Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 04:49, you wrote:
> On 25/11/2005 01:05, Dave Washburn wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >I'm one of them.  I find it amusing that anyone uses a statistical
> > argument for a base order of VSO, because the statistics are heavily
> > skewed by the frequency of the wayyiqtol, which just about everyone
> > agrees is a converted (i.e. secondary, not basal) form. ...
>
> I'm not one of them. And I would have thought "just about everyone" is
> an exaggeration. An alternative view which I thought was quite widely
> accepted is that WAYYIQTOL is in fact a more original and ancient form,
> an old proto-Semitic verb form, to which is attached the vav marking the
> clause boundary. Because this form adheres to the original VSO word
> order and is not used in secondary constructions in which the verb has
> moved, the vav has become inseparable. - or perhaps jussives are
> WAYYIQTOLs without their vav. I don't claim that this is necessarily
> true, but I have seen no clear evidence that WAYYIQTOL is secondary,
> rather than primary and reflecting the original dominant Hebrew word order.

Can you give a reference or two, something published that sets forth this 
view?  I'll try to do the same for the description I gave.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."