Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Ken:

This is a misunderstanding based on Western (Indo-European) concepts being
applied to Hebrew grammar. Because the primary function of European language
declension is to indicate tense, the assumption was made that that was the
same function of the differences between the Qatal and Yiqtol declensions of
Hebrew verbs as well. But that is incorrect.

Dr. Furuli has expounded on this list the results of his doctoral research
and dissertation that indicate that tense absolutely cannot be the function
of Hebrew declension.

A secondary function among Indo-European languages is aspect, so some
grammarians attempt to assign aspect as the function of Qatal and Yiqtol
verbs, but that doesn’t work either.

So, in reference to your specific question, this is a Qatal verb with a
future reference indicated not by its declension, rather by its context.
Therefore a translator is perfectly justified in giving this a future
declension in English.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Kenneth Litwak <javajedi2 AT yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've compared several translations of Isaiah 9:2-7 and I noticed that the
> New American Standard, unlike any other i read, renders YuLaD, Qal Perf.
> Pass., in Isa 9:5 as "will be born."  I don't see any reason to give this a
> future sense grammatically.  I suppose if it is clearly understood as
> someone future that might be plausible but not because of the tense. Thanks.
>
> Ken
>
>