Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Prof Jung wrote:
> Dear Peter, 
> unitl I see a strong evidence for Galia's assumption that 
> wayyiqtol is different from English simple past (minus stative verbs),
> I would agree to what you wrote below. But I think that in English
> simple past clauses can continue past perfect clauses. Consider:
> 
> a. John went into the florist shop.
> b. He had promised mary some flowers.
> c. She said that she wouldn't forgive him if he forgot.
> 
> Clause a establishes the reference time for clause b.
> The reference time of clause c is set to the event time
> of clause b, which is before the reference time of clause b. 
> 
> If this example can be acceptable to English speakers, then
> we must say that simple past can continue past perfect. 

Yes, clearly it can.  And as Galia points out in her book, we know 
this from pragmatic considerations, not syntactic ones.  Examples 
such as these keep me believing that, while it's true that all 
features of the grammar - syntax, semantics, pragmatics, 
discourse frame and all the rest - have a hand in forming clauses (I 
avoid the term "sentence") and larger units, if we're going to make 
real progress in understanding the syntax of Hebrew verbs we have 
to keep them separate for purposes of study.  [climb down off 
soapbox]

WRT the above clauses, I would suggest that Hebrew would have 
had the first one in a WP (wayyiqtol), the second with an x-qatal, 
and the third with another WP.  What do you think?

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.