Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: WAW the conjunction

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: WAW the conjunction
  • Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:34:46 +0200


Dear Rolf Furuli,

Thank you for your comment. I will try to answer your questions as briefly as possible but I am afraid I will not succeed.

On 08/01/00 (Re: WAW the conjunction) Rolf Furuli wrote:


Dear Alviero,

< ... >

The most interesting thing with your post, is that you stated your view that
WEYIQTOL is a conjugation of its own in addition to the four which are
usually counted. I agree that WEYIQTOL in many cases is modal, but because
modality is a quite elusive property, I am afraid we will have much
circularity once we have decided that WEYIQTOL *is* modal.There are few if
any objective means to pinpoint modality.

It is not a question of deciding one thing or the other, it is a question of deducting from a correct checking of good examples. If this is circularity, I do not know what is deductive analysis.
< ... >

(1) I understand you to say that *all* instances of QATAL with prefixed WAW
belong to the same conjugation, so the identification mark is not function
but form. Is that correct?

Both form and function are the identification mark. One finds a form, one looks for its function. On the basis of good examples one draws an hypothesis about its function. The hypothesis is then tested by further reading.

(2) If that is correct and all WAWs prefixed to "YIQTOLs" (WAYYIQTOL and
WEYIQTOL) are part of verb morphology, we are in the strange situation that
while cognate languages such as Arabic, Aramaic, and Ge'ez flourish with
the WE/WA/FA-conjunctions, Hebrew has *no* conjunctions between verbs,
except between imperatives.

Also with x-qatal and x-yiqtol, besides the nonverbal sentence, we clearly find the conjunction, which may or may not be present. Other Northwest Semitic languages have *inverted* verbforms--also Old Aramaic has--and they behave the same way. Besides, Semitic analogies as well as general-linguistic principles may be important, but above all each language needs to be analyzed on its own merit.

(3) Or perhaps the WAWs are *both* a part of verb morphology and a
conjunction at the same time, however unique that may be among the
languages of the world?

See previous answer.

(4) If WAW is both a conjunction and part of the verb morphology, what
would a prefix-form (QATAL) look like if it was just prefixed by the
conjunction WAW? We know from Aramaic that such creatures do exist.

In Aramaic but not in BH. When the reference time is the past, the continuation form in BH is wayyiqtol, not waw+qatal. This is shown by reading good texts.


(5) I suppose you will answer that there would be no visible difference,
and then I will ask: How do we know that *no* examples of WEQATAL is not
the prefix-form (QATAL) with a prefixed conjunction? You may appeal to
discourse functions and say that we use to find QATAL in this and that
function and WEQATAL in this and that. Generally I do not dispute your
analyses of mainline and other groups and subgroups, but the picture we see
is conventional Hebrew from Bible times, and is there any property with
QATAL that would prevent it from filling the position of indicative future
together with WAW and as habit or description in narrative? There ought to
be something apart from just saying that I see this conjugation in this
function and that conjugation in that function, that differentiates between
QATAL and WEQATAL, provided they are two different conjugations.

Sorry, I do not quite understand your argument. I only tried to describe facts. I never appealed to discourse functions, did I? I do not follow the *discourse analysis* and the four text types of the SIL circles although I, too, take the text as the basis of the analysis.

(6) And further, what is the connective clue between indicative future and
(past) habit and description in narrative? For me they seem to be very
different, though constituting one conjugation. Do we find a parallel in
other languages? And what about my list of properties WEQATAL paralelling
properties of QATAL, though with different frequency? I have also problems
with the designation habitual applied to WEQATAL.

I do not know whether or not the same phenomenon is attested in other languages. I suppose that it is a consequence of the paucity of the verbforms in BH. But, again, I tried to describe facts. I wait for your list of weqatal paralleling qatal. Concerning the case of Josh 6, see here below.

Take some verses from Joshua 6 as an example. In v 8 we find one occurrence of
the weqatal TQ( with past meaning (we could also add v 13 where both the
ortography and the pointing show the form is WEQATAL). The priests blew in
the trumpets, and this fits the definition of being habitual. But what
about the QATAL of the same verb with past meaning in v 16? (another
example of the QATAL of the verb with past meaning is 1 Sam 13:3 /note the
nomen with prefixed WAW before it/). Is not QATAL habitual as well? What
signals habituality is primarily the Aktionsart and the context ...

According to the usual functions of weqatal, `ABeRU WeTAQe`U should be translated as "(The priests) went forward WHILE THEY WERE BLOWING the trumpets." Qatal and weqatal do not stand on the same foot although they appear coordinated. As I repeatedly tried to show, in historical narrative weqatal conveys background information, just as x-qatal, the difference being that weqatal expresses habitualness while qatal uniqueness.
Similarly in Josh 6:13: WeTAQeU conveys background information to the preceding nonverbal sentence, which is on its turn circumstantial to the preceding wayyiqtol in v. 12: WAYYI&'U "they took up the ark ... while the seven priests ... went on (WHILE THEY WERE) BLOWING the trumpets."
It is not the blowing itself, because it is normally a prolongued action, that requires the habitual weqatal. The author/writer is free to present a prolongued action as a point. In other words, as I already said, the "real course of events" as such remains outside the verbforms and outside the text. Therefore I see no problem in the fact that the bolowing of the trumpets is conveyed with "unique" qatal in Josh 6:16. There are many such examples if we pay attention to this fact.

... and I wonder if you can give *one* example where we on the basis of WEQATAL
*alone* can show that a verb is habitual. One last point to Joshua 6:8. It
seems to me that (BRW WTQ(W simply are two QATALs connected with a
conjunction, and the action of both occur simultaneously, "the seven
priests ...passed on and blew".

I am not trying to make a reductio-ad-absurdum-argument, I am just trying
to find out if it is possible to make independent tests of your viewpoints
regarding QATAL and WEQATAL.

We get a good example of habitual weqatal if we compare Exod 18:21-22 (Jethro's instructions to elect judges to help Moses) with 18:25-26 (execution of the instructions). The main point is that the work of the judges is indicated with weqatal (and its background counterpart x-yiqtol) both in the instructions (in direct speech) and in the execution (in historical narrative)--compare 18:22 with 18:26. A similar case is 1Sam 16:16 (instruction with weqtal) and 16:23 (execution with weqatal). Other examples of habitual weqatal are Exod 34:34-35; 40:31-32; 1Sam 7:16; 2Chron 25:14; see my _Syntax_ #46.
We should ask ourselves why is the same verbform weqatal found both in the instruction and in the narrative? In other cases the execution of the instructions is narrated with mainline wayyiqtol and offline x-qatal (corresponding to weqatal and x-yiqtol, respectively, in direct speech). Good examples are seen if one compares the parallel sections in Exod 25-30 and 35-40; see e.g. 26:1 and 36:8. You may wish to consult my _Syntax_ ##58-59.
As a last point, cases as Exod 18:21-22 // 18:25-26 and 1Sam 16:16 // 16:23 do prove that weqatal actually has two functions--it is a future tense in direct speech, it indicates habitualness in historical narrative.

Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci



Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page