Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew List <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
  • Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:34:08 -0500

I really don't see here a "'problem" that calls for an explanation.
1. act +pp and pp+act are merely two possible ways (since we cannot put pp on top, nor at the bottom of act) to relate an actor to the act. You may say "I-eat banana", or "eat-I banana". They are both good, yet still with no hint in either about time.
2. Hebrew creates tense by decreeing that "eat-I banana" should indicate that the banana is already eaten, but that "I-eat banana" should indicate that the banana is on the verge of being eaten, but is, nevertheless, still on the outside.
3. And what if I say "eat-I banana tomorrow", or "I-eat banana yesterday"? Then, the teacher will wag his finger at me and say that I speak bad Hebrew. I will defend myself by saying that I have taken poetic license to use aspect instead of tense, and that anyway I am perfectly well understood.
4. Hebrew works very fine without VA-.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:05 PM, fred burlingame wrote:

Hello Isaac:

Your opinions imply a simple explanation to the problem:

1. verb + pp = past tense;

2. pp + verb = future tense;

3. vav prefix reverses "1" and "2;"

4. context can, and frequently does, change "1" - "3."

So, when reading the text, follow 1-4 for understanding of tense expressed by verb usage.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
I see what you are saying, and mostly agree with it, except that I prefer to look at it somewhat differently. For example, YI-CMAX, in Gen. 2:5, consists of the verb CAMAX, of the root CMX, 'grow', plus the pre-attached personal pronoun (pp), a.k.a identity marker, YI (which I consider a truncated HIY, 'she') and standing here for ESEB HASADEH, 'the grass of the field'.
It appears that the ancient Hebrews came early on to an agreement to the effect that pp+act will indicate future action, but act+pp will indicate past action (otherwise, Hebrew has no time markers). But it needs not always be so. Thus, YI-CMAX is, on the face of it, just 'he-grow', no more and no less. Conventionally this form is intended to indicate future action, but we know by the time frame of the narrative, by the laws of nature, and also by the preceding word TEREM, that reference is here to the past.
It appears to me that also YI-CMAX of Job 5:6 is but a statement of fact. Yet, the A-CMIAX of Ez. 29:21 is certainly a future promise.
I have the feeling that YA-AL-EH of Gen. 2:6 is "repetitive".

Isaac Fried, Boston University







b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page