Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/77

p, 71 f.), the Ḥaṭeph is necessary^[1] when, in a strengthened medial consonant with Š^ewâ (consequently not in cases like וַיְהִי, &c.), preceded by a Pathaḥ, the sign of the strengthening (Dageš forte) has fallen away, e.g. הַֽלֲלוּ (but ed. Mant. and Ginsb. הַלְלוּ praise ye! וַתְּאַֽלֲצֵהוּ Ju 16; no less universally, where after a consonant with Š^ewâ the same consonant follows (to separate them more sharply, and hence with a Metheg always preceding), e.g. סוֹרֲרִים ψ 68; קִֽלֲלָֽתְךָ (ed. Mant. and Ginsb. קִלְל׳ Gn 27 (but not without exceptions, e.g. חִקְקֵי־ Ju 5, Is 10; צִלְלֵי Jer 6, and so always הִנְנִי behold me, הִנְנוּ behold us; on כְ before the suffix ךָ, see § 20 b); also in certain forms under Kaph and Rêš after a long vowel and before the tone, e.g. תֹּֽאכֲלֶ֫נָּה Gn 3; בָּֽרֲכִי ψ 103; וַתְּשָֽׁרֲתֵ֫הוּ 1 K 1 (but וְיִתְבָּ֫רְכוּ ψ 72, cf. Jer 4, 1 Ch 29, because the tone is thrown back on to the ā. After ē Š^ewâ remains even before the tone, as בֵּֽרְכוּ &c.; but before Maqqef אֵֽלֲכָה־נָּא Baer Ex 4, 2 S 15 Jer 40, but ed. Mant., Jabl., Ginsb. אֵֽלְ׳)^[2]; (b) under initial sibilants after וּ copulative, e.g. וּֽזֲהַב Gn 2; cf. Jer 48; וּֽסֲחַר Is 45; וּֽשֲׂדֵה Lv 25; וּֽשֲׁקָה Gn 27; וּֽשֲׁמָע Nu 23, Is 37, Dn 9, cf. Ju 5, 1 K 14, 2 K 9, Jb 14, Ec 9—to emphasize the vocal character of the Š^ewâ. For the same reason under the emphatic ט in הֽוּטֲלוּ Jer 22; cf. Jb 33; after Qôph in וּֽקֲדָרְתִּי (so Baer, but ed. Mant., Jabl., Ginsb. וּקְ׳) Ez 23; וּֽקֲרָב־ ψ 55; cf. Jer. 32; under Rêš in אֵֽרֲדָה (ed. Mant. אֵֽרְ׳). Gn 18; וּֽרֲעֵם ψ 28; even under ת Eze 26^[3]; under ב Est 2; וּבֵֽרֲכֶךָּ so Jabl., Ginsb., but ed. Mant. וּבֵֽרְ׳ Dt 24; (c) under sonants, sibilants or Qôph after ĭ, e.g. יִֽצֲחַק Gn 21, cf. 30 and Ez 21 (under ק); אִֽמֲרוֹת ψ 12; הֲתִֽמֲלֹךְ Jer 22; כִֽנֲרוֹת Jos 11; בִּֽסֲבָךְ־ ψ 74, —for the same reason as the cases under b^[4]; according to Baer also in שִֽׁפֲמוֹת 1 S 30; יִֽפְגָֽשֲׁךָ Gn 32 after ŏ (cf. § 9 v), as well as after a in הַֽקֲשִׁיבָה Dn 9; הַֽבֲרָכָה Gn 27; הַֽמֲצֹרָעִים 2 K 7.

 [h]  B. The Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ is less restricted to the gutturals than the first two, and stands more frequently for a simple Š^ewâ mobile when an original O-sound requires to be partly preserved, e.g. at the beginning, in רֳאִי (ground-form rŏʾy) vision (cf. § 93 z); כֳּנַנְיָהוּ 2 Ch 31, &c., Q^erê (K^eeth. כונ״); עַמֳּנִיּוֹת Ammonitish women, 1 K 11 (sing. עַמּוֹנִית); יִרְדֳּפֶ֑ךָ for the usual יִרְדְּפֶ֑ךָ Ez 35, from יִרְדֹּף; תִקֳּבֶ֫נּוּ Nu 23, Jer 31, and elsewhere before suffixes, cf. § 60 a; קָדְקֳדוֹ his pate (from קָדְקֹד) ψ 7, &c.; אֶשְׁקֳטָה Is 18 Q^erê. Further, like ־ֲ, it stands under consonants, which ought to have Dageš forte, as in לֻֽקֳחָה (for לֻקְּחָה) Gn 2. In this example, as in וּֽסֳעָ֫דְה 1 K 13; וּֽסֳאָה 2 K 7; and וּֽצֳעָ֫קִי Jer 22, the Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ is no doubt due to the influence of the

1. See Delitzsch, ‘Bemerkungen über masoretisch treue Darstellung des alttestam. Textes,’ in the Ztschr. f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, vol. xxiv. 1863, p. 409 ff.
2. On the uncertainty of the MSS. in some cases which come under a, see Minḥat shay (the Masoretic comm. in ed. Mant.) on Gn 12 and Ju 7.
3. Critical annotation: וּֽתֲבֻֿקְשִׁׄי in Eze 26 in Aleppo codex.—A. E. A.
4. Ben-Asher requires ־ֲ for ־ְ (even for Š^ewâ quiescens) generally before a guttural or ר; hence Baer reads in 2 S 15 בִּֽקַרָב־, ψ 18 אֶֽקֲרָא; ψ 49 לִֽשֲׁאוֹל; ψ 65 תִּֽבֲחַר; ψ 68 תִּֽמֲחַץ; Pr 30 תִּֽלֲעַג; Jb 29 אֶֽבֲחַר; cf. Delitzsch, Psalms, 12:7, note.