Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I realize this topic may be old hat by now, but this is the first 
chance I've had to sit down, study the discussion, and weigh in on 
the matter.  I'll be combining a couple of posts here and giving my 
responses.

>From Rolf:
> Dear list-members,
> 
> I have just completed a study of all the verbs (in their contexts) in the
> book of Isaiah.
> 
> Judging each form in the light of the deictic point and the reference time,
> I got the following statistics.
> 
> I found 1065 QATALs and 494 WEQATALs and 250 WAYYIQTOLs, 487 WEYIQTOLs, and
> 1366 YIQTOLs in the book.
> 
> The following forms are in my judgement problematic for the traditional
> four-component model:
> 
> 240 QATALs with future meaning.
> 201 QATALs with present meaning (including 22% with the words "Thus says 
> YHWH")
> (This means that 41% of all qatals are somewhat problematic.)

For most four-component models, agreed.  For mine, no.  Since 
my approach sees qatal as indicative with syntactic connection, 
tense is a function of context, not verb form.

> 34 WAYYIQTOLs with future meaning.
> 37 WAYYIQTOLs with present meaning.
> (This means that 28% of the WAYYIQTOLs are problematic; if we do not count
> the 65 WAYYIQTOLs in ch. 36-39, which are narrative, we find that 38% are
> problematic.)

I see wayyiqtol as indicative with syntactic break (i.e. an 
independent clause).  If the 34 truly do have future meaning, and 
like some others I wonder how this was arrived at, that is a bit of a 
problem since future is inherently modal.

> 14 WEYIQTOLs with past meaning.
> ( This is 2,8% of the 487 occurrences of weyiqtol.)
> 25 YIQTOLs past meaning.
> 5 YIQTOLs with perfect meaning.
> ( This is 2,2% of the 1366 occurrences)

Yiqtol is modal with syntactic connection, so of course "perfect 
meaning" is not a problem, and depending on surrounding context 
past most often need not be a problem either.

> In addition I found:
> 
> 64 sentence initial YIQTOLs (many are not modal in the Germanic sense of
> the word, in my judgement.)

What do you mean by "modal in the Germanic sense of the word"? 

> 92 sentence  initial QATALs.

Why is this significant?

[snip]
> I can think of no better text for a test of one's theory/model than the
> book of Isaiah. Some of the examples in my statistics above may be
> disputed, but the bulk of them has a firm foundation., Even if only 50% of
> my examples had a secure foundation, the numbers are alarming. A verbal
> model must be able to account for most uses of verbs in the Bible, so why
> not test yours against Isaiah and start with 44:12-17? If I have counted
> correctly, we find in these verses 11 QATALs, 3 WEQATALs, 11YIQTOLs, 5
> WEYIQTOLs, and 9 WAYYIQTOLs, and all of them seem to represent the same
> time!

That should tell us something about time and the Hebrew verb...

To this Peter responded with the following translation:

>The ironsmith fashions it:              verbless
>FIRST he works it over the coals;       WEQATAL
>THEN he shapes it with hammers,         X-YIQTOL
>I.E. he forges it with his strong arm;  WAYYIQTOL
>MEANWHILE he becomes hungry             X-QATAL
>SO THAT his strength fails,             verbless
>ALSO he drinks no water                 X-QATAL
>and AS A RESULT is faint.               WAYYIQTOL

I would offer the following rendition, with periods indicating the 
syntactic breaks:

The iron smith fashions it.   verbless
He will work it over the coals   WEQATAL
[So that] he can shape it with hammers. YIQTOL
He forges it with his strong arm. WAYYIQTOL
He will become hungry.  WEQATAL
His strength fails  verbless
[because] he drinks no water.  QATAL
He is faint   WAYYIQTOL

It is possible to translate the WEQATAL clauses as habituals or 
generics, "He works it...he becomes hungry."  I translated them as 
futures for simple convenience to illustrate the modality.

> A comparison of Isaiah 2:17 and 2:11 may show us something to look for in
> our studies. In v 17 we find three WEQATALs with future meaning. In v 11 we
> find a verse with exactly the same words (save a detail or two). The
> setting here is also future, and this is expressed by the same two
> WEQATALs, but the third WEQATAL        in v 17 is in v 11 a QATAL. Why? 
> Because
> of the syntax! Because the subject comes first a WE- is not possible, but
> the QATAL $PL has future meaning just as W$PL. 

There are a couple of things omitted here that have a direct bearing 
on how we understand the comparison.  Most important is the fact 
that, in v.17, the clauses have been rearranged.  The above makes 
it seem as though the verses are identical, but they aren't.  The 
key to the QATAL in v.11 is verse 10:

Go into the rocks, hide in the dust from the LORD and from the 
spendor of His majesty,
v.11
[because] the eyes of the arrogant will be humbled...

We have no such syntactic connection in v.17; verses 12-16 are 
just about the longest verbless clause I've ever seen, and the first 
clause of v.17 (weqatal) provides a syntactic break from it:
v.12
YHWH has a day for................
v.17
The haughtiness of man will be brought down.
The pride of men will be humbled.
YHWH alone will be exalted in that day.

Of course this is a completely new paradigm, based on a 
combination of mode and syntactic connection rather than tense, 
aspect or any of the more "traditional" approaches.  But so far it 
seems to work for explaining what we see in the verb patterns.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."