Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter wrote:
> I agree here with Doug, and want to add some further points addressed 
> to Dave:
> 
> 1) If you define the most basic verb form as the one with fewest 
> affixes, well, in very many languages (arguably including Hebrew), 
> that is the imperative. But imperatives generally also have 
> non-standard word order, subject deletion and all sorts of special 
> features which make them unsuitable for judging basic word order. So I 
> think your methodology needs to be reexamined.

That's not how I defined the most basic verb form.

> 2) I am also far from convinced that the qatal form is fundamentally 
> the most basic form; perhaps it only appears so because of the 
> accidental null form of the 3rd person singular masculine suffix. In 
> Arabic there is a final short a in the equivalent qatala form, which 
> is deleted in Hebrew by a purely phonological process, if I am not 
> mistaken.

Then what would you say is the foundational form of the verb?

> 3) For the sake of argument, let us look at clauses in which the verb 
> form is qatal. A typical Hebrew clause consists of a conjunction 
> (asyndeton is rare, and by far the most common conjunction is we-), a 

Rare in all possible types of ancient Hebrew, or just in the 
specialized type of literature that we work with?  The nature of the 
corpus has to be considered as well.

> subject, an object, and oblique elements in addition to a verb - all 
> elements are optional. In sentences in which the verb comes first, the 
> conjunction is attached to the verb. Thus for a true comparison 
> between verb-first clauses and verb-second clauses one needs to look 
> at weqatal forms as equivalent to qatal forms, or ignore all clauses 
> with the conjunction we-.

Are you then saying that there is no morphological difference 
between qatal and weqatal?  As I recall, a few months ago when I 
suggested that I questioned the existence of a separate weqatal 
form you were one of the ones who challenged the idea.  Have you 
changed your view on that?  If not, is the we in we-qatal just the 
conjunction we?  If so, how can it change the syntactic force of the 
verb?  How can a simple conjunction that performs nothing more 
than coordination in other contexts have a morphological effect on 
the verb in this case?  Are qatal and weqatal equivalent, or is there 
a difference in sense between them?  If they are equivalent, then 
they must be treated so at all levels of investigation.  If they are 
distinct, then we can't treat them as equivalent in some contexts 
for the sake of theory.  Sounds like I'm not the one who needs to 
reexamine his methodology.

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