...Thank you for the clarification about Gesenius. As for Furuli, I would not consider him an authority either, but I mentioned him partly because his work on this is recently completed and partly to indicate that although I disagree with him on the interpretation of Hebrew aspects (see the archives for disagreements going back 9 years!) I agree with him that Hebrew is aspectual.
Yes, many authorities do agree that biblical Hebrew was aspectual, but
Gesenius and Furuli do not constitute examples. I do not recall that Gesenius
claimed Hebrew was aspectual; GKC followed not Gesenius but Driver on this
question. I have not seen Furuli cited as an authority outside of B-Hebrew.
At the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the verb forms were certainly notWell, since you questioned the position I said before, I am glad that you know accept that this position has "slightly more explanatory power" than any alternative.
aspects (using definitions of aspect by Comrie and Binnick) but tenses or
moods (the evidence does not decisively favour one of these two over the
other, but a tense model has slighly more explanatory power for most Qumran
documents).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.