Where are the case endings in Hebrew?

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
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
User avatar
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:53 am

Demythologisation before scientific analysis

Post by Stephen Hughes »

kwrandolph wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The documentary hypothesis that you two are mentioning in your discussion is something that I glanced over when I was in college, but now looks like something that I should be looking into further.

One of the first questions that springs to mind is, How does the documentary hypothesis deal with the pre-documentary period when orality?
It’s based on the standard evolutionary model.
When I hear the word "evolution" I take in a generally positive way. It is a model for analysis and study that can be used by scholars to help them understand the world around them.
kwrandolph wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm not a literalist or fundamentalist and I see the Bible as a great work of human literature. ... don't call me an anti-semite.
Where have I called you an “anti-semite”?

To me this sounds like a guilty conscience calling out when I said nothing of the sort.
"Conscience" and "guilt" don't exist within people, they are social constructs imposed on people to control them. You haven't called me an anti-semite yet, but I hold most of the views that you have said that you don't - I approach the study of the Bible through secular scolarship, the documentary hypothesis makes good sense - but is not a definative as there may be other viable models to explain the transition from oral to written form, my primary assumption in reading the Bible is that it is an entirely human composition which has undergone human transmission patterns, and when read it as an historical document we must assume the non-existence of God (no Deus ex machina), everything that is seemingly miraculous is a mythologisation of scientificly explicable natural processes, and all historical accounts must be assumed to be distortions of what happened for some literary purpose.

It may not be clear from what I have said previously, but in my mind a non-literate society is superior to a literate one. (I think that others involved in this discussion hold the opposite view). A society with oral history is a society with good communication within it - social cohesion, and good intergenerations communication - social continuity. To read here that such and so a people were inferior because they had an oral transmission of their history is non-sense in my world view. Textualisation of an oral tradition is the codification of power, where the recorders and recallers of history externalise that history that had once been kept personally by lore-keepers who in themselves were recorders - keepers - and retellers of a society's lore. That is to say that a scribe who needs to rely on pen and ink is something less than a wise woman (or man) who is the embodiment of historical and religious recording.
kwrandolph wrote:Religion permeates every facet of life. For example, when I write computer programs, they’re based on the philosophical expectations and thought patterns derived from Biblical theology. There’s no such thing as “non-religious”.
Your personal interpretation of life may not be shared by all.
kwrandolph wrote:But in societies where the tools of writing can be picked up by almost everyone in a week or less, then whether or not people were literate depended on how much they valued it.
Literacy in a week or less??? Have you ever tried to teach literacy? How much do governments spend on trying to improve it?
Stephen Hughes BA (Greek), BTh, MA (Egyptology)
וַאֲהַבְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַגֵּ֑ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (Deut. 10:19)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Demythologisation before scientific analysis

Post by kwrandolph »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:One of the first questions that springs to mind is, How does the documentary hypothesis deal with the pre-documentary period when orality?
It’s based on the standard evolutionary model.
When I hear the word "evolution" I take in a generally positive way. It is a model for analysis and study that can be used by scholars to help them understand the world around them.
I don’t know what you mean by this. I use the term in a descriptive manner to refer to a set of beliefs as previously defined.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm not a literalist or fundamentalist and I see the Bible as a great work of human literature. ... don't call me an anti-semite.
Where have I called you an “anti-semite”?

To me this sounds like a guilty conscience calling out when I said nothing of the sort.
"Conscience" and "guilt" don't exist within people, they are social constructs imposed on people to control them.
<biting my lip to keep from speaking, as further comment is off topic>
Stephen Hughes wrote:You haven't called me an anti-semite yet, but I hold most of the views that you have said that you don't - I approach the study of the Bible through secular scolarship, the documentary hypothesis makes good sense - but is not a definative as there may be other viable models to explain the transition from oral to written form, my primary assumption in reading the Bible is that it is an entirely human composition which has undergone human transmission patterns, and when read it as an historical document we must assume the non-existence of God (no Deus ex machina), everything that is seemingly miraculous is a mythologisation of scientificly explicable natural processes, and all historical accounts must be assumed to be distortions of what happened for some literary purpose.

It may not be clear from what I have said previously, but in my mind a non-literate society is superior to a literate one. (I think that others involved in this discussion hold the opposite view). A society with oral history is a society with good communication within it - social cohesion, and good intergenerations communication - social continuity. To read here that such and so a people were inferior because they had an oral transmission of their history is non-sense in my world view. Textualisation of an oral tradition is the codification of power, where the recorders and recallers of history externalise that history that had once been kept personally by lore-keepers who in themselves were recorders - keepers - and retellers of a society's lore. That is to say that a scribe who needs to rely on pen and ink is something less than a wise woman (or man) who is the embodiment of historical and religious recording.
These are clear religious beliefs, and to argue for or against them for the purposes of changing peoples’ minds is proselytism, taboo on this list.

But it illustrates what I think is the heart of the conflict about the Documentary Hypothesis—that it’s the fruit of one religion criticizing another religion on the basis of the originating religion.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Religion permeates every facet of life. For example, when I write computer programs, they’re based on the philosophical expectations and thought patterns derived from Biblical theology. There’s no such thing as “non-religious”.
Your personal interpretation of life may not be shared by all.
It’s based on definitions of terms, as found also in online dictionaries.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:But in societies where the tools of writing can be picked up by almost everyone in a week or less, then whether or not people were literate depended on how much they valued it.
Literacy in a week or less??? Have you ever tried to teach literacy? How much do governments spend on trying to improve it?
Yes, I’ve tried teaching literacy. For English.

English is a perfect example of how not to design a language’s literacy tools. It’s a mish-mash of different languages with all their conflicting rules of spelling. Even so, phonics can be taught, with about 99% understood by a first grade student in just a few months so that he can read accurately, which after a few years of practice can lead to correct spelling of most terms.

Unfortunately, most U.S. government schools teach reading as if it were Chinese, and it results in about the same functional illiteracy rate as found in China, about a third of high school graduates are functionally illiterate.

It would be much easier if consistent rules were employed, for then anything that a person hears out loud can be written down, and anything written can be correctly pronounced. Norwegian, for example, is much better at this than English—for example “garage” is spelled as “garasj” to reflect Norwegian pronunciation. Or again, ”philosophical” comes out as “filosofisk”. If English were written using consistent spelling rules, one might find a sentence written as: “Tharez noe kweschen abbout danejr on thu stretes, ie saw a horibl fite tudae—a dawg likt its paw.” or some similar set of phonics. (If I were to develop a writing system for English, I’d add letters, so that there’d be one letter for each phoneme used in English, e.g. two letters for “th”—ð and þ, and “a” and “æ” for two of the sounds written by “a”, etc.)

As far as I can tell, Biblical Hebrew used a simple set of phonics that was consistent for all its writing. People wrote as they spoke, so that written Biblical Hebrew was the same as spoken Biblical Hebrew. This type of literacy can be taught in a week or less.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:53 am

Detached, impersonal and hence impartial scholarship.

Post by Stephen Hughes »

kwrandolph wrote:These are clear religious beliefs, and to argue for or against them for the purposes of changing peoples’ minds is proselytism, taboo on this list.

But it illustrates what I think is the heart of the conflict about the Documentary Hypothesis—that it’s the fruit of one religion criticizing another religion on the basis of the originating religion.
I have just said that I think that a "religious" text should be analysed through humanist scholarship not as a religious document. I frankly can't follow your talk about these three religions in your comment. I also have no idea how the mention of proselytism came up here.

The theoretical models that I apply to my reading and study are not my own personal views, they are impartial third party reference points that I can test a text or view-point against so as to NOT overlay my own opinion on the study. Detachment from the material and placing a depersonalised distance between the observer and what is studied is the only true form of scholarship. An observer who interacts with what they are studying can not make any sort of worthwhile contribution to impartial knowledge. The scholar does not believe the theories or the theoretical bases that they use and apply.

