[b-hebrew] Jer. 50, 51
furuli at online.no
furuli at online.no
Wed May 19 09:55:27 EDT 2004
I am not sure I understand your methodology, I am not sure you
understand mine. Regarding QATALs, I have taken the following steps:
1. I have ascertained whether there is a diachronic bias in the
meaning of finite verbs.
2. I have addressed the question whether the verb semantics is
similar in poetry and prose.
3. I have analyzed each QATAL of the Tanakh, DSS, and the inscrptions
from the point of view of the relationship between event time (ET)
and the deictic center (C). (More specific results would have been
achieved if I could have used the relationship between the
intersection of event time by reference time (RT) and the deictic
center. But that would have been circular reasoning, because then I
had to decide which forms had which aspects (or tenses) before I
started the analysis. My method gives cruder results because event
time in some cases may last both before and after the deictic center,
but the results are specific enough for my purpose).
The results gave a list of 965 examples of QATAL where event time
came after the deictic center, which means future reference. Of
these, less than 10 percent turned out to be future completed
(usually translated by future perfect). On my list are several
examples from Jeremiah 50, 51, and it is legitimate to refer to these
QATALs as examples of future reference, and ask the list-members of
To achieve the results, one needs to know the differences between C
and RT and E, and one need to look at the context to find the
relationship between C and E. I need no "baseline theory of tense"
or any "theory of Vision" to do this research.
If this approach is methodologically faulty, please point out where
the fault is.
University of Oslo
>First, I understand the necessity of narrowing ones' topic to a
>manageable corpus, but what you've done by working within what
>you've already *labeled* as prophetic skews your data. I'm asking
>you to look at the larger corpus, not just a small part which
><i/may/> be *elevated* or *irregular* in some way (as in
>poetry...but not assuming that they are) , that is develop a
>baseline theory of tense (beyond your genre). Now, you may have
>done this, but to put your view in context, you would need to
>explain your findings, (which may take b-hebrew full circle...)
>Now, if we review the b-hebrew archives where this has been
>discussed in detail, we see this done ad nauseum by men that are
>better than I ;)
More information about the b-hebrew