prophetic perfect again
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:25 am
Dear list-members
I have just completed a translation into English of Isaiah, chapters 15 and 16. And I have some comments:
The words of 16:13 show that Isaiah 15:1-16:12 is a prophecy about the destruction of Moab, and that Isaiah received this prophecy before he wrote it down. At the time of writing, Moab still existed. But in three years, the prophecy would be fulfilled, and Moab would be destroyed. This means that the verbs of the two chapters have future reference. I count 17 imperfects and one imperfect consecutive (in 15:4), and I translate all these with English future. I count 31 perfects, and 28 of these I translate with English future. But the perfect in 15:7 and 16:6 I translate with English perfect, and the last perfect in 16:8 I translate with English past. I count seven perfect consecutives, and I translate all these with English future.
My principles are: I view the imperfective aspect as a “close-up” view of an action with details visible, while the perfective aspect is a viewpoint of an action, as if from “some distance,” with details not visible. I view the perfects and perfect consecutives of the chapters as normal future references with details not visible. But sentence initial perfects, which are rare, I also view as emphatic. When the aktionsart of the verbs allow for it, the use of imperfects and the imperfect consecutive make details of the future actions visible. For example, I translate the imperfect consecutive in 15:4 as “will be weeping aloud,” (Most translations render the imperfect consecutive with English present or future.) But the last perfect of the verse I translate as “his very soul will tremble.” I use the emphatic adverbial “very” because the subject precedes the verb and therefore it is stressed.
All Bibles I have consulted have zig-zag translations of these chapters, where most perfects are translated by English past or perfect, while the imperfects are translated with future. This shows that the metaphysical view of prophetic perfect has penetrated the whole discipline of Bible translation. I never stop wondering how intelligent linguists are not able to see that such a zig-zag translation in a future setting is nonsensical. But tradition die hard.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
I have just completed a translation into English of Isaiah, chapters 15 and 16. And I have some comments:
The words of 16:13 show that Isaiah 15:1-16:12 is a prophecy about the destruction of Moab, and that Isaiah received this prophecy before he wrote it down. At the time of writing, Moab still existed. But in three years, the prophecy would be fulfilled, and Moab would be destroyed. This means that the verbs of the two chapters have future reference. I count 17 imperfects and one imperfect consecutive (in 15:4), and I translate all these with English future. I count 31 perfects, and 28 of these I translate with English future. But the perfect in 15:7 and 16:6 I translate with English perfect, and the last perfect in 16:8 I translate with English past. I count seven perfect consecutives, and I translate all these with English future.
My principles are: I view the imperfective aspect as a “close-up” view of an action with details visible, while the perfective aspect is a viewpoint of an action, as if from “some distance,” with details not visible. I view the perfects and perfect consecutives of the chapters as normal future references with details not visible. But sentence initial perfects, which are rare, I also view as emphatic. When the aktionsart of the verbs allow for it, the use of imperfects and the imperfect consecutive make details of the future actions visible. For example, I translate the imperfect consecutive in 15:4 as “will be weeping aloud,” (Most translations render the imperfect consecutive with English present or future.) But the last perfect of the verse I translate as “his very soul will tremble.” I use the emphatic adverbial “very” because the subject precedes the verb and therefore it is stressed.
All Bibles I have consulted have zig-zag translations of these chapters, where most perfects are translated by English past or perfect, while the imperfects are translated with future. This shows that the metaphysical view of prophetic perfect has penetrated the whole discipline of Bible translation. I never stop wondering how intelligent linguists are not able to see that such a zig-zag translation in a future setting is nonsensical. But tradition die hard.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway