You are on page 1of 17

Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34/1 (2008), pp.

39-55
39
Tania Notarius (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW:
DUBIOUS CASES OR UNIDENTIFIED CATEGORY?
ABSTRACT
The author claims that in classical Biblical prose the form :op: may function as a
prospective future, namely denote posteriority in reference to the past time event and
possible event within the past-time framework. The analysis of the temporal and
modal semantics of the category is carried out in terms of the Reichenbachian theory
of temporality and the modal theory of possible worlds; some element of Discourse
Representation Theory are also involved. The hypothesis contributes to the general
theory of BH :op: and is placed in the context of typological and historical
investigation of the category. The hypothesis of the prospective :op: provides strong
support for the so-called modal theory of the BH imperfective use of :op: in past-
time reference. The prospective :op: can be seen as a transitional stage in the
process of the development of the imperfective past-tensed :op: from the conditional
future Old Canaanite u-qatala.
1. INTRODUCTION
The form :op: in Biblical Hebrew (BH)
1
is commonly defined as a
modal category.
2
Its modal definition is open to debate: according to
Hatav, :op: (together with :op) expresses all types of modality except

* The draft of this paper was read by Prof. S. Fassberg (Hebrew University of
Jerusalem), who made some important comments on it. My thanks also go to
Prof. Sh Izreel (Tel-Aviv University) and to Prof. Randall W. Garr
(University Santa Barbara, California), who read the paper and made some
critical notes. The Hebrew version of the paper was presented at the 24th
annual meeting of the Israel Linguistic Society; I thank the participants for
their fruitful comments. Needless to say, I am personally responsible for all
possible mistakes.
1 The present article deals only with the form of perfect with waw consecutive,
called also weqatalt in some BH grammar books (see Joon & Muraoka
1993:43). I support a morphosyntactic and semantic distinction between
perfect and perfect with waw consecutive in BH.
2 See Hatav (1997:9-10); Joosten (2002:68): The basic function of
WEQATAL, like that of YIQTOL, is to be described in terms of
futurity/modality; cf. also Joosten (1992).
TANIA NOTARIUS 40
counterfactuals;
3
Joosten thinks that it is limited to non-volitive
modality;
4
Waltke and O'Connor define it as conditional.
5
Its temporal
definition may vary as well, but scholars have demonstrated that its
default and most common meaning in direct discourse, namely in
canonical Speech-Time oriented situation is future,
6
although in other
discourse types it is commonly used in past time reference, especially
denoting frequentative or habitual action.
7
For this reason, some scholars
insist on the aspectual character of the category :op:, although its
aspectual definition is rather disputed: it is widely associated with the
imperfective aspect,
8
although sometimes its original perfective
definition is emphasised,
9
while some scholars limit it to the notion of
sequentiality.
10
The semantic definition of :op: generally depends on the
definition of the imperfect :op, because of the constant correlation
between these two forms.
11

Despite comprehensive descriptions of the category, some nuances of
its semantics still remain obscure. In this article I will claim that in
classical Biblical prose the form may function as a prospective future,
namely denote posteriority in reference to the past time event and
possible event within the past-time framework. The hypothesis is

