...I agree that this is a reasonable question. But did David in fact say that "the same is not true with other verb forms which refer to past completed events", or is his definition of "past tense" just something like "verb forms which refer to past completed events"? The latter definition might be somewhat fuzzy, but it might also fit real language better than the very precise definition which you insist on.
Fine! Then, once more to the point: Regardless of the diachronic evolution of the language, we have a text, namely the Masoretic one and the DSS. David has claimed that the WAYYIQTOLs of this text represent past tense. Then it is fully legitimate to ask on the basis which criteria he has concluded that the WAYYIQTOLs represent past tense, and the same is not true with other verb forms which refer to past completed events. The case is just as simple as that.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.