Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

Thank you Rolf for these examples, one of them is a definite possible.

It might also help in the future if you would write in the Hebrew. The
English tends to skew things and makes discussion more cumbersome
than helpful because it needs undoing rather than simply looking at the
Hebrew.

Rolf vayyixtov
(Hope you like the word order. I consider it good biblical Hebrew, though
quite rare and special. Can't remember the last time I've used it. Maybe
someone else can comment on it.)

>1 Samuel 22:23
>
>Stay with me; don't be afraid (YIQTOL) ; the man who is seeking
(YIQTOL) your life is seeking (YIQTOL) mine also. You will be safe
with me.">

*RB--'he who would seek my life would seek your life'. This isn't the
'definite probable', but can be a modal reference or even future, since
David starts out by referring to himself and his general predicament
rather than the specific trouble of Evyatar. Incidentally, Y. Qil explained
the passage as "mi she-yevaqqesh et nafshi hu gam asher yevaqqesh
nafshexa" keeping the prefix tense in a modern Hebrew paraphrase, so
that he does not view this as a declarative, actual present either.
He further focuses on 'one man' who is described as 'pursuing'
(participle).

>2 Samuel 3:8
>
>This very day I am (YIQTOL) loyal to the house of your father Saul
and to his family and friends.

*RB--The Hebrew would have helped. "ha-yom e`ese Hesed" describes
Avner's intentions and is thus potential and/or volitional. Qil gives three
possible readings, sarcasm, "truly I would do loyalty with you!", surprise,
"should I do loyalty with you from today (forward)?, or habitual, "and
today (as always) I will continue to do loyalty with you.
The context continues with an oath which is a particularly strong
form of volitional and using the same word 'e`se 'I will do'.


>2 Samuel 7:28
>
>O Sovereign LORD, you are God! Your words are (YIQTOL) trustworthy,
and you have (WAYYIQTOL) promised these good things to your servant.
>
>The YIQTOL clearly has present reference, and the WAYYIQTOL probably
has present completed (#perfect) reference.

*RB-- This may be a rhetorical use of "clearly"?-- since the verb is YIHYU
'would be', 'will be'. The use of the verb 'to be' is already non-default for
what would otherwise have been a standard, declarative, verbless
clause, like the clause immediately preceeding.
It looks awfully clearly modal to me.

>1 Kings 8:39
>
>then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal
with each man according to all he does, since you know (YIQTOL) his
heart (for you alone know (QATAL)the hearts of all men),
>
>In this passage we find one YIQTOL and one QATAL  with the same
present reference.

*RB--Again, the English is muddying the water and the Hebrew must
be looked at. ...venatatta ka'ish ke-xol draxav asher 'eda`
The context is dealing with a request for the future that God will
deal with each man according to all the future deeds that he will become
aware of (first example of 'know'),
followed by a timeless reason with the second example of 'know' (QATAL).


>2 Kings 9:20
>
>The lookout reported (WAYYIQTOL), "He has reached (QATAL) them, but
he isn't coming back (QATAL) either. The driving is like that of Jehu
son of Nimshi-he drives (YIQTOL) like a madman."

*RB--finally an example that has some potential. These are what we
want.

The context deals with a watchman speaking to the king about what he
is seeing down below in the valley. (PS: Just drove past the same tel and
down that valley two days ago.)
In verse 17 the watchman says I see ANI ROEH (for an actual present)
a cloud/group (of riders). After a second messenger is
sent, the watchman says to the king, "he came to them and has not
returned. and the driving is like the driving of Yehu ben Nimshi
for he drives crazily [ki ve-shiga`on yinhag]."
If the watchman was referring to the unknown rider specifically and
uniquely, e.g., ani roe ish uveshiga`on yinhag, this would be a
good example. But it pulls in Yehu and appears to refer to
Yehu's habitual / characteristic driving. In this case of course, the
unknown rider and the habitual riding of Yehu are being equated
by the watchman. This rider is Yehu, who habitually drives crazy,
like this.
So this is a nice example, and what I call a 'possible'. It doesn't allow
me to use it in class as the plain-vanilla default description of an
actual present, but it is the closest of the examples so far.

blessings
Randall


>vayyixtov Rolf
>>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,
>
>That's pretty hard to claim, when your first example
>Dt 20.19-20 was dealing with a potential "whenever"
>context.
>What is it about potentiality
>ki tatsur el `ir "whenever you besiege a city"
>that I have missed?
>If I claimed that this allowed me to use the construction
>in a classroom for an actual, present tense, I would be
>laughed out of the guild.
>
>Again, the purpose of tightly restricting and defining
>situations was to prevent complexities from distracting
>the discussion. Karl is already distracted. Let's find
>something solid first,
>then we can discuss when a user would choose a
>participle and when a YIQTOL, (as for example I would
>do with participle questions and YIQTOL questions dealing
>with a real, ongoing, present situation).
>But we don't have any reliable YIQTOLs yet for the simple
>declarative that would justify my using it in a classroom in
>good faith.
>
>Also, since everyone knows that 'perfects' in a language
>can interact with the present moment, but in conversationally
>restricted ways, there was no request to discuss QATAL or
>VAYYIQTOL at this stage. One step at a time. And again,
>a person could not be taken seriously if they claimed that
>a 'perfect' situation and reference could justify applying them
>to an immediate, incomplete present in a classroom. *
>
>We need to define and restrict that situation so that we
>choose the structure that Yermiyahu would have chosen.
>We do this to the best of our ability, and are happy to be
>shown otherwise. That is why we need to ask for a yiqtol
>that is a) not a question, b) not in poetry,
>c) not a habitual/omnitemporal/potential (negation is
>a complex semantic entity that is not a place to start).
>
>And if there aren't any, that needs to be noted. That will
>affect the interpretation of marginal cases, as I showed
>with Laxish letter 4.
>
>blessings
>Randall Buth
>
>* and you wouldn't  want to perform a version of the totality
>transfer fallacy, to wit, if 'a' overlaps 'b' in meaning and 'b'
>overlaps 'c' in meaning, then 'a' can be used for 'c'. Should
>someone be allowed to claim that 'to have done now' is
>equally present with with 'is doing' or 'might be doing'? No.
>This is like a beginning language student who complains
>to a teacher: "the grammar book says GEGRAFE [he has
>written-perfect] can relate to present time and GRAFEI can
>relate to present time and writing on the board is happening
>now, which is present, so why can't I say GEGRAFE AYTO
>while he's writing the paragraph on the board?")


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