welo'+qatal as negative wayyiqtol (To Niccatti)
moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Thu Jun 3 11:54:35 EDT 1999
Dear Alivero, thanks for your clarification. Let me clarify what I wrote
about logic, because I think it is important to understand negatives.
> > [Moon]
> > In sum, do you mean that
> > In direct speech, lo'+qatal + X is the negation of initial qatal, whereas
> > it is the negation of wayyiqtol in historical narrative?
> > BUT, from the view point of logic, negative sentences express a kind of
> > state, the state in which something is NOT true. For example, "he did not
> > come" means that it was not true that he came. In other words, "he did not
> > come" does not refer to a concrete event, but to the state in which such
> > an event did not happen. So, negative statements cannot "move the referenc=
> > time forward", but it should use the currently established reference time
> > like ordinary qatal. Your theory that welo'+qatal is mainline and moves
> > the RT forward. How would you explain it in the face of the general logic?
> 4) As negative wayyiqtol, welo'+qatal is a mainline construction in
> historical narrative. I am not sure that it moves the RT forward, as you
> say, because I do not quite understand what you mean. As negative
> wayyiqtol, welo'+qatal is the narrative tense. However, just as positive
> wayyiqtol, it does not always move the event line forward as in cases of
> explicative or conclusive wayyiqtol.
> In my posting above I think I described a textual situation--is it
> this what you mean by theory?
> If my description of the textual situation is correct, I do not
> feel I need to explain anything in the face of the general logic, nor I can.
> I am not sure that negative sentences express a kind of state, or
> do not refer to a concrete event. I am not sure, either, what do you mean
> by "ordinary qatal."
I meant "x-qatal in historical narrative". X-qatals in historical
describe some background information. This background information can be
regarded as "state" that holds at the current reference time, rather than
"event". I thought that negative statements describe states like x-qatals.
About this, please see below.
>Differently from historical narrative, in direct
> speech initial qatal does have a RT of its own. See e.g. Joab's report in 2
> Sam. 12:27 *nilHamt=EE* (this and other examples are discussed in my _Syntax=
> As fas as I understand, both sentences type "He came," and "He did
> not come," are acceptable answers to a question type "Did Peter come?"
> Both provide a piece of information, either positive or negative. What we
> get through linguistic signs is information, isn't it.
Yes, both provide a piece of information. But that information may be
a state or an event. "He came" refers to a particular event. Its
negation, "He did not come", refers to not happening of a particular
event. If this "not happening of a particular event" can be considered a
it follows that the negative statement cannot move the reference time
forward; Statemenst that describe states cannot move the reference time
But as you said, we may have to examine in more depth if
negative statements always describe states.
Dept of Computer Science
> Peace and all good.
> Alviero Niccacci
> Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
> POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
> Home Page: http://220.127.116.11/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
> Email mailto:sbfnet at netvision.net.il
More information about the b-hebrew