User:Ubufox/15
where then is...? However, אֵפוֹא may also be placed at the end of the entire question (Ex 3316, Is 221; also Ho 1310, since either אֱהִי is a dialectical form of אַיֵּה, or אַיֵּה should be read instead of it) or at the beginning of the question proper, after a strongly emphasized word, as in Gn 2737.[1]
m (e) Sometimes one interrogative governs two co-ordinate clauses, the first of which should rather be subordinated to the second, so that the interrogative word strictly speaking affects only the second; thus Is 54 after מַדּוּעַ wherefore looked I... and it brought forth? i.e. wherefore brought it forth, while I looked, &c.; Is 502; after הֲ Nu 326, Jer 84, also Nu 1622 (read הַאִישׁ); after הֲלֹא Jos 2220; after לָ֫מָּה Is 583, 2 Ch 324; after אֶל־מִי Is 4025.[2] But הֲ Jb 42 and הֲלֹא 4:21 are separated from the verb to which they belong by the insertion of a conditional clause.
n 3. The affirmative answer is generally expressed, as in Latin, by repeating the emphatic word in the question (or with the second person changed to the first, Gn 2458, 2724, 295, Ju 1311), Gn 296, 3732 f., 1 S 2311, 2617, 1 K 2110, Jer 3717. (On וָיֵשׁ if it be so in the corrected text of 2 K 1015, see § 159 dd.) As a negative answer the simple לֹא is sometimes sufficient, as in Gn 192, 1 K 322, &c.; cf. § 152 c; and in Ju 420 the simple אָֽיִן equivalent to no or no one.
a A wish may be expressed not only by the simple imperfect (§ 107 n), cohortative (§ 108, especially with נָא § 108 c), jussive (§ 109; with נָא § 109 b), imperative (§ 110 a), perfect consecutive (§ 112 aa) or by a simple noun-clause (§ 116 r, note, and § 141 g) but also in the following ways:—
1. By exclamations in the form of interrogative clauses:[3] especially sentences with מִי followed by the imperfect as being the mood of that which is still unfulfilled but possible, and hence also of that which is desired, e.g. 2 S 154 מִֽי־יְשִׂמֵ֫נִי שֹׁפֵט who maketh me judge? i.e. O that I were made judge! 1 S 2010, 2 S 2315. On the other hand, מִי with the perfect (Gn 217, Nu 2310, 1 S 269, Is 531, &c.) or participle (ψ 598, Pr 2422, &c.), rather expresses a rhetorical question, i.e. a denial, cf. § 150 d. Especially frequent is the use of מִֽי־יִתֵּן (prop. who gives?) to introduce all kinds of desiderative clauses (see under b).—In Mal 110 the desiderative clause proper is co-ordinated with an interrogative clause, 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.[4] 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.
a 1. Besides the use of rhetorical questions (§§ 150 d, 151a), independent sentences are made negative by the adverbs לֹא (Jb 621, where instead of the Keth. לוֹ we must evidently read לֹא; perhaps preserved as a substantive) = the Greek οὐ, not, אַל־ = μή (Jb 2425 as a substantive), אֵין (it is) not; טֶ֫רֶם not yet, אֶ֫פֶס not, אַפְסִי (cf. § 90 m) not. The forms בַּל, בְּלִי, בִּלְתִּי not belong almost entirely to poetry.—With regard to לֹא and אֵין the main distinction is that verbal-clauses (rarely noun-clauses, see e) are regularly negatived by לֹא (besides its use as negativing single words[5]), while אֵין is used exclusively with noun-clauses (see the examples below).
b The conjunctions פֶּן־ and לְבִלְתִּי that not, serve to negative dependent clauses. The particular uses of these particles are as follows:—
(a) לֹא (less frequently לוֹא), like οὐ, οὐκ, is used regularly for the objective, unconditional negation, and hence is usually connected with the perfect or imperfect (as indicative); on לֹא with the imperfect to express an unconditional prohibition, see § 107 o; on its use with the jussive, see § 109 d.—On לֹא for הֲלֹא nonne, in interrogative sentences, cf. § 150 a. In connexion with כֹּל, כָּל־ (= any), לֹא is used to express an absolute negation, nullus, none whatever (cf. the French ne... personne, ne... rien), usually in the order לֹא... כֹּל, e.g. Gn 31 לֹא תֹֽאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden; 9:11, Ex 1015, 2010, Lv 723, Dt 89, Jer 137, 3217 (לֹא... כָּל־דָּבָר nothing at all; cf. the same statement in the form of a rhetorical question, Jer 3227); Pr 1221, 3030 לֹא... מִפְּנֵי־כֹל and turneth not away for any; 2 Ch 3215; but cf. also the inverted order, Ex 1216 בָּל־מְלָאכָה לֹא־יֵֽעָשֶׂה no manner of work shall be done; 12:43, 15:26, 22:21, Lv 1617, Jb 3313, Dn 1137. The meaning is different when בֹּל by being determinate is used in the sense of whole, e.g. Nu 2313 כֻּלּוֹ לֹא תִרְאֶה thou shalt not see them all, but only a part.
Analogous to לֹא... כֹּל is the use of אִישׁ... לֹא Gn 236, &c., in verbal-clauses in the sense of no one at all, not a single one. On אֵין־כֹּל nothing at all, see under p.
c Rem. 1. The examples in which לֹא is used absolutely as a negative answer, equivalent to certainly not! no! must be regarded as extremely short verbal-clauses, e.g. Gn 192 (לֹא according to the context for לֹא נָסוּר &c.); 23:11, 42:10, Hag 212, Jb 236, sometimes with a following כִּי but, Gn 192 (see above); Jos 514, 1 K 322.
d 2. The negation of noun-clauses by לֹא (as opposed to the regular negationd by אֵין) always includes a certain emphasis, since the force of the negation falls rather upon a particular word (cf. e.g. Ez 3632), than upon the whole clause. In 2 S 334 יָדֶ֫יךָ לֹֽא־אֲסוּרוֹת thy hands were not bound, a participle is thus specially negatived by לֹא; cf. ψ 749, where, however, לֹא is separated from the participle by אִתָּ֫נוּ, and Jb 123. As a rule, noun-clauses with a pronominal subject are thus negatived by לֹא, Gn 2012, Nu 3523 (Dt 442, 194); 1 S 1529, 2 S 212, Jer 422, ψ 227, Jb 2814, parallel with אֵין; generally with לֹא before a substantival predicate, e.g. Ex 410 לֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹ֫כִי I am not a man of words; Am 518.—Noun-clauses with a substantival subject, Gn 297, Nu 2319, Is 222, 4419, Hag 12, ψ 223, Jb 932, 1817, 219, 2216, 3626 (with וְ of the apodosis); 41:2; in Jb 933 even לֹא יֵשׁ non est is used instead of אֵין.—In Pr 185 לֹא is used before an adjectival predicate; in 1 S 2026 (where a preceding noun-clause is negatived by בִּלְתִּי) read לֹא טֹהָר with the LXX, for לֹא טָהוֹר. On לֹא for אֵין in circumstantial clauses to express attributive ideas, see u below.
e 3. As a rule לֹא stands immediately before the verb, but sometimes is separated from it (frequently to bring into special prominence another word which follows it); thus Jb 227, Ec 1010 before the object and verb; Nu 1629 before the subject and verb; Dt 89, 2 S 334, ψ 4918, 10310, Jb 1316, 3423 before a complementary adjunct. In Dt 325 לֹא according to the accentuation even stands at the end of the clause (they offend him not); but undoubtedly לֹא בָנָיו are to be taken together.—On the position of לֹא with the infinitive absolute, see § 113 v.
f (b) אַל־ is used like μή and ne to express a subjective and conditional negation, and hence especially in connexion with the jussive (§ 109 c and e) to introduce prohibitions, warnings, negative desires, and requests. On אַל־ with the imperfect, see § 107 p; with the cohortative, see § 108 c; on 2 K 627, see § 109 h.
g Rem. 1. אַל־ (like לֹא, see note on a above) maybe used to form a compound word, as in Pr 1228 אַל־מָוֶת not-death (immortality); though all the early versions read אֶל־מָוֶת. The instances in which אַל appears to stand absolutely, equivalent to no, certainly not (like μή for μὴ γένηται), e.g. Ru 113 אַל בְּנׄתַי nay, my daughters, and Gn 1918, 3310 (אַל־נָא), are also due (see under c) to extreme shortening of a full clause (in 2 S 1325 such a clause is repeated immediately afterwards); thus in 2 S 121, Is 622, ψ 832 יְהִי is evidently to be supplied, and in Jo 213, Am 514, Pr 810 the corresponding jussive from the preceding imperatives, in Pr 1712 from the preceding infinitive absolute.
h 2. אַל־, like לֹא, regularly stands immediately before the verb, but in Is 648, Jer 1024, 1515, ψ 62, 382 before another strongly emphasized member of the sentence.[6]
i (c) אֵין construct state (unless it be sometimes merely a contracted connective form, cf. שְׁנֵים for שְׁנַ֫יִם § 97 d) of אַ֫יִן non-existence (as also the absolute state, see below) is the negative of יֵשׁ existence; cf. e.g. Gn 3129 with Neh 55. As יֵשׁ (he, she, it is, was, &c.) includes the idea of being in all tenses, so אַ֫יִן, אֵין includes the idea of not being in all tenses. Hence—
k (1) The absolute state אַ֫יִן, with an evident transition to the meaning of a verbal predicate, there does not exist, always follows the word negatived, e.g. Is 373 (2 K 193) וְכֹחַ אַ֫יִן לְלֵדָה and strength does not exist to bring forth; Gn 25 אַ֫יִן was not present; Ex 177 אִם־אָֽיִן or is he not? after הֲיֵשׁ is he...? (cf. Nu 1320); Lv 2637, Nu 205, Ju 420 (אָֽיִן no). In 1 S 94 and 10:14 אַ֫יִן is used in reference to a plural; 1 K 1810, Is 4117, 4521, 5911, Mi 72, Pr 134, 2514, Jb 39 וָאַ֫יִן and let there be none, let none come! Ec 319.—Cf. finally אִם־אַ֫יִן if it be not so, Gn 301, Ex 3232, Ju 915, 2 K 210.—Quite anomalous is אַ֫יִן Jb 3515 before a perfect as an emphatic negation; the text, however, can hardly be correct.
l (2) The construct state אֵין stands in its natural position immediately before the substantive whose non-existence it predicates, or before the subject of the sentence which is to be negatived. To the former class belong also the very numerous instances in which אֵין is joined to a participle, e.g. 1 S 2612 וְאֵין רֹאֶה וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ וְאֵין מֵקִיץ and there was not one seeing, &c., i.e. and no man saw it, nor knew it, neither did any awake; so especially וְאֵין with a participle in subordinate circumstantial or descriptive clauses, such as Is 529 וְיַפְלִיט וְאֵין מַצִּיל and he shall carry it away, while there is none delivering, i.e. without any one’s delivering it; ψ 73, &c.; Lv 266 &c., וְאֵין מַֽחֲרִיד without any one’s making you afraid; cf. § 141 e. אֵין is used as the negation of an entire noun-clause, e.g. in Gn 3923, Nu 1442 אֵין יְהוַֹה בִּקִרְבְּכֶם the Lord is not among you; Gn 3729 אֵֽין־יוֹסֵף בַּבּוֹר Joseph was not in the pit.
m (3) When the subject which is to be negatived is a personal pronoun, it is joined as a suffix to אֵין, according to § 100 o, e.g. אֵינֶ֫נִּי I am not, was not, shall not be; אֵֽינְךָ, fem. אֵינֵךְ, thou art not, &c.; אֵינֶ֫נּוּ, fem. אֵינֶ֫נָּה he, she is not, &c.; also absolutely, Gn 4213 he is (5:24 he was) no longer alive; אֵינָם they are not, &c. When the accompanying predicate is a verb, it follows again (see l) in the form of a participle, since אֵין always introduces a noun-clause, e.g. Ex 510 אֵינֶ֫נִּי נׄתֵן I will not give; 8:17, Dt 132.
n Rem. In Neh 417 אֵין אֲנִי for אֵינֶ֫נִּי is due to its being co-ordinate with three other (substantival) subjects; these are again expressly summed up in אֵֽין־אֲנַחְנוּ.—In Hag 217 אֵין אֶתְכֶם the pronominal complement of אֵין appears to follow with the sign of the accusative;[7] but most probably we should read with the LXX שֻֽׁבְכֶם for אֶתְכֶם.
o (4) The fact that אֵין (like אַ֫יִן) always includes the idea of a verb (is not, was not, &c.) led finally to such a predominance of the verbal element, that the original character of אֵין as a construct state (but cf. i above) was forgotten, and accordingly it is very frequently separated from its noun (substantive or participle); especially so by the insertion of shorter words (of the nature of enclitics), e.g. בּוֹ Is 16, לוֹ Lv 1110, 12, לָהּ Gn 1130, גַּם ψ 143, שָׁם Ju 1810, Ex 1230; but cf. also ψ 510, 66, 322, and אֵין used absolutely in Ex 222, 1 K 89, Ru 44.—Hence, finally, even the transposition of אֵין and its noun became possible, e.g. Gn 408 and 41:15 וּפֹתֵר אֵין אֹתוֹ and an interpreter there is not of it; Gn 4713, Ju 146, 1 S 212, Is 130, Jer 3013, Hb 219, Pr 517 (וְאֵין=neve sint; cf. k above, on Jb 39); 30:27.—In Gn 1931, Ex 516 אֵין is placed between the subject and predicate.
