Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

See below.


>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,
>
>
>RF
>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.

RF
Sometimes I am very surprised at what you see and don't see in a text. Have
you not noted that there is a change of person between $LX and QWM? Joshua
tells what *he* will do and then the author tells what *they* will do in
obedience to this. Therefore I take QWM, HLK, and KTB as a specification of
the $LX event. It is true that one cannot go before one has risen, so this
is the best example of a *possible* sequence, although my knowledge of the
Hebrew mind tells me that people did not think by such a sequential scheme.
The next verb, however, is of another kind. I will go so far as to say it
is pure nonsense to claim that first they went throughout the land (HLK)
and after this was finished they mapped (KTB)the land. This is what you
express below regarding the same verbs with WAYYIQTOL forms.


>RF
>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.

>RF
>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.

>RF
>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.

RF
The conjunction WAW can be translated as "but","so". "that" etc. but these
are conjunctive meanings without any mystic connontations. Nobody has ever
given an explanation based on evidence what these supposed elements "E" and
"AY" are, what their origin is, and what their force is. We agree that
WAYYIQTOL generally has past meaning and WEYIQTOL often has future meaning,
but between 5 and 10 percent of the WAYYIQTOLs have non-past meaning and
5.8 percent of the WEQATALs have past meaning. The difference in MT need
not have semantic meaning. We know that the pausal forms indicate a form of
stress that could help those hearing the recitation of the text. The WE and
WAYY-element need not be more than a slightly different way of pronouncing
YIQTOLs with a prefixed conjuntion to help the hearers differentiate
between the same verbs used in narrative and non-narrative texts, without
any intention of signaling a *semantic* difference between the forms.
>
>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.

>RF
>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
With your emphatic "No!" you should have indicated that you systematically
have read the whole MT and seen that my claim is not true. But I know you
haven´t done that, and below you imply so yourself.

>
>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
What the grammars teach is true. Past contexts tend to begin with a QATAL
and continue with WAYYIQTOLs and future contexts tend to begin with a
YIQTOL and continue with WEQATALs. I view the two aspects as having several
traits in common and several different traits. In many cases the forms can
be used without any visible difference, in other cases they are used in
combination with other factors to signal particular points. If Hebrew is
tenseless, it is no wonder that one form (QATAL) is chosen as the basic
form for past reference and the other (YIQTOL) as the basic form for future
reference (Other choices: QATAL in first position for direct speech; YIQTOL
in first position for modality; WEQATAL as imperative following an
imperative etc.)

What the grammars do not tell, is that inside this quite harmonious
picture, there are a host of exceptions, which follow a particular pattern,
which is outside the linguistic convention. Therefore, these hundreds of
"exceptions" are very important, because they reveal the real nature of
YIQTOL  and QATAL, which cannot so easily be seen when YIQTOL  and QATAL
are wrapped up in conventions.
If we start with the beginning of the Bible, we have five examples of
YIQTOLs with past meaning where we could have expected WAYYIQTOLs in Gen 2:

v 5 HYH preceded by four words, with WAW attached to the first.
v 5 CMX (as above)
v 6 (LH preceded with a noun with prefixed WAW.
v 10 PRD preceded by an adverbial with prefixed WAW.
v 25 B$$ preceded by L) with prefixed WAW.

There are hundreds of similar examples and examples with QATAL preceded by
an alement with prefixed WAW where we would have expected WEQATAL according
to the linguistic convention. Why has these examples not been noted? I
guess the reason is that no grammarian has ever mapped all the verbal forms
of the Bible, and even more important: Because of the strong belief in a
four-component model, a belief that is inherited, nobody has systematically
looked for these examples, because they are not predicted by the
four-component model.
If you try to argue against the first two examples by a reference to +RM, I
ask you to show *why* and how +RM has a speciel force. If you argue for a
durative meaning of any of the examples, please show that durativity would
not be signaled if a WAYYIQTOL or QATAL was used. If you argue from the
point of view of discourse analysis, that we would not expect WAYYIQTOL in
one or more of the examples, please tell the frequency of WAYYIQTOL in the
kind of discourse you claim it to be or whether it is never found in such a
discourse.
I make these appeals because I often have heard particular arguments
repeated without answering why and how.

>
>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.

There *is* a difference, WAYYIQTOL is generally used in past contexts and
WEYIQTOL is generally used in future and modal contexts, but why should not
one form with one semantic meaning be used in both these contexts in a
tenseless language?



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo