Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew tense (was Gen 2.18)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ken Penner" <ken.penner AT acadiau.ca>
  • To: "A Becker" <ABecker AT nerdshack.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew tense (was Gen 2.18)
  • Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:29:28 -0300

I just wanted to add a note to a statement made below, in case novices might
think it represents established fact.

The statement in question is:
> You are right that Hebrew does not have tense.

Although the above view is commonly asserted in introductory grammars, the
ongoing debate is much more complex.

Frank Blake wrote, “It is true that aspect is also indicated by the Semitic
verbal forms, e.g. the imperfect as a general present or a progressive past
(imperfect proper) indicates incomplete action or continuance, and the
perfect as a simple past indicates completed action, but these aspectual
meanings are always accompanied by and are subordinate to the time point
meaning or tense” (F. Blake, A Resurvey of Hebrew Tenses [Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1951], 2). As an example of progressive past, Blake cites
Genesis 2:6 ואד יעלה מן־הארץ “and a mist (flood) used to go up from the
earth” (9).

See also J. Blau, “Marginalia Semitica 6: The Problem of Tenses in Biblical
Hebrew,” Israel Oriental Studies 1 (1971): 24–26 and E. John Revell, “The
System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose,” Hebrew Union College Annual
60 (1989): 1–37. For relative tense, see Douglas M. Gropp, “The Function of
the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Annual Review 13
(1991): 45–62.

Many who would argue that tense is not the most prominent parameter in the
Hebrew verb system would still maintain that the wayyiqtol denotes past
tense. J. Joosten, “The Indicative System of the Biblical Hebrew Verb and
its Literary Exploitation,” Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible (Ed. E. Van
Wolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 51–71; “The Long Form of the Prefixed
Conjugation Referring to the Past in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” Hebrew Studies
40 (1999): 15–26; “Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express
Aspect?” JANES 29 (2002): 49–70.

Finally, one must also consider the development of the language.
Revell writes, "There seems no reason to suppose that distinction [between
converted and unconverted forms] was required until near the end of the
biblical period, when the use of the waw consecutive imperfect began to be
abandoned. At the same time, the development of the participle into a real
present tense was beginning, and the perfect and imperfect forms were
beginning to take on the function of past and future tenses." E. J. Revell,
“Stress and the Waw ‘Consecutive’ in Biblical Hebrew,” JAOS 104 (1984):444.
The evidence from Qumran doesn't support this theory of the abandonment of
the wayiqtol, but I thought this view by a most respected Hebraist should at
least temper a bare statement that Hebrew does not have tense.

By the way, regarding the sequentiality of wayyiqtol, see Galia Hatav, The
Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew
(Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997), in which she finds 94% of wayyiqtols
conveying sequentiality (page 29).

Ken M. Penner, Ph.D. (McMaster)
Acadia/Greek&Hebrew
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page