Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

vayyixtov Rolf
>[Mt 24:15] . . .
> So, the QATAL form is used with future reference, and QATAL
> can therefore not be defined as "grammaticalized past".>

according to Rolf.
but the examples are still relatively past to their main clause.

And there is a difference in language between a semantic world that
can be specified by an analyst and the presentation of that world
by the language user.

Note the Greek source:
OTAN OYN IDHTE 'when-potentially you would see . . ."
the language user chose the subjunctive, and a subjunctive marked
as potential by 'AN'.
The analyst can say that this is "indicative" semantically or that
the speaker is certain,
but the system chosen by the user did not mark indicativeness.

So based on the above I wouldn't want to say that Syr *Qatal has
no temporal constraints within it.

What is HWO doing in QOTEL HWO?
and even more, what is it doing in NEQTUL HWO?
Most would say that it is adding a past frame to the participle. So
I am comfortable with leaving some 'pastness' within the internal
configuration of HWO.
With the NEQTUL the HWO may still mark past but may also slide
into more modal situations that bring forth the NEQTUL.
(I don't have materials at hand.)

blessings
Randall

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