Dear David:
As I have stated before, even in a pure aspect-prominent verbal
system, there is still an implied tense within the use of the aspects.
As I understand it, that implied tense is the result of the
psychological makeup of the speakers.
Therefore, when I find a tense indicating adverb used as seldom as
`ethmol and `emesh, I find it less than convincing as a proof of
tense-prominence when it is found with only one aspect (qatal and
wayyiqtol being considered one aspect), i.e. that you need more
examples, many more.
Machar is used four times as many times, and there are several times
it is used with other than a "future" verb: the times with an
imperative don't violate that it refers to the future, but the times
with a participle understood as a present need explanation. Or do you
say that there were only two tenses in Biblical Hebrew with the
participle being tenseless?
But the strongest argument against a tense-prominant verbal system
remains the many times qatal is used in non-past tense, including
future, as well as the times yiqtol is used in a non-future tense,
including past,
Here is one place we may have to agree to disagree and remain on
friendly standing. After all, when dealing with a language where there
have been no native speakers to interview for over two millennia, it
could be that both of us are wrong.
Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.