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 23 בּ֫קֶֹר לֹא עָבוֹת a morning when there are not clouds, i.e. a cloudless morning; cf. Jb 12, 26 b, 38:26 (לֹא־אִישׁ where no man is, i.e. uninhabited); 1 Ch 2, 32 לֹא בָנִים childless; so also בְּלִי e.g. Jb 24 and אֵין e.g. ψ 88 I am as a man אֵֽין־אֱיָל there is not help, i.e. like a helpless man; Is 9 אֵֽין־קֵץ endless; 47:1, Ho 7; אֵֽין־מִסְפָּר countless, Ct 6, &c., but usually (ψ 104, &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 30 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 72 וְאֵֽין־ע׳ is used in the same sense); Hb 1; with אֵין Is 45 thy work is that of a man who hath no hands; Zc 9 out of the waterless pit.[1]
[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 1, ψ 72, Jb 29; cf. also Is 59, where כְּאֵֽין־עֵינַ֫יִם is parallel with כַּֽעִוְרִים; partly from their being introduced by the sign of the dative לְ, e.g. Is 40 (= and to the powerless); Jb 26 a.3, Neh 8.
[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 32, &c. (cf. δείδω μή, vereor ne), taking heed, frequently after הִשָּׁ֫מֶר, הִשָּֽׁמְרוּ Gn 24, 31, &c., taking care, 2 K 10, &c. Not infrequently the idea on which פֶּן־ depends, is only virtually contained in the main clause, e.g. Gn 19 I cannot escape to the mountain (because I am afraid), פֶּן־תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָֽרָעָה lest some evil overtake me; Gn 26, 38; also in Gn 44 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 11, 19, Nu 20 (where פֶּן־ lest is separated from the verb by a strongly emphasized substantive); Ju 15 after swear unto me; Pr 24.—In Gn 3 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 26, 31, 42 Ex 13, 1 S 13, 27, ψ 38, 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 20, 2 K 2, see § 107 q, note 3; cf. moreover, 2 K 10 רְאוּ פֶּן־יֶשׁ־פֹּה look lest there be here, &c.
