B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

waw=vav

Is waw consecutive a general term so it could refer to the vav conversive.. or it could refer to the "vav non-conversive"?

I know vav conjunctive is a general term.. so covers the conversive form and the non-conversive form..

I'm wondering if vav consecutive = vav conjunctive.. i.e. that both are general terms. ?

so, this is an english terminology of biblical hebrew question !

I know there's also the terminology of weqatal and wayiktol that makes "clear" which is referred to by at least specifying!

It's certainly better to refer to it as vayyiqtol rather than "vav-consecutive" or the other, since the reality is that it is not a vav that reverses the tense of the verb. It is, rather, a different form that developed to look like the regular imperfect.

But, to answer your question: "vav-conversive" and "vav-consecutive" refer to the same thing. This is what is called vayyiqṭōl (וַיִּקְטֹל).

Vav-conjunctivus refers to a normal conjunction, meaning "and" or "but" or "then." Just a particle that joins words or phrases together. So, it is not the same as the vayyiqtol.

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 6:23 pm But, to answer your question: "vav-conversive" and "vav-consecutive" refer to the same thing. This is what is called vayyiqṭōl (וַיִּקְטֹל).

Vav-conjunctivus refers to a normal conjunction, meaning "and" or "but" or "then." Just a particle that joins words or phrases together. So, it is not the same as the vayyiqtol.

Thanks. I see it seems you are correct that Vav conversive means exactly the same thing as Vav consecutive. And, that it refers specifically to wayiktol. i.e. vav with patach combined with an imperfect. Kelley would agree with that.

According to Kelley, p446, Glossary. the term vav conjunction is a general term.. it says. "vav consecutive(also described as vav conversive): a form of the conjunction foudn only on imperfect forms of the verb". So, we are in agreement that the vav consecutive = vav conversive, and that it is only on the imperfect. But he has vav conjunction as a general term whereas you have it as a specific.

Also, you say that vav conjunction is a "normal conjunction".. Well, it can't be that normal 'cos what happens if you have a word that is a perfect verb with a vav prefix, and the vav has a shva, (in some cases that will reverse the tense and in other cases not), but when it does reverse the tense, then that's not so normal.. I think that can happen, right?

I didn't say anybody was a "deciding voice". I simply gave a reference. And you didn't. And mentioned the name of the author, and I quoted from the book and gave a page number. enough info to reference a very well known book within the subject of Biblical Hebrew, the author's name is Page Kelley. Any google search would pick it up.

Page Kelley is a Professor, who produced a book that came out in the 1990s, and is still used today, called Biblical Hebrew an Introductory Grammar.

If you are familiar with books out there on biblical hebrew, there are standard ones.. like by Professor Miles Van Pelt, or, one by Professor Page Kelley.

Even looking up Kelley and Hebrew, on google, would show you the book's title, but I've provided the name of the book, above.

Also, as I said,

You say that vav conjunction is a "normal conjunction".. Well, it can't be that normal 'cos what happens if you have a word that is a perfect verb with a vav prefix, and the vav has a shva, (in some cases that will reverse the tense and in other cases not), but when it does reverse the tense, then that's not so normal.. I think that can happen, right?