Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Rolf,

See some comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: WAW  the conjunction
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    07/01/2000 15:00


Dear list-members,



Today I have been working with the YIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs of Joshua, and I 
found three verses illustrating the conjunctive force of WAW. In my view 
the WAWs have exactly the same function both when prefixed to the 
WEYIQTOLs, the WAYYIQTOLs, and to the IMPERATIVEs.

The first WEYIQTOL (§LX) of v 4 illustrates the importance of WAW. This is 
the first WEYIQTOL in a chain, and as a conjunction it is therefore 
superfluous (there are some examples of WAWs where the conjunctive force 
even is used first in a clause; the meaning in such cases is "so"). It may 
be used to signal that the verb is not modal. I see only two different 
"events" expressed by the five WEYIQTOLs,i.e. two different RTs (reference 
time): (1) "send","rise","go", and "write" ("Map"), and (2) "enter". It is 
impossible to say that first Joshua would send them, then they should rise, 
then they should go (throughout the land),and then they should map it, and 
then they should enter the place where Joshua was.

PK: The first WAW is not superfluous, if it were absent there would be 
asyndeton here which is rare in Hebrew prose. My understanding here is 
that the verbs ARE modal, at least in the sense some use the word for 
anything which is not an accomplished fact. There are five successive 
events here; the first three are in close succession but must be 
logically and temporally in sequence: "rise" is in response to "send", 
and they could not "go" until they were on their feet! Of course "rise 
and go" is also an idiom. Then they write; then they return. As for 
your last sentence, are you suggesting that the events did or could 
have happened in any other order, or even simultaneously? That would 
be nonsense! I would replace "impossible" by "pragmatically 
necessary"! I accept that the pragmatic necessity here tells us little 
about the semantics of the verb forms, because you can doubtless find 
other cases of a chain of WEYIQTOLs which truly cannot be in temporal 
order.

If you agree with the points above, PLEASE keep that in mind when you read 
further, in order to prevent preconceived ideas to cloud your mind!

In vv 8,9 the time reference is different; it is past, but the seven 
WAYYIQTOLs play the same role (I exclude modality from the discussion on 
this level) as the WEYIQTOLs in v 4, as far as sequence is concerned. I find 
only two "events" expressed by the six WAYYIQTOL with the same roots as the 
WEYIQTOLs of v 4, and a third event expressed by CWH, (1) 
"send","rise","go", and "write" ("map"), and (2) "charged",and (3) "enter". 
So again,I see no way to draw the conclusion that the men (v 8) "rose up", 
and then "went", and then Joshua charged them, (v 9) and then the men went, 
and then went through the land, and then mapped it, and then they entered 
the place where Joshua was.

PK: Yes, here is a case where the WAYYIQTOLs are probably not in 
direct sequence, unless the author is trying to say that Joshua's 
charge was given to the men as they were actually walking away. Indeed 
this suggests that the juxtaposed QWM and HLK mean something like "get 
ready to go". The juxtaposed HLK and `BR in verse 9 may also mean 
something like "go right through". The mapping was I suppose also 
simultaneous or interleaved with the going; and finally came the 
coming back.

The last half of v 8 from the WAYYIQTOL CWH is a part of the threefold 
symmetry of the account. I v 4 Joshua asks the people to bring men that will 
be sent out etc, in the last part of v 4 Joshua addresses the men and tell 
them what to do, and in the first part of v 8 and v 9 it is reported that 
the have completed the task, but the same roots are use in all three 
instances. The imperatives also reveal two different events: (1) "go", "walk 
throughout" the land", "write" ("map") it, and (2) "return".

PK: The meaning is clearly the same as with tha WAYYIQTOLs.

