Wayyiqol as an Unlikely Preterite

Robar, Elizabeth

doi:10.1093/jss/fgs036

Cited by 23 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Extrapolating back from the diachronic trajectory, Kantor argues that in Iron Age BH "the conjunction waw was pronounced identically before a preterite yiqṭol and non-preterite yiqṭol form, probably with the original etymological */a/ vowel," meaning "that up to some point in the Second Temple Period, yiqṭol in the sequence *w-yiqṭol was a polysemous form, indicating either past or non-past (usually jussive) semantics according to context." Significantly, Kantor (2020, 104-5) follows Khan (1991, 241;2013, 43) Robar (2013;2015, 78-112) builds a multi-pronged argument against wayyiqṭol's consensus preterite classification. She sees wayyiqṭol as a narrative present of unspecified time reference that takes its TAM semantics from the context.…”

Section: Transcriptional Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hornkohl

2023

Semitic Languages and Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This volume explores an underappreciated feature of the standard Tiberian Masoretic tradition of Biblical Hebrew, namely its composite nature. Focusing on cases of dissonance between the tradition’s written (consonantal) and reading (vocalic) components, the study shows that the Tiberian spelling and pronunciation traditions, though related, interdependent, and largely in harmony, at numerous points reflect distinct oral realisations of the biblical text. Where the extant vocalisation differs from the apparently pre-exilic pronunciation presupposed by the written tradition, the former often exhibits conspicuous affinity with post-exilic linguistic conventions as seen in representative Second Temple material, such as the core Late Biblical Hebrew books, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, rabbinic literature, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and contemporary Aramaic and Syriac material. On the one hand, such instances of written-reading disharmony clearly entail a degree of anachronism in the vocalisation of Classical Biblical Hebrew compositions. On the other, since many of the innovative and secondary features in the Tiberian vocalisation tradition are typical of sources from the Second Temple Period and, in some cases, are documented as minority alternatives in even earlier material, the Masoretic reading tradition is justifiably characterised as a linguistic artefact of profound historical depth.

show abstract

Section: Transcriptional Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 2 Limitations of space preclude exhaustiveness in citation of the voluminous bibliography related to wayyiqṭol. Smith (1991) remains an oftcited resource, with more recent references in Bloch (2007) ;Robar (2013;2015, 78-112;; Gzella (2018); Kantor (2020); and Khan (2021).…”

Section: Supporting Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hornkohl

2023

Semitic Languages and Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In relation to wayyiqtol and the use of the Preterite yiqtol without the conjunction wə in the Hebrew Bible, two questions remain without a satisfactory answer: what the evidence for the 1 Andersen 2000: 13-14, 17-20;Hasselbach and Huehnergard 2008: 416;Kouwenberg 2010: 587;Andrason 2011: 35-43;Cook 2012: 256-65, Hackett 2012. In spite of their apparent linguistic sophistication, recent attempts to define the meaning of wayyiqtol as other than Preterite (Hatav 2004, Robar 2013) are not persuasive. See Cook 2014: 85-86.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biblical Hebrew wayyiqtol and the Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Canaan

Baranowski

2016

JHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

1 Samuel 2:6: Time and Wayyiqtol in Hannah’s Song

Jones

2021

Vetus Testam.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges the ideas that we should either re-read the form or appeal to a present tense rendering of וַיָּעַל in 1 Sam 2:6. Instead, I argue that the prospect of gnomic semantics due to the surrounding participles is leveraged to highlight a past time wayyiqtol “he raised up.” This past time makes sense of the context both within the poem itself (1 Sam 2) and the preceding narrative (1 Sam 1). What is more, a past tense meaning of וַיָּעַל is corroborated by recent robust linguistic research of the form. Reading the wayyiqtol as past makes reference to a specific, historical action done to Hannah. This reference to the past tightens the cohesion of and provides further coherence for Hannah’s narrative (1 Sam 1) and her song (1 Sam 2).

show abstract

Wayyiqol as an Unlikely Preterite

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The Biblical Hebrew wayyiqtol and the Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Canaan

1 Samuel 2:6: Time and Wayyiqtol in Hannah’s Song

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About