Genesis 6:1 "born"

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
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

Well, I think we've gone as far as we should (probably further). I'm bowing out. The reader will understand what is clear. Have a nice day.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:All verbs in Biblical Hebrew are tenseless. The “tense” of a verb is conferred by its context, not its verbal form.
False. Vav-consecutive with imperfect is indeed a narrative past tense.
False. The “Wayyiqtol” is used also for present and future actions. Therefore it cannot be a marker for past tense.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:From the form in this verse, you don’t know that בא is a participle. It’s the same form as the Qal Qatal 3rd person singular. From the context, it make more sense to read it as a Qal Qatal 3rd person singular.
"Makes sense" is your admission to using intuition above system. It seems to be the only argument you ever use.
It’s the only argument you use, only you pass the buck to the intuition of those who taught you. See my last message concerning medieval thought.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:In Tiberian Hebrew, the participle was used as the present tense. Hence that led the Masoretes to point verbs as participles where they could when those verbs refer to present actions.
It is normal to refer to Tiberian vocalization, not to Tiberian Hebrew—as if it were a dialect unto itself. You're the only one I've seen use such nomenclature.
Maybe you should read up on it. I used the startpage search engine and found several references to Tiberian Hebrew as a distinct dialectal form of Hebrew. True, most of them refer to the Tiberian pronunciation, but several also to the Tiberian dialect.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Poetry and prophesy use the same grammar as narrative and instruction. That the forms are mixed in poetry and prophesy is because the verbal forms code for something other than tense.
Narrative and instruction are constructed on a series of vav-consecutive forms. Poetry and prophecy (not "prophesy," which is a verb) are not.
The waw-consecultive forms are there for reasons other than as markers for tense.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew verbal forms are also aspectless. Tense and aspect are two measures of time. Biblical Hebrew verbal forms code for no measure of time.
Get up-to-date on the arguments in the professional literature. You're out of date on this issue.
I haven’t seen anything that I hadn’t heard before (other than Dr. Furuli with his weird definition of “aspect”).
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:LOL! Yes, I really did laugh out loud when I read this. It has nothing to do with what I want, and everything to do with the patterns I find as I read Tanakh.
Due to your reading without vowels and not being advanced enough in the nuance of the language to do so, you miss patterns and don't recognize distinctions. It's completely what you want to read, since you use your intuition rather than solid systematic grammar.
The systematic grammar I was taught by Weingreen ended up with GIGO when I tried to apply it to all of Tanakh. The reason I read without the Masoretic vowels is again that all too often those vowels produce GIGO and interfere with a systematic study of the consonantal text.
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:I was taught both tense and aspect. But when I read all of Tanakh, not just the cherry-picked examples I was taught, both tense and aspect fell apart as explanations for Biblical Hebrew verbal forms.

Modern western language verbal forms, and that includes modern Israeli Hebrew, code for tense. Some code for aspect as well, e.g. Russian. Hence those for whom modern western languages are their mother tongues, assume that Biblical Hebrew verbal forms also code for tense and/or aspect, some measure of time. That assumption is false. Yet those whose mother tongues are time based, are so steeped in their thought patterns based on their mother tongues, that they cannot conceive of a language that has conjugations yet those conjugations don’t code for time.
You've really become entrenched in your opinions, but you'd do well to read better arguments.
LOL! Better arguments? Better than Weingreen and Gesenius? Where would you find such? Obviously better than what you can give.

I was taught the scientific method at the university. Yes, intuition is part of the scientific method, intuition based on repeatable observation. Or as Richard Feynman called it, “guessing”. That “guessing” produces models. Then put those models to the test, are there observations that contradict those models? Be ready to ditch models, even pretty ones, if repeated observations show them to be false.

Gesenius based his works on intuition, intuition based on presuppositions that I don’t share. One of his presuppositions, or models that he presents, is that Tiberian Hebrew is the same as Biblical Hebrew. I found too many observations that falsified that model. One of the reasons Gesenius’ model is so horrendously complex, is to try to account for all the places where observation contradicts his model. Another of his presuppositions or models is that the Masoretic points are completely accurate. Again, based on repeated observation, I had to ditch that model too. Now I present a model based on systematic observation of grammar, word meanings and syntax—is my model perfect without error? I’m the last one to make that claim. But I find I can apply it to 95+% of Tanakh without making cop-outs like “that’s poetry”.

Your repeated criticisms of “that’s intuition” carry no water.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:Well, I think we've gone as far as we should (probably further). I'm bowing out. The reader will understand what is clear. Have a nice day.
My next message was to be the same as this. You too have a nice day.

Karl W. Randolph.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Isaac Fried »

1ch. 21:16
וַיִּשָּׂא דָוִיד אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת מַלְאַךְ יהוה עֹמֵד בֵּין הָאָרֶץ וּבֵין הַשָּׁמַיִם וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ נְטוּיָה עַל יְרוּשָׁלִָם
KJV: " And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem"

The root שלף is a stronger form of שלה, 'pull out, pull off'. It is also closely related to the root שלב. Thus, שְׁלוּפָה means 'bared, uncovered, pulled out of its scabbard.' It seems to me that נְטוּיָה similarly refers to the sword.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jonathan Beck
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon May 11, 2020 5:16 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jonathan Beck »

False. The “Wayyiqtol” is used also for present and future actions. Therefore it cannot be a marker for past tense.
False. The Wayyiqtol from is ALWAYS past narrative. What you're saying is true for the ve+yiqtol construction. This is why reading vowels is necessary. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a patch (or a qamets if influenced by a guttural) is always narrative past. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a sheva can be (usually) present or future. I'd have to look into whether or not it is ever translated as past. It may be.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jonathan Beck on Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

For those who are interested, reading Jonah 3 with my students tonight. I was just reading through it now in preparation, and I came across the following two verses, which illustrate exactly what I did with חֲבֵרַי הַטּוֹבִים.

Jonah 3:8, 10
וְיִתְכַּסּ֣וּ שַׂקִּ֗ים הָֽאָדָם֙ וְהַבְּהֵמָ֔ה וְיִקְרְא֥וּ אֶל־אֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּחָזְקָ֑ה וְיָשֻׁ֗בוּ אִ֚ישׁ מִדַּרְכּ֣וֹ הָֽרָעָ֔ה וּמִן־הֶֽחָמָ֖ס אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּכַפֵּיהֶֽם׃ ... וַיַּ֤רְא הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־מַ֣עֲשֵׂיהֶ֔ם כִּי־שָׁ֖בוּ מִדַּרְכָּ֣ם הָֽרָעָ֑ה וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים עַל־הָֽרָעָ֛ה אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר לַֽעֲשׂוֹת־לָהֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א עָשָֽׂה׃
It is דַּרְכּוֹ הָֽרָעָה "his evil way" and דַּרְכָּם הָֽרָעָה "their evil way" (both definite), not דַּרְכּוֹ רָעָה "his way was evil" and דַּרְכָּם רָעָה "their way was evil."

I just wanted to pass this on for those who were curious. My חֲבֵרַי הַטּוֹבִים should not have been corrected. It is correct as-is.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jason Hare »

Jonathan Beck wrote:
False. The “Wayyiqtol” is used also for present and future actions. Therefore it cannot be a marker for past tense.
False. The Wayyiqtol from is ALWAYS past narrative. What you're saying is true for the ve+yiqtol construction. This is why reading vowels is necessary. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a patch is always narrative past. The yiqtol with a prefixed vav with a sheva can be (usually) present or future. I'd have to look into whether or not it is ever translated as past. It may be.

Jonathan
In other words, there's a difference between וַיִּקְטֹל vayyiqṭōl and וְיִקְטֹל vəyiqṭōl. This is true.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Isaac Fried »

Karl writes
All verbs in Biblical Hebrew are tenseless. The “tense” of a verb is conferred by its context, not its verbal form.
The Hebrew verbal form is but a root augmented by personal pronouns. Not Biblical Hebrew nor spoken Hebrew has verbs "coded" for "tense."
Being practical, spoken Hebrew strives to make a clear factual conversational distinction between what I did, עָשִיתִי, and what I still plan, or promise, to do later, אֶעֱשֶה.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jonathan Beck
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon May 11, 2020 5:16 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Jonathan Beck »

The Hebrew verbal form is but a root augmented by personal pronouns. Not Biblical Hebrew nor spoken Hebrew has verbs "coded" for "tense."
Being practical, spoken Hebrew strives to make a clear factual conversational distinction between what I did, עָשִיתִי, and what I still plan, or promise, to do later, אֶעֱשֶה.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Incorrect.

Arabic has a true past tense (preterite) verb. Based on what we know from Arabic, Akkadian, and proto-semitic, the two prefix-pattern verb forms (the imperfect and the vav consecutive) are derived from separate tenses.

The imperfect comes from the original *yaqtul form. The vav consecutive, or what I call past narrative (because that's what it is) comes from a different but related form, *yaqtulu.

So yes, Hebrew does have one verb encoded particularly for past tense. The medieval notion that Hebrew doesn't express tense needs to go away (on this point I am in agreement with Karl!). The Hebrew verbal system is a combination of tense, aspect, and modality.

EDIT: The two examples you gave are correct, but the yiqtol form can have many more nuances than just future. I was responding to your first point.

Jonathan
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Genesis 6:1 "born"

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

I read that there are 85 quotes with kal or qal passive verbs in them, and I know that some people here have fancy software that can easily list them. I tried to find a list on the internet, but I couldn't. Maybe someone here can look up that list and put it here please. Thank you.
Kenneth Greifer
Post Reply