Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: WAW the conjunction

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: WAW the conjunction
  • Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 15:11:34 -0500






______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: WAW the conjunction
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 07/01/2000 18:21


Dear Peter,

See below.

<snip>
>
>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.

PK: If B does something in obedience to A's command, then he must do
it AFTER A's command, surely! Now you could interpret all of the words
after WE'E$LAXEM to the end of verse 4 as some sort of indirect
speech, but then I would expect a marker like LE'MOR in verse 8. But
you are right about WEYITHALLEKU - I was misled by NRSV's simple "Go"
into assuming this was QAL not HITPAEL. As in verse 9, the going
throughout the land and the writing are probably simultaneous. But you
don't seem to have read my comments on verse 9, where I wrote: "the
WAYYIQTOLs are probably not in direct sequence... The mapping was I
suppose also simultaneous or interleaved with the going".

<snip>
>
>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.

<snip>
>
>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 am not claiming any meaning for the "E", and I am claiming
nothing mystical. One possibility which has been put forward, but not
proven, is that there is an extra morpheme in WAYYIQTOL so that it
should be parsed as WE- (the ordinary conjunction) + something +
YIQTOL (short form). I prefer this way of accounting for the two quite
different forms which the Masoretes heard consistently in verses 4 and
verses 8-9. But I have no clear indications of what this added
something might be - it could be related to the definite article, but
that is speculation. Your idea of different pronunciation artficially
introduced in different contexts is possible, but also speculative.

>
>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.

PK: I have read a large part of the MT including most of the
narrative, and I have found that consistently WELO' QATAL rather than
WELO' YIQTOL is used for negative statements in chains of WAYYIQTOL
verbs. Do you disagree with this statement of fact? Is this what you
are agreeing with when you write below "What the grammars teach is
true"? Ad hominem comments are not helpful.

>
>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.

PK: Clearly verses 5-6 are not narrative. Note that there is no
WAYYIQTOL preceding them. Verses 10-14 are also not narrative but are
a description, and there is actually no indication that this is past
rather than present. In verse 5 +EREM has a meaning and is regularly
used with YIQTOL, giving a relative future sense to the YIQTOL verb (I
wrote this before reading your comment below). Y(LH in verse 6, YPRD
in verse 10 and YTB$$W in verse 25 are clearly durative and
imperfect(ive), and only the last occurs in narrative.

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.

PK: Re +RM, let's look at an English example: "At that time, before I
went, you came." In English we use a past tense for "went", but not in
many languages, because the "went" is relative future to the reference
time "that time". Similarly in the Hebrew we seem to have a reference
time (or perhaps you would analyse it as C) in the last part of verse
4, followed by some relative future "before" or "not yet" clauses in
verse 5-6, followed by the start of the main narrative with a
WAYYIQTOL in verse 7. NRSV and NIV clearly show the understanding I
have. It is not so much that +RM has special force as that +RM
indicates that this relative future meaning of YIQTOL is relevant
here.

PK: Re verses 10-14, this is a descriptive narrative in the present,
using mostly participles. I would expect WAYYIQTOL never or very
rarely to be found in such discourse, though I admit that I cannot
prove it as I have not done the detailed work necessary.

PK: Verse 25 is the only example where durativity is my main argument.
Actually the main indication that this is narrative is the rather odd
WAYYIQTOL at the beginning of the verse. Durativity here makes it
clear that the couple's lack of shame continues into the following
chapter. This is not a rigorous argument of course, I would need to
look at lots of such examples before developing one.

>
>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?

PK: Well, it could be I suppose, but the problem (not a new one!) is
that there seems to be a crossover of the type: "If (A and B) or (not
A and not B) then use form X, else use form Y", where A and B are
quite independent conditions - here A might be "first position in
sentence" and B might be "non-past". Linguists have felt that such a
crossover is unlikely. It is not impossible: I have read of another
closely comparable example called "Gunn's rule" in Egyptian, where A
is "negative" and B is "non-past". (Indeed it is not impossible that
the Hebrew rule was borrowed and extended from the Egyptian one!)


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page