Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

>>>In Norwegian we have the saying: "What is
obscurely expressed, is obscurely thought." When
list-members use grammatical  terms, even
rejecting some of them in Hebrew, and they refuse
to define their  terms, the only conclusion I can
draw, is that their terms cannot be defined in
scientific terms, and that they simply do not
know what they are talking about.

rolf, 

actually, i made it clear at the outset i did not know much 
about aspect theory. it will really be difficult for me to 
suggest a comprehensive definition of it, as you ask. 
maybe, as carl suggested, you can propose one if you think 
it is necessary at this point.

i also clarified i do not reject aspect, or any other grammatical 
theory, in hebrew, as you try to make it look. though i do believe 
aspect, under any conceivable definition, was not the major 
factor in deciding this particular issue, qatal vs yiqtol. 

i was also, perhaps wrongly, interpreting a "perfect tense" as 
used by you and others here as a tense which suffers ONLY perfect 
action. my error was pointed out by chavoux, who defined a perfect 
tense (in the BH context, and if i understood him correctly) 
as a tense which suffers both past and present actions. 

consequently, i sent an email trying to find a common 
basis for further discussion.

there was no need to get personal about it. but if you find my 
remarks offensive, i apologize.

still, i think you avoid explaining gen 1:10 under your theory.

regards
nir cohen