Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Bryan wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>  you wrote:
> > We looked up in W&O the section which discusses the weqatalti
> > after nominal clauses (32.2.4), which treats the WeHFYUW in Ruth
> > 1:11 as introducing a consequent situation.  However, we played
> > with some other ways that the concept here could have been
> > expressed and possible differences in translations.  How would
> > you compare and contrast the form found here (weqatalti) with the
> > following possibilities:  1) a "normal" relative clause
> > introduced by KIY, and 2) a completely separate question,
> > introduced by a second heh-interrogative?  Am I off-base to see
> > this use of the weqatalti as falling somewhere in between the
> > relative clause and the completely separate question?
[snip]
> I would say that the text as it stands represents consecutive propositions.
> "Are there still sons in my belly? And then they will be husbands for you?"

Actually, Galia has a much better solution to this: weqatal is 
modal.  Hence we have "Are there still sons in my belly, that they 
might become husbands for you?"  See the relevant chapter in her 
book, which is the best treatment of weqatal that I've seen yet.

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