מִי גַם־בָּכֶם וְיִסְגּׄר דְּלָתַ֫יִם would that one were among you and would shut the doors, i.e. O that one would shut the doors!
[b] Rem. Sometimes the original sense of מִֽי־יִתֵּן is still plainly discernible, e.g. Ju 929 מִֽי־יִתֵּן אֶת־הָעָם הַוֶּה בְיָדִי who gives this people into my hand? equivalent to, O that this people were given into my hand! cf. ψ 557. In these examples, however, מִֽי־יִתֵּן is still equivalent to O had I! and in numerous other instances the idea of giving has entirely disappeared, מִֽי־יִתֵּן having become stereotyped as a more desiderative particle (utinam). Its construction is either—
(a) With the accusative (in accordance with its original meaning) of a substantive, Dt 2867 would that it were even!... morning! Ju 929, ψ 147 (53:7), 55:7; with an accusative and a following infinitive, Jb 115; with two accusatives, Nu 1129, Jer 823; with the accusative of an infinitive, Ex 163, 2 S 191 מִֽי־יִתֵּן מוּתִי אֲנִי תַחְתֶּ֫יךָ would that I had died for thee (for אֲנִי cf. § 135 f); of a participle, Jb 3135; of a personal pronoun (as a suffix), Jb 292 (with a following ךְּ; but מִֽי־יִתְּנֵ֫נִי Is 274 and Jer 91 with a following accusative is not simply equivalent to מִֽי־יִתֵּן לִי, but is properly who endows me with, &c.; cf. § 117 ff).—With a still greater weakening of the original meaning מִֽי־יִתֵּן is used with an adjective in Jb 144 could a clean thing but come out of an unclean! i.e. how can a clean thing come, &c.; similarly in Jb 3131 who can find one that hath not been satisfied!
[c] (b) With a following perfect, Jb 233 (cf. § 120 e); with a perfect consecutive, Dt 526 O that they had such an heart!
[d] (c) With a following imperfect, Jb 68, 135, 1413; in Jb 1923 the imperfect is twice added with Wāw (cf. a above, on Mal. 110).
On the cohortative in the apodosis to such desiderative clauses, cf. § 108 f.
[e] 2. The wish may also be expressed by the particles אִם (ψ 819, 957, 13919, Pr 2411, 1 Ch 410; always with a following imperfect) and לוּ (for which in ψ 1195 we have אַחְלַי, 2 K 53 אַֽחֲלֵי, from אָח ah! and לַי=לוּ; both with a following imperfect)si, o si! utinam.[1] לוּ is followed by the imperfect, Gn 1718, Jb 62; by the jussive, Gn 3034 (rather concessive, equivalent to let it be so); by the perfect, as the expression of a wish that something might have happened in past time (cf. § 106 p), Nu 142 לוּ מַ֫תְנוּ would that we had died; 20:3 and Jos 77 (both times וְלוּ); on the other hand, Is 4818 and 63:19 (both times לוּא) to express a wish that something expected in the future may already have happened.—On לוּ with the imperative (by an anacoluthon) Gn 2313 cf. § 110 e. On the perfect after בִּי אִם Gn 4014, 2 K 520, cf. § 106 n, note 2.
