From: Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Perfectivity of Wayyiqtols + Verbforms in Is 51
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:20:53 +0200
Dear BH-list members,
1) Tenses need not represent real time and the actual course of
events. Tenses reflect the way the speaker/writer presents events
rather than the way the events actually happened.
Harald Weinrich made this distinction clear by using
different words--"Tempus" versus "Zeit", i.e. tense versus time.
One needs SPECIFIC MORPHO-SYNTACTIC INDICATIONS--not simply
interpretation based on the "course of events" as one sees it--in
order to postulate 'non-wayyiqtol' uses of wayyiqtol.
2) I did postulate such uses in some cases. I called that form
'continuation wayyiqtol,' i.e. a wayyiqtol that is not found at the
beginning of a string of selfsame verb forms but after a
non-wayyiqtol verb form (or other constructions) with the function of
carrying on the same time reference.
A clear such case that I quoted sometime in the past is 1Sam
25:1 versus 28:3:
- (25:1) "Then Samuel died and all Israel gathered and
lamented over him and buried him ..."
- (28:3) "Now (the reader should remember that) Samuel HAD
DIED and all Israel HAD LAMENTED over him and HAD BURIED him ..."
- (25:1) contains a string of NARRATIVE wayyiqtols because
the first one continues a narrative chain of the same verbform
started long beforehand.
- (28:3) resumes a piece of information already given in
25:1. It recalls it to the reader as a setting for the new story--in
linguistic terms, a Wiederaufnahme, or resumptive repetition. The two
wayyiqtols in 28:3 are CONTINUATION forms--not narrative forms. They
carry on the same time reference as the preceding waw-x-qatal, i.e.
pluperfect. In Weinrich's terms, they convey "recovered information."
Other cases of CONTINUATION wayyiqtol are listed in my _Syntax_ #146.
3) In cases where no MORPHO-SYNTACTIC INDICATIONS are available
in the text, i.e. where no non-wayyiqtol form/construction precedes a
wayyiqtol, I would not recommend postulating a 'non-wayyiqtol use' of
wayyiqtol. The reason is that we are to discover the way the writer
presents things rather than to interpret the verb forms on the basis
of our understanding of the actual course of events or "ordo rerum."
As far as I can see, such is the case with the texts
mentioned in the discussion on Perfectivity of wayyiqtols, i.e., Gen
38:28; 37:27; and Ruth 1:6.
4) The case of wayehî is similar. When wayehî introduces a
circumstance placed before the main sentence (e.g. Gen 22:20), it is
a continuation form--I called this 'macrosyntactic wayehî.' Its
syntactic function is to avoid that the circumstance placed before
the main sentence break the narrative chain; i.e. this wayehî brings
the circumstance into the mainline of narrative.
Wayehî can also be followed by a noun as its subject (as is
the case in 1 Sam 1:1)--I called this 'full verb.' The different name
serves the practical purpose of distinguishing one wayehî from the
other. I do not mean that the 'macrosyntactic wayehî' is not a full
verb; it is a full verb but its subject is the whole double
construction following it (i.e. circumstance = protasis + main
sentence = apodosis). Its subject is not a noun/pronoun as is the
case with other wayyiqtols (and other finite verbs as well).
5) Let me add a small note concerning the problem of the verb
forms in Isa 51:2 discussed in an interesting exchange between Paul
Zellmer and Randall Buth. I think Buth is right as far as
teHollelkem, "(Sarah) who would birth you," or "who was to give birth
to you." With this peculiar expression the prophet may wish to
present, first, the choice of Abraham, then that of Sarah. This is in
line with what follows, "for as (Abraham was) but one I called him
('eHad qera'tîhû = x-qatal), and I blessed him (wa'abarekehû =
continuation wayyiqtol = same time reference) IN ORDER TO MULTIPLY
HIM (we'arbehû = weyiqtol)."
Instead of we'arbehû (weyiqtol) one may choose to read
wa'arbehû (wayyiqtol) = "and I multiplied him" with the LXX (which
has an expanded text, "and I loved him and multiplied him"). However,
if one stays with the Masoretic reading tradition, weyiqtol should be
interpreted as expressing volition/finality. Actually this is the
value of weyiqtol as against weqatal, which is non-volitional,
expressing simple future or prediction. On this distinction one may
consult my _Syntax_ ## 61-65.