Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

I composed the following originally in reply to Rolf's posting re Mark 
Smith's book which mentioned 1 Kings 21:10. But I then found it 
relevant to the separate thread on volitive weyiqtol which arrived in 
the same batch of E-mail. My provisional conclusion from what follows 
as regards the volitive weyiqtol thread is that there are two separate 
weyiqtol conjugations, one which is apocopated, volitive and 3rd 
person only and can be considered as conjunction plus jussive, and 
another which is non-volitive and is found in all persons. (The 
consonantal forms WYMWT, which would be the non-volitive weyiqtol of 
MWT, is not found in the Hebrew Bible). The volitive weyiqtol can be 
chained together with imperatives (with change of subject) as in 1 
Kings 21:9-10. Read on...

By the way, Lambdin (section 107) describes "the important sequence" 
imperative/jussive/cohortative + imperfect/cohortative, with examples 
(not referenced) $:MA( ... W:)E$:LAX, K:TOB ... W:)E$:MA(, N"L:KFH ... 
W:YIMCF( . But my search engine can find none of these examples (where 
the two words are in the same verse). In section 197 Lambdin admits 
that his example HAR:X"B LFNW. W:NIP:REH BF)FREC is hypothetical but 
calls it "normal". So was Lambdin simply wrong?

Dear Rolf

I don't know Mark Smith's book and I don't know about WAYYIQTOL at 
Qumran. But I was interested in your discussion comments on apocopated 
WEYIQTOL forms in the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Kings 21:10 W:YFMOT can 
surely be analysed as the conjunction plus jussive, not "and he will 
die" but "and let him die". This form completes a string of 
imperatives in this verse and the previous one, each except the first 
with the conjunction, and also within the string another jussive 
WEYIQTOL form WIY(IDUHW. . This contrasts with the narrative of the 
same event in 1 Kings 21:13, in which a string of WAYYIQTOL forms ends 
with WAY.FMOT "and he died". The form W:YFMOT is also found in Judges 
6:30, also with jussive meaning. Both of these examples are in pause 
and have final stress, hence holem rather than qamets-hatuf in the 
last syllable.

Of the 71 apocopated WEYIQTOL forms, how many appear to be jussive in 
meaning, and how many cannot be jussive? Are the remaining 79% those 
which could be apocopated but are not, or are they all of those which 
are not apocopated? Do those which could be apocopated but are not 
ever have jussive meaning?

This evidence is interesting in that it shows a clear distinction 
between conjunction plus jussive and wayyiqtol, i.e. between W:YFMOT 
and the ubiquitous WAY.FMFT or (in pause and other cases with final 
stress) WAY.FMOT [134 occurrences of the consonantal form WYMT include 
some hiphils WAY.FMET]. This suggests that the distinction between W:- 
and WA- plus dagesh is not simply caused by the phonetic factors such 
as the stress retraction but is linked to the real semantic 
distinction between "and let him die" (1 Kings 21:10) and "and he 
died" (1 Kings 21:13).

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Mark Smith's book on the waw-consecutive
Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet 
Date:    06/05/1999 02:36


Dear Andrew

Smith's book is a fine work and should not be neglected in a study of 
Hebrew verbs. While reading it, we should have in mind what  his basic 
premise is (p XI)  , namely, that wayyiqtol is a survival of "NWS *yaqtul 
preterite". His conclusions are not better than his premise.

The book has a very fine discussion in WAYYIQTOL at Qumran with a list of 
occurrences. However, his list is hardly complete.  He says (p 50) that 
there are no "converted imperfects" (perhaps except one) in the Temple 
Scroll.  For example, he lists WYMT "and he shall die." in LXIV 8 as an 
"unconverted imperfect" (weyiqtol). However, this verb is apocopated which 
would suggest a wayyiqtol. In the Bible, we find 71 examples (21%) of 
apocopated WEYIQTOLS, and 1 Kings 21:10 is similar to the WYMT in the 
Temple Scroll. However, in  LXIV 11 we have the full form in a similar 
clause (also L 10), showing that they used both forms. (I see another 
wayyiqtol with past meaning in LXV 8). Given his premise, Smith could 
hardly analyse a form with future meaning as WAYYIQTOL, and this 
illustrates that premises play an extremely important role in the 
interpretation of verbs.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo
<snip>