Indeed we do have this issue. It seems that you, the promoter of the hypothesis, consider this deictic shift to be plausible, but several detached observers including myself have strongly disagreed.
You seem to accept that yiqtols, where not straight future or plausible deictic shift, could be approximated with "would." The main part of our quarrel is whether "would" is future tense. But I don't argue that either "would" or the corresponding yiqtols in Hebrew are future tense. I say, they etymologically derive from future tense. ...
For English, this is questionable but irrelevant. For Hebrew, the issue is hard to determine, but it seems that the cognate of the YIQTOL form in other Semitic languages e.g. Arabic, Aramaic, Ugaritic is not so much a future as an imperfect.
... Thus, my point is that originally all yiqtols were future tense; later, they diversified. ...
But do you have any evidence for this?
... In some cases, yiqtols do not refer to the future. Such cases, however, are rare, ...
They are not rare, they are the majority of cases in biblical Hebrew.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.