Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: The form of weqatal

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: Re[2]: The form of weqatal
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:16:57 -0400


In 2 Samuel 17:12 NIMCA' (in contrast to the other verbs in this
verse) is past, relative to the reference time which is that of the
main clause, as commonly in ASHER clauses irrespective of the verb
form of the main clause. Clearly the enemy had to be found BEFORE he
could be attacked.

I accept WELO-NOTAR as a difficult form which needs close study.

In 2 Samuel 17:17 we have a regular sequence of WEQATAL and X-YIQTOL
forms indicating non-past events. As NIV translates them, these events
were intended events which never took place because they were caught
by Absalom first, and so there is some modal force. RSV and NRSV
translate these as frequentative. There is clearly something going on
here apart from the simple past, as otherwise the normal WAYYIQTOL and
X-QATAL forms would surely have been used.

Meanwhile on WEQATAL, I don't know what the fuss is about alleged
"magic morphemes". Take the English expression "hot dog". Is there
something "magic" about the morpheme "hot" which enables it to
transform "dog" from an animal to a snack? Is this word "hot"
something other than the normal word "hot"? Is the theory nullified or
confirmed by the fact that one can also describe one's pet after a run
in the summer as a "hot dog"? Is it relevant that there may be slight
phonological differences (depending on dialect?) between the
pronunciation of "hot dog" in these two cases? I strongly suspect that
if we can answer these questions satisfactorily we will be somewhat
closer to understanding how WEQATAL relates to the normal conjunction
followed by QATAL.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: The form of weqatal
Author: furuli AT online.no at internet
Date: 21/07/1999 04:07

<snip>

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










---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page