Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] text on the BH verb structure

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] text on the BH verb structure
  • Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 18:23:21 +0200

Dear Bryant,

Kimmo raised methodological questions, whose answer is extremely important
for the study of Hebrew verbs: Is there a a difference between "tense" and
temporal reference? Can a verb in one context be a tense, and in another
context be an aspect, thus loosing its tense? If I understood Kimmo
correctly, his opinion is that in no language do we find a verb form that
always have past reference. The best example of the opposite that I am aware
of is Greek imperfect, which consistently has past reference. If this is
true, one cannot argue that the non-past references of WAYYIQTOLs do not
prove that WAYYIQTOL in not past tense, and that the future references of
QATAL do not prove that QATAL is not a past tense, because in all languages
there are such exceptions. Linguistic theory and methodology with examples
from different languages can be discussed if they are relevant for the study
of Hebrew.

In the work with my doctoral dissertation, I found 997 WAYYIQTOLs with past
reference, and 956 QATALs with future reference. These were found in normal
contexts. I also found that YIQTOLs, WEYIQTOLs, and WEQATALs have past,
present, and future reference. All this show that tense (grammaticlized
location in time) is non-existent in Hebrew.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Søndag 1. September 2013 16:15 CEST skrev "Rev. Bryant J. Williams III"
<bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>:

> Dear Rolf,
>
> The challenge to Huommo should be to do so in HEBREW not Greek since this
> is a Biblical Hebrew list; and second, Greek is an Indo-European language
> that really does not fit with the Semitic languages that Hebrew is a part.
>
> I ask that this be kept in focus because too often it appears that the
> linguists and grammars are defining things from an Indo-European
> perspective, aspect(?) rather than from the Hebrew language itself.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page