[d] Rem. 1. The close relation between verbal-clauses beginning with the subject and actual noun-clauses, is seen finally from the fact that the former also are somewhat frequently added with וְ (or subordinated) to a preceding sentence in order to lay stress upon some accompanying circumstance; on such noun-clauses describing a state or circumstance, cf. § 141 e. This is especially the case, again, when the circumstantial appendage involves an antithesis; cf. Gn 1818 seeing that nevertheless Abraham shall surely become, &c.; 24:56, 26:27, Is 2913, Jer 1415, ψ 5017, Jb 2122, and such examples as Gn 42.4, 29:17, where by means of וְ a new subject is introduced in express antithesis to one just mentioned. Moreover, in the examples treated above, under b and c (1 S 283, &c.), the subject is frequently introduced by וְ, which then corresponds to the Greek δέ, used to interpose an explanation, &c., see Winer, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachidioms, § 53. 7b.
[e] 2. By a peculiar construction verbal-clauses may be joined by means of וְ and a following subject to participial clauses, e.g. Gn 3825 הִיא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָֽׁלְחָה she was already brought forth, when she sent, &c.; 44:3, 4, Ju 183, 1911, 2 S 208; for other examples, see § 116 u (where it is pointed out, note 1, that the apodosis also frequently appears in the form of a noun-clause, a further proof of the close relation between verbal-clauses beginning with the subject and noun-clauses proper). Without doubt there is in all these cases a kind of inversion of the principal clause and the temporal subordinate clause; the latter for the sake of greater emphasis being raised to an independent noun-clause, while the real principal action is added as though it were an accompanying circumstance, and hence in the form of an ordinary circumstantial clause. [Cf. Driver, Tenses, § 166 ff.]
[f] 2. According to what has been remarked above, under a, the natural order of words within the verbal sentence is: Verb—Subject, or Verb—Subject—Object. But as in the noun-clause (§ 141 l) so also in the verbal-clause, a variation of the usual order of words frequently occurs when any member of the sentence is to be specially emphasized by priority of position.[1] Thus the order may be:—
(a) Object—Verb—Subject: Gn 3040, 374, 1 S 151, 2 K 2319 and frequently. Naturally the examples are far more numerous, in which the object precedes a verbal form which includes the subject in itself, e.g. Gn 310.14.18, 6:16, 8:17, 9:13, Ex 1823, Ju 143, 1 S 1817, 209, 2110, 2 K 228, Pr 135, &c.
(b) Verb—Object—Subject: Gn 217, Nu 523, 1 S 1533, 2 S 2416 (but המלאך is probably only a subsequent addition); Is 1913, ψ 3422, Jb 1119, &c.
(c) Subject—Object—Verb: Is 317, 118, 1318, Ho 1211, ψ 610, 115, Jb 2925.[2]
- ↑ Not infrequently also the striving after chiasmus mentioned in § 114 r, note, occasions a departure from the usual arrangement of words.
- ↑ This sequence occurs even in prose (Gn 179, 236, &c.); it is, however, more doubtful here than in the above prophetical and poetical passages, whether the preceding subject should not be regarded rather as the subject of a compound sentence (§ 143), the predicate of which is an independent verbal-clause; this would explain why the verbal-clause is usually separated from the subject by one of the greater disjunctives.—On the other hand, the sequence Subject—Object—Verb is quite common in Aramaic (e.g. Dn 27, 10); cf. Gesenius, Comm. on Is 4224, and Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., § 84. 1 b. The pure Aramaic usage of placing the object before the infinitive occurs in Hebrew in Lv 199, 2121, Dt 2856, 2 S 1119, Is 496, 2 Ch 2810, 317, 3619 (?).
