Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Galia wrote:
> Moon-RyulJung wrote:
>       Until I see a strong evidence for Galia's assumption that wayyiqtol
> is different from English simple past (minus stative verbs)...
> 
>       Most of the examples I gave to show that the simple past in English
> does not necessarily build a new R-time were, indeed, stative clauses.
> However, recall that I showed that in certain contexts the second clause in
> (1) below may be understood NOT to move the time forward, although it is
> eventive. But consider also (2) with two different agents:
> 
>       1. Mary entered the room. She turned the light on...
>       2. (Yesteraday) John finished his article and Mary started her book.

Yes, so the simple past in English can perform a multitude of 
functions wrt R-time, it would seem.  I believe this is because 
English is a "mixed" language (I usually say a "slumgullian 
language" but that's awfully idiomatic for a forum such as this!) 
whose syntax is a patchwork of various influences from here, there 
and everywhere.  For this reason, I have suspected for a long time 
that English is a lousy language one which to base a theory of 
synatx because it behaves so erratically.

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