Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/