tive first Mode; as non, because of thy name, i. e. because thy name is so great, so wilt thou forgive, Ps. 25: 11. A clause designating time may also precede; as DET, at evening (when it is evening) then shall ye know, Ex. 16: 6, 7. 17: 4. Gen. 3: 5.

(2) The Aorist is managed here, on account of either meaning or form altogether in a manner like that of the relative second Mode (§ 478); and since this relative first mode, employed as an Aorist, is a correlative of the second Mode, so this latter is regularly and for the sake of complete correspondence always employed after it [the first Mode] as an Aorist. In the beginning of a sentence the first Mode relative sometimes stands to designate the Future, § 472; but when this is so done, the second Mode as Aorist of course follows; e. g. Gen. 17: 12. Deut. 15: 6. Only the poets (according to § 492) employ the first Mode for the future, and this but seldom; as in Job 5: 20. Is. 11: 8. If however the discourse turns upon a thing, which, in comparison with other future things may be regarded as past, then the first relative Mode may be employed.

(3) In cases where may be employed, (see $479),

may also be employed; e. g. before limitations of time, as Nina Dice 27, and it will come to pass at that time. So before particles serving to mark designations of time; as 1, and it shall come to pass if. Or if the discourse has respect to the past, then render, so oft as; Num. 21: 9. Gen. 38: 9. And so, also, before any words which indicate limitations of time; e. g. Gen. 4: 14, and it shall be (1) that every one who findeth me, etc., whenever one finds me, Ex. 18: 22. In other cases likewise; e. g. Hos. 2: 1. Deut. 7: 12. Is. 3: 24. 7:22.

[C]

Participle or relative Tense.

§ 482. Since the Participle has its origin in the verb, but its form and immediate signification from the adjective, so it is distinguished, when employed as a predicate with the significancy and construction of a verb, from the Modes [Praeter and Future], inasmuch as it presents an action rather as continuing, established, enduring, while the Modes designate merely the practising or development of an action. Hence the Participle is the tense of enduring condition or state; which is explicable

on the ground of its reference to another time present in thought or words; it is the relative Tense. It is accordingly employed,

$483. (1) Only in sentences, when the condition is evident from circumstances to the hearer; viz. (a) For the Present relative, in respect to an action still continuing; as, I [am] going, or I go at the present moment, Judg. 17: 9. Often is prefixed, in order to indicate the continuing state; as De, behold! thy brother is angry, Gen. 27: 42. The Participle is distinguished, when used for the Present, from the second Mode employed in the like way (§ 473), inasmuch as the first indicates simply the continuance of a thing, action, etc., while the second indicates the renewal or repetition of it, or the continually originating state.*

(b) For the Future relative, in respect to an action which one has already determined to do, and so that the future is indicated in this way as speedily to follow the present moment; e. g., we are about to destroy, Gen. 19: 13, 14. Often here, also, with preceding.

(c) For the Praeter relative; which, however, must be evident to the hearer from other description of the past; and therefore rarely used in this sense when placed alone, e. g. Gen. 41: 17,, behold! I was standing, i. e. during the dream and this representation.

$ 484. (2) The Participle expresses, in connection with other actions, an action continuing during those other actions. Therefore,

(a) In connection with a description of the past, it expresses the Praeter relative. In such a condition it can be joined to the preceding clause with a Vav (and) prefixed; i

, they came and Lot [was] settling down, i. e. settled down at that time, Gen. 19: 1. Then Rebecca hastened and drew [water], and the man was astonished,, i. e. continued to be astonished while she did this, Gen. 24: 21.

The state, moreover, and the longer time within which the following action was done, may be expressed by the Participle, so that the following clause is attached to the Participle by a Vav relative, (unless where pathos of sentiment prevents this,

478); e. g., thy sons were eating, then came a wind, etc. Job 1: 18, 19. 1 Sam. 2: 13. To the participle

In later Hebrew, the use of the second Mode in this way went into desuetude; e. g. Esth. 2: 13, 14.

thus employed iy, during, whilst, continuing, is often attached, Job 1: 16-18.

In like manner actions that continue while other things take place, may be designated by the Participle in connection with ,; as in Gen. 47: 14. 39: 6. Seldom does the Participle stand separately in such a sense; as in Deut. 5: 5. Judg. 18: 1.

(b) In like positions in descriptions of the future, it stands for the Future relative; as in 1 Sam. 10: 8. 1 K. 1: 14.

(c) Also for the Present; as in Ps. 35: 5, 6.

$485. The language first begins, and that at a late period, to put before the Participle, when it was employed in respect to the past, the verb ; and when respecting the future, the verb; for in this way the time was more definitely designated, and a kind of independent tense was formed. So when, according to 484, (a) The Participle stands connected with other actions; as Joshua was clothed and standing, and then he said, Zech. 3: 3. Job 1: 14. Seldom does this happen, when the participle has a subsequent position and stands more alone; as in 2 Sam. 3: 6. (b) Even without such a connection, the Participle is employed to mark an action long continuing during a specified time; as ye have [long and constantly] provoked, Deut. 9: 7. 22: 24. But in narration conducted in this way, by this independent kind of tense, it is sufficient that the verb has been once produced, at the beginning of a paragraph; 1 K. 5: 1.

