Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear list-members,


A short time ago there was a discussion about WEYIQTOL, whether or not it
is a fifth conjugation, expressing modality. I have finished my study and
mapping of all the examples of the MT, save about 100 which are listed by
Accordance as WAYYIQTOLs, to which I will return. Perhaps some of you would
be interested to hear the some of the results.

There is no significant difference in the occurrences of the form, which
can be related to the age of the books,or to a change in the meaning of the
verbal system through time. Of the 1217 examples, I interpreted 434 (35,6%)
as indicative and 783 (64,3%) as modal (including volition,finality,
purpose etc). Some of the examples may be interpreted differently, but
given that "future indicative" does exist (and is not to be subsumed under
subjunctive) the basic picture will hardly be altered by a new study. A
good example of future indicative is Daniel 11:4-12:4 where we find 25
WEYIQTOLs.

FORM PRECEDING

A point related to the previous discussion is what precedes the WEYIQTOL-
imperatives and jussives before it, would argue for the modality of the
form. Here is some of my statistics:

YIQTOL  preceding WEYIQTOL - 510        41,9%
Imperative preceding WEYIQTOL - 307     25,22%
Sentence initial WEYIQTOL -     208     17,09%
(Instead of calling the form "sentence-initial", we could say that a
WEYIQTOL preceded a WEYIQTOL.)
QATAL preceding WEYIQTOL - 25   2,05%
NominaLs etc. preceding WEYIQTOL - 167 12,93

TEMPORAL REFERENCE OF THE INDICATIVE WEYIQTOLS

FUTURE -        244             20,04%
PERFECT -       9               0,73%
PRESENT -       128             10,51%
PAST    -       53              4,35%

WAW+YIQTOL

Given that WEYIQTOL has the same inherent meaning throughout MT, the
numbers above rule out the possibility that *all* WEYIQTOLs are modal and
that they constitute a conjugation of their own - a fifth conjugation. So
the most natural interpretation is that WEYIQTOL simply is a YIQTOL  with a
prefixed conjunction. Corroborating this is a list I have made of 60
passages where we find one or two WEYIQTOLs following a YIQTOL, and where
the meaning of the verbs shows that the WAW  must be a conjunction, as (1),
(2), and (3) below.

(1) Is. 43:10  "You are my witnesses," says the LORD,  "and my servant whom
I have chosen, that you may know (YIQTOL) and believe (WEYIQTOL) me and
understand (WEYIQTOL) that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall
there be any after me.

(2) Deut. 13:11 And all Israel shall hear (YIQTOL), and fear (WEYIQTOL),
and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.

(3) 2Kings 6:22 He answered,  "You shall not slay them. Would you slay
those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set
(IMPERATIVE) bread and water before them, that they may eat (WEYIQTOL) and
drink (WEYIQTOL) and (WEYIQTOL) go to their master."


LINGUISTIC CONVENTION

One interesting observation is that the WEYIQTOLs in 195 instances (16%)
have a *final* meaning ("that...may", "so that..may"). In 69,7% of these
195 instances, an imperative precedes the WEYIQTOL (this is the case in (3)
above). Of the 6087 WEQATALs I found that 643 (10,5%) followed an
imperative, having themselves an imperative force.
These facts show how important it is to take *linguistic convention* into
consideration when we study verb forms. If this is not taken into
consideration, one will inevitably interpret verbal use as indicative of
semantic meaning when the use is no more than linguistic convention.
Any theory of the verbs should be able to account for the fact that
imperative+WAW+YIQTOL in most cases stress the imperative force, while
imperative+WAW+QATAL in most cases signal finality.


Regards

Rolf



Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo