Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Perfectivity of wayyiqtols
  • Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:19:13 -0700


Matt wrote:
>
> In searching for answers for my own question, I have found a very good
> example of interrupted wayyiqtols (with no verbs of motion). 2 Sam 11.17
> has:
>
> wayyillachamu 'et-yo'ab wayyapol min-ha`am ...
> and they battled Joab and they fell some of the
> people
> wayamot gam 'uriyyah.
> and he died also Uriah.
>
> It is quite impossible that there was a battle THEN some of the army died
> THEN Uriah died! Do you think these wayyiqtols are "functionally"
> imperfective? If not, what are they aspectually?

I don't think aspect is in view. Aspect in Hebrew depends on
context and the meanings of the verbs used.

and If so, how would the
> reader know not to link these sequentially, or to see them as perfective.

The reader would know not to link these sequentially because a
native speaker would have known that the wayyiqtol is not
sequential. The wayyiqtol is the simple clause: "They did battle.
Some people fell. Uriah also died." There are no syntactic
dependencies or other types of connection (temporal, causal,
result, apposition), each clause says what it says. Doing battle is
an inherently non-perfective action, so the aspect is contained in
the meaning of the verb. Some people were killed, Uriah among
them. These are events that are inherently perfective (the act of
dying tends to have a definite terminus) so their aspect is
contained in the meanings of the verbs, as well. In the context, the
people falling and Uriah dying clearly happened during the battle,
so context tells us that these things happened before the terminus
of the battle. None of this is contained in the syntax of the
wayyiqtol.

> Why isn't the Hebrew, wayhi behillachem wayyapol ...?

Without asking the author we can't be sure, but I suspect that the
rapid-fire change of verbal subjects may have something to do with
it. The soldiers came out of the city, engaged Joab in battle, some
Israelites fell, Uriah died also. Bing, bang, boom. Considering
what David told Joab to do to Uriah, this quick run-down of the
action following the siege tells us in very blunt language and
structure that David's plan to get rid of Uriah worked just the way
he planned it.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good deed goes unpunished."




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page