But what are the WAWs doing? In all three instances the events are the 
same, and it is very difficult, at least in my mind, to take them in all 
instances as anything but conjunctions. The reason why the five WAWs of the
five        WEYIQTOLs do not represent five events but just two,the reason 
why 
three IMPERATIVEs  connected with waw represent one event, and the reason
why seven WAYYIQTOLs represent three events and not seven, is the same, 
namely lexicon. Because of the meaning of the verbs we can see that each 
WAW  does not signal a new RT (reference time),i.e. something occurring 
after another event in a chain. There is of course a difference between 
"going throughout" and "mapping", but still the verbs signal one event (if 
we by event mean something with a new RT).
One may call some of these "hendiadys", something I will not do, but 
regardless of what they are called, they are expressed by WAYYIQTOLs and 
WEYIQTOLs, and these forms can express actions and states that occur 
simultaneously.

PK: I agree that the WAW's in all cases act as a conjunction. But that 
doesn't mean that after the WAW's have been stripped off -AYYIQTOL and 
-EYIQTOL mean the same. Indeed, there is a clear difference between 
the context in verse 4 where WEYIQTOLs are consistently used and in 
verses 8-9 where WAYYIQTOLs are consistently used. I don't know how 
you can explain how the Masoretes were able to make this consistent 
distinction if they were not actually hearing a difference between 
WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL.

PK: I don't agree with your point about new RT. I think Galia was 
getting there with her idea of each new WAYYIQTOL giving a new RT but 
that RT being only potentially, not always actually in sequence with 
the previous one.

We also find in these verses an example of a common procedure in Hebrew 
that seemingly few persons have noticed, namely that when we have one or 
more WEYIQTOLs in a context, and we, because of the same time reference and 
consecution would expect another WEYIQTOL, we find a YIQTOL. The reason is 
that there is a word before the YIQTOL, and the WE  is attached to this 
word. We find one example in the YIQTOL §LK in v 8. This is unproblematic, 
as far as the number of verbal conjugations are concerned, because all 
would say that WEYIQTOL  and YIQTOL  belong to the same conjugation. 
However, this "common procedure" is also used in many cases, where we in a 
context with WAYYIQTOLs, because of the same time reference and 
consecution, would expect another WAYYIQTOL we find a YIQTOL....

PK: No! It is quite clear that, at least in narrative, we find a QATAL 
where there would otherwise have been a WAYYIQTOL but it has been 
displaced from the start of the clause. Note especially many cases of 
LO' plus QATAL in succession with WAYYIQTOL, but very rarely I think 
LO' plus YIQTOL.

RF... And exactly the same is true when we expect a WEQATAL we find a 
QATAL...

PK: In these cases, I understand we get a LO' plus YIQTOL in place of 
QATAL. At least this is what I have learned. Is it true?

RF:... When I finish my work, I will publish complete lists of the 
mentioned examples, and if we did not have any other arguments, these lists 
alone would represent strong arguments for the view that WAW is never 
anything but a conjunction, and that there is no semantic difference 
between YIQTOL  and WAYYIQTOL  and between WEQATAL and QATAL.

PK: I think the real difference between 18:4 and 18:8a,9 strongly 
suggests a real difference between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL. I cannot 
prove that the difference is semantic from these data, but I will look 
for other proof.


Josh. 18:4 (NRSV) Provide (IMPERATIVE) three men from each tribe, and I 
will send (WEYIQTOL)+(WEYIQTOL) them out that they may begin to go 
throughout (WEYIQTOL) the land, writing a description (WEYIQTOL) of it with 
a view to their inheritances. Then come back (WEYIQTOL) to me.

Josh. 18:8 ¶ So the men started (WAYYIQTOL?WAYYIQTOL) on their way; and 
Joshua charged (WAYYIQTOL) those who went to write the description of the 
land, saying,  "Go (IMPERATIVE) throughout the land and write a description 
(WE+IMPERATIVE)+(WE+IMPERATIVE) of it, and come back (WE+IMPERATIVE) to me; 
and I will cast lots (WAW+ADVERBIAL+YIQTOL) for you here before the LORD in 
Shiloh."

Josh. 18:9 So the men went (WAYYIQTOL) and traversed (WAYYIQTOL) the land 
and set down (WAYYIQTOL) in a book a description of it by towns in seven 
divisions; then they came back (WAYYIQTOL) to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh,


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



















---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.