The Hebrew Verbal System In English Translation

When translating the Hebrew verb in English, should one emphasize Aspect or Tense? Granted, aspect would form an integral part of Early Hebrew. Nevertheless, tense would become a dominant factor in Late Hebrew (i.e. Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew). From the foregoing it is clear that both aspect as well as tense should be involved in the transitional phase, i.e. Biblical Hebrew.

The first detailed investigation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew verbs in Chronicles, this book looks at the contribution of the translation to our understanding of the Hebrew verbal system in the Hellenistic period and the literalizing approach to translation.

This book provides a new explanation for what has long been a challenge for scholars of Biblical Hebrew: how to understand the expression of verbal tense and aspect. Working from a representative text corpus, combined with database queries of specific usages and surveys of examples discussed in the scholarly literature, Ulf Bergström gives a comprehensive overview of the semantic meanings of the verbal forms, along with a significant sample of the variation of pragmatically inferred tense, aspect, or modality (TAM) meanings. Bergström applies diachronic typology and a redefined concept of aspect to demonstrate that Biblical Hebrew verbal forms have basic aspectual and derived temporal meanings and that communicative appeal, the action-triggering function of language, affects verbal semantics and promotes the diversification of tense meanings. Bergström’s overarching explanation of the semantic development of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system is an important contribution to the study of the evolution of the verbal system and meanings of individual verbs in the Hebrew Bible. Accessibly written and structured for seminar use, Bergström’s study brings new perspectives to a debate that, in many ways, had reached a stalemate, and it challenges scholars working with TAM and the Biblical Hebrew verb to revisit their theoretical premises. Advanced students and scholars of Biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages will find the study thought provoking, and linguists will appreciate its contributions to linguistic theory and typology.

The present study investigates the function of the verbal forms in biblical Hebrew narrative, using the Joseph story (Gen. 37-50) as a corpus. It demonstrates how the 'tense', 'aspect' and 'sequentiality' function as factors in the choice of the verbal forms in both main clauses and subordinate clauses. The tense distinction past vs. non-past basically works as a factor in the choice of the freestanding conjugations, except for the stative verb, the verb with a stative sense, the passive construction, or the performative utterance. Moreover, the traditional aspectual opposition complete vs. incomplete also corresponds to QATAL (*qátal) vs. YIQTOL (*yaqtúlu). There appears to be not much difference between these oppositions in describing the function of the above verbal forms (esp. ch.2). Furthermore, the opposition non-sequential vs. sequential discriminates functionally between YIQTOL and (w,) QATAL (*qatál) in the non-past context, between QATAL and (waY)YIQTOL (*yáqtul) in the past context, and between the IMPV (coh., impv. and juss.) forms and (w,) QATAL (*qatál) in the hortatory context. In each context the former functions as a non-sequential form and the latter as a sequential form. The phenomenon of sequentiality is purely syntactical. It controls the flow of the story as a discourse function; the non-sequential form stops the flow (i.e. stand still), while the sequential form lets the story flow on. A thread of discourse is usually traced by sequential forms, but it may include non-sequential forms to signal the difference of discourse level or a discourse boundary. Or each form could play an opposite role to produce special literary effects (chs. 3-7). Finally, a verbal form in the subordinate clause is chosen not from the viewpoint of the deictic centre of the narrator, but from that of the immediate participant in the main clause (ch. 8).

Grammarians have been unable to provide a sufficient explanation for the verbal system of Biblical Aramaic by means of the standard categories of tense and aspect. Michael B. Shepherd exposes this situation and suggests a way out of the present impasse through distributional analysis by proposing that Biblical Aramaic has a primary verbal form for narration and a primary verbal form for discourse. This simple yet comprehensive proposal holds true not only for Biblical Aramaic but also for extra-Biblical Aramaic texts. This volume is an indispensable resource for courses in Biblical Aramaic and for anyone who wishes to read and understand the Biblical Aramaic corpus.

This book constitutes the first thorough, corpus-based analysis of the verb in Late Maskilic (Jewish Enlightenment) Hebrew prose fiction. It assesses Maskilic Hebrew verbal morphology and syntax both synchronically and within the context of the diachronic Hebrew verbal system.