Dear David,
Thank you for your posts where you in detail explains your views.
Regarding your words below I have one question. In my dissertation I
discuss the view that WAYYIQTOL has evolved from an old short preterit
prefix form and that YIQTOL has evolved from a long prefix form. I discuss
Akkadian, Ugaritic, Punic and Phoenician, Aramaic, and the Amarna letters,
and the conclusion is that the short forms in these languages can be used
for past, present, and future, and that there is no evidence for a link
between the short forms in these languages and classical Hebrew. I also
compare the occurrences of YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL in Samuel and Kings versus
Chronicles and other books of the Tanakh, and in the DSS and Ben Sira, and
the conclusion is that there is absolutely no evidence that YIQTOL and
WAYYIQTOL come from different forms. When you say that such a conclusion
"flies in the face of the diachronic evidence" I am curious. Where is this
evidence? What have I missed?
I appreciate if you give a short outline of this evidence, rather than just
referring to the literature. I think I have read most of the literature
discussing this question (including Churchyard), and the only things I have
found are conjectures and presuppositions but no clear evidence. But I am
open for things I have overlooked.
Best regards
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.