# I am who I am



## yeled

A friend asked me to help translate a phrase for a tattoo.
The phrase is "I am who I am."
Translating this in a word for word fashion makes no sense to me.
I was thinking of something like:
נאני ייחודית
or something like that.
Any other ideas?

THANKS


----------



## yuval9

I am who I am = אני מי שאני


----------



## Egmont

I suspect this is meant to be God's answer to Moses, when Moses asked for His name in Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew original is אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. It is often translated into English as "I am who I am."


----------



## yeled

Hi, thanks for the replies.
אני מי שאני
Sounds strange to my ears -- any other thoughts would be most welcome
THANKS!!


----------



## ks20495

> אני מי שאני
> Sounds strange to my ears -- any other thoughts would be most welcome


Sorry it sounds strange...But, there really isn't another way to say it (except, perhaps, אני הוא מי שאני, which sounds pretty unnatural).


----------



## MuttQuad

yeled said:


> Hi, thanks for the replies.
> אני מי שאני
> Sounds strange to my ears -- any other thoughts would be most welcome
> THANKS!!



It is a literal translation. Egmont gave you the classic phrase which is rendered in English as "I am what I am." I don't personally approve much of tattoos, but for that purpose, I think the classic is what is wanted; but eliminate the vowel dots.


----------



## JamesM

Egmont said:


> I suspect this is meant to be God's answer to Moses, when Moses asked for His name in Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew original is אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. It is often translated into English as "I am who I am."


 
I'm just curious... is there a more literal translation of this phrase?  What would it be?


----------



## ks20495

> I'm just curious... is there a more literal translation of this phrase? What would it be?



It _is_ a literal translation--into Biblical Hebrew.

The literal translation into colloquial Modern Hebrew is אני מי שאני.


----------



## JamesM

Thanks for the answer.  I apologize for not being more clear.  I don't speak, read or write Hebrew.  I was wondering if there were a more literal translation into English rather than "I am who/that I am".  I've noticed that people often seem to say "which is usually translated as 'I am who I am'", which made me wonder if that's only a rough approximation of the Hebrew.


----------



## Egmont

The Hebrew has been translated a number of ways over the centuries. One set of translations has it as "I am what I am," "I am who I am," or "I am that I am." Another set translates the verb "to be" in the future tense, so it becomes "I will be what [or who, or that] I will be." That's what the verb form אֶהְיֶה means in modern Hebrew, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it meant future tense several thousand years ago. There are many instances of verb forms, especially as regards tense, meaning something different in the Bible than those same forms mean today.

Which is correct? You'd have to ask the author. Whatever your take on who wrote the Book of Exodus, it's fairly clear that asking him, or Him, or her, or Her, or them, or Them, or ... (take your pick) isn't practical.


----------



## MuttQuad

JamesM said:


> Thanks for the answer. I apologize for not being more clear. I don't speak, read or write Hebrew. I was wondering if there were a more literal translation into English rather than "I am who/that I am". I've noticed that people often seem to say "which is usually translated as 'I am who I am'", which made me wonder if that's only a rough approximation of the Hebrew.


 
Tenses in biblical Hebrew differ from those of modern Hebrew. There is no present tense of the verb "to be" in either. In modern Hebrew the present tense is often "understood." The translation you were given actually says "I who is I" but is understood to mean "I am who I am." For example, if you wanted to say "I am a man," you would have to say "I man." 

In biblical Hebrew, the future tense form is often substituted, so the actual translation of the biblical phrase is "I will be what I will be," but it's generally understood or translated as a present tense statement.

I realize this must be very confusing to someone not familiar with the language, but every language has its peculiarities; and the absence of a present tense for "to be" and the tense-shifting that occurs in biblical Hebrew are among the peculiarities of that tongue.


----------



## JamesM

Thanks to both of you!  That makes it much clearer and is very interesting.  Since there is no present tense for "to be", is the translation actually "I who I"?


----------



## Egmont

JamesM said:


> Thanks to both of you!  That makes it much clearer and is very interesting.  Since there is no present tense for "to be", is the translation actually "I who I"?


No. The verb "to be" is definitely there. It's used in a form that conveys future tense today - so, if an Israeli said this now, it could only mean "I will be what I will be." The translation problem is that this form of the verb may not have been meant to convey future tense in this ancient usage.


----------



## ks20495

> Since there is no present tense for "to be", is the translation actually "I who I"?



I'm going to try to give a comprehensive answer to this question...It may be more than you bargained for....

As has been said, verbs functioned differently in Biblical Hebrew. What we now use as the future tense was then used for both present and future actions (any incomplete action). This type of verb is called the "imperfect aspect". At a certain point, the "imperfect aspect" came to signify only future tense; and another form came to signify the present tense. 

So, in Biblical Hebrew, there's no such thing as a "present tense" in the way we conceive of it today. The verb in the "imperfect aspect" expresses the present tense in most cases. HOWEVER, when expressing a nominal sentence (like "The king is the ruler", "I am a boy", or "I am that I am"), the "'to be' verb" is dropped completely. But, in the case of "I am that I am", the author probably thought dropping the verb made the sentence too unclear. 

Therefore, the author added in the verb in "imperfect aspect". (Modern Hebrew sometimes encounters the same problem. But, today, we don't insert the "imperfect aspect" form, because that is our future tense. Instead we insert the pronouns "he/she/they".) 

To modern eyes, it looks like "I will be that I will be." But, to ancient eyes, it would have been understood as "I am that I am." I hope this is clear...This is some complex linguistics .


----------



## JamesM

Very clear.  Thanks very much!


----------

