Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: <wayyiqtol> again (G.Hatav)

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 (G.Hatav)
  • Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:09:57 +0200


On 27/12/99 (Re: <wayyiqtol> again) Galia Hatav wrote:

Dear Galia Hatav,

Thank you for your clear response. Please see my comments below.


Dear Professor Nicacci,

< ...>

1)
From your analysis of Gen 1:5 you
should conclude that <qatal> also is past tense. So even if one accepts
that the forms encode tenses, that would not help in distinguishing between
them. I understand that you see <wayyiqtol> as past tense only in the
narrative material. But categories do not change their nature from one text
to the other. Their properties, which always exist, may be used differently
from one genre to the other, but they do not change.

1) (Alviero Niccacci) I called *tense* a verbform or nonverbal construction that conveys the mainline of communication in one of the three temporal axes. Therefore in historical narrative wayyiqtol is the only tense. Qatal is not a tense in the full sense because in historical narrative it is a secondary-line verb form (in fact it appears in the second place of the sentence, i.e x-qatal). On the contrary, qatal is a tense in direct speech because it is used to start the mainline of an oral narrative, as shown by the examples I quoted in my previous post. In direct speech we have other tenses as well, i.e. x-yiqtol for simple, indicative future, jussive & cohortative yiqtol, and imperative. The nonverbal sentence (with or without participle) is also a tense in the axis of the present because it is used to convey mainline.
Outside historical narrative, i.e. both in prose direct speech and in poetry, wayyiqtol is only used as a continuation form, i.e. it continues a verbform that is not a wayyiqtol and shares its status. in any case it preserves its past time reference.

2)
When we translate the
verses into English (or any other language which has tenses - past,
present, future) we have to use tenses, as it is obligatory in Englsih. The
question is how do we know what tense to use. Following your analysis it
is not a problem in the case of <wayyiqtol>, since you see it as the past
tense, but what do you do with <qatal>, <yiqtol>, <wqatal> and <qotel>?

2) (AN) As you know from reading Chap. 5 of my book, I listed a series of *tense transitions* (i.e. shifts from one verbform to the other, indicated with ->) that account for all the verbforms and nonverbal constructions attested in historical narrative. E.g. wayyiqtol -> x-qatal to express an antecedent circumstance, or simultaneity, contrast, or emphasis on the X element; wayyiqtol -> weqatal / x-yiqtol to express repetion, description; wayyiqtol -> nonverbal sentence (with or without participle) to express contemporaneity.
What I tried to do is to identify the basic structures of BH and their respective function(s). The same I did for direct speech in Chap. 6 of my book.
One of the best ways to learn the basic structures of direct speech versus historical narrative is to compare the parallel pericopes from Exod 25-30 and 35-40. Exod 25-30 contains instruction by God to Moses in direct speech, and 35-40 relates the execution of these instructions repeating almost the same words but shifting the verbforms and constructions from direct speech to historical narrative. In this respect, Abba Ben David's _Parallels in the Bible_ is one of the most useful *textbooks* to learn BH.

3)
It
seems to me that you are doing what we all do, namely using the context.
But aren't you doing the same with <wayyiqtol>? You may want to say that
you are not, since there are no cases where <wayyiqtol> is understood as
present or future, while the other forms have different tense
interpretations in different enviroments (within the narrative material).

3) (AN) As one sees form the above, I try to learn from the text. The text is our only source. From the text we have to deduct a theory of the verb--wherefrom, otherwise? I would certainly not encourage to start with general linguitics as is too often the case today. Too much theory, and too little analysis of texts.
In a text we find different verbforms used and we try to understand there respective function(s) by observing how they interact one with the other. Finding good examples in crucial at this point as is also a basic theory of syntactical analysis. From each case one draws a consequence; by putting different pieces of evidence together, one gets a general picture, which is then tested, corrected and refined according to new data coming from further reading of texts.
Having done good prose texts, which are normally well tied to time, space, ect., one is equipped to go on to analyze difficult cases and poetry.

4)
So, do you want to conclude that only <wayyiqtol> encodes tense, while the
other forms do not? This would be an unwarranted conclusion, theoretically
speaking. My contention is that NONE of the forms encodes tense, but while
all the forms would be interprted according to the context concerning tense
(when translated into English), <wayyiqtol> is always understood as
depicting events in the past. The question is why. In my book I show it to
be derived by elimination. < ...>

4) (AN) I am not able to discuss your theory. I should study it in full, which I hope to do as I shall get your book. I think we have enough evidence to show that the verbforms do have a time reference of their own and do encode tense. Actually they are full tenses, i.e. they encode a FIX time reference, when they convey mainline of communication; they are RELATIVE tenses when they convey a secondary line of communication. In the latter case they express aspect, or mode of action, i.e. contemporaneity-anteriority-posteriority, unique information versus repetition, habit, description; contrast, emphasis etc. Even when they convey a secondary line, the different verbforms keep their respective time reference.
As for wayyiqtol in poetry, I think it is used exactly as in direct speech. It keeps its past time reference, and therefore is not used with a future reference. Indeed, Joüon-Muraoka #118s page 395 mention the use of wayyiqtol for the future after the so-called *prophetic qatal*; however the *prophetic qatal* itself is called into doubt, and perhaps rightly.

Peace and all good for the New Year 2000.
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