Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>]

Chris wrote:

> Please could someone tell me the historical and/or grammatical reasons why
> the word (haya) 'to be' is written differently in the following:

[snipped]
>
> BUT, in Exodus 6:7 'I will be to you God' - In the Past? (hayiti)

Actually, the form is vhayiti. The utterance starts back in v. 6, beginning
with a nominal clause (ani adonai) and continuing with what are most
neutrally designated as veqatal forms. I would call them converted perfects,
others would use the term vav-consecutive perfect, and some would disagree
with the whole system that tries to make this a distinctive form. I have no
desire to re-open the debate, but I think you will find that most Hebrew
grammars describe this form as continuing a non-perfective or non-preterite
idea. So, as in our example here, the string of clauses begins with a
present assertion, and the veqatal forms carry forward that present
assertion.

As for the historical explanation, I call it a converted perfect, because I
think this form developed by analogy with the apparent reversal of function
between yiqtol and vayyiqtol forms. In some Semitic languages, the normal
forms of finite verbs follow prefixing patterns and are distinguished by
other means--lengthening of consonants, different vowel patterning, etc. The
usual theory is that Hebrew once had fully recognizable inflectional systems
according to this same sort of pattern but eventually lost final short
vowels, resulting in a convergence of forms. We can still observe
differences in weak verb forms and a few other places where vestiges remain,
but in BH the system has broken down to a large extent, probably to the
point that it has generated new phenomena. For instance, it appears that in
poetry a memory was preserved of some older prefixal preterite, but later
poets treated the older convention as simply a different function for the
imperfect. The veqatal seems to be another construction generated by this
breakdown; as the notion of a distinctive prefixal preterite form
deteriorated, the vayyiqtol came to be seen as a conversion of the
imperfect, and it only made sense that the process should also work in
reverse.

> and then twice in Hosea 13:14 'I will be thy plagues, I will be thy
> destruction' the final letter 'heh' is dropped? from the future tense, and
> subsequently a different pronounciation.

These forms appear only here and in v. 10. They look like vayyiqtol forms
without the first syllable, so I would be inclined to analyze them formally
as old prefixal preterites. The tendency seems to be, however, to follow the
Greek versions here and read ayeh ("where?"). I don't have the resources
right now to follow up all of the arguments for this reading, but I think a
reasonable level of suspicion about these forms is justified, considering
they appear nowhere else. (And it's not like this is an uncommon verb!) But
in forms like vayhi, for instance, which is very common, we see the old
prefixal preterite preserved in the vayyiqtol form. Other shortened forms
can be jussive, but that usually applies only to third and occasionally
second person forms. In the first person, we would actually expect a
lengthened form, which tends to look like the usual imperfect in verbs with
final-weak roots.

I realize there's a lot here. I've tried to keep my remarks as brief as
possible, but your question falls in an area where a lot of work has been
done, and there is still significant debate about the proper understanding.
As I said, it hasn't been my intent to re-open that debate on this list,
only to present one analysis and to point out some of the issues involved in
your question. If you want clarification, I'd be happy to elaborate. But
right now, I'll go duck behind this rock before the barrage of objections
starts :-)

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics