Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 15/09/2005 06:41, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> ...
>
> > > > Past tense
> > > > Judges 11:40 "the daughters of Israel went from year to year"
> > > >        
> > > would annually lament
> > >
> > >      
> > But this use of "would" in English, while very correct, is not future.
> >
> >    
>
> "would" is a past reference from your viewpoint of detached observer. But
> for the author, mentally transposed into the events, "would" refers to the
> future.
> The thing is, "would" in this and other examples denotes future tense, but
> deictic shifts relativize the future.
> Significantly, in every case of deictic shift, the shift is unambiguous from
> the context.
> Isn't that true also for the English usage of "would"?
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
>
>  
English "would", originally the past tense of "will", has several 
meanings. One of these is indeed a future tense transposed into the 
past, for the following are equivalent:

1. He said "I will come".
2. He said that he would come.

But there are other uses, such as in contrafactual conditions e.g.

3. If he could, he would come.

and the habitual use, which is in fact past, not future.

4. He would come every day.

If the habit is continuing, it has to be:

5. He comes every day.

And if this is intended as a prediction or a promise for the future, it 
has to be:

6. He will come every day.

So much for English. But I think you will find that the Hebrew 
"imperfect" can be used in all of these cases.

--
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: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 14/09/2005