“Carding” semantic dyads and triads: Genesis 1:2-2:3 as a test case (Part 1)

Christopher Heard remarks in a comment that the lists of oppositional pairs I offer do not work “as is” in a course of elementary Hebrew. That’s because each elementary textbook out there uses a different select corpus as a basis for teaching. So some words in my sets have been seen by elementary students, and others have not.

For intermediate and advanced students, it’s not the end of the world if they haven’t seen all the items in a set. Within limits, it is a learning advantage if they have not.

Given that each textbook works off a different select corpus, authors of Hebrew textbooks must learn to “card” the corpus they teach from in terms of semantic domains if they plan to make use of semantic domain analysis for teaching purposes. Of course, a tool may be developed some day that does this automatically. But it’s really better to do it on one’s own. You will learn a lot in the process. Below the fold, I exemplify. For those whose Hebrew is not up to snuff, the relevant texts are translated.

It’s important to have a handy set of semantic domain categories and subcategories. I’m not going to reveal mine – if I did, I would catch hell from my publisher. But I can show you how to “card” a text according to a differentiated set of semantic configurations. Perhaps a reader or two will have suggestions that improve on what I’m trying to do. That would be sweet.

It’s best to start with texts one knows well. Take Genesis 1:1-2:3. I begin at the macrostructural level, a level often ignored, which is why I won’t. I’m always surprised to find out how many people haven’t caught this:

  Aבְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

B      וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ

        וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם

        וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

  Cוַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר

  Dוַיְהִי־אוֹר

 
  Aבְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

      Bוְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ

         וְכָל־עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח

               כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל־הָאָרֶץ

        וְאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת־הָאֲדָמָה

        וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן־הָאָרֶץ

               וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת־כָּל־פְּנֵי־הָאֲדָמָה

  Cוַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה

       וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים

  Dוַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה

 

That’s pretty cool, you have to admit. I call this an appositional (not oppositional) semantic/syntactic dyad at the macrostructural level. Gen 1:1-3 and 2:4b-7 both exhibit a complex unity with the following elements:

(A) b-introduced ‘when’ clause: when God/Yhwh God created/made sky+land/land+sky

(B) w + preposed subject-introduced circumstantial clauses  (background information)

(C) main action wayyiqtol clause with God/Yhwh God as explicit subject

(D) final wayehi clause

 Hey, Kevin Wilson, online specialist in ‘P.’ What’s going on here? Is this evidence that the author of Gen 1:1-3 had Gen 2:4b-7 before him? Vice-versa? Or is it just a remarkable coincidence? 

UPDATE: For Kevin Wilson’s take, and a comment by Jim Getz, go here.

The relevant texts in translation:

A  When God began to create . . .

B        and the earth was . . .

          and darkness was . . .

         and the spirit of God was . . .

C  God said . . .

D  And light came to be.

 
A  When Yhwh God made . . .

B      and the shrub of the field entire had not yet . . .

       and the grass of the field entire had not yet . . .

               because Yhwh God had not . . .

      and humankind did not exist . . .

      and moisture would . . .

            and would water . . .

C  Yhwh God fashioned . . .

            and blew . . .

D  And the human came to be a living being.

Comments

[Bob MacDonald]

John - these last 6 posts are super exercises - I can't keep up with them at the moment - too much other work. I lost or deleted my Genesis diagram - phooey. But when I finish my drafts and do some serious tidying of my database of translated items I will start to use the exercises.

[tim bulkeley]

Or is it evidence that when the (notional sources) JEP were combined the process of polishing and sharpening these texts (revising and editing) had not ended, but that the text still remained somewhat malleable...

[JohnFH]

I agree with you, Tim.