From my own personal point of view, highly emotive arguements with name-calling and the use of emotive terms are all tell-tale signs of an admission of weakness on the part of the persons who engages in that strategy in a dialogue. It is a clear demonstration that that person's view-point is not impartial, not impersonal and hence not scholarly. Perhaps you would like to consider that when you are choosing what to write for your audience.
Stephen Hughes BA (Greek), BTh, MA (Egyptology)
וַאֲהַבְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַגֵּ֑ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (Deut. 10:19)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Detached, impersonal and hence impartial scholarship.

Post by kwrandolph »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:These are clear religious beliefs, and to argue for or against them for the purposes of changing peoples’ minds is proselytism, taboo on this list.

But it illustrates what I think is the heart of the conflict about the Documentary Hypothesis—that it’s the fruit of one religion criticizing another religion on the basis of the originating religion.
I have just said that I think that a "religious" text should be analysed through humanist scholarship not as a religious document. I frankly can't follow your talk about these three religions in your comment. I also have no idea how the mention of proselytism came up here.
Unfortunately you misunderstood me—there are only two religions mentioned in the sentence above: one that is both believed and used as the basis for criticizing a second religion’s texts. Humanism is a religion. Those who signed the “Humanist Manifestos” openly acknowledged the truth of that statement.

“Religion” is any set of beliefs used by a person as a personal guide to his life. It is not limited to theistic beliefs. As such, there are atheistic religions, Humanism being one. Therefore “humanist scholarship” is scholarship based on and guided by the religion of Humanism.

For anyone on this list to argue for the purposes of changing your religion, the one that you use as the basis of criticizing the text for a religion that is not your own, is proselytism, therefore I won’t go there.
Stephen Hughes wrote:The theoretical models that I apply to my reading and study are not my own personal views, they are impartial third party reference points that I can test a text or view-point against so as to NOT overlay my own opinion on the study.
I never claimed that the theoretical models that you employ were invented by you, for I recognized them as common to a group of people. But you are wrong that they are impartial. They are highly partial to a particular world view (another term for “religion”) and as such represent the criticisms of one religious view based on itself of the text of a competing religion.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Detachment from the material and placing a depersonalised distance between the observer and what is studied is the only true form of scholarship. An observer who interacts with what they are studying can not make any sort of worthwhile contribution to impartial knowledge. The scholar does not believe the theories or the theoretical bases that they use and apply.
If one doesn’t believe the theories or the theoretical bases that he uses and applies, why use them? Do you want to reword this to make it clearer?
Stephen Hughes wrote:From my own personal point of view, highly emotive arguements with name-calling and the use of emotive terms are all tell-tale signs of an admission of weakness on the part of the persons who engages in that strategy in a dialogue.
I wrote that as an emotionless, descriptive statement describing certain beliefs according to the understanding I have of the terms I used. According to dictionaries I checked afterwards, my use of those terms in an emotionless, descriptive manner is correct.

However Kirk Lowery is also correct in a way that I hadn’t anticipated, that while my use was correct, that others would take it emotionally. I think you proved Kirk Lowery correct. I thought the audience here would understand that I had written in an emotionless, descriptive manner, but I was wrong.
Stephen Hughes wrote:It is a clear demonstration that that person's view-point is not impartial, not impersonal and hence not scholarly.
What you demand here is impossible in practice. Everyone starts out with a set of presuppositions that he uses to analyze the world around him. His very use of those presuppositions makes his studies partial, personal, … and religious. There are no exceptions. Therefore I disagree with you that scholarly work is thereby impossible.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Perhaps you would like to consider that when you are choosing what to write for your audience.
Kirk Lowery is correct that I misread the audience, but now there’s another member of the audience who will break in and shut this discussion down—by that I refer to George Athas. I think I’ve said everything that pertains to this subject, so I don’t anticipate adding anything more.

The Documentary Hypothesis, because of its religious nature, is usually not discussed on this forum. This forum was set up as a group of people belonging to different religions to discuss the language of Biblical Hebrew. I suggest that we return to that.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:53 am

Moving on without inciting the emotions of others

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Well, since you are at least trying to not write things that incite the emotions of others, I'm willing to move on with our interesting discussion of the Hebrew Verbals system.

If modality is the basis upon which you make a differentiation between verbs in Hebrew, how are other things like time and aspect. I realise that you have made a general statement about European scholars bringing aspect to their understanding of the Hebrew verb. So far as I understand it, "aspect" is one of the functions of universal language, and even if it is not expressed in the verbal system is is expressed (or understood from) other elements in text. From an early age, there is a recognition of time, and an attept to express time in language. How do you see those things as being expressed in Hebrew, if it is not in the verbals?
Stephen Hughes BA (Greek), BTh, MA (Egyptology)
וַאֲהַבְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַגֵּ֑ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (Deut. 10:19)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Moving on without inciting the emotions of others

Post by kwrandolph »

Stephen Hughes wrote:If modality is the basis upon which you make a differentiation between verbs in Hebrew, how are other things like time and aspect. I realise that you have made a general statement about European scholars bringing aspect to their understanding of the Hebrew verb. So far as I understand it, "aspect" is one of the functions of universal language, and even if it is not expressed in the verbal system is is expressed (or understood from) other elements in text. From an early age, there is a recognition of time, and an attept to express time in language. How do you see those things as being expressed in Hebrew, if it is not in the verbals?
Biblical Hebrew has the Qatal and Yiqtol conjugations, which I recognize as primarily modal. One of the primary moods of the Yiqtol when it’s used as an indicative is continuation, add on to the primary idea.

Biblical Hebrew also has the binyanim: Qal, Niphal, Piel. Pual, Hiphil, Hophal, Hithpael. Qal and Niphal are simple action. Hiphil and Hophal refer to causative. Hithpael is focussed on the actor, usually reflexive though sometimes it takes an object. But for the longest time I openly questioned on this list if the Piel and Pual actually exist outside the minds of grammarians.

On to your questions:

Tense is defined by context. “Now”, “then”, “after”, “before”, “today”, etc. as well as other time clues from the context indicate tense, where the authors thought it important. Time in narrative is often indicated by a waw followed by a Yiqtol with the idea “and next” as a continuation of or adding on to the narrative.

As for Piel and Pual, I now wonder if they are to signify imperfective aspect, when that’s important. The only places where we can recognize the Piel and Pual in the consonantal text are where they are participles, but the more I read, the more it appears that those are places where there is continuous or repeated action, in other words, imperfective aspect. When used as Qatals and Yiqtols, the Piels and Puals have identical consonantal constructs as Qals, so they need to be recognized by context.

With this in mind, I look at Proverbs 31:10–31, where the context indicates that all the action mentioned is continuous or repeated—were the verbs all originally Piels and Puals?

This is describing just some of the things that I’ve observed over the years. Is it accurate? Bring out counter examples and shoot it down.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:53 am

Where is the modality signalled.

Post by Stephen Hughes »

kwrandolph wrote:This is describing just some of the things that I’ve observed over the years. Is it accurate? Bring out counter examples and shoot it down.
I don't think that a beginners' sub-forum is a good place for flame-wars and shoot'em downs. I'm happy to hear you out. I've made 3 attempts to learn Hebrew with textbook grammar already, so in that context, I'm willing to work with your model for a while.

Let's consider a generally accepted list of moods; Indicative, Subjunctive, Conditional, Optative, Imperative, Jussive, Potential, Inferential, Interrogative. Is the modality signalled within the verb's infectional system, or is it expressed adverbally, syntactically or through auxilliaries (as in English)?

