# Biblical Hebrew: vav-consecutive before an imperfect verb



## Qutbuddin17

Shalom!

Does vav-consecutive before an imperfect verb (which is called a "future verb" in modern Hebrew) convert it into the past?

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.

I think this sentence proves that when an imperfect verb is preceded by a vav-consecutive, it makes it equivalent to a perfect verb (a perfect verb is what we call a "past verb" in modern Hebrew).

By the way, the reason I think וַיִּקְרָ֨א contains a vav-consecutive and not a vav-conjunctive is simple: there is a patah below it, and the following letter has a dagesh. These two features are the hallmarks of a vav-consecutive and serve to distinguish it from a vav-conjunctive. By contrast, the verb וַֽיְהִי does not have a dagesh in the letter immediately following the vav, so it (the vav) cannot be a vav-consecutive.

Thank you!


----------



## Drink

Yes, the vav consecutive flips the tense, so to speak (future to past, or past to future). That's its main notable feature, and why it's sometimes called the "vav-conversive".


----------



## Abaye

Qutbuddin17 said:


> By contrast, the verb וַֽיְהִי does not have a dagesh in the letter immediately following the vav, so it (the vav) cannot be a vav-consecutive.


Most of what you wrote is well phrased, but this specific conclusion is inaccurate. וַיְהִי has waw (=vav) consecutive.
I don't know what's the reason for this exception (of no dagesh).



> אחרי ו' ההיפוך היו"ד השוואית רפה כבמקרא, כגון וַיְהִי.


נושא ו' ההיפוך - האקדמיה ללשון העברית


----------



## utopia

Abaye said:


> Most of what you wrote is well phrased, but this specific conclusion is inaccurate. וַיְהִי has waw (=vav) consecutive.
> I don't know what's the reason for this exception (of no dagesh).
> 
> 
> נושא ו' ההיפוך - האקדמיה ללשון העברית



Because of the shwa there is no dagesh.

Usually in biblical Hebrew when there's a shwa under the letter Yod, there is no dagesh in it, like ילדים - לילדים
יערות - ליערות

The same happens here.

But the vav is vav hahippukh.


----------



## Abaye

utopia said:


> Because of the shwa there is no dagesh.


That's the observation, but I don't know what's the reason. Was such yod pronounced always unstressed? Or stressed by nature so didn't need a dagesh? Or any other explanation?


----------



## utopia

Abaye said:


> That's the observation, but I don't know what's the reason. Was such yod pronounced always unstressed? Or stressed by nature so didn't need a dagesh? Or any other explanation?


According to Blau, the speakers of ancient Hebrew had a difficulty to pronounce a double consonant (that have dagesh) in a very short vowel (shwa).


----------



## Abaye

utopia said:


> According to Blau, the speakers of ancient Hebrew had a difficulty to pronounce a double consonant (that have dagesh) in a very short vowel (shwa).


The issue seems related to yod, other consonants do get a dagesh in such situation.
Consonant yod is exceptional since ancient time and until today: omitted (in speaking/writing), becomes a vowel, etc.


----------



## utopia

What Blau mentions (maybe unrelated to Yod) is that in words where there is a shwa beneath a consonant that has along other forms of the word a dagesh, the dagesh is omitted: מסע - massa

מסעות - Massaot

In the constructive form the dagesh is omitted: מסעי - mas'ei with no dagesh


----------



## utopia

Let's not forget that מ at the beginning of בינוני of פיעל and פועל used to not get a dagesh, up until the Acadamy decided they should.


----------



## Drink

It's not entirely clear to me what all the rules are, but some consonants are more susceptible to losing their dagesh, while others are not. It's not so simple to say that in general it was lost, because in most cases it was not.


----------



## utopia

But even so, Blau states that, in a strange way, those in the bible that lose the dagesh are less susceptible than other consonants.


----------



## Ali Smith

I should add that this is "vav" is not actually a "vav-_consecutive_". Witness:

וַיְהִי֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶחָ֜ד מִן־הָרָמָתַ֛יִם צֹופִ֖ים מֵהַ֣ר אֶפְרָ֑יִם וּשְׁמֹ֡ו אֶ֠לְקָנָה בֶּן־יְרֹחָ֧ם בֶּן־אֱלִיה֛וּא בֶּן־תֹּ֥חוּ בֶן־צ֖וּף אֶפְרָתִֽי

This "vav" is better called a "vav-retentive". There is no way it could be a vav-consecutive because the line I just quoted occurs at the _beginning_ of 1 Samuel 1. There is nothing for it to be consecutive to.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> I should add that this is "vav" is not actually a "vav-_consecutive_". Witness:
> 
> וַיְהִי֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶחָ֜ד מִן־הָרָמָתַ֛יִם צֹופִ֖ים מֵהַ֣ר אֶפְרָ֑יִם וּשְׁמֹ֡ו אֶ֠לְקָנָה בֶּן־יְרֹחָ֧ם בֶּן־אֱלִיה֛וּא בֶּן־תֹּ֥חוּ בֶן־צ֖וּף אֶפְרָתִֽי
> 
> This "vav" is better called a "vav-retentive". There is no way it could be a vav-consecutive because the line I just quoted occurs at the _beginning_ of 1 Samuel 1. There is nothing for it to be consecutive to.



If you're talking about the vav of ויהי, it is indeed a vav-consecutive. Why it makes sense for a vav-consecutive to be found at the beginning of a book is a separate discussion, but there is no sense in categorizing it as a different construct when it is the same exact construct as in all other cases where it does come immediately after something.


----------



## Ali Smith

Qutbuddin17 said:


> Does vav-consecutive before an imperfect verb (which is called a "future verb" in modern Hebrew) convert it into the past?



The vav-consecutive does indeed convert a perfect verb into an imperfect, and vice versa. However, it is wrong to say that the perfect tense in Hebrew is just another name for the past tense. Witness:

וְשֵׁ֣ם הָאִ֣ישׁ אֱֽלִימֶ֡לֶךְ וְשֵׁם֩ אִשְׁתּ֨וֹ נׇעֳמִ֜י וְשֵׁ֥ם שְׁנֵֽי־בָנָ֣יו ׀ מַחְל֤וֹן וְכִלְיוֹן֙ אֶפְרָתִ֔ים מִבֵּ֥ית לֶ֖חֶם יְהוּדָ֑ה וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ שְׂדֵֽי־מוֹאָ֖ב וַיִּֽהְיוּ־שָֽׁם׃


utopia said:


> Because of the shwa there is no dagesh.
> 
> Usually in biblical Hebrew when there's a shwa under the letter Yod, there is no dagesh in it, like ילדים - לילדים
> יערות - ליערות
> 
> The same happens here.
> 
> But the vav is vav hahippukh.



And sometimes the dagesh drops out from the yod even if it doesn't have a shwa. Witness:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה נְטֵה יָדְךָ עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בָּאַרְבֶּה וְיַעַל עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וְיֹאכַל אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב הָאָרֶץ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁאִיר הַבָּרָד.

Stranger still is the fact that the וי״ו ההיפוך‎ doesn't have a פתח here.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> The vav-consecutive does indeed convert a perfect verb into an imperfect, and vice versa. However, it is wrong to say that the perfect tense in Hebrew is just another name for the past tense.



That is not correct. You keep repeating it, but it is not correct. It is an outdated and view that ignores the reality. Please see the following links, for example:

- What is wrong with calling the Hebrew verb “an aspect”?
- Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect?
- The Tense-Mood-Aspect System of Ancient Hebrew



Ali Smith said:


> And sometimes the dagesh drops out from the yod even if it doesn't have a shwa. Witness:
> 
> וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה נְטֵה יָדְךָ עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בָּאַרְבֶּה וְיַעַל עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וְיֹאכַל אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב הָאָרֶץ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁאִיר הַבָּרָד.
> 
> Stranger still is the fact that the וי״ו ההיפוך‎ doesn't have a פתח here.



This is not a vav-consecutive. This is an ordinary vav followed by a jussive verb. This is why there is no patach under the vav and therefore also no dagesh in the yod.


----------



## Ali Smith

תהלים קג ז (Psalms 103:7) says:

יוֹדִיעַ דְּרָכָיו לְמֹשֶׁה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲלִילוֹתָיו

My translation: And He made His ways known to Moses, and to the children of Israel [He made known His] deeds.

If the imperfect referred to the future would this verse make any sense?


----------



## Drink

So firstly, your translation is not correct. The usage here is the "present continuous/eternal/habitual" sort of tense (or something along those lines), which is common in poetic passages, and thus in Psalms. In this particular chapter of Psalms, you can see it used all throughout.

But here's the important thing to remember, which I've mentioned to you before: Forms of words can have different usages. We see this in English, where the present can be used as a future "When is your appointment? I *see* him tomorrow.", or even as a narrative past "I came into the room and I *see* him lying on the floor." That does not prevent is from saying that in general, "see" is a present tense. It's just that it also has other uses in certain situations.


----------



## amikama

Ali Smith said:


> תהלים קג ז (Psalms 103:7) says:
> 
> יוֹדִיעַ דְּרָכָיו לְמֹשֶׁה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲלִילוֹתָיו


There is no ו' ההיפוך in this verse.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Interesting discussion! There are three points of view on this issue: 1. that the suffix conjugation verb refers to the past, 2. that it refers to a punctual action, and 3. that it refers to an action that from the speaker's point of view is completed.

Everybody I think will agree that when the vav-consecutive precedes a prefix conjugation verb it gives it the meaning of a suffix conjugation verb. But, as I just pointed out, what exactly a suffix conjugation verb means remains an open question.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Take a look at this:

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃

It's clear that ויהי is primarily marked for tense, which is, of course, the past. If it were only secondarily marked for tense, what would it be primarily marked for?


