I'm sorry I've lost your message that I was thinking of (something to do
with instructions for the tabernacle or maybe offerings for the
dedication of the tabernacle or consecration of Aaron and his sons) - I
thought you had shown that in the instructions both weqatal and x-yiqtol
were used, and in the description of the completion, both were described
with wayyiqtols; thus both weqatal and x-yiqtol were "mainline." I was
suggesting the same is true for historical narrative - both wayyiqtol and
sometimes x + qatal are mainline. I was asking what type of evidence you
would have to see to agree that x + qatal can be "mainline" in historical
narrative.
<snip>
(PK): Did Prof. Niccacci really show this, or has there been some
confusion here? If I remember rightly, there is a clear rule that
weqatal in the instructions for the tabernacle etc is replaced by
wayyiqtol in the narrative of the construction, and x-yiqtol is
replaced by x-qatal; this suggests that weqatal and wayyiqtol are
mainline and x-yiqtol and x-qatal are background, within these
discourses.