Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

Nir,
While I agree with you that the Hebrew verb forms do not encode aspect, I'm 
wondering 
exactly how you define the term "sentence" in the material below.  The usual 
definition that 
I've seen is a single predicated unit, i.e. Subject-Verb.  A sentence may 
have lots of 
auxiliary parts such as objects, dependent clauses and so forth, but the 
basic core of a 
sentence only involves a single main verbal expression (whether explicit, or 
implied as in 
the case of Hebrew verbless clauses).

I get the feeling you're using the term in a different way.  Could you 
clarify?

Thanks!

On 2 Feb 2011 at 16:32, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> dear rolf, paul, fred, arnaud,
> 
> i agree with arnaud. the idea of aspect is most interesting.
> however, looking
> at any 
> chapter of the tanakh, it shows NO correlation WHATEVER with the
> distribution
> of the 
> two forms, qatal and wayiqtol, 
> 
>                       WITHIN A GIVEN SENTENCE!!! 
> 
> (not in the entire text). there must be a much simpler technical
> explanation
> here. 
> here it comes, fred!
> 
> ----------------
> 
> let us just consider sentences which are not compound, with time,
> tense,
> aspect all being equal, 
> namely, past. also, with just two actions, clearly in the past. we
> have
> thousands of such 
> sentences in the torah. maybe pere's chapter 2sam 17 can be used
> here. 

[snip]

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur