Niccacci

Matthew Anstey manstey at portal.ca
Sun Oct 4 16:04:33 EDT 1998


Thanks for Niccacci's post.  I have two comments/questions:

1. When Niccacci writes:
>4) I am inclined to think that no sufficient evidence is available to posit
>a qatal with (according to Waltke-O'Connor's terminology) "waw-copulative"
>besides the well-known qatal with "waw-relative" (or conversive, i.e. usual
>weqatal). Remember that the usual continuation form after a qatal is not
>waw+qatal but rather wayyiqtol.

Does he mean that there are *never* waw + qatal forms? If that it what he is
saying, then how would he explain the fairly consistent variation in stress
between (apparent) wqtl and w+qtl forms? And also, we have w+yqtl forms, so
why not w+qtl? Is there simply no purpose for them?

2. I am studying at Regent College, and apparently a student here wrote a
paper (unpublished) last year as a directed study comparing Waltke &
O'Connor's and Niccacci's treatment of the verbal system. I will see if I
can track down either the student or the paper to see what it says.




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list