Would you care to justify the following, Dave? What is your evidence
that wayyiqtol is "clearly a transformed-and-moved constituent"?
Surely our recent discussions have led towards the conclusion that the
basic unmarked sentence structures are verb-initial with wayyiqtol or
weqatal, and that other orders are marked. Indeed I suspect that the
key to use of X-qatal instead of wayyiqtol (or X-yiqtol in place of
weqatal) is some form of fronting for focus of the X component - the
verb becomes non-focused and so background.
Peter Kirk
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: BH, Jouon on syntax?
Author: dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date: 10/05/1999 10:20
Vince wrote:
> does anyone know of a grammarian since Jouon (1923) that questioned
> the VSO analysis of Biblical Hebrew syntax? shame it was revised
> away in Muraoka's 1993 english revision. i would be so grateful for a
> tip: it would have to be off the beaten track. ;-)
I can't think of any in print, but I have argued for years that Hebrew
is not VSO, and in fact the VSO analysis is based on the
frequency of the wayyiqtol, which is clearly a transformed-and-
moved constituent.
---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.