Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Chris Watts <dekruidnootjes AT eircom.net>]

Well the Tav is there because it indicates the 2nd person plural.  I  
know that there is the  הוציא    and the   הוצאתי.  I am  
not a grammarian, neither a student nor learned in cognate languages  
or historical development.  But the lexicon clearly says it is an  
imperative and I can not see it any other way, it is impossible to be  
an ordinary hiphil perfect.

By the way, indicative means indicating, indicative is a verbal  
noun.  I could have said:  This indicates that this is an  
imperative"  But this sentence is long, so I wrote: "it is indicative  
of an imperative".


Chris Watts
Ireland



On 9 Jul 2013, at 11:29, Petr Tomasek wrote:

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:22:06AM +0100, Chris Watts wrote:
> Hallo Pere, well firstly I recognised that the heh holem vav is
> indicative of an imperative and the heh a hiphil, then the tsere
> under the tsadi instead of a hireq.  I was surprised so I checked B.
> Davidsons's hebrew analytical lexicon and there is written this word
> idicating it as an imperative hiphil?  Also I checked my personal
> grammar under the assumption that this verb would qualify as a Pe Vav/
> Pe Yod.
>
> Chris Watts
> Ireland

But how would you explain the presence of the -תי ending?

Petr Tomasek

BTW. What do you mean by "indicative of an imperative"?
To me this sounds like an oxymoron.