Hebrew verb theories

[Isaac Fried]

Ken says,
I'm writing an article on the conjugations in the beginning of 1 Samuel

Says I
I hope this article includes a remark as to what actually are these Hebrew "conjugations", or זִווּגים ZIWUGIYM.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[sblarose]

I've read that the old theories pointed that perfect meant past, and imperfect meant present, but then I heard that this idea no longer holds, since Hebrew didn't have tense as in Western languages, but instead represented aspect and mood. I'm studying with the SBL textbook, but it's discussion of this topic is a bit messy, and I got lost soon. Any advice you could give me would be very appreciated.

I am not familiar with the SBL Hebrew textbook. I can talk to you about the way I teach verbs to beginning students. The most important thing I can say to you is that Hebrew understanding often does not translate directly to English expressions. My personal opinion is that Hebrew verbs communicate both time and aspect depending on the situation in which they are used. You have a lot of good examples in the other comments here. In a basic narrative, the Qatal presents both past tense and completed action. In other situations it becomes muddy. This is what you cover in advanced grammar, and I give students pointers to the idea that there are many situations we do not talk about in first-year study. In the Prov 31 passage, for example, the verbs communicate aspect because the hypothetical woman is presented as doing these things and being in this character always (completed action). But this is not a situation that requires an English past-tense translation. So I encourage students to understand the Hebrew concept as well as the best English translation required.
HTH!

[kwrandolph]

…I'm studying with the SBL textbook, but it's discussion of this topic is a bit messy, and I got lost soon.

Is the SBL textbook online so we can get an idea of what it teaches? As it is, I’m unfamiliar with it.

I’m doing research and writing concerning Biblical Hebrew, but don’t know of a single textbook that I could recommend should I get a chance to teach the language.

I am not familiar with the SBL Hebrew textbook. I can talk to you about the way I teach verbs to beginning students. The most important thing I can say to you is that Hebrew understanding often does not translate directly to English expressions.

That is so true. Yet we understand enough of it so that we get all the main points.

My personal opinion is that Hebrew verbs communicate both time and aspect depending on the situation in which they are used.

See below.

In a basic narrative, the Qatal presents both past tense and completed action.

So much of Tanakh is history, hence all verbal forms are used refer to past and completed events. There’s nothing special about Qatal in this regard.

… In the Prov 31 passage, for example, the verbs communicate aspect because the hypothetical woman is presented as doing these things and being in this character always (completed action).

I don’t understand this claim. All the verbs in this section refer to present (tense) and continuing (aspect) action. There’s no difference.

But this is not a situation that requires an English past-tense translation. So I encourage students to understand the Hebrew concept as well as the best English translation required.
HTH!

The last time I read Tanakh through, I decided I would list all quoted conversations where:

1) it was unquestionably referring to present and continuing action.
2) there is no question as to which verbal form used (using an unpointed text—the consonantal text has the same letters for the third person singular in both the Qal Qatal and Qal participle, so those had to be omitted from the survey). Of course, verbless clauses don’t fit.
3) it had to be in conversation, not poetry nor general narrative.
4) it had to be nominative mood.

In spite of all these restrictions, I was surprised at how many recorded conversations I found in Tanakh.

By far, the most common verb that met all criteria is ידע and the most common conjugation is Qatal.

Where there is any question on whether or not present actions were referenced, I omitted them from the survey. That included many conversations where either present or recently completed action was indicated.

How does this affect our understanding of Biblical Hebrew verbal usage?

I should have, but haven’t, listed conversations where future action was indicated, nominative mood. While just reading, I noticed several such conversations where the verb is either participle or Qatal, where it appears that Qatal is more common. Many conversations referring to future action are not in nominative mood, rather in moods indicated by the Yiqtol conjugation, so that has to be taken into account.

Why target conversations? I figure that written Hebrew in general follows the same rules as conversational Hebrew. So if we can understand verbal use in conversations, we then can understand verbal use in poetry and narrative as well.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Ken M. Penner]

Karl, could you explain what you mean by "nominative" mood? Is that your label for "indicative" or "realis"? Some would argue that the future is by nature irrealis.

[kwrandolph]

Karl, could you explain what you mean by "nominative" mood? Is that your label for "indicative" or "realis"? Some would argue that the future is by nature irrealis.

Sorry, I miswrote. I meant “indicative” as in indicative mood.

