Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Apologies to all for the happy99 worm I unknowingly sent (yes I did receive it
unkowingly from a trusted source who didn't know better either).  Thanks 
especially to
Don and Paul for forwarding instructions on its removal, and to Lee for 
recommending
Norton.

Rolf Furuli wrote:

> . . .
> So far, nobody has answered my question about the function of the Hebrew
> conjunction "and" and if it, without any mystical extra force, can move a
> narrative forward. I would just like to use some Aramaic examples where
> this is the case. So again I ask if there need to be more to the wa(yy) of
> wayyiqtol than the force of a simple conjunction.

<Aramaic examples cut>

Rolf, I would add that you can look at the Hebrew weqatal for frequentative 
past and
find that series of such verbs are predominantly sequential - in my view, for 
the same
reason that wayyiqtol series are predominantly sequential (i.e. stories are 
easier to
understand if told in order).

E.g. Exod 33:7-11
7 uMoshe yiqqax 'et ha'ohel       Moses used to take the tent
wena+ah lo mixuts lamaxaneh  and set it up outside the camp...
weqarah lo 'ohel mo`ed   and he called it the tent of meeting
[somebody please help me - what do we do with this one which is presumably a 
one-time
event?]
wehayah ... yetse'
8 wehayah ... yaqumu ... wenitsebu ... wehibbi+u
9 wehayah ... yered ... we`amad ... wedibber
10 wera'ah ... weqam ... wehishtaxawu
11 wedibber ... weshab 'el hammaxaneh

looks a lot like wayyiqtol chains to me.

(This is not to say that I am agreeing with you that there is no difference 
between
wayyiqtol and weyiqtol.  But I do agree there need be no more force to the 
wa(yy)-
than a simple conjunction - perhaps there was a more complex origin, but even 
if that
were the case, it could be something analogous to the etymological falacy to 
assume
that the original function was preserved by BH speakers and writers).

Yours,

John