to the subsequent clauses, resulting in additional categories of use. This analysis lays the foundation for discussing the discourse-pragmatic functions of in the final chapter.

The DEICTIC functions of in its occurrences in temporal expressions are an

extension of the features that emerged from the analysis of the verbal occurrences. The identification of these functions provides important evidence for the role plays in the temporal organization of biblical Hebrew narrative and the need to carefully consider how it is translated.

(6)

CONTENTS

Abstract

List of Illustrations List of Tables

List of Abbreviations

Chapter 1 Introduction

PART I:

Theoretical Background

Chapter 2 Historical Overview

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Historical Overview of Descriptive Linguistics

2.3 Historical Overview of the Study of Biblical Hebrew

Chapter 3 Survey of Scholarship on

3.1 Introduction

3.2 The Analysis of in the Traditional Approach

3.2.1 Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, 1813

3.2.2 Müller, Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, 1883 3.2.3 Harper, Elements of Hebrew Syntax, 1892

3.2.4 Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, 1939

3.2.5 Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 1991

3.2.6 Analytical Summary of the Traditional Approach

3.3 The Analysis of in the Descriptive Approach

3.3.1 Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 1971 3.3.2 Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 1974

3.3.3 Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to

Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 1990

3.3.4 Kelley, Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar, 1992

3.3.5 Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 1995

3.3.6 Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition, 1998

3.3.7 Schertz and Yoder, Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of Greek and Hebrew, 2001

3.3.8 Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew, 2001

3.3.9 Pratico and Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 2001

(7)

3.4 The Analysis of in the Textlinguistic Approach

3.4.1 Preliminary Comments

3.4.2 Schneider, Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch, 1974 3.4.3 Richter, Grundlagen einer althebräischen Grammatik, 1980

3.4.4 Bartelmus, HYH. Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen

»Allerweltswortes«, 1982

3.4.5 Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48, 1989

3.4.6 Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 1990 3.4.7 Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique

in Biblical Hebrew Prose, 1990

3.4.8 Talstra, “A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative”

3.4.9 Winther-Nielsen, A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua.

A Computer-assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis, 1995 3.4.10 Exter Blokland, In Search of Text Syntax, 1995

3.4.11 Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis, 1996

3.4.12 Hatav, The Semantics of Aspect and Modality, 1997

3.4.13 Van der Merwe et al, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 1999

3.4.14 Rocine, Learning Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach

Using Discourse Analysis, 2000

3.4.15 Analytical Summary of the Textlinguistic Approach

Chapter 4 The Need for Further Study of

4.1 Questions Raised by

4.1.1 Questions Raised by the Books that Start with

4.1.2 Questions Raised by How is Used in Jonah

4.1.3 Questions Raised by the Distribution of in Genesis

4.1.4 Questions Raised by van der Merwe’s Study of in 1 Samuel

4.1.5 Questions Raised by the Claims in the Literature Review

4.1.6 Summary

4.2 The Scope of this Study

(8)

Chapter 5 General Theoretical Framework

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The Nature of Biblical Hebrew as a Language

5.1.2 The Nature of Linguistic Description

5.2 A Functional, Discourse-Pragmatic View of Language

5.2.1 A Descriptive Orientation

5.2.1.1 Identification

5.2.1.2 Variation 5.2.1.3 Distribution 5.2.1.4 Summary

5.2.2 An Interactive Morpho-Syntactic Orientation

5.2.2.1 A Unit-in-Context Approach 5.2.2.2 Syntactic Constraints

5.2.3 A Functional-Typological Orientation

5.2.4 A Discourse-Pragmatic Orientation

5.2.4.1 Text-Types and Genre 5.2.4.2 Cohesion and Coherence 5.2.4.3 Context-Sensitivity 5.2.4.4 Choice

5.2.4.5 Default 5.2.4.6 Markedness

5.2.5 A Cognitive Orientation

5.2.5.1 The Representational Nature of Language 5.2.5.2 Information Structure

5.3 Summary

PART II:

Analytical Preliminaries

Chapter 6 Analytical Preliminaries

6.1 Introduction

6.2 The Verb in Biblical Hebrew

6.2.1 Approaches to the Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew

6.2.2 The Multi-Dimensional Verb Analysis Implemented in this Study

6.2.3 Description of the Hebrew Verb Forms

6.3 Clause Syntax in Biblical Hebrew

6.3.1 The Role of Waw in Clause Syntax

6.3.1.1 Introduction

6.3.1.2 Nominal Conjoining 6.3.1.3 Verbal Conjoining 6.3.1.4 Other Functions of

(9)

vii

6.4 Narrative Time and the Hebrew Verbal System

6.4.1 Time and WAYYIQTOL Sequences

6.4.1.1 PROGRESSION

6.4.1.2 EXPANSION

6.4.1.3 COMPRESSION

6.4.1.4 RAPID SUCCESSION

6.4.1.5 INCLUSION

6.4.1.6 REGRESSION

6.4.1.7 CONCLUSION

6.4.2 Summary

PART III:

Syntactic, Semantic, And Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis

of

Chapter 7 Distributional Analysis of

7.1 Introduction

7.2 The Distribution of

7.2.1 Charting the Distribution

7.2.2 The Relationship of Distribution and Genre

7.3 Summary

Chapter 8 The Verbal Uses of

8.1 Overview

8.2 Uses of as the Main Verb in Independent Clauses

8.2.1 The EQUATIVE Use of

8.2.1.1 To be

8.2.1.2 “And it was so…”

8.2.1.3 “And that’s the way it happened…” 8.2.1.4 Territorial Expressions

8.2.1.5 The Formulaic Expression

8.2.1.5.1 Occurrences of in Genesis, Samuel-Kings,

and Chronicles

8.2.1.5.2 Occurrences of in Isaiah

8.2.1.5.3 Occurrences of in Jeremiah

8.2.1.5.4 Occurrences of in Ezekiel

8.2.1.5.5 Occurrences of in Jonah

8.2.1.5.6 Occurrences of in Haggai

8.2.1.5.7 Occurrences of in Zechariah

8.2.1.5.8 Variations of the standard Occurrences of 8.2.1.5.9 Analytical Summary of the FORMULAIC Use of

(10)

viii 8.2.1.6 Expressions of Age

8.2.1.6.1 Age: + S +

8.2.1.6.2 “The days of… were”: + N + NUM

8.2.1.6.3 Other References to Age, but without 8.2.1.7 Quantity

8.2.1.7.1 Quantity Statements

8.2.1.7.2 Reference to a Number with 8.2.1.7.3 Reference to Weight with 8.2.1.8 With Prepositions

8.2.1.8.1 With 8.2.1.8.2 With 8.2.1.8.3 With 8.2.1.8.4 With

8.2.1.8.5 With Indicating Comparison 8.2.1.8.6 With Indicating Possession 8.2.1.8.7 With Meaning “became”

8.2.1.8.8 With Meaning “became” and Indicating Possession 8.2.1.8.9 With Indicating Distribution

8.2.1.8.10 With Followed by Infinitive Construct 8.2.1.8.11 With !

8.2.1.8.12 With 8.2.1.8.13 With "

8.2.1.8.14 With #"

8.2.1.8.15 With " 8.2.1.8.16 With $"

8.2.1.9 Analytical Summary of the EQUATIVE Use of

8.2.2 The EXISTENTIAL Use of

8.2.2.1 EXISTENTIAL Occurrences of

8.2.2.2 Analytical Summary of the EXISTENTIAL Use of

8.2.3 The DEICTIC Use of

8.2.3.1 DEICTIC Occurrences of

8.2.3.2 Analytical Summary of the DEICTIC Use of

8.2.4 The DESCRIPTIVE Use of

8.2.4.1 DESCRIPTIVE Occurrences of

8.2.4.2 Analytical Summary of the DESCRIPTIVE Use of

8.3 Uses of as an Auxiliary Verb

8.3.1 Occurrences as an Auxiliary

8.3.2 Analytical Summary of the Uses of as an Auxiliary Verb

(11)

8.5 Uses of %%%% &&&&

8.5.1 Verbal Uses of % &

8.5.1.1 EQUATIVE Uses of % &

8.5.1.1.1 As Auxiliary Verb with Participle 8.5.1.1.2 Quantity

8.5.1.1.2.1 Basic Quantity Statements with % &

8.5.1.1.2.2 “All the days of…” 8.5.1.1.2.3 Period of time 8.5.1.1.3 With Prepositions

8.5.1.1.3.1 With 8.5.1.1.3.2 With

8.5.1.1.3.3 With Indicating Comparison 8.5.1.1.3.4 With Indicating Possession 8.5.1.1.3.5 With Meaning “became”

8.5.1.1.3.6 With Meaning “became” and Indicating Possession 8.5.1.1.3.7 With Meaning “for”

8.5.1.1.3.8 With !

8.5.1.1.3.9 With $"

8.5.1.2 DEICTIC Uses of % &

8.5.1.3 DESCRIPTIVE Uses of % &

8.5.1.3.1 DESCRIPTIVE with ADJECTIVE COMPLEMENT

8.5.1.3.2 DESCRIPTIVE with QAL PASSIVE

8.5.1.4 Summary of the Uses of % &

Chapter 9 The Temporal Uses of

9.1 Overview

9.2 Introduction to Temporal Expressions in Biblical Hebrew

9.2.1 The Syntax of Temporal Expressions in Hebrew Grammars

9.2.1.1 Introduction

9.2.1.2 GKC, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar

9.2.1.3 Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax

9.2.1.4 Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline

9.2.1.5 Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew

9.2.1.6 Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew

9.2.1.7 Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

9.2.1.8 Pratico and Van Pelt, The Basics of Biblical Hebrew

9.2.1.9 van der Merwe et al, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar

9.2.1.10 Summary

9.2.2 Theoretical Background for the Analysis of Temporal Expressions 9.2.2.1 Speaker Deixis

9.2.2.2 Word Order and Narrative Strategies 9.2.2.3 Summary

(12)

9.3 Temporal Expressions with

9.3.1 With ' / '(

9.3.1.1 “After these things”

9.3.1.1.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.1.1.2 Followed by QATAL

9.3.1.1.3 Followed by WE X-QATAL

9.3.1.1.4 Analytical Summary of the “After these things” Use of 9.3.1.2 After: '

9.3.1.2.1 After: '( + NOUN

9.3.1.2.2 After: '( Followed by a VERB

9.3.1.2.2.1 Infinitive Construct 9.3.1.2.2.2 QATAL

9.3.1.3 With '(

9.3.1.3.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.1.3.2 Followed by QATAL

9.3.1.4 Summary of the Uses of '(

9.3.2 With Prepositions

9.3.2.1 With

9.3.2.1.1 Occurrences of with + Infinitive Construct 9.3.2.1.1.1 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.2.1.1.2 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL

with Intervening Clauses

9.3.2.1.1.3 Infinitive Construct Followed by QATAL

9.3.2.1.1.4 Summary of Infinitive Constructs Used with

-9.3.2.1.2 Occurrences of with Specific Temporal Reference

9.3.2.1.2.1 Specific Temporal Reference Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.2.1.2.1.1 With ) / " *

9.3.2.1.2.1.2 With " * / " *

9.3.2.1.2.1.3 Infinitive Construct + "

9.3.2.1.2.1.4 With % $+

9.3.2.1.2.1.5 With % * ,

9.3.2.1.2.1.6 With $ * $

9.3.2.1.2.1.7 With $ * $ * $

9.3.2.1.2.1.8 With NUMBER- $+

9.3.2.1.2.1.9 With -* +- + NUMBER

9.3.2.1.2.1.10 With$+ + INFC

9.3.2.1.2.1.11 With "

-9.3.2.1.2.1.12 At a Specific Time

9.3.2.1.2.1.13 With #') _____

9.3.2.1.2.1.14 With

(13)

9.3.2.1.2.2.1 With -*

9.3.2.1.2.2.2 With . $+ $/"

9.3.2.1.2.2.3 With " + INFC

9.3.2.1.2.2.4 With$+ +- + NUMBER

9.3.2.1.2.2.5 With #') +- + NUMBER

9.3.2.1.2.2.6 With Year Formulas Involving a Number 9.3.2.1.2.2.7 With $" +- + NUMBER

9.3.2.1.2.2.8 With 9.3.2.2 With

9.3.2.2.1 With Infinitive Constructs

9.3.2.2.1.1 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.2.2.1.2 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL

with Intervening Clauses

9.3.2.2.1.3 Infinitive Construct Followed by QATAL

9.3.2.2.1.4 Infinitive Construct Followed by YIQTOL

9.3.2.2.1.5 Summary of Infinitive Constructs Used with

9.3.2.2.2 Occurrences of with Specific Temporal Reference

9.3.2.3 With

9.3.2.3.1 With + Infinitive Construct

9.3.2.3.2 With + Temporal Phrase

9.3.2.3.2.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.2.3.2.2 Followed by QATAL

9.3.2.3.2.3 Followed by WE-X-QATAL

9.3.2.4 With 9.3.2.4.1 With 01

9.3.2.4.1.1 With 01 Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.2.4.1.2 With 01 Followed by QATAL

9.3.2.4.1.3 With 01 Followed by (WE)-X-QATAL

9.3.2.4.1.4 With 01 Followed by WE-X-PTC

9.3.2.4.2 With '23*

9.3.2.4.3 Some time later $

9.3.2.4.4 “From that day…”

9.3.2.4.5 Event-Referenced Use of

9.3.2.5 Analytical Summary of the Use of with Prepositions

9.3.3 With (

9.3.3.1 With ( as Temporal

9.3.3.2 With ( as Manner

9.3.4 With

9.3.4.1 Occurrences with

9.3.4.2 Analytical Summary of the Occurrences with

(14)

xii

9.3.5.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL

9.3.5.2 Followed by WE-X-QATAL

9.3.6 Occurrences of with Adverbs

9.3.6.1 “While”: #" + QATAL

9.3.6.2 “Meanwhile”: ) #" ) #"

9.3.6.3 “As often as, whenever”: INFC +

9.3.6.4 “Only, just”: 4

9.4 Summary of the Temporal Uses of

Chapter 10 Exploring The Discourse-Pragmatic Uses of

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Pertinent Theoretical Concepts

10.2.1 Macrosyntactic

10.2.2 Discourse Markers

10.2.3 Discourse-Pragmatic Functions

10.3 Evaluating the Verbal Uses of

10.4 Evaluating the Temporal Uses of

10.5 Evaluating the Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of

10.5.1 The Cognitive Dimension

10.5.1.1 Creating Temporal Frames of Reference 10.5.1.2 Episode Initiator?

10.5.1.3 Focus and Foreground

10.6 Pointers for Encounters With in the Text

10.6.1 Is it Verbal or Temporal? 10.6.2 What is its Category of Use?

10.6.3 What is the Possible Discourse-Pragmatic Function?

10.6.4 Summary

10.7 Areas for Future Research

10.7.1 Sentence Syntax

10.7.2 Role of in Narrative

10.7.3 Uses of * *

10.7.4 Temporal Organization of Narrative

(15)

xiii

PART IV:

References and Appendices

Works Cited

Appendices

Westminster Grammatical Tags

Residue

Bibliography

Curriculum Vita

(16)

xiv

ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration Page

1. Don Quixote figure, riding a horse ...96 2. Picture of a dalmatian dog sniffing the ground, approaching a tree in a park ...96

(17)

TABLES

Table Page

1. Eras of Hebrew Study ...17

2. Identification of ...75

3. Variations of ...75

4. Frequency of Occurrence of and 5 . ...77

5. Occurrences of 6* by book ...78

6. Basic Text-Types ...93

7. TAMP Profile...113

8. Narrative Time ...114

9. Three-Vowel System ...117

10.Five-Vowel System...117

11.Function to Function ...121

12.Form to Form ...122

13. " in the Hebrew Bible ...130

14.Temporal Progression ...130

15.Depiction of Events in Narrative ...132

16.WAYYIQTOL Sequences ...133

17.Format of Data Display...148

18. * ) in Isaiah ...161

19.Adjective Phrase Complement...179

(18)

xvi

21.Views of and ...267

22.Temporal Progression ...269

23.Pattern of with ' ...278

24.Coordinate Temporal Expressions...289

25.Temporal Reference Following – ...318

26.Parallel Structure of % ... ...352

27.Object of Transitive Verb ...353

28.Intervening Clauses...375

29.Infinitive Constructs Used with and ...380

30.Temporal Expressions with ...391

31.Clause Nucleus and Margins ...436

32.Verbal or Temporal? ...449

(19)

xvii

ABBREVIATIONS

BDB ...Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. 1996. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

BHRG ...van der Merwe, C. H. J., J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze. 1999. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

GKC ...Gesenius, W. and E. Kautsch. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Trans. and rev. by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

HALOT ...Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. 1995. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill. JPS...JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH. 2000. Philadelphia: The

Jewish Publication Society.

NASB...New American Standard Bible. 1995. Updated ed. Anaheim, CA: Lockman Foundation.

NIV ...New International Version. 1984. International Bible Society. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

NRSV...New Revised Standard Version. 1989. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

(20)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This is a study of –one of the elements involved in the well-crafted ways in which the biblical Hebrew text depicts the temporal dimensions of narrative. In The Art of Biblical Narrative, Alter asks the following insightful questions:

Why at a particular juncture does the narrator break the time-frame of his story to insert a piece of expository information in the pluperfect tense, or to jump forward to the time of his contemporary audience and explain that in those days it was the custom in Israel to perform such and such a practice? Why does he pause to make a summarizing statement about the condition of a character, as, for example, in the observation about Joseph’s already established viceregal status just as the ten brothers arrive in

Egypt? Why at certain points is the regular rapid tempo of narration slowed down to take in details of a kind for which in general no time is allowed? (Alter 1981, 184-85)

Understanding how time is depicted is an important part of reading narrative, as Fokkelman comments, “The narrator is not obliged to provide indications of narrated time, but he is quite capable of it. Whenever we hear this kind of information it is always important” (Fokkelman 1999, 36). It is possible to know that indications of narrated time are important, but not really know what significance they have in the flow of the text. For example, what is the function of a shift ahead in time or a reference to a previous time? Many of the same questions raised by literary or narrative studies are of interest here. The difference is that this study uses textlinguistic methods to analyze in the

(21)

pursuit of answers to these questions. The goal of this inductive, text-based study is not to merely derive syntactic formulas or structural representations of the text, but rather to use linguistic methods to explore the junctures and pauses—such as those referred to by Alter—to better understand the temporal shape of the text. So, in one sense this study is about because it is the element in focus, but in another sense is only a small part of what motivated this research into the temporal organization of text in biblical Hebrew.

The opening chapter of 1 Samuel provides many good examples of the types of questions explored in this research. One of the first questions that emerges from reading 1 Sam 1:1-3 has to do with the fact that the book starts with . Does this have any significance for the whole book or is its function restricted to the first clause? Notice also that occurs again in 1:2. What, if any, significance should be associated with two occurrences in such close proximity?

$ & ! $ !+/ $ & * * #'* 7

8 ! 9%/ %'5) % : $'* ; * ; %

< & &- $ <' ' $ $ 5 ; =

8$ #& * <' % $ #& * < &!

* $ ; " % * *"* >

? + */ ' )@ ;'(5

8 $ & ( ) '* !% &!'* " $ *

The next questions have to do with the four occurrences of with a non-verbal item. What is the function of ; %, ; , <' %, and $ * ? How do these items interact with the temporal organization of the opening of 1 Samuel? Where does the “action” of 1 Samuel begin? For example, what is the proper way to interpret the verb *"* in 1:3?

(22)

What is the relationship between this WEQATAL and the previous two occurrences of

8 + * * + % * * * % ;5 < &! * ' @ & $+ A

8B *' C * * <' $ & * ' * 5 & <' % D

In 1 Sam 1:4 another occurs, but this time with $+ . To what day or time does the expression $+ refer? Immediately following this is the first WAYYIQTOL

' @ & (other than the three ), but this is quickly followed by , raising questions about how the preceding WAYYIQTOL should be read. The questions continue in 1:5, first

of all with 5 & <' %, which is in some way connected to ; secondly, the temporal reference of the clause * <' must be determined; and, finally in 1:5, the WE -X-QATAL C * requires interpretation of the temporal nature of the QATAL as well as

the function of the .

The questions could continue clause by clause, but it should be clear from just the first five verses that there are many issues of temporal organization, the interpretation of the verbal forms, and the function of that need a principled basis by which to read these elements in the text.

Advances in textlinguistic studies of biblical Hebrew have led to increased understanding of the uses and functions of a variety of linguistic elements in the text of the Hebrew Bible. is one of these elements in biblical Hebrew that has been considered from a textlinguistic perspective, resulting in the identification of several possible functions that it performs in the depiction of time in the biblical Hebrew text. Some recent treatments of , however, remain uninformed by the advances in

(23)

textlinguistic understanding of its functions, recommending that be left

untranslated.1 Other descriptions of discuss its role in the text, but are limited in scope. The most significant recent study specifically of is van der Merwe’s “The Elusive Biblical Hebrew Term : A Perspective in Terms of its Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics in 1 Samuel,” but, as its title indicates, the study is limited to 1 Samuel.

The impetus for this study initially came from an even more limited corpus: the book of Jonah. During a graduate course which focused on the translation of the Hebrew text of Jonah, the five occurrences of found therein were discussed. It quickly became apparent that the different occurrences of could not be merely dismissed and left untranslated and it was clear that the syntactic environment and the pragmatic factors of each occurrence required careful consideration. Increased curiosity led to looking into the use of in Genesis, which then motivated the formulation of further questions.

The occurrences of in the Hebrew Bible can easily be found by computer programs which allow this type of search; in a matter of seconds all the occurrences can be displayed. In the attempt, however, to discern the parameters which motivate the use

of in the biblical text, this type of data-display is essentially useless since the occurrences are extracted from the context in which they occur. For the type of analysis carried out here, it was important that each occurrence of be encountered in its

1_{For example, Ross (2001, 139-40) in}_{Introducing Biblical Hebrew}_{states: “In older} Bible versions, the form was translated ‘and it came to pass.’ Although the form can sometimes be the main verb in a clause, it usually indicates simply that the narrated events occurred in the past, and so the form need not be translated.”

(24)

context, rather than merely listed in concordance-fashion. Repeated readings of extensive sections of the Hebrew Bible, carefully taking note of its temporal organization, has formed the basis of the observations and analysis summarized here.

If the main Hebrew grammars are consulted, two basic approaches to are found which can be broadly characterized as follows: 1) means “and it came to pass” and should be left untranslated because it is unnatural and clumsy in English; 2) is a macrosyntactic marker which “indicates simply that the narrated events occurred in the past” (Ross 2001, 139-40).

One of the questions that immediately arises is whether these approaches are adequate or not. Regarding the first approach, there are numerous unnatural and clumsy peculiarities in biblical Hebrew, as in any language, but this is certainly not sufficient reason to leave them untranslated. Regarding the second approach, which appears to have a degree of textlinguistic sensitivity, the question is whether markers that simply indicate a past tense frame of reference even exist. If they do exist, would this adequately describe

how functions? Also, how can the uneven distribution of be explained? How

can the absence of be explained in contexts which are unambiguously past? If the function of is to indicate past tense and certain past-tense narratives do not have any occurrences of , how is its absence explained?

Within both approaches, an important question is whether every occurrence of should receive the same treatment. Should certain occurrences be ignored as if they were mysteriously in the consonantal text for no reason? The recommendation here is

(25)

not to resort to a mechanical rendering of every as “and it came to pass”

characteristic of a version like the NASB, but rather to carefully analyze the syntactic and

pragmatic parameters of the use of in the text in order to develop sensitivity to its varied uses. To merely label as a discourse marker and then merely acknowledge its presence as an indicator of past tense is to greatly underestimate the benefit that can come from a thoroughgoing linguistic approach to the text. After the next chapter, which outlines the current state of research on , the conceptual foundation for this linguistic approach will be presented.

And finally, in these introductory remarks, it needs to be made clear that this is not a mere academic exercise. To some, the way is handled in grammars of biblical Hebrew—or even how it is rendered in translation—may seem inconsequential at best. As a linguist and translator, however, this is intolerable! When this study was in the early stages as a mere idea, the implications of how is dealt with in translation seemed significant; after processing and pondering all the data, awareness of the significance of how is handled in translation has only increased.

(26)

(27)

CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Good scholarship requires that any potentially useful procedure, approach, or technique be used in the attempt to understand the complexities of the Hebrew text as well as possible. If certain linguistic models are proving themselves to be beneficial in the research of other languages, full consideration should be given to the implementation of these models with their accompanying insights in ongoing research in biblical Hebrew. Previous eras of scholarship should also be considered, even if the same type of

analytical tools of current research were not employed.

Notice that this is a textual study, which is the reason for the extensive text-in-context examples. It is recommended that all the examples be read and processed in each section. This is the best way for the textual examples to make their own case. It is also recommended that constant reference be made to the biblical Hebrew text from which the examples are taken. However, if the reader’s time does not permit systematic study of all the examples, each section includes a summary of the most pertinent examples.

(28)

2.2 Historical Overview of Descriptive Linguistics

Since the end of the nineteenth century, there have been many significant developments in the history of Linguistics. These developments have shaped the conceptual basis for the way language is studied in what is commonly referred to as Descriptive Linguistics. Since certain aspects of this conceptual basis underlie the present study, they’ll be briefly discussed here. The study of language obviously did not begin in the nineteenth century, but this is an adequate time-frame for tracing the most relevant concepts for this study.

Every era of scientific inquiry is shaped by general intellectual trends and movements. Eighteenth and early nineteenth century linguistic studies were greatly influenced by Romanticism: “the history-centred outlook of nineteenth-century linguistic scientists was related to the general state of science at the time” (Sampson 1980, 14). This diachronic outlook gave rise to the emphasis on historical reconstruction and a very developmental, law-governed view of language. This view was also deeply influenced by Darwinian principles of evolution and natural selection, to the extent that some linguists “saw the Indo-European language-family as having reached a dominant position

linguistically, as Man has become dominant zoologically” (Sampson 1980, 19). In the study of language in general, this led to a perception of the superiority of European languages and the linguistic structures they employ.

With increased exposure to the diversity of the world’s languages, serious questions arose concerning the validity of the diachronic model. Impetus for this shift came from greater awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity. Ferdinand de

(29)

Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale is representative of the shift from this diachronic perspective to a focus on synchronic studies. Saussure, commenting on the priority of synchronic over diachronic analyses, stated that “[t]he first thing that strikes us when we study the facts of language is that their succession in time does not exist insofar as the speaker is concerned” (Saussure 1916, 81). Saussure’s interest was in how

language is actually used by speakers at a given period in time.

Linguistics was also heavily impacted by ethnography in the early twentieth century. In American Linguistics, in particular, the work of researchers such as Edward Sapir (1921) and Franz Boas (1911) was foundational. In contrast to the diachronic model which had assumed that all languages were developing toward some ideal

structure, the “characteristic of the school founded by Boas was its relativism. There was no ideal type of language, to which actual languages approximated more or less closely” (Sampson 1980, 59). As a result, one of the hallmarks of American Linguistics is the principle that every language is to be studied and described in its own right.

Another fundamental characteristic of Descriptive Linguistics as it developed during the twentieth century is its focus on working from the data. As Leonard Bloomfield stated, “[t]he only useful generalizations about language are inductive generalizations” (Bloomfield 1933, 20). Within this perspective, linguistic terms are defined in relation to each other in order to derive the linguistic system from the language being studied. As Lyons comments:

each language is regarded as a system of relations (more precisely, a set of interrelated systems), the elements of which—sounds, words, etc.—have no validity independently of the relations of equivalence and contrast which hold between them. (Lyons 1969, 50)

(30)

In the middle of the twentieth century, a theoretical revolution took place that has had an immense impact on the field of Linguistics. As Robins comments:

What is probably the most radical and important change in direction in descriptive linguistics and in linguistic theory that has taken place in recent years may be located in 1957, when Chomsky’s Syntactic

Structures was published, inaugurating the transformational-generative phase of linguistics…. (Robins 1968, 226)

Under the influence of Chomsky’s publications and teaching, the

transformational-generative school developed in directions not shared by others in the field of descriptive linguistics. One of the basic conceptual distinctions in Chomsky’s view is between competence and performance. In essence, this distinction represents the two main schools that developed. Chomsky’s transformational-generative school focused on competence, i.e., the more abstract, mental conception of language, whereas those not involved in transformational-generative approaches typically focused more on

performance, i.e., actual speech.

Additionally, it was characteristic of Chomsky’s school to emphasize grammar at the level of the sentence, seen in the phrase structure rules and transformations. The sentence is certainly a valid level of linguistic analysis, but it has typically been out of the approaches whose focus has been on actual speech and data that the more functional, language-in-use models of discourse analysis have developed. In fact, Brown and Yule’s brief definition of discourse analysis is simply that it is the study of “language in use” (Brown and Yule 1983, 1), highlighting the communicative functions of language.

In contrast to what was happening in the Chomskyan school, the field research of Pike, Grimes, and Longacre constrained them to develop models of linguistic analysis

(31)

that were descriptive in the sense of being inductive and focused on data obtained in actual language-use situations (Pike 1967; Grimes 1974; Longacre 1996). Their models and theoretical concepts were also developed with a fundamental awareness of the context-sensitive nature of language. Pike’s Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior in particular emphasizes the interrelated nature of language and human behavior in general in the model known as Tagmemics.

In the shadow of Chomsky’s influence, there was significant conceptual development in other schools of Linguistics that was laying an important theoretical foundation for later models of language use. The work of Pike, Grimes, and Longacre may not be the primary theoretical predecessor to later models, but their work is representative of certain conceptual trends that would later converge with broader currents of discourse analysis carried out within a functional approach to language.

One of the common denominators in the work of Pike, Grimes, and Longacre is that their theoretical approaches were developed as they themselves were directly involved in the study and analysis of a wide variety of non-Indoeuropean languages. Their models were developed with a vivid awareness of language use in context. Also, during the mid- to late-twentieth century, there was an increasing awareness in general Linguistics of the social dimension of Language. Labov’s Sociolinguistic Patterns (1972) and Hymes’ Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (1974) are two of the seminal publications in the field of Sociolinguistics, which is now one of the main sub-fields within general Linguistics, with its particular concerns, methods and

(32)

linguistic study have developed a greater sensitivity to the many dimensions of language use.

Schools of Linguistics which are functional in approach are also the result of increased attention to how language is used. Halliday (1973), Foley and Van Valin (1984), and Givón (2001) are some of the main theoreticians in Functional Linguistics. There are, of course, many nuances in the individual approaches, but the

theme unifying the various functional approaches is the belief that language must be studied in relation to its role in human communication. Language is thus viewed as a system of human communication, rather than as an infinite set of structural descriptions of sentences. (Foley and Van Valin 1984, 7)

Not only has the field of Linguistics been impacted by functional, language-use models, but there has also been significant development of cognitive approaches. As mentioned above, the important distinction between performance and competence gave rise to approaches and schools which focused respectively on language use and the mental aspects of language. It is not surprising, then, that in addition to the development of functional approaches which tend to focus on performance and language use, a variety of cognitive approaches have developed which are more directly concerned with matters of competence defined as the human capacity to use and interpret language. Sperber and Wilson (1995), Lambrecht (1994), Fauconnier (1985), Lakoff and Johnson (1980), and Jackendoff (1994) are principal scholars promoting cognitive models of linguistic study.

In summary, the attempt to adequately account for the human linguistic capacity drives linguistic theoreticians and analysts to keep refining their models and methods.

(33)

This brief sketch has highlighted only the most rudimentary concepts which underlie the analysis implemented in the present study:

1) Descriptive, with a conceptual basis shaped by Tagmemics

2) Functional in its commitment to the study of language use in context; and 3) Cognitive in its attention to the interpretive processes involved in

understanding communication.

2.3 Historical Overview of the Study of Biblical Hebrew

The approach one has to the study of language in general will directly impact analysis of a language like biblical Hebrew and, consequently, the basic framework employed for the analysis of biblical Hebrew will directly impact the description of . This may seem patently obvious, but it is crucial to recognize two guiding principles that are derived from the preceding statement: 1) the basic theoretical linguistic mindset of an era of scholarship shapes the analysis and description of language carried out during that era, and 2) the analysis from a particular era of scholarship cannot be expected to reflect the theoretical linguistic mindset of a later era of scholarship. This does not mean that the mere publication of a new analytical concept immediately shapes all research in the field, but characteristic contours and transition points are recognizable as one reviews the development of linguistic methodology. Certain “paradigm shifts” in the Kuhnian sense (Kuhn 1996) are also seen; for example, the rise of the Descriptive Linguistic approach in American Linguistics and the more recent shift toward models of language use in

response to the theoretical restrictions imposed by Chomskyan sentence grammar. The study of biblical Hebrew has typically been somewhat removed from the main currents of

(34)

modern Linguistics, but the analytical trends and approaches eventually find their way into the methodologies employed by biblical Hebrew scholars. Also, it is common for vestiges of previous eras to be found in the research of a later era, especially in the period of time prior to the more complete “paradigm shift.”

It is important to recognize that the early publications on biblical Hebrew

represent an early formative period of grammatical studies. This does not invalidate the insights found in these publications, but rather is a reminder that the awareness of explicit grammatical elements of biblical Hebrew has a long history. Khan, in his contribution to the volume Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, makes the following pertinent comment:

It can be said … that grammatical elements are found in the early

masoretic tradition, which may go back as far as the Talmudic period. It is important to notice, however, that the existence of these elements of grammatical thought should not lead us to define the general activity of the Masoretes of this period as ‘grammar’. The main purpose of their work was still to preserve the text of Scripture rather than investigate the rules of the language of Scripture. The use of grammatical categories was ancillary to this purpose. (Khan 1999, 193)

Just as one can trace linguistic concepts like word classes back to the writings of Aristotle, there is a long history of reflection on Hebrew. What one finds in later periods, however, is a more conscious implementation of specific methods of analysis and

inquiry. Waltke and O’Connor’s helpful chapter on the History of the Study of Hebrew Grammar, discusses two periods of Hebrew study during which there was an ever-increasing development of the grammatical analysis of Hebrew:

(35)

2) Christian Hebrew Studies (16th to mid-18th centuries) (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 31-43)

The period of Medieval Jewish Studies has been referred to as “the creative period” during which many issues of Hebrew morphology and grammar were debated and refined. Scholars from this period typically drew upon knowledge of Arabic to help describe areas of Hebrew grammar (Tene 1971, 1358).

The ad fontes drive of the Enlightenment gave rise to a new interest in the classical languages, resulting in increased interest among humanists in the study of Hebrew. Reuchlin is representative of this era, whose 1506 publication, Rudimenta linguae hebraicae (1506), is representative of the shift, not only from Jewish to Christian scholars, but also from Arabic to Latin as the language by which Hebrew was evaluated. Reuchlin’s work, as well as the work of subsequent scholars, sets the stage for the

publication of the traditional grammars of biblical Hebrew, of which reprinted and re-edited versions are still in use today. It is no accident that the study of biblical Hebrew in the 18th and 19th centuries is characterized by the same kind of diachronic, developmental conceptions that were typical of the study of language in general. As intellectual trends shifted, so also did the conceptual basis for the study of Hebrew.

Subsequent to the periods discussed by Waltke and O’Connor, the more recent study of biblical Hebrew could be divided into three broad eras:

(36)

Traditional Descriptive Textlinguistic1

Blau Davidson GKC Joüon-Muraoka Kimhi Weingreen Andersen Garrett Kelley Lambdin

Pratico and Van Pelt Ross

Seow

Waltke and O’Connor

Buth Long Longacre Putnam Richter Schneider Talstra

van der Merwe

Figure 1: Eras of Hebrew Study

The basic characteristics of these three models are as follows:2

1. Traditional: this approach is characterized by a diachronic model of

description and classification that evaluates the language under consideration on the basis of some other language such as Latin.

2. Descriptive: this is a model in which the primary concern is the synchronic description of the language under consideration on the basis of its own

grammatical system, without the typical evaluative framework common in the Traditional approach.

3. Textlinguistic: the primary concept in this model is the focus on how

language is used in its various communicative contexts.

1_{These refer to the authors of published grammars and monographs, which are} representative of the field in general. Other important monographs are not included in this list because they do not deal with areas of analysis pertinent to the current study of .

2_{One approach to Hebrew studies that is not explicitly mentioned here is the} Comparative-Historical method which focuses on the reconstruction of earlier stages of the Semitic languages. The main period of use of Comparative-Historical methods in biblical Hebrew coincides with the Traditional and Descriptive eras described here, and definite influences and perspectives are currently operative. A Textlinguistic approach does not necessarily conflict with the principles or findings of comparative Semitics, but the synchronic focus characteristic of Textlinguistic approaches would see Comparative-Historical considerations as part of the process by which the language used in the text came into being. Once the text has been produced, the diachronic processes are no longer in the purview of the analyst whose focus is on the final form of the text.

(37)

The boundaries between these models are fuzzy in the sense that there is a continuity and overlap of research that links them to each other. The shift from the Traditional model to the Descriptive did not discard all previous research and start over; in similar fashion, the Textlinguistic model does not ignore previous analysis, but rather grows out of it. But the very nature of scientific revolutions is such that a shift in paradigm implies that certain elements and perspectives from previous eras will not necessarily be carried over. One of the motivations for paradigm shifts is an increasing dissatisfaction with the prevailing model of research, which eventually leads to a major shift.

The current state of affairs in the study of biblical Hebrew finds most scholars employing the Descriptive approach, with strong conceptual connections to the Traditional era. There are a number of scholars who employ textlinguistic insights or terminology, but the core conceptual framework of their research is still within the Descriptive model. An increasing number of scholars work within the Textlinguistic approach, but a complete paradigm shift has not yet happened for the field of biblical Hebrew studies in general.

It is time, however, to declare an end to the period of “infancy” referred to by Waltke and O’Connor (1990, 55). The flood of recent publications is indicative of the maturing status of Textlinguistic or discourse studies of biblical Hebrew.

(38)

CHAPTER 3 SURVEY OF SCHOLARSHIP ON

3.1 Introduction

has certainly not gone unnoticed in the history of research on biblical Hebrew. The purpose of the following sections is to review and provide a summary of the various descriptions of in these grammars and monographs. These grammars and monographs are not studies of , but their descriptions of are representative of the main ways in which has been analyzed. The three categories: Traditional,

Descriptive, and Textlinguistic discussed in the previous chapter are the main divisions here. The approach one takes to Hebrew in general—and to the verbal system in

particular—will affect how is described. The focus of the discussion here is the way is presented in the publications considered, with some critical analysis when it is relevant.

To review an assortment of introductory grammars, scrutinizing how they deal with , could be perceived as somewhat unfair. Some might correctly argue that an introductory grammar cannot be expected to thoroughly describe every aspect of the language being presented. Writing a grammar for instructional purposes involves an

(39)

agonizing process of selection, as the author seeks to explain the most pertinent information in an efficient and pedagogically intuitive way. If the discussion of

something like does not receive extensive attention in an introductory grammar, that is to be understood. It is not, however, the presence or absence or even the length or brevity of comments regarding that are of interest here; the intention here is to review the comments to discern the analytical perspective employed by the author(s). All of this is done with the singular intent of working toward a better understanding of . Any omissions and/or misrepresentations are the responsibility of the author of this study.

3.2 The Analysis of

in the Traditional Approach

3.2.1 Gesenius,

Hebrew Grammar

, 1813

The traditional understanding of is well represented by Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, in which he states that the

…introduction of independent narratives, or of a new section of the narrative, by means of an imperfect consecutive, likewise aims at a connexion, though again loose and external, with that which has been narrated previously. Such a connexion is especially often established by

means of ( ) and it came to pass…. (GKC 1910, 327)

While this analysis recognizes the temporal and narrative function of and its connection to the surrounding context, the descriptive parameters are not well defined. This is exemplified in the following statement: “This loose connexion by means of is especially common, when the narrative or a new section of it begins with any expression of time …” (GKC 1910, 327). Unfortunately, “loose connections” by means of and

(40)

narratives beginning with “any expression of time” are not specific enough to provide a clear picture of what is doing.

3.2.2 Müller,

Outlines of Hebrew Syntax

, 1883

In Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, Müller describes as follows: But very often, especially when a phrase specifying time occurs in the narrative, in order to preserve the favourite form of diction, there is prefixed to the phrase in question a “And it came to pass”, and the rest is then added on to this according as the connection requires. (Müller 1883, 17)

Müller’s description of is characteristic of the traditional era, with its

reference to as a “favourite form of diction.” This is typical of what Barr refers to in

The Semantics of Biblical Language as the “impression of Hebrew being quite

extraordinarily unique in its structure” (Barr 1983, 291). Müller’s analysis of being merely prefixed to the phrase in question is very similar to GKC’s “loose connection.”

3.2.3 Harper,

Elements of Hebrew Syntax

, 1892

Harper’s Elements of Hebrew Syntax is also characteristic of the description of in this period:

Notice is to be taken of the frequent occurrence of the preparatory formula

and it happened, and it was, to introduce adverbial and especially temporal clauses. This usage, while not universal, prevails largely in the earlier books. The following verb may be either Imperfect with Waw Consecutive, a Perfect, or, when the context demands, an Imperfect. (Harper 1892, 73)

Three things in particular are noteworthy: 1) the reference to as a “preparatory formula” appears to indicate an understanding of as somewhat disconnected from the adjacent elements with which it occurs; 2) the reference to the

(41)

usage of in the earlier books indicates an awareness of possible diachronic factors in its pattern of usage; and 3) the remarks about the form of the following verb mention the context around , but there is no further delineation of the parameters of usage for these verb forms. The syntactic connection of , certain diachronic considerations, and verb form patterns with are all issues that are discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters.

3.2.4 Weingreen,

A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew

, 1939

Weingreen, in apparent disagreement with GKC, reduces the force of to little more than an unusual connection. GKC stated that established a connection “with that which has been narrated previously,” but Weingreen describes as follows:

Often a verse or even a chapter opens with a verb which has the Waw Consecutive, as ‘and it came to pass’; this, rather than implying a continuation with what has preceded, has little more force than ‘now it happened’. In the same way * = ‘and it shall come to pass’.

(Weingreen 1939, 92)

It is certainly the case that is found, as Weingreen states, opening “a verse or even a chapter,” but it is unclear why Weingreen dismisses the connection with what has preceded. This matter of ’s connection to what precedes it or to what follows it is a recurring theme throughout the history of its study.

3.2.5 Joüon-Muraoka,

A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew

, 1991

The 1991 publication date of Muraoka’s translation and revision of Joüon’s 1923

Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique is somewhat misleading if it is assumed that a late twentieth-century grammar of biblical Hebrew would employ methods and perspectives

(42)

contemporary with that time period. Close reading of Joüon-Muraoka reveals many characteristics that place it within the Traditional approach. The retention of Latin translations in the following discussion of is telling:

Stative verbs present no particular difficulty; thus , used in the stative sense, is equivalent to and means et erat (“it was”), et fuit (“it has been”). Used in the active sense, it is equivalent to of action and usually means et ev nit (“it happened”), et factum est (“it came to pass”); sometimes, by misuse, both eveniebat (“it would happen”) and fiebat (“it would come to pass”). (Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 390)

The clearest indication of the perspective employed by Joüon and retained by Muraoka is the evaluative term “misuse,” which betrays a more prescriptive view typical of the Traditional era rather than a fully descriptive view of Hebrew as a language on its own terms.

In the discussion of the uses of the WAYYIQTOL form, Joüon-Muraoka states that it

is sometimes used “with the force of the French imparfait, i.e. frequentative action in the past,” but this “use is irregular and improper” (Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 393). With specific reference to , Joüon-Muraoka states that this “improper use is mainly found with

” (Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 394). The correct form according to Joüon-Muraoka, for example in Num 10:35 and 2 Sam 15:2, would be * . These examples will be discussed later; the point here is that Joüon-Muraoka’s description of as an introductory formula is within a traditional evaluative framework.

3.2.6 Analytical Summary of the Traditional Approach

One of the main concepts typical of the publications reviewed here is the understanding of as an introductory or preparatory formula. Essential elements of

(43)

more recent approaches are already found in these publications, but consistent with the general approach to language in that time period, the main concern is with presenting representative cases or examples of the grammatical categories in use. Also typical of these publications is the evaluation of as sometimes improper or as an example of misuse.

3.3 The Analysis of

in the Descriptive Approach

3.3.1 Lambdin,

Introduction to Biblical Hebrew

, 1971

In his Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Lambdin discusses , stating that …within a narrative sequence temporal modifiers are very frequently

placed before the clause they modify and are introduced by waw-conversive + a form of the verb *. In the past tense narrative this is

uniformly wayhî… (Lambdin 1971, 123)

Lambdin’s analysis shares much in common with Gesenius, but reflects a more Descriptive approach. Lambdin lists a variety of syntactic environments in which occurs, but the description pays minimal attention to the functions associated with the various constructions.

In Lambdin’s section entitled “Concluding Remarks on Clause Sequences,” there is another comment regarding which indicates an awareness of the need to explore how is connected with the adjacent clauses. Lambdin states: “If a narrative sequence begins with a clause containing the verb (or ), the real nature of the sequence is not clear until we reach a continuing verb” (Lambdin 1971, 279). Awareness of clause sequences is necessary, but unfortunately, Lambdin’s examples are hypothetical. Both

(44)

examples start with *, which is not attested anywhere in biblical Hebrew. Lambdin’s concern in these examples, however, is not in explicating the function of ; his

concern is with the form of the verb that follows. For Lambdin, the mere presence of the verb * seems to be of more consequence, stating that “the verb * in a leading clause requires special consideration” (Lambdin 1971, 279). Unfortunately, even though Lambdin demonstrates an awareness of certain syntactic parameters, understanding of

as a temporal modifier is not significantly advanced by Lambdin’s analysis.

3.3.2 Andersen,

The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew

, 1974

Andersen’s seminal work, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, is one of the first studies to employ analytical techniques that are unquestionably motivated by the principles and concerns of Descriptive Linguistics. The title of Andersen’s study is somewhat misleading since his analysis is not at all limited to the sentence as a self-contained unit. The frequent references to clause sequences, paragraphs, rhetorical effects, episode transitions, as well as the section (3.4.2) entitled Discourse Function of Epic Apposition, show the range of issues of concern to Andersen. These concerns are detected in the following statement about :

In Hebrew, transition to a new episode in a story is characteristically marked by way h , and it came to pass, followed frequently by an episode-marginal time reference that secures a time connection between successive episodes. (Andersen 1974, 63)

The use of the word episode indicates that Andersen is looking beyond individual sequences of clauses or sentences to the broader context. Unfortunately, beyond

(45)

mentioning that there are other options for initiating story-level episodes, nothing more is discussed to more precisely define the use and function of .

3.3.3 Waltke and O’Connor,

An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew

Syntax

, 1990

In Waltke and O’Connor’s An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, the treatment of is, for all practical purposes, swallowed up by the discussion of the chapter on Waw + Prefix Conjugation. Very little separate analysis is given to itself, beyond quoting the above-cited material from Lambdin and mentioning that

“introduces the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Ezekiel, Ruth, Esther, and Nehemiah” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 554). No further explanation is given.

In the introduction, the authors mention the studies of Schneider, Richter, and Talstra which identify as a “macro-syntactic sign” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 54), but they state that all “these signs are treated in the present grammar in a more traditional framework” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 55). Their decision to keep the analysis within a Descriptive framework, did not allow their description of biblical Hebrew to benefit from the work of other scholars analyzing from a macro-syntactic or Textlinguistic perspective.

3.3.4 Kelley,

Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar

, 1992

Kelley’s Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar contains very limited reference to . The following comment comes in the section which discusses “Coordinate Relationships Involving a Perfect as the Governing Verb”:

(46)

The narrative use of imperfects with vav consecutive became so commonplace that they were often used in this sense even without a preceding governing perfect, especially with the imperfect forms of the verb , “he was.” (Kelley 1992, 210-11)

This comment reveals a perspective which is much more far-reaching than the analysis of . The implications of this comment are that the occurrence of a linguistic entity such as has little or no functional motivation. By some type of developmental process, the frequency of the WAYYIQTOL form is apparently so overpowering that certain

verbs begin to be used in new ways. This analysis is based on the assumption that the proper pattern is that the WAYYIQTOL follows a “preceding governing perfect” and

indicates either consequence or sequence. This is characteristic of the waw consecutive view which must explain why a WAYYIQTOL, which by definition is sequential, is found

without a governing perfect. The use of is only marginally in focus here, since Kelley’s concerns are more related to issues of governing sequences. Understanding of

is advanced very little by Kelley’s grammar.

3.3.5 Seow,

A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew

, 1995

Seow’s comment about in A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew uses terms like

“discourse” and “context,” but the use of such terms does not make Seow’s analysis textlinguistic; it remains essentially descriptive despite the use of this terminology. Seow states:

In a discourse, context may be provided in a number of ways. A past event is typically introduced by , literally, “and it was/came to pass.” Future events are introduced by * , literally, “and it shall be.” Further

indication of the context usually follows: a prepositional or adverbial expression giving a specific time (e.g., after these things), a reference to

(47)

some event introduced by ( (even as) or (when) or the like. (Seow 1995, 231)

One of the ways that this comment differs from the other Descriptive analyses presented up to this point is its statement that typically introduces a past event. This may reflect awareness of some of the early textlinguistic studies, such as the 1982 study of * by Bartelmus (see 3.4.4 below) in which he discusses the function of as an indication of past tense narrative. The specific ways in which is used, however, are not addressed in any more detail beyond the citation above.

3.3.6 Chisholm,

From Exegesis to Exposition

, 1998

From Exegesis to Exposition is the title of Chisholm’s guide to using biblical Hebrew. This is technically not a grammar, but since its goal is practical instruction in using Hebrew in exegesis, its comments regarding are important to take into consideration. Chisholm states that “[t]he wayyiqtol form , ‘and it so happened,’ often followed by a temporal clause, is frequently used to begin a new narrative or scene” (Chisholm 1998, 120). Andersen’s Sentence discusses the use of at the beginning of an episode; Chisholm here refers to being used to begin a new narrative or scene. These are very similar claims and, at first glance, seem to help better define what is doing. The problem, though, is that episodes, new narratives, and scenes can be found that do not begin with . This indicates the need for greater precision in claims regarding the function(s) of . These claims also show the way in which terms like episode and scene are used without clear definitions. What exactly is an episode? What constitutes the beginning of a new narrative or scene?

(48)

Chisholm makes one further comment about the use of to introduce a parenthetical note:

Occasionally a wayyiqtol form, especially , introduces a parenthetical note in the narrative. For example, 1 Kings 18:3 states that Ahab

summoned his palace administrator Obadiah. Verse 5 then records Ahab’s orders to Obadiah. But in between the narrator places a parenthetical note about Obadiah’s loyalty to the Lord (v. 4). This parenthesis is introduced by . For another example see 1 Chronicles 11:6, which inserts

parenthetical information about Joab’s role in the conquest of Jerusalem. (Chisholm 1998, 122-23)

This comment is indicative of the broad range of functions that are attributed to in the literature. This is not the place for detailed discussion of this comment, but it seems confusing to claim that can have what appear to be quite contradictory functions. How can both begin a new narrative as well as introduce a parenthetical note? These functions are discussed in Chapter 10, The Discourse-Pragmatic Uses of

3.3.7 Schertz and Yoder,

Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of

Greek and Hebrew

, 2001

Schertz and Yoder’s Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of Greek and Hebrew

is similar to Chisholm’s volume in both its purpose and perspective. The authors remark regarding , that the “pattern of followed by a subordinate clause is a very

frequent boundary marker in Hebrew narrative” (Schertz and Yoder 2001, 77). The question that immediately arises is what type of boundary is marked in this way? Schertz and Yoder also describe as an “example of a transition construction that signals the end of one region and the beginning of another” (Schertz and Yoder 2001,

(49)

76). What is unclear from this description—as well as from the preceding discussion—is whether is signaling the end of what precedes it, signaling the transition to what follows, or both. Once again, without more precisely defining the textual regions in which operates, the function of will continue to elude readers and analysts.

3.3.8 Ross,

Introducing Biblical Hebrew

, 2001

Introducing Biblical Hebrew by Ross is another in the series of recently published introductory grammars. Regarding , Ross states that

[t]emporal clauses are frequently introduced by a form of the verb to be ( *) + consecutive. Other temporal indicators like prepositions often accompany this construction, and in the final analysis * need not be translated. (Ross 2001, 139)

Two noteworthy aspects of Ross’s statement require comment here. First of all, it is true that other temporal indicators often accompany , but the specific reference to prepositions is curious. The example Ross uses in this section has ) in the morning, so presumably this is a reference to prepositions used with temporal expressions. Secondly, Ross states that * need not be translated. This

recommendation is apparently in the interest of good English style, but needs closer examination. There may indeed be contexts in which it is best to not retain close lexical equivalence for , but this type of statement needs to be qualified. The implications and ramifications of a statement like this need to be carefully evaluated. This will be discussed later in Chapter 10.

Ross also discusses the occurrence of with infinitive constructs. As seen in previous analyses, is assigned the function of indicating past time:

(50)

Infinitive construct does not express time by itself. The time must be determined from context. One way that the time of the clause is expressed is with forms of * + consecutive: indicating past time, and

* future time. (Ross 2001, 163)

In contrast to some previous grammars, Ross makes no mention in these comments about ’s connection to the preceding or following narrative. Of primary concern to Ross, it appears, is the function as temporal indicator. This actually goes hand in hand with the recommendation to leave these forms of * untranslated. If and

* are doing nothing more than indicating past and future time respectively, why should they be translated? It is interesting to notice that in the current analytical milieu which tends to favor analysis of the Hebrew verbal system in terms of aspectual

distinctions rather than tense, that the mere and * forms of * are so unambiguously assigned the function of indicating tense. It is true that infinitive constructs do not indicate tense on their own, but is indicating tense really the function that and * perform when they occur with infinitive constructs? Further

discussion of this question is found in Chapter 10.

3.3.9 Pratico and Van Pelt,

Basics of Biblical Hebrew

, 2001

Pratico and Van Pelt’s Basics of Biblical Hebrew is the last grammar to be

considered in this section on descriptive approaches. The authors discuss as follows: Instead of a Perfect verbal form, the past tense narrative sequence may

also begin with the temporal modifier followed by Imperfect verbs

with Waw Conversive. The form is the Qal Imperfect 3ms form of

(to be) with Waw Conversive. It is called a “temporal modifier” because it marks the beginning of a pasttense narrative sequence. This temporal modifier frequently stands at the beginning of the sequence. (Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 196)

(51)

The specific function attributed to is again that of temporal modifier, indicating past tense. It is evident in this comment that Pratico and Van Pelt are also concerned with what follows as seen in their remarks regarding narrative sequence. The frequent use of with temporal clauses is also discussed in this grammar:

The form may also appear at the beginning of a temporal clause within the sequence. When beginning a temporal clause, is frequently followed by a preposition or conjunction like or ( and the whole construction may be translated as “and when.” Words that designate time are commonly a part of this type of construction. (Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 196)

As temporal modifiers, in Pratico and Van Pelt’s view, and * are best left untranslated, as seen in the following comment:

Because of their frequency in certain contexts, the temporal modifiers and are best not translated in most occurrences, though you can still translate the conjunction as “and.” Some will suggest, however, that be translated “and it came to pass that” and that be translated “and it will be that.” Given the frequency with which these temporal modifiers will sometimes appear in a narrative sequence, however, it is often best to avoid these translations in the interest of good English style. (Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 202)

In the interest of good English style, few would argue for always retaining the “and it came to pass that” and the “and it will be that” renderings mentioned here.1 However, should good English style be the determining factor in translation decisions like this? According to Pratico and Van Pelt, and * are best not translated

because of their “frequency in certain contexts.” Should the frequency of an item like this play a decisive role in translation practice? The intention here is not to argue for the “and

(52)

it came to pass that” translation value, but rather to critically evaluate the implications and ramifications of such a recommendation. As stated previously, this will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.

3.3.10 Analytical Summary of the Descriptive Approach

In the descriptive grammars and publications reviewed here, there is evidence of greater attention being paid to the syntactic environments in which occurs. There is also an inevitable shift in terminology used to describe —the term episode is an example. Additionally, there is an increasing awareness of the role seems to play not only in past-tense narrative, but also the role appears to have in the interclausal temporal organization of the text. There are indications of broadening contextual awareness, which is in line with trends occurring in linguistic analysis in general, but many helpful concepts from discourse analysis or Textlinguistics are not incorporated in these publications.

3.4 The Analysis of

in the Textlinguistic Approach

3.4.1 Preliminary Comments

This section reviews grammars and publications that employ analytical principles and methods that are textlinguistic in nature. There may be considerable conceptual overlap between certain descriptive grammars reviewed in the previous section and some publications in this section; the dates of publication show that there is definite

chronological overlap. The categorization of these grammars has been done on the basis of what are perceived to be the guiding principles that underlie the authors’ description of

(53)

biblical Hebrew. Certain essentially descriptive grammars may employ terminology used in textlinguistic studies, just as a grammar that is fundamentally textlinguistic may have terms and descriptions that are, for all practical purposes, identical to those found in descriptive texts. The difference—and this is one of the most crucial issues at stake in the present study of —lies at the level of presuppositions and basic perceptions of language itself. This point will be argued in greater detail in Chapter 5, General Theoretical Framework.

3.4.2 Schneider,

Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch

, 1974

Schneider’s Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch advanced the analysis of by implementing a textlinguistic perspective in the consideration of the variety of

syntactic environments in which it occurs. Referring to Schneider’s work, Talstra claims that

[t]his grammar is completely new indeed in its syntax because it aims at a description of biblical Hebrew not on the basis of sentences, but on the basis of texts. (Talstra 1978, 169)

The consideration of the broader context is one of the hallmarks of a textlinguistic approach. The focus on text and context involves more than a description of occurrences; it explores both form and function. Talstra insightfully comments on Schneider’s

perspective, stating that the concern is not merely the grammatical description of a particular linguistic item, but “the effect of its use in a particular text” (Talstra 1978, 169).

