Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Just a reminder of what I have said before, that we get "decisive" 
"clues from lexicon, syntax, or context", and especially from the word 
+EREM ("not yet"), that Genesis 2:5-6 is an example of "future in the 
past". This is certainly a reference to events (e.g. the appearance of 
the first plant) which took place AFTER the reference point (or is it 
a deictic point?) at the end of verse 4, though of course in the past 
relative to the observer. This is the very simple explanation of the 
YIQTOLs in this passage. I wonder how many more of Rolf's YIQTOLs with 
"past meaning" can be explained in this way? Probably all of those 
used with +EREM at least.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: YIQTOL with past meaning
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    31/01/2000 22:10


Dear list-members,

<snip>

We trust a physician who examines the eyes, more than one who just counts 
them. Let us apply this illustration to YIQTOLs with past meaning. Are they 
"counted" or "examined"? Consider the first YIQTOLs with past meaning in 
the Bible:

(4) Gen. 2:5 when no plant of the field was (YIQTOL) yet in the earth and 
no herb of the field had yet sprung up (YIQTOL) - for the LORD God had not 
caused it to rain (QATAL) upon the earth, and there was (NOMINAL) no man to 
till the ground;
Gen. 2:6 but a mist went up (YIQTOL) from the earth and watered the whole 
face of the ground -

Most translations render the three YIQTOLs in these verses as simple 
past. The first and the third describe states, which are durative by 
definition, so it is difficult to argue that these states are modal or 
habitual or volitional etc.The two YIQTOLS simply describe a state 
that once held. The second is fientive, and the important question is: 
Do we get any clues from lexicon, syntax, or context that can help us 
decide whether CMX in 2:5 is simple past or modal or habitual or 
conative or the like? The answer is that we can find nothing that is 
decisive!...

<snip>