1It is commonly held in the theory of ‘consecutive tenses’ that wayyiqṭol in the synchronic state of Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) stands in temporal, aspectual, and modal opposition to ‘waw-less’ yiqṭol, and that the ‘consecutive waw’ in wayyiqṭol has certain semantic, pragmatic, or discourse-conditioned notions in contrast to usual ‘copulative waw’. The semantics of the ‘consecutive waw’ are described as one of (temporal or logical) sequentiality or foregrounding. This article examines the linguistic reality behind these assumptions.

1.0. The Status of the Short yiqṭol as a Separate Verbal Morpheme in SBH

2Comparative research uniformly testifies that the short yiqṭol in Biblical Hebrew has its historical background in an old short prefix conjugation yaqtul with perfective meaning.1

3The freestanding short yiqṭol form is attested with two basic meanings in archaic Biblical Hebrew poetry, indicative (past) and jussive (Notarius 2013, 305, 307, 313).2 In classical prose the indicative meanings of short yiqṭol are restricted by word order to the wayyiqṭol syntagm. In comparison with the relatively free usage of short yaqtul in Amarna Canaanite, the indicative short yiqṭol in SBH has been replaced by qaṭal in most positions and functions; the only exception to this replacement is the wayyiqṭol syntagm (Baranowski 2016a, §4.2). By contrast, the jussive short yiqṭol is retained in SBH, including in freestanding form (see Table 1).3

Table 1: Short yiqṭol past and jussive meanings (Tiberian vocalisation)

4The wayyiqṭol clause-type plays a major role in the system of consecutive tenses and has been the subject of an immense body of scholarly literature. Especially problematic is the nature of the waw conjunction in wayyiqṭol. Scholarly positions are illustrated in a surprising way by debate about the Aramaic Tel Dan inscription. Dated to the second half of the 9th century BCE, this old Aramaic text is approximately contemporary with the SBH period. The text type can be characterised as a retrospective report:

וישכב . יבא . ךהי לא [ . והבא ] ה ֯ . ויעל . ךלמ י [ ש ] ⁴ לאר . םדק . קראב . בא ֯ י ֯[ . ו ] י ֯ ךלמה . דדה [ .] א [ יתי .] ⁵ הנא . ויהך . דדה . ימדק [ . . י יכלמ ⁶ו ] קפא . ןמ ֯ . ש ֯ עב ֯[ ת . ] ואקתל . למ ֯[ ןכ בש ] ע ֯ ן א ֯ ירס . א [ יפל . ר ] ⁷ בכ . יפלאו שרפ . [ תלתקו . תיא . וי ] םר . רב .[ באחא .] ⁸ ךלמ . לארשי . לתקו ֯[ ת . תיא . זחא ] והי . רב [ . םרוי . למ ] ⁹ ך . תיב דוד . ואש֯ ם ֯ .[ ³ and my father lay down (and) went to [his ancestors.] Now the king of4 Israel had formerly entered in my father’s land. [But] Hadad made me king. 5 And Hadad went before me, [and] I departed from seven [...]6 of my kingdom. And I killed seve [nty ki] ngs, who harnessed thou [sands of cha]7 riots and thousands of horsemen. [And I killed Jo] ram, son of [Ahab, ]8 king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahazi] yahu, son of [Joram, kin]9 g of the house of David; and I set [... and I overthrew] (KAI5 310.3–9; Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995)6

5This early Aramaic inscription aroused intense debate on the conjunction waw in wayyiqṭol in Biblical Hebrew. The reason was that the inscription contains a number of verbal forms that are semantically and syntactically similar to the SBH wayyiqṭol: בכשיו , שאו ֯ ם ֯ , לתקאו , ו ] קפא , ךהיו , ו ] י ֯ ךלמה , לעיו . The scholarly discussion came to focus on the waw preceding the five (or possibly seven) narrative prefix forms. In Biblical Hebrew grammar such a waw would have been considered ‘consecutive’ or ‘conversive’, and thus a central feature in the system of ‘consecutive tenses’. But Takamitsu Muraoka (1995a; 1995b; 1998; with Rogland 1998; also Kottsieper 1999, 62, 71 fn. 67) took the position that Biblical Hebrew was unique on this point:

‘inversive waw’ is a unique innovation in Biblical Hebrew; two different types of conjunction - ו existed only in Biblical Hebrew;
the conjunction in Aramaic can only be a normal - ו , so - ו in the Tel Dan w-yqtl forms must be ‘simple waw’;
there is no need to assume a ‘conversion’ of yqtl in Aramaic.

