Hebrew verb theories

[Isaac Fried]

Appears to me that
ענה בו יען אשר לא הקים את מצות אל אשר אמר לו הוכח 7
refers to Lev. 19:17 הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך NIV: "Rebuke your neighbor frankly"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Corresponding to the PUAL having an internal, curtailed, הוא HU, Hebrew has the HUPAL with a full הוא added externally in front of the root. Such a structure is most convenient with roots of but two consonants such as קם:

HUQAMTIY = HU+QAM+ATIY, HUQAMTA = HU+QAM+ATAH, HUQAMT = HU+QAM+AT, HUQAM = HU+QAM, HUQAMAH = HU+QAM+HIY, HUQAMNU = HU+QAM+ANU, HUQAMTEM = HU+QAM+ATEM, HUQAMTEN = HU+QAM+ATEN, HUQMU = HU+QAM+HU.

It is agreed now that PUAL is be used for past action.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[SteveMiller]

Karl,
All the qatal verbs in Prov 31:10-31 can be translated as the English present perfect without a problem.
Here is Young's Literal Translation,
10 A woman of worth who doth find? Yea, far above rubies is her price.
11 The heart of her husband hath trusted in her, And spoil he lacketh not.
12 She hath done him good, and not evil, All days of her life.
13 She hath sought wool and flax, And with delight she worketh with her hands.
14 She hath been as ships of the merchant, From afar she bringeth in her bread.
15 Yea, she riseth while yet night, And giveth food to her household, And a portion to her damsels.
16 She hath considered a field, and taketh it, From the fruit of her hands she hath planted a vineyard.
17 She hath girded with might her loins, And doth strengthen her arms.
18 She hath perceived when her merchandise is good, Her lamp is not extinguished in the night.
19 Her hands she hath sent forth on a spindle, And her hands have held a distaff.
20 Her hand she hath spread forth to the poor, Yea, her hands she sent forth to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of her household from snow, For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 Ornamental coverings she hath made for herself, Silk and purple are her clothing.
23 Known in the gates is her husband, In his sitting with elders of the land.
24 Linen garments she hath made, and selleth, And a girdle she hath given to the merchant.
25 Strength and honour are her clothing, And she rejoiceth at a latter day.
26 Her mouth she hath opened in wisdom, And the law of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She is watching the ways of her household, And bread of sloth she eateth not.
28 Her sons have risen up, and pronounce her happy, Her husband, and he praiseth her,
29 'Many are the daughters who have done worthily, Thou hast gone up above them all.'
30 The grace is false, and the beauty is vain, A woman fearing Jehovah, she may boast herself.
31 Give ye to her of the fruit of her hands, And her works do praise her in the gates! (Pro 31:10-31 YLT)

I think the present perfect conveys that this is a real life woman who has existed and not an idealized woman.

For conversation, I looked at Gen 18, but all the verbs there qatal for past and yiqtol for present or future.

[kwrandolph]

Steve:

Karl,
All the qatal verbs in Prov 31:10-31 can be translated as the English present perfect without a problem.

Present perfect is still a present, referring to action that started in the past and continues into the present.

If you insist that the Qatals are present perfect, then all the Yiqtols also are present perfects, for they describe actions with the same time reference. This is from analyzing them in this context.

By the way, those aren’t present perfects in Young’s English translation.

Here is Young's Literal Translation,

I’d say this is a mistranslation. I have no idea who Young is, or was, so all I comment on is the translation, and it does violence to the meaning of the text. It doesn’t make sense with the mixing of tenses in English, nor in understanding of the Hebrew. This is a good example of why I don’t consider translations as evidence when discussing Hebrew.

10 A woman of worth who doth find? Yea, far above rubies is her price.

This initial verb is modal, subjunctive. The following verbs all have indicative usage.

[Won’t requote this (mis)translation]

For conversation, I looked at Gen 18, but all the verbs there qatal for past and yiqtol for present or future.

When I read through Genesis 18, I didn’t find any indicative present referent sentences in the section. I don’t have any listed.

I find modal use, such as subjunctive and imperative, but not indicative use for present referent (Ruth from SIL says we’re not to say “present tense” unless there’s a special conjugation that indicates present reference, like in English). The Yiqtol is used for moods, such as imperative, subjunctive, intent, follow-up indicative (hence all the Wayiqtols in historical narrative), and a few other moods.

An example of present referent indicative use of Qatal is Genesis 29:5–6, “And he said to them, ‘Do you know Laban Nahor’s son?’ and they said, ‘We know.’ And he said to them, ‘Is it well with him?’ and they said, ‘Well, and behold Rachel his daughter is coming with the sheep.’” Translating the verbs within the quoted conversation as past tense makes no sense.

I see I don’t have any listing of stand alone Yiqtols in indicative mood with a past reference, I should correct that when I next notice any. Rolf Furuli has a listing of such in his dissertation, but I don’t have access to it.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

I agree with Karl that the forms do not intrinsically express tense or aspect. I agree also that YIQTOLS are largely modal. Karl I never thought of "follow-up indicative" as a type of mood. I don't have a problem with labeling WAYYIQTOL as narratival tense. I know the idea here is to keep it under the umbrella of YIQTOL. But I don't see the need to do so. I see the verbal forms as highly modular. It's this practical modularity that allows the speaker/writer to slot them in the discourse based on the type of discourse.

The virtuous woman passage is a perfect example of this. Now in disagreement to what was said above I do think she is a proverbial woman, although her example may have been based on the writer's experience. I agree with Karl again here, the yiqtol is modal, and should be translated "can find" or "could find." The qatals in the passage express habitual aspect, which is expressed with the present tense form in English. Here the nature of the discourse, being the description of the habits of a virtuous woman, calls for the qatal and is responsible for its habitual meaning. It is imposed by a vertical relationship (discourse). The form itself does not suggest the habitual aspect.

Jonathan E Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

The so called hifil form contains the two PP היא HIY, one for the performer of the act, placed in full in front of the root, and other for the beneficiary of the act, inserted between the second and third radical as a mere I. To fully identify persons other than the third who are performing the act, their names are added at the end of the root. Thus for שלך $LK:

HI$LAKTIY = HIY+$LAK+ATIY, HI$LAKTA = HIY+$LAK+ATAH, HI$LAKT = HIY+$LAK+AT, HIY$LIYK = HIY+$L+HIY+K, HI$LIYKA = HIY+$L+HIY+K+HIY, HI$LAKNU = HIY+$LAK+ANU, HI$LAKTEM = HIY+$LAK+ATEM, HI$LAKTEN = HIY+$LAK+ATEN, HI$LAKU = HIY+$L+HIY+K+HU.

In the form HI$LIYKANIY = HIY-$L+HIY+K+ANIY, ANIY, 'I', is a beneficiary of the act.

It is agreed now that hifil should be used for past action.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

I am open to the prospect that ימצא YIMCA of proverbs 31:10 is not the so called "yiqtol"; there are other possibilities.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

The so called piel form contains the two PP היא HIY, as well, one for the performer of the act, placed as a mere I, between the first and the second radical, and the other, for the beneficiary of the act, inserted as a mere E, between the second and the third radical.
To fully identify persons other than the third, performing the act, their names are added at the end of the root. Thus, for דבר DBR:

DIBARTIY = D+HIY+BAR+ATIY, DIBARTA = D+HIY+BAR+ATAH, DIBER = D+HIY+B+HIY+R, DIBRAH = D+HIY+BR+HIY, DIBARNU = D+HIY+BAR+ANU, DIBARTEM = D+HIY+BAR+ATEM, DIBARTEN = D+HIY+BAR+ATEN, DIBRU + D+HIY+BR-HU

It is agreed now that piel should be used for past action.

The often heard claim that piel is used in the HB to convey "strong" or repeated action, appears to be baseless.

Since the different verbal structures, the BINYANIM, are intrinsically identical, and are but the result of a parallel development of the Hebrew language, they are advantageously used to describe slightly varied actions. For instance, the piel חיזק XIZAK, 'fortified, strengthened', as in Ps. 147:13 , versus the hifil החזיק HEXEZIYK, 'held, grasped', as in Deut. 22:25.

In spoken Hebrew the hifil השתיק is 'silenced', whereas the piel שיתק is 'paralyzed'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

The so called nifal form is with the PP אני ANIY, 'I, myself' placed in front of the root: NI$ARTIY = ANIY+$AR+ATIY. This first ANIY refers to the beneficiary of the act.

It is agreed now that piel should be used for past action.

In today's usage nifal acquired the connotation of self affliction, for instance, נכשלתי NIK$ALTIY, 'I have failed', say a test because of lack of preparation, as opposed to the hufal הוכשלתי HUK$ALTIY, 'I was caused to stumble'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

There is another, possibly older, QAL verbal system in which the name of the performer of the act appears first, in front of the root. These names are slightly muddled, possibly worn with age, and may need an ulterior qualifier, or a separate identifier. Thus for שלח $LX:

אני E$LAX = ANIY+$LAX
אתה TI$LAX = TI+$LAX
את TI$LXIY = TI+$LX+HIY

הוא YI$LAX = HIY+$LAX
היא TI$LAX = TI+$LAX
אנו NI$LAX = ANU+$LAX

אתם TI$LXU = TI+$LX+HU
אתן TI$LAXNAH =TI+$LAX+HENAH
הם YI$LXU =HIY+$LX+HU
הן TI$LAXNAH =TI+$LAX+HENAH

It is agreed now that this "yiqtal" form should be used for future action.

The verb may be augmented by other roots, for instance ויגש WAYIGA$ = WA+HIY+GA$, where the WA is, in my opinion, a variant of בא BA, 'and it came בא to be that'. In total: WA+HIY+GA$ = and it came to be that he (HIY) approached.

Isaac Fried, Boston University