Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> > Would anyone explain me, what's wrong with the most simple and evident
> > explanation:
> >
> > waw usually serves as tense reversal device, but
> > sometimes it is simply a consequtive?
> >
> > It is this ambiguity that likely led to developing a new FT form,
derived
> > from imperative mode.
>
> What's wrong with it is, we can show more counter-examples than we can
> examples.    IOW, it fails to explain even a preponderance of the
evidence.

How so? Hebrew meaning does not comply with preconceived interpretations?
All such "examples" I have seen are nonsense, and I'm prepared to discuss
any of them to show that waw either reverses the tense, or acts as
conjugation.

Vadim Cherny