Dear George, I have the following comments regarding the jussive:
In the linguistic literature we often find the acronym TAM, which refers to tense, aspect, and mood. These are three completely different categories; two of them (tense and aspect) refer to this world, and one (mood) refers to imagined worlds. Waltke/O'Connor suggests that we distinguish between jussive form and jussive sense. This is fine, but I would prefer "modal" or "modality" instead of "jussive sense." The jussive form is an apocopated YIQTOL. I analyze 5,117 of the 13, 619 YIQTOLs in the Tanakh as modal. Of these modal YIQTOLs, I found only 298 apocopated forms. I also found 102 apocopated WEYIQTOLs. In addition, I found 274 YIQTOLs and 250 WEYIQTOLs with cohortative endings. Only a few YIQTOLs can be apocopated. Nevertheless, the small number of apocopated forms indicate that the nature of these forms are not clear. Enhancing this, is the fact that many YIQTOLs that could have been apocopated are long. For example, after the negation L) I found 11 examples of apocopated YIQTOLs, and after the 598 cases of the negation )L I found 7 with cohortative endings and 123 apocopated forms; 30 YIQTOLs that could have been apocopated were long. So the picture is inconsistent, and we do not know whether apocopation in these forms are semantic of pragmatic. Of the 3,919 WAYYIQTOLs of hollow verbs, lamed he verbs, and hiphils, I found that 416 (10.6%) were long and 3.503 (89.4%) were apocopated. Only the apocopation of the lamed he verbs (with a few additions) can be seen in unpointed texts. The question is whether the deletion of the final he in lamed he verbs is because of the stress pattern of WAYYIQTOLs, thus being pragmatic, or, whether WAYYIQTOL is an independent conjugation that in some way is connected with short forms. There is no way to know the answer, and the 416 examples of long WAYYIQTOLs question whether the form is connected with short forms. I do not know what you build on when you say that WAYYIQTOL is derived from the jussive. I am not aware of any data from the Tanakh or from cognate languages which would suggest such a connection. I analyze 111 WAYYIQTOLs as modal. I addition, of the 632 first-person singular WAYYIQTOLS, 101 have cohortative endings. How shall we explain these forms? I would also add that all the finite and infinite forms can be modal. I have found: 5,117 YIQTOLs, 111 WAYYIQTOLs, 784 WEYIQTOLs, 394 QATALs, 1,258 WEQATALs, 74 active participles, 77 passive participles, 71 infinitive constructs, and 76 infinitive absolutes with modal meaning. So modality is not restricted to one form. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Mandag 27. Mai 2013 09:54 CEST skrev George Athas <[email protected]>: > Rolf, > > Yes, we do disagree on the wayyiqtol and the yiqtol verb. I'm convinced that > they are, in fact, two distinct verb forms, as can be observed by the > so-called apocopated form. Can you briefly explain your view of the form and > meaning of the jussive? > > > GEORGE ATHAS > Dean of Research, > Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) > Sydney, Australia > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
