Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear list-members,

The thread discussing present reference got an 
abrupt stop with three shots from me and no one 
shooting back. It might be interesting to 
substitute "present" with "past," and ask which 
form(s) are used with past reference.

If we look at instructions for the construction 
of the tabernacle, we find that YIQTOLs often are 
used when the people are told what they are going 
to do, and QATALs are often used when the results 
are described. So these are normal forms form for 
future and past respectively. In addition to 
these forms, in narratives the WAYYIQTOLs are the 
normal forms. As a matter of fact, all the 
different verbs supposed to be different semantic 
forms can be used with past reference. My 
analysis of all the verb forms in the Tanakh has 
the following numbers of each form with past 
reference (and percentage of the total):

WAYYIQTOL 13,539 (93.1%)
QATAL 7,446 (53.5%)
YIQTOL  1,027 (7.5%)
WEQATAL 357 (5.9%)
WEYIQTOL 50 (4.4%)

How should these numbers be interpreted? We 
should not only make a quantitative evaluation, 
but also a qualitative evaluation. This means 
that we must distinguish between semantics and 
pragmatics. For example, most of the WAYYIQTOLs 
occur in narrative contexts, and narrative verbs 
by definition *must* have past reference 
regardless of which verb form is used (In 
Phonician the verb used in narratives is the 
infinitive absolute.). On the other hand, most 
YIQTOLs with past reference are used in contexts 
where the author placed some word element before 
the verb with past reference, and therefore the 
verb could not be a WAYYIQTOL. If the word order 
in these YIQTOL  clauses was changed and the verb 
was clause-initial, the verb probably would have 
been a WAYYIQTOL. An example of this is  2 Samuel 
12:3 (NIV) where we find three WAYYIQTOLs and 3 
YIQTOLs  with past reference:

but the poor man had nothing except one little 
ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it (WAYYIQTOL), 
and it grew up (WAYYIQTOL) with him and his 
children. It shared (YIQTOL) his food, drank 
(YIQTOL) from his cup and even slept (YIQTOL) in 
his arms. It was (WAYYIQTOL) like a daughter to 
him.

An important question is: If the WAYYIQTOLs and 
the YIQTOLs are different verb forms, what is the 
semantic difference between them in this passage, 
and in other passages as well?

Joüon/Muraoka (II 389-90) says that WAYYIQTOL 
"has roughly the same values as the QATAL form" 
and "is mainly used in the sphere of the past for 
a single instantaneous action" Regarding YIQTOLs 
with past reference the grammar (II 367-68) 
says, "In the domain of the past the yiqtol 
expresses aspect only, repeated or durtive 
action" and "Finally there are some yiqtols with 
no iterative and durative aspect, and thus having 
the value of qatal, which would be the expected 
form"

(An aside: the expression "durative aspect" is a 
misnomer, because durativity is not an aspectual 
term but an Aktionsart term. A verb that is 
marked for durativity (i.e., $YR "sing," )KL 
"eat," and $TH "drink") will never cease to be 
durative, regardless of whether the verb form is 
YIQTOL or QATAL or WAYYIQTOL. To be punctual ( a 
single instantaneous action) is also an 
Aktionsart, but hardly any verb is marked for 
punctuality.)

In situations with past reference the forces of 
the forms are as follows according to the grammar:

WAYYIQTOL: a single instantaneous action
YIQTOL: 1) durative (better: progressive or continuing action) or
                 2) a single and instantaneous action

But the big question is: How can we know that 
these characteristics are correct? How can we 
know when a past reference YIQTOL is progressive 
and when it is instantaneous? And how can we know 
that a WAYYIQTOL represents instantaneous action? 
I have worked with these questions for many 
years, and I have not seen any evidence 
whatsoever that can substantiate these 
characteristics. Let us now go back and take a 
closer look at 2 Samuel 12:3.

The Aktionsart of )KL and $TH is durative, and 
this progressive action is made visible by the 
YIQTOL form. Please note that the YIQTOLs do not 
give a progressive force to the two verbs; the 
verbs are "born" with this force! The third 
YIQTOL  is the verb $CB, which either can 
indicate the entrance into a state "to lie down" 
or the stat itself "to lie".  A state is by 
definition durative , because it continues until 
it is stopped, and any part of a state is similar 
to any other part or to the state as a whole. So 
the third YIQTOL makes visible a state that 
holds. We cannot speak of the Aktionsart of a 
stative verb, because there is no action. But a 
state is in the same grammatical slot as 
Aktionsart.

We now come to the WAYYIQTOLs. The verb XYH  "to 
live" is basically a state, but stative verbs can 
also have a fientive force (eg. ML) "to be full" 
and "to fill"). The rendering "he raised it" is 
fine, and it indicates progressive and not 
instantaneous action.  The verb GDL can be both 
stative and fientive, but in this context it is 
clearly fientive. The rendering "it grew up" is 
fine, and it implies progressive and not 
instantaneous action. The verb HYH expresses the 
state of being, and it is per definition 
durative. So neither the third WAYYIQTOL 
indicates anything instantaneous; it indicates a 
state that holds. So all three  WAYYIQTOLs 
contradict the definition of Joüon/Muraoka.

Let us now return to the YIQTOLs )KL and $TH. We 
find both verbs expressed as WAYYIQTOLs in 2 
Samuel 11:13 (NIV):

At David's invitation, he ate (WAYYIQTOL) and 
drank (WAYYIQTOL) with him, and David made him 
drunk (WAYYIQTOL).

According to the grammar's definition these three 
verbs are supposed to express instantaneous 
actions. But one does not become drunk 
instantaneously, and to eat and to drink are just 
as durative in this context as in 12:3, where 
they were expressed by YIQTOLs. So, there is no 
lexical, no grammatical, and no syntactical 
reason why the force of the YIQTOLs in 12:3 
should be different from the WAYYIQTOLs of the 
same verbs in 11:13. Therefore, the choice of the 
three YIQTOLs with past reference in 12:3 is not 
semantic but pragmatic. It is based on the word 
order. In all three cases there is a word element 
before the YIQTOL, and therefore the verb cannot 
be expressed as WAYYIQTOL. If the word order was 
changed and the word element was put behind the 
verbs, the result would have been a passage with 
six WAYYIQTOLs.

The discussion above leads to the following 
claim: The WAYYIQTOL and the YIQTOL are one and 
the same form; the WAYYIQTOL is simply a YIQTOL 
with a prefixed conjunction. Both can in past 
contexts express instantaneous, progressive, and 
interative actions and holding states. So my 
answer to the question in the heading is that the 
form that is used most frequently to express past 
action is the prefix form which represent the 
imperfective aspect. My challenge is: Can anyone 
on the basis of linguistic arguments applied to 
BH show that my claim is either wrong or doubtful?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo