Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 02/07/2006 16:49, Ken Penner wrote:
> ...
>
> Yes, many authorities do agree that biblical Hebrew was aspectual, but 
> Gesenius and Furuli do not constitute examples. I do not recall that Gesenius 
> claimed Hebrew was aspectual; GKC followed not Gesenius but Driver on this 
> question. I have not seen Furuli cited as an authority outside of B-Hebrew.
>
>   
Thank you for the clarification about Gesenius. As for Furuli, I would 
not consider him an authority either, but I mentioned him partly because 
his work on this is recently completed and partly to indicate that 
although I disagree with him on the interpretation of Hebrew aspects 
(see the archives for disagreements going back 9 years!) I agree with 
him that Hebrew is aspectual.

> At the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the verb forms were certainly not 
> aspects (using definitions of aspect by Comrie and Binnick) but tenses or 
> moods (the evidence does not decisively favour one of these two over the 
> other, but a tense model has slighly more explanatory power for most Qumran 
> documents).
>
>   
Well, since you questioned the position I said before, I am glad that 
you know accept that this position has "slightly more explanatory power" 
than any alternative.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/