Help needed with a Hebrew Construct Search: Verbal Agreement

[theblackbluejay]

I’m trying to create a Hebrew construct search. There are many places in the Hebrew Bible where there is a compound subject (X + Y, or X + Y + Z, etc.), and each member participates in some action, yet the verb is rendered in the masculine singular. Ex: Gn 9:23, 11:29, 24:50, 34:20, Ju 14:5.  

 

How would I create a construct search to find all examples of this phenomenon?

 

Thanks for the help!  I’m trying to get a better handle on how the construct search works in Accordance and make my research more efficient at the same time. 

 

Kind regards, 

 

David

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi David,

 

  Here's something that gets the examples you noted, and others. I did not set search both directions but that probably should be tried. I only ran it on Gen and Jud because it's not the quickest thing to run.

 

Thx

D

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I ran a query in ETCBC's syntax which turned up a number of hits that I didn't get with the Holmstedt syntax. I used the Mother/Daughter Parallel Subphrase structure which is how this construction is modelled there. In any case I found Gen 3:8. In fact there are some 23 hit vss in my ETCBC qry not in my HMT qry, and 2 the other way around.

 

Suggests modifications are required.

 

Thx

D

Edited March 6, 2019 by דָנִיאֶל

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ok, going with "One segment" of the predicate phrase helps a bunch :

 

Still not quite there but way better.

 

Thx

D

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ok, so it gets interesting from here on out probably. Gen 7:21 for example. It's modelled in Holmstedt as adjuncts so my query doesn't find it. In ETCBC it's modelled as parallel mother/daughter structures so it is found. Looking at it though I'd not sure which way I'd jump. I initially thought apposition, but Hebrew isn't my forte and there is the relative so .... It's possibly not a hit for the construction you are looking for.

 

Gen 13:1 which I think could be a hit for your query (depends of course ...) is missed because of the modelling as apposition. Of course we could construct a search to find such cases if you did want to find them.

 

I've not really vetted any hits outside Gen except the one Judges hit. So when you run it for the OT complete you may see more oddities.

 

Thx

D

[theblackbluejay]

Hi Daniel, 

 

Thanks for all of this!  This is helpful. Helpful in learning how these syntax modules and construct searches actually work, and in terms of applying them in my own work. 

 

Regarding the hits: Gen 7:21 isn't the kind of hit I'm looking for.  What I'm looking for is something like Gen 8:18 and 9:23, where the sentence is constructed in standard word order (VSO), but the logical subject is plural, and the verb is active and in the singular. Ideally there would be nothing intervening between the verb and the compound subject (except for the conjunction, but even a verse like Gen 14:15 would count for my search.  I want to rule out verses like Gen 13:5 and 17:13.   

 

I'm going to keep tweaking it, and will message back.  But any additional thoughts you have are always welcome.

 

Thanks!

 

David

 

 

 

Ok, so it gets interesting from here on out probably. Gen 7:21 for example. It's modelled in Holmstedt as adjuncts so my query doesn't find it. In ETCBC it's modelled as parallel mother/daughter structures so it is found. Looking at it though I'd not sure which way I'd jump. I initially thought apposition, but Hebrew isn't my forte and there is the relative so .... It's possibly not a hit for the construction you are looking for.

 

Gen 13:1 which I think could be a hit for your query (depends of course ...) is missed because of the modelling as apposition. Of course we could construct a search to find such cases if you did want to find them.

 

I've not really vetted any hits outside Gen except the one Judges hit. So when you run it for the OT complete you may see more oddities.

 

Thx

D

[Robert Holmstedt]

Just getting to this. Busy term.

 

First if you fill out the subject phrase with a SUBJECT and double-click on the SUBJECT, it allows you to choose "compound". I've attached a pic of the search below. This option also allows you to exclude compound subjects in searches.

 

Second, if you want wayyiqtol clauses, you can specify the verb as such in the search. (Of course, VSO is *not* standard in BH, only in wayyiqtol clauses, which reflect word order constraints and therefore are not basic clauses; see here).

 

Third, I don't quite understand the distinction you're making between Gen 8:18 and 17:13, unless you're taking the additional experiencers of the verb of motion in 8:18 within an adjunct comitative phrase or even a separate null copula clause. 

 

(FWIW, I see that 9:23 isn't a hit in the search, though it should be. It is tagged correctly, so there is a search bug here. Not clear why.) ** correction -- if you double click on the Predicate Phrase and choose "one segment," the search also finds examples like 9:23, in which the verb phrase is discontinuous (part in front of the subject, part after the subject. Good work Roy and Joel!

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Robert Holmstedt

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Just getting to this. Busy term.

 

First if you fill out the subject phrase with a SUBJECT and double-click on the SUBJECT, it allows you to choose "compound". I've attached a pic of the search below. This option also allows you to exclude compound subjects in searches.

 

Thanx for this. I spent some time looking for the compound thing and I somehow missed it.

 

Thx

D

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Robert,

 

Very interesting article. This might interest you (even though I don’t use linguistic terminology). When I was thinking about the issue years ago, I remember arguing with colleagues that one had to exclude every ויקטל from the data, and also every קטל in narratives, as they seemed to provide background or circumstantial information, breaking the string of wayyiqtols. Then, if you excluded word order data from imperative and jussive/coh wish/desire/request/intention/self-encouragement/exhortation clauses, and some of the poetic material, you were not left with much data (and, “working with no data” is my favourite expression for describing the Bible and ANE, even if it is an exaggeration). So, your focus on subordinate clauses as something that might tip the balance in the argument is very interesting, and quite logical.

 

I hope you plan on analyzing the entire HB once you finish Isaiah.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Robert Holmstedt]

Michel,

 

In another publication, I discuss how subordinate clauses are known to resist change longer than main clause. Hebrew was in the early monarchic period VS, but it began changing to SV mid-monarchy. The overwhelming VS order in subordinate clauses is a reflection of the earlier basic order. The wayyiqtol must be set aside because it is 1) limited to a certain genre, 2) unlike the qatal and yiqtol in that it is limited in semantics (preterite), and 3) tightly constrained to VS order due to its morphological complexity (i.e., the fusion of the conjunction, the particle that has assimilated, and preterite yiqtol). Even Muroaka in his 80s book on emphasis recognizes that we must discount the wayyiqtol. But for some odd reason, since then there has been a resurgence of seeing it as part of the "basic" order. Most of this, though, is a confusion about how constituent order is studied and what constitutes "basic". Hence, my article linked to in my earlier post.

 

Yes, the ultimate goal of the database is to work up a reference grammar with John Cook. We are both working on penultimate reference works (syntax for me, semantics for him) right now as a first step. We hope to finish these in the next year or so.

[Michel Gilbert]

Even Muroaka in his 80s book on emphasis . . .

 

Hi again,

 

Yes. And, I’m looking for my copy of “The Drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: The Pragmatics of Tense-Aspect,” by Talmy Givon, in Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, ed. Charles Li (U of Texas Press, 1977), 181-254, to see if it influenced my thinking, but for the moment I can’t find it.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Givon places the change from VSO to SVO at the late BH stage. I think it's earlier. If you direct message me I can send you a PDF of his article (which is incredibly dense, and not just because of data ...).