Jason said : Not in the qatal. In the wəqatal. There's a difference.
I see the difference and understand what the apodasis is etc, thanks for pointing the VeQatal out so explicitly, actually helped to re-inforce something, this unfortunately leads me on to the question below.
So in essence, I really do have to switch my understanding from 'Perfect' to 'VeQatal' and 'Qatal'. But to be honest I do not see
distinct verb forms, but simply a Perfect with and without a prefix which we have to choose between the 'and' or the 'then'? It still remains essentially a non-prefixed verbal declension with a prefix, a little paradox here I know, but perfectly understandeable methinks. However I am going through Chisholm's book Exegesis to Exposition on this very subject. At the moment I have not seen any references in his book to VaQatal etc but rather he uses the term, the "short prefixed form". Having said this I am really not one given at all to categorisations and labels in these circumstances since there is absolutely no consistency or end to how grammarians invent new terns to describe the indescibeable, just baggage to us lonesome learners. I do however recognise that there are differences to be learned.
נָתַ֫תִּי [nāṯáttî] = I gave, have given, had given (qatal)
Last point I noticed. That the Qatal can also be future, I will give. For example in Genesis 28:15 I was just reading
וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ וּשְׁמַרְתִּיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־תֵּלֵךְ וַהֲשִׁבֹתִיךָ אֶל־הָאֲדָמָה הַזֹּאת כִּי לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם־עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ
will keep will bring will not leave etc
Chris watts