Waw consecutive in Gen 1
ButhFam at compuserve.com
Mon Dec 13 10:52:49 EST 1999
>I consciously still used "traditional" terminology
so if i found a
vav hahippux imperfect(ive),
did i find an imperfect(ive) or a perfect(ive)?
which form did i find?
the above terminology is ambiguous unless formally and arbitrarily defined.
and such 'semantic' terminology may not be used transparently in a semantic
context/category of BH.
vav hahippux prefix(ing) verb (of which there are several formal varieties)
at least starts out unambiguously in the right ballpark.
ditto for vav hahippux suffix(ing) verb.
i say the above
while fully agreeing with you in the critical importance of distinguishing
vav hahippux prefix(ing) forms, short / regular / long-ah / pausals /
[plus conjunctive and disjunctive vav hahippux suffixing verbs].
> the term "prefix" glosses over the crucial distinction between
> original *yaqtul forms and original *yaqtulu forms which was
> under discussion there
'imperfect' would gloss over the distinctions
"begadol" as we say, (=in a big way)
-- by actually referring to the wrong one --
(assuming *yaqtulu was imperfect and the vav hahippux is built on *yaqtul).
good news is that new terminology is always possible after a dissertation
More information about the b-hebrew