Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: YIQTOL with past meaning

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: YIQTOL with past meaning
  • Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 22:24:23 -0500


Just a reminder of what I have said before, that we get "decisive"
"clues from lexicon, syntax, or context", and especially from the word
+EREM ("not yet"), that Genesis 2:5-6 is an example of "future in the
past". This is certainly a reference to events (e.g. the appearance of
the first plant) which took place AFTER the reference point (or is it
a deictic point?) at the end of verse 4, though of course in the past
relative to the observer. This is the very simple explanation of the
YIQTOLs in this passage. I wonder how many more of Rolf's YIQTOLs with
"past meaning" can be explained in this way? Probably all of those
used with +EREM at least.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: YIQTOL with past meaning
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 31/01/2000 22:10


Dear list-members,

<snip>

We trust a physician who examines the eyes, more than one who just counts
them. Let us apply this illustration to YIQTOLs with past meaning. Are they
"counted" or "examined"? Consider the first YIQTOLs with past meaning in
the Bible:

(4) Gen. 2:5 when no plant of the field was (YIQTOL) yet in the earth and
no herb of the field had yet sprung up (YIQTOL) - for the LORD God had not
caused it to rain (QATAL) upon the earth, and there was (NOMINAL) no man to
till the ground;
Gen. 2:6 but a mist went up (YIQTOL) from the earth and watered the whole
face of the ground -

Most translations render the three YIQTOLs in these verses as simple
past. The first and the third describe states, which are durative by
definition, so it is difficult to argue that these states are modal or
habitual or volitional etc.The two YIQTOLS simply describe a state
that once held. The second is fientive, and the important question is:
Do we get any clues from lexicon, syntax, or context that can help us
decide whether CMX in 2:5 is simple past or modal or habitual or
conative or the like? The answer is that we can find nothing that is
decisive!...

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page