Dear Peter,
Now we have reached the same point as we have so many times in the past, when I see no purpose in commenting on your words. In many ways you work like the Greek SPERMOLOGOS (this relates to your method and not to your person). You search the Internet, find some statistics here and there and use these statistics in your argumentation without ever having made a deep study of the subject itself. ...
... The result is a host of loose ends. Let me state that clearly once more: In an unvocalised text of the Tanakh only two conjugations can be morphologically distinguished, a prefix-conjugation and a suffix-conjugation. There is absolutely no way, on the basis of morphology, to know whether a seemingly apocopated prefix-form is what modern grammarians call WAYYIQTOL or WEYIQTOL.And let me repeat that the facts prove you wrong. The fact is that an apocopated form of the 3rd person singular prefix conjugation of a lamed-he verb with prefixed vav is certainly a WAYYIQTOL rather than a non-jussive WEYIQTOL (that is to say, it was pointed by the Masoretes as WAYYIQTOL rather than WEYIQTOL) - at least to the degree of certainty indicated by only 8 counter-examples out of 1592.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.