6The majority of scholars, however, have disagreed with Muraoka and argue that:7

w-yqtl in the Aramaic of Tel Dan has the same function and meaning as wayyiqṭol in Biblical Hebrew;
the conjunction - ו in Tel Dan’s w-yqtl forms must be a ‘conversive’ or ‘consecutive waw’;
there were two different types of conjunction - ו in both early Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew.

7It is striking that, in the wake of this discussion, practically no scholar has adopted the view that for both early Aramaic and SBH there was only one ‘natural language connective’ - ו ‘and’.8

8The traditional system of consecutive tenses in Biblical Hebrew has three hallmarks:9

1. The syntactic distributional opposition between clause-initial10 waw-consecutive forms and the corresponding non-initial waw-less forms. This means that wayyiqṭol and wə-qaṭal are clause-initial, while long yiqṭol forms and qaṭal forms must be non-initial.11

2. The explicit opposition in temporal, aspectual, and modal semantics between two pairs of constructions: wayyiqṭol / qaṭal and wə-qaṭal / long yiqṭol.12 In summary: wayyiqṭol ‘equals’ qaṭal (past meaning), and wə-qaṭal ‘equals’ long yiqṭol (present/future meaning).13 In such presentations it is usually ignored that - ו functions as a conjunction; rather, the - ו is considered an intrinsic part of the verb form.

3. Certain semantic, pragmatic, or discourse-conditioned notions associated with the ‘waw-consecutive’ constructions wayyiqṭol and wə-qaṭal, in contrast to their ‘waw-less’ counterparts qaṭal and long yiqṭol.14 The difference between the pairs is usually described as one of (temporal or logical) sequentiality or foregrounding pertaining to the waw-consecutive clauses, in contrast to the non-consecutive verb forms.

9This is a bewildering complex of suppositions about the Biblical Hebrew verb system.15 Hornkohl concludes that the observations contained in the traditional description of the SBH verbal system “have little explanatory value,” and that there is redundancy in the system of forms, which “demands an explanation” (2018, 33). At the heart of the matter stands the role of word order in a conspicuous alternation of clauses with initial verb (type wa-VX) and clauses with non-initial verb (usually type wa-XV).16 SBH grammars describe an alternation of ‘forms’ in double pairs: wayyiqṭol alternates with its ‘equivalent’ qaṭal, and wə-qaṭal alternates with its ‘equivalent’ long yiqṭol. The grammars state that the connection between the - ו and the verb in the ‘consecutive tenses’ is ‘fixed’: if an element X is to be inserted for topicalisation before the verb, the ‘equivalent’ in the pairs must be used: X-qaṭal and X-long yiqṭol respectively (Blau 2010, 190).17

10Tropper (1996; 1998), Van de Sande (2008, 206–39), and Cook (2012, 315) have all argued for a single conjunction - ו in Biblical Hebrew.18 But since they have been unable to account for a system of ‘consecutive tenses’ with only one conjunction - ו , they have met with little response.19

11It is my thesis that the basic supposition of Tropper, Van de Sande, and Cook accords with the linguistic reality in the SBH texts: there was no distinction between way- and wə-. There was only one conjunction wa ‘and’. To prove this assumption, I argue that SBH text-linguistics must be able to account for the following issues:

1. the status of short yiqṭol (with both past and jussive meanings) as a separate verbal morpheme distinct from long yiqṭol;

2. why wa- has two formal variants (wə- and way-) in the Masoretic Text;

3. the linguistic reality behind wa- in the ‘consecutive tenses’;

4. how long yiqṭol was distinguished from short yiqṭol;

5. why qaṭal came to alternate with wayyiqṭol;

6. why wə-qaṭal acquired imperfective meanings and came to alternate with the inherited long yiqṭol (< *yaqtulu).20

12I have already discussed in brief the status of the short yiqṭol. In the following I touch upon numbers 2 and 3. I begin with the differentiation of the conjunction wa-. After that, I continue with the linguistic reality behind wa- in the ‘consecutive tenses’. Finally, some text examples are given.

