Is יכזב in the imperfect tense?
And would it better be translated "does lie," or "will lie"?
יכזב
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
- SteveMiller
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
- Location: Detroit, MI, USA
- Contact:
Re: יכזב
Yes, it is imperfect.
Imperfect can be either future or present, so either "he lies" or "he will lie".
Imperfect can be either future or present, so either "he lies" or "he will lie".
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
-
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: יכזב
No, there are no tenses in Biblical Hebrew. The language doesn’t conjugate for time.MGWB wrote:Is יכזב in the imperfect tense?
The conjugations refer to other concepts, but not for time, neither in tense nor aspect.
It can also be translated as “has lied”.MGWB wrote:And would it better be translated "does lie," or "will lie"?
Karl W. Randolph.
- Ken M. Penner
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm
Re: יכזב
This is (again) a note of caution that Karl's views regarding Hebrew "conjugations" differ from those commonly held by researchers of the Hebrew verbal system. (E.g., most would say that the wayyiqtol form does indicate past time as a rule.) That said, I agree with Karl on this point at least: the yiqtol form (i.e., the form that יכזב is), conventionally called "imperfect," is not a tense. I find myself in the camp of those who agree with Jan Joosten that yiqtol is modal. (English modals are forms using "could" "would" "might" "will" "should" and the like.) So I disagree that יכזב should ever be translated "has lied". Perhaps in a past context it could be "would lie" or "used to lie," but not a real statement of fact "has lied" or "did lie".
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University
St. Francis Xavier University