Hello all,
I have been working on a translation of the phrase "Nobody knows anything" in a Biblical style of Hebrew. I want it to evoke the register and the gravity of the Biblical stage of the language, yet still be intelligible to modern speakers.
This is how far I've gotten: לֹא יֵדַע הַאָדָם אֶפֶס
I know there are better words to use than אֶפֶס, or at least more common ones (like אַיִן), but it's also important that אֶפֶס be a double-entendre. The primary meaning of the whole phrase is "nobody knows anything," but אֶפֶס should also evoke the meaning of "but..." or "however...", leaving something else unsaid.
Anyway, my question is simply this: have I succeeded in making a grammatical sentence that means what I want it to mean? Or are there any glaring errors?
Thank you for your time,
Robert Hanshaw (Tucson, AZ)
Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
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.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
Robert Hanshaw
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
On the previous post, I neglected to mention where I had found this construction before: Ecclesiastes 9:12, כִּי גַּם לֹא-יֵדַע הָאָדָם אֶת-עִתּוֹ, "For man also knows not his time", and other similar verses in surrounding chapters.
Robert Hanshaw
-
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
I don’t know about modern Hebrew, but I can at least help with the Biblical Hebrew.beauford wrote:Hello all,
I have been working on a translation of the phrase "Nobody knows anything" in a Biblical style of Hebrew. I want it to evoke the register and the gravity of the Biblical stage of the language, yet still be intelligible to modern speakers.
What you wrote here is, “The man does not know … none” which doesn’t make sense.beauford wrote:This is how far I've gotten: לֹא יֵדַע הַאָדָם אֶפֶס
If you want to give it in the sense of the Bible, look at 1 Kings 8:46 of 2 Chronicle 6:36 where the phrase is אין אדם אשר or just אין אדם followed by a verb as in Ecclesiastes 8:8.
My guess is that what you want to say would be, אין אדם אשר ידע מאומה
Can a modern Israeli read the above and get the meaning you want? Off the cuff, that’s how I would render it in Biblical Hebrew.beauford wrote:Anyway, my question is simply this: have I succeeded in making a grammatical sentence that means what I want it to mean? Or are there any glaring errors?
Thank you for your time,
Robert Hanshaw (Tucson, AZ)
Karl W. Randolph.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
Thanks for your help! Your translation would indeed make sense to modern speakers (though the ידע might be perceived as future tense if the reader didn't register the Biblical style).
I am curious about אדם, though. Is there not a sense where it can mean "humanity" as a whole, or at least "any man", not just "a man" and/or "Adam"? I like the cadence of לֹא ידע אדם better, if it makes sense to do so.
I'm thinking of Proverbs 24:12 וְהֵשִׁיב לְאָדָם כְּפָעֳלוֹ, although there are probably better examples.
I like the double meaning of אֶפֶס, but I can let it go. מאומה is certainly intelligible to just about anyone.
I am curious about אדם, though. Is there not a sense where it can mean "humanity" as a whole, or at least "any man", not just "a man" and/or "Adam"? I like the cadence of לֹא ידע אדם better, if it makes sense to do so.
I'm thinking of Proverbs 24:12 וְהֵשִׁיב לְאָדָם כְּפָעֳלוֹ, although there are probably better examples.
I like the double meaning of אֶפֶס, but I can let it go. מאומה is certainly intelligible to just about anyone.
Robert Hanshaw
-
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
Part of the reason I asked if modern people could understand it is that the verb ידע in Biblical Hebrew is Qatal used as a present. My understanding in modern Hebrew Qatal is treated as a past tense, so this could lead to a misunderstanding.beauford wrote:Thanks for your help! Your translation would indeed make sense to modern speakers (though the ידע might be perceived as future tense if the reader didn't register the Biblical style).
Context tells us which understanding of אדם is meant.beauford wrote:I am curious about אדם, though. Is there not a sense where it can mean "humanity" as a whole, or at least "any man", not just "a man" and/or "Adam"? I like the cadence of לֹא ידע אדם better, if it makes sense to do so.
After sending my last message, it came to mind that a short version of the sentence is possible: אין ידע מאומה with the ידע a participle, meaning “one who knows”. That makes the short sentence “There is not one who knows anything.” An example of a participle used in this manner is found in the last section of Psalm 14:1.
לֹא ידע אדם can be translated as “a man doesn’t know” or “he doesn’t know a man”.
??? Do you mean the use of אדם?beauford wrote:I'm thinking of Proverbs 24:12 וְהֵשִׁיב לְאָדָם כְּפָעֳלוֹ, although there are probably better examples.
Double meaning? Is that modern Hebrew?beauford wrote:I like the double meaning of אֶפֶס, but I can let it go. מאומה is certainly intelligible to just about anyone.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
I'm actually using the yiqtol! (Imperfective aspect, as I understand it?) But the initial yod turns that hiriq into a tsere, and the final ayin conditions a patach there. So it looks like yada' but is actually yeda'.the verb ידע in Biblical Hebrew is Qatal used as a present.
This would be "eyn yodea' me'umah"?a short version of the sentence is possible: אין ידע מאומה
I did mean that, as in "each man"/"every man", but that was not a great example of the usage I meant. In Strong's concordance, אדם is listed as meaning "humanity" four times, but I don't currently have the tools to easily find those instances!Do you mean the use of אדם? (in Ps. 24:12)
In summary, I was modeling this whole thing after Ecc. 9:12 לֹא-יֵדַע הָאָדָם אֶת-עִתּוֹ -- same aspect, same phrasing, same subject, different object. Am I missing something?
Oh, and the double meaning of אֶפֶס might well be a modern phenomenon. It does mean "however..." as a secondary sense. I'm not sure whether that exists at all in Biblical Hebrew.
Robert Hanshaw
- Ken M. Penner
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
Ecc 9:12 and 10:14 are probably the most similar expressions you will find.
לֹא־יֵדַע הָאָדָם מַה־שֶׁיִּהְיֶה Ecc 10:14
We find the prefix conjugation here (yiqtol). Based on my work on the yiqtol/qatal distinction, I wouldn't say yiqtol expresses "aspect." Modality fits better. In Ecc 10:14, we might translate that modality as "humanity cannot know what will happen."
The indicative "does not know" might be better expressed with the participle, as in כִּי־אֵינֶנּוּ יֹדֵעַ מַה־שֶּׁיִּהְיֶה Ecc 8:7
Mind you, this is late biblical Hebrew. It could be different in earlier stages of Hebrew.
Consider also
וְלֹא־יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת־קְבֻרָתוֹin Deut 34:6
אֵין יוֹדֵעַ הָאָדָם הַכֹּל לִפְנֵיהֶם in Ecc 9:1
וְלֹא־נוֹדַע מְקוֹמוֹ אַיָּם in Nah 3:17
לֹא־יֵדַע הָאָדָם מַה־שֶׁיִּהְיֶה Ecc 10:14
We find the prefix conjugation here (yiqtol). Based on my work on the yiqtol/qatal distinction, I wouldn't say yiqtol expresses "aspect." Modality fits better. In Ecc 10:14, we might translate that modality as "humanity cannot know what will happen."
The indicative "does not know" might be better expressed with the participle, as in כִּי־אֵינֶנּוּ יֹדֵעַ מַה־שֶּׁיִּהְיֶה Ecc 8:7
Mind you, this is late biblical Hebrew. It could be different in earlier stages of Hebrew.
Consider also
וְלֹא־יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת־קְבֻרָתוֹin Deut 34:6
אֵין יוֹדֵעַ הָאָדָם הַכֹּל לִפְנֵיהֶם in Ecc 9:1
וְלֹא־נוֹדַע מְקוֹמוֹ אַיָּם in Nah 3:17
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University
St. Francis Xavier University
-
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
I’m trying to match the idea of “Nobody knows anything” whereas this has the idea that a man doesn’t know what’s coming down the pike.Ken M. Penner wrote:Ecc 9:12 and 10:14 are probably the most similar expressions you will find.
לֹא־יֵדַע הָאָדָם מַה־שֶׁיִּהְיֶה Ecc 10:14
How do you know this is not a participle when read in context:
והסכל ירבה דברים לא ידע האדם מה שיהיה?
On what basis do you claim that this is a prefix conjugation (the Masoretic points don’t count as evidence)?Ken M. Penner wrote:We find the prefix conjugation here (yiqtol). Based on my work on the yiqtol/qatal distinction, I wouldn't say yiqtol expresses "aspect." Modality fits better. In Ecc 10:14, we might translate that modality as "humanity cannot know what will happen."
But I agree with you that the Yiqtol doesn’t express “aspect” (a time measurement) nor tense. As a result, this is why I wonder how well a modern Israeli who knows only modern Hebrew would understand good Biblical Hebrew, because modern Hebrew is a tense based language?
In conversations quoted in the Bible, the most common sentence structure for a present indicative (where it can be positively identified which form is used from the consonantal text) is subject-verb in Qatal-object (where applicable). I expect written Hebrew to be the same.Ken M. Penner wrote:The indicative "does not know" might be better expressed with the participle, as in כִּי־אֵינֶנּוּ יֹדֵעַ מַה־שֶּׁיִּהְיֶה Ecc 8:7
You mean that about 950 BC is “late Biblical Hebrew”?Ken M. Penner wrote:Mind you, this is late biblical Hebrew. It could be different in earlier stages of Hebrew.
It was that presupposition that led Randall Buth, in an earlier discussion in B-Hebrew, to claim that the Hebrew used in Ecclesiastes is second rate for its time. I claim that this is more conversational, less formal, than most of the writing of its time, but otherwise good Biblical Hebrew from about 950 BC.
These verses could be the start of whole new conversations.Ken M. Penner wrote:Consider also
וְלֹא־יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת־קְבֻרָתוֹin Deut 34:6
אֵין יוֹדֵעַ הָאָדָם הַכֹּל לִפְנֵיהֶם in Ecc 9:1
וְלֹא־נוֹדַע מְקוֹמוֹ אַיָּם in Nah 3:17
Karl W. Randolph.
- Ken M. Penner
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
In Ecclesiastes, the participle is usually spelled יודע.kwrandolph wrote:How do you know this is not a participle when read in context:
והסכל ירבה דברים לא ידע האדם מה שיהיה?
I make that claim on the basis of the Masoretic points. Feel free to ignore them; I don't.kwrandolph wrote: On what basis do you claim that this is a prefix conjugation (the Masoretic points don’t count as evidence)?
אני לא יודעkwrandolph wrote: But I agree with you that the Yiqtol doesn’t express “aspect” (a time measurement) nor tense. As a result, this is why I wonder how well a modern Israeli who knows only modern Hebrew would understand good Biblical Hebrew, because modern Hebrew is a tense based language?
No, I don't mean that. To use just the example in this message, check out the fuller spelling of the participle יודע and compare it books we know are early and to books we know are late. יודע never appears in the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, but it does in Esther, Ezekiel, & 2 Chronicles.kwrandolph wrote:You mean that about 950 BC is “late Biblical Hebrew”?Ken M. Penner wrote:Mind you, this is late biblical Hebrew. It could be different in earlier stages of Hebrew.
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University
St. Francis Xavier University
-
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Variation on phrase from Ecclesiastes
If you want to use the indicative modality, then the conjugation should be Qatal (the conjugations don’t have time reference, neither tense nor aspect).beauford wrote:I'm actually using the yiqtol! (Imperfective aspect, as I understand it?) But the initial yod turns that hiriq into a tsere, and the final ayin conditions a patach there. So it looks like yada' but is actually yeda'.the verb ידע in Biblical Hebrew is Qatal used as a present.
The points are medieval Hebrew, not Biblical.
According to modern pronunciation.beauford wrote:This would be "eyn yodea' me'umah"?a short version of the sentence is possible: אין ידע מאומה
First of all, Strong’s concordance doesn’t carry much weight in this group. He was not a Hebrew scholar, and it shows. Secondly, his concordance is based on English usage, not Hebrew.beauford wrote:I did mean that, as in "each man"/"every man", but that was not a great example of the usage I meant. In Strong's concordance, אדם is listed as meaning "humanity" four times, but I don't currently have the tools to easily find those instances!Do you mean the use of אדם? (in Ps. 24:12)
Yes. In your original message, you said you want the idea of “nobody” as the subject, but in this sentence the subject is “the man” (in English, we use the indefinite article where the Hebrew uses the definite article). You have a different subject than your original request.beauford wrote:In summary, I was modeling this whole thing after Ecc. 9:12 לֹא-יֵדַע הָאָדָם אֶת-עִתּוֹ -- same aspect, same phrasing, same subject, different object. Am I missing something?
Not as אֶפֶס alone, but where you have two words together, and they must be together in order to carry this idea, then אֶפֶס כי can carry the idea of “however…”.beauford wrote:Oh, and the double meaning of אֶפֶס might well be a modern phenomenon. It does mean "however..." as a secondary sense. I'm not sure whether that exists at all in Biblical Hebrew.
Karl W. Randolph.