Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

[snip]
> 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
> E-mail:  peter at qaya.org 
> <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>
> Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/

I also raised the related evidence of a) Hiphil 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms of all 
verbs except final-heh; b) Qal 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms of hollow verbs; c) 
wayyiqtol and jussive do not take the the third-person pronominal 
suffixes augmented with nun; and d) paragogic nun is found only with 
yiqtol. The internal BH evidence points, therefore, to the possibility 
of wayyiqtol and yiqtol being formally separate verbs. Taking semantics 
into account confirms it for me, although not for Rolf due to his 
"uncancellabity principle". And this is not even to take into account 
the wide Semitic picture. Despite Rolf's attack at Rainey on certain 
points, Rainey's analysis of the Armarna Canaanite verbal system stands 
and will probably still be accepted by most apart from those operating 
with an "uncancellabity principle".

I've also raised other evidence in at least three posts which Rolf 
hasn't addressed.

Regards,
David Kummerow.