Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Early Rabbinic Writings (review)

Early Rabbinic Writings (review) not maintained between the two types of criteria in the presentation of the discourse types. Having saved the best for the last, it is a pleasure to say that Longacre's analysis of the verbal system is generally on the mark. There can be no doubt today that the waw-consecutive plus (short) imperfect (or whatever terms one may prefer) is the primary device for noting "foregrounding" (or "story-line" action as Longacre calls it, or "ProgreS" as it is being called in German) in a perfective-aspect discourse, that the mirror-image form (waw-consecutive plus perfect with final accent) is used in imperfective-aspect discourse, that the volitive sequences have their own sets of rules (with some overlap with the imperfective system), and that all other clause types provide various types of "backgrounding." One could quarrel with Longacre's term "preterite" for the narrative form, for that term in English implies past tense, whereas the Hebrew system is primarily aspectual. But as a handy one-word term for a form that will frequently function as does the English preterite it is useful. In summary, I would have wished for a more rigorous distinction between the literary and religious/historical value of a text and between the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Hebrew Studies National Association of Professors of Hebrew

Early Rabbinic Writings (review)

Hebrew Studies , Volume 31 (1) – Oct 5, 1990

Loading next page...
 
/lp/national-association-of-professors-of-hebrew/early-rabbinic-writings-review-20B1mM1BkR
Publisher
National Association of Professors of Hebrew
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Professors of Hebrew
ISSN
2158-1681
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

not maintained between the two types of criteria in the presentation of the discourse types. Having saved the best for the last, it is a pleasure to say that Longacre's analysis of the verbal system is generally on the mark. There can be no doubt today that the waw-consecutive plus (short) imperfect (or whatever terms one may prefer) is the primary device for noting "foregrounding" (or "story-line" action as Longacre calls it, or "ProgreS" as it is being called in German) in a perfective-aspect discourse, that the mirror-image form (waw-consecutive plus perfect with final accent) is used in imperfective-aspect discourse, that the volitive sequences have their own sets of rules (with some overlap with the imperfective system), and that all other clause types provide various types of "backgrounding." One could quarrel with Longacre's term "preterite" for the narrative form, for that term in English implies past tense, whereas the Hebrew system is primarily aspectual. But as a handy one-word term for a form that will frequently function as does the English preterite it is useful. In summary, I would have wished for a more rigorous distinction between the literary and religious/historical value of a text and between the

Journal

Hebrew StudiesNational Association of Professors of Hebrew

Published: Oct 5, 1990

There are no references for this article.