Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

shalom Rolf
katavta
>I simply do not understand what you are saying.
What in the world does it mean that "the T-A-M system of Hebrew is
continued by induction with the sequential verb structures"? And
further: "this is not the way Hebrew works"?>

It was clarifying that some people claim that a sequential tense in
Hebrew carries forward either the time/or aspect/or mood/ of a
previous verb.
But people who might claim that are fundamentally wrong.
e.g.
ha-melex halax wayyax et ha-oyyeb.
'the king went and hit the enemy.'
I would claim that wayyax carries its own TAM (perfective/past) and does
not 'induct' its tense/aspect from halax.
In speech a person could say:
ha-melex yatsa we-hikka et ha-oyyeb
'the king has gone forth and will hit the enemy'.
we-hikka does not 'induct' its tense/aspect from yatsa.

Now ironically, you agree with me that there is no 'induction' of tense
or aspect from a previous verb,
but that is because you don't accept that there are sequential 'tenses'
in BH.
(Though if I remember, you do consider that the MT has
sequential 'tenses' as an innovation to the language. We will just
have to differ on that. I feel comfortably in the main stream of the
Hebrew language using community for the past 2000 years as
evidenced by the LXX and targumim.)
And as a scholar you would probably agree
that most Semitists view the yaqom//yehi//yashlex יקם יהי ישלך forms
of the verb as a remnant of a different aspect/tense than the parallel
forms yaqum//yihye//yashix יקום יהיה ישליך, though you may or may
not agree with such a group of Semitists.

braxot
Randall Buth




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