Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: wayyiqtol test, dave:necessary

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: wayyiqtol test, dave:necessary
  • Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:47:34 -0500 (EST)



But with this theory how would you explain the English past tenses,
the past simple and the past perfect? These are in an analogous
(though not identical of course) complementary distribution with
wayyiqtol and X-qatal. But that does not make the English simple past
necessarily and inherently sequential; rather, like wayyiqtol, in
narrative it is usually sequential but in some cases (e.g. unmarked
temporal overlay) it is non-sequential. Is there a significant
difference between how the English and Hebrew tense pairs are used
within narrative, with respect to sequentiality?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: wayyiqtol test, dave:necessary
Author: ButhFam at CompuServe
Date: 19/02/1999 06:08


> But I have yet to see an answer to my question, which I am asking
> now for the third time:
> what is there in this form that makes sequence a
> *necessary* and *inherent* property of it, and why?

i will answer again: it is an inherent property due to its existence,
an existence in complementary distribution of the semantic TAM with [x-]
qatal.
languages do not develop/preserve two verb systems in order to mark the
same tense-and/or-aspect-and/or-mood or to 'mark' word order!
however, languages do have special narrative, mainline and sequential
forms.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page