An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

dubiety, supposition, modality, or volition) becomes more forceful. Both verbal
conjugations may express either assertion or irreality. Usually the intensifying
infinitive with the perfective conjugation forcefully presents the certainty of a
completed event, 22 as in ףרֹט ַ ףֹרט, ָ ‘Without a shadow of a doubt he has been torn to
pieces’ (Gen 37:33). With the non-perfective conjugation the infinitive absolute often
emphasizes that a situation was, or is, or will take place. Since the non-perfective is
used for irreality and volition, the infinitive absolute can intensify the sense of
irreality in connection with that conjugation. There is, however, no precise match
between the infinitive’s force and the finite verb’s conjugation. Both conjugations
may represent a situation as real or irreal and therefore the infinitive may emphasize
either sense with either conjugation. We refer to this use of the infinitive as the
intensifying infinitive.
[Page 585] c Scholars debate whether the infinitive absolute can ever intensify the
verbal root. Jenni denies it, while Paul Joüon and S. Riekert affirm it. 23 We agree with
the latter scholars, though noting that such use is rare.
d The earlier grammarians divide the uses of the absolute or intensifying infinitive into
two categories, prepositive (that is, before the other verb) and postpositive (that is,
after the other verb), while allowing that the difference in meaning between them is
slight. Many of them also allege that the paronomastic infinitive more frequently
signifies intensification in the more common prepositive position and continuation or
repetition in the postpositive position. Riekert, however, rightly demurs on the basis
of a close study of the intensifying infinitive in Genesis: “The author is convinced that
we have here an artificial distinction between the prepositive and postpositive
inf[initive] and that the latter is incorrectly credited with this aspect of expressing
duration.” 24 Over a half century earlier, Joüon had also called the distinction into
question. 25 In our opinion the paronomastic infinitive is always an intensifying
22
Goddard reckons with 81 cases of the intensifying infinitive with the perfective; see
Hebrew Infinitive Absolute, 31.
Joüon Paul Joüon. 1923. Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique.
23
Jenni remarks, “The determination consists in a strengthening of the modus of the
expression (not of the root’s meaning as such) and can only be decided upon from
context”; LHS 117; contrast Joüon §123j / p. 351 and Riekert, “Infinitives Absolute in
Genesis,” 71.
24
Riekert, “Infinitives Absolute in Genesis,” 77.
25
Joüon §123d / pp. 348–49. As he notes, the Hithpael infinitive is always
postpositive. The intensifying infinitive precedes the finite verb in Amarna Canaanite,
Ugaritic (with one exception), and Old Aramaic. Such infinitives following the verb
are found notably in the Mari texts, with the verb raṭāpu ito continue (doing
something)’ (perhaps under Amorite—rather than Canaanite, pace Hammershaimb—
influence); see Hammershaimb, “Infinitivus Absolutus,” 87–88. Goddard, Hebrew
Infinitive Absolute, 125–42, takes a similar view; further, he counts in his class of
single uses of the intensifying infinitive absolute (468 cases), only about 30 in which
the infinitive follows the verb or participle it refers to. Muraoka, too, is dubious