>>>In Norwegian we have the saying: "What is obscurely expressed, is obscurely thought." When list-members use grammatical terms, even rejecting some of them in Hebrew, and they refuse to define their terms, the only conclusion I can draw, is that their terms cannot be defined in scientific terms, and that they simply do not know what they are talking about.
rolf, actually, i made it clear at the outset i did not know much about aspect theory. it will really be difficult for me to suggest a comprehensive definition of it, as you ask. maybe, as carl suggested, you can propose one if you think it is necessary at this point. i also clarified i do not reject aspect, or any other grammatical theory, in hebrew, as you try to make it look. though i do believe aspect, under any conceivable definition, was not the major factor in deciding this particular issue, qatal vs yiqtol. i was also, perhaps wrongly, interpreting a "perfect tense" as used by you and others here as a tense which suffers ONLY perfect action. my error was pointed out by chavoux, who defined a perfect tense (in the BH context, and if i understood him correctly) as a tense which suffers both past and present actions. consequently, i sent an email trying to find a common basis for further discussion. there was no need to get personal about it. but if you find my remarks offensive, i apologize. still, i think you avoid explaining gen 1:10 under your theory. regards nir cohen _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
