...
Well, the first clause in this verse starts at the beginning and continues until XESED HU', with 'ASHER introducing a clause subordinate to this one. The sentence structure in fact seems to state that it is the man who is XESED, but it could be interpreted that the whole situation is so descibed. But I don't see that the meaning could a description of what follows, which is separated off by the VAV conjunction attached to a QATAL verb (i.e. WEQATAL) which always indicates a new clause.Looking at the verse, the )$R precedes the XSD HW) so that the latter is either part of the subordinate clause, or the introduction to the following clause. ...
... I read it as the latter.
Secondly, does the WAW prefix on a verb always indicate a new clause, ...
... or only when affixed on a Qatal? I read the WAW to have the same force as on the final verb in Isaiah 53:2. ...
... On a related issue, when I see applications of a noun that is used well over 100 times in Tanakh, all of them having one meaning and only once apparently having a different and opposite meaning, I then question why? Is this a special figure of speach? Did I misunderstand the text? Is there possible copyest error? Is this a loan word from another language that just happened to have the same form as a previous lexeme in the language (though in this case, with Torah being the earliest section of Tanakh, it is very unlikely)? Are we looking at an unusual though acceptable grammatical construct? Is this slang? In short, a one time opposite use raises many red flags.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.