From: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: WEQATAL NONVOLITIVE
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:50:40 +0200
Title: Re: WEQATAL NONVOLITIVE
On 02/25/99 (WEQATAL NONVOLITIVE) Lee R. Martin wrote:
> Alviero Niccacci wrote:
> >>BTW weyiqtol is a volitive form, differently from
weqatal which is
> non-volitive.-->>
>
> Dear Professor,
> Doesn't weqatal function as continuation of volitive
forms? Would you
> say that these functions are not volitive, or that these
functions are
> not essential to weqatal, but are continuative only?
Dear Lee R. Martin,
I think that BH has two distinct sets of "future"
verbforms:
- Non-volitive set (simple future): = speech-initial form:
x-yiqtol (or non-verbal sentence) =
continuation form: weqatal = secondary-line (or background of
a preceding weqatal): x-yiqtol;
- Volitive set: = speech-initial:
(sentence-initial) yiqtol, or x-yiqtol =
continuation form: weyiqtol = secondary-line (or background to a
preceding weyiqtol): x-yiqtol.
Note that weqatal as well as weyiqtol are not found right at the
beginning of direct speech; they are continuation forms. Exceptions
are really few, as far as I know, and accountable.
Accordingly, weqatal indicates (non-intended) consequence while
weyiqtol (intended) finality. Although consequence and finality are
very close semantic entities and are often confused by interpreters,
I think that BH uses distinctive verbforms for them.
The best syntactic setting for non-volitive verbforms are the
announcements of the plagues in Exodus; see, e.g., Exod.
7:17-18. The actual announcement begins with a non-verbal sentence
with participle ("Behold, I am going to strike") and
continues with weqatal ("and the water shall be turned to
blood"); it then shift to waw-x-yiqtol in order to convey the
idea of an immediate death of the fish as its consequence
("while, or: and immediately the fish in the Nile shall
die"). These are simple-future, non-volitive announcements.
The best syntactic setting for the volitive verbforms is the priestly
blessing in Num. 6:24-26: "May the Lord bless you [SENTECE
INITIAL YIQTOL] and keep you [WEYIQTOL]" etc. (two more times
the same sequence).
Note that the blessing formula is framed
by an instruction by God to Moses which begins with non-volitve
x-yiqtol ("Thus you shall bless the Israelites", v. 22) and
ends with a non-volitive weqatal followed by its
background/secondary-line counterpart x-yiqtol: "Thus (Aaron and
his sons) shall put my name upon the Israelites [WEQATAL] and I, on
my part, I will bless them [WAW-X-YIQTOL]" (v. 27).
Clearly enough, weqatal discontinues the
volitive chain of sentence-initial yiqtol + weyiqtol; it gives the
consequence of the blessing while the following waw-x-yiqtol informs
that the blessing of God himself will come together with the blessing
of the priests.
Besides these (and other) clear cases, there are many more cases
where we find different verbforms in the same context. A common case
is a sequence type *imperative followed by (->) weyiqtol* or
*imperative -> weqatal*. The problem is, of course, whether or not
these sequences have a different meaning.
Actually, a few examples confirm the above opposition between
non-volitive weqatal and volitive weyiqtol. Compare, e.g.,
- Exod. 25:2 (order): "Speak [IMPERATIVE] to the Israelites,
THAT THEY TAKE [WEYIQTOL] for me an offering"
and Exod. 35:4-5 (execution of that order): "Moses said to the
congregation of the Israelites...: TAKE [IMPERATIVE] from among you
an offering for the Lord". Clearly, the indirect command
(weyiqtol) in Exod. 25:2 is replaced by a direct command (imperative)
in Exod. 35:5 and both are volitive. Further, see Lev. 16:2 where the
indirect command is negative *we'al + yiqtol*, which is the expected
negative counterpart of weyiqtol.
- 1 Chron. 14:10: "(God to David) Go up [IMPERATIVE] and [AS A
CONSEQUENCE] I will given them [WEQATAL] into your hand"
and 2 Sam. 5:19 (parallel passage): "Go up [IMPERATIVE], FOR I
WILL CERTAINLY GIVE [kî-natôn 'etten] the Philistines into your
hands".
That is why I think that the same difference applies even to less
evident cases. I did not find cases where this proves impossible.
Although many authorities object to the overall validity of this
analysis, still it is only reasonable to assume that different
verbforms play different syntactic functions.
Those interested may refer to my paper "A Neglected Point of
Herbrew Syntax..." in _Liber Annuus_ 37 (1987) 7-19, and/or to
_Syntax_ ##61-65. A different opinios has been put forward by T.
Muraoka in E. van Wolde (ed.), _Narrative Syntax & the Hebrew
Bible_ 229-241.
Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972
- 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax
+972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email
mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il