Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

I agree.

The point I wished to make was simply that there are exceptions for the 
aspect-only view to deal with. You have conceded this, I think. 
Similarly, there are exceptions for the tense-only view to deal with. If 
this is the scenario, could it be that BH does note COMPLETELY 
grammaticalise either? That is, is it possible for BH to be on the way 
to grammaticalising tense? Hence all the debate where both sides have 
latched onto part of the picture but perhaps not the entire picture? I 
prefer to see the language as tense-prominent rather than tense-only or 
aspect-only.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> David:
>
> As I have stated before, the main thing I have done in Hebrew is read
> the text 20 times or thereabouts, and the major thing I have done
> besides reading the text is analyze lexeme definitions.
>
> But in reading the text over and over again, sort of like letting it
> flow over me like a child learning a language, I found that many of
> the nice, neat patterns I was taught in class often have so many
> exceptions that the exceptions sometimes seem to outnumber the rule
> following examples. To make it even more interesting, in many
> difficult to read verses it can be demonstrated that words are
> mispointed: a verb changed to a noun or visa versa, gatal to a
> participle, etc. where later Hebrew also had materes lectionis but BH
> often does not.
>
> As Peter says, some of the exceptions may be mispointing.
>
> I have not made a detailed study of aspect vs. tense, nor of
> incomplete vs. complete use of aspect (I think it is more complex than
> that), so beyond recognizing psychological preferences for certain
> uses of aspect that tend towards certain tenses, which is an allowance
> for such a big hole that one can drive a truckful of exceptions
> through it, I hesitate making a hard and fast rule. "Tendency" ≠
> "absolute rule".
>
> Karl W. Randolph.