Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Joseph:

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Joseph Justiss <jljustiss AT msn.com> wrote:


>  They are not the same morphologically nor functionally. One has a waw and
> one doesn't. I take the position that the waw is more than a prefixed
> conjunction. It is an actual part of the verb's morphology.  Help me also
> with some examples of weQatal that do not imply actions to be done
> subsequent to the piece of discourse in which they are found. I need one
> from a discourse or piece of direct speech which is a part of a narrative
> text. I'm not saying none exist. I would just like to wrestle with some.


Because it is often used, I looked up weqatal of NTN. In Numbers 3:9, 7:5,
16:17 and other verses, for example, it is used as an imperative, a command,
not as a future tense. You might argue that strictly speaking that the
action follows the imperative, but the function is not as a future.

1 Samuel 25:11, even though also in English it is translated as a future,
the meaning is present, that this is a present refusal.

Ezra 9:13 it refers to a past to present event. But then you might argue
that this is a post-Babylonian Exile book, hence an early sign of a change
over to Mishnaic Hebrew.

Qohelet 1:13, clearly past reference. As is also 1 Samuel 1:4, 17:38, 2
Kings 12:10, 12, Psalm 135:12, 136:21, and I think I have enough to show
that the weqatal does not always refer to a future event.

>
> Thanks
>
> Joe Justiss
>
I don’t have one of those fancy programs that allow me to look up
grammatical forms, but I suspect that if one were to look up other weqatals,
that many of them would have present to past references, i.e. that were
happening at the same time or before mention was made of the fact.

Karl W. Randolph.

>