Hebrew verb theories

[kwrandolph]

Jonathan:

Just a couple minor comments.

Karl I never thought of "follow-up indicative" as a type of mood.

What else would you call it? It’s indicative mood, but secondary, or following-up, to the main clause.

I don't have a problem with labeling WAYYIQTOL as narratival tense.

I noticed that in this passage that Wayyiqtols and Yiqtols are treated exactly the same. They’re both present referent. This seems to support Rolf Furuli’s claim that Yiqtol and Wayyiqtol are not separate conjugations, rather one and the same.

Karl W. Randolph.

[normansimonr]

Thanks to all for your replies. Now, I wonder if there's a comprehensive database, somewhere around, that has all the instances of each verb stem so that one could compare the uses of the different verbal forms in context. I have BDB and other lexicons, and also Karl's lexicon (thanks!), but it's a bit time consuming going through all the entries and looking them up in the Tanakh.

Please, excuse my ignorance, but I simply can't imagine a language that doesn't have relation to time. Biblical Hebrew, as Karl and others said, doesn't have this time-bias, so it's very, very difficult for me to understand it. So, depending on the context, the same verbal form will be translated as past, present or future? Doesn't it give too much freedom to the translator?

[Isaac Fried]

The Hebrew book-table
לוח הפעלים השלם
by
ד"ר שאול ברקלי
lists all the Hebrew verbs according to their structure

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[normansimonr]

Thanks, Isaac. I'd like to know if there's a book or database that lets you pick up, for instance, Qal imperative, and then it shows you all the instances of Qal imperative in the Tanakh, of all the verbs. I know that there are some websites that let you find all the occurrences of a given verb or word, but I haven't heard of one that gives the occurrences of a stem.

[kwrandolph]

Please, excuse my ignorance, but I simply can't imagine a language that doesn't have relation to time.

The ancient Jewish religion as described in Tanakh was very time connected, in fact, unlike the Greek, Roman, and most other ancient religions, was unique in that it was a historical religion. As a historical religion, it required that the communication be historically and factually accurate. This historical religion was communicated by means of the Biblical Hebrew language. So the question is: not did the language have relation to time, but how was that relationship communicated?

Modern Indo-European languages, as well as modern Israeli Hebrew, communicate time through verbal conjugations. That’s what we are used to. But that’s not true of all languages. For example, modern Cantonese has no verbal conjugations. Time reference is carried through other words and context.

Like modern Cantonese, Biblical Hebrew communicated time references through context. Unlike modern Cantonese, Biblical Hebrew had conjugations, but they were not for time reference, rather for modal inflection.

So, depending on the context, the same verbal form will be translated as past, present or future?

Yes.

Doesn't it give too much freedom to the translator?

Only rarely is the context temporarily ambiguous. Because the time reference is almost always clear from the context, that automatically ties a translator’s hands to the correct tense for translation.

But it leaves a window open for “translators” deliberately to mistranslate for ideological reasons, as if they need an excuse.

Karl W. Randolph.

[SteveMiller]

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.

It is action that occurred in the past. It does not necessarily have to continue into the present.
It has an effect on the present.
i.e. He has spoken.

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.

That's an important point. If what you say here is true, then you are right that there is no time difference between qatal and yiqtol.
Let's look at the verses:
The 1st qatal is in v11:
The heart of her husband has trusted (qatal) in her, and he will lack (yiqtol) no spoil.
The 1st part of the sentence occurred in the past and continues in the present.
The 2nd part of the verse will occur in the future in order to be meaningful because it is a negative statement. Her husband will not lack in the future.

The next verse with both qatal and yiqtol is v14
v14 She has become (qatal) like merchant's ships. She brings (yiqtol) her food from afar.
Here you could say that both verbs have the same time ref, but it does not require it.

The next qatal yiqtol combo is in v18
She has tasted (qatal) that her merchandise is good. Her lamp will not go (yiqtol) out in the night.
It would not make sense to translate the 2nd half as occurring in the past because of the negative.

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

v11, The heart of her husband has trusted in her
Why is that not present perfect?

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.

I did not mean to use Young as an authority, but an example to show that all these qatals can be translated in a past time reference and make sense.
Could you show me 1 place in these verses where translating the qatals here as having occurred in the past either does violence to the text or does not make sense?

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.

There are no qatals in this verse. I had asked anyone for 5 examples of where qatal cannot be past or yiqtol cannot be present/future.
You gave me Prov 31:10ff as an example of qatals that must be translated as present. Thanks for that!
v10 is irrelevant because it has no qatals. I just included it because it was part of your reference.

