Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Prophetic or apocalyptic past

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Prophetic or apocalyptic past
  • Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:47:39 +0100

On 25/03/2007 09:04, Rolf Furuli wrote:
...
In English, the perfective
and imperfective aspects (represented by the participle and perfect,
respectively) are mutually exclusive. ...

I have been reading this post for some time now and I have not been understanding why you have not been recognising the existence in English of a verb form which is both perfect and uses the participle. OK, these examples are not entirely natural, but this "have been ...ing" verb form is a recognised one in English which contradicts your statement.


...

The Ethiopic Enoch may have been translated from Aramaic, and I would like
to give some statistics of my analysis of the Aramaic text of Daniel.

YIQTOL: Past: 34 - present 27 - future 88 - present completed 1, modal:
28 - pre-past: 0

QATAL: Past: 216 - present 11 - future 3 - present completed 44, modal:
0 - pre-past: 7

Part. act: Past: 103 - present 48 - future 4 - present completed 2, modal:
3 - pre-past: 1

QATAL+
part.act: Past: 29 - present 0 - future 1 - present completed 0, modal:
- pre-past: 1

According to your analysis, are the visions of 2:31-35, 4:10-18,19-23, 7:2-14 (English verse numbers) analysed as past, present or future? In other words, are you analysing them according to Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel having seen things in the past and then narrating them, or according to their interpretation as prophetic visions of future events? This is the crucial point for deciding whether your analysis of Aramaic is accurate. And, although the proportion of such apocalyptic material in the entire corpus is much smaller in Hebrew and in Greek, the same principle applies to interpretation of Hebrew and Greek apocalyptic literature.


The numbers indicate the linguistic conventions (which forms are generally
used for which reference), but they also show that the forms can be used in
different ways. The default form for past reference is QATAL, but there are 34 YIQTOLs (19.1%) with past reference and 3 QATALs (1.1%) with future reference. We find the same situation in Aramaic as in Ugaritic: the same prefix forms are used both with past and future reference. Please note the use of YIQTOL in the same situation of Nebuchadnezzar eating and being drenched as future and past actions:

4:22(25) " he will eat" (YIQTOL) ; "he will be drenched" (part)
4:29(32) "he will eat" (YIQTOL);
4:30(33) "he ate" (YIQTOL /)KL/); "he was drenched" (YIQTOL)
5:21 " he ate" (YIQTOL); "he was drenched" (YIQTOL)

I find it hard to answer you concerning Aramaic as I don't know it well. But let's consider also the verb forms for "drive away". Verse numbers now from the Aramaic text:

4:22 "will be driven away" (participle); "will eat" (YIQTOL); "will be drenched" (participle)
4:29 "will be driven away" (participle); "will eat" (YIQTOL)
4:30 "was driven away" (QATAL); "ate" (YIQTOL); "was drenched" (YIQTOL)
5:21 "was driven away" (QATAL); "ate" (YIQTOL); "was drenched" (YIQTOL)

Note the different pattern for "drive away" relative to "eat" and "be drenched". What is the difference? Presumably because "drive away" happened once, and "eat" and "be drenched" are repetitive. So I might suggest that QATAL is perfective past, YIQTOL is imperfective but not tensed, and the participle is non-past with no specific aspect. But of course a lot more evidence is needed for this. So I will agree with you that Aramaic YIQTOL is not a tense. That does not imply the same of Aramaic QATAL, and of course still less of their Hebrew equivalents.

What are the references of your three QATALs with future reference?

The meaning of any verb form is the same in any genre, ...

Are you implying that any work of science fiction using the English past tense in fact has past meaning despite the author's specific indication that this is set in the future? Or that the English past tense is not a past tense?

... but for particular purposes, connected with genre, topic and focus, emphasis etc. particular forms that usually have other functions can be chosen.

OK, but why doesn't this exception allow for a "prophetic perfect" QATAL and WAYYIQTOL in narrated visions of the future?

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page