Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Syriac ; was BH verbal system

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Syriac ; was BH verbal system
  • Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:34:11 +0100

Dear Randall,

We should keep in mind that the Greek text of Matthew 24:15 is not the original text. The words was spoken by Jesus, probably in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek. A distinction between indicative and jussive is only occasionally marked morphologically in Hebrew. So the Greek text need not necessarily illuminate the Syriac text.

But let us take a look at the Greek text for a moment. There is a connection between conjunctions and modal forms in Greek, and because you are a teacher of Greek I ask the following question: Will a verb in Greek subjunctive always refer to possibility, uncertainty or to imagined worlds? Or can it refer to situations that are certain, to the point where a Greek subjunctive can signal the same as indicative?

I use one passage as an example, namely, John 3:16. A strictly literal translation would be: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten /unique son, in order that everyone showing faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." The word "destroy" is subjunctive, and the question is: Is the meaning that the one showing faith in Jesus *perhaps* will not be destroyed, or does Jesus mean that the one showing faith *with certainty* will not be destroyed but have everlasting life? In other words: does the subjunctive form here have the same function as an indicative?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



vayyixtov Rolf
[Mt 24:15] . . .
So, the QATAL form is used with future reference, and QATAL
can therefore not be defined as "grammaticalized past".>

according to Rolf.
but the examples are still relatively past to their main clause.

And there is a difference in language between a semantic world that
can be specified by an analyst and the presentation of that world
by the language user.

Note the Greek source:
OTAN OYN IDHTE 'when-potentially you would see . . ."
the language user chose the subjunctive, and a subjunctive marked
as potential by 'AN'.
The analyst can say that this is "indicative" semantically or that
the speaker is certain,
but the system chosen by the user did not mark indicativeness.

So based on the above I wouldn't want to say that Syr *Qatal has
no temporal constraints within it.

What is HWO doing in QOTEL HWO?
and even more, what is it doing in NEQTUL HWO?
Most would say that it is adding a past frame to the participle. So
I am comfortable with leaving some 'pastness' within the internal
configuration of HWO.
With the NEQTUL the HWO may still mark past but may also slide
into more modal situations that bring forth the NEQTUL.
(I don't have materials at hand.)

blessings
Randall

--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page