[b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
dwashbur at nyx.net
Sun May 22 19:55:34 EDT 2005
On Sunday 22 May 2005 16:15, Steve Miller wrote:
> Can anyone give me 5 examples from the Pentateuch where the vav-consecutive
> is clearly NOT a tense reversal?
Reversal of what? You're assuming an awful lot: that we know the tense of the
other forms, that the intention of the waw-forms was to "reverse" one of the
other forms, that the tenses resulting from a particular structure are
deliberate and not incidental to some other factor in the verb form -
briefly, taking this approach ends up in massive circular reasoning and gets
> I understand that there is much discussion on this in the archives, but the
> archives do not seem to be searchable.
The thread subjects are usually pretty clear. Searchability would be nice,
but the archives are fairly usable as they are now.
> -Steve Miller
> On Friday 29 April 2005 00:00, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> > Would anyone explain me, what's wrong with the most simple and evident
> > explanation:
> > waw usually serves as tense reversal device, but
> > sometimes it is simply a consequtive?
> > It is this ambiguity that likely led to developing a new FT form, derived
> > from imperative mode.
> Dave Washburn responded:
> >What's wrong with it is, we can show more counter-examples than we can
> >examples. IOW, it fails to explain even a preponderance of the
> > evidence.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Reality is what refuses to go away when
you stop believing in it.
More information about the b-hebrew