Hebrew verb theories

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
normansimonr
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:14 pm

Hebrew verb theories

Post by normansimonr »

Hello everyone. I've been told that there are several theories of the Hebrew verbal system. Could you tell me which they are? (I'm not an avanced student)

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.

Thank you.
***
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by Isaac Fried »

I have not seen The SBL Hebrew textbook, but any keen eyed observer sees right away that the Hebrew verb consists of a root augmented by identity markers, or personal pronouns (PP), for the actors involved in the said act. A PP is a temporary universal name.

The Hebrew language has apparently developed independently in different areas, by different Hebrew clans and tribes, who devised, each, a different system of such PP additions, some injected into the root, some hitched to it fore and aft. Eventually these different verbal constructions, בנינים BINYANIYM, merged into the Hebrew language, and later even acquired some additional helpful grammatical functions.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Mark Lightman
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by Mark Lightman »

normansimonr wrote:Any advice you could give me would be very appreciated.
Avoid theory altogether. In language, map is not territory.
Mark Lightman
User avatar
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by Ken M. Penner »

You might find my article "History of the Research on the Hebrew Verbal System" in the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics helpful.
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by kwrandolph »

normansimonr wrote:Hello everyone. I've been told that there are several theories of the Hebrew verbal system. Could you tell me which they are? (I'm not an avanced student)
In my one year of formal class in Biblical Hebrew, I was taught two theories—that the verbal conjugations indicate tense (Weinreich) and later that they indicate aspect. Both are measures of time. But in reading Tanakh through I could make neither fit the text, neither singly, nor in combination.

However, in reading Tanakh through, I found it was not necessary to have an exact understanding of the whys of verbal conjugations in order to have a working understanding of the text. So don’t get all tied up in knots about it.

As far as being an advanced student, don’t sweat it, no one is really an advanced student of Biblical Hebrew language—because there have been no native speakers of Biblical Hebrew for about 2500 years and we have only one relatively small book written in the language, none of us is really at more than about an advanced intermediate stage in our knowledge.
normansimonr wrote: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.

Thank you.
I don’t use the terms “perfect” and “imperfect” when describing Biblical Hebrew conjugations, rather I call them “Qatal” and “Yiqtol”, to avoid confusing people that I agree with time-based conjugations. As far as I can tell, Biblical Hebrew conjugations had nothing to do with time. Rather they dealt with modalities, but some of the modalities are different from what we have in English or other modern, Indo-European languages.

Languages tend to be relatively simple in their grammars, so if you find a grammar that is very long and quite complex, that’s a sign that the person who wrote the grammar didn’t really know what he is talking about. What has muddied the waters for Biblical Hebrew is that apparently by the time of the Dead Seas Scrolls, already the Hebrew grammar had changed and, according to others that I’ve read, Mishnaic Hebrew had a tense-based grammar. Also comparing Biblical Hebrew with cognate languages can lead to misunderstanding Biblical Hebrew (though often, not always, helpful in recognizing seldom used vocabulary).

I don’t follow the Masoretic points, as they often were assigned to reinforce a tense-based understanding to Biblical Hebrew even when it doesn’t fit. Too many times the Masoretic points are demonstrably wrong as far as meaning is concerned, so I no longer trust them. There’s no question that they don’t represent Biblical era pronunciation.

Where languages tend to be complex is in vocabulary and idiomatic uses thereof. Biblical Hebrew is no different in this regard. This has been my biggest challenge in understanding Tanakh. I ended up writing a dictionary to help me to understand vocabulary, and I also now include a short section on grammar as I understand it.

Karl W. Randolph.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by Isaac Fried »

A student of BH should, I think, stay away from "conjugation", "tense", "perfect, "imperfect", "aspect", "modality", and the like, which add not a iota to the understanding of the biblical text. These are blurred concept foreign to Hebrew, and of a nature not even agreed upon by the people arguing about them.

The Hebrew "conjugation" is, as I have said before, merely the addition of personal pronouns (PP) to the root to identify the actors involved in the act. There are no markings in Hebrew for time. The concept of time as we now understand it, does not even exist in the HB.
Take for instance the QAL, 'light' form, which is devoid of additives for the "third person". It is, say for the act $AMAR, 'guard', of this form:

$AMARTIY = $AMAR+ATIY, where ATIY is an obsolete form of ANIY, 'I', identifying the performer of the act $AMAR. In the form $MARANIY = $MAR+ANIY, ANIY, 'I', is the beneficiary of the act.

$AMARTA = $AMAR+TA, where TA is a contracted ATAH, 'you s. m.'.

$AMART = $AMAR+T, where T is a contracted AT, 'you s. f.'.

$AMAR is devoid of person indicators, which are added separately, as in Gen. 37:11 ואביו שמר את הדבר NIV:"but his father kept the matter in mind."

$AMRAH = $AMR+AH, where AH is a contracted HIY, 'she'.

$AMARNU = $AMAR+NU, where NU is a contracted ANU, 'we'.

$MARTEM = SMAR-TEM, where TEM is a contracted ATEM, 'you p. m.'.

$MARTEN = $MAR+TEN, where TEN is a contracted ATEN, 'you p. f.'.

$AMRU = $AMR+U, where U is a contracted HU, standing here for 'they'. In the form $MARTAM = $MAR+TAM, TAM is the beneficiary of the act.

It is agreed now that this form is to represent past actions. But actions vary greatly in nature: $ABAR, 'broke', is not AHAB, 'loved'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by Isaac Fried »

Moreover, the identity markers, or PPs, my be inserted even inside (inside!) the root; placed between the radical letters. But then, these markers may not include consonants, lest they interfere with the radicals. The interior insertion are the vowels I, short for היא HIY, and U, short for הוא HU, regardless of gender and number. Such is the PUAL construction, that has a הוא HU inserted between the first and second radical, as in $ULAX = $+U+LAX, 'he was sent.' It is agreed now that PUAL is past action.

To refer to a person other than the "third", the PUAL form is augmented by the PPs of the PAAL form (BINYAN) added at the end. Here:
$ULAX+TIY, $ULAX+TA, $ULAX+T, $ULAX, $ULX+AH, $ULAX+NU, $ULAX+TEM, $ULAX+TEN, $ULX+U.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by SteveMiller »

Can anyone give me 5 examples where qatal is not past tense and where yiqtol is not future or present? Of course, exclude vav conversive. Also do not include prophesies, which are often given in the prophetic past. Thanks.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by kwrandolph »

SteveMiller wrote:Can anyone give me 5 examples where qatal is not past tense…
Just go to Proverbs 31:10–31 where you have several instances of Qatal referring to the present. In fact, all of the verbs in that section are present.

Also, the majority of present referent conversational sentences are made of subject, Qatal verb, object.
SteveMiller wrote: and where yiqtol is not future or present? Of course, exclude vav conversive. Also do not include prophesies, which are often given in the prophetic past. Thanks.
Off the top of my head, I don’t remember yiqtol referring to past, though I know they’re there. Rolf Furuli made the study and found hundreds of yiqtols referring to past events. But I don’t remember where they’re found.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: Hebrew verb theories

Post by Ken M. Penner »

Garcı́a Martı́nez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, [i]The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition[/i] Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998. wrote:CD 9.6 אם החריש לו מיום ליום ובחרון אפו בו דבר בו בדבר מות
7 ענה בו יען אשר לא הקים את מצות אל אשר אמר לו הוכח

6 If he kept silent about him from one day to the other, and then, when he was angry, accused him of a capital offence,
7 he has testified against himself, for he did not fulfil the commandment of God who said to him:
This is a hypothetical situation, which has not occurred in the past.
Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, [i]The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition[/i] (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 554. wrote:CD 10.9 אמר לסור (לסיר) את
10 דעתם עד לא ישלימו

1QS 4.23 עד הנה יריבו רוחי אמת ועול בלבב גבר
24 יתהלכו בחכמה ואולת

1QS 11.11 ובדעתו נהיה כול וכ{ע}ול הויה במחשבתו יכינו ומבלעדיו לוא יעשה
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University
Post Reply