User:Ubufox/7
k 5. Finally, a strongly-marked peculiarity of verbs ל״ה is the rejection of the ending ־ֶה in forming the jussive and the imperfect consecutive. This shortening c curs in all the conjugations, and sometimes also involves further changes in the vocalization (see o, y, bb, gg). Similarly, in some conjugations a shortened imperative (cf. § 48 k) is formed by apocope of the final ־ֵה (see cc, gg).
l 6. The ordinary form of the imperfect with the ending ־ֶה serves in verbs ל״ה to express the cohortative also (§ 48 c); cf. Gn 1, 2, 2 Ch 25, &c. With a final ־ָה there occur only: in Qal, אֶשְׁעָה ψ 119, אֶֽהֱמָ֑יָה (with the י retained, see below, u) ψ 77; and in Hithpaʿēl וְנִשְׁתָּ֫עָה Is 41 (with Ṭiphḥa, therefore in lesser pause).
Remarks.
I. On Qal .
m 1. The older form of the fem. of the 3rd sing. perf. גָּלָת, mentioned above, under i (cf. § 74 g), is preserved in עָשָׂת (before א) Lv 25 (cf. 2 K 9 Kethîbh)[1]; likewise in Hiphʿîl הִרְצָת (before א) Lv 26; הֶלְאָ֑ת Ez 24; and in Hophʿal הָגְלָת (before יְ) Jer 13.—The 2nd sing. fem. is also written ־ִיתְ; thus in the textus receptus וְהָיִיתְ 2 S 14, and always in Baer’s editions (since 1872), as in most other verbs; חָזִיתְ and גִּלִּיתְ Is 57; עָשִׂיתְ Jer 2, Ez 16, &c. (so וְהוֹצֵאתְ 1 K 17 from יָצָא). In the 3rd pers. plur. the tone, instead of keeping its usual place (גָּלוּ֫, &c.), is retracted in ψ 37, כָּ֫לוּ, both on account of the pause and also in rhythmical antithesis to the preceding כָּלוּ֫; also in Is 16 תָּעוּ (according to Delitzsch for the sake of the assonance with נָגָ֫עוּ); and in Jb 24 חָ֫זוּ.—On the tone of the perfect consecutive see § 49 k.
n 2. The infin. absol. frequently has וֹ (probably a survival of the older orthography) for ־ֹה, e.g. הָיוֹ Gn 18; עָשׂוֹ Jer 4, &c., Ez 31; קָנוֹ 2 S 24; רָאוֹ Gn 26, Is 6 (cf. 1 S 6), &c., beside רָאֹה. The form שָׁתוֹת Is 22 (beside שָׁתוֹ in the same verse) appears to have been chosen on account of its similarity in sound to שָׁחֹט; so in Is 42 Qerê and Ho 10, אָלוֹת (unless it is a substantive, oaths) and כָּדֹת; cf. also עָרוֹת Hb 3.—Conversely, instead of the infinitive construct גְּלוֹת such forms are occasionally found as גְּלֹה or גְּלוֹ, cf. רְאֹה Gn 48; קְנֹה Pr 16; עֲשׂה Gn 50, ψ 101, also עֲשׂוֹ Gn 31 (cf. Pr 31), and even with the suffix הוּ the very remarkable form עֲשׂ֫הוּ Ex 18.[2]—The feminine form רַֽאֲוָה (for דְאוֹת) Ez 28, analogous to nouns like גַּֽאֲוָה (cf. § 45 d), is strange, but הֱיֵה as infin. Ez 21 is quite inexplicable.—The forms הֹגוֹ and הֹרוֹ Is 59 are perhaps to be regarded with Barth, Nominalbildung, § 51 a, as infinitives absolute of the passive of Qal (see above, § 53 u), not of Pôʿēl.—The 2nd sing. masc. imperative וֶחְֽיֶה occurs in the principal pause in Pr 4 and 7; but probably these forms are simply to be attributed to a Masoretic school, which in general marked the difference between certain forms by the use of é for ē, and conversely ē for é; cf. the analogous examples in § 52 n, and especially § 75 hh, also Kautzsch, Grammatik des Bibl.-Aram., § 17, 2, Rem. 1.—On the reading וּֽרֲאֵ֫ינָה Ct 3 (for וּֽרֲאֶ֫ינָה, on the analogy of the reading מְצֵ֫אנָה, &c., § 74 h), see Baer’s note on the passage.
o 3. The shortening of the imperfect (see above, k, and the note on hh) occasions in Qal the following changes:
(a) As a rule the first radical takes a helping Seghôl, or, if the second radical is a guttural, a helping Pathaḥ (according to § 28 e). Thus יִ֫גֶל for יִגְלְ; וַיִּ֫בֶז and he despised, Gn 25; וַיִּ֫בֶן and he built; יִ֫שַׁע he looks; וַיִּ֫מַח and he destroyed, Gn 7.
p (b) The ĭ of the preformative is then sometimes lengthened to ē, e.g. יֵ֫רֶא he sees. This, however, mostly happens only after the preformative ת, whilst after י the homogeneous ĭ remains, e.g. וַתֵּ֫כֶל (but יִ֫כֶל), וַתֵּ֫פֶן (but יִ֫פֶן), וַתֵּ֫רֶב (but וַיִּ֫רֶב); with middle guttural תֵּ֫תַע, וַתֵּ֫כַהּ Jb 17 (from כָּהָה). The unusual position of the tone in תֵּרֵ֫א Zc 9, וְתֵרֵ֫א Mi 7 (so Baer and Ginsb.; ed. Mant. יִרֶ֫א, וְיִרֶ֫א) is best explained (except in יֵרֶ֫א Gn 41, before פ) on the analogy of קוּמָ֫ה, &c., § 72 s, as due to the following א. But cf. also hh
q (c) The helping vowel is elsewhere not used under the circumstances mentioned in § 28 d; וַיִּשְׁבְּ Nu 21, Jer 41, cf. וַיִּפְתְּ Jb 31; on the other hand, with ĭ lengthened into ē (see p) וַיֵּשְׁתְּ, וַיֵּבְךְּ, וַיֵּרְדְּ, יֵשְׂטְ. The form יֵ֫רֶא he sees, occurs parallel with וַיַּרְא and he saw (but 3rd fem. always וַתֵּ֫רֶא), the latter with the original Pathaḥ on account of the following ר, and identical with the 3rd sing. masc. of the imperf. consec. Hiphʿîl, 2 K 11.
r (d) Examples of verbs primae gutturalis (§ 63), and at the same time ל״ה, are וַיַּ֫עַשׂ, in pause וַיָּ֫עַשׂ and he made, from עָשָׂה; וַיַּ֫עַן and he answered, from עָנָה (always identical with the corresponding forms in Hiphʿîl), וַיַּ֫חַץ and he divided, from חצה. On some similar forms of פ״א see § 76 d.—In the following cases the initial (hard) guttural does not affect the form: וַיִּ֫חַר and he was wroth, וַיִּ֫חַן and he encamped (3rd plur. וַיִַּֽחֲנוּ), יִ֫חַדְּ (with Dageš lene and Šewâ) let it rejoice, Jb 3; cf. Ex 18.—On וַיִּז, וְיֵז, וַיֵּט (ל״ה as well as פ״ן), &c., see § 76 b, c, f.
s (e) The verbs הָיָה to be, and חָיָה to live, of which the shortened imperfects ought to be yihy and yiḥy, change these forms to יְהִי and יְחִי, the second Yôdh being resolved into î at the end of the word; but in pause (§ 29 n) יֶ֫הִי, יֶ֫חִי, with the original ă modified to Seghôl with the tone (cf. also nouns like בְּכִי for bakhy. in pause בֶּ֫כִי; עֳנִי for ‛ŏny, &c., § 84a c, and § 93 x). For תֶּ֫שִׁי, however, in Dt 32, since no verb שָׁיָה exists, we must read either תֵּשׁ, or better תִּשֶּׁה (Samaritan תשא), as imperfect Qal of נָשָׁה to forget.—Analogous to יְהִי from הָיָה, there occurs once, from הָוָה to be, the form יְהוּא for יְהוּ he will be, Ec 11, but no doubt הוּא is the right reading.
t The full forms (without apocope of the ־ֶה, cf. § 49 c) not infrequently occur after wāw consecutive, especially in the 1st pers. and in the later books, e.g. וָֽאֶרְאֶה and I saw, twenty times, and Jos 7 in Kethîbh, but never in the Pentateuch (וָאֵ֫רֶא fifteen times, of which three are in the Pent.); also in the 3rd pers. וַיִּרְאֶה Ez 18, Jb 42 Qere; וַיַּֽעֲשֶׂה and he made, four times (but וַיַּ֫עַשׂ over 200 times); cf. also Ju 19 (וַתִּזְנֶה); 1 K 10 (וַתַּֽעֲלֶה); Dt 1 (וָֽאֲצַוֶּה), and Gn 24. So also occasionally for the jussive, cf. Gn 1, 41, Jer 28.—For the well attested, but meaningless תִּֽירְאוּ Jb 6 (doubtless caused by the following וַתִּירָֽאוּ), read תִּרְאוּ ye see, with Ginsburg.
u 4. The original י sometimes appears even before afformatives beginning with a vowel (cf. above, h and l), especially in and before the pause, and before the full plural ending ־וּן, or where for any reason an emphasis rests on the word. Perfect חָסָ֫יָה ψ 57, חָסָ֫יוּ Dt 32, cf. ψ 73 Qerê; imperative בְּעָ֫יוּ Is 21. Imperfect יֶאֱֽחָ֑יוּ Jb 16, 30 (without the pause, ψ 68); יִשְׁלָ֫יוּ ψ 122, Jb 12, cf. ψ 77; יִרְבְּיֻן Dt 8; ψ 36: more frequently like יִשְׁתָּיוּן ψ 78; Is 17, 21, 26, 31, 33, 41, ψ 36, 39, 83; before a suffix, Jb 3. Also in Pr 26 דָּֽלְיוּ, as perf. Qal from דָּלָה, was perhaps originally intended, but hardly דָּלָ֫יוּ, since these full forms, though they may stand out of pause, do not begin sentences; דַּ֫לְיוּ probably points to דַּ֫לּוּ from דָּלַל as the right reading, since the sense requires an intransitive verb. Cf. further, v, x, dd, gg.
v 5. The participle active (cf. Vollers, ‘Das Qâtil-Partizipium,’ ZA. 1903, p. 312 ff., and on the participles of ל״ה, ibid., p. 316 ff.), besides feminine forms like עֹלָה Ju 20, &c., רֹאָה Pr 20, has also a feminine which retains the 3rd radical י, viz. בּֽוֹכִיָּה ( =בֹּכָה) weeping, La 1; הֽוֹמִיָּה tumultuous, Is 22 (plur. Pr 1); צֽוֹפִיָּה spying, Pr 31, פֹּֽרִיָּה fruitful, ψ 128, plur. אֹֽתִיּוֹת the things that are to come, Is 41. With the ordinary strong inflexion י appears in עֹֽטְיָה Ct 1, but perhaps there also עֹֽטִיָּה was intended, unless it should be טֹֽעִיָּה a wanderer. For רֹאָ֫נִי Is 47, רֹאֵ֫נִי is to be read.—On עשֵֹׁה 1 K 20 for עשֶֹׁה, cf. § 116 g, note.—In the participle passive the 3rd radical still sometimes appears as ו (§ 24 b), cf. עָשׂוּ made, Jb 41, צָפוּ Jb 15, contracted from עָשׂוּו, צָפוּו; and before a formative ending, it even has its consonantal sound, העשוום (read הָֽעֲשׂוּוִם) 2 K 23; עשוות (read ‛asûwôth) 1 S 25 Kethîbh, נטוות (read neṭûwôth) Is 3 Kethîbh. The shortening of the ûin רְאֻיּוֹת Est 2 is irregular.
w 6. The defective writing is rare in such forms as וְהָיִ֫תָ 2 S 15; בָּנִ֫תִי 1 K 8, cf. 1 K 9; וַתִּדְלֶ֫נָה Ex 2 (cf. Jer 18, 48, 1 Ch 7, Jb 17, &c.), and the pronunciation תִּרְאֶ֫ינָּה Mi 7, cf. תַּֽעֲנֶ֑נָּה Ju 5 (unless they are sing. with suff. of the 3rd sing. fem.). Both cases are probably to be explained according to § 20 i.
II. On Niphʿal.
x 7. Here the forms with ־ֵי in the 1st and 2nd pers. sing. of the perfect predominate ־ִי only in נִקִּ֫יתָ Gn 24); on the other hand in the 1st plur, always ־ִי, as נִגְלִ֫ינוּ 1 S 14. No examples of the 2nd plur. occur.—With י retained in pause נִטָּ֔יוּ Nu 24; once with an initial guttural נִֽחֲרוּ Ct 1 for נֶֽחֱרוּ, probably arising from the ordinary strong form niḥru, but the harshness of ח immediately followed by ר is avoided by pronouncing the ח with Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ.—In the 3rd sing. fem. נִשְׁתָּֽוָה Pr 27 (in pause for נִשְׁתְּוָה) ו and ת may be transposed for euphonic reasons; but probably we should simply read נִשְׁוָ֫תָה.—Among Niphʿal forms of ל״ה must be classed, with Buxtorf and others (cf. Nöldeke, ZDMG. xxx. 185), נַֽאֲנָה from אָוָה, not Pi‛lel of נאה = נאו; hence, according to § 23 d, נָאווּ they are beautiful (for נַֽאֲווּ) Is 52, Ct 1; but in ψ 93, where Baer requires נָֽאֲוָה, read נַֽאֲנָה with ed. Mant., Ginsb.
y 8. The apocope of the imperfect causes no further changes beyond the rejection of the ־ֶה, e.g. יִגָּל from יִגָּלֶה; in one verb middle guttural, however, a form occurs with the Qameṣ shortened to Pathaḥ, viz. יִמַּח (for יִמָּח) ψ 109, as in verbs ע״ע; but in pause תִּמָּֽח verse 14. Cf. bb.—The infinitive absolute נִגְלוֹת emphasizing an infinitive construct, 2 S 6, is very extraordinary; probably it is a subsequent correction of an erroneous repetition of הגלות.—The infin. constr. לְחֵֽרָאֹה occurs in Ju 13, 1 S 3 for לְהֵֽרָאֹת; cf. above, n.—On the infinitive Niphʿal with the ה elided, see § 51 l.—The irregular תֵּֽעֲלוּ Ez 36 has probably arisen from a combination of the readings תַּֽעֲלוּ (Qal) and תֵּֽעָלוּ (Niphʿal). Similarly the solecism נְמִבְזָה 1 S 15 might be due to a combination of the participle fem. Niphʿal (נִבְּזָה, cf. נַחְלָה, נֶחְפָּה, נַֽעֲשָׂח) with the Hophʿal (מֻבְזָה); but it is more correct, with Wellhausen, to explain the מ from a confusion with נמס and to read, in fact, נִבְזָח וְנִמְאָ֫סָת.
III. On Piʿēl, Pôʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl.
z 9. In the 1st and 2nd persons of the perfect Piʿēl the second syllable in most of the instances has ־ִי on the analogy of Qal (see f), as דִּמִּ֫יתָ, קִוִּ֫יתִי; always so in the first plur., and before suffixes, e.g. כִּסִּ֫ינוּ Gn 37, דִּכִּיתָ֫נוּ ψ 44. The form with ־ֵי is found only in the 1st sing. (e.g. Jo 4; Is 5, 8 along with the form with î). On the tone of the perf. consec. Pi‛el of ל״ה, see § 49 k.—Hithpaʿēl has (besides ־ֵי Jer 17) as a rule ־ִי (Pr 24, 1 K 2, Jer 50). On the other hand, Puʿal always has ־ֵי, e.g. עֻשֵּׂ֫יתִי ψ 139.—A 1st sing. perfect Pô‛ēl שׁוֹשֵׂ֫תִי ( =שׁוֹוסֵיתִי) occurs in Is 10.
aa 10. The infinitive absolute Piʿēl takes the form כַּלֵּה, קַוֵּה (like קַטֵּל, the more frequent form even in the strong verb, see § 52 o); with ô only in ψ 40 קַוֹּה; with ôth Hb 3 עָרוֹת (cf. above, n). On הֹגוֹ and הֹרוֹ, infinitives absolute of the passive of Qal, not of Pô‛ēl, see above, n.—As infinitive construct חַכֵּי occurs in Piʿēl, Ho 6 (only orthographically different from חַכֵּה, if the text is correct); לְכַלֵּא Dn 9 (on the א see rr); עַד־לְכַלֵּה 2 Ch 24, 31, for which in 2 K 13, Ezr 9 עד־כַּלֵּה with infin. abs.; in Puʿal עֻנּוֹת ψ 132.
bb 11. The apocopated imperfect must (according to § 20 l) lose the Dageš forte of the second radical, hence וַיְצַו and he commanded, תְּעַר (for תְּעָרֶה=te‛arrè) ψ 141; cf. Gn 24; even in the principal pause אַל־תְּגַֽל Pr 25; Hithpaʿēl וַיִּתְגַּל and he uncovered himself, Gn 9; תִּתְרַע Pr 22; cf. ψ 37. With the lengthening of Pathaḥ to Qameṣ, וַיְתָו and he made marks, 1 S 21 (but read with Thenius וַיָּ֫תָף, and instead of the meaningless וַיְשַׁנּוֹ ibid. read וַיְשַׁן). In Hithpaʿēl אַל־תִּתְגָּר, in close connexion, Dt 2; תִּשְׁתָּע Is 41; according to Qimḥi also יִתְאָו, תִּתְאָו ψ 45, Pr 23, 24, 1 Ch 11, whilst Baer and Ginsburg read with the best authorities יִתְאַו, תִּתְאַו (but cf. König, Lehrgeböude, i. 597).[3]—On אֲחַוְךָ Jb 15 (for אֲחַוְּךָ) cf. § 20 m; on אּכָלְךָ Ex 33, see § 27 q; on יְרַד Ju 5, see § 69 g. Finally, on דַּלְיוּ, which is referred to Piʿēl by some, as a supposed imperative, see above, u.
cc 12. Examples of apocopated imperatives in Piʿēl and Hithpaʿēl are: צַו, also צַוֵּה command thou, גַּל open thou, ψ 119; מַן prepare thou, ψ 61; נַס for נַסֵּה prove thou, Dn 1; הִתְחָ֑ל feign thyself sick, 2 S 13; cf. Dt 2.—On רַבֶּה Ju 9, cf. § 48 l.—In ψ 137 עָ֫רוּ rase it, is found twice instead of עָר֫וּ (for ‛arrû) for rhythmical reasons (cf., however, וִיעָ֫רוּ in the imperfect, 2 Ch 24).
dd 13. Examples of forms in which the Yôdh is retained are the imperfects תְּדַמְּיוּן Is 40, cf. verse 25 and 46; יְכַסְיֻמ֑וּ they cover them, Ex 15; participle Puʿal מְמֻֽחָיִם Is 25; for אֲרַיָּ֫וֶךְ Is 16 (from רָוָה) read with Margolis, אֲרַוַּ֫יִךְ.
IV. On Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal.
ee 14. The 3rd sing.perfect Hiphʿîl sometimes has Seghôl in the first syllable instead of ĭ (§ 53 p), especially in הֶגְלָה (but perfect consecutive וְהִגְלָה 2 K 24), הֶרְאָה, הֶלְאָה; also with suffixes, e.g. הֶגְלָם 1 Ch 8, הָלְאָ֑נִי Jb 16, וְהֶפְדָּהּ Ex 21. The Seghôl also occurs in the 1st sing., e.g. הָלְאֵתִ֫יךָ Mi 6. On וְהַרְאֵיתִי Na 3, cf. § 53 p. The forms with ê in the second syllable (also written defectively, as וְהִכֵּתִ֫י Jer 21) are found throughout in the 1st sing. (except Pr 5), rarely in the 2nd sing. masc., and never in the 1st plur. In the other persons they are about equally common with î, except in the 2nd plur., where î predominates. Before suffixes the forms with î predominate throughout; cf., however, ê in Ex 4, Mi 6, Pr 4. On the tone of the perf. consec. Hiph. of ל״ה, see § 49 k. In Hophʿal only ־ֵי occurs in the 2nd syllable.
ff 15. In the infinitive Hiphʿîl of רָבָה to be abundant, besides the construct הַרְבּוֹת we find the absolute הַרְבָּה taking the place of the common form הַרְבֵּה, which had come to be used invariably (but König calls attention to its use as infinitive construct in Ez 21) as an adverb, in the sense of much; in 2 S 14 the Qerê requires הַרְבַּת for the Kethîbh הַרְבִּית, an evident scribal error for הַרְבּוֹת. Cf. Gn 41, 22, Dt 28; the pointing הַרְבֶּה Jer 42 probably arises from regarding this form as a noun.—On הַמְּרוֹת Jb 17 (with Dageš f. dirimens) see § 20 h.—In 2 K 3 הַכּוֹת (before א) is probably infinitive absolute, used in order to avoid the hiatus, cf. § 113 x, and on a similar case in Qal, see above, n.—On the infinitives with elision of the ה, cf. § 53 q.
gg 16. The shortened imperfect Hiphʿîl either takes no helping vowel, as יַפְתְּ let him enlarge, Gn 9; יַרְדְּ he shall subdue, Is 41; וַיַּשְׁקְ and he watered, Gn 29, &c.; וַיַּרְא and he showed, 2 K 11 (see § 28 d): or else has a helping vowel, as יֶ֫גֶל (for יַ֫גֶל, see § 27 r), e.g. 2 K 18; וַיֶּ֫פֶר ψ 105; וַתֶּ֫מֶר Ez 5; וַיֶּ֫תַע 2 Ch 33; וארב i.e. probably וָאֶ֫רֶב Jos 24 Kethîbh (וָאַֽרְבֶּה Qerê).—Examples of verbs first guttural: וַיַּ֫עַל Nu 23, וָאַ֫עַל, &c., which can be distinguished as Hiphʿîl from the similar forms in Qal only by the sense.—The apocopated imperative Hiphʿîl always (except in verbs פ״ן, e.g. הַךְ, הַט, § 76 c) has a helping vowel, Seghôl or Pathaḥ, e.g. הֶ֫רֶב increase thou (for harb, הַרְבֵּה) ψ 51 Qerê, also Ju 20; where, however, it cannot be explained the text stands; הֶ֫רֶף let alone (for הַרְףְּ, הַרְפֵּה Dt 9, &c.; הַ֫עַל (for הַֽעֲלֵה) Ex 8, 33; but for הָשַׁע ψ 39, which could only be imperative Hiphʿîl of שָׁעַע (=smear over, as in Is 6), read with Baethgen שְׁעֵה look away.—The imperfect Hiphʿîl with Yôdh retained occurs only in תּוֹגְיוּן Jb 19, from יָגָה. Cf. u.
V. In General.
hh 17. In Aramaic the imperfect and participle of all the conjugations terminate in ־ֵא or ־ֵי. The Hebrew infinitives, imperatives, and imperfects in ־ֵה, less frequently ־ֵא or ־ֵי, may be due to imitation of these forms. On the infinitive construct Piʿēl חַכֵּי, see above, aa; imperative Qal הֱוֵא Jb 37 (in the sense of fall); imperfect יֵרֵא let him look out, Gn 41 (but see above, p); יַֽעֲשֵׂה he will do, Is 64; אַל־תִּֽהְיֵה Jer 17; אַל־תֹּבֵא consent thou not, Pr 1; אַל־תַּֽעֲשֵׂה do thou not, 2 S 13 (the same form in Gn 26, Jos 7, Jer 40 Qerê); אֶֽהְיֵה (so Baer and Ginsburg, after cod. Hillel, &c.) I will be, Jer 31; וַנַּֽעֲשֵׂה Jos 9; תִּרְאֵה Dn 1. Cf. also in Niphʿal יִמָּצֵה Lv 5; תִּבָּנֵה (according to Qimḥi) Nu 21; in Piʿēl תְּגַלֵּה Lv 18, 20, in each case לֹא תְגַלֵּה֑, beside תְּגַלֶּה with a minor distinctive; יֲנַקֵּ֑ה (Baer יְנַפֶּה) Na 1; אֱזָרֵה Ez 5 (with Zaqeph; Baer אֱזָרֶה). The fact, however, that a great number of these forms occur in pause and represent at the same time a jussive or voluntative (Jos 7), suggests the view that the Ṣere is used merely to increase the emphasis of the pausal form, and at the same time to make a distinction in sound between the jussive or voluntative and the ordinary imperfect.[4] Elsewhere (Gn 26, Lv 5, Jer 40, Dn 1; according to Baer also Mi 7, Zc 9) the pronunciation with ê is probably intended to soften the hiatus caused by a following א or ע; cf. the analogous cases above, § 74 l.
ii The ending ־ִי appears to stand for ־ֶה in the imperfect Qal in וַתִּזְנִי־שָׁם and there hath she played the harlot, Jer 3; perhaps, however, the 2nd sing. fem. is intended, or it may have been introduced into the text of Jeremiah from Ez 16, &c. Still more strange is it in the imperfect Hiphʿîl אַל־תֶּ֑מְחִי Jer 18; but the Mil‛ēl-tone probably points to תֶּ֫מַח as the correct reading (cf. Neh 13). The ־ִי stands for ־ָה in the perfect Hiphʿîl הֶֽחֱלִי he made sick, Is 53, which is probably for החליא from חלא, a secondary form of חלה; see rr. The plur. הִמְסִיו (Baer הִמְסִיוְ) they made to melt, Jos 14, is a purely Aramaic form.
kk 18. In two verbs the rare conjugation Pa‛lēl or its reflexive (§ 55 d) occurs: מְטַֽחֲוֵי archers, Gn 21 (from טָחָה); but most frequently in שָׁחָה to bend, Pa‛lēl שַֽׁחֲוָה not in use, whence reflexive הִשְׁתַּֽחֲוָה to bow oneself, to prostrate oneself, 2nd pers. in ־ִ֫ יתָ and 1st pers. in ־ֵ֫ יתִי, imperfect יִשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶה, consecutive 3rd sing. masc. וַיִּשְׁתַּ֫חוּ for wayyištaḥw (analogous to the noun-forms, like שָׂ֫חוּ for saḥw); 3rd plur. יִשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ.—Instead of the aramaizing infinitive with suffix בְּהִשְׁתַּֽחֲיָיָֽתִי 2 K 5 read with König בְּהִשְׁתַּֽחֲווֹתִי; in Ez 8 מִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִיתֶם is still more certainly a scribal error for מִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִים.
ll 19. Before suffixes in all forms ending in ה, a connecting vowel is employed instead of the ה and the connecting vowel which precedes it (§ 58 f), e.g. נָחַ֫נִי Gn 24; in pause עָנָ֫נִי 1 K 2, &c., even with lesser disjunctives, ψ 118, Pr 8, or with a conjunctive accent, 1 S 28 (but Baer עָנַ֫נִי), Jb 30; cf. § 59 h; עָֽנְךָ֫, in pause עָנָךְ, Is 30 (and even when not in pause Jer 23) or like קָנֶ֫ךָ Dt 32; וְיַרְבֶּ֑ךָ, וְיַפְרְךָ Gn 28; cf. also עָנָ֫הוּ, עָנָם, imperfect יַֽעֲנֵ֫הוּ, יַֽעַנְךָ֫ Hiphʿîl הִכַּ֫נִי, הָֽעֶלְךָ֫, הִכֶּ֫הוּ.
mm Only very seldom does the imperat. or impf. end in ־ֵי before suffixes, e.g. אַפְאֵיהֶם Dt 32; יְכַסֵּ֫ימוֹ ψ 140 Qerê; הַכֵּ֫ינִי smite me, 1 K 20; cf. Hb 3, Is 38. Even in these examples a return to the original ending ay might be assumed; but perhaps they are merely due to a less correct plene writing. In the 3rd sing. perf. fem. the older form גָּלַת (see i) is always used before a suffix, e.g. כִּלַּ֫תּוּ (for כִּלַּתְהוּ) Zc 5; in pause עָשָׂ֑תְנִי Jb 33; רָאָֽתְךָ 42.
VI. The Relation between Verbs ל״ה and ל״א
nn 20. The close relation existing between verbs ל״א and ל״ה is shown in Hebrew by the fact that the verbs of one class often borrow forms from the other, especially in the later writers and the poets.
oo 21. Thus there are forms of verbs ל״א—
(a) Which have adopted the vowels of verbs ל״ה, e.g. perfect Qal כָּלִ֫אתִי I have refrained, ψ 119; participle חוֹטֶא (חֹטֶא) sinning, Ec 2, 8, 9; cf. Is 65; מוֹצֶא Ec 7; נשֶׁא lending, 1 S 22; Piʿēl perfect מִלָּא he has filled, Jer 51; cf. 1 K 9, Am 4 (where, however, the perfect Niph. is perhaps intended), ψ 89, 143; רִפִּ֫אתִו I heal, 2 K 2; cf. Jer 51; imperfect יְגַמֶּא Jb 39; Niphʿal perfect נִפְלְאַ֫תָה (like נִגְלְתֶה) it was wonderful, 2 S 1; Hiphʿîl perfect הִפְלָא Dt 28; תֶחְבְּאַ֫תָה (not ־אָ֫תָה, cf. above, 2 S 1) she hid, Jos 6. On the other hand, forms like חֹטִאים 1 S 14, קֹרִאים ψ 99, נִרְפּאוּ Ez 47, תְּדַכּאוּנַ֫נִי, according to the correct reading, Jb 19 (cf. Gn 31 אֲחַטֶּ֫נָה), and יְראוּ imperative plur. masc. from יָרֵא Jos 24, 1 S 12, ψ 34, are due to the elision of the א, see § 74 i. On יִנָּשׂוּא Jer 10 and נָשׂוּא ψ 139, see § 23 i.
pp (b) Forms in ה, but keeping their ל״א vowels, e.g. imperfect Qal אֶרְפָּה Jer 3; imperative רְפָה heal thou, ψ 60; Niphʿal; נֶחְבָּה Jer 49 (which must evidently be a perfect; read with Ewald the infinitive absolute נֶחְבֹּה as in verse 23), and הֵחָבֵה to hide oneself, 1 K 22, cf. Jer 19; Piʿēl imperfect יְמַלֵּה he will fill, Jb 8.
qq (c) Forms entirely of a ל״ה character, e.g. perfect Qal וְצֶמִת and when thou art athirst, Ru 2, cf. 2 S 3; כָּלוּ they shut up, 1 S 6; cf. 25; מָלוּ they are full, Ez 28, cf. 39; infinitive חֲטוֹ (see above, n) to sin, Gn 20 (on מְלֹאת see above, § 74 h); imperative sing. fem. חֲבִי Is 26; imperfect יִכְלֶה (for יִכְלָא) he will keep back, Gn 23; תִּרְפֶּ֫ינָה they heal, Jb 5; participle בּוֹוטֶה Pr 12; fem. יׄצָא Ec 10; plur. צֹבֶ֫יהָ Is 29; participle passive נָשׂוּי ψ 32; Niphʿal נִרְפָּ֫תָה Jer 51; נִבֵּ֫יתָ thou hast prophesied, Jer 26 (cf. ψ 139, Jb 18); imperfect וַיֵּרָֽפוּ 2 K 2 (infinitive Jer 19); Piʿēl imperfect וַיְרַפּוּ Jer 8, cf. Gn 31; Hiphʿîl participle מַקְנֶה Ez 8; Hithpa‛el הִתְנַבִּ֫יתָ 1 S 10; infinitive הִתְנַבּוֹת 1 S 10. For the Kethîbh להשות 2 K 19, Jablonski and others require as Qerê the form לְהַשְׁאוֹת (so Is 37); the Kethîbh would have to be read לַהְשׁוֹת, with elision of the א and retraction of the vowel.
rr 22. On the other hand, there are forms of verbs ל״ה, which wholly or in part follow the analogy of verbs ל״א, e.g. in their consonants אָתָא he comes, Is 21; בָּרָא 2 S 12 (textus receptus בָּרָה); וְרָצִ֫אתִי Ez 43; יִשְׂגֶּא Jb 8; יִשְׁנֶא La 4; וַיֶּֽחֶלֶא 2 Ch 16; תִּקְרֶ֫אנָה Ex 1, Lv 10; תְּלֻאִים Dt 28 (cf. Ho 11); נִקְרֹא (infin. absol. Niphʿal beside נִקְרֵ֫יתִי) 2 S 1; שִׁנָּא 2 K 25; מְרַפֵּא Jer 38; יְשֻׁנֶּא Ec 8: in their vowels, אָתָ֫נוּ Jer 3; יִקְרָה Dn 10; תִּכְלָה 1 K 17: in both, יִקְרָא Gn 49; cf. 42, Is 51; תְּלָאוּם 2 S 21 Qerê; לִירוֹא 2 Ch 26 (cf. ויראו המוראים 2 S 11 Kethîbh); מֹֽרְאָה (participle fem. Qal) Zp 3; יַפְרִיא Ho 13; מְסֻלָּאִים La 4.—For פֹּרֹאות (so Baer, Ez 17, cf. 31), which can only be intended for פֹּֽרְאוֹת participle fem. plur. from פָּרָא=פָּרָה, read פֹּארוֹת branches, according to Ez 31, &c.
a 1. In a tolerably large number of verbs two radicals are weak letters, and are consequently affected by one or other of the anomalies already described. In cases where two anomalies might occur, usage must teach whether one, or both, or neither of them, takes effect.
b Thus e.g. from נָדַד to flee, the imperfect is יִדּוֹד in Na 3 and יִדַּד in Gn 31 (on the analogy of verbs פ״ן); Hiphʿîl הֵנֵד (like a verb ע״ע), but the imperfect Hophʿal again יֻדַּד (as פ״ן).
2. The following are examples of difficult forms, which are derived from doubly weak verbs:
c (a) Verbs פ״ן and ל״א (cf. § 66 and § 74), e.g. נָשָׂא to bear, imperative שָׂא (ψ 10 נְשָׂא, of which נְסָה ψ 4 is probably only an orthographic variation); infinitive construct שְׂאֵת (for שָׂ֫אֶת; see the analogous noun-formations in § 93 t), also נְשׂא Is 1, 18; Gn 4 נְשׂוֹא; ψ 89 שׂוֹא (perhaps only a scribal error); after the prefix ל always לָשֵׂאת (otherwise the contracted form only occurs in מִשֵּׂתוֹ Jb 41, with rejection of the א); imperfect תִּשֶּׂ֫נָה for תִּשֶּׂ֫אנָה Ru 1; wholly irregular are תִּשְּׂאֶ֫ינָה Ez 23 (so Baer after Qimḥi; textus receptus, and also the Mantua ed., and Ginsburg, תִּשֶּׂ֫אינָה) and נִשֵּׂאת 2 S 19 as infinitive absolute Niphʿal (on the analogy of the infinitive construct Qal?); but most probably נִשּׂא is to be read, with Driver.
d (b) Verbs פ״ן and ל״ה (cf. § 66 and § 75), as נָטָה to bow, to incline, נָכָה to smite. Hence imperfect Qal יִטֶּה, apocopated וַיֵּט (Gn 26 וַיֶּט־) and he bowed; וַיִּז (so, probably, also Is 63 for וְיֵּז) 2 K 9 and he sprinkled (from נָזָה); perfect Hiphʿîl הִכָּה he smote, imperfect יַכֶּה, apocopated יַךְ, וַיַּךְ (even with Athnaḥ 2 K 15; but also ten times וַיַּכֶּה), וַנַּךְ Dt 2; so also וַיַּז Lv 8; אַל־תַּט ψ 141 (cf. Jb 23); imperative הַכֵּה, apocopated הַךְ smite thou (like הַט incline, with הַטֵּה), infinitive הַכּוֹת, participle מַכֶּה; Hophʿal הֻכֶּה, participle מֻכֶּה.
(c) Verbs פ״א and ל״ה (cf.§ 68 and § 75), as אָבָה to be willing, אָפָה to bake, אָתָה to come. E.g. imperfect Qal יֹאבֶה, יֹאפֶה, plur. יֹאפוּ; וַיֵּתֵא (cf. § 68 h) Dt 33 for וַיֵּאתֶה (=וַיּאֱֽתֶה); imperfect apocopated וַיַּאת Is 41 for וַיַּאְתְּ; imperative אֵתָ֫יוּ Is 21, 56 (cf. אֵפוּ bake ye, Ex 16) for אֱתוּ, אֱתָ֫יוּ (§ 23 h; § 75 u); Hiphʿîl perfect הֵתָ֫יוּ for הֵאתָ֫יוּ (הֶֽאֱתָ֫יוּ) Is 21; imperfect apocopated וַיֹּ֫אֶל and he adjured, 1 S 14, properly יַֽאֲלֶה (יַאְלֶה) from אָלָה, whence יָאלֶה, and, with the obscuring to ô, יֹאלָה; instead of the simple apocope (וַיּאֹל) the א which had already become quiescent, is made audible again by the helping Seghôl (unless perhaps there is a confusion with the imperfect consecutive Hiphʿîl of יאל).
e (d) Verbs פ״י and ל״א (cf. § 69, § 70, and § 74), as יָצָא to go forth, imperative צֵא go forth, with ־ָה paragogic צֵ֫אָה Ju 9 in principal pause for צְאָה; 2nd fem. plur. צְאֶ֫נָה Ct 3; infinitive צֵאת; Hiphʿîl הוֹצִיא to bring forth.—יָרֵא to fear, imperfect יִירָא and וַיִּירָא (or וַיּרָא), imperative יְרָא; imperfect Niphʿal יִוָּרֵא ψ 130, participle נוֹרָא.
