[b-hebrew] and (was: (RWT in meaning?)

Yaakov Stein yaakov_s at rad.com
Mon Jun 2 01:46:13 EDT 2008


> It's commonly accepted among Hebrew grammarians that the waw-prefix
actually is the conjunction.  I don't agree, but I'm in the minority.

I am not sure to which grammarians you refer, but the existence of the
vav hahipuch is not in doubt.
ALL Hebrew grammarians, Hayuj, ibn Janah, Radak, ibn Ezra, etc. clearly
state its rules.
Other older Semitic languages also have two forms for past and future
with a similar use of vav.

Since the vav prefix indicating the use of the long form is
indisputable, there are only two ways of saving the "and"s:
1) the masoretic vocalization is incorrect and the vavs are conjunctions
-
    in most cases this leads to meaningless readings (the tenses are
obviously incorrect)
2) the vav can simultaneously have two meanings -
    both comparison with other Semitic languages and context in the
tanach easily disprove such a theory

So the "and"s are just wrong.

Yaakov (J) Stein



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list