Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)
  • Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:18:31 +0100


Peter Kirk wrote,



Rolf, I do not attempt to prove that ALL cases of WAYYIQTOL necessarily advance the R-time, because according to my arguments yesterday, which you chose not to answer, a distinction can be semantically significant without applying in 100% of cases. I note this partly by reference to a similar Azerbaijani construction which is usually but not always sequential, and in certain contexts contrasts semantically with an alternative non-sequential construction. Nevertheless, I consider that you have been too hasty in listing the following WAYYIQTOLs as non-sequential.

snip



--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


Dear Peter,

I would like to clear up one point, which is important:

In principle a single contra-example is enough to falsify a claim. Provided that "came" is simple past, a clause like "I came to-morrow" would be impossible. If such a clause were grammatical, it would show that "came" is not a past tense. Whereas one contra-example *in principle* falsifies a claim, the real world is so complicated -and particularly dead languages- that one example is not enough. When I ask whether a characteristic is a semantic part of a verb form, I will accept exceptions, provided that they are given plausible linguistic explanations. There are for example hypothetical conditional clauses, and there are different genres where an exceptional use of words can occur. But again, any claim must be explained, and arguments such as "the language of poetry is different from that of prose, and therefore a verb form has another meaning in poetry than in prose" are not acceptable.

As to "a reasonable number" of contra-examples, in my data base there are 956 QATALs with future reference (less than 5 % are equivalent to English future perfect) and 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference. Your critical mind would of course discard a number of these, but more than enough would remain and show that the traditional views of QATAL and WAYYIQTOL do not hold. So these numbers would in my view be "a reasonable number" of contra-examples.

As to sequentiality, the simple conjunction "and" would in a narrative context normally signal sequentiality. so there is no need to apply sequentiality to the form WAYYIQTOL.




Best regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page