The form of weqatal (really wayyiqtol)

Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Sat Aug 14 21:34:38 EDT 1999


John wrote:
> Dave Washburn wrote:
> 
> >
> > > > In brief, I do not consider the WAW prefix to be a conjunction, and
> > > > hence I don't consider it to have any "conversive" force in the
> > > > traditional sense that the term has been used.  Rather, I consider
> > > > it to be an inflectional morpheme that is actually part of the
> > > > Hebrew verb system itself, and it is this inflectional morpheme that
> > > > carries the sense of syntactic break.  The fact that it resembles
> > > > the conjunction in its surface form does not make it a conjunction
> > > > any more than the fact that HE- interrogative resembles the definite
> > > > article means it has to be a form of the definite article (an
> > > > analogy I've presented many times here).  We have such homonyms all
> > > > over Hebrew, yet when we get to the WAW prefix we seem to have a
> > > > blind spot.
> > >
> >
> 
> (Henry)
> 
> > > I don't know if it has "conversive force", but it certainly seems to
> > > have "conjunctive force" -- or why don't we see w at wayyiqtol or
> > > uwayyiqtol (whichever form the conjunction w at - would take on when
> > > attaching to a word already beginning with w-, something which doesn't
> > > occur in the Bible)?
> >
> > My approach predicts that this would be the case, because
> > conjunction/coordination would suggest a syntactic connection.  If,
> > as I submit, the wayyiqtol indicates a syntactic break, it wouldn't
> > be expected to take a conjunction.  To say that the prefix must
> > have conjunctive force because it doesn't take a conjunction is a
> > non-sequitur.  A syntactic break is the antithesis of conjunctive
> > force.
> >
> 
> Dave, you're asking us to believe that wayyiqtol is a verb form that (1)
> NEVER takes the conjunction, though all other verb forms do; (2) NEVER
> is preceded by things that precede other verbs like KIY, 'ASHER, LO',
> etc. etc.

I see nothing extraordinary about (2), since it's well known that 
wayyiqtol in fact isn't preceded by any of these particles.  As for 
(1), I believe that's exactly what I said.  The forms that Henry 
hypothesized do not in fact occur, which as I said is exactly what 
my approach predicts.  I'm afraid I don't understand your problem 
here.

> Also that all translators and interpreters since the LXX are wrong in
> seeing the WA- as a conjunction!

Uh-huh.  So such a thing can't happen?  Explain the Hebrew word 
PYM to me.

> All because you think it is POSSIBLE (!) to explain the evidence apart
> from distinct yaqtul/yaqtulu verb forms that have mostly merged in BH? 
> I think you need to do some rethinking here.

That's certainly your prerogative.  And I didn't just say it's possible, 
John.  I said it provides a simpler and more unified account of the 
data.  You're free to harangue all you want, but it does nothing to 
advance intelligent discussion of the matter.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Oh, no!  They've all become giant Swiss lederhosen-clad
dancing yodelers!"  "Talk about unpredictable!" - P&B



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list