Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Hebrew has no time markers (as they exist in sign language through  
the clapping of the fore hand on the aft hand, and vice versa); there  
are no right-arrow and left-arrow for before and after: $ABAR< broke  
earlier, $ABAR> will break later. Hebrew has only roots and identity  
markers with which to form its words.
In the minimal (QAL) form, say, GAMAL (camel? rewarded?), the  
personal pronouns need to be added separately, but in other "heavier"  
forms (BINYAN-IYM, MI-$QAL-IYM) the personal pronouns are written  
attached to the root or are inserted inside it.
At some point Hebrew started to use the location of the pronouns for  
the purpose of indicating time. A suffixed pronoun came to be seen as  
indicating "past", as in $ABAR-TA = $BAR-ATAH, 'you broke', and a  
prefixed pronoun came to be seen as indicating "future", as in TA-BO  
= ATAH-BO. To point out that ATAH is actually a female, another HI) =  
IY is tacked at the end: TA-BO-IY. Yet in spoken Hebrew ANI BA MAXAR  
'I will come tomorrow', is commonly heard, and clearly understood. I  
also often hear ANIY YA-BO instead of ANIY A-BO.
Since there is no essential difference between the QAL (sans attached  
personal pronouns) form, and, say, the PIEL (a later development?  
with two internal personal pronouns) form, they may be advantageously  
employed to slightly alter the meaning of the act, for instance,  
SAPAR, 'counted', versus SIPER, 'recounted'. Sometimes one may want  
to use $ABAR and $IBER alternatingly for poetic flair, or it may be  
mandatory for the proper understanding of the act, as in $IPEC,  
'renovated', with $APAC not being in use.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:52 AM, fred burlingame wrote:

> Hello Karl:
>
> I don't insist on any particular conjugation of hebrew verb forms.
>
> I am simply looking for a simple answer as to the purpose of the  
> yiqtol and
> qatal verb forms.
>
> It appears the forms do not instruct for tense or aspect.
>
> So, the question becomes, why the presence of the two forms?
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame