Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: force of conjunctions (was die Flucht..)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: force of conjunctions (was die Flucht..)
  • Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 18:29:35 -0400


Dear Rolf,

Extracts from what you wrote:

I suppose that no member of the list wants to explain grammar and
syntax in an esoteric or metaphysical way, saying "There must be
something there because of the past meaning.")...

-Then I add a point 4) The WA(YY)-element has no function or
property which the simple conjunction WAW does not have, and this
suggests that it is nothing but a conjunction.

Point 4) is my challenge. So, those who believe that WA(YY) is
more than a bare conjunction: Please show at least one
characeristic or function of WAYYIQTOL which cannot be accounted
for if WAYYIQTOL is CONJUNCTION +YIQTOL. Time/tense *alone*
cannot be used as an explanation as shown above.

Please stop arguing by using pejorative words like "esoteric or
metaphysical" as an reason to rule out the obvious refutation of your
hypothesis. What is "esoteric or metaphysical" about the following
argument? In the great majority of cases, WAYYIQTOL is used with past
meaning, and YIQTOL and WEYIQTOL are used with non-past meaning;
therefore the morpheme (or morpheme pair) WAY- has a function other
than simple coordination and/or clause division. I accept that this
argument is over-simplified, and actually it is not what I prefer
myself; you may be able to falsify it by proper scientific argument.
But you cannot falsify it simply by calling it names.

Here is a different argument which you might like to falsify: There
were two distinct Semitic verb paradigms with consonantal forms like
YQTL, one a preterite (as in Ugaritic) which has survived in Hebrew as
WAYYIQTOL and (perhaps) jussive and the other a non-past form which
has survived in Hebrew as non-apocopated YIQTOL. For the moment, let
us rule out Occam's razor as an argument here on the grounds that
there is good evidence for distinct YQTL forms in cognate languages.

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page