Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Thanx for your example Rolf. While most of the tenses seem to read well 
you have left me a little confused. You have argued that your research 
is based on the word and that the word is the basic unit of translation 
and then you have performed a translation which is entirely based on context 
as I have been arguing it should be.
The hebrew verb system, IMO, is a verb system which we will never find an 
adequate way of rendering consistently in the English language. The English 
language is entirely centered around tenses and the very concept of 
tenselesness 
to the English mind is completely indigestible. In fact, I am of the opinion 
that the hebrew verb system is so completely tenseless that it has the 
capacity 
of expressing both history and prophecy in the exact same phrase. The example 
you have given is a good case in point. IMO opinion the hebrew mind was so 
devoid of tense constraints that they read these verses with little care of 
tense and did not feel the need to place the events either in the past or the 
present but happily accepted that they could exist in both.
In fact, a large feature of bible prophecy is the larger fulfillment of past 
events which described greater future events e.g. The (almost)sacrifice of 
Isaac, the emancipation of yah's people, the taking of the promised land etc..
The author of the gospel of John, who evidently had an adequate command of 
the hebrew language translated a section of your example as 'OPSONVTAI EIS HON
EXEKENTISAN' (They will see the one they pierced John19:37). 
I do not believe he is saying this is the one way the sentence should always 
be 
translated because of the inherent sense of the verb forms but 'given the 
limitations 
of the language I am translating into this is the way I would render it best 
in the given context'. His context and his agenda was to show the fulfillment 
of bible prophecy and so the future tense was the natural choice in the Greek 
language. However, I firmly believe that as the hebrew language was tenseless 
that these verses could easily have been translated as a historic account in 
other circumstances as the hebrew mind was not concerned with these things.

I know this sounds strange and alien to speakers of tense driven languages 
but 
I am told, correct me if I wrong, that Chinese languages also exhibit this 
behaviour and that it is very difficult for the Chinese to even understand 
the concept 
of tenses when learning the English language.

Hence, as you seem to have shown Rolf, it is the context which dictates the 
translation and not the verb form and your research only seems of use to me 
in helping a biblical hebrew student to better understand the hebrew mind 
and concept of expression. 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Rolf Furuli
Sent: Thu 7/28/2005 7:30 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs
 
Dear Steve and James,

I have already given an example of how the conclusions of my work can
influence  Bible translation, namely Jeremiah 50 and 51.  But since you ask
I will give a few more examples from Isaiah.

When I ask my students to translate some Hebrew sentences, they do what I
call "academic translation". As a contrast, when someone translates the
Bible, a draft is made, this draft is worked over several times, it is
discussed with others, field tests are made, and then the final translation
appears after much labor.

My examples below represent "academic translation," and is no final product.
They were made while I wrote this post, and the purpose was to give a broad
illustration of one side of Bible translation that would be influenced by my
dissertation,
namely the choice of English tenses.


Some time ago I was asked to give a lecture for a group of Bible translators
on the text of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and this translation is an example of how
my grammatical conclusions lead me to choose English tenses (here
particularly future) different from most Bible translations.

Before this text is translated, the translator has to make a general decison
regarding the servant of YHWH, and here we see a clash between Jewish and
Christian interpretation. The minimum decision a translator must make is the
temporal reference of the text, and without deciding who is the servant, the
assumption behind my translation is that the text is a prophecy regarding a
future servant.  I indicate the Hebrew conjugations  in parentheses.

52:13 Look! My servant will act with insight (YIQTOL). He will certainly be
high
(YIQTOL) and elevated (WEQATAL) and exalted (WEQATAL) very much.

52:14 Just as many will be appalled (QATAL) at him - so disfigured is his
appearance more than that of any other man, and his form more than that of
mankind -

52:15 likewise he will startle (YIQTOL) many nations. Because of him kings
will shut (YIQTOL) their mouth.  For what had not been recounted (QATAL) to
them, they will actually see (QATAL), and to what they had not heard (QATAL)
they must turn their attention (QATAL).

