Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,


For the record: I would like to emphasize that it is not my 
responsibility that this thread has stopped but yours. Participants 
in a discussion can define basic concepts differently, but a basic 
requirement for a meaningful discussion is that all parts give their 
definitions. You have not wanted to give your definition of the 
imperfective aspect and you have not wanted to answer my questions 
regarding your definition of the perfective aspect that I found to be 
unclear. Last year we had a similar situation on b-greek, when you 
also did not want to give your definition and the thread stopped. I 
do not understand your reasons, but it is of course your right to 
keep your definitions for yourself. If you change your mind, the 
thread can continue.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






> Thank you for your response, and there are many interesting
> texts worthy of discussion, and even some questionable
> English translations, but it doesn't not deal with
> the original question and spins away.
>
> > > So, both in
> both the state expressed by the participle and by
> the WAYYIQTOL R intersects E after the beginning
> and before the end. So how can this WAYYIQTOL be
> perfective?>>
>
> You, not me, claimed that this Gen 41 cannot be
> perfective. So you need to explain how it is different from
> perfective `amad examples that look similar.
> See the original post in this thread.
>
> How can, e.g., 2Chr 20:20, 2 Samuel 20:11, and 12,
> 2 Ki 2:7 be perfective, but Gen 41 cannot be perfective?
>
> Then we can deal with vayyomer.
>
> braxot
Randall