----------



## Ali Smith

JAN SHAR said:


> Take a look at this:
> 
> וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃
> 
> It's clear that ויהי is primarily marked for tense, which is, of course, the past. If it were only secondarily marked for tense, what would it be primarily marked for?


Why, aspect! Can't it mean "And then (at a certain point in time) God said, 'May there be light.' and then there was light."?


----------



## Drink

You can't really use a single example to prove whether tense or aspect is primary.

Both primarily-aspectual languages and primarily-temporal languages are able to express the same narrative. In a primarily-temporal language, this verb would likely be past-tense, and in a primarily-aspectual language, this verb would likely be perfective aspect. The only way to tell the difference is to examine how the same verb forms are used in _different_ situations.


----------



## Ali Smith

יִ֣כֶל בְּשָׂר֣וֹ מֵרֹ֑אִי ושפי וְשֻׁפּ֥וּ עַ֝צְמֹתָ֗יו לֹ֣א רֻאּֽוּ׃
וַתִּקְרַ֣ב לַשַּׁ֣חַת נַפְשׁ֑וֹ וְ֝חַיָּת֗וֹ לַֽמְמִתִֽים׃
(איוב לג כא-כב)

His flesh is consumed away from sight and his bones that were not seen stick out. Then his soul draws near to the pit and his life [draws near] to the executioners.

This seems to refer to not the past but the present, doesn't it?


----------



## JAN SHAR

In this case, yes, but one example doesn't prove anything, as drink said.


----------



## Ali Smith

What about this:

אַל־תִּֽטַּמְּא֖וּ בְּכׇל־אֵ֑לֶּה כִּ֤י בְכׇל־אֵ֙לֶּה֙ נִטְמְא֣וּ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י מְשַׁלֵּ֖חַ מִפְּנֵיכֶֽם׃
וַתִּטְמָ֣א הָאָ֔רֶץ וָאֶפְקֹ֥ד עֲוֺנָ֖הּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וַתָּקִ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֶֽיהָ׃
(ויקרא יח כד-כה)

Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for it was by these things that the nations which I am expelling before you defiled themselves. For the land has become defiled, so I am bringing its punishment upon it, and the land will vomit up its inhabitants.

and

לֹֽא־יִגְרַ֥ע מִצַּדִּ֗יק עֵ֫ינָ֥יו וְאֶת־מְלָכִ֥ים לַכִּסֵּ֑א וַיֹּשִׁיבֵ֥ם לָ֝נֶ֗צַח וַיִּגְבָּֽהוּ׃
(איוב לו ז)

He does not withdraw his eyes from the righteous, but with kings on the throne He seats them forever, so they become exalted.


----------



## Drink

Regarding Leviticus, what makes you say it is future?

Regarding Job, as I have said many times already, Job is a poetic work and its grammar is different from Biblical prose.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> Regarding Leviticus, what makes you say it is future?


אַל־תִּֽטַּמְּא֖וּ בְּכׇל־אֵ֑לֶּה כִּ֤י בְכׇל־אֵ֙לֶּה֙ נִטְמְא֣וּ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י מְשַׁלֵּ֖חַ מִפְּנֵיכֶֽם׃
וַתִּטְמָ֣א הָאָ֔רֶץ וָאֶפְקֹ֥ד עֲוֺנָ֖הּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וַתָּקִ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֶֽיהָ׃
(ויקרא יח כד-כה)

Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for it was by these things that the nations which I am expelling before you defiled themselves. For the land has become defiled, so I am bringing its punishment upon it, and the land will vomit up its inhabitants.

It's clear the land's vomiting up its inhabitants will take place as a result of the punishment visited upon the inhabitants by God, isn't it?


----------



## Drink

Your translation contains inaccuracies which obscure the debate.

Why, for example, do you translate ואפקד as present progressive?


----------



## zj73

Here the meaning is definitely future: And he shall purify the altar

וַיִּשְׁחָט וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַדָּם וַיִּתֵּן עַל קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וַיְחַטֵּא אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת הַדָּם
Leviticus 8:15


----------



## Drink

What do you mean? This whole passage is very clearly in the past tense. Why do you suddenly think purifying the altar is future?


----------



## zj73

Drink said:


> What do you mean? This whole passage is very clearly in the past tense. Why do you suddenly think purifying the altar is future?


Isn't it obvious? The priest has yet to purify the altar. It will take place at a time later than when the speaker is speaking.


----------



## Abaye

zj73 said:


> Isn't it obvious? The priest has yet to purify the altar. It will take place at a time later than when the speaker is speaking.


Not obvious (why would you state it?) and apparently incorrect. Read the whole chapter, it's full of verbs of waw consecutive + imperfect, which makes them perfect (past tense), and the few verbs with no waw consecutive are perfect (past tense). This is the typical biblical style, nothing special.


----------



## Drink

zj73 said:


> Isn't it obvious? The priest has yet to purify the altar. It will take place at a time later than when the speaker is speaking.


What makes you think he has yet to do it? It's a typical past tense narration, all the way through, from before this, to after.


----------

