Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joseph Brian Tucker" <music AT riverviewcog.org>]

This is a forwarded message from Dave Washburn: Sun 11:06 PM

Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:
> 
> Shalom
> 
> I have tried to read through the past posts concerning wayyitqtols. I have
> tried to condense what I read into the following 7 statements. Please
> provide remarks or corrections based on your understanding of wayyiqtols.
> 
> Hainu Hach
> 
> 1. The situations most described with wayyiqtol are one's with temporal or
> logical sequences.

Most common, yes.  But this does not mean that's the primary force of
the form.  This is a common mistake that grammarians make, and then they
have to get a bigger crowbar to fit non-sequential instances into the
theory.

> 2. The most noteworthy use is that it traces the mainline of the
> narrative.
 
Again, most of the time.  However, see my article in the onine journal
TC (follow the link from my page, www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/cv.html) for a
contrasting example.

> 3. All uses of the wayyiqtol have a sense of consecution. (Expect
> epexegetical)

Not even close.  What is Jonah 1:1 consecutive to?  This is why
grammarians like Waltke-O'Connor come up with nebulous categories like
"expegetical" to deal with examples tha don't fit the theory.  What's
needed is a unified grammatical theory that finds the common thread
among the various uses.

> 4. In contrast to the suffix conjugation there are no possible examples of
> the pluperfect use of the wayyiqtol. (What about Num. 1:47-49 "?had said to
> Moses" or Gen. 12:1 "and the Lord had said")

Not so.  Again, when this is part of the theory, it's necessary to
adjust the text to fit the theory (either textually or exegetically).

> 5. Wayyiqtol represents a situation subjectively as Perfective.

Aspect is not in view in the Hebrew verbal system.

> 6. Wayyiqtol may take on the range of meanings associated with the
> Perfective conjugation.

Depends on what you think the "range of meanings associated with the
Perfective conjugation" is.  For one thing, calling it the "perfective
conjugation" begs the question.  It's more accurate to call it the
"suffix conjugation."

> 7. It is very rare that a wayyiqtol refers to a time other than the
> preceding verb.

Again, not so.  Galia Hatav showed that the wayyiqtol creates a separate
R-time (roughly, reference time) that is distinct from the preceding
one.  If she's correct, and if she isn't I think she's extremely close,
then reference to a time "other than the preceding verb" is the rule,
not the exception.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur