Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Henry Churchyard <churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>]

> From dwashbur AT nyx.net  Thu Jul 22 23:41:56 1999
> Subject: Re: The form of weqatal
> From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:14:19 -0700

> I disagree that wayyiqtol uses a "shortened, modal, form of the
> verb."  As I have explained elsewhere, the shortening in the
> wayyiqtol seems to be a result of phonological conditioning, not
> some outgrowth of the two-prefix-conjugation hypothesis (which I
> reject).

First of all, wayyiqtol is not really "shortened" in any true sense of
the word (except in lamedh-he forms) -- since it merely goes back to a
Semitic verbal conjugation *yaqtul which is different from the
separate and distinct Semitic verbal conjugation *yaqtulu, which
underlies ordinary Hebrew yiqtol.  As has been mentioned before, the
*yaqtul conjugation is actually more widespread (in terms of Semitic
subgroups) and older than *yaqtulu.

And the alternation between "shorter" forms in the wayyiqtol
vs. longer forms in the yiqtol is _not_ phonologically conditioned in
the sense of being determined by phonological factors only, without
reference to morphology.  In Hiph`il wayyaqtel vs. yaqtil, the
presence of "way-" at one end certainly doesn't phonologically cause
the change of vowel from h.ireq to s.ere at the other end -- this
would be phonologically unprecedented for Hebrew, and anyway, the
s.ere vowel shows up in other contexts...

--
Henry Churchyard   churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu   http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/