Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 22/09/2005 22:13, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> ...
>
> > It is an imperfective form referring to a past continuous or repeated 
> > event.
>
>
> Your example of Gen2:10 is neither past continuous nor repeated. ...


The waters of the river continued to flow into separate channels.

> ... Besides, I am not sure how repeated but finished event could be 
> imperfect. ...


Of course it can. This is the standard meaning of the imperfect (not 
imperfective) in many Indo-European languages, and the imperfective past 
in Russian: an action which was continuing or repeating at some time in 
the past, but is generally no longer continuing or repeating in the present.

> ... Ahab met Nabot in the example from 1Kings, that's it; where do you 
> see imperfect there?


1 Kings 21:6, my translation: "... Because I was speaking [a prolonged 
comversation in the past, but not continuing in the present] to Naboth 
the Jezreelite, and [during that conversation] I said to him ..." A 
classic case of the contrast between an imperfective indicating a 
continuing background activity, the conversation, and a perfective 
indicating a specific action taking place while the background activity 
continues. The KIY here shows that this is the reply to Jezebel's 
"Why...?" questions in verse 5. No mystery at all, neither for Rolf nor 
for you.

> > YIQTOL is not at all analogous with this use of the English "will" 
> > form. YIQTOL is NOT future, in biblical Hebrew. You promised to 
> > retract this claim when I provided the evidence. I provided the 
> > evidence. Now you will retract it, future imperative - at least if 
> > you want to retain any credibility at all.
>
>
> You agreed with my explanation of future in your examples; ...


The only thing I agreed with was your apparent statement that these are 
"examples where yiqtol cannot be read as future", also "it is not 
strictly future tense", although I would hold that it is not even 
extremely loosely future tense.

> ... it is only your English-speaking mentality that prevents you from 
> reading future in these examples at face value.
No, it is your Russian-speaking mentality that prevents you from seeing 
that this event is in no way future, despite the possibility of 
translating it with a Russian "future tense".


> > > Perhaps we are talking about more or less the same thing.
> > > I don't assert that all yiqtols are "future reference from the point 
> > > of view
> > > of narrator's contemporaries."
> > > I dispute that yiqtols are imperfects, or any given mood. ...
> >
> >
> > No one here has said that YIQTOLs are "imperfects" (Russian 
> > имперфект), for this is a label for a type of tense like English "I 
> > was doing" or the Russian imperfective past. The claim is that YIQTOL 
> > represents the imperfective aspect, corresponding to the Russian 
> > несовершенный вид, which can be past, present or future but must be 
> > continuous or repetitive.
>
>
> Yeah? Continuous or repetitive? How many times, in your Gen2 examples, 
> the earth was watered? ...


Continuously, every day. This is what springs and/or mist do. It is also 
necessary to water the ground continuously if a garden is to grow. Have 
you ever seen what happens to a garden if it is watered just once, and 
there is no rain and a climate warm enough for people to walk around naked?


> ... How many times Ahab met Nabot? ...


They had a conversation, possibly prolonged, of which only a small part 
is recorded. No doubt the king would have greeted Naboth and talked to 
him for some time, in the ancient and modern oriental style, before 
bringing up this delicate matter of business. But he doesn't bother to 
report all the smalltalk to Jezebel, whose style was somewhat different. 
See also above.


> 2Kings8:29: for how long those dreary Arameans were inflicting wounds 
> on the poor king? ...


This anomalous case may be a textual error, for the parallel in 2 
Chronicles has a QATAL verb and the difference is in one letter only.

> ... Doesn't it ring a bell that Hebrew, Russian and English - all of 
> them use either future or future-related (would) to describe the same 
> action? ...


Not true. I deny that English "would" is future-related. In none of the 
other languages I know is a form which normally indicates the future 
used for an imperfective past. You are attempting to force a specific 
oddity of Russian on to biblical Hebrew.


> ... Perhaps, that action has something with the future?
> Every action could be labeled continuous; ...


Not true. Some actions, called punctiliar, cannot be continuous.

> ... so your definition of yiqtol a priori fits all cases. Don't you 
> see that?
> Now, I explain that yiqtol is future. Sure enough, over the centuries 
> its usage diversified. Idioms appeared; deictic shifts were common. 
> Like in every language. But those meanings are related to future tense 
> by common etymology.


Not true. Your supposed etymological proof that YIQTOL is future is 
completely false. It is also untrue that English "would" is 
etymologically a future form; rather, it is etymologically a volitive 
form, expressing desire.

> > I accept that YIQTOL may also be used for future actions which are 
> > not continuous or repetitive
>
>
> That seems to invalidate your earlier assertion that yiqtol is 
> imperfective?


Perhaps. But then your pet usage of the Russian perfective future for 
habitual past seems to invalidate your presupposition that this form is 
future, as well as that it is perfective. Unfortunately tenses in real 
languages do no fit neatly into categories.

> > Well, I agree that the narrators used YIQTOL without understanding 
> > them as future, and that implies further that we agree that this is 
> > not a future tense.
>
>
> Does an American mom telling her child, "You will eat it!" understand 
> her phrase as imperative? Narrators just did not care about tenses.
>
> > > ... Some yiqtols are intelligible as future tense in Hebrew and 
> > > Russian, but not in English.
> > > What I insist on, is that non-straight-future uses of yiqtol are 
> > > clear from the context, leaving no room for interpretation, ...
> >
> >
> > I see absolutely no room for interpretation as future in Genesis 
> > 2:6,10 - unless you are claiming that the Garden of Eden is future?
>
>
> No room? Well, why Russian and Hebrew both employ future tense in such 
> turns? Sure it is more than coincidence? ...


It is not a coincidence because it is not true. One specific rare style 
of Russian does. Hebrew does not.

--
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: 267.11.3/107 - Release Date: 20/09/2005