veqatal: prag cont. not TAM cont
ButhFam at compuserve.com
Mon Jan 25 15:01:49 EST 1999
>In Jdg 13:3, weqatal does indeed seem to have it's 'own' TAM. But in a
>variety of contexts it seems to change its TAM-'color' (you know, like a
>chameleon?) to continue the form with which it is in series. E.g.,
>Jdg 4:6 lek uma$akta (TAM of imperative)
>Jdg 9:33 ta$kim upa$at:ta (TAM of future subjunctive)
>Jdg 2:3 lo' 'agare$... vehayu (TAM of future indicative)
>Jdg 2:19 ya$ubu vehi$xitu (TAM of habitual past)
>Jdg 3:23 vayisgor... vena`al (TAM of wayyiqtol)
>Can you explain the weqatals above in terms of a TAM system? Maybe it's
>not necessary to explain each one. Can you make a general comment how
>weqatal works within the system? todah rabah, xaveri (end quote)
maybe we're not communicating well, because the above support my points.
you are thinking in terms of english definitions above and i'm
assuming/talking about the hebrew category.
first: a defined "open definition". I use TAM to avoid differentiating
specific applications of tense/aspect and mood. that is not the issue.
in fact, i don't believe that there is one, neat, logically-watertight
definition for either of the two TAMs. that is the nature of languages with
a bifocal TAM system. perhaps see Bickerton, Roots of Language, if i
in your list judges 4.6, 9.33, 2.3, 2.19 are all clearly of the same
general realm of yiqtol. they simply reinforce the point made in the
comparison between ex 26 and ex 36.
veqatal does not change its TAM color since there are only two "colors",
call them 'definite' and 'indefinite'. veqatal is 'indefinite color' in all
the above and belongs to the same 'indefinite color' as yiqtol.
3.23 is not one of the commonly recognized realms of yiqtol color and is
very rare and very special. i treat it like yiqtol in genesis 2.25, or the
veqatal in gen 15.6, but admit that this is rare. perhaps 3.23 is a
provocative scene closer, or more simply, deals with locking up multiple
More information about the b-hebrew