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

75-103

Lénart de Regt (United Bible Societies, Crawley, West Sussex)

HEBREW VERB FORMS IN PROSE AND IN SOME
POETIC AND PROPHETIC PASSAGES: ASPECT,
SEQUENTIALITY, MOOD AND COGNITIVE
1
PROXIMITY

ABSTRACT
After a synchronic overview of the verb system in Biblical Hebrew prose, this
description of the verb system is applied to various poetic and prophetic passages,
especially Hab 3, Deut 32, Jonah 2 and Jer 51. Not only are aspect, (non-)sequentiality
and mood categories inherent to the verb, but cognitive (non-)proximity – a new
feature – is indicated by the verb as well. (Tense is only indicated by wayyiqtols
predominant in narrative text and by yiqtols predominant in discursive text.) On the
basis of these four categories functional oppositions are described between yiqtol,
qatal, wayyiqtol, weqatal and predicative qotel. Occasionally this position has
implications for translation, not least in target languages that are tense-based.

1. VERBS IN PROSE
The key question is whether the Classical Biblical Hebrew verb system is
a system of tense, aspect, mood, or indeed cognitive proximity (or a
combination). The sections that follow present an overview of the verb
system in prose, drawing especially on Baayen (1991, 1997), Joosten
(1997, 1999), Heller (2004) and de Regt (1983). Functions expressed
independently by single verb forms themselves should not be confused
with distinctions expressed by their context, i.e. elsewhere at clause,
2
sentence or text level (Joosten 1997:51, 56).
1.1 Tense?
One might distinguish the various verb forms according to tense as
follows.

1 I am grateful to the referees of JNSL for their very helpful comments on an

earlier version of this article.
2 Hoftijzer (1974:17-20) already distinguishes between independent and
dependent verb functions.

75
76 LÉNART DE REGT

Non-past yiqtol; weqatal

Present, qotel
Instant future
Past qatal; wayyiqtol
Figure 1. Hebrew verb forms according to tense
However, there are just too many exceptions in Biblical Hebrew for such
3
a past-/non-past opposition to be valid, at least in a synchronic approach.
For example, the yiqtols in Esth 2:12-14 (see section 1.7.1) refer to the
past. Wayyiqtols in reference to the present occur in the prose of 2 Sam
19:2 ( “and he mourns”) and Num 31:50 (  “consequently
4

we offer”; the gold is only accepted in the next verse). The temporal
range of qatal is extremely wide. It can occur not only at the beginning of
a flashback or analepsis (for example,  “Samuel had died” in 1 Sam
28:3), but also in reference to the present (for example, in Ruth 4:9-10
below in section 1.7.1) and even to the future (see section 1.6 on the so-
called prophetic perfect). The participle   in Judg 11:34 has more to
5
do with the particle than with a historic present. The verb forms
themselves, then, do not indicate the time of the situation in relation to the
time of speaking.
It may be argued that tense in Biblical Hebrew is not absolute but
relative: that an action is past or present or future not in relation to the
moment of speaking, but in relation to a certain reference point (which
does not always coincide with the moment of speaking). But even in such
a tense model yiqtols in reference to the past are still problematic:
proposed relative tense readings become awkward as soon as the context,
especially the clause that follows, is taken into account. Hendel’s
(1996:160) attempt to treat Exod 15:1 (  “Then Moses sang”) as a
relative future seems strained: “the event referred to … is future with
respect to R,” the “reference point.” This implies that the reference point
lies further in the author’s past than the singing event itself. But if R lies

3 See already the examples in Hughes (1970): “simple imperfect and perfect
with waw in past time” (pp. 15-21) and “simple perfect in future time” (pp. 21-
23).
4 Gross (1976:121-122). (A weyiqtol form would probably have been modal.) A
past tense interpretation would be awkward in the light of the preceding and
following qotels  and   (v. 3).
5 Joosten (1997:68) translates this participle with a historic present: “his
daughter is coming out to meet him.”
HEBREW VERB FORMS 77

in the past before the singing event of this clause, R will have to jump
closer to the author’s present before the next event, “and they said” (its
verb being a wayyiqtol,   in the next clause), can come after the
6
singing as well as refer to the author’s past. This also applies if the yiqtol
 “represents an event which is present relative to its past context”
(Revell 1989:11) and thus present – instead of future – with respect to R.
And it remains unclear why the event that follows (represented by the
wayyiqtol   “and they said” in the next clause) would then no longer
be represented by a yiqtol and be “present relative to its past context.”
The above is not due to . A yiqtol like  (that is, without ) in
Judg 2:1 (“I brought you up from Egypt”), which is followed by a
wayyiqtol ( “and I led”), poses the same problem for such relative
tense approaches. The same applies to  “I spoke” (also without )
in 1 Kgs 21:6. When Revell (1989:4) cautions that the time reference of
the verb “is conditioned by the time reference of the context in which the
verb is used,” this actually implies that the time is not indicated by the
verb itself.
It has commonly been held that tense was part of the verb system in
pre-biblical Hebrew. The long form of yiqtol probably resulted from
*yaqtulu/a (non-past, imperfective / subjunctive), while wayyiqtol and the
short form of yiqtol probably go back to *yáqtul (preterite and jussive).
When Hebrew words lost their final short vowels, these two older forms
became homonymous (Waltke & O’Connor 1990:466-469 §29.4). Only
stress (“phonemic accent”) could still denote the difference between
yíqtol (past) and yiqtól (non-past), as also between qatál-ti/ta (past) and
(we)qatal-tí/tá (non-past). As Zevit (1998:50-61) argues, the Masoretic
Text still shows traces of phonemic accent.
Post-biblical Hebrew had a tense system. So if this was the case for
pre- as well as post-biblical Hebrew, it would seem likely that the system
of the intervening period would also have been one of tense (Revell
1989:3). However, the system was in a state of transition; it changed
gradually but profoundly from the pre- to the post-biblical tense system.
This makes it difficult to ascribe different tense functions to the different
verb forms in Biblical Hebrew in a consistent manner, in spite of time
reference in the context.

6 Depending on the relative tense model, R lies at or after a wayyiqtol on a

temporal scale.
78 LÉNART DE REGT

1.2 Sets of verbs in text

The verb forms do not themselves indicate the time of the situation
relative to the time of speaking. Rather, the time of the situation is
dependent on the communicative situation of the text in which it is
described: texts are discursive or narrative (Schneider 1974:182-207,
231-248). Talstra (1978:170) summarises Schneider’s linguistic
classification of discursive and narrative texts as follows:
The discursive verbal forms can be found in utterances concerning
the speaker and the listener, e.g. in a dialogue, a sermon, a prayer.
They refer to what is present or actual in the situation of
communication. The leading member of the set is the imperfect yqtl.
Secondary are the perfect qtl and the consecutive perfect wqtl.
The narrative verbal forms are used in utterances concerning persons
or actions not present or actual in the situation … Central in this
group is the consecutive imperfect wyqtl. Secondary is the perfect
7
qtl.
It is only where wayyiqtol and yiqtol are the leading members of narrative
and discursive texts, respectively, that these forms become like tense
forms, indicating temporal distance (past) and lack of temporal distance
8
(non-past), respectively (de Regt 1983:250, 253). A text is narrative
when wayyiqtols are predominant in it, but discursive when yiqtols are
predominant in it. In other words, when wayyiqtols dominate a text, they
indicate temporal distance, while yiqtols indicate lack of temporal
distance when they dominate a text. It is to this extent that they mark
tense. So this does not apply to isolated wayyiqtols and yiqtols, or to the
other verb forms. For example, the yiqtol  in 2 Sam 20:18 is part of
narrative discourse, portraying a repetitive action in past time: “they used
9
to say” (Heller 2004:388). Such yiqtol forms do not themselves function

