Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Dear Peter,
you wrote:
> Dear Bryan,
<noted and snipped>

> However, there is evidence from cognate languages that the
two [wayyiqtol and (X-) yiqtol] are
> derived from originally completely different paradigms.

O. K., I see what you're driving at.  Right. Two yiqtols.
So we run the risk of over-simplification (which, BTW, I do
admit and explain in my book when I present the "shared
meanings" chart).  Nevertheless, both the modal/preterite
yaqtul and the habitual past/non-past yaqtulu forms are
fientive and most often morphologically indistinguishable.
I can get away with describing wayyiqtol and yiqtol as
having shared meaning by pointing to this lowest common
denominator: fientivity (a word?  ;-)   ).  They are two
usually indistinguishable forms with a shared meaning.

You wrote re Exo 25:31 and 37:17
 But let's look
> at a pair of verses like 25:31 and 37:17:
<snip>

> focus on particular details. But then compare with 25:31.
Surely if
> WAY.A(A& is fientive, then W:(F&IYTF (WEQATAL) is also,
and if (F&FH
> and HFYW. are attributive, then T."(F&EH and YIH:YW. are
also. I don't
> see how the change of time or discourse type in otherwise
almost
> identical sentences can change the value of such meaning
components as
> fientive and attributive, especially in such an oddly
crossed over
> manner. People rightly mock the concept of "waw
conversive", but this
> "time conversive" or "discourse type conversive"
suggestion seems to
> me far harder to explain - and I see no evidence (apart
from the
> partial convergence of verb paradigms) that it actually
happens.
>
> I appreciate your idea of giving the QATAL a meaning like
"he was a
> maker of...". But to try to extend this to WEQATAL in the
context of
> Exodus 25 is quite inappropriate. In English "They will be
makers..."
> implies some kind of profession or at least habit. But in
this case
> the point is that they were to make one and one only
lampstand, ark
> etc.
<snip>

Yes, wanted to get into this alternation between weqatal and
X-yiqtol in Instructional Discourse and wayyiqtol and
X-qatal in Historical Narrative in my last post, but I felt
I was getting long.  So now that you bring it up...  ;-)

There is more than one way express an attribution.  For
instance, a nominal clause is a sort of attribution or
expression of state.  So following the Arab grammarians and
such esteemed Hebraists as Niccacci, we may view any clause
that begins with a nominal element as a nominal clause (or a
compound nominal clause when either the predicate or subject
itself contain a finite verb).  So we may view the X-yiqtol
clause as a good partner for the weqatal clause in terms of
"stativity."  The X-yiqtol clause, in its use of the 2nd
position verb and the fientive yiqtol arrests the mainline
of instructions to elaborate upon a particular procedure.

At the same time we can see the value of using the fientive
yiqtol (albeit in a "stative" syntax) as a complement to the
attributive weqatal.  We expect there to be some alternation
between stativity and activity on the mainline and
elaborative portions of a discourse.  Either the mainline
will be active and the offline stative as in Historical
Narrative or or the mainline will be stative and the offline
will have an active element as we see in Instructional
Discourse.  Review:

Historical Narrative:
mainline: wayyiqtol ("verbal" syntax, fientive verb)
off-the-line:  X-qatal ("stative" syntax, attributive verb)

Instructional Discourse:
mainline: weqatal ("verbal" syntax, attributive verb)
off-the-line: X-yiqtol ("stative" syntax, fientive verb)

As for as the "-er" translation I use for qatal and weqatal,
I realize it comes with some undesirable connotations in
English sometimes.  And I don't advocate a new translation
for general consumption, which uses the idiosyncratic and
wooden translation practice.  But I think it is an excellent
jumping-off point for students of BH and for discussion
purposes among folks who know some BH.  It reflects
something important:  a qatal is an attribution, not the
equal of a wayyiqtol.  Besides, the "-er" translation, while
it may suggest habit in English, does not necessarily mean
so.  Couldn't someone come into the camp of Israel and ask
"Who is the maker of this golden ark?" to which Betsaleel
would answer?  How do you like this translation of Psa 1:

"Oh the blessednesses of the man who is no walker in the
counsel of the wicked ones.  In the way of the sinning ones
he is no stander.  In the dwelling of the mocking ones he is
no dweller."

The point is that the generic (or habitual or gnomic) sense
is also common to the qatal as well as to the English "-er"
word.

Hoping to help,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267