Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

The prototypical tense of wayyiqtol and qatal is the same, although 
wayyiqtol is basically limited to the expression of narrative past 
tense. qatal has a wider distribution as we've covered.

I repeat: it is not simply the adverbs that I am taking into account but 
all the other features of the language I've repeatedly mentioned. What I 
am saying is that the verbal distributions that we do indeed find in BH 
support, and are predictable under, a tense-prominent position. But like 
I have repeatedly said, the argument does not rest on this solely.

BTW, the statement that "This is true if and only if wayyiqtol = qatal 
and weqatal = yiqtol" is incorrect. It is not falsified if weqatal does 
not equate to yiqtol since weqatal is used in cosubordinate 
constructions where it inherits its tense, aspect, mood, and 
illocutionary force from the preceding main clause. Thus my final 
paragraph below which you draw attention to does not contradict my claim 
concerning the verbal distributions with the temporal adverbs.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Subject:
> Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
> From:
> "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> Date:
> Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:54:27 -0700
> To:
> "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
>
> To:
> "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
> CC:
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
>
> David:
>
> On 3/17/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rolf,
> >
> > There is consistency: qatal occurs with "yesterday" and never with
> > "tomorrow" and yiqtol occurs with "tomorrow" and never with "yesterday".
>
> This is true if and only if wayyiqtol = qatal and weqatal = yiqtol. If
> these equalities are not accurate, then your statement above is not
> accurate.
>
> cf. Genesis 31:42, Micah 2:8 (pilel yiqtol with yesterday), Judges
> 19:9 and the verses that Rolf mentioned.
>
> Could you be putting too much emphasis on these adverbs?
>
> > BTW, the choice of conjugations need not be a choice between two or
> > four: weqatal may not be a separate grammaticalised verb different from
> > qatal as Cook and Garr argue. Thus three may be an option also (leaving
> > aside jussive etc).
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Kummerow.
>
> Doesn't your final paragraph contradict your claim?
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew