Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

 On  05/01/99 (Negative Imperative) Lee R. Martin wrote:


> Dear Professor,
> In looking over your list of negations (Feb.23), I did not see an
> indication of negative commands.  How do you interpret the Decalogue?
> In Exo. 20, we see the following
> verse 3, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 4, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 5, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 7, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 8, infinitive
> verse 9, x-yiqtol
> verse 12, imperative
> verse 13, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 14, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 15, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 16, lo'+yiqtol
> verse 17, lo'+yiqtol
> 
> You have said (Feb.23) that lo'+yiqtol is negative weqatal, but if
> weqatal is non-volitive, then lo'+yiqtol is also non-volitive.  If so,
> the 10 Commandments are not commandments at all.  Verse 12, however, is
> an imperative, so it is a commandment. Please explain how you understand
> these verses.
> 

On  05/01/99 (Re: Deut.6--Alviero Niccacci) you wrote:

< long snip)


> Just as you propose two kinds of wayyiqtol (narrative and continuative), I have wondered if  weqatal may also be of two types.  In some cases, weqatal may continue the tense and aspect of the preceding verb.  Have you considered such an idea?
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Another situation that causes confusion is when a series of weqatals occur within a double sentence, e.g.  Deu. 26:1-4, that says:
> 
> 1-when thou art come in unto the land (x-yiqtol)
> 2-which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance,
> 3-and possessest it, (weqatal)
> 4-and dwellest therein; (weqatal)
> 5-That thou shalt take  (weqatal) of the first of all the fruit of the earth,
> 6-which thou shalt bring  (weqatal) of thy land that the LORD thy God giveth thee,
> 7-and shalt put (weqatal) it in a basket,
> 8-and shalt go (weqatal) unto the place
> 9-which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name there.
> 10-And thou shalt go  (weqatal)unto the priest that shall be in those days,
> 11-and say  (weqatal)unto him, ...
> 12-And the priest shall take (weqatal) the basket out of thine hand,
> 13-and set it down  (weqatal)before the altar of the LORD thy God.
> 
> Line 1 is the protasis, but how do we know where the apodosis begins? Does the apodosis begin with line 3, or line 5 (RSV),  or line 10, or line 12?  There are numerous examples of this problem. (Num 15:2-3; Deu 7:1-2; 12:29-30; 17:14-15; 19:1-2, etc).

_____________________________REPLY______________________________________________
Dear Lee Martin,

The syntactic status of lo'+yiqtol is complex and puzzled me for a long time. What I am proposing is a consequence of a series of textual observations. 
As for the analysis of other verbforms, I started from clear cases. I then tried to consistently explain complex cases by applying the knowledge acquired previously unless they suggest the need for a different analysis.
E.g. in the case of wayyiqtol, clear cases suggested the necessity of positing, besides narrative wayyiqtol, also a continuation, nonnarrative wayyiqtol. This is not the case with weqatal and its negative counterpart, lo'+yiqtol. As far as my knowledge goes, all the cases can be explained by applying their nonvolitive value.

1) The system I am proposing is inferred indirectly from an opposition between a set of volitive forms and a set of nonvolitive forms.

- The novolitive set is as follows:
*speech-initial form: x-yiqtol
*continuation form: weqatal -- eventually, a chain of mainline weqatals
*offline form: x-yiqtol (background of weqatal)
*negative form of speech-initial x-yiqtol and of weqatal: lo'+yiqtol
*negative form of offline x-yiqtol: x-lo'+yiqtol.

- The volitive set is as follows:
*speech-initial form: yiqtol (x-yiqtol in some cases) = 3rd person / imperative = 2nd person / cohortative = 1st person
*continuation form:weyiqtol -- eventually, a chain of mainline weyiqtols
*offline form: x-yiqtol = 3rd and 1st person / x-imperative = 2nd person (background)
*negative form of mainline: 'al+yiqtol
*negative form of offline: x-'al+yiqtol.

2) The construction lo'+yiqtol --usually with long-form yiqtol-- is called sometimes (esp. in German studies) "prohibitive", while 'al+yiqtol --usually with short-form yiqtol-- is called "vetitive". Some scholars connected the prohibitive with laws, and the vetitive with wisdom instructions. However, there are cases in the Book of Proverbs in which prohibitive and vetitive are found in parallel lines. Thus, this opposition does not seem to be valid.
There is some similarity between the two construction as well as differences.

3) In his paper, "Tautological Infinitive," in _Israel Oriental Studies_, I (1971), pages 64-65, footn. 55, Gideon Goldenberg made a suggestion that may help clarify this problem. He writes as follows: 

"Notwithstanding some fluctuation, the relevant forms and constructions (for the 2nd pers.) may roughly be set out as in the following sketch:
I - order-recommandation-permission-wish:  positive: lek = "go!" -- negative: 'al telek "do not go!"; positive: bekû bakô (Jer. xxii 10) -- negative: wehamet 'al-temîtuhû (1 Kgs. iii 26--woman's petition)
II - statement of obligation: positive: $amôr / ti$mor... -- negative: lo' ta`Seh "you shall not make"; positive: $amor ti$mor "you shall keep" -- negative: wehamet lo' temîtuhû--definitive command)".

Maybe, "order-recommandation-permission-wish" correctly qualifies the volitive set of constructions, while "statement of obligation" qualifies the nonvolitive set of constructions.

In conclusion, the 10 Commandments remain commandments, just as the laws (which are expressed in the same way) remain laws.

4) In texts similar to Deut. 26:1-4, there is no syntactic indication as to where the protasis ends and the apodosis begins, because weqatal may serve as both protasis and apodis. In these cases a decision must be made on the basis of interpretation. Usually this is easy enough.
In Deut. 26:1-4, I would say that verse 1 is protasis and v. 2 ff. are the apodosis. It is a "casuistic" instruction: "(26:1) And it shall happen that when you will come to the land that the Lord your God is about to give to you for an inheritance, and you will take possession of it and you will dwell therein, (26:2) then you will take some ..." etc.
BTW, I thank you for your clarification that in formal English, in the 2nd person, "will" is non-volitive, while "shall" is volitive, but in the 1st person the opposite is true.

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