Wayyiqtol versus Qatal in Narrative

Exodus 39:8-10 provides us with a clear example of the difference between BH wayyiqtol and qatal.  Let me illustrate.

verse 8

ויעשׂ את־החשׁן And they made the breast-pouch.

verse 9

רבוע היה כפול עשׂו את־החשׁן It was square. They made the breast-pouch folded double.

verse 10

וימלאו ארבעה טורי אבן And they filled it with 4 rows of stone... 

The wayyiqtol in verse 8 describes an event, i.e. the making of the breast-pouch.  Then the switch to qatal in verse 9 signals that no new event is being added, but rather the further description of what was involved in the making of the breast-pouch.  It's as if the author says, "It involved making it in this way, i.e. square and folded double." Then verse 10 opens with a wayyiqtol signaling a new event, namely, the filling of the breast-pouch with 4 rows of stone.

Thus we have something like this.

wayyiqtol=new event in the narrative.

qatal=coloring in the details associated with said event.

The wayyiqtol introduces a new event in the event chain. The qatal presses the "pause" button on that event to provide more detail for the scene created by that event.  This is what Michel would call the explanatory function of a qatal which interrupts a chain of wayyiqtol's.

Joseph Justiss

Living Biblical Hebrew and Greek

I recently received my copy of Randall Buth's Living Biblical Hebrew, and I recently purchased the Biblical Greek one as well. I'm excited to see if these products can really help me internalize the languages and control them more competently. I want to process the biblical text at the speed of reading without mechanically manipulating the morphology in my head while assigning an English translation to the words and phrases before any understanding takes place. My wife and young children are listening along.

If you are interested in learning more about these products visit www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
You can also follow them on facebook.

Joe Justiss

The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek

Okay you Greek lovers. Finally a post on Greek after all this Hebrew. I want to introduce to you all a book which comes highly recommended from scholars like Randall Buth (www.biblicallanguagecenter.com) on the syntax and semantics of the verb in Classical Greek. Here is the bibliographical info.

Albert Riksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction. Third edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2006.

I have only just begun to read it. So, in this post, I will just introduce you to the basic sematic value of the tense stems as outlined by Riksbaron on page 1 of Chapter 1.

-The present stem signifies that a state of affairs* is being carried out
and is, therefore, not completed (imperfective value).
-The aorist stem signifies that a state of affairs is completed (confective
value).
-The perfect stem signifies both that a state of affairs is completed and
that as a result a state exists (stative-confective value)
-The future stem signifies that a state of affairs is located after a point in time given in context or situation, without indicating
whether or not the state of affairs is completed.
-The future perfect stem signifies that a state of affairs is completed and
that as a result a state exists after a point in time given in
context or situation.

I look forward to working my way through this text further and seeing how well the theory explains what I see in the Greek of the New Testament. More to come on this, Lord willing.

Joe Justiss

*by "state of affairs" he means "a cover term for 'that which is expressed by a predication' (= roughly: a verb form and its arguments, e.g. Agent and Patient...'Action' is now usually restricted to a particular type of state of affairs, cp. e.g. Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1. Berlin-New York 1997: Mouton de Gruyter.

Michel's theory and another function of weqatal in conditional clauses

Exodus 22:1 provides an example of another possible use of weqatal in conditional constructions. Here two weqatals are given after the protasis opens with a yiqtol.

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב והכה ומת אין לו דמים

"If, during a break-in, the thief is found, is struck, and dies, then there is no murder on his account."

These two weqatal's do not provide the apodosis to the protasis. The negative particle of existence provides such. The question is why is the qatal selected? If Michel is correct then these do not continue the yiqtol, but attach an explanatory fact beside it. This is where Michel needs some clarification. These qatal's do provide a kind of explanation, but a better term could be used here because "explanation" suggests that more information is provided about a preceding concept. Event "enhancement" is better for the following reasons (Renkema uses "explanation" to describe discourse segments which provide additional details about concepts, i.e. nominal entities, and "enhancement" to refer to discourse segments which provide details about "events").

These qatals actually fill out the event frame of "a thief's getting caught." They really don't describe separate events, but enhance with greater details the action which the initial yiqtol describes (i.e. a thief's being caught). Thus, their function is "to the action", or adverbial. They are adverbial clauses of manner, and more specifically, circumstance. "If the thief is caught, and the circumstances are such that he is struck and dies, then..."

Comments, questions, critiques.

Joe Justiss

Michel's Theory and Conditional Clauses

Michel briefly treats conditional sentences in his work on the Hebrew verb forms in the Psalter. When dealing with the conditional sentence with the pattern: Protasis (Yiqtol) apodosis (Qatal) the apodosis does not follow after the execution of the protasis, but the apodosis represents as already existing fact which now becomes clear.

The Problem for Michel's Theory

Exodus 21:11 presents a challenge for Michel's description of the use of the verbal forms in such constructions. I will illustrate the problem then attempt a possible solution which will salvage Michel's overall theory.

We need verse 10 as well for some context: אם אחרת יקח לו שׁארה כסותה וענתה לא יגרע (If he should take another wife for himself he must not diminish her food, clothing, or love-making.) Then verse 11: ואם שׁלשׁ אלה לא יעשה לה ויצאה חנם אין כסף (But if he won't provide these three things for her she may go out freely, without payment.)

Verse 11 begins with a yiqtol in the protasis which depends on the will or ability of the husband to do or not do something. This makes sense because Michel argues that yiqtol is dependent in this way. But the apodosis is weqatal. Michel argues that these actions are not dependent on any other action, or thing, outside of them. But doesn't the wife's going depend on the husband's not providing? This would make the qatal a kind of dependent action by Michel's definition.

A Possible Solution

Conditional sentences are a subtype of "causation" relations between sentences. Jan Renkema (The Texture of Discourse) speaks of 5 kinds of causation relationships which should be clearly distinguished: cause-effect, reason-result, means-purpose, concessive-outcome, and condition-consequence). Cause-effect is distinguished from reason-result by the fact that in cause-effect there is absence of will, i.e. the effect follows by necessity from the cause. In reason-result the result happens because of the will/volition of the acting subject. The condition relation sets up a causation relationship in a non-reality, or hypothetical mood.

In Exodus 21:11 one must determine what kind of causation relation is being set up in this hypothetical senario. One must ask why did the author select Yiqtol or the protasis and qatal for the apodosis instead of yiqtol in both clauses like the immediately preceding conditional sentence in verse 10. Michel teaches that yiqtol in protasis and apodosis indicates that when the first actions occurs it implies the execution of the second action, i.e. the second action follows necessarily from the first. This is Renkema's cause-effect relation. However, what if the author of Ex 21:11 selected qatal in the apodosis because the wife's going out is optional? In other words, he wanted to express a reason-result relationship in which the woman is free to leave, if she wants to (See the role volition must play!), when her husband reduces her previous supply of food, clothing, and sex. Her leaving does not follow by necessity from such conditions (she doesn't have to go out), but she may leave or stay. Thus the qatal presents what Michel calls an accidental action, i.e. one which the acting subject can either do, or leave undone. Of course, this is precisely what Michel says is the nature of the Qatal. With this explanation his theory seems to be in tact in spite of the apparent challenge Ex 21:11 presents. The text does, however, demonstrate that Michel's simple opposition between dependent (yiqtol) and absolute (qatal) actions may need further nuace. Here is a translation to bring out the syntax more clearly.

If he won't provide these three things for her, then it becomes a matter of fact that she may go out freely without payment.

I welcome your comments and questions.

Michel's Theory and Proverbs 1:22

Proverbs 1:22 provides a helpful example of Michel's theory at work at a spot in the text where the syntax is somewhat difficult at first glance and without the aid of Michel's theory. The verse opens with an interrogative addressed to the naive (How long, oh naive ones, must you love naivete?). The Yiqtol here is likely what Michel would call a substantial kind of modal where the action happens by necessity from the nature of the acting subject. Since the subjects are "naive" they naturally love naivete. Then a waw + X + Qatal with an inverted subject follows. At first this seems like an inexplicable switch of verbal forms. One would expect the action in 22b to continue with a modal/substantial Yiqtol, but not if one recalls Michel's theory on the reason for attaching a Qatal clause to a Yiqtol. He writes, "If a Qatal connects syndetically or asyndetically to a participle or a Yiqtol it does not continue these, but presents an explanatory fact beside it."

The Qatal in Proverbs 1:22b seems to be doing exactly that. "How long, Oh naive ones, must you love naivete, that is, how long will scoffers desire scoffing..." The "naive" and the "scoffers" are not two different groups, nor are "loving naivete" and "desiring scoffing" two separate actions. The second set of actors and actions explains more clearly what is meant by the first.

In 22c the author switches back to a substantial Yiqtol because a new action is added, namely, hating knowledge. Thus, Michel's theory helps make sense of a difficult piece of Hebrew syntax.

Michel's theory in action in prose

Michel's study of the verb in poetry was an attempt to describe the function of the tenses in prose as well by testing it in a genre, i.e. poetry, where the function of the tenses could not be obscured by the fact that they primarily refer to events in one time stage--like when in narrative mainly past events are in view. I want to show you two examples of how I think his theory does help explain the verb in narrative as well--at least narrative speech.

In Gen 43:9 Judah pledges himself as security for Benjamin with yiqtols then he switches to weqatals to explain exactly what he means by his pledge. There is no time reference difference between the forms. Both are future here. The weqatals do not add information. They explain the preceding yiqtols--just like Michel's theory teaches.

The same thing happens again in 43:14. Jacob expresses a desire that the man (Joseph) have mercy on the brothers with a yiqtol then he explains what having mercy would look like, i.e. may he set your other brother and Benjamin free. So the weqatal also expresses desire here. So the difference between these verbal forms is not one of tense or mood.

On the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System

For those of you following along with me in your Hebrew Bibles I offer my understanding of the verbal system which shall inform my reading of the text throughout. It is merely a summary of Diethelm Michel's fine work Tempora und Satzstellung in dem Psalmen.

1. The Qtl is selected for the rendering of an action, if it is considered as self-important, as absolute. Thus it stresses the factuality of an event. With reference to the acting subject, it describes an accidental action.

2. The Yqtl is selected for the rendering of an action, if this action receives its significance from something which lies outside the action itself. Thus it is dependent. Such things which lie outside the action itself can be.
a. an action progression in which the action describes a resulting link (result, purpose, iterative use, etc),
b. the general situation (modal use), or
c. the nature of the acting person (substantial use), and
d. the intention of the speaker (expression of desire).
e. In case "a", if an action is described explicitly as a "result" then the Wyyqtl is used.