Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Apocopated and volitive WEYIQTOL

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Apocopated and volitive WEYIQTOL
  • Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 01:07:47 -0400


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>




  • Apocopated and volitive WEYIQTOL, peter_kirk, 05/06/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page