(an elliptical expression); thus e.g. כָּרַת 1 S 20, &c. (see the Lexicon) stands for כָּרַת בְּרִית like the English to close (sc. a bargain) with any one; נָטַר to keep (sc. אַף anger) equivalent to to be resentful, ψ 103, &c.; so also שָׁמַר Jer 3 (beside נָטַר); נָשָׂא for נָשָׂא קוֹל to lift up the voice, Is 3; נָשָׂא לְ for נָשָׂא עָוֹן לְ to take away any one’s sin (to forgive), Gn 18, 26, Is 2; שָׁלַח to put forth (sc. יָד the hand) equivalent to to reach after something, 2 S 6, ψ 18.
[h] 6. Verba sentiendi may take a second object, generally in the form of a participle or adjective and necessarily indeterminate, to define more exactly the action or state in which the object is perceived, e.g. Nu 11 וַיִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה אֶת־הָעָם בֹּכֶה and Moses heard the people weeping; Gn 7 אֽתְךָ רָאִ֫יתִי צַדִּיק thee have I seen righteous. Frequently, however, the second object is expressed by a separate clause. This is especially frequent with רָאָה to see, e.g. Gn 1 and God saw the light, that it was good; Gn 6, 12, 13, 49, Ex 2, ψ 25, Pr 23, Jb 22, Ec 2, 8; so with יָדַע to know, Ex 32, 2 S 3, 17 (with two objects); 1 K 5.
[i] 7. In certain instances את serves apparently to introduce or to emphasize a nominative. This cannot be regarded as a reappearance of the original substantival meaning of the את, since all unquestionable examples of the kind belong to the later Books of the Old Testament. They are rather (apart from textual errors or other explanations) cases of virtual dependence on an implied verbum regens understood. The constant use of את to indicate a clause governed by the verb, necessarily led at length to the use of את generally as a defining particle irrespective of a governing verb. So in the Hebrew of the Mishna[1] (see above, § 3 a) אֹתוֹ and אֹתָהּ are prefixed even to a nominative without any special emphasis.
[k] Naturally the above does not apply to any of the places in which את is not the nota accusativi, but a preposition (on את with, cf. § 103 b), e.g. Is 57, 1 S 17 (וְאֶת־הַדּוֹב and that, with a bear; אֶת־ here, however, has probably been interpolated from verse 36, where it is wanting); nor the places in which the accusative is subordinate to a passive (according to § 121 c) or to a verb of wanting as in Jos 22 and Neh 9, see below, z. In Ez 43 סָבִיב about governs like a verb, being followed by אוֹתָהּ.
[l] Other cases are clearly due to attraction to a following relative pronoun in the accusative (Ez 14, Zc 8; but Hag 2a, to ממצרים, must be omitted, with the LXX, as a later addition), or the accusative depends on a verbal idea, virtually contained in what has gone before, and consequently present to the speaker’s mind as governing the accusative. Thus Nu 3 (the verbal idea contained in ומשמרת verse 25 is they had to take charge of); in Jos 17 ויהי לְ implies it was given up or they gave him; 1 S 26 is equivalent to search now for; in 2 S 11 אל־ירע בעיניך is used in the sense of noli aegre ferre[2]; Jer 36 he had the brazier before him; in Ec 4 a verb like I esteem is mentally supplied before אֵת אֲשֶׁר. On Jos 22, Neh 9, see below, aa.—Aposiopesis occurs in Dt 11 (do I mean); still more boldly in Zc 7, where either שְׁמַעְתֶּם or (תַּֽעֲשׂוּ) תִּשְׁמְעוּ is to be supplied.
[m] Setting aside a few undoubtedly corrupt passages[3] there still remain the
- ↑ Cf. Weiss, משפט לשון המשנה (Vienna, 1867), p. 112.
- ↑ So also in 1 S 20 the Qal (יִיטַב) is, with Wellhausen, to be read instead of the Hiphʿîl.
- ↑ Thus 1 S 26, where וְאֵי is to be read for וְאֶת; 1 K 11, where at present the predicate of the relative clause is wanting; in 2 K 6 the את is probably derived from a text which read the Hiphʿîl instead of נָפַל. In Jer 23 instead of the artificial explanation what a burden (is, do ye ask?) we should read with the LXX and Vulg. אַתֶּם הַמַּשָּׂא ye are the burden. In Ez 10 מַרְאֵיהֶם וְאוֹתָם is unintelligible; in 37:19 read with Hitzig אֶל־ for את; in Hag 2 for אתכם read with the LXX שֻֽׁבְכֶם [or אֵינְכֶם; for the אֶל cf. 2 K 6, Jer 15, Ez 36].
