This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature.

For more information on obtaining a

subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
RBL 10/2004

Rogland, Max
Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew
Studia Semitica Neerlandica 44
Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Pp. 164. Hardcover. EUR
49.00. ISBN 9023239733.
Donald Vance
Oral Roberts University
Tulsa, OK 74136
In this slightly edited version of his 2001 dissertation at Leiden University, Rogland
argues that it is possible to understand fientive qatal as an aspectually unmarked relative
past tense in Classical Hebrew, in poetry as well as prose. To demonstrate this we
examined the apparent exceptions to such a view, namely the so-called gnomic, prophetic
and performative perfects, and we argued that these should not in fact be understood as
disproving this theory (131). The 164-page book is well manufactured and is
complemented by a bibliography of over four hundred entries as well as indices of
passages (biblical and nonbiblical), authors, and Hebrew words. The work has the
expected dissertation structure. The introductory chapter discusses tense (including the
important concept of relative tense), aspect, and Roglands working theory as to how
these relate to the Hebrew verbal system. The next three chapters cover the gnomic,
prophetic, and performative perfects, respectively. Each of these chapters prefaces
Rolands analysis of the phenomenon with the previous discussion, the situation in
post-biblical Hebrew, and what comparative Semitics offers to the question. (These
last two are always perfunctory and have the feel of having been forced on Rogland by
his committee, since they never affect his analysis.) Multiple examples round out each
discussion. The fifth and final chapter succinctly summarizes his thesis and what each
chapter contributes to supporting it. Though readers need some familiarity with linguistic
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
terminology, the book is well written, especially considering that it is a dissertation, and
readers for whom English is not their first language should have few problems. There are
few typographical errors, though one paragraph is fairly well mangled: in a nine-line
quotation in German on page 53, all the capitalization of the nouns is missing and there
appear to be several misspellings as well. The quotation is from an 1863 work by Ewald,
however, and spelling was not yet standardized. Any translations given here are
Roglands unless otherwise indicated.
In his introductory first chapter, Rogland begins by noting that there has been little
research on the marginal uses of qatal that appear to refer to nonpast situations, a
surprising situation given the amount of ink that has been spilled on the verb in Classical
Hebrew. He uses Comries definition of tense as grammaticalised expression of location
in time (5). He also utilizes Reichenbacks notation system wherein S refers to the
moment of speaking, E to the event being discussed, and R to a point of reference. He
modifies the system, however, by not specifying S or R if they are unnecessary and by
using a binary temporal distinction of past and non-past instead of Reichenbacks
tripartite division of past, present, and future. Rogland further allows for absolute and
relative tense systems.
In discussing aspect, again using Comrie but also some others, Rogland says, In contrast
to tense, aspect does not relate to the location of a situation in time but rather to its
internal temporal structure. More specifically, a speaker may view a situation as either
perfective or imperfective. Imperfective forms make explicit reference to the internal
temporal constituency of the situation, whereas perfective forms lack such an explicit
reference; rather, perfectives view a situation as one single whole, regardless of its
internal complexity (7).
Rogland deals only with the indicative function of lexically fientive verbs in Standard
and late Biblical Hebrew texts. . . . The theory is as follows: fientive qatal is semantically
marked as a past tense (either relative or absolute) but unmarked aspectually. As a past
tense it stands in opposition to (long) yiqtol and qotel, which refer to various types of
non-past situations (10). Rogland envisions a binary system of past/anterior (qatal)
versus nonpast/nonanterior (yiqtol, qotel). The qatal form is aspectually unmarked, while
in past contexts yiqtol is marked for iterative-habitual aspect and qotel is marked for
progressive. So, in fact, he is advocating an approach that combines tense and aspect. He
does not see two different systems as work in prose and poetry, only that the latter is
subject to poetic license.
Chapter 2 is on the gnomic perfect, and Rogland begins with a discussion of the Greek
gnomic aorist and concludes that there is no consensus as to how it is to be explained,
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
some choosing an aspectual explanation and others a temporal one. Consequently, it does
not help the discussion of the situation in Classical Hebrew, where previous discussions
of the gnomic perfect divide into temporal and aspectual camps.
