Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax

results, particularly in poetry, which is so

methodological sophistry really worth it? Are the results

significant enough to warrant such tediousness?

The following results were generated from the

methodology presented above. It should be stated that the

analysis of the data base (tagmemic analysis of the

corpus of Proverbs 10-15) was not carried out in a

scientifically exhaustive manner, yet the results were

significant. The last two chapters (ch. 9 [Literary

Cohesion in Proverbs 10?] and ch. 10 [A Linguistic

Synthesis of the Syntax of Proverbial Poetry]) present

the discoveries as a result of the utilization of the

above methodology.

Literary Cohesion in Proverbs 10?
Chapter nine asks whether there is literary cohesion in

Proverbs 10. Most major commentators on

Proverbs (Toy, McKane, Whybray, Oesterley, Delitzsch, et

al.) have concluded that Proverbs 10-15 are haphazard

proverbs thrown together without any real literary

cohesion. From the linguistically sensitized framework

proposed in this paper, it was demonstrated that there is

indeed literary cohesion in Proverbs 10. Literary

arguments were generated suggesting that a totally

haphazard order is extremely unlikely due to principles of

literary uniformitarianism, selection procedures, and

psychological realities. The sages were demonstrated to

be capable of and aware of larger literary units in that

such structures are the rule in the rest of the book of

Proverbs (1:20-33, 8:22ff.; ch. 1-9; 16, 25 as well as the

well-known acrostic of 31:10-31). The collection

principles in other ancient Near Eastern proverb

collections were examined (Alster) and several features

noted (catch words, common initial signs, thematic

connections, and proverbial pairs). Modern proverbial

collections were also surveyed for general principles of

organization (Kuusi). Finally, the model of Skehan and

his follower, Brown, was examined. Skehan suggested that

the number of Solomon's name is equivalent to 375, that is

exactly the number of proverbs in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, and

that there were 15 columns of 25 proverbs each. The

potential of Skehan's suggestion was recently developed by

Brown. While Brown was able to locate correctly some

major structural divisions, his simplistic equation of

semantic repetition to structural markers was inadequate.

His method was totally based on semantic repetitions and

unfortunately he did not do a good job even at that, as he

seemed to skip repetitions which did not fit his theory.

Brown's hypothesis demonstrates once again the problem of

coming to the text with a preconceived structure in mind,

rather than allowing the structure to rise from the text.

Structures should be built up from smaller to larger units

(words, phrases, to discourse) rather than being forced down

(from discourse to words).

Several cohesional principles help assess how the

sage ordered the canonical text. Phonological repetitions

frequently played key roles in connecting proverbs

(11:9-12; 10:17-18, 25-26 et al.) and were also used to

bind stichs together (10:18; 11:15 et al.). Lexical

repetitions or catch words were numerous (10:2-3, 14-15;

11:5, 6 et al.). Repetition of whole phrases and clauses

were found as well (10:6, 11 et al.). Syntactic parallels

between proverbs also appeared (10:2-3, 31-32) as did some

topical cohesions (11:9-11). The cohesions took three forms:

(1) single proverb; (2) proverbial pair (10:2-3;

26:4-5); and (3) proverbial cluster (10:18-21; 11:9-11.

This is the first time that the literary unity and

structure of Proverbs 10:1-11:1 has been linguistically

demonstrated, although Bostrom's and Murphy's works have

made strides in that direction. Because this unity has

been almost universally denied or ignored, such techniques

hold much potential for the other chapters of proverbs

that have been labelled "helter skelter" and "thrown

together."
A Linguistic Synthesis of the

Syntax of Proverbial Poetry
The final chapter analyzed the mountain of

linguistic minutia compiled in the corpus in order to

discover significant syntactic patterns employed in

proverbial poetry. It began with a comparison with the

results of Collins' 1900 lines of prophetic poetry.

