Genesis 6:1 "born"

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

Amos 7:8
וַיֹּ֙אמֶר יְהוָ֜ה אֵלַ֗י מָֽה־אַתָּ֤ה רֹאֶה֙ עָמ֔וֹס וָאֹמַ֖ר אֲנָ֑ךְ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲדֹנָ֗י הִנְנִ֙י שָׂ֤ם אֲנָךְ֙ בְּקֶ֙רֶב֙ עַמִּ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹֽא־אוֹסִ֥יף ע֖וֹד עֲב֥וֹר לֽוֹ׃

Two instances in one verse of the participle being used as a present tense.

מָֽה־אַתָּה רֹאֶה עָמוֹס - "What do you see, Amos?"
הִנְנִי שָׂם אֲנָךְ בְּקֶ֫רֶב עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל - "I am putting a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel."

It wasn't a foreign influence on the language.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Isaac Fried »

Consider this:
אכל in binyan poel. Gen. 39:6
כִּי אִם הַלֶּחֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא אוֹכֵל
KJV: "save the bread which he did eat"
NIV: "except the food he ate"
pronounced okEl

אכל in mishqal poel. Gen. 41:35
וְיִקְבְּצוּ אֶת כָּל אֹכֶל הַשָּׁנִים הַטֹּבוֹת
NIV: "They should collect all the food of these good years"
KJV: "And let them gather all the food of those good years"
pronounced Okel

Isaac Fried, Boston University
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

One is a participle, another is a segolate noun (along the lines of קֹ֫דֶשׁ). And?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:You're thinking in English. In English, gerunds and participles both end in ING. In Hebrew, what we think of as the gerund would be the infinitive construct.
What about Proverbs 29:16?

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:You're thinking in English. In English, gerunds and participles both end in ING. In Hebrew, what we think of as the gerund would be the infinitive construct.
What about Proverbs 29:16?

Karl W. Randolph.
There is no participle in that verse.

בִּרְב֣וֹת רְ֭שָׁעִים יִרְבֶּה־פָּ֑שַׁע וְ֝צַדִּיקִ֗ים בְּֽמַפַּלְתָּ֥ם יִרְאֽוּ׃

רְבוֹת is an infinitive construct.
יִרְבֶּה is a qal imperfect.
יִרְאוּ is also a qal imperfect.

I don't see how this is relevant to what we're discussing, except that it goes to show that the infinitive construct is the Hebrew version of the "gerund."

Perhaps you were intending to refer to a different verse, which brings me to another point of consideration: if you ask a question about a verse, please quote the verse so as to eliminate confusion or miscommunication. If you were referring to something else, I could have found it quickly or replied directly instead of needing to go out of the site to search for the verse myself. So, to recap:

(1) If you refer to a post on the forum, it's a great idea to share a link so that we (all readers) can refer to the original context and see the original conversation.

(2) If you refer to a verse, it's good form to quote it so that your interlocutor can easily refer to it.

Thanks!
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:I don’t see this as an unquestionable example. “The Egyptian” is a noun, not an adjective that backs up your claim.
I think that מִצְרִי is certainly a gentilic adjective that can be substantivized.
It’s a stand alone noun in Exodus 2:12, 14, Deuteronomy 23:8, 2 Samuel 23:21, Ezra 9:1. There’s no reason to take it as other than a noun here.
Jason Hare wrote:Isaiah 36:9: עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי הַקְּטַנִּים "my master's small[est] servants" (not עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי קְטַנִּים, which would be a sentence in its own right ["my master's servants {are} small"])
Go back and reread that sentence. עבדי is a masculine plural in construct. It doesn’t have a possessive suffix which it needs to have to be an example of what you claim. The ה on קטנים is to specify the small ones, not the great ones. אדני is irrelevant to your argument.
Jason Hare wrote:These are equivalent to the phrase חֲבֵרַי הַטּוֹבִים "my good friends" (that is, "the good friends of me" or "the-friends-my the-good-ones"). The entire phrase is definite, and it is NECESSARY to use the article with the adjective. The fact that you claim otherwise indicates how your system doesn't cover even the most elementary of principles of Hebrew syntax. This idea is covered in every basic grammar, and it is consistent in Greek, where the article must proceed an adjective in a definite noun phrase (either by sandwiching [ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος] or by repeating the adjective [ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθός]). If you leave the adjective off of the attribute adjective when it is part of a definite noun phrase (in Hebrew!), you create a verbless (or nominal) sentence. חֲבֵרַי טוֹבִים means "my friends are good," not "my good friends." I'm surprised that I need to explain this to someone who has read the Tanach so many times and would like to correct someone like Gesenius, who clearly knew what he was talking about.…It's not my claim. It's the claim of every grammarian of the Hebrew language,
Apparently the writer of 1 Chronicles didn’t know Hebrew when he wrote 21:16.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:You and I operate on different assumptions.
Yes, I assume that if we discuss Biblical Hebrew, that it is Biblical Hebrew, not other dialects.
If we discuss biblical (not "Biblical") Hebrew, that is one thing. If we correspond in Hebrew, it's another thing. We can discuss the language of the Bible, of course. But, if we need to communicate things in our lives, we cannot truly limit ourselves to the structures and vocabulary that are actually used in the Bible. That's unnatural, and it wouldn't produce anything communicative. We live in a different world today.
I don’t find this a legitimate excuse. Especially since in your example, there are Biblical Hebrew ways of saying what you wrote.
Jason Hare wrote:There is no participle in that verse.

