Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Rolf,
> Dave Washburn wrote:
> 
> >> I accept WELO-NOTAR as a difficult form which needs close study.
> >
> >Holladay, following K-B, lists this form as a hiph`il yiqtol and
> >specifically refers to 2 Sam 17:12, with the parenthesis "oth.: nif.
> >pf."  Since the clause is clearly referring to intention and not past,
> >which I see as modal, I suspect that Holladay is correct and it's
> >another yiqtol 1cp.
> >
> >Thus, wrt nimcf, I see it as a yiqtol "wherever we may find [them],"
> >and wrt welo' notar, I see this also as a yiqtol, "we won't leave a
> >single one alive."
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Dave,
> 
> I think Holloday is a good example of how people holding traditional
> viewpoints defend these with questionable means. Formally speaking, NOTAR
> *may* be a YIQTOL, and in that case it must be a Hiphil Jussive; a Hiphil
> indicative would be NOTIR. However, there are several reasons to reject the
> view that NOTAR is a Hiphil Jussive:

???  I didn't see anybody but you suggest a hiph`il jussive.  A 
jussive would YOWT"R.  This is confusing.  Are you building a 
straw man here, or did I miss something?

[snip]
> The above points together with Peter's fine arguments regarding NIMCA makes
> a strong case for two QATALs in the same verse with future meaning. I am
> wondering why so many people with tooth and nail fight against the view
> that QATALs without WE cannot have future meaning when none of these people
> (at least this seems to be the case) has systematically looked at all the
> QATALs of the Bible and evaluated their temporal meaning.

Rolf, you're not listening to me.  I have said absolutely nothing 
about temporal meaning.  I have no problem at all with a qatal that 
bears a future meaning, and I would appreciate it if you would not 
attribute such views to me.  I haven't said anything of the kind.   I 
have no problem at all with a qatal appearing in an )$R clause with 
a future sense, I'm just trying to unscramble the clauses and figure 
out what's being found and who's doing the finding.  If you want to 
see it as a niph`al 3ms, that's fine with me.  I'm not above exploring 
some other options, especially when I find them in a reference work 
that I respect.  And I'm not sure in what sense you consider 
Holladay "traditional."  In any case, it's a minor point so I suggest 
we let it lie.

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