Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: <wayyiqtol> again

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: <wayyiqtol> again
  • Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:46:57 +0200


On 23/12/99 (<wayyiqtol> again) Galia Hatav wrote:

< ... >


I think Dave got acurate intuition, that <wayyiqtol> is independent, as
opposed to <qatal>. However, I think that this independence is not
syntactic (see the first clause in Gen 1:1 and clauses in direct speech).
Dave, I thought you "bought" the idea that this independence has to do with
Reference-Time-Building, where <wayyiqtol> builds its own R-time but
<qatal> does not. Let us call <wayyiqtol> and <wqatal> R-builders, as
opposed to <qatal> and <yiqtol> (and <qotel>, too). This will get rid of
the notion of "sequentiality," which I consider to be a derived property
from R-building.

< ... >


Dear Galia Hatav,

How would you explain the fact that in the examples below the same event is expressed with wayyiqtol in one case, and with first-place qatal or second-place x-qatal in the other?

- 2 Sam 12:26 wayyillaHem yô'ab berabbat benê `amôn -- wayyilkod 'et-`îr hammelukâ
versus 12:27 (Joab sent messengers to David and said )
nilHamtî berabbâ -- gam-lakadtî 'et-`îr hammayim.
- Gen 40:2 wayyiqtzop par`oh `al $enê sarisayw ...
versus 41:10 (The chief cupbearer said to Pharaoh)
par`oh qatsap `al-`abadayw ...

In my _Syntax_ pages 41-43 I have listed about 20 such cases, and the list is far for being complete.

From these examples I deduced that verbforms are used differently in historical narrative and in direct speech. In historical narrative wayyiqtol is used while in direct speech qatal or x-qatal (with no visible difference in this particular case). Specifically, wayyiqtol is used to narrate historically (*erzählen* in German) while (x-) qatal is used to *report* an event orally (*berichten* in German). This distinction is clearcut in the examples above because the same verbal roots are used for the same event, which is first narrated by the historian, then reported in direct speech.

I further deduced that wayyiqtol is at home in historical narrative while qatal is at home in direct speech with a past reference. They are at home in their respective genres because in them they indicate the mainline of communication.

This is in line with the fact that no direct speech is found to begin with wayyiqtol; e.g. Deut 1:6 and 5:2 are both the beginning of an oral speech related to the past and start with x-qatal--not with wayyiqtol. This x-qatal starts the mainline of an oral narrative exactly as wayyiqtol starts the mainline of an historica narrative.

On the other hand, in historical narrative wayyiqtol and x-qatal play different functions. The events they describe do not stand on the same line, otherwise the author would have used wayyiqtol instead of shifting to x-qatal. Particularly telling are case where the same verbform is used as, e.g., in Gen 1:5; 1:10; 1:27. Consult Joüon-Muraoka #118 d-g, where different cases are examined where *biblical writers deliberately avoid wayyiqtol and replace it with w- ... qatal.*

Gen 1:5 *WAYYIQRA' 'elohîm la'ôr yôm -- welaHo$ek QARA' laylâ* can be rendered: *God called the light Day -- WHILE the darkness He called Night.* The tense shift from wayyiqtol to x-qatal intends to convey the naming of the night as related, or coincidental to the naming of the day, rather than as parallel, or sequential to it. Had the writer used twice *wayyiqra'* the effect would be different: THEN God called the light Day, THEN he called the darkness Night.

It seems evident that wayyiqtol is the past tense in historical narrative--indeed the only past tense expressing mainline. Wayyiqtol has a fix past reference time in historical narrative. Despite the unending discussions on the matter, we can avoid confusion and make progressively more light on the BH verb system by studying prose apart from poetry and further by distinguishing historical narrative from direct speech.

In my view, our task is to carefully collect every piece of evidence and try to put everything together in a coherent way. It is reasonable that we start from clear, simple cases from prose texts until we get a fairly complete picture of the situation; afterwards we shall be able to address more difficult cases and poetry.

Thus, the fundamental function of wayyiqtol is to express mainline in historical narrative; it is the narrative past tense. Sequentiality is also a major function of it; however explaining wayyiqtols ('In fact he did') and conclusive wayyiqtols ('And thus he did'), which do not advance sequentiality, are also well attested. This fact presents no problem for the theory outlined above. In fact sequentiality, explaining and conclusive functions, etc., are semantic categories. They are suggested by the context rather than by the grammatical form wayyiqtol; or maybe, they are context-bound specifications of the basic syntactic function, which is being the narrative past tense. The latter, on the contrary, is tied to the grammatical form.

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page