Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

An interesting suggestion, but you have still failed to get an 
important point. You have put together, as if they have something in 
common, the two lines:

X+YIQTOL - syntactic connection, irrealis mode (modal) 
WAYYIQTOL - no syntactic connection, realis mode (indicative)

But in fact these two lines have NOTHING in common, except for their 
superficial form in the Masoretic text. Not only do they differ in 
word order and in both of the distinguishing factors which Dave 
mentions (and in others which he doesn't mention such as aspect and 
the discourse types they are used in); but also, as Henry has so 
clearly demonstrated, they are derived from different verb 
conjugations in early Hebrew which have partly (but only partly) 
fallen together in the Masoretic pronunciation.

This is just like trying to find some common meaning between the 
English simple past ("he had") and the English past participle ("he 
was had") while ignoring the indisputable evidence that these forms 
are quite different in a significant minority of verbs (e.g. "did" and 
"done").

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[6]: The form of weqatal
Author:  dukerk AT appstate.edu at internet 
Date:    09/08/1999 08:49


Dave,

Pardon the naive question, as mine always seem to be, to the frustration of 
some
on this list.  In
your response to Peter you wrote:

> Subject: Re: Re[6]: The form of weqatal 
> From:
> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 09:57:31 -0700 
> X-Message-Number: 2

> <snip>

> It's possible.  My own working hypothesis, built on my work on the
> wayyiqtol, is that there are some basic oppositions in effect in the 
> 4 conjugations, based on a combination of syntactic connection
> and mode:
>
> WAYYIQTOL - no syntactic connection, realis mode (indicative) 
> QATAL - syntactic connection, realis mode (indicative)
> WEQATAL - no syntactic connection, irrealis mode (modal) 
> YIQTOL - syntactic connection, irrealis mode (modal)
>
> I'm defining "modal" as Galia Hatav defines it, which includes
> future, subjunctive, volition, etc.  The place of imperative, jussive 
> and cohortative in this pattern I haven't looked into yet.
>

As you know, Furuli has tried to explain the verbal system with a two-fold 
model
(all yiqtols are
yiqtols, etc.).  The four-fold model always is left with some unknown 
converting
factor, but
usually only able to "explain" ONE HALF of the model, regarding the wayyiqtol 
(e.g. short and long
prefix conjunction, or wa +doubling corresponding to an Egyptian conjunction 
or 
to
an Arabic
conjunction, etc.)  Working with your model, could it be that the "converting 
factor" is word
order, since what one usually has is:

X+YIQTOL - syntactic connection, irrealis mode (modal) 
WAYYIQTOL - no syntactic connection, realis mode (indicative)

X+QATAL - syntactic connection, realis mode (indicative) 
WEQATAL - no syntactic connection, irrealis mode (modal)

Rodney
--
Rodney K. Duke
Dept. of Phil. & Rel., Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC 28608 
(O) 828-262-3091, (FAX) 828-262-6619, dukerk AT appstate.edu



---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.