f (e) Verbs פ״י and ל״ה (cf. § 69, § 70, and § 75), e.g. יָדָה to throw, Hiphʿîl to confess, to praise, and יָרָה to throw (both properly verbs פ״ו), and יָפָה to be beautiful. Infinitive יָרֹה, יְרוֹת; imperative יְרֵה; imperfect consecutive וַיִּיף Ez 31 (cf. also וַתִּ֫יפִי 16); with suffixes וַנִּירָם we have shot at them (from יָרָה) Nu 21; perhaps, however, it should be read with the LXX וְנִינָם and their race (also in the very corrupt passage ψ 74 נִינָם is probably a substantive, and not the imperfect Qal with suffix from יָנָה); Piʿēl; וַיַּדּוּ for וַיְיַדּוּ, (§ 69 u). Hiphʿîl הוֹדָה, הוֹרָה; infinitive הוֹדֹת (as infinitive absolute 2 Ch 7); imperfect יוֹרֶה, cf. אַל־תֹּנוּ Jer 22; apocopated וַיּוֹר 2 K 13.
g (f) Verbs ע״וּ and ל״א, particularly בּוֹא to come. Perfect בָּא, בָּ֫אתָ, בָּ֫את or בָּאתְ (Gn 16, 2 S 14, Mi 4; cf. § 75 m), once בָּ֫נוּ for בָּ֫אנוּ 1 S 25; for בֹּאוּ Jer 27, which is apparently the perfect, read יָבֹ֫אוּ. In the imperfect Qal the separating vowel occurs (תְּבֹאָ֫ינָה instead of the more common תָּבֹ֫אנָה, cf. also תָּבֹ֫אןָ Gn 30) only in Jer 9, ψ 45, and 1 S 10 Kethîbh.
h For וַתָּבֹאת 1 S 25 Qerê (the Kethîbh ותבאתי evidently combines the two readings וּבָאתְ and וַתָּבֹאִי; cf. Nestle, ZAW. xiv. 319), read וַתָּבֹ֫אִי; on the impossible forms Dt 33 and Jb 22 cf. § 48 d.—In the perfect Hiphʿîl הֵבִיא, הֵבֵ֫אתָ and (only before a suffix) הֲבִיאֹתָ; the latter form is also certainly intended in Nu 14, where the Masora requires וְהֵֽבֵיאתִ֫י, cf. 2 K 9, 19, Is 43) Jer 25, Ct 3. Before suffixes the ē of the first syllable in the 3rd sing. always becomes Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl, e.g. הֱבִֽיאֲךָ, הֱבִיאַ֫נִי; elsewhere invariably Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ, e.g. הֲבֵאתָ֫נוּ or הֲבִֽיאֹתָ֫נוּ. On the other hand, ē is retained in the secondary tone in the perfect consecutive when without suffixes, e.g. וְהֵֽבֵאתָ֫. Cf. moreover, וַֽהֲקֵאֹתוֹ (וַֽהֲקֵאֹתוֹ in Opitius and Hahn is altogether incorrect), Pr 25, from קִיא; but קְיוּ spue ye, Jer 25 (perhaps only a mistake for קִיאוּ), is not to be referred to קִיא but to a secondary stem קָיָה. In the imperfect וַתָּקִא is found once, Lv 18, besides וַיָּקֵא (analogous to וַיָּבֵא).—On אָבִי (for אָבִיא), מֵבִי, יָנִי, see § 74 k.
i (g) The form חָיַי to live, in the perfect Qal, besides the ordinary development to חָיָה (fem. חָֽיְתָה), is also treated as a verb ע״ע, and then becomes חַי in the 3rd pers. perfect, in pause חָי, and with wāw consecutive וָחַי Gn 3, and frequently. In Lv 25 the contracted form וְחֵי is perhaps st. constr. of חַי life, but in any case read וָחַי perfect consecutive as in verse 35. The form וָחָ֫יָה occurs in Ex 1 in pause for וָחַ֫יָּה (3rd fem.) with Dageš omitted in the י on account of the pausal lengthening of ă to ā.
a The close relation which exists between some classes of the weak verbs (e.g. between פ״ו and פ״י, ל״א and ל״ה, ע״ע and ע״וּ, ע״ע and ל״ה) appears not only in their similarity or identity of inflexion, or their mutual interchange of certain forms, but especially from the fact that frequently the same root (radix bilittera, see § 30 g) recurs in various weak stems of similar meaning. The meaning accordingly is inherent in the two constant root-consonants, while the third consonant̤, which is weak (and the particular class of weak verbs with it), does not establish any difference in the meaning. Thus from the root דךְ there occur with the same meaning דָּכַךְ, דּוּךְ, דָּכָא to strike, to crush; and from the root נד there are נוּד, נָדַד, נָדָה to flee.
b In this manner the following classes are related in form and meaning:
1. Verbs ע״וּ and ע״ע in which the first and third consonants are the same in both, as being essential to the meaning; e.g. מוּךְ and מָכַךְ to become poor; מוּשׁ and מָשַׁשׁ to feel; נוּד and נָדַד to flee.
c 2. Verbs פ״י and פ״ן; e.g. יָצַב and נָצַב to place, נָקַשׁ and יָקשׁ (yāqōs̆) to lay snares. Moreover, stems belonging to the classes mentioned in 1 (especially ע״וּ) are frequently related also to verbs פ״י and פ״ן, e.g. גּוּר and יָגֹר to fear; טוֹב and יָטַב to be good; נָפַח and פּוּחַ to blow; נָפַץ and פּוּץ to dash to pieces. Verbs פ״א are less frequently connected with these classes, e.g. אָדַשׁ and דּוּשׁ to thresh, &c.
d 3. Verbs ל״א and ל״ה (in which the first two consonants form the real body of the stem) are sometimes related to each other, and sometimes to the above classes. To each other, in דָּכָא and דָּכָה to crush, קָרָא and קָרָה to meet (cf. § 75 nn); to verbs of the other classes, in מָצָה and מָצַץ to suck, דָּחָה and דּוּחַ to thrust, &c.
e 4. Verbs ע״ע and ל״ה, on which cf. Grimm, Journal of Bibl. Lit., 1903, p. 196; e.g. אָנָה and אָנַן to sigh, דָּמָה and דָּמַם to be quiet, חָנָה and חָנַן to incline, כָּלָה and כָּלַל to end, קָלָה and קָלַל to despise, שָׁגָה and שָׁגַג to err, שָׁחָה and שָׁחַח to bend down, שָׁסָה and שָׁסַס to plunder.
f 5. Verbs ע״וּ and ע״ה; e.g. מוּל and מָהַל (New Hebrew; in O.T. only מָהוּל Is 1) to circumcise, מוּר and מָהַר to exchange, נוּר (in מְנוֹרָה a light) and נָהַר to shine; cf. also לְהָטִים secret arts, Ex 7 with לָט secret, from לוּט.
a It often happens, when two kindred weak verbs are in use with the same meaning, that both are defective, i.e. do not occur in all the forms. Since, however, those tenses and forms which are not in use in the one verb are generally supplied by the other, they mutually complete one another, and thus form together, as it were, an entire verb, as in Greek ἔρχομαι, aor. ἦλθον, fut. ἐλεύσομαι, and in Latin fero, tuli, latum, ferre, &c., but with this difference, that in Hebrew the roots of these verbs are almost always closely related.
b The most common verbs of this kind are—
בּשׁ to be ashamed. Hiphʿîl הֵבִישׁ (inferred from הֱבִישׁ֫וֹתָ), but also הֹבִישׁ, הוֹבִישׁ as if from יבשׁ, on the analogy of verbs פ״ו; also in Is 30 the Qerê requires הֹבִישׁ, where the Kethîbh has הִבְאִישׁ from בָּאַשׁ.
טוֹב to be good. Perfect טוֹב; but imperfect יִיטַב. and Hiphʿîl הֵיטִיב from יָטַב (but cf. הֱטִיבֹ֫תָ 2 K 10).
יָגׄר to be afraid. Imperfect יָגוּר (from גּוּר).
יָקַץ to awake, only in the imperf. יִיקַץ; for the perfect, the Hiphʿîl הֵקִיץ is used (from קוּץ).
