[b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive

Dave Washburn 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 
nowhere.

> 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.

> thanks,
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
>
> 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
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Reality is what refuses to go away when
you stop believing in it.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list