Hebrew verb theories

[Jemoh66]

We have just read today in Gen. 48:17
וירא יוסף כי ישית אביו יד ימינו על ראש אפרים
KJV: "And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim"
NIV: "When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim’s head"

The verbal form ישית = היא - שית YA-$IYT of the root $IYT (similar to the ישיר YA$IYR of the root $IYR, 'sing', of Ex. 15:1) is formally recognized as a future ("qal imperfect") reference. Its employment here is either archaic with a pre-positioned personal pronoun he, instead of just שת $AT, or comes to indicates that Joseph caught his father in the nick of time, just before the actual placing of the hand. To wit: "When Joseph saw his father was about to lay his right hand upon the head of Ephraim"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

I agree with you Isaac. Your translation is better. If the verb had been שת $AT, it would have to be something like, "when Joseph saw that he had placed." I also think this proves Karl's point that the forms are modal, not tensed.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

The structure of the Hebrew verb is objective and absolute, whereas "modality" is subjective --- it is our imagination and preconceptions that shape, complement and embellish the scene surrounding the act. This is of no interest to me.

I have not been present at the event described in Gen. 48:17, nor have I seen a video of scene. If Joseph succeeded in intercepting his father hand or not is a mystery to all of us.

All I know is that
אשית = אני + שית as in Gen. 3:15
תשית = אתה + שית as in Ps. 21:4(3)
ישית = היא + שית as in Gen. 46:4
all refer to a future action.

On the other hand
שתני = שת + אני as in Ps. 88:7(6)
שתם = שת + הם as in Gen. 30:40
all refer to a past action.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

The structure of the Hebrew verb is objective and absolute, whereas "modality" is subjective --- it is our imagination and preconceptions that shape, complement and embellish the scene surrounding the act.

This shows your ignorance of linguistics. “Modality” is a linguistic term. In your ignorance, you often make foolish statements, so foolish that I often don’t bother answering them. Proverbs 26:4. Further, I often don’t bother reading them.

This is of no interest to me.

And you glory in your ignorance.

All I know is that
אשית = אני + שית as in Gen. 3:15
תשית = אתה + שית as in Ps. 21:4(3)
ישית = היא + שית as in Gen. 46:4
all refer to a future action.

Wrong. Gen. 3:15 refers to an action that God has just done, past action that has present and future results.
Ps. 21:4 present continuous, or present habitual action.
Only Gen. 46:4 refers to a future action.

On the other hand
שתני = שת + אני as in Ps. 88:7(6)
שתם = שת + הם as in Gen. 30:40
all refer to a past action.

Just two verses are not enough to establish a pattern.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Karl says
Wrong. Gen. 3:15 refers to an action that God has just done

Says I
We should congratulate Karl on this extraordinary gift of being made privy to God's schedules and agendas.

Here is Gen. 3:15
ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה ובין זרעך ובין זרעה הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנו עקב
NIV: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.

Isaac Fried

[Isaac Fried]

Lev. 2:13
כל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח ולא תשבית מלח ברית אלהיך מעל מנחתך על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח

It looks as if the TI of TI-MLAK consists of two personal pronouns, namely
תִּמְלָח = את + היא + מלח
where the first את is for the bringer, and the second היא is for the offering. Otherwise, the entire TI- is a form of ATAH, 'you'.

In אתה-שב-היא-ת = תשבית from the root $BT, the אתה ATAH is for the bringer, and the היא HIY is for the salt.

The same for תקריב = אתה-קר-היא-ב from the root QRB.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Further update:

I just finished reading up through Daniel chapter seven. Now I won’t look at Aramaic again until the next time I read Jeremiah 10:11. I was just starting to get used to the language.

I had noticed that at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah that the Hebrew conjugation pattern appeared to have changed from modality to tense. My questions then became: Why? What linguistic influences would cause that?

So I floated a theory, that the change was caused by Aramaic. That Aramaic had tense based conjugation that Aramaic speaking Jews then applied to Hebrew.

This was not a deep study getting a paper ready for publication, but I did note that there are the Aramaic equivalent of the Yiqtol used for past and present, as well as future. The Aramaic equivalent of the Qatal is used for future and present, as well as the past. And participle …

While I didn‘t make a careful scholarly project listing each verbal use, I got enough information to shoot down that theory. Aramaic, at least not the Aramaic used during Daniel’s time, was not conjugated according to tense, therefore was not the source and influence that influenced Hebrew conjugations to change to tense.

That doesn’t rule out Persian being the influence, seeing as how Nehemiah lived at about a century after Daniel, and that he spoke Persian.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Num. 11:5
זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים
is
זכר-אנו את הדגה אשר אנו-אכל במצרים
symmetrical, ungrammatical, but very clear.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

I like this
וַיִּדֹּם הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְיָרֵחַ עָמָד עַד יִקֹּם גּוֹי אֹיְבָיו
Josh. 10:13
וידם = בא-היא-דום
יקם = היא - (נ)קום

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Higher level compounding:
1Sam 10:21
וַיְבַקְשֻׁהוּ וְלֹא נִמְצָא
In raw form
בא-היא-בקש-הוא-הוא ולא אני-מצא

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Concerning the וְנִתְּנָה, of the root NTN, of Gen. 29:27
מַלֵּא שְׁבֻעַ זֹאת וְנִתְּנָה לְךָ גַּם אֶת זֹאת
NIV: "Finish this daughter’s bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also"
I think that the joined ("conjugated") נִ is a curtailed אנוּ 'we', referring to Laban.
The "elongated" form is not "modular", nor elongated. It is, sound-wise, no longer than the "shorter" וְנִתֵּן, except that the internal tsere migrated to the end to become ה = היא.

Isaac Fried, Boston University