Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Dear Lee and Randall,

I hope I'm not butting in.  It looks like some of the posting here may have
taken place off-line.  May I?  ;-)

I would like to suggest that Jdg 11:8 is a good example of why we have to
include discourse analysis as we attempt to determine the semantics of the
BH verb.  If we do not consider the discourse level, it may be hard to get
a good read *at* the clause level.  For instance, I interpret Randall as
asserting  that weqatal cannot be a continuation form in Jdg 11:8.  I say
that it is.  It does not continue shavnu, of course.  But it does continue
the imperative lekah of v. 6!  Such a phenomenon frequently occurs in
dialogue: speaker 'b' questions speaker 'a's command (or interrupts speaker
'a' somehow), and then speaker 'a' repeats himself or continues right where
he left off.  In a sense, v. 8's vehalakta is resuming the hortatory
discourse which began with v. 6's lekah.  V. 8's shavnu is off-the-line,
supportive material in the hortatory discourse.

I do not here suggest that weqatal does not have a pretty consistent value.
 It's a clause-initial qatal with a vav on it; so it has the value of a
qatal, and it has the value of a clause-initial form with a vav.

Just my two cents...   ;-)

Shalom,
Bryan


----------
> From: Lee R. Martin <lmartin AT vol.com>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: veqatal
> Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 9:02 PM
> 
> 
> 
> {i think that Lee Martin said:}
> > 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.
> 
> no. the above is not biblical hebrew.
> veqatal carries its own TAM,  not the previous verb's TAM. {TAM = 'fill
in
> your own favorite name'.}
> e.g.:
> judges 11:8
> ve`ata shavnu elexa (so now, we've come back to you)
> vehalaxta ...(and you will/should walk with us)
> venilHamta ...(and you will/should fight against Beni-Ammon)
> vhayita lanu lerosh (and you will/should be for us a leader)
> 
> the veqatal marks the switch away from the simple suffix verb.
> (veqatal=same TAM as a yiqtol)
> 
> Dear Randall,
> You said above, that "veqatal carries its own TAM," but now you say that
it has the
> same TAM as yiqtol.   Which do you mean to say?
> 


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)