Mishnaic Hebrew veqatal is 'qatal'.
It does not have a 'we-qatal' that functions complementary with yiqtol,
that is, it does not have what might be seen in Exodus 25-31. Or like
with gen 29:2-3
I continue with my syllogisms:
1) WEQATALs with past meaning occur only in Mishnaic Hebrew.
WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Qohelet.
Qohelet is written in Mishnaic/Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew.
2) WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.
WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Qohelet
Qohelet is written in Mishnaic/Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew.
3) WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.
WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Qohelet
Qohelet is written in Biblical Hebrew or Mishnaic/Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew.
Number 1) is logically valid but factually wrong; number 2) is
factually correct but logically invalid; number 3) is factually
correct and logically valid. This means that the whole argument that
the WEQATALs in Qohelet suggest that the book is post-exilic is made
invalid. Moreover, I argue in my dissertation that WAQATALs do not
exist as independent *grammtical* forms, they are *syntactic*
constructions. This means that WEQATALs are nothing but ordinary
QATALs with prefixed conjunctions WAW. If this is correct, an
argument regarding the frequency of "WEQATALs," is nothing but an
argument about the emperor's new cloths (H. C. Andersen).
In my analysis of all the verbs of the Tanakh, I found 357 WEGATALs
with past reference (I use "WEQATAL" in the usual sense, without
accepting this sense). In Several instances WEQATALs occur in
clusters. One such place is Exodus 33:7-11 where we find 14 WEQATALs
with past meaning? Can we then conclude that this chapter is
post-exilic? Absolutely not! In 1 Samuel 2:13-22 there are 10
WEQATALs with past meaning.
Points that should be taken into account in discussions about the
occurrences of forms that seem to be somewhat abnormal are 1)
personal style, 2) target group, and 3) the purpose of writing. We
can apply this to the relative particle $. Because it occurs in texts
that are believed to be very old, we have evidence that the form was
known and used. In the light of the three points, all the occurrences
in Qohelet do not tell us anything about the time of writing of the
book; the reason for these occurrences may be one or more of the
three points.