Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lee R. Martin" <lmartin AT vol.com>]

> Lee R. Martin wrote:
> I was not suggesting a 4-part verb system.  I believe in a 2-part system.
I was only
> describing weqatal in the way it functions to continue other verb forms.
You did not really
> respond to that issue.
Dave Washburn wrote:
I thought I did, but obviously I wasn't clear enough.  I don't think the
*form* weqatal functions in this way.  I don't think there is a distinct
weqatal form at all.  When a qatal with the conjunction continues
something, it is the semantics and pragmatics of the clauses
themselves that bring this about, not the form of the verb.  Does
that clear it up?

No, that doesn't clear it up for me, because weqatal is the only verb form
that seems to continue the aspect, tense, and modality from a previous verb.
Since it is the only form to do so, your suggestion that it is "semantics
and pragmatics,...not the form of the verb" does not make sense to me.  I
might be able to go for pragmatics, but explain to me the pragmatic
considerations that require yiqtol followed by weqatal rather than two
yiqtols.  There seems to be no difference in the two constructions as far as
meaning is concerned.
 Lee R. Martin