Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Rolf wrote in response to Peter:
> 
> >One for Dave to duck, or to try to answer:
> >
> >If weqatal is nothing but qatal which happens to have a conjunction,
> >why are the instructions for building the tabernacle (for example)
> >full of weqatal's and yiqtol's but no qatal's; where the corresponding
> >account of the building is largely identical except that it has
> >wayyiqtol's and qatal's but no yiqtol's?
> 
> Can the reason be the choice of word order and emphasis?  As an example,

I tend to think so.  Specifically, I'm taking a much closer look at 
the fronting of qatal verbs, with or without waw.  Some patterns are 
emerging for qatals with waw, but not without it.  So I may end up 
discarding my idea about the absence of a real weqatal form.  Oh 
well, no big loss.

> compare Leviticus 14:6 and 51. In both verses do we find LQX with future
> meaning,  in v 6 as a yiqtol and in v 51 as a weqatal. It seems to me that
> the reason for the difference is that "the bird" is fronted in v 6 because
> of emphasis. Both verses also have another weqatal with future meaning,
> which is not forbidde by the word order, and which also points in the
> mentioned direction.

I tend to agree, though there's also a subtle chiasmus relating to 
the two birds.  The other items arefairly incidental to this:

W$XT       )T HCPR        H)XT

)T HCPR      HXYH      YQX

The chiasums between )T HCPR and the verbs, per Andersen 1974 
(The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew) tightens the relationship 
between the two and essentially views the actions regarding the 
two birds as a single event.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.