וָאֹֽמַר); Jer 38²⁸, where the narrative breaks off in the middle of the sentence; 40:3 (וְהָיָה, &c., wanting in the LXX); also in Ju 7¹³ וְנָפַל הָאֹהֶל is altogether redundant; in 1 S 3¹³ read, with Klostermann, the 2nd sing. masc. instead of והגדתי; in 1 K 21¹² וְהשִׁ֫יבוּ is, no doubt, incorrectly repeated from verse 9, where it is an imperative.

 [rr]  Of other questionable instances, (α) the following, at any rate, may also be explained as frequentatives, Gn 21²⁵, 49²³, Ex 36³⁸, 38²⁸, 39³, 1 S 5⁷, 17²⁰, 24¹¹ (but even so וְאָֽמְרוּ would be expected); 2 K 23¹², Is 28²⁶ (parallel with an imperfect); Am 5²⁶ (unless it is rather, yea, ye shall take up; see above, x); ψ 26³, Ezr 8³⁶.

 [ss]  (β) A longer or constant continuance in a past state is perhaps represented by the perfect with וְ (as a variety of the frequentative perfect with וְ), in Gn 15⁶, 34⁵, Nu 21²⁰, Jos 9¹², 22³b, Is 22¹⁴, Jer 3⁹. But the unusual perfects consec. in Jos 15³–11, 16:2–8 (ultimately parallel with an imperf. as in 17:9, 18:20), 18:12–21, 19:11–14.22.26–29.34, are without doubt rightly explained by Bennett (SBOT., Joshua, p. 23) as originally containing the directions either of God to Joshua or of Joshua to the people; cf. the evident trace of this in 15:4b. A redactor transformed the directions into a description but left the perfects consec., which are to be explained as in aa. In the same way וְהָיוּ Ex 36²⁹ is most simply explained as repeated from 26:25.

 [tt]  (γ) The following are due to errors in the text, or to incorrect modes of expression: Ex 36²⁹ f., Ju 3²³,^[1] 16:18 (read וַיַּֽעֲלוּ), 1 S 4¹⁹, 17³⁸, 2 S 16⁵, 19¹⁸ f. (read צָֽלְחוּ and וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ), 1 K 3¹¹ (where ושאלת is, no doubt intentionally, assimilated to the four other perfects); 13:3, 20:21; 2 K 14⁷ (where, with Stade, וְאֶת־הַסֶּ֫לַע תּפַשׁ should be read); 14:14, 18:4 (where, at any rate, וְשִׁבַּר might be taken as a frequentative, but not וכרת, &c.; evidently the perfects are co-ordinated only in form with הוּא הֵסִיר); 18:36, 21:15, 24:14, Jer 37¹⁵ (where וְהִכּוּ, but not וְנָֽתְנוּ, might be frequentative); Ez 9⁷ (omit וְיָֽצְאוּ with Stade, and read וְהַכּוּ); 20:22 (והשבתי Milʿêl before an imperfect consecutive); Am 7⁴ (וְאָכְלָה after an imperfect consecutive); Jb 16¹².

 [uu]  Finally, in 1 S 1¹², 10⁹, 17⁴⁸, 25²⁰, 2 S 6¹⁶, 2 K 3¹⁵, Jer 37¹¹, Am 7² וַיְהִי is to be read throughout instead of וְהָיָה, but in Gn 38⁵ וְהִיא with the LXX.

Cf. the dissertation of J. Kahan, and, especially, the thorough investigation by E. Sellin, both entitled, Ueber die verbal-nominals Doppelnatur der hebräischen Participien und Infinitive, &c., Lpz. 1889; F. Prätorius, ‘Ueber die sogen. Infin. absol. des Hebr.’ in ZDMG. 1902, pp. 546 ff.

 [a]  1. The infinitive absolute is employed according to § 45 to emphasize the idea of the verb in the abstract, i.e. it speaks of an action (or state) without any regard to the agent or to the circumstances of time and mood under which it takes place. As the name of an action the infinitive absolute, like other nouns in the stricter sense,

1. ↑ Or does ונעל, as a frequentative, imply fastening with several bolts? It is, at all events, to be noticed, that in 2 S 13¹⁸ also ונעל follows an imperfect consecutive.