Dear Peter,
You paint a carricature of my position. In view of all the times we have
discussed Hebrew verbs, you should be able to do better. I do not deny
exceptions and a substandard use of language. What I challenge is ad hoc
explanations in order to save a hypothesis. Therefore I make a linguistic
demand that exceptions must be explained. For example, In the 19th century
QATAL was viewed as past tense, and at the end of the century, as past tense
or the perfective aspect. It was discovered that several QATALs had future
reference, and in order to save the theory, the "prophetic perfect" was
postulated, the action was completed in the mind of the prophet. (A. B.
Davidson (1894) "Hebrew syntax") is a good example. The view has later been
parroted by different grammarians, but I have never seen anyone proving the
claim.
The principle of a property being uncancellable is very simple: Even a
shoolboy understands that the clauses "I will come yesterday" and "I came
tomorrow" are ungrammatical. There is no purpose in trying to find a special situation where one of the clauses can be used.
If QATAL represents past tense, ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.