Gday George.
Sorry that I misunderstood you. But you did say: "the verbal conjugations do not speak so much about tense, but rather the reader's distance from the action. In other words, the verbs do not work on a temporal plain, but rather a spatial plain. Tense must be inferred secondarily from the spatial sphere."
So is it that you understand the verbal system as grammaticalising a
foreground-background distinction and/or grammaticalising information
structure? But this view would have to be a little more nuanced than simply "actions of lesser or background significance are given in YIQTOL" etc etc; ie these types of distinctions would only apply in certain "text types", so a more fine-grained or constructional approach would be necessary.
Personally, I think the view that the BH verbal system grammaticalises "the significance of verbs spatially" needs substantial justificantion in the light of the crosslinguistic or typological evidence which would dictate otherwise. That is, since other languages do not seem to grammaticalise "the significance of actions spatially" but rather TIME is viewed spatially, then this calls into question this understanding of BH. Now it could be that BH is unique - so unique that it is unlike any other language we know of in this regard - but that needs substantial justification I think, esp. with a dead language where we do not have speakers.
In any case, see the methodology advanced in:
Miller, Cynthia L. "Methodological Issues in Reconstructing Language Systems
from Epigraphic Fragments." Pages 281-305 in _The Future of Biblical
Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions_. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.