Telic YIQTOLs WITH past meaning
furuli at online.no
Tue Sep 28 05:39:10 EDT 1999
In Jer 47:1 we find the verb NKH as a YIQTOL with past meaning. This verb
is either semelfactive with the meaning "strike" or is telic with the
meaning "kill, conquer etc." In 41:1 the subject and object are singular
and the event referred to was objectively completed. This suggests the
1) If the Hebrew conjugations are viewed as tenses with QATAL/WAYYIQTOL as
past tense and YIQTOL/WEQATAL as present/future, how can we account for
this YIQTOL describing a past, completed event?
2) If the Hebrew conjugations are viewed as aspects with QATAL/WAYYIQTOL
as signifying complete(d) events (perfective) and YIQTOL/WEQATAL as
signifying incomplete events (imperfective), how can we account for this
YIQTOL describing a past event where the end was reached?
Other instances of the verb as a YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL with past meaning are:
Is 57:17 (WEQATAL)
2 Kings 8:29; 9:15; 15:16 (YIQTOL)
2 Kings 15:16 is of particular interest because the YIQTOL is parallel to a
WAYYIQTOL of the same root. Is there any semantic difference (temporal or
aspectual) between the two, or do they have exactly the same meaning? (If
you use the conjunction )Z in your answer, please answer the question "why"
in connection with its use. The grammars use to beg this question.)
University of Oslo
More information about the b-hebrew