Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Rolf, 
> RF:
> >The purpose is to find out to
> >> which degree the penultimate accentuation of  WEQATAL is connected with
> >> particular groups of verbs (for example lamed he verbs) and how many are
> >> pausal forms. I am also collecting all QATALS with future meaning, and 
> >> they
> >> are not few! Already at this point (about one third of the collecting 
> >> work
> >> is done), it is quite clear to me that WEQATAL does not represent ONE
> >> particular mood or that it represents ONE tense (future). Examples of
> >> indicative, imperative, "subjunctive", and "optative" can be found, as 
> >> well
> >> as past, present, and future time.
> 
>  DW:
> >This sounds a lot like Galia's conclusion that it's a modal form...
> 
RF:
> Comrie points out that there has been some discussion about whether English
> has a future tense, or whether "future" simply is a mood, because what is
> future is not certain. We have a similar problem in Hebrew. A great number
> of WEQATALs *serve* as imperatives (they often follow an imperative in the
> same person and number). But this is pragmatic implicature rather than
> semantic meaning. 

Not necessarily, if (as seems to be the case) imperatival force is a 
subset of modality.

As mentioned, most WEQATALs represent direct speech, and
> because of this, they either have  present meaning (a few) or future
> meaning, or are modal. Because of this, and because futurity and modality
> may be quite close to one another, it is easy to ascribe modality to more
> examples than is necessary. It seems to be quite certain that modality both
> in WEYIQTOLs and in WEQATALs  is pragmatic and not semantic.

I don't see the connection or how this conclusion is reached.

> I am at present working with Samuel. Look at the following examples:
> 
> (1) 1 Sam 10:2. The first two WEQATALS with future meaning cannot be
> anything but indicative. The third WEQATAL (D(G) has present meaning and
> must also be indicative.

I disagree.  The first two are part of an apodosis of sorts:

[Protasis]
When you leave me today
[Apodosis]
You will meet two men
[Apodosis]
They will tell you such and such

As Galia's material makes clear, modality involves quantification 
over possible worlds, and the apodosis of a condition (even one of 
this type) falls into that category: if and when the protasis is 
fulfilled, the apodosis will follow, and hence a modal form is 
appropriate.  W&O even seem to accept Moran's suggestion that 
weqatal originated as an apodosis form.  I'm not so sure about that 
(I haven't read Moran yet), but it seems clear that the apodosis of a 
condition is one of weqatal's most common uses.  The third one is 
more problematic, to be sure.  I'd like to hear Galia's take on this 
one if she's following this thread.

> The pragmatic nature of the temporal meaning is illustrated by the next
> examples:
> 
> (2) The words "afraid for us" in 1 Sam 9:5 and "afraid for you" in 1 Sam
> 10:2 refer to the same situation and both are expressed by WEQATALs, yet
> their temporal reference is different (The difference in stress is
> explained by Henry's rule).  The example in 9:5 has future meaning while
> the one in 10:2 has present meaning. These meanings cannot be connected
> with the *form* but they are construed from the context; thus being
> pragmatic.

I agree that temporal meaning is pragmatic.  No problem there.  
However, it's clear also that the one in 9:5 is modal, falling as it 
does in a PEN- clause.  I wholeheartedly agree that the "tenses" 
are not temporal indicators at all.

> (3) The meaning of WEHAYF in 1 Samuel 10:7 is future but the meaning of the
> same word in 1 Samuel 10:9  is past. And again, the temporal meaning must
> be construed on the basis of the context.

Agreed.  At the same time, I have to point out two things: 1) 
WEHAYF and WAYHI both exhibit a very different behavior than 
other verbs in Hebrew.  I've noticed that in just about every 
language I've looked at, "to be" verbs have their own subclass of 
behavior and usage.  So I tend to avoid HYH as a paradigm for 
usage of any of the "tenses."  2) There's a textual variant in 10:9; a 
small number of mss. read WAYHI, which seems to make much 
more sense in this context.  Attestation isn't phenomenal, to be 
sure, but it leaves it open to a certain amount of question.  The 
WEHAYF in 10:7 seems to be part of a temporal clause, the same 
as we often see WAYHI.

> RF
> >If we look for a common denominator of
> >> the WEQATALS with ultimate stress, it would be "direct speech" rather 
> >> than
> >> future meaning or modality. But even this does not fit completely, 
> >> because
> >> there are narrative examples with past meaning and ultimate stress as 
> >> well.
> 
> DW
> >Can you toss out a few examples?  (And let me know where I can
> >buy the finished product when it's complete!)
> 
> Most WEQATALs with past meaning have penultimate stress, but the word SXQ
> in 2 Samuel 6:21 has ultimate stress although it has past meaning. 

I'm not so sure about that.  The LXX translates it as a future, and in 
context it sure looks modal to me: "Before the Lord, who chose me 
from your father and from his whole house to make me ruler over 
the people of YHWH, over Israel! I should indeed play before the 
Lord; [22] I should humble myself etc."  LXX adds another future 
ORXHSOMAI to "before the Lord" where the Hebrew lacks a verb (it 
looks like an exclamation to me).  It adds this same word after 
"play" at the end of the verse.  It appears to me that David is 
describing what is fitting for him to do in light of what has 
transpired.  I don't see it as past and/or indicative at all.

My study
> of the QATAL/WEQATALs will be included in my thesis: I will let you know
> when it is finished.

I'll hold you to that!

> RF
> >> I agree with those who believe that the Masoretes pointed the text on the
> >> basis of what they heard recited in the synagogue. However,all the 
> >> examples
> >> of penultimate stress where we, on the basis of the general pattern, 
> >> would
> >> have expected  WEQATALs with ultimate stress, is a problem for this view.
> 
> RF
> >How so?  Could the stress patterns be related to the way they
> >were chanted/recited?  I don't follow you here, sorry.
> 
> The stress patterns evidently are related to the way they were
> chanted/recited. If the penultimate stress of the weqatals signals that
> there is a semantic difference between some QATALs with prefixed WE and
> other QATALs with the same prefix, we would expect two things:
> 
> (1) Ultimate stress would only occur with WEQATALs with the particular
> semantic meaning they should signal.

Yes.

> (2) A high consistency in the use of ultimate stress would occur, except
> when phonological reasons (including pausal forms)  required penultimate
> stress.

Yes.

> These expectations do not materialize - there is quite a lot of
> inconsistency. The reason can hardly be that the recitation in the
> synagogue was "wrong" or that the Masoretes erred in what they heard and
> wrote. The number of inconsistencies is too high for such explanations.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

> Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the ultimate stress indicates
> *one single semantic property*, and it is easier to think that it signals
> several pragmatic properties which can be grouped together.

I agree.  I don't think stress has anything to do with the form at all, 
and is conditioned by other factors.  Not being a phonologist, I have 
no idea what those factors are, but the stresses certainly don't 
seem to have any syntactic force.

> The matter of "linguistic convention" in Hebrew is highly neglected. If a
> language has no grammaticalized tenses, as I believe is the case with
> Hebrew, linguistic convention will be more important than in other
> languages. The convention seems to be that YIQTOL  is used as the basic
> form  for present and future, and QATAL is used as the basic form for the
> past. 

Or, using Galia's terminology, YIQTOL is the basic form for the 
modal, QATAL is the basic form for the indicative.

If both forms are aspects, they can both be used for past, present
> and future. But to help the understanding of the text, there may be
> different stress patterns when a form is used in areas where it is not the
> "basic" form. This may indicate that when QATAL  is used with non-past
> meaning (present,future, imperative, "subjunctive", and "optative"), the
> stress (in 1. and 2. pers.) is different from its use in past contexts. 

If you've looked at this in any detail, can you tell me how 
consistent this pattern is?

A
> model taking the penultimate stress as pragmatic rather than semantic could
> account for all the exceptions which are seen, while a semantic model would
> be hard pressed in this situation.

Agreed.  How about a phonological model?

> RF:
> >> It also militates against the view that the WEQATALs have a uniform 
> >> meaning
> >> ( either representing future tense or modality) and that the ultimate
> >> accentuation is a token of this. I will later report some of my findings.
> 
> DW:
> >WRT future tense, I agree.  WRT modality, I'm not so sure.  It
> >looks to me as though Galia has made a strong case for weqatal
> >as a modal.  After I read her book I went through the examples in
> >Waltke-O'Connor and found that her modality idea deals with pretty
> >much all of them.  Can you show a counter-example or two of the
> >type you're describing?
> >
> 
> A final word regarding WE. Nobody has ever pointed to a passage where the
> WE-element functions differently from a conjunction, 

With the WAYYIQTOL, I have done just that.  I'm beginning to lean 
in the same direction WRT WEQATAL.  That's why I was 
wondering about possible other pronunciations.  I have yet to see 
how a simple conjunction can have such a great effect on the force 
of a verbal conjugation.  I don't think it can.

but WEQATAL is used in
> final clauses, conditional clauses, temporal clauses etc and as a
> co-ordinating element, just as we would expect of a conjunction. The reason
> for the WE in the forms which in the grammars are called "perfect
> consecutive" simply is that the situations are direct speech, and the
> Hebrew idiom required a conjunction in such situations. 

Can you elaborate on how you arrived at ths conclusion?  (We may 
need to split this into several threads???)

The examples of
> WE+QATAL which are not counted as "perfect consecutive" occur i past
> narratives (a few represent direct speech in the past), and the WE simply
> serve as a co-ordinating factor. We do not expect verbs with imperative,
> "subjunctive", and "optative" meaning (in our Indo-European sense of the
> words) in past contexts, and therefore there is a "difference" between
> "imperfect consecutive" and  some forms of WE+QATAL. But this "difference"
> is not semantic (the WE is in all instances a simple conjunction), but the
> "difference" is connected with genre and linguistic convention, as
> described above.

Obviously I disagree :-)  I'm also not so sure that our Indo-European 
minds don't expect modal verbs in past contexts; "If I stayed in 
Wyoming, I'd be running the computer store in Powell now" is a 
modal conditional set in past time.  Granted that the condition 
didn't materialize (I moved to Arizona), but from the POV of the 
condition the potential was there and hence is a true modal 
statement.  Once again, I think Galia's material sheds a lot of light 
on this idea.

> I therefore conclude that "perfect consecutive" is non-existent - it simply
> is an artificial construction based on faulty premises - and that all
> QATALs with and without prefixed WE and with ultimate and penultimate
> stress represent the one and the same conjugation.

Interesting!  So you have come to the place where I was a year 
ago.  Some time back I suggested that there was no real 
WEQATAL conjugation and got bombarded.  After looking at it 
again, I concluded that there is such a thing, and now you've come 
to the point that I just left.  Don't you love this field???

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.