Several remarkable differences were discovered. First,

while Collins found an even distribution over the four

line types (I, II, III, IV), Proverbs manifested a

substantial shift in avoidance of I and III and favoring

II and IV. From this it may be deduced that proverbial

sayings tend to be composed of syntactically separate and

complete stichs. Secondly, there was a marked movement

away from basic sentence types D (SVOM) and A (SV) toward

an increased use of C (SVO) and nominal (SPsc) sentence

types. A discussion of the ordering patterns of each of

the basic sentence types followed (A, B, C, D). It was

observed that the prophets favored verb initial orderings,

repetition of pattern, S initial forms occurring in the

second line rather than the first, and an SO order when

following a verb. Proverbs, on the other hand, evinces a

strong tendency to put the subject first. Proverbs also

favors repetition of patterns, but frequently allows for

an SO order when following the verb. This is often due to

chiastic ordering constraints. Proverbs also had less

diversity in the ordering of its syntactic units, favoring

certain orders to the exclusion of others. In line type

IV two significant differences were observed from what

Collins found in the prophets: (1) Proverbs had a

substantial tendency to include explicitly the subject

element (i) whereas the prophets frequently allowed for it

to be dropped or affixed (ii, ii, iv); and (2) when there

was a subject deletion or affixation it was often found to

be a D (SVOM) sentence type, suggesting that some

O'Connorian syntactic constraints are at work. Such exact

syntactic differences provided the basis for the rather

sensational suggestion that one may be able to specify

explicitly genre differences on the basis of syntactical

patterns employed. The differences between the proverbial

and prophetic use of syntactical patterns as just observed

specify exact points of syntactic genre differentia.

Thus, not only the poetic line is syntactically

constrained, but genre may be also.

A comparison with the results of O'Connor's more

normative sample of Hebrew poetry (1225 lines) also

reveals several marked features of the proverbial sayings.

First, O'Connor found a large percentage (20%) of 122

configured lines (1 clause, 2 constituents, 2 units),

whereas these were found in Proverbs 10-15 only rarely

(0.5%). This is compatible with the marked increase in

Proverbs 10-15 of the 134 configuration (20%) over

O'Connor's corpus' 6.5%. These also may demonstrate

syntactic constraints which may be characteristic of the

proverbial sayings. This again evinces the principle that

genre may be a function of syntactical constraints.

Explanations for this--specifically how these

differences were achieved syntactically--led to a study of

noun phrase patterns. It was discovered that Proverbs in

the subject slot employed a two-membered noun phrase,

whereas O'Connor's corpus manifested a dominant single

nominal unit. This shift would push the 122 configuration

to 123 and the 133 configuration to 134, which is what was

observed. Note again the prominence of the subject

tagmeme, not only by its initial position (contra Collins'

prophetic corpus), but also in the number of units that

the subject contains (contra O'Connor's corpus). There

was also a substantial increase in nominal sentences (023, 024)

in Proverbs 10-15 (20%) as compared with O'Connor's corpus

(2.1%).

O'Connor's methodology also helped isolate another

feature of the proverbial corpus: the second line of the

bi-colon showed a marked tendency to be shorter than the

first. One might suggest that such a finding is rather

obvious in that the second line often gaps features

contained in the first, as noted in the comparison with

Collins. Proverbs 10-15 seems to avoid the extensive use

of gapping, favoring complete stichs instead. Thus, there

seems to be a purposeful tendency for the longer syntactic

units to be found in the first line, with the shorter

units in the second. Four-unit lines were found first 73%

of the time and often when found in the second line they

were matched with a 4 or 5 unit first line. Three unit

lines were found in the second stich 73% of the time and

often when they were found in the first line they were

matched with a 3 unit second line. What is being

fashioned here is the exact nature of syntactic

constraints under which the sages operated as they crafted

their sayings. By moving closer to how they formulated

their message, we move closer to an experience of the

original creative moment of these artistic expressions.

Having gained substantial results from a

comparison with the prophetic corpus of Collins and the

normative corpus of O'Connor, the study went on to dip

below the line level to observe sub-lineal syntactic

matches via the phenomena which have been labeled

isomorphic and homomorphic syntactic mappings between the

lines. While only about 33% of the lines exhibited

syntactic matching (O'Connor, Line type II [Collins]),

87.5% exhibited the sub-lineal syntactic features of

isomorphism and homomorphism. It was of interest that

there were more isomorphic relationships which demand both

surface and deep structure equivalence than there were

homomorphic parallels which allow for variation in surface

structure (slot and/or filler) or deep grammar

(role/case). Select examples were analyzed, illustrating

how the isomorphisms (Prov. 10:5, 8; 14:18) functioned.

Examples were provided of homomorphic cases, which varied

the deep structure while maintaining surface grammar

equivalence (10:8), and structures observing a common deep

grammar but with surface variations (10:15; 11:1, 18). The

cataloging of all isomorphisms and homomorphic variations into

patterns is a project for future study.

Because the great frequency of the two-membered

noun phrase was an endemic feature of proverbial poetry,

it was felt that it should be studied in more detail.

