Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lee R. Martin" <lmartin AT vol.com>]

Dear Dave,
Rolf Furuli says wayyiqtol is imperfective (tenseless);
Vince DeCaen says it is modal/sequential;
Randall Buth says it is perfective (past tense);
Bryan Rocine says it is imperfective/sequential;
Many traditional scholars say it is equivalent to qatal.
Niccacci focuses on discourse function rather than aspect and tense.
You are saying that it is perfective, but not necessarily sequential.
(If I have misrepresented anyone, please correct me.)

Dave, my questions for you (and anyone else) are:
1) What is the origin and function of the Wa+Dagesh morpheme?
2) Is it of any significance that wayyiqtols are normally shortened forms? If 
so, what
is the significance?

I believe that Vince has said that the Wa prefix signals sequence, and the 
shortened
form proves modality.  Rolf has said that the Wa was invented by the 
Masoretes. I'm
not sure what other people think.

I am leaning in the following direction:
1) QaTaL is perfective, thus it defaults to past tense (but pragmatics does 
not allow
it to be used for narrative).
2) YiQToL is imperfective, and thus can be used for past repeated actions, 
future
actions, and  modal / volitional actions.
3) The Participle is adjectival, describing an ongoing characteristic of the 
subject.
4) Wa+Dagesh signals narrative (sequence being a natural part of narrative).
5) It was the convention of old BH to present narrative as modal, thus the 
shortened
form.
6) Neither, tense, aspect, or discourse function, etc.  is sufficient in 
isolation to
explain / describe the Hebrew verb system.  All linguistic categories  must 
considered
when building a model of the language.
7) I have few problems relating my model to any and all Hebrew texts 
(although that
does not prove that I am correct. It could just prove that I am good at 
twisting the
facts).  There is really only one aspect of the BH system that I am 
struggling with --
the WeQaTaL.  Most traditional scholars called it "conversive," in order to 
match the
wayyiqtol as "conversive."  But if wayyiqtol is *not* conversive, then why 
should we
assume that weqatal is conversive.  Niccacci calls the weqatal 
"continuation."  And he
seems to be accurately describing the data.  If a weqatal follows a yiqtol 
(habitual),
then it is translated as habitual.  If a weqatal follows an imperative, then 
it is
translated as an imperative. If a weqatal follows a yiqtol (future) then it is
translated future.  If a weqatal follows a wayyiqtol, then it is translated 
past
tense.  The weqatal seems to have no life of its own.  Although the weqatal 
has been
sufficiently described, it has not been *explained.*

I would very much like to have feedback on this (from anyone).
--

Lee R. Martin
Pastor, Prospect Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee
Instructor in Hebrew and Old Testament
Church of God Theological Seminary
http://www.earth.vol.com/~lmartin/