Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

The Westminster database parses NIMCA' in 2 Samuel 17:12 as "verb, 
nifal, perfect, third person, masculine, singular". And with good 
reason, I think. If this were indeed a qal YIQTOL 2nd person plural, 
surely there should be an object "him", either a suffix on the verb or 
'ITTO, as the qal verb is transitive and 'ASHER does not act as an 
object, in fact (as I showed a few months ago) plays no syntactic role 
in the subordinate relative clause but functions syntactically as part 
of the main clause.

If "hot dog" is an idiom, is there anything to stop WEQATAL from being 
an idiom in the same sense? You may be right that there are two 
different WE-'s just as there are two different HA-'s (interestingly, 
one with gemination and the other without, just like the difference 
between the WAYYIQTOL WA- and the ordinary conjunction). But then is 
there a discernible difference (synchronically) between two homonym 
WE-'s and two uses of the same morpheme which have developed separate 
meanings?

By the way, I disagree with your analysis of Greek verbs. I see aorist 
and future as two different tense forms of the same aspect which is 
marked with an -s suffixed (not infixed) to the verb stem. Thus future 
and aorist are related in the same way as present and imperfect, also 
perfect and pluperfect in a third aspect. The "aorist subjunctive" 
relates to the aspect and so equally to aorist and to the future, and 
the similarity between future and aorist subjunctive is totally 
analogous to that between present indicative and present subjunctive. 
A comparison with Russian helps to make clear this simplification.

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: The form of weqatal
Author:  dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date:    22/07/1999 11:59


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.
--
<snip>

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.