Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Hi Rolf,  you wrote:
> In the middle of an extremely busy schedule I could not resist the
> temptation to comment on your post.
> I beg to differ with your fundamental principle: " Sequence and
> perfectivity are inseperable." The principle is valid in English where
> aspects are not grammaticalized, but I see no reason why it should be so
in
> a language where aspects are morphologically marked.  There are examples
in
> Aramaic, Syriac, and Phoenician of perfective and imperfective forms used
> in sequences. The last example I saw was in an Accadian letter from Mari
> about the king Zimri Lim, which we studied in class last week.

Thanks for taking the time to respond!

Help me out:  I am suspicious of the comparisons to cognate languages that
depend on mere nomenclature because I suspect (Ewaldian?) tradition in the
study Semitic languages may have had more to do with the *labeling* of the
verb forms than an unbiased examination, one language at a time, of the
*meanings* and *functions* of the forms in a particular language.  Is there
a tendency in the field to call anything with a prefixed subject an
imperfect without real regard to what the form means?  Is there an
assumption that perfect is an adequate label for any verb with a suffixed
subject pronoun merely because it is a suffixed form?  Is my suspicion
unfounded?

<snip>
> 
> Let me use three examples of wayyiqtols which show the imperfectivity of
> the form, two of them are conative and the third is future:
> 
> Ex. 8:14 "The magicians tried by their secret arts to bring forth gnats,
> but they could not. So there were gnats on man  and beast. "
> 
> Jer. 37:12 "Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin
> to receive his portion there among the people."  (Jeremiah did not leave
> Jerusalem)

These two look perfective to me.

> 
> Jer. 38:9  "My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they
did
> to Jeremiah the prophet by casting him into the cistern; and he will die
> there of hunger, for there is no bread left in the city." (Jeremiah did
not
> die)

Interesting example.  Just for the sake of arguement:  might the sense of
vayamat be "so he is as good as dead"?  Can you give me more examples like
this?  Gen 19:11 looks perfective to me.  Thanks.

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)