As I argued in my review, the examples of wayyiqtol you present as
demonstrating that wayyiqtol is imperfective are better taken as
non-prototypical rather than demonstrating what the uncancellable
semantics of the form are. You have yet to counter this argument and
demonstrate why such minority of examples are wholly diagnostic of the
majority use of wayyiqtol. That you refuse to show how common examples
like wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 can be taken as instantiating imperfective
aspect shows to me that the theory is upside down: better to take
majority of function as prototypical, which then allows for
non-prototypical examples like some present tense use or imperfective
use etc.
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Then this just means that you read back the meaning of the minority ofposition as I argued in my review.
uses into the majority of uses. But how do we know that the semantic
meaning of the majority of uses wasn't in part cancelled to allow for
the minority of uses? How do we know that the meaning found in the
minority of uses is also by default to be attributed to the majority of
uses. Here work on frequency in linguistics would tell against your
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.