Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

I agree that in discussion the first step is not to use non-standard definitions of terms that have already been defined. It’s better to use a neologism than to repurpose a term already in use. Repurposing terms often causes even negative emotional responses as people realize that clear communication is not achieved.

Another response: it appears that when he reads the Hebrew text, that he does so as a philological puzzle to be solved, not as a message to be applied to his life. Or in other words, his study is heavy on theory but light on application. This shows some of my personal bias: I started reading in Hebrew because I was having trouble understanding the only translation we had in the house, in archaic English (KJV) and all I wanted to do was more accurately to understand what God has to say to the world. Learning the Hebrew language was merely the means to the goal, not the goal itself. As a result, my studies have been light on theory, emphasizing instead application.

George: is part of the problem of understanding Biblical Hebrew the very effort to try to make it fit our models? For example, is there really a polarity in the use of Qatal-Yiqtol differentiation, or is this a case as in other languages that don’t have a separate form for each usage, that forms can be reused for more than one purpose? While the perfective-imperfective polarity is clearly wrong, are there not times that the Qatal is used for indefinite actions, and many times that Yiqtol used for definite actions?

I hope you have a good vacation.

Karl W. Randolph.