Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Thank you. To clarify the matter, as I see it there are two largely 
separate issues here:

1) Are there one or two prefix conjugations?

2) Is the prefix on WAYYIQTOL the conjunction WE- or something 
different?

My thinking on issue 1), based on Henry's phonological arguments and 
even without looking at WAYYIQTOL (i.e. looking just at jussive and 
full YIQTOL forms), is that there are two prefix conjugations.

Question 2) is I think still wide open, though I feel that if the 
prefix is not simply WE-, it is most likely WE- plus some other 
element (possibly analogous to the article, cf. the distinction 
between B:YOWM and BAYYOWM).

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: The form of weqatal (really wayyiqtol)
Author:  dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date:    18/08/1999 00:17


Peter,
Like you, I'm not a phonologist as I already said to Henry.  Your 
point is well taken; however, the phonological discussion - at least 
my part of it - only involves the origins of the prefix conjugations 
with and without waw, i.e did Hebrew originally have one prefix 
conjugation or two?  I don't think my view of the syntactic force of 
the wayyiqtol (or the other conjugations) rises or falls on that.  I 
could live with two original conjugations and my approach to the 
wayyiqtol would be essentially unchanged.  Who knows?  It might
even produce nuances that can help me refine and strengthen it.  I 
won't know until I finish Henry's chapter 4.  In addition, I'm in the 
process of rereading Rainey, Moran and others on the comparative 
material.  I may end up agreeing with Henry, I may end up right
back where I am now.  That's part of the fun of this language: one 
never knows what will be encountered around the next corner.

> If you (like me) are not a phonologist, you cannot simply ignore the 
> results of phonological analysis, which seem to show that your
> explanation of wayyiqtol does not work, however many other
> non-phonologists may support you. In your latest posting you wrote, 
> "nothing in my syntactic approach rises or falls on the phonological 
> part". Unfortunately this is not true. If Henry's results mean what
> they appear to, your approach falls because its underlying phonological 
> foundation falls.
>
> Suppose you had some proposal for some new mechanical invention. You
> can demonstrate a small-scale prototype, and you can even find a major 
> potential customer who says that your invention has "the potential to 
> revolutionize life as we know it". But then a physicist tells you that 
> he can prove that your invention can never work at full scale because 
> it violates a fundamental law of physics. What do you do, if you are
> not a physicist yourself? I think you would be well advised to at
> least check out what the one physicist says with other experts in the 
> field before investing in large scale manufacture.
>
> So I suggest that you check out with other phonologists whether
> Henry's objections are really as fatal as they appear to be to your 
> theory, rather than rely on good recommendations from other
> non-phonologists.
>
> Peter Kirk
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
> Subject: Re: The form of weqatal (really wayyiqtol) 
> Author:  dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
> Date:    16/08/1999 01:11
>
>
> John,
> We have been over this many, many, many times over a stretch of
> at least 2 years.  I have presented my view both online and in print, 
> and apparently the editors of such journals as Hebrew Studies
> thought it had enough merit to publish.  When I presented it to the 
> SBL a few years ago, one major scholar among the listeners said
> the view had "the potential to revolutionize study of Hebrew
> grammar," and that's a direct quote (I taped the session).  As I said 
> before, you're free to harangue all you want, but if all you want to 
> do is whine and make fun, don't expect me to take you seriously.
> My position and the material that supports it is well documented,
> as a simple trip through the archives (and the journals) would have
> told you.  I won't try to interact with this kind of drivel.  If you have 
> something constructive to say, let's hear it.  Otherwise, I suggest
> you find something else to do.
>
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > It's not extraordinary if the WA- of wayyiqtol is the familiar 
> > conjunction, 
bu
> t
> it is
> > extremely extraordinary, odd, and unbelievable if it's not.  How do you 
explai
> n
> that
> > wayyiqtol is a finite verb form that is never in the whole Hebrew Bible 
> negated?
> >
> > Why doesn't Gen 1:5 read
> > wayyiqra' Elohim la'or yom, welaxoshek wayyiqra laylah 
> >
> > Similar question for thousands of other examples! 
> >
> > You're serious about this?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: dwashbur AT nyx.net 
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu. 
> >
>
>
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> "Oh, no!  They've all become giant Swiss lederhosen-clad 
> dancing yodelers!"  "Talk about unpredictable!" - P&B
>
> ---
> 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. 
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: dwashbur AT nyx.net 
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu. 
>


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

---
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.