Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter wrote:

> 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.

This is possible; however, I have to go with Paul here.  It looks to 
me like a 1cp yiqtol.  Here's what he said:
--
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.
--

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

Holladay, following K-B, lists this form as a hiph`il yiqtol and 
specifically refers to 2 Sam 17:12, with the parenthesis "oth.: nif. 
pf."  Since the clause is clearly referring to intention and not past, 
which I see as modal, I suspect that Holladay is correct and it's 
another yiqtol 1cp.  

Thus, wrt nimcf, I see it as a yiqtol "wherever we may find [them]," 
and wrt welo' notar, I see this also as a yiqtol, "we won't leave a 
single one alive."  

> 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. 

Yes.  I disagree with the NIV's rendering of nimcf, "wherever he 
maybe found," and prefer "wherever we may find him."  The fact 
that these future statement never actually came to pass suggests 
strongly that the future is in fact a modal, involving quantification 
over possible worlds.

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.

Yes.

> 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.

Good point.  I would merely point out that "hot dog" is an idiom, i.e. 
an expression whose meaning is more than the sum of its parts.  
At the same time, I fully agree about the "magic morpheme" thing.  
Is there something magical about the infixed sigma that makes a 
Greek aorist?  The Greek future was formed with an infixed sigma 
as well; does that mean they're the same thing?  Outside the 
indicative, it's hard to tell the difference between future indicative 
and aorist subjunctive.  Does that mean they're the same thing, 
that there's no difference between them?  Hardly.  Closer to home, 
we have two prefixed he's in Hebrew, the definite article and the 
interrogative particle.  They use the same consonant, and the only 
perceivable difference is in notation; it's doubtful that there was very 
much, if any, real pronunciation difference between them.  Does 
that mean they're the same thing?  I don't think so.  I view the waw 
of the conjunction vis-a-vis the weqatal and wayyiqtol the same 
way.  Homonyms are very real phenomena in most all languages 
that I know of.

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