Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

You assert that "an aspectual explanation on the basis of the 
relationship between event time and reference time can solve everything".

An observation: You, Rogland, and Cook all provide analyses making use 
of "speech time", "event time", and "reference time", yet you all arrive 
at vastly different conclusions. So an "explanation on the basis of the 
relationship between event time and reference time" may not necessarily 
"solve everything". I feel that since you all differ that there may 
still be some sort of (subjective?) interpretation of the data which 
leads to your respective differing positions.

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.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo