Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Hebrew waw consecutive

From:Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>
Date:Saturday, August 23, 2008, 1:46
I have a grammar of Biblical Hebrew which discusses some differences in vocalism
between the imperfect with waw-consecutive and the non-waw-marked imperfect. I
don't have it with me, but I will check when I get home.

--- On Thu, 8/21/08, David McCann <david@...> wrote:

> From: David McCann <david@...> > Subject: Re: Hebrew waw consecutive > To: > Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008, 4:17 PM > On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 13:43 +0200, Veoler wrote: > > > > Is there some hard evidence for this? As far as I have > heard there was no > > real foundation behind waw conversive, and I > haven't ever seen any proof in > > any direction. So I'm 67% non-believer in waw > conversive and 33% agnostic, > > until I see evidence. Do you have any references about > the justification or > > reason to assume the theory? > > > > I have'nt got very far in learning Hebrew and > thought I should wait with > > this question, but since it was brought up... > > > I'm no expert on Semitic languages: a quick check shows > I read Gray's > Introduction in 1973 and Gelb on Akkadian in 1982! > > I took the example from A. B. Davidson's Hebrew > Grammar, but he offered > no comment. I've just looked at Robert Hetzron's > article in Major > Languages of the World. He regards the perfective wa- form > (which he > rightly, I think, calls a past tense) as original and the > non-past form > as derived after wa- came to be seen as a "tense > switcher". He suggests > an etymology hawaya "was". I seem to remember > that Akkadian forms a past > in u-; but if that's so, Hetzron evidently thinks it > unrelated. Of > course, we can't tell what the original vocalisation > was; it would be > too good to be true if the prefix were the only tense > marker.


J R <tanuef@...>