13My paper is based on:

a corpus of SBH texts: the Pentateuch and the book of Judges;
a database of classified syntactic samples from the corpus (6200 records).

14In the following I use the term ‘Classical Hebrew’ (CH) for this corpus. It is intentionally restricted to secure a reasonably consistent synchronic representation of SBH.21

2.0. Why wa Has Two Formal Variants (wə- and way-) in the Masoretic Text

15The vowel signs were created by the Masoretes in Tiberias for the purpose of preserving in writing the reading tradition of the biblical text. The reading tradition had roots as far back as the Second Temple Period. The problem for us later scholars is that competence in the Tiberian reading tradition and in the phonetic realisation of its written signs fell into oblivion during the Middle Ages. The Tiberian sign system that is transmitted to us in various editions of Biblia Hebraica can be considered a fossil of this tradition. We have two main sources to achieve knowledge about the meaning of the signs (Khan 2018, 324):

Karaite Arabic transcriptions of the Hebrew Bible from the 10th and 11th centuries;
Masoretic treatises on the Tiberian pronunciation from the early 11th century.

16The sources show that in the Tiberian reading tradition the basic realisation of shewa mobile was as a short vowel with the same quality as pataḥ (Khan 2013a, 98; 2013b). This means that the two variants wə- (written with shewa mobile) and way- (written with pataḥ and dagesh forte) were read with the same vowel quality:

ְ יו ִ ק ְ ט ֹ ל was read wa-yiqṭōl ‘and let him kill’ ו ַ י ִ ק ְ ט ֹ ל was read way-yiqṭōl ‘and he killed’

17The difference in the reading of the two types of clauses is restricted to gemination because the vowel quality of the conjunction was the same for both variants of the conjunction wa- (Khan 1991, 241 fn. 17; 2013a, 98; 2013b).

18We must now scrutinise the gemination in wayyiqṭol. There is a dot in the yod called dagesh forte: ו ַ י ּ ק ְ ט ֹ ל . Gemination (marked with dagesh forte) was sometimes utilised in the Tiberian reading tradition (and even more frequently in the Babylonian reading tradition) in order to distinguish between otherwise homophonous words (Khan 2018, 340ff.). For example:

ע ַ ־ל ִ ר ֵ בי ֹּֽ ל ֹ ל־א ֹֹּֽ ו [ʿal-ʀ̟iːv lloː loː] ‘concerning a quarrel not his’ (Prov. 26.17)

19In the example the two final words lō are at risk of being confused in the reading and are therefore distinguished by means of gemination of lamed in the negation lō. The two words were already distinct in written form, but the problem was that they were homophones in the reading. This danger of ambiguity was remedied in the reading tradition during the Second Temple Period via lengthening of lamed, marked with dagesh forte (Yeivin 1980, 49, 294; Khan 2018, 341, 344).22 This effort to avoid homophony is a type of ‘orthoepic’ strategy. According to Khan, the Masoretes standardised a distinction that had already arisen in Second Temple times (Yeivin 1980, 49, 294; Khan 2018, 341, 344).

20The gemination is fairly old, but it was not a feature of CH. Rather, in CH the inherited homophony between jussive short yiqṭol and indicative short yiqṭol persisted (Khan 2020, I: 534):23

לטקיו wa-yiqṭōl [wa-jiq̟ˈtˤoːl] ‘and let him kill’24 לטקיו wa-yiqṭōl [wa-jiq̟ˈtˤoːl] ‘and he killed’

21Thus, in order to avoid confusion and achieve clarity, the reading tradition introduced gemination of the prefix consonant in the reading of the text:

לטקיו wa-yiqṭōl [wa-jiq̟ˈtˤoːl] ‘and let him kill’ לטקיו way-yiqṭōl [waɟ-ɟiq̟ˈtˤoːl] ‘and he killed’

22For CH it is reasonable to reckon with homophony between an indicative narrative wa-yiqṭol and a jussive wa-yiqṭol, both expressing discourse continuity, but in different domains.25

23To sum up: speakers and writers of CH made no distinction between two different wa- conjunctions. Such a distinction occurred in the reading tradition after the classical period, probably already in the Second Temple period.

