manstey at portal.ca
Mon Nov 9 11:30:08 EST 1998
A while ago there was a discussion about w+qtl vis-a-vis wqtl, that is
conversive and non-conversive waws on the suffix conjugation. Nicacci wrote
and said, as many grammarians now do, that he thinks all these waws are
conversive, that non-conversive-waw + qtl does not exist. If this is the
case, how would we understand Eze 37.11, "Our bones are dired up (qtl) and
our hope is gone (waw+qtl). We are cut off (qtl)."?
Not only do I find Nicacci's verbal system difficult to apply here, I also
cannot see how Hatav's (1997) system works. He would argue (if I understand
him correctly) that the two qatals are "parasitic" on the R-time
(reference-time) of the main action (here it is "speaking") but are
non-sequential. He says that the wqtl is sequential and modal. But how is
"our hope is gone" either sequential or modal here? (Hatav uses modal in a
tense-logic sense, not in a linguistic sense. ie possible worlds and
time-branching tather than subjunctive).
Perhaps both scholars would suggest that this is LBH, I don't know. Any
suggestions? This seems to me to be possible evidence for non-conversive
By the way, Hatav's book is "The semantics of aspect and modality. Evidence
from English and biblical Hebrew." Studies in Language Companion Series.
John Benjamins. 1997.
More information about the b-hebrew