Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

1) On  04/23/99 (Re: Alviero Niccacci, 2Sam 12) Lee R. Martin wrote:

> > > 123 x-qatal,background=And the LORD loved him,
> > > 124 wayyiqtol,narrative=and sent a message by Nathan the prophet;
> > > 125 wayyiqtol,narrative=and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the
> > > LORD.
> >
> >
> > 123 x-qatal, background. You may look for I way of rendering this
>background construction, e.g.: "she called his name Solomon because the
>Lord loved him," or "While the Lord..." This clause may be intended to
>introduce the second, prophetic naming of the child.
>
> Dear Professor,
> Thank you for you comments.  They are very helpful.
> My first impression of line 123 was that it should go with lines 124-25
>as antecedent and/or topicalization, especially  since YHWH is not
>repeated as the subject in 124. You seem to be open to that possibility.
>However, I am very hesitant to discount the traditional versification.
>Have you seen other cases similar to this one?
>
------------------------REPLY-----------------------------------------------

Dear Lee Martin,

1) Your proposal of anlysis of sentences 123-125 (2Sam. 12:24b-25) is
syntactically possible.  I do not think that traditional versification is
an obstacle. If I understand you correctly, similar cases are 1Kigs 19:3b-4
and 2Kgs 5:24b-25; see my _Syntax_ #42.

=============================================================================

2) On  04/23/99 (Alviero Niccacci--weqatal) Lee R. Martin wrote:


> Dear Professor,
> I hope that I am not annoying you with my continual questions.  I
> appreciate your assistance.
> You have stated very plainly that weqatal is *not* modal/volitional, yet
> in your _Syntax_ (the English translation), the situation is not clear
> to me. Section 57 says that it is a "continuation form.... Often it
> continues an imperative as also does the weyiqtol." In section 59 you
> say, "...weqatal is the basic tense for giving an order or
> instruction..." Orders and instructions are volitional, not simple
> future.  In section 61, however, you say that the inverted forms
> (weqatal, weqatalta, etc.) "simply indicate a series of future actions."
> See also section 64.  Is section 59 poorly translated?  It seems to
> contradict sections 61-64.  In Section 58, in the translation of Exodus
> 26:3-6, the weqatals are translated just like the weyiqtols: "you
> shall..." (except for the last one, wehayah).
> What have I missed?


--------------------------REPLY-----------------------------------------------

2) I do not think you have missed anything. Despite the excellent work done
by Wilfred Watson, several inaccuracies remained in the translation of my
Italian original. Unfortunately I was not given the chance of correcting
the proofs.
In section 57 the situation is described. After an imperative one finds
both a weyiqtol and a weqatal. The function of these two verbforms is
expplained afterwards.
In section 59 the text should read, "... weqatal is the basic form for
giving sn instruction."
Section 61 correctly reads that weqatal simply indicates simple,
nonvolitive future.
Some passages should be corrected, e.g. on page 85, after the English
translation ofthe Exodus passages,  the text should read, "... replaces
both the weqatal (instruction)", instead of (command). The same at the
beginning of page 87: 1 Kgs 17.4 (instruction), and in the table on page
88: Instruction (after the initial imperative).
The translation of Exod. 26:3-6 should have "shall" (if this is for
instruction, prevision, or simple future).

============================================================================

3) On  04/27/99 (Alviero Niccacci--2Sam 12:10) Lee R. Martin wrote:


> Dear Professor Niccacci,
> Would you please explain the syntax of 2 Sam. 12:10.  I have copied the
> following text from my previous post.
>
> 40 x-yiqtol, simple future =   Now the sword shall never depart from
> your house,
> 41 x-qatal,  reason=     because you despised me,
> 42 wayyiqtol, narrative=    and have taken the wife of Uriah …
>
> It appears to me that 41 and 42 function as protasis, with 40 being the
> apodosis.  Would you describe 42 as continuative wayyiqtol?  42 seems to
> give the details of 41 in much the same way that x-qatals add detail to
> wayyiqtols in hist. narrative.

---------------------------------REPLY---------------------------------------

3) Regarding 2Sam. 12:10, I am not sure that I quite understand your idea.
By definition, protasis is something that comes first, apodosis something
that comes after. If things are reversed we have a different construction.
I mean that in BH the construction protasis + apodosis is something
specific, distinct from a structure with reverse order, i.e. when the main
sentence comes first and the subordinate sentence follows.
Actually, the structure protasis + apodosis is a development of a single
sentence type verb + x (subject, etc.), while a structure with main
sentence + subordinate sentence is a deveopment of a single sentence type x
+ finite verbform. They distinctively different structures.

Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci