Indirect volitives in Genesis 1?

Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Fri Sep 25 06:39:10 EDT 1998



On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:07:36 +0800 Paul Zellmer
<zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph> writes:

[snipped]

>If
>you have access to it, look at Waltke & O'Connor, 32.2.2 and 34.6.a.  
>In the latter
>section, they write in part, "After an imperative a verbal form not 
>preceded by its
>subject or a negative particle is normally either a jusssive or a 
>cohortative.  Where
>a prefix-conjunction form is not morphologically marked in such a 
>context, it may be
>taken as having jussive or cohortative force.  The second volitional 
>form signifies
>purpose or result...."

That is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  But the problem is that
they don't go far enough in their discussion to justify or condemn my
attempts in Genesis 1.  The three waw-jussives in question (vv. 6,9,26)
follow, respectively, two jussives and a cohortative, which is similar
but not quite the same as following an imperative.  I'm particularly
curious about this, since W&O do point out that a sequence of imperatives
does not behave the same way.  My question then (which they really don't
seem to answer in what they cover) is whether a jussive-jussive sequence
(or cohortative-jussive) would be expected to follow the
imperative-jussive nuance or the imperative-imperative.

Trevor Peterson
Bible/Theology Department
Washington Bible College
Lanham, MD

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list