Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 998 non-past wyyqtl's

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 998 non-past wyyqtl's
  • Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:15:05 -0500

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your good question. I am always pleased when we discuss specific texts on this forum. You wrote:

On Sunday 28 November 2004 06:57, B. M. Rocine wrote:

[snip]
Take your example of two wayyiqtols in Jer 51:29. The consensus among the
five or six modern translators I checked is that the wayyiqtols are
non-past; they differ on whether to translate them as present or future. I
quickly vote future with you. I do not, however, think the text is
evidence that the wayyiqtols are not perfective. The perfectivity of the
forms is utilized to explicitly embed sequentiality into the text. I think
translations should use the word *then* or *so*: "Then the land will
quake, then it will writhe for the thoughts of YHWH stand against Babel."

Bryan,
Would you insist that they use the word "then" or "so" in Judges 12:9-14 as
well?

--
Dave Washburn

I suppose we might use "then," but I surely wouldn't insist on it or even recommend it in all cases in the passage.

I think you may be asking whether I think wyyqtl always represents a sequence. I do not, but I still the best explanation of the form is that it *means* sequence. I do *not* think the meaning of a form is only that which is uncancelable. Such a standard does not allow for the chaos which is bound to be evident in language use. So I can tolerate a fair handful of exceptions to a verb form's meaning, especially if they are distributed in a regular manner (patterned chaos? oy vey, have patience with me!).

Take for instance Jdg 12:11 vayyishpot 'axarav 'et yisra'el 'eylon hazzebuloni vayyishpot 'et yisra'el `eser shanim

The same story time is covered twice by two successive wayyiqtol clauses. In other words, stroy time does not move forward as we expect from a series of wayyiqtols. It's easily negotiable for the reader though because both clauses have the same kernel witht he same subject. If we have this series in English:

Sam hit a homer.
Bill hit one out of the park.

we understand that first Sam hit a homer, and then Bill hit one. If we have this series:

Sam hit a homer.
Sam hit one out of the park.

we understand that the second clause is elaborating on the first, even though in English story telling, a second clause with a simple past verb usually moves forward story time. (I am only speaking of English simple past as an analogy. I am not equating the English simple past with the wayyiqtol, even though both are used as the mainlines of narrative in their respective languages.)

I think the majority of the wayyiqtols that do not advance story time may be found in one of the following three categories:

1. wayyiqtol of 'mr after a wayyiqtol expressing a verbal event, like vayyiqr'a 'el YHVH vayyo'mer...
2. a second wayyiqtol paraphrases the first, like many times in the flood narrative.
3. an identicle wayyiqtol covers the same story time as a previous wayyiqtol.

Such cases do not negate the basic meaning of the wayyiqtol as a sequencer.

Shalom,
Bryan

B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page