is, however, somewhat rare in poetry, and even in prose it is not invariably necessary but is restricted to those cases in which the accusative of the object is more closely determined by being a proper name, or by having the article, or by a following determinate genitive (hence also by the suffixes), or in some other way (see below, c), e.g. Gn 4 and she bare אֶת־קַ֫יִן Cain; 6, 1 God created אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם וְאֵת הָאָ֫רֶץ the heaven and the earth (but 2 אֶ֫רֶץ וְשָׁמַ֫יִם); 1 and God made אֶת־חַיַּת הָאָ֫רֶץ the beast of the earth; 2.
[b] Rem. 1. The rare occurrence of the nota accusativi in poetic style (e.g. it never occurs in Ex 15, Dt 32[[:he:דברים לב |]], Ju 5[[:he:שופטים ה |]], 1 S 2[[:he:שמואל א ב |]], &c., though it is frequent in the late Psalms) may be explained from the fact that in this as in other respects (cf. § 2 q) poetry represents a somewhat more archaic stage of the language than prose. The need of some external means of indicating the accusative could only have been felt after the case-endings had become wholly extinct. Even then the את would probably have been used at first to indicate only an object placed before the verb (when it followed, it was already sufficiently characterized by its position as depending on the verb), or proper names.[1] Finally, however, the nota accusativi became so customary everywhere in prose, that even the pronominal object was expressed rather by את with suffixes than by verbal suffixes, even when none of the reasons mentioned under e can be assigned for it; cf. Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 258 ff., and the statistics of H. Petri, cited above at the head of § 58. Such examples as כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים Gn 6 in the Priestly Code, beside בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֫הוּ יְהֹוָה 7:5 in the Jahvist, are especially instructive.
[c] 2. As accusatives determined in other ways, we have in the first place to consider the collectives introduced by כֹּל entirety, without a following article or determinate genitive, inasmuch as the meaning of כֹּל includes a determinative sense, cf. e.g. Gn 1, 30, 8:21, Dt 2, 2 K 25. אֶת־כֹּל is used absolutely in Gn 9, cf. 39:23; similarly, מִי is determinate of itself, since it always denotes a person, hence אֶת־מִי quem? e.g. Is 6, 37, &c., but never אֶת־מָה quid? So also the relative אֲשֶׁר in the sense of eum qui or quem, &c., e.g. 1 S 16, or id quod, Gn 9, &c. Cf. also such examples as Jos 2, 1 S 24, where אֵת אֲשֶׁר is equivalent to the circumstance, that, &c.—Elsewhere אֵת stands before nouns which are determinate in sense, although the article is omitted, which according to § 126 h is very frequently the case in poetic or otherwise elevated style; thus Lv 26, Jos 24, 15, Is 41 (to distinguish the object from the subject); 50:4 (with the first of two accusatives, also for the sake of clearness); Ez 13, 43, Pr 13 (where the צַדִּיקִים are to be regarded as a distinct class); Jb 13
- ↑ Thus, in Dt 33, את occurs only in verse 9 (twice, with an object preceding the verb), in Gn 49 in the blessing of Jacob only in verse 15 with a co-ordinate second object (consequently farther removed from the verb). Of the thirteen instances of את in the Mêša‛ inscription, seven stand directly and four indirectly before proper names.
