Hi Rolf,
You probably know all the evidence as much, and probably better, than I
do. Perhaps you are the one who is right, but I need serious convincing.
The thing is, I don't really have a problem with the Hebrew
correspondences between long and short prefix verbs in, say, Amarna
canaanite. The clustering of meanings associated with the long and short
forms is like Hebrew. The thing for me is for evidence to demonstrate
that this is not the case. I'm very interested in reading anything
you've written where you interact, for example, with Rainey (he has
about a ten or so relevant articles etc).
because I don't see the answer receiving resolution in the direction of
semantically equating wayyiqtol and (we)yiqtol (in my opinion, I do
think you are right concerning (we)qatal). That is, I don't think
wayyiqtol and yiqtol are semantically similar at all. The clustering of
meanings or prototypical uses are on opposite ends of the spectrum:
wayyiqtol is prototypically past perfective; yiqtol is future
imperfective. But because we operate from different theoretical
positions, exceptions for you will nullify such a conclusion (which has,
I assume, prompted your long course of research?) whereas for me they
are entirely acceptable (too many exceptions though would call the
account into question).
new breed of aspect unique to Hebrew (correct me please if I am wrong in
stating this). This MAY be the case, but typologically it is hard to
justify, and so I am reluctant to move off from a position which doesn't
have to create new categories that cross-linguistically seem to be
questioned since Hebrew stands alone. To me we can operate with tense
and aspect as normally understood and read and comprehend Hebrew.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I've gotta have some sleep now.
Sincerely,
David Kummerow.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.