Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi James,

Well, I'd like for you to explain how it may be analysed imperfectively. 
As far I take the default construal of wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 in its 
context, event time is prior to the deictic centre, thus past. The 
action refers to the whole of the speech event, not some part of it, so 
therefore perfective. (God said all of what he said, not part of it.)

Like I said, please explain how this verb could possibly be taken as 
imperfective in its context.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> Hi David,
>
> that's all very interesting stuff David but you still haven't answered 
> the question. Both Rolf and I (and no doubt a number of silent list 
> members interested in the discussion) would like to hear your case of 
> why you consider the verb form in question to only be able to have a 
> past perfective sense. You have, to this date, provided no linguistic 
> evidence for this claim other than argument by translation which you 
> have concurred with me to be meaningless.
>
> James Christian
>
>
>
> Quoting David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Yes, I agree. Linguistic typology gets around this to some extent by
> > semantic mapping methodology. I actually presented on this very topic at
> > an academic conference this week!
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Kummerow.
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew