Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> >> ?? Both in common definition and in the specialized SIL definition,
> >> I understand "tense" to refer to time. So where does this timeless
> >> "tense" come from?
> >
> > There is no "timeless" tense!
>
> Exactly, (as long as understood by each author's definitions)
> nor was the original comment claiming such.
>

Then T-A-M, because it is time based, does not apply to Biblical Hebrew.

>
> The discussion on this point has been generated from a misreading
> my comment:
> > It is useful in describing the Hebrew verb because it is NEUTRAL.
> > Similarly to why people talk about the "suffix tense"//"prefix tense",
> > except that in these latter cases the word 'tense' does not
> > necessarily refer to time but to generically to a verb category that
> > marks some kind of tense-and/or-aspect-and/or-mood.
>
> In that comment the phrase "suffix tense" referred to a FORM,
> a verb cateogry based on form, not a semantic value.
>

Then the proper term, as defined also by linguists, is “morphology”. Nowhere
in dictionaries nor glosseries do I find this idiosyncratic definition.


> And the following phrase, "in these latter cases ['suffix tense'//
> 'prefix tense'--RB] the word 'tense' does not necessarily refer to time",
> was a qualifier to prevent exactly the kind of unnecessary discussion
> that has followed in this thread.
>

When even a fellow PhD doesn’t understand what you are talking about, it is
time to go back to your circles where this idiosyncratic terminology is used
and say, “Look, fellows, this term isn’t working out, let’s invent a term
that people can understand.”


> "Oh bother," said Pooh.
> Likewise, the phrase "tense-and/or-aspect/and-or mood" was
> designed to include whatever theory someone wanted to attribute
> to Hebrew.
>
> Let's at least follow the English correctly,


Exactly, and that includes following word definitions.


> even when it is phrased
> differently from how one would choose themselves. (I did not
> invent the use of 'verb tense' to refer to a verb form. You will find
> many a beginning grammar or study where the word 'tense' is
> frequently used to refer to verb forms in general. E.g. Lambdin,
> p38 refers to "the Hebrew tenses" where it is clear in the context
> of his book that he is thinking of these "tenses" as the none other
> than Perfect and Imperfect.)
>

If I read his book, I would interpret the term “tenses”, “perfect” and
“imperfect” according to their street and linguistic meanings, i.e.
referring to time, and conclude that “this guy doesn’t really know Biblical
Hebrew.” After all, decades ago, just from reading the text for
understanding, not for scholarly study, I recognized that neither tense nor
aspect correctly described the verbal morphology I saw in the text.

>
> If someone wants to know where I stand, please refer to my
> "The Hebrew Verb: A Short Syntax". There is no point in trying to
> summarize and inevitably scramble the English descriptions on a
> public list that is prone to generating long discussions through
> misreadings of English.
>

Or how about misusing English?

>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>
> In my discussing Biblical Hebrew verbal morphology, I use the terms
“qatal”, “yiqtal” and similar terms to avoid this type of misunderstanding.

Karl W. Randolph.