Hebrew verb theories

[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

[kwrandolph]

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.

Having effects that extend into the present is not the question, rather present perfect is continuing action. “I have worked there for five years, then I was transferred to my present position.” is completed action. “He has gone home and arrived five hours ago.” is past action that is over, complete, even though the effect of the action, that he is home, continues to the present. Or it could have continued, “Then he picked up his luggage and caught the next flight to Phoenix.” so that the effect doesn’t last till now.

In English, the perfect tense refers to completed action. Therefore, to translate all these Qatals as perfects doesn’t fit the context of the passage, which is continuing, habitual action.

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.

This appears to be clutching at straws to maintain the teaching that Biblical Hebrew conjugations refer to tenses.

The total context of the section is present, habitual action. That includes the Qatals, Yiqtols and Wayyiqtols.

The important point of this verse is that he at the present trusts her, and at the present he lacks for nothing.

The next verse with both qatal and yiqtol is v14

Why skip v. 13? Because its verb, along with some other verses, is a Wayyiqtol? Did you notice that the Young translation has that as a present tense too, along with verses 15–17? Are all Wayyiqtols in that translation present tense, including the historical narratives? And in verse 20, which has two Qatals, the first is a perfect tense, the second imperfect, it’s not consistent, why?

[snip some redundancy]

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,

So you agree that this translation is flawed? Then doesn’t that undercut your whole argument?

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?

Well, all of them, because these were translated as perfects which indicate completed action, while the context is of continuing action.

But Young is inconsistent: not all Qatals are translated as perfects.

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.

The question isn’t “Did you know him?” nor ”How long have you known him?” rather “Do you now know him?” without any reference to past actions. As for Rachel’s coming, context indicates that she was in the process of coming and had not yet arrived. This is really grasping at straws.

The most common verbal form in Biblical Hebrew for a present action, indicative, conversational sentence is Qatal.

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.

I didn’t keep a copy of the B-Hebrew archives, basing my actions on the mistaken expectation that ibiblio kept a complete record. I now know that that trust was misplaced, as messages that I know I posted are no longer in the archives. Even whole threads are now missing. As a result, since I found that the archives are corrupted, I have been erasing even the memory of them from my memory.

Psalm 2:1–2 again should be present tense. That the LXX translated those as aorists indicates that already Hebrew grammar was changing to tense based conjugations. That was centuries after Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue but had entered the same state as medieval Latin. (Did God have the New Testament written in Greek precisely because the Hebrew of that time was a different language than Biblical Hebrew? That’s getting off topic.) (I look forward to reading again Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah to see if the patterns I noticed for pre-Exile language was still followed at their time?)

A thought just crossed my mind: other than Waw-prefixed follow-up indicatives (Wayyiqtols), do we find any modal past references in the Bible? Such as regret e.g. “I should have done that.”?

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Steve:

The grammar that you mention is medieval, not Biblical.

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

I thought that is a bit off too, so would like to see references.

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.

From the consonantal text, we often cannot distinguish Piel from Pual from Qal from Niphal (Yiqtol), therefore we need to distinguish these Binyanim from context. We can distinguish these forms in participial use. What we find in participial use is that Qal is used for simple action, Niphal for simple passive, Piel is used for continuous or repeated action. So I find myself asking, in places like Proverbs 31:11–31, were those all Piels?

As for the Masoretic points that you use to call the SBL book wrong, they are medieval, and reflect medieval theology and grammar. The lexical meaning that you reference is also based on medieval Masoretic points. The Masoretic points don’t reflect Biblical era pronunciation, meaning and grammar from over a millennium before the points were invented, therefore cannot be used as evidence that the SBL book is wrong.

Pual is the passive of piel.

Correct.

Hifil - I agree with SBL

Hofal is the passive of Hifil

I would like to see the references.

Hitpael - I thought it was just reflexive

No, occasionally I noticed that it has an object, meaning that it is used as a transitive verb.

During the many years I “ignored” grammar, I noticed things but didn’t write them down, and one of them was the times that Hitpael has an object. I just sort of let things soak in, in the same manner as a child learning the language.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

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

Grammarians and lexicographers have said a lot of things that just don’t pan out when just reading the text over and over again. Consequently, I now question everything.

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).

Your English is fine, don’t worry about it.

Yes, I’ve seen the above claims many times, and they’re only partially correct. They are wrong concerning Piel and Pual, and Hitpael.

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?

Well, logically, it’s possible that neither is true.

There are things that Walker-Jones claims in his book, assuming that you correctly presented his theories above, that sound more than just a little bit odd. I’d like to see Bible references that back up his claims. It could be that I just misunderstand his terminology, or it could be that his theories are a bit off.

Karl W. Randolph.

[SteveMiller]

Having effects that extend into the present is not the question, rather present perfect is continuing action. “I have worked there for five years, then I was transferred to my present position.” is completed action. “He has gone home and arrived five hours ago.” is past action that is over, complete, even though the effect of the action, that he is home, continues to the present. Or it could have continued, “Then he picked up his luggage and caught the next flight to Phoenix.” so that the effect doesn’t last till now.

In English, the perfect tense refers to completed action. Therefore, to translate all these Qatals as perfects doesn’t fit the context of the passage, which is continuing, habitual action.

I think your examples of present perfect should actually be past perfect, but your point is valid.
Present perfect in English does mean completed action unless otherwise qualified.
The meaning here in Prov 31 is continuing habitual action.
English present doesn't really do justice to that either.
v11 the heart of her husband trusts in her
says that he trusts in her now, but not necessarily in the past.
So neither present perfect nor simple present adequately conveys the meaning.
The conclusion I get is that qatal is used for habitual action, which corresponds better to English present.

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.

This appears to be clutching at straws to maintain the teaching that Biblical Hebrew conjugations refer to tenses.

The total context of the section is present, habitual action. That includes the Qatals, Yiqtols and Wayyiqtols.

The important point of this verse is that he at the present trusts her, and at the present he lacks for nothing.

I think the important point is that he has trusted in her for a long time, and as a result he lacks nothing now and does not fear the future. We human beings are worried about the future even if we lack nothing now.

The next verse with both qatal and yiqtol is v14

Why skip v. 13? Because its verb, along with some other verses, is a Wayyiqtol? Did you notice that the Young translation has that as a present tense too, along with verses 15–17? Are all Wayyiqtols in that translation present tense, including the historical narratives? And in verse 20, which has two Qatals, the first is a perfect tense, the second imperfect, it’s not consistent, why?

I skipped v13 because it has no yiqtol. I consider a wayyiqtol different than a yiqtol. Yes, YLT always translates wayyiqtol as present tense even in historical narratives, which makes it unreadable and nonsensical. I used YLT here because he always translates qatal as a past action. In v20, he translates the 1st qatal as present perfect and the second as simple past. He is consistent.

I did not mean to use Young as an authority,

So you agree that this translation is flawed? Then doesn’t that undercut your whole argument?[/quote}
of course it has flaws.
I did not think that the translation of the qatals to present perfect was flawed.

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?

Well, all of them, because these were translated as perfects which indicate completed action, while the context is of continuing action.

But Young is inconsistent: not all Qatals are translated as perfects.

Of course all qatals are not translated as perfects. Some are translated as perfects and some as past. That is consistent.

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.

The question isn’t “Did you know him?” nor ”How long have you known him?” rather “Do you now know him?” without any reference to past actions. As for Rachel’s coming, context indicates that she was in the process of coming and had not yet arrived. This is really grasping at straws.

I take Rachel's coming as a participle, rather than qatal.

The most common verbal form in Biblical Hebrew for a present action, indicative, conversational sentence is Qatal

I would like to see a different example than the above with a verb other than "know".

A thought just crossed my mind: other than Waw-prefixed follow-up indicatives (Wayyiqtols), do we find any modal past references in the Bible? Such as regret e.g. “I should have done that.”?

I searched for "should have" in OT NKJV, and only got 7 verses. No wayyiqtols.

Thanks, Karl.

[normansimonr]

Going through Walker-Jones' book I realised that the table I presented was originally from Waltke and O'Connor's grammar (p. 358). The examples, as I said, were by my own, so they might be misleading. Here I reproduce Waltke and O'Connor's table and examples:

------------------------------| Voice of secondary subject
Voice of primary subject | NONE----| PASSIVE-------| ACTIVE |
ACTIVE -------------------| Qal -------| Piel------------| Hifil ------|
MIDDLE/PASSIVE -------| NIfal--------| Pual----------| Hofal-------|
REFLEXIVE--------------| Nifal--------| Hitpael--------| Hifil-------|

And the examples are:
QAL: Sara flies the airplane. Sara flies tonight. Sara flies off into the sky.
NIFAL: Sara flies to Egypt when Abraham offers to fly her there (Abraham flies Sarah). Sarah is being flown to Egypt. Sarah flies to Egypt, instead of taking her mule (Sarah flies herself to Egypt). Sarah is flying to Egypt in order to appeal her case to the Pharaoh (Sarah flies in her own interests).
PIEL: Sarah is flying the airplane in spite of the dust storm (Sarah gets the airplane flown).
PUAL: Sarah is flown to Egypt, when the Pharaoh snaps his fingers.
HITPAEL: Sarah flies to Egypt (Sarah makes herself flown to Egypt (but she goes willingly, not forced by herself))
HIFIL: Sarah flies the airplane higher / causes it to fly higher (the airplane isn't just being flown, it performs the action of flying). Sarah flew higher in the airplane (Sarah caused herself to fly higher in the airplane).
HOFAL: Sarah is made to fly the airplane higher.


According to Waltke and O'Connor, the 'intensive' theory isn't valid, but I see it everywhere. Some references, now:
QAL
*Psalm 78: 13 (He split the sea)

PIEL
*Psalm 78: 15 (He split up rocks in the desert)

NIFAL
*Num 16: 31 (The ground under them split open)

PUAL
*Isa 14: 10 (You have been made as weak as we are)

HITPAEL
*Gen 24: 21 (the man gazed fixedly at her)

HIFIL
*Lev 23: 30 (I will cause that soul to perish)

HOFAL
*Isa 16: 5 (In unfailing love a throne will be establised (lit. will be caused to be establised, as an event))

All this is a bit confusing for me, not only because of the several theories around the verb stems, but also because of the theories around Yiqtol and Qatal. And the ideas expressed by the Hebrew verbs are way far from the ideas I can understand in my native language (Spanish). Would it be prudent to stick to Waltke & O'Connor's hypothesis in reading the Tanakh?

[Isaac Fried]

The reason it all sounds confusing to you is because the people formulating these theories are actually as confused as you are, either because they are grappling with something they themselves don't understand, or because of the difficulty in reconciling the Hebrew with the English.

All Hebrew verbal forms are arbitrary and equivalent, all you need to do is only ascertain for each act who is the actor, who is the target of the action, and what is its time frame. The rest will come easy.

At least a 100 generations have fully understood the HB without the benefit of these theories.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Here is an example from what we have read today in Gen. 29:27 ונתנה לך גם את זאת where the NI of WeNITNAH, is אנו 'we', as spoken by Laban in his promise for things to come. NIV: "then we (we!) will give you the younger one also". KJV: "and we will give thee this also".

Compare with Gen. 38:14 והוא לא נתנה לו לאשה KJV: "and she (she!) was not given unto him to wife"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

The next verse with both qatal and yiqtol is v14

Why skip v. 13? Because its verb, along with some other verses, is a Wayyiqtol? Did you notice that the Young translation has that as a present tense too, along with verses 15–17? Are all Wayyiqtols in that translation present tense, including the historical narratives?

I skipped v13 because it has no yiqtol. I consider a wayyiqtol different than a yiqtol.

Why? In this chapter both are used the same way, and there are other uses of Wayyiqtol for present and future.

Yes, YLT always translates wayyiqtol as present tense even in historical narratives, which makes it unreadable and nonsensical.

That should have been a warning to you not to use it in this context. Just as it’s nonsensical to translate all Yiqtols as present, so is it also nonsensical to translate all Qatals as perfects, or past.

The question isn’t “Did you know him?” nor ”How long have you known him?” rather “Do you now know him?” without any reference to past actions. As for Rachel’s coming, context indicates that she was in the process of coming and had not yet arrived.

I take Rachel's coming as a participle, rather than qatal.

The most common verbal form in Biblical Hebrew for a present action, indicative, conversational sentence is Qatal

I would like to see a different example than the above with a verb other than "know".

These two examples show why it’s so difficult to analyze Biblical Hebrew from the consonantal text.

When looking at conversations in prose sections, by far the most common verb used in Tanakh that unambiguously refers to present action is “to know”, then the form that is unambiguously Qatal or participle again has “to know” as Qatal.

Many of the participles are really nominative rather than verbal use within Biblical Hebrew, but in translation comes out awkward. That’s one reason I don’t count translation as evidence.

A thought just crossed my mind: other than Waw-prefixed follow-up indicatives (Wayyiqtols), do we find any modal past references in the Bible? Such as regret e.g. “I should have done that.”?

I searched for "should have" in OT NKJV, and only got 7 verses. No wayyiqtols.

Thanks, Karl.

I didn’t think of that. But when I tried it with the ESV, I came up with a blank too.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Going through Walker-Jones' book I realised that the table I presented was originally from Waltke and O'Connor's grammar (p. 358). The examples, as I said, were by my own, so they might be misleading. Here I reproduce Waltke and O'Connor's table and examples:

------------------------------| Voice of secondary subject
Voice of primary subject | NONE----| PASSIVE-------| ACTIVE |
ACTIVE -------------------| Qal -------| Piel------------| Hifil ------|
MIDDLE/PASSIVE -------| NIfal--------| Pual----------| Hofal-------|
REFLEXIVE--------------| Nifal--------| Hitpael--------| Hifil-------|

And the examples are:

I won’t repeat those examples.

I need actual verses to back up those claims.

According to Waltke and O'Connor, the 'intensive' theory isn't valid, but I see it everywhere. Some references, now:
QAL
*Psalm 78: 13 (He split the sea)

OK

PIEL
*Psalm 78: 15 (He split up rocks in the desert)

Where’s the evidence that this is a Piel? The consonantal text can be a Qal. Qal fits the context too.

NIFAL
*Num 16: 31 (The ground under them split open)

Where’s the evidence that this is Niphal? The consonantal text and context says Qal.

PUAL
*Isa 14: 10 (You have been made as weak as we are)

Pual? The Qal works fine here.

HITPAEL
*Gen 24: 21 (the man gazed fixedly at her)

Oh man! This translation has several problems. The slave had a storm of emotions, had he had immediate success?

HIFIL
*Lev 23: 30 (I will cause that soul to perish)

The consonantal text indicates that this is a Hophal, not a Hiphil. That also fits the context.

HOFAL
*Isa 16: 5 (In unfailing love a throne will be establised (lit. will be caused to be establised, as an event))

OK.

All this is a bit confusing for me, not only because of the several theories around the verb stems, but also because of the theories around Yiqtol and Qatal. And the ideas expressed by the Hebrew verbs are way far from the ideas I can understand in my native language (Spanish). Would it be prudent to stick to Waltke & O'Connor's hypothesis in reading the Tanakh?

Depends. Do you want to advance academically, then stick with Waltke & O’Connor. Or you can think for yourself.

Not only you, but even top scholars sometimes have difficulty wrapping their minds around a language that is so different from their native tongues, so that’s why they have such different theories. So welcome to the club.

Karl W. Randolph.