Psalm 8/Notes/Verbal.V. 6.874347

The wayyiqtol verb And you caused him to lack (וַתְּחַסְּרֵהוּ) should probably be interpreted as past tense, as most translations have done.^[1]
The evidence from Ecclesiastes 4:8 (the only other instance of the verb חסר in the piel stem) suggests that the verb וַתְּחַסְּרֵהוּ means you caused him to lack,^[2] and that which is lacking is indicated by the min prepositional phrase מֵאֱלֹהִים.^[3]
The following yiqtol verbs–You crowned him... you caused him to rule (תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ / תַּ֭מְשִׁילֵהוּ) may be present/timeless,^[4] future,^[5] or past.^[6] The h-suffix indicates that these are short yiqtols, which are (past) perfective.^[7]
The past actions recited in vv. 6-7 refer to the time when YHWH created humans as his image and gave them dominion over his creation (see Gen 1:26ff).

↑ So LXX, Tg, Syr; "you have made..." (NIV, NLT, ESV, NEB, NJB, LUT, HFA, NGÜ, EÜ, GNB, ZÜR, RVR-95); "you made..." (NET, GNT, CEV, NVI, DHH). Wayyiqtol is a sequential form that continues the semantics of the previous unit at the same level of discourse (Robar 2013, 2015). The question here is whether wayyiqtol continues (a) the semantics of the subordinate subjunctive clauses in v. 5 (>> "that you should cause him to lack") or (b) the past tense semantics of v. 3 (>> "you caused him to lack"). If the h-suffix marks perfective aspect and the n-suffix marks imperfective aspect (see Gentry 1998; Rainey 2008), then the first option is unlikely, because וַתְּחַסְּרֵהוּ has an h-suffix whereas the imperfective verbs of v. 5 have n-suffixes.
↑ The morphologically stative verb חסר in the qal stem can be transitive ("to lack something") or intransitive (a: "to be lacking" or b: to diminish [only in Gen 8:3, 5 according to BDB and DCH]). When the subject is a person or persons, the verb is always transitive (Gen 18:28; Deut 2:7; 8:9; 1 Kgs 11:22; Jer 44:18; Ezek 4:17; Ps 32:11; Prov 31:11), though a direct object is not grammatically required in every instance (e.g., Ps 23:1). When the subject is a thing (usually a material good), the verb is usually intransitive (1 Kgs 17:14, 16 [jar of oil]; Isa 51:14 [bread]; Eccl 9:8 [oil]; 10:3 [sense]; Song 7:3 [wine]; cf. Gen 8:3, 5 [water]). In Ps 8:6, the experiencer of the state חסר is a person (humanity). Therefore, the verb (in the piel stem) means "to cause to lack," not "to cause to be lacking" or "to cause to be less." The piel stem of verbs that are morphologically stative (like חסר) are usually factitive (i.e., the object of the verb is placed into the state indicated by the verb in the qal). "For such verbs, the Piel is an accreting stem or transitivizer, adding a core argument..." (Boyd 2017, 101).
↑ That which is lacked is either indicated by the noun מעט, so that the verb is ditransitive: "cause him to lack a little bit" (so GKC 117cc; Hupfeld 1853, 160f) or by the min prepositional phrase (מֵאֱלֹהִים.), as in Eccl 4:8. In the first case, מעט would be a second object on the mainline of the grammatical diagram ("you caused him to lack a little"). However, מעט can also function adverbially (see DCH מעט, sections 1bc. DCH lists Ps 8:6 as an adverbial use of מעט). This seems more likely in light of Eccl 4:8 (the only other instance of חסר in the piel stem), where חסר ("cause to be lacking") takes only one object (my soul) and the thing which is lacked is syntactically encoded not as a second object but as a min prepositional phrase (מטובה).
↑ ELB, cf. Goldingay 2006, 159
↑ Aquila, Jerome, cf. Nicacci 2006, 254; Craigie 2004, 105-6.
↑ LXX, Theodotion, NIV, NLT, ESV, GNT, NET, NJB, LUT, HFA, NGÜ, EÜ, ZÜR.
↑ Rainey 2008, 80-81. A past tense interpretation of the yiqtols is supported by the following considerations: (1) In Deut 32:10f, yiqtols with h-suffixes appear to be past perfective (cf. Jero 2017, 74). (2) The oldest extant interpretation of these verbs (LXX) understood them to be past perfective (aorist). (3) The yiqtol verbs are sandwiched between verbs that are more clearly past perfective (wayyiqtol in v. 6a and qatal in v. 7b). (4) The whole passage (vv. 6ff) is a reflection on the past act of creation.

[1] So LXX, Tg, Syr; "you have made..." (NIV, NLT, ESV, NEB, NJB, LUT, HFA, NGÜ, EÜ, GNB, ZÜR, RVR-95); "you made..." (NET, GNT, CEV, NVI, DHH). Wayyiqtol is a sequential form that continues the semantics of the previous unit at the same level of discourse (Robar 2013, 2015). The question here is whether wayyiqtol continues (a) the semantics of the subordinate subjunctive clauses in v. 5 (>> "that you should cause him to lack") or (b) the past tense semantics of v. 3 (>> "you caused him to lack"). If the h-suffix marks perfective aspect and the n-suffix marks imperfective aspect (see Gentry 1998; Rainey 2008), then the first option is unlikely, because וַתְּחַסְּרֵהוּ has an h-suffix whereas the imperfective verbs of v. 5 have n-suffixes.

[2] The morphologically stative verb חסר in the qal stem can be transitive ("to lack something") or intransitive (a: "to be lacking" or b: to diminish [only in Gen 8:3, 5 according to BDB and DCH]). When the subject is a person or persons, the verb is always transitive (Gen 18:28; Deut 2:7; 8:9; 1 Kgs 11:22; Jer 44:18; Ezek 4:17; Ps 32:11; Prov 31:11), though a direct object is not grammatically required in every instance (e.g., Ps 23:1). When the subject is a thing (usually a material good), the verb is usually intransitive (1 Kgs 17:14, 16 [jar of oil]; Isa 51:14 [bread]; Eccl 9:8 [oil]; 10:3 [sense]; Song 7:3 [wine]; cf. Gen 8:3, 5 [water]). In Ps 8:6, the experiencer of the state חסר is a person (humanity). Therefore, the verb (in the piel stem) means "to cause to lack," not "to cause to be lacking" or "to cause to be less." The piel stem of verbs that are morphologically stative (like חסר) are usually factitive (i.e., the object of the verb is placed into the state indicated by the verb in the qal). "For such verbs, the Piel is an accreting stem or transitivizer, adding a core argument..." (Boyd 2017, 101).

[3] That which is lacked is either indicated by the noun מעט, so that the verb is ditransitive: "cause him to lack a little bit" (so GKC 117cc; Hupfeld 1853, 160f) or by the min prepositional phrase (מֵאֱלֹהִים.), as in Eccl 4:8. In the first case, מעט would be a second object on the mainline of the grammatical diagram ("you caused him to lack a little"). However, מעט can also function adverbially (see DCH מעט, sections 1bc. DCH lists Ps 8:6 as an adverbial use of מעט). This seems more likely in light of Eccl 4:8 (the only other instance of חסר in the piel stem), where חסר ("cause to be lacking") takes only one object (my soul) and the thing which is lacked is syntactically encoded not as a second object but as a min prepositional phrase (מטובה).

[4] ELB, cf. Goldingay 2006, 159

[5] Aquila, Jerome, cf. Nicacci 2006, 254; Craigie 2004, 105-6.

[6] LXX, Theodotion, NIV, NLT, ESV, GNT, NET, NJB, LUT, HFA, NGÜ, EÜ, ZÜR.

[7] Rainey 2008, 80-81. A past tense interpretation of the yiqtols is supported by the following considerations: (1) In Deut 32:10f, yiqtols with h-suffixes appear to be past perfective (cf. Jero 2017, 74). (2) The oldest extant interpretation of these verbs (LXX) understood them to be past perfective (aorist). (3) The yiqtol verbs are sandwiched between verbs that are more clearly past perfective (wayyiqtol in v. 6a and qatal in v. 7b). (4) The whole passage (vv. 6ff) is a reflection on the past act of creation.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]