Because modality is where you feel the verbal system is based, perhaps we can start with a simple question like this for now, before moving on to discuss the more complex interdependecne between tense aspect and mood.
kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew has the Qatal and Yiqtol conjugations, which I recognize as primarily modal. One of the primary moods of the Yiqtol when it’s used as an indicative is continuation, add on to the primary idea.

Biblical Hebrew also has the binyanim: Qal, Niphal, Piel. Pual, Hiphil, Hophal, Hithpael. Qal and Niphal are simple action. Hiphil and Hophal refer to causative. Hithpael is focussed on the actor, usually reflexive though sometimes it takes an object. But for the longest time I openly questioned on this list if the Piel and Pual actually exist outside the minds of grammarians.
Causativity and reflexivity are not usually considered moods, so far as I understand it. Giving a sentence focus on the actor is good and well, but that is not really modality either. Modality is the way that the producer of the text wants to position themselves in relation to the text, how they express what they think about an action, or what they want others to think about the action that they are talking about.

Could we work from the moods (in abstract) to the forms that are found in the language?
  • For example, the Jussive mood is usually used for the 1st and 3rd persons and covers meaning such as orders, commanding, or exhorting. Is that mood marked within the Hebrew verbal system?
I look at Proverbs 31:10–31, where the context indicates that all the action mentioned is continuous or repeated—were the verbs all originally Piels and Puals?
That passage is too long for me at this stage, could you choose a smaller one, or walk me through it a little to understand your point as much as to understand the meaning of the passage.
Stephen Hughes BA (Greek), BTh, MA (Egyptology)
וַאֲהַבְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַגֵּ֑ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (Deut. 10:19)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Where is the modality signalled.

Post by kwrandolph »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:This is describing just some of the things that I’ve observed over the years. Is it accurate? Bring out counter examples and shoot it down.
I don't think that a beginners' sub-forum is a good place for flame-wars and shoot'em downs.
This has nothing to do with flame wars and “shooting down” is merely by words, show me where i‘m wrong. If I’m wrong and it can be proven, then we all benefit, myself included.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm happy to hear you out. I've made 3 attempts to learn Hebrew with textbook grammar already, so in that context, I'm willing to work with your model for a while.
You won’t really learn the language until you use it. Just sitting down and reading it is already using the language. If you depend on books to get you there, you’ll never arrive.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Let's consider a generally accepted list of moods;
Don’t expect the moods in Biblical Hebrew to act the same way as in English. But part of my hesitation stems from the fact that I basically ignored grammar for a long time after realizing that what I had learned in class didn’t work, and I had no model from which to work. So a lot of what I say here is tentative and incomplete.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Indicative,
Both Qatal and Yiqtol are used as indicatives. Where there are a Qatal and one or more Yiqtols in a sentence used as indicatives, then Qatal is the primary or opening verb, and the Yiqtols are secondary: additions or continuation on the main idea, or continuation of narrative.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Subjunctive,
Subjunctive is indicated by the Yiqtol form.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Conditional,
This appears to be a subjunctive (Yiqtol) followed by Qatal.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Optative,
I guess this would be Yiqtol.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Imperative,
There is a recognized imperative form. When that isn’t used, then the subjunctive ”You should …” Yiqtol is used.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Jussive,
I’m not sure.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Potential,
I don’t find this as a mood. It’s not listed as a mood by SIL either.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Inferential,
Same as Potential above.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Interrogative.
This is not a separate mood in Biblical Hebrew, rather the verb takes on what sort of question is being asked. For example, the question “What did you do?” is treated as an indicative, hence Qatal. “What should you do?” is a subjunctive question, hence Yiqtol. Intent is also signaled by use of a Yiqtol, so the question “What do you intend to do?” uses a Yiqtol.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Is the modality signalled within the verb's infectional system, or is it expressed adverbally, syntactically or through auxilliaries (as in English)?
It appears that there are fewer moods than expressed in English, and they are signaled through conjugation.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Because modality is where you feel the verbal system is based, perhaps we can start with a simple question like this for now, before moving on to discuss the more complex interdependecne between tense aspect and mood.
kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew has the Qatal and Yiqtol conjugations, which I recognize as primarily modal. One of the primary moods of the Yiqtol when it’s used as an indicative is continuation, add on to the primary idea.