p Rem. 1. Like לֹא... כֹּל or כֹּל... לֹא (see b above) so also אֵין כֹּל expresses an absolute negation, e.g. Ec 19 אֵין כָּל־חָדָשׁ there is no new thing, &c.; 2 S 123, Dn 14 (cf. also אֵין מְא֫וּמָה there is nothing, 1 K 1843, Ec 513); as also כָּל־... אֵין Hb 219; cf. מְא֫וּמָה אֵין Ju 146.
q 2. Undoubtedly akin to אֵין in origin is the negative syllable אִי occurring in the two compounds אִי כָבוֹד (as a proper name, 1 S 421; Baer אִֽי־כָבוֹד) and אִֽי־נָקִי not innocent, Jb 2230; but the proper name אִֽיתָמָר is doubtful, and the fem. אִיזֶ֫בֶל very doubtful. In Ethiopic this אִי is the most common form of negation, prefixed even to verbs.
r (d) טֶ֫רֶם not yet, when referring to past time is used, as a rule (§ 107 c), with the imperfect, Gn 25 כֹּל... טֶ֫רֶם none... yet; see b and p above; Gn 194, 2445, Jos 28, 1 S 33; with the imperfect in the sense of a present, Ex 107 הֲטֶ֫רֶם תֵּדַע knowest thou not yet? Ex 930; but cf. Gn 2415, and בְּטֶ֫רֶם with the perfect in ψ 902 (but see § 107 c), Pr 825.
s (e) אֶ֫פֶס (prop. a substantive, cessation) no longer, including the verbal idea of existing, cf. Dt 3236, Is 456, 14, 46:9; used absolutely, Am 610 in the question הַאֶ֫פֶס עוֹד אִישׁ is there none left? &c., 2 S 93; frequently also in the sense of non nisi; with ־ִי paragogic (§ 90 m) אַפְסִי Is 478, 10, Zp 215 אֲנִי וְאַפְסִי עוֹד I am, and there is none else.
t (f) בַּל,[8] in poetic and prophetic style, and with a certain emphasis,=לֹא, is used with the imperfect, e.g. Is 2614, 3320, 23 (immediately afterwards with a perfect); Ho 72, ψ 4913, Pr 1030 (but Is 1421 before the jussive,=אַל־); before an adjective, Pr 2423; before a preposition, ψ 162, Pr 237.
(g) בְּלִי with a perfect, Gn 3120, Is 146; with an imperfect, Jb 4118; to negative a participle, Ho 78, ψ 194; to negative an adjective, 2 S 121.
(h) בִּלְתִּי to negative an adjective, 1 S 2026; on בִּלְתִּי Ez 133, see x; on לְבִלְתִּי as the regular negative with the infinitive construct, see § 114 s; on לְבִלְתִּי as a conjunction, see x below.
On אִם as a negative particle in oaths (verily not), see § 149 c above.
u Rem. on לֹא, אֵין, בְּלִי. To the category of negative sentences belongs also the expression of negative attributes by means of לֹא, בְּלִי not (both so used almost exclusively in poetic language) or אֵין with a following substantive, mostly in the simplest form of circumstantial clause; e.g. 2 S 234 בּ֫קֶֹר לֹא עָבוֹת a morning when there are not clouds, i.e. a cloudless morning; cf. Jb 1224, 262 b, 38:26 (לֹא־אִישׁ where no man is, i.e. uninhabited); 1 Ch 230, 32 לֹא בָנִים childless; so also בְּלִי e.g. Jb 2410 and אֵין e.g. ψ 885 I am as a man אֵֽין־אֱיָל there is not help, i.e. like a helpless man; Is 96 אֵֽין־קֵץ endless; 47:1, Ho 711; אֵֽין־מִסְפָּר countless, Ct 68, &c., but usually (ψ 10425, &c.) like a proper circumstantial clause (cf. § 141 e) connected by Wāw, וְאֵֽין־מִסְפָּר.—Less frequently such periphrases take the form of relative clauses (cf. § 155 e), e.g. Jb 3013 לֹא עֹזֵר לָ֫מוֹ they for whom there is no helper, i.e. the helpless (but probably עֹזֵר is only an intrusion from 29:12, and we should read עֹצֵר without any one’s restraining them; in 29:12 translate the fatherless and him that had none to help him; in ψ 7212 וְאֵֽין־ע׳ is used in the same sense); Hb 114; with אֵין Is 459 thy work is that of a man who hath no hands; Zc 911 out of the waterless pit.[9]
v How far such compounds finally came to be regarded by the language simply as negative adjectives, may be seen partly from the fact that they (as also relative clauses analogous to the above) are frequently co-ordinated with real adjectives, Jo 16, ψ 7212, Jb 2912; cf. also Is 5910, where כְּאֵֽין־עֵינַ֫יִם is parallel with כַּֽעִוְרִים; partly from their being introduced by the sign of the dative לְ, e.g. Is 4029 (= and to the powerless); Jb 262 a.3, Neh 810.
w (i) פֶּן־ lest, that not, at the beginning of a clause expressing a fear or precaution, hence especially after such ideas as fearing, Gn 3212, &c. (cf. δείδω μή, vereor ne), taking heed, frequently after הִשָּׁ֫מֶר, הִשָּֽׁמְרוּ Gn 246, 3124, &c., taking care, 2 K 1023, &c. Not infrequently the idea on which פֶּן־ depends, is only virtually contained in the main clause, e.g. Gn 1919 I cannot escape to the mountain (because I am afraid), פֶּן־תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָֽרָעָה lest some evil overtake me; Gn 269, 3811; also in Gn 4434 from the rhetorical question how shall I... ? we must understand I cannot, governing פֶּן. This is especially the case after an appeal to do or not to do an action by which something may be prevented (in which case פֶּן־ is simply equivalent to the final ne); cf. e.g. Gn 114, 1915, Nu 2018 (where פֶּן־ lest is separated from the verb by a strongly emphasized substantive); Ju 1512 after swear unto me; Pr 2418.—In Gn 322 and now, lest he put forth his hand, &c., פֶּן־ is to be regarded as virtually dependent on a cohortative, which immediately afterwards (verse 23) is changed into an historic tense; cf. also Gn 267, 3131, 424 Ex 1317, 1 S 1319, 2711, ψ 3817, in every case after כִּי אָמַ֫רְתִּי, כִּי אָמַר, &c.=I thought, &c., I must beware lest, &c.
Rem. According to § 107 q, פֶּן־ is naturally followed by the imperfect; for the exceptions, 2 S 206, 2 K 216, see § 107 q, note 3; cf. moreover, 2 K 1023 רְאוּ פֶּן־יֶשׁ־פֹּה look lest there be here, &c.
x (k) לְבִלְתִּי that... not, with the imperfect, Ex 2020, 2 S 1414 (in Jer 2314 read the infinitive שׁוּב for שָׁ֫בוּ, in 27:8 יָבֹ֫אוּ for בֹּ֫אוּ). In Ez 133 בִּלְתִּי ירָאוּ is a relative clause governed by לְ= according to things which they have not seen.
y 2. Two negatives in the same sentence do not neutralize each other (as in nonnulli, non nemo), but make the negation the more emphatic (like οὐκ οὐδείς, οὐκ οὐδαμῶς, nulli—non, nemo non); e.g. Zp 22 (if the text is correct) בְּטֶ֫רֶם לֹֽא־יָבוֹא before there shall (not) come.[10] This especially applies to the compounds formed by the union of אֵין or בְּלִי with מִן־ without (§ 119 y), e.g. Is 59 (6:11) מֵאֵין יוֹשֵׁב (for which in Jer 215 מִבְּלִי ישֵׁב), prop. without no inhabitant, i.e. so that no inhabitant is left there. On the other hand, in Is 502 מֵאֵין מַ֫יִם the מִן־ is causative, because there is no water; as also in Ex 1411 הֲמִבְּלִי אֵין־ is it because there were no...? 2 K 13, 6, 16. In Ec 311 מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא except that (yet so that man cannot, &c.).
z 3. The negative sometimes extends its influence from the first to a second negative sentence parallel with it (which may or may not have Wāw) ; e.g. 1 S 23 talk not so much arrogancy; let (not) boasting come out of your mouth; Ex 2843, Lv 1912, 229, 15 f., Nu 1614, 2319, Dt 725, Is 234, 2827, 3818, 4714, Ez 1647, ψ 919, 135, 3519, 382, 4419, 756, Jb 2817 (so לָ֫מָּה לֹא why... not? in Jb 311 also affects the parallel clause).
The particles אַךְ, רַק only, serve to introduce restrictive clauses, and גַּם, אַף also, besides, even, intensive clauses. It is to be observed that the force of these particles does not necessarily affect the word which immediately follows (as is the case with אַךְ Gn 723, 3415; רַק Gn 65, Am 32; even הֲרַק אַךְ hath he indeed only? Nu 122; גַּם Gn 2734, Jb 711; אַף Dt 1517), but very frequently extends to the whole of the following sentence. Thus with אַךְ, e.g. Nu 149, 1 K 1713, Pr 1711, Jb 1315, 1422, 167, 236; רַק Gn 2011, 248, ψ 326, Pr 1310; גַּם Gn 2733, 3221 (גַּם הִנֵּה), 44:10; 1 S 227, 2820, Zc 911, Pr 1726, 2011; אַף Jb 143, 154.—In Mal 110 and Jb 210 גַּם is placed before two co-ordinate sentences, although, strictly speaking, it applies only to the second. Cf. the analogous examples in § 150 m.
a Wāw copulativum[11] (וְ) serves to connect two or more sentences, or single words (on its various vocalization, cf. § 104 d–g). Its use, however, is by no means restricted merely to joining sentences which are actually co-ordinate. Frequently the language employs merely the simple connexion by Wāw, even to introduce an antithesis (Gn 1721, 1919, Lv 212, Jb 625, and very frequently in circumstantial noun-clauses), or when one of the two clauses is not co-ordinated, but subordinated to the other. On the use of וְ to introduce circumstantial clauses, cf. especially § 141 e and § 142 d; introducing causal clauses, § 158 a; comparative clauses, § 161 a; final clauses, § 165 a; consecutive clauses, § 166 a. On wāw apodosis, cf. § 143 d, and the sections there cited; on the use of Wāw in numerical sayings, cf. § 134 s.
b Rem. Sometimes wāw copulativum joins a sentence apparently to what immediately precedes, but in reality to a sentence which is suppressed and which must, therefore, be supplied from the context. So especially וְ with imperatives to express inferences, e.g. 1 K 222 וְשַֽׁאֲלִי ask now rather; Ez 1832 for I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth..., וָהָשִׁיבוּ wherefore turn yourselves. Also at the beginning of a speech in loose connexion with an act or speech of another person, e.g. Ex 220, 2 S 1811, 243, 2 K 414, 41, 7:13, 2 Ch 259; cf. also Jos 77 (וְלוּ), ψ 210, 44, Is 87. Sometimes the suppression of the protasis is due to passionate excitement or haste, which does not allow time for full expression; this is especially illustrated by Nu 1214, 203 (וְלוּ), 1 S 1012, 1514, 2214, 2816, 2 S 1812, 243, 1 K 222 (וָלָ֫מָּה), 2 K 110, 719 (cf. verse 2); Is 314, Zc 210, ψ 26 (at the same time a circumstantial clause whereas I=and yet I have, &c.); cf. also a new clause beginning with the formula of wishing וּמִי Nu 1129, Ju 929; on the disconnected use of וָלֹא and וָיֵשׁ cf. § 159 dd.
a 1. By § 138 a, e, relative clauses are divided into two classes: those which are used for the nearer definition of a noun (substantive or pronoun), and those which are not dependent on a noun. The former may be called incomplete, the latter complete relative clauses.
b Complete relative clauses, as a rule (see the exceptions under n), are introduced by the originally demonstrative pronoun אֲשֶׁר; see further in § 138 e. Similarly, incomplete relative clauses may also be introduced by אֲשֶׁר, or by some other demonstrative pronoun; see further in § 138 a and g–k. Very frequently, however, especially in poetic style, the attributive relation is expressed by simple co-ordination.[13]
c The governing substantive or pronoun is frequently (in certain cases always) resumed by a pronominal suffix or an adverb. The resumption may, however, be omitted, just as in relative clauses introduced by אֲשֶׁר, &c.; see § 138 f.
d In Arabic a distinction is made between relative clauses used for the nearer definition of a determinate substantive (ṣila), and those which are attached to an indeterminate substantive (ṣifa). The former must be introduced by the demonstrative pronoun allaḏî, the latter are always simply co-ordinated. The same distinction was no doubt originally observed in Hebrew, since simply co-ordinated relative clauses are most commonly found after indeterminate substantives (see the examples below), and in cases like Dt 2849 (גּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לֹֽא־תִשְׁמַע לְשֹׁנוֹ a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; cf. Is 6613, and especially 1 S 311), the addition of אֲשֶׁר is explained from the special stress laid on the indeterminate substantive,[14] a nation of such a kind, thou understandest not their tongue. On the other hand, in poetic style at least, אֲשֶׁר is somewhat frequently omitted even after a determinate noun, but only rarely in prose (except by the Chronicler; cf. 1 Ch 922, 1223, 291 (read prob. אֲשֶׁר for אֶחַד), 2 Ch 1511; after כָּל־ 1 Ch 293, 2 Ch 1823, 3017, 3119, Ezr 15, but also Gn 394; for further instances, see Driver, Introd.8, p. 537, no. 30); so Ex 1820, Ju 81, 2015, 1 K 1312 (=which way), so 2 K 38, 2 Ch 1823; Neh 1323; after a pronominal subject, 1 S 69. In Jer 5212 for עָמַד read עֹמֵד with the LXX.
e 2. If the nearer definition of a substantive or pronoun is effected by simple co-ordination of the relative clause, it may take the form—
(a) Of a noun-clause, e.g. 2 S 2021 a man of the hill country of Ephraim שֶׁ֫בַע שְׁמוֹ whose name was Sheba; Zc 612, Jb 11, 315 with princes זָהָב לָהֶם that had gold; ψ 114, Pr 2211; when referring to a noun-suffix, e.g. ψ 4914 זֶה דַרְכָּם כֵּ֫סֶל לָ֫סוֹ this is the way of them who have (self-)confidence.—On periphrases of this kind to express negative attributes, as in Jb 3826 עַל־אֶ֫רֶץ לֹא־אִישׁ on a land where no man is, see § 152 u, and cf. for this very short form of the relative clause, Gn 1513 בְּאֶ֫רֶץ לֹא לָהֶם in a land that belongs not to them; Dt 3217 (לַשֵּׁדִים לֹא אֱלֹהַּ); Hb 16, Pr 2617 (לֹא־לוֹ).
f (b) Of a verbal clause.
Here we must distinguish the cases in which the retrospective pronoun—
(1) Is the subject of the relative clause, and is contained in the verb; so after a determinate substantive, ψ 349 happy is the man יֶֽחֱסֶה־בּוֹ that trusteth in him; Jb 33 b הַלַּ֫יְלָה אָמַ֫ר the night which said; after כָּל־ ψ 7118; referring to a vocative, which is determinate in itself even without the article, Is 541, or to a noun-suffix (see under e), ψ 164; after an indeterminate substantive, e.g. Jb 3112 it is a fire (that) devoureth unto Abaddon; Dt 3217 b, 1 S 69, Is 5513, 562, ψ 6831, 786, Pr 3017, La 110, 2 Ch 289; referring to the suffix in הִנְנִי Is 2816, prop. behold me, who have laid, &c., but perhaps the participle יׄסֵד is to be read; 29:14, 38:5 (but probably again the participle יוֹסֵף should be read instead of the imperfect); Ez 257. The relative clause is used in this way especially to supply the place of an adjective, e.g. Gn 4927 זְאֵב יִטְרָ֑ף a wolf that ravineth, i.e. a ravining wolf; Is 5112; to express a negative quality, e.g. Is 4020, Ho 414 עָם לֹֽא־יָבִין an undiscerning people.
g Rem. Very frequently such relative sentences are attached to substantives which have the particle of comparison כְּ, e.g. Jb 72 כְּעֶ֫בֶד יִשְׁאַף־צֵל as a servant that earnestly desireth the shadow, &c.; Dt 3211, Is 621, Jer 2329, Ho 63, ψ 422, 8315, Jb 926, 1116; so also after כְּמוֹ ψ 585; after a determinate substantive, e.g. Is 537 (but the better reading is כְּשֶׂה without the article), 61:10 f., Hb 214, ψ 4913, 21, 125:1; see also the examples under h. Sometimes it seems simpler in such cases, to take the verb directly as predicate to the preceding substantive, and to explain כְּ (for כַּֽאֲשֶׁר; see Comparative Clauses, § 161 b) as a conjunction—a view which even Hupfeld was ready to accept, at least as regards ψ 905, 1251, Is 537, 6111, but it can hardly be right.
h (2) The cases in which the retrospective pronoun represents an accusative of the object, or would do so if not suppressed, as it usually is in such cases in relative clauses with אֲשֶׁר, cf. § 138 b. Examples with the retrospective pronoun are, Dt 3217 אֱלֹהִים לֹא יְדָעוּם gods whom they knew not (see also the end of the verse); after a substantive with בְּ(see above, g), Jer 239, Jb 1328. Without a retrospective pronoun, after a determinate substantive, Ju 81, ψ 3312 (preceded by a relative clause with אֲשֶׁר); Jb 281. Other examples of this kind, though the article is omitted according to poetic usage, are Is 157 (יִתְרָה עָשָׁה, for which Jer 4836 יִתְרָת עָשָׂה with the substantive in the construct state governing the relative clause, see § 130 d), ψ 716, 5110, La 121.—Without the retrospective pronoun, after an indeterminate substantive, e.g. Is 66 רִצְפָּה בְמֶּלְקָחַ֫יִם לָקַח מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar; Ex 1517, Is 4216 (48:17, ψ 2512, all after בְּדֶ֫רֶךְ; but ψ 328 בְּדֶ֫רֶךְ־זוּ תֵלֵךְ); Is 642; Ec 105 (in 6:1 the same clause with אֲשֶׁר); moreover, in Jer 1418 read with the LXX אֶל־אֶ֫רֶץ לֹא יָדָֽעוּ into a land (that) they know not.
i (3) The cases in which the retrospective pronoun is dependent on a preposition, or its place is taken by the adverb שָׁם, as in Jer 26 end. Thus after a determinate substantive, ψ 183 צוּרִי אֶֽחֱסֶה־בּוֹ my rock in which I take refuge; Ex 1820, Is 421; in Jb 33 a also, the omission of the article with יוֹם is only a poetic licence. After an indeterminate substantive, Jer 26, last clause but one; ψ 322.
k In this case also the retrospective word is not infrequently suppressed, giving rise to extremely short, bold expressions, such as Is 511 look unto the rock חֻצַּבְתֶּם (whence) ye were hewn, and to the hole of the pit נֻקַּרְתֶּם (whence) ye were digged; Jb 2127 the devices (where-with) ye act violently against me.—A retrospective adverb is suppressed in Jb 3819 where is the way (to the place where) the light dwelleth? cf. 38:24.
l Rem. 1. The omission of the retrospective word occurs most frequently in relative clauses which are governed by the construct state of a preceding substantive (especially an expression of time) and hence are virtually in the genitive. In addition to the instances already given in § 130 d, cf. the following: after בְּיוֹם Lv 735, ψ 5610; after מִיּוֹם Jer 362; after simple יוֹם ψ 564 (יוֹם אִירָא on the day when I am afraid); after בְּעֵת 2 Ch 2927 (בְּעֵת הֵחֵל הָֽעוֹלָה at the time when the burnt offering began); 20:22, 24:11, Jb 617; after לְעֵת Dt 3235; after עַד־עֵת Mi 52; after מֵעֵת ψ 48 thou hast put gladness in my heart more than (their gladness) at the time (when) their corn and their wine are increased.
m 2. The agreement (§ 138 d) of the retrospective pronoun with a pronominal regens in the 1st or 2nd person also takes place in a simple co-ordinated relative clause in 1 S 2614 who art thou (that) criest? Cf., however, Is 6319 we are become as they over whom (בָּם not בָּ֫נוּ) thou no longer bearest rule.
n 3. Occasionally—chiefly in poetic or otherwise elevated style—even independent relative clauses are simply co-ordinated with a regens, whereas we should expect them always to be preceded by a demonstrative pronoun, on the analogy of the examples in § 138 e. The suppressed pronoun would stand—
(a) As subject, Is 4124 an abomination (is he) that chooseth you (but read perhaps לִבְחֹר); Jb 3013, cf. § 152 u.
(b) As object, Is 412, with a retrospective pronoun; Mal 216 וְכִסָּה and him that covereth (or read וְכֹסֶה ?); Jb 2912 I delivered... the fatherless also, and him that had none to help him.
(c) In the genitive governed by a substantive (cf. § 130 d), Ex 413 שְׁלַח־נָא בְּיַד־תִּשְׁלָֽח send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send, i.e. by the hand of some one else; ψ 655 and Pr 832, verbal-clauses after אֵשְׁרֵי O the happiness of the man, &c.; ψ 816, 1419, Jb 2916, La 114; after כָּל־ Gn 394, but we must certainly read here, with the Samaritan and LXX, כָּל־אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ־לוֹ as in verses 5 and 8; Ex 94; verbal-clauses after כָּל־ 1 Ch 293, 2 Ch 3019, 3119, Ezr 15.
(d) Governed by a preposition; so verbal-clauses after אַֽחֲרֵי Jer 28; after אֶל־ (=to the place where), 1 Ch 1512, but Ex 2320 before the same verb אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר; after בְּ Jer 211, 2 Ch 14 (בַּֽהֵכִין=בְּהַֽה׳=to the place where); after לְ Is 651 לְלוֹא שָׁאָ֫לוּ by them that asked not for me... לְלֹא בִקְשֻׁ֫נִי them that sought me not; Ez 133 that which they have not seen, but the text is hardly correct; after עַל ψ 119136, cf. § 158 b; after עִם 2 Ch 169.—A noun-clause follows לְ in Neh 810. An analogous instance in Aramaic is Ezr 514 to one whose name was Sheshbazzar [so in the papyri, see the Lexicon, p. 1116a].
a 1. The statement of the particular circumstances under which a subject appears as performing some action, or under which an action (or an occurrence) is accomplished, is made especially (apart from relative clauses, see § 155) by means of noun-clauses connected by Wāw with a following subject (see further on this kind of circumstantial clause in § 141 e), and by verbal-clauses (see § 142 d). Very frequently, however, such statements of the particular circumstances are subordinated to the main clause by being simply attached, without Wāw, either as noun-clauses, sometimes extremely short (see c), or as verbal-clauses (see d–g).
b Rem. Among relative clauses of this kind the commonest are the various noun-clauses, which are most closely subordinated to a preceding substantive without אֲשֶׁר, e.g. Gn 1612; also statements of weight, Gn 2422; of name, Jb 11 (also introduced by וּשְׁמוֹ Gn 2429, 1 S 11, &c., or וּשְׁמָהּ Gn 161, 2224, &c.); of a condition of body, Ju 17, and others.—Noun-clauses which begin with wāw and the predicate have a somewhat more independent character than those introduced by wāw and the subject[15] (Gn 191, &c.). The former, however, are also to be regarded as circumstantial clauses, in so far as they describe a state which is simultaneous with the principal action; thus Is 37 I will not be an healer, וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶ֫חֶם while in my house is neither bread nor clothing; Is 66 (Am 77); 2 S 1318, 161. Cf. also the instances in § 152 l of וְאֵין followed by a participle, as וְאֵין מַצִּיל, &c.
c 2. Characteristic examples of circumstantial noun-clauses are Gn 128 and pitched his tent בֵּֽית־אֵל מִיָם וְהָעַי מִקֶּ֫דֶם with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; Nu 2224, 2 S 1814 through the heart of Absalom, עוֹדֶנּ֫וּ חַי while he was yet alive; Jer 306, Ez 92 (cf. Ct 38), Na 38, Zc 145, 2 Ch 2310; with the predicate preceding, e.g. 1 S 2613, ψ 328.—In Gn 4129 a noun-clause serves to announce a state in the future.—We may also include here certain set phrases, as פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים face to face (prop. while face was turned towards face), Gn 3231, Ex 3311, Dt 3410, &c.;[16] so also to cast oneself down, אַפַּ֫יִם אָֽרְצָה the face being turned to the earth, Gn 191, &c. (for אָֽרְצָה we find אֶ֫רֶץ in 1 K 131, Is 4923).[17]—Cf. finally the formula אֵם עַל־בָּנִים mother with children, Gn 3212; cf. Ho 1014 and § 119 aa note 2.
Rem. On circumlocutions of this kind to express negative attributes by means of short noun-clauses (complete or incomplete), cf. § 152 u.
d 3. As circumstantial verbal-clauses,[18] we find (1) sometimes affirmative clauses (see below), but far more frequently (2) negative clauses (see f), and among these (3) a certain number of expressions which may be regarded simply as equivalent to negative adverbial ideas (see g).
Examples of (1) Is 511 b woe unto them, that tarry late in the evening, יַ֫יִן יַדְלִיקֵם while wine inflames them; Is 15, 1024, 3031, Jer 726, 2015, ψ 43, 512, 2113, 625. The circumstantial verbal-clause is used to particularize an action which has before been expressed generally, in Gn 4412, 4814=crossing his hands; Dt 227, Ju 619; antithetically, 1 K 1318 כִּחֵשׁ לוֹ wherewith however he lied unto him. The verbal-clause seems to assign a reason in ψ 77 מִשְׁפָּט צִוִּ֫יתָ since thou hast commanded judgement; a consequence in ψ 1035.[19]
e Rem. On the cases in which an imperfect in the sense of a final clause is subordinated to a verb of motion (generally קוּם), see § 120 c.
f Of (2), subordinate verbal-clauses with לֹא (in English usually rendered by without and the gerund, if the subject be the same as in the principal clause), e.g. Lv 117 לֹא יַבְדִּיל without dividing it asunder; Jb 3134; לֹא with the perfect is so used in Gn 444, Ex 3428, 1 S 302, Jb 2026 (without its being blown upon it). With a different subject, equivalent to a consecutive clause in English, Is 279 לֹֽא־יָקֻ֫מוּ so that they shall rise up no more.—Moreover, verbal-clauses in the same sense (without doing, &c.) are frequently connected by וְלֹא; cf. 1 S 202, Jb 2422, 423; in a concessive sense, Is 331, ψ 4418.
g Of (3), cf. לֹא יֵדַע (prop. he knows it not) unawares, ψ 358, Pr 56 לֹא יַחְמֹל unsparingly, Is 3014 (after an infinitive absolute); Hb 117, Jb 610 (but וְלֹא יַחְמֹל Jb 1613, 2722; see f at the end); לֹא כִחֵ֑דוּ (prop. they hide not) openly, Is 39 (but Jb 1518 וְלֹא כִחֲדוּ); בְּלִי חָשָׂ֑ךְ (prop. he restrains not) unceasingly, Is 146; בַּל־יִמּוֹט Jb 4115 (ψ 931 בַּל־תִּמִּוֹט) and לֹא יִמּוֹט Is 4020 (without tottering) immovably; cf. also לֹא אֶמְעָ֑ד without wavering, ψ 261.
a Clauses which depend on a transitive verb, especially on what are called verba cordis, i.e. verbs denoting any mental act, such as to see, to hear, to know, to perceive, to believe, to remember, to forget, to say, to think, &c., may be subordinated to the governing verb without the help of a conjunction by simple juxtaposition (§ 120 a), or they may be co-ordinated with it either with or without wāw copulative (§ 120 d–h). As a rule, however, the objective clause is introduced by the conjunction כִּי that, less frequently by אֲשֶׁר that.[20]
Examples:—
(a) Object-clauses without a conjunction. Besides the passages mentioned in § 120 (especially under e) there are a number of examples, in which a clause depending on a verbum dicendi or sentiendi (the oratio obliqua of the Latin and English Grammar) is added in the form of an independent noun-clause or verbal-clause; e.g. Gn 1213 אִמְרִי־נָא אֲחֹ֫תִי אָ֑תְּ say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; ψ 1013, Jb 253a.14, Neh 66; Zc 823 (after שָׁמַע); ψ 921 (after יָדַע); verbal-clauses, e.g. ψ 5021 thou thoughtest הֱיֽוֹת־אְהְיֶה כָמ֫וֹךָ I was surely like thyself [but read הָיוֹ for הֱיוֹת]; Gn 4115, Ju 948 what ye have seen me do; Is 488, Ho 72.
b (b) Object-clauses introduced by כִּי, e.g. Gn 65 וַיַּרְא יְהֹוָה כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָֽאָדָם and the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great, &c.—Direct narration also is very frequently introduced by כִּי (analogous to the ὅτι recitativum; frequently, indeed, with the secondary idea of a particle of asseveration, as in Gn 269, 2720), e.g. Gn 2130, 2216 f., 26:22, 29:32, 37:35, Jos 224, &c., even when the direct narration is not expressly indicated, Gn 425, 3231, 4151 f., Ex 184.—On the expression of a second object by means of a clause introduced by כִּי, see § 117 h.[21]
c (c) Object-clauses introduced by אֲשֶׁר, e.g. Est 34 כִּֽי־הִגִּיד לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר־הוּא יְהוּדִי for he had told them that he was a Jew; 1 S 1815, Ez 2026, Ec 812,[22] even before direct narration, 1 S 1520, 2 S 14. Somewhat frequently אֲשְׁר is preceded by the nota accusativi אֶת־ (equivalent to the circumstance, the fact, that), e.g. Jos 210, 1 S 2411, 19, 2 S 1120, Is 383, but in Gn 3029, Dt 2915 equivalent to the way in which.
a A complete clause, assigning the reason for statements, demands, threats, &c., sometimes follows with the simple wāw copulative, e.g. ψ 6013 give us help against the adversary, and (for) vain is the help of man; Gn 617 (וַֽאֲנִי), 22:12, Ex 239, Jb 2212, perhaps also ψ 710; or even without Wāw, e.g. Gn 1714. As a rule, however, special conjunctions in various combinations are used to introduce causal clauses.
b The most common causal conjunctions are יַ֫עַן כִּי Is 316, &c., and יַ֫עַן אֲשֶׁר because, prop. on account of the fact that; both, however, may also be shortened to the simple יַ֫עַן Nu 2012, &c., or to כִּי because, Gn 314, 17, &c., or to אֲשֶׁר Gn 3018, 3149, 3413, 27, 1 S 1515, 2042, 2616, 23, 1 K 319, 833, Ho 144, Zc 115; also בַּֽאֲשֶׁר Gn 399, 23. On the other hand, the simple יָ֫עַן is sometimes repeated for emphasis, יָ֫עַן וּבְיַ֫עַן (something like the German sintemal und alldieweil) Lv 2643, Ez 1310 (without וּ 36:3); also עַל־אֲשֶׁר 2 S 330, and עַל־כִּי[23] Dt 3117, Ju 312, Mal 214 on the ground that; עַל־דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר because of the circumstance that, Dt 235; עַל־כָּל־אֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר for this very cause that, Jer 38. But just as the simple יַ֫עַן is used for יַ֫עַן אֲשֶׁר, so also the simple עַל־ with the perfect stands for עַל־אֲשֶׁר ψ 119136, Ezr 311; cf. עַל־בְּלִי Gn 3120 and מִבְּלִי Dt 2855 both with the perfect, equivalent to because... not.—Cf. further עֵ֫קֶב אֲשֶׁר Gn 2218, 265, 2 S 126, all with the perfect, and עֵ֫קֶב כִּי (2 S 1210 with the perfect; Am 412 with the imperfect) prop. in return for the fact that; similarly again the simple עֵ֫קֶב Nu 1424 with the perfect, and Dt 712, 820 with the imperfect; finally, מֵֽאֲשֶׁר Is 434 arising from the fact that,= because; תַּ֫חַת אֲשֶׁר 1 S 2621, &c., and תַּ֫חַת כִּי Dt 437, Pr 129 for the reason that.
c Rem. 1. The preposition עַל־ (because of, on account of) with the infinitive (§ 114 e) is frequently used as the equivalent of a full causal clause; cf. e.g. Am 13, 6, 13, 2:1, 6. Such a construction with the infinitive may, however, according to § 114 r, be continued by means of a finite verb, in which case עַל־ governs the verb as a conjunction; e.g. Am 19 עַל־הַסְגִּירָם... וְלֹא זָֽכְרוּ because they delivered up... and remembered not, &c.; 1:11, 2:4; without Wāw, Is 3014.
d 2. The choice of tense is regulated by the general principles stated in § 106 ff., viz. the perfect (cf. especially § 106 f) refers to causes already brought fully into effect, the imperfect to those which may contingently arise; cf. e.g. Dt 712, 820, 1 K 833, where the imperfect leaves the possibility still open that the persons addressed will perhaps escape the threatened punishments by avoiding disobedience.—Cf. further, § 111 h on the imperfect consecutive, and § 112 nn on the perfect consecutive in the apodosis to causal clauses.
Cf. H. Ferguson, ‘The Use of the Tenses in Conditional Sentences in Hebrew’ (Journal of the Society of Bibl. Lit. and Exeg., Middletown, Conn., June and September, 1882).—P. Friedrich, Die hebr. Conditionalsätze, Königsberg, 1884 (Inaug.-Diss.).—Driver, Use of the Tenses, 3rd ed., p. 174 ff.
a 1. The great variety of construction in conditional sentences is owing to the fact that it frequently depends on the subjective judgement of the speaker, whether he wishes a condition to be regarded as capable of fulfilment (absolutely, or at least possibly), thus including those already fulfilled, or as incapable of fulfilment. On this distinction depends the choice both of the conditional particle to be used (see below), and especially (as also in Greek and Latin) of the tense. The use of the latter is naturally determined according to the general principles laid down in § 106 ff.[24] In the following sketch, for the sake of clearness, conditional sentences without conditional particles will be first discussed (under b), and afterwards sentences with these particles (under l).
b 2. The relation between condition and consequence may be expressed, as in English, by the simple juxtaposition of two clauses. At the same time, it is to be observed in general as a fundamental rule (in accordance with the original character of the two tenses), that the imperfect, with its equivalents (the jussive, cohortative, imperative, perfect consecutive, and participle), is used to express a condition and consequence which are regarded as being capable of fulfilment in present or future time, while the perfect represents a condition already fulfilled in the past, and its consequence as an accomplished fact. The other use of the perfect—to represent conditions regarded as impossible—occurs only in connexion with particles.
Examples:—
c (a) Imperfect (cf. § 107 x) in protasis and apodosis, Jos 2218, ψ 10428 ff. יִלְקֹם֑וּן[25] תִּתֵּן לָתֶם (if) thou givest unto them, they gather, &c.; ψ 13918, Pr 1217, Jb 2024, Ec 118, Neh 18; with an interrogative imperfect in the apodosis, Ju 1312; with the jussive, Jb 1016; with the cohortative, Pr. 1:23; with the perfect, Is 2610 (yet will he not learn righteousness; the apodosis forcibly denies what the imperfect in the protasis had represented as still conceivable; cf. Ho 812); with the perfect consecutive, Gn 4725, Ex 335; with the protasis suppressed, Jb 58 (see § 107 x).
d (b) Jussive in protasis (cf. § 109 h, i) and apodosis, ψ 10410 תָּֽשֶׁת־ח֫שֶׁךְ וִיהִי לָ֑יְלָה (if) thou makest darkness, it is night; imperfect in the apodosis, ψ 10429 b; cohortative Pr 123. Also in Ex 79 יְהִי לְתַנִּין it shall become a serpent, is the apodosis to a suppressed protasis if thou cast it down; so in 2 K 510 וְיָשֹׁב is the apodosis to a protasis if thou wash, contained in what precedes.
e (c) Cohortative (see § 108 e) in the protasis; perfect in the apodosis, ψ 406; imperfect consecutive, Jb 1918 אָק֫וּמָה וַיְרַבְּרוּ־בִי (if) I arise, they speak against me; on the cohortative in the apodosis, cf. § 108 f.
f (d) Imperfect consecutive in the protasis (§ 111 x), ψ 13911 וָאֹֽמַד if I say, &c. (with a noun-clause as the apodosis); with a frequentative perfect consecutive in the apodosis, 1 S 216.
g (e) Perfect consecutive in the protasis and apodosis (see the examples, § 112 kk and ll), Gn 4422 וְעָוַב אָבִיו וָמֵת and should he leave his father, his father would die; 9:15, 44:29, Ex 414, 1213, 1 S 162, 193, 2 S 1328, 1 K 830; with frequentative perfects, Ex 1621 (referring to the past, Jer 209); with imperfect in the apodosis (being separated from the Wāw by לֹא), Nu 2320, Jb 524; introduced by an infinitive absolute, 1 K 237; an interrogative clause in the apodosis, Lv 1019; a noun-clause, ψ 3710, Jb 721.
h (f) A simple perfect (to represent actions which are to be regarded as completed) in the protasis and apodosis, Pr 1822 מָצָא אִשָּׁה מָצָא טוֹב has one found a wife, he has found a good thing; an imperfect in the apodosis, Jb 194, 2310; an imperfect consecutive, Ex 2025, Pr 112, Jb 325, 2313 b, 29:11; an interrogative clause, Nu 1214, Jb 720 if I have sinned (prop., well, now I have sinned!) what can I do unto thee? 21:31, 35:6, Am 38; a noun-clause, Jb 2719.
i (g) A participle as casus pendens (cf. § 143 d, and the sections of the Grammar there cited, esp. § 116 w) or a complete noun-clause in the protasis; the apodosis mostly introduced by wāw apodosis, e.g. Pr 2324 Keth. יוֹלֵד חָכָם וְיִשְׂמַח בּוֹ if one begetteth a wise child, he shall have joy of him; with perfect frequentative in the apodosis, 1 S 213, &c.; but also with a simple imperfect, e.g. Ex 2112 (cf. § 112 n); with an interrogative imperfect, 2 K 72, 19; with an interrogative perfect, Ju 613.
k (h) Infinitive with preposition (also as the equivalent of a conditional clause) in the protasis, and a perfect consecutive in the apodosis (cf. § 112 mm), e.g. 2 S 714 ff. בְּהַֽעֲוֹתוֹ וֽהֹֽכַחְתִּיו וג׳ if he commit iniquity, I will correct him; Ex 3434 f. (with imperfect, followed by perfects frequentative in the apodosis).
Rem. On the expression of condition and consequence by means of two co-ordinate imperatives, see § 110 f.
l 3. Particles used to introduce conditional sentences are אִם (for which in the later and latest Books sometimes הֵן, see below, under w) and לוּ[26] (1 S 1430, Is 6319 לוּא; Ec 66, Est 74 אִלּוּ, from אִם לוּ) if, negative אִם לֹא and לוּלֵא (לוּלֵי) unless; כִּי supposing that (Lat. ut), in case that, sometimes used almost in the same sense as אִם. With regard to the difference between אִם (אִם לֹא) and לוּ (לוּלֵא), the fundamental rule is that אִם is used if the condition be regarded either as already fulfilled, or if it, together with its consequence, be thought of as possibly (or probably) occurring in the present or future. In the former case, אִם is followed by the perfect, in the latter (corresponding to the Greek ἐὰν with the present subjunctive) by the imperfect or its equivalent (frequently in the apodosis also). On the other hand, לוּ (לוּלֵא) is used when the condition is to be represented as not fulfilled in the past, or as not capable of fulfilment in the present or future, and the consequence accordingly as not having occurred or never occurring. In the former case, לוּ and לוּלֵא are necessarily followed by the perfect (mostly also in the apodosis) corresponding to the Greek εἰ with the indicative of an historic tense, and the Latin imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive. In the latter case (which is extremely rare) the perfect, or the participle, or even the imperfect, may be used.
m Rem. Since it again frequently depends on the subjective judgement of the speaker (see under a), whether a condition is to be regarded as possible or impossible, we cannot wonder that the distinction between אִם and לוּ is not always consistently observed. Although naturally לוּ and לוּלֵא cannot take the place of אִם and אִם לֹא (on the strange use of לוּ in Gn 5015 see below), yet conversely אִם is sometimes used where לוּ would certainly be expected; cf. e.g. ψ 5012, 1375, 1398, Ho 912 (cf. verse 11). These examples, indeed (אִם with the imperfect), may without difficulty be explained from the fact that the connexion of לוּ with the imperfect was evidently avoided, because the imperfect by its nature indicates a still unfinished action, and consequently (as opposed to לוּ) a still open possibility. But אִם is also used for לוּ in connexion with the perfect, especially when an imprecation is attached by the apodosis to the condition introduced by אִם, e.g. ψ 74 ff. אִם־עָשִׂ֫יתִי זֹאת... יִֽרַדֹּף וג׳ if I have done this..., let the enemy pursue my soul, &c., cf. Jb 319 ff. The speaker assumes for a moment as possible and even actual, that which he really rejects as inconceivable, in order to invoke the most severe punishment on himself, if it should prove to be the case.
