94:17; 119:92 (both nominal prot.); 106:23. Nu. 22:29 may be opt., or, if there had been … I would have slain. See Opt. sent.
(b) When supposition refers to pres. or fut. the apod. is usually impf., 2 S. 18:12 לֻא אָֽנֹכִי שֹׁקֵל ··· לֹא־אֶשְׁלַח יָדִי If I weighed 1000 shekels on my palms I would not put forth my hand, 2 K. 3:14; Deu. 32:29 לוּ חָֽכְמוּ יַשְׂכִּילוּ if they were wise they would perceive this, Job 16:4; Mic. 2:11, Ps. 81:14. 2 S. 19:7 (nominal prot. and apod.).
Rem. 1. Ez. 14:15 לו = אם just as אם = לו Ps. 73:15. — Ps. 44:21 perhaps, if we forgot would he not search? Job 10:14. Gen. 50:15 לו impf., of action feared but deprecated. Deu. 32:27 לולי impf. in prot. may be action generalised in past, or extending into pres. Ps. 124:1, 2 seems to approach the Ar. laula, but for with a noun; at anyrate the rel. here is not a conj. as in Aram. ellu lo d, unless that.
Rem. 2. The אז, עתּה in the apod., originally temporal, have become often merely logical. Both are good, Gen. 31:42; 43:10, 2 S. 2:27, cf. Job 11:15:16, Pr. 2:5. The כי strengthens, Job 8:6; but in some cases this כי seems resumption of כי of oath, 1 S. 25:34, 2 S. 2:27. This kind of apod. occurs with no formal prot., the prot. having to be supplied from the connection; e.g. after neg., 1 S. 13:13 thou hast not kept; (if thou hadst) then he would have established; or an interr., Job 3:13 why breasts that I should suck? (if not) then I should have lain down; or a gerundive inf., 2 K. 13:19 percutiendum erat sexies, then thou wouldst have smitten Aram. Ex. 9:15, Job. 13:19. This kind of apod. with אז, כי אז, כי עתּה is common in Job.
§ 132. What is equivalent to a cond. sent. often occurs without any cond. particle. (a) An idiomatic sent. of this kind is made by vav conv. perf. both in prot. and apod. This is chiefly in subordinate clauses. Gen. 44:22 וְעָזַב אֶת־אָבִיו וָמֵת if he leave his father he will die (lit., and he
