It is an imperfective form referring to a past continuous or repeated event.
Your example of Gen2:10 is neither past continuous nor repeated. ...
... it is only your English-speaking mentality that prevents you from reading future in these examples at face value.No, it is your Russian-speaking mentality that prevents you from seeing that this event is in no way future, despite the possibility of translating it with a Russian "future tense".
Continuous or repetitive? How many times, in your Gen2 examples, the earth was watered? ...
Continuously, every day.
2Kings8:29: for how long those dreary Arameans were inflicting wounds on the poor king? ...
This anomalous case may be a textual error, for the parallel in 2 Chronicles has a QATAL verb and the difference is in one letter only.
... Doesn't it ring a bell that Hebrew, Russian and English - all of them use either future or future-related (would) to describe the same action? ...
Not true. I deny that English "would" is future-related.
... Perhaps, that action has something with the future?
Every action could be labeled continuous; ...
Not true. Some actions, called punctiliar, cannot be continuous.
I accept that YIQTOL may also be used for future actions which are not continuous or repetitive
That seems to invalidate your earlier assertion that yiqtol is imperfective?
Perhaps. But then your pet usage of the Russian perfective future for habitual past seems to invalidate your presupposition that this form is future, as well as that it is perfective.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.