Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Emerging consensus (and paedogogy) on "Waw Consecutive" PSS

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Emerging consensus (and paedogogy) on "Waw Consecutive" PSS
  • Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:34:33 +0200

Dear Dave and George,

The two quotes below illustrate the real issue: The WAY-element in WAYYIQTOL, is it only the conjunction WAW, which is pointed according to the masoretic rules, or is it an element which signals that the verb to which it is attached has another meaning than the same verb without the WAY-element? In other words, is the WAY-element a grammatical element, thus signaling semantic meaning, or is it a syntactical element, thus being pragmatic and taking its meaning from the context?

Scholars have different viewpoints regarding the answer. In order to give a well reasoned and thorough answer to this question, one needs to study the Hebrew verbs on the basis of a systematic differentiation between semantic meaning (meaning that is an intrinsic part of the verb form itself) and conversational pragmatic implicature (meaning that is derived from the context).

The following question illustrates the issue: The fact that 93.1% of the WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, does it show that WAYYIQTOL is a past tense, i. e., that the form itself has an intrinsic past tense? Or does the past reference come from the fact that most WAYYIQTOLs occur in narratives, and narrative by definition has past tense, so the past reference is derived from the context?

During the past 150 years I am aware of no other study than my own doctoral dissertation that has made a systematic distinction between semantic and pragmatic factors in the verbal system of Classical study. Moreover, in this study all the finite and infinite verbs in the Tanakh were studied.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



On 14 Aug 2010 at 14:32, George Athas wrote:

Karl, I agree. However, your statement amounts to the equivalent of
'these forms start with a waw conjunction'. I'd like to go a step
further and analyse the significance and nature of such
conjunction.

By a process of elimination, I concluded it's not a conjunction at all, but a grammatical
formative that happens to resemble the conjunction in its consonantal form, much like the
he-interrogative consonantally resembles the definite article.
Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page