Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

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