Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> > Of course, not. As I described, and what is a standard method of 
> > scientific proof, a hypothesis can be accepted if no contradicting facts 
> > can be brought against it, and if the hypothesis is simler than others.
>
> This is not proper scientific method. A hypothesis like this which cannot 
> in principle be falsified cannot be established by the absence of 
> falsification.

Peter, you need to read something on logic and scientific methods.
Every hypothesis can be proved false. It is especially easy with mine: just 
bring any examples where the use of yiqtol is meaningless if we read it 
either as future tense (with deictic shift, if it is contextually clear) or 
in idiomatic meaning.

> I dispute that such deictic shifts exist in Hebrew, at least unless you 
> can provide evidence of them. I accept that they exist in Russian in the 
> case of indirect speech and similar.

Peter, just think of what you wrote here. What evidence of deictic shifts 
could be there besides the shifts themselves? Using yiqtol for past events 
in emphatic narration is just such evidence. It is only in mathematics that 
a hypothesis could be formally proved; elsewhere, we jst see whether it 
explains the fact. The suggestion of deictic shifts explains many cases of 
Hebrew usage of yiqtol for past events.

> > I can settle for calling that idiomatic usage, and then we can discuss 
> > whether that idiomatic usage originally arose from deictic center shifts.
>
> It did not. It arose from the past tense of the verb "will" = "want".

a. Does idiomatic usage of yiqtol (say, ci-yiqtol turns) invalidate 
yiqtol-as-future tense any more than idiomatic usage of would in English 
invalidates general function of "would" as future tense? Could you agree 
that yiqtols are predominantly employed for future reference, while some are 
employed for past reference either with deictic shifts or in idioms like 
ci-yiqtol?

b. Spanish "probable mood" (I would say, he is at home now) is clearly 
future tense. In Russian, similar conjunctive mood is built around the past 
tense transposed into future (я бы сказал). I am not aware of etymology of 
similar English construct, but it seems also likely to be realted to future 
("if you allow me to say, I would say that he is at home now").

c. A large idiomatic group is ci-yiqtol. That construct seems to signify 
habitual action which could happen in past or present.
"as the bees would do" - as bees generally behave.
"as I would meet Nabot, I told him". In Russian, "как встречу Навота, так 
скажу ему" has the same sense of repetitive action. This was not the first 
time the king spoke to Nabot.
Every idiom has an etymology. Perhaps someone could correct me, but my guess 
is that habitual action is described with future tense because narrator 
transposes himself at the beginning of a sequence. I don't see why use 
future tense for habitual action otherwise. Hair-splitting of "would" as 
past tense of "will" does not work here, because Russian uses future tense 
for habitual action, too.

Vadim Cherny