B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Obviously, say, וַ-יִּ-קְרָא = וַיִּקְרָא consists of the root קרא augmented by the two successive "prefixes" וַ and יִּ. Seems to me that at first the Hebrew student deserves an explanation as to the denotational function of these two adherents.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 8:55 am Obviously, say, וַ-יִּ-קְרָא = וַיִּקְרָא consists of the root קרא augmented by the two successive "prefixes" וַ and יִּ. Seems to me that at first the Hebrew student deserves an explanation as to the denotational function of these two adherents.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

That ו stands for הוּא and י stands for הִיא and that both of these pronominal affixes are genderless? Would that help them understand the use and formation of the vayyiqtol?

Jason writes

That ו stands for הוּא and י stands for הִיא and that both of these pronominal affixes are genderless? Would that help them understand the use and formation of the vayyiqtol?

Not yet.
First I would call the student's attention to the fact that the first adhering element וַ of the vayiqtol form וַיִּקְרָא is invariant, whereas the next adhering element יִּ varies depending on the person performing the act קרא, 'call'. To wit:
וָאֶקְרָא, אני since Hebrew has only one, gender neutral, אני, whereas according to the PP theory of IF there should have been two: one אני = אן-היא for the tender-slender gender and another one אנו = אן-הוּא for the fender-bender gender. But it is not so.
וַיִּקְרָא, הוּא
וַתִּקְרָא, אתה
וַנִּקְרָא, אנוּ
וַתִּקְרְאִי את with an added suffix (היא) for the tender-slender gender.
וַיִּקְרְאוּ, הוא an added suffix (הוּא) for the plural.
And so on. Conclusion?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 9:59 am Do you have access that you can share to Furuli's dissertation? I cannot rely on his conclusions without looking at his presentation myself.

I don’t have Rolf Furuli’s dissertation, as he summarized his findings on line in this forum. I think this is the book at Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Cl ... 416&sr=8-4

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 9:59 am Are you saying that something like וַיָּ֫קָם can be used (according to Furuli) to express a regular event in the future? I can imagine it being used within a sequence of weqatal forms to refer to something that is completed, similar to our future perfect in English. I cannot imagine it being used as a bare future tense.

To quote what I wrote on another thread when asked if there are any examples of Wayyiqtol that are not past reference, I wrote, “I was just reading through Ezekiel 12 and noticed in verses 25 and 28 two examples of wayyiqtol used for future reference. Also Proverbs 31:10–31, all the verbs have a present, continuous reference, includes wayyiqtols as present in verses 13, 15–17, 24–25, 28 and 31. In each of these cases, it’s the context that tells the time reference, not the verbal form.”

Karl W. Randolph.

Now that we agree that the second "affix" יִּ of וַיִּקְרָא stands for the person performing the act קרא, 'call', we turn to the first "affix" וַ and suggest that it stands for the English "and" or "then".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Namely

Gen. 12:18
וַיִּקְרָא פַרְעֹה לְאַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר
Then-he-summoned, Pharaoh, Abram and said

1Sam 6:2
וַיִּקְרְאוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים לַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַקֹּסְמִים לֵאמֹר
Then-they-called, the Philistines, for the priests and the diviners and said

Gen. 27:42
וַתִּשְׁלַח וַתִּקְרָא לְיַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ הַקָּטָן
Then-she-sent, (Rebekah), for her younger son Jacob

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:28 am I don’t have Rolf Furuli’s dissertation, as he summarized his findings on line in this forum. I think this is the book at Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Cl ... 416&sr=8-4

Thanks for the reference. When I get the time, I'll try to get to this.

By the way, John Cook did a review of this book, which you can find here. I'm going to read that straight away.

Edit: Cook gives it a big thumbs down and says why.

Jason: Thanks for the link to the book review. This review sounds significantly different from the defenses that Furuli gave on line in this forum.

Furuli’s definition of Aspect I found weird, not at all like the definition I was taught at the university nor found on the SIL grammar reference section (the same as I was taught).

On line here his main argument was statistics, that if the Wayyiqtol is a past tense marker, that it wouldn’t be found in future reference. Grammar leaking doesn’t account for as many Wayyiqtols for other than past reference as are found.

My understanding is that while the vast majority of the uses of the Wayyiqtol found in Tanakh are in past referent narration, that does not make the Wayyiqtol a past tense marker. The context of past referent narration give the Wayyiqtol the past reference apart from the verbal form. The number of times it’s found in other contexts for time references other than past argue against it being a past tense marker. There are other grammatical reasons for its common uses in past referent narration, grammar reasons that also account for its uses for present and future references in other contexts other than past narration.

Karl W. Randolph.