Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk wrote:

This makes me happy because if we do get even one example I have managed to
falsify one of Rolf's claims, and if we don't get any examples I can safely
conclude against Rashi's interpretation, on the grounds that it is based on
a unique grammatical construction as well as a conjectural emendation of
bara' to baro'. ;-)


... The enclitic WAWs can in *all* instances be explained as mere
> conjunctions. You can falsify this claim by pointing to just one example
> where a conjunctive meaning is not possible.
>

Randall Buth answered:

>shalom Peter,
>You asked about examples of the following
>> To put it another way, this interpretation demands
>>that in verse 3 there is a WAYYIQTOL form in a non-sentence-initial
>>position.
>
>I've presented on list the very nice Isaiah 6.1 and Moabite line 4-5? and
>31(?) as examples of pure adverbial followed by vav hahippux. there are
>others, and you might add any examples of "vayehi (befo`olo) vayya`as..."
>contrasting with "vayehi (befo`olo) veha-po`el `asa ..., et al.
>
>Of course, I wouldn't exactly say 'the conjunctive meaning is not
>possible', the question is very poorly phrased for Hebrew. It's looking at
>the language backwards/inside-out or outside-in, to turn a phrase.
>


Dear Peter and Randall,


If something looks like a goose, it quacks like a goose, and it smells like
a goose, it probably is a goose.

If something looks like a conjunction, it functions like a conjunction, and
it can be translated like a conjunction, it probably is a conjunction.

None of Randall's examples are really convincing, particularly because WAW
can have the force of most English conjunctions. So it is necessary to
exclude more than the rendering "and" if one successfully should argue that
the WAW  before a verb is not a conjunction.


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo