If I am not mistaken, by "tense" you mean the main temporalother, which I believe is not good, theoretically speaking.
construction in a certain text. Am I right? In that case, is it the case
that if a verb form is the main construction in text A but not in text B,
that form is a tense only with respect to text A? Your discussion on
<qatal> seems to suggest just that. That means that the forms change their
properties (from being tenses to not being tenses) from one text to the
What does it mean that <qatal> is not a tense in the FULL sense? Is
it possible to be tense only in part? What do you call <qatal> in the
narrative? What is its property?
Why do you see <qatal> as the main tense if it only OPENS
direct speech (DS)? If we have a narrative within DS, as in 2Sam 1:6-11,
except for the first clause, all the clauses will be in <wayyiqtol> (just
like in regular narrative). Then why go according to one clause instead of
most of the clauses in determining the main verb form in DS?
>Outside historical narrative, i.e. both in prose direct
>speech and in poetry, wayyiqtol is only used as a continuation form,
i.e. it continues a verbform that is not a wayyiqtol and shares its>status.
Not true. This is what Driver implicitely suggested. One of the
main arguments Bauer had against Driver's theory is that eleven books in
the Bible start with a <wayyiqtol> verb. In checking beginning of segments
(relying on the Jewish division of the text, namely into PARASHOT PTUXOT
and PARASHOT STUMOT, I found many examples where a <wayyiqtol> clause opens
a segment and doe not continue another verb form.
Actually they are full tenses, i.e.
>they encode a FIX time reference, when they convey mainline of
communication;
Again, you may mean something different by "tense" than
past-present-future, in which case I might agree (depending on what you
mean).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.