Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby SteveMiller » Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:28 pm

Dan 9:27 starts with a waw-consecutive
וְהִגְבִּ֥יר בְּרִ֛ית לָרַבִּ֖ים - And he shall cause a covenant to prevail

Does this require that "he shall cause a covenant to prevail" takes place AFTER the destruction of the city and the temple in the previous verse?

thanks.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby R.J. Furuli » Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:06 am

Dear David,

The WAW that is prefixed to the verb is a simple conjunction, and there is no difference in meaning between a QATAL with prefixed WAW and a QATAL without prefixed WAW. If the context definitely show it, a QATAL can be used as future perfect. But there is no grammatical construction i Hebrew that would show that an action takes place after another action in the future. So, the verb in 9:27a refers to the future and to nothing else. In Jeremiah chapters 50, and 51 you will fine many QATALs without prefixed WAW with future reference.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

User avatar
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby Ken M. Penner » Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:52 pm

R.J. Furuli wrote:there is no difference in meaning between a QATAL with prefixed WAW and a QATAL without prefixed WAW. ... there is no grammatical construction i Hebrew that would show that an action takes place after another action in the future.

Contrary to what Rolf said, most Hebraists would say that prefixing a WAW to a QATAL does make a difference. Procedural discourse (in which a sequence of instructions is given, such as in the ritual sections of the Pentateuch) typically uses WAW+QATAL for such a "future" (modal, in my view) sequence.
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University

kwrandolph
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby kwrandolph » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:32 am

Ken:

Ken M. Penner wrote:Contrary to what Rolf said, most Hebraists …


To be honest, how many Hebraists have read Tanakh through cover to cover? Even once?

The reason I bring this up is that if the Hebraists haven’t read the only tome written in Biblical Hebrew, how can they be sure that they’ve covered all the bases, i.e. seen all the examples?

Ken M. Penner wrote:… would say that prefixing a WAW to a QATAL does make a difference. Procedural discourse (in which a sequence of instructions is given, such as in the ritual sections of the Pentateuch) typically uses WAW+QATAL for such a "future" (modal, in my view) sequence.


With me, the jury is still out. Like you I’ve noticed the sequence of instructions given in Torah, so as I’m reading the rest of Tanakh, I’m watching for more of them, but finding few. Also like you, I suspect that those examples represent modal effects rather than tense.

As for this specific example, it appears that the waw-Qatal doesn’t mean anything, that it’s a mere continuation from the previous verse, where the last verb is a Qatal without a prefixed waw.

As for Steve Miller’s question, the answer is “No.” It doesn’t make this an event that comes after the destruction of the temple.

Karl W. Randolph.
Last edited by kwrandolph on Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby R.J. Furuli » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:37 am

Dear Ken,

The truth cannot be based on statistics. We cannot say that because most Hebraists have a certain view, this is the truth, and the view of the minority is wrong. We should, by giving examples, argue in favor of the viewpoint we have, rather than appeal to the views of other scholars. AT least two times in the past, I have challenged you to explain the verbs in Jeremiah 50 and 51. But you have not responded. Now I challenge you again.

In these chapters, there are 32 QATALs, 17 WEQATALs, 50 YIQTOLs, and 2 WAYYIQTOLs, all with future reference. I argue that the WAW of the WEQATAL is a syntactic marker (the conjunction "and"), and not a semantic marker. If you disagree, please explain the semantic force of this WAW. What about the 32 QATALs without WAW? They show that a QATAL can have future reference without having a prefixed WAW. And what about the two WAYYIQTOLs with future reference? Do they not show that a WAYYIQTOL does not have an intrinsic past tense?

Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Ken M. Penner wrote:
R.J. Furuli wrote:there is no difference in meaning between a QATAL with prefixed WAW and a QATAL without prefixed WAW. ... there is no grammatical construction i Hebrew that would show that an action takes place after another action in the future.

Contrary to what Rolf said, most Hebraists would say that prefixing a WAW to a QATAL does make a difference. Procedural discourse (in which a sequence of instructions is given, such as in the ritual sections of the Pentateuch) typically uses WAW+QATAL for such a "future" (modal, in my view) sequence.

User avatar
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby Ken M. Penner » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:26 pm

Rolf, for now, I simply wanted to prevent the impression that the view you expressed was the consensus view.
As for your challenge, I may have time this summer to examine Jeremiah the verbs in 50 and 51. The experiment I would like to conduct is to test which theory best predicts the forms we find in any text. Perhaps Jeremiah 50 and 51 could be one of those texts. Perhaps we could do it this way: translate or otherwise interpret the passage into whatever language you prefer, then using only your theory to select the correct verb form, translate it back into Hebrew. Compare the result with the original.
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University

kwrandolph
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby kwrandolph » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:58 pm

Ken:

Ken M. Penner wrote:Rolf, for now, I simply wanted to prevent the impression that the view you expressed was the consensus view.
As for your challenge, I may have time this summer to examine Jeremiah the verbs in 50 and 51. The experiment I would like to conduct is to test which theory best predicts the forms we find in any text. Perhaps Jeremiah 50 and 51 could be one of those texts. Perhaps we could do it this way: translate or otherwise interpret the passage into whatever language you prefer, then using only your theory to select the correct verb form, translate it back into Hebrew. Compare the result with the original.


The way to do this is not for you yourself to translate from Hebrew to English (or other language), as then you could leave clues in the way you translate it as to which forms to use when translating back into Hebrew. Probably the better way is to have someone else do the translating into English, then you translate back from the other person’s translation. That would be harder, but I think a better test.

Karl W. Randolph.

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby R.J. Furuli » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:48 am

Dear Ken,

You cannot learn to understand Hebrew grammar buy translating a few verbs back and forth. We have to deal with the Hebrew data "on the ground."
There are 13,915 QATALs and 6,097 WEQATALs in the Tanakh. As for temporal reference and modality, I give the following analysis:

QATAL: past reference:7,446; present reference 2,505; future reference 965; present completed reference (like English perfect) 2,605; modal 394.
WEQATAL: past reference:357; present reference 240; future reference 4,187; present completed reference (like English perfect) 55; modal 1,258.

The issue is whether the WAW of the WEQATAL is syntactically conditioned, thus being pragmatic, or whether it is semantically conditioned and signals a new meaning of the WEQATAL compared with the QATAL. The only way to give a thorough analysis of the issue is to study ALL the QATALs and WEQATALs. Translations of a few verbs do not give any answers. I have studied all these verbs, and in my dissertation I discuss the data at length. My conclusion is that the WAW of WEQATAL is the conjunction "and," and that there is no semantic difference between QATAL and WEQATAL. Two observations are worth considering, 1) all WEQATALs can be translated as "and + verb"; so in no case does not the WAW function as a conjunction, 2) 965 QATALs have future reference, and 357 WEQATALs have past reference, so both QATAL and WEQATAL can refer to past, present, and future. When both forms can have the same temporal references, they must express the same semantic meaning as far as temporal reference is concerned.

That more WEQATALs than QATALs have future reference, and more QATALs than WEQATALs have past reference can be explained by Hebrew syntax, and the fondness of Hebrew writers of the letter WAW, and by the linguistic conventions of the Hebrew writers.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Ken M. Penner wrote:Rolf, for now, I simply wanted to prevent the impression that the view you expressed was the consensus view.
As for your challenge, I may have time this summer to examine Jeremiah the verbs in 50 and 51. The experiment I would like to conduct is to test which theory best predicts the forms we find in any text. Perhaps Jeremiah 50 and 51 could be one of those texts. Perhaps we could do it this way: translate or otherwise interpret the passage into whatever language you prefer, then using only your theory to select the correct verb form, translate it back into Hebrew. Compare the result with the original.

gavriel
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:24 pm

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby gavriel » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:39 pm

R.J. Furuli wrote:You cannot learn to understand Hebrew grammar buy translating a few verbs back and forth. We have to deal with the Hebrew data "on the ground."
There are 13,915 QATALs and 6,097 WEQATALs in the Tanakh. As for temporal reference and modality, I give the following analysis:

QATAL: past reference:7,446; present reference 2,505; future reference 965; present completed reference (like English perfect) 2,605; modal 394.
WEQATAL: past reference:357; present reference 240; future reference 4,187; present completed reference (like English perfect) 55; modal 1,258.


Rolf,

Long time lurker, first time poster. I've admired your exhaustive research into the Hebrew verb and been reading your posts for years, my comment/question is: Doesn't your research seem to support the "traditional" view of Qatal representing completed/past (generally) and Weqatal representing incomplete/future (generally)?

As your data indicated, 72% of the Qatals are past/present completed, and 89% of Weqatal are future/modal. That doesn't even take into account a lot of the other tense data could easily fall into the aspect theories making those percentages even higher.

Thanks for your comments.

R.J. Furuli
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Dan 9:27a waw-consecutive

Postby R.J. Furuli » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:21 am

Dear Gavriel,

The reason why I use the terms "QATAL" and "WEQATAL" is that these terms are found in Hebrew grammars. So, in order to communicate with other people, I use the terms that they find meaningful. However, I see no semantic difference between QATAL and WEQATAL, but I view the WE of WEQATAL as the conjunction WAW, and the conjunction is attached to the QATAL for syntactic and not for semantic reasons.

The conclusion of my studies is that QATAL and WEQATAL represent the perfective aspect and YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL represent the imperfective aspect. To state it differently: the prefix-forms are imperfective and have some semantic properties in common, and the suffix-forms are perfective and have some semantic properties in common. Some semantic properties are common for both the imperfective and the perfective aspects, and other semantic properties are different. This can explain why prefix-forms and suffix-forms sometimes are used in a similar way (for the same situations). There are two basic reasons for the choice of an imperfective or perfective verb in a particular context, 1) The requirement of precision, and 2) linguistic convention.

The difference between a narrow and broad transcription (http://esweb.uzh.ch/jstraessler/transcription.pdf) can illustrate "the requirement of precision." To transcribe a word means to express the pronunciation of a word. This can be done by giving little detail (a broad transcription), or much detail can be given (a narrow transcription). If the requirement of precision is great (the difference in the promnunciation of the letter ”l,” if a vowel is pronounced with rounded lips or not, where in the mouth the articulation occurs, etc), a narrow transcription must be used. Where the requirement of precision is not great a broad transcription can be used. The important point is that a broad transcription can be used to express different pronunciations, because there is no requirement of giving the details of each pronunciation.

In a similar way, both the perfective and imperfective aspect in Hebrew can be used when the requirement of precision is not great, because there are some similarities between the two aspects, just as there are similarities beteween a narrow and broad transcription. We have the same situation in English. Please consider the examples below. Let us imagine that Rita knocked at a door for 10 seconds. Example 1) gives no details; example 2) suggests iterative action without giving details; examples 3) and 4) give the details of the iterative action. But these details are expressed by simple past (which is a tense and not an aspect) and the imperfective aspect. So we see that also in English can the same situation be expressed by different verbs.

1) Rita knocked at the door.
2) Rita was knocking at the door.
3) Rita knocked at the door for 10 seconds.
4) Rita was knocking at the door for 10 seconds.

Hebrew does not grammaticalize tense, and ”completed” as a grammatical term should be avoided. We must remember that the aspects are viewpoints, which focus on a particular part of an action. Both the imperfective and perfective aspect in Hebrew can for example express actions that factually are completed. When the event expressed by an imperfective verb factually is completed, often the resultant state is focused upon. The future action in Daniel 9:27, which was the first question of this thread, could have been expressed by WEQATAL, QATAL, YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and by a participle or an infinitive. Often there is not a requirement of precision in future situations.


gavriel wrote:
R.J. Furuli wrote:You cannot learn to understand Hebrew grammar buy translating a few verbs back and forth. We have to deal with the Hebrew data "on the ground."
There are 13,915 QATALs and 6,097 WEQATALs in the Tanakh. As for temporal reference and modality, I give the following analysis:

QATAL: past reference:7,446; present reference 2,505; future reference 965; present completed reference (like English perfect) 2,605; modal 394.
WEQATAL: past reference:357; present reference 240; future reference 4,187; present completed reference (like English perfect) 55; modal 1,258.


Rolf,

Long time lurker, first time poster. I've admired your exhaustive research into the Hebrew verb and been reading your posts for years, my comment/question is: Doesn't your research seem to support the "traditional" view of Qatal representing completed/past (generally) and Weqatal representing incomplete/future (generally)?

As your data indicated, 72% of the Qatals are past/present completed, and 89% of Weqatal are future/modal. That doesn't even take into account a lot of the other tense data could easily fall into the aspect theories making those percentages even higher.

Thanks for your comments.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests