Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I "hear" past because VA-TA-KAM is conventionally so, but I know that  
what is meant is an ongoing habit.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:03 AM, fred burlingame wrote:

> Hello Isaac:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> 1. That is a most important distinction; the difference between:
>
> a. what you "hear;" and
>
> b. what you "know."
>
> So, with ותקם , va-ta-kam, sung or read to you; when you hear  
> past tense:
>
> i. do you hear past tense because that is how you speak/read/write  
> the language today; or
>
> ii. do you hear past tense because that is how you understand the  
> language was spoken/read/written then?
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> 0. They are not "explanatory comments", only my opinions on the  
> matter.
> 1. If you mean the verb VA-TA-QAM, 'was so-she-wake up', I hear it  
> as past (because of the frontally attached verb VA = BA), but I  
> know it is timeless: she did it, she does it, and she will keep  
> doing it.
> 3. Yes, context is important, and also external time markers.
> 4. The "sleeper" property is the SADE, 'field', that the E$-ET  
> XAIYL contrived, ZAMM-AH, to buy, and actually acquired (the banker  
> trusts her and gives her a mortgage at the best possible rate, etc.)
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:27 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
> > Hello Isaac:
> >
> > Thanks for your explanatory comments.
> >
> > So, I see in exodus 15:1, the pp + verb could, ( but in the  
> > absence of need or want ), does not in this instance, designate  
> > future tense. Rather it evokes past tense in this particular case.
> >
> > It seems that we have two tools in the tool chest for directing  
> > tense forward or backward. And only context, and actual usage of  
> > the verb, will determine what tense we see.
> >
> > I don't know the "sleeper properties" to which you refer?
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > fred burlingame
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> > 1. Gramaticalization merely means the arbitrary designating of  
> > such combinations as pp+verb to have the grammatical form of a  
> > future action. Hence TA-B-IY is essentially: she-B-it = she-bring-it.
> > 2. I don't divide a word into syllables, I only separate the  
> > prefixes and suffixes from the body of the verb. The root of  
> > ZAMMAH is ZMM, and AH is 'she'.
> > 3. A "sleeper" property is a good, yet an unassuming, property,  
> > not calling attention to itself, which can acquired under  
> > favorable conditions.
> > 4. We are in agreement. pp+verb indicates future action only if  
> > you want it, or need it, to represent future action. Ex. 15:1  
> > opens with AZ YA-$IYR MO$E, where YA-$IYR is but he-sing, namely:  
> > then he-sing, moses.
> > 5. MELEL is a mouthful, MALE) of words. It is related to to MLIYL- 
> > AH of Deut. 23:36.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University