Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Dave,

1. Eskhult's view may provide something of the reason as to how the 
conjunction has become part of the essential wayyiqtol form, thus 
supporting Peter's claim regarding its inseparability from the following 
verb.

2. Peter also suggested that wayyiqtols may be jussive forms without the 
the conjunction, a view promoted by DeCaen.

However, in my opinion the view that Hebrew word order is verb-initial 
must at some point deal with the grammaticalised makeup of the wayyiqtol 
form. If it is analysed as [conjunction + clitic + preterite verb], it 
points to an original X-verb structure, ie verb second, whereas it is 
often assumed that wayyiqtol confirms a "VSO" word order, ie verb 
initial. But as I said, depending on one's theoretical stance, 
[conjunction + clitic + verb] may still be taken as verb initial clause 
structure. Nothing is ever easy...

Regards,

David Kummerow.


> On Tuesday 29 November 2005 20:08, David Kummerow wrote:
>  > > 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.
> I'm not sure I see how these relate to the question of SVO vs VSO base word
> order.