Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>]

Hi Rolf,

I am sympathetic to your view that "the map [of traditional grammars] does
not fit the terrain [of the Tanakh]" perfectly, and needs to be reexamined.
In fact my dissertation is on Hebrew Tense, Aspect and Mood between the
Bible and the Mishnah.
Yet I agree with Trevor's statement that what he calls the "converted
perfect" covers the same basic range as the imperfect, especially in
sequences in legal passages.

I realize that your argument that Hebrew is aspectual must be more
sophisticated than simply, "The verb forms do not mark tense, therefore they
must mark aspect."

Could you concisely define what you mean by "aspect"? Is your use of
"aspect" widely accepted by other linguists?

Ken Penner, McMaster/DSS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PennerThesis

> With all due respect, I beg to disagree with your words regarding 
> the "converted perfect ...that covers the same basic range as the 
> imperfect".  

> I therefore claim that YIQTOL , WEYIQTOL and WAYIQTOL represent the 
> same thing - the imperfective aspect, and that QATAL  and WEQATAL 
> represent the same thing - the perfective aspect.
> 
> So  - for those who are newcomers on the list, don't believe the 
> traditional grammars, but ask critical questions regarding their 
> conclusions .  The authors of modern grammars have evidently only 
> looked at *some* of the verbs in the Tanakh and not *all* of them. 
> Often views from previous grammars are adopted without any new tests 
> of the conclusions. When we look at *all* the verbs of the Tanakh, it 
> is evident that the map does not fit the terrain.