Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Vincent DeCaen wrote:

> chers b-haverim,
>
> the MORPH database parses both ZFQ"N and B.F) in 1kings 1:1 as
> pasts/perfects. in both cases this seems unlikely to me, but i was
> wondering what y'all thought. is ZFQ"N an adjective, participle or
> past tense? is B.F) participle or past tense?
>
> here's my thought. the construction taken as a whole is unlikely to be
> two qatals. while zaqen might be a tense form, ba' probably isn't;
> therefore it is a participle by default.
>
> the reading of zaqen as qatal is inconsistent in discourse context,
> with W:LO) Y"XFM LOW in the same verse: therefore it should be a
> verbless construction, therefore zaqen as adjective playing the role
> of nominal.
>
> any takers?
> cc offlist
>
> sholom
> V

Vince,

I agree that B.F) is more likely a participle than a qatal here.  However, I 
would not
be so quick to assign the adjectival meaning to ZFQ"N, for a couple three 
reasons.
First, the normal translation of this as a verb gives it a stative meaning.  
Second,
if these were two participles, would we not expect a waw on the B.F)?  Third, 
since
this story is giving the rationale for the transfer of the crown, there is 
nothing
inconsistent with an X-qatal in the discourse--the king *became* old.  To 
state that
the king *was* old (the participial idea) would weaken the change of 
situation from
the end of 2 Samuel to the beginning of Kings.

As far as YIXFM being adjectival, if I read the lexicons right, such a use 
would be
sexual in nature.  I confess I haven't looked up the references.  Yet a yiqtol
irrealis would seem appropriate here to show the continuous non-state.  And, 
since the
verb is clearly used in verse 2, that would take some of the steam out of your
argument, wouldn't it?

Just my thoughts,

Paul
--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph