Clusters of YIQTOLs with past reference are very rare; one other occurrence is the building of the tabrnacle. When such a thing occurs, there is some reason for it, and my suggestion was that there is a convention in such situations to use YIQTOLs.
The point I tried to make was that linguistic conventions does not affect or pinpoint the meaning of a verb form.
BTW, how do you know that YIQTOLs with past reference are progressive,
while WAYYIQTOLs with past reference are not progressive?
Because the grammars say so?
In that case, how do the grammarians know? Do Waltke and O´Connor prove their point, or do they just say so?
Please look at the examples below and tell me why the YIQTOLs should be taken as progressive why and the WAYYIQTOLs should not.
Genesis 37:7 One YIQTOL followed by one WAYYIQTOL
Exodus 1:12 Three YIQTOLs and one WAYYIQTOL
Deuteronomy 2:12 One YIQTOL and two WAYYIQTOLs
Deuteronomy 32:12 One YIQTOL followed by one WAYYIQTOL
Please also consider Nehemiah 3:13-15. Are the two YIQTOLs and three WEYIQTOLs in these verses progressive while the WAYYIQTOL in v.13 with of the same root as one of the WEYIQTOLs in v. 15 is not progressive?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.