Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rodney K. Duke" <dukerk AT appstate.edu>]

Dear Colleagues,

A few questions and trial balloons for the experts, not theories that I
am trying to argue:

1) Regarding the discussion about the function of wayyiqtol in terms of
sequentiality (or non-sequentiality), that is the thesis that it
possibly does not connect backwards but begins a new reference time, and
still may be used in a narrative sequence:

I wonder if the conjunction functions like the English phrase “now
then.”  It seems to me that in English people use “now then” to start a
new story, to pick up after some digression in a story, and even to list
a series of events.


2) What then, if the conjunction found with wayyiqtol is some kind of
narrative conjunction that is distinct from the conjunction of simple
waw?  Is there any comparative philological evidence that might support
such a thesis?  (I've seen a little about the Arabic “fa,” but don't
know how much weight it carries.)

Is it possible that yiqtol is modal (ala Hatav) and that we have two
conjunctions:
Waw + yiqtol -> weyiqtol and remains modal
Waw + “definite marker” (perhaps ha) + yiqtol -> wayyiqtol and now
becomes non-modal and is used in past narration?


3) Or another slant altogether, for the experts in phonology:
I realize that the morphological difference between the short and long
prefixed conjugations disappeared by 1100 BCE; however R. Buth on this
list and others argue for the continued existence of the preterite.  How
does that thesis work with what you are discovering about phonology?  Is
there a form of the conjunction (i.e. waw with or without an a-class
vowel) that could explain:

wa+ *yaqtula evolving into weyiqtol (propretonic reduction?), and

wa + *yaqtul (preterite) evolving into wayyiqtol?

If something like this would make sense phonologically, then I could see
how the “preterite” would still be used in historical narrative even
after its linguistic roots were long forgotten.


4) Another question, for the historical linguists:
In the development of the prefixed and suffixed conjunctions is it
possible that:

pronominal element + verbal root emphasized the person and the verbal
idea was action (i.e. “I do action X”), and

verbal root + pronominal element created a kind of genitival
relationship which nominalized the action (i.e. “Action X of me”)
(resulting in what Rocine has advocated for the difference between
yiqtol and qatal)?


Thanks for any input.  I sure wish one of you experts would figure out
the Hebrew verbal system conclusively.

--
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