The Fallacy of Prophetic Perfect
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:37 am
Dear list-members.
I ask permission to present my new book. It is entitled, The Fallacy of Prophetic Perfect With Translations of Verses From the Prophets. Paperback, 363 pages, printed in 130 g Silk paper, with many illustrations.
The biggest problem in grammatical studies of Hebrew is the failure to distinguish between semantics and pragmatics, that is, to distinguish between meaning that is an intrinsic part of a form and meaning that are caused by the context and can change.
This first chapter shows that there are only two verb conjugations in Classical Hebrew and not four, 1) Imperfect (imperfect, imperfect consecutive, imperfect conjunctive) and, 2) perfect (perfect and perfect consecutive). The phonological rules show that the way-element in imperfect consecutive is the conjunction we.
Imperfective consecutive is the narrative verb, and if this verb form is imperfective, we have the strange situation of imperfective and not perfective verbs as narrative verbs. It is demonstrated that Ugaritic also has imperfective verbs as narrative verbs, and Phoenician has infinitive absolute as narrative verbs. So imperfective narrative verbs in Hebrew are not strange.
The chapter demonstrates that the four groups of verbs that we see in the MT was made on the basis of the recitation of the Hebrew text in the synagogue. Different parts of speech were recited and stressed differently, and that is the reason for the four different groups. Grammar was unknown in Masoretic times. This means that the four groups are pragmatic and not semantic.
After the Masorets, different sages tried to form grammatical rules on the basis of the MT and the Massora. And these sages at the time of David Kimhi interpreted the four pragmatic groups in a semantic way, as four grammatical groups, and the four conjugations of Hebrew were born.
Chapter 2 discusses the meaning of the verb conjugations in Hebrew. There are no tenses, but only two aspects and a detailed definition of the aspects is given.
Chapter 3 shows that the 200-year-old theory of Prophetic perfect is wrong. And it demonstrates by numerous examples that imperfect consecutive is imperfective and not perfective.
The last half of the book contains a translation of verses from 115 chapters in the prophets. The verses have 691 perfects and 84 imperfect consecutives that are translated with English future tense. Almost no Bible translation marks stress and emphasis on the basis of word order and syntax. This is done in my translation, and the translated text is very different from other translations.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
I ask permission to present my new book. It is entitled, The Fallacy of Prophetic Perfect With Translations of Verses From the Prophets. Paperback, 363 pages, printed in 130 g Silk paper, with many illustrations.
The biggest problem in grammatical studies of Hebrew is the failure to distinguish between semantics and pragmatics, that is, to distinguish between meaning that is an intrinsic part of a form and meaning that are caused by the context and can change.
This first chapter shows that there are only two verb conjugations in Classical Hebrew and not four, 1) Imperfect (imperfect, imperfect consecutive, imperfect conjunctive) and, 2) perfect (perfect and perfect consecutive). The phonological rules show that the way-element in imperfect consecutive is the conjunction we.
Imperfective consecutive is the narrative verb, and if this verb form is imperfective, we have the strange situation of imperfective and not perfective verbs as narrative verbs. It is demonstrated that Ugaritic also has imperfective verbs as narrative verbs, and Phoenician has infinitive absolute as narrative verbs. So imperfective narrative verbs in Hebrew are not strange.
The chapter demonstrates that the four groups of verbs that we see in the MT was made on the basis of the recitation of the Hebrew text in the synagogue. Different parts of speech were recited and stressed differently, and that is the reason for the four different groups. Grammar was unknown in Masoretic times. This means that the four groups are pragmatic and not semantic.
After the Masorets, different sages tried to form grammatical rules on the basis of the MT and the Massora. And these sages at the time of David Kimhi interpreted the four pragmatic groups in a semantic way, as four grammatical groups, and the four conjugations of Hebrew were born.
Chapter 2 discusses the meaning of the verb conjugations in Hebrew. There are no tenses, but only two aspects and a detailed definition of the aspects is given.
Chapter 3 shows that the 200-year-old theory of Prophetic perfect is wrong. And it demonstrates by numerous examples that imperfect consecutive is imperfective and not perfective.
The last half of the book contains a translation of verses from 115 chapters in the prophets. The verses have 691 perfects and 84 imperfect consecutives that are translated with English future tense. Almost no Bible translation marks stress and emphasis on the basis of word order and syntax. This is done in my translation, and the translated text is very different from other translations.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway