Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Randall Buth<randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The reason that I defined the situation tightly is so that we can get
> an actual present situation, your 'temporal reference', and not a
> 'present' gloss in another language. We're on the same page,
> on this.
>
> And yes, I need to
> use the restrictions of
> a. no questions,
> b. no poetry, and
> c. no habitual/omnitemporal/timeless. (these aren't 'present' by this
> definition. negations are covered here, too, since they can be a
> kind of negated contingency rather than an actual present). why
> poetry? With Ugaritic and Canaanite/Hebrew QATAL//YIQTOL
> troping, one cannot be too careful.
>
> We'll go to Jeremiah to prepare for our time traveller:
>
> Jer 1.11
> The word of the Lord:
> ma atta ro`e, Yermiyahu?   (participle as a question , so not an example)
> Yermiyahu:
> maqel shaqed ani ro`e   (an almold stick I see)
>
> This is an example. It is positive, immediately present to a conversation.
> It is not contingent ("might be seeing"), nor a negation, but an actual 
> present.
>
Let’s first translate this into English. [In English we’ll have to use
two different verbs, “look” and “see” whereas Hebrew can get by with
one, R)H] God asks Jeremiah, “What are you looking at?” Jeremiah could
have answered with “I see an almond stick.” What he answered was “I am
looking at an almond stick.” Both are correct, but there is a
difference in emphasis. His concentration is centered on the stick, he
is actively looking it over. Why is God giving him this vision? This
is the action that the participle imparts to the conversation.

Or again with Joseph:

> Gen 37:15-16
> (Yosef wandering in the coutryside)
>
>  man: ma tevaqqesh?       "what are you looking for? what would you
>                                                be looking for?"
>       (questions can be a special register in a language, it is fairly
> common to have yiqtol in questions about something present)
>
> Yosef:  et aHai anoxi mevaqqesh  ... (my brothers I am looking for)
>         (participle dealing with the positive, immediate, concurrent 
> situation.

Joseph is in the action of searching, that’s the whole purpose of his
being there. He could have said )B$ )XY and been correct.

Now let’s look at Exodus 3:7, 9 which together have five Qatal verbs
to refer to the present. These are not future, nor past, but “I see”
“I hear” “I know” and that’s why I send you Moses. Again in verse 19
“I know”. You might try to argue that these were timeless, but they
referred to the then present situation of Israel in Egypt, and of the
particular king they were dealing with. That was ‘present’ for that
time. It is not present for another time.

>
> So my question becomes,
> could Yermiyahu have said
> maqel shaqed ere`e  (yiqtol form)
> for a plain vanilla reference to that present situation?
>
Yes, and it would have been technically accurate.

>
> For example, Yermiyahu
> could have said maqel shaqed ra'iti in this situation in good biblical
> Hebrew, but I would see that as changing his reference to the item.
>
Yes, it would change his reference, as in the difference between “I
see” and “I am looking at”, but both are present, not past, not
future. The time stamp, tense, is the same, other aspects have
changed.

> What is certainly clear to me, though, is that one must admit
> that a participle makes for a good reference to an actual, immediate
> present situation.
>
It is, but it is not that widely used. But part of that could be that
there were so few present tense conversations recorded in Tanakh.

> In biblical Hebrew.
>
> blessings
> Randall
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life

Karl W. Randolph.