Defining gnomic turns out to be slippery. Defined formally, it is a proverb or a
proverb-like utterance (20). Defined semantically, it expresses a general, eternal or
timeless truth or a generic situation which holds for all time (past, present and future)
(20), imprecise definitions at best. Though some argue that the present tense is the natural
one for proverbial utterances, the data do not support this. Many languages have proverbs
that are in the past tense as well as the present or other tenses. While it is perhaps
statistically the case that proverbs most frequently utilize the present tense, it cannot be
maintained that this is the proper tense for them (22). Thus Rogland quotes three
proverbs from English that are in the past, present, and future tenses, respectively. A
general truth may be derived from past experience and thus the past tense may be found.
Rogland divides the gnomic perfect into four categories. The first is Proverbs Reporting
an Experience or Observation. Such examples purport to be relating a particular
experience or observation, and the verb is consequently to be understood as having a past
reference (24). Roglands second example, Prov 21:22 (a wise man went up against a
city of warriors and brought down the strength in which it trusted), fits this category best
of all his examples. Though one could translate it into English with present-tense verbs
(a wise man ascends . . . and tears down. . . ), the LXX uses two aorist verbs (tt q and
|otiitv): a wise man ascended to a strong city and tore down the fortress in which the
ungodly had trusted. Here the sense of the verse seems to refer to a specific event that
teaches something about the power of wisdom as over against might.
In Prov 30:20, however, I simply do not understand Roglands use of the past tense to
translate the qatal verbs in a sentence that begins with a nominal clause:
This is the way of an adulterous woman: nc:b nc ( o
She ate, and wiped her mouth, nc nnb: n:o
and said, Ive done no wrong. :: n:cc: nb:
The use of a nominal clause to begin a report of an observed event makes no sense. If any
clause is undoubtedly gnomic, this is it: This is the way of an adulterous wife: she eats,
wipes her mouth, and says, I havent done anything! The LXX agrees, for after the
opening nominal clause it uses an aorist subjunctive (poq) and an aorist participle
(ooviotvq) to introduce the main verb in the present tense (qoiv): This is the way
of the adulterous woman, who, whenever she acts, after washing, claims to have done
nothing improper.
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Roglands next category is Proverbs Utilizing a Global/General Past Tense. He defines
the global past tense as an aspectually unmarked past tense [that] refers to multiple
occurrences in a summarizing way. He begins with several examples that are typically
translated with an English past tense, such as Prov 7:26 (for many are the slain she has
laid low [n:cn]) and Job 4:3 (you have instructed many [no]). He then moves on
to others that are often translated with the present tense, such as Ps 88:10, 14, but which
he translates with a past tense:
My eye has become faint from affliction, I have called to you every day, O Yhwh,
I have spread out my hands to you. . . . And I have cried out to you, O Yhwh, and
in the morning my prayer kept coming before you.
Rogland understands the writer to be referring to his life in a summarizing way. The
past tense yields good sense and is superior to the NRSVs present tense, since this is a
complaint psalm where the psalmist is laying out his charge against YHWH for what has
been done to him in the past. In fact, I would use a simple past instead of Roglands
English present perfective: My eye dimmed because of affliction, I called to you. . . .
The general past indicates that a situation has typically occurred (or never occurred) in
the past (37). In a footnote (37 n. 89) Rogland discusses the distinction between the
global past and the general past: perhaps [the distinction] lies in the fact that the
examples of the global past simply refer to many cases but do not necessarily state
that the situation is one that typically occurs, whereas the general past is more universal
in scope and does express the typical nature of the situation described. An example of
the general past is Prov 13:1. The first colon is a nominal clause, but the second has a
qatal verb: But a mocker never listened to a rebuke (cbc:). Again Rogland moves
on to texts that are typically translated with the present tense where they should have a
past tense. The NRSV, for example, translates the qatal forms in Prov 30:1516 with the
present tense when the perfect makes better sense: The leech has two daughters (who
say) Give, give. Three things are never satisfied [n:cncn :], four things have never
said [:b:] enough: Sheol, the barren womb, land which has never been satisfied
[ncnc:] with water, and fire, which has never said [nb:] enough. The
hallmark of the general past is the (possible) inclusion in translation of an adverb such as
ever or always.
