Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: WP

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: WP
  • Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:25:03 -0700


Bryan wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> I am
> checking with the experts here, like you.
>
> You wrote:
>
> > 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;
>
> I say it is perfective in aspect and so very compatible with past time.
> But the wayyiqtol does also have the intrinsic value, along with other
> prefixed forms, of describing emerging action. This is in opposition to
> the suffixed forms which, taken together, represent the state the subject
> is in at the time being talked about. I will say the prefixed forms are
> the only truly fientive verb forms in standard BH.

I'm trying to put a concrete example in my head, and it's late...so 1
Kings 11:1 says that King Solomon )HB many foreign women,
which describes a state of mind with him...in American idiom we
might say he had a "thing" for foreign women and it was eventually
his undoing. By contrast, Judges 16:4 says "after this, WY)HB
Samson a woman in the valley of Sorek," which means he "fell in
love" with this woman. The former describes a state, the latter is
fientive. Am I with you so far? This has real possibilities. What do
you see as the difference between the simple yiqtol and the
wayyiqtol?

The situation changes
> as the language evolves and the qatal ultimately replaces wayyiqtol.
> Although we see hints of this change in the BH corpus, it is not in full
> evidence in any section of the corpus.

Agreed.

> > Many traditional scholars say it is equivalent to qatal.
>
> A tangential point: I think I recall Christo van der Merwe suggesting in
> one paper that traditional teaching grammars are designed(who knows if it
> was conscious?) to serve source criticism. I think he may have been
> quoting someone. If you are really interested, I think I can look it up.
> In any case, one of our friends on list here mentioned the flood account as
> an important proof-text for documentary hypotheses. But it is only strong
> for DH, says I, if the wayyiqtol and qatal are considered equivalents,
> which I don't. If the wayyiqtol is thought of as a perfective past in the
> account and the qatal as providing stative-type background, the text as-is
> starts to make a lot more sense.

Excellent points. I fully agree that the wayyiqtol and qatal are not
equivalents. The task at hand is to figure each one out on its own
ground.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.



  • Re: WP , (continued)
    • Re: WP, Dave Washburn, 01/22/1999
    • Re: WP, Bryan Rocine, 01/22/1999
    • Re: WP, Lee R. Martin, 01/22/1999
    • Re: WP, Dave Washburn, 01/22/1999
    • Re: WP, Lee R. Martin, 01/22/1999
    • Re: WP, Dave Washburn, 01/22/1999
    • Re: WP, Dave Washburn, 01/22/1999
    • Re: WP, Lee R. Martin, 01/23/1999
    • Re: WP, Lee R. Martin, 01/23/1999
      • Re: WP, Dave Washburn, 01/23/1999
    • Re: WP, Dave Washburn, 01/23/1999
    • Re[2]: WP, Peter_Kirk, 01/23/1999
    • Re: WP, Rolf Furuli, 01/23/1999
    • Re: WP, Rolf Furuli, 01/23/1999
    • Re[2]: WP, Peter_Kirk, 01/23/1999
    • Re[2]: WP, Peter_Kirk, 01/23/1999
    • Re[2]: WP, Rolf Furuli, 01/23/1999
    • Re: WP, Bryan Rocine, 01/23/1999
    • Re: Re[2]: WP, Dave Washburn, 01/23/1999
    • Re[3]: WP, Peter_Kirk, 01/23/1999
    • Re: WP, Paul Zellmer, 01/23/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page