Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: is waw consecutive imperfect oddly named?

  1. #1

    Default is waw consecutive imperfect oddly named?

    Grammatically, i'd have thought that waw conversive would be a subset of waw consecutive. i.e. a waw conversive is consecutive + reverses tense.

    And i'm aware that waw with patah, preceding an imperfect, is a waw conversive.


    I notice that all the words that bibleworks calls waw consecutive imperfect seem to be waw with a patah vowel.

    i.e. conversive.. the one that reverses the tense of the imperfect.

    But surely the waw with shwa prefixing imperfects, are also waw consecutives. Though they aren't included..

    so it seems like maybe when bibleworks says waw consecutive imperfect, it means waw conversive imperfect?

    I see bibleworks, when there is a waw with a shwa, prefixing an imperfect, then it just lists it as imperfect.. grammatically really it's consecutive just not conversive. But bibleworks in the case of imperfect, says waw consecutive but means waw conversive, it seems.


    In the case of the perfect, I have heard it to be the case that grammatically, one has to use context to determine if a vav is conversive and most vav prefixes are waw shwa

    it seems that bibleworks includes any waw shwa prefix on a perfect, to be a waw consecutive. regardless of whether it reverses the tense or not.

    I suppose that's ok grammatically but it doesn't seem consistent with the meaning that bibleworks puts on waw consecutive for the imperfect.. where in the case of the imperfect it really means waw conversive.

    I guess i'm unfamiliar with grammatical terms from the world of groves wheeler.. but it seems inconsistent to me, with my limited knowledge.

    Though I am probably confused.

    Thanks
    Last edited by ralphza; 01-01-2018 at 05:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    407

    Default

    Waw conversive and waw consecutive are two different ways of saying the same thing. One is not a subset of the other.

    The instances where waw occurs before an imperfect that functions as an imperfect (i.e., usually translated with English future tense) are not waw consecutives.
    Last edited by Lee; 12-30-2017 at 10:21 PM.
    καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι.

  3. #3

    Default

    Thanks, ok..

    I understand it to be the case (and perhaps i'm wrong), that a waw shwa before a perfect, sometimes reverse tense, sometimes doesn't. Whereas a waw patah before an imperfect will always reverse tense.

    And Is it the case that,

    In the case of the imperfect, waw consecutive is the waw with patach(or a few other vowels though not shwa), and reverses the tense..

    But, in the case of the perfect, waw consecutive is any waw shwa prefix, whether it reverses tense or not?

    And if that is the case, then where is the consistency in the definition? it seems that for verbs, it includes verbs with waws that reverse tense in one case, the imperfect, but in the case of the perfect, it includes any waw prefix whether it reverses tense or not. i.e. the definition seems to be, that if it's a waw prefix on an imperfect that doesn't reverse the tense, then exclude it from the definition of waw consecutive, but otherwise, i.e. if it's on a perfect, or if it's on an imperfect and reverses tense, then include it. If that's so, it seems strange to me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralphza View Post
    Thanks, ok..

    I understand it to be the case (and perhaps i'm wrong), that a waw shwa before a perfect, sometimes reverse tense, sometimes doesn't. Whereas a waw patah before an imperfect will always reverse tense.

    And Is it the case that,

    In the case of the imperfect, waw consecutive is the waw with patach(or a few other vowels though not shwa), and reverses the tense..

    But, in the case of the perfect, waw consecutive is any waw shwa prefix, whether it reverses tense or not?

    And if that is the case, then where is the consistency in the definition? it seems that for verbs, it includes verbs with waws that reverse tense in one case, the imperfect, but in the case of the perfect, it includes any waw prefix whether it reverses tense or not. i.e. the definition seems to be, that if it's a waw prefix on an imperfect that doesn't reverse the tense, then exclude it from the definition of waw consecutive, but otherwise, i.e. if it's on a perfect, or if it's on an imperfect and reverses tense, then include it. If that's so, it seems strange to me.
    The pointing is unrelated. The text is consonantal; the vowel points were added by Masoretic scribes centuries after the birth of Christ. Context is king, although the waw with patach is a nice giveaway.

    I personally don't think of it as "reversing the tense." Although the English translation may end up the same, imperfect is one thing, waw consecutive perfect is another.
    καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •