Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Would you care to justify the following, Dave? What is your evidence 
that wayyiqtol is "clearly a transformed-and-moved constituent"?

Surely our recent discussions have led towards the conclusion that the 
basic unmarked sentence structures are verb-initial with wayyiqtol or 
weqatal, and that other orders are marked. Indeed I suspect that the 
key to use of X-qatal instead of wayyiqtol (or X-yiqtol in place of 
weqatal) is some form of fronting for focus of the X component - the 
verb becomes non-focused and so background.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: BH, Jouon on syntax?
Author:  dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date:    10/05/1999 10:20


Vince wrote:
> does anyone know of a grammarian since Jouon (1923) that questioned 
> the VSO analysis of Biblical Hebrew syntax? shame it was revised
> away in Muraoka's 1993 english revision. i would be so grateful for a 
> tip: it would have to be off the beaten track. ;-)

I can't think of any in print, but I have argued for years that Hebrew 
is not VSO, and in fact the VSO analysis is based on the
frequency of the wayyiqtol, which is clearly a transformed-and- 
moved constituent.

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

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.