Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Dave,

As you know, it takes much time to continue a discussion in an intelligent
way, so I think I better return to my research. Just a few remarks
regarding the big lines.

I own a copy of Galia's work but I have not yet studied her arguments in
depth. I am open for the possibility that the range of modality in Hebrew
is different from that of English; i.e. that Hebrew uses modal forms in
some areas where the English mind would view the situation as indicative.
Thus we have the tendency of the use of the short form (connected with
Jussive) of the verb in WAYYIQTOLs . We find the same situation in Accadian
where the short stem IPRUS is the normal narrative form and at the same
time is the basis for the modal forms (Precative and Cohortative). In Ge'ez
we also have the short Subjunctive (YINGER) and the long imperfect
(YENAGGER). I will later explore these patterns, and if the short form is
used in WAYYIQTOL constructions whenever possible, we may perhaps redefine
the borders of modality in Hebrew.

However, to ascribe a semantic (uncancellable) property "modality" to
WEQATAL is highly problematic. At least two points must be cleared up
before one can do that:

(1) One has to demonstrate that there is a difference between WEQATAL  and
WE+QATAL used with past meaning. This has never been done and is an
interesting challenge. In my view there is no difference.
(2) One has to find clear criteria which can differentiate between future
meaning and modality. This is difficult, and it seems that a modal analysis
of WEQATAL is somewhat selfserving, because most verbs with future meaning
can also, if this is our belief, be interpreted as modals.

One example of WEQATAL which I find very difficult to view as modal, is 2
Samuel 9:7. The verse starts with the modal expression "Do not be afraid".
It continues with a promise which is made definite by the infinitive
absolute and this promise is continued with a WEQATAL. To see this WEQATAL
as modal is tantamount to saying that future meaning does not exist at all
but everything future is modal. Think also of the promises made by God and
expressed by WEQATALs. Are they also modal? Just a few examples of
non-modal WEQATALs are enough to show that modality is not un uncancelable
property of WEQATAL, and therefore it is not semantic but pragmatic.

Two last points for those who believe that Hebrew has four conjugations
(YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL) and not just two, as I believe.
Take a look at 2 Samuel 17:12, which is a verse referring to the future. At
the beginning we find a WEQATAL with future (or modal) meaning. Then comes
the QATAL NIMCF which has modal (or future) meaning. What is interesting,
is that this verb occurs as a QATAL and not as a WEQATAL. Why? Because of
the relative particle  before it. If the WE of WEQATAL introduce a new
semantic element and changes the meaning of a normal QATAL (which commonly
is viewed as past) to a modal or future meaning, then we would hardly
expect that QATAL without this WE would have a modal or future meaning. But
this is the case here! And further, look at the words WELO-NOTAR. The last
element NOTAR is a QATAL  with future (or modal) meaning. And why does it
not occur as a WEQATAL? Because of the negative particle before it; the WE
, which we syntactically would expect, is connected with LO and not with
NOTAR.  The meaning of both QATALs (NIMCF and NOTAR) is exactly the same as
if they were expressed as WEQATALs without preceding particles. There are a
lot of such examples in the MT, and they show that the WE is a syntactic
element and not a semantic one. When you read your texts, look out for such
examples!

Let me add that a similar situation as the one described above also exists
for WAYYIQTOL. There are several examples (of which I plan to make a list)
where we have a narrative context where WAYYIQTOLs are expected, but where
we instead find a YIQTOL because a pronoun or a particle preceeds the verb.
This shows in a similar way that the WAYY is not a semantic element. One
example is 2 Samuel 17:17. Here we find three WEQATALs with past meaning
where WE clearly is syntactical (co-ordinating). Before the last one, we
find the verb HLK expressed as a YIQTOL. Why is it not expressed as a
WAYYIQTOL? Because of the preceding pronoun. The co-ordinating WAW is
connected with the pronoun, and if the pronoun were absent, we would
evidently have had  a WAYYIQTOL.  Please look out for examples of this
kind, also, when you read your texts!


Regards
Rolf

rolf furuli
University of Oslo