Hello Karl,
kwrandolph wrote:When I studied Hebrew in class, the Tiberian tense schema was the only one taught. There were some that questioned if aspect instead of tense is the reason for Biblical Hebrew conjugations, but that hadn’t reached mainstream yet.
I don't know what Tiberian has to do with the script.
The script is the same script.
you can read it, as it is, with a view of aspects and you can read it, as it is, with the view of tenses.
I don't know what you mean by saying "Tiberian".
And also, tenses-view or no-tense-view is not about conjugations at all.
It is about the forms (of each conjugation).
So once again, we may talk about other views, which I have no idea what the conjugation has to do with it.
kwrandolph wrote:Syntax doesn’t change tense. All syntax does is to choose which tense to use. The wayyiqtol was taught as a narrative past tense.
I didn't say it changes the tense.
I said that the syntax is related to the form that would be used.
In the example I gave, ברא and ויברא come to say the same things.
But they come in different forms because each one stands in another place of the sentence (syntax).
kwrandolph wrote:The perfect and imperfect division comes as a result of the claims that the conjugations indicate aspect. Back when I studied in class, they were called “perfect” and “future”, with the participle being the present tense.
As I said, Participle being part of the verbal system is weird.
The participle even acts as a noun, linguistically. So I don't know why they taught you like that.
The whole point of the term "imperfect" is an act that wasn't done yet (present+future).
And anyway, instead of talking about what you've been taught, let's talk from now on about your current view and your current reading, so we'll see each other clearly.
kwrandolph wrote:English, like some other Indo-European languages, has what are called “helper verbs”. These are the same as the verb having a different form. Helper verbs include “will” for future, “have” for perfect past, and others. They are grammar because they are always used for those purposes. Therefore, “will ask” is not the same as “ask” because “will” in that construct always changes the present form to a future.
Okay. I cannot argue about English because I don't have enough knowledge.
But as for my first look, it seems to me that the "will" and "shall" as "helping-words" are a late thing.
In my first look, I have to say that these "helping-words" did not start as a grammatical thing, but they are "helping-words" that were developed through times for the understanding.
In Arabic, they also have "perfect" and "imperfect" and when they want to refer to a future act, they add a prefix word before the imperfect to make sure that it refers to the future and not the present.
The fact that in English you use the word Ask in the same form for future and present, tells me that this form originally is an imperfect form that refers to an act that wasn't done yet. And later, the English (and/or others) added a prefix word to specify this form to future action.
I could be wrong, and I'll try to check it, but if you may, I bet you have more tools to check it.
kwrandolph wrote:They taught me that way because, in Tiberian Hebrew, the participle is used for the present tense.
As I said, I don't know why you use the term Tiberian. It seems to me that because of your rejection of their pointings, you use that term also for other things.
Take the text as it is - no pointing. What did the Tiberian do to make it a "present tense"?
Would you point the participle differently?
The text is the same text.
and you read it as it is.
Just a participle.
kwrandolph wrote:Nope, not in Biblical Hebrew. Actually, your example is not Biblical Hebrew. In Biblical Hebrew is found the accusative marker את which indicates which is the subject, which is the object.
Okay. So let's make it to "a dog bits a man"
(in my comment I wrote it like that, while you wrote it with definite articles and I didn't notice that) .
Now, the word את doesn't come before an undefine direct object.
So it could be written both ways. אדם נשך כלב and כלב נשך אדם
But also, even with a defined direct object, the את doesn't have to come.
The את would come for a specific noun with a definite article.
Meaning: that even if the noun is with a definite article because of the narrow context, but it refers to an "eternal" case, then the את doesn't have to come.
In the sentence "a dog bit a man" - it doesn't come.
And even if the direct object would be with a definite article, it doesn't have to come as well, if the sentence is a general sentence.
ְAnd also, even if the noun is very specific in the narrow context, it still comes sometimes without the prefix את.
I bet you can check it yourself.
kwrandolph wrote:That verse is poetry, which you yourself indicated is more difficult to read.
You can see it in prose too. (See above).
And anyway, Poetry or not poetry, it doesn't contradict the Hebrew rules.
You may say that the prose has a tendency to be more clear, while poetry "brings it as it is".
(and here, by the way, the object is not defined so no matter what, it would not get the word את).
kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew never had past and future forms. Not even “in the surface”. The interpretation that these form represented tenses came long after Biblical Hebrew was no longer spoken as a native language.
1. I don't understand your views about tenses. (what is your view?)
2. Even if you see it as perfect and imperfect - it is like saying past and present/future/continuing.
So I don't know what's the big deal here.
kwrandolph wrote:Mishnaic Hebrew, Tiberian Hebrew, and modern Israeli Hebrew have repurposed the Biblical forms to make them tenses. They never were tenses in Biblical Hebrew, nor do they even appear to be tensed.
once again, what Tiberian has to do with it?
The Tiberian uses the same script that you read.
How did they change something to something? I don't get it.
Let's make a deal, Whenever you say the word "Tiberian", give an example so I could understand.
Because I truly don't understand what you mean when you say that.