Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

Are not the verbs occurring with machar in the verses you cite participles?

Sure some of the adverbs are infrequent, but their verbal restrictions 
do still count against an aspect-prominent analysis. This combined with 
the other features of the language I listed in another post to you 
convinces me as to the validity of the tense-prominent position. But if 
you go for aspect-prominent, every feature I raised has to be dealt 
with. With the cooccuring features of the language I raised, I'm 
personally more inclined to view the adverbial verbal distribution as 
something more than happenstance, i.e. the distribution is expected if 
the language is tense-prominent, but not predictable if aspect-prominent.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Dear David:
>
> On 3/14/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com 
> <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>> wrote:
> ...
> >/
> />/ I raised the point that the same distributional situation applies in BH:
> />/ 'ethmol and 'emesh are restricted to qatal and machar is restricted to
> />/ yiqtol. My take is that these are tense restrictions: 'ethmol and 'emesh
> />/ like English "yesterday" select the past tense while machar like English
> />/ "tomorrow" selects the future tense. But given that you reject a
> />/ tense-prominent analysis, what is your explanation of this
> />/ distributional verbal restriction with temporal adverbs?
> />/
> />/ Regards,
> />/ David Kummerow.
> />/
> /'Ethmol and 'emesh together are used only about 13 times: isn't that
> sample small enough that they are used only with qatal (or wayyiqtol)
> merely a function of chance?
>
> Machar is used more often (about 52 times), usually referring to the
> future. However, there are times, like Exodus 17:9, Joshua 11:6 and
> possibly other times where it is used with a qatal.
>
> Yours, Karl W. Randolph.