Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Phil Sumpter" <philsumpter AT hotmail.com>]

Kirk,

thank you for your clear and helpful response. You concluded: "because then 
the noun phrase of v4 is just floating out there without belonging to any 
clause at all."

I'm afraid I still don't see why the noun-phrase can't just be the main 
clause. There are plenty of such noun-phrases which are self-contained 
clauses, aren't there. E.g. Gen 31:38 ("these twenty years I [have been] 
with you"). Isn't Ps 1:1-2 another example of such a self-contained clause, 
this time with a few relative clauses thrown in?

A final example, having read Harold's comments below, is Ps 15:2. Here we 
have the same structure, without the 'asher's. Doesn't v. 2, a string of 
noun phrases, count as a complete sentence?

Thanks for interacting.

Harold,

> BDB calls the form an imperfect.

The jussive isn't always morphological observable. This is only the case in 
certain verb groups, such as hiphiels, III he verbs, and II -ayin/ 
II -yod/waw verbs.

It could be a jussive because it is clause initial and because the syntax is 
otherwise unusual.

As for Bibleworks, that is just one interepretation. A-F and Westminster 
Morphology, both on Logos, often disagree with each other.

> Psalm 15 shows that you don't need a complete sentence when answering a 
> question.

I think v. 2 is a complete sentence. Unlike in English, Hebrew doesn't need 
a verb to make it complete. The NET translation you give does just that.


>  I don't see an ounce of difference in meaning

If yissa' starts a new clause, it could be interpreted as a promise, like 
yimot in Ps 15:5b (as you note). If it is the predicate of v. 4, it is part 
of the answer to the question in v. 3. But in that case, it seems to be it 
would be an odd answer, a kind of indirect answer.

All the best

Phil Sumpter

http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/