Jimmy Parks pointed out that “Logos both generates our own internal morphological database …. {and} For the most part the Logos morphology will follow HALOT in lemmatization, but our own determination over the years has been used to make corrections to syntactic concerns....”
So I would like to propose for consideration a correction to the Logos morphology (as found in the EG word by word section) for the third use of the imperfect of “return”/shUb in Ezk 16.55: Instead of 3d person (i.e., the same as the two other uses in this verse), the third use -- perhaps parsed as an isolated verb form and/or under the (undue) influence of the prior two uses – is instead, 2d person.
[It has been made clear to me that any such correction would not even be contemplated for other places within Logos, where Logos is merely “reporting” what it finds in other resources. And admittedly, tracking persons in Ezk 16 is a bit of a nightmare as seen in so many Kethiv-Qere readings; this is compounded by places i nLogos where a text may present the Kethiv, but a parsing ribbon may analyze the Qere, without any ready explicit notification.]
A simple tracking of the Subjects (as manifested in all EVV at Bible Gateway; excluding what ever's going on with YLT), combined with the personal pronominal suffixes, makes this readily apparent in English.
Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, [3dperson S and pro suf]
and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state,[3d person S and pro suf]
and you [2d person indep. pro.] and your daughters shall return to your former state. [2d person S and pro suffixes] ESV
Those forced to memorize the basic Qal impf paradigm may still harbor mild resentment that two identical forms represent third and second person for both singular and plural, so that context/discourse factors must be brought to bear. In isolation, a fem. pl. imperfect could be either third or second person, but not in this context. [Albeit such disambiguation can be difficult in some rare circumstances.]
Further, the Hebrew itself additionally marks out the third use of shUb as second person by using a unique form of 'hollow verbs/Ayin Waw:'
“In the fem.pl. we sometimes find a prolonged form .... In order to conserve the characteristic u of the normal state in this form when it has a consonantal sufformative, the language has resorted to a linking vowel //ey//,under the influence of l'h verbs (§ 79c). Otherwise, in this position (i.e. closed stressed syllable), O must occur: .... In this form the normal state is sacrificed, resulting in the reduced state. Statistically this is the normal form(3): e.g. Ez 16.55: twice[w/O] 3rd pl. (without [suffix final] heh, § 44d), then p 197 the long form [w/ey before suffix] 2nd pl. (cf.§ i)().” [emph mine]
Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: PontificioIstituto Biblico, 2006), 196–197.
Greenberg suggests this unique form is used specifically to mark the form as 2d – not 3d -- person in Ez 16.55: “Note how an artificial distinction is made in b's verb tešubena, so that the shift to second person be clearly marked all through the last clause.”
Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction andCommentary, vol. 22, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: YaleUniversity Press, 2008), 290.
Finally, Andersen-Forbes morphology correctly, and only, parses this as 2d person – not 3d person.