For reasons at which the reader can only guess, Rogland next treats twelve verses that
have been translated as presents in the standard translations or are discussed as gnomic
perfects by the grammars. These are either best understood as past tenses or are simply
too ambiguous to function as useful examples of a supposedly general present meaning of
qatal (40) and belong to a category he entitles Uncertain Examples. The problem is
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
that Rogland invariably translates the qatals with an English present perfective and thus
fudges the distinction between the past and the present tenses. It seems to me that the
English present perfective is approaching a present tense if it is, in fact, not a present
tense. CGEL, in its lengthy discussion of the tense, says that the present perfective
differs from the simple past in relating a past event/state to a present time orientation.
Thus in situations (which are not unusual) where either the present perfective or the
simple past can be appropriately used, it is generally felt that they are not interchangeable,
but that the present perfective relates the action more directly to the present time
(Randloph Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [Harlow,
Eng.: Longman, 1985], 192). Consider Roglands treatment of Job 3:17:
:: :: occ oc
:o c: ::: oc:
Compare his present perfective There [i.e., the grave] the wicked have ceased from
raging with the simple past There the wicked ceased from raging. The prefix-
conjugation verb in the second colon (and there the weary of strength [will] rest) may
be seen as supporting Roglands choice of the present perfective, but this is
indistinguishable from the NRSVs present tense (they cease). On the other hand, just
what is the distinction that the poet is making with the use of the two forms? Surely they
are not simply interchangeable, as the NRSVs present tense for both implies. This is the
rub.
The fourth category is Proverbs Utilizing Relative Past Tenses, which are defined as
describing a type of person rather than a particular person. Such proverbs tend to use
verbs that express a past tense relative to some other reference point (43) besides that
of the actual speaking of the proverb. Therefore, in proverbs of the Bible that appear to be
describing a type of person, the qatal is marked as a relative past tense, not an absolute
tense. Rogland translates Prov 8:35 thus: For the one who finds me has found life, and
has received favor from Yhwh. Here, the proverb refers to anyone who finds YHWH
and thus is describing a type of person. Consequently, the two qatal verb forms express a
relative past. I find it difficult to see the relative tense here, but presumably the reception
of favor is anterior to the finding of YHWH.
In the concluding section of this chapter Rogland points out that it has been shown that
in a good many cases qatal does not require a general present interpretation but should be
understood as a past tense. . . . there is a much greater variety of past tense usage in
gnomic or proverbial statements than is sometimes supposed. I think he has made
this case. That does not mean, however, that there are no gnomic perfectives that have a
general present sense. Neither does Rogland make a definitive case for a temporal
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
understanding of the verbal system. After all, qatal forms in prose narrative texts are
usually to be translated with an English simple past or present perfect. An appendix to
this chapter gives quite a few examples in English translation of past-tense proverbs from
several sources.
Chapter 3 is on the prophetic perfect and begins with a prcis of the previous discussion.
The consensus is concisely expressed by David Qimchi, whom Rogland quotes, the
event of action is imminent beyond any doubt in the mind of the speaker or writer and is
already regarded as accomplished (53). Scholars who share this assertion are divided
into temporal and aspectual camps. There are those, however, who do not share this
opinion and who attribute the use of the qatal in future contexts to genre instead of
grammar, or, as Joon and Muraoka put it, it is not a special grammatical perfect, but a
rhetorical device.
1
Waltke and OConnor refer both to the semantic value of the verb
form (complete and independent) and to stylistic issues (vividly and dramatically
represents a future situation) (56).
2

In order for a text to qualify as a potential prophetic perfect for Rogland, it must be
textually sound, be in the indicative mood, and have a clear future meaning. After sifting
the texts through this grid, the examples that remain fall into six categories.
The first category is Relative Past. The qatal is used for an event that is prior to another
event that has yet to occur. This may be expressed by the future perfective in English.
The Hebrew construction is the particle o followed by the qatal verb, as noted by S. R.
Driver.
3
Here I think Rogland is convincing. Isaiah 32:10 is a good example.
::n :n qo vn n:o o n:on n:::n n:c:c ob
In little more than a year you will shudder, o careless ones, for the vintage will
have failed/when the vintage has failed; the harvest will not come.
This is much preferable to the NRSVs for the vintage will fail.

1. Paul Joon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. T. Muraoka; SubBi 14/12; Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 2003), 112h, p. 363. Rogland incorrectly gives the section as 111h.
2. The reference is to IBHS 30.5.1e, which Rogland neglects to note.
3. Samuel Rolles Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical
Questions, with an introductory essay by W. Randall Garr (ed. Astrid B. Beck and David Noel Freedman;
Biblical Resource Series; London: Oxford University Press, 1892; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
23. Either Rogland or his editor dropped the ball here in that the bibliography lists works by both G. R.
Driver and S. R. Driver (three each), yet the notes contain cryptic references such as here: Driver 17.
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Roglands next category is Quoted Speech, texts that involve speech that will be
uttered in the future, such as Isa 14:4: And you will lift up this proverb over the king of
Babylon, and you will say: How the oppressor has ceased, boisterous behavior ceased.
The qatal forms nnc and nnnc in the quoted speech will be in the past relative to the
utterance of the proverb, which Isaiah indicates will be in the future (you will say). The
NRSV agrees here. Roglands other examples work well too. (However, for some reason,
he also gives Isa 26:1, which contains no qatal forms.) The classic prophetic formulation
of n:n b is another example of this relative past phenomenon; that is, when the
prophet utters the oracle, the act of YHWH speaking to the prophet will be in the past,
hence the qatal form, as in Ezek 28:12: Son of man, take up this lament over the king of
Tyre and say to him: Thus has the Lord YHWH spoken. The standard (as in the NRSV)
Thus says the Lord reflects English practice. Interestingly, in all but a few of Roglands
examples in this section, the NRSV also uses either a simple past or a present perfect and
the LXX also tends to use perfects or aorists. Rogland makes eminent sense here. The
interpretive issue is to learn to recognize quoted speech.
Some texts deal with Past Decisions. Qatal is used to indicate an event that has not
occurred at the time of speaking but that is the result of a decision made sometime in the
past; some grammars refer to this as a perfect of certainty. Rogland dismisses any need
to speak of certainty or confidence, since we are simply dealing with a past tense
(the moment of decision) regardless of whether or not other (future) events will result
from that decision (63). His first example is Isa 34:2: He has laid the ban upon them
[obn], delivered them [o:n: ] to the slaughter. Rogland understands the verbs,
reasonably, to be referring to decisions. Both the NRSV and the LXX also use past tenses in
their translations.
Roglands fourth categoryNarration of Events Which Occurred in a Vision, that is,
the prophetic perfect per seentails a lengthier discussion than the previous three. S. R.
Driver (14) describes the interspersion of qatal forms with simple future forms (yiqtol or
weqatalt) encountered in prophetic texts as the shifting of the prophets point of view:
at one moment contemplating the events he is describing from the real standpoint of the
present, at another moment looking back upon them as accomplished and done, and so
viewing them from an ideal position in the future (Driver, p. 19, emphasis original).
Rogland argues that such cases are better explained not in terms of the reference point
(R) but rather in terms of the nature of the event (E) referred to (65). Rogland lays the
groundwork for this idea by discussing deixis and events in dreams and deixis and
events in visions. Events in dreams are naturally reported by the dreamer via past tense
forms, since the dream occurred in the past. Since dreams are often reported as if they
have prophetic significance, interpretations of the dreams often use future forms. See, for
example, Josephs dreams in Gen 37. The situation is the same with visions. The vision
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
has already occurred, so the past tense is used. The events being described, however,
have yet to occur in reality, so when the vision is interpreted future forms are used.
Daniel 8 provides a good example of this. Daniel uses the past tense in his reporting of
the vision, while Gabriel uses future-tense forms in interpreting the vision to Daniel.
Based on these observations from dreams and visions, Rogland contends that many,
though not all, of the so-called prophetic perfects are, in fact, genuine past tense qatals
referring to the vision that the prophet experienced. He also argues that it is a convention
of prophetic literature that the events described took place in a vision or dream (72 n.
55), whether or not the dream or vision is explicitly mentioned. He uses Isa 22:114 and
8:239:6 as illustrations for this point. The genuine future forms (i.e., yiqtols that cannot
be explained as preterites or as iterative pasts) would be referring to the future realization
(E
real
) of the events announced in the vision (E
vision
). As was seen in the discussion of
dreams and visions, this sort of shift from E
vision
to E
real
is not uncommon. The position
seems reasonable on its face. As regards S. R. Drivers explanation of the prophetic
perfect, Rogland explains:
Drivers explanation of the prophetic perfect relates to a shift between real and
ideal reference points (R), rather than a difference in the nature of the event (E)
referred to, as argued here. There are two reasons why I think that Drivers
explanation is to be rejected. Firstly, we find past tenses in many narrations of
dreams and visions . . . which do not have any future significance and
consequently cannot be explained in terms of an ideal reference point. At the
same time, the events described clearly did not occur in the external world (E
real
).
The only explanation for such cases is that the past tenses reflect the time of the
vision (E
vision
). Secondly, the distinction proposed here is able to account for cases
in which one person describes visionary events that are occurring as he speaks,
whereas another person can use future tenses to refer to the realization of what is
symbolically portrayed in the vision. (75)
One weakness I see in his analyses is his explanation of weqatals as conjunctive or as
iterative pasts. A bigger weakness, however, is his lack of explanation for the shifting
between E
vision
and E
real
. It is observable, and that is all that matters for his study, in his
opinion. For example, in Jer 46:312 Rogland observes the following sequence of event
references: 46:56 E
vision
; 46:79 uncertain (general present, past behavior); 46:10 E
real
;
and 46:12 E
vision
. In none of these is there any indication in the textother than verb
formthat there is a shift in the event being discussed, unlike in the dream or vision
examples, where there was some sort of narrative indicator. There are cases when
Roglands explanation of real versus vision reference points makes sense, but many of
these are already recognized in the standard translations. He himself admits, The
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
distinction between E
real
and E
vision
can in some cases explain the shifting between past
and future tenses. However, occasionally this shifting occurs so rapidly that this
proposalor any other explanation, for that mattercan seem somewhat forced (90).
He concedes that [a]lthough we have argued that the alleged examples of prophetic
perfects . . . are in fact to be understood as past tenses, there are nonetheless some
examples in which qatal appears to be used when speaking of a future event (93).
Instead of indicating that Hebrew is tenseless, these are examples of idiomatic tense
mismatches, an idea to which he turns in his fifth category.
The next section is on Rhetorical Uses, Roglands fifth category. A number of
languages use tense forms in manners inconsistent with their usual temporal sphere. The
English historical present is one such idiomatic tense mismatch (a term coined by
DeCaen and adopted by Rogland). Rogland gives two examples (Russian and Kazakh) of
past-tense forms used to refer to present or future events. Citing Comrie, Rogland argues
that the mere existence of such mismatches is insufficient to prove that a language is
tenseless (93). Thus, the instances where a qatal form is used for a genuine present or
future situation are idiomatic tense mismatches; that is, they are rhetorical. In these
cases a future event is exaggeratedly described as already past (93) and perhaps should
be translated with a past tense. Absent any native informants, Rogland contends, we will
never know the true rhetorical force of these forms, such as certainty, imminence,
vividness, and so forth.
Roglands sixth category is Future Referent Uncertain. There are fifty-two passages
that the reference grammars cite as containing a prophetic perfect but for which Rogland
argues it is at least debatable if not unlikely that the verb is referring to the future.
