Hab 3.16 last word-form yehgUdennU in EG parsing has two lines:
-
verb... +/- yiqtOl (imperfect)
-
energic nun...preterite
Q1 (for those familiar with Logos Hebrew parsing tagging): How to read these two lines of parsing?
Line 1 as to form (= prefixed/imperfective) but line 2 as to function (= preterite aspect)?
OR line 2 as clarifying/identifying an identical older preterite tense identical in form but distinct in meaning from imperfect?
OR line 2 as presenting an alternative parsing (and/or also declining to make a call)?
So, for instance, Waltke notes two possible and at least potentially ambiguous uses of “preterite:” “...the old prefixed conjugation that signified a preterite situation (IBHS, P. 31.1.1). But this form can also be construed as an incipient past imperfective IBHS, P. 31.2c). A conclusive decision between these two interpretations cannot be reached, because aspect represents the author’s subjective view of a situation.” (Bruce K. Waltke, James M. Houston, and Erika Moore, The Psalms as Christian Lament: A Historical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), in n. 40 at Ps 44.11.
Q2 Do you think Logos has tagged all such possible “preterites?” And since there is quite a bit of variance among interpreters, does anyone happen to know the source for this “preterite” tagging in Logos (if other than alternative parsing in +/- of first line)? BTW:In addition to the interpretive import in passages (perfective vs. imperfective aspect or even past versus future) such linguistic data has been used, for good or ill, in the dating of biblical texts, which might make it more than minutiae.
PS: I recognize that the +/-, at least for this word-form in this verse, presents both imperfect and preterite as parsings from different sources, but my Qs are specifically how to interpret the two lines of parsing in EG (unless of course, one can say with certainty that is precisely the purpose of the second line and only used when there is an alternative parsing contained within the +/- marking = essentially, the third reading option above).
P.P.S. Older posts in this forum about "errors" regarding prefixed forms when different parsing databases list alternatively imperfect or preterite -- as opposed to different linguistic identifications or different interpretations -- unfortunately merely highlight the poster(s) blindspot about preterites in biblical Hebrew and the ANE.
