Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Waw consecutive in Gen 1

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>
  • To: Henry Churchyard <churchh AT usa.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Waw consecutive in Gen 1
  • Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:52:49 -0500


churchyard:
>I consciously still used "traditional" terminology

so if i found a
vav hahippux imperfect(ive),
did i find an imperfect(ive) or a perfect(ive)?
which form did i find?

the above terminology is ambiguous unless formally and arbitrarily defined.
and such 'semantic' terminology may not be used transparently in a semantic
context/category of BH.

vav hahippux prefix(ing) verb (of which there are several formal varieties)

at least starts out unambiguously in the right ballpark.
ditto for vav hahippux suffix(ing) verb.

i say the above
while fully agreeing with you in the critical importance of distinguishing
various
vav hahippux prefix(ing) forms, short / regular / long-ah / pausals /
maqqef ,
[plus conjunctive and disjunctive vav hahippux suffixing verbs].

> the term "prefix" glosses over the crucial distinction between
> original *yaqtul forms and original *yaqtulu forms which was
> under discussion there
hmm..curiously:
'imperfect' would gloss over the distinctions
"begadol" as we say, (=in a big way)
-- by actually referring to the wrong one --
(assuming *yaqtulu was imperfect and the vav hahippux is built on *yaqtul).

good news is that new terminology is always possible after a dissertation
is accepted.

yisge shlamax
randall buth
jerusalem




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page