בִּרְב֣וֹת רְ֭שָׁעִים יִרְבֶּה־פָּ֑שַׁע וְ֝צַדִּיקִ֗ים בְּֽמַפַּלְתָּ֥ם יִרְאֽוּ׃

רְבוֹת is an infinitive construct.
יִרְבֶּה is a qal imperfect.
יִרְאוּ is also a qal imperfect.

I don't see how this is relevant to what we're discussing, except that it goes to show that the infinitive construct is the Hebrew version of the "gerund."
What’s מפלתם if not a feminine participle, feminine because it’s describing an abstract falling, not a physical one?

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:It’s a stand alone noun in Exodus 2:12, 14, Deuteronomy 23:8, 2 Samuel 23:21, Ezra 9:1. There’s no reason to take it as other than a noun here.
Because an adjective can be substantivized when it stands alone, it should be read as a substantive when it accompanies a noun? Is that what you're saying?
kwrandolph wrote:Go back and reread that sentence. עבדי is a masculine plural in construct. It doesn’t have a possessive suffix which it needs to have to be an example of what you claim. The ה on קטנים is to specify the small ones, not the great ones. אדני is irrelevant to your argument.
The structure is the same whether it has a pronominal suffix or is a noun in smichut. I thought that might be beyond you. I shouldn't have used it (even though it's obviously relevant).
kwrandolph wrote:Apparently the writer of 1 Chronicles didn’t know Hebrew when he wrote 21:16.
These are not noun phrases. These are like saying "keep the city clean," in which "clean" is actually a predicate adjective. Again, it would be considerate to QUOTE THE VERSES that you reference rather than making me leave the forum to go search for the verse.
וַיִּשָּׂ֨א דָוִ֜יד אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּ֞רְא אֶת־מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהוָה֙ עֹמֵ֗ד בֵּ֤ין הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְחַרְבּ֤וֹ שְׁלוּפָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ נְטוּיָ֖ה עַל־יְרֽוּשָׁלִָ֑ם וַיִּפֹּ֨ל דָּוִ֧יד וְהַזְּקֵנִ֛ים מְכֻסִּ֥ים בַּשַּׂקִּ֖ים עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם׃
"[David saw] his [the angel's] sword pulled out with his hand outstretched over Jerusalem...."

Do you know anything about phrase structures in syntax? A noun phrase may contain adjectives that are bound to it. Words like "keep" and "have" and "carry" can take an adjective that serves like a predicate adjective with the object. So, "he carried his wallet stuffed full of money." This isn't the same as "his stuffed wallet" (as a noun phrase). "He kept his room clean and tidy." This isn't the same as "his clean and tidy room" (a noun phrase).
kwrandolph wrote:I don’t find this a legitimate excuse. Especially since in your example, there are Biblical Hebrew ways of saying what you wrote.
What did I write? Again, you didn't reference it, so I cannot defend it. I'm not going to search through every post in which we had exchanges to try to locate what you're talking about. Use links. Quote verses. This is how conversation works.
kwrandolph wrote:What’s מפלתם if not a feminine participle, feminine because it’s describing an abstract falling, not a physical one?
No, מַפֶּ֫לֶת is a noun, not a participle. It takes pronominal suffixes as מַפַּלְתּוֹ and מַפַּלְתָּם and means a "fall" or "collapse" generally or something that has fallen. Where di dyou get that it was a participle?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:There are many instances of participles being used as simple tenseless verbs in the Bible.
All verbs in Biblical Hebrew are tenseless. The “tense” of a verb is conferred by its context, not its verbal form.
Jason Hare wrote:Psalm 96:13
לִפְנֵי יהוה כִּי בָא כִּי בָא לִשְׁפֹּט הָאָרֶץ יִשְׁפֹּט תֵּבֵל בְּצֶדֶק וְעַמִּים בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ׃
"[Let all creation rejoice] before YHVW, for he is coming. He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in his faithfulness."
From the form in this verse, you don’t know that בא is a participle. It’s the same form as the Qal Qatal 3rd person singular. From the context, it make more sense to read it as a Qal Qatal 3rd person singular.
Jason Hare wrote:Even in the Bible, it was frequently used as a sort of present tense,
In Tiberian Hebrew, the participle was used as the present tense. Hence that led the Masoretes to point verbs as participles where they could when those verbs refer to present actions.
Jason Hare wrote:but we shouldn't assign "tense" to Hebrew verbs in the simplistic way that English has tense directly coded into the forms. Hebrew was more nuanced in how it approached tense, but we can see tense well coded in narrative and instructional materials.
Only from their contexts.
Jason Hare wrote:Poetry (and prophecy) presents some different issues, of course, in which the various tense forms are less stringent and are often interchanged between stanzas (one may use the imperfect, and the next the perfect, or vice-versa with no apparent distinction in meaning — especially when we are dealing with a gnomic sense).
Poetry and prophesy use the same grammar as narrative and instruction. That the forms are mixed in poetry and prophesy is because the verbal forms code for something other than tense.

Biblical Hebrew verbal forms are also aspectless. Tense and aspect are two measures of time. Biblical Hebrew verbal forms code for no measure of time.
Jason Hare wrote:It is no mistake to use participles as a present tense when composing on our own, but Karl wanted something to object to.
LOL! Yes, I really did laugh out loud when I read this. It has nothing to do with what I want, and everything to do with the patterns I find as I read Tanakh.
Jason Hare wrote:For further reading on a great treatment of Hebrew verbal tense/aspect, I would recommend:

Cook, J. (2006). The finite verbal forms in biblical Hebrew do express aspect. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 30, 21–35. Retrieved from https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2448.pdf
I was taught both tense and aspect. But when I read all of Tanakh, not just the cherry-picked examples I was taught, both tense and aspect fell apart as explanations for Biblical Hebrew verbal forms.

Modern western language verbal forms, and that includes modern Israeli Hebrew, code for tense. Some code for aspect as well, e.g. Russian. Hence those for whom modern western languages are their mother tongues, assume that Biblical Hebrew verbal forms also code for tense and/or aspect, some measure of time. That assumption is false. Yet those whose mother tongues are time based, are so steeped in their thought patterns based on their mother tongues, that they cannot conceive of a language that has conjugations yet those conjugations don’t code for time.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:All verbs in Biblical Hebrew are tenseless. The “tense” of a verb is conferred by its context, not its verbal form.
False. Vav-consecutive with imperfect is indeed a narrative past tense.
kwrandolph wrote:From the form in this verse, you don’t know that בא is a participle. It’s the same form as the Qal Qatal 3rd person singular. From the context, it make more sense to read it as a Qal Qatal 3rd person singular.
"Makes sense" is your admission to using intuition above system. It seems to be the only argument you ever use.
kwrandolph wrote:In Tiberian Hebrew, the participle was used as the present tense. Hence that led the Masoretes to point verbs as participles where they could when those verbs refer to present actions.
It is normal to refer to Tiberian vocalization, not to Tiberian Hebrew—as if it were a dialect unto itself. You're the only one I've seen use such nomenclature.
kwrandolph wrote:Poetry and prophesy use the same grammar as narrative and instruction. That the forms are mixed in poetry and prophesy is because the verbal forms code for something other than tense.
Narrative and instruction are constructed on a series of vav-consecutive forms. Poetry and prophecy (not "prophesy," which is a verb) are not.
kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew verbal forms are also aspectless. Tense and aspect are two measures of time. Biblical Hebrew verbal forms code for no measure of time.
Get up-to-date on the arguments in the professional literature. You're out of date on this issue.
kwrandolph wrote:LOL! Yes, I really did laugh out loud when I read this. It has nothing to do with what I want, and everything to do with the patterns I find as I read Tanakh.
Due to your reading without vowels and not being advanced enough in the nuance of the language to do so, you miss patterns and don't recognize distinctions. It's completely what you want to read, since you use your intuition rather than solid systematic grammar.
kwrandolph wrote:I was taught both tense and aspect. But when I read all of Tanakh, not just the cherry-picked examples I was taught, both tense and aspect fell apart as explanations for Biblical Hebrew verbal forms.

