119 two Infinitives and a Participle. All relations of time, absolute and relative,
are expressed either by these forms hence a certain diversity in their meaning… or by syntactical combinations. GKC 1910, 117
Even though this standard grammar acknowledges a “certain richness” of the Hebrew verb, the implication is that of inadequacy compared to some other linguistic
system. The complexity of the verbal system is seen in that there is no single category
which adequately explains the choice of verb forms. The approach here is, in a sense, to embrace the temporal, aspectual, and modal dimensions of the biblical Hebrew verb,
combining them all with discourse-pragmatic considerations of the narrative role of the verb in context. Certain syntactic or discourse-pragmatic contexts will have their
preferred verb forms, certain optional verb forms if other factors come into play, and also certain verb forms which are excluded from those contexts.
6.2.3 Description of the Hebrew Verb Forms
A variety of terms are used in the literature to refer to the biblical Hebrew verb forms. In this study the terms
QATAL
,
WEQATAL
,
YIQTOL
,
WAYYIQTOL
, and
QOTEL
are preferred because the terms themselves make no reference to temporal, aspectual, or
modal categories. The following statements are brief and may appear to be somewhat vague, but this is more appropriately seen as the provisional nature of forms which are
context-sensitive.
QATAL
:
commonly referred to as the suffix conjugation,
QATAL
most typically occurs in contexts with past temporal reference
120
WEQATAL
:
the form referred to as
WEQATAL
occurs most typically in contexts with future temporal reference
YIQTOL
:
commonly referred to as the prefix conjugation,
YIQTOL
most typically occurs in contexts with future temporal reference
WAYYIQTOL
:
the form referred to as
WAYYIQTOL
occurs most typically in contexts with
past temporal reference
QOTEL
:
this term refers to the participle, which is an integral part of the verbal system even though it shares certain characteristics with the noun. The
temporal value most typically associated with
QOTEL
is the present. Context-sensitivity does not, however, open the Hebrew verbal system up to the
kind of apparent randomness of usage that is characteristic of certain analyses. For example, Kelley states that
[t]ime tense is not inherent in the form of a Hebrew verb, but is determined by the context in which it stands. Therefore, the same verb
form may be translated as past in one context, as present in another, and as future in still another. Kelley 1992, 82-83
The problem with this statement is not necessarily its truth value, but rather the unqualified way in which it states the possible translation values for the Hebrew verb
forms. One of the unfortunate results of this type of statement is reflected in Waltke and O’Connor’s comment that “[m]ost translators, we think it is fair to say, fly by the seat of
their pants in interpreting the Hebrew conjugations” Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 55. Talstra’s comment is also insightful:
The impression one gets from this practice of translation is that exegetes tend to exploit the existing theories of ‘tense’ and ‘aspect’ according to the
needs of an ad hoc textual interpretation. Talstra 1997, 91
121 But context-sensitivity is not “flying by the seat of one’s pants” or “ad hoc
interpretation.” A context-sensitive approach to the biblical Hebrew verbal system provides a principled basis for understanding the uses and functions of the verb forms.
In addition, the form
WE X
-
QATAL
merits special comment. The X in this form represents some other element, typically a noun, that occurs with , followed by a
QATAL
form of the verb. This is a more accurate description than saying it is a
WEQATAL
interrupted by a noun, because the
WE X
-
QATAL
is more than just a
WEQATAL
with an interposed noun. In the narrative structure of the biblical Hebrew text,
WE X
-
QATAL
performs an important function. All of these forms will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters.
6.3 Clause Syntax in Biblical Hebrew
