...
In many cases the distinction between semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature is difficult to establish. But Peter draws this too far, because there are many areas of language where the difference is clear-cut, as in connection with verbs. Of course, falsifying examples must have a secure foundation (textually, contextually etc), and even exceptions can be allowed if they can be linguistically explained. But the main proposition stands: A verb conjugation which semantically represents past tense cannot have future reference.
The fact that the infinitive absolute is used for narrative accounts in Phoenician, and to some degree in the Amarna letters, has no direct bearing on the falsification principle. But this fact illuminates the case with the WAYYIQTOLs from another angle. If infinitive absolutes, which nobody would say semantically represent past tense, are used as the narrative verb form, then the WAYYIQTOLs neither need to represent semantically past tense, just because they in great numbers are used in narrative accounts. Why some say they cannot understand this simple fact is difficult for me to understand.While I would not say "semantically", I would suggest that a Phoenician verb form used regularly in past contexts, whatever its Hebrew cognates, is a past tense.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.