Lee,
>
> Lee Martin wrote:
> > Dave,
> > Yes, I understand what Rolf is saying. I agree with him and with you that
> > there is no "separate" weqatal. I never said there was. But weqatals are
> > *not* used like qatals without "we-". How do you explain that? That
> wasn't
> > my point. The 2 components of the finite verb system are 1) prefix
> > conjugation, 2) and suffix conjugation.
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> Um, now I'm confused. If there is no such thing, how can it be
> used differently? Obviously I'm missing something here. As for the
> 2 components, am I correct in assuming that the WP is subsumed
> under the prefix conjugation?
>
> Dave,
> Yes, WP is prefix conjugation, but wayyiqtol functions differently from
> yiqtol or the jussive, or the cohortative. There is no *weqatal* form, so
> to speak, but I am using weqatal to refer to qatal when it has the
> conjunction we-. These do exist, without question, thousands of them. To
> use different terms, the suffix conjugation has different functions with and
> without the conjunction, and I am asking for someone to explain why.
>
I'll repeat my request for some passages that we can look at
together...