(1)

488

Wenham, G. 1994. Genesis 16-50. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books. Wildberger, H. 1991. Isaiah 28-39. The Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress

Press.

Williams, R. J. 1976. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2d. ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Winther-Nielsen, N. 1995. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua. A Computer-assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.

Zevit, Z. 1998. The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Zewi, T. 1999. Interrupted Syntactical Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Zeitschrift für

(2)

CURRICULUM VITA

Bryan L. Harmelink

2561 Trewigtown Rd. Colmar, PA 18915 (215) 996-1511 [email protected]

Education:

Master of Arts in Religion, Biblical Studies emphasis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1999

MA in Linguistics, University of Texas, Arlington, 1981

BA in General Studies, Trinity College, Deerfield, Illinois, 1980

Summer Institute of Linguistics courses, University of Washington, Seattle, 1979 Coursework in Linguistics and Anthropology, Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, Illinois, 1978

Summer Institute of Linguistics courses, University of Washington, Seattle, 1978 Diploma in Pastoral Theology/Greek, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 1976

SIL Experience:

International Translation Consultant, 2000-present

Translation consultant for the Wapishana Translation project, Guyana, 1999-present

Continued work in editing Scripture in Use materials in the Mapuche language, 1998-present

Publication of Mapuche New Testament, 1997

Participant in Consultant Training Workshop taught by Katharine Barnwell, Yarinacocha, Peru, 1992

Mapuche New Testament translation project, 1985-1997 Coordinated a team of four national translators, 1987-1997 Supervised translation of the New Testament in Mapudungun

(3)

Supervised translation of Genesis, Ruth, and Jonah in Mapudungun

Experience in developing and teaching literacy and Scripture in Use materials Sociolinguistic survey project among the Aymara people of Chile, 1983-84

Teaching Experience:

Instructor, Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, Instituto Bíblico, Temuco, 1995

Instructor, Mapuche Grammar, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, 1990-1991 TA, Introduction to Phonology, University of Texas, Arlington, 1989

Instructor, Mapuche Grammar, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, 1987-1989 Instructor, Seminar on Mapuche Grammar, sponsored by the Departamento de Lenguas y Literatura, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, 1987

Instructor, Seminar on Computational Analysis and Translation, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaíso, 1987

Instructor, Seminar on Computational Analysis and Translation, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, 1986

TA, Introduction to Phonology, ILC, 1984

Instructor, Introduction to Linguistics, Dallas Bible College, Dallas, 1984 Instructor, Advanced Grammatical Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 1984

Assistant professor of Conversational English, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile, 1983

TA, Beginning Morphology and Syntax, University of Washington, Seattle, 1982 TA, Articulatory Phonetics, ILC, 1981

Research Experience:

Research Associate, Traditional Mapuche Songs, with Héctor Painequeo, Universidad de la Frontera, 1994-95

Research Associate, Toponyms of the Eighth Region with Dr. Mario Bernales, Universidad de la Frontera, 1991

Research Consultant, Mapuche Studies Center, Universidad de la Frontera, 1989-93

Research Associate, Mapuche Oral Myths, with Dr. Hugo Carrasco, Universidad de la Frontera, 1989-90

Research Associate, Rural Education Project, with Patricia de la Peña and Lilian González, Universidad de la Frontera, 1987-89

(4)

Research Associate, Toponyms of the Ninth Region with Dr. Mario Bernales, Universidad de la Frontera, 1987-89

Sociolinguistic survey in the Chilean Altiplano, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, 1983-84

Publications:

1997 Introducción a la Lectura del Idioma Mapuche. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1996 La Vida de los Judíos en los Tiempos Bíblicos. Pucallpa: Misión Suiza en el Perú. Spanish translation of Daily Life in Bible Times, WBT, Dallas, 1988.

1994 Características del Discurso Mapudungun en el Relato “Kurewen Achawall”. Actas VI Jornadas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1993 Manual de Aprendizaje del Idioma Mapudungun. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera.

1993 Cambios de transitividad en el verbo del mapudungun. Seminario de la Investigación y Enseñanza de la Lingüística, Sociedad Chilena de Lingüística. 1991 Tips about Word. Notes on Linguistics 52:29-36. Dallas: SIL

1990 Vocabulario y Frases Utiles en Mapudungun. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera.

1990 Las Cláusulas Relativas del Mapudungun. Actas IV Jornadas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1990 Using Tables in Word. Notes on Linguistics 48:41-51. Dallas: SIL

1990 Using Bookmarks as Cross References in Word. Notes on Linguistics 50:25-33. Dallas: SIL

1990 Primer Formatting with Microsoft Word. Notes on Linguistics 51:5-16. Dallas: SIL

1990 El Hablante como Punto de Referencia en el Espacio: Verbos de Movimiento y Sufijos Direccionales en Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 17 (1990) 111-125 1989 La Lectura del Idioma Mapuche: Una Proposición. Actas Terceras Jornadas de

Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu. 1989 Procesos de Derivación en Mapudungun. Ponencia leída en el Octavo Seminario

de la Investigación y Enseñanza de la Lingüística, Sociedad Chilena de Lingüística.

1988 The Expression of Temporal Distinctions in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 15:125-130 Santiago: Universidad de Chile.

(5)

1987 The Uses and Functions of mew in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 14:173-78. Santiago: Universidad de Chile.

1987 Incorporación Nominal en el Mapudungun. Congreso ALFAL, Tucumán, Argentina.

1986 Hacia un Análisis Funcional de -ael y -am. Actas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Universidad de la Frontera: Temuco.

1985 EZTEXT: Métodos Integrados para el Procesamiento de Textos. (Spanish translation of EZTEXT: Integrated Tools for Text Analysis).

1985 EZTEXT: Integrated Tools for Text Analysis. Occasional Publications in Academic Computing No. 4. Dallas: SIL.

1984 Investigaciones Lingüísticas en el Altiplano Chileno: Un Estudio Entre la Comunidad Aymara. (unpublished project report)

Native Authored Literature edited:

1993 Pranao, Victorio. Chakaykoche Ñi Kuyfi Kimün. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1993 Nahuelhual, Juan. Kiñe Wentru ka chi Trapial. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1993 Pranao, Victorio y Cayulao, Eleuterio. Tati pu Üñüm ta Rume Adelkalelfünkey. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1989 Cayulao M., Eleuterio. Kollümche Tañi Ngütram: Kiñeke Epewtun ka Kiñeke Lawen. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1988 Llamín C., Segundo. Lelfüntripa Pichikeche Tañi Chumngen. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1988 Pranao, Victorio. Chakaykoche Ñi Nütram. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1988 Pranao, Victorio. Chakaykoche Ñi Kuyfi Nütram. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1988 Matamala, Ignacio. Lelfün Mongen. (Second edition of: Chillkatuaiñ Taiñ Mapudungun - Lelfün Mongen). Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu. 1987 Llamín C., Segundo. Federico Ñi Nütram - Kimafiiñ Federico Ñi Mongen.

Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1987 Llamín C., Segundo. Federico Ñi Nütram - Federico Feypi Kiñeke Wimtun. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1987 Llamín C., Segundo. Federico Ñi Nütram - Federico Feypi Kiñeke Küdaw. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

(6)

1987 Matamala, Ignacio. Chillkatuaiñ Taiñ Mapudungun - Lelfün Mongen. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1987 Llamín C., Segundo. Chillkatuaiñ Taiñ Mapudungun - Lelfün Küdaw. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1987 Llamín C., Segundo. Federico Ñi Nütram - Federico Feypi Fillke Dungu ñi Kimel. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

Other Publications edited:

1999 Kümeke Dungun Taiñ Kimael. Glossary of Key Terms in the New Testament. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.

1999 Kiñe We Küme Mongen. Jesus ñi Mongen Iñchiñ mew. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu. Translation of Vida Abundante, an 18 lesson discipleship course.

1995 Catrileo, María. Diccionario Lingüístico-Etnográfico de la Lengua Mapuche. Mapudungun-Español-English. Santiago: Editorial Andrés Bello.

1994 Himnario Mapuche. Temuco: Impresos Emanuel.

1993 Bibliografía General de la Sociedad y Cultura Mapuche. Centro de Estudios de la Araucanía. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera.

1992 V Actas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. 1990 IV Actas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. 1988 III Actas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. 1987 Jesus Engu Trekalelu. Translation of Caminando con Jesús, simplified readings

from the Gospels. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme Dungu.