# Biblical Hebrew: Does vav conversive mean sequence?



## JAN SHAR

Hi, everyone

In the Genesis it says

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים׃
ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור׃ וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך׃ ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשך קרא לילה ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד׃
ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃ ויעש אלהים את הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע ויהי כן׃ ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שמים ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום שני׃

Why does the Bible not use vav conversive in ולחשך קרא לילה? I think it's because it wants to show that this event happened at the SAME time as the one before it, which is ויקרא אלהים לאור יום. If the vav-conversive had been used, as it is in the rest of these lines, then it would show sequence.

What do you think?


----------



## Ali Smith

I agree; it is clear that there is a reason the Bible avoids using waw-retentive here despite using it everywhere else. Had it, together with a converted imperfect, been used here it would have retained the same perfective aspect but implied that God called the light "day" first and the darkness "night" next. By changing the order of words to allow for the waw-conjunctive followed eventually by a suffix conjugation verb, the Bible shows that God called the light "day" and the darkness "night" simultaneously.

Similarly, the following passage contains several instances of waw-retentive, yet in one place the Bible chooses to use waw-conjunctive followed eventually by a prefix conjugation verb. Once again, the reason is clear: using the waw-retentive followed by a converted perfect would have implied that Hannah used to be given her portion _after_ rather than _along with_ Peninnah.

וַיְהִ֣י הַיּ֔וֹם וַיִּזְבַּ֖ח אֶלְקָנָ֑ה וְנָתַ֞ן לִפְנִנָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ וּֽלְכׇל־בָּנֶ֛יהָ וּבְנוֹתֶ֖יהָ מָנֽוֹת׃
וּלְחַנָּ֕ה יִתֵּ֛ן מָנָ֥ה אַחַ֖ת אַפָּ֑יִם כִּ֤י אֶת־חַנָּה֙ אָהֵ֔ב וַיהֹוָ֖ה סָגַ֥ר רַחְמָֽהּ׃
וְכִעֲסַ֤תָּה צָרָתָהּ֙ גַּם־כַּ֔עַס בַּעֲב֖וּר הַרְּעִמָ֑הּ כִּֽי־סָגַ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּעַ֥ד רַחְמָֽהּ׃
וְכֵ֨ן יַעֲשֶׂ֜ה שָׁנָ֣ה בְשָׁנָ֗ה מִדֵּ֤י עֲלֹתָהּ֙ בְּבֵ֣ית יְהֹוָ֔ה כֵּ֖ן תַּכְעִסֶ֑נָּה וַתִּבְכֶּ֖ה וְלֹ֥א תֹאכַֽל׃

שמואל א א ד-ז​Translation: On a certain day when Elqana had sacrificed, he would give his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters portions. And to Hannah he would give a double portion, for he loved Hannah but Yahweh had closed her womb.


----------



## Drink

Yes, the vav-conversive is also called the vav-consecutive, because it implies a sequence. You could say it's meaning is like "and then" (like Arabic ف).


----------



## Ali Smith

JAN SHAR said:


> Hi, everyone
> 
> In the Genesis it says
> 
> בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים׃
> ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור׃ וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך׃ ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשך קרא לילה ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד׃
> ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃ ויעש אלהים את הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע ויהי כן׃ ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שמים ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום שני׃
> 
> Why does the Bible not use vav conversive in ולחשך קרא לילה? I think it's because it wants to show that this event happened at the SAME time as the one before it, which is ויקרא אלהים לאור יום. If the vav-conversive had been used, as it is in the rest of these lines, then it would show sequence.
> 
> What do you think?


And the meaning of ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד is clearly “and then there was evening and then there was morning, one day”.


----------



## Sharjeel72

However, at the beginning of a sentence it is best not to translate vav conversive as 'and then', regardless of whether the verb after it is perfect or imperfect. You should just leave the vav converseive out of the translation altogether.


----------



## Drink

Sharjeel72 said:


> However, at the beginning of a sentence it is best not to translate vav conversive as 'and then', regardless of whether the verb after it is perfect or imperfect. You should just leave the vav converseive out of the translation altogether.



As a translator you can do what you want really (translator's license). But if you want to be _accurate_, you cannot leave it out. The "and" is part of the meaning of the vav conversive.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink: But look at what Lambdin says:

The "perfect" value of the form _wa_ + imperfect became so commonplace that it may be employed even without a perfect to begin the sequence:

ויכתב האיש את־הדברים (And) The man wrote the words.


----------



## Drink

Lambdin's example isn't even a real example. Normally, I would suggest taking a look at the context to see what came immediately before that, but you can't do that with made-up examples.

Keep in mind that the wayyiqtol form does not need to immediately follow any qatal form in order to have the "and" meaning. The "and" meaning is part of the intrinsic meaning of the vav-consecutive. You can leave it out if you want when you translate, but you are infusing your own interpretation when you do so.


