Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

a question and answer have arisen:

>> 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)

{lee martin asked:}
>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?

that the veqatal carries its own, normal tense/aspect/mode (which is the
opposite of the TAM of a suffix verb and the opposite of the particular
suffix verb in its sentence. 
for reference: the opposite of a suffix qatal is a prefix yiqtol.)
also, in the example there is no immediate yiqtol for veqatal to "induce" a
TAM, which was intended to help people around a 'pseudo-party-line' [i.e. a
'line' often presented to beginners but recognized by many/most as
incorrect.] 

veqatal and yiqtol have the same TAM but differ pragmatically in that one
has grammaticized sequentiality/thematicity at a sentence level.

i trust the expansion is clearer. 

yisge shlamax
randall buth