Bryan,
> B-Haverim,
>
> What do you think? Joosten wants to pull yiqtol out of the
> "indicative subsystem," considering the form essentially
> modal. Hatav describes "future forms" as actually modals of
> the _must_ variety. The descriptions seem helpful to me,
> simplifying the description of yiqtol (eliminating distinct
> indicative and modal yiqtols). Are such descriptions
> convincing, here to stay? Should they be passed on in the
> new texts?
As far as I'm concerned, absolutely! Hatav's material convinced me
that both yiqtol and weqatal are modal forms, while qatal and
wayyiqtol are indicatives. The only place where I disagree with her
is the question of sequence, but my views on this are well known
by now. I consider Galia's treatment of the yiqtol a true
breakthrough.