31 Infinitive construct does not express time by itself. The time must be
determined from context. One way that the time of the clause is expressed is with forms of
+ consecutive:
indicating past time, and future time. Ross 2001, 163
In contrast to some previous grammars, Ross makes no mention in these comments about
’s connection to the preceding or following narrative. Of primary concern to Ross, it appears, is the function as temporal indicator. This actually goes hand
in hand with the recommendation to leave these forms of untranslated. If
and are doing nothing more than indicating past and future time respectively, why
should they be translated? It is interesting to notice that in the current analytical milieu which tends to favor analysis of the Hebrew verbal system in terms of aspectual
distinctions rather than tense, that the mere and
forms of are so
unambiguously assigned the function of indicating tense. It is true that infinitive constructs do not indicate tense on their own, but is indicating tense really the function
that and
perform when they occur with infinitive constructs? Further discussion of this question is found in Chapter 10.
3.3.9 Pratico and Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 2001
Pratico and Van Pelt’s Basics of Biblical Hebrew is the last grammar to be considered in this section on descriptive approaches. The authors discuss
as follows: Instead of a Perfect verbal form, the past tense narrative sequence may
also begin with the temporal modifier followed by Imperfect verbs
with Waw Conversive. The form is the Qal Imperfect 3ms form of
to be with Waw Conversive. It is called a “temporal modifier” because it marks the beginning of a past tense narrative sequence. This
temporal modifier frequently stands at the beginning of the sequence. Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 196
32 The specific function attributed to
is again that of temporal modifier, indicating past tense. It is evident in this comment that Pratico and Van Pelt are also
concerned with what follows as seen in their remarks regarding narrative sequence.
The frequent use of with temporal clauses is also discussed in this grammar:
The form may also appear at the beginning of a temporal clause
within the sequence. When beginning a temporal clause, is frequently
followed by a preposition or conjunction like or and the whole
construction may be translated as “and when.” Words that designate time are commonly a part of this type of construction. Pratico and Van Pelt
2001, 196
As temporal modifiers, in Pratico and Van Pelt’s view, and
are best left untranslated, as seen in the following comment:
Because of their frequency in certain contexts, the temporal modifiers and
are best not translated in most occurrences, though you can still translate the conjunction as “and.” Some will suggest, however, that
be translated “and it came to pass that” and that be translated “and it
will be that.” Given the frequency with which these temporal modifiers will sometimes appear in a narrative sequence, however, it is often best to
avoid these translations in the interest of good English style. Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 202
In the interest of good English style, few would argue for always retaining the “and it came to pass that” and the “and it will be that” renderings mentioned here.
1
However, should good English style be the determining factor in translation decisions like this? According to Pratico and Van Pelt,
and are best not translated
because of their “frequency in certain contexts.” Should the frequency of an item like this play a decisive role in translation practice? The intention here is not to argue for the “and
1
The
NASB
is a notable exception to this statement.
33 it came to pass that” translation value, but rather to critically evaluate the implications
and ramifications of such a recommendation. As stated previously, this will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.
3.3.10 Analytical Summary of the Descriptive Approach
