Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Sameer Yadav <sameer_yadav2 AT yahoo.com>]

Hi Ken,

You may have seen Buth’s discussion in “The Hebrew
Verb in Current Discussions,  Journal of Translation
and Textlinguistics 5/2 (1992): 91-105.  What do you
think about Buth’s criticisms of Zuber, i.e. that the
prefixed form (Zuber’s modal/future) can also be used
of indicative repetitious events in the past (cf.
Greek impf. indicative), while the suffixed form
(Zuber’s indicative) can be used for nonindicative
events (e.g. counterfactuals)?   Both Zuber and
Hatav’s explication of modality in BH seems to leave
these counter-examples insufficiently explained (esp.
counterfactual uses of qtl).

Another possible criticism might have to do with his
view that the modal semantics of yqtl are identical to
wqtl and qtl is identical wyyqtl.   He seems to chalk
it up to “stylistic” reasons, but without giving any
adequate account of what stylistic factors might
govern the choice of one over the other, especially in
contexts employing both forms together.  He may be
advocating some kind of waw-conversive theory, where
it is the modal values that are converted by the
prefixed waw, instead of the older view of converted
tense values (Blake) or aspectual values (as I take to
be the implication of Waltke and O’Connor’s view).  If
so, then it inherits the same problem of explaining
how and why what appears to be a simple conjunction
came to perform this semantic function.

Cheers,

Sameer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com