What was found was that the two-membered noun phrase was

rarely used in the object slot (10%), while the single

nominal unit occurred more frequently as an object (31%).

The subject was filled with either a single or

two-membered nominal. Typical noun phrase tagmemes were examined:

Hd : N Mod : N[Adj] Hd : N Mod : N/Adj/Ptc

(1) ----------- + --------------------, (2) ------------- + ----------------------

It : Pos : It : Qual : Qual:

Hd : N Mod : PS/N/PN Hd : N + Mod : PS/PN/N

(3) ----------- + -----------------------, (4) --------- ------------------------

It: Pos : It : Sp :
Examples of each were provided ([1] 10:4, 16, 20, 24; [2] 11:1,

18, 30; [3] 11:9, 12, 19, 28, 29; and [4] 12:11, 15). It was of

interest that the first, (1), was found 75% of the time in

subject slot positions and 75% in isomorphic mappings. The

second form, (2), was located most often in non-homomorphic

mappings in subject and subject complement slots. The third

occurs in non-homomorphic settings in object, prepositional

phrase, and subject complement positions. The fourth noun phrase

tagmeme group occurs mostly in non-homomorphic settings in all

slots, but is especially common in subject complements. It was

also observed that the proper name tagmeme was found exclusively

in first colon positions. Noun phrase morphological variation

was examined, which demonstrated that isomorphic mappings favored

number variation (66%). Secondly, it was discovered that the

number variation was normally from a first colon singular to a

second colon plural.

A final experiment was carried out on the (1) noun

phrase tagmeme. A cataloging of semantic fillers

characteristic of this tagmeme was attempted to see if

there was a semantic-syntactic correspondence. It was

found that for the case grammar formula It + Pos [Qual],

the following semantic patterns surfaced:

It = body parts (10:4; esp. mouth parts)

mental phenomena (12:5; e.g., thoughts)

material possessions (10:16; e.g., wages)

way (12:26)

Pos = qualities (major wisdom words; e.g., righteous,

wicked, wise, foolish, etc.)

One final study was done attempting to isolate

various types of syntactical transformations that occurred

in homomorphic structures. Four noun phrase

transforamtions were discovered: (1) N:Item + N:Quality

---> N: Quality (where the item term was often a body part

[10:18]; metaphorical term [10:11]; or transparent filler

term [11:16]); (2) N:Item + N:Quality ---> N:Item (10:20);

(3) S:NP + O:N ---> S:NP[N₁ + N₂] (10:27); and (4)

N:Item + N:Pos ---> N:Item + PS:Pos (10:15). Verbal

collapsing transformations were also observed: (1) S + V

---> V(S affixed) (10:3); (2) S + V(trans) + O ---> S

+ V(Intrans) (10:4, 21; 11:12); (3) S + V(active) ---> S +

V(passive) (10:8); and (4) SVO ---> SPsc where V ---> PSC

[N_v + N_o] (10:1). Other transformations observed are

reflected in the following formulae: (1) A + B ---> A'

+ B' + PP/Adv (10:2, 9; 11:7); (2) A + B + PPron ---> A' +

B` (10:22, 24; 11:25, 28); and (3) N ---> NP[N`₁conjN₂]

(11:31). The tagmemic approach facilitated not only the

identification of syntactic and morphological parallels between

sub-lineal units, but also encouraged the exact specification of

syntactic techniquest of transformation employed by the wise men

as they varied the syntactic line structures.

The primary goal of this study has been the

generation of a syntactic model which would be a

satisfactory tool for deictically revealing the intricate

and beautiful hues of poetic symmetries. The tagmemic

approach has proven itself to be such a tool--result of

which were merely sampled in this study. Presently, a

systematic analysis of the data base compiled on Proverbs

10-15 is needed. There is also a need for the generation

of a satisfactory way of linguistically monitoring the

semantic features of Hebrew poetry. Then there should be

a synthesis between the syntactic, semantic, and phonetic

features, to attain a wholistic appreciation for the

poetic genius of the sages who ordered divinely inspired

dyads to describe the order of the created cosmos.

Appendix 1

Collins' Line Types

Line Type II [Matching]

11:25 SV / SV II A: i)1,1

13:9 SV / SV II A: i)1,1

13:11 SV / SV II A: i)1,1 Total 5

13:20 SV / SV II A: i)1,1

14:11 SV / SV II A: i)1,1
13:19 SVP / SVP II B: i)1,1

11:8 SPV / VSP II B: i)2,3 Total 4

11:4 VSP / SVP II B: i)3,1

14:32 PVS / VPS II B: i)6,4

11:3 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

11:13 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

11:16 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

12:6 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

12:23 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

13:6 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

14:2 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

14:15 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

15:1 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

15:2 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

15:14 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1 Total 23

15:18 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

15:20 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

15:30 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1

10:12 SVO / OVS II C: i)1,6

12:27 VSO / OVS II C: i)1,6

14:10 SVO / OVS II C: i)1,6

14:18 VSO / SVO II C: i)3,1

12:21 VOS / SVO II C: i)4,1

12:26 VOS / SVO II C: i)4,1

11:17 VOS / VOS II C: i)4,4

14:25 VOS / VOS II C: i)4,4

13:21 OVS / OVS II C: i)6,6
10:5 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

10:16 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

10:18 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

11:1 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

11:19 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

11:23 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

11:30 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1 Total 29

12:1 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

12:5 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

14:21 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

14:24 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

14:28 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

15:4 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

15:8 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

Line Type II

Matching
15:15 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

15:19 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

15:32 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1

10:15 SPsc / PscS II nom.: i)1,2

12:4 SPsc / PscS II nom.: i)1,2

13:24 SPsc / PscS II nom.: i)1,2

10:20 PscS / SPsc II nom.: i)2,1

11:20 PscS / PscS II nom.: i)2,2

12:22 PscS / SPsc II nom.: i)2,1

14:30 PscS / PscS II nom.: i)2,2

15:26 PscS / PscS II nom.: i)2,2

12:28 PPsc / PPsc II nom.: ii)2,2

14:4 PPsc / PscP II nom.: ii)2,1

15:6 PPsc / PPsc II nom.: ii)2,2

12:20 PscP / PPsc II nom.: ii)1,2

Line Types I, III, and ?

Contiguous, Gapping, and Non-Fitting Forms

15:31 S / PV I B: iii)2

15:3 SP / VO I D: iii)3 Total 5

14:27 SPsc / P I nom.: i)1

11:22 Psc / S I nom.: iv)2

13:14 SPsc / P I mod nom.: iii)1
12:19 SVP / PS III B: i)1,2

11:31 SPV / S III B: i)2,1

14:19 VSP / SP III B: i)3,1

14:14 PVS / PS III B: i)6,2 Total 7

15:22 VSP / PV III B: iii)3,2

11:11 PVS / PV III B: iii)6,2

14:33 PVS / PV III B: III)6,2
10:32 SVO / SV III C: i)1,1

11:18 SVO / SO III C: i)1,1

12:17 SVO / SO III C: i)1,1

13:1 SO / SVO III C: i)1,1

14:35 SO / SVO III C: i)1,1 Total 8

11:27 SVO / OVO III C: iii)1,2

10:3 VSO / OV III C: iii)3,2

15:25 OVS / VO III C: iii)6,1

14:23 PVO / PO III D: ii)5,2
12:15 SPscp / SPsc III nom.: i)1,1

15:11 SPsc / S III nom.: i)1,1 Total 5

10:23 SPsc / Psc III nom.: iii)1,1

15:33 SPsc / PscS III nom.: iii)1,2

10:29 PscPS / PscP III nom.: iii)4,1
Double Predication and other Variational Forms
10:25 PP + PscS / SPsc ?

10:26 SPsc + SPsc / SPsc ?

11:24 PscS + VO / SP ?

12:7 VO + PscS / SV ? Total 17

11:2 VS + VS / PscS ?

11:15 AV + VO / SPsc ?

13:7 ExstCl + ExstCl / ExstCl + ExstCl ?

14:6 VSO + Psc / SPV ?

12:9 Aug Comp / Dim Comp ?

13:4 VPscS / SV ?

13:5 OVS / SVV ?

14:16 SVVP / SPsc ?

13:23 PscP / VPscP ?

14:12 VPscP / SPsc ?

15:16 PscSP / SA ?

15:17 PscS / SA ?

15:23 PscPP / SPPsc ?
Line Type IV

Mixing
11:28 SV / PSV IV A/B: i)1,5

10:2 VS / SVP IV A/B: i)2,1

12:24 SV / SVO IV A/C: i)1,1 Total 6

14:5 SV / VOS IV A/C: i)1,4

10:22 SV / VOP IV A/D: iii)1,1

14:22 VS / PscS IV A/nom.: i)1,2
10:9 SVA / SV IV B/A: i)1,1

13:13 SVP / SV IV B/A: i)1,1

13:25 SVP / SV IV B/A: i)1,1

12:3 VSP / SV IV B/A: i)3,1

11:7 PVS / SV IV B/A: i)6,1

11:21 AVS / SV IV B/A: i)6,1

13:16 SVP / SVO IV B/C: i)1,1

15:28 SVP / SVO IV B/C: i)1,1

10:30 SPV / SVO IV B/C: i)2,1 Total 19

12:8 PVS / SVO IV B/C: i)6,1

14:7 VP / VO IV B/C: ii)1,1

13:17 SVP / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)1,1

10:13 PVS / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,1

10:19 PVS / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,1

11:14 PVS / PscP IV B/nom.: i)6,1

14:20 PVS / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,1

11:10 PVS / PPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,2

14:13 PVS / PSPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,5

12:18 VSP / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)3,1
10:8 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1

10:10 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1

10:24 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1

10:27 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1

10:31 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1 Total 10

14:17 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1

15:5 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1

12:12 VSO / SV IV C/A: i)3,1

11:12 VOS / SV IV C/A: i)4,1

10:4 OVS / SV IV C/A: i)6,1

10:21 SVO / SPV IV C/B: i)1,2

13:22 SVO / VPS IV C/B: i)1,3 Total 5

11:5 SVO / PVS IV C/B: i)1,6

11:6 SVO / PV IV C/B: iii)1,2

15:12 VSO / PV IV C/B: iii)3,2
14:1 SVO / SPVO IV C/D: i)1,3
10:1 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1

10:14 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1

12:11 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1

13:3 SVO / SPscP IV C/nom.: i)1,1

Line Type IV

Mixing
13:15 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1

14:8 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1

15:7 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1

14:31 SVO / PscS IV C/nom.: i)1,2 Total 15

14:34 SVO / PscS IV C/nom.: i)1,2

13:12 SVO / PscS IV C/nom.: i)1,2

11:29 SVO / PscSP IV C/nom.: i)1,3

12:10 VSO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)3,1

11:26 OVS / PscP IV C/nom.: i)5,1

14:9 SVO / PPsc IV C/nom.: iii)1,2

15:13 SVO / PPsc IV C/nom.: iii)1,2

11:9 PSVO / PSV IV D/B: i)13,5

12:25 SPVO / SVO IV D/C: i)3,1

12:16 SPVO / VOS IV D/C: i)3,4 Total 7

12:2 SVOP / OV IV D/C: iii)1,2

12:14 PVO / SVO IV D/C: iv)5,1

13:2 PVO / SO IV D/C: iv)5,1

13:10 PVO / PPsc IV D/nom.: ii)5,2
10:7 SPsc / SV IV nom./A: i)1,1

10:28 SPsc / SV IV nom./A: i)1,1

10:17 PscS / SV IV nom./A: i)2,1 Total 6

13:18 PscS / SV IV nom./A: i)2,1

15:27 PscS / SV IV nom./A: i)2,1

15:10 PscP / SV IV nom./A: iv)1,1

12:13 PPscS / VPS IV nom./B: i)6,4

15:24 SPscP / VP IV nom./B: iii)1,1

14:29 SPsc / SVO IV nom./C: i)1,1

15:21 SPscP / SVO IV nom./C: i)1,1

10:6 SPsc / OVS IV nom./C: i)1,6

10:11 PscS / SVO IV nom./C: i)2,1 Total 8

13:8 PscS / SVO IV nom./C: i)2,1

15:9 PscS / OV IV nom./C: iii)2,2

15:29 PscSP / OV IV nom./C: iii)3,2

14:3 PPsc / SVO IV nom./C: iv)2,1

14:26 SPsc / PVO IV nom./D: iii)1,5

Appendix II

An O'Connorian Analysis of the Lines of Proverbs 10-15
10:1a SVO 134

10:1b SPsc 024

10:2a VS 123

10:2b SVP 133

10:3a VSO 134

10:3b OV 123

10:4a OVS 134

10:4b SV 123

10:5a SPsc 234

10:5b SPsc 234

10:6a SPsc 023

10:6b OVS 134

10:7a SPsc 023

10:7b SV 123

10:8a SVO 134

10:8b SV 123

10:9a SVA 244

10:9b SV 233

10:10a SVO 234