Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Joe,

First I would like to comment on your last point, then I will comment on
the sequencing of WAYYIQTOLs. Those on the list who have read some of my
points before can just skip the post.


>JAF
>Finally, Rolf, you referred to what you called "the real nature of YIQTOL
>and QATAL", but did not say what it is.  I very likely missed it at some
>point in the past.  Could you reiterate what you think their nature is??
>What is your view on these different forms?




RF

My approach to Hebrew verbs is based upon two pillars: (1) to break down
the language to the smallest independent (meaningful) units, and (2) try to
find out which of these units represent "semantic meaning",i.e. they ought
to be uncancelable and have the same meaning in all contexts, and which
represent "conversational pragmatic implicature". This is in a way the very
opposite of discourse analysis, because it starts at the top with several
assumptions, while I start at the bottom (I use discourse analysis as well,
but not to distinguish between semantics and pragmatics).

I started with unpointed manuscripts and ascertained that the orthography
distinguished between only *two* groups of verbs, those whith prefixes and
those with suffixes. Some members of each group have a prefixed waw, and
some members of the prefix-form have shorter forms, but none of these
characteristics *demand* that we have to think of more than two groups. In
the MT we find a pointing of the two groups that is compatible with a view
that there are five groups YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL,WEYIQTOL, QATAL, AND WEQATAL,
though the general opinion is that they are just four (WEYIQTOL and YIQTOL
constitute one group).

I did not at the outset assume any number of conjugations, but I would ask:
How can we know there are more conjugations than the two the orthography
(consonants) indicate? And further: Can the differences we see in the use
of the forms (WAYYIQTOL generally for past narrative with QATAL as the
"starter", and WEQATAL generally for the future and to express modality
with YIQTOL as the "starter") be explained by a combination of pragmatics
and linguistic convention, to the effect that there are just two
conjugations?

The question about linguistic convention is in my mind very important, and
is often ignored. To illustrate: Many clauses start with an imperative, and
if the author wants the imperative force to continue, he can use other
imperatives, or more often,he uses one or more WEQATALs. The
YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL form can also be used with imperative force, and is in a
few cases used after another imperative, but the rule is to use WEQATAL.
What can we learn from this? Nothing more than that this is a linguistic
convention? The same is true with the observation that direct speech often
starts with a QATAL, but this form is scarce at the beginning of other
clauses (though we find a good many cases of sentence-initial QATALs as
well). These observations about WEQATAL  and QATAL tell us nothing about
the *semantic meaning* of the forms, whether they belong to one conjugation
or to two. And similarly with foreground and background discourse, that we
see a tendency to use particular forms in particular units of discourse,
tells us nothing about their *semantic meaning*; this is simply based on
the convention of the writers.

The consequence of the previous paragraph is that the general pattern of
Hebrew does not necessarily reveal the true nature of each form, and show
whether there are two or four conjugations, because this pattern does not
reveal more than the linguistic convention of the writers. This can be
compared to the  hypothetic deductive method of the natural sciences. Many
observations that are compatible  with a hypothesis do not prove it, one or
two observations that are not compatible can falsify it. My task,
therefore, is to find situations where linguistic convention does not cloud
the true nature of each form,i.e. is WEQATAL simply a QATAL with the
conjunction WAW, and is WAYYIQTOL simply a YIQTOL  with the conjunction
WAW? I see two possible situations (1) texts that are not completely
guided/restricted by conventions, particularly non-narrative texts, and (2)
clauses where we find a deviation from the normal, conventional rules.


Let me give a few examples.

Gen. 17:16 I will bless (WEQATAL) her, and moreover I will give (QATAL) you
a son by her. I will bless (WEQATAL) her, and she shall give rise
(WEQATAL)to nations; kings of peoples shall (YIQTOL) come from her."
Gen. 17:20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you (QATAL); I will bless (QATAL)
him and make him fruitful (WEQATAL) and exceedingly numerous (WEQATAL); he
shall be the father (YIQTOL) of twelve princes, and I will make (WEQATAL)
him a great nation.

In v 16 we find the conventional use of WEQATAL as future. However, NTN is
a QATAL. There is no doubt that it has future meaning. So why is not a
WEQATAL used? Because of the particle GM preceded by WAW,a WAW  which
logically would have been prefixed to NTN of the GM particle was absent.
This, and scores of similar examples suggests that there is no semantic
difference between WEQATAL  and QATAL, but WEQATAL  is a QATAL with a
prefixed conjunction. One person could say: But here we have an extra
particle used for this or that purpose or making it this or that kind of
discourse. That is the explanation. But such arguments beg the question.
Kinds of discourse and emphasis can reveal convention, but not semantic
meaning. Is not the basis for a differentiation between QATAL  and WEQATAL
that WEQATAL often is used with future/modal meaning while QATAL generally
is used for the past? There is a YIQTOL with future meaning in the verse.
We cannot use the same argument and say that it also must be semantically
similar to the QATAL, because there is an orthographic difference between
YIQTOL  and QATAL, and there is a semantic difference in the cognate
languages, but there is no such difference between QATAL and WEQATAL, just
that one has a prefixed particle that in other contexts is known as a
conjunction.

Proceding to v 20, we find three WEQATALs, two QATALs, and one YIQTOL. The
first QATAL can be interpreted in different ways. I take it as a future
with, and the reason for the lack of WE is that a noun with prefixed WAW
precedes it,the NRSV takes it as a perfect. However, the next QATAL is more
clear. It is a part of a chain of three verbs with future meaning, two of
the verbs being WEQATALs. But why is the first a QATAL? Because of the
preceding interjection.


I have not completed my list of WAYYIQTOL/YIQTOL sequences, but I will use
the first one that I have on one list:

Is. 40:14 Whom did he consult (QATAL) for his enlightenment(WAYYIQTOL), and
who taught (WAYYIQTOL) him the path of justice? Who taught (WAYYIQTOL) him
knowledge, and showed (YIQTOL) him the way of understanding?

Here we have a chain of questions with with past reference, having one
QATAL, three WAYYIQTOLs, and one YIQTOL. Why is the YIQTOL used? Because of
the preceding noun-phrase with prefixed WAW. When commenting on this,
please do not use the empty argument that this is not narrative. We have a
verse with past meaning where we would have expected a WAYYIQTOL in last
position.

Answering your question about the "true nature" of the verbs, my working
hypothesis is that all QATALs with and without WAW represent the perfective
aspect and all YIQTOLs with and without WAW  represent the imperfective
aspect.


The principal point with my examples from Joshua, was that the WAWs of a
chain of WEYIQTOLs function exactly as those of a chain of  imperatives or
a chain of WAYYIQTOLs, and this has not been disputed. My second point was
that while WAW definitely in most cases of WAYYIQTOL signal a new event and
a new RT (reference time), it is not allways the case.


JAF:
I am with Peter in that I do not see how these 5 events must be or even can
be collapsed into 2 events or RTs.  The whole process must have been quite
extended.  There are 5 different events.  True, there is some, or at times
even a lot of overlap between certain of the events, but there remains a
*prototypical sequencing* involved in the relationship between these events:

snip

>JAF:
>I will focus on the issue of sequencing of WAYYIQTOL forms, since that is
>the real issue at stake: does it indicate sequencing?  Or to ask the same
>question in an alternative form: can WAYYIQTOL be used in a non-sequential
>context?
>

RF
I will return to the WAYYIQTOLs (BR and CTB of Joshua 18:9. If there was an
overlapping between the two, wouldn't that indicate imperfectivity on the
part of the first WAYYIQTOL? As: When Rolf were discussing WAYYIQTOLs, Joe
entered the discussion. I still think it is nonsensical to say that these
two verbs signal two different subsequent or overlapping events. If one was
not believing that all WAYYIQTOLs *were* consecutive, common sense would
tell that the author did not say, "First they went through the land, and
afterwords they mapped it." or "They went through the land, and half
through they started to map it." What the author said is simple: "They went
through the land and mapped it." I appreciate that Peter also has reached
this conclusion.

The conclusion above is a couterargument to the view that WAYYIQTOL
*allways* is sequential. Let us look at a few other examples. I have
already mentioned. Deut. 1:41 "You answered (WAYYIQTOL+WAYYIQTOL) me".

Peter calls the expression "answered and said" hendiadys. Whatever you call
it, the fact stands that two WAYYIQTOLs in sequence do not express
consecutive events.

Take also Gen. 35:29 "And Isaac breathed his last (WAYYIQTOL); he died
(WAYYIQTOL) and was gathered (WAYYIQTOL) to his people, old and full of
days; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.

All the three verbs express one and the same thing, the two first are
synonymous, and the last view exactly the same situation from another angle.
We cannot gather that first he lost his life, then he died, and then he
started a journey to his fathers. (The last expression need not mean more
than Matt. 10:13 "If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but
if it is not worthy, let *your peace return* to you."


In Bible translation, one problem is that of "translationese". This is an
overtranslation where every detail is thought to have a meaning. This is
fine in a strictly literal translation, but not in an idiomatic one. A
basic problem in several models for Hebrew verb is "translationese" as
well. Very special meanings are ascribed to verb forms with and without
conjunctions, to particular groups and subgroups of discourse units. And
all this is forced upon the text. While Hebrew can express grammatical
details that English cannot do grammatically, it is my impression that the
Hebrew writers were much less concerned with minute details of meaning and
a strict use of particular forms that modern interpreters of the text are.
We should not press the binyans, the participles and the finite forms and
mold them onto our frame.




Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo