Yiqtol+wayyiqtol — is true

[R.J. Furuli]

Yiqtol + wayyiqtol—is true

Isaac Fried asked for examples, and examples are of course important. There are a few examples from my dissertation showing that yiqtol and wayyiqtol are fiancées—they have exactly the same meaning.

Joshua 9:21

וַיֹּאמְר֧וּ אֲלֵיהֶ֛ם הַנְּשִׂיאִ֖ים יִֽחְי֑וּ וַ֠יִּֽהְיוּ חֹטְבֵ֨י עֵצִ֤ים
And the leaders were saying (wayyiqtol) to them: “Let them be living (yiqtol) and let them (wayyiqtol) become woodcutters.

Or:

And the leaders were saying (wayyiqtol) to them: “They shall continue to live (yiqtol), and becoming (wayyiqtol) woodcutters.”

The yiqtol and the wayyiqtol have present reference, and the way clearly is a conjunction.

Isaiah 29:21

מַחֲטִיאֵ֤י אָדָם֙ בְּדָבָ֔ר וְלַמּוֹכִ֥יחַ בַּשַּׁ֖עַר יְקֹשׁ֑וּן וַיַּטּ֥וּ בַתֹּ֖הוּ צַדִּֽיק׃
Those bringing (part) a man into sin by a word, who are laying traps (yiqtol) for the defender in the gate, and who are leading astray (wayyiqtol) the rightous one with empty words.

The passage has three clauses, and the middle and the last clause begins with “and.” The setting is present, and the wayyiqtol has present reference. In the second clause the yiqtol is at the end. If it had been at the beginning, a waw would have been attached to it, and it would have become a wayyiqtol.

Isaiah 31:1

ה֣וֹי הַיֹּרְדִ֤ים מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ לְעֶזְרָ֔ה עַל־סוּסִ֖ים יִשָּׁעֵ֑נוּ וַיִּבְטְח֨וּ עַל־רֶ֜כֶב
Woe to those going down (participle) for help, who are relying (yiqtol) on horses, and who are trusting (wayyiqtol) in chariots

The wayyiqtol has the same present reference as the yiqtol and the participle, and the way-element clearly is the conjunction “and.”

Isaiah 44:13

יְתָאֳרֵ֑הוּ וַֽיַּעֲשֵׂ֙הוּ֙ כְּתַבְנִ֣ית אִ֔ישׁ
Who is marking ouf a form (yiqtol) of it, and is making (wayyiqtol) it into the form of a man.

The way in wayyiqtol clearly is a conjunction

Hosea 8:13

זִבְחֵ֣י הַבְהָבַ֗י יִזְבְּח֤וּ בָשָׂר֙ וַיֹּאכֵ֔לוּ יְהוָ֖ה לֹ֣א רָצָ֑ם
As my gift sacrifices they are offering (yiqtol) flesh, and they are eating (wayyiqtol). But Yehowa has not pleasure in them (nominal).

The way in wayyiqtol is clearly a conjunction

Habbakuk 1:10

וְהוּא֙ בַּמְּלָכִ֣ים יִתְקַלָּ֔ס וְרֹזְנִ֖ים מִשְׂחָ֣ק ל֑וֹ הוּ֚א לְכָל־מִבְצָ֣ר יִשְׂחָ֔ק וַיִּצְבֹּ֥ר עָפָ֖ר וַֽיִּלְכְּדָֽהּ
And as for it, it is making fun (yiqtol) of kings themselves, and high officials are ludicrous to it (nominal). And as for it, it is laughing (yiqtol) at every fortress, and it is piling up (wayyiqtol) dust and is capturing (wayyiqtol) it.

The pronoun הוּא probably refers to the nation of the Chaldeans
This pronoun two times stands at the beginning of a clause, and therefore is stressed (“as for it”). The substantive “kings” stands before the verb, and it is also stressed (“the kings themselves”). The wayyiqtols have the same present reference as the yiqtol, and the way-prefixes are conjunctions.

Genesis 27:33
וָאֹכַ֥ל מִכֹּ֛ל בְּטֶ֥רֶם תָּב֖וֹא וָאֲבָרֲכֵ֑הוּ
And I was eating (wayyiqtol) of everything before you were coming (yiqtol), and I was blessing (wayyiqtol) him.

The setting of the two wayyiqtols and the yiqtol is past, and the imperfective force of the three verbs is the same.

Genesis 37:7
וְהִנֵּ֤ה תְסֻבֶּ֙ינָה֙ אֲלֻמֹּ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וַתִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶ֖יןָ לַאֲלֻמָּתִֽי
"And look! Your sheaves were gathering around (yiqtol), and they were bowing (wayyiqtol) down to my sheaf."

The setting of the two wayyiqtols and the yiqtol is past, and the imperfective force of the three verbs is the same.

There are a great number of similar examples. But it is time consuming to write each example down. These examples show that there is no semantic difference between yiqtol and wayyiqtol.


Best regards,


Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[Isaac Fried]

Yes!
יִשָּׁעֵ֑נוּ = היא-שען-הוּא
וַיִּבְטְחוּ = בא-היא-בטח-הוּא

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

If I may ask, how do you break down הִשְׁעִין? For that part, do you provide a distinction between שָׁמַ֫נְתִּי and הִשְׁמַ֫נְתִּי? Do you distinguish between the various binyanim in your etymologies?

[Isaac Fried]

This is not etymology, it is grammar. Hebrew etymology is about the constituents of the Hebrew root, especially the presence or absence of the letter ר R of separation, and the realistic meaning of the root, often deduced from the nature of his close circle of relatives.

As I have mentioned before some binynim are equivalent and language takes advantage of this in order to finely distinguish between different derivatives of the same root, say
קָצַר, 'reap, rip(?)', as in Lev. 23:10
כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם וּקְצַרְתֶּם אֶת קְצִירָהּ וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן
NIV: "When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest."
and
קִצֵּר, 'shortened', as in Ps. 102:24(23)
עִנָּה בַדֶּרֶךְ כֹּחִי קִצַּר יָמָי
KJV: "He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days."
Some verbs are preferred, for some reason, in piel as שִקֵר; some are preferred in qal as חָלַם, and some coexist, as שָבַר with שִבֵּר. The different binynim were not made "for" something - for some grammatical purpose, but, I think, are a result of Hebrew having been developed differently in different places at different times.

Now, הִשְעִין = היא-שע-היא-ן is of the root שען, 'lean upon, rely'. The initial PP היא is for the performer of the act שען, while the internal היא is for the beneficiary of the act.
I see no difference between the usage of שָׁמַ֫נְתִּי = שמן-אתי = שמן-אני and הִשְׁמַ֫נְתִּי = היא-שמן-אתי.
A present day Hebrew speaker looking at the scale under his feet and declaring הִשְׁמַ֫נְתִּי, means that he has gained weight (possibly admitting his own fault.) The more linguistically refined observer will probably say שָמַנְתָּ = שמן-אתה קצת or עלית קצת במשקל.

Isaac Fried, Boston University