Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Alviero,

Thank you for your answers to my questions. See my comments below:

AN
>Dear Rolf Furuli,
>AN
>       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,
>
>       < ... >
>RF
>>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.

>AN
>       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.
>       < ... >
>
RF
>>(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?

>AN
>       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.


RF
Your answer to point (1) can be redundant, so I will make the following
comment, If you explain your method, how you found that WEQATAL  is modal,
the words are OK. However, if you claim that a particular form, such as
WEQATAL *is* modal, then you need not discuss its function, because then
the function *must* be modal as well. Are you prepared to say that *all*
WEQATALs are modal regardless of where they occur, or are there exceptions?


AN
>
RF
>>(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.

>AN
>       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.
>
RF
>>(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?
>
AN
>       See previous answer.

>
RF
>>(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.

>AN
>       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.
>
>
RF
>>(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.
>

AN
>       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.
>
RF
>>(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.

>AN
>       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.
>
RF
>>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 ...

>AN
>       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.

RF
Your comments to point 6 reveal in my mind an important weakness with your
method, namely circularity. I heartily agree that "the 'real course of
events' as such remains outside the verbforms and outside the text". A
writer can present the same complex event as a fact (I find "point"
problematic and would rather use Comrie's "blob") or as something going on.
My point is: How do we know which view is signaled? If we start with "good
texts" as you say, and we find that several WEQATALs express habitualness,
we cannot at the outset know whether the reason is semantic (habitualness
*is* a characteritic of WEQATAL) or pragmatic (habitualness is a function
of the Aktionsart of the verbs, the context, and our knowledge of the
world). The problem of your method is that it does not tell us *how* we can
differentiate between semantic and pragmatic factors. Therefore, when we
start with good texts and find several WEQATALs that express habitualness,
and on this basis decide that WEQATAL *is* habitual, then we of course are
able to find scores of other texts that are evidence for its habituality.
But as long as we have not on a systematic basis shown that habituality is
a *semantic* property of WEQATAL, our approach is completely circular.If
you had looked at *all* the WEQATALs of the Bible (and considered
diachronic questions) and you had found a particular pattern in most of
them, even then you had not proven that this pattern was semantic, how much
less when you base your primary judgement on a small number (compared with
all of the Bible) of WEQATALs in good texts.


Take Joshua 6:8. Because of what you already have decided regarding the
meaning of QATAL  and WEQATAL, you translate "(The priests) went forward
WHILE THEY WERE
BLOWING the trumpets." There is nothing in the context indicating that the
author wanted to mark a difference between the QATAL (BRW and the WEQATAL
WTQ(W, so your judgement is wholly based upon theory. Interesting enough,
the Aktionsart of the (BR is durative while TQ( ("strike", "pitch", "blow")
would, without further information, be taken as semelfactive. However, the
situations (which we are allowed to take into account even though the
course of events is ourside the verb form) tell us that what the priests
actually did, was to proceed forward (iterative (but not habitual) action)
and to blow the trumpets (interative action). Because of the durative
Aktionsart of one verb and a knowledge of the situation, an English mind
would understand the iterativity by the rendition, "the priests went
forward and blew their trumpets". The Hebrew writer *could* have intended
to make visible the iterativity of one verb and presented the other as a
"blob", but again, this is not gathered from the verse itself or from the
context, but only from preconceived theory.

Let me also add a remark regarding the point above that you several times
rightly have stressed, namely that the course of events is outside the verb
form. This truth adds greatly to the circularity of your method. To find
the meaning of verb forms (if I understand you correctly) you start with
good texts, look at the *real course of events* and take note of which verb
forms are used for which situations. Then you draw a conclusion regarding
the meaning of each form on the basis of the *course of events*. So the
basic assumption of the method is a correspondence between the actual
course of events and the verb form. But how can we know that when "the
'real course of events' as such remains outside the verbforms and outside
the text"? After the meaning has been decided on the basis of these limited
number of examples (from good texts), one start to look at other texts to
see whether the conclusiopns regarding the meaning of each form holds.
However, the most you can obtain from this procedure, is that the other
examples are *compatible* with the view of the meaning of the form. How can
we know that there is a real correspondence beteween what actually took
place and the verb forms in these instances?

 One of the best examples I am aware of that could suggest a habitual
meaning for WEQATAL is 1 Samuel 1:3 (NRSV) " Now this man used to go up
(WEQATAL) year by year from his town to worship and to sacrifice to the
LORD of hosts at Shiloh." The real course of events is habitual, but how do
we know that? Not because of the verb, but because of the adverbial! But
just delete the adverbial and the context and we would know nothing about
habituality. It is true that WEQATAL with past meaning is used in several
situations where the course of events is habitual, but then this is clearly
seen in the context. But there are several WWQATALs in the books of Samuel
that are not habitual. In 2 Samuel 15:30 we find the (LH applied to a
singular event, in 1 Samuel 4:19 we find MWT, in 1 Samuel 5:7 we find )MR,
and in 1 Samuel 17:38 we find NTN between two WAYYIQTOLs, all applied to
"blobs" and not to habituality.


AN

>RF
>>... 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.

>AN
>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.
>

RF
What I asked for was one example where we on the basis of the verb *alone*,
without any preconceived ideas can see that a WEQATAL is habitual. Your
examples does not fulfill this request. Let us look at your first example,
Exodus 18:25.26. There can be no doubt that the course of the events of the
judging is habitual, but how can we know that the verb form signals this?
Here we also have an adverbial telling us about the habituality. But what
about the choosing and appointing of v 25, does not this also describe a
course of events where several events follow one after the other? And what
about the judging in my examples at 1 Samuel 7:15-17?. IN 7:15 $P+ is
expressed as a YIQTOL. The course of events are habitual. Can we bu sure
that the verb does not signal this because it is a WAYYIQTOL? Then what
about the WAYYIQTOL of v 16? The adverbial which is connected with HLK
explicitly says that the event is habitual. Should draw the conclusion that
only the adverbial expresses habituality and not the WAYYIQTOL? In that
case, how do we know that any WEQATAL that is connected with such an
adverbial is habitual? And further, we find the WEQATAL SBB which simply
represent a specification of HLK. The verb HLK tells *that* he went, the
verb SBB tells *how* he went. And then we have a WEQATAL of the verb $P+
which tells what he *did* as he went. To say that the two WEQATALs signal
habituality and not the WAYYIQTOL does not seem to be very consistent to
say the least. And what about the QATAL  in v 17? If it were not for the
adverbial with prefixed WAW, we would probably have had another WEQATAL,
but now we have a QATAL. The course of events definitely is habitual, and
should we say that this QATAL has another semantic value than the WEQATAL
in v 16 because the WAW  is prefixed the the adverbial and not the the
QATAL? I have real difficulties with such a reasoning.

You will probably say that the WAYYIQTOLs represent mainline and therefore
are not habitual but the WEQATAL in Exodus 18.26 and in the other verses
you site occur in other dicourse situations, for instance parallel with
x-YIQTOL, and therefore they signal habituality. I do not dispute your data
and your discourse analysis, but we cannot see from the WEQATALs
*themselves* that they are habitual, To understand that, we need your
theory which in no way is proven. There is a regularity in the use of
particular forms in particular situations in Hebrew (for instance WEQATALs
after imperatives to continue the imperative thought, and WEYIQTOLs after
imperatives to express volition and finalit; and QATALs are often used in
first position in direct speech), but this does not tell us anything about
their *semantic meaning*, just about their *use*.

Ex. 18:25 Moses chose (WAYYIQTOL) able men from all Israel and appointed
(WAYYIQTOL) them as heads over the people, as officers over thousands,
hundreds, fifties, and tens.
Ex. 18:26 And they judged (WEQATAL) the people at all times; hard cases
they brought (YIQTOL) to Moses, but any minor case they decided (YIQTOL)
themselves.

1Sam. 7:6 So they gathered (WAYYIQTOL) at Mizpah, and drew (WAYYIQTOL)water
and poured (WAYYIQTOL) it out before the LORD. They fasted (WAYYIQTOL) that
day, and said (WAYYIQTOL),  "We have sinned (QATAL) against the LORD." And
Samuel judged (WAYYIQTOL) the people of Israel at Mizpah.

1Sam. 7:15 ¶ Samuel judged (WAYYIQTOL) Israel all the days of his life.
1Sam. 7:16 He went (WAYYIQTOL) on a circuit (WEQATAL) year by year to
Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged (WEQATAL) Israel in all these
places.
1Sam. 7:17 Then he would come back (NOUN) to Ramah, for his home was
(NOMINAL CLAUSE) there; he administered justice (QATAL) there to Israel,
and built (WAYYIQTOL)there an altar to the LORD.


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo