following examples, in which אֶת־ in the later Hebrew manner (almost in the sense of the Latin quod attinet ad) introduces a noun with more or less emphasis, Nu 3, 5, 35, Ju 20, 46, Ez 17, 20, 35, 44, Neh 9, 34, Dn 9, 2 Ch 31.—In Ez 47–19 (cf. also 43:7) it is simplest to emend זֹאת for אֶת־, according to verse 20. However, even the LXX, who have ταῦτα only in verse 18, can hardly have known any other reading than את; consequently in all these passages את must be regarded as virtually dependent on some governing word, such as ecce (LXX 43:7 ἐώακας), and 47:17 ff. as equivalent to thou shalt have as a border, &c.
[n] 8. Another solecism of the later period is finally the introduction of the object by the preposition לְ (prop. in relation to, in the direction of), as sometimes in Ethiopic[1] and very commonly in Aramaic.[2]. Less remarkable is this looser connexion of the object with a participle, as with אָכַל La 4, אִסֵּף Nu 10, זָקַף ψ 145 (but cf. 146:8), צָרַר Nu 25, הִשְׂגִּיא and שָׁטַה Jb 12; before the participle Is 11.—To introduce an object preceding the finite verb לְ is employed in Jb 5 (cf. also Dn 11); also after אָהֵב Lv 19, 34; הֶֽאֱרִיךְ ψ 129; הִבְדִּיל Ezr 8, 2 Ch 25; הֵבִין Jb 9; בֵּרַךְ 1 Ch 29 (immediately before with an accusative); הִגְלָה 1 Ch 5; דָּרַשׁ Ezr 6, 1 Ch 22, 2 Ch 17; חֶֽהֱיָה Gn 45, where, however, read פְּלֵיטָה with the LXX for לפליטה and take לָכֶם as a dativus commodi; הִלֵּל 1 Ch 16, 2 Ch 5; הָרַג 2 S 3, ψ 135 (verse 10 with accusative), 136:19 f.; חָבַשׁ (to bind up) Is 61 (Ez 34 the verb); יָדַע ψ 69; כִּבֵּד ψ 86; לָקַח Jer 40, 2 Ch 23; הִמְלִיךְ and מָשַׁה 1 Ch 29; נֵהַל 2 Ch 28; סָמַךְ ψ 145; עָזַב 1 Ch 16; הֶֽעֱלָה Ez 26; פִּתַּח ψ 116; רָדַף Jb 19; הִצְדִּיק Is 53; שָׂכַר 2 Ch 24 (previously accusatives); שִׂים 1 S 22 (but probably וְכֻּלְּכֶם is to be read); הֵשִׁיב (in the connexion, הֵשִׁיב דָּבָר לְ) 2 Ch 10 (but verse 9 and 1 K 12 with an accusative); שִׁחֵת Nu 32, 1 S 23; שִׁית ψ 73; שָׁלַח Ezr 8, 2 Ch 2, 17; שָׁמַר 1 Ch 29, 2 Ch 5.
[o] 9. Sometimes the verb, on which an accusative of the object really depends, is contained only in sense in the verb which apparently governs, e.g. Is 14 אֲסִירָיו לֹא־פָתַח בָּֽיְתָה his prisoners he let not loose nor sent them back to their home. On this constructio praegnans in general, see § 119 ff.
[p] 2. With the proper accusatives of the object may also be classed what is called the internal or absolute object (also named schema etymologicum or figura etymologica), i.e. the addition of an object in the form
- ↑ Dillmann, Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache, p. 349.
- ↑ With regard to Biblical Aramaic, see Kautzsch’s Grammatik des Bibl.-Aram., p. 151 f. In other ways, also, a tendency may be observed in later Hebrew to make use of the looser connexion by means of prepositions instead of the closer subordination of the noun in the accusative.
