Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

I was wondering why a post that I wrote had not appeared on the
list.  Suddenly it dawned on me that I hadn't changed the address
to include the list.  Ms Hatav, please excuse my oversight, and
please understand your having to read this again!

(Ms. Hatav, please forgive me, but I don't know how to address
you, be it Doctor,
Professor, or whatever.)

Galia Hatav wrote:

> A sequential clause
> would not appear in ACTUAL sequence if the discourse in which it appears is
> irrelevant, e.g., in lists such as (1) below:
>         1. A: What did you do last night?
>            B: A lot. I did my grading, I wrote the abstract for the
> conference,
>               I answered all ny e-mail letters, and even managed to play 
> with
>               the kids.
>
> Since the answer of B in (1) is a list, not a narrative, the order of the
> events is not relevant, and therefore potentially sequential verbs (WP in
> BH) may (would?) appear, although they don't form an actual sequence.

I admit that, off my head, I do not have any examples to back up
this thought, but I
distinctly recall being taught that a list of this type would not
use the wayyiqtol.
Rather, it would use, in the terms of the instruction, a
"waw-correlative," which, of
course, would be a qatal form.  Is what I was taught incorrect. 
(It could well be,
since we are talking the views of the mid-1970's.)  Does anyone
have a BH example?

> Again, within the line of Washburn (1994), it seems to me that WP has in it
> the component *yiqtol*, which I show to be modal. The notion of modality I
> adopt is the one suggested by modal logic: a modal clause quantifies over
> possible worlds (PW).  Now, *wayyiqtol* itself is understood to report
> NON-modal events. How can we explain it, then, to consists of a modal form?
> This is my hypothesis: The form of *wayyiqtol* consists of three morphemes
> (not just two, as Washburn suggests): W-AY-YIQTOL.  The morpheme *W* builds
> a new R-time (which makes the form sequential in the sense described
> above).  The morphem *AY* (i.e., the vowel patah and the dagesh geminating
> the prefix) specifies the PW to be the actual one (I'll call it AW).

There's a bit of a problem here.  If *W* is the morpheme that
builds a new R-time, how
is it distinguished from the *W* that is used to form the
weqatal, which does not
build a new R-time?  Or the *W* that joins the X-qatal to the
discourse?  I admit this
distinct morpheme is possible, but, without the indication that
the BH speakers saw
such a distinction in the *W* alone among the various forms, IMO
it is unlikely.

Also, in order for one to assign the meaning "specificially the
actual world" to any
characters, do we not either have to see cases where there are
similar meanings when
that proposed morpheme is attached to another form, or at least
find the same form
without the proposed morpheme *and* without that significance. 
To say, as you did
later, that the *AY* has the same result as adding the definite
article to a noun does
not really demonstate a thing, since the forms are not even
close.

Your other explanations in the post did indeed make clear the
meaning of your term
"potential."  Thanks much.

Paul
---
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph