Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

It seems to me that you are trying to force the 
tower of Pisa into a different position. The 
standard definition of "Present tense" (I do not 
use "tense") is found in B. Comrie (1985) 
"Tense". He shows that an event that includes the 
present moment and continues fits the definition. 
In my view, all my examples fit this definition, 
and I will let the list-members judge whether 
this is true or not.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


> It is good to have a few minutes to deal with a thread from last week.
> Actually, I've also promised an explanation of the Biblical Language
> Center and its connection, or lack of connection, vis a vis the Cohelet
> project. But this thread is about how to make plain-vanilla default
> statements about actual present situations in a classroom.
>
> I've had a busy weekend overseeing a Greek SXOLH (ancient Greek
> taught 90% in ancient Greek) as well as welcome and start two classes,
> two levels, of the biblical Hebrew ulpan (taught 90% in biblical Hebrew).
> I'll also be gone to the Galilee for two days this week with the Greek
> SXOLH.
>
> Anyway, we finally have some examples brought forward in this thread
> and can inspect them to see if they would support using YIQTOL with
> students as a plain-vanilla classroom description of something
> actually going on.
>
> vayyixtov Rolf
> > . . .
> > But what kind of examples do we have from Pisa? All quotes are from NIV
> >
> >  YIQTOL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE
> >
> > DEUT 20:20:
> >
> > However, you may cut down trees that you know (YIQTOL)
> >
> >  A present state (to know) is expressed by YIQTOL.
>
> I should add the the Hebrew to Rolf's alleged example:
> raq  `ets asher teda`  ki lo  `ets maaxal hu, oto tashHit
>
> This is a strange first example because it is dealing with a potential future
> context, when Israel will be besieging a city. It certainly wouldn't justify
> using yiqtol to describe a declarative, actual, present situation in a
> classroom.
>
> > 2 Samuel 18:27:
> > The watchman said (WAYYIQTOL), "It seems to me (PERS. PRON+PART)
> >  that the first one runs (NOUN) like Ahimaaz son of Zadok."
> >  "He's a good man (NOMINAL CLAUSE.)," the king said (WAYYIQTOL).
> >  "He comes (YIQTOL) with good news."
> >
> > A present action (to come) is expressed by YIQTOL.
>
> The Hebrew of the king's comment is
> ish tov ze
> ve-el besora tova yavo
>
> And how do we know that the speaker is describing an actual present and not
> referring to something probable, potential or future? The runner had not yet
> arrived since it was a conversation between the lookout and the king when the
> king made his comment.
>
> This brings up another issue, the difference between a situation and the way
> in which a situation is referred to. For 
> example, I have no problem with YIQTOL
> being used to refer to a present situation. I already gave a nice example of
> Gen 37:15-16 where a man asks "ma tevaqqesh?" 'what would you be looking
> for?" as a question about something actually happening in front of him. The
> other example in the thread, Jer 1.11  Ma atta ro'e "what do you see?"
> uses a participle in the question. Obviously, there is more than one way to
> frame a question and presumably they have a different nuance. What is
> telling, though, is the both are answered with a participle when the answer
> involves the the actual present.
>
> Let's see what else has been offered by way of example.
>
> >  WAYYIQTOL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE
> >
> > 1 KINGS 19:10:
> > He replied (WAYYIQTOL), "I have been very zealous (QATAL+ INF. ABS)
> > for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected (QATAL) your
> > covenant, broken down (QATAL) your altars, and put your prophets to
> >  death (QATAL) with the sword. I am the only one left (WAYYIQTOL+
> > PERS. PRON), and now they are trying to kill (WAYYIQTOL) me too."
> >
> > In this verse we find two WAYYIQTOLs with present reference, and the
> > first is connected with a personal pronoun.
>
> Eliyahu was speaking.
> Again, these cannot justify using such structures to describe an actual
> present situation in a classroom. Both of the vayyiqtol clauses refer to
> previous actions with present implications. va'ivvater "and I was left
> over, [am left over], as well as, vayvaqqeshu "and they sought my life"
> [and presumably would continue].
> Both of these clauses are part of a brief, past narrative that Eliyahu
> uses to justify his presence in Sinai.
>
> For fun I looked at Yehuda Qil, "Kings" Da`at Miqra,
> where things that are unexpected for Israeli readers are often
> discussed. He doesn't discuss either verb. I didn't really expect him
> to, since I wouldn't have perceived a problem.
> (Actually, he discusses the plural of the second verb since king's
> consort, Iy-zevel -- singular, was the chief culrit.)
>
> > 1 Kings 8:20:
> > "The LORD has kept (WAYYIQTOL) the promise he made (QATAL): I have
> >  succeeded (WAYYIQTOL) David my father and now I sit (WAYYIQTOL) on
> >  the throne of Israel, just as the LORD promised (QATAL), and I have
> >  built (WAYYIQTOL) the temple for the Name of the LORD, the God of
> >  Israel.
> >
> >  In this verse we find three WAYYIQTOLs   with a present completed
> >  force, and one is used with present reference ("I sit")
>
> And if these  3 refer to something already completed, then how can we
> use them as examples for a present incompleted action in a
> classroom? And how can we know that the other example is not also
> referring to 'having taken a seat'?
>
> >  QATAL WITH PRESENT REFRENCE
> >
> > 1 SAMUEL 8:5:
> >  They said  (WAYYIQTOL) to him, "You are old (QATAL), and your sons
> >  do not walk (QATAL) in your ways;
>
> These start to take us too far afield. No one claims that past events
> cannot have present implication and reference. "have become old and
> are now old', 'have walked [and are therefore unfit]'.
