Dear Nir Modern Hebrew grammars list four different Hebrew conjugations (though A. Niccacci lists five, including WEYIQTOL). In the Masoretic text, there is a difference between what is called the conversive form and the conjunctive form. The differences are vocalization and gemination. I explain these differences as pragmatic: The differences are caused by linguistic conventions—the fondness of the conjunction WAW in Hebrew clauses and the phonetic rules of the Masoretes. If this is correct, it means that there is no SEMANTIC difference between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL. In the Masoretic text, but both forms are conjunctive.
When I have commented on the use of verbs in the DSS, I have referred to the extra-biblical documents. Depending on whether we only count prefixforms with prefixed WAW where all consonants are visible or whether we add some broken forms, we find about 500 examples. Because vowels and gemination are lacking in the DSS, there is no way to distinguish those forms that in the Masoretic text have patah and gemination from those that have shewa and no gemination. Therefore, there is no difference between a so-called conversive form and a conjunctive form in the DSS. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Mandag 20. Mai 2013 19:07 CEST skrev "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <[email protected]>: > dear rolf, > > i tried to check your statement that the W+affix forms in the DSS > are just conjunctive, i.e. cannot be described as consecutive or inverted. > i assume you were referring specifically to those which are copies of biblical > text, otherwise comparison cannot be made. thus i assume you consider the big > isaiah scroll among them. the photo of the scroll can be found in > http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-1.htm > > i checked only the first "page" which corresponds to roughly > isa 1:1-25. i must admit the quality is not the best... > > anyway, weqatal on v.8 is illegible (WNWTRH or NWTRH). WYSRNY > indeed seems to lose the W (v. 11). but the two wayiqtol W$M(TM > and WMRYTM (v. 19,20) are biblical alright. thus, at least 50% > biblical prefix forms on the first "page". > > i did not investigate further, for lack of time; but if you have, > could you please make a more precise statement consistent with > this observation? > > nir cohen > > > On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:00:04 -0400, b-hebrew-request wrote > > Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..." > > > -- > Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
