Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)
ronning at ilink.nis.za
Tue Feb 16 16:04:45 EST 1999
Peter Kirk wrote:
> Dear John,
> . . . .
> But I must disagree with your: "the view that wayyiqtol is
> unmarked for sequence explains 100% of the data!". On the > contrary, it explains nothing at all!
What exactly is it that requires explanation? Why does
sequence even have to be considered in a discussion of
wayyiqtol except because it is a 100 + year old tradition?
> Would you accept Dave's "I forgot my checkbook" example in
> South Africa too? What is the English language coming to? ;-(
What I liked about Dave's example is that it struck me as
good Hebrew, not good English (though his amended version
was OK in English, as far as I know, but then like Paul my
background is engineering, not English composition).
More information about the b-hebrew