karl,
the files are too big for me to handle. is there anywhere else where i could
post them which would be more convenient? e.g. a site dedicated to linguistics?
as to arguments, i will be glad to discuss them, although it might take some time.
below i describe one of them which i consider central. let me start with the
observation (i am sure you will agree) that predictions based on TAM
(tense-aspect-mood) often fail to explain the BH verb form.
in jer. 2:2 we find
הלך וקראת...זכרתי לך
why is וקראת weqatal and not yiqtol?
why is זכרתי qatal and not wayiqtol?
of course, there are MANY answers: e.g. in וקראת (i) HIPUX, (ii) CONSECUTIVE,
(iii) INDUCTIVE, (iv) IRREALIS, (v) INDIRECT VOLITIVE (vi) FOREGROUND etc.
for זכרתי it is (i) PAST, (ii) PERFECT, (iii) PERFECTIVE, (iv) PLUPERFECT,
(v) CLAUSE-INITIAL, (vi) BACKGROUND (is it indeed?). you may pick your choice.
but then my question is: is there any alternative here? really, there is none.
the waw in וקראת
is there for SYNTACTIC reasons, and cannot just disappear. and the waw in זכרתי is
simply not there, and cannot just appear (plus the problem of ellipsis).
so, syntax exerts a veto over the verb forms, sometimes. really, syntax acts on the verb form the same way that syllables act on, say, the phoneme ב ("in"): change its niqud according to the needs. the "basic rule" is schwa/patax, but often we find something else.
namely, in the linguistic hierarchy, from the smallest (say, phoneme) to the largest (say, sentence), each hierarchy exerts pressures on the lower hierarchy, which result in "changing
the laws" in some cases. in case of the verb form, this pressure comes from word order and conjunctiveness/co(sub)ordination.
now,וילכו אחרי ההבל (ibid:5) is somewhat different, since there is a real alternative: ואחרי ההבל הלכו .
although, even here syntax exerts a "gentle" pressure by adjoining the verb with the indirect preposition, indicating wayiqtol as the correct verb form. this could have been changed by fronting, but only "for a very good reason" (emphasis? discontinuity? what are the rules of BH fronting?), which is not the case here.
thus, a priori (i.e. syntactically) BH verb units come in three varieties: doomed to be waw-prefixed, doomed to be waw-less, and those which have a choice.
TAM laws can only shape the third type. in my manuscript i study in detail these situations. i believe that the basic idea (syntax) goes back to blau and peckham (and earlier), but i had only very partial access to their work. in general, it seems to me that in BH a discussion of verb forms without syntactic considerations is almost impossible - but it is the common practice!
more to come...
nir cohen
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.