Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Matthew Anstey" <manstey AT portal.ca>]

Gday Dave & Bryan,

While Hatav's work is very positive and helpful I'm not sure the linguistic
choice for the verbal system for a BH user included the choice between
indicative and non-indicative, since we find qatal and yiqtol (and qotel) in
both environments (as Hatav notes, p.29). Does Hatav explicitly make this a
fundamental distinction in her analysis? I'm not sure she does, and
indicative seems to cut across her four-parameter model. Which means that I
don't see the point Joosten is making. What "indicative subsystem" is he
talking about? (Is he using a speech-act idea of declarative vs
non-declarative utterances?) Perhaps if you explain more clearly what you
mean I may end up agreeing with you!

With regards,
Matthew Anstey
>
>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
>