The "times" of Isaiah

peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Mon Aug 23 13:36:29 EDT 1999


Dear Rolf,

I'm sorry, but my objection is very simple and exactly the one which 
you have made so many times before on this list. You state that "all 
YIQTOLs of )MR (except...) have future MEANING" (my emphasis). I say 
that you have no evidence (according to your own method and 
definitions) that this is the MEANING of any of these verbs, but only 
that their PRAGMATIC IMPLICATURE is future. My tentative claim is that 
these verb forms have no temporal component to their MEANING (i.e. 
they are tenseless), although I accept that (as you claim) they are 
mostly used in future contexts i.e. contexts where RT is after C. But 
this tells us nothing about the MEANING of these verbs, as you have 
said before so many times.

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: The "times" of Isaiah
Author:  furuli at online.no at internet
Date:    22/08/1999 15:47


Dear Peter,

I looked once more at all the YIQTOLs of )MR that I claimed to be future. I 
reached the same conclusion as before and found only one example which is 
possibly modal (1 Sam 20:7).  What is a "future pragmatic context"? I have 
never heard that term before.  Does this term mean that you claim that RT 
does not come after C in the mentioned examples?


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



>Dear Rolf,
>
>I don't have time to look at all of this now. But let's look at your 
>supposedly obvious examples that the YIQTOL of )MR has future meaning. 
>For a start, by your own methodology they do not, they merely have a 
>future pragmatic context. There is in fact nothing to show that there 
>is any time-related component to their meaning. Some of them seem to 
>be primarily modal rather than future anyway.
>
>But how can you possibly make the logical jump from "YIQTOL of )MR has 
>future meaning" to "QATAL of )MR does not have future meaning"? This 
>seems to me totally logically fallacious, at the very most a rather 
>weak possibility which you have elsewhere taken as a major support for 
>your theory. Or have I missed something?
>
>Peter Kirk
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator 
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re: The "times" of Isaiah
>Author:  furuli at online.no at internet 
>Date:    19/08/1999 10:25
>
><snip>
>
>I will use CH )MR as an example. I looked at all the 499 examples of this 
>expression in the Bible and found that all YIQTOLs of )MR (except three in 
>conditional clauses,1 Sam 14:9;20:22; 2 Sam 15:26) have future meaning. How 
>did I reach that conclusion? Simply by taking a quick look at the context; 
>you need no model for that. Just look at them yourself: Gen 32:5;50:17, Ex 
>3:14;19:3; 20:22; 1 Sam 11;9; 18:25;20:7; 2 Sam 7:8;11:25;19:10; Is 37:10; 
>Jer 21:3; 23:35,37; 2 chr 10:10. In addition to these, the following 
>examples have a YIQTOL and a QATAL of )MR in the same verse, the YIQTOLs 
>having future meaning: GEN 32:5; 2 SAM 7:8:19:6; 2 Kings 22:18; Is 37:6; 
>27:4; Jer 37:7;45:4; Ezek 33:27. 1 Chr 17:7; 2 Chr 34:26.
>
>The information above suggests that the QATAL of )MR does not have future 
>meaning, and that in exclamations with KH it was not natural to use the 
>YIQTOL form with present meaning (though this is done in other contexts). 
>The QATAL  form of )MR, therefore, will either have a RT before C (past 
>meaning), or a RT coinciding with C (perfect, or present). But how can we 
>know?
>
><snip>
>
>



---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk at sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list