Fw: Niccacci--Re: Judges 3:23 (Bryan Rocine)

Bryan Rocine 596547 at ican.net
Mon Oct 5 17:54:31 EDT 1998

From: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet at netvision.net.il>
To: Bryan Rocine <596547 at ican.net>
Subject: Re: Niccacci--Re: Judges 3:23 (Bryan Rocine)
Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 5:58 AM

Dear Bryan,

Thanks for sending me information on the BH list concerning Jdg 3:23.

Also thanks to Matthew Anstey for his intelligent comments/questions. Here
are my response.

1) As I said, I am inclined to think that there is not enough evidence to
posit a "coordinate" waw+qatal expressing simple, non-frequentative past
besides weqatal expressing repetition or description in historical
narrative (and future tense in direct speech).
The reason is that in order to posit a separate verb form we need to have a
distinctive morphological form and a distintive function (or functions),
Now, for yiqtol we have first-place yiqtol with volitive function;
second-place yiqtol (or x-yiqtol) for non-volitive, simple-future function
(but x-yiqtol is volitive in some cases--definite criteria are available);
wayyiqtol; and weyiqtol with volitive function.
For qatal, we have first-place qatal in direct speech, not in historical
narrative; second-place qatal both in narrative and in direct speech, with
specific functions; weqatal for non-volitive, simple future in direct
speech, and for description/repetition in historical narrative.
I think that we do not have enough evidence to posit a different waw+qatal
for simple, non-frequentative past. First, because the variation of stress
is not consistent and, second, because waw+qatal can be explained as a
variant of a waw-x-qatal construction in which the *x* element (the
subject, in this case) is elided because it is the same as that of the
preceding main verb (wayyiqtol). Indeed, the waw-x-qatal construction is
attested in the specific function of waw+qatal, i.e., to express
simultaneity. See my _Syntax_ § 41.
For the time being, this appears to me the best solution.

2) I am interested in seeing the research of the student at Regent College
who did a comparison between  Waltke-O'Connor's treatment of the verbal
system and mine. One may remember that I wrote a rather detailed discussion
of Waltke-O'Connor's volume in _Liber Annuus_ 39 (1989) 327-336 (in

Alviero Niccacci

On  10/4/98 (Niccacci--Re: Judges 3:23 (Bryan Rocine)) you wrote:

> Dear Alviero,
> Below are the latest two posts in the thread on Jdg 3:23 including one
> inquiry to yourself.    If you care to comment, please send to me and I
> will forward it to the list.  Once again, appologies for the
> inconvenience!!!
> Take care,
> Bryan
> from Randall Buth:
> bryan
> just saw your weqatal note. i think your own instrincts are in the right
> direction. you need to add two more views:
> 5. veqatal = and he was in process of locking  (the locks)  . . .
> (equivalent tense-aspect to yiqtol).
> (this occurs elsewhere, 2 Sam 13.18)
> here: multiple event, more than one lock on plural doors,
> providing a pause as scene switches.
> 6. veqatal = veqatol (infinitive absolute, like phoenician. but we don't
> really know enough about how this qatol functioned in narrative to
> satisfyingly introduce it here.)
> i prefer #5, though #1/2 and #6 are not impossible.
>    [another rule of thumb: always interpret the MT as one edition of the
> text, even if secondary.]
> [your own translation 'locker' overlaps with #5, though you may have
> restricted the 'reading' of the TAM to a nominalization 'locker'.]
> braxot
> randall buth
> ----------
> > From: Matthew Anstey <manstey at portal.ca>
> > To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> > Subject: RE: Niccacci
> > Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 4:04 PM
> >
> > Thanks for Niccacci's post.  I have two comments/questions:
> >
> > 1. When Niccacci writes:
> > >4) I am inclined to think that no sufficient evidence is available to
> posit a qatal with (according to Waltke-O'Connor's terminology)
> "waw-copulative" besides the well-known qatal with "waw-relative" (or
>conversive, i.e. usual weqatal). Remember that the usual continuation form
>after a qatal is not waw+qatal but rather wayyiqtol.
> >
> > Does he mean that there are *never* waw + qatal forms? If that it what
> is saying, then how would he explain the fairly consistent variation in
> stress between (apparent) wqtl and w+qtl forms? And also, we have w+yqtl
> so why not w+qtl? Is there simply no purpose for them?
> >
> > 2. I am studying at Regent College, and apparently a student here wrote
> > paper (unpublished) last year as a directed study comparing Waltke &
> > O'Connor's and Niccacci's treatment of the verbal system. I will see if
> > can track down either the student or the paper to see what it says.

Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Home Page:
     Professors Email  mailto:sbfnet at netvision.net.il
      Students Email mailto:sbfstud at netvision.net.il

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list