Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

> 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.

Eskhult (pg 25) says: "... the manner in which classical Hebrew
narration lets every single act be featured by its own finite verb,
clearly precipitates the use of narrative chains, where a connective
element, as wa-, is indispendible."

Eskhult, Mats. Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in
Biblical Hebrew Prose. Studia Semetica Upsaliensia 12. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990.

DeCaen takes the view that wayyiqtol is modal coordination, ie jussives
are wayyiqtol minus way-.

DeCaen, Vincent. "On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verb in
Standard Biblical Hebrew Prose." PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1995.

A difficulty is discerning whether wayyiqtol is the result of attaching
the conjunction to a preterite verb as Peter suggests---ie [conjunction
+ preterite verb]; if this is the case, the conjunction attached to
wayyiqtol would have to be viewed as an alternate form---or if wayyiqtol 
is the diachronic grammaticalised result of a once [conjunction + clitic 
+ verb]. If so, wayyiqtol may then be analysed as previously displaying 
a V2 clause structure (cf Holmstedt's "triggered inversion"), not 
necessarily verb-first. But it may depend on one's theoretical position 
regarding what constitutes the core of a clause and what does not.

Regards,
David Kummerow.