BH is the only Semitic language of which I have detailed knowledge, but Gideon Goldenberg confirms (2013: 202) that the issue is problematic for the West Semitic languages in general, despite many differences between the verbal systems of the individual languages. This might be said to rank as the leading problem of BH linguistics. In a recent Linguist List review ( ), I explained how Biblical Hebrew (BH) has two contrasting verb conjugations, often called “prefix” and “suffix” conjugations from the differing position of affixes marking person/number/gender of subject, which clearly express a range of contrasts in the TAM area but where (despite the intensive study to which that language has been subjected over centuries) it often remains unclear and controversial why a given conjugation is chosen in a particular context. (Two papers presented at Erlangen are not included here because their authors had other publication plans.)įor description of Semitic languages, the area of tense, aspect, and modality (TAM) is not just one structural issue among others but a central problem. It contains six papers some (co-)authors are based in Germany, others in Semitic-speaking countries, and Silje Susanne Alvestad in Norway. “The Morpho-Syntactic and Lexical Encoding of Tense and Aspect in Semitic”, edited by Lutz Edzard, represents the proceedings of a one-day workshop held in 2014 at Erlangen in Franconia. REVIEWER: Geoffrey Sampson, University of Sussex PUBLISHER: ISD, Distributor of Scholarly Books SERIES TITLE: Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 104 SUBTITLE: Proceedings of the Erlangen Workshop on April 26, 2014 TITLE: The Morpho-Syntactic and Lexical Encoding of Tense and Aspect in Semitic Subject: The Morpho-Syntactic and Lexical Encoding of Tense and Aspect in Semitic LINGUIST List 28.2321 Thu Review: Akkadian Arabic Hebrew Ancient Hebrew Indo-European Morphology Syntax: Edzard (2016)

Subtitle workshop hebrew