3.0. The Linguistic Reality behind wa in the ‘Consecutive Tenses’

24It is one of the cornerstones of Biblical Hebrew text-linguistics that two of the principal verb forms in the central verbal system are ‘consecutive’. One of them is wayyiqṭol, the other is wə-qaṭal. The consecutive verb forms typically build series of main-line consecutive clauses. Clauses that break the main-line pattern are ‘non-consecutive’. Hebrew text-linguistics is concerned with the nature of the consecution, and the function of the non-consecutive clauses. This can be summarised in a table displaying the essence of Biblical Hebrew text-linguistics:

Table 2: The essence of Biblical Hebrew text-linguistics (focusing on Tiberian vocalisation of the conjunction wa- before yiqṭol)—affirmative clauses

25Characteristic features of consecutive clauses are:

1. The initial ‘consecutive waw’ (bold type in the table).

2. The initial position of the (finite) verb.

26It is usually held that a non-consecutive clause is characterised by having a clausal constituent (X) before the verb. The alternation between the two clause-types can be summarised as what I call “Tenet 1* of Biblical Hebrew text-linguistics,”26 where ‘*’ indicates a preliminary formulation:

Tenet 1*. A series of wa-VX clauses is interrupted by a clause with (wa)-XV pattern.27

27This formula subsumes the labour of generations of Biblical Hebrew scholars, and is the legacy of the system of ‘consecutive tenses’. It contains the germ of a clause-linking approach to the verbal system.28

28Non-consecutive clauses more often than not start with a wa- , but can also be asyndetic. Some oft-recognised alternatives in CH text-linguistics are:

Tenet 1a*. A series of wa-VX is interrupted by a clause with wa-XV pattern.29
Tenet 1b*. A series of wa-VX is interrupted by a clause with Ø-XV pattern.30
Tenet 1c*. A series of wa-VX is interrupted by a verbless clause.31

29The boldface wa- in the formula indicates the common assumption in Hebrew grammars that the wa- before a consecutive clause has a special nature: it is a ‘consecutive waw’. This is the term adopted by most scholars, though some use ‘conversive’, ‘inversive’, ‘energic’, or another distinguishing term.

30But as already indicated above, the main arguments in favour of a special ‘consecutive’ wa- must be refuted:

1. The differences in vocalisation represent an innovative feature of the reading tradition.32

2. The impression of a ‘conversion’ is just an impression, caused by a diachronic retention, i.e., wa (y)-yiqṭol with short yiqṭol, and a diachronic semantic innovation, i.e., in wa-qaṭal.33

3. The range of meanings exhibited by ‘consecutive waw’ has the same semantic complexity as that of ‘copulative waw’. Both can express temporal succession, logical result, elaboration, simultaneity, etc.34 The impression of a special sort of ‘consecution’ is due to its use in the frequent discourse continuity clause-types wa (y)-yiqṭol (in narrative and report) and wa-qaṭal (in instruction and legal discourse).35

31It is also necessary to update the terminology in the traditional ‘system of consecutive tenses’. It is not so much a question of ‘tenses’, but of ‘clauses’. And ‘consecutive’ is a vague and narrow description of the variety of clausal relations that are displayed in continuity linkings with wa-.

32It is a thesis of the present paper that the Old Semitic wa had only one reflex (wa-) in CH. The wa- was a ‘natural language connective’ in the sense described by Van Dijk (1977, 58).36 Its meaning was ambiguous and pragmatically determined.

33This wa- deserves brief elaboration. Like the English connective and, wa- could express readings such as ‘ (and) at the same time’, ‘ (and) there’, ‘ (and) therefore’, ‘ (and) then’, ‘ (and) so’, ‘ [if] ... then’. Consider the following examples taken from Traugott (1986, 147) and Schiffrin (1986, 45 fn. 1; emphasis added):

Annie is in the kitchen and (there) she is making doughnuts. [location]
Annie fell into a deep sleep and (during this time) her facial color returned. [simultaneity]
The window was open and (coming from it) there was a draft. [source]
Peter married Annie and (after that) she had a baby. [temporal succession]
Paul pounded on the stone and (thereby) he shattered it. [cause]
Give me your picture and I’ll give you mine. (If you give me your picture, I’ll give you mine.) [conditionality]
The number 5 is a prime number and (therefore) it is divisible only by 1 and itself. [conclusion]

34These more specific meanings are primarily derived from the context (which includes the whole paragraph).37 As a natural language connective, wa- sets a clause in a certain relation to a previous clause:

Pattern: (wa)-Clause1 wa-Clause2

35The pattern shows the simplest linking of two clauses.38 Clause2 is linked to Clause1. The conjunction wa- puts Clause2 into a relationship with Clause1. The order of the clauses is fundamental. It is Clause2 that relates to Clause1. In many cases, the second clause (wa-Clause2) can be said to be ‘dependent’ on the first clause, which Khan (1991, 240) formulates as: “[t] he proposition of the second clause is to be interpreted in the ‘world’ which is determined by the first clause.”39

36In traditional Biblical Hebrew grammars, the syntax of wastands out as an extremely complex affair. They assign opposite roles to the wa- conjunction, distinguishing at least two functions, namely, ‘copulative’ wa- and ‘consecutive’ wa-. “This standard treatment is problematic and unsatisfactory,” because it places “too much semantic weight on the waw conjunction” (Cook 2012, 313ff.).40

37It is more apposite to regard the linking with wa (y)-yiqṭol and wa-qaṭal as an expression of pragmatic discourse continuity.41 A wa-V (X) clause signals pragmatic continuity, and may, according to context, express thematic continuity, action continuity and topic continuity (cf. Hornkohl 2018, 48; see also Givón 1983, 7; Buth 1995, 97–99). Wa (y)-yiqṭol, with short yiqṭol and normal wa-, is one of the typical clause-types that signal discourse continuity in CH.

38A typical ‘discontinuous’ type of clause, (wa)-XV, may signal the beginning of a literary unit, topicalisation of X or focus thereon, anteriority, simultaneity, background, and elaboration. “[D] iscontinuity seems a particular apt concept for uniting them under a single, explanatory heading” (Hornkohl 2018, 49). My conclusion is that Tenet 1 of Biblical Hebrew text-linguistics should be reformulated in terms of continuity and discontinuity and without the assumption of a special ‘consecutive waw’.

Tenet 1 (updated): Pragmatic discourse continuity // discontinuity in affirmative clauses (prose texts):42
Tenet 1a. wa-VX // wa-XV.43
Tenet 1b. wa-VX // Ø-XV.44
Tenet 1c. wa-VX // (wa)-XØ. Linking with a verbless clause.45

39In the updated Tenet 1 formula there is no boldface wa-. As can be concluded from the formula, the traditional assumption of a special ‘consecutive’ wa- would imply a redundancy in the signalling of pragmatic continuity (cf. Hornkohl 2018, 33). The fundamental alternation between discourse continuity and discourse discontinuity already has a signal: the switch from a wa-VX clause-type to one with XV (or XØ) word order.46 The hypothesis of a special ‘consecutive’ wa- is unwarranted for the synchronic state of CH. A simple assumption of one ‘natural language connective’ wa- is fully sufficient to clarify the linguistic reality behind wa- in the ‘system of consecutive tenses’.

40The discontinuous clause can also be the first in a series of clauses. A formulation of Tenet 1 must allow for the possibility that a discontinuous clause (Ø-XV or wa-XV) starts a new literary unit, in which case it also signals a break with the preceding clause (s).47 The semantic functions of this type of macro-syntactic marking of a new literary unit (often with a topicalised element), are pragmatically determined. This kind of discontinuity may either signal a connection with the preceding context (wa-XV) or the absence of such a connection (Ø-XV).

Tenet 1d. // wa-XV + [(wa)-XV or (wa)-XØ] + wa-VX. Topic/focus and a new literary unit. With signal of backward connection.48

Tenet 1e. // Ø-XV + [(wa)-XV or (wa)-XØ] + wa-VX. Topic/focus and a new literary unit. Without signal of backward connection.49

41The initial ‘//’ in 1d and 1e indicates that the discontinuity is signalled in relation to the clauses (if any) that precede the new unit.

42The clauses within brackets, [(wa)-XV or (wa)-XØ], in 1d and 1e indicate that one or more of the typical discontinuity clauses (1a, 1b, 1c) can be inserted before the main-line is resumed by a continuity clause (wa-VX) in the new literary unit.50

43In 1d and 1e the initial (wa)-XV can be a main-line clause in spite of its discontinuity signal.51 In other pragmatic contexts the initial (wa)-XV can be a background clause.52 In some shorter paragraphs, especially in direct speech, there is no continuity clause (wa-VX), which means that at least one discontinuity clause alone forms a main-line.