The books fourth chapter is on the Performative Perfect, which Rogland defines by
means of three English examples (115):
1. I now pronounce you man and wife.
2. I hereby dub thee Sir Henry.
3. I promise to behave myself.
After noting that a variety of temporal, aspectual, and rhetorical explanations for the
performative perfect have been proposed, Rogland delineates three sets of criteria for it:
formal, semantic, and pragmatic. The discussion of the formal criteria is much lengthier
than that of last two sets and entails five commonly espoused markers: (1) Performatives
cannot be negative (119); (2) Performative utterances typically occur with a first person
subject, but a third person subject can occur if it refers to the speaker or if the speaker is
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
acting as a representative of another person (119); (3) any indirect object refers to the
addressee (unless the addressee is the direct object); (4) if a sentence tolerates the
insertion of hereby, it is probably a performative utterance (120); and (5) It is
frequently claimed that one of the formal criteria for a performative utterance is that the
verb form is in the simple indicative present; moreover, according to some scholars this is
a perfective present (120). Rogland contests this last point.
Formal criteria by themselves are not sufficient to identify a performative utterance;
semantic and pragmatic factors also play a role. An utterance must be capable of
performing an act of some sort. Consequently, performative utterances are non-stative
(121). Rogland apparently agrees with J. Partridge (Semantic, Pragmatic and Syntactic
Correlates: An Analysis of Performative Verbs Based on English Data [Tbinger
Beitrge zur Linguistik 143; Tbingen: Narr, 1982]) that performatives are limited to
verba dicendi (verbs of speaking), but with two qualifications: (1) not all verba
dicendi can be used performatively: e.g. to mumble, to recite, to speak, to remark,
to insinuate ; (2) performative utterances which are part of a ritualized act do not
necessarily have to be verba dicendi in the strict sense, provided that a particular
utterance is considered necessary for the felicitous performance of a prescribed ritual
(121). To illustrate the second point Rogland offers: I baptize you in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. All his examples come from nonritual
situations and involve the use of verba dicendi in the strict sense. For some reason,
Rogland puts the discussion of these in a separate section.
Most definitions of performative utterances involve the action being accomplished by the
act of speaking and thus occurring simultaneously with it, a concept that naturally lends
itself to the present tense. However, modal verb forms and aspectual imperfectives are
used as performatives. Some conclude that performativity is purely pragmatically
determined and is by definition outside the scope of temporality. Others argue that
syntactic and semantic factors must also be taken into account. Rogland argues, in fact,
that the formal criteria are valid but that there is no inherent connection between
performative utterances and the semantics of tense, aspect and mood (125). He
concludes, Consequently, it would be a mistake to interpret the use of qatal in
performative utterances as an indication of a non-past function of the verb form. This use
simply appears to be a convention and has no bearing on the semantic analysis of qatal
(126). This strikes me as facile and unconvincing. In an appendix to this chapter, Rogland
illustrates through a series of fourteen examples the diachronic development of the
Hebrew performatives from the qatal form in Classical Hebrew to the participle in
Mishnaic Hebrew, with the replacement already evinced in Late Biblical Hebrew texts
such as in 1 Chr 29:13; Zech 9:12; and Mal 3:15.
This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Rogland has succeeded in modifying the way this reviewer will translate qatal forms in a
number of contexts. The treatments of the gnomic and prophetic perfects are particularly
salient, that of the performative perfects less so. As for demonstrating a temporal nature
for Biblical Hebrew as opposed to aspectual, the book falls short. All his observations are
perfectly (no pun intended) amenable to an aspectual analysis. Nevertheless, Roglands
tome is an admirable defense of a past-tense understanding of qatal. Further, he addresses
the question of the import of the intermingling of qatal and yiqtol forms in poetry, the
presence of which is often masked in the standard translations. Though he may not have
succeeded in answering the question fully, he deserves kudos for moving the discussion
forward. This book will certainly engender more discussion, and deservedly so.