Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

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>