3 See Hatav (1997:144-150).
4 Joosten (1999:16); cf. also Garr (1998:LXXXIV): Accordingly, the perfect
and perfect consecutive are indeed modally unalike: The perfect expresses
certainty; the perfect consecutive expresses uncertainty. Stated broadly, the
perfect and perfect consecutive are both the same (resultative perfect aspect)
and different (modal [un]certainty).
5 Cf. Waltke & O'Connor (1990:525): The proposed original function of the
uo_R_jR construction to signify the apodosis of a conditional clause shines
through almost all of its uses in Biblical Hebrew.
6 See Niccacci (1990:182).
7 Cf. Gesenius (1902:112e-l) and the examples there, Gen 2:6, 2:10 Exod 33:7,
etc; cf. also Hendel (1996:165f).
8 Cf., e.g., Hendel (1996:164ff), Moomo (2005:92). The scholars define :op: as
habitual, frequentative, repetitive, and iterative tense.
9 Garr adopts and develops Drivers view of the perfect consecutive as a
resultative aspect; see Garr (1998:LXXXII) and note 3 above.
10 See Hatav (1997:57ff).
11 See Joon & Muraoka (1991:119a); Joosten (2002:68): WEQATAL is the
faithful companion of YIQTOL The two verbal forms express roughly the
same functions.
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 41
supported by some diagnostic examples; some of them appear as dubious
cases of :op: in BH reference grammars
12
and the present hypothesis
confirms them within the general theory of BH verbal tenses. The article
does not comprise a comprehensive collection of cases. The thesis
contributes to the general theory of BH :op: and will be placed in the
context of typological and historical investigation of the category.
2. HYPOTHESIS
The prospective future is a rare guest in BH grammatical studies;
nevertheless Jan Joosten argues that the imperfect :op is used in this
function in BH narrative.
13
It is hard to say why future in the past is so
rare in BH, and there might be some extra-linguistic reasons for this.
However, if the biblical story-teller introduces reference to a posterior or
possible event within the past time framework, :op: could also be used in
this function.
In my view the term prospective future covers both temporal and
modal outputs of this use. The temporal semantic of this use will be
treated in terms of Reichenbachian theory of temporality, which has been
generally adopted within different linguistic approaches.
14
In terms of
temporal structure it is a relative tense, future in the past, illustrated as
follows:
(1) Future in the past: E follows R precedes S
E = Event-Time; R = Reference-Time; S = Speech-Time
Mary left at six o'clock; she would return an hour later.
15


12 See Gesenius (1902:112pp-uu); Gesenius (1902:112tt): The following are
due to errors in the text, or to incorrect modes of expression; Waltke &
O'Connor (1990:540-542); Joon and Muraoka (1991:119y-zb).
13 See Joosten (1999:17-19) and Joosten (2002:57-58). I keep the term
prospective future, already introduced into Biblical linguistics by Jan
Joosten.
14 See Reichenbach (1947); for different applications in linguistic theories cf.
Comrie (1985), Smith (1991), Hornstein (1990). In the present approach the
Reichenbachian theory of temporality is taken in light of Discourse
Representation Theory (see e.g. Kamp & Rohrer 1983), as it was already
suggested in Smith (1991) and Smith (2003).
15 Cited from Comrie (1998:997). There are different approaches in formal
description of temporal semantics based on Reichenbachian theory. In this
TANIA NOTARIUS 42
In terms of modal semantics this tense may be interpreted as a
proposition, modified by the epistemic modal operator it is possible
that:
16

(2) Possibility in the future in the past: It is possible E follows R
precedes S
= modal operator
Mary left at six o'clock; she might/must return an hour later.
Within this modal semantic framework two options are to be
distinguished on the level of the discourse representation: a possible event
that did happen at a later point on the temporal axis (fulfilled possibility)
and a possible event that did not happen later on (unfulfilled possibility):
17

(3) Fulfilled possibility in the future in the past: It is possible E
follows R
1
; and then E coincides R
2
follows R
1
precedes S
Mary left at six o'clock; she might/must return an hour later.
An hour later Mary returned.
(3a) Unfulfilled possibility in the future in the past: It is possible E
follows R precedes S; and then no E coincides R
2
follows R
1

precedes S
Mary left at six o'clock; she might/must return an hour later.
An hour later Mary did not return.
The study of some diagnostic examples will show how these semantic
options are encoded in BH prose by means of :op: clauses. Poetic texts
do not contain good examples of the use under discussion and therefore
are excluded. A comparison to the prospective :op is beyond the scope

article I do not use logical symbols, but rather verbal predicates, following
Comrie.
16 The principles of possible worlds modality upheld here have been already
applied by Hatav (1997:115ff) to BH studies. For the principles of possible
worlds semantic approach in linguistics cf. Bright (1992 Vol. III: 404-405) and
Aronoff & Rees-Miller (2001:374ff).
17 The unfulfilled possibility is to be distinguished from the counterfactuals (see,
e.g. Hatav (1997:130): if counterfactual is an unrealized event in the past,
unfulfilled possibility is an unrealized event in the future in the past. BH :op:
is used also in a counterfactual conditional period, cf. Waltke & O'Connor
(1990:531) about qatal and weqatal as counterfactuals in Gen 26:10 and Judg
16:17.
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 43
of the present discussion, especially since prospective :op: can be used
without any correlation with :op. I will conclude the investigation with
typological and historical observations concerning the prospective :op:.
3. TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
Most cases of the prospective :op: are the verb nn:, although other
verbs are also attested. Such distribution is expected: nn: being a textual
operator could denote a temporal shift from linear past to future in the
past.
18
The examples are from the narrative or prophetic personal report.
3.1 Future in the past
When the prospective future is marked by the textual operator nn:, the
event which is related to the future in the past can be rendered by an
infinitive construct (examples 4, 10) or by a finite verbal form :op and
:op: (examples 6, 8).
(4) 1 Sam 10:9
n n : n : c n o b o c n o : : n : o n' _ : ( c n : : :b c o c b
n nn n : o :n : :n n o z n :
As he was (about) to turn away and to leave Samuel, God gave
him another heart; and all these signs were fulfilled that day.
The verbal form n n : marks the future in the past reference within this
narrative passage. The events which are to happen in the future in the past
are the events of Saul's turning away and going, and they are expressed
by infinitive construct phrases; the turning away (n : c n o) precedes the
going (n o : :), and this is expressed by the preposition o, but I will
disregard this temporal complexity in the following mapping of the
passage for the sake of conformity; these two actions are about to happen
after Saul had a change of heart. The prophecy is fulfilled even before
Saul starts to move and meets the prophets:

18 On nn: as a textual operator cf. e.g. Hatav (2007:52-53); in her terms the
form nn: marks the updating of the Reference-Time. Isaksson (1998:15-25)
treats many cases of nn: (some of them are investigated in this paper) as a
macro-syntactic marker that introduces comment. His text-linguistic
interpretation does not contradict my temporal interpretation, since the
temporal structure of the possible comment is not addressed in his treatment.
Stipp (1991:533-543) interprets some of the following nn: clauses as
expressing simultaneity with the following clause.
TANIA NOTARIUS 44
(5)
E-s follow R precedes S
n : c n o n n : .. n o : : ( c n : default meaning
19

(6) 1 Sam 17:48
n n : o o p n c : s n n p : ( : : : : n b : : n p :
n c : s n n p : n o c b n
When the Philistine was about to move urgently towards David,
David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.
The verbal form n n : refers to future in the past and represents the
temporal relation between two events: David moved quickly and reached
his goal, while the Philistine was only about to move into his direction,
i.e. David was quicker and more efficient than his adversary. The form
:op after o (o p) and two sequential forms :op: (n p : ( : :) mark past
punctual, simultaneous with the future in the past nn::
(7)
E-s follow R precedes S
o p o n n : .. n p : ( : : : n b : default meaning
(8) 2 Sam 6:16
n n : n ' z : n c z n c p c : :: c n z : o b: : c
n : c : o o b: : c b : ( : b n n n : ' n z : z : n n :
As the ark of the LORD was about to enter the city of David,
Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King
David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised
him in her heart.
The syntactic structure of this example is quite close to example 6,
although the morphological status of the verbal form z which
follows n n : is ambiguous (it may be either participle or perfect; the latter
possibility is preferable), and there is no particle o on the surface level.
In terms of the temporal location of the events, one might say that the
procession was about to enter the city of David ( n n n : ' z ) after
Michal had seen David dancing ( n :); most probably she had looked
through a window of one of the external houses:

19 The Speech-Time will be a default meaning in narrative passages, examined in
this article, as a reconstructed story-telling time, in reference to which the
narrative always took place in the absolute past. Biblical narrative almost does
not include direct pointing to the story-telling time.
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 45
(9)
E follows R precedes S
n n : .. z n c p c : .. n : default meaning
All the previous examples contained the verb nn:, which marks the
future in the past perspective. Other verbal lexemes are also possible:
(10) 2 Sam 19:17-19
c o c : o : z b c : b n z : n c b c n b :
: ( : b n n p : n :n : n z c : n v : b : z b b c c q : :
n : n c o c c : : : z c c n c b : :: c : : v : n : c :
( : b n : n n c : no n nc c : : ( : b n n z n n c : n n c n
> ::n z n c z ( : b n : c : : c : : n c b c : : : c z :
Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite, from Bahurim, hurried to
come down with the people of Judah to meet King David; with
him there were a thousand people from Benjamin, and Ziba, the
servant of the house of Saul, with his fifteen sons and his twenty
servants. And everyone was about to rush down to the Jordan
ahead of the king, and the procession was to cross in order to
bring over the king's household, and to do his pleasure, while
Shimei son of Gera fell down before the king, as he was crossing
the Jordan
The forms : : v : and n n c : are treated as dubious cases of :op: and as a
rule provoke emendations: e.g. Gesenius suggested reading : : v and
: : n c .
20
In my opinion both :op: forms are better interpreted as
prospective and they contribute to an accurate locating of events on the
temporal axis: the men from Benjamin were to start moving and the king's
procession was to cross over the river, while Shimei ben Gera had fallen
down and prostrated himself before the king:
(11)
E-s follow R precedes S
: v : : .. n n c : : c : default meaning

20 See Gesenius (1902:112tt). Waltke & O'Connor (1990:542) are of the
opinion that :op: is pluperfect: and they had rushed to the Jordan before the
king.
TANIA NOTARIUS 46
3.2 Possibility in the future in the past
The prospective future can render a possible event in the future in
the past; the possibility can be either fulfilled (example 12) or unfulfilled
(example 14).
(12) Amos 4:7-8
v p : o c _ n c' c z o c : n n o o b n c : b o : o : :
n o b n : n n p : o b : n c : c : n c : c
c n n n : c o b n : c n p : : o b n : : : : c' c o n c
o c o : c o n n c : : : z c : : o b nn c : n c :
n '
And I also withhold the rain from you when there were still three
months to the harvest: I might send rain on one city, and send no
rain on another city; one field would be rained upon, and the field
on which it did not rain would wither; so two or three towns
might wander to one town to drink water, and would not be
satisfied; yet you did not return to me, says the LORD.
The example is not a narrative; it is rather a prophetic personal report.
The main difference between these two discourse modes is their reference
to the Speech-Time: in the narrative there is no explicit Speech-Time
reference, and the narrative time is temporally dislocated from the here-
and-now of the speech; in the report, on the other hand, the Speech-Time
is an unavoidable starting point for the rest of the temporal locations.
21
In
example 12 the Speech-Time is marked by the prophetic speech formula
n o : ' (says the LORD).
Despite the explicit Speech-Time reference, the temporal location of
the events in the passage is not obvious in view of an ambiguous
pragmatic nuance of the passage. The passage is usually treated as part of
the so-called Unheilsgeschichte and as such is rendered by most scholars
by past indefinite or present perfect, although being a curse and a
malediction it can be naturally understood as referring to future.
22
Within

21 On the difference between narrative and report discourse modes see Smith
(2003:93, 97-97).
22 See Paul (1991:143), who provides an explanation of the phenomenon: Amos
employs the curse genre here in a novel fashion. Maledictions, whether in
treaties, legal collections, boundary stones, or elsewhere, are always future
oriented. The people are warned and threatened in advance by a series of
curses for any infringement upon what is demanded of them. Here, however,
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 47
the past time reference the forms of :op: are understood as either
frequentative
23
or expressing some kind of subordination.
24
I suggest, that
n o b n : and : : : (as well as the corresponding :op forms) in example
12 are to be treated as future in the past with the modal nuance of
possibility. The modal meaning is encoded by an explicit indefiniteness
of verbal complements and adjuncts (n c : c on one city, o n c
o c c' c two or three towns): lack of concreteness concerning the
recipients of the action or its agents attributes the nuance of uncertainty to
the whole passage. The meaning of the fulfilled possibility is implied by
the illocutive force of the utterance, which was defined as a curse:
25
an
unfulfilled possibility would have turned the speech act of curse into an
infelicitous one.
Such an interpretation would differ from the frequentative :op: not in
its modal or aspectual meaning, but rather in its temporal location: the
frequentative :op: introduces an event that is basically simultaneous with
the Reference-Time (E coincides R), while the prospective :op:
introduces an event that is posterior to the Reference-Time (R precedes
E). Such temporal interpretation fits the context, since it gives
representation to the possibilities that arise after (as a result of) the event
of withholding rain ( n c : b). Such interpretation is also preferable over
simply viewing :op: as a syntactical subordinating category: the
subordinating nature of :op: might be out of question, but it gives no
expression to the temporal structure of the whole. The temporal and
modal meaning of the example 12 can be mapped as follows:
(13)
It is possible E-s
follow
R
1

precedes
(then E-s coincides
R
2
follows R
1

precedes)
S
n c
o c c' c o n c
n o b n :
: : :
n c : b pragmatically
implied
n o : '

the curses relate not to the future but rather to the past history of Israel
Amos relates retrospectively what has happened. The threatened ominous
results have already occurred.
23 Gesenius (1902:112h note 4).
24 Waltke and O'Connor (1990:534): relative uo_R_jR signifies a past situation
that is subordinate or epexegetical to a situation represented by u_wwoRj or oRj
in the leading clause.
25 See note 20 above.
TANIA NOTARIUS 48
(14) Amos 7:1-6
n : : n no ' : n : c p : n : n : c p : n n: c n : n z n : v n
( : b n : : : n n : o n : o : b : n n c c n :o _ :
n ' :n o p o np c o:p b : : o : n o : ' n n n : n : c
n b ' : : n no n : ' n : c z n : p n : n : ' : on :
n z on n n n : o : p : n n : n : b : ' o:p b : :
:n o p o np c : n o : ' : b n n n : n o : n : c
n ' .
This is what the Lord GOD showed me: he was forming locusts at
the time the latter growth began to sprout (it was the latter growth
after the king's mowings). And they were about to/might finish
eating the grass of the land, but I said, O Lord GOD, forgive, I
beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small! The LORD
relented concerning this; It shall not be, said the LORD. This is
what the Lord GOD showed me: the Lord GOD was calling for a
shower of fire, and it devoured the great deep and it might eat up
the land. Then I said, O Lord GOD, cease, I beg you! How can
Jacob stand? He is so small! The LORD relented concerning this;
This also shall not be, said the Lord GOD.
The form n n : in Amos 7:2 is usually listed under mistaken cases of
:op:.
26
n : o : and : on : in Amos 7:4 are a famous example of :op
and :op interchange of the same verbal lexeme.
27
In my view both n n :
in Amos 7:2 and n : o : in Amos 7:4 are better interpreted as prospective
:op: denoting unfulfilled possibility in the future in the past.
Since these two prophetic visions have the same discursive structure,
they can be treated together. The :op: forms in Amos 7:2 and Amos 7:4
represent the same stage in the prophetic vision: after the prophet saw the
initial stage of the destruction (the creation of the locusts in early spring
in the first vision and the elimination of the underground water in the
second vision), he previews the coming final stage, but he intervenes and

26 See Gesenius (1902:112uu). Cf. also Stipp (1991: 541-542): his interpretation
is close to what is suggested here (Als er gerade fertig wurde mit dem
Auffressen ...), although also here he prefers the terms of simultaneity.
However, I am far from saying that all the dubious cases of nn: and other
:op: forms are to be explained as prospective future.
27 Most scholars hold up the forms : on : and n : o : as being semantic
synonyms; see Gesenius (1902:112tt): n : o : after an imperfect
consecutive; see Held (1962:282).
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 49
asks for compassion. His immediate intervention works and the
destruction is prevented. In Amos 7:2 the form of :op after o following
prospective nn: introduces the possible future in the past event ( o
n : o),
28
in Amos 7:4 the possible future in the past event is encoded by
of the verb :o. The events were not fulfilled: the locusts did not
exterminate the whole grassland in the first vision; the fire did not
consume the field in the second vision. The Event-Time of seeing in this
prophetic report precedes the Speech-Time and is encoded by the deictic
and egocentric opening of the speech ( : n no). The initial stage of the
visionary destruction is simultaneous with the event of seeing; the final
stage of the destruction would follow the event of the initial stage of the
destruction. The modality of possibility is not encoded on the surface
level, but is implied by an unfulfilled nature of the future in the past
event. This complex structure may be represented in a slightly simplified
way as follows:
(15)
It is possible E-s follow R
1
-s precede (then no E
coincides R
2

follows R
1

precedes)
S
implied by an
unfulfilled
event
n : o o n n : f
n : o :
: n no .. n : n :
v f
p n : n : ..
: on :
n o : ' Im-
plied
4. DISCUSSION: PROSPECTIVE :op: IN TYPOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL VIEW
Prospective future is a rare category in Classical BH. Nonetheless, it is
attested and the form :op: is used in this function. It denotes a possible
event/situation posterior to the reference point in the past. The hypothesis
of prospective :op: requires some historical and typological
explanations.
In the Old Canaanite (OC) attested in the El-Amarna letters the
combination of qatala with u- could express future tense, especially in
conditionals. Moran, who provided a comprehensive description of the
phenomenon, defined the OC perfect as a tenseless aorist and emphasised

28 On the temporal meaning of the forms :op after the prospective cf.
examples 6 and 7 above.
TANIA NOTARIUS 50
that its semantic value was not equal to the completed action, but rather to
the affirmation of the fact.
29
In terms of general aspect theory, it would
mean that OC qatala was not limited to the expression of the perfective
view-point, but was rather a category of perfect, which is to be defined as
a complex combination of perfective view-point, particular temporal
structure, static value of situation type, and specific pragmatic
connotation of the utterance, namely a kind of resultant perfect.
30

According to this view, the perfect qatala was not marked for tense and
can be used in past, present and future temporal frameworks. Rainey's
research confirms most of Moran's insights.
31

Conditional mood is the most common modal use of the OC u-qatala,
but not an exclusive one; as Rainey claims, it can be also used for the
subjunctive (his purpose clause) and optative.
32
These data throw light
on the BH :op: form, as has been pointed out by many scholars.
33
The
Hebrew :op: is also used as a future, conditional mood, subjunctive
mood, and in correlation with modal forms.
Yet not only future tense, but also past tense use of the OC qatala
might be important for the present discussion. Both Moran and Rainey
distinguished between dynamic and stative qatala verbs within past time
framework.
34
However, the BH :op: seems to represent a typologically
different picture: in BH the form :op: is used to represent
frequentative/repetitive and habitual aspects in the past. Some scholars
believe that the OC stative qatala gave birth to the BH imperfective
:op:.
35
However, the stative nature of some verbal lexemes and the
imperfective view-point aspect are not equal semantic phenomena,
although there is a certain correlation between these two sides of aspect
theory, as linguists have shown.
36
Therefore it is reasonable to suggest

29 See Moran (2003:31-38).
30 See Smith (1997:106): Perfect constructions generally convey the following
related meanings: (1) the situation precedes Reference Time; (2) the
construction has a resultant stative value; (3) the view-point is perfective; (4) a
special property is ascribed to the subject, due to participation in the
situation.
31 See Rainey (1996:345-366).
32 See Rainey (1996:363-365).
33 See Smith (1991:13).
34 See Moran (2003:30); Rainey (1996:348-352).
35 See Gibson (1994:86).
36 See Smith (1997:39ff).
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 51
that the use of the OC stative qatala in the past does not provide an
adequate interpretative framework for the phenomenon of BH
imperfective :op: in the past.
37
It should also be kept in mind that in BH
:op: is parallel to :op, differing from it in some syntactical as well as
pragmatic characteristics, and for the form of :op all the above-
mentioned imperfective functions seem historically and typologically
legitimate.
There seem to be three main theories concerning the historical and
typological path for the development of the imperfective
(frequentative/repetitive and habitual) uses of BH :op: in past.
1. The first theory could be called aspectual. It is based on situation type
aspect theory and derives the BH imperfective :op: directly from the
OC stative qatala, as has been explained above.
38
The complementary
distribution between initial imperfective :op: and non-initial
perfective :op remains unexplained in terms of this theory.
2. The second theory could be called modal, since it claims that the OC
phrase u-qatala had future and resultative implications
39
and was used
in prototypical modal contexts (conditional, subjunctive, and
optative),
40
and the BH :op: is also nothing more than a modal form,
despite its common past time reference and imperfective view-point
aspectual definition:
41
in these terms the Hebrew form would
represent an extension (from future semantics to habitual semantics)
of a modally connotated Canaanite phrase.

37 See discussion below.
38 See Gibson (1994:85-86); cf. It is unlikely that the QATAL by nature
contains any sense of contingency or modality, these nuances being derived
from the context.
39 See Izre'el (1998:35).
40 See notes 27 and 30 above.
41 According to Hatav (1997), Joosten (1999) and Joosten (2002); see notes 1-3
above. Also Cook (2001:134-135) supports the modal theory, although
interestingly he does not refer to the imperfective uses of :op:; cf. also
Cook (2004:264-269). Cf. the slightly different definition of Garr
(1998:LXXVIII): The Hebrew perfect consecutive may represent a
grammaticalized form of the perfect, originally marking a particular type of
dependent relation. He lays special emphasis on the subordinated, subjunctive
nature of :op:.
TANIA NOTARIUS 52
3. The third theory could be called syntactic, since it emphasises the
specific syntactic status of :op: within the BH system of waw
consecutive tenses: the semantic nature of waw consecutive perfect
(:op:) can be understood only in the light of its correlation with waw
consecutive imperfect ( ) :op: . The opposition between the
morphological pairs :op/:op: and :op/:op: enables the use of
BH converted perfect :op: as a habitual and frequentative form in
the narrative: :op: subjugated itself to all the functions of its non-
initial counterpart, imperfective :op, by analogy to :op:, which
became parallel in most functions to its non-initial counterpart :op.
42

The hypothesis of the prospective :op: may contribute to this discussion.
In my view it provides strong support for the second so-called modal
theory of the BH imperfective use of :op: in past-time reference. The
prospective :op: can be seen as a transitional stage in the process of the
development of the imperfective past-tense :op: from the conditional
future u-qatala. In the initial stage of the development the prospective
tense preserved the original temporal posteriority meaning, but projected
it onto the absolute past-time framework, namely changed the Reference-
Time (not R follows S, but R precedes S). The tense preserved the
aspectual resultant semantics inherited from the OC phrase u-qatala. The
modal implications, however, have changed: the form abandoned the
prototypical conditional context and gained general epistemic
connotation. In the next stage of the development the form keeps
unchanged its modal epistemic value, but changes its temporal location
and aspectual view-point: the habitual/frequentative :op: abandoned its
posteriority temporal meaning and became atemporal (namely, non-
relative, habitual or frequentative) category, while keeping the basic past-
tense Reference-Time;
43
the original resultant aspectual meaning was
neutralised as a result of this shift in the temporal semantics. This
grammaticalization path can be represented as follows:

42 On the analogical relationship between two converted forms see Bergstrsser
(1962 II:13-14); see the review of Smith (1991:13-14); thus also Longacre
(1992:181).
43 The notion of atemporal semantics is not sufficiently developed in
linguistics; here it means that none of three common temporal relations to the
Reference-Time (simultaneity, anteriority, or posteriority) are at work. On
three main types of temporal relations see e.g. Smith (1991:100).
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 53
(16)
OC u-qatala
(=BH
conditional
:op:)
Prospective
:op:
Imperfective past-tensed
:op:
Tense future future in the past

non-relative (habitual or
frequentative) in the
past
Aspect resultant
Modality conditional epistemic
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper I claim that the verbal form :op: can function as prospective
future in BH. While the prospective future expresses the modality of
possibility, it contributes to the so-called modal theory of :op: and
provides additional data relevant to the typological investigation of this
form: the prospective :op: might be seen as a transitional stage between
the future-oriented conditional use of u-qatala and the imperfective
habitual and repetitive uses of :op:.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bergstrsser, G 1962. Hebrische Grammatik. Hildesheim: G. Olms.
Bright, W (ed.) 1992. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Comrie, B 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B 1998. Tense, in: Mey, J (ed.) 1998. Concise Encyclopedia of
Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 994-999.
Cook, J A 2001. The Hebrew Verb: a Grammaticalization Approach. ZAH 14/2, 117-
143.
Cook, J A 2004. The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of
Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose. Journal of Semitic Studies
49/2, 247-273.
Garr, W R 1998. Driver's Treatise and the Study of Hebrew: Then and Now, in:
Driver, S R 1998. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other
Syntactical Questions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, XVIII-LXXXVI.
Aronoff, M & Rees-Miller, J 2001. The Handbook of Linguistics. Malden,
Mass.: Blackwell.
Hatav, G 1997. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and
Biblical Hebrew. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Hatav, 2007 = . no , : ' 2007 . n: - nn: .. nn n::c:n 59 ) ocn ( , 43 - 55
TANIA NOTARIUS 54
Held, M 1962. The yqtl-qtl (qtl-yqtl) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical
Hebrew and in Ugaritic, in: Ben-Horin, M, Weinryb, B D & Zeitlin, S (eds).
Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman. Leiden: E.J. Brill for the
Dropsie College, 281-290.
Hendel, R 1996. In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System: Situation, Tense,
Aspect, Mood. ZAH 9, 152-181.
Hornstein, N 1990 As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Gesenius, W, Kautzsch, E & Cowley, A E 1902. Hebrew Grammar. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Gibson, J C L 1994. Davidsons Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Isaksson, B 1998 Aberrant Usages of Introductory wehaya in the Light of Text
Linguistics, in: Schunck, K-D & Augustin, M (eds). Lasset uns Brcken
bauen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Land, 9-25.
Izre'el, S 1998. Canaano-Akkadian. Mnchen: Lincom Europa.
Joosten, J 1992. Biblical Hebrew Weqatal and Syriac Hwa Qatel Expressing
Repetition in the Past. ZAH 5, 1-14.
Joosten, J 1999. The Long Form of the Prefix Conjugation Referring to the Past in
Biblical Hebrew Prose. HS 40, 15-26.
Joosten, J 2002. Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express
Aspect? JANES 29, 49-70.
Joon, P & Muraoka, T 1991. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma: Editrice
Pontificio Istituto biblico.
Kamp, H & Rohrer, C 1983. Tense in Texts. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of
Language (edited by Rainer Buerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von
Stechow). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Longacre, R E 1992. Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Affirmation and
Restatement, in: Bodine, W R (ed.) 1992. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 177-189.
Moomo, D O 2005. The Imperfective Meaning of weqatal in Biblical
Hebrew. JNSL 31, 89-106.
Moran, W L 2003. Amarna Studies: Collected Writings (edited by John Huehnergard
and Shlomo Izre'el). Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Niccacci, A 1990. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Paul, S M 1991. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (edited by Frank Moore
Cross). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
PROSPECTIVE WEQATAL IN BIBLICAL HEBREW 55
Rainey, A F 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the
Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan, Vol. II: Morphosyntactic
Analysis of the Verbal System. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Reichenbach, H 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Dover: Macmillan.
Smith, C S 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smith, C S 2003. Modes of Discourse: the Local Structure of Texts. Cambridge; New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, M S 1991. The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest
Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.
Stipp, H-J 1991. w=hay fr nichtiterative Vergangenheit, in: Gross, W et al. (Hrsg)
1991. Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, St.
Ottilien: EOS-Verl., 521-547.
Waltke, B K & OConnor M 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

You might also like