7 Another secondary member of the verbal set in narrative text is yiqtol (see also
below).
8 When Gentry (1998:20) argues that “the verb form grammaticalizes both
aspect and tense,” he has to qualify this and add that “the latter is indicated by
a combination of morphology and discourse framework” (italics mine).
9 Compare also the other yiqtols mentioned so far, the yiqtol  (“used to
do”) in Job 1:5, the yiqtols (and weqatals) marking the iterativity in Exod
33:7-11 (“Moses would take [ ] the tent …”; Buber & Rosenzweig: “nahm
fortan”) as well as the instances of  + yiqtol mentioned at the end of this
section. See Hendel (1996:165-166) for more examples.
HEBREW VERB FORMS 79

as past tenses; they are only secondary in the verbal set in these narrative
texts.
While Schneider’s linguistic classification of texts is twofold,
Longacre (1989) and Heller distinguish between four or five text types.
Building on Longacre’s distinction between four discourse types 
narrative, predictive, expository, hortatory  Heller adds a fifth:
10
interrogative discourse. In the approaches of Schneider, Longacre and
Heller, a section of text can be classified on the basis of a specific set of
verbs. Thus, the time of the situation relative to the time of speaking is
determined by the communicative situation of the section of text and is
indicated in particular by the leading member of the verbal set. On this
basis, narrative discourse is typically past, predictive discourse is future,
while expository and hortatory discourse are present.
While yiqtol is the leading verb in the hortatory discourse of Deut 1-30
with its legislative rules, imperative forms (qetol) occur in this stretch of
11
discourse as well. However, unlike the yiqtols, most of these imperatives
occur in further embedded direct speech (that is, direct speech within
direct speech), outside the domain of legislative rules themselves. Also,
when narrative text is embedded in a character’s discursive text (i.e.
narrative within a dialogue in contrast to narrative by the narrator), the
12
qatal occurs more frequently than wayyiqtol. Thus in direct speech the
level of embeddedness may affect the frequency of individual members of
the verbal set. Nevertheless, yiqtol and wayyiqtol remain the leading
members of the verbal set in – and characterise them as – discursive and
narrative texts, respectively.
Secondary members of the verbal set help to delimit paragraphs. Heller
defines a paragraph as “a narrative block of material organized by a
coherent wayyiqtol chain” (Heller 2004:431). Paragraph delimitation in
narrative prose is accomplished syntactically by   temporal clauses and
by independent qatal clauses (Heller 2004:56). Such clauses, for instance
Gen 4:1 (see also section 1.5.2), “introduce events into the discourse that
hitherto had not been prominent in the … mental vision of the addressee”

10 In interrogative discourse “a character attempts to elicit a verbal [rather than

just attitudinal] response from the hearer(s)” (Heller 2004:25-26).
11 70% – 55 out of 79 (de Regt 1988:94-95, Supplement 55-57, 90). See e.g.
Deut 21:8 ().
12 Heller (2004:459) on the Joseph Novella and on the Narrative of David’s
Court.
80 LÉNART DE REGT

(Baayen 1991:7). Paragraph delimitation is also achieved, for example, by

yiqtol following  (Exod 15:1; 1 Kgs 3:16; 8:1; 11:7).
13

1.3 Aspect and (Non-)Sequentiality

First, the following table distinguishes between the various verb forms
according to aspect, that is, to the structure of the actions themselves in
14
relation to the passage of time and in relation to each other. Crucially,
(non-)sequentiality and (in)completeness are distinguished from each
other.
Aspect and non-sequential sequential
(Non-)Sequentiality

Incomplete aspect yiqtol weqatal

qotel
Complete aspect qatal wayyiqtol
Figure 2. Hebrew verb forms according to aspect and (non-)sequentiality
Complete means that the whole situation or action is in view: it is viewed
15
from the outside, looking upon it as a complete whole. Incomplete
means that it is viewed as being in process in some way (Arnold & Choi
16
2003:54, 56). In a flashback or analepsis, wayyiqtol can still be regarded
17
as sequential within (or at the beginning of) such a stretch of text.

13 Heller (2004:435). More on + yiqtol towards the end of section 1.5.1.
14 Givón (2001:287, 293, 295-297) actually treats “(counter-)sequentiality” as
part of aspect rather than of discourse pragmatics.
15 “The totality of the situation” is presented “without reference to its internal
temporal constituency: the whole of the situation is presented as a single
unanalysable whole … the perfective looks at the situation from outside”
(Comrie 1976:3-4).
16 “The imperfective looks at the situation from inside, and as such is crucially
concerned with the internal structure of the situation” and its phases (Comrie
1976:4).
17 For such wayyiqtols compare, for example, Num 1:48; Jdg 11:1c-2; 1 Kgs
18:3-5; 22:37a; Jonah 4:5a. Wayyiqtols at the beginning of a flashback do not
present the event as non-sequential: the “temporal overlay” with what
precedes has been left “grammatically unmarked” (Buth 1994:142-148); their
past perfect meaning is only contextual (Cook 2004:261).
HEBREW VERB FORMS 81

1.4 Mood
Second, mood – i.e. the speaker’s non-indicative, evaluative judgement of
the factual status of the action in the real world (compare Givón
2001:300), the potential action being contingent on other factors – can be
included as follows, weqatal as well as yiqtol being modal (Joosten
18
1997:57-58):
Aspect, non-sequential sequential
(Non-)Sequentiality
and Mood
Incomplete; modal yiqtol weqatal
Incomplete qotel
Complete qatal wayyiqtol
Figure 3. Hebrew verb forms according to aspect, (non-)sequentiality and
mood
With yiqtol the speaker demands the immediate attention and reaction of
the addressee, with suggestions, advice, volition and imperative force
(Baayen 1991:4-5). Thus in Job 38:5a  can be understood ironically
as “because you (are supposed to) know.” Similarly, this form can be
treated as modal: “if you are in a position to know” (in contrast to the
qatal  in v. 4b). Modal verb forms tend to occur clause-initially
19

20
(Cook 2004:265): in the position reserved for the most significant
(Revell 1989:16-17, 21, 32) or contrastive component of the clause.

18 Hatav (2007:52-53) notes that the modal counterpart of   is   (as in 1

Sam 3:9; 16:16). See also the modal weqatals   and   in 1 Sam
25:11: “Should I then take … and give …?!” (Hatav 2004:520-521).
19 Gianto (2006) also renders the yiqtol  in Job 3:3 as modal: “the day in
which I had to be born”. This reading could not have applied if the verb here
would have been qatal ( ). See Warren (1998 ch. 3) for a description of
yiqtol as the major modal form in the Psalms: a deontic (or ‘volitional’) short
form (’al) yiqtol and an epistemic (or subjunctive) long form (lo’) yiqtol.
20 See Talstra (1982:31-34, especially 31-32) for a list of formal syntactic
conditions for the modal interpretation of yiqtol. The sequence of verb forms is
a determining factor: a yiqtol is modal after a clause with an imperative and
not after a clause with a participle.
82 LÉNART DE REGT

