No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Early studies of the verbs in those texts (B?hl 1909; Ebeling 1910; Dhorme 1913-14) dealt with the outward shape without delving into syntactic function. Only Ebeling (1910:69-73) took note of the energie but without drawing the proper diachronic conclusions. It was W. L. Moran (1950, 1951, 1960) who first defined syntactically the jussive, imperfect, and volitive, confining himself to the Byblos correspondence. However, the yaqtul preterite was so rare in that corpus of letters that Moran was led to suggest that they were Akkadianisms, simply iprus forms that the scribes occasionally employed (Moran 1950:45). The past tense function was usually filled by the suffix forms (Moran 1950:30-31, 51-52; Rainey 1973). When the West Semiticized letters from outside of Byblos were examined, it was found that the zero-form, yaqtul, was often juxtaposed to yaqtulu to express the contrast between a single action in the past and present-future continuous (Rainey 1971:96 102). The demonstration of a true preterite function for yaqtul (cf. Rainey 1975a) completed the picture and made possible the formulation of the system as proposed above. The question before us now is to what extent these basic forms can be discerned in biblical Hebrew. R. Meyer (1969:96-99), building on the foundations laid by Beer (1916:5-13), made a beginning in this direction by basing his recon
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 43 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.