On the frequent addition of an infinitive absolute to the verb in clauses with אם see § 113 o above.
Examples:—
n A. אִם 1. with perfect in the protasis to express conditions, &c., which have been completely fulfilled in the past or which will be completely fulfilled in the future (the perfect is here equivalent to the futurum exactum, § 106 o). The apodosis[27] takes—
(a) A perfect also, e.g. Pr 912 אִם־חָכַ֫מְתָּ חָכַ֫מְתָּ לָּ֑ךְ if thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself; ψ 7315 (see below on לוּ).
(b) Imperfect, e.g. Dt 3241 אִם־שַׁנּוֹתִי if I whet my glittering sword... אָשִׁיב I will render vengeance, &c.; Jb 915 f.30 (in both cases we should expect לוּ rather than אִם־; so also in ψ 4421 f., with an interrogative imperfect in the apodosis); Jb 1113 (the apodosis is in verse 15).
(c) Jussive (or optative), e.g. Jb 319 ff. (see m above); Gn 183.
o (d) Perfect consecutive (see the examples in § 112 gg), e.g. Gn 439 אִם־לֹא הֲבִֽיאֹתִיו וג׳ if I bring him not... then I shall have sinned, &c.; Ju 1617, 2 S 1533, 2 K 74. On the other hand, e.g. Gn 476, Mi 57, Jb 74 refer to actions already completed; in Gn 389 and Nu 219 the perfect with וְ is a perfect frequentative and refers to past time.
(e) Imperfect consecutive (see § 111 q), e.g. Jb 84 if thy children have sinned (חָֽטְאוּ)..., וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם he has delivered them, &c.
(f) Imperative, e.g. Gn 504 אִם־נָא מָצָ֫אתִי חֵן בְּעֵֽינֵיכֶם דַּבְּרוּ־נָא לג׳ if now I have found grace in your eyes, speak, I pray you, &c.; the imperative precedes in Gn 4716 and Jb 384, 18.
p (g) A (complete or incomplete) noun-clause, e.g. Jer 1418 (a vivid realization of the future) if I have gone forth into the field (= if I go, &c.), then, behold, the slain with the sword! &c.; Pr 2414 (apodosis with wāw apodosis).
q 2. אִם with imperfect in the protasis, to express what is possible in the present or future, as well as (according to § 107 b) what has continued or been repeated in the past. The apodosis takes—
(a) The perfect, e.g. Nu 3223 וְאִם־לֹא תַֽעֲשׂוּן כֵּן הִנֵּה חֲטָאתֶם but if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned; here the apodosis represents the time when the consequence has already taken place; so also Jb 2012–14. On the other hand, Nu 1629 (as also 1 S 69 and 1 K 2228) is a case of a pregnant construction, if these men die as all men die, then (it will follow from this) the Lord hath not sent me.
r (b) The imperfect, e.g. 2 K 74 אִם־יֶחַיֻּ֫נוּ הִֽחְיֶה if they save us alive, we shall live, &c.; Gn 1316, 1828, 30, 28:20 ff., Ex 2025 (the second imperfect is equivalent to a jussive); Is 118, 1022, Am 92–4, ψ 5012 (where אִם ironically represents an impossibility as possible); Jb 85 f. (with the insertion of a second condition in the form of a noun-clause); 9:3, 20, 14:7; a frequentative imperfect referring to the past, Gn 318 אִם־כֹּה יֹאמַר if (ever) he said thus..., וְיָֽלְדוּ then they bare...; Ex 4037. In Gn 4237 the consequence (on תָּמִית cf. § 107 s) precedes the condition.
(c) The jussive (or optative), e.g. ψ 1375; cf. § 109 h.
(d) The cohortative, e.g. Gn 139, Jb 317; cf. § 108 f.
s (e) The perfect consecutive (see the examples in § 112 ff and gg), e.g. 1 S 206 אִם־פָּקֹד יִפְקְרֵ֫נִי אָבִ֫יךָ וְאָֽמַרְתָּ if thy father miss me at all, then shalt thou say, &c.; Gn 2441, Ju 420; with a frequentative perfect consecutive, Gn 318 if he said (as often happened)..., then, &c.
(f) The imperfect consecutive; so perhaps ψ 5916, if וַיָּלִ֫ינוּ is to be explained according to § 111 t.
(g) The imperative, e.g. Gn 3150, 1 S 2021 (with wāw apodosis, but in verse 22 simply לֵךְ), 21:10, Jb 335.
t (h) A noun-clause, e.g. Gn 47, ψ 1398, Jb 86, 3126 f.
3. אִם with cohortative, e.g. Gn 3031; cf. the passages in § 108 e.
u 4. אִם with infinitive, Jb 927 אִם־אָמְרִי prop. if my saying is (but probably we should read אָמַ֫רְתִּי).
v 5. אִם with a noun-clause, e.g. Dt 522 (in the apodosis a perfect with wāw apodosis), Gn 2746, Ju 915 (imperative in the apodosis); 11:9 (imperfect in the apodosis); 2 S 128 (cohortative in the apodosis); Ho 1212; especially if the subject of the conditional clause be a personal pronoun. In an affirmative sentence this pronoun is often joined to יֵשׁ, in a negative sentence to אֵין (cf. on both, § 100 o), while the predicate (cf. § 116 q) is represented by a participle, usually expressing the future, e.g. Ju 636 f. אִם־יֶשְׁךָ מוֹשִׁיעַ if thou will save, &c.; Gn 2449 אִם־יֶשְׁבֶם עֹשִׂים if ye will deal, &c.; 1 S 2323. In Gn 2442 f. the condition is expressed in a more humble form by the addition of נָא. With אֵין Gn 435 וְאִם־אֵֽינְךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ but if thou wilt not send, &c.; 20:7 (with imperative in the apodosis); Ex 817, 92 f., 1 S 1911 (all with a participle also in the apodosis). But יֵשׁ and אַ֫יִן may also be used after אִם without a suffix; thus יֵשׁ Gn 238, 1 S 208, 2 K 915, &c., אִם־אַ֫יִן (if it be not the case) Gn 301, Ex 3232, Ju 915, 2 K 210; cf. also אִם־כֵּן if it be so, Gn 2522.
w B. הֵן if, generally supposed to be originally identical with הֵן behold![28] Probably, however, הֵן if, is a pure Aramaism, and since the Aramaic word never has the meaning behold, it is at least improbable that it had originally any connexion with הֵן or הִנֵּה. Cf. Ex 822, Lv 2520, Is 5415, Jer 31, Hag 212, 2 Ch 713, and frequently in Job, as 911, 12, 12:14, 15, 19:7, 23:8, 40:23, always with wāw apodosis following, except in 13:15, where consequently the meaning see is no doubt preferable.
x C. לוּ if, לוּלֵא (לוּלֵי) if not.
1. With perfect in the protasis and apodosis (cf. § 106 p), e.g. Ju 819; אִלּוּ is used in the same sense as לוּ in Est 74, cf. Ec 66 (with a question in the apodosis).—With the perfect in protasis and apodosis after לוּלֵא Gn 3142, 4310, Ju 1418, 1 S 2534, 2 S 227, Is 19. On the other hand, in Dt 3229 לוּ with a perfect is followed by an imperfect in the apodosis, if they were wise, they would understand this; in Mi 211 by a perfect consecutive.
y 2. With imperfect after לוּלֵא Dt 3227, אָגוּר probably as the modus rei repetitae, were it not that I ever and again feared, &c.; so also the imperfect after לוּ with the apodosis suppressed, Gn 5015 supposing that Joseph should hate us; since, according to the context, the danger was real, the use of לוּ here is strange; conversely in other cases, e.g. ψ 7315, Jb 915 f.30, לוּ would be more natural than אִם.
z 3. A noun-clause occurs after לוּ 2 S 1812, 2 K 314, ψ 8114, all with imperfect in the apodosis; Jb 164 לוּ יֵשׁ, with cohortative in the apodosis.
D. כִּי supposing that, if:—
aa 1. כִּי with perfect in the protasis, e.g. Nu 520 וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית but thou, if thou hast gone astray, &c.; with a frequentative perfect consecutive in the apodosis, Jb 713 f.; with an imperfect consecutive, Jb 2229.
bb 2. כִּי with imperfect in the protasis, e.g. ψ 234 גַּם כִּֽי־אֵלֵךְ yea, though I walk (have to walk)..., I will fear no (לֹֽא־אִירָא) evil; 37:24; Ex 212 כִּֽי־תִקְנֶה עֶ֫בֶד עִבְרִי וג׳ if thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve (but in verses 3–5 a series of definite conditions with definite consequences is introduced by אִם; so also the כִּי in verse 7 is followed in verses 8–11 by the special cases with אִם; cf. also verse 17 ff.); cf. Gn 424, 2441, Jb 385; with a perfect consecutive in the apodosis, Gn 3218 f., Ex 1816; with a noun-clause, Is 115.
3. כִּי with a noun-clause (and imperfect in the apodosis), 2 S 198.
Remarks.
cc 1. In 2 K 513 the particle אבי (Masora אָבִי, probably in the sense of my father) appears exceptionally for לוּ; its meaning here is unquestionable, but its origin is obscure. Cf. the exhaustive discussion of Delitzsch and Wetzstein on Jb 3436, where this אבי appears to be used as a desiderative particle.—Sometimes when one case has been already discussed, another of the same character is added by means of אוֹ or, e.g. Ex 2136 אוֹ נוֹדַע וג׳ or (another possible case) it is known that, &c., i.e. but if it be known, &c., LXX ἐὰν δέ, Vulg. sin autem; cf. Lv 423, 28, 5:1, 25:49, 2 S 1813; with a following imperfect, Ez 1417f.—On the hypothetical use of אֲשֶׁר (which is interchangeable with כִּי in other senses also) Lv 422 (in verses 3 and 27 אִם), Dt 1127 (verse 28 אִם), Jos 421, see the Lexicon.
dd 2. The conditional sentence is frequently found in an abridged form, where the suppressed clauses can be easily supplied from the context; cf. Gn 139, 2449, 1 S 216 וְאִם־לֹא and if not, i.e. and if thou wilt not give it to me, then I take it (perfect according to § 106 n) by force; cf. 1 S 69. The use of וְיֵשׁ alone in Ju 613 is peculiar, as also וָיֵשׁ in 2 K 1015 (where read with the LXX וַיֹּא֫מֶר יֵהוּא וָיֵשׁ) in the sense of if it be so.—In 2 S 1326, 2 K 517 וָלֹא alone appears to be used in the sense of if really ... not, in each case with a following jussive equivalent to may there at least, &c. (cf. § 143 d); but perhaps with Matthes, ZAW. 1903, p. 122 ff., following Kuipers, we should read וְלוּ would that!—In 1 S 1313, Jb 313 the condition must be supplied from the preceding clause to complete the sentence introduced by כִּי עַתָּה, in Jb 3128 by כִּי, in 2 K 1319 by אָז.—The apodosis also appears sometimes in an abridged form (e.g. Gn 424, Is 432) or is entirely suppressed, e.g. Gn 3027, 3817, 5015 (see y above), Ex 3232, ψ 2713, Jb 385, where properly הַגֵּד must be supplied with כִּי תֵדָ֑ע as in verses 4 and 18; cf. § 167 a.—In ψ 84, instead of the apodosis I exclaim which we should expect, the exclamation itself follows.
ee 3. The absolute certainty with which a result is to be expected is frequently emphasized by the insertion of כִּי Is 79; כִּי אָזָ 2 S 227, 197, Jb 1115; or כִּי עַתָּה now verily, Nu 2229, 1 S 1430 after לוּ, Gn 3142, 4310 after לוּלֵי, Jb 86 after אִם. On this corroborative כִּי cf. such passages as Gn 1820, &c., and § 148 d. On כִּי אִם after an oath cf. 163 d.
ff 4. Sometimes the force of a hypothetical particle extends beyond the apodosis to a second conditional clause, as in the case of אִם Pr 912, Jb 1015, 166, 2223, and כִּי Is 432.
gg 5. In Ex 3320 a negative statement takes the place of a condition with a negative consequence, for a man doth not see me and live, instead of for if a man sees me, he does not live; cf. the similar passages, Dt 221, 4 thou shalt not see ... and hide thyself, instead of if thou seest ... thou shalt not hide thyself.
