Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

>> >> wyhy is not a yiqtol. That would have been (w) yhyh


> Have you considered that YHYH in over 400 times it is used is never found
> with a prefixed W-?

That is strong support for the thesis that wyhy is special and different
from yhyh. Of course, when you check other 'lamed-yod' verbs
(a.k.a. [graphic] 'lamed-h'), you will not find 100% consistency.

> Further, when we look at the about 50 times YHY is used without a prefixed
> W-, how is its meaning different from YHYH?

--it's more modal-- Gen 1 yhy or, . . . yhy mabdiyl . . .


> My “speculation” is not just a shot in the dark, rather it is based on
> trying to read the text as aspectual and finding that that action often
> required mental gymnastics that often seem strange.

Good. I was actually supporting you on that point.


> I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. Your response indicates that you
> are basing it on the MT points, which have been shown to be untrustworthy,
> whereas my question was based on the MT consonantal text.

excuse me, but wyqtl [hif`il] versus yqtyl [hif`il] was consonantally based.

And one can certainly add the MT vocalizations as evidence. They are
not "untrustworthy" and to be thrown out 100%.
If you want to judge them, they are to be weighed, and require comparative
Semitics. Frankly, the MT is one of the most remarkable documents of
antiquity, it's a pity that you do not seem to appreciate it, based on an
occasional disagreement in reading. Actually, I would expand on that last
statement, the MT --
is probably the most remarkable recording of all ancient documents.



> How can one make a definitive statement that
> yiqtol encodes for aspect, imperfective aspect, and qatal encodes for
> perfective aspect? And wayiqtol for perfective aspect?

By careful analysis of all the data. Or by learning the language from
the language community.
Either way, they both eventually lead to the same result
when done well.


>> The LXX, targumim, Syriac, MT, all broadly testify
>> that the wayyiqtol was perfective rather than imperfective.
>
> I can’t comment on these,

OK.


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life