You are still missing my point. I am saying that it is most unusual for a clause with a yiqtol in the first position of the clause to be an unmarked interrogative.
HH: There is an unmarked interrogative with a yiqtol form in 1 Sam 11:12. There is a noun subject that >precedes it, as it does in some other cases, but I don't see that that is decisive.
Quoting Gesenius is not really so helpful. We can quote some authorities that read the sentence as a question and some that read it another way. Appealing to authorities will leave us with little more alternative in a case like this than counting up votes--x authorities for question and y authorities for statement.
The existence of an unmarked interrogative in BH doesn't prove, of course, that Pro 5:16 is interrogative. Furthermore, I am trying to point out that a sentence with a yiqtol verb form in the first position decreases the probability that this particular clause is interrogative.
Further-furthermore, I don't see where palgey mayim would be a fitting figure for promiscuity.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.