Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

vayyixtov Rolf
>B. Comrie (1985)
>"Tense". He shows that an event that includes the
>present moment and continues fits the definition.
>In my view, all my examples fit this definition,

That's pretty hard to claim, when your first example
Dt 20.19-20 was dealing with a potential "whenever"
context.
What is it about potentiality
ki tatsur el `ir "whenever you besiege a city"
that I have missed?
If I claimed that this allowed me to use the construction
in a classroom for an actual, present tense, I would be
laughed out of the guild.

Again, the purpose of tightly restricting and defining
situations was to prevent complexities from distracting
the discussion. Karl is already distracted. Let's find
something solid first,
then we can discuss when a user would choose a
participle and when a YIQTOL, (as for example I would
do with participle questions and YIQTOL questions dealing
with a real, ongoing, present situation).
But we don't have any reliable YIQTOLs yet for the simple
declarative that would justify my using it in a classroom in
good faith.

Also, since everyone knows that 'perfects' in a language
can interact with the present moment, but in conversationally
restricted ways, there was no request to discuss QATAL or
VAYYIQTOL at this stage. One step at a time. And again,
a person could not be taken seriously if they claimed that
a 'perfect' situation and reference could justify applying them
to an immediate, incomplete present in a classroom. *

We need to define and restrict that situation so that we
choose the structure that Yermiyahu would have chosen.
We do this to the best of our ability, and are happy to be
shown otherwise. That is why we need to ask for a yiqtol
that is a) not a question, b) not in poetry,
c) not a habitual/omnitemporal/potential (negation is
a complex semantic entity that is not a place to start).

And if there aren't any, that needs to be noted. That will
affect the interpretation of marginal cases, as I showed
with Laxish letter 4.

blessings
Randall Buth

* and you wouldn't  want to perform a version of the totality
transfer fallacy, to wit, if 'a' overlaps 'b' in meaning and 'b'
overlaps 'c' in meaning, then 'a' can be used for 'c'. Should
someone be allowed to claim that 'to have done now' is
equally present with with 'is doing' or 'might be doing'? No.
This is like a beginning language student who complains
to a teacher: "the grammar book says GEGRAFE [he has
written-perfect] can relate to present time and GRAFEI can
relate to present time and writing on the board is happening
now, which is present, so why can't I say GEGRAFE AYTO
while he's writing the paragraph on the board?")


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life