I do have a question about your statement above (In my own opinion the BH verbal system has to do with aspect primarily, and tense(ie, time) only secondarily). What do you mean aspect primarily (or prominent as John)?

Some may argue (someone told me) that if you say that the verb is PRIMARILY aspectual you do not have a clear understanding of the verb. Because the verb can be either aspect based, or tense based, and not primarily aspectual etc…Does this make sense?

You do an excellent job of pointing out what Anstey is ultimately up to: demonstrating that FDG is an adequate theoretical container for an analysis of BH, even if, on first blush, such seems not to be the case.

And thanks for sticking up for an aspect-prominent analysis of the BH verbal system. Since Ewald and Driver, this has become the consensus position, probably, among Hebraists.

Those who argue in favor of a tense-prominent analysis are like salmon swimming upstream. It’s a hard road, but I’m hoping to lose a few pounds in the process.