Imperative followed by perfect(s) with vav

[CowboysDad]

A Hebrew syntax book I've been reading suggests that when an imperative is followed by one or more perfects with a vav, then the future time perfects are always correlative to the imperative. If the Hebrew has an imperative followed by one or more imperatives, then the imperatives do not correlate. What do you think?

[Kirk Lowery]

Could you say which book, and page or section number? That would help us evaluate what they're saying.

Thanks!

[CowboysDad]

An older textbook used by my dad that is still on my shelf.
A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament
J. Wash Watts
Notes his argument in the preface, vii-viii
Expands on pp. 25-32

[kwrandolph]

An older textbook used by my dad that is still on my shelf.
A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament
J. Wash Watts
Notes his argument in the preface, vii-viii
Expands on pp. 25-32

I used to have a copy of that book, but I don’t know what happened to it. I do not recommend it.

I just came across an example of this structure, 1 Kings 1:33–35. There the imperative is “Take” followed by verbs in Qatal preceded with waw prefixes.

The waw prefix has a very wide semantic range, not merely “and”. In narrative it has the idea of “then” followed by a verb usually in Yiqtol conjugation. In Isaiah 53:2 and 1 Kings 1:33–35 and similar passages, the waw prefix brings out the idea “in order that”. In Isaiah 53:2, it’s followed by a subjunctive, hence Yiqtol conjugation. In the passage in 1 Kings 1, the verbs following the imperative are not subjunctive, rather indicative mood, hence in the Qatal conjugation. (Translation is a different ball of wax, here we talk about use within Hebrew.)

Here the answer is not in the conjugation of the verb, rather the use of the waw prefix.

Is this the type of syntax of which you were asking? Or are there other passages?

Karl W. Randolph.

[CowboysDad]

Your example in 1 Kings seems to be precisely the sort of text he is addressing.

Here is what Watts wrote in his preface about his research: "It is usual for an imperative to be followed by a string of perfects with waw rather than other imperatives, such as we would use, and such as the Hebrew author could use if he so desired. Further observation revealed that such a string of perfects with waw is always so closely related to the initial imperative as to break down its commission into details. When an author desires to turn to an unrelated commission he uses another imperative. He, of course, could use another imperative at any time, according to his pleasure. These observations led to the hypothesis that a perfect with waw expressed a correlative idea. Extensive observation of the behavior of these perfects with waw in all sorts of cases led to the fixed conclusion that this is the way they are always used in the Old Testament."

[kwrandolph]

Your example in 1 Kings seems to be precisely the sort of text he is addressing.

Here is what Watts wrote in his preface about his research:

If I remember correctly, he wrote in the preface that he did his research while teaching in Beirut, and his research consisted largely in comparing Hebrew with Arabic.

At this point, I would like to see actual examples that back up his claims. The example from 1 Kings doesn’t follow his claims.

I bought Watts’ book on the recommendation of my Hebrew professor. I then wasted many hours trying to read Tanakh according to his formulae, and failing in the effort. Well, maybe not wasted, as that effort convinced me that Biblical Hebrew conjugations are not according to aspect. J. Wash Watts was wrong. So now I want more than just his description in order to agree with him.

"It is usual for an imperative to be followed by a string of perfects with waw rather than other imperatives, such as we would use, and such as the Hebrew author could use if he so desired. Further observation revealed that such a string of perfects with waw is always so closely related to the initial imperative as to break down its commission into details.

In 1 Kings 1, the following perfects are not related to the imperative except as the result of that first action. Otherwise, those are unrelated actions. Nor are they just details in the commission of that first action.

When an author desires to turn to an unrelated commission he uses another imperative. He, of course, could use another imperative at any time, according to his pleasure. These observations led to the hypothesis that a perfect with waw expressed a correlative idea. Extensive observation of the behavior of these perfects with waw in all sorts of cases led to the fixed conclusion that this is the way they are always used in the Old Testament."

Give examples, please. We already have one example that doesn’t follow his claim, are there any that do follow it?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

This kind of correlation doesn't surprise me. African languages often have similar constructions. In Swahili for example, in order to say something like "Go and tell" (both imperatives in English), the initial verb "go" would be an imperative while the verb "tell" would take the "ka" prefix, which works like the waw consecutive. The same morpheme is used for the narratival verb form, again in the same way the waw prefix + yiqtol works in BH narrative.

A good example of this Karl in Scripture is Deut 6:4-5 "שמע . . . ואהבת"
Here the Perfect + waw consecutive conveys the same force as the preceding imperative, i.e. command or instruction. In other words, something like "you are to love the LORD" or simply "Love the LORD" is a better rendering than "you shall love."

Jonathan Mohler

[Jemoh66]

Daniel, I agree with you 1 Kings 1:33-34 is a perfect example of this kind of syntax. The weqatals that follow the initial imperative all carry the same imperatival force. They should all be translated as consecutive imperatives in English.

קְח֤וּ . . . וְהִרְכַּבְתֶּם֙ . . . וְהֹורַדְתֶּ֥ם . . . וּמָשַׁ֣ח . . .

What is of interest here is David's use of the weqatal with משח; even though the order to anoint is for someone other than those servants who are ordered to take/cause to ride/cause to go down Solomon.

Jonathan Mohler

[SteveMiller]

Jonathan,
Does Swahili also reverse the tense like BH?

All,
What is meant here by correlate? Does it mean the latter verb follows the previous one in sequence?

thanks.

[Isaac Fried]

Here are the two verses
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד קִרְאוּ לִי לְצָדוֹק הַכֹּהֵן וּלְנָתָן הַנָּבִיא וְלִבְנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע וַיָּבֹאוּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לָהֶם קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם אֶת עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנֵיכֶם וְהִרְכַּבְתֶּם אֶת שְׁלֹמֹה בְנִי עַל הַפִּרְדָּה אֲשֶׁר לִי וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם אֹתוֹ אֶל גִּחוֹן

Now, both וְהִרְכַּבְתֶּם וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם end in the personal pronoun אַתֶּם ATEM, 'you m. p.', referring (correlating) the acts to the being instructed facing the king, namely, צָדוֹק הַכֹּהֵן נָתָן הַנָּבִיא בְנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע

Isaac Fried, Boston University