----------



## Ali Smith

I was taught that one should not begin one’s translation of the following passage with “and”:

וַיְהִ֣י מִ֠קְנֵ֠הוּ שִֽׁבְעַ֨ת אַלְפֵי־צֹ֜אן וּשְׁלֹ֧שֶׁת אַלְפֵ֣י גְמַלִּ֗ים וַחֲמֵ֨שׁ מֵא֤וֹת צֶֽמֶד־בָּקָר֙ וַחֲמֵ֣שׁ מֵא֣וֹת אֲתוֹנ֔וֹת וַעֲבֻדָּ֖ה רַבָּ֣ה מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא גָּד֖וֹל מִכׇּל־בְּנֵי־קֶֽדֶם׃

(איוב א ג)


----------



## Drink

That's a rule concerning the English language, and is now probably outdated.

How you "translate" something is an entirely different thing from how you understand what it means in the original.


----------



## Ali Smith

Sharjeel72 said:


> However, at the beginning of a sentence it is best not to translate vav conversive as 'and then', regardless of whether the verb after it is perfect or imperfect. You should just leave the vav converseive out of the translation altogether.


Even when not at the beginning of a sentence it does not imply consecution (though neither does it rule it out). Observe:

וְהָלְכ֤וּ בָנָיו֙ וְעָשׂ֣וּ מִשְׁתֶּ֔ה בֵּ֖ית אִ֣ישׁ יוֹמ֑וֹ וְשָׁלְח֗וּ וְקָֽרְאוּ֙ לִשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת אַחְיֹתֵיהֶ֔ם לֶאֱכֹ֥ל וְלִשְׁתּ֖וֹת עִמָּהֶֽם׃

(איוב א ד)

The verbs mentioned are not consecutive to each other.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> Even when not at the beginning of a sentence it does not imply consecution (though neither does it rule it out). Observe:
> 
> וְהָלְכ֤וּ בָנָיו֙ וְעָשׂ֣וּ מִשְׁתֶּ֔ה בֵּ֖ית אִ֣ישׁ יוֹמ֑וֹ וְשָׁלְח֗וּ וְקָֽרְאוּ֙ לִשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת אַחְיֹתֵיהֶ֔ם לֶאֱכֹ֥ל וְלִשְׁתּ֖וֹת עִמָּהֶֽם׃
> 
> (איוב א ד)
> 
> The verbs mentioned are not consecutive to each other.



What makes you say these are vav-conversives?


----------



## JAN SHAR

Ali, if the vav doesn’t mean “and” then what’s the point of the author putting it there? He could have just said הָיָה מִ֠קְנֵ֠הוּ שִֽׁבְעַ֨ת אַלְפֵי־צֹ֜אן וּשְׁלֹ֧שֶׁת אַלְפֵ֣י גְמַלִּ֗ים וַחֲמֵ֨שׁ מֵא֤וֹת צֶֽמֶד־בָּקָר֙ וַחֲמֵ֣שׁ מֵא֣וֹת אֲתוֹנ֔וֹת וַעֲבֻדָּ֖ה רַבָּ֣ה מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא גָּד֖וֹל מִכׇּל־בְּנֵי־קֶֽדֶם׃

Not only does vav-conversive always mean "and", it also always implies what you call consecution. Look here:

וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

And God called the light "day" and He called darkness "night". And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The only reason why the vav-conversive is not being used in "and He called darkness "night"" is because that would imply that God called the light "day" FIRST and THEN called darkness "night".


----------



## Drink

JAN SHAR said:


> The only reason why the vav-conversive is not being used in "and He called darkness "night"" is because that would imply that God called the light "day" FIRST and THEN called darkness "night".


I wouldn't say it's the _only_ reason. It's also because word order highlights the contrast between light and darkness. It's common for the word order to be reversed like this in contrastive contexts.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> What makes you say these are vav-conversives?



וְהָלְכ֤וּ בָנָיו֙ וְעָשׂ֣וּ מִשְׁתֶּ֔ה בֵּ֖ית אִ֣ישׁ יוֹמ֑וֹ וְשָׁלְח֗וּ וְקָֽרְאוּ֙ לִשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת אַחְיֹתֵיהֶ֔ם לֶאֱכֹ֥ל וְלִשְׁתּ֖וֹת עִמָּהֶֽם׃
וַיְהִ֡י כִּ֣י הִקִּ֩יפוּ֩ יְמֵ֨י הַמִּשְׁתֶּ֜ה וַיִּשְׁלַ֧ח אִיּ֣וֹב וַֽיְקַדְּשֵׁ֗ם וְהִשְׁכִּ֣ים בַּבֹּ֘קֶר֮ וְהֶעֱלָ֣ה עֹלוֹת֮ מִסְפַּ֣ר כֻּלָּם֒ כִּ֚י אָמַ֣ר אִיּ֔וֹב אוּלַי֙ חָטְא֣וּ בָנַ֔י וּבֵרְכ֥וּ אֱלֹהִ֖ים בִּלְבָבָ֑ם כָּ֛כָה יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה אִיּ֖וֹב כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃

We know the waw in וְהָלְכ֤וּ is not a waw-conjunctive because the end of the second verse clearly indicates that this used to happen on a regular basis: כָּ֛כָה יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה אִיּ֖וֹב כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים

So, we can be fairly certain that וְהָלְכ֤וּ and וְעָשׂ֣וּ and וְשָׁלְח֗וּ and וְקָֽרְאוּ֙ indicate the past habitual: they used to go, they used to make, they used to send, and they used to summon, respectively. All of these are, of course, imperfective meanings.


----------



## Drink

You are making several mistakes in your reasoning:

1- Even if your personal belief is correct that Biblical Hebrew verbs are "primarily" about aspect, we know for a fact that there are many exceptions to it. Therefore, you can not use a verb's aspect to "prove" whether it is converted or not, because it may be one of those exceptions.

2- You are assuming that the "vav-conjunctive" and the "vav-consecutive" are completely distinct concepts. This is not the case. There are many shades of meaning of the vav, and these shades overlap quite a bit between the regular vav and the vav-conversive. For example, the consecutive meaning of the vav is commonly found on non-verbs as well, such as ולא and ואלה and והנה. So why can't this same vav occasionally be found on non-converted verbs?

3- The Book of Job is one of the poetic books. You cannot compare Biblical Hebrew grammar in general to the grammar of Biblical poetry.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Actually, at least some Hebrew scholars believe that vav conversive does not imply sequence nor does it rule it out. Of course, then why would the Bible avoid vav conversive in ולחשך קרא לילה? I think that by fronting "the darkness" it is showing contrast with what came before: "the light" in ויקרא אלהים לאור יום.


----------



## Ali Smith

However, in the following verse there is no clearly no sequence implied in the verb וַיּ֥וֹלֶד, for it would make no sense otherwise:

וְיִפְתָּ֣ח הַגִּלְעָדִ֗י הָיָה֙ גִּבּ֣וֹר חַ֔יִל וְה֖וּא בֶּן־אִשָּׁ֣ה זוֹנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד גִּלְעָ֖ד אֶת־יִפְתָּֽח׃
וַתֵּ֧לֶד אֵֽשֶׁת־גִּלְעָ֛ד ל֖וֹ בָּנִ֑ים וַיִּגְדְּל֨וּ בְֽנֵי־הָאִשָּׁ֜ה וַיְגָרְשׁ֣וּ אֶת־יִפְתָּ֗ח וַיֹּ֤אמְרוּ לוֹ֙ לֹא־תִנְחַ֣ל בְּבֵית־אָבִ֔ינוּ כִּ֛י בֶּן־אִשָּׁ֥ה אַחֶ֖רֶת אָֽתָּה׃
(שופטים יא א-ב)

And Jephthah the Gileadite was a warrior but he was a prostitute's son and (then) Gilead begot Jephthah. And (then) Gilead's wife bore him sons and (then) the woman's sons became big and (then) they drove Jephthah out and (then) they said to him, "You will not have a property in our father's house because you are another woman's son."

Obviously, Gilead did not father Jephthah after he had become a warrior and a prostitute's son.


----------



## JAN SHAR

vav-conversive does _not_ always imply succession. It often does but not always. What it always implies is subordination. See pg. 547 of Waltke and O'Connor. They write, "Wayyqtl may be used after any clause which provides a starting point for development, as happens when wayyqtl is use epexegetically, after a circumstantial clause or phrase."


----------



## Drink

That seems to resonate with me. Even when it starts off an entire book, you get the feeling that it's placing that story within a larger context.


----------



## Ali Smith

JAN SHAR said:


> vav-conversive does _not_ always imply succession. It often does but not always. What it always implies is subordination. See pg. 547 of Waltke and O'Connor. They write, "Wayyqtl may be used after any clause which provides a starting point for development, as happens when wayyqtl is use epexegetically, after a circumstantial clause or phrase."


Correct. The same book, namely _An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax_, says that sometimes waw-relative + PC is used for epexegesis, i.e. to explain what precedes it by giving details of it or stating what occurred concomitantly with it. (Waltke and O'Connor 1990, 551). Here's an example they give:

וַתֵּ֤לֶךְ וַתָּבוֹא֙ וַתְּלַקֵּ֣ט בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה אַחֲרֵ֖י הַקֹּצְרִ֑ים וַיִּ֣קֶר מִקְרֶ֔הָ חֶלְקַ֤ת הַשָּׂדֶה֙ לְבֹ֔עַז אֲשֶׁ֖ר מִמִּשְׁפַּ֥חַת אֱלִימֶֽלֶךְ׃
(רות ב ג)

And she walked and entered and gleaned in the field after the the harvesters, and it turned out to be a portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of Elimelech's family.


----------

