Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Isaac:

Thanks for your explanatory comments.

So, I see in exodus 15:1, the pp + verb could, ( but in the absence of need
or want ), does not in this instance, designate future tense. Rather it
evokes past tense in this particular case.

It seems that we have two tools in the tool chest for directing tense
forward or backward. And only context, and actual usage of the verb, will
determine what tense we see.

I don't know the "sleeper properties" to which you refer?

regards,

fred burlingame



On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> 1. Gramaticalization merely means the arbitrary designating of such
> combinations as pp+verb to have the grammatical form of a future action.
> Hence TA-B-IY is essentially: she-B-it = she-bring-it.
> 2. I don't divide a word into syllables, I only separate the prefixes and
> suffixes from the body of the verb. The root of ZAMMAH is ZMM, and AH is
> 'she'.
> 3. A "sleeper" property is a good, yet an unassuming, property, not calling
> attention to itself, which can acquired under favorable conditions.
> 4. We are in agreement. pp+verb indicates future action only if you want
> it, or need it, to represent future action. Ex. 15:1 opens with AZ YA-$IYR
> MO$E, where YA-$IYR is but he-sing, namely: then he-sing, moses.
> 5. MELEL is a mouthful, MALE) of words. It is related to to MLIYL-AH of
> Deut. 23:36.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>