Bryan,
Before I can give an adequate response I need to know what you
mean by "semantics of the verbal forms." I suspect we're using the
word "semantics" two different ways, but I want to be sure. Can
you develop that phrase for me a little?
> Dear Dave,
> You and Niccacci are after two different objectives, I believe. Niccacci
> has sought out a pragmatic or functional system for BH prose whereas I
> think you are seeking out the semantics of the verb forms. I think verbal
> semantics is more or less not germane to Niccacci's model. He has not been
> able to detect the functions of the verb forms in poetic discourse. I do
> not believe he will be able to ascertain a functional system in poetry
> without first accounting for the meanings of the forms. D. Michel, by
> comparison, goes to BH poetry in order to determine the meanings of the
> forms.
>
> That help?
> > I just read the following statement in A. Niccacci, "Analyzing
> > Biblical Hebrew Poetry" (JSOT 74:78). He says that one of the
> > "main characteristics of poetry versus prose" is a "non-detectable
> > versus detectable verbal system." Looking at the other
> > characteristics he lists, it's clear that he is saying poetry has a non-
> > detectable verbal system. It seems to me that if he is correct, then
> > poetry is definitely not the place to look in our quest to understand
> > the verbal system. I'm wondering what everyone else thinks of this
> > statement, and why.