Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

How are you, Rolf!

you wrote:
> Dear TAM-niks,
> 
> So far I have not seen anybody comment on my Joshua question, so I repeat
> it below:
> 
> 
> The division of the promised land in Joshua 13-19 will, In addition to
the
> building of the tabernacle, be a very fine place to compare verb forms.
> Here we find the same static situation of how the borders of the
inherited
> lots "go out/went out", "pass/passed", "go up/went up", and
"turn/turned".
> I can see no reason why the different verbs describing this static
> situation should have different meaning.
> 
> Look at Joshua 16 and 17.
> 
> 16:1 : One wayyiqtol and  one participle
> 16: 2-3: four weqatals

Vv. 1-4 is a narrative unit, like a paragraph, begun and ended by
wayyiqtols:  "The lot came out...and they took possession."  These two
wayyiqtols, taken together are all there is to the story-line in this
paragraph.  They are able to move the story-line forward (two notches,
figuratively speaking) because they are perfective in aspect.  

As to the weqatals in vv. 1-4, they are simply qatals with conjunctions. 
They are not perfective, something we can tell by the fact that they are
*not* moving the story time forward and that they can be compatible with
the lone participle.  They express the states of their subjects at the time
being talked about.  This. I believe is the uncancellable meaning of a
qatal/weqatal.  The series is like saying in English, "At that time the lot
went out, over, down, etc."   The meaning of the wayyiqtol of the root yc'
is different than the weqatal of the same root, in my opinion.  I think the
wayyiqtol refers to the goral happening (as in, "the score of the game
*came out* in our favor"), and the weqatal to describing the location of
the goral.

Notice that I translated both the wayyiqtols and the weqatals with the
English simple past.  This should not suggest to us that the wayyiqtol and
weqatal are equal.  It's just that there is a flexibility in the English
simple past form which allows it to translate both Hebrew forms.  Look at
the simple past *ran*:

a.  I ran the race.  (perfective and narrative mainline)
b.  I ran that race all my life.  (imperfective and background if in a
narrative)
c.  He finished the race I already ran.  (perfect and relative past
background)

The posiibilities in the English examples are activated by the other words
in the sentences that accompany *ran*.  This flexibility in English is one
of the things that makes it a pretty hard language to learn.   I think BH
has flexibility, too, but not as much as English.  The wayyiqtol is
equivalent to a. above.  The weqatal is not exactly the same as any of
them.  If I were to translate the meaning of the weqatal of 16:2 veyaca' as
literally as possible I would suggest "and it was a goer forth," as
compared to v. 1's `oleh, "was going up."

> 16:5: Two wayyiqtols
> 16: 8: One yiqtol and one weqatal

The yiqtol is just like the English example b. above.

> 17:10: One wayyiqtol and one yiqtol
> 
> Do you see any difference in tense or aspect in these verbs? 

By tense you mean time?  No difference.  Aspect?  Yes, there's a
difference.  And how about a third parameter that helps us talk about BH
verbs in particular?  It's the child of a brown-eyed mother named Mood and
a blue-eyed father named Aspect. He's green-eyed and uniquely handsome, and
his name is Subjective Viewpoint.

HTH and shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)