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.

The 2 qatal know's in v5 need to be translated into English as present, but the meaning is past continuing to the present.

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.

I looked through my own bheb archives. Rolf gave Psalm 2:1-2 as an example of yiqtol with past reference.
v1 Why have the nations proudly raged (qatal)
and the peoples think (yiqtol) vanity?
v2 The kings of earth take their stand (yiqtol),
and rulers sat (qatal) in company against the Lord and against His Christ.
All 4 verbs (2 yiqtol and 2 qatal) are translated as indicative aorist in LXX and in Acts 4:25-26.
I don't think this is a convincing example of a yiqtol demanding a past time reference translation.

[SteveMiller]

Thanks to all for your replies. Now, I wonder if there's a comprehensive database, somewhere around, that has all the instances of each verb stem so that one could compare the uses of the different verbal forms in context. I have BDB and other lexicons, and also Karl's lexicon (thanks!), but it's a bit time consuming going through all the entries and looking them up in the Tanakh.

Norman,
You could purchase BibleWorks ($300) or OnlineBible (free) at Onlinebible.net.
I use both. BibleWorks is far more powerful than OnlineBible in searching, and is a bargain. I started with OLB, and that's why I still use it.
Both can search for a root and conjugations of a root. BW gives you the complete parsing of all the words. OLB gives you some of the parsing for verbs.

Please, excuse my ignorance, but I simply can't imagine a language that doesn't have relation to time. Biblical Hebrew, as Karl and others said, doesn't have this time-bias, so it's very, very difficult for me to understand it. So, depending on the context, the same verbal form will be translated as past, present or future? Doesn't it give too much freedom to the translator?

Scholars consider that there are not tenses in Biblical Hebrew but aspect which is related to time. For a layman like me, perfect aspect is pretty close to past tense, and imperfect is pretty close to present/future tense.
In some places, such as Prov 31, the time aspect may not be there. In other places it is crucial.
In order to study prophesy, the time aspect is crucial.

[SteveMiller]

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

Jonathan,
What do you mean by "a vertical relationship"?
The qatals in Prov 31 are habitual, yes. That is interesting. The yiqtols in the chapter do not seem to be clearly habitual, but the wayiqtols are, which supports that view that the wayiqtol acts like a qatal with the additional info that it follows the previous action in time.

[normansimonr]

Okay, thanks for the resources. But now, what do you think about this?

Internet says (eg. here) that
Qal: Simple action & active voice: Jonah loves.
Nifal: Simple action & passive voice: Jonah is loved.
Piel: Intensive action & active voice: Jonah really loves.
Pual: Intensive action & passive voice: Jonah is really loved.
Hifil: Causal action & active voice: Jonah causes to love.
Hofal: Causal action & passive voice: Jonah is caused to love.
Hitpael: Intensive action & reflexive voice: Jonah really loves himself.

(The examples are of my own, sorry for my English).

But the SBL textbook (here) says:
Qal: Active voice (primary subject): Jonah loves.
Nifal (A): Passive voice (primary subject): Jonah is loved.
Nifal (B): Reflexive voice (primary subject): Jonah loves himself.
Piel: Active voice (primary subject) & passive voice (secondary subject): Jonah loves Susan, Jonah is loving Susan
Pual: Passive voice (primary subject) & passive voice (secondary subject): Jonah is loved by Susan, Jonah is being loved by Susan.
Hifil (A): Active voice (primary subject) & active voice (secondary subject): Jonah causes Susan to love.
Hifil (B): Reflexive voice (primary subject) & active voice (secondary subject): Jonah causes himself to love.
Hofal: Passive voice (primary subject) & active voice (secondary subject): Jonah is caused by Susan to love.
Hitpael: Reflexive voice (primary subject) & passive voice (secondary subject): Jonah makes himself love.

Now, which one is true? The Internet one I've seen everywhere, but my textbook says that theory is no longer valid. What do you think?

[SteveMiller]

Norman,
I was not aware of SBL's Nifal B. Does it give a verse ref?

For Piel, you have to do a search on the piel form of the verb to see its meaning. Generally, it means an intensified qal, but what does that really mean? For example, for ahav, love, the piel form is used only for adulterous or idolatrous love. A lexicon entry for a verb will give the meanings of all the different forms specific for that verb. The SBL piel example is wrong because of what I just wrote about ahav, love.

Pual is the passive of piel.

Hifil - I agree with SBL

Hofal is the passive of Hifil

Hitpael - I thought it was just reflexive