The form of weqatal
dwashbur at nyx.net
Sat Aug 7 12:57:31 EDT 1999
> Yes, you've got my point! I am beginning to think that QATAL
> corresponds pretty well to the perfect aspect in English etc, i.e. to
> any one of present perfect, past perfect and future perfect depending
> on the reference time in the context.
It's possible. My own working hypothesis, built on my work on the
wayyiqtol, is that there are some basic oppositions in effect in the
4 conjugations, based on a combination of syntactic connection
WAYYIQTOL - no syntactic connection, realis mode (indicative)
QATAL - syntactic connection, realis mode (indicative)
WEQATAL - no syntactic connection, irrealis mode (modal)
YIQTOL - syntactic connection, irrealis mode (modal)
I'm defining "modal" as Galia Hatav defines it, which includes
future, subjunctive, volition, etc. The place of imperative, jussive
and cohortative in this pattern I haven't looked into yet.
I have just been working on
> Psalm 119 and find that the verb forms in it fit very well with this
> idea, even in this poetic text for which the normal rules of verb
> forms are not supposed to apply - if one understands the QATAL of
> roots like )HB to mean "have fallen in love" and so with a stative
> meaning "love". (Incidentally the roots $MR and NCR seem to work in
> this way too, and so need to be understood something like "have
> committed oneself to keeping", which fortunately works nicely in the
> target language I am working with). I suspect that in this way we can
> explain the otherwise strange idea of QATAL with future meaning. (I am
> not talking now about WEQATAL).
I'm deliberately avoiding poetic texts until I get some solid footing
established with prose, but I wonder: how much of the force you
describe might be built into the verb form, and how much might be
built into the meaning of the verb itself? There I go with the
syntax/semantics thing again...
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
More information about the b-hebrew