[b-hebrew] The use of the Yiqtol in Isaiah 1:21
furuli at online.no
Tue Apr 21 15:32:10 EDT 2009
The onus of definition is on the one who uses a particular term. I
have never used the terms "general action" and "specific action," but
you have used them, so they should mean something to you. I do not
find the terms in David Crystal's "Dictionary of Linguistics and
Phonetics," so I challenge you to show that the terms are meaningful
The use of the verb forms in Hebrew clauses can be analyzed in
different ways. We can look at their position in main clauses and
subordinate clauses, as foreground and background information, as
occurring in telic, dynamic, and static clauses, as occurring with
singular and plural objects, with definite and indefinite objects and
so forth. But all this is pragmatics, it is dependent on the context.
But the issue we now are discussing is semantics, that is, has the
verb forms particular intrinsic meanings that never can be cancelled?
To use your terms: Do the YIQTOL *always* express "a general action"
(and you have to define the term)? If you do not define the term you
use and show that this is always a characteristic of the YIQTOL, your
arguments in your previous post are nonsensical.
University of Oslo
> >>On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>>> For example, do not the YIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs with
>>>> past reference in Nehemiah 3:14, 15 express
>>>> concrete specific actions just as do the QATALs?
>On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>> Dear Yitzhak,
>> What is the definition of "a specific action" and "a general action".
>> When you give your definition, please show in detail how the
>> definition can be applied to the verbs in question. I ask, because
>> I do not understand which difference you are referring to.
>Perhaps you can explain your definitions? What makes the
>actions specific and what makes the actions expressed
>concrete, and what would be an example of a non specific
>action or a non-concrete action? The prefix forms here are
>parallel to suffix forms in 3:1, 3, 6. But in all cases the form
>is consistent: a topic sentence, followed by a copula,
>followed by more particular sentences. Also, the prefix
>form YBNNW in 3:13 cannot be considered independently
>of the Greek which reads here WBNYW.
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew