Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Take something like qatal 'fixed' and yiqtol 'contingent'.
> You can run with that pretty far, but it doesn't explain why
> Hebrew speakers didn't like qatal and wayyiqtol with maHar
> in the same clause. Sure, 'tomorrow' is contingent, but it
> doesn't have to be presented as contingent. "and he WILL
> come tomorrow."  *vayyabo maHar would be predicted to
> occur, also *hu ba maHar.
>

The problem with this question is that Tanakh is such a limited corpus for
the preservation of the language, that whether or not we find MXR used in
connection with a qatal in the same phrase in spoken Biblical Hebrew is more
an accident of  preservation than an accurate survey of spoken Biblical
Hebrew.

That the qatal and wayyiqtal inflections are used in unquestionably deictic
future contexts narrows the question down to whether or not the word MXRis
used in the same phrase as a qatal or wayyiqtol, not whether or not these
inflections can refer to future events.

After having written the above, I made a computer search of the word MXR and
found, among others, a few cases where the participle is used to refer to
future events. But we already knew that was possible. There are some phrases
with no verb at all, but where the verb to be is understood. I found some
cases where the written inflection without points is the same as qatal,
however, all are in imperative contexts so I did not count them. So, in the
narrow sense of your question, qatal and wayyiqtol are not found in
connection with MXR in the surviving written literature.

However, this raises other questions.

Does that rule out qatal having been used, only not preserved in writing? I
do not think that claim can be substantiated.

If as I understand Rolf's position that the waw prefix on a verb does not
make it into a separate inflection, rather the waw is merely a sign that
what follows the waw is merely a continuation of the context of what was
written before, then there are several cases of where qatal is used in
connection with MXR. The question becomes, is Rolf correct (I think he is)?

What about those cases where the written morphology (without points) is the
same as qatals, but in imperative contexts? Were they qatals understood from
their contexts to carry the imperative force? I do not think we can rule
that out. The imperative is not always given in imperative inflections, also
in other languages, so I do not think we can rule out the imperative given
as a qatal in Biblical Hebrew.

>
> Randall Buth
>
>
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>


Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Karl W. Randolph.