>
> . . .
>
> >  I do not dispute your claim that a normal way of expressing present
> > reference in direct speech is by the use of a personal pronoun and a
> > participle. But I say that there also are other ways, as shown above;
> > and the examples could be multiplied.
>
> But not one YIQTOL that would actually fit a classroom situation has
> been presented yet.
>
> . . .
> > this is corroborated from the examples Waltke/O'Connor give
> > regarding YIQTOL and present reference.
>
> But none of their examples fit. In fact, I had this same conversation
> with one of the authors at a recent conference. He was
> intrigued that we were teaching in the language itself rather than
> through another language and especially when hearing that we were
> limiting the beginning levels to biblical Hebrew. At first he doubted
> that the participle was the correct way to do classroom situations.
> The next day he saw me in the bookstalls, came up and said, 'I
> checked out your claim last night, I think you may be right about the
> participle for this.'
>
> Since a biblical example hasn't been brought forward I will bring an
> alleged example from a sixth century inscription.
>
> Laxish letter #4
> . . .
> ÎÈÝÏýݕ¯ý”Ýý™ÝÚʗ”
> ki lo NR'H et `Azeqa
>
> This is often read as nir'e, as if "we are not seeing", a basic,
> declarative present tense, (being negated).
> But is it?
>
> Here are two footnotes in a Laxish letter handout that we've given
> ulpan students:
>
> "
> 1.   ýÂð™ÝÝý™™  sign signal 79.
> This word is often feminine (Gn 9:12, Ex 31:13, Jer 44:29) but also
> occurs as a masculine (Ex 3:12, 4:8, 9).
> 2.This line may be vocalized in different ways, though they all lead
> to the same historical conclusions.
>         Ïðýݕ¦¯ýÀ”ÝýÂð™ÝÚʗ”   'the sign of Azeqa is being seen' reads a
> feminine participle nir'a with a feminine noun ý™. The word Ïý is not
> common with a participle.
>         Ïðýݕ¦¯ý‘”ÝýÂð™ÝÚʗ”   'the sign of Azeqa is being seen' reads a
> participle nir'e with a masculine noun ý™. The word Ïý is not common
> with a participle.
> Ïýݕ¦¯ý‘”Ýý‘™ÝÚʗ”     'we are not seeing Azeqa' reads a
> future/imperfective with Ïðý.  The future is often used in the present
> with questions and with negatives. A positive statement about the
> immediate present nomally uses a participle.
>         Ïðýݕ¦¯ýÀ”ÝýÂð™ÝÚʗ”   'the sign of Azeqa was not seen' reads a past
> with a masculine noun ý™. This cannot be feminine past because the
> consonantal text would have been •¯ý™”Æ¢
>
> Back to this email.
> Such a text would hardly justify using yiqtol as a default structure
> for present situations in a classroom, since it is doubtful that the
> third reading above is the best. Personally, I read the text
> according to the fourth option above. It fits the context best and
> 'naHnu shomrim' was already used in the previous line for a
> probable, positive present reference.
> ý‘ÏÝÓÃ×Ðýð™ÝÏÀΦ÷ݕÃÁ•ÂÝ÷ðӍ¯¦ÌÝΐÎðÏݔÀýð™ð™ÝýŽ÷‘¯Ý•À™ÃÔÝýŽ“ð•¦È
>
> And our classes have started today. The absolute beginners
> are playing with a lot of imperatives, and will presumably be
> getting quite a few PARTICIPLES tomorrow. They
> may be able to follow a telling of Goldilocks by Friday (yes,
> with vayyiqtol, and not the EKS?-type pseudo biblical version
> with qatal + Subject for simple past narrative.) However, we
> are restructuring our program to fit the 6 week intro module
> into four weeks and the class may not have time for
> Goldilocks. Maybe. I can let you know next week.
> The intermediate are all over the board, of course, and already
> acting out text.
>
> blessings
> Randall
>
>
>
> > After another set of six comments, it is probably useful to re-orient
> > back to the original issue. None of the comments proposed
> > a YIQTOL example in an actual, positive, real, present reference,
> > (yes, given a strict set of parameters to insure that we are
> > comparing a few apples to a few apples)
> > though one comment assured that such was 'accurate', and another
> > seemed to imply that the vayyiqtol was effictively a present tense. If the
> > latter, then one wonders what distinguishes vayyiqtol +Subject from
> > ve-Subject+qotel, or even ve-qotel Subject? But that would need to
> > be a different thread.
> >
> > Let's keep looking for some bonafide examples
> > of present yiqtol without outside contingencies. The kind that
> > Hebrew profs keep giving me like:
> >
> > * er'e et ha-`ets sham  *"I see the tree there"
> >
> > Again, look at this the other way around:
> > What if I had a class and was saying to a standing student
> >
> > * ta`amod sham vaani e`mod po
> > as if to say  * "you're standing there and I'm standing here"
> >
> > I would have hoped that people would have jumped all over me and
> > said
> >   'show us some good examples for the kind of Hebrew you're teaching!'
> > (they sure do that fast when they hear participles !
> > "I get slandered, libeled, I hear words I never heard in the Bible")
> >
> > Instead, it may be that people are looking from a 'leaning tower of pisa'
> > so that if I would lean with them they would say
> > 'you're standing straight'.
> >
> > But I'm sensitive to gravity and want to stand straight.
> >
> > blessings
> > Randall Buth
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew