Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: RE: Hebrew Syntax.

Dear Peter,

Se my answer below:

> Well, Rolf, it seems that you accept discourse
> analysis as evidence of how forms are used. But if this evidence
> "can tell us nothing about the meaning of YIQTOL, QATAL,
> WAYYIQTOL, and WEQATAL", what can tell us about their meaning? We have no
> evidence other than the text. So either we have to learn about the
> meaning from the patterns we find in the text, or we have to conclude
> that we can have no idea what the text means.

If we ask the question whether WAYYIQTOLs prefer apocopated roots, we cannot by looking at most of the WAYYIQTOLs get an answer, because most of them are not naturally apocopated. The get an answer we have to look at holllow verbs, lamed he verbs and the hiphil stem. And similarly with the aspects. We cannot in most instances look at the WAYYIQTOLs or WEQATALs and their contexts and by this know their aspects, but we must look for the special situations when their aspect becomes visible.

In order to answer your question about "what can tell us their meaning" I copy a part of the introduction to chapter three of my dissertation; the chapter is  entitled: "How many prefix- conjugations are there?"

First I will discuss 2.591 infinite forms (1.745 participles, 760 infinitive constructs, and 86 infinitive absolutes) with past reference. Given the criteria used to show that the wayyiqtols are perfective, all these forms are perfective as well; but this of course is nonsense, and it seriously questions the criteria.

Second I will compare the 1.020 yiqtols with past reference with the 12.500 wayyiqtols with past reference, and demonstrate that there is no difference in the aspectual meaning of the forms. The first part of this will be to show that the yiqtols with past reference fulfill the same criteria for perfectivity as do the infinite forms with past reference and the wayyiqtol.s The second part will be to analyse three clusters of yiqtols with past reference, showing that there are syntactical reasons for the use of these forms rather than wayyiqtols. The third part will be to compare the 470 verses in the MT which occur twice (or some even trice), demonstrating that yiqtols and wayyiqtols alternate in exactly the same verses without any evidence of a difference in meaning. The fourth part will be to discuss the two most numerous groups of wayyiqtols, namely verbs of speech ()MR, DBR, QR() and verbs of motion (BW), YC), )L(, YRD), which account for 29,5 % of all thewayyiqtols. Participles, infinitives and yiqtols with past reference of these words will be discussed, and it will be shown that the focus is not on the end but on the nucleus of these forms. While we cannot, on the basis of the context, know where the stress of the wayyiqtols of the same roots are, the stress on the nucleus of these other forms suggests that the same can be true with the wayyiqtols. The fifth part will be a discussion of 75 semelfactive and telic yiqtols with past reference, showing that these have exactly the same aspectual meaning as the same roots realized as wayyiqtols.

Third I will discuss the 53 weyiqtols with past reference showing that they fulfil the same criteria for perfectivity as do the wayyiqtols,  and I will show that the the weyiqtols are yiqtols with prefixed waw.

Fourth I will discuss those wayyiqtols where we can learn something of which part is focussed upon on the basis of the context. It will be shown that a reasonable number of the wayyiqtols have imperfective characteristics. The first part will be a discussion of stative wayyiqtols, showing that in all cases except those with pre-past reference, the focus is on the nucleus. The second part will discuss conative situations where wayyiqtols are used, thus showing the imperfectivity of the form. The third part will discuss examples of wayyiqtols that are intersected by other verbs, thus having the focus on their nucleus. The fourth part will discuss examples of wayyiqtol  which indicate that the wa(y)- element is nothing but the conjunction waw.

>
>  
> You then go on to invite me to reanalyse the text
> based on an assumption of the results of that analysis. In particular
> you insist that they assume that "the prefixed WAWs are just
> conjunctions",
> although past studies have demonstrated that these prefixed WAWs have
> specific discourse functions. That is methodologically untenable. I
> agree that analysts should not assume the four conjugation model
> either. But they should work with the real data which they find in
> the text and not with presuppositions forced on them.
>

Your words reveal exactly the circularity of discourse analysis (as it is applied to Hebrew verbs) that I criticize. It is a priori, without any foundation whatsoever, assumed that WAWs prefixed to verbs (WE+QATAL  and WA(Y)+YIQTOL) are more than conjunctions, and then one engage in discoursa analysis and demonstrate exactly what has been asumed: the WAWs+verbs have "specific discourse functions". My suggestion was to drop these presuppositions and deal with the WAWs in the light of what they fundamentally are - conjunctions. If you cannot start at the bottom and demonstrate on the basis of discourse analysis that the conjunction WAW+verb has "specific discourse functions" without the need of presuppositions, the method is of little use as far as morpho-syntactic *meaning* is concerned. A methodological problem is that if the WAW prefixed to a verb "has a specific discourse function" this should be true in ALL instances where the WAW is prefixed to the verb, but that is not claimed (and of course will not turn out to be true). Please look at (1) below (my translation) where I have marked the forms and the conjunctions.

(1) 2 Samuel 16.13 (AND) David and his men continued to walk (WAYYIQTOL) while (AND) Shimei was walking (PARTICIPLE) on the side of the mountain; (AND) he was cursing (WAYYIQTOL) (AND) went on throwing stones (WAYYIQTOL) at him while he was going (INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE) abreast of him; (AND) he caused (WEQATAL) a lot of dust.

a) Normally WAYYIQTOLs occur in a consecutive chain where one action occurs after the previous one. If this is viewed as a "specific discourse function" one would try hard to interprete the three WAYYIQTOLs in this verse as consecutive, but that is hardly the case. David and his men were walking on one side of the mountain and Shimei was at the same time walking (expressed by a participle) on the other side. While David and his men were walking (expressed by the first WAYYIQTOL) Shimei was cursing and throwing stones (expressed by the two other WAYYIQTOLs); also the infinitvive absolute may stress both the contemporaneousness as does the participle. Thus reference time intersects event time  in the middle of all three WAYYIQTOLs, and this is contrary to the traditional discourse model because it suggests that the WAYYIQTOLs are imperfective. Because the WEQATAL has an adverbial of the same root and is of the Piel stem, I take it as resultative, i.e. it expresses the result of the throwing of stones, that David became covered with dust or dirt. As to QATAL/WEQATAL and their "specific discourse functions" please consider (2)

(2) Zechariah 10:3 Against the shepherds by anger burns (QATAL), and I will punish the goats (YIQTOL), for (CONJUNCTION) YHWH of armies will turn his attention (QATAL) to his drove, the house of Judah,and (WEQATAL) he will make them like a proud hores in battle.

There can be little doubt that the temporal reference for all the verbs is future. The use of a QATAL and  a WEQATAL with future reference illustrates that the WE- of WEQATAL is a simple conjunction, because the reason why the QATAL does not have a prefixed WAW simply is that there is another conjunction preceding it. There are hundreds of similar cases, and there is not a single instance where the the WE- of WEQATAL cannot be translated by "and" or a similar conjunction.

The reason why "specific discourse functions" are ascribed to different verb forms simply is that Hebrew thinking was systematic, and particular patterns were followed. For example, almost all instances of first person singular of HYH  expressed as a YIQTOL, and in most instances HINNE is followed by a verb with future reference. This is linguistic convention and does not give these forms "specific discourse functions". Also, please consider the old view of Piel as an intensive form.It seemed to fit very well, but the present view is much better (W and O'C has an excellent discussion of Piel). So, what seems to fit, need not be the case when all factors are taken into consideration. So discourse analysis of Hebrew verbs based on the assumption that there are four different conjunctions can only give the result that there are four different conjugations.

>
> Peter Kirk
>  
>
>

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo