# Hebrew verbal system



## JAN SHAR

Hello, are there any differences between the verbal system of modern Hebrew and of Biblical Hebrew besides the fact that in modern Hebrew you have a separate present tense (using the participle) while in Biblical Hebrew you do not?

Thank you.


----------



## Drink

Biblical Hebrew does use the participle as a present tense (though it can also be used for other tenses). So that's not really a difference.

Really the biggest differences are the existence of the vav-conversive and jussive forms of verbs in Biblical Hebrew.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Thank you.
I have been told that in Modern Hebrew the suffix conjugation always refers to the past tense while the prefix conjugation always refers to the future. But in Biblical Hebrew the suffix conjugation can refer to either the past, present, or future. Why else would the author of Proverbs 22:13 use אמר in

אמר עצל ארי בחוץ בתוך רחבות ארצח


----------



## Drink

Biblical Hebrew exhibits a lot of variation in different styles and registers. In the _majority_ of the Biblical _prose_, the suffix conjugation is indeed past and the prefix conjugation is indeed future.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Also, when the participle is used in biblical Hebrew it can mean "is about to do...", right? It doesn't have to mean "is doing right now", right?


----------



## Ali Smith

Yes. It can mean either an action in progress or one that is about to occur. In either case, the tense must be gained from the context in which the participle occurs. Thus,

האיש נותן לחם לדלה

could mean

1. The man was giving bread to the poor woman.
2. The man is giving bread to the poor woman.
3. The man will be giving bread to the poor woman.

or

4. The man was about to give bread to the poor woman.
5. The man is about to give bread to the poor woman.
6. The man will be about to give bread to the poor woman.


----------



## Abaye

JAN SHAR said:


> Also, when the participle is used in biblical Hebrew it can mean "is about to do...", right? It doesn't have to mean "is doing right now", right?


It's a trait of many (or any?) languages, not specifically of biblical Hebrew.

Go to your boss and ask them about a letter they promised to write for you. They may say "ok, I'm writing", take a pen and paper, and write.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Thanks. I think in Modern Hebrew the participle can also be used as a noun rather than as a verb. So, שופט can mean a judge or judging.


----------



## JAN SHAR

John Cook says that the participle meant progressive aspect in pre-Bibilical Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew, but in Rabbinic Hebrew it meant the present tense. This is from his article The Hebrew Verb A Grammaticalization Approach.


----------



## Drink

This is not accurate. The meaning of the participle did not change very much between Biblical and Rabbinic. In both, it marks an imperfective aspect, and it is most commonly used in the present tense. He is probably referring to the fact that in Rabbinic Hebrew, when the participle is used in the past tense it is usually marked with a past tense of the verb to-be. But although this is _usually_ the case, it is not _always_ the case. For example, the participle form אומר is often used in Rabbinic Hebrew on its own to quote someone in the past tense.


----------



## Ali Smith

Actually, John A. Cook divides Hebrew verbs into three broad semantic categories, viz., perfect/perfective/past, progressive/imperfective, and deontic. He then lists the morphological forms corresponding to each category and describes the origin and semantic evolution of each form. There are two forms per category, namely _wayyiqtol_ and _qatal_ for the first, _yiqtol_ and the participle for the second, and the imperative and jussive for the third.

The origin of _wayyiqtol_ is pronoun + *_q(u)tul_ (inf.), and already in pre-Classical Hebrew its meaning was evolving from resultative to perfect aspect to perfective aspect. By the time of Classical Hebrew _wayyiqtol_ had evolved into a simple past tense, and was lost completely in Rabbinic Hebrew.

The origin of _qatal_, by contrast, was *_qatil_ + pronoun, and much like _wayyiqtol_ its meaning was evolving from resultative to perfect aspect in pre-Classical Hebrew, but it was only in Classical Hebrew that the perfect aspect changed into perfective aspect. Predictably enough, in Rabbinic Hebrew it became a simple past tense.

_yiqtol_ was, like _wayyiqtol_, originally pronoun + *_q(u)tul_ (inf.), but the locative _-u_ suffix was added to it. In pre-Classical Hebrew it had a progressive aspect, but this aspect expanded to encompass imperfective aspect in general in Classical Hebrew, and by the time of Rabbinic Hebrew it had evolved into a future tense.

The participle, which was *_qātil_ in Proto-Hebrew, expressed progressive aspect in both pre-Classical Hebrew and Classical Hebrew, and this meaning expanded to become a present tense in Rabbinic Hebrew.

The imperative was *_q(u)tul_ in Proto-Hebrew and remained semantically stable through all three periods.

The jussive, by contrast, was originally pronoun + *_q(u)tul_, and it, too, remained semantically stable in the first two periods. However, by the time of Rabbinic Hebrew it was no longer differentiated from _yiqtol_.


----------



## Drink

I believe John A. Cook is mistaken, and especially with regard to Rabbinic Hebrew.

Let's not get into all the other forms right now, but at least for the participle, Cook's view of the Rabbinic Hebrew participle seems to contradict the exact example I just gave in my previous comment.


----------

