coh. 3:25; 4:19, 21), Nah. 3:11, Zech. 9:5, Mal. 2:12? Ez. 14:7 with Jo. 2:20, Zeph. 2:13, Ps. 12:4; 25:9; 47:4; 58:5; 90:3; 107:29, Job 10:17; 17:2; 20:26, 28 (cf. 36:15); 23:9, 11; 27:8; 33:21, 27; 34:37; 38:24; 40:19, Pr. 12:26; 15:25, Lam. 3:50, Dan. 11:4, 16, 25, 30.
The frequency with which certain words appear anomalously in the juss., and the place of others in the clause, suggest that rhythm sometimes dictated the form (Job 23:9, 11). The fact that the anomalous juss. is often at the head of the clause has little meaning, as this is the usual place of the verb. — Pointing like Ex. 22:4 כי יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ seems due to the accentual rhythm, and no more implies an intermediate יבעֵר than מֵינֶקֶת implies anything but מינִיק. Cf. Job. 39:26; 22:28, Ps. 21:2; 104:20?
GOVERNMENT OF THE VERB
THE ACCUSATIVE
§ 66. Verbs subordinate other words to themselves in the accusative case. This accus. is of various kinds. Besides the acc. of the object, verbs may subordinate words to themselves in a freer way, in what may be called the adverbial accus., e.g. in definitions of place and time. Again, the action of the verb may reach its object not directly, but through the medium of a preposition. Very many so-called prepositions, however, are really nouns, and stand themselves in the adverbial acc.
The accus. termination a in the Shemitic speeches is probably the remains of a demonstrative particle (Eth. ha or a), which indicated the direction to of the verbal action or the verbal state, and this demonstrative nature of the case explains its very wide usage. [1]
- ↑ With this idea of direction to of the verbal action or bearing on of the condition expressed by the verb is to be compared the use of prep. ל with obj. in Aram. and later Heb.