1.5 Cognitive proximity

Third, the table should include an opposition that is often neglected: what
yiqtol and wayyiqtol have in common, on the one hand (cognitive
proximity), and what is shared by qatal and weqatal on the other (non-
proximity):
Aspect, non-sequential sequential
(Non-)Sequentiality,
Mood and
Cognitive proximity
Incomplete; modal yiqtol weqatal
(proximate) (non-proximate)
Incomplete qotel
(non-proximate)
Complete qatal wayyiqtol
(non-proximate) (proximate)
Figure 4. Hebrew verb forms according to aspect, (non-)sequentiality,
mood and cognitive proximity
What is meant by cognitive proximity? In what sense is it used here?
Proximate events are more accessible in the mind (Givón 2001:332).
Cognitive and socio-cultural factors determine what is the common
ground between speaker and addressee, the mental view of reality they
share. As events are added to the discourse, the speaker distinguishes
them in terms of their relative proximity to the speaker’s and addressee’s
common ground (and this common ground includes the discourse
developed so far). Given the speaker’s assessment of this common
ground, cognitively proximate events are linked tightly to this
encompassing common ground; their mental representation is easily
21
integrated into the addressee’s mental representation of reality. As

21 This concept is based on the work of Baayen (1997:246, 248-251), who refers
to it as “tight linkage”, and of Janssen, who refers to it as “salience”
(1993:755, 759-760) and “definiteness” (1993:765-766). They apply it to
Biblical Hebrew and Dutch verb forms, respectively: in Dutch, it is the simple
present and simple past that indicate proximity (tight linkage), while the
perfect indicates non-proximity (loose linkage). It is also of interest to mention
that the English pluperfect in a sentence like “I had thought about asking you
to dinner” has to do not with temporal anteriority but with “distancing oneself
HEBREW VERB FORMS 83

Fleischman (1989:2) puts it: proximity in this sense is not spatial or

temporal but a “more abstract conceptual and cognitive proximity
(actuality/reality),” in contrast to a “more abstract conceptual and
cognitive distance (non-actuality/non-reality)”. Events, then, are not
simply proximate if they occur (or involve people) close to the
addressee’s here and now. In the speaker’s estimation cognitively
proximate events are already attached close to the common ground
(which includes the discourse developed so far) between speaker and
addressee. The speaker will thus treat these events as proximate as he
updates the addressee’s mental representation of reality. To communicate
and interact successfully, though, the speaker will treat events which he
does not expect to be close to the addressee’s mental representation of
reality as non-proximate, as only loosely connected to their common
ground.
The speaker, addressee and their common ground cannot be equated to
the narrator, intended reader and discourse/text, respectively. The
discourse gradually becomes part of the common ground between
narrator and intended reader; as it develops, the discourse updates this
common ground. In the discourse the narrator will have marked as
proximate those events which in his estimation are already close to the
common ground between himself and the reader at that point in the
discourse. But where characters in a text become speaker and addressee
themselves, their common ground is very different from the narrator’s
22
and reader’s view of reality. The reader knows more than the character.
In his direct speech the character/speaker marks as (non-)proximate those
events which are (not) close to the common ground between himself and
his addressee. Even if an event in such a direct speech would be
proximate to the reader of the discourse (that is, tightly linked to his
mental representation of reality), what counts is that this event may still
be non-proximate to the character who is the actual addressee of the direct
speech (that is, linked loosely to this character’s view of reality). This is

[and the addressee] from the propositional content” (Fleischman 1989:10). The
same applies to how the pluperfect has come to function in the Aymara-
influenced Spanish of La Paz (Paceño): it does not indicate temporal
anteriority, but that the action was unintentional or known only indirectly
(Fleischman 1989:29-30).
22 The common ground of characters in the discourse constitutes a “perspective
subdomain” embedded within the “perspective domain” of the narrator and
reader (de Regt 1983:249-251, 271; Sanders 1996:59, 61).
84 LÉNART DE REGT

why cognitive (non-)proximity is not to be equated with the foreground-

background concept, which distinguishes events “in terms of their relative
saliency within a discourse” as such (Cook 2004:255, italics mine) rather
than in terms of their relative proximity to the common ground between
speaker and addressee, or – outside direct speech – narrator and reader.
Cognitive proximity is expressed by yiqtol as well as wayyiqtol. In
comparison with these two forms, the other verb forms denote cognitive
non-proximity to the mental vision of the addressee: the denoted event is
linked more loosely to his mental representation of reality. This implies
that, unlike aspect and mood, (non-)proximity is a relative notion of
degree; it functions in the context of the speech situation. As the verb
forms that denote proximate events, yiqtol and wayyiqtol are the leading
23
members of the verbal set (see section 1.2) in a speech situation (yiqtol)
and in the sequence of situations narrated (wayyiqtol), respectively.
1.5.1 Yiqtol and qatal
In line with this, note the opposition between proximate yiqtol and non-
proximate qatal in the following examples. In contrast to the yiqtols in
Gen 24:31 ( ), 32:30 () and 24:58 (), each of which refers
again to an event that is already proximate to the addressee within the
text, a qatal occurs in Gen 18:13: “Why did Sarah laugh?” (  ): it is
the appropriate form in a question which to the addressee (Abraham)
comes as entirely unexpected. (Sarah had been laughing “to herself” only,
so this event was not at all closely linked to his mental representation of
reality.) Qatal is also the main option for counter-fact clauses (Givón
2001:364), where non-proximity translates into distance from reality.
Thus in Judg 16:17 – “If I were shaven (), my strength would leave
me” – Samson considers this event remote from the addressee (Baayen
1997:259). The same applies to Judah’s statement addressed to his father
in Gen 43:9: “If I do not bring him back ( ).” Judah repeats this to
the vizier in Gen 44:32, but this time with a yiqtol ( ): Judah hardly
considers the event remote from this addressee! Joseph’s deference to the
addressee in Gen 40:14 – “If you would remember me ( )” – goes
with the non-proximate qatal: he realizes that this is remote from the
cupbearer’s mental representation of reality.

23 In Janssen’s terms they are “definite in the sense in which [the demonstratives]
this and that can be considered definite” (1993:766). Such deictic forms
express that the entity or event involved is closely linked to the encompassing
common ground of speaker and addressee.
HEBREW VERB FORMS 85

A yiqtol which follows  (see the examples at the end of section 1.2) or
 (Gen 2:5) denotes cognitive proximity. For instance, 1 Kgs 3:16 ff.
(  ) illustrates Solomon’s wisdom, which was mentioned in the
preceding discourse, and is as such tightly linked to the reader’s
representation of reality (which includes that discourse), even though
there is no immediate sequentiality (Baayen 1997:266), since time and
place are different. It is in the same way that the building of shrines in 1
Kgs 11:7 (  ) illustrates Solomon’s evil deeds of v. 6. The singing
in Exod 15:1 ( , see section 1.1) illustrates the Israelites’ faith
which has been mentioned in 14:31. In 1 Sam 3:7a the qatal still denotes
non-proximity (loose linkage) and resultative aspect (see section 1.6),
while the yiqtol in the clause that follows after this denotes proximity
(and iterative aspect): “Samuel did not yet know ( ) the Lord; a
word of the Lord had not yet been revealed (  ) to him.”
24

1.5.2 Wayyiqtol and qatal

Also, note the opposition between proximate wayyiqtol and non-
proximate qatal in Gen 4:1: “but the human knew () Eve his wife and
she conceived ( ) and bore () Cain.” The qatal  expresses
non-proximity: to the audience the event denoted here is linked only very
25
loosely to the expulsion from the garden and indicates the beginning of
a new context. This non-proximity (after a preceding chapter) also applies
to the qatals in Gen 39:1: “When Joseph was taken down ( ) to Egypt
…”. The qatal in Gen 37:3 is non-proximate: “Israel loved ( ) Joseph
more than all his other sons,” this comes as somewhat unexpected (and
also non-sequential) after the preceding sentence about Joseph’s bad
reports about his brothers. But after what preceded concerning Rachel in
Gen 29:6, 9-12, 17, a wayyiqtol denotes the proximity of Jacob’s love for
Rachel: “Jacob loved ( ) Rachel” (29:18). Wayyiqtols also refer to

24 A relative tense analysis would have to treat these as relative past and relative
future in one sentence! (If it were to treat both events as relative future, it
would not account for this qatal.)
25 If we were to define cognitive proximity not in terms of tight linkage to the
addressee’s (here the audience’s) mental representation of reality but in terms
of belonging to the story line and foreground in the discourse 4:1 itself, we
should really have expected the qatal   4:1 being on the story line  to
have been a wayyiqtol as well, as is the case in Gen 4:25a (). (This
wayyiqtol in v. 25a makes sense, since v. 25 – unlike v. 1 – is tightly linked to
what precedes in that it still refers to what happened to Abel and Cain.)
86 LÉNART DE REGT

the brothers’ reactions of hate and jealousy in 37:4, 5, 8, 11, which are
sequential to Joseph’s actions.
The same opposition is at work in examples like Ruth 1:14: “and
Orpah kissed ( ) her mother-in-law but Ruth clung ( ) to her.”
The qatal in the second clause is “motivated by the element of surprise or
contra-expectation associated with a contrastive event: an unexpected
event is less salient [less proximate] than an event that contains no
element of surprise” (Baayen 1991:11).
In line with this, there is the same contrast in Gen 8:8-9, which can
explain negated qatal clauses. Preceded and followed by wayyiqtols, v. 9a
(   “but the dove did not find a resting place”) is a qatal clause:
the negation of some other event is less proximate than an event that is
presented positively (Baayen 1991:16). It is of interest to mention Ps 24:4
and 1:1 as well. The qatals in these verses not only connote “a sense of
discontinuity” (Gitay 1996:235) – that is, no sequentiality – but their
negation makes them less proximate, less established, than the event
denoted by the yiqtol   in 1:2.
In contrast to the wayyiqtols in, for example, the genealogy of Gen 5,
the qatals in Gen 4:18 may be surprising: “and Irad begat () Mehujael,
and Mahujael begat () Methushael, and Methushael begat ()
Lamech.” Since these appear to be “temporally successive statements”
(Cook 2004:258), it is remarkable that syntactically the text does not
present them as such with wayyiqtols. But this does not imply that
sequentiality is irrelevant to the opposition between qatal and wayyiqtol.
Although the statements in 4:18 serve to connect the episode on Lamech
26
(vv. 19-24) to the thematically parallel episode on Cain (vv. 13-17), the
events in v. 18 are themselves non-proximate: to the reader they are
linked only very loosely to the themes of vengeance and civilisation in
vv. 13-17. And the narrator related the events in v. 18 to each other only
topically, without marking sequentiality. The same applies to the qatals
throughout Gen 10: no tight linkage is involved. In this genealogy the
various groupings of descendants are described topically and statically,
not sequentially, since it traces multiple lines of descent from single
individuals (Bailey 1994:274, 281). It is only within the arrangement of
such a grouping that a wayyiqtol can link an event in a descendant’s life
tightly to what precedes it. See, for example,  “and he [Nimrod] built”
in v. 11b.

26 Both episodes deal with vengeance (vv. 15, 24) and the beginnings of
civilisation (vv. 16-17, 20-22).
HEBREW VERB FORMS 87

The qatal clauses in both Gen 4:18 and 10:24 are rather like an extra-
27
paragraph comment: 4:18 is only parenthetical between two
thematically related episodes, and in 10:24 Arpachshad’s and Shelah’s
begettings () appear to be mentioned mostly “in anticipation of who
was begotten by Eber, Peleg and Joktan, whose lines are described in
more detail” (Bailey 1994:278).
As mentioned in section 1.2, in narrative text within a character’s
discursive text the qatal occurs more frequently than wayyiqtol. Such
embedded narrative tends to be short and not tightly linked to the
characters’ common ground, and this seems to call for non-proximate
qatal more often.
1.6 Aspects
Fourth, some aspects, if applicable, tend to apply to individual verb
categories only:
Aspect, non-sequential sequential
(Non-)Sequentiality
Mood and
Cognitive proximity
Incomplete; modal yiqtol weqatal
(proximate; (non-proximate)
durative,
habitual / iterative)
Incomplete qotel
(non-proximate;
inceptive,
28
durative / continuative)

27 An “extra-paragraph comment” occurs between paragraphs and provides

information related only loosely to the narrative at large, rather than propelling
forward the narrative itself (Heller 2004:57-58).
28 Generally, qotel expresses the durative aspect more strongly than yiqtol does
(Joüon & Muraoka 1991:412 §121h), to the extent of expressing
concomitance. Joosten (1999:22) goes further: “although yiqtol is used for
repetition in the past, it does not express … duration in the past;” “the normal
way of expressing duration in the past is with the predicative participle.” But
would a yiqtol in 1 Sam 29:1 (instead of the qotel   “were encamping”)
have been habitual rather than durative, as Joosten suggests?
88 LÉNART DE REGT

Complete qatal wayyiqtol

(non-proximate; (proximate)
resultative / performative)
Figure 5. Again: Hebrew verb forms according to aspect, (non-)
sequentiality, mood and cognitive proximity
The resultative aspect in this table can be compared with Rundgren’s
“post-terminal meaning” for qatal (Rundgren 1965:56-65). So-called
stative qatals denote resultative aspect as well, for example,   in
Gen 22:2 – “your only one whom you love” – and  in Isa 1:15 –
“Your hands are full of (covered with) blood.” The same applies to qatals
that denote this aspect in general truths, presenting them as a
characteristic, single instance. See Isa 40:7: “The grass withers ()
29

and the flower fades ( ).” There is no need, then, to treat such qatals as
past tense forms, as Rogland does in, for example, Prov 30:20; 31:10-
30
31. The qatal in the second line of a categorical rule like Exod 18:16
presents the action as a single instance as well: “When(ever) they have
(  ) a dispute, it comes () before me” (Hoftijzer 2001:195). A
similar case is Ps 115:3: “all that He wills He accomplishes ( )”
(NJPS).
The so-called prophetic perfect is resultative in that it denotes that the
action is already regarded as accomplished and “considered a certainty
from the speaker’s rhetorical point of view” (Arnold & Choi 2003:55). In
the addressee’s mental view, however, the action is far from well-
established and therefore non-proximate. Hence the qatal in 2 Sam 5:24:
…   “then [i.e., in the near future] the Lord has gone out / will have
gone out before you”. See also Num 24:17: “a star rises () from
Jacob”. In the prophetic formula      “Thus says the Lord” the
qatal indicates that when in the near future the prophet actually conveys
the message, the Lord’s speaking to the prophet has already been
completed. Qatal also indicates the non-proximity of this event to the
addressee. It is the Lord who is about to speak. It is his own message that

29 In contrast to this, habitual/iterative and continuative aspect in general truths

are denoted by yiqtol and qotel, e.g. “A wise child brings joy ( ) to his
father” (Prov 10:1) and “A generation goes ( ) and a generation comes
(), but the earth remains ( ) forever” (Eccl 1:4), respectively.
30 “This is the way of an adulterous woman: she ate ( ), and wiped her
mouth, and said …”; “The heart of her husband trusted () in her, …”
(Rogland 2003:32-33).
HEBREW VERB FORMS 89

is about to be given (but is still unknown). Such a divine action is bound

to be non-proximate to the addressee’s mental representation of reality.
1.7 Oppositions
It is instructive to illustrate the functional oppositions regarding cognitive
(non-)proximity and aspect between the verb forms with more examples.
1.7.1 Yiqtol and qatal
Figure 5 points at a few other oppositions between verb forms, with
implications for their interpretation. Esth 2:12-15 illustrates the
opposition between repetitive and proximate yiqtol and
completive/resultative and non-proximate qatal. In v. 12 the yiqtol  
(“the days … would be fulfilled”) comes as proximate (tightly linked)
after the twelve months’ preparation procedure for the girls have already
been mentioned to the reader. In vv. 13-14, which describe these
preparations in more detail, whatever a girl “asked for would be given her
… she would not go again …” (yiqtols     ). In v. 15,
however, Esther “did not ask for anything …” (qatal  ). Esth 2:10
shows the contrast between qatal and modal yiqtol: “Esther did not reveal
(  ) her people or kindred, because Mordecai had charged her not to
tell ()”. Yiqtol (rather than qatal) expresses modality and repetition in
Esth 3:2b: “Mordecai would not / repeatedly did not bow down ()
…” (cf. Joosten 1999:23; Rogland 2003:83). The yiqtol also denotes that
this action of homage is by now cognitively proximate to the reader. (It
has already been mentioned – with non-proximate qotels – in v. 2a.)
First person qatals can be performative: realizing the actions they
express. Thus Boaz’s qatal statements in Ruth 4:9-10 are conclusive 
 “I hereby acquire”  in contrast to his relative’s yiqtol statement
which is modal   “I am willing/prepared to redeem”  in v. 4.
Similarly, in v. 3 the third person qatal  “she is selling” comes
instead of a yiqtol: a (modal) yiqtol could have suggested that Naomi has
not yet decided to sell. At the same time, appropriately, the qatal
expresses non-proximity / loose linkage: the addressee does not know
what Boaz wants to discuss.
1.7.2 Yiqtol and weqatal
The narrative of Isa 6 illustrates the opposition between yiqtol and
weqatal.  “covered” and  “would fly” (v. 2b) are habitual, non-
sequential and (after the seraphs have been mentioned in v. 2a)
proximate;   “called” (v. 3) is habitual and sequential (also after the
opening description of the vision). V. 3 is presented as a new stage in the
90 LÉNART DE REGT

prophet’s vision in its own right, weqatal denoting the non-proximity of

“one called to another” to the prophet’s vision at that point. 2 Sam 17:17
contains weqatals that are habitual as well as sequential, while the yiqtols
and , of which Jonathan and Ahimaaz are the subject, are
habitual and non-sequential as well as proximate to the reader at the
points where they occur. The same applies to the weqatals and the yiqtol
( ) in Judg 2:18. Most verbs in the predictive discourse of 1 Sam
10:2-6 are weqatal, denoting actions that are sequential and cognitively
non-proximate to Saul, the addressee. 2 Sam 7:9-16 (also predictive
discourse) illustrates the opposition between sequential weqatals, which
denote non-proximity to David, the addressee, and non-sequential yiqtols.
The yiqtols in vv. 11 ( ) and 13 ( ), for instance, denote
proximity to this addressee: they are linked thematically to the building of
the house for the Lord (which is already familiar from vv. 3 and 7).
1.7.3 Qatal and qotel
Both these (non-modal) forms indicate non-proximity (loose linkage) to
the addressee’s mental representation of reality, but an aspectual
opposition between qatal and (predicative) qotel is at work in, for
example, Eccl 7:26-29. Various qatal statements –  “I found”; 
 “I have not found”  present Qohelet’s discoveries and non-
discoveries in this passage. But in v. 26 a (continuative) qotel occurs: “I
continually found/encountered (    ) more bitter than death the
woman who …” (Walton 2006:60, 90-94). The opposition between qatal
and qotel is also relevant in 1 Kgs 11:31: “I am about to tear [inceptive]
the kingdom” ( , not  “I hereby tear”). Interestingly, after the
qatal in Esth 2:10  “Esther did not reveal (  ) her people or kindred”
 a (continuative) qotel occurs in 2:20 to indicate that she continued to
keep it unrevealed: “Esther still did not reveal ( ) …”. The qotels in 1
Kgs 10:1  “The queen of Sheba was hearing ( ) of Solomon’s
fame”  and Gen 38:13  “Your father-in-law is going up ( ) to
Timnath”  express continuative aspect, which qatals would not have
done.
1.7.4 Yiqtol and qotel
As opposed to qotel (as well as weqatal and qatal), the yiqtol  in 2
Sam 15:37b can be explained as proximate, contemporaneous (non-
sequential) as well as durative (neither resultative nor inceptive): “and [at
31
the same time] Absalom entered/was entering Jerusalem.” After 15:14,

31 See the discussion in Heller (2004:311-312 n. 44).

HEBREW VERB FORMS 91

34 Absalom’s entrance into Jerusalem is already cognitively proximate

(tightly linked) to the reader’s mental representation of the narration at
the point of v. 37b.

2. VERBS IN POETRY
The cognitive non-proximity denoted by qatal may also clarify why the
qatal is the dominant form in poetry. Poetic language evokes events and
states that generally are not well-embedded in the addressee’s mental
vision of reality, and this naturally calls for non-proximate qatal (Baayen
1991:30). With this in mind, we should “continue the [same] description
32
of the syntactic function of the verbal forms in poetic texts” and see
what happens when we stretch the above analysis of the verbal system to
its limits in some poetic and prophetic passages. After a brief discussion
of a few possible instances of the prophetic perfect, we will look at Hab 3,
Deut 32, Jonah 2 and Jer 51.
2.1 Prophetic perfects again
As mentioned in section 1.6, the so-called prophetic perfect is resultative
(the action is already regarded as accomplished) and non-proximate.
However, a prophetic perfect reading of some merely resultative qatals in
poetry and prophecy would seem overbold. Take, for instance,  and
  in Ps 126:3: “The Lord has done great things ( ) for us” is only
a repetition of what the nations say in v. 2 and their statement is not
prophetic. This makes NJPS’s translation of v. 3 – “The Lord will do …”
– implausible.
Exod 15:13-16 already looks back on events such as the entering of the
land as accomplished: “… you led ( ) the people … you guided
( ) them by your strength to your holy abode … Then the chiefs of
Edom were dismayed (  ) … all the inhabitants of Canaan melted
away ( )” (NRSV). These qatal clauses on the entering of the land are
only non-proximate (linked loosely) to what precedes (i.e. the events at
the Sea). The NIV translates these qatals with future verbs, thus turning
the end of the Song at the Sea into a prophecy that predicts the future! It
seems that NIV’s sudden change of genre after v. 12 is supposed to
harmonise the time table in the song with the chronology in the rest of the
Pentateuch.

32 Talstra (1982:29). His examples are Ps 69:2-5; 78:5-8 and Joel 2:10-11. While
in a tense-based description the qatals here would indeed be “past perspective
tenses,” they also fit well in our framework as resultative and non-sequential.
92 LÉNART DE REGT

In Isa 5:13  functions as a prophetic perfect as long as the statement is

taken as pre-exilic: “Therefore my people will go [will have gone] into
exile.” If one were to reinterpret this from the viewpoint of the
Babylonian exile (de Regt 2004:85-86), the reading of this qatal would
still be resultative: “That is why my people is in exile” (NJB). The qatal
actually fits both interpretations. In Hos 9:7  can be interpreted in
both ways as well: “The days of requital have come” (Rogland 2003:104-
105).
2.1.1 Yiqtol and the prophetic perfect
The prophetic perfect (qatal) sometimes alternates with yiqtols. (Both
then refer to the future so they cannot be different in terms of tense.)
While the qatals occur in the prophetic message or dream account itself –
in which the actions are regarded as accomplished (and as non-proximate
to the addressee) – yiqtols occur in the explanation afterwards. By then
the actions are proximate (well-established, mentally close) to the
addressee as well. This would explain the yiqtol in Isa 9:6 – “The zeal of
the Lord of hosts will accomplish ( ) this” – after the prophetic
perfects in vv. 1-5, as well as the “real world” yiqtols after the “irrealis
33
world” qatals in visions and dreams.
2.2 Habakkuk 3:1-19
Where does the above analysis lead us in Hab 3:1-19, given its
communicative situation? This chapter starts as a prayer rather than a
specific prophecy about the future. In Longacre’s and Heller’s terms,
then, it is not predictive but hortatory discourse. In Schneider’s terms, the
verbal forms are discursive, yiqtol being the leading member of the set,
while qatal and wayyiqtol are secondary.
Hab 3 consists of four parts: v. 2; vv. 3-7 (God in third person); vv. 8-
15 (addressing the Lord); and vv. 16-19. The opposition proximate / non-
proximate as well as the aspectual and modal features of Figure 5 fit in
this chapter:

33 See Rogland’s (2003:64-76) very helpful discussion of many such passages,

e.g., Dan 8:19-25 (yiqtols) after the vision in vv. 2-12. Since this vision is a
narrative, the qatals are not prophetic perfects. Fleischman (1989:14-15, 17)
illustrates for French and Spanish how in recounting dreams, distance as
expressed by the verbs serves to remove a real event from actuality “to mark
the events of the dream as being from an irrealis world”.
HEBREW VERB FORMS 93

v. 2a qatal (2x) resultative

v. 2b yiqtol (3x) incomplete; modal
34
v. 3a yiqtol incomplete, durative
v. 3b qatal (2x) resultative
v. 4 yiqtol incomplete, durative
v. 5 yiqtol (2x) incomplete, durative
v. 6a qatal resultative
v. 6a wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 6b qatal resultative
v. 6b wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 6c wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 6d qatal resultative
v. 7a qatal resultative,
performative
v. 7b yiqtol incomplete, durative
Figure 6a. Verb forms in Hab 3:2-7
In v. 6 the wayyiqtols denote events which come as proximate (tightly
linked to the audience’s mental view of reality) after the preceding qatals
of v. 6 a and c (God’s unexpected standing up and looking are still non-
proximate). Few translations bring out the sequentiality of wayyiqtol in
35
this verse without translating with a past tense. However, the rendering
by Buber and Rosenzweig calls to mind Michel’s conclusion that
wayyiqtol denotes consequence, a close connection, and does so without
regard to time (Michel 1960:15-16 [on Ps 143:4], 41, 132). The
sequentiality of wayyiqtol is also decisive in Hab 1:10-11 (and, for
example, Ps 107:36-38).
Compare also, for example, the wayyiqtols in Job 7:18a (   “that
you inspect him”) and Ps 8:6a (  “that you have made him”),
which both occur in a syntactic context of yiqtols, and in Isa 9:5 – “and
authority rests ( ) upon his shoulders” – after a qatal. Syntactically
Job 7:17-18 and Ps 8:5-6 are nearly parallel (Gross 1976:155-156 n. 76).
The wayyiqtol in Job 7:18a is usually taken as sequential and referring to

34 Compare “God is coming” (GNB, NJPS) or even “As God is coming”.

35 Buber & Rosenzweig: “Er steht auf, da macht das Erdreich er schwanken
( ), er sieht hin, da sprengt () die Weltstämme er, schon bersten
( ) die ewigen Berge” (italics mine).
94 LÉNART DE REGT

the present. At least syntactically there is no reason to treat Ps 8:6a

differently. This different treatment may well have been influenced by the
quotation and translation of Ps 8:5-6 in Heb 2:6-7 (Talstra 1995:9).
36
v. 8a qatal resultative
v. 8b yiqtol incomplete, durative
v. 9 yiqtol (2x) incomplete
v. 10a qatal resultative
v. 10a yiqtol incomplete
v. 10b-d qatal (3x) resultative
v. 11a qatal resultative
v. 11b yiqtol incomplete, durative
v. 12 yiqtol (2x) incomplete, durative
v. 13a qatal resultative
v. 13b qatal resultative
v. 14a qatal resultative
v. 14b yiqtol incomplete, durative
v. 15 qatal resultative
Figure 6b. Verb forms in Hab 3:8-15
The standing still (  qatal) even of the sun and moon in v. 11a, for
example, is non-proximate in comparison with the rest of the verse
(yiqtol). Likewise, both qatals in v. 13 are not only resultative but non-
proximate: so far, the hymn was about the Lord’s victory in general; now
the Lord’s deliverance specifically of his people as against the enemy is
brought in (which is linked only loosely to the common ground of
speaker and addressee at this point).
v. 16a qatal resultative (“Having heard”)
37
v. 16a wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 16b qatal resultative
v. 16c-d yiqtol (2x) incomplete
v. 16e yiqtol incomplete; modal
v. 16f yiqtol incomplete
v. 17a yiqtol incomplete

36 Compare “is ontbrand” (‘has been kindled’) in the Dutch NBV.

37 Compare FC: “J’entends tout ce tumulte et je suis profondément bouleversé.”
HEBREW VERB FORMS 95

v. 17c-e qatal (3x) resultative

v. 18 yiqtol- ( x) incomplete; modal
v. 19b wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 19c yiqtol incomplete
Figure 6c. Verb forms in Hab 3:16-19
In this response the modal yiqtols in v. 18 (  ) have the -
38

ending. Target languages with a tense-based verb system such as in Tatar,

the national language of Tatarstan, will often express modality with a
future tense. The Tatar translation of Hab 3 employs the non-categorical
future tense in this verse: it is an intention rather than a specific prediction
(for which Tatar would have employed the categorical future).
Some translations, notably NRSV, render much of Habakkuk 3
with a past tense, presumably on the basis of the qatals and (very
infrequent) wayyiqtols. But given the speech situation and type of
discourse involved, the frequent yiqtol functions as the leading verb and
indicates lack of temporal distance (see section 1.2). REB and FC do
justice to this by employing the present tense throughout.
2.3 Deut 32:1-43
In this very complicated chapter the verbal forms are discursive, the
cognitively proximate yiqtol being the leading member of the verbal set,
while qatal is secondary. Wayyiqtols occur in several verses (vv. 13-15,
18-20a, 22). In target languages with a tense-based verb system these
wayyiqtols may have to be translated with a past tense. However, this
cannot be the reason for the wayyiqtols in the Hebrew text itself:
numerous other verb forms in this chapter will then need to be translated
with a past tense as well. Take, for example, the (habitual) yiqtols in vv.
10ff. (  “he engirded him”), which come after the phrase “the days
of old” in vv. 7-8, and in vv. 16-17a (   “they incensed Him”).
The reason for the wayyiqtols seems to lie more in their sequentiality
(after a preceding wayyiqtol, yiqtol or qatal), similar to Hab 3 above and
Jonah 2 below. Also, except for v. 22, these wayyiqtol clauses refer to
concrete events in (other) narratives. This contributes to their proximity to
the addressee’s mental representation of reality.

38 Compare “freuen will [not “werde”] ich mich Sein, jubeln ...” in Buber &
Rosenzweig.
96 LÉNART DE REGT

2.4 Jonah 2:3-10

This passage is another example of a prayer in a prophetic book. In a
section on this passage, Hatim and Mason (1997:124-125) write:
It is at least superficially disconcerting to find Jonah referring to
his present act of praying and his hoped-for delivery from distress
in the past tense. Now, the prayer consists almost entirely of
quotations from the Psalms which are in the past tense
(intertextuality). The way they are incorporated into the currently
developing text, however, suggests that the use of this tense is
marked, expectation-defying and therefore highly dynamic … It
may be assumed that … it serves to underscore the earnest
supplication from Jonah in his present position of powerlessness,
and yet still express his confidence that God will in fact deliver
39
him.
In terms of our approach, the verbs themselves are not past tenses: they
do not themselves indicate the time of the situation relative to the time of
speaking. Rather, as we have said in section 1.2, the time of the situation
is dependent on the communicative situation of the text of which it is
part. The choice of verb forms as such is determined by aspect and
cognitive (non-)proximity and thus may not be, in Hatim and Mason’s
terms, “marked, expectation-defying and therefore highly dynamic”.
Jonah’s prayer from the belly of the fish has occasionally been
translated with present tenses in target languages with a tense-based verb
40
system. On the face of it this would seem to be in line with the
communicative situation of the text. However, the prophet’s prayer comes
only after the Lord provided the fish to save him (2:1) and the prayer is
actually a thanksgiving psalm of a typical Israelite (rather than the
expected psalm of repentance). As Hatim and Mason point out,
intertextuality with Psalms is at work here, and the texts of the
thanksgiving psalms involved referred to the past as well. V. 3, for
example, is reminiscent of Ps 18:7, 120:1 and 138:3. Translating the
passage with past tenses will bring out this intertextuality with the
thanksgiving psalm genre more clearly and will even fit the
communicative situation of the text.
A table on the verb functions in Jonah 2:3-10 will look as follows:

39 This section of their book, “Tense switching and biblical discourse”, is part of
Ch. 7: “Form and function in the translation of the sacred and sensitive text.”
40 Unlike in most translations, this has been done in TOB and in the Dutch WV
and NBV.
HEBREW VERB FORMS 97

v. 3a qatal resultative
v. 3b wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 3c qatal resultative
v. 3d qatal non-proximate
v. 4a wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 4b yiqtol incomplete, durative
v. 4c qatal resultative
v. 5a qatal resultative
v. 5a qatal resultative
v. 5b yiqtol incomplete
v. 6a qatal resultative
v. 6b yiqtol incomplete, durative
v. 7a qatal resultative
v. 7c wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 8a qatal resultative
v. 8b wayyiqtol sequential; proximate
v. 9 yiqtol incomplete, habitual
v. 10a yiqtol- incomplete; modal
v. 10b qatal resultative
v. 10c yiqtol- incomplete; modal
Figure 7. Verb forms in Jonah 2:3-10
In both v. 4b and v. 6b the yiqtol form is   “keep me engulfed”
(durative). While the wayyiqtols are indeed sequential, in v. 3d there is no
wayyiqtol (even though it seems parallel to v. 3b) and no yiqtol (even
though Ps 18:7 has a yiqtol   at that point!). It is only now in v. 3d
that the Lord becomes the addressee, which technically accounts for a
non-proximate form: qatal. An added reason is, perhaps, that this qatal
  is similar in sound to the preceding qatal  (more than a
wayyiqtol   would have been). But most importantly, the expected
pattern  Jonah went further and further away from the Lord, until he
punished him and then delivered him  has become the common ground
between the narrator and reader, and since v. 3d (“you heard”) does not fit
the pattern at this point, the verb is cognitively non-proximate: qatal
 .
The verb that follows in v. 4a does actually fit the expected pattern on
the part of the reader and is thus cognitively proximate: wayyiqtol
98 LÉNART DE REGT

  “you [the Lord] cast me [Jonah].” At the same time, however,
41

Jonah himself might have hoped for a different sequential action after v.
3d (“you heard”)! This clash of expectations has an ironic effect. Irony
may also be at work in v. 10: the two yiqtols are marked explicitly for
modality ( -), but are not accompanied by explicit objects; Jonah had no
42
real intention to help the Ninevites.
2.5 Jer 51:20-26
Who is the addressee in Jer 51:20-26? Israel is addressed in v. 24: “I will
repay Babylon before your very eyes.” It is clear that vv. 24-26 are about
Babylon, which is addressed in vv. 25-26. But in vv. 20-23 it is still open
to question who the addressee is. Is it also Babylon or is it Media? Who is
God’s “war club” here? The answer to this question depends very much
on how we look at the verbs in these verses, which are all weqatal.
2.5.1 Media: God’s war club?
In a target language with a tense-based verb system the weqatals could be
translated with a present or future tense (or even with a modal form:
“with you I want to smash nations”), if vv. 20-23 address Media. The
Dutch NBV even makes this explicit: “Media, you are my war club”. But
this interpretation is questionable: except for vv. 11 and 28, Media plays
no part in the chapter. Also, Media is only one of many nations assembled
against Babylon (vv. 27-28). Finally, if Media is addressed in vv. 20-23
one would expect that what is then a shift from Media to Babylon in v. 24
is marked syntactically, but this is not the case: the clause only starts with
 , thus continuing the weqatal series. The interpretation that the
war club is Media, then, is questionable in the context.
The translators of Jeremiah in the NBV actually mention that they
based their choice partly on the weqatals: “future is grammatically the
43
most likely.” However, while the functions of weqatal allow for this
interpretation (see Figure 5), they do not allow for this interpretation
only.

41 Near the end of the prayer Jonah’s final deliverance in v. 7 (“you brought me
up”) by then fits the expected pattern as well. Hence the, proximate, wayyiqtol
.
42 I am grateful to my colleague Thomas Kaut for our fruitful discussions and for
drawing my attention to the irony in this text.
43 Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling – Jeremia – Toelichting, 52-53.
HEBREW VERB FORMS 99

2.5.2 Babylon: God’s war club

Moving on to the second option, Babylon is already referred to in Jer
50:23 as “the hammer of the whole earth” which is itself “cut down and
broken” (qatal + wayyiqtol). Babylon is addressed in the same vein in
51:13. Given, then, that Babylon is the addressee in vv. 20-23 as well as
vv. 25-26 (compare McKane 1996 [2]:1310-1312), what about the
weqatals? Could they still be translated with a present or future tense? If
vv. 20-23 were to be taken to be a reference to the future, Babylon would
still have a future as God’s war hammer of nations. But this would not be
in line with vv. 24-26 and the rest of chapters 50 and 51: Babylon is
judged.
It fits the context much better if we take vv. 20-23 to be a reference to
the past (perhaps up to the present). As far as the weqatal functions are
44
concerned (sequential, incomplete/repetitive, modal, non-proximate),
such a reading in the past would be possible. In a target language with a
tense system there is room, then, for translating them not with a future,
but with a present or past tense. This has been done in, for instance,
Buber and Rosenzweig (past: “niederkeulte”), TOB (passé composé: “j’ai
pilonné”), and NJPS (past: “I clubbed”).
In this approach to vv. 20-26, the weqatal clauses are taken as a
reference to the past in vv. 20-23, and as referring to the future in vv. 24-
26. We have argued that in Hebrew verbs do not denote tense: the verb
forms do not indicate the time of the situation relative to the time of
speaking. Rather, the time of the situation is communicated by the text
type and the context of the passage.

