Thanks Rolf. I'm using data from cognate languages to see the wayyiqtol and jussive forms as connected, yet different to yiqtol. To put it another way, the jussive appears to be a bare wayyiqtol (ie. without waw + gemination). This means the waw + gemination adds something that would appear to turn the jussive (a desire for a particular action/state) into something seen as a reality, hence my 'live action' terminology. In other words, the wayyiqtol actualises the jussive.
I find your research intriguing, but the difficulty I have is that its methodology is limited in scope. I can see how you're using an unpointed text to draw the conclusion that wayyiqtol and yiqtol are really the same basic form, but I think this excludes data from cognate languages that demonstrate a differentiation between the two verbs, such that they are genetically distinct. I think we need to take greater account of the organic nature of language, and I'm not sure your methodology leaves room for this. The other thing to say, which I mentioned to Karl, is that language is often imperfect (excuse the pun), and therefore we should expect a degree of inconsistency in usage. This is simply because language is a human product and gets used and abused. But it is an important point because function is the ultimate arbiter of language use. Morphology contributes a lot, and there needs to be an underlying consistency in forms, but function can allow for some odd usages. In any case, thanks for clarifying. 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
