[snip]
On the contrary, I have countered this by providing clear evidence that
for lamed-he verbs there are in the unpointed text two different prefix
forms, one apocopated and always preceded with vav and the other not
apocopated, which are distinct (but occasionally confused) at least in
the 3rd person singular. And that is quite apart from the jussive. I
await your response to my evidence for this, posted here on 10th March.
--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter at qaya.org
<http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>
Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/
I also raised the related evidence of a) Hiphil 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms of all
verbs except final-heh; b) Qal 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms of hollow verbs; c)
wayyiqtol and jussive do not take the the third-person pronominal
suffixes augmented with nun; and d) paragogic nun is found only with
yiqtol. The internal BH evidence points, therefore, to the possibility
of wayyiqtol and yiqtol being formally separate verbs. Taking semantics
into account confirms it for me, although not for Rolf due to his
"uncancellabity principle". And this is not even to take into account
the wide Semitic picture. Despite Rolf's attack at Rainey on certain
points, Rainey's analysis of the Armarna Canaanite verbal system stands
and will probably still be accepted by most apart from those operating
with an "uncancellabity principle".
I've also raised other evidence in at least three posts which Rolf
hasn't addressed.
Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.