On 07/03/2007 16:01, Rolf Furuli wrote:
...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.
But I don't agree that we have "a text". We have a selection of texts from various times in a period of perhaps more than a millennium, some of which may have been edited at various times during this period. And we know that there were significant changes in the Hebrew verb system during this period. So, even if there was a clean and clearly defined verbal system at every one point on the diachronic scale, and instantaneous transitions from one system to another, we would not expect to see this clean system clearly reflected in the actual texts which we have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.