INTRODUCTION TO

SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS

D.MIN. OT SEMINAR

Prepared by William D. Barrick, Th.D.

The Masters Seminary
Sun Valley, California
January 2014

Distinctions Between the Usage of the Perfect and Imperfect

One of the most misunderstood and debated areas of biblical (or, classical) Hebrew
grammar involves the Hebrew verb system. Verb identification as perfect and
imperfect are unfortunate. Many Hebraists prefer to refer to these two verb forms as
simply qatal and yiqtol (transliterations of the basic ground forms) or as suffix
conjugation and prefix conjugation.
Deciding what to call these two categories of verbs, however, comprises a very small
matter compared to defining their distinctive usages or meanings. In turn, how one
defines the distinctions has a great deal to do with how these verbs affect ones translation
and interpretation of the text of the Hebrew Bible.
Lets begin with a basic Hebrew grammar tool and progress through the more
technical resources in a discussion of the nature of these two verb forms. First, Gary A.
Long, in Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew, provides the following
description for the perfective aspect (= the suffix conjugation or qatal):
The perfective aspect, or perfectivity, views a situation from the outside,
as whole and complete.1
He goes on to further describe the perfective by explaining that it
expresses the totality of the situation, without dividing up its internal
temporal structure. The whole situation is presented as an undivided

1
Gary A. Long, Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew: Learning Biblical Hebrew
Grammatical Concepts through English Grammar (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 92 (all
emphases are Longs own).
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 2
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

whole. The beginning, middle, and end are rolled up into one. it
makes no attempt to divide the situation into various phases. 2
In contrast, consider Longs description of the imperfective aspect (= the prefix
conjugation or yiqtol):
The imperfective aspect, or imperfectivity, views a situation from the
inside. It considers the internal temporal structure of a situation.3
In any given context imperfectivity might involve such grammatical concepts as repeated
or habitual actions, actions in progress, and completed actions without a view to result.4
In other words, in contrast to the suffix conjugation, the prefix conjugation might identify
a situation with regard to a particular phase of the action (its beginning [= inceptive],
middle [= durative], or end [= culminative]), rather than looking at it as a totality.
Longs distinctions are in general agreement with the more technical discussions of
Joon and Muraoka. They indicate that one of the primary characteristics of the suffix
conjugation is that its aspect refers to action that is unique or instantaneous. 5 In fact,
they remind readers that The unity of the action can, and sometimes must, be
emphasised in our languages.6 In other words, an accurate understanding of the suffix
conjugation should affect the translation of the Hebrew into other languages (English,
French, and Japanese being perhaps foremost in Muraokas mind). It is instructive to
consider some of their examples:
Judges 19:30, tazOK' ht'yh > .nI-al{) = such a thing has never (not even once)
been done
Isaiah 66:8, tazOK' [m;v'-ymi) = who has ever heard?
In addition, Joon and Muraoka point out that, by the employment of the suffix
conjugation, all the actions of a series or of a category can be considered in a global way
. . . ; thus one can explain the use of qatal in certain cases, especially for truths of
experience: Wrm.v' Jer 8.7 they observe (after h['d>y") it knows); ..7
One must be aware, however, that Joon and Muraoka identify a number of
exceptions to this simplified view of the suffix conjugation.8 As with any element of
biblical Hebrew grammar, the potential for exceptions is always present. In some cases,
however, it is actually a matter of ones interpretation being imposed upon the grammar
in order to find an exception. For example, Muraoka points to Job 4:3 (~yBi_r: T'r>S:yI you
have instructed many) as an example of the suffix conjugation indicating multiple
actions.9 While that is a possible explanation, it seems to be more consistent to view it as

2
Ibid., 93 (emphasis is Longs).
3
Ibid., 94 (emphases are Longs).
4
Ibid., 95.
5
Paul Joon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. by T. Muraoka, Subsidia Biblica 14/III
(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996), 112d.
6
Ibid. (emphasis is Joon and Muraokas).
7
Ibid.
8
Joon and Muraoka tend to categorize qatal as a past tense and yiqtol as a future tense (112f, h,
113a). This tense definition of the Hebrew verb forms is unconvincing and weak.
9
Ibid., 112d note 3.
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 3
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

