Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] word order

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] word order
  • Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:22:09 +1000


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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page