Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

lol

i'm happy for the agreement with the mainstream conclusion.

but  .... then we arrive at  .... proverbs 31:13 .....

1. root + PP indicates present acton, as in "dar-sha?"

2. VA + PP + root indicates present action, as in "va-ta-as?"

i agree with your paragraph 4, assuming the equivalency of "bet" and "vav"
letters.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> Appears to me that we are in agreement without the need for "conversion".
> PP = personal pronoun.
> 1. root+PP indicates past action, as in BA-TA = BA-ATAH.
> 2. PP+root indicates future action as in TA-BO. Also PP+root+PP, as in
> TA-BO-YI.
> 3. VA+PP+root indicates past action, as in VA-TA-BO. Also VA+PP+root+PP, as
> in VA-TA-BO-YI.
> 4. It is really late at night, but can we agree that VA means something
> like 'and it came to pass that'?
> 5. It is not clear to me at the moment what is the role of the L in
> VA-YI-LAKAX, 'he was taken', as compared with VA-YI-KAX, 'he took'.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>  On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:52 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
>  that is my understanding .... of the mainstream view ....
>
> vav prefixed to a pronomial prefixed verb .... functions as
>
> a. conjunction; and
>
> b. tense converter.
>
> but i am not unmindful of your teaching .... to wit:
>
> ו (vav) = ב (bet), whose literal meaning = thicken; and whose abstract
> meaning = to come into being; and which latter letter births in turn the
> verb בוא (boh or voh).
>
> perhaps the solution resides in the eternal perspective, rather than the
> space/time perspective of our universe. .... in other words, the hebrew
> language sees only the present .... or "avraham acts again and takes a
> woman" ....; no past; no future, only present; and pronomial suffixed verbs
> = pronomial prefixed verbs .... much as noun synonyms ... :)
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 3. So is this a "conjunction" vav (it is actually VA, not a mere V) or a
>> "conversive" vav, or both?
>>
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>
>>  On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:04 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>>
>>  that is my understanding of the conventional wisdom ... the ebb and flow
>> of the tide:
>>
>> 1. לקח , la-ka = base form of verb, pronomial suffix form (but without
>> pronoun appearing in this instance), and instructing past tense;
>>
>> 2. יקח , yi-ka = iteration no. 1, pronomial prefix form of verb, with
>> pronoun yod appearing and instructing future tense;
>>
>> 3. ויקח , va-yi-ka = iteration no. 2, pronomial prefix form of verb, with
>> pronoun yod appearing, and conjunction vav also prefixed, which converts
>> verb back into past tense.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>>