[120a] 1. When a relative verb (incomplete in itself) receives its necessary complement in the form of a verbal idea, the latter is, as a rule, subordinated in the infinitive construct (with or without לְ), less frequently in the infinitive absolute, in a few instances in the form of a participle (or verbal adjective), or finally in the imperfect without the copula. In these combinations the principal idea is very frequently represented by the subordinate member of the sentence, whilst the governing verb rather contains a mere definition of the manner of the action; cf. d and g below, and §114n, note 2.
[120b] (a) On the subordination of an infinitive construct as an accusative of the object, and as the complement of relative verbal ideas, see above, §114c, and the numerous examples given in §114m; on the infinitive absolute as object, see §113d.—The complement in the form of a participle (as in Greek, and also frequently in Syriac) occurs in Is 331 כַּֽהֲתִֽמְךָ שׁוֹדֵד (cf. for the form, §67v) when thou hast ceased as a spoiler, i.e. to spoil; Jer 2230 לֹא יִצְלַח... ישֵׁב he shall never prosper, sitting, i.e. so as to sit, &c.; Jon 16 what meanest thou, sleeping? i.e. that thou sleepest; by a verbal adjective, 1 S 32 now his eyes הֵחֵ֫לּוּ כֵהוֹת had begun being dim, i.e. to wax dim (unless we read כְּהוֹת=לִכְהוֹת, cf. §114m); by a substantive, Gn 920 and Noah began to be an husbandman (omitting the article before אֲדֶמָה).
[120c] (b) Examples of the subordination of the complementary verbal idea in the imperfect (in English usually rendered by to, in order to or that) are—(1) with both verbs in the same person: after the perfect, Is 4221 יְהֹוָה חָפֵץ... יגְדִּיל it pleased the Lord... to magnify, &c.; Jb 3028, 3222 לֹא יָדַ֫עְתִּי אֲכַנֶּה I know not to give flattering titles; after a perfect consecutive, 1 S 2019 (where for תֵּרֵד we should read with the LXX תִּפָּקֵד); after an imperfect, ψ 8811, 10214, Jb 193, 2414; after an imperf. consec., Jb 168; after a participle, Is 511a.—(2) with a difference in the persons: after a perfect, Lv 96 this is the thing אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהֹוָה תַּֽעֲשׂוּ which the Lord commanded (that) ye should do; a negative imperfect follows צִוָּה in La 110; after the imperfect, Is 471 (5) כִּי לֹא תוֹסִ֫יפִי עוֹד יִקְרְאוּ־לָךְ for thou shalt no more continue (that) they call thee, i.e. thou shalt no longer be called, &c.; Ho 16 לֹא אוֹסִיף עוֹד אֲרַחֵם I will no longer continue (and) have mercy, i.e. I will no more have mercy; Is 521, Pr 2335.—Nu 226 peradventure I shall prevail (that) we may smite thom, and (that) I may drive them out of the land (אוּכַל may, however, be a scribal error for נוּכַל, due to the preceding אוּלַי, and in that case the example would belong to No. 1); after a participle,
- In יֹדֵעַ מְנַגֵּן 1 S 1616, which appears to be a case of this kind, two different readings are combined, יֹדֵעַ לְנַגֵּן and the simple מְנַגֵּן.
- This kind of subordination is frequent in Arabic and in Syriac (cf. e.g. the Peshiṭtâ, Luke 18:13); as a rule, however, a conjunction (corresponding to our that) is inserted. Cf. moreover, the Latin quid vis faciam? Terence; volo hoc oratori contingat, Cicero, Brut. 84; and our I would it were; I thought he would go.