Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Randall Buth wrote:

> shalom Rodney,
>
> > Does a weqatal in a string of
> >wayyiqtols or a wayyiqtol in a past-tense weqatal sequence present no

> >meaningful distinction?
>
> They absolutely show a distinction. veqatal in a vayyiqtol string is
> the "other" TAM. A vayyiqtol in a veqatal string is the "other" TAM.
> both are exactly like a yiqtol (=veqatal)  in qatal (=vayyiqtol)
string
> and a qatal (=vayyiqtol) in a yiqtol (=veqatal) string (Yes this
happens).
>
> As for a historic present thesis of vayyiqtol. That's not Hebrew,
>  but
> a dead end alley pursued by robert Young in the 19th century. One
> way to switch to the past in a string of present settings is to use
> vayyiqtol. X+qatal works, too, of course.
>
> blessings,
>
> Randall Buth, PhD
> Director, Biblical Language Center
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> and Lecturer, Biblical Hebrew
> Rothberg International School
> Hebrew University

Dear Randall,
Thank you for your prompt reply.  (I know that I have pestered you on
related
matters in the past.  I am stilling struggling with the waw-conversive
thesis.)  If for you the TAM is inherent in each verb form but converted
by
waw, then do you interpret every wayyiqtol and weqatal the same for each

occurrence?  If you have the time, would you please let me know how you
would
translate -- not just translate, but also interpret the TAMs of the
verbs in 1
Samuel 17:34-35.  Do the weqatals here = the TAM of yiqtol, which is
what?  If
they function as qatals, then how does the wayyiqtol in their midst
function?
If as a qatal, then why use a different from?  Thanks in advance for any

insight you can shed on this for me!

Blessings back to you,
Rodney

--
Dr. 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

--
Dr. 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