Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter wrote:
> The Westminster database parses NIMCA' in 2 Samuel 17:12 as "verb, 
> nifal, perfect, third person, masculine, singular". And with good 
> reason, I think. If this were indeed a qal YIQTOL 2nd person plural, 
> surely there should be an object "him", either a suffix on the verb or 
> 'ITTO, as the qal verb is transitive and 'ASHER does not act as an 
> object, in fact (as I showed a few months ago) plays no syntactic role 
> in the subordinate relative clause but functions syntactically as part 
> of the main clause.

There doesn't necessarily need to be an explicit object, since the 
clause is focusing on the location, not the person.  And Holladay 
lists it as a hiph`il imperfect 1 pl.  I'm not sure who suggested qal 
3rd person, but it wasn't me.

> If "hot dog" is an idiom, is there anything to stop WEQATAL from being 
> an idiom in the same sense? 

It may very well be.  That's one of the ideas I'm exploring.

You may be right that there are two 
> different WE-'s just as there are two different HA-'s (interestingly, 
> one with gemination and the other without, just like the difference 
> between the WAYYIQTOL WA- and the ordinary conjunction). 

Coincidence?  I tend to think not.

But then is 
> there a discernible difference (synchronically) between two homonym 
> WE-'s and two uses of the same morpheme which have developed separate 
> meanings?

Um, can you expand on this a little for me?

> By the way, I disagree with your analysis of Greek verbs. I see aorist 
> and future as two different tense forms of the same aspect which is 
> marked with an -s suffixed (not infixed) to the verb stem. Thus future 
> and aorist are related in the same way as present and imperfect, also 
> perfect and pluperfect in a third aspect. The "aorist subjunctive" 
> relates to the aspect and so equally to aorist and to the future, and 
> the similarity between future and aorist subjunctive is totally 
> analogous to that between present indicative and present subjunctive. 
> A comparison with Russian helps to make clear this simplification.

Since this isn't b-greek, I'll pass on this one because it will likely 
take us too far afield of Hebrew.

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