Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 07/03/2007 16:01, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> ...
> Fine! Then, once more to the point: Regardless of the diachronic evolution 
> of the language, we have a text, namely the Masoretic one and the DSS. David 
> has claimed that the WAYYIQTOLs of this text represent past tense. Then it 
> is fully legitimate to ask on the basis which criteria he has concluded that 
> the WAYYIQTOLs represent past tense, and the same is not true with other 
> verb forms which refer to past completed events. The case is  just as simple 
> as that.
>
>   
I agree that this is a reasonable question. But did David in fact say 
that "the same is not true with other verb forms which refer to past 
completed events", or is his definition of "past tense" just something 
like "verb forms which refer to past completed events"? The latter 
definition might be somewhat fuzzy, but it might also fit real language 
better than the very precise definition which you insist on.

But I don't agree that we have "a text". We have a selection of texts 
from various times in a period of perhaps more than a millennium, some 
of which may have been edited at various times during this period. And 
we know that there were significant changes in the Hebrew verb system 
during this period. So, even if there was a clean and clearly defined 
verbal system at every one point on the diachronic scale, and 
instantaneous transitions from one system to another, we would not 
expect to see this clean system clearly reflected in the actual texts 
which we have.

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