dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Feb 25 10:05:15 EST 1999
> Alviero Niccacci wrote:
> >>BTW weyiqtol is a volitive form, differently from weqatal which is
> Dear Professor,
> Doesn't weqatal function as continuation of volitive forms? Would you
> say that these functions are not volitive, or that these functions are
> not essential to weqatal, but are continuative only?
I haven't been able to follow this discussion the last few days (I
hope to catch up on it this weekend) so I don't know the context of
Prof. N's statement. However, Galia Hatav has shown, I think
pretty conclusively, that both yiqtol and weqatal are modal forms
(including future under the heading "modal" which she
demonstrates very well). Weqatal, being a modal form, can lend
itself to both volitive and non-volitive (future) uses quite easily.
Hence, the answer to your question would be that no, volitive isn't
an essential feature of it, but modality in a more general sense is
and that's why it can appear in such contexts. Galia, have I
represented your view accurately?
> Lee R. Martin
> Pastor, Prospect Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee
> Instructor in Hebrew and Old Testament
> Church of God Theological Seminary
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: dwashbur at nyx.net
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
More information about the b-hebrew