44As Tenet 1 in all these cases (a–e) indicates, the normal wa-with immediately following verb is the decisive signal of discourse continuity in affirmative clauses. This observation enables us to formulate another tenet.

Tenet 2 of Biblical Hebrew text-linguistics (prose texts): The clause-type wa-V (X) is necessary and sufficient for pragmatic discourse continuity in affirmative clauses.

45In Tenet 2, wa- is necessary and V is necessary. No clausal constituent can be inserted between wa- and V, because this would make the clause signal discontinuity. In this text-linguistic sense, it is pertinent to speak of an ‘inseparable union’ between wa- and the verb in discourse continuity clauses. The ‘inseparable union’ in the syntagms wa (y)-yiqṭol and wa-qaṭal results from their functions as markers of discourse continuity and was a reality on the textual level in CH (but not on the morphological level). Specifically, wa (y)-yiqṭol is not a ‘tense’; it is a clause-type.

4.0. Examples: With Special Emphasis on Indicative Short yiqṭol, i.e., wa (y)-yiqṭol

46(1) is an example of a series of continuous wa-VX clauses interrupted by a discontinuous wa-clause (wa-XV):

47The example illustrates the frequent linking when a series of wa (y)-yiqṭol clauses is interrupted by a discontinuous clause of the type wa-X-qaṭal (where X in this case stands for two direct objects). The pragmatic context indicates (1) that the objects in the discontinuous clause ( א ֶ ה־ת ִָ א ֵ שי ְ או ֶ כ־ת ָ מ־ל ִ ש ְ פ ַ ח ְ ת ִֹ֖ ו ‘the man and his whole family’) are contrasted to the object in the preceding clause ( א ֶ ה־ת ִָ ע ִ֖ רי ‘the city’), a topicalisation, and (2) that the same clause lacks the default continuity signal of sequentiality in narrative (does not fulfil Tenet 2).54

48Example (2) shows two asyndetically attached discontinuous clauses (Ø-XV):

49The two discontinuous Ø-X-qaṭal clauses in example (2) supply further detail about the action described in the first (continuous) clause. They express perfective past and function as elaborations in relation to the initial (also past perfective) wa (y)-yiqṭol clause.55

50Example (3) illustrates the discontinuous function of a verbless clause (either wa-XØ or Ø-XØ, in this case the former) after wa (y)-yiqṭol clauses in narrative:

51In (3) a series of two continuous wa (y)-yiqṭol clauses is interrupted by a verbless clause functioning as a circumstantial parenthesis.56

52An example of a discontinuous clause signalling a new literary unit (with marking of backward connection) is found in (4):

53The first clause with its XV word order signals discontinuity and the beginning of a new literary unit or paragraph (about Cain and Abel).57 The initial wa- in the first clause signals that there is a certain connection to the previous context (the story of Adam and Eve). The next three clauses conform to the continuity linking pattern wa-V (X) (Tenet 2). In one of the continuity clauses there is no X ( ו ַ ת ַ ה ַ ר ), in the other two X is, respectively, a direct object ( א ֶ ק־ת ִַ֔ י ִ ן ) and a complement clause (the quotation).

54The following example (5) illustrates in an instructional text how a discontinuous clause with topicalised element X ( א ֶ כּ־ת ָ ח־ל ֶ ל ְָ בּ ָ ה ‘all the fat’) starts a new series of continuous clauses of the wa-qaṭal type. It also illustrates the breadth of meanings that are possible with the natural language connective wa-. The verse begins by describing a sacrificial ritual procedure (wa-X-yiqṭol [long] + wa-qaṭal). These two clauses constitute the ‘world’ that is tacitly presupposed in the wa-qaṭal + wa-qaṭal clauses:

55In the example there is first a clause with long yiqṭol ( י ָ ס ִָ֗ רי ) followed by a wa-qaṭal clause ( ו ְ ה ִ ק ְ ט ִֶ֨ רי ), and the discontinuity structure of the long yiqṭol clause in this case signals a topicalised direct object. These two clauses describe the ritual procedure of a sacrifice. The two succeeding wa-qaṭal clauses must be interpreted within the framework of the previous ritual procedure. The clause starting with ו ְ כ ִ פ ֶ ר is not just one more action to be performed by the priest, and it is not a subordinate clause. Rather, ו ְ כ ִ פ ֶ ר presupposes the procedure in the foregoing clauses and concludes: in the way that is already described the priest brings atonement for him. ְ כו ִ פ ֶ ר must be read within the framework of the world that has been described in the preceding clauses.58

56An example of pragmatic discontinuity signalling a new literary unit without signal of backward connection is found in example (6) below:

57According to Tenet 2, this is a clause that cannot express discourse continuity. There is no initial wa- and a non-verbal clausal constituent is placed before the verb. The pragmatics of the clause makes it a signal of a new literary unit and the start of a narrative main-line (Tenet 1e). There is nothing before this clause to connect to, so the clause is asyndetic (lacking the connective wa-). The fronted constituent X ( ב ְ אר ִ ש ִ֖ תי ) contains the first focus of the clause, and sets up the topic, which orients the reader/listener concerning the following sentences. The second focus is the predication, which has broad non-contrastive focus, and supplies the value of the act of creating the heavens and the earth.59 In this way a simple, but fundamental coding of discontinuity (Ø-XV) can fulfil a double function in the text: to signal focus and topic, and to mark a new literary unit.60 The example also illustrates that a clause that marks discontinuity can be, and often is, a foregrounded clause.

58An example of discourse discontinuity clauses coding a background complex is found in (7):

59Example (7) is built up of three clauses, all introduced by wa-: wa-X-qaṭal, wa-XØ, and wa-X-qōtēl (active participle). The three clauses signal ‘action discontinuity’ and are descriptions of the state that was the result of the creational act in example (6). Gen. 1.2 is background in relation to both 1.1 and 1.3.

60The next example shows two clauses that signal discourse continuity; they resume the main-line:

61In Gen. 1.3 there appear for the first time in the Hebrew Bible clauses of the pattern wa-VX that fulfil the requirements of Tenet 2 and thus express action continuity. The two wa (y)-yiqṭol clauses express temporal sequentiality in relation to the main-line action clause in Gen. 1.1, and temporal or logical sequentiality in relation to the background clauses in 1.2.61

5.0. Summary

62I have discussed the CH short yiqṭol within the framework of the ‘consecutive tenses’. I have concluded:

1. The short yiqṭol is a separate verbal morpheme in CH (< Proto-Semitic *yaqtul). It has two basic meanings: past perfective and jussive. Though past perfective short yiqṭol is attested in freestanding form in Amarna Canaanite and Archaic Hebrew, such meanings of short yiqṭol are found in CH only in the wa (y)-yiqṭol clause-type.

2. There was only one conjunction wa- in CH. The gemination in wa (y)-yiqṭol was introduced in the reading tradition after the classical period to distinguish two homophones in the reading: indicative perfective wa-yiqṭōl and jussive wa-yiqṭōl. The wa- in these clauses is a normal ‘natural language connective’ wa- ‘and’. The gemination was not a feature of CH. Speakers and writers of CH did not distinguish between two different wa- conjunctions.

3. The ‘system of consecutive tenses’ needs to be updated with only one wa- and the concept of pragmatic discourse continuity. A wa- immediately before a finite verb (wa-VX) signals in itself ‘discourse continuity’. Thus defined, the concept of ‘discourse continuity’ has no use of a special wa- conjunction, and the traditional assumption of a ‘consecutive waw’ emerges as unwarranted for the synchronic description of CH. A simple assumption of one ‘natural language connective’ wa- is sufficient to clarify the linguistic reality behind the conjunction wa- in the ‘system of consecutive tenses’. Specifically, wa (y)-yiqṭol in CH is a discourse continuity clause-type—not a ‘tense’—with normal wa- and short yiqṭol. Discourse discontinuity is signalled by clauses with an initial clausal constituent (X): (wa)-XV, or (wa)-XØ (where XØ is a verbless clause).

63I have not discussed:

1. How long yiqṭol (< *yaqtulu) was distinguished from short yiqṭol in CH.62

2. Why qaṭal came to alternate with wa (y)-yiqṭol.

3. Why wa-qaṭal acquired imperfective meanings and came to alternate with the inherited long yiqṭol.