Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Kevin:

Languages are not as precise as engineering. That’s why writing is more of
an art than science.

Our expectations concerning languages are not what actually happen, and I
have to admit that that is the case of many of us. Our expectations are
based on Western European languages, which are time based languages.

Hebrew is not the only language that is not time based. There are others as
well that the contexts, not the conjugated forms, that determine the time
measurements, whether aspect or tense.

In taking linguistic definitions from SIL
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/Index.htm Biblical
 Hebrew’s conjugations refer to neither tense nor aspect. That is why I had
to conclude that J. Wash Watts was incorrect in ascribing aspect to
Biblical Hebrew conjugations.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Kevin Buchs <kevin.buchs AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> Thank you for sharing your comments.
>
> You wrote:
> It?s been a long time since I last looked at his work. I was taught
> in class that the Qatal refers to past, the Yiqtal to future, and
> participle to present. In Biblical Hebrew, that is clearly wrong. Is this
> what you learned?
>
> What I learned in class is that both perfects and imperfects can have a
> past, present and future tense. That has troubled me ever since to the
> extent that I wrote my own rule that perfects are almost always past and
> imperfects are almost always future. That results in a few novel
> translations compared to published English translations, especially when it
> comes to prophetic or potentially prophetic statements. Watts' book
> suggests the aspect notion over time/tense. He says perfects are completed
> action and imperfects are continuous action. That seems to be what is
> nominal teaching regarding tense in Greek. However, I learned Greek from
> James Voelz and in his textbook/teaching he emphasizes aspect in an
> entirely different way (present tense is actual focus on action, imperfect
> tense is focus on connection, etc.). Watts seems to put the full time/tense
> fully in control of context. That is unsatisfying to me. It seems to make
> the language even less user friendly for native speakers and writers (of
> old). In my beliefs regarding the origin of the text, it does not fit well
> either. So, I don't really like the perfects and imperfects can be
> past/present/future that I learned in class and read from Watts. Of course,
> I'm an engineer in profession so I like things to be precise. I have to
> laugh at my Hebrew teacher who said Hebrew was easy for engineers and
> scientists to learn because it is so systematic and methodical. Without
> specific tense and without vowels it seems to be more in the realm of
> abstract art (that's a joke).
>
> - Kevin Buchs
>