Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/527

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Latin futurum exactum, §106o), the imperfect denotes actions occurring contingently in the future. On טֶ֫רֶם, בְּטֶ֫רֶם, and עַד with the imperfect as a tempus historicum, cf. §107c.

 [164f]  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.

 [164g]  3. The infinitive construct governed by a preposition (§114d, 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 §111g 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. §112v, and in general, §114r.—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.

§165. Final Clauses.[1]

 [165a1. 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 §107q; 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 (§108d); (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, §109f, 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, §110i; (ε) of a perfect consecutive after another perfect consecutive, Lv 1436; after an imperfect, §112m and p; similarly after a jussive, §112q; after an imperative, §112r.—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 §109g. In Ex 2832, 3923 the negative final clause is simply connected by לֹא.—On the use of an historical statement after verbs of command-

  1. Cf. H. G. T. Mitchell, Final Constructions of Biblical Hebrew, Leipzig, 1879.