Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The JW outlook on the Hebrew verbal system

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The JW outlook on the Hebrew verbal system
  • Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:18:27 -0500

Dear Ted,
I'm not sure I am following you here. Is the theory suggesting that WAW-YOD is the prefix of VAYIQRA and the resulting form is equivalent to a perfect?

HH: No, the "wa" sound is related to the regular waw conjunction and connects one situation with another. The idea is that originally there was a short verb form YAQTUL, which expressed either a preterite idea or a jussive. So the WAYYQTL form may be express a different idea than a regular waw joined to a long prefix form of the verb (YAQTULU). Various Semitic languages had two prefix verb conjugations, and the shorter form indicated the preterite and jussive. The WAYYQTL form is basically jussive in appearance. Also, there is evidence for the short form, unconnected with waw, functioning as a preterite in biblical Hebrew (Ps 18:12; cf 2 Sam 22:12). Another point is that the WAYYQTL forms do not express normal imperfective functions such as modal ideas and customary action in the past. In fact, they tend to have the same functions as the perfective/suffix conjugation.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
In a message dated 3/21/2007 10:13:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net writes:

HH: I am not familiar with the latest theory, but my understanding is that current ideas involve the possibility that there were originally two prefix verb conjugations, a long and a short form. The "conversive waw" would represent a phonological difference dependent on use of the original short form. There are occasional long form "waw conversives" and these are seen to be "secondary, analogical developments" by some scholars (Waltke-O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 33.1-2). So it is not exactly the waw changing the meaning of the verb, but two different verbs with different meanings, one of which is represented in the waw conversive.





************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page