Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dave Washburn wrote:


>Rolf wrote:
>> Peter Kirk wrote:
>>
>>
>> >1. I don't accept your proviso so I cannot your question.
>> >2. Aramaic is a different language which may work quite differently.
>> >
>
>> ><snip> Provided that the element "wayy" in wayyiqtol can be explained on
>> >phonological grounds, why must this (wa(yy) be more than a simple
>> >conjunction, which moves the narrative forward, just as is the case of
>> >Aramaic?
>> >
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >Rolf
>>
>>
>> Dear Peter.
>>
>> The Hebrew style is terse, no question about that. Even though Aramaic is a
>> different language, it illustrates how a simple conjunction can move the
>> story forward. Drop the provosio and tell me: Would the simple Hebrew
>> conjunction w be able to move the story forward if it was attached to
>> yiqtols just as do wayyiqtols. To state it differently: Is there any
>> function of the wayyiqtol which is not compatible with the view that the
>> construction simply is w+yiqtol?
>
>Galia's book answers this question, and the answer is an
>unqualified "Yes."  The functions of the wayyiqtol and w+yiqtol are
>quite different.
>Dave Washburn

Dear Dave,

It seems that I still have not managed to express my question in an
understandable way. I am aware that the functions of those forms which are
pointed as wayyiqtols and those which are pointed as weyiqtols in MT
generally are different.  But I also know that there is no difference
between the forms in unpointed texts and that Origen did not differentiate
between wayyiqtols and weyiqtols, but all forms have an initial ou in his
manuscripts. What I want to explore, therefore, is whether the difference
between wayyiqtol and weyiqtol is semantic or pragmatic. We must remember
that the morphologic difference between the two forms need not be great, it
need not be more than the difference between patah and shewa, which would
be a very small difference. An example is ma-yyfgel  in Psalm 21:2: Is the
reason for the gemination and retraction of stress only the patah after mem
or is it something else?

There is the possibility that the Masoretes used two vowels, which in their
eyes where almost identical (there is much evidence that shewa often was
pronounces as an "a" in Masoretic times), one for narratives and the other
for other situations, and that the great difference that seems to be
between the two can be ruduced to something very small. On this background
I do not ask whether there is a functional difference between wayyiqtols
and weyiqtols in MT, this is clear.  But if we leave alone everything we
know about wayyiqtol and weyiqtol, and just ask. Is there any function of
wayyiqtol which would not be accounted for if the prefix was just a
conjunction and nothing more? We do not need statistics or discussions to
answer this question. All we need, is to point to one side of wayyiqtol
that requires more than a simple conjunction. So far, nobody has done that.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo