Randall
I think you are absolutely right, and your contention seems to be exactly the same as that of Alviero Niccacci when he maintains that the simple nominal clause and the participial clause are used to represent the temporal axis of the present in direct speech. He has recently argued that this is also the case in poetry in a recent chapter. In this same chapter (to be found in Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting) he challenges the notion that qatal or yiqtol ever refer to the present. He argues that qatal and yiqtol can both refer to the past, but when they do "they signal a shift from main-line, punctual information (qatal) to secondary-line, repeated/habitual/explanatory/descriptive information (yiqtol)". I think every serious Hebraist (including those on this list) needs to come to terms with his arguments and his unique starting point for the analysis of biblical Hebrew based on the linguistic model of Harald Weinrich even if he winds up disagreeing. If one analyses all 80,000 occurrences of the verb in Hebrew, but does it with reference to the sentence level only, or without making distinctions in linguistic attitude (namely narrative vs. comment) then one's beginning methodological foundation may be, I stress "may be" flawed and inadequate.
Rolf
I don't know if your analysis proceeded this way, but if it did, perhaps it would be appropriate to consider if this is the best way to procede with an analysis of BH syntax in light of the arguments of the Niccaccis and others who point out the inadequacies of such an approach.
Joseph Justiss
_________________________________________________________________
Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try BingĀ now
http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try bing_1x1
_______________________________________________
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.