Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Lee,
> Alviero Niccacci wrote:
> >>BTW weyiqtol is a volitive form, differently from weqatal which is
> non-volitive.-->>
> 
> Dear Professor,
> Doesn't weqatal function as continuation of volitive forms?  Would  you
> say that these functions are not volitive, or that these functions are
> not essential to weqatal, but are continuative only?

I haven't been able to follow this discussion the last few days (I 
hope to catch up on it this weekend) so I don't know the context of 
Prof. N's statement.  However, Galia Hatav has shown, I think 
pretty conclusively, that both yiqtol and weqatal are modal forms 
(including future under the heading "modal" which she 
demonstrates very well).  Weqatal, being a modal form, can lend 
itself to both volitive and non-volitive (future) uses quite easily.  
Hence, the answer to your question would be that no, volitive isn't 
an essential feature of it, but modality in a more general sense is 
and that's why it can appear in such contexts.  Galia, have I 
represented your view accurately?


> 
> --
> 
> Lee R. Martin
> Pastor, Prospect Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee
> Instructor in Hebrew and Old Testament
> Church of God Theological Seminary
> http://www.vol.com/~lmartin/
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: dwashbur AT nyx.net
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 


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