Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

the following is a jumping off point and not related to the original
discussion
{Trevor Peterson wrote:}
>It may be that the translators have followed the later
>Hebrew use of the participle for present time,[end quote]

that expresses a widespread view, no doubt based on trying to show that a
participle, per se, is not equal to an absolute present tense. yafe. 
but let's leave whatever "later Hebrew use" was for the moment.

 what about from the other direction?   ?!?
does anyone consider how to refer to the present in the most common,
default situations? the following multiple choices are not all considered
correct, biblical or appropriate. which is which? and why?  :-)

how would a 1st temple person/writer say:

"I see the cows over there."
        a. ereh et ha-parot sham.
        b. ani roeh et ha-parot sham.
        c. ra'iti et ha-parot sham.
        d. ??

"I am speaking to you right now."
        a. adabber elexa `ata 
        b. ani medabber elexa `ata
        c. dibbarti elexa `ata
        d. ani dover elexa `ata
        e. ??

"I am fleeing from the bad guys."
        a. evraH meha-anashim ha-resha`im
        b. ani voreaH meha-anashim ha-resha`im
        c. baraHti meha-anashim ha-resha`im
        d. ??

"I am looking for my brothers"
        a. avaqqesh et aHay
        b. ani mevaqesh et aHay
        c. biqqashti et aHay
        d. ??

A step beyond these would be "immediate future":

"I am going to destroy the cities"
        a. ani ashHit et he-`arim.
        b. ani mashHit  et he-`arim.
        c. ani holex lehashHit  et he-`arim.
        d. hineni mashHit  et he-`arim.
        e. ani `omed lehashHit et he-`arim.
        f. ??

"I am about to vomit"
        a. ani meqi'
        b. ani qarov lehaqi'
        c. ani `omed lehaqi' 
        d. hineni meqi'
        e. ani meqi' beqarov
        f. ??

the above would help people understand how the language would work in
actual practice and not just poetry or proverbs et al. 
it's actually fun and quickly lets a teacher know how much of a feel they
have for the language. part of the fun is listening to whatever you think
you "ought" to say and then asking if that is really what one finds most
commonly or in the specific/intended situation in the first temple period.

this is doing grammar and is sometimes more fun than . . . ?

braxot
randall buth

ps: i have to wrestle with questions like this when teaching Hebrew in a
monolingual situation. boring it's not. a Hebrew teacher from "not around
here" once commented on some of the material we were using. He said, "I see
some participles in these dialogues. [among other structures--rb] these are
supposed to be Biblical Hebrew. Yes?" I asked, "Have you read your Bible
recently?" and rattled off a half a dozen biblical situations were the
participle is the natural choice. (the participles above are not
necessarily all the natural choice. think them out.)

it is quite a challenge to write real biblical hebrew in the way that a 1st
temple speaker would accept. [some might refrain from the exercise because
of 'a lack of certainty'. but that would be 'to throw in the towel' and say
'we don't know and we can't know.'  ha-emet? tsadequ?]