Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:

>
>> I have made a preliminary test with the Hebrew HAYYOM ("today", "now").
>As
>> we have seen, past tense means that RT is *before* (C) and future tense
>> means that RT is *after* (C). The deictic center (C) in all examples is
>> HAYYOM,
>
>speaking of methodology:  do you need for a deictic center a point in time?
> if yes, then hayyom is a bit problematic because it's a period of time
>rather than a point, especially in BH where hayyom can refer to time itself
>rather than a twenty-four hour period or "today."  i can use an
>intrinsically perfective, past tense form to refer to a point earlier in
>this day.

Dear Bryan,

You are correct when you say that hayyom can be problematic because it may
represent a period of time. However, the problem can be reduced or
eliminated if we find situations where the very words spoken show that
hayyom means "now". All my three examples are of this nature, and they are
therefore not compatible either with past or future tense. In Deuteronomy
8:19 you cannot translate:
"I solemnly warned you today" or
"I will solemnly warn you today".
Moses was adressing the people in a forceful way, and only a present
meaning is possible here.
A present meaning ("now") is also clear in MECABEKA in Deut 15:15, in
NATATI in Deut 30:15, in HIGGADTI(NB a sentence initial qatal) in Deut 30:
18 ,  in HA(IDOTI (also initial qatal) in Deut 30:19, in YFDANW in Joshua
22:31, in XARAFTI in 1. Sam 17:10, in YFDA) in 2. Sam 14:22, and MAGGID in
Zech 9:12.


>>
>> YIQTOL AND WAYYIQTOL USED WITH HAYYOM
>>
>> 2. Samuel 3:8. Then Abner was (WAYYIXAR) very angry over the words of
>> Ish-bosheth, and said (WAYYOMER),  "Am I a dog's head of Judah? This day
>I
>> keep showing loyalty ()E(E:SE) to the house of Saul your father, to his
>> brothers, and to his friends, and have not given you (HIMCITIKF) into the
>> hand of David; and yet you charge me (WATTIPQOD, LXX has present:
>> EPIZHTEIS..) today with a fault concerning a woman.
>>
>
>take Abner's words alone.  isn't the yiqtol simply generic?  "i show" or "i
>do"?  and the qatal--anterior to the wayyiqtol, "i had delivered"; and the
>wayyiqtol--an over-and-done-with event from a moment before, "but you
>charged me."  i like the present tense translation of the wayyiqtol, "but
>then you charge me" because Ishbosheth was still standing before Abner, in
>a sense, with the accusation in hand.  a Hebrew participle poqed would have
>been appropriate, but the wayyiqtol more effectively represents the
>sequence of events, "i had delivered...but THEN you charged me..."  Abner
>may have been at a loss to exress so strongly the *sequence* if he had
>chosen the participle.  maybe _'az poqed 'atah_ would have done it, but
>that doesn't strike me as real BH.

I am not sure what you mean by a *generic* verb, but we agree that the
yiqtol has present meaning; I will add that I think the continuous exercise
of XESED is stressed. I take the qatal to be anterior both to the yiqtol
and the wayyiqtol. Regarding the the wayyiqtol, I see no difference with
this form and the yiqtol. The adverbial hayyom stands before the yiqtol and
this makes it impossible to add a wa- to it. However, in the case of the
wayyiqtol a wa-  or we- ought to be added to conform with linguistic
conventions. It is simply a conjunction and nothing more. What you say
about Ishboshet and the accusation is true. There is a strong present frame
for the whole situation making it quite dramatic. I cannot see how any
unprejudiced researcher can ascribe past tense to this wayyiqtol.

I translate the last part of the vertse this way: "Am I a dog's head that
belongs to Judah? Today I continue to show kindnes toward the house of Saul
your father, and to his brothers and to his friends, and I have not let you
find yourself in the hand of David; and you charge me today with a sin
concerning a woman?"

The conclusion is therefore that in clauses with hayyom meaning "now", we
find the verb form qatal, yiqtol, wayyiqtol and the participle with exactly
the same meaning as far as time is concerned. How can any of them be tenses?


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo