Subordination In Biblical Paremiological Utterances

Abstract

In most biblical paremiological utterances, nuances may overlap, which makes it difficult to identify the type of subordinate clause. Nuancing and synthesising the semantic and syntactic markers are part of the expressive arsenal of the pragmatics of the paremiological text. In the absence of such subtle nuancing, communicative performance would be inconceivable. Regarding subordination relations, that of a subjective and its regent is the most common. The syntax follows the universal logical schema of any utterance, consisting of a Logical Subject (minimal), a Logical Predicate (maximum), and a conjunction. The differences between languages arise from the different possibilities of expressing the subject, primarily because the predicate, being the axis of the sentence in any language, remains relatively stable. In the vast majority of cases, the subject’s expression must go beyond the limits of the denotational function, since its use as an exemplary element for the receiver, its exemplary function for which it was selected in the utterance, assumes a brief description, but it is also loaded with connotations.

Keywords: Biblical proverbsubordinationpragmaticsparemiological utterancecommunicative performances

Introduction

From al the relations of subordination, that of a subjective and its regent is the most common. The syntax follows the universal logic of the scheme of any utterance, consisting of a logical Subject (minimum), a logical Predicate (maximum) and the conjunction.

The differences between the languages come from the different possibilities of expression of the subject in the first place, because the predicate, constituting the phrase axis, in any language, remains relatively stable. The subject can be simple, in the minimalist utterances of the type:

Leneşul nu-şi frige nici vânatul lui. (12,27) / The lazy does not fry his own game. (12,27).

Problem Statement

Research Questions

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to observe the strucure and the rapport of subordination in biblical paremiological utterances. Constantin Negreanu ( 1983) indicates 491 syntactic patterns out of a total of 5994 popular proverbs, that is to say 8,20%, whereas the subjective and the attributive are the only two recurring subordinates in Romanian (Teodorescu, 1972, p. 131).

• Cine poate oase roade, cine nu, nici carne moale. / Who can gnaw bone, who does not, nor soft meat.

Cine caută nevastă fără cusur, neînsurat rămâne. / Who is searching for his wife without blemish, remains unmaried.

Cine caută vreme, pierde vreme. / Who is searching for time, loses time.

• Trebuie să dai câteodată o lumânare şi dracului. / You must sometimes give a candle to the devil.

Trebuie să mănânci un care de sare cu cineva ca să-l cunoşti bine. / You need to eat salt with someone to know him well.

E mai bine să fie cineva la colţ de ţară şi la mijloc de masă. / It’s better for someone to be around the corner of the country and at the middle of the table.

Research Methods

5.1. The phenomenon can be explained in terms of pragmatic analysis:

The “denominative top” of the subjective, that is to say the phrase that names the creature, the object, etc. should be thoroughly put into relief, and the “communicative top” (a phrase which informs) completes its metaphorical definition of elements, both sustaining the act of performative generated by proverbs.

Of the other sentences, the attributive subordinated phrase commonly seen, confirming from the perspective of the researcher’s finding the above explanations.

5.2. The explanation can only be that the object defined/described in the paremiologic statement must be highlighted through its attributes - positive or negative. When this is not possible through synthetic speech (the substantivized adjective) the analytical path - an attribute or an attributive subordinate:

Fericit este omul 1/ care se teme totdeauna 2/, iar cel 3/ care învârtoşeşte inima lui va cădea în nenorocire 4/. (28,14). Happy is the man 1/ that fears always 2/and the one 3/ who has a courageous heart will fall into misfortune 4/. (28,14).

5.3. It is important to note that we are talking about determinative attributives, i.e. indispensable to the qualitative/actionable salience of the supposed subject, because the additional explanatory-by their nature - would violate rules deals with the concentration of the paremiologic utterance. (Saumian, 1968).

Findings

We can identify in our corpus of proverbs other types of subordinates: conditionals, concessive, temporal, circumstantial. Typically, such sentences appear in atypical utterances, i.e. in the exhortation formulated like proverbs, in the Bible orations:

Dacă vine mândria, va veni şi ocara... (11,2) / If it comes pride, the reproach will come too... (11.2); Dacă ai găsit miere, mănâncă atât cât îţi trebuie ... (25,16); / If you found honey, eat as much as you need ... (25,16); Chiar dacă vei pisa în piuliţă pe cel nebun, tot nu-l vei despărţi de nebunia lui. (27,22). / Even if you’re going to beat the crazy, you will still not part him of his madness. (27,22).

In such situations, the utterance is amplified a lot, as we have already pointed out, which means that you can add other types of subordinates, as well as final, causal subordinates etc.:

Dacă ai găsit miere 1/, mănâncă atâta cât îţi trebuie 2/ saturi şi să verşi.3/ (25,16). / If you found honey, eat 1/as long as you need 2/, lest you fill up and puke.3/ (25,16).

The other example given here is noted and in a fuller form, developed into a true rhetoric period, about which we can say that represents a sum of proverbs, if we accept as definitive only simple binary structure or, at most, doubled:

Nu te bucura 1/ când cade vrăjmaşul tău 2/ şi când se poticneşte 3/ să nu se veselească inima ta, 4/Ca nu cumva să vadă Domnul 5/ şi să fie neplăcut în ochii Lui. 6/ (24,17-18). / Do you enjoy 1/ when your enemy falls 2/and when he stumbles across 3/ your heart not be cheerful, 4/ lest the Lord is seeing 5/and this be obnoxious in his eyes. 6/ (24,17-18).

Conclusion

Concerning the problem studied here, i.e. the biblical paremiological utterances, the difficulty lays in identifying the type of subordinate clause. A great part of the expressive arsenal of the pragmatics of the paremiological text is nuancing and synthesising the semantic and syntactic markers. But, in the absence of such subtle nuancing, the communicative performance would be impossible.

In all cases cited above, the overlapping of nuances is possible that make it difficult to identify the subordinated type. But the refinement and consolidation of semantic and syntactic marks etc. are part of the expressive arsenal of the pragmatics in the paremiologic text discourse. In the absence of such subtle nuances, the communicative performance nor would be conceivable.

References

1. Anania, V. B. (2000). Poezia Vechiului Testament. Cartea lui Iov. Psaltirea. Proverbele lui Solomon. Ecleziastul. Cântarea Cântărilor. Plângerea lui Ieremia. Versiunea revizuită după Septuaginta. Bucureşti: Editura Institutului Biblic şi de Misiune al B.O.R.
2. Constantin N. (1983).Structura proverbelor româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, p. 114 şi 131)
3. Muntean, G. (1996). Apa trece, pietrele rămân. Proverbe româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura pentru literatură.
4. Saumian, S. K. (1968). Problems of theoretical phonology. The Hague: Mouton..
5. Teodorescu, E. (1972). Propoziţia subiectivă. Bucureşti, România: Editura Ştiințifică.