Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

I do not think that it follows that "we cannot draw the conclusion that 
the Hebrew WAYYIQTOL is a past tense or is perfective on the basis of 
its function." To me it only shows that the issue is complex in 
Phoenician regarding the infinitive and less so for Hebrew wayyiqtol. 
The conclusion you draw doesn't necessary have to follow. So I disagree: 
I think we can label Hebrew wayyiqtol on the basis of its 
dominant/prototypical function - narrative past tense. Regarding the 
Phoenician infinitive absolute, what is its dominant function? If it is 
indeed used dominantly as a past tense, then the possibility is there 
for the grammaticalisation of it as Peter suggested. Also, since the 
infinitive is unmarked for PNG, then it could possibly be used in 
narrative as a topic-continuity construction. You see, there are other 
alternatives than the outright rejection of more traditional proposals.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Dear David,
>
> The article I refer to includes a translation of 40 lines of the 
> Phoenician Karatepe inscription. In these lines there are 4 QATALs, 2 
> WEQATALs, and 21 infinitive absolutes (16 with prefixed WAW) that carry 
> the narrative forwards. No one would argue that the infinitive absolute 
> is a grammaticalized preterit or is perfective. Yet, these forms 
> function exactly as the WAYYIQTOLs in Hebrew. This shows that we cannot 
> draw the conclusion that the Hebrew WAYYIQTOL is a past tense or is 
> perfective on the basis of its function.
>
> I teach Ugaritic this semester and use much time one that language, 
> including the preparation of an article on Ugaritic verbs. Anyone 
> interested in Hebrew verbs will gain much from reading one of the three 
> long Ugaritic texts, particularly the saga of Kirta (Keret). Here we 
> find the same situation with the same clauses and same verbs, first with 
> future reference (it shall happen) and then with past reference (it 
> happened). When we have the same verbs in the same conjugations 
> (prefix-forms and suffix-forms) both with future and past reference, it 
> is extremely difficult to defend the view that they represent tenses, 
> and it is equally difficult to argue that they represent aspect (in your 
> definition of the word). However, an aspectual explanation on the basis 
> of the relationship between event time and reference time can solve 
> everything.
>
>
>
> Regarding the article I'm chasing, it was one you said you'd written on
> Phonecian I think, maybe on the infinitive?
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.