000			04145cam a2200457Ii 4500
001			BRILL9789004358621
003			nllekb
005			20260610104840.0
007			cr un uuuua
008			960501s1996 ne sb 001 0 eng d
010			_a 2008374430
020			_a9789004358621 _q(electronic book)
020			_z9789023230939 _q(print)
024	7		_a10.1163/9789004358621 _2DOI
035			_a(OCoLC)34661217
040			_aNL-LeKB _cNL-LeKB _erda
050		4	_aPJ4645 _b.E56 1996
072		7	_aCF _2bicssc
072		7	_aLAN009000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a492.45 _223
100	1		_aEndō, Yoshinobu.
245	1	4	_aThe verbal system of classical Hebrew in the Joseph story : _ban approach from discourse analysis / _cYoshinobu Endo.
264		1	_aAssen, Netherlands : _bVan Gorcum, _c1996.
300			_a1 online resource (xiii, 351 pages)
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _2rdacarrier
490	0		_aStudia Semitica Neerlandica
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 326-340) and indexes.
505	0	0	_aPreliminary Material -- Introduction: A Survey and Method -- One-Clause Verbal Utterances in Direct Discourse -- Two-Clause Verbal Utterances in Direct Discourse -- Three-Clause Verbal Utterances in Direct Discourse -- Syntactic Relationship in Multiple-Clause Verbal Utterances in Direct Discourse -- Syntactic Relationship in Volitive Clauses in Direct Discourse -- Syntactic Relationship in Narration -- Tense in the Subordinate Clause -- Summary and Conclusions -- Bibliography -- Index of Authors -- Index of Biblical Passages.
506			_aAvailable to subscribing member institutions only.
520			_aThe present study investigates the function of the verbal forms in biblical Hebrew narrative, using the Joseph story (Gen. 37-50) as a corpus. It demonstrates how the 'tense', 'aspect' and 'sequentiality' function as factors in the choice of the verbal forms in both main clauses and subordinate clauses. The tense distinction past vs. non-past basically works as a factor in the choice of the freestanding conjugations, except for the stative verb, the verb with a stative sense, the passive construction, or the performative utterance. Moreover, the traditional aspectual opposition complete vs. incomplete also corresponds to QATAL (*qátal) vs. YIQTOL (*yaqtúlu). There appears to be not much difference between these oppositions in describing the function of the above verbal forms (esp. chapter2). Furthermore, the opposition non-sequential vs. sequential discriminates functionally between YIQTOL and (w,) QATAL (*qatál) in the non-past context, between QATAL and (waY)YIQTOL (*yáqtul) in the past context, and between the IMPV (coh., impv. and juss.) forms and (w,) QATAL (*qatál) in the hortatory context. In each context the former functions as a non-sequential form and the latter as a sequential form. The phenomenon of sequentiality is purely syntactical. It controls the flow of the story as a discourse function; the non-sequential form stops the flow (i.e. stand still), while the sequential form lets the story flow on. A thread of discourse is usually traced by sequential forms, but it may include non-sequential forms to signal the difference of discourse level or a discourse boundary. Or each form could play an opposite role to produce special literary effects (chs. 3-7). Finally, a verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen not from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator, but from that of the immediate participant in the main clause (ch. 8).
630	0	0	_aBible. _pO.T. _pGenesis _xLanguage, style.
650		0	_aHebrew language _xVerb.
650		0	_aHebrew language _xDiscourse analysis.
776	0	8	_iPrint version: _tThe Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach form Discourse Analysis _dLeiden, Boston : BRILL, 1996, _z9789023230939
830		0	_aStudia Semitica Neerlandica _v32.
830		0	_aStudia Semitica Neerlandica Online, ISBN: 9789004353770.
856	4		_zDOI: _uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004358621
999			_c15364 _d15364