Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

Now we have reached the same point as we have so many times in the past, 
when I see no purpose in commenting on your words. In many ways you work 
like the Greek SPERMOLOGOS (this relates to your method and not to your 
person). You search the Internet, find some statistics here and there and 
use these statistics in your argumentation without ever having made a deep 
study of the subject itself. The result is a host of loose ends. Let me 
state that clearly once more: In an unvocalised text of the Tanakh only two 
conjugations can be morphologically distinguished, a prefix-conjugation and 
a suffix-conjugation. There is absolutely no way, on the basis of 
morphology, to know whether a seemingly apocopated prefix-form is what 
modern grammarians call WAYYIQTOL or WEYIQTOL.

snip
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)



> > ... I argue, and this cannot be countered, that in the unpointed text 
> > only two conjugations can be seen, the prefix-forms and the suffix-forms. 
> > ...
>
> On the contrary, I have countered this by providing clear evidence that 
> for lamed-he verbs there are in the unpointed text two different prefix 
> forms, one apocopated and always preceded with vav and the other not 
> apocopated, which are distinct (but occasionally confused) at least in the 
> 3rd person singular. And that is quite apart from the jussive. I await 
> your response to my evidence for this, posted here on 10th March.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

/
>