Seeking clarifiaction - The Prefixed Vav - Posted 2019

[Chris Watts]

Many of the grammars I read teach precisely what R.J Furuli argues against. In consideration of his post I would like to know what the present situation really is please. He does appear to make a very strong argument in his favour, but I am not in any position to be able to decide on this sort of issue. I can only follow the grammars and accept what they say, but his piece caught my eye.

viewtopic.php?t=21420

I have picked out what appears to summarize his argument in case people do not have time to read the whole post.

That the prefixed conjunction waw should give a yiqtol the same meaning as a qatal, and a prefixed waw to qatal should give it the same meaning as yiqtol, is unprecedented, and in my view very wrong.

And this comment I found exceptionally interesting...

In addition to the issue regarding the we- and way-prefixes, there is also an issue regarding the Masoretic text. There is no trace of four different semantic groups of verbs before the time of the Masoretes. So the four morphologically different groups of verbs that the vocalization and pointing of the Masoretes show (yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal, and weqatal), are they four different grammaticalized groups with different semantic meaning, or are they just two groups? In other words: Did the Masoretes by their vocalization and pointing invent four verb groups with different semantic meaning? Or did the Hebrew scholars who followed the Masoretes misunderstand their work, to the point that they gave a semantic interpretation of features that were pragmatic?

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Many of the grammars I read teach precisely what R.J Furuli argues against. In consideration of his post I would like to know what the present situation really is please. He does appear to make a very strong argument in his favour, but I am not in any position to be able to decide on this sort of issue. I can only follow the grammars and accept what they say, but his piece caught my eye.

viewtopic.php?t=21420

I have picked out what appears to summarize his argument in case people do not have time to read the whole post.

That the prefixed conjunction waw should give a yiqtol the same meaning as a qatal, and a prefixed waw to qatal should give it the same meaning as yiqtol, is unprecedented, and in my view very wrong.

And this comment I found exceptionally interesting...

In addition to the issue regarding the we- and way-prefixes, there is also an issue regarding the Masoretic text. There is no trace of four different semantic groups of verbs before the time of the Masoretes. So the four morphologically different groups of verbs that the vocalization and pointing of the Masoretes show (yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal, and weqatal), are they four different grammaticalized groups with different semantic meaning, or are they just two groups? In other words: Did the Masoretes by their vocalization and pointing invent four verb groups with different semantic meaning? Or did the Hebrew scholars who followed the Masoretes misunderstand their work, to the point that they gave a semantic interpretation of features that were pragmatic?

Chris watts

After reading Tanakh several times, I came to a very similar conclusion as did Dr. Furuli. Combine that with the grammar of the late Dr. Diethelm Michel of Uni-Mainz and you have my understanding of the functions of the Biblical Hebrew conjugations.

When I started reading Tanakh, I followed the grammars I had been taught in class. But when I read for meaning, I found it impossible to follow the grammars consistently. In some places the classroom teaching worked, but not in all. I finally concluded that the grammars were wrong. I decided just to let the language flow over me, in the same manner as a child learns his native tongue. Only later to derive grammar rules that fit what I read.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

And I have come to the conclusion that Ralf Furuli should be ignored when it comes to Hebrew. He tries to analyze the language without having a sense for it as a language. I was convinced of this while interacting with him on the meaning of סָבִיב here on this very forum when he was defending an absurd translation choice of the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If he makes such absurd claims about a standard Hebrew word, I cannot accept other claims based on his status as a Hebrew scholar.

I have his book on the Tetragrammaton, but it is also awful except for the things that actually touch upon his specialty—the archaeological evidences. His arguments on Hebrew morphology and language are just terrible.

[ducky]

Hi,

A mobile Sheva is not an original vowel, and it is a reduced vowel that is created when the stress (started to) moves forward.
Therefore, all prefixed Waws were the same, just with a short vowel (probably 'a' Patah).

The YQTL had two ways: imperfect (long) and Jussive (short).
The stress movement in the long form cause the vowel of the prefixed vowel to be reduced.

Simple example that doesn't say it all, and not perfect - but it shows the principle.
root קום
imperfect: יקום = yakUm
jussive: יקם = yAkom

Jussive:
wa+yAkom = wayAkom (wayyAkom) (the stress is close to the prefix so no reduction).

Imperfect:
wa+yakUm = wəyakUm (the stress is far from the prefix, therefore reduction).

