Uruk and X-Qatal

Uruk. I've been reading all about this place/culture.  I love the way writing arose.  Specialization of agriculture meant that families & individuals were no longer self-sufficient, therefore exchange was required.  The city arises as a place/mediator of exchange.  Writing is required to record this -- if you are depositing your harvest in the city depot/temple, you will need a record of that in order to draw on the other supplies you need.  Ergo, let's invent writing!

I'm becoming quite fond of the Mesopotamians.

I've started in on Rocine too.   Verrrrrry interesting.

I'm cool with the wayyiqtol being the mainline verb form for Historical Narrative, but now in chapter 5 I am encountering the x-qatal.   Rocine is working on the theory that qatal indicates attribution.  Rather the way Ehud described participles, if I recall correctly, Rocine suggests x-qatal be understood (or translated, but that's not the goal) thus:
"It is (X) who/that (qatal)" with the qatal being "he is a qatal-er" or "qatal-ing".

So with the example וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, we would understand it as "(and) it is (to Adam) who/that (he - God in this case - is a speaker/he is speaking)".  It is to Adam that God is a speaker. It is to Adam that God is speaking.

I have a surface understanding of this, but I can see that it might take a while for it to sink in when reading the Hebrew.  This is supposed to be the function of topicalization -- that is, changing the focus, I think.  I will have to read that part again.

But I am getting glimmers of how useful this could be -- how it can change the way I see the meaning in the Hebrew.

I also gave in and signed up for English Syntax (Linguistics 204) in Summer School.  That way I can take advanced Syntax & Semantics after Christmas and maybe Discourse Analysis in 2011/12.  There's something to this stuff.   Maybe I'll get a degree in Linguistics with a Hebrew minor?