Dear Rolf:
While both you and I agree that the conjugation of Hebrew verbs into qatal and yiqtol forms does not indicate tense, as your statistics at the bottom of your last message also indicate, I don't see how you can maintain that the conjugations grammaticalize for aspect.
When I look at the definition for 'aspect' within linguistics, such as at the <http://sil.org>sil.org glossary of linguistics, it refers to time. Whereas 'tense' refers to the relationship of where the action occurs on the time line from past to future in relation to the subject, 'aspect' refers to the length along the time line that an action takes up, and to a lesser extent, whether or not the action is ongoing, or has been completed. Thus 'aspect'. like 'tense', is a time measurement. By definition. Or does <http://sil.org>sil.org use the wrong definitions?
You have mentioned 'conative aspect' in an earlier message. I don't see any relationship between conation and time, neither tense nor aspect. Is 'conative aspect' an oxymoron? While 'conative' is not listed among linguistic terms at <http://sil.org>sil.org, if it truly does indicate a linguistic understanding, would it not properly be a modality?
In this verse, does not the use of a wayiqtol indicate a modality, in this case subjunctive? "that he should die because of it (being thrown into the pit)".
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Rolf Furuli <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>furuli AT online.no> wrote:
Dear Carl,
In my view, the hyperbolic claim regarding Jeremiah 38:9 is an ad hoc explanation.
I agree there. The reason, as I see it, is that the student does not understand why it is correct that there is a wayiqtol in that position in that verse. Therefore he is making what is essentially a wild guess as to why the sentence is constructed the way it is.
The reason for it is the view that the WAYYIQTOL form is perfective, and a perfective verb should not have an egressive force or refer to the future. Therefore, when the map does not fit the terrain, the terrain is wrong. A WEQATAL would be no problem, as Randall shows.
A weqatal is wrong, as it is forcing Biblical Hebrew grammar into an Indo-European straitjacket.
I have a list of 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference, 965 QATALs with future reference, 2,505 QATALs with present reference, 50 WEYIQTOLs with past reference, and 1,027 YIQTOLs with past reference.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.