Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Alviero Niccacci  wrote (the thread  Re: X-Qatal - wayyiqtol):
>

>
> We have here an example of CHRONOLOGICALLY non-sequential wayyiqtol (see
>my previous posting). A >similar thing is found in the previous verses
>4-6. There the order of the exposition is peculiar--Judah >defeated the
>Canaanites and the Perizzites at Bezek (v. 4); they found Adoni-bezek,
>fought against him >and defeated the Canaanites and the Perizzites (v. 5);
>Adoni-bezek fled, they pursued him etc. (v. 6). The >order is as follows:
>A (Canaanite-Perizzites), B (Adoni-bezek), A (Canaanites-Perizzites), B
>>(Adoni-bezek). Therefore the wayyiqtol *wayyimSe'û" in v. 5 has most
>probably an explicating function >as has *wayyakkû* later in the same
>verse. I would translate as follows: "ACTUALLY they found >Adoni-bezek at
>Bezek and fought against him, AND THUS they defeated the Canaanites and
>the Perizzites. >THEN (Adoni-bezek fled..."
>

Dear Alviero,

I agree it is very important to differentiate between "tense" and "time".
The concept "tense" is defined as "a grammaticalization of location in
time", i.e. it is grammaticalized "time". This means that "tense" is
connected with the verb *form* (or other morphemes connected with the verb
signalling a particular tense) and is completely independent of the
context. The English forms "went" and "thought" are marked for past tense
and this past tense is uncancellable in any context. True, these forms may
be used in irreal conditional clauses and other clauses, seemingly being
used in non-past contexts, but still they signal (+past) tense under the
particular circumstances.

Based on your differentiation between "time" and "tense" I have the
following questions:
(1) Is wayyiqtol a grammaticalized past tense?
(2) If so, does it have a past meaning in any context*?
(3) If it is not a past tense, what is then its meaning?

* A common argument regarding anomalous wayyiqtols and other forms is that
the reason for the unusual meaning is the genre; in poetry .... I have
never seen a single example from the whole BH where it is demonstrated that
a particular genre has changed the inherrent meaning of a verb form, but I
am open for examples. Different genres may tend to use particular forms,
but do not change their meaning.


I would also like to bring three yiqtol examples (RSV):


Job 3:3  "Let the day perish wherein I was born (yiqtol) , and the night
which said,  'A man-child is conceived.'(qatal)»
Deut. 32:10 ¶  "He found him (yiqtol) in a desert land, and in the howling
waste of the wilderness; he encircled (yiqtol) him, he cared for (yiqtol)
him, he kept him (yiqtol) as the apple of his eye."
Ex. 15:5 The floods cover (sic RSV) them (yiqtol); they went down (qatal)
into the depths like a stone.

The verbs "perish", "find" and "cover" are telic, and they are used in a
setting of past time, so their ends must be reached and passed.
(4) Is yiqtol a tense (for example (+future)?
(5) If so, how can it be used with past meaning?
(6) If it is not a tense, what is then its meaning?


>Our task is to try to understand and respect his order. That is why a
>correct syntactical analysis is the >basis of the interpretation. It is
>only the first step, but a necessary one. Unfortunately this step is
>>normally neglected.

I agree that a correct syntactical interpretation is important, and and I
find your syntactic comments and also those of Bryan and others very
illuminating. However, I think that a syntactic analysis should be the
second step, and that the first step should be to work with the
uncancelable properties of the verbal system, namely (+dynamicity),
(+durativity), (+telicity), (+past) and (+future), and see how these
properties can help us pin down the meaning of the Hebrew conjugations and
stems. A combination of this and discourse analysis can for example easily
help us explain the three yiqtol examples above.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo