Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Tue Feb 8 19:15:37 EST 2011
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:20:49 +0200, Chavoux Luyt wrote
> > are we really on the same side?
> Maybe not. I understood it that the waw consecutive "changes" the
"tense"/"aspect" of the verb.
> > i still cannot understand this statement. can you
> > explain it in gen 1:10? what justified the use of one imperfectum
> > tense and one perfectum tense there, if both actions are equally complete?
> וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טֹֽוב׃
> In this case the first "vayikra" would be perfectum because of the waw and
the second "kara" would also be perfectum ("normal" perfectum). The "wayar"
would be perfectum by the same logic. All of these acts are complete.
chavoux, isaac, rolf, randall, carl, fred,
bear with me, i am slow but i am getting there!
after reading ceavaux's last comment, and reexamining the situation from a
more behaviorist point of view, i
came to the conclusion that the differences between his version and mine are
merely semantic. in the spirit of
isaac's last email, it would be nice if we ALL could agree on SOMETHING.
CHAVAUX according to nir:
1) the two forms are two distinct tenses, one perfect and one imperfect;
2) the imperfect form is imperfect only POTENTIALLY; namely, it supports both
perfect and imperfect actions;
3) both forms can be equally applied to any perfect action, isolated away from
1') the two forms are just one tense form which changes morphologically when
preceded by a waw;
2') this form accepts both perfect and imperfect actions; however, when
preceded by a waw it
sustains only perfect actions.
in order to narrow down the general discordance, i would like to ask:
1) chavaux, was this your message?
2) does everybody agree that 1,2 differ only by semantics?
3) isaac, fred, do you consider my version compatible with yours, up to semantics?
4) rolf, randall, does my rendering of chavaux's system agree with yours? (if
not, where is the difference?)
if all four questions are answered in the positive, we ALL sit at the same
side of the table, in a
city called babylon. then, with the semantic differences behind us, maybe we
can proceed to the predictive step:
a set of rules which determines which of the two forms should be applied on
each perfect action in the text
(unless rolf had done it already). if all the differences are merely semantic,
one should be able to work out these
rules in any of the equivalent versions.
More information about the b-hebrew