And so, a Waw before a jussive "short form" would come with a Patah vowel, while in other forms in comes with Sheva.
(There were a few processes and evolutions in forms and stress position + analogies made; therefore, you see also verbs with their stress forward gets the prefix waw with Patah' - but it's still based on that principle)

[kwrandolph]

Hi,
…
Simple example that doesn't say it all, and not perfect - but it shows the principle.
root קום
imperfect: יקום = yakUm
jussive: יקם = yAkom

Jussive:
wa+yAkom = wayAkom (wayyAkom) (the stress is close to the prefix so no reduction).

Imperfect:
wa+yakUm = wəyakUm (the stress is far from the prefix, therefore reduction).
…

David: can you show any examples of the above?

I did an electronic search for ויקום and ויקם (unpointed text) and didn’t find what you claim. ויקום I found only once, in Ecclesiastes 12:4 in a context that indicates that it is there not used as a verb. ויקם appears many times as a Yiqtol verb.

Am I missing something?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

I did an electronic search for ויקום and ויקם (unpointed text) and didn’t find what you claim. ויקום I found only once, in Ecclesiastes 12:4 in a context that indicates that it is there not used as a verb. ויקם appears many times as a Yiqtol verb.

The specific form יָ֫קָם yā́qom as a jussive is not attested in the biblical corpus. It is reconstructed from the vayyiqtol וַיָּ֫קָם vayyā́qom just as וַיַּ֫עַשׂ vayyáʿaś is a vayyiqtol and יַ֫עַשׂ yáʿaś is its jussive (which does appear in the biblical corpus, as at 2 Sam 2.6).

I’m curious, though. If 2 Sam 2.6 hadn’t had the specific form יַ֫עַשׂ yáʿaś (“let him do”), would you argue that the form wasn’t real? Does a given form have to be attested in the biblical text in order to be real in your thinking? I’m just wondering if that specific form would fall out of the realm of possibility if it hadn’t appeared once in the text of the Bible.

[kwrandolph]

I did an electronic search for ויקום and ויקם (unpointed text) and didn’t find what you claim. ויקום I found only once, in Ecclesiastes 12:4 in a context that indicates that it is there not used as a verb. ויקם appears many times as a Yiqtol verb.

The specific form יָ֫קָם yā́qom as a jussive is not attested in the biblical corpus. It is reconstructed from the vayyiqtol וַיָּ֫קָם vayyā́qom just as וַיַּ֫עַשׂ vayyáʿaś is a vayyiqtol and יַ֫עַשׂ yáʿaś is its jussive (which does appear in the biblical corpus, as at 2 Sam 2.6).

I’m curious, though. If 2 Sam 2.6 hadn’t had the specific form יַ֫עַשׂ yáʿaś (“let him do”), would you argue that the form wasn’t real?

When reading an unpointed text, I don’t see the jussive meaning in this verse. Therefore I take this verse as one of the many examples where the Masoretes put in the wrong points.

Does a given form have to be attested in the biblical text in order to be real in your thinking?

It certainly helps.

I’m just wondering if that specific form would fall out of the realm of possibility if it hadn’t appeared once in the text of the Bible.

When dealing with Biblical Hebrew, we need to deal with what is there, not necessarily with what we expect to be there. Maybe I’m just incurious, though I have been burned when I have speculated, I try to limit myself to what I can back up through actual examples without busying myself with logical expectations.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Jason asked:

I’m curious, though. If 2 Sam 2.6 hadn’t had the specific form יַ֫עַשׂ yáʿaś (“let him do”), would you argue that the form wasn’t real?

1. Hallo Jason, I am bewildered here, according to my grammars, and this site https://biblebento.com/index.html?bhs_leb&100.2.1 and my first thoughts (like they are useful ), I did not see a Jussive I saw a normal third person Imperfect translating in my head as "The Lord will show you Kindness.... Also the last clause of that verse only confirms a future aspect as opposed to a wishful aspect. Any comments?

2. However according to BibleHub it is a Jussive. (By the way, I have found so many mistakes on that biblehub site both in grammar and translation that I am shocked no one seems to correct them, some are utterly unbelievable). Ok having said that why do you see a jussive, even with the vowel points I do not understand. And since you have more expertise than me I am anticipating a mind-blowing explanation.

Actually on second thoughts I might as well make your life really difficult as I just looked at my 1913 Driver's commentary on Samuel and he says that this is an imperfect that postulates a future certainty. I take it that this rules out the jussive?

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

1. Hallo Jason, I am bewildered here, according to my grammars, and this site https://biblebento.com/index.html?bhs_leb&100.2.1 and my first thoughts (like they are useful ), I did not see a Jussive I saw a normal third person Imperfect translating in my head as "The Lord will show you Kindness.... Also the last clause of that verse only confirms a future aspect as opposed to a wishful aspect. Any comments?

I brought it up because Logos tagged it as jussive when I did a search for it. I don’t see why you wouldn’t read it as a jussive. ESV and NRSV has “[n]ow may the Lord show...”; NIV has “[m]ay the Lord now show...”; LEB has “[n]ow may Yahweh show...”; CSB has “[n]ow, may the Lord show...”; et cetera. So many translations render it as a jussive, and that really is the jussive form. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t read it that way.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

2. However according to BibleHub it is a Jussive. (By the way, I have found so many mistakes on that biblehub site both in grammar and translation that I am shocked no one seems to correct them, some are utterly unbelievable). Ok having said that why do you see a jussive, even with the vowel points I do not understand. And since you have more expertise than me I am anticipating a mind-blowing explanation.

The normal way of forming the jussive with third-heh verb roots is to drop the heh from 3ms yiqtol. There’s nothing too odd or impressive about that.

יעשה ← יעש
יבנה ← יבן
יבכה ← יבך
יהיה ← יהי
ישתחוה ← ישתחו

The vocalization does different things depending on how the consonant clusters fall as a result of the loss of that vowel.

Here is the relevant part of Muraoka-Joüon’s grammar (§110h–n):

h
The jussive is used to express all the nuances of will: from a superior to an inferior—command, exhortation, advice, invitation, permission; from an inferior to a superior—wish, prayer, request for permission etc. The jussive is often followed by the entreating particle נָא, especially in the requests for permission. Examples: Gn 1.3 יְהִי אוֹר let there be light!; Dt 20.5 יֵלֵךְ וְיָשֹׁב let him go and return; Gn 41.33 יֵ֫רֶא “let Pharaoh see …”; 2Sm 19.38 יַעֲבֹר let him pass (request for permission) and v. 39 let him pass (permission granted); Nu 6.24ff. May Yahweh bless you and keep you, etc. (sacerdotal blessing). Some examples have נָא: Ex 34.9 יֵ֫לֶךְ־נָא may my Lord be willing to walk (polite form for לְכָה־נָּא); Gn 33.14 may my Lord be willing to pass; 2Sm 13.24 may the king be willing to go; Jdg 15.2 you may have her, 2Kg 2.16 יֵלְכוּ־נָא allow them to go; speaking of oneself in the 3rd pers.: Gn 44.33 יֵ֫שֶׁב־נָא עַבְדְּךָ allow your servant to stay(¹); 47.4.

i
With the negation אַל the jussive expresses the same nuances negatively: negative order (prohibition), negative wish, negative prayer. Examples: 1Kg 13.22 אַל־תֹּאכַל do not eat (vss. 9, 17 לֹא תֹּאכַל you shall not eat; cf. § 113m); Ex 34.3 אִישׁ אַל־יֵרָא let nobody be seen; 2Kg 10.19 אִישׁ אַל יִפָּקֵד let nobody be absent; in a prayer: 1Kg 2.20 אַל תָּ֫שֶׁב אֶת־פָּנָ֫י do not refuse me; Dt 9.26 אַל־תַּשְׁחֵת do not destroy; often with נָא: Gn 18.30 אַל־נָא יִ֫חַר לַאדֹנָי֑ may my lord be willing not to grow angry.

j
The jussive is used in a rather loose fashion, e.g. 1Sm 18.17 אַל־תְּהִי יָדִי בּוֹ my hand must not strike him (here the action depends on the speaker); Ru 3.17 you must not come back empty-handed (same observation); Josh 7.3 אַל־יַ֫עַל כָּל־הָעָם it is not necessary for all the people to come up (in giving a piece of advice).

k
Sometimes in poetry אַל is used in an even looser way, in cases where one would expect לֹא. Assuming the text is correct, אַל could be a stylistic refinement, or it could express an energic nuance: Ps 41.3 you will not give him over, 50.3 he will not remain quiet; Pr 3.25 אַל־תִּירָא you will not have to be afraid (LXX A οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσῃ); Jb 5.22 (id.); Ct 7.3 it will not lack; Jr 46.6 אַל־יָנוּס he will not be able to flee (יָנוּס ¿ or careless jussive form, §g, n.). Comp. imperative §p.

l
Some forms which are vocalised as jussives are difficult or impossible to explain(²): Dt 28.21 יַדְבֵּק (the context requires the indicative יַדְבִּק he will make cleave); 28.36; 1Kg 8.1; Ps 11.6; Pr 15.25; Jb 10.16; 15.33; 18.9; 27.22; 33.11; Ec 12.7; Dn 8.12. In these cases it is possible to conjecture that the jussive vocalisation was due to the scriptio defectiva. Likewise in the instances with לֹא‎: 1Kg 2.6 לא תוֹרֵד (read רִ); Gn 24.8; 1Sm 14.36; 2Sm 17.12; Ez 48.14.

In other cases the jussive form is implied by the consonants: Dt 28.8 יְצַו (the meaning requires the indicative יְצַוֶּה he will order); Jb 10.17 תֶּ֫רֶב‎; 18.12 יְהִי‎; 33.21 יִ֫כֶל‎; with לֹא‎ Jb 23.11 וְלֹא־אָ֑ט.

Likewise with a juxtaposing ו: Is 50.2 וְתָמֹת; Zp 2.13 וְיֵט; Jb 34.37 וְיֶ֫רֶב; Lm 3.50 וְיֵ֫רֶא.

For a few examples of וַיְהִי for וְהָיָה, cf. §z.

Relevant Footnotes
1 Practically equivalent to אֵשְׁבָה־נָּא (lit. I want to stay, please, §d).

2 According to GKC, §109k, these jussives are due to consideration of rhythm (?). About the form יוֹסֵף as indicative, cf. §75f.

While it’s true that the yiqtol itself often expresses modality, the jussive is specifically a modal entity.

Actually on second thoughts I might as well make your life really difficult as I just looked at my 1913 Driver's commentary on Samuel and he says that this is an imperfect that postulates a future certainty. I take it that this rules out the jussive?

I don’t think I’d let my decisions rest on a commentary from 1913, even if by Driver. The jussive reading seems pretty solid to me.

[Chris Watts]

Ducky commented : And so, a Waw before a jussive "short form" would come with a Patah vowel, while in other forms in comes with Sheva.

Jason Commented : The normal way of forming the jussive with third-heh verb roots is to drop the heh from 3ms yiqtol.

Question 1 ---- Hallo Jason, based on these two comments why do I see hundreds of Imperfect short forms with a vav (patach underneath) with the heh dropped (Even-Shoshan's dictionary) and yet clearly they are not jussives but simply imperfects expressing an ordinary action? Just take one for example : Gen 1:7 וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ ; So that is the reason why I see no difficulty with 1 Sam 2:6 being a normal Imperfect, despite it being a narration where there is reported speech. I do not deny the possibility of it being a jussive, a subjunctive mood but it does not have to be right? Or am I completely wrong in my opinion here?

Questions 2 ---- Interesting in Ruth 1:8. For the first time that I remember, I have to disagree with the Qeri reading here. Placing myself in this sort of situation, I can easily imagine Ruth encouraging with a sort of absolute certainty that Naomi would be blessed by God, rather than leaving Naomi with any possibility of doubt that God would not bless her. I also feel that the Qeri is a result of a Tiberian Scribe feeling more inclined to adopt a religious and customary grammar to this situation rather than considering that Ruth actually KNEW and believed with certainty that God would bless Naomi. There is so much to say to counter the Scribe's belief that the Ketiv is inappropriate, that I see no justification for questioning the Ketiv reading.
יעשה( יַ֣עַשׂ) יְהוָ֤ה עִמָּכֶם֙ חֶ֔סֶד כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר עֲשִׂיתֶ֛ם עִם־הַמֵּתִ֖ים וְעִמָּדִֽי׃

Extra, EDIT: By the way regarding your comment here :

I don’t think I’d let my decisions rest on a commentary from 1913, even if by Driver. The jussive reading seems pretty solid to me.

I only give these sort of references to let people know that there are those, more professionally qualified than myself, who would either agree or disagree with either an established fact or divisive opinions. I o not rely on these, I consult them to see what the general feeling is. Now I am sure you agree with this. The only other thing here is that the year 1913 or 1755, makes no difference to me, they are just as qualified. And sometimes the earlier commentators had just that little more wisdom than modern commentators do in the 20th century.

Chris Watts