Modern western language verbal forms, and that includes modern Israeli Hebrew, code for tense. Some code for aspect as well, e.g. Russian. Hence those for whom modern western languages are their mother tongues, assume that Biblical Hebrew verbal forms also code for tense and/or aspect, some measure of time. That assumption is false. Yet those whose mother tongues are time based, are so steeped in their thought patterns based on their mother tongues, that they cannot conceive of a language that has conjugations yet those conjugations don’t code for time.
You've really become entrenched in your opinions, but you'd do well to read better arguments.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:It’s a stand alone noun in Exodus 2:12, 14, Deuteronomy 23:8, 2 Samuel 23:21, Ezra 9:1. There’s no reason to take it as other than a noun here.
Because an adjective can be substantivized when it stands alone, it should be read as a substantive when it accompanies a noun? Is that what you're saying?
Let’s turn that around. Just because a noun can be used as an adjective, does that make all nouns into adjectives? Does a noun stop being a noun when used as a adjective? And is it being used as an adjective in your example? Do you make your claim just to defend a model from “experts”?
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Go back and reread that sentence. עבדי is a masculine plural in construct. It doesn’t have a possessive suffix which it needs to have to be an example of what you claim. The ה on קטנים is to specify the small ones, not the great ones. אדני is irrelevant to your argument.
The structure is the same whether it has a pronominal suffix or is a noun in smichut. I thought that might be beyond you. I shouldn't have used it (even though it's obviously relevant).
In linguistics, the simple reading is the preferred reading unless there’s some very good reason to reject the simple reading. In this example, I indicate the simple reading as supported by logic, grammar, syntax, word meanings, which you reject for … what?
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Apparently the writer of 1 Chronicles didn’t know Hebrew when he wrote 21:16.
These are not noun phrases. These are like saying "keep the city clean," in which "clean" is actually a predicate adjective. Again, it would be considerate to QUOTE THE VERSES that you reference rather than making me leave the forum to go search for the verse.
I thought we were dealing with adults here, who are perfectly capable of looking things up for themselves without handholding. I usually look up the verses anyways, because I want to see the contexts.
Jason Hare wrote:
וַיִּשָּׂ֨א דָוִ֜יד אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּ֞רְא אֶת־מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהוָה֙ עֹמֵ֗ד בֵּ֤ין הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְחַרְבּ֤וֹ שְׁלוּפָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ נְטוּיָ֖ה עַל־יְרֽוּשָׁלִָ֑ם וַיִּפֹּ֨ל דָּוִ֧יד וְהַזְּקֵנִ֛ים מְכֻסִּ֥ים בַּשַּׂקִּ֖ים עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם׃
"[David saw] his [the angel's] sword pulled out with his hand outstretched over Jerusalem...."
According to the simple reading of this text, according to word meanings, grammar, and syntax, this is a mistranslation. The phrase I point to in Hebrew reads “his sword drawn out in his outstretched hand” “outstretched” being the adjective. The LXX goes a step further, saying that “drawn out” is also an adjective.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:What’s מפלתם if not a feminine participle, feminine because it’s describing an abstract falling, not a physical one?
No, מַפֶּ֫לֶת is a noun, not a participle. It takes pronominal suffixes as מַפַּלְתּוֹ and מַפַּלְתָּם and means a "fall" or "collapse" generally or something that has fallen. Where di dyou get that it was a participle?
There are two words here, מפלה which takes a final ת when in construct or when it has a pronominal suffix, meaning something that is fallen, such as ruins and/or remains. The other word is מפלת which is a gerund referring to the action of falling. It’s in the form of a feminine participle. Gerunds are nouns, and like all nouns can take pronominal suffixes.

Participles are nouns, and take the same suffixes as other nouns. An example is from Psalm 121:3 אל-ינום שמרך

What I see in you is akin to medieval “science”. The medieval practice was to look at what the “experts” (most famously Aristotle) said and defend that saying even when it contradicted observation. The way to study nature was to study the “experts”. Secondly it as to adopt a model taught by the “experts” and defend it, even against observation.

Theology had the same practice: the way to know theology was to read the “experts”. Luther changed that practice to the way to know theology is to go to the source, the Bible itself. Scientists looked at what Luther did, and a light went on in their head—the way to study nature, is to go to the source, nature itself.

In linguistics, the medieval method is to study the “experts”, the scientific way is to study the language itself while questioning the “experts”. I was taught the scientific way when I studied at the university.

Earlier I asked, “To give a concrete example—using your modern grammar, or the grammar taught by Weingreen and Gesenius, can you explain the verbal usages in Proverbs 31:10–31, where there is a mixture of Qatal and Yiqtol verbs in a context of continuous, present action, in a way applicable to all of Tanakh? Don’t give the cop-out that this is poetry, because poetry, especially poetry intended to teach, doesn’t accomplish its goal unless it uses the same grammar as prose.”

You take the poetry cop-out. That’s because the grammar you were taught is defective. My understanding of grammar not only can account for Proverbs 31:10–31, but it can also account for narrative and instruction.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply