Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

shalom chavoux

[how do you manage to pronounce your name in afrikaans??? - 
dont bother to answer...]

sorry if i misinterpreted you, and i am glad we are on the same side! 

i must agree with you that wayqtol indeed cannot be used in the present tense,
and maybe qatal could. never thought of it before...
nevertheless, in my discussion i restricted the situation to actions
done (maybe i should have insisted: terminated) in the past, 
excluding such cases.

> (and both katal and wayiktol is perfectum while both yiktol and 
> wakatal is imperfectum)

are we really on the same side? 

i still cannot understand this statement. can you 
explain it in gen 1:10? what justified the use of one imperfectum
tense and one perfectum tense there, if both actions are equally complete?

regards
nir cohen 

-----------------

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:43:14 +0200, Chavoux Luyt wrote

> I agree! I think you misunderstood me here: in this case both would 
> be perfect (completed in the past), since katal and wayiktol 
> basically has the same meaning as I understand it. The waw that 
> indicates a continuation of an account (in this case the account of 
> creation), changes "yikra" from imperfectum to perfectum (wayikra). 
> So I think we are basically in agreement. I just wanted to make the 
> point that while "completed" normally corresponds to "past tense"
> (and incomplete to future), it is not exactly the same because it 
> can also be used for cases that we would consider as present tense.
> (and both katal and wayiktol is perfectum while both yiktol and 
> wakatal is imperfectum)
> 
> Regards
> Chavoux Luyt


--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)