Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

Actually, I'm not wanting anything, just an explanation, if possible, 
for how the verbal distributions fit into Rolf's theory. His latest 
post, again, just dismisses the issue.

Perhaps the evidence is not as strong as I presented (note: not "not as 
strong as I want it to be"). Michah 2:8 doesn't fit so it may well be 
aspectual there and that's fine.

But regarding "tomorrow", I do not find it surprising that imperatives 
etc occur with it. But it is surprising, given that qatal is said to be 
perfective, that no actions of "tomorrow" are conceptualised completely 
with perfective qatal.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> David:
>
> Thanks for the research and response. You have read widely on many
> books which I have no access to, and it gives a lot of food for
> thought.
>
> However, I wish to caution you to the following:
>
> On 3/19/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com> wrote:
>  >....
>  >
>  > 4. Areas of research which quite potentially have much bearing on
>  > aspects of discussion are neglected: a) the distribution of qatal and
>  > yiqtol with temporal adverbs "yesterday" and "tomorrow"; ...
>  >
>  > Hope this helps!
>  >
>  > Sincerely,
>  > David Kummerow.
>
> Of the 8 times I find "yesterday", only once is it used with yiqtol
> (Micah 2:8), but that is once, not zero, as you claim. Five times it
> is used adjectively with a "from" or "as" added, only two times as an
> adverb with a qatal verb. "Last night" is used three time with qatal,
> once with wayyiqtol, once with an implied "to be".
>
> "Tomorrow" is never used with qatal, but 24 times (fewer than half)
> with yiqtol, including twice with both yiqtol and weqatal, 9 times
> weqatal, 7 participles, 8 imperatives, and 6 times with no verb
> (understood "to be").
>
> These figures are from a quick survey with an unpointed text, others
> may disagree with the exact numbers.
>
> I think the data from "yesterday" and "tomorrow" is not as strong as
> you want it to be.
>
> Other than this nit-picking, I'm lurking, watching the discussion how
> it comes out.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.