Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: The form of weqatal (really wayyiqtol)

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: The form of weqatal (really wayyiqtol)
  • Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 18:34:38 -0700


John wrote:
> Dave Washburn wrote:
>
> >
> > > > In brief, I do not consider the WAW prefix to be a conjunction, and
> > > > hence I don't consider it to have any "conversive" force in the
> > > > traditional sense that the term has been used. Rather, I consider
> > > > it to be an inflectional morpheme that is actually part of the
> > > > Hebrew verb system itself, and it is this inflectional morpheme that
> > > > carries the sense of syntactic break. The fact that it resembles
> > > > the conjunction in its surface form does not make it a conjunction
> > > > any more than the fact that HE- interrogative resembles the definite
> > > > article means it has to be a form of the definite article (an
> > > > analogy I've presented many times here). We have such homonyms all
> > > > over Hebrew, yet when we get to the WAW prefix we seem to have a
> > > > blind spot.
> > >
> >
>
> (Henry)
>
> > > I don't know if it has "conversive force", but it certainly seems to
> > > have "conjunctive force" -- or why don't we see w@wayyiqtol or
> > > uwayyiqtol (whichever form the conjunction w@- would take on when
> > > attaching to a word already beginning with w-, something which doesn't
> > > occur in the Bible)?
> >
> > My approach predicts that this would be the case, because
> > conjunction/coordination would suggest a syntactic connection. If,
> > as I submit, the wayyiqtol indicates a syntactic break, it wouldn't
> > be expected to take a conjunction. To say that the prefix must
> > have conjunctive force because it doesn't take a conjunction is a
> > non-sequitur. A syntactic break is the antithesis of conjunctive
> > force.
> >
>
> Dave, you're asking us to believe that wayyiqtol is a verb form that (1)
> NEVER takes the conjunction, though all other verb forms do; (2) NEVER
> is preceded by things that precede other verbs like KIY, 'ASHER, LO',
> etc. etc.

I see nothing extraordinary about (2), since it's well known that
wayyiqtol in fact isn't preceded by any of these particles. As for
(1), I believe that's exactly what I said. The forms that Henry
hypothesized do not in fact occur, which as I said is exactly what
my approach predicts. I'm afraid I don't understand your problem
here.

> Also that all translators and interpreters since the LXX are wrong in
> seeing the WA- as a conjunction!

Uh-huh. So such a thing can't happen? Explain the Hebrew word
PYM to me.

> All because you think it is POSSIBLE (!) to explain the evidence apart
> from distinct yaqtul/yaqtulu verb forms that have mostly merged in BH?
> I think you need to do some rethinking here.

That's certainly your prerogative. And I didn't just say it's possible,
John. I said it provides a simpler and more unified account of the
data. You're free to harangue all you want, but it does nothing to
advance intelligent discussion of the matter.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Oh, no! They've all become giant Swiss lederhosen-clad
dancing yodelers!" "Talk about unpredictable!" - P&B




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page