53:1 Who will believe (QATAL) our message?  And to whom will the arm of JHWH
be revealed (QATAL)?

53:2 He will come up (WAYYIQTOL) before him like a tender shoot, like a root
out of dry ground. He will not have a stately form nor any splendor (nominal
cl.). We will see him (WEYIQTOL), but he will not have an appearance that we
should desire him (WEQATAL).

53:3  He will be despised (participle) and avoided by men, a man of pain,
who is familiar (passive participle) with sickness. He will be like one from
whom men hide their faces, a despised one, who we will not esteem (QATAL).

53:4 Surely, our sicknesses are what he will carry(QATAL) , and our pains
are what
he will bear (QATAL).  But as for ourselves, we will consider (QATAL) him as
plaqued, stricken by God and afflicted.

53:5 Yes, he will be pierced (participle) for our transgressions and crushed
(participle) for our sins. The punishment meanT for our peace will be on him
(nominal cl.). And because of his wounds we will be healed (QATAL).

53:6 Like sheep we all wander about (QATAL), each of us turns (QATAL) to his
own way. But YHWH himself will let our sin strike him (QATAL).

53:7 He shall be oppressed (QATAL) and afflicted (participle), but he will
not open (YIQTOL) his mouth. like a sheep to the slaughtering he will be led
(YIQTOL), and like an ewe before her sheares has become mute (QATAL), he
will
not open (YIQTOL) his mouth.

53:8 By oppression and judgment he will be taken away (QATAL). But who will
consider (YIQTOL) his decendants when he is cut off (QATAL) from the land of
the living?  It is because of the transgression of my people that he will
get the stroke (nominal cl.).

53:9 He will assign (WAYYIQTOL) his grave with the wicked ones, and with the
rich in his death, though he had done (QATAL) no violence, and there was no
deception in
his mouth (nominal cl.).

53:10 But YHWH himself will take delight (QATAL) in crushing him, and he
will cause him to suffer (QATAL). When he gives (YIQTOL) his soul as a guilt
offering, he will see (YIQTOL) his offspring and prolong (YIQTOL) his days,
and the delight of YHWH will prosper (YIQTOL) in his hand.

53:11 After the suffering of his soul he will look (YIQTOL) and be satisfied
(YIQTOL). By his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, wil justify
(YIQTOL) many people, and their sins he himself will bear (YIQTOL).

53:12 For that reason I will give him a portion (YIQTOL) among the many, and
with the mighty ones he will divide (YIQTOL)  the spoil.  Because he will
let his soul be poured out (QATAL)  to death, and will let himself be
counted (QATAL) among transgressors.  He himself will carry (QATAL) the sins
of many people, and he will make intercession (YIQTOL) for the
transgressors.

Because I chose a future setting, most of the verbs have been translated by
future. If the setting is viewed as past, the same verbs would have been
translated by past, or sometimes by perefect.  This means that according to
my system, the conjugations have very little to tell us about the temporal
references of the verbs.  The temporal references must be construed on the
basis of the context.  The traditional way of translation leads the reader
through a confusing zig-zag journey, QATALs and WAYYIQTOLs are translated by
past or perfect and YIQTOLs and WEQATALs by future. For example, look at the
two last clauses of 53:12, where we find one QATAL and one YIQTOL. Many
modern translations give these two verbs the same temporal reference
(perhaps in most cases past reference).  But if a QATAL and a YIQTOL can
have past reference in these two clauses, why cannot the same be true
throughout the whole text?

More important than the conjugations are the lexical meaning/Aktionsart of
the verbs, the verb stems and the word order. for example, in 53:12 I
translate a Hiphil QATAL by "he let his soul be poured out"  and a Niphal
QATAL in a reflexive way (the old meaning of Niphal) by "will let himself be
counted". In 53:6 waw+YHWH occur before the verb, and I take this as
emphasizing the subject. Therefore I translate "YHWH himself".

The examples above relates particularly to the choice of tenses in the 
target language, but there are several other choices that can be influenced 
by my conclusions.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



52:13 "certainly" - sentence initial YIQTOL,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs


> Rolf,
> Along with James Reed, I also would very much like to hear the answer to
> Hayyim's question. Could you give us 5 example verses? This would be much
> more meaningful to me than the current discussion. Thank you.
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
>
> Very interesting indeed.  Can you give us an example of a verse which
> would
> be translated differently and thereby change our understanding of what it
> intends to tell us?
> Hayyim
>
> In a message dated 7/25/2005 4:37:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> furuli at online.no writes:
>
> My  conclusions are radical indeed, because they in a way turn  of Hebrew
> verb grammar upside down. An acceptance of the conclusions would have a
> great
> impact on  Bible translation, because thousands of verbs in modern  Bible
> translations are in
> need of re-translation.  This relates  particularly to the temporal
> references
> of verbs.
>
> _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Thu Jul 28 18:49:42 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (unknown [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4004C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:49:42 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.51)
        id 1DyHC6-0003GC-K2; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:49:41 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.338 [267.9.6]);
        Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:49:39 +0100
Message-ID: <42E96103.6080703 AT qaya.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:49:39 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
References: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3C1 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>       
<008a01c5933d$6b84f190$ea81fea9@ttttt>  <42E8D501.6060706 AT qaya.org>
        <001201c593a3$30b24930$ea81fea9@ttttt>  <42E92EBF.6060107 AT qaya.org>
        <006001c593c2$41569920$ea81fea9@ttttt>
In-Reply-To: <006001c593c2$41569920$ea81fea9@ttttt>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:49:43 -0000

On 28/07/2005 23:18, Rolf Furuli wrote:

>...
>
>Newmark writes p. 68):
>
>"... the prevailing orthodoxy is leading to the rejection
>of literal translation as a legitimate translation procedure."
>
>Newmark then translates a French text of 75 words into English, where the
>text has 68 words, and writes: "...
>My thesis, however, is that literal translation is correct and must not be
>avoided, if it secures referential and pragmatic equivalence of the
>original."
>
>

I would reject this thesis on the basis that a literal translation, even
if it is correct, should be avoided if it is not also clear and natural.
At the very least it is wrong to say that any unclear or unnatural
translation "must not be avoided", which seems to be a suggestion that
clarity and naturalness in translation are invalid as criteria and must
not be taken into account in translation. Of course it may well be that
Newmark qualifies this position elsewhere. But would you take this
unqualified version of the position, or would you agree with me that
clarity and naturalness, as well as accuracy, are requirement for good
translation?

>As mentioned, Newmark does not say that a word-for-word translation is the
>best form of translation. But he says that a literal translation is a fine
>translation provided it meets particular criteria. And he says further that
>to abandon the word as the translation unit is a misunderstanding. You may
>disagree with his conclusions, but by saying that this is "nonsense" you
>elevate yourself as the highest translation authority. This does not
>recommend you as a balanced scholar.
>
>
>
Well, Rolf, I would prefer not to appeal to authority here, but you did
it before me. On this one, I am a follower of "the prevailing
orthodoxy", and Newmark and you are the outsiders. A balanced scholar
does not of course follow the prevailing orthodoxy blindly, but
considers it critically. On this point, I have considered critically
both the prevailing orthodoxy and the literal word for word translation
philosophy, and rejected the latter in favour of the something similar
to the former. Of course that doesn't make me "the highest translation
authority", it just makes me one of the main stream of linguists who
broadly accept the prevailing orthodoxy.

And by the same criterion, you, like Newmark, are an outsider who has
rejected the prevailing orthodoxy. There is nothing wrong with that, but
it does mean that you need to justify your position more carefully than
just by appealing to the authority of a fellow dissident, however well
respected he might be.

The "nonsense" I mentioned is the view that because a text consists of
words it has to be translated word by word. By the same logic, because a
text consists of sentences it has to be translated sentence by sentence,
and because a text consists of letters it has to be translated letter by
letter. I stand by "nonsense" because this claim, which I inferred from
what you wrote before, is clearly logically false.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 27/07/2005