Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

______________________________ 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