This post is a review of Matthew Anstey’s “The Biblical Hebrew qatal verb: a functional discourse grammar analysis,” Linguistics 47 (2009) 824-844. John Hobbins has already reviewed the article at length, beginning here, but I wanted to add my two cents.

First, some helpful definitions for those not necessarily in the know. Qatal is what I call the variously titled affix, suffix and perfect conjugation. Yiqtol is what I call the variously titled prefix and imperfect conjugation. Wayyiqtol is what I call the prefix/imperfect + vav conversive (or consecutive) construction. Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) is “a theory with a rich descriptive apparatus, facilitating the modeling of language data that takes into account the several levels of interdependent information that are present in any utterance,” (Anstey 825). FDG is, to say the least, comprehensive.

It is important to note that Anstey does not set out to prove anything in particular about the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. His stated goal is simply to show that FDG provides a “descriptively robust” if somewhat “problematic” analysis of the qatal verb type.

Anstey’s article succeeds in doing exactly what he sets out to do. His discussion of qatal in narrative vs. narration (ie, direct speech), as well as the function of qatal vs. wayyiqtol in narrative is spot on. Ultimately his conclusion is that qatal and wayyiqtol differ in how they are used in the narrative, not with regard to tense (cf. Anstey 831).

One of the most refreshing things about Anstey’s article is his honesty in regards to the theoretical problems of FDG in regards to analyzing qatal. In his conclusion Anstey writes, “Hence FDG clearly o¤ers a robust descriptive apparatus, capable of modeling the multiple interpersonal and representational contributing
factors to each distinct QV function. But this raises the dilemma discussed in Section 3.2,” (Anstey 840). The dilemma discussed in Section 3.2 of the article is highly technical, but boils down to the following: FDG “strongly prefers a tenseless interpretation [of qatal verbs],” (Anstey 837). Though it might be better to say that it prefers a “monofunctional” interpretation, as Anstey does just a few paragraphs later. One could, of course, treat BH qatal as a tenseless verb, but that does not fit in with Anstey’s own opinion that qatal is a past-tense verb, as he readily admits.

Ultimately this is one of the most fascinating aspects of the article. It is also, sadly, the part that is most quickly glossed over, primarily because it is not the focus of the article. This is, of course, an inevitability. I do not ultimately find that past-tense is the best description of qatal. In my own opinion the BH verbal system has to do with aspect primarily, and tense(ie, time) only secondarily; though in truth the situation is more complex than that. That, however, is neither here nor there since–if I understand FDG correctly–similar problems would arise in any interpretation of the qatal. It would have been fascinating if Anstey had shown how these other understandings of qatal still arrive at the same problematic analysis for FDG. I think it may have added additional weight to his conclusion.

In the end, Anstey’s article is worth reading for those interested in the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. One must note, however, that the article is more about discussing the ability of FDG to provide a “robust analysis” of the BH qatal as opposed to discussing issues specifically about the qatal. To be sure, those issues are touched upon, but it is not the focus of the article. I imagine the article will be of most use to those interested in the BH verbal system as well as functional discourse grammar analysis.