Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> > > 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 text contains no, no emphasis on continuity of the flow. It is just a 
statement of fact.
By that token, every action is continuous, since it has future consequences. 
Joram remained to be wounded until he was healed. Isn't that nonsensical 
justification of imperfective in 2Kings8:29?

> > ... 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".

Russian-speaking mentality allows reading the Hebrew text literally. English 
mentality does not. Which one is more applicable?

> > Continuous or repetitive? How many times, in your Gen2 examples, the 
> > earth was watered? ...
>
> Continuously, every day.

Every day? At any rate, no more than one day. Then the earth became watered, 
and the action became inessential. Somehow I don't see heavenly mist 
watering the earth today.

> > 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.

My hypothesis of the deictic shift doesn't resort to such explanation.

> > ... 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.

Look at its etymology, then.

> > ... Perhaps, that action has something with the future?
> > Every action could be labeled continuous; ...
>
> Not true. Some actions, called punctiliar, cannot be continuous.

Every action takes time by definition.

> > > 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.

Not at all! Yiqtol is generally future, and in some cases has other meanings 
idiomatically or through deictic shifts derived from future.

Vadim Cherny