Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <zellmer AT digitelone.com>]

Rolf Furuli wrote on Wednesday, July 21, 1999 11:54 PM

> Dear Paul,

> >Uh, excuse me, Rolf, but in the case of NIMCF), I believe the Qal
yiqtol
> >1cp is homographic to the niphal qatal 3ms.  Since the weqatals that
> >*are* found in this verse are 1cp, it is a definite possibility that
we
> >have a yiqtol in a dependent clause, which would be non-past relative
to
> >the reference time.
>
> Your information is formally correct, but in my view it is impossible
to
> apply to 2 Samuel 17:12.  The antecedent of NIMCF is "him", something
which
> is seen from )ELAW, which occurs both before and after  NIMCF.
>

Rolf, I would agree the antecedent for )$ER is the 3ms pronominal suffix
of the preposition,  but what demands that )$ER be the subject of the
dependent clause?  Could it not as easily be the *object* with the
<NUN>-prefix being the subject?  "Whom we will find" seems to work as
easily as "he who is [or will be] found," and the verb form does not run
contrary to expectation.

> >
> >I don't have an immediate thought on the WELO-NOTAR except that I
*did*
> >have to pull out my magnifying glass to make sure that it was a
pathah
> >under the tau and not a sere.  The sere would have indicated a qal
> >participle, which would have been non-past, right?
>
> The verb is YTR  and not NTR (which means "tremble", "leap") A passive
form
> of YTR fits the context but hardly a Qal participle of NTR.  So we
still
> have two QATALs with future meaning.

Actually, I was looking at YTR, but I was concentrating so much on the
last three consonants that I failed to differentiate between the YOD in
the qal participle and the NUN in the niphal.  I've just got to stop
working on these things so late at night!

However, although I am not appealing to this as the definite solution,
please note that it is only the pointing under the TAU that
differentiates between the niphal qatal and the niphal participle.  Hey,
it's you who kept bringing the unpointed text into the
WEYIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL discussion!

So we (possibly) have one QATAL (with LO) with future meaning, and, if
the pointing is slightly changed, no such QATALs.  Rather the QATAL
becomes a niphal participle expressing an imminent future occurrence.
> >
> >> 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!
> >>
> >Rolf, I can recall numerous postings pointing out that WAYYIQTOL
> >normally pairs with X-QATAL and WEQATAL pairs with X-YIQTOL.  I
believe
> >you would find that, were the pronoun absent, we would evidently
(based
> >on evidence) find a WEQATAL.  We appear to be in a passage describing
> >the normal recurrence of events, which is normally marked by a series
of
> >WEQATALs set in an historical passage.  Verse 18 breaks this
description
> >of the "normal" pattern, so we see the writer switch back to the
> >WAYYIQTOL.
>
> In any case, we have in 2 Samuel 17:17 a YIQTOL with past meaning,
> describing an event which were terminated, and this YIQTOL can neither
be
> habitual or iterative. The point I tried to convey was that there are
a lot
> of similar examples where the "normal" pattern would give a WAYYIQTOL,
but
> where we find a YIQTOL with past meaning, because it is preceded by a
> particle or a pronoun.

But even if this weqatal string is modal, stating a non-iterative
planned activity, or, as the NIV translates it, a combination of
iterative activity with a planned activity, why would you expect a
WAYYIQTOL here?  In that case, it does not describe an actual
occurrence, simply a planned action.  The first actual, non-iterative
occurrence occurs with the boy seeing and telling Absalom in verse 18.
Do you have other reports of plans which were unrealized at the time
that are described using a WAYYIQTOL?  In other words, what is
significant about the change from describing the maid's activities to
describing Jonathan and Ahimaaz' that would demand the switch from
WEQATAL to WAYYIQTOL?  I see none, so I would expect a WEQATAL, if
clause medial, as is the case in point, an X-YIQTOL.  And, were it
plans, the ET would be future (or at least non-past).

>In several such cases the waw is found before the
> particle or pronoun. If a reasonable number of such examples can be
found,
> they would arue in favour of YIQTOL having the same semantic meaning
as
> WAYYIQTOL, and the WAYY-element just being a conjunction. So look out
for
> such examples.

I look forward to seeing your other examples when your study get to the
reporting stage.  Perhaps the other examples will support the point you
are making.


Paul Zellmer