Stand-Alone Perfect and Imperfect examples with identical 'time' meanings

[Jason Hare]

I have two questions concerning this phrase:

How do you understand למבול? I know in Genesis it refers to the world-wide flood, does it have the same meaning here? Or does the psalmist refer to another action?

To what action do you think ישב refers, and why?

I take it to mean that God is in power even when the world is being inundated. That is, even when it seems like the world is being completely destroyed, it is not outside of the power of God. I don't think it's a reference specifically to Noah's flood.

Because of the grammar of this phrase, I haven’t come to a conclusion as to its meaning. So I wouldn’t mind your input. Oh yes, give reasons for your answer.

Not all answers are found in grammar. Some are found in context.

It looks like you too have been misled by the use of foreign terminology.

"Terminology" isn't a Hebrew word, so I would prefer that you not use it when speaking about Hebrew. Thank you.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Jason, Thankyou it is a great help what you are pointing out. Until now I had never conceived of a division between the conditionals I am familiar with and 'Hyothetical Conditionals'. Now seeing these two examples I decided to dig up a few 'Non-Hypothetical' conditionals for comparison. Highlighting Perfects in bold.

Deut 11:13-14
וְהָיָה אִם־שָׁמֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַי אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם לְאַהֲבָה אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּלְעָבְדוֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶם׃ וְנָתַתִּי מְטַר־אַרְצְכֶם בְּעִתּוֹ יוֹרֶה וּמַלְקוֹשׁ וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָנֶךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ

Lev 26:3-4
אִם־בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת־מִצְוֺתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם׃ וְנָתַתִּי גִשְׁמֵיכֶם בְּעִתָּם וְנָתְנָה הָאָרֶץ יְבוּלָהּ וְעֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה יִתֵּן פִּרְיוֹ

Deut 7:11-14
וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת־הַמִּצְוָה וְאֶת־הַחֻקִּים וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לַעֲשׂוֹתָם׃ וְהָיָה עֵקֶב תִּשְׁמְעוּן אֵת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים הָאֵלֶּה וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְשָׁמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ אֶת־הַבְּרִית וְאֶת־הַחֶסֶד אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ׃ וַאֲהֵבְךָ וּבֵרַכְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ וּבֵרַךְ פְּרִי־בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי־אַדְמָתֶךָ דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לָתֶת לָךְ׃ בָּרוּךְ תִּהְיֶה מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים לֹא־יִהְיֶה בְךָ עָקָר וַעֲקָרָה וּבִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ

There are so many perfects in this section that I am too lazy to be highlighting them.

Two Questions:

1. עֵקֶב תִּשְׁמְעוּן..and it shall happen that because you are listening? As a consequence of you listening? Strange structure here that I do not understand - it definitely can not be translated in the expected manner of : ....If you listen. OR is this simply an English mindset translating problem? (I am familiar with these situations, we have plenty of them in Dutch).

2. So far I am seeing that any Conditional statement will be followed by a string of verbs in the Perfect aspect.

Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Karl,
Referring to your question about the meaning of לַמַּבּ֣וּל in Psalm 29:10

How do you understand למבול? I know in Genesis it refers to the world-wide flood, does it have the same meaning here? Or does the psalmist refer to another action?.

Since the whole psalm is about God's Voice, and it began with God Word upon the waters then suddenly it shfts right at the end to God Sitting upon the waters. Now I believe that the 'Flood' in scripture represents often times other nations and invasions and wars especially coming upon the Land of Israel. But here also implying a multitude of Tumultous events that God initiated and God is in control. His voice uproots and disturbs and brings to birth, and upon all so called unexpected events from our persepective He Sits perfectly as someone who has command of every situation whether instigated or allowed by Him. Since everything in life is born of water, (including the whole creation n Genesis), The psalmist glorifies God by recognising Hm as the Beginning of everything, goes into detail, then ends with the beginning but in a tumultous final judgement, as were the days of Noah, so shall the end be. The reason I say the latter is because God always Sits in Judgement.
chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Chris,

You are not distinguishing between qatal ("perfect") and weqatal ("vav-consecutive perfect"). These are distinct.

נָתַ֫תִּי [nāṯáttî] = I gave, have given, had given (qatal)
וְנָתַתִּ֫י [wənāṯattî́] = and/then I will give (wəqatal)

Deut 11:13–15

וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם לְאַהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ וּלְעָבְד֔וֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶֽם׃ וְנָתַתִּ֧י מְטַֽר־אַרְצְכֶ֛ם בְּעִתּ֖וֹ יוֹרֶ֣ה וּמַלְק֑וֹשׁ וְאָסַפְתָּ֣ דְגָנֶ֔ךָ וְתִֽירֹשְׁךָ֖ וְיִצְהָרֶֽךָ׃ וְנָתַתִּ֛י עֵ֥שֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ֖ לִבְהֶמְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ׃

וְהָיָה — This is wəqatal setting up a future state. "And it will happen."

אִם... תִּשְׁמְעוּ — This is a real conditional, using the future after "if." Either the hearers will do what is being ask, or they will not. Depending on their behavior, there will be consequences. "If you (will) obey..."

וְנָתַתִּ֫י — This is the consequence of the conditional (the apodosis). "If you (will) obey... then I will give..."

וְאָסַפְתָּ֫ — A further consequence. "If you (will) obey... then I will give... and you will collect..."

וְנָתַתִּ֫י — Another consequence. "If you (will) obey... then I will give... and you will collect... and I will give..."

וְאָכַלְתָּ֫ וְשָׂבָ֫עְתָּ — The final consequence of the conditional. "If you (will) obey... then I will give... and you will collect... and I will give... and you will eat and be satisfied."

These are not qatals. They are wəqatals. You must distinguish between qatal, wəqatal, yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and wəyiqtol. These are all different forms.

[Jason Hare]

1. עֵקֶב תִּשְׁמְעוּן..and it shall happen that because you are listening? As a consequence of you listening? Strange structure here that I do not understand - it definitely can not be translated in the expected manner of : ....If you listen. OR is this simply an English mindset translating problem? (I am familiar with these situations, we have plenty of them in Dutch).

As a conjunction, עֵ֫קֶב can mean "because of" or "on account of." In this case, it means "and it will happen because you (will) obey..."

2. So far I am seeing that any Conditional statement will be followed by a string of verbs in the Perfect aspect.

Not in the qatal. In the wəqatal. There's a difference.

[Chris Watts]

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

[Jason Hare]

Everything you've just quoted is using wəqatal for future, not qatal.

For the most part, it really is a good idea to think of each as a distinct verb form that developed historically from different sources.

[Jason Hare]

Have you worked through a basic grammar? I think it would be a good idea, as I've recommended before. I know that it's not great to get hung up in a basic grammar, but it will introduce you to the basic concepts together with excises that will make you think through these issues for yourself.

[Chris Watts]

For the most part, it really is a good idea to think of each as a distinct verb form that developed historically from different sources.

I agree. New start. Looks like I'll be joining Karl's club as well.

Page Kelly's introductory grammar says nothing about this at all. Just mentions Vocalisation changes and that's it. No explanations however as to how to translate except very very basic concepts. Weingreens - nothing at all. So I will be hunting down in my old favourite Gesenius and van de merwe's refernce grammar has something decent.

chris watts

[Jason Hare]

I cannot imagine that Weingreen says nothing at all about how to render vəqatal and vayyiqtol verbs.