[b-hebrew] "I Am" vs "Will Be"

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Fri Jun 30 04:53:15 EDT 2006


Dear Michael,

See my comments below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Abernathy" <mabernathy714 at comcast.net>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:52 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] "I Am" vs "Will Be"


> Rolf  Furuli wrote:
> In order to have a well reasoned opinion of )HYH )$R )HYH Exodus 3:14, one
> should have studied all instances of first person singluar YIQTOLs of HYH
> (there are not too many), and one should be aware of how stativity and
> person can restrict the transltional possibilities of verbs.
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> Rolf,
> Are you suggesting that the first person singular YIQTOL of HYH would have 
> a different meaning that Second or Third person YIQTOLS?
> Do you make that claim concerning other verbs or just HYH?

Because of the lexical meaning and stative nature (with the possibility of 
aquiring a semi-fientive force) I suggest that first person singular forms 
of HYH as a rule have future reference. I do not make such a claim for other 
persons.
>
> Would you agree that there is a present aspect as well as a continued or 
> future aspect to HYH in  at least some of the places where a first person 
> singular YIQTOL of HYH is found?

In most cases found in the Tanakh the reference is clearly future, but in 
three or four instances the reference is not so clear, and some will argue 
that it is present.
>
> Personally, I can't imagine God was telling Moses in Exodus 3:12 "I will 
> be with you in the future but I am not with you now." Nor can I imagine 
> that Exodus 3:14 suggests that God will exist but does not currently 
> exist.

I agree with your words above. As I showed in my post to Uri, I do not 
take )HYH of 3.12 and 3:14 as states, but as something indicating action.

> Sincerely,
> Michael Abernathy
>

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo 





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list