§ 486. From this use of the Participle as a tense, differs entirely the use of it as a noun; (even as a noun with the article or in the construct state, although it may also be construed as a verb). It may be a simple noun, as bp, a deserter; or it may be in apposition with a noun; or it may depend on a noun in the construct state. Used thus as a noun, it includes the idea of a subject and a verb in itself; and therefore is employed in cases where with the verb might be employed. Specially is it employed in apposition, where it attaches itself to the noun more easily than the verb. Since there is properly no distinction of time in it, so it may be used respecting any time; e. g. the Present; the Praeter, Gen. 27: 33. 1 Sam. 4: 8. 11: 9. Gen. 19: 14; seldom the Future, as Ex. 11: 5. 2 K. 3: 27.

REMARKS ON THE PRECEDING ACCOUNT OF THE HEBREW TENSES, BY M. STUART.

Let us now endeavour to make as brief a recapitulation of the leading ideas exhibited in these remarks of Ewald, as will consist with doing justice to the author and with perspicuity.

(1) His main position is, that the so called Hebrew tenses were not primarily designed at all to mark tense or time, but only modes of action.

This is more explicitly avowed in the preceding part of his Grammar; where (in $ 193) he says: "Out of the roots of verbs the [Hebrew] language does not construct so many forms as ours for the designation of tenses and modes. It has, besides the Participle and the Infinitive (both of which belong, in respect to form, to nouns, 218-223), only two distinct forms [the Praeter and Future]; and these make rather the difference of MODE than of tense; and hence this should be named the first and second Mode."

(2) The first Mode, as thus defined, marks (in itself aoristically in the widest sense of the word) that which is complete, definite, and certain. The second Mode (aoristic in the like way) designates that which is incomplete, indefinite, and dependent on circumstances.

On these propositions I have some remarks to make; but I reserve them, as also any others which I may have occasion to make, until I shall have finished the present recapitulation.

(3) THE FIRST MODE (Praeter), in conformity with its fundamental and modal meaning, designates, (a) The Past, in an absolute and unconditional manner, and without reference or relation to any particular thing. (b) The Present, when an action before commenced may and probably will be still repeated. (c) The Future, only when the thing is regarded as completed or as altogether and unconditionally certain.

(4) THE SECOND MODE (Future), in conformity also with its general nature, designates, (a) That which is future or yet to come, in the strict sense. (b) Also (by transition of thought into the past), that which was future in such past time. (c) In like manner, the Paulo-post Future, or Futurum praeteritum, is designated by the second Mode.

But this is not all. Inasmuch as the second Mode designates the idea of that which is incomplete or unfinished, it is conse

quently adapted to express any thing which is coming into being or taking its rise, or is (as we say) in a forming state. Hence as an action now doing is incomplete, the second Mode is adapted to express, (d) The Present. (e) The mind may look back on things that were being done, etc., in time past, and the second Mode is employed to represent them in that state, (like the Latin Imperfect). (ƒ) As kindred to this, and quite analogous to it, is the case of often repeated action, which is conceived of as a thing that has taken place and will again take place. The expression of this, therefore, is appropriate to the second Mode.

Once more; that which is indefined, that which is dependent on feelings, wishes, circumstances, etc., belongs appropriately to the second Mode. Consequently it is employed, (g) to express the sense of the Conjunctive or Subjunctive mode. (h) As a ramification of the same general idea, the second Mode also designates the Optative, or that which is hortatory, desiderative, jussive, or permissive.

Such is the wide ground that the Praeter and Future occupy in their simple state, according to the views of Ewald. But, (5) There is another state in which the usage of the Hebrew has placed them both, without the formality of a different mode of declension. This is by prefixing Vav relative to them; to the Future by Vav with Pattahh and Daghesh following it, to the Praeter by Vav with the usual conjunction-vowel, i. e. Sheva. This gives rise to a great variety of expression in both tenses, or (to speak with Ewald) in both Modes.

In § 244, Ewald has stated, that Vav prefixed to the Future by Pattahh and followed by Daghesh forte is entirely different from (and) the usual conjunction. In § 245 he has affirmed the same, as to this difference from the common, respecting Vav before the Praeter. In his larger Grammar he gives his solution of the difficulty which apparently arises from the punctuation of the Vav being so different in these two cases. He there states (p. 539), that the Vav of the Future (1) arose from the verb, so that in is equivalent to, or the same as, and it came to pass [that] he would write = be wrote. The old root of he makes to be then by syncope we have ; and then is easily abridged into 1. In this way the Vav prefixed to the Future received its shape and meaning; for the Future with this prefixed becomes a compound form, and, like the verb of existence with