Yes, I understand that aspect of future, namely it hasn’t happened yet, and may never happen. That’s why I understand many of the uses of the Yiqtol actually refer to intent to do the actions, and not an indicative use of the verb when referring to future events.

Thanks for the correction.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Ben Putnam]

What is wrong with calling the Hebrew verb “an aspect”?
Randall Buth
Biblical Language Center

Link below.

http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/w ... rb-aspect/

[Isaac Fried]

מָחָר בָּאתִי = מה-אחר בא-אתי with the, no longer in independent use, personal pronoun אתי for אני.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

What is wrong with calling the Hebrew verb “an aspect”?
Randall Buth
Biblical Language Center

Link below.

http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/w ... rb-aspect/

First of all, he should call the conjugation as aspect, not the verb.

Aspect and tense are two different indicators for time. Most western European languages conjugate for tense, whereas aspect is indicated by the use of other words in context with the verbs. Russian conjugates for both tense and aspect.

Modern Hebrew conjugates for tense. From what I read, DSS Hebrew had also tense based conjugation.

Biblical Hebrew is different. It conjugated for neither tense nor aspect. Dr. Buth is wrong on this. If you cherry-pick passages, it can appear that Biblical Hebrew conjugates for aspect and/or tense, however, if one reads the whole Tanakh, that model of understanding falls apart because of all the examples that don’t fit.

Dr. Buth is correct that one needs to put in many hours of study in order to master a language. Unfortunately, Dr. Buth admitted a couple of years ago in a discussion here in B-Hebrew that he had not put in those hours in Biblical Hebrew. He had studied DSS Hebrew, medieval Hebrew, he lives in Israel so speaks modern Hebrew daily, has studied cognate languages like Arabic, Aramaic and other cognates, his dissertation apparently was a tour-de-force of excellence, but he as of a couple of years ago hadn’t over decades sat down and read Tanakh from cover to cover in order to cover all examples of Biblical Hebrew usage.

Now I was sort of dense, took me a while to realize that Biblical Hebrew conjugated for neither tense nor aspect, not until after about five or six times reading Tanakh through. It took me another few decades before I realized that the conjugations are modal, but some of the moods are not recognized in English or other Indo-European languages. That’s how dense I am. It took me that long to recognize what was before my eyes.

So that’s what’s wrong calling Biblical Hebrew “aspect”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[normansimonr]

Hello. Sorry for being absent these days. The link to the SBL textbook is here: http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/IC ... study.aspx (the book's name is Hebrew for Biblical Interpretation, look it up with Ctrl+F)

Apparently I was able to download it since I live in a Third World country, I'm not sure if you can download it from the US.

[normansimonr]

In reading the Tanakh I've noticed some general regularities. Certainly, I don't pretend to be exhaustive, since this is the first time I read the Tanakh from cover to cover, but here goes:
1. NIfal, either yiqtol or qatal, is reflexive or pasive. Doesn't really relate to tense. By passive I mean, for instance, in Leviticus 17: 4, וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא, it says 'and that man will be cut off.' The action is on the man, he is the passive agent of the action. Sometimes I am the active and passive agent as well, and it would be like 'I will cut me off' or something like that.
2. Hifil is 'causative'. Causative, for instance, here: וֶֽהֱבִיאֻ֣ם לַֽיהוָ֗ה אֶל־פֶּ֛תַח אֹ֥הֶל מֹועֵ֖ד (Lev. 17: 5), 'and they will bring them [the sacrifices] to the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.' The root here is בּוֹא, normally translated as 'to go', but the Hifil gives it the meaning of 'to cause to go' or, in other words, to bring.
3. Piel tends to be present with transitive verbs.
4. I usually understand Hofal as a kind of Nifal. I haven't been able to find any important differences other than Hofal is way less used than Nifal.
5. Qal in qatal form can be translated like future or past (future usually when it comes after a conjunctive vav.) And yiqtol Qal has more varied uses, but as far as I've seen, we can't frame them using the 'tense' frame. Something similar happens with the qatal and yiqtol forms of the Piel. I can't say anything about vav conversive yet, since I feel I need more reading before I have an informed opinion.

Up to this moment I've read the twelve prophets, 1 and 2 Samuel and Leviticus.

As for mood, tense and aspect, I have a bit of a confusion here. Tense, well, is easy to understand: past, present, future. When it comes to aspect, are you referring to perfective and imperfective? And mood, is it like real and unreal?