[b-hebrew] ואילילה Micah 1:8

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 12:40:56 EDT 2013


Dear Chris:

You’re right, grammarians overcomplicate matters.

But Biblical Hebrew, being so different from our Euro-centered linguistic
roots, doesn’t help matters.

There is no past, present nor future (tense) nor completed and incompleted
(aspect) indicated by Biblical Hebrew conjugations. Mood is sometimes
referenced, sometimes not, by the conjugations.

I’ve gone into it in greater detail in the past. I also have a study on it
written out.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Chris Watts <dekruidnootjes at eircom.net>wrote:

> It is difficult to sometimes to fit another language inot our
> catagorical boxes of what we are brought up with, when we try to do
> this and it does not fit, then that leads to a mental block in
> understanding meaning and nuances in the host langauge.  I agree that
> we must translate hebrew into 'tense' or 'aspekt' since this is
> 'normal' and without that we are left bewildered by the hebrew
> language.  However, I prefer now not to see tense, but rather
> 'perpective'.  Essentially which part of the sentence the writer
> considers as having been set down as complete and 'immoveable' and
> which part of the sentence is still 'ongoing'.  Some call this
> completed action and incomplete action, and the verbs written
> according to one of these two 'perspectives'
>
> The funny things is, I agonised over tense and aspekt and the myriads
> of pages grammarinas have written about this phenomena in hebrew for
> months, for me, they over- complicated the issue.  The simple fact is
> that just like in dutch, we baggage up the verbs at the end of
> sentence and action is usually thrown towards the end of a sentence
> like a motorway pile-up of infinitives, hebrew has its cultural
> perspective, complete or incomplete.  The incomplete having to be
> transferred into either future or present and the complete into
> past.  As a sort of simple way to explain, and I wish grammar books
> would explain in reality and not in high un-reacheable langusitic
> concepts, let's say that I wanted to write the following:  The earth
> will burn up and the people will tremble and fall, In hebrew this
> would most likely be said as:  The earth burned up and the peolple
> will tremble and fall. This is an over simplification and there are a
> few more combinations but this, hopefully, introduces you to the
> perspective from which, in those days, the hebraic mindset wrote and
> spoke.  Modern hebrew of course has the three tenses now, but
> biblical hebrew spoke with two distinct forms only and then varying
> combinations of these two distinct forms would communicate the past
> present and future in their evryday lives.
>
> Chris Watts
> Ireland
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130730/b5b5ce58/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list