Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:03 pm
Well, I think we've gone as far as we should (probably further). I'm bowing out. The reader will understand what is clear. Have a nice day.
bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22472
False. The “Wayyiqtol” is used also for present and future actions. Therefore it cannot be a marker for past tense.Jason Hare wrote:False. Vav-consecutive with imperfect is indeed a narrative past tense.kwrandolph wrote:All verbs in Biblical Hebrew are tenseless. The “tense” of a verb is conferred by its context, not its verbal form.
It’s the only argument you use, only you pass the buck to the intuition of those who taught you. See my last message concerning medieval thought.Jason Hare wrote:"Makes sense" is your admission to using intuition above system. It seems to be the only argument you ever use.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.
Maybe you should read up on it. I used the startpage search engine and found several references to Tiberian Hebrew as a distinct dialectal form of Hebrew. True, most of them refer to the Tiberian pronunciation, but several also to the Tiberian dialect.Jason Hare wrote: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: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.
The waw-consecultive forms are there for reasons other than as markers for tense.Jason Hare wrote: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: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.
I haven’t seen anything that I hadn’t heard before (other than Dr. Furuli with his weird definition of “aspect”).Jason Hare wrote:Get up-to-date on the arguments in the professional literature. You're out of date on this issue.kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew verbal forms are also aspectless.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.
The systematic grammar I was taught by Weingreen ended up with GIGO when I tried to apply it to all of Tanakh. The reason I read without the Masoretic vowels is again that all too often those vowels produce GIGO and interfere with a systematic study of the consonantal text.Jason Hare wrote: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: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.
LOL! Better arguments? Better than Weingreen and Gesenius? Where would you find such? Obviously better than what you can give.Jason Hare wrote:You've really become entrenched in your opinions, but you'd do well to read better arguments.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.
My next message was to be the same as this. You too have a nice day.Jason Hare wrote:Well, I think we've gone as far as we should (probably further). I'm bowing out. The reader will understand what is clear. Have a nice day.
False. The Wayyiqtol from is ALWAYS past narrative. What you're saying is true for the ve+yiqtol construction. This is why reading vowels is necessary. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a patch (or a qamets if influenced by a guttural) is always narrative past. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a sheva can be (usually) present or future. I'd have to look into whether or not it is ever translated as past. It may be.False. The “Wayyiqtol” is used also for present and future actions. Therefore it cannot be a marker for past tense.
In other words, there's a difference between וַיִּקְטֹל vayyiqṭōl and וְיִקְטֹל vəyiqṭōl. This is true.Jonathan Beck wrote:False. The Wayyiqtol from is ALWAYS past narrative. What you're saying is true for the ve+yiqtol construction. This is why reading vowels is necessary. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a patch is always narrative past. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a sheva can be (usually) present or future. I'd have to look into whether or not it is ever translated as past. It may be.False. The “Wayyiqtol” is used also for present and future actions. Therefore it cannot be a marker for past tense.
Jonathan
The Hebrew verbal form is but a root augmented by personal pronouns. Not Biblical Hebrew nor spoken Hebrew has verbs "coded" for "tense."All verbs in Biblical Hebrew are tenseless. The “tense” of a verb is conferred by its context, not its verbal form.
Incorrect.The Hebrew verbal form is but a root augmented by personal pronouns. Not Biblical Hebrew nor spoken Hebrew has verbs "coded" for "tense."
Being practical, spoken Hebrew strives to make a clear factual conversational distinction between what I did, עָשִיתִי, and what I still plan, or promise, to do later, אֶעֱשֶה.
Isaac Fried, Boston University