In my dissertation I demonstrate that Rainey, who is an excellent scholar,
is guilty of the fallacy that is so common among scholars when aspect and
tempus of verb forms are considers, namely, to fail to distinguish between
semantic and pragmatic factors. In other words, he draws semantic
conclusions on the basis of pragmatices.
As a proof that the YAQTULU (IPARRAS) form implies
continuous action Rainey quotes a clause where the verb form occurs
together
with the adverbial
"day and night" ("Day and night I am heeding the words of the king, my
lord.") He fails to see that it is the adverb that indicates the
continuance
or iterativity of the action and not the verb. I demonstrate that by using
the words of Enki in his sorrow over the death of Gilgamesh: "Day and
night
I wept over him." The verb form here is ABKU, which is an IPRUS (YAQTUL)
form, and the continuance or itertivity is of course caused by the
adverbial. In other instances Rainey distinguishes between semantics and
pragmatices, e.g., in his excellent grammar (1996, II, p. 231) when he
argues that the final -u in singular prefix verbs in the Amarna letters is
not the Akkadian
subjunctive -u but "a West-Semitic indicator of indicative imperfect".
We radically differ here,
> 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).
I respect your disagreement with me. In this case I endorse the Words of
Waltke/O´Connor p. 460 "How can forms, each of which "represent" all three
English major tenses have a primarily temporal value?"
To achieve resolution you have had to create a
> 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.
Here I think you are very wrong! I say that, not to to devalue your
knowledge (you are well read and appear to have a very fine knowledge of
Semitic languages), but in order to let the list members see the
importance
of considering cross-linguistic questions.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.