a statement looking at the totality of the situation rather than looking at frequency.
Identifications of verb usages are not necessarily a scientific, objective process. Such
identifications result from an individual interpreters view of the context as colored by his
or her own presuppositions. Therefore, the careful exegete must consider the various
identifications or classifications of usage as a list of options that might be considered in
any given situation. By the process of elimination the exegete works through the options
to locate the one or more of them that seem to best fit the particular context.
For the yiqtol (prefix conjugation) Joon and Muraoka state that the aspect may be
unique or repeated, instantaneous or durative.10 In their discussion of stative verbs they
come closest to the kind of values attributed to qatal and yiqtol that were observed by
Long. The suffix conjugation stative verb appears to merit a translation employing a form
of the verb be while Joon and Muraoka present the prefix conjugation overwhelmingly
with a translation employing a form of the verb become.11 In other words, a stative verb
represents a state of being (a static stative) in the suffix conjugation, but a state of
becoming (a dynamic stative) in the prefix conjugation.12
Waltke and OConnor provide a very thorough discussion of the history of the
treatment of Hebrew verbs.13 They conclude that the basic structure of the system,
though it allows for time reference, is aspectual.14 An interesting result of their detailed
analysis is that they offer a view of the yiqtol that allows it to be universal in nature:
it may signify more than a blending of tense and aspect or pure tense; it
may also signify either real or unreal moods the indicative as well as
degrees of dubiety and volition. In short: a form that can signify any
time, any mood, and imperfective aspect (but not perfective) is not
imperfective but non-perfective, a more than opposite of the suffix
conjugation. (The term aorist, meaning without limits or boundaries, is
not inappropriate.)15
Association of the yiqtol with the Greek aorist makes a good deal of sense. And, just as
the Greek aorist suffered extensive abuse due to grammarians long misunderstanding, 16
so, too, the yiqtol often suffers from a similar lack of understanding.
For the suffix conjugation Waltke and OConnor focus on the fact that the
perfective does not emphasize the completedness of a situation. Earlier researchers
commonly erred in characterizing the suffix conjugation as indicating completed action,
instead of indicating a complete situation.17 It behooves the careful exegete to be equally

10
Ibid., 113b.
11
Ibid., 113p.
12
E.g., the qatal of hy"h' in Gen 1:2 (ht'y>h)' is a static stative: was. However, the yiqtol of in Gen 1:3
(yhiy>) is a dynamic stative: become or come to be or happen. Other stative verbs, such as arEy", should
be translated in the same manner: qatal ha'rEy" (Gen 18:15) = she was afraid or she feared; but yiqtol
!War>yTi ~r<j, (Exod 9:30) = you have not yet become afraid or ar"yaiw" (Gen 3:10) = so I became fearful
or became afraid.
13
Bruce K. Waltke and M. OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 29.229.6.
14
Ibid., 29.6a.
15
Ibid., 29.6e.
16
Cf. Frank Stagg, The Abused Aorist, Journal of Biblical Literature 91, no. 2 (June 1972): 22231.
17
Ibid., 30.1d (italic emphasis is theirs; bold emphasis is mine).
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 4
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

distinct and accurate when it comes to the terms completed (= accomplished, finished,
past) and complete (= whole). These terms are not identical in meaning when
discussing the grammar of Hebrew verbs.
The inherently complex nature of language forms a major factor when one attempts
to derive a consistent definition for the qatal and yiqtol forms of the Hebrew verb. This
shows up in Waltke and OConnors observation that
The non-perfective prefix conjugation has two major values: to signify
either an imperfective situation in past and present time, or a dependent
situation. In the latter use, the situation may be dependent on the
speaker, the subject, or another situation.18
Obviously, context is the 500-pound gorilla in the exegesis of the Hebrew text. Context
will consistently be the defining and refining factor if the exegete is sufficiently careful
and desirous of as objective an interpretation as possible. In each situation the exegete
must first identify the grammar and then ask, So what? What is the exegetical
significance of this form in this passage? The task of exegesis can easily fall victim to
either the extreme of over-simplification or the extreme of over-complexification, but the
exercise must be pursued nonetheless.
How does all of this affect exegesis? Take Genesis 1:5 as an example:
`dx'(a, ~Ay rq,bo-yhiy>w:) br<[,-yhiy>w:) hl'y>l"+ ar"q" %v,xol;w> ~Ay rAal' ~yhil{a/ ar"q.YIw:
What is the difference between the wayyiqtol19 ar"q.YIw: (which is still a prefix conjugation,
note the yiqtol in its name) and the suffix conjugation ar"q"? The prefix conjugation
views the situation of God naming the light as that which is either initiated, progressing,
completed (without a view to the result), or some other factor internal to the action. Then
God named the light Day is an accurate enough translation. Interpretatively, however,
the exegete must be aware of the fact that Moses was not making an overall descriptive
statement that views the totality of the situation. However, the latter verb, being a suffix
conjugation, does look at the totality of the situation without regard to any internal
progress of action.
What does this mean? How does it affect the exegete? The suffix conjugation is
used in order to distinguish its action from the sequential narrative framework of
wayyiqtol verbs. In order to interrupt the chain smoothly, the object (%v,xol;w>) is placed
first (a non-emphatic use since it is merely interrupting the chain and producing a
disjunctive clause). By looking at the totality of the situation, the second act of naming of
the darkness is not made a separate sequential act to the naming of the light. This
sequence of verb forms in this kind of syntactical structure is a common Hebrew way of
making certain that the reader does not attempt to understand two sequential acts, but
only one act with two parts without regard to any sequential concept. It does not matter
which was named first or even if the two were named separately. Therefore, any expositor

18
Ibid., 31.1.2a.
19
Hebrew students too often erroneously associate the name wayyiqtol with just the waw conjunction.
Wayyiqtol is the name for the verb form, not the conjunction. The way- portion of the name is the
conjunction; but the yiqtol portion is the verb. This is equally true of the weqatal verb form.
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 5
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

attempting to make some preaching point of the order of divine naming here is in direct
conflict with the actual grammar of the text.
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 6
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

One more example (from Psalm 1:12) should help to make these points more lucid:
bv;Amb.W dm'_[' al{ ~yaiJ'x; %r<d<b.W ~y[iv 'r> tc;[]B; %l;h' al{ rv<a] vyaih'-yrEva.( ;
1

`hl'y>l")w" ~m'Ay hG<h.y< Atr"Atb.W Acp.x, hw"hy> tr:AtB. ~ai yKi 2 `bv'(y" al{ ~ycile
Why did the psalmist choose to employ the suffix conjugation for the three negated verbs
in verse 1 while employing the prefix conjugation for the verb in verse 2? The suffix
conjugation verbs of verse 1 (%l;h' al{, dm'[' al{, and bv'y" al{) were intended to make
the reader view the situation as a totality without regard to any phases. This particular
insight is consistent with and confirmed by the Masoretic accents. On the other hand, the
prefix conjugation verb in verse 2 does draw the readers attention to the internal nature
of the action rather than looking at it from the outside as a whole. Confirmation comes in
the adverbs that follow and modify hG<h.y<. This action is viewed as either habitual,
repetitive, or continual: the godly individual will habitually (or repeatedly or continually)
meditate day and night. Note how the context is consistent with the identified usage.
Biblical Hebrew writers and speakers selected their verb forms on the basis of the context
in which each verb form was employed. To do otherwise would create a dissonance for
the reader or hearer. In some cases, such dissonance was purposefully utilized for
emphasis or other literary effect.
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 7
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

Elements of Hebrew Grammar

That Are Exegetically and Expositionally Significant

The following list of exegetically and expositionally significant grammatical

elements in the Hebrew Bible are those to which the exegete must give attention even in
the most cursory approach to the text. These elements are most often the carriers of
significant meaning. They must not be ignored. Neglecting their significance can result in
misrepresentation of what the text says.
For each of these elements a brief description is presented and then a listing of the
most beneficial resources dealing with that element. In some cases (e.g., the cognate
infinitive absolute) major Hebraists disagree on the nature of the meaning represented by
the grammatical element. However, such disagreement does not lessen the exegetical and
expositional significance of that elements use. It merely means that the exegete must be
more cautious and careful in how he supports the ultimate result. Remember, the ultimate
factor is context. Context can diminish the normal impact of an element on meaning or it
can enhance the impact. In a dialogue such matters may have turned on a gesture or vocal
emphasis (tone). On the written page, however, such gestures and tones are rarely visible.

1. Wayyiqtol and Weqatal

In biblical Hebrew these two forms are primarily found in narrative and prophetic
literature, respectively. Wayyiqtol, whose dominance in narrative is undisputed,
focuses on sequence of action and is thus best termed a consecutive imperfect.
Weqatal, whose domain is that of prophetic literature, focuses on the logical
relationship of actions and concepts. It is better classified as a correlative perfect.

Chisholm,20 94103, 11923, 12833

GBHS,21 3.5.1, 3.5.2, and 3.5.4
J-M,22 118120
HBI,23 2.2.1a and 2.2.3
IBHS,24 3233
Gibson,25 6983
GKC,26 111112
Long,27 16276

20
Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998).
21
Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2003).
22
Paul Joon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. by T. Muraoka, Subsidia Biblica 14/III
(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996).
23
Frederic Clarke Putnam, Hebrew Bible Insert: A Students Guide to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew
(Ridley Park, PA: Stylus Publishing, 1996).
24
Bruce K. Waltke and M. OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990).
25
J. C. L. Gibson, Davidsons Introductory Hebrew Grammar Syntax, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1994).
26
E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English ed., trans. and rev. by A. E. Cowley
(Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1910).
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 8
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

2. Disjunctive Clause

Clauses or sentences commencing with the conjunction waw + non-verb are often
called disjunctive clauses. Generally speaking, they can be divided into those that are
adversative (expressing contrast, but) and those that are explanatory. The latter
provide background information that is sometimes best treated as parenthetical
material (supplemental or circumstantial information) in the text, but might also be
utilized to introduce a new section in the text (e.g., Gen 3:1), or to conclude a narrative
or scene (e.g., Judg 16:31). As weve seen in the discussion of wayyiqtol in Genesis
1:5, the disjunctive clause can also provide description of a synchronic (simultaneous)
action.

Chisholm, 12428
J-M, 172a
HBI, 3.2.2
IBHS, 39.2.3

3. Macrosyntactic hy"h'w> and yhiy>w:

When either of these two Hebrew verb forms initiates a context, they should be
examined for macrosyntactic implications. In other words, they are markers
introducing a specialized section of the discourse and sometimes will not even be
translatable (e.g., 1 Sam 16:6). In such cases, they point to a significant break in the
discourse and enable the translator or interpreter to properly outline the text.

Chisholm, 120
J-M, 118n
HBI, 2.2.3b and 3.2.1e
IBHS
GKC, 111f-h and 112y-z

4. Modal Verbs (Imperative, Jussive, Cohortative)

Modal verbs are verbs expressing moods other than the indicative (mood of reality).
The exegetical significance of such verbs is that they set the tone of a discourse with
regard to reality-irreality or emotive qualities. Great care must be taken to allow the
context to be the ultimate determining factor since many modal functions are
unmarked by any specialized forms.

Chisholm, 10312
GBHS, 3.3
J-M, 114, 116, and 163

27
Gary A. Long, Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew: Learning Biblical Hebrew
Grammatical Concepts through English Grammar (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002).
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 9
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

HBI, 2.2.4
IBHS, 30.5.4, 31.4, 31.5, and 34
Gibson, 8687
GKC, 108110
Long, 99115

5. Participle of the Imminent Future

This construction used to be called the futurum instans, or instantaneous/immediate

future. When it occurs, it speaks of something about to happenon the verge of
happening. Its full form is normally hNEhi + pronoun (or pronominal suffix) +
participle. It does not always occur in its full form, however, and sometimes can be
identified only by the context.

Chisholm, 6768
GBHS, 3.4.3b.3
J-M, 121e
HBI, 3.3.3b
IBHS, 37.6f
GKC, 116p

6. Participial Usage

Two very special functions of the participle are of great exegetical significance:
continuous action and characteristic action. That horse is eating hay and the horse
eats hay illustrate the difference in meaning between the two usages. As with many
grammatical elements, the context alone confirms which usage/meaning was intended
by the writer.

Chisholm, 6770
GBHS, 3.4.3
J-M, 121
HBI, 2.2.5
IBHS, 37
Gibson, 110113
GKC, 116
Long, 7379

7. Cognate Infinitive Absolute

This grammatical element is what I have often termed the CIA twins: the
prepositive intensive cognate infinitive absolute (PI CIA; e.g., Gen 2:17, tWmT' tAm)
and the postpositive continuative cognate infinitive absolute (PC CIA; e.g., Num
24:10, %rEb' T'k.r:Be). Prepositive refers to the infinitive absolute coming before the
finite form of the same verb root. Postpositive refers to the infinitive absolute
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 10
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

following the finite form of the same verb root. The exact nature of these two
constructions meanings has been a topic of debate. However, there is much to the
view that PI CIA is an emphatic or intensive representation of the verbal action or
state while PC CIA expresses a continual or repetitive action or state.

Chisholm, 77
GBHS, 3.4.2b
J-M, 123d-q
HBI, 2.2.7a
IBHS, 35.3.1 (Absolute Complement)
Gibson, 101
GKC, 113l-x

8. Infinitive Construct

So wide-ranging are the uses of this element of Hebrew grammar that a book could be
written on it alone. Even though it is exceedingly complex and has extensive usage in
the Hebrew Bible, the student of biblical Hebrew must seek to understand all he can
about it. Misunderstanding can lead easily to mistranslation and misinterpretation
resulting in misleading exposition. Part of the difficulty is that this form of the Hebrew
verb can behave as noun, adjective, or verb and has varying meanings depending
upon prepositions attached to it. One example is the highly frequent form rmoale,
which should only rarely be translated.

Chisholm, 7778
GBHS, 3.4.1
J-M, 124
HBI, 2.2.6
IBHS, 36
Gibson, 104109, 119130
GKC, 114

9. Miscellaneous Macrosyntactical Particles (e.g. hNEhi, hT'[;w>, ~ai, hKo, !kel')

Rarely does a grammar take the time to identify and discuss the usage of the many
particles that have macrosyntactic functions. The student is left to look them up one
by one in the lexicon or in the grammars indexes. They ought not to be neglected,
however. Without a proper understanding of these particles and their usage, it is as
though the reader of the Hebrew Bible had been denied stereoscopic and color vision.

Chisholm, 133
GBHS, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.5
HBI, 3.3
IBHS, 39.3.1, 39.3.2, 39.3.4, and 39.3.5
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 11
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

Gibson, 54, 115116, and 144

Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 12
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

10. Extraposition (Nominative Absolute)

Many students of biblical Hebrew have already taken courses of study in biblical Greek.
Therefore, the terms accusative absolute, nominative absolute, and genitive
absolute should already be familiar. These constructions consist of nouns that fit outside
(thus extraposition) the sentence, apparently having no effect on the sentence (e.g., Gen
3:12, yLi-hn"t.n") awhi ydIM'[i hT't;n" rv<a] hV'aih'(). Although the sentence would still
say the same thing and have all of its grammatical elements intact if this word was
removed, emphasis would be adversely affected.

Chisholm, 61
Gibson, 149151
GBHS, 2.1.4
J-M, 156
HBI, 3.3
GKC, 143c

11. The Accusative Marker tae

Biblical Hebrews accusative marker is a silent marker since it is not a translatable

particle. It is distinct from its homonym that acts as a preposition meaning with.
Just because it is untranslatable, however, does not mean that this marker is void of
exegetical significance. It is used with exceptional finesse in the Hebrew text to
indicate definiteness and focus.

Chisholm, 76
J-M, 125e-j
IBHS, 10.3
Gibson, 94
GKC, 117a-m

12. Predicate Adjective

Predicate adjectives are actually ignored by some major Hebrew grammars. Their
function appears to be simple and in no need of extensive explanation. However, they
are therefore the subjects of much abuse in translation and interpretation. Improperly
understood, the predicate adjective can be given too much emphasis or insufficient
emphasis, depending on the direction and degree of misunderstanding.

Chisholm, 67
GBHS, 2.5.2
HBI, 1.7.2
IBHS, 14.3.2
GKC, 145r
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 13
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

Long, 6465, 78

The twelve exegetically and expositionally significant grammatical elements given

above have been chosen because of the lack of adequate treatment in some grammars and
because of the failure of many Hebrew professors to convey their significance. The
exegete must pay attention to their existence and their significance if he is to rightly
understand the text of the Hebrew Bible.
Many other elements of biblical Hebrew are equally significant (e.g., the construct
state, the definite article, apposition, and the factitive verb). However, even the most basic
manuals for the student consider these elements in great detail (e.g., Putnams Hebrew
Bible Insert on all four of those examples). This section of the syllabus is intended to
close part of the gap in the students knowledge so that he is better prepared to perform
accurate and adequate exegesis of the Hebrew text.

Recommended Resources for Hebrew Grammar and Syntax

Andersen, Francis I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. 1974. Reprint, The Hague: Mouton
Publishers, 1980.
Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Gibson, J. C. L. Davidsons Introductory Hebrew Grammar Syntax. 4th edition.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Joon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka.
Subsidia Biblica 14/III. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996.
Kautzsch, E., ed. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English edition. Translated and
revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribers
Sons, 1971.
Long, Gary A. Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew: Learning Biblical
Hebrew Grammatical Concepts through English Grammar. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
Muraoka, T. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1985.
Price, James D. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. Studies in the
Bible and Early Christianity 27. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.
Putnam, Frederic Clarke, comp. A Cumulative Index to the Grammar and Syntax of
Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
. Hebrew Bible Insert: A Students Guide. Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing,
1996.
Sawyer, John F. A. A Modern Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Stocksfield,
Northumberland, UK: Oriel Press, 1976.
Seow, C. L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Silzer, Peter James, and Thomas John Finley. How Biblical Languages Work: A
Students Guide to Learning Hebrew and Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.
Barrick, Introduction to Syntactical Analysis TMS 14
D.Min. OT Seminar January 2014

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. OConnor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Watts, J. Wash. A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.
Weingreen, J. A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1939.
Williams, Ronald J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd edition. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1976.