Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Unikom-Ug Corp." <unikom AT paco.net>]

What's the point of such discussion on tenses? Either there is a meaningful
statistical correlation between wa and past tense, or there is not. From my
experience, I have no doubt there is. If you have statistics to the
contrary, that, say, 50 or even 30% of wa's don't reverse the tense, this
would be an argument; but let's produce a list of wa's and check them out.

> I already referred you to numerous ongoing arguments to the contrary, i.e
the
> list archives.  If you're not willing to check them out and see what has
gone
> before, then I can't help you.  Again I say: go spend a week reading the
> archives on this topic before making such absolutists statements.
>
> On Sunday 16 May 2004 09:33, unikom AT paco.net wrote:
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > Perhaps because Hebrew is more natural for me, I was never really
> > interested in academic discussions on grammar. For all practical issues,
> > there are of course tenses in Hebrew, and with certain caveats they are
> > clear and easy to apply.
> > Even if, say, 10 or 15% of the Tanakic verb entries are in a possibly
> > wrong tense, this relates to the scribes' accuracy.
> > I would be curious to see arguments to the contrary, if you can refer me
> > to a publication, preferably a one available on the Internet.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Vadim Cherny
> >
> > >I suggest you spend some serious time in the archives before making
such a
> >
> > statement.  There have been beaucoup discussions of this very question
and
> > it's far from settled.  Don't try to treat it as though it's a done
deal,
> > because it most definitely isn't.<
> >
> > On Sunday 16 May 2004 01:43, unikom AT paco.net wrote:
> > > Dear Rolf,
> > >
> > > You can't be serious on that. Out of head, 90% of wa's reverse the
tense.
> > > Those that don't represent probably the same percentage of the
erroneous
> > > tenses as encountered in the verbs without wa. Wa's overwhelmingly do
> > > reverse the tense, wouldn't you agree with this?
> > >
> > > >QATAL and WEQATAL: "In
> > >
> > > conclusion, there is no evidence that qatal and weqatal are separate
> > > and independent conjugations or that they have different origins.
> > > I agree that there is no difference between the two forms - weqatal
> > > is a qatal with the conjunction WAW prefixed.<
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Vadim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> --
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
> is like getting a kiss over the telephone.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>