qatal not weqatal

[Douglas Fyfe]

hi

i've been trying to do this for a while now, just can't crack it

i'm looking for all the qatals that aren't weqatals

that is, all the perfects that don't have a waw prefix.

 

i was thinking it would be [VERB perfect] <WITHIN 1 words> -waw

 

but it doesn't like that. i can't work out how to exclude the waw.

thanks in advance to someone much cleverer than i.

[Mike Thigpen]

You can get to this command in at least two ways. One is you can type in [VERB perfect] .

 

The tagging in BHS-W4 distinguishes between perfercts and waw-consecutives so you don't need to "exclude" the waw. It's done based on the tagging of the verb as a perfect.

 

You can also go through the Search Menu and select Enter Tag and then Verb. A drop down will allow you to specify stem, aspect, person, gender, number, state, and a few other items. In this case from the Aspect selection choose perfect. This drop down makes it really easy to add other conditions for a more targeted search.

 

Hope this helps.

Mike

[jpkang]

You need to use the Construct window for this:

 

[Robert Holmstedt]

You can get to this command in at least two ways. One is you can type in [VERB perfect] .

 

The tagging in BHS-W4 distinguishes between perfercts and waw-consecutives so you don't need to "exclude" the waw. It's done based on the tagging of the verb as a perfect.

 

You can also go through the Search Menu and select Enter Tag and then Verb. A drop down will allow you to specify stem, aspect, person, gender, number, state, and a few other items. In this case from the Aspect selection choose perfect. This drop down makes it really easy to add other conditions for a more targeted search.

 

Hope this helps.

Mike

 

Mike:

The waw-consecutive tag in the Westminster text only applies to the wayyiqtol (the so-called waw-consecutive imperfect).

 

Douglas:

The perfect/qatal is not distinguished w.r.t whether it is preceded by the waw. In fact, some waw+perfects are simply normal indicative perfects, so one cannot simply search for all waw+perfects and count them as the so-called waw-consecutive perfect. If it *were*, then there is a way to search #1 for all perfects and search #2 for all waw-perfects and then use the two searches to isolate the perfects in search #1 that are not also in search #2. (I always forget how triangulating using multiple searches is done, so someone else will have to step in here.) But, in any case, it still won't give you all the right hits.

 

The basic problem is that the "waw-consecutive" notion is hopelessly inaccurate. Perfects are perfects are perfects regardless whether they have a waw in front; the issue is whether they are modal (VS) or indicative (SV). For a recent overview of this issue, see an article by John Cook (Asbury Theological Seminary), here.

 

So, to answer your question, there really no way to find what you've asked for, since it's not a part of Hebrew morphology.

[Mike Thigpen]

Mike:

The waw-consecutive tag in the Westminster text only applies to the wayyiqtol (the so-called waw-consecutive imperfect).

 

Thanks Robert for the important corrective. I read the initial post too quickly and had the wayyiqtol construction in mind. Time to stop multi-tasking and start reading!

[David Lang]

Douglas,

 

Setting aside the larger issues for a moment, let me just explain how to do what you were trying to do in Accordance. If you want to find any perfect verb which is not immediately preceded by a waw, use the NOT command rather than the minus sign. You might also want to use the PRECEDED BY command to be sure you don't exclude cases where a perfect verb is immediately followed by a waw. Like this:‎

 

[VERB perfect] <NOT> <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 1 Words> w

 

Hope this helps.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Douglas,

 

Setting aside the larger issues for a moment, let me just explain how to do what you were trying to do in Accordance. If you want to find any perfect verb which is not immediately preceded by a waw, use the NOT command rather than the minus sign. You might also want to use the PRECEDED BY command to be sure you don't exclude cases where a perfect verb is immediately followed by a waw. Like this:‎

 

[VERB perfect] <NOT> <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 1 Words> w

 

Hope this helps.

 

David,

 

Quite right. I was reading Douglas' request backwards, I think -- as a desire to find all the weqatals. The problem there, of course, is that there are plenty of "normal" perfects that are coincidentally preceded by a waw, just like there are some "weqatals" that are not the so-called waw-consecutive. But I was complicating Douglas' request. Thanks for cutting through my obfuscation.

[Douglas Fyfe]

thanks so much for your help all. i'm very appreciative! and particularly David for the simple solution. i knew it would be easy!

 

Fyi, i was trying to understand the shabti in Zech 8.3, so wanted to see the way Zechariah used the qatal forms.

 

Regardless of one's view of whether there is indeed a weqatal form, i was interested in looking at the fronted qatals without a waw complicating things!

 

also, thanks for that article Robert. although i think i agree with what you say, i don't know about your tagging as modal or indicative (and i'm a hack - anything but an expert). i've been working with a paradigm (i think from Niccacci) of what fronts the clause

[Robert Holmstedt]

thanks so much for your help all. i'm very appreciative! and particularly David for the simple solution. i knew it would be easy!

 

Fyi, i was trying to understand the shabti in Zech 8.3, so wanted to see the way Zechariah used the qatal forms.

 

Regardless of one's view of whether there is indeed a weqatal form, i was interested in looking at the fronted qatals without a waw complicating things!

 

also, thanks for that article Robert. although i think i agree with what you say, i don't know about your tagging as modal or indicative (and i'm a hack - anything but an expert). i've been working with a paradigm (i think from Niccacci) of what fronts the clause