In the Latin Vulgate, Genesis 4:15, this example:
"dixitque Dominus nequaquam ita fiet sed omnis qui occiderit Cain septuplum punietur, posuitque Dominus Cain signum ut non eum interficeret omnis qui invenisset eum."
"And the Lord said to him: 'No, it shall not be so, but whosoever shall kill Cain shall be punished seven-fold.'" And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him,".
Is the "ut"-clause an indirect command?
Given that somebody must find Cain before they can kill him, why isn't "invenio" an imperfect (subjunctive) & "interficio" a pluperfect (subj.)?
Usually, a perfect (completed action--finding Cain) is followed by a pluperfect (the next thing to be completed--killing Cain). Here, the sequence-of-tense rule, after "posuit" (perfect-without-have) dictates the use of historic/ secondary tenses.
Why is "Cain" nominative after "occiderit" and not accusative & nom. after "posuit" instead of ablative?