Subject: Re: Re[4]: The form of weqatal (really wayyiqtol)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:24:51 -0700
Peter wrote:
> Thank you. To clarify the matter, as I see it there are two largely
> separate issues here:
>
> 1) Are there one or two prefix conjugations?
>
> 2) Is the prefix on WAYYIQTOL the conjunction WE- or something
> different?
Exactly. That was why I suggested that my exchange with Henry
was reaching the point where it covered two separate topics and
was becoming a little unmanageable.
> My thinking on issue 1), based on Henry's phonological arguments and
> even without looking at WAYYIQTOL (i.e. looking just at jussive and
> full YIQTOL forms), is that there are two prefix conjugations.
I'm in the process of rethinking my ideas on that topic as well,
though I haven't arrived at a conclusion yet. Still sifting the data.
> Question 2) is I think still wide open, though I feel that if the
> prefix is not simply WE-, it is most likely WE- plus some other
> element (possibly analogous to the article, cf. the distinction
> between B:YOWM and BAYYOWM).
And this question isn't necessarily affected by the outcome of
question 1.
Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Oh, no! They've all become giant Swiss lederhosen-clad
dancing yodelers!" "Talk about unpredictable!" - P&B
Re: The form of weqatal (really wayyiqtol)
, (continued)