the sequels in the future to preceding actions or events regarded as incomplete at the time of speaking, and therefore in the imperfect, imperative, or even participle. This wāw is in form an ordinary wāw copulative, and therefore shares its various vocalization (וְ, וּ, וָ, as 2 K 7, and וַ); e.g. וְהָיָה, after an imperfect, &c., and so it happens = and it will happen. It has, however, the effect, in certain verbal forms, of shifting the tone from the penultima, generally on to the ultima, e.g. הָלַ֫כְתִּי I went, consecutive form וְהָֽלַכְתִּ֫י and I will go, Ju 1, where it is co-ordinated with another perfect consecutive, which again is the consecutive to an imperative. See further on this usage in § 112.
[i] As innumerable examples show, the Qameṣ of the first syllable is retained in the strong perf. consec. Qal, as formerly before the tone, so now in the secondary tone, and therefore necessarily takes Metheg. On the other hand, the ō of the second syllable in verbs middle ō upon losing the tone necessarily becomes ŏ, e.g. וְיָֽכָלְתָּ֫ Ex 18.
[k] The shifting forward of the tone after the wāw consecutive of the perfect is, however, not consistently carried out. It is omitred—(a) always in the 1st pers. pl., e.g. וְיָשַ֫בְנוּ Gn 34; (b) regularly in Hiphʿil before the afformatives ־ָה and וּ, see § 53 r; and (c) in many cases in verbs ל״א and ל״ה, almost always in the 1st sing. of ל״א (Jer 29), and in ל״ה if the vowel of the 2nd syllable is î, Ex 17, 26 ff., Ju 6, &c., except In Qal (only Lv 24, before א) and the 2nd sing. masc. of Hiphʿil-forms before א, Nu 20, Dt 20, 1 S 15, 2 K 13; similarly in Piʿēl before א, Ex 25, Jer 27. On the other hand the tone is generally moved forward if the second syllable has ê (in ל״א Gn 27 &c., in ל״ה Ex 40, Jer 33, Ez 32); but cf. also וְיָרֵ֫אתָ Lv 19 and frequently, always before the counter-tone, Jo 4, ψ 19.[1] With ā in the penultima the form is וְנָשָׂ֫אתָ Is 14, and probably also וְקָרָ֫אתָ Jer 2, 3, 1 S 10 with little Tēlîšā, a postpositive accent.
[l] But before a following א the ultima mostly bears the tone on phonetic grounds, e.g. וּבָאתָ֫ אֶל־ Gn 6, Ex 3, Zc 6 (by the side of וּבָ֫אתָ), &c. (cf., however, וְקָרָ֫אתָ, before א, Gn 17, Jer 7, Ex 36); וְהִכִּיתָ֫ אֶת־ Ju 6, cf. Ex 25, Lv 24 (but also וְצִוִּ֫יתִי אֶת־ Lv 25). Likewise, before ה, Am 8, and ע, e.g. Gn 26, 27, Lv 26 (cf., however, וְקָרָ֫אתִי עָלָיו, Ez 38); on verbs ע״ע, see § 67 k and § ee.
[m] (d) The tone always keeps its place when such a perfect stands in pause, e.g. וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ Dt 6, 11; וְאָמָ֑רְתָּ Is 14, Ju 4; sometimes even in the lesser pause, as Dt 2, Ez 3, 1 S 29 (where see Driver), with Zaqeph qaṭon; and frequently also immediately before a tone-syllable (according to § 29 e), as in וְיָשַׁ֫בְתָּה בָּ֑הּ Dt 17, Ez 14, 17, Am 1—but also וְחָֽשַׁקְתָּ֫ בָ֔הּ Dt 21, 23. 24, 1 K 8.
- ↑ The irregularity in the tone of these perfects manifestly results from following conflicting theories, not that of Ben Asher alone.
