Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>]

There seems to be something upside down about your methodology here. If you
ignore a priori the commonest verb initial constructions, of course you will
find that less common constructions are basic. And any movement rule can
work in either direction.

What makes you conclude that wayyiqtol and weqatal are "derived"? I accept
that they are made up of the conjunction and a verb form, but as the
conjunction is attached to the first word of the great majority of clauses
in Hebrew this attachment is no reason to exclude them from an analysis.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dave Washburn
> Sent: 27 May 2003 21:48
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VSO vs SVO
> 
> On Tuesday 27 May 2003 11:50, Dr Dale M Wheeler wrote:
> > Does anyone have a response to van der Merwe, et.al.'s contention that
> > Hebrew is not a VSO language, but rather should be viewed as a SVO
> > language?
> 
> I haven't seen van der Merwe's comments, but I agree that Hebrew is at its
> base SVO.  Virtually all of the comments I've seen in the grammars
> claiming
> that it is VSO are based on the wayyiqtol and weqatal, which (ISTM) are
> clearly derived constructions.  If we look at the non-derived
> constructions
> (qatal, yiqtol) the most common order there is SVO, and it is easy to see
> the
> VSO order of the waw-consecutive forms being derived by movement.
> 
> --
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew