Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 16:22, David Kummerow wrote:
> 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.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

> 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...

That last sentence is a given :-)  As I mentioned before, I don't consider 
the 
waw to be the conjunction at all.  My 1994 paper explains why, giving the 
possibilities and showing why I reached that conclusion.  I think it's a 
specified grammatical formative, not really even a clitic (that would make it 
a separate word in essence) but a formative similar to the afformatives and 
preformatives of the various conjugations.  It happens to use the same 
consonant as the conjunction; considering that BH has several other instances 
of this sort of thing, it shouldn't surprise us.

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