Biblical Hebrew also has the binyanim: Qal, Niphal, Piel. Pual, Hiphil, Hophal, Hithpael. Qal and Niphal are simple action. Hiphil and Hophal refer to causative. Hithpael is focussed on the actor, usually reflexive though sometimes it takes an object. But for the longest time I openly questioned on this list if the Piel and Pual actually exist outside the minds of grammarians.
Causativity and reflexivity are not usually considered moods, so far as I understand it. Giving a sentence focus on the actor is good and well, but that is not really modality either. Modality is the way that the producer of the text wants to position themselves in relation to the text, how they express what they think about an action, or what they want others to think about the action that they are talking about.
The conjugations, Qatal and Yiqtol, are modal as far as I can tell, but the Binyanim are unlike anything in English or any other Indo-European language that I know. That’s why I follow all other grammarians to list them separately.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Could we work from the moods (in abstract) to the forms that are found in the language?
  • For example, the Jussive mood is usually used for the 1st and 3rd persons and covers meaning such as orders, commanding, or exhorting. Is that mood marked within the Hebrew verbal system?
Jussive is apparently not clearly marked in Biblical Hebrew, but all subjunctives are. But when reading the text, and you see a Yiqtol, you then need to look at the context to see if a continuation/addition is meant, or intent, or subjunctive.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
I look at Proverbs 31:10–31, where the context indicates that all the action mentioned is continuous or repeated—were the verbs all originally Piels and Puals?
That passage is too long for me at this stage, could you choose a smaller one, or walk me through it a little to understand your point as much as to understand the meaning of the passage.
OK, to give a passage that shows modalities in conjugations, look at Exodus 5:1–2, “And afterwards Moses and Aaron went (indicative primary Qatal) and said (indicative secondary/addition Yiqtol) unto Pharaoh, ‘Thus says (indicative primary Qatal) YHWH Israel’s God, “Send (imperative) my people that they may celebrate (a type of subjunctive, Yiqtol) to me in the wilderness.“‘“ The next verse, “And pharaoh said (indicative secondary, continuation of narrative, Yiqtol), ‘Who YHWH (verbless clause) that I should listen (subjunctive, Yiqtol) to his voice to send (infinitive) out Israel? I don’t know (indicative primary, Qatal) YHWH and I have no intent to send (intent, Yiqtol) out Israel.’”

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:53 am

Street-view Hebrew

Post by Stephen Hughes »

kwrandolph wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm happy to hear you out. I've made 3 attempts to learn Hebrew with textbook grammar already, so in that context, I'm willing to work with your model for a while.
You won’t really learn the language until you use it. Just sitting down and reading it is already using the language. If you depend on books to get you there, you’ll never arrive.
I am the type of person who studies a map in detail and goes through various expected routes on google streetview, or talks to people who live there or who have visited there before, before visiting a new city. The questions that I am asking you are to give me that perspective. I feel that that has been lacking in the approaches that I have made previously.

Thanks for that extensive reply, let's add a 2nd dimension to the language. How is time reference indicated / marked?

What are the significant distinctions? Remote v. near time? actions that can be changed (now) actions that are imagined but can not be changed (before) and actions that are imagined and can be changed (future)?
Stephen Hughes BA (Greek), BTh, MA (Egyptology)
וַאֲהַבְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַגֵּ֑ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (Deut. 10:19)
User avatar
George Athas
Moderator
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Where are the case endings in Hebrew?

Post by George Athas »

Quit the evolution discussion. Stick to Hebrew, please.

On behalf of the moderators.
GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (http://moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
Post Reply