Anyway, etymology is largely irrelevant to current meaning.
Sure enough. And narrators employing ci-yiqtol did not dwell into its etymological future tense. ...
It is not etymological future tense, as is clear from cognate languages.
... Note that deictic shifts and idioms are expectedly unusually common in emphatic decidedly archaic narration like than in Tanakh.
It is archaic now, but it was not archaic when it was written, it was the normal narrative form of the Hebrew of its time.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.