dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Sep 6 15:12:36 EDT 1999
> Your posts have been very helpful, especially with respect to the
> discussion on the nature of a word. One thing that was mentioned
> yesterday is still unclear, if you or Paul for that matter would
> respond, I would like to know what is wrong with referring to the
> construction as a vav or waw conversive?
The waw doesn't convert anything. The name is based on the
medieval idea that the "tenses" denote just that, tenses, and we
now know this isn't the case. Supposedly, the waw converted a
present/future (yiqtol) to a past and converted a past (qatal) to a
present/future. We know now that it's hardly that simple, but apart
from that, the term is misleading in the way it describes what the
waw-preformative does. We're still undecided on exactly what it
does, and there are at least three opinions that I know of on this
list alone, but conversion to an opposite tense isn't among them
that I'm aware of.
I hope this clears it up. If it doesn't, let me know and I'll try to do a
"Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."
More information about the b-hebrew