...Thank you, Rolf. Well, I conclude that apocopation is much less common in 1st person than in other persons:
Tentative conclusion: in the first person, WEYIQTOL forms are not apocopated, but WAYYIQTOL forms are mostly but not always apocopated. Does your data contradict this?
My data are as follows: Of 543 WEYIQTOLs of 1st p. there are 238 (43.8 %) with cohortative. Of the 69 lamedh he-verbs without suffix, 2 (3 %) are apocopated and 67 are not. Of all 1,217 WEYIQTOLs 85 lamedh he-verbs and 68 other verbs are apocopated. This means that 12.6 percent of all WEYIQTOLs are apocopated while 27 percent of all WAYYIQTOLs are apocopated. Taking the environments where WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs occur into consideration, the differences may be understandable. I analyze 774 WEYIQTOLs as modal and 443 as indicative, while I analyse only 2 percent of the WAYYIQTOLs as modal (I would guess that at least 10 percent of the WAYYIQTOLs are modal, but this is difficult to see, and therefore I have only counted those that I, with a reasonable certainty can say are modal). When I speak of environment, I think of narrative, where the clauses were recited in one way, and modal/future where the recitation probably was different. If apocopation to some degree depends on the rhytm and stress of the clause, I would think of apocopation as more likely in narrative recitation.
The conclusion is that the difference between apocopated WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs that are apocopated is not so great that a semantic difference is suggested. Further, the apocopation of WAYYIQTOLs to a rather great extend depends on the grammatical person of the verb.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.