Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Re: WEQATAL NONVOLITIVE

On  02/25/99 (WEQATAL NONVOLITIVE) Lee R. Martin wrote:


> Alviero Niccacci wrote:
> >>BTW weyiqtol is a volitive form, differently from weqatal which is
> non-volitive.-->>
>
> Dear Professor,
> Doesn't weqatal function as continuation of volitive forms?  Would  you
> say that these functions are not volitive, or that these functions are
> not essential to weqatal, but are continuative only?

Dear Lee R. Martin,

I think that BH has two distinct sets of "future" verbforms:

- Non-volitive set (simple future):
      = speech-initial form: x-yiqtol (or non-verbal sentence)
        = continuation form: weqatal
    = secondary-line (or background of a preceding weqatal): x-yiqtol;

- Volitive set:
       = speech-initial: (sentence-initial) yiqtol, or x-yiqtol
        = continuation form: weyiqtol
   = secondary-line (or background to a preceding weyiqtol): x-yiqtol.

Note that weqatal as well as weyiqtol are not found right at the beginning of direct speech; they are continuation forms. Exceptions are really few, as far as I know, and accountable.
Accordingly, weqatal indicates (non-intended) consequence while weyiqtol (intended) finality. Although consequence and finality are very close semantic entities and are often confused by interpreters, I think that BH uses distinctive verbforms for them.

The best syntactic setting for non-volitive verbforms are the announcements of the plagues in  Exodus; see, e.g., Exod. 7:17-18. The actual announcement begins with a non-verbal sentence with participle ("Behold, I am going to strike") and continues with weqatal ("and the water shall be turned to blood"); it then shift to waw-x-yiqtol in order to convey the idea of an immediate death of the fish as its consequence ("while, or: and immediately the fish in the Nile shall die"). These are simple-future, non-volitive announcements.

The best syntactic setting for the volitive verbforms is the priestly blessing in Num. 6:24-26: "May the Lord bless you [SENTECE INITIAL YIQTOL] and keep you [WEYIQTOL]" etc. (two more times the same sequence).

Note that the blessing formula is framed by an instruction by God to Moses which begins with non-volitve x-yiqtol ("Thus you shall bless the Israelites", v. 22) and ends with a non-volitive weqatal followed by its background/secondary-line counterpart x-yiqtol: "Thus (Aaron and his sons) shall put my name upon the Israelites [WEQATAL] and I, on my part, I will bless them [WAW-X-YIQTOL]" (v. 27).

Clearly enough, weqatal discontinues the volitive chain of sentence-initial yiqtol + weyiqtol; it gives the consequence of the blessing while the following waw-x-yiqtol informs that the blessing of God himself will come together with the blessing of the priests.

Besides these (and other) clear cases, there are many more cases where we find different verbforms in the same context. A common case is a sequence type *imperative followed by (->) weyiqtol* or *imperative -> weqatal*. The problem is, of course, whether or not these sequences have a different meaning.

Actually, a few examples confirm the above opposition between non-volitive weqatal and  volitive weyiqtol. Compare, e.g.,
- Exod. 25:2 (order): "Speak [IMPERATIVE] to the Israelites, THAT THEY TAKE [WEYIQTOL] for me an offering"
and Exod. 35:4-5 (execution of that order): "Moses said to the congregation of the Israelites...: TAKE [IMPERATIVE] from among you an offering for the Lord". Clearly, the indirect command (weyiqtol) in Exod. 25:2 is replaced by a direct command (imperative) in Exod. 35:5 and both are volitive. Further, see Lev. 16:2 where the indirect command is negative *we'al + yiqtol*, which is the expected negative counterpart of weyiqtol.
- 1 Chron. 14:10: "(God to David) Go up [IMPERATIVE] and [AS A CONSEQUENCE] I will given them [WEQATAL] into your hand"
and 2 Sam. 5:19 (parallel passage): "Go up [IMPERATIVE], FOR I WILL CERTAINLY GIVE [kî-natôn 'etten] the Philistines into your hands".

That is why I think that the same difference applies even to less evident cases. I did not find cases where this proves impossible.
Although many authorities object to the overall validity of this analysis, still it is only reasonable to assume that different verbforms play different syntactic functions.
Those interested may refer to my paper "A Neglected Point of Herbrew Syntax..." in _Liber Annuus_ 37 (1987) 7-19, and/or to _Syntax_ ##61-65. A different opinios has been put forward by T. Muraoka in E. van Wolde (ed.), _Narrative Syntax & the Hebrew Bible_ 229-241.
Peace and all good.

Alviero Niccacci

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel

Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email           mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il