Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:31:32 +1100



[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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page