karl, >> Here I’ll throw up a trial balloon expecting it to get shot down: is it possible that Qal and Niphal were originally coding for perfective aspect, and Piel and Pual for imperfective? If so, then would not many, many of the verbal pointings be wrong?
the general question of aspect encoded (in isolation) in a binyan, or in a root, is certainly pertinent to BH. see e.g. discussions on grammatical vs lexical aspect. but i am not sure that your particular division can be justified. for some roots, and in some situations, PIEL may be construed as having a repetitive or continuous value w.r.t. its deictic center, but not necessarily as imperfect (i.e. relative to the point of narrative). thus, in this context we must redefine aspect as much more detailed than mere perfect-imperfect. a pertinent question is whether a reconstructed proto-semitic, much older than first millenium BH, would tend to obey your rule. i dont know. nir cohen _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
