George:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:19 AM, George Athas <[email protected]>wrote:
> Rolf asked:
>
> > How will you explain the past reference of all the YIQTOLs and
> WAYYIQTOLs
> > in Psalm 18? How can you uphold your model with so many "exceptions" to
> > it? (There are scores upon scores of similar "exceptions")
>
> First, I don't see wayyiqtol as indicating past tense at all. It is
> actually a 'live action' verb. However, the past tense of yiqtol is merely
> a product of thinking in terms of European languages. The yiqtol itself
> indicates indefinite action, whether past, present, or future. Tense is in
> no way encoded within the verb. Iterative actions in the past (eg. 'he used
> to kill') or actions that have not been actualised (eg. 'he will kill' or
> 'he might kill') or actions that are generally true at all time ('gnomic',
> eg. 'he kills—it's just what he does') are all within the indefinite nature
> of the yiqtol. Sometimes this is referred to as *modus irrealis*, but a
> more palatable term is, I think, indefinite.
>
Yes, but the same can be said of Qatal in its uses. Since the same can be
said of Qatal, how do you differentiate between Qatal and Yiqtol?
>
> So the 'past tense' of yiqtol is perfectly within the scope of the verb,
> though the particular term 'past tense' is somewhat foreign to the Biblical
> Hebrew verb. However, since the job of translation is going from the logic
> of one language into the logic of another, we can talk about those
> instances where the yiqtol translates into English as a past tense.
>
This is why I keep emphasizing that translation is not the same as
understanding within a language.
>
>
> *GEORGE ATHAS*
> *Dean of Research,*
> *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au)
> *Sydney, Australia*
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
