To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: The form of weqatal
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:06:45 +0800
Rolf Furuli wrote on Wednesday, July 21, 1999 5:07 PM
> Take a look at 2 Samuel 17:12, which is a verse referring to the
future. At
> the beginning we find a WEQATAL with future (or modal) meaning. Then
comes
> the QATAL NIMCF which has modal (or future) meaning. What is
interesting,
> is that this verb occurs as a QATAL and not as a WEQATAL. Why? Because
of
> the relative particle before it. If the WE of WEQATAL introduce a new
> semantic element and changes the meaning of a normal QATAL (which
commonly
> is viewed as past) to a modal or future meaning, then we would hardly
> expect that QATAL without this WE would have a modal or future
meaning. But
> this is the case here! And further, look at the words WELO-NOTAR. The
last
> element NOTAR is a QATAL with future (or modal) meaning. And why does
it
> not occur as a WEQATAL? Because of the negative particle before it;
the WE
> , which we syntactically would expect, is connected with LO and not
with
> NOTAR. The meaning of both QATALs (NIMCF and NOTAR) is exactly the
same as
> if they were expressed as WEQATALs without preceding particles. There
are a
> lot of such examples in the MT, and they show that the WE is a
syntactic
> element and not a semantic one. When you read your texts, look out for
such
> examples!
>
Uh, excuse me, Rolf, but in the case of NIMCF), I believe the Qal yiqtol
1cp is homographic to the niphal qatal 3ms. Since the weqatals that
*are* found in this verse are 1cp, it is a definite possibility that we
have a yiqtol in a dependent clause, which would be non-past relative to
the reference time.
I don't have an immediate thought on the WELO-NOTAR except that I *did*
have to pull out my magnifying glass to make sure that it was a pathah
under the tau and not a sere. The sere would have indicated a qal
participle, which would have been non-past, right?
> Let me add that a similar situation as the one described above also
exists
> for WAYYIQTOL. There are several examples (of which I plan to make a
list)
> where we have a narrative context where WAYYIQTOLs are expected, but
where
> we instead find a YIQTOL because a pronoun or a particle preceeds the
verb.
> This shows in a similar way that the WAYY is not a semantic element.
One
> example is 2 Samuel 17:17. Here we find three WEQATALs with past
meaning
> where WE clearly is syntactical (co-ordinating). Before the last one,
we
> find the verb HLK expressed as a YIQTOL. Why is it not expressed as a
> WAYYIQTOL? Because of the preceding pronoun. The co-ordinating WAW is
> connected with the pronoun, and if the pronoun were absent, we would
> evidently have had a WAYYIQTOL. Please look out for examples of this
> kind, also, when you read your texts!
>
Rolf, I can recall numerous postings pointing out that WAYYIQTOL
normally pairs with X-QATAL and WEQATAL pairs with X-YIQTOL. I believe
you would find that, were the pronoun absent, we would evidently (based
on evidence) find a WEQATAL. We appear to be in a passage describing
the normal recurrence of events, which is normally marked by a series of
WEQATALs set in an historical passage. Verse 18 breaks this description
of the "normal" pattern, so we see the writer switch back to the
WAYYIQTOL.