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
Perhaps the weqatal's here could be seen as adnominal elaborations on the characteristics of the "thief", i.e. "he is struck, and he is dead". This would not be adverbial event enhancement, but adnominal concept elaboration since the discourse would continue with more details about the thief. Perhaps it would even suggest a basic adjectival semantic value to the Qatal verb form, not unlike what others have argued for the Qatal form.
ReplyDeleteEx 29:34 presents a challenge to what I have argued above. The verse begins with a yiqtol and then the apodosis is given with a weqatal which seems to be a consequence of the preceding yiqtol. Refine, Refine, Refine!!!
ReplyDelete