Exodus 10:3 until when

[Isaac Fried]

Jason wrote

Are tenses also random then?

Is there a reason why שָלַחְתִּי, is 'I have sent', and אֶשְלַח, 'I will send', and not conversely?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Jason wrote

Are tenses also random then?

Is there a reason why שָלַחְתִּי, is 'I have sent', and אֶשְלַח, 'I will send', and not conversely?

Is there a reason that "I sent" is past and "I'll send" is future in English? What does this even mean? Hebrew uses suffix tenses for past tense when it is unmarked. It uses prefix tenses for future tense, when unmarked. It has vayyiqṭōl as a narrative past and vəqaṭal as an irreal future/subjunctive. These are the conventions of the language. Could the conventions have been otherwise? Well, yes. We could have said "I co send" for past and "I bi send" for future. So long as the conventions are accepted by the users of the languages, the conventions can be arbitrarily chosen.

It seems weird to me that you don't seem to account for time in your schema. You just identify root (with mystical meanings) and attach personal pronouns to the root.

I look at grammatical agreement and syntactic relationships between words, phrases, and clauses. That's where meaning is found. It is not found by interpreting i-infixes as the personal pronoun היא anywhere and everywhere that it is found. A language really can just have vowels. Hebrew has vowels. Not every vowel is a personal pronoun. In fact, most of them are not. It's really weird that you interpret it that way.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

Could the conventions have been otherwise? Well, yes. We could have said "I co send" for past and "I bi send" for future. So long as the conventions are accepted by the users of the languages, the conventions can be arbitrarily chosen.

Yes. "arbitrarily chosen" is otherwise "random".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Yes. "arbitrarily chosen" is otherwise "random".

Not random at all. Once the convention is chosen and agreed to (by use), you cannot randomly do something else. The initial choice is arbitrary (it could be anything), but it is never random. These are not the same thing.

If everyone says "I'll go," but I randomly say "I bi go" (like Latin has a bi- infix for future tense [amat "he loves" vs. amabit "he will love"), no one would understand me. It isn't random. Once the convention is in place, it doesn't allow you to change it.

Conventions can change over time, and this is how languages evolve. But, when you're using a language, you are bound to its conventions so far as it is your desire to be understood by your audience.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

It seems weird to me that you don't seem to account for time in your schema. You just identify root (with mystical meanings) and attach personal pronouns to the root.

Hebrew does not have time markers per se. Again: Hebrew does not have time markers per se.
The Hebrew verb is indeed just a root augmented by personal pronouns for the performers and beneficiaries of the act.
There is no question that, say, שָלַחְתִּי =שלח-אתי is for שלח-אני, and שָלַחְתָּ = שלח-אתה. Just the verb שלח plus the personal pronouns for the specific actors אני or אתה. My wife asks me: יצחק שָלַחְתָּ את המכתב? and my answer is שָלַחְתִּי, meaning that the letter is already in the mailbox ready to go.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Hebrew does not have time markers per se. Again: Hebrew does not have time markers per se.
The Hebrew verb is indeed just a root augmented by personal pronouns for the performers and beneficiaries of the act.
There is no question that, say, שָלַחְתִּי =שלח-אתי is for שלח-אני, and שָלַחְתָּ = שלח-אתה. Just the verb שלח plus the personal pronouns for the specific actors אני or אתה. My wife asks me: יצחק שָלַחְתָּ את המכתב? and my answer is שָלַחְתִּי, meaning that the letter is already in the mailbox ready to go.

A more relevant example might be when we say היינו פה to get people to stand up and get ready to go. That doesn't mean that tense doesn't exist.

[Isaac Fried]

Yes, but the seasoned Hebrew speaker may flexibly contravene the tense rules with impunity if the circumstances are otherwise clear as to the timing.
On a nice spring morning after breakfast my wife might say to me ?יצחק, הלכנו קצת לטייל with the clear understanding that הלכנו = הלך-אנוּ is but an invitation to go out now for a short leisurely walk around the block.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[kwrandolph]

My apologies. I confused past tense marker with your comments on past tense in poetry.

Can you give an example of a wayyiqtol that is not past tense?

Jonathan

I was just reading through Ezekiel 12 and noticed in verses 25 and 28 two examples of wayyiqtol used for future reference. Also Proverbs 31:10–31, all the verbs have a present, continuous reference, includes wayyiqtols as present in verses 13, 15–17, 24–25, 28 and 31. In each of these cases, it’s the context that tells the time reference, not the verbal form.

At one time we had someone from SIL who communicated with us that tense is related to form. If there are no form changes for different time references, then there is no tense. Or if a verbal form can be used for all time references, then that verbal form does not indicate tense. Because Biblical Hebrew verbal forms can be used for all time references, therefore Biblical Hebrew has no tense.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jonathan Beck]

Karl, those verbs are a veqatal first, "I will do it". The second is a veyiqtol, not a vayyiqtol, which is what you get for reading the text without vowel points. A veyiqtol is an irreal imperfect which should come into English as future tense.

I have said over and over again that wayyiqtol is a distinctly past-tense form based on the yaqtulu pattern in protosemitic. The yiqtol and vayyiqtol each evolved form an original *yaqtul and *yaqtulu form, respectively. But you don't place any stock in vowel points or Hebrew grammarians, so I'm quite sure you would likely dismiss the historical Hebrew grammar as well.

Again, if you are the only person on the face of the planet who holds the theories that you do, the burden of proof is on you. So far, in my estimation, you haven't even begun to substantiate your points. Just saying "This is the way it is and everyone else is wrong" is not good enough.

Jonathan

[Jonathan Beck]

p.s.
Sorry I took so long to respond to this. I have been very lazy when it comes to keeping up with this forum. I look forward to getting back into all of our wonderful discussions.