a Besides the use of the imperative in the sense of a concession, meant either seriously (§ 110 a) or mockingly (§ 110 f), and of concessive circumstantial clauses (§ 141 e, § 142 d, and § 156 f), concessive clauses may be introduced—
(a) By a simple אִם if: thus Jb 915 with perfect, if (=though) I had been in the right; Is 118 and 10:22 with imperfect in reference to a contingent event.
b (b) By גַּם כִּי yea though, Is 115 with imperfect; for which we find simply גַּם in Is 4915 with imperfect, yea, though these may forget, yet ...; on the other hand, with perfect, Jer 3625, ψ 959, Neh 61; finally כִּי גַם even if, though, Ec 414.
c (c) By the preposition עַל־ governing a complete noun-clause, as Jb 1617 עַל לֹֽא־חָמָס בְּכַפָּ֑י notwithstanding that no violence is in mine hands, or a verbal-clause, Is 539. On עַל־ with the infinitive in a similar sense (equivalent to in addition to the fact that = notwithstanding that), cf. § 119 aa, note 2.
a 1. A comparison between two facts is sometimes established by simply uniting them with wāw copulative, especially in gnomic poetry, when facts of a moral nature are compared with those of the physical world, e.g. Jb 57 man is born unto trouble, and the sons of flame fly upward, i.e. as the sparks by nature fly upward, so man, &c.; Jb 1211 (in an interrogative form; in 34:3 the same comparison as a statement); 14:11 f., Pr 173, 253, 263, 9, 14, 27:21, &c.[29] Even without the connecting וְ Jb 2419 drought and heat consume the snow waters, שְׁאוֹל חָטָ֫אוּ so doth Sheol those who have sinned (cf. § 155 n); cf. Jer 1711.
b 2. The conjunction כַּֽאֲשֶׁר (cf. § 155 g; the simple אֲשֶׁר occurs in the same sense in Ex 106, 1413, 3418) as, quemadmodum, is used as a comparative conjunction (Ob 15115), frequently with כֵּן so, corresponding to it in the apodosis, Is 314, 5214 f.. Sometimes, however, כֵּן (so also) occurs even after independent statements, Is 559, Jer 320.—Exact coincidence of two facts is expressed in Ec 515 by כָּל־עֻמַּת שָׁ·[30] in all points as.
c Rem. On the use of כְּ as, with single nouns or pronouns to introduce comparisons, cf. 118 s; on the alleged use of כְּ as a conjunction (equivalent to כַּֽאֲשֶׁר), cf. § 155 g.—It is to be further remarked that כְּ—כְּ when used in correspondence with one another, as—so (e.g. Lv 77, Ju 818, Is 242, Ho 49; also so—as, Gn 1825, 4418, Dt 117, 1 K 224; in Jos 1411, 1 S 3024 וּךְ—ךְּ; ψ 1274 and often, כֵּן—כְּ, cf. Jo 24), are not to be regarded as conjunctions, but as virtual substantives with a following genitive; כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר יִֽהְיֶה Nu 1515 properly means the like of you shall be the like of the stranger, i.e. your duty shall be (also) the stranger’s duty; cf. Lv 2422.
a The introduction of another possible case, excluding that which preceded, is effected by אוֹ or, e.g. Ex 2136, equivalent to the Latin vel; but also equivalent to aut with an exclusive antithesis, 2 K 216; so Is 275 אוֹ= it would then happen that, for which elsewhere אוֹ כִי.
b In the sense of sive—sive we find אוֹ—אוֹ, or אִם—אִם, or וְאִם—אִם (see the examples in the Lexicon), also וְ—וְ Lv 53, Nu 914, Dt 247, Is 213 ff., Jer 3220, ψ 767, Jb 3429, perhaps also Ex 2116 (but not Pr 299; cf. Delitzsch on the passage), and לְ—לְ (see § 143 e); cf. also גַּם—גַּם (in Gn 2444 וְגַם—גַּם) both—and; but גַּם לֹא—גַּם לֹא (in Gn 2126 וְגַם לֹא—וְגַם לֹא; Zp 118 גַּם ... לֹא—גַּם) neither—nor. On disjunctive questions, see § 150 g.
a 1. After negative sentences (especially after prohibitions) the antithesis (but) is introduced by כִּי אִם, e.g. 1 S 819 and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us; ψ 12, &c.; frequently also by כִּי alone, e.g. Gn 1815, 192, or even simply connected with וְ, Gn 175, וְהָיָה as perfect consecutive; 42:10; cf. Ex 518.
b Rem. Sometimes the negation is only virtually contained in the preceding sentence, e.g. in the form of a rhetorical question (Mi 63 f.) or of conditions which are to be regarded as not having been fulfilled (Jb 3118); כִּי or כִּי אִם in such cases becomes equivalent to nay, rather.
c 2. Exceptive clauses, depending on another sentence, are introduced by אֶ֫פֶס כִּי except that, and (again after negative sentences, see a above) כִּי אִם[31] unless; especially כִּי אִם with the perfect (equivalent to unless previously) after imperfects which contain a declaration, e.g. Gn 3227 I will not let thee go, except thou hast previously blessed me; Lv 226, Is 5510, 656, Am 37, Ru 318. Finally, בִּלְתִּי אִם unless, Am 34 (with perfect after a rhetorical question), or simply בִּלְתִּי Gn 433 with a noun-clause, except your brother be with you; Is 104 after a rhetorical question, with a verbal-clause.
d Rem. The principal statement, to which כִּי אִם appends an exception, must sometimes be supplied from the context; thus, Gn 4014 (I desire nothing else) except that thou remember me, equivalent to only do thou remember, &c. (cf. 106 n, note 2; but it is probably better to read אַךְ for כִּי). Cf. Mi 68, where כִּי אִם, equivalent to nothing but, is used before an infinitive, and Jb 428, equivalent to only, before a noun. Similarly when כִּי אִם after an oath introduces an emphatic assurance, e.g. in 2 K 520 as the Lord liveth (I can do nothing else) except I run after him, &c.; cf. 2 S 1521 Keth., Jer 5114, Ru 312 Keth., and even without the oath, Ju 157; cf. the Rem. on c.
a 1. The relations of time existing between two different actions or events are frequently expressed without the aid of a conjunction simply by juxtaposition:—
(a) Actions or events are represented as wholly or in part simultaneous by connecting a noun-clause with another noun-clause or verbal-clause introduced by וְ (or וְהִנֵּה), e.g. Gn 76 and Noah was six hundred years old (prop. a son of six hundred years), וְהַמַּבּוּל הָיָה and (i.e. when) the flood was. This is especially the case when the predicate of the noun-clause (frequently introduced by עוֹד still) is expressed by an active participle, e.g. Jb 116 f. עוֹד זֶה מְדַבֵּר וְזֶה בָא וג׳ he was yet speaking, and there came another, &c.; see the numerous examples in § 111 g and § 116 u. Instead of a complete noun-clause there often occurs a simple casus pendens after כָּל־ with a participial attribute in the sense of whenever any one..., e.g. 1 S 213 זׄבֵחַ זֶ֫בַח וּבָא וג׳ כָּל־אִישׁ whenever any man offered sacrifice, then came, &c.; 2 S 223, &c.; see the examples (in which the second member is generally introduced by wāw apodosis) in § 116 w.
b (b) Sequence is expressed by the juxtaposition
(1) of two imperfects consecutive, e.g. Gn 2419 וַתְּכַל לְהַשְׁקֹתוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר and when she had done giving him drink, she said, &c.; 28:8 f., 29:31, 30:9, 32:26, &c.; cf. § 111 d;
(2) of a noun-clause with a passive participle as predicate, and a verbal-clause attached by וְ, e.g. Gn 3825; cf. § 116 v; in Gn 4929 an imperative follows without וְ;
(3) of two perfects (frequently with the secondary idea of rapid succession[32] of the two actions or events in past time), e.g. Gn 1923 הַשֶּׁ֫מָשׁ יָצָא... וְלוֹט בָּא וג׳ the sun was just risen..., and (=when) Lot came, &c., cf. 1 S 95, 2 S 224; Gn 443 f., Ju 324, 1514, 2039 f.—In all these examples the subject follows immediately after the connective Wāw, and then the (simple) perfect. On the other hand,
(4) a perfect consecutive follows another perfect consecutive to express the contingent succession of future actions, e.g. Gn 444 וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם וְאָֽטַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם and when thou dost overtake them (as soon as thou shalt have overtaken), thou shalt say unto them. Naturally, examples of this kind are very closely related to conditional sentences; see, therefore, the examples in § 112 kk and § 159 g. On the connexion of an imperfect consecutive or a perfect with detached expressions of time (as equivalent to complete clauses), cf. § 111 b; on the imperfect consecutive after וַיְהִי and a statement of time, cf. § 111 g; on the perfect consecutive following a detached statement of time, as in Ex 166, cf. § 112 oo.—In 1 S 2910 an imperative with וְ follows the perfect consecutive.
c (5) The fact that one action or event has not yet taken place on the occurrence of another, is expressed by טֶ֫רֶם (an adverb, not a conjunction) with the imperfect (according to § 107 c). The apodosis, which may consist of a subject and perfect or even of a noun-clause (Gn 2415),[33] is then connected by וְ (or וְהִנֵּה) as in the examples above, under no. 3, e.g. Gn 194 (cf. Jos 28) טֶ֫רֶם יִשְׁכָּ֫בוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר ... נָסַ֫בּוּ וג׳ they had not yet lain down, and (=when) the men of the city ... compassed, &c.; Gn 2425.
d 2. Conjunctions used to introduce temporal clauses are כִּי (with perfect, e.g. Gn 61, Ju 128, 1616, 1 S 112; with imperfect, Gn 412, 1212, 2441, Ex 321, Lv 219, Dt 3121, Is 112, 819) and אֲשֶׁר[34] when (כִּי with the imperfect also=as often as, ψ 84; with perfect Jb 15); less frequently אִם[35] (joined with a perfect), e.g. Gn 389, Nu 219, Ju 63, ψ 417, 9418, cf. also Is 2413=quotiescunque; also in the same sense with an imperfect, Nu 364; with a perfect, equivalent to the futurum exactum, Is 44. Other conjunctions of time are the compounds כְּמוֹ when, Gn 1915; כַּֽאֲשֶׁר when, after that; עַד־אֲשֶׁר, עַד־כִּי until (also the simple עַד־, e.g. Gn 3811, Jos 222, 1 S 122 [with the imperfect=only when, as in 2 S 105]); 2:5, &c.; especially in the formula עַד־בִּלְתִּי הִשְׁאִיר לוֹ until there was none left remaining to him (where indeed it would be very natural to read הַשְׁאִיר the infin. constr., as elsewhere after בִּלְתִּי, § 114 s) Nu 2135, Dt 33, Jos 822, 118 (but 1 S 1419 while, as long as); עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא before that, Ec 121, 2, 6 with an imperfect, as in Pr 826 עַד with a perfect; עַד־אִם, עַר־אֲשֶׁר אִם until the time when; אַֽחֲרֵֽי־אֲשֶׁר (for which in Ez 401 אַחַר־אֲשֶׁר; Lv 2548, 1 S 59 simply אַֽחֲרֵי; Lv 1443, Jer 4116, Jb 427 simply אַחַר) after that; מֵאָז (prop. since that time; the dependent clause is attached to it in the same way as the attributive clause to the demonstrative אֲשֶׁר § 138 e) since, Gn 395; בְּטֶ֫רֶם (and simply טֶ֫רֶם § 107 c) before; קַדְמַת (for קַדְמַת אֲשֶׁר) before, ψ 1296.
e Rem. 1. With regard to the tenses used with the above conjunctions, the rules are practically the same as those given in § 158 d for causal clauses. The perfect indicates actions completed in the past or future (in the former case corresponding to the Latin pluperfect, § 106 f, and in the latter to the Latin futurum exactum, § 106 o), the imperfect denotes actions occurring contingently in the future. On טֶ֫רֶם, בְּטֶ֫רֶם, and עַד with the imperfect as a tempus historicum, cf. § 107 c.
f 2. Clauses introduced by עַד, עַד־כִּי or עַד־אֲשֶׁר, sometimes express a limit which is not absolute (terminating the preceding action), but only relative, beyond which the action or state described in the principal clause still continues; thus, עַד with the imperfect, ψ 1101; עַד־כִּי with the perfect, Gn 2613, with impf. 49:10; עַד־אֲשֶׁר with the perfect, Gn 2815; with the imperfect, ψ 1128.—Like the Arab. حَتَّى, עַד may even introduce a main clause; e.g. Ex 1516 עַד־יַֽעֲבֹר prop. no doubt=thus it came to this—they passed through, i.e. so they passed through.
g 3. The infinitive construct governed by a preposition (§ 114 d, e) is very frequently used as the equivalent of a temporal clause; the infinitive with בְּ may usually be rendered by when, as, or whilst; the infinitive with כְּ by when, as soon as (in Pr 1025 followed by a noun-clause introduced by wāw apodosis), or, when referring to the future, by if; the infinitive after מִן by since. According to § 111 g such statements of time are generally preceded by וַיְהִי and the apodosis follows in the imperfect consecutive; hence in 1 S 1755 (cf. Driver on the passage) וְכִרְאוֹת with a simple perfect following, is unusual. On the continuation of these infinitival constructions by means of the perfect consecutive, cf. § 112 v, and in general, § 114 r.—With the participle, כְּ appears to be used as the equivalent of a conjunction in כְּמֵשִׁיב as he drew back, Gn 3829 (unless we should read כְּהָשִׁיב [or כְּמוֹ הֵשִׁיב, cf. Gn 1915]), and in כְפֹרַ֫חַת when it budded, 4010.
a 1. Like most of the dependent clauses hitherto treated, the final clause may also be joined by a simple wāw copulative to the main clause, unless the final clause is directly subordinated to the governing verb.
Examples of the connexion: (α) of a final imperfect (or jussive?) with a perfect by means of וְ, La 119, see § 107 q; with an interrogative sentence, 2 S 91, 3, Jb 3824; with an optative, ψ 519; with an imperative, 1 K 1121; (β) of a cohortative with an imperative by וְ, Gn 2921, 1 S 1516, or a jussive, Neh 25 (§ 108 d); (γ) of a jussive with an imperative by וְ, Ex 91, 2 S 1611, 1 K 520, ψ 5914, 8617; with a jussive, Jb 2119, or cohortative, § 109 f, g (cf. also 2 S 2421 the infinitive with לְ, Jon 111 מָה with the 1st plur. imperf., and 2 Ch 2910 עִם־לְבָבִי, which are equivalent to cohortatives); (δ) of an imperative with a jussive, cohortative, or interrogative sentence by וְ, § 110 i; (ε) of a perfect consecutive after another perfect consecutive, Lv 1436; after an imperfect, § 112 m and p; similarly after a jussive, § 112 q; after an imperative, § 112 r.—On negative final clauses joined by וְלֹא to the imperfect (so Ex 2843, 3020; and 2 S 1325 after אַל־נָא with a jussive in the main clause) see the Rem. on § 109 g. In Ex 2832, 3923 the negative final clause is simply connected by לֹא.—On the use of an historical statement after verbs of command- ing, where we should expect a final clause (e.g. Neh 139 then I commanded, and they cleansed, equivalent to that they should cleanse, and they cleansed; in Jb 97 a negative final clause is connected in this way by וְלאֹ), cf. § 120 f.
For examples of the direct subordination of the final imperfect (without וְ) see § 120 c.
b 2. Final conjunctions are לְמַ֫עַן אֲשֶׁר to the end that; also simply לְמַ֫עַן Gn 1213, 2725, Ex 45, ψ 516, &c.; בַּֽעֲבוּר אֲשֶׁר prop. for the purpose that, Gn 2710, and simply בַּֽעֲבוּר Gn 274, Ex 914, 2020; also the simple אֲשֶׁר[37] Dt 410, 40, 6:3, 32:46, Jos 37, Neh 814 f.; negatively, אֲשֶׁר לֹא Gn 117, 243, 1 K 2216; or שֶׁ ּ Ec 314; also negatively, עַל־דִּבְרַת שֶׁלֹּא for the matter (purpose) that ... not, Ec 714; לְבִלְתִּי with imperfect, Ex 2020, 2 S 1414 that ... not.—Quite exceptional is the use of מִן־ (if the text be right) in Dt 3311 מִן־יְקוּמוּן, with the imperfect, equivalent to that ... not [in prose, מִקּוּם].
c Rem. All the conjunctions here mentioned are naturally always used with the imperfect, see § 107 q (on the apparent exception in Jos 424, see § 74 g).—On the negative conjunctions אַל and פֶּן that not, lest, see § 152 f and w. On the infinitive with לְ[38] (also לְמַ֫עַן Gn 1819, 3722, &c.) as the equivalent of a final clause (Gn 115, 284, &c.), see § 114 f, h, p. On the continuation of such infinitival constructions by means of the finite verb, see § 114 r. On the negation of the final infinitive by לְבִלְתִּי, § 114 s. On the preposition מִן with a substantive or infinitive as the equivalent of a negative final clause (Gn 3129, 1 S 1523, &c.), see § 119 x and y.
a 1. Consecutive clauses are added by means of simple wāw copulative with the jussive,[39] especially after negative and interrogative sentences, e.g. Nu 2319 לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיֽכַזֵּב וּבֶן־אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם God is not a man, that he should lie, and (i.e. neither) the son of man, that he should repent; Is 532 וְנֶחְמְדֵ֫הוּ; Ho 1410 מִי חָכָם וְיָבֵן אֵ֫לֶּה נָבוֹן וְיֵֽדָעֵם who is wise, that he may understand these things? prudent, that he may know them? Jb 512 וְלֹא=so that ... not; in Pr 303 וְ is separated from the predicate by the object. In Gn 1610 a negative consecutive clause comes after a cohortative, and in Ex 105 after a perfect consecutive.—On the other hand, in Jb 932, 33 the jussive in the sense of a consecutive clause is attached without Wāw to the preceding negative sentence (in verse 32 a second jussive follows, likewise without Wāw, for he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, that we should come together in judgement). On the imperfect consecutive as expressing a logical consequence, see § 111 l; on the perfect consecutive as a consecutive clause after a participle, see § 112 n.
b 2. Conjunctions introducing consecutive clauses are again (see § 157 c, note 3) כִּי and אֲשֶׁר=so that; especially again after interrogative sentences, according to § 107 u; cf. Nu 1611, כִּי with the imperfect, that ye murmur; but in Gn 2010 with the perfect, in reference to an action already completed. On אֲשֶׁר with the imperfect (or jussive) equivalent to so that, cf. further Gn 1316, 2214; with perfect and imperfect, 1 K 312 f., with the demonstrative force clearly discernible, depending on לֵב; on אֲשֶׁר לֹא=ut non, cf. Dt 2835, 1 K 38, 2 K 937.
On מִן with a substantive or infinitive as the equivalent of a consecutive clause, see § 119 y.
a 1. Aposiopesis is the concealment or suppression of entire sentences or clauses, which are of themselves necessary to complete the sense,[40] and therefore must be supplied from the context. This is especially frequent after conditional clauses; besides the examples already given in § 159 dd, cf. also Ex 3232 (the LXX and Samaritan supply שָׂא); Nu 520, Ju 916 (in verse 19, after a long parenthesis, an imperative follows as the apodosis to this conditional clause); 1 S 1214 f., 2 S 58 (where indeed the text is probably very corrupt; cf. the addition in 1 Ch 116); 2 S 2317, ψ 2713, 1 Ch 410. For other examples of various kinds, see § 117 l, and especially § 147; in Aramaic, Dn 315.—On Gn 322, cf. § 152 w at the end.
b 2. Anacoluthon is the change from a construction which has been already begun to one of a different kind. It is found especially after long parentheses, because the speaker has either lost sight of the beginning of his sentence, or for the sake of clearness purposely makes a new beginning; thus Gn 2013, 3152 and Ez 3410 (cf. § 149 at the end); Nu 1421 ff., 3220 ff., Dt 172 ff., 241 ff., 2921 ff., Ju 1011 (where, after a series of intermediate sentences, the predicate I saved you is suppressed; but the text can hardly be correct); perhaps also Is 6618 (cf., however, Delitzsch on the passage, which is certainly corrupt).[41] On Gn 2313 (לוּ with the imperative), see § 110 e.
c 3. We may mention as instructive examples of involved series of sentences Gn 2414 and v.42 ff., and Gn 286 ff.
THE PARADIGMS.
In the paradigms of the verbs, those forms which are to be especially noticed by the beginner are marked throughout by an asterisk as model forms. Thus e.g. in the strong verb the 3rd sing. fem. קָֽטְלָה is the model for קָֽטְלוּ, which likewise has only a vocalic afformative, and קָטַ֫לְתָּ is the model for קָטַלְתְּ, קָטַ֫לְתִּי and קָטַ֫לְנוּ, which in the same way have a toneless afformative beginning with a consonant. On the other hand, the forms קְטַלְתֶּם and קְטַלְתֶּן, where the affix beginning with a consonant has the tone, stand by themselves.—In the table of the pronouns the asterisk has a different meaning; see the footnote there.—The bracketed forms (for Paradigm G onwards) are merely analogous formations not occurring in the Old Testament.
The newly added paradigm (Q) consists of forms actually found, belonging to various verbs.
A. The Personal Pronoun.[42]
| Nominative of the Pronoun, or Pronomen separatum. | Accusative of the Pronoun, or Suffixum Verbi. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Simple form. | ||||
| Sing. 1. c. | I. | אָֽנֹכִי in pause אָנֹ֫כִי; | me. | נִי; ־ַ֫ נִי; ־ֵ֫ נִי |
| אֲנִי, in pause אָ֫נִי | ||||
| 2. m. | thou. | אַתָּה (אַתָּ), in pause | thee. | ךָ; ־ְךָ, in pause ־ֶ֫ ךָ |
| אָ֫תָּה | ־ָךְ | |||
| f. | אַתְּ (אַתְּי) | ךְ; ־ָךְ; ־ֵךְ, ־ֶ֫ ךְ | ||
| 3. m. | he. | הוּא | him. | הוּ, ו; (הֹ)־ָ֫הוּ, וֹ; ־ֵ֫ הוּ |
| f. | she. | הִיא | her (eam). | הָ; ־ָהּ; ־ֶ֫ הָ |
| Plur. 1. c. | we. | אֲנַ֫חְנוּ (נַ֫חְנוּ), in | us. | נוּ; ־ָ֫ נוּ; ־ֵ֫ נוּ |
| pause אֲנָ֫חְנוּ (נָ֫חְנוּ) | ||||
| 2. m. | you. | אַתֶּם | you. | כֶם; ־ְכֶם |
| f. | אַתֵּן, אַתֵּ֫נָה | [כֶן; ־ְכֶן] | ||
| 3. m. | they. | הֵם, הֵ֫מָּה | them (eos). | (הֶם), ם; ־ָם, ־ַם, ־ֶ֫ מוֹ*; ־ֵם, |
| (־ֶ֫ ם), ־ֵ֫ מוֹ* | ||||
| f. | הֵ֫נָּה | them (eas). | [הֶן], ן; ־ָן, (־ַ֫ ן); [־ֵן] | |
| Accusative of the Pronoun, or Suffixum Verbi. | Genitive of the Pronoun, or Suffixum Nominis (Pron. posessivum). | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B. | A. | B. | ||
| With Nûn energicum. | Attached to a sing. noun. | Attached to a noun plur. or dual. | ||
| ־ַ֫ נִּי; ־ֶ֫ נִּי | my (prop. gen. | ־ִי | my. | ־ַי |
| mei). | ||||
| ־ֶ֫ ךָּ, (־ֶ֫ נָךָּ) | thy | ךָ, אְךָ, in | thy. | ־ֶ֫ יךָ |
| (prop. | pause ־ֶ֫ ךָ | |||
| not found. | tui). | ךְ, ־ֵךְ, (־ָךְ) | ־ַ֫ יִךְ | |
| (־ֶ֫ נָהוּ), ־ֶ֫ נּוּ; (נוֹ) | his (eius | הוּ, ו; ־ֵ֫ הוּ, וֹ (הׄ) | his. | ־ָיו, ־ָו, (־ֵ֫ יהוּ*) |
| and suus). | ||||
| ־ֶ֫ נָּה | her. | הָ; ־ָהּ; ־ֶ֫ הָ | her. | ־ֶ֫ יהָ |
| ־ֶ֫ נּוּ ? (see § 58 k) | our. | נוּ; ־ֵ֫ נוּ; (־ָ֫ נוּ) | our. | ־ֵ֫ ינוּ |
| these forms are | your. | כֶם; ־ְכֶם | your. | ־ֵיכֶם |
| not found. | כֶן; ־ְכֶן | ־ֵיכֶן | ||
| their. | הֶם; ־ָם, | their. | ־ֵיהֶם, ־ֵ֫ ימוֹ* | |
| ־ָ֫ מוֹ* | ||||
| הֶן, הֵן, ־ָן | ־ֵיהֶן
| |||
- ↑ On the other hand, in Jb 924 and 24:25 אֵפוֹ is not prefixed to the מִי, but appended to the conditional sentence.
- ↑ Cf. the analogous sentences after יַ֫עַן because, Is 6512, Jer 3517; after causal אֲשֶׁר 1 S 2623; after כִּי Is 121; likewise after גַּם § 153 at the end; after פֶּן־ Dt 812–14, 25:3, Jos 618, 2 S 1228.
- ↑ The transition from a question to a wish may be seen, e.g. in Nu 114 who shall give us flesh to eat? i.e. O that we had flesh to eat!
- ↑ Cf. a similar transition from a conditional to a desiderative particle, in consequence of the suppression of the apodosis, in the English, O if I had! and the like; e.g. Nu 2229 if there were (לוּ יֶשׁ־) a sword in my hand now had I surely killed thee!
- ↑ Especially in compounds, e.g. לֹא־אֵל lit. a no-God (Germ. Ungott)who is indeed called a god, but is not really a god, Dt 3221; לֹא אֱלֹהַּ verse 17, cf. Jer 57, 2 Ch 139; לֹא־עָם lit. a not-people (Germ. Unvolk), Dt 3221; לֹא דָבָר a nothing, Am 613; לֹא עֵץ lit. not-wood, Is 1015; לֹא־אִישׁ, לֹֽא־אָדָם lit. not-man, superhuman (of God), Is 318; לֹא־עֶ֫דֶק unrighteousness, Jer 2213, cf. Ez 2229; לֹא־סְדָרִים disorder, Jb 1022; לֹֽא־חָמָם not-violence, 16:17; after לְ Jb 262 f. (לֹא־כֹחַ, לֹא־עֹז helplessness, לֹא חָכְמָה insipientia); cf. also Is 552 בְּלוֹא לְשָׂבְעָה for what is unsatisfying; ψ 4413, Jb 811, 1532, 1 Ch 1233.—In Nu 205 a construct state with several genitives is negatived by לֹא.—Also לֹא is used with an infinitive, Nu 3523; with an adjective, לֹא חָכָם unwise, Dt 326, Ho 1313; לֹֽא־חָסִיד impius, ψ 431; לֹא־עָז and לֹֽא־עָצוּם not strong, Pr 3025 f.; לֹא־כֵן unsuitably, 2 K 79; לֹא־טוֹב not-good, Is 652, Ez 2025, &c.; לֹא טָהוֹר not-clean, 2 Ch 3017; with a participle, e.g. Jer 22 (unsown); (6:8, Ez 414, 2224, Zn 2:1, 3:5; the Masora, however, requires נֻחָ֫מָה in Is 5411, נֶֽעֱזָ֫בָה in 62:12, נוֹשָׁ֫בָה in Jer 68, רֻחָ֫מָה in Ho 16, i.e. always 3rd sing. fem. perf. in pause = she was not comforted, &c., and consequently not compounds, but either relative clauses or (Is 5411, Ho 16, and especially 2:25) main clauses instead of proper names.—On the above compounds generally, cf. the dissertation mentioned in § 81 d, note 2; on their use in sentences expressing a state, to convey attributive ideas, see u below.
- ↑ In Jer 513 the pointing אֶל־ occurs twice instead of אַל־, and is thus, in the opinion of the Masoretes, equivalent to against him that bendeth; but undoubtedly we should read אַל־.
- ↑ According to De Lagarde, Novae psalterii graeci editionis specimen, p. 26, יְשׁוּעָ֫תָה ψ 33 is also an accusative after אֵין.
- ↑ Evidently from בָּלָה to waste away, from which stem also בְּלִי and בֶּ֫לֶת (whence בִּלְתִּי § 90 m), originally substantives, are formed.
- ↑ In Pr 913 (perhaps also Pr 147; but see Delitzsch on the passage) a verbal-clause is used co-ordinately in this way as a periphrasis for an adjective.
- ↑ In 1 K 1021 אֵין־כֶּ֫סֶף goes with what precedes and must be emended, with the LXX and Lucian, to כִּי הַכֶּ֫סֶף.
- ↑ For further particulars of the use of wāw copulativum, see Gesenius’ Thesaurus, i. 393 ff. On its use in the co-ordination of similar tenses and moods (e.g. five imperfects consecutive in Gn 2534, five perfects with וְגַם) as well as of dissimilar tenses and moods, the remarks made in the treatment of the tenses will suffice. With regard to the connexion of single nouns by וְ (which strictly speaking is always really a contraction of so many clauses into a single sentence) the following observations may be made:—
(a) Contrary to English usage, which in lengthy enumerations uses the and to connect only the last member of the series, in Hebrew polysyndeton is customary, as in Gn 1216 wāw copulativum six times, 24:35 seven times, 15:19 ff. nine times, and in Jos 724 ten times. Sometimes, however, only the last two words are joined (so in a series of three members, Gn 532, 101, 1126, 132, 141, 3039, &c.; the last three out of a series of four, Jer 226); less frequently only the first two, ψ 459; cf. § 132 d. The formula תְּמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם yesterday (and) the day before yesterday, Ex 58, &c., is always without the copula. On the other hand, the constructio asyndetos in a series of verbs is used as a rhetorical expedient to produce a hurried and so an impassioned description; e.g. Ju 527 at her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay; Ex 159, Dt 3215, 1 S 156, Jer 47, Am 521, ψ 1010, 141, 455, Jb 2019, 284, 298, Ct 211, 56, &c.
(b) Frequently wāw copulativum is also explanatory (like isque, et—quidem, and the German und zwar, English to wit), and is then called wāw explicativum, e.g. Gn 44 and (i.e. namely) of the fat thereof (unless it is simply copulative); Ex 2412, 2512 (to wit two); 27:14, 28:23, Ju 173 (in וּמַסֵּכָה; here as often elsewhere, to introduce an explanatory gloss, cf. Is 178, Ez 315, and especially P. Haupt, SBOT. Isaiah, p. 90, l. 21 ff.), 1 S 1734 and that too with the bear; 2 S 1320, Is 5711, Jer 1710, Am 311, 410, Ze 9:9, Pr 312, Neh 813, 2 Ch 2310 (but in 1 S 283 the וּ before בְּעִירוֹ is to be omitted with the LXX); cf. also such combinations as וְעַד—מִן from... and even to..., Gn 133, 1423, 194, 11, &c.—In 1 S 611 (see Driver on the passage), 2 S 123, &c., ו is equivalent to yea, and; in Is 327 even.
וְ is used to express emphasis (=and especially), e.g. in Gn 316 וְהֵֽרֹנֵךְ; Is 21, ψ 181, perhaps also in Jb 1017 yea, a whole host; 2 Ch 1614.—An undoubted example of what is called wāw concomitantiae occurs in Jb 4112 a seething pot וְאַגְמֹן with burning rushes; cf. Ex 1010 (with your little ones), 12:8, Lv 112, Is 425. In Arabic this wāw concom. is followed by the accusative.
וְ-וְ is used in the sense of both—and in ψ 767, Dn 13, 813. On וְ-וְ as meaning sive—sive, cf. § 162 b.
(c) See the Lexicon on adverbs used in a copulative sense, such as גַּם also, moreover, summing up a number, e.g. גַּם־שְׁנַ֫יִם both together, Gn 2745, Pr 1715; גַּם־כֹּל all together; as an intensive and, e.g. Gn 308, 377, 1 S 308; cf. also such examples as 1 S 2412 see, yea see! גַּם-גַּם or גַּם-וְגַם Gn 2444=both—and; גַּם occurs three times in Gn 2425 and 32:20; also אַף, which is generally still more intensive, in the sense of also, in addition to this, even, and belongs rather to poetry, and to the later language; frequently also equivalent to a mere and, but sometimes adversative but now, ψ 4410, &c.; and אַף-אַף (also three times), equivalent to both—and; cf. וְאַף גַּם and even, Lv 2644; אַף־כִּי prop. add to this also that, equivalent to not to mention, according to the context either quanto magis or quanto minus. - ↑ In this exhaustive article the author shows that between שׁ (on the pronunciation see § 36) and אֲשֶׁר there is syntactically no primary difference, but only a secondary distinction which arose in the course of the development of the language, namely that אֲשֶׁר is preferred in combinations which are customary in the old literary language, and שׁ in those which are derived from the popular language or from Aramaic.
- ↑ The old view that all these cases arise from the omission of אֲשֶׁר is incorrect. These co-ordinated attributive clauses are rather a mere subdivision of the various kinds of circumstantial clauses (see § 156) which may be attached to a nomen regens. Cf. in English this is the letter (which) he wrote to me.
- ↑ So Baumann, op. cit., p. 14 f., following Böttcher, Lehrbuch, ii. 80.
- ↑ In Dt 3231 this form of sequence appears to be selected for another purpose, and indeed our enemies are judges thereof, with wāw emphatic; to take it as a circumstantial clause is too artificial.
- ↑ The expression הִתְרָאָה פָנִים to look one another in the face (i.e. to contend in combat) 2 K 148, 11, 2 Ch 2517, 21, is probably only a shortened form for הִתְרָאָה פָנִים אֶל־פָּנִים.
- ↑ That (אֶ֫רֶץ) אָֽרְצָה is really to be regarded as a virtual predicate to אַפַּ֫יִם, and not אַפַּ֫יִם as a casus instrumenti, is seen from Is 4923, where אַפַּ֫יִם אֶ֫רֶץ precedes the verb.
- ↑ Some examples of these have been already discussed in another connexion above, § 120 a–c.
- ↑ In Gn 2114 the circumstantial verbal-clause שָׂם עַל־שִׁכְמָהּ is only due to a harmonizing transposition; read וְאֶת־הַיֶּ֫לֶד שׂ׳ ע׳ שׁ׳. According to the source used in cap. 21 Ishmael was still a young child; according to 17:25 he was about 16 or 17 years old.
- ↑ On these clauses with כִּי and אֲשֶׁר and generally on clauses which we should render as subordinate, cf. P. Dörwald ‘Zur hebr. Syntax’ in Neue Jahrbb. für Philol. und Pädag. 1890, p. 115 ff.
- ↑ Instead of a complete objective clause we sometimes find a kind of accusative and infinitive construction, especially after נָתַן (prop. to give up) in the sense of to allow, e.g. Nu 2123 וְלֹֽא־נָתַן סִיחֹן אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבֹר בִּגְבֻלוֹ and Sihon did not suffer Israel to pass through his border; 20:21; followed by an infinitive with לְ, e.g. Gn 206, 317, Ex 319.—Cf. also the analogous examples in Dt 2856 (after נִסָּה to venture; see Template:GHGpar); Template:GHGbible-ref (afterTemplate:GHGheb); Template:GHGbible-ref (after Template:GHGheb).
- ↑ In Template:GHGbible-ref a subject-clause is thus introduced by Template:GHGheb instead of the usual Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ Also Template:GHGheb prop. for therefore, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref Template:GHGterm, and Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref, always mean for as much as.
- ↑ It may, moreover, happen that a different idea is introduced in the apodosis, from that with which the protasis started—a source of many further variations.
- ↑ On the termination Template:GHGheb cf. Template:GHGpar. In verse 28 b also Template:GHGheb is probably to be explained from its immediately preceding the greater Template:GHGterm. These terminations in verses 28–30 and Template:GHGbible-ref can scarcely have any connexion with the conditional sentence, although it is strange that Template:GHGheb in Template:GHGbible-ref appears after Template:GHGheb in the protasis. In Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref Template:GHGheb as before Template:GHGheb (as in Template:GHGbible-ref in the apodosis) is to be explained from the dislike of hiatus.
- ↑ On Template:GHGheb cf. Kohler in Geiger’s Zeitschr. für Wiss. und Leben, vi (1868), p. 21 ff.
- ↑ We are not here concerned with the fact that the logical apodosis (the consequence of the condition) is sometimes mentioned before the condition; as in Template:GHGbible-ref, 30, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref f., 137:6, and according to Dillmann Template:GHGbible-ref.
- ↑ There could be no doubt of their identity if Template:GHGheb in Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, simply meant if. We must, however, keep to the meaning but behold.
- ↑ On this Template:GHGterm, and in general on these proverbial comparisons, see Delitzsch, Das Salomonische Spruchbuch, p. 9 f. Moreover, instead of entire clauses, the nouns alone (without predicates) are frequently grouped together, e.g. Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref (called by Delitzsch, the ‘emblematic Mashal’). The expressions Template:GHGheb prop. to be counted with some one, Template:GHGbible-ref, and Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref, also arise from the idea of comparison implied in grouping things together. On this use of Template:GHGheb cf. Template:GHGbible-ref, where with is equivalent to like.
- ↑ In spite of its form this particle has originally nothing to do with Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb. The expression is compounded of Template:GHGheb and Template:GHGheb, like the Aramaic Template:GHGheb for Template:GHGheb; cf. M. Lambert, Template:GHGcite xxx. 47.
- ↑ Very probably this use of Template:GHGheb arises from the original meaning for if, surely if (Template:GHGheb in an affirmative sense); so evidently in Template:GHGbible-ref as a forcible resumption of the preceding Template:GHGheb. Thus, e.g. Template:GHGbible-ref is simply surely when I have been avenged of you, after that I will cease, equivalent to, I will not cease, until I have, &c. When the exception follows, an ellipse must be assumed, e.g. Template:GHGbible-ref surely (or for) when he has finished it (then the man will rest). It is far less natural to assume such an ellipse with Template:GHGheb (before entire clauses as before single nouns); see a above.
- ↑ This secondary idea is implied here by the mere co-ordination of two independent Template:GHGterm-clauses, just as the idea of simultaneous occurrence (according to Template:GHGpar, note 1) is implied in the co-ordination of a noun-clause with another clause. In Template:GHGbible-ref the immediate succession is especially emphasized by Template:GHGheb and the infinitive absolute, Jacob was yet scarce gone out... then Esau his brother came; in Template:GHGbible-ref by Template:GHGheb only in Template:GHGbible-ref by Template:GHGheb and the addition of two more perfects without Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ On the perfect in the protasis, which is critically doubtful, cf. Template:GHGpar.
- ↑ On Template:GHGheb as an original demonstrative, cf. Template:GHGpar; hence Template:GHGheb is properly up to that (moment)—we shall return.
- ↑ Cf. the frequent use of wenn [prop. if] for wann [=when] in German.
- ↑ Cf. H. G. T. Mitchell, Final Constructions of Biblical Hebrew, Leipzig, 1879.
- ↑ In Template:GHGbible-ref a final clause is introduced by Template:GHGheb, thus at the same time taking the form of an object-clause.
- ↑ On Template:GHGheb as a supposed conjunction (equivalent to the Arabic li) Template:GHGbible-ref, see Template:GHGpar.
- ↑ That such examples as Template:GHGheb are to be regarded as jussive is probable from the analogy of Template:GHGbible-ref and Template:GHGbible-ref.
- ↑ But those cases are not to be regarded as examples of aposiopesis, in which the answer, being closely connected with the question, is given simply in the infinitive with Template:GHGheb; cf. Template:GHGpar, note 1.
- ↑ On the other hand, from the Semitic point of view the various kinds of compound sentences are not to be regarded as instances of anacoluthon, e.g. Template:GHGbible-ref, nor even Template:GHGbible-ref (cf. Template:GHGpar).
- ↑ Forms with an asterisk are exclusively poetic, those in parentheses () are rare, those in brackets [] do not occur (cf. Template:GHGpar, note).