Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Rodney K. Duke wrote to Bryan:

>
>I have a couple of questions:
>1) Are these views on aspect in the revised version of your textbook,
>and if so where?
>
>2) Regarding wayyiqtol: It is one matter to say that wayyiqtol is
>'inherently perfective' and another matter to evaluate Furuli's thesis
>regarding the yiqtol in wayyiqtol.  Might it not be that the yiqtol
>focuses in on an action/time-segment of a larger event (as perceived in
>the mind of the speaker) and that the wa+doubling adds a forward-moving
>Reference Time that creates a sense of sequentiality and hence
>perfectivity to most wayyiqtols?
>
>3) Regarding qatal: I think I am beginning to see a difference between
>what you and Furuli are suggesting--sorry I'm so slow.  At first it
>seemed that your model of qatal as presenting a state-of-being of the
>subject was not much different than saying that qatal presented an event
>time-segment as a whole.  Now, if I understand correctly, Furuli is
>claiming that the qatal presents an inclusive beginning-to-end event
>time, and hence a perfective/complete state; whereas you see qatal as
>making a statement about the state-of-being of a subject at a given
>point in time which does not preclude that verbal action/event has yet
>ended.  Am I getting it?
>



Dear Rod,

You have asked a series of important questions in your recent posts. This
has been a help to focus on the real issues regarding the meaning of the
verb forms. To your question 2) above, I have a question to those on the
list who believe that the WA(YY)-element of WAYYIQTOL is more than a simple
conjunction:

For the sake of argument, please leave alone any preconceived ideas about
the meaning or use of the verb forms. Then /conjunction, sequence/, on the
basis of grammatical, syntactical, or other linguistic arguments, show that
the simple conjunction WA/WE prefixed to verbs form cannot drive  the
account forwards in the same way as WA(YY)  is able to drive the account
forwards. To state it differently: exactly which force is found in the
WA(YY)- element (a force being able to make a temporal sequence out of a
chain of verbs) which is not found in the conjunction WA/WE?

Take Genesis 1:3-5 (NIV) as an example:

1:3 And God said (WAYIQTOL),  "Let there be light," and there was light
(WAYYIQTOL).
1:4 God saw (WAYYIQTOL) that the light was good, and he separated
(WAYYIQTOL) the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called (WAYYIQTOL) the
light "day," and the darkness he called (QATAL) "night." And there was
(WAYYIQTOL) evening, and there was (WAYYIQTOL) morning - the first day.

Is not the conjunction WA/WE enough to make a temporal sequence out of the
five WAYYIQTOLS before the QATAL?  If not, please show why? More
problematic are the two WAYYIQTOLS after the QATAL. The RT of the first
seems to coincide with the RT of the first WAYYIQTOL of v 3, and the RT of
the last seems to coincide with the RT of the QATAL, so the two last
WAYYIQTOLs seem to include the whole sequence mentioned in vv 3,4, and 5
rather than adding to the sequence.





>
Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo