Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?
  • Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:17:09 +0200

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









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page