[b-hebrew] Consecutive waw in Lev .22:7 ?
furuli at online.no
furuli at online.no
Mon Sep 29 10:21:45 EDT 2003
With all due respect, I beg to disagree with your words regarding
the "converted perfect ...that covers the same basic range as the
imperfect". A study of all the verbs of the Tanakh gives the
following results as to the present and future references of YIQTOL,
QATAL and WEQATAL:
YIQTOL: Present reference 2.461 (18,1 %)
QATAL: Present reference 2.505 (18 %)
WEQATAL: Present reference 240 (3,9 %)
YIQTOL: Future reference 4.841 (35.5 %)
QATAL: Future reference 965 (6,9 %)
WEQATAL: Future reference 4.187 (68,4 %)
QATAL and YIQTOL are similar as far as present reference is
concerned, and WEQATAL is different. As to future reference, YIQTOL
and WEQATAL are similar, but the 965 occurrences of QATAL with future
reference undermines the view that WAW has a converting force or
signals conversion when it is prefixed to a QATA Lor a YIQTOL. I
will also mention that I have a list of 357 (5,9 %) of WEQATALs with
past reference and 55 with a reference similar to English perfect
(completed action, present reference). If the enclitic WAWS are seen
simply as conjunctions (not having any converting power), the high
percentage of YIQTOLs and WEQATALs with future reference are readily
explained on syntactical grounds.
I therefore claim that YIQTOL , WEYIQTOL and WAYIQTOL represent the
same thing - the imperfective aspect, and that QATAL and WEQATAL
represent the same thing - the perfective aspect.
So - for those who are newcomers on the list, don't believe the
traditional grammars, but ask critical questions regarding their
conclusions . The authors of modern grammars have evidently only
looked at *some* of the verbs in the Tanakh and not *all* of them.
Often views from previous grammars are adopted without any new tests
of the conclusions. When we look at *all* the verbs of the Tanakh, it
is evident that the map does not fit the terrain.
University of Oslo
>> Lev. 22:7 reads: Uva hashemesh v'taher... is the waw
>> preceding taher a
>> consecutive waw? If so, should it not not read vayithar ?
>If you're going to think in terms of consecutive vavs, you need to
>consider that they can be added to both perfect and imperfect forms.
>You're right about what it would look like if it were a consecutive
>imperfect form, but clearly the form we have in the text is not
>imperfect. It is perfect, and adding a consecutive vav normally has no
>effect on the rest of the shape.
>The consecutive perfect, or what I would call the converted perfect, is
>the sequential form that covers the same basic range as the imperfect.
>Notice, BTW, that uva is also a converted perfect. If these were
>narrative forms (what you call the consecutive imperfect), we would
>expect this to be a past discussion--"When the sun set, he became clean
>. . . " But clearly it is not past in this case--"When the sun sets, he
>will be clean . . . "
More information about the b-hebrew