Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Re[4]: The form of weqatal

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Re[4]: The form of weqatal
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:28:17 -0700


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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page