Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: [b-hebrew] Prophetic Perfect?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Prophetic Perfect?
  • Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:07:21 +0200


Dear Kevin, Liz, and Julie,

In order to focus on the basic question, namely, the QATAL future reference, let us avoid passages where the time reference can be viewed differently. So please consider what I wrote in a previous post:

"In my doctoral thesis I have translated Jeremiah 50 and 51 into English, and this is a *prophecy* about Babel. In the 104 verses I have translated, the following verbs with simple future: 70 yiqtols, 2 weyiqtols, 7 wayyiqtols, 49 weqatals, and 63 qatals. In addition, 4 qatals are translated with future perfect. " The verbs are found in the following verses: Jeremiah 50:1,2,3,5,8,12,15,18,21,23,24,25,27,29,31,33,43,45, and 51:2,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,17,29,30,31,32,33,38,41,42,43,44,55.

Please look at these two chapters and decide how many QATALs and WAYYIQTOLs you will translate by simple future? And if you choose another tense, please indicate your arguments for that.

Of the about one thousand QATALs with future reference I have listed, less than 10 per cent should be viewed as future perfect (according to the context), so in most places I will use simple future. There are quite a number of places where the choice of QATAL, while being simple future, could signal stress of some kind, and this must be considered by the translator. The following questions should be considered: The way grammars and textbooks define QATAL, does this mean that a simple future meaning is excluded? 2) Can we trust these definitions, or are they in need of a revision?


Best regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

So, is it established from Hebrew, that the perfect refers to completed
action that is past at the time of speaking/writing? I ask because other
languages that uses a perfect/perfective do not necessarily place the time
reference of the perfect only at the time of speaking, but can place the
time reference at a future [or past] time and then present the action/state
as complete at that time. I other words, does qatal equal past/past
perfect, or can it also be seen as past perfect/present perfect/future
perfect? If so, there is no 'prophetic perfect', but simply a normal
perfect whose reference point is future. I have assumed my teacher meant
the second option in his explanation of qatal, as he said it was always
perfect, but could be present or future. I may need to drag out a few
grammar books.

Kevin Riley






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page