Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi David,

I would be very interested in hearing an answer from you to the  
question posed.

Argument by translation doesn't really seem to make any sense. When we  
translate we frequently choose the forms that make sense in the target  
language. e.g. Italian andavo can be translated in English as 'I  
went', 'I was going' or 'I used to go' depending on the context.

James Christian

Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:

> > Driver did not accept that the form "only could
> > be past perfective" as DK has claimed.
>
> Hi Rolf,
>
> Please don't misrepresent me. I've never claimed that WAYYIQTOL could
> only ever be past perfective. If you'll read my review again and my
> other article you'll see otherwise. Besides, if I were to hold such a
> view I would already have demolished my own position with my argument as
> to the unsuitability of viewing semantics as uncancellable meaning!
> Please read my statement in context -- it refers solely to Gen 12:1 and
> no further.
>
> I note that in your post you're still running with the principal of
> uncancellable meaning and that your isolated contexts are revealing the
> uncancellable meaning/semantics of WAYYIQTOL. Still no discussion of Gen
> 12:1. Again: please show how it and other cases like it is imperfective
> under your analysis. Please don't turn the question around -- the
> question is for you and your analysis. How can wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 be
> construed imperfectively? And how might such an imperfective analysis be
> rendered in English translation, since "And he said" is past perfective?
>
> Thanks,
> David Kummerow.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.