116 Based on van der Merwe’s discussion, the hypothetical
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
in 2 Sam 11:15 would be an example of reactivating an entity. The effect of this reactivation is to
heighten the level of focus associated with the nominal item in the
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
and this appears to be precisely why the text does
NOT
have a
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
here. Even though the
WAYYIQTOL
in 2 Sam 11:15 seems anomalous, its use maintains the focus on David as agent without shifting focus to the letter itself. This is a good example of a
WAYYIQTOL
being used where
SEQUENTIALITY
is not the feature in focus.
6.2.2 The Multi-Dimensional Verb Analysis Implemented in this Study
For the analysis of the biblical Hebrew verbal system, the descriptive, functional- typological, discourse-pragmatic model presented in this study provides many beneficial
perspectives. First of all, modern Linguistics, especially in the tradition of Saussure, Boas, Sapir, etc., insists that each language system be analyzed in its own right. The
“precision” or “elegance” of some other language is not the standard by which another language is measured. The existence of a particular verb form or tense or aspect in one
language does not imply that it will necessarily be present in another language. More important than the presence or absence of some idealized grammatical or syntactic entity
is consideration of the whole system of the language. The difference between vowel systems is a case in point. The phonetic description of a vowel system places all the
vowels on a matrix of articulatory tongue positions from front to back and from high to low. The following charts show the vowels in a typical three-vowel and five-vowel
system. The vowels of a natural language are not defined acoustically by precise frequencies, but rather by their characteristic frequencies in systemic relationship to the
117 other vowels of that language. The consequence of
this is that [i] in the three-vowel system [i] in a five-vowel system, because [i] is defined in each
system by its relationship in the
matrix with the other vowels. The three-vowel system will likely permit a wider range of phonetic variation
than that permitted in the five-vowel system. If a system has a greater number of vowels, less variation is possible because each vowel
operates within a more restricted part of the total matrix. It is important to recognize, however, that there is no difference in communicative
efficiency between languages with different vowel systems. At an abstract level of acoustic phonetics, a vowel in the five-vowel system may appear to be more precisely
defined in contrast to one from the three-vowel system, but this neither impairs the ability of the speaker of the three-vowel system to speak precisely, nor does a five-vowel system
enhance the ability of the speaker in any other language. In parallel fashion, verbal systems may differ in terms of the number and type of
forms attested, but each language will be able to use its system to efficiently communicate. When one language is compared to another, or when translation from one
language to another is attempted, the differences may seem insurmountable, but each language within its own system is capable of efficient communication.
front central back high
[i] [u]
mid low
[a]
Figure 9: Three-vowel system
front central back high
[i] [u]
mid [e]
[o] low
[a]
Figure 10: Five-vowel system
118 Just as a vowel from a three-vowel system cannot be equated with one from a
five-vowel system, there should be no expectation that the verbal forms of one language will directly map onto the verbal forms of another. Each system needs to be understood in
its own right before comparisons are made. In terms of verbal systems, this means that the study of forms and conjugations needs to be carried out within the whole system,
realizing that languages differ as to what is grammaticalized or encoded in the various subsystems. For example, the verbal forms in Mapudungun, a language spoken in Chile
and Argentina encodes a two-way distinction between non-future and future. This does not imply, however, that speakers of Mapudungun make no distinction between present
and past. The present-past distinction is not grammaticalized in the actual verb forms, but other mechanisms are used to contextually indicate past or present temporal reference.
In the description of the verbal system of biblical Hebrew, the verb forms have often been analyzed in isolation from the whole system within which they function. In
1990, in The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, Niccacci recommended that “a verb form needs to be studied in texts, not in isolation but in connection with all its
associated linguistic markers” Niccacci 1990, 10, but much remains to be done before this type of contextual study is fully integrated into the study of biblical Hebrew.
What needs to be avoided at all costs is the insinuation that the use of the verb forms is random or that the biblical Hebrew verbal system is impoverished, as seen in the
following quote from GKC: While the Hebrew verb, owing to these derivative forms or conjugations,
possesses a certain richness and copiousness, it is, on the other hand, poor in the matter of tenses and moods. The verb has only two tense-forms
Perfect and Imperfect…, besides an Imperative but only in the active,
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
