Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Arnaud and Fred:

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>wrote:

>
> From: K Randolph
>
> KR wrote
>
> Modern grammars (from the last few centuries) assign functions to the
> Hebrew forms, functions derived
> from European languages.
>
> ***
> What do Traditional Hebrew grammars say?
> What does Ibn Quraysh say on that kind of issues?
> A.
> ***
> KR wrote
>
> Did Ibn Quraysh have anything to say on these issues? Where?
> ***
> I don't know if his writings are edited and published,
> but considering he made inquiries in Semitic cognacy
> he must have have some ideas on grammar in general.
> A.
> ***
>
> From the reviews I read of his work (just Googled his name and read a few
that were referenced) there is little evidence that he dealt with the
specific issue we here discuss.

>
>
> KR wrote
>
> OK, you describe the functions of the Hebrew qatal and yiqtal apart from
> tense and aspect. What linguistic terminology applies?
> ***
> I never said nor meant that.
> What's the problem with describing Ancient Hebrew as having aspect or being
> in a transitional state between aspect and tense?
>

Accuracy, because it doesn’t grammaticalize for aspect nor tense.


> You definitely react like somebody who cannot figure out what aspect (true
> aspect with no tense) really means.
>

LOL!


> A.
> ***
>
> A while back, I mentioned that I think the qatal grammaticalizes for the
primary use, and the yiqtol for the secondary use. After that, I was sent a
translation of something that Diethelm Michel wrote, in which he called the
qatal as grammaticalizing for the “independent” (unabhängig) use, while the
yiqtol for the “dependent” (abhängig) use. I see a similarity of ideas, but
I don’t know enough of what he wrote to say whether or not the two
frameworks are identical (except for the terminology). You can google this
forum’s archives to see what was written then.

Both Diethelm Michel’s and my terminology are neologisms as far as
linguistics are concerned.

Karl W. Randolph.