3. CONCLUSION
Unlike aspect, (non-)sequentiality, mood and cognitive (non-)proximity,
the category of tense is not indicated by the verb. The temporal range of the
different verb forms is too wide for them to indicate the time of the
situation relative to the time of speaking. And even if tense is treated as
relative, yiqtols in reference to the past are still problematic. Instead, the
time of the situation is dependent on the communicative situation of the
text in which the situation is described. It is only where wayyiqtol is the
leading verb in narrative text and yiqtol in discursive text that these forms
become like tense forms, indicating temporal distance and lack of temporal
distance, respectively. Leading as well as secondary verbs in a text can only

44 Mentioned in Joüon & Muraoka (1991:402 §119v): “frequentative or

durative.”
100 LÉNART DE REGT

be translated into tense-based languages after careful interpretation of the

communicative situation of the text and its discourse type.
As events are added to the discourse, they are distinguished in terms of
their cognitive proximity to the speaker’s and addressee’s common ground
(which includes the discourse developed so far). Proximate events are
linked tightly to this common ground; in the speaker’s estimation they are
easily accessible to, and integrated into, the addressee’s mental
representation of reality. Wayyiqtol and yiqtol denote cognitively proximate
events. Relative to such proximate events, the other verb forms denote non-
proximity to the addressee’s mental representation of reality: the denoted
event is linked to his mental vision more loosely. The notion that proximity
is denoted by specific verb forms was worked out for Dutch by Janssen
(1993).
There are clear functional contrasts between verb forms with regard to
(non-)proximity and aspect, which have translational implications. Qatal
denotes non-proximity and result (post-terminality), wayyiqtol denotes
cognitive proximity and sequentiality, weqatal denotes non-proximity and
sequentiality, while yiqtol denotes cognitive proximity, incompleteness and
mood.
This model of the Hebrew verb system provides a basis for describing verb
functions in poetic and prophetic texts as well as prose.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Translations:
FC Bible en Français Courant (1997).
GNB Good News Bible (Second edition 1994).
NBV Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (2004).
NIVNew International Version (1978).
NJPS New Translation of the Jewish Publication Society (1985).
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (1989).
REB Revised English Bible (1989).
TOB Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible (Nouvelle édition revue 1994).
WV Willibrordvertaling (Revision 1995).

Arnold, B T & Choi, J H 2003. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
HEBREW VERB FORMS 101

Baayen, R H 1991. The Semantics of the Tenses in Biblical Hebrew, in: de Regt, L J
& Van Reenen, P Th (eds) 1991. Corpusgebaseerde Woordanalyse: Jaarboek
1991. Amsterdam: Free University, 1-33.
Baayen, R H 1997. The Pragmatics of the ‘Tenses’ in Biblical Hebrew. Studies in
Language 21, 245-285.
Bailey, N A 1994. Some Literary and Grammatical Aspects of Genealogies in
Genesis, in: Bergen, R D (ed.) 1994, 267-282.
Bergen, R D (ed.) 1994. Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Buber, M & Rosenzweig F 1958, 1992. Bücher der Kündung verdeutscht von Martin
Buber gemeinsam mit Franz Rosenzweig. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Buth, R 1994. Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse
Analysis: The Problem of “Unmarked Temporal Overlay” and the
Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol, in: Bergen, R D (ed.) 1994, 138-154.
Comrie, B 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related
Problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, J A 2004. The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of
wayyiqtol and weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose. JSS 49, 247-273.
Fleischman S 1989. Temporal Distance: A Basic Linguistic Metaphor. Studies in
Language 13, 1-50.
Gianto, A 2006. Modality and Evidentiality in Biblical Hebrew. Paper Presented to
the Department of Hebrew, Leiden University, 25 April.
Gentry, P J 1998. The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew. HS 39,
7-39.
Gitay, Y 1996. Psalm 1 and the Rhetoric of Religious Argumentation, in: de Regt, L J,
De Waard, J & Fokkelman, J P (eds) 1996. Literary Structure and Rhetorical
Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Assen: Van Gorcum / Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 232-240.
Givón, T 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Gross, W 1976. Verbform und Funktion. wayyiqtol für die Gegenwart? Ein Beitrag
zur Syntax poetischer althebräischer Texte (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im
alten Testament 1). St. Ottilien: EOS.
102 LÉNART DE REGT

Hatav, G 2004. Anchoring World and Time in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of

Linguistics 40, 491-526.
Hatav, G 2007.  –  . Hebrew Linguistics 59, 43-54.
Hatim, B & Mason, I 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London & New York:
Routledge.
Heller, R L 2004. Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of
Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSS 55). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Hendel, R S 1996. In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System: Situation, Tense,
Aspect, Mood. ZAH 9, 152-181.
Hoftijzer, J 1974. Verbale Vragen. Leiden: Brill.
Hoftijzer, J 2001. Description or Categorical Rule? Some Remarks on Ex. 18:16, in:
van Soldt, W H et al. (eds) 2001. Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies
Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday.
Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 193-196.
Hughes, J A 1970. Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses. JNES 29, 12-24.
Janssen, T A J M 1993. Tenses and Demonstratives: Conspecific Categories, in:
Geiger, R A & Rudzka-Ostyn, B (eds) 1993. Conceptualizations and Mental
Processing in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 741-783.
Joosten, J 1992. Biblical Hebrew weqatal and Syriac hw qtel Expressing Repetition
in the Past. ZAH 5, 1-14.
Joosten, J 1997. The Indicative System of the Biblical Hebrew Verb and its Literary
Exploitation, in: van Wolde, E (ed.) 1997. Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew
Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Leiden: Brill, 51-71.
Joosten, J 1999. The Long Form of the Prefix Conjugation Referring to the Past in
Biblical Hebrew Prose. HS 40, 15-26.
Joüon, P & Muraoka, T 1991. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and
Revised by T. Muraoka. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Longacre, R E 1989. Joseph  A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and
Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns.
McKane, W 1986, 1996. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 2 vols.
(ICC). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Michel, D 1960. Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen (Abhandlungen zur
evangelischen Theologie 1). Bonn: Bouvier.
HEBREW VERB FORMS 103

Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling  Jeremia – Toelichting fase 5 (2002) Netherlands Bible

Society, Haarlem.
De Regt, L J 1983. Tempus in het Bijbels Hebreeuws. GLOT Tijdschrift voor
Taalwetenschap 6, 247-275.
De Regt, L J 1988. A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus,
Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1-30 (SSN 24). Assen: Van
Gorcum.
De Regt, L J 2004. Signs of Redactional Development in Some Old Testament Texts
and the Translator. JNSL 30, 81-97.
Revell, E J 1989. The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose. HUCA 60, 1-37.
Rogland, M 2003. Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew (SSN 44).
Assen: Van Gorcum.
Rundgren, F 1965. Das althebräische Verbum. Abriss der Aspektlehre. Uppsala:
Almqvist & Wiksell.
Sanders, J 1996. Perspective and Attribution: The Cognitive Representation of
Biblical Narrative. Poetics 24, 57-80.
Schneider, W 1974. Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch. München: Claudius.
Talstra, E 1978. Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory. BO 35,
169-174.
Talstra, E 1982. Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. II: Syntax and Semantics. BO 39,
26-38.
Talstra, E 1995. Verba en syntaxis van bijbels Hebreeuws. Met Andere Woorden 14,
7-16.
Waltke, B K & O’Connor, M 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Walton, T 2006. Experimenting with Qohelet: A Text-linguistic Approach to Reading
Qohelet as Discourse (ACEBT Supplement Series 5). Maastricht: Shaker.
Warren, A 1998. Modality, Reference and Speech Acts in the Psalms. Ph.D.
dissertation, Cambridge University.
Zevit, Z 1998. The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew (SBLMS 50). Atlanta:
Scholars Press.