Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Perfectivity of Wayyiqtols + Verbforms in Is 51

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Perfectivity of Wayyiqtols + Verbforms in Is 51
  • Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:20:53 +0200


Dear BH-list members,

1) Tenses need not represent real time and the actual course of events. Tenses reflect the way the speaker/writer presents events rather than the way the events actually happened.
Harald Weinrich made this distinction clear by using different words--"Tempus" versus "Zeit", i.e. tense versus time.
One needs SPECIFIC MORPHO-SYNTACTIC INDICATIONS--not simply interpretation based on the "course of events" as one sees it--in order to postulate 'non-wayyiqtol' uses of wayyiqtol.

2) I did postulate such uses in some cases. I called that form 'continuation wayyiqtol,' i.e. a wayyiqtol that is not found at the beginning of a string of selfsame verb forms but after a non-wayyiqtol verb form (or other constructions) with the function of carrying on the same time reference.

A clear such case that I quoted sometime in the past is 1Sam 25:1 versus 28:3:

- (25:1) wayyamot $emû'el wayyiqqabeTsû kol-yiSra'el wayyispedû lô wayyiqberuhû ...
- (28:3) û$emû'el met --- wayyispedû-lô kol-yiSra'el wayyiqberuhû...

- (25:1) "Then Samuel died and all Israel gathered and lamented over him and buried him ..."
- (28:3) "Now (the reader should remember that) Samuel HAD DIED and all Israel HAD LAMENTED over him and HAD BURIED him ..."

- (25:1) contains a string of NARRATIVE wayyiqtols because the first one continues a narrative chain of the same verbform started long beforehand.
- (28:3) resumes a piece of information already given in 25:1. It recalls it to the reader as a setting for the new story--in linguistic terms, a Wiederaufnahme, or resumptive repetition. The two wayyiqtols in 28:3 are CONTINUATION forms--not narrative forms. They carry on the same time reference as the preceding waw-x-qatal, i.e. pluperfect. In Weinrich's terms, they convey "recovered information."

Other cases of CONTINUATION wayyiqtol are listed in my _Syntax_ #146.

3) In cases where no MORPHO-SYNTACTIC INDICATIONS are available in the text, i.e. where no non-wayyiqtol form/construction precedes a wayyiqtol, I would not recommend postulating a 'non-wayyiqtol use' of wayyiqtol. The reason is that we are to discover the way the writer presents things rather than to interpret the verb forms on the basis of our understanding of the actual course of events or "ordo rerum."

As far as I can see, such is the case with the texts mentioned in the discussion on Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, i.e., Gen 38:28; 37:27; and Ruth 1:6.

4) The case of wayehî is similar. When wayehî introduces a circumstance placed before the main sentence (e.g. Gen 22:20), it is a continuation form--I called this 'macrosyntactic wayehî.' Its syntactic function is to avoid that the circumstance placed before the main sentence break the narrative chain; i.e. this wayehî brings the circumstance into the mainline of narrative.
Wayehî can also be followed by a noun as its subject (as is the case in 1 Sam 1:1)--I called this 'full verb.' The different name serves the practical purpose of distinguishing one wayehî from the other. I do not mean that the 'macrosyntactic wayehî' is not a full verb; it is a full verb but its subject is the whole double construction following it (i.e. circumstance = protasis + main sentence = apodosis). Its subject is not a noun/pronoun as is the case with other wayyiqtols (and other finite verbs as well).

5) Let me add a small note concerning the problem of the verb forms in Isa 51:2 discussed in an interesting exchange between Paul Zellmer and Randall Buth. I think Buth is right as far as teHollelkem, "(Sarah) who would birth you," or "who was to give birth to you." With this peculiar expression the prophet may wish to present, first, the choice of Abraham, then that of Sarah. This is in line with what follows, "for as (Abraham was) but one I called him ('eHad qera'tîhû = x-qatal), and I blessed him (wa'abarekehû = continuation wayyiqtol = same time reference) IN ORDER TO MULTIPLY HIM (we'arbehû = weyiqtol)."
Instead of we'arbehû (weyiqtol) one may choose to read wa'arbehû (wayyiqtol) = "and I multiplied him" with the LXX (which has an expanded text, "and I loved him and multiplied him"). However, if one stays with the Masoretic reading tradition, weyiqtol should be interpreted as expressing volition/finality. Actually this is the value of weyiqtol as against weqatal, which is non-volitional, expressing simple future or prediction. On this distinction one may consult my _Syntax_ ## 61-65.

Peace and all good.

Alviero Niccacci
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il



  • Re: Perfectivity of Wayyiqtols + Verbforms in Is 51, Alviero Niccacci, 10/18/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page