Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear David,

The first three points below deal with morphological questions and could in 
principle be relevant for my quest of finding the semantic meaning of the 
verb forms; the last two are pragmatic in nature and are not relevant. 
Because I have analysed all the verbs, I have also analysed all the forms 
with an extra NUN. In my view, the arguments regarding long and short forms 
that are semantically distinctive have no real basis. They build on several 
assumptions which seem to be wrong, and without the assumptions the NUNs 
tell us nothing regarding Semantic meaning ( Cf. J. Hoftijzer (1985) 
"Function and Use of Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical 
Hebrew."  I have also carefully analysed the temporal adverbs/adverbials 
including "yesterday" and "tomorrow". The examples of these two are too few 
to have importance and therefore have not received a special treatment in 
the dissertation, but a few temporal adverbs have been discussed in more 
detail.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding 
of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew


> Hi Rolf,

> [snip]
>
> >
> > The areas you mention were not neglected, but they were viewed of little
> > importance,
> > and in the study the more important issues were stressed.
>
> How is paragogic nun of little importance for you study? The basic
> consensus has been that they are diagnostic of the long prefix verb.
>
> How are the third-person suffix pronouns augmented with nun not
> important? Again, the basic consensus has been that they are diagnostic
> of the long prefix verb.
>
> How are the distributions of qatal and yiqtol with "yesterday" and
> "tomorrow" of little importance when they seem to be distributionally
> the same as English?
>
> Why aren't performatives seen to be important when the interaction of
> performative semantics would seem to have bearing upon the meaning of
> the verbal construction (see Anstey's dissertation, for example).
>
> Why isn't the default anterior use of qatal investigated when this would
> seem to me be strongly relevant?
>
> Etc etc?
>
>
> > Rolf Furuli
> > University of Oslo
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.