Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: [b-hebrew] Consecutive waw in Lev .22:7 ?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Consecutive waw in Lev .22:7 ?
  • Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:21:45 +0200

Dear Trevor,

With all due respect, I beg to disagree with your words regarding the "converted perfect ...that covers the same basic range as the imperfect". A study of all the verbs of the Tanakh gives the following results as to the present and future references of YIQTOL, QATAL and WEQATAL:

YIQTOL: Present reference 2.461 (18,1 %)
QATAL: Present reference 2.505 (18 %)
WEQATAL: Present reference 240 (3,9 %)

YIQTOL: Future reference 4.841 (35.5 %)
QATAL: Future reference 965 (6,9 %)
WEQATAL: Future reference 4.187 (68,4 %)

QATAL and YIQTOL are similar as far as present reference is concerned, and WEQATAL is different. As to future reference, YIQTOL and WEQATAL are similar, but the 965 occurrences of QATAL with future reference undermines the view that WAW has a converting force or signals conversion when it is prefixed to a QATA Lor a YIQTOL. I will also mention that I have a list of 357 (5,9 %) of WEQATALs with past reference and 55 with a reference similar to English perfect (completed action, present reference). If the enclitic WAWS are seen simply as conjunctions (not having any converting power), the high percentage of YIQTOLs and WEQATALs with future reference are readily explained on syntactical grounds.

I therefore claim that YIQTOL , WEYIQTOL and WAYIQTOL represent the same thing - the imperfective aspect, and that QATAL and WEQATAL represent the same thing - the perfective aspect.

So - for those who are newcomers on the list, don't believe the traditional grammars, but ask critical questions regarding their conclusions . The authors of modern grammars have evidently only looked at *some* of the verbs in the Tanakh and not *all* of them. Often views from previous grammars are adopted without any new tests of the conclusions. When we look at *all* the verbs of the Tanakh, it is evident that the map does not fit the terrain.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo







Doris wrote:

Lev. 22:7 reads: Uva hashemesh v'taher... is the waw
preceding taher a
consecutive waw? If so, should it not not read vayithar ?

If you're going to think in terms of consecutive vavs, you need to
consider that they can be added to both perfect and imperfect forms.
You're right about what it would look like if it were a consecutive
imperfect form, but clearly the form we have in the text is not
imperfect. It is perfect, and adding a consecutive vav normally has no
effect on the rest of the shape.

The consecutive perfect, or what I would call the converted perfect, is
the sequential form that covers the same basic range as the imperfect.
Notice, BTW, that uva is also a converted perfect. If these were
narrative forms (what you call the consecutive imperfect), we would
expect this to be a past discussion--"When the sun set, he became clean
. . . " But clearly it is not past in this case--"When the sun sets, he
will be clean . . . "

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page