342 DAVID ARMITAGE Significant support for this reading is found in the proposals of some recent writers on the Hebrew verbal system who question the primacy of tense or aspect, arguing instead that the most significant polarisation relates to modality 35. In other words the verbal system is not based first and foremost around the distinction between past and non-past (as in tense-based systems), or between complete and non-complete (as in aspect-based systems) 36. Rather the primary consideration is the distinction between indicative uses which articulate assertions about actual states of affairs, and modal uses which articulate projections about potential states of affairs, sometimes with a volitive element (expressing will) or a deontic element (expressing obligation). A crucial point here is that the qatal form of the verb is essentially unmarked for modality: the form itself does not indicate that the verb is intrinsically modal, but neither is it fixed as non- modal 37. It must be stressed that this is not to claim that the qatal For example J.A. COOK, “The Vav-prefixed Verb Forms in Elementary 35 Hebrew Grammar”, The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8 (2008) 2-16; J. JOOSTEN, “Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect ? ”, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 29 (2002) 49-70; A.WARREN, “Modality, Reference and Speech Acts in the Psalms” (PhD thesis, Cambridge University, Faculty of Oriental Studies, 1998) available at www.sil.org/acpub/repository/40251.pdf. [accessed 26/05/2010]. Cf COOK, “Vav-prefixed Verb Forms”, 11: “the indicative-modal 36 distinction is the most salient one in the Hebrew verbal system”. WARREN, “ Modality ”, 67, makes the point more systematically from the point of view of generative syntax, arguing that mood is prior to tense and aspect in terms of deep structure. Whilst Warren argues for the priority of tense over aspect, J.A. COOK, “The Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Do Express Aspect ”, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 30 (2006) 21-35 (here 35) argues for the reverse, but they both subordinate these distinctions to the question of modality. This distinction is arguably also implicit in ROGLAND, Non-past Uses of Qatal, 133. He gives only limited attention to possible precative uses of qatal on the grounds that his focus is on indicative uses of the form, and a function reflecting deontic modality is outside the scope of his study. His use of this indicative / modal distinction in setting the limits for the study is revealing, since it implies that tense based interpretation of qatal is somehow subordinate to more important distinctions concerning modality. The way the argument is developed varies: JOOSTEN, “Finite Verbal 37 Forms ”, 66, 67, argues that as a counterpoint to the modally unmarked qatal, the yiqtol form is fundamentally modal, and not imperfective, as is frequently asserted. WARREN, “Modality”, 99, follows Joosten at this point, proceeding to argue that the qatal, unmarked for modality, is by default indicative, and in