Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Greg Doudna wrote:


>If an ancient writer of biblical Hebrew wished to express a
>temporal period beginning in the past and ending in the
>future, what type of construction would naturally be used
>to express this?
>
>MN...'D, "from X....until Y", yes.  I mean what verb form
>would be used to express, e.g. an iterative action occurring
>throughout the temporal period, if it starts in the past, is
>presently ongoing, and is expected to continue until some
>endpoint in the future?
>
>This is not a simple question to answer even in English . . .
>


Dear Greg,

I think you had a similar question some time ago, but this seems to be
somewhat different. Nobody has answered it, so I make a try.

I will first present two verses that seem to meet your criteria, the action
started in the past, it was habitual (=equivalent to iterative), it was
ongoing at the time of writing, it would continue into the future, but does
not have a fixed endpoint in the future (I do not think you will find any
situation expressed by a single verb including both a point in the past and
an endpoint in the future).

(1) Genesis 32:32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat (YIQTOL)
the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh, because he
touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh on the sinew of the hip.

(2) 1 Samuel. 5:5 This is why the priests of Dagon and all who enter the
house of Dagon do not tread (YIQTOL) on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to
this day.

The phrase "do not eat" could have better been translated "have not been
accustomed to eat", and "do not tread" in (2) could have been translated
"have not been treading". It is in any case clear that a custom is
described, and the verbs are YIQTOLs. Some would from this find evidence
for the view that YIQTOLs in past contexts *are* iterative, frequentative,
or habitual. But please stop! What is the basis for the habitual
interpretaion of (1) and (2)? Not the verb form, but rather a combination
of lexical meaning,the adverbial "until this day" and our knowledge of the
world. And - this is important- we would have gotten the same habitual
interpretation if a WAYYIQTOL or a QATAL had been used instead of a YIQTOL.
Let me illustrate this by (3) and (4).

(3) Last year I was reading the New York Times.

(4) Last year I read the New York Times.

The logical interpretation is that (3) is habitual, I used to read NT last
year.
The progressive "was reading" would not give this interpretaion alone.
Without further definition it could denote the progressive reading of *one*
newspaper. The adverbial "last year" and the knowledge that newspapers are
published each day is necessary to reach the habitual conclusion. This is
seen by (4), because it has the same interpretation as (3) even though it
has no progressive.
Examples (5), (6), and (7) illustrate that different verb forms can be used
with the same meanings as the YIQTOLs of (1) and (2).

(5) 2 Kings 21:15 because they have done (QATAL) what is evil in my sight
and have provoked (QATAL+PARTICIPLE) me to anger, since the day their
fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day.

(6) 1Samuel 8:8 According to all the deeds which they have done (QATAL)to
me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking
me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.

(7) Jeremiah 32:31 This city has aroused (QATAL) my anger and wrath, from
the day it was built (QATAL) to this day, so that I will remove it from my
sight

In (5), (6), and (7) the acts started at a point in the past, they were
ongoing at the time of writing, and they would evidently continue into the
future. (7) can in a way be said to indicate a point of termination in the
future, but that is expressed by an infinitive construct. In (5) the "same"
continuing action is described both by a QATAL and by a QATAL+ participle.
In (6) and (7) the action is described by a QATAL in each passage. The
QATALs do not indicate continuing action but the combination of lexical
meaning, the adverbial "until this day", and our knowledge of the world
do.(NB. In (9) QATAL  is used in two different ways (a) to express habitual
action beyond time of writing, and (b) to express completed action.) Then
look at (8) and (9).


(8) 1 Kings 12:19 So Israel has been in rebellion (WAYYIQTOL) against the
house of David to this day.

(9) 2 Chronicles 35:25 Jeremiah also uttered (WAYYIQTOL) a lament for
Josiah; and all the singing men and singing women have spoken (WAYYIQTOL)
of Josiah in their laments to this day.

In (8) and (9) we find WAYYIQTOLs, and the viewpoint is exactly the same as
in the other examples: Actions started at some point in the past, they were
repeated and were ongoing at the time of writing, and they would continue
into the future. And this is not signaled by the verb form. And lastly,
look at (10) where a participle is used instead of a finite verb.

(10) Genesis 48:15 And he blessed Joseph, and said,  "The God before whom
my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has led me (participle)
all my life long to this day.

These examples show that YIQTOL, QATAL, QATAL+participle, WAYYIQTOL, and
the participle can be used in exactly the same way, to cover the same time
span with the same kinds of action. The verb forms do not in themselves
signal habitual action, but the context and a knowledge of the world do.
There is, however, a significant difference! I have studied all the more
than one hundred examples with the adverbial "until this day", and while
all examples describe actions/states from a point in the past and until
this day ( with many situations continuing after "this day"), there is a
striking difference in the *stress* of the WAYYIQTOLs and QATALs compatible
with the imperfective and perfective aspect respectively.




Regards

Rolf



Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo