b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
- To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: Re: Joosten and Hatav's modality
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:12:30 -0700
Bryan,
> B-Haverim,
>
> What do you think? Joosten wants to pull yiqtol out of the
> "indicative subsystem," considering the form essentially
> modal. Hatav describes "future forms" as actually modals of
> the _must_ variety. The descriptions seem helpful to me,
> simplifying the description of yiqtol (eliminating distinct
> indicative and modal yiqtols). Are such descriptions
> convincing, here to stay? Should they be passed on in the
> new texts?
As far as I'm concerned, absolutely! Hatav's material convinced me
that both yiqtol and weqatal are modal forms, while qatal and
wayyiqtol are indicatives. The only place where I disagree with her
is the question of sequence, but my views on this are well known
by now. I consider Galia's treatment of the yiqtol a true
breakthrough.
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."
-
Joosten and Hatav's modality,
Bryan Rocine, 09/20/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Joosten and Hatav's modality, Dave Washburn, 09/21/1999
- Re: Joosten and Hatav's modality, Bryan Rocine, 09/23/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.