1 Sam 4:1 - perfect being used

[Glenn Dean]

Hi:

Here is 1 Sam 4:1

[right]וַיְהִ֥י דְבַר־שְׁמוּאֵ֖ל לְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיֵּצֵ֣א יִשְׂרָאֵל֩ לִקְרַ֨את פְּלִשְׁתִּ֜ים לַמִּלְחָמָ֗ה וַֽיַּחֲנוּ֙ עַל־הָאֶ֣בֶן הָעֵ֔זֶר וּפְלִשְׁתִּ֖ים חָנ֥וּ בַאֲפֵֽק׃[/right]

After the atnah, we see 3 verbs (in either imperfect or perfect), first two with the waw-consecutive on the imperfect and the 3rd verb in the perfect (no waw-consecutive). The verbs are

וַיֵּצֵ֣א - w.s. on imperfect, "and Israel went out"
וַֽיַּחֲנוּ֙ - w.s. on imperfect, "and Israel encamped at"
חָנ֥וּ - perfect, "while the Philistines encamped at"

I was expecting ALL the verbs to have the waw-consecutive, so it seemed "odd to me atleast" that the final verb was in the perfect. Why did they switch to the perfect???

Glenn

[ducky]

Hi Glenn,

When there is a change, it usually comes to cut the line of the story.
Here there are "two stories" (that are connected to each other).
First, it talks about the acts of Israel.
Then, it moves to talk about the Philistines.
So when the subject of the story is changed, (and here comes a new sentence with a new subject), the root form is changed as well.

[Glenn Dean]

Thanxs Ducky!

After reading your post I just noticed the zaqep qaton right before they say "and the Philistines encamped at".

SO maybe that might be one thing to add to my analysis?? That is, look at the disjunctive markers, and look within each section (I know that is very vague). BUT using 1 S. 4:1, just based on the disjunctive markers we can break the verse as

And came the word of Samuel to all of Israel <== break-here due to atnah

---and Israel went out to meet the Philistines for battle <== break-here due to rebia
and they encamped near Ebenezar <== break-here due to zaqep qaton

while the Philistines encamped at Aphek

(I know breaking up verses like this will drive me batty, but as a first attempt to understand the waw-consecutive, may be this might be a good strategy. The "strategy" is to look at how the waw-consecutive is being using in each "sub-section" of the verse, with 1 S. 4:1 having 3 subsections (maybe 4)

Glenn

[ducky]

Hi Glenn,

I don't think you should analyze it too deeply. Don't make it hard for yourself. Just read as you read always, and whenever you see a change in the form, ask yourself why. Eventually, you would just see it as a natural style of writing.

[Andrew Chapman]

Isn't it because the final clause begins with a noun rather than a verb, presumably to put emphasis on the enemy - ... but the *Philistines*..., so then the vav goes with the noun rather than the verb?

[Jason Hare]

וַֽיַּחֲנוּ֙ עַל־הָאֶ֣בֶן הָעֵ֔זֶר וּפְלִשְׁתִּ֖ים חָנ֥וּ בַאֲפֵֽק׃

There are two accent phrases in this section: pashta munach zakef-katon | tipcha mercha sof-pasuk.

That doesn't tell us much, though, except that for sure HāʾÉḇen hāʿḖzer was where "they camped," and that the Philistine phrase is connected on its own. Since the Philistine phrase doesn't move the narrative and simply provides tangential information, it is not part of the vav-consecutive narrative string. It's just added info.

[Glenn Dean]

would the meaning of the verse change if the ending did have the waw-consecutive?

וַיֶּחֱנוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים בַאֲפֵק

[Glenn Dean]

another thought I had as I was reviewing my grammar book by Pratico & Pelt on the waw consecutive, it states: "Frequently, a past tense narrative sequence will begin with a perfect verb followed by any number of consecutive imperfect verbs ...... It is not uncommon for a past tense narrative sequence to begin with the consecutive imperfect ...."

So what I glean from this is that the narrative may start with either a perfect or imperfect (in our case in 1 S. 4:1 it starts with the imperfect) and it continues with a sequence of consecutive imperfect.

SO, in our case, once the perfect was introduced with "BUT the Philistines they encamped at ...", that "ended" the narrative (in verse 1).

Glenn

[Jason Hare]

would the meaning of the verse change if the ending did have the waw-consecutive?

וַיַּחֲנוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים בַאֲפֵק «altered quotation»

It would be the same semantically.