Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:
>  Clusters of YIQTOLs with past reference are very rare; one other occurrence 
> is the building of  the tabrnacle. When such a thing occurs, there is some 
> reason for it, and my suggestion was that there is a convention in such 
> situations to use YIQTOLs.

HH: Yes, and I see no need for a special convention. A progressive 
imperfect perfectly suits the context.

>  The point I tried to make was that linguistic 
> conventions does not affect or pinpoint the meaning of a verb form.
>   

HH: I don't see a special literary convention here.
> BTW, how do you know that YIQTOLs with past reference are progressive,

HH: I believe they are progressive in this context because Ezekiel is 
watching angels carry out a repeated movement. The action is ongoing, as 
his witness of it.

>  while 
> WAYYIQTOLs with past reference are not progressive?

HH: Context usually shows that the wayyiqtols function as preterites.

>   Because the grammars 
> say so?

HH: When authoritative sources and experience match up pretty well, it 
gives some confidence.

>  In that case, how do the grammarians know?  Do Waltke and O´Connor 
> prove their point, or do they just say so?

HH: The authors cite many sources for their conclusions. In one of my 
posts I cited evidence that they give for their conclusion about WATTQTL 
forms. They discuss the Amarna evidence from Byblos for three prefix 
conjugations. They mention the significance of the energic pattern in 
early Northwest Semitic and Arabic. They cite authorities on both sides 
of various views. They talk about Ugaritic, and parallels it has with 
biblical Hebrew. There are many pages of discussion (Waltke-O'Connor, 
Biblical Hebrew Syntax, #31, 33).

>   Please look at the examples 
> below and tell me why the YIQTOLs should be taken as progressive why and the 
> WAYYIQTOLs should not.
>
> Genesis 37:7 One YIQTOL  followed by one WAYYIQTOL
>   

Gen. 37:7 We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when 
suddenly my sheaf rose (perfect) and stood upright (perfect), while your 
sheaves gathered (YIQTOL) around mine and bowed (WAYYIQTOL) down to it.”

HH: The participle "binding" describes an ongoing action. It is a brief 
action for a sheaf to rise and stand, but it would be a somewhat 
time-consuming process for the other eleven sheaves to move from their 
original positions and gather around Joseph's sheaf. So the imperfect 
idea seems suitable. Bowing, again, is a brief action and the WAYYQTL 
seems appropriate for it.

> Exodus 1:12 Three YIQTOLs and one WAYYIQTOL
>   

Ex. 1:12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and 
spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites.

HH: The first three verbs are YIQTOL verbs because it is an ongoing 
process with K)$R and KN ("as . . . , so . . ."). The WAYYQTL form gives 
the result that the Egyptians felt dread concerning the Israelites.
> Deuteronomy 2:12  One YIQTOL and two WAYYIQTOLs
>   

Deut. 2:12 Horites used to live (YIQTOL) in Seir, but the descendants of 
Esau drove (YIQTOL) them out. They destroyed (WAYYIQTOL) the Horites 
from before them and settled (WAYYIQTOL) in their place, just as Israel 
did in the land the LORD gave them as their possession.)

HH: The first two verbs are YIQTOL forms. The NIV shows the past 
continuative idea with the first:
"used to live." It is joined by a "waw" plus noun clause with another 
YIQTOL. This type of clause usually gives circumstances, so I gather the 
writer was giving a parallel to the first clause. There was a process of 
the Edomites driving them out. The result of this process was that they 
destroyed this people and took over their land (the two WAYYIQTOL verbs).
> Deuteronomy 32:12 One YIQTOL followed by one WAYYIQTOL
>   

HH: I don't know what you mean here because there is no WAYYIQTOL verb 
in the verse. Perhaps you mean another verse.
> Please also consider Nehemiah 3:13-15. Are the two YIQTOLs and three 
> WEYIQTOLs in these verses progressive while the WAYYIQTOL in v.13 with of 
> the same root as one of the WEYIQTOLs in v. 15 is not progressive?
>   

HH: This is an unusual passage in its handling of verbs.

Neh. 3:13 The Valley Gate was repaired (perfect) by Hanun and the 
residents of Zanoah. They rebuilt (perfect) it and put (WAYYIQTOL) its 
doors and bolts and bars in place. They also repaired five hundred yards 
of the wall as far as the Dung Gate.
Neh. 3:14 The Dung Gate was repaired (perfect) by Malkijah son of Recab, 
ruler of the district of Beth Hakkerem. He rebuilt it (YIQTOL) and put 
(WEYIQTOL) its doors and bolts and bars in place.
Neh. 3:15 The Fountain Gate was repaired (perfect) by Shallun son of 
Col-Hozeh, ruler of the district of Mizpah. He rebuilt it (YIQTOL), 
roofing it (WEYIQTOL) over and putting (WEYIQTOL) its doors and bolts 
and bars in place. He also repaired (perfect) the wall of the Pool of 
Siloam, by the King’s Garden, as far as the steps going down from the 
City of David.

HH: It's true that the same verbs handled as perfects in verse 13 
(suffix conjugation) are handled as YIQTOL verbs in verses 14-15. I'd 
have to study the issue closely to try and determine if there is any 
pattern in the Book of Nehemiah. I'm not sure how he is using the verbs 
at this point, though verse 13 might suggest that verses 14-15 are using 
the imperfects in a preterite sense. Since biblical Hebrew sometimes 
uses a preterite YIQTOL, this would not be impossible, but it is unusual 
to see such forms in newer, non-poetic material. On the other hand, it 
is possible that the author simply changed perspective in verses 14-15 
and described the same actions in terms of the ongoing process that it 
was. I'd have to study the book more closely to make a closer determination.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard