Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Rolf,

Extracts from what you wrote:

     I suppose that no member of the list wants to explain grammar and 
     syntax in an esoteric  or metaphysical way, saying "There must be 
     something there because of the past meaning.")...
     
     -Then I add a point 4) The WA(YY)-element has no function or 
     property which the simple conjunction WAW does not have, and this 
     suggests that it is nothing but a conjunction.
     
     Point 4) is my challenge. So,  those who believe that WA(YY) is 
     more than a bare conjunction: Please show at least one 
     characeristic or function of WAYYIQTOL which cannot be accounted 
     for if WAYYIQTOL is CONJUNCTION +YIQTOL.  Time/tense *alone* 
     cannot be used as an explanation as shown above.

Please stop arguing by using pejorative words like "esoteric or 
metaphysical" as an reason to rule out the obvious refutation of your 
hypothesis. What is "esoteric or metaphysical" about the following 
argument? In the great majority of cases, WAYYIQTOL is used with past 
meaning, and YIQTOL and WEYIQTOL are used with non-past meaning; 
therefore the morpheme (or morpheme pair) WAY- has a function other 
than simple coordination and/or clause division. I accept that this 
argument is over-simplified, and actually it is not what I prefer 
myself; you may be able to falsify it by proper scientific argument. 
But you cannot falsify it simply by calling it names.

Here is a different argument which you might like to falsify: There 
were two distinct Semitic verb paradigms with consonantal forms like 
YQTL, one a preterite (as in Ugaritic) which has survived in Hebrew as 
WAYYIQTOL and (perhaps) jussive and the other a non-past form which 
has survived in Hebrew as non-apocopated YIQTOL. For the moment, let 
us rule out Occam's razor as an argument here on the grounds that 
there is good evidence for distinct YQTL forms in cognate languages.

Peter Kirk