Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 30/11/2005 23:22, David Kummerow wrote:

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

Vice versa, of course. And I don't rule out Herman's idea that there is 
also a definite marker in there. I am not sure whether that definite 
marker would imply that WAYYIQTOL is "a converted (i.e. secondary, not 
basal) form", Dave's description which I questioned.


> 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, ...

No, I dispute this analysis. The definite marker is not a clitic, if 
this is to be understood as a separate component of the sentence which 
has become attached to the verb; rather it is more like a verbal prefix.

> ... 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. ...

Indeed, it is verb initial, for the "clitic" is simply a prefix.

> ... Nothing is ever easy...
>  

Indeed!

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/