Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

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.