Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/521

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

if thou will save, &c.; Gn 24 אִם־יֶשְׁבֶם עֹשִׂים if ye will deal, &c.; 1 S 23. In Gn 24 f. the condition is expressed in a more humble form by the addition of נָא. With אֵין Gn 43 וְאִם־אֵֽינְךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ but if thou wilt not send, &c.; 20:7 (with imperative in the apodosis); Ex 8, 9 f., 1 S 19 (all with a participle also in the apodosis). But יֵשׁ and אַ֫יִן may also be used after אִם without a suffix; thus יֵשׁ Gn 23, 1 S 20, 2 K 9, &c., אִם־אַ֫יִן (if it be not the case) Gn 30, Ex 32, Ju 9, 2 K 2; cf. also אִם־כֵּן if it be so, Gn 25.

 [w B. הֵן if, generally supposed to be originally identical with הֵן behold![1] 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 8, Lv 25, Is 54, Jer 3, Hag 2, 2 Ch 7, and frequently in Job, as 9, 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 8; אִלּוּ is used in the same sense as לוּ in Est 7, cf. Ec 6 (with a question in the apodosis).—With the perfect in protasis and apodosis after לוּלֵא Gn 31, 43, Ju 14, 1 S 25, 2 S 2, Is 1. On the other hand, in Dt 32 לוּ with a perfect is followed by an imperfect in the apodosis, if they were wise, they would understand this; in Mi 2 by a perfect consecutive.

 [y 2. With imperfect after לוּלֵא Dt 32, 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 50 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 73, Jb 9 f.30, לוּ would be more natural than אִם.

 [z 3. A noun-clause occurs after לוּ 2 S 18, 2 K 3, ψ 81, all with imperfect in the apodosis; Jb 16 לוּ יֵשׁ, with cohortative in the apodosis.

D. כִּי supposing that, if:—

 [aa 1. כִּי with perfect in the protasis, e.g. Nu 5 וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית but thou, if thou hast gone astray, &c.; with a frequentative perfect consecutive in the apodosis, Jb 7 f.; with an imperfect consecutive, Jb 22.

 [bb 2. כִּי with imperfect in the protasis, e.g. ψ 23 גַּם כִּֽי־אֵלֵךְ yea, though I walk (have to walk)..., I will fear no (לֹֽא־אִירָא) evil; 37:24; Ex 21 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 4, 24, Jb 38; with a perfect consecutive in the apodosis, Gn 32 f., Ex 18; with a noun-clause, Is 1.

3. כִּי with a noun-clause (and imperfect in the apodosis), 2 S 19.

Remarks.

 [cc 1. In 2 K 5 the particle אבי (Masora אָבִי, probably in the sense of my father) appears exceptionally for לוּ; its meaning here is unquestionable, but

  1. There could be no doubt of their identity if וְהִנֵּה in 1 S 9, 2 S 18, simply meant if. We must, however, keep to the meaning but behold.