Knudtzon (see above, Rem. on § 106 a), comparing the Ass.-Bab. usage, would prefer the term present rather than imperfect, on the ground that the tense expresses what is either actually or mentally present. In any case, the essential difference between the perfect and imperfect consists, he argues, in this, that the perfect simply indicates what is actually complete, while the imperfect places the action, &c., in a more direct relation to the judgement or feeling of the speaker.
More precisely the imperfect serves—
1. In the sphere of past time:
[b] (a) To express actions, &c., which continued throughout a longer or shorter period,[1] e.g. Gn 2 a mist went up continually (יַֽעֲלֶה), 2:25, 37:7, 48:10, Ex 1, 8, 13, 15, 12, 14, 15, Nu 9 f. 20 f., 23 7, Ju 2, 5, 1 S 3, 13 f., 2 S 2, 23, 1 K 3, 21, Is 1, 6 (יִמָּלֵא), 17:10 f., 51:2 x, Jer 13, 36, ψ 18, 14, 17 ff.38 ff., 24:2, 32:4, 5 (אוֹדִֽיעֲךָ), 47:5, 68:10, 12, 104:6 ff., 106:19, 107:18, 29, 139:13, Jb 3, 4, 15 f., 10:10 f., 15:7 f.—very frequently alternating with a perfect (especially with a frequentative perfect; cf. Nu 9–23 and § 112 e), or when the narration is continued by means of an imperfect consecutive.[2]
[c] Rem. 1. The imperfect is frequently used in this way after the particles אָז then, טֶ֫רֶם not yet, בְּטֶ֫רֶם before, עַד־ until, e.g. Ex 15 אָז יָשִֽׁיר־משֶׁה then sang Moses, &c.; Nu 21, Dt 4, Jos 10, 1 K 3, 8, ψ 126, Jb 38. (The perfect is used after אָז when stress is to be laid on the fact that the action has really taken place, and not upon its gradual accomplishment or duration in the past, e.g. Gn 4 אָז הוּחַל then began, &c.; Gn 49, Ex 15, Jos 22, Ju 5, ψ 89.)[3] After טֶ֫רֶם e.g. Gn 19 טֶ֫רֶם יִשְׁכָּ֫בוּ before they lay down; Gn 2, 24, 1 S 3, 7, always in the sense of our pluperfect. (In Gn 24 instead of the perf. כִּלָּה, the imperf. should be read, as in verse 45; so also in 1 S 3 [יִגָּלֶה] an imperf. is co-ordinated with ידע). After בְּטֶ֫רֶם (sometimes also simply טֶ֫רֶם Ex 12, Jos 3), e.g. Jer 1 בְּטֶ֫רֶם תֵּצֵא before thou camest forth; Gn 27, 37, 41, Ru 3 (perhaps also in ψ 90 an imperf. was intended instead of יֻלָּ֫דוּ; cf. Wellhausen on 2 S 3; but note also Pr 8, in a similar context, before the mountains were settled, הָטְכָּ֑עוּ, the predicate being separated from בְּטֶ֫רֶם, by הָרִים, as in ψ 90). After עַד־ Jos 10, ψ 73 (until I went), 2 Ch 29; on the other
- ↑ Cf. the Mêšaʿ inscription, l. 5, כי יאנף כמש בארצה for Chemosh was angry with his land. As Driver, Tenses, 3rd ed., § 27, 1 a, remarks, this vivid realization of the accomplishment of the action is especially frequent in poetic and prophetic style.
- ↑ According to the Masora such imperfects occur in Is 1013 bis (where, however, וְאָסִיר might also mean I am wont to remove, &c.), Is 48, 57, ψ 18a, also (according to § 49 c) in 2 S 1 and Ez 16. In some other cases וְ is no doubt a dogmatic emendation for וָ (imperf. consec.) in order to represent historical statements as promises; cf. Is 42, 43 [contrasted with 42], 51, 63 and the note on § 53 p.
- ↑ After אָז then (to announce future events) the imperf. is naturally used in the sense of a future, Gn 24, Ex 12, Mi 3, Zp 3, ψ 51.
