From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
Cc: jrevell1 AT compuserve.com, jwevers AT chass.utoronto.ca (John Wevers), dresher AT chass.utoronto.ca (E. Dresher)
Subject: 1kings 1:1, zaqen ba
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
chers b-haverim,
the MORPH database parses both ZFQ"N and B.F) in 1kings 1:1 as
pasts/perfects. in both cases this seems unlikely to me, but i was
wondering what y'all thought. is ZFQ"N an adjective, participle or
past tense? is B.F) participle or past tense?
here's my thought. the construction taken as a whole is unlikely to be
two qatals. while zaqen might be a tense form, ba' probably isn't;
therefore it is a participle by default.
the reading of zaqen as qatal is inconsistent in discourse context,
with W:LO) Y"XFM LOW in the same verse: therefore it should be a
verbless construction, therefore zaqen as adjective playing the role
of nominal.
any takers?
cc offlist
sholom
V
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dr Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, 4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor
University of Toronto, Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1
Where once the student was taught that the unexamined life was not
worth living, he is now taught that the profitably lived life is not
worth examining. --Benjamin Barber