<wayyiqtol> again

Paul Zellmer zellmer at digitelone.com
Thu Dec 23 20:04:19 EST 1999

Galia Hatav wrote

>  I think Dave got acurate intuition, that <wayyiqtol> is independent,
> opposed to <qatal>. However, I think that this independence is not
> syntactic (see the first clause in Gen 1:1 and clauses in direct
> Dave, I thought you "bought" the idea that this independence has to do
> Reference-Time-Building, where <wayyiqtol> builds its own R-time but
> <qatal> does not. Let us call <wayyiqtol> and <wqatal> R-builders, as
> opposed to <qatal> and <yiqtol> (and <qotel>, too). This will get rid
> the notion of "sequentiality," which I consider to be a derived
> from R-building. (I might need a therapist to help me deal with this
> decision...)
> I want to leave this short, so I'll stop here.


I chuckled when you praised Dave's intuition.  Knowing that he has
clearly expressed that he is basing his current views on the qatal on
your work, of course you would agree with him!  (I'm not disagreeing,
just remarking.)

If you had to leave it short because you did not have the time to more
thoroughly discuss the matter, I understand.  But if you do have the
time, could you give a bit more insight in R-building and what you see
as the derivation process resulting in what is referred to as
sequentiality?  Also, what difficult (i.e., supposedly non-sequential
wayyiqtols) instances would Reference-Time-Building solve, in your



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list