Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 15:44, Peter Kirk wrote:
> 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.

On this, Peter and I agree.  That's one in a row :-)

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