verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect. Thus in 2 K 201, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death (perf.), and Isaiah... came (imperf.) to him, and said (imperf.) to him, &c. On the other hand, Is 717, the Lord shall bring (imperf.) upon thee... days, &c., 718, and it shall come to pass (perf. וְהָיָה) in that day...
[b] This progress in the sequence of time, is regularly indicated by a pregnant and (called wāw consecutive[1]), which in itself is really only a variety of the ordinary wāw copulative, but which sometimes (in the imperf.) appears with a different vocalization. Further, the tenses connected by wāw consecutive sometimes undergo a change in the tone and consequently are liable also to other variations.
[c] 2. The wāw consecutive of the imperfect is (a) pronounced with Pathaḥ and a Dageš forte in the next letter, as וַיִּקְטֹל and he killed; before א of the 1st pers. sing. (according to § 22 c) with Qameṣ, as וָֽאֶקְטֹל and I killed. Exceptions are, וַֽאֲכַסֵּךְ Ez 1610 according to the Dikduke ha-ṭeamim, § 71; also וַֽאֲמֹתְתֵ֫הוּ 2 S 110 according to Qimḥi; but in Ju 69 וָֽאֲגָרֵשׁ should be read according to Baer, and וָֽאֲ׳ in both places in Ju 206. Dageš forte is always omitted in the preformative יְ, in accordance with § 20 m.
[d] (b) When a shortening of the imperfect form is possible (cf. § 48 g), it takes effect, as a rule (but cf. § 51 n), after wāw consec., e.g. in Hiphil וַיַּקְטֵל (§ 53 n). The tendency to retract the tone from the final syllable is even stronger after wāw consec. than in the jussive. The throwing back of the tone on to the penultima (conditional upon its being an open syllable with a long vowel, § 29 a), further involves the greatest possible shortening of the vowel of the ultima, since the vowel then comes to stand in a toneless closed syllable, e.g. יָקוּם, juss.
- ↑ This name best expresses the prevailing syntactical relation, for by wāw consecutive an action is always represented as the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action. Moreover, it is clear from the above examples, that the wāw consecutive can only be thus used in immediate conjunction with the verb. As soon as wāw, owing to an insertion (e.g. a negative), is separated from the verb, the imperfect follows instead of the perfect consecutive, the perfect instead of the imperfect consecutive. The fact that whole Books (Lev., Num., Josh., Jud., Sam., 2 Kings, Ezek., Ruth, Esth., Neh., 2 Chron.) begin with the imperfect consecutive, and others (Exod., 1 Kings, Ezra) with wāw copulative, is taken as a sign of their close connexion with the historical Books now or originally preceding them. Cf., on the other hand, the independent beginning of Job and Daniel. It is a merely superficial description to call the wāw consecutive by the old-fashioned name wāw conversive, on the ground that it always converts the meaning of the respective tenses into its opposite, i.e. according to the old view, the future into the preterite, and vice versa.
