No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Our standard lexica and grammars of Biblical Hebrew quite correctly recognize many instances of 'dz followed by an imperfect verb-form to express a future-temporal or a logical consequence. It seems to me, however, that they have not correctly interpreted that fairly large group of instances (some fifteen) in which 'dz followed by an imperfect expresses neither a future nor a logical consequence, but rather a past action or happening,-appears, that is to say, scarcely distinguishable in usage from far larger group of instances (more than thirty) in which 'dz is followed by a perfect verb-form. The seeming indistinguishability in usage is now most commonly attributed to an assumed persistence of the old preterite meaning of imperfect,2 but this theory, besides presenting other difficulties which must be explained away, fails to provide a criterion for an editor's or a compiler's choice of one or other form in each case. It offers no real understanding, for example, of why Then ... went up at Josh. x 33 is expressed by 'dz and perfect form C'aldh, while at 2 Kings xii 18 and xvi 5 same construction is expressed by 'dz and imperfect form ya 'leh. 3 In fact, however, as will here be shown, when used pasttemporally 'dz followed by an imperfect is not at all equivalent
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.