Joosten and Hatav's modality

Dave Washburn dwashbur at
Tue Sep 21 09:12:30 EDT 1999

> B-Haverim,
> What do you think?  Joosten wants to pull yiqtol out of the
> "indicative subsystem," considering the form essentially
> modal.  Hatav describes "future forms" as actually modals of
> the _must_ variety.  The descriptions seem helpful to me,
> simplifying the description of yiqtol (eliminating distinct
> indicative and modal yiqtols).  Are such descriptions
> convincing, here to stay?  Should they be passed on in the
> new texts?

As far as I'm concerned, absolutely!  Hatav's material convinced me 
that both yiqtol and weqatal are modal forms, while qatal and 
wayyiqtol are indicatives.  The only place where I disagree with her 
is the question of sequence, but my views on this are well known 
by now.  I consider Galia's treatment of the yiqtol a true 

Dave Washburn
"Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list