Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Kelley, Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar, 1992

26 mentioning that there are other options for initiating story-level episodes, nothing more is discussed to more precisely define the use and function of .

3.3.3 Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew

Syntax , 1990 In Waltke and O’Connor’s An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, the treatment of is, for all practical purposes, swallowed up by the discussion of the chapter on Waw + Prefix Conjugation. Very little separate analysis is given to itself, beyond quoting the above-cited material from Lambdin and mentioning that “introduces the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Ezekiel, Ruth, Esther, and Nehemiah” Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 554. No further explanation is given. In the introduction, the authors mention the studies of Schneider, Richter, and Talstra which identify as a “macro-syntactic sign” Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 54, but they state that all “these signs are treated in the present grammar in a more traditional framework” Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 55. Their decision to keep the analysis within a Descriptive framework, did not allow their description of biblical Hebrew to benefit from the work of other scholars analyzing from a macro-syntactic or Textlinguistic perspective.

3.3.4 Kelley, Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar, 1992

Kelley’s Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar contains very limited reference to . The following comment comes in the section which discusses “Coordinate Relationships Involving a Perfect as the Governing Verb”: 27 The narrative use of imperfects with vav consecutive became so commonplace that they were often used in this sense even without a preceding governing perfect, especially with the imperfect forms of the verb , “he was.” Kelley 1992, 210-11 This comment reveals a perspective which is much more far-reaching than the analysis of . The implications of this comment are that the occurrence of a linguistic entity such as has little or no functional motivation. By some type of developmental process, the frequency of the WAYYIQTOL form is apparently so overpowering that certain verbs begin to be used in new ways. This analysis is based on the assumption that the proper pattern is that the WAYYIQTOL follows a “preceding governing perfect” and indicates either consequence or sequence. This is characteristic of the waw consecutive view which must explain why a WAYYIQTOL , which by definition is sequential, is found without a governing perfect. The use of is only marginally in focus here, since Kelley’s concerns are more related to issues of governing sequences. Understanding of is advanced very little by Kelley’s grammar.

3.3.5 Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 1995