נָפַץ to break in pieces. Imperfect יָפוּץ (from פּוּץ). Imperative פּוּץ. Niphʿal נָפוֹץ. Piʿēl נִפֵּץ (from נָפַץ). Pôlēl פּוֹצֵץ (from פּוּץ). reflexive הִתְפּוֹצֵץ. Hiphʿîl הֵפִיץ. Also פִּצְפֵּץ Jb 16.
נָצַב (Qal in post-biblical Hebrew, in Aramaic and Arabic) to place, whence (possibly) Niphʿal נִצַּב and Hiph‛îl הִצִיב (see above, § 71); but Hithpaʿēl הִתְיַצֵּב.
שָׁתָה to drink, used in Qal; but in Hiph. הִשְׁקָה to give to drink, from a Qal שָׁקָה which is not used in Hebrew.
On הָלַךְ (יָלַךְ) to go, see above, § 69 x.
c Rem. 1. To the same category belong also, to a certain extent, those cases where the tenses or moods not in use in one conjugation, are supplied by forms having the same meaning in other conjugations of the same verb. Thus:
יָסַף to add. The infinitive (but cf. § 69 h, note) and imperfect, unused in Qal, are supplied by the Hiphʿîl הוֹסִיף, יוֹסִיף (on יוֹסֵף as imperfect indicative, see § 109 d, cf. also § 109 i).
כָּשַׁל to stumble. Perfect from Qal, imperfect from Niphʿal.
נגשׁ to approach, unused in perf. Qal, instead of which Niphʿal נִגַּשׁ is used; but imperfect יִגַּשׁ, imperative גַּשׁ, and infinitive גֶּ֫שֶׁת from Qal only are in use.
נָחָה to lead. Perfect usually נָחָה in Qal, so imperative נְחֵה, but imperfect and infinitive always in Hiphʿîl.
נתך to be poured out. Perfect Niphʿal נִתַּךְ with imperfect Qal יִתַּךְ, but the perfect Qal and imperfect Niphʿal are not in use.
2. The early grammarians often speak of mixed forms (formae mixtae), i.e. forms which unite the supposed character and meaning of two different tenses, genders, or conjugations. Most of the examples adduced are at once set aside by accurate grammatical analysis; some others appear to have arisen from misapprehension and inaccuracy, especially from erroneous views of unusual plene forms. Others, again, are either merely wrong readings or represent an intentional conflation of two different readings.
CHAPTER III
THE NOUN
For the literature, see De Lagarde, Uebersicht über die im Aram., Arab. und Hebr. übliche Bildung der Nomina, Göttingen, 1889; Index and Additions, 1891; J. Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen, first half, Simple nouns, Leipzig, 1889; second half, Nouns with external additions, 1891; second edition, with indices of words and subjects, 1894; E. König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude, &c., ii. 1, Leipzig, 1895, see above, § 3 f.—Of these three important works the first two especially have given rise to various articles. In support of De Lagarde: Hommel in ZDMG. xliv, p. 535 ff. (against De Lagarde and Hommel: Barth, ibid., p. 679 ff.), and dealing with the Index, ZDMG. xlv, p. 340 ff.—Against Barth (though with many points of agreement): Philippi in the Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, 1890, p. 344 ff. (answered by Barth in ZDMG. xliv, p. 692 ff.), and ZDMG. xlvi, p. 149 ff. (answered again by Barth, ibid., xlviii, p. 10 ff.), also in the Beiträge zur Assyriologie, ii (1892), p. 359 ff. ‘Die semitische Verbal- und Nominalbildung,’ and lastly, in ZDMG. xlix, p. 187 ff.—Cf. also A. Müller, ‘Semitische Nomina. Bemerkungen zu de Lagarde und Barth,’ ZDMG. xlv, p. 221 ff.—The main points at issue in the works of De Lagarde and Barth are indicated below, § 83 d.—Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 104 ff.; Grundriss, p. 329 ff.
a 1. Since, according to § 30 a, most word-stems are developed into verbal stems as well as into noun-stems, it has become customary (especially in the Lexicon) to refer the noun to the most simple ground-form of the verbal formation, viz. the 3rd pers. sing. perfect Qal, and, as it were, to derive it from that form. This is usual, not only in those noun-stems which can be directly connected with a corresponding verbal stem (Nomina verbalia or derivativa, § 83 ff.), but also with Nomina primitiva, i.e. those of which no verbal stem is now found in Hebrew (see § 82), as well as finally with Nomina denominativa, which have evidently been derived from other nouns (§ 86).
The adjective agrees in form entirely with the substantive. On the formation of adjectival ideas by giving to abstracts a concrete sense, see § 83 c.
b 2. A special inflexion of the noun to express the various cases does not exist in Hebrew; only a few ancient and almost extinct traces of case-endings have survived (§ 90). The syntactical relation of a noun can therefore in general only be inferred from its position in the sentence, or from its being joined to prepositions. In either case, the form of the noun undergoes no change (except for the construct
state, § 89), and the representation of case-relations belongs therefore almost exclusively to the syntax (§ 117 ff.). The comparative and superlative of adjectives also can be expressed only by a syntactical combination (§ 133). On the other hand, several changes in the forms of nouns are occasioned by the additions of the plural, dual, and feminine terminations, as well as of the pronominal suffixes, and also by the close connexion of two nouns, by means of the construct state.[5]
Brockelmann; Grundriss, p. 404 ff.; ‘Ueber die Femininendung at, ah, ā’ in Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 106 f.; Grundriss, pp. 105, 405 ff.; ‘Die Femininendung T im Semit.’ (Sitzung d. orient.-sprachwiss. Sektion d. schlesischen Gesellschaft, Feb. 26, 1903); against him J. Barth, ZDMG. 1903, p. 628 ff.; Brockelmann’s reply, ibid., p. 795 ff.; and Barth again, ibid., p. 798 ff.
a 1. The Hebrew, like all Semitic languages, recognizes only two genders in the noun, a masculine and a feminine. Inanimate objects and abstract ideas, which other languages sometimes indicate by the neuter, are regarded in Hebrew either as masculine or feminine, more often the latter (see the Syntax, § 122 q).
b 2. The masculine, as being the more common and important gender, has no special indication.
Feminine nouns are also without an indication of gender when the meaning of the word naturally denotes a feminine, as אֵם mother, אָתוֹן a she-ass, עֵז a she-goat, רָחֵל an ewe (cf. § 122 b). As a rule, however, the feminine had originally the ending ־ַת, as in the 3rd sing. perfect of verbs (§ 44 a). This ־ַת, however, is regularly retained in Hebrew only in close connexion with a following genitive or suffix (cf. § 89 e and § 91 o), except where the form has arisen through the addition of a simple ת[6] (see below, d). Otherwise, the feminine ending of the independent form (the absolute state, § 89 a) is—
c (a) Most commonly a tone-bearing ־ָה, e.g. סוּס equus, סוּסָה equa. Of nouns ending in ־ִ, like עִבְרִי, the feminine (by § 24 b) is עִבְרִיָּה, cf. § 86 h. As in the 3rd sing. fem. perfect (קָֽטְלָה, &c.), this ־ָה seems to have arisen by the rejection of the final ת, and the lengthening of the ă in the open syllable, whereupon the ה was added as an orthographic indication of the final long vowel: cf. the exactly similar origin of such forms as גָּלָה for גָּלַי, § 75 c. It must, however, be noticed that in Arabic (see m and note) the pausal form of at is ah, of which a trace may be preserved in the Hebrew ־ָה.
d (b) Simple ת with nouns ending in a vowel, e.g. יְהוּדִי Jew, יְהוּדִית Jewess. The same ending ת is very frequently added to stems ending in a consonant, but only (except before suffixes) by means of a helping vowel, which, as a rule, is Seghôl, but after gutturals Pathaḥ, e.g. קֹטֵל, fem. קֹטֶ֫לֶת killing; before suffixes, e.g. קֹֽטַלְתִּי, according to the rule given in § 69 c, cf. also § 84a s; מוֹדַע an acquaintance, fem. מוֹדַ֫עַת. The forms which arise in this way follow in every respect the analogy of the segholate forms (§ 94 f). The forms which have been developed by means of a helping vowel are retained even in the connective form (construct state); except וְיֹלַדְתְּ (for יֹלֶ֫דֶת, which is used elsewhere) Gn 16, Ju 13; cf. Jer 22 and 51 Qerê, also מְשָׁרַת 1 K 1, participle fem. Piʿēl, properly mešāratt = מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת; also מְבַעִתֶּ֫ךְ (participle fem. Piʿēl with suffix) arises from the form מְבַעַ֫תְּ which was developed into מְבַעֶ֫תֶת.
e Rem. 1. The fem. form in ־ֶ֫־ֶת is in general less frequent, and occurs almost exclusively when the form in ־ָה is also in use. It is only in the participles and infinitives that it is the commoner, e.g. קֹטֶ֫לֶת more common than קֹֽטְלָה, לֶ֫דֶת than לֵדָ֫ה.
f 2. Rarer feminine endings are—(a) ־ַת with the tone, e.g. בָּֽרְקַ֫ת emerald, Ez 28 (also בָּרֶ֫קֶת Ex 28); שִׁפְעַ֫ת a company 2 K 9, unless the reading is wrong; more frequently in proper names, especially of places among the Canaanites or Phoenicians (in whose language ־ַת was the usual fem. ending, § 2 d) and other neighbouring tribes,[7] e.g. צָֽרְפַ֫ת Zarephath, גִּבְעַ֫ת Gibeath, קִרְיַ֫ת Kiriath, אֵילַ֫ת Greek Ailana in Idumea; אֲחֻזַּת Gn 26: on the reading גָּלְיַת cf. g. Cf., moreover, נְגִּינַת ψ 61 (prob. originally נְגִינֹת); חַיַּת (LXX חַיּוֹת) 74; פּוּגַת La 2; [רַבַּת much, in ψ 65, 120, 123, 129, is a form borrowed from the Aramaic (Syriac rabbath) in which the original t of the fem. is often retained to form adverbs, see Wright, Comparative Grammar, p. 135.]
g (b) ־ָת, which likewise occurs in some names of places, e.g. בַּֽעֲלָת, חֶלְקָת, as well as in the masc. proper name גָּלְיָת 1 S 17, &c. (in 17, and 21, ed. Mant. has גָּלְיַת), and in the fem. proper name שִׁמְעָת; otherwise, almost only in poetry, viz. זִמְרָת Ex 15, Is 12, ψ 118 (really for זִמְרָתִי my song; the absorption of the î, however, can scarcely have ‘taken place in the Aramaic manner’, as suggested by Duhm on Is 12, nor is it due merely to the following Yôdh, but is intended ‘to facilitate the absorption of יָהּ’; so Geiger, Urschrift, p. 277 f.); נַֽחֲלָת heritage, ψ 16 (either again for נַֽחֲלָתִי heritage, or for נַֽחֲלָ֫תָה, cf. § 90 g, as probably also עֶזְרָת help, ψ 60, 108 for עֶזְרָ֫תָה). These forms are possibly survivals from a period when even final vowels were not supported by a vowel-letter. Cf. also פֹּרָת fecunda (a fruitful tree) Gn 49; יִתְרָת abundance, Jer 48 (before ע; but in Is 15 יִתְרָה); שְׁנָת sleep (for שֵׁנָה) ψ 132; and (unless the ת is radical) in prose קָאָת pelican (which reading is also preferable, in Is 34, to the form קָאַת), also מָֽחֳרָת the morrow, but in construct state always ממחרַת.[8]—תְּהִלָּת Jer 45 Qerê is no doubt intended to indicate the reading תְּהִלָּתִי, parallel to מְשׂוֹשִׂי; cf. above, on זִמְרָת, &c.
h (c) ־ָא, the Aramaic orthography for ־ָה, chiefly in the later writers; זָרָא loathing, Nu 11; חָגָּא a terror, Is 19; שֵׁנָא sleep, ψ 127; לְבִיָּא a lioness, Ez 19 (unless לָבִיא is intended); מַטָּרָא a mark, La 3; cf. also דָּשָׁא threshing (participle Qal from דּוּשׁ) Jer 50; מָרָא bitter, Ru 1. On the other hand, according to the western Masora, קָרְחָה baldness is to be read in Ez 27; see Baer on the passage.
i (d) ־ֶה, an obtuse form of ־ָה (§ 27 u), only in הַזּוּרֶ֫ה for הַזּוּרָה Is 59 (unless it is again a forma mixta combining the active ptcp. masc. הַזּוֹרֶה and the passive ptcp. fem. הַזּוּרָה); cf. לָ֫נֶה for לָנָה Zc 5; אָ֫נֶה 1 K 2 (§ 90 i, and § 48 d).
k (e) ־֫ ־ָה without the tone, e.g. רָחָ֫מָה Dt 14 [Lv 11 רָחָם]; תַּנּוּר בֹּעֵ֫רָה an oven heated, Ho 7; cf. Ez. 40, 2 K 15, 16. In all those examples the usual tone-bearing ־ָה is perhaps intended, but the Punctuators, who considered the feminine ending inappropriate, produced a kind of locative form (see § 90 c) by the retraction of the tone. [In 2 K 16, Is 24, Ez 21 (note in each case the following ה), and in Jb 42, Ho 7, the text is probably in error.]
l (f) ־ַי, as an old feminine termination, preserved also in Syriac (ai; see examples in Nöldeke’s Syrische Gram, § 83), in Arabic and (contracted to ê) in Ethiopic, very probably occurs in the proper name שָׂרַי Sarai, cf. Nöldeke, ZDMG. xl. 183, and xlii. 484; also עֶשְׂרֵה ten (fem.) undoubtedly arises from an original ʿesray; so Wright, Comparative Grammar, p. 138; König, Lehrgebäude, ii. 427.
m 3. It is wholly incorrect to regard the vowel-ending ־ָה[9] as the original termination of the feminine, and the consonantal ending ־ַת as derived from it. The Ethiopic still has the ת throughout, so too the Assyrian (at, it); in Phoenician also the feminines end for the most part in ת, which is pronounced at in the words found in Greek and Latin authors; less frequently in א (see Gesenius, Monumm. Phoen., pp. 439, 440; Schröder, Phön. Sprache, p. 169 ff.). The ancient Arabic has the obtuse ending (ah) almost exclusively in pause; in modern Arabic the relation between the two endings is very much as in Hebrew.
a Nouns are by their derivation either primitive, i.e. cannot be referred to any verbal stem at present extant (see § 82), such as אָב father, אֵם mother (but see both words in the Lexicon; according to Stade and others אָב, אֵם, &c., are children’s words and terms of endearment, and so really primitive nouns), or derivative, i.e. either Derivativa verbalia (§§ 83–85), e.g. רָם high, רָמָה high place, מָרוֹם height, from רוּם to be high, or less frequently Derivativa denominativa (§ 86), e.g. מַרְגְּלוֹת the place at the feet, from רֶ֫גֶל foot.
b Rem. 1. The earlier grammarians consider the verb alone as stem, and therefore all nouns as verbals, dividing them into (a) Formae nudae, i.e. such as have only the three (or two) radicals, and (b) Formae auctae, such as have formative letters or syllables added at the beginning or end, e.g. מַמְלָכָה, מַלְכוּת. The formative letters used for this purpose are ה א מ נ ת י ו (הֶֽאֱמַנְתִּיו),[10] and the treatment of nouns formerly followed this order.
c According to the view of roots and stems presented in § 30 d, nouns (other than denominatives) are derived not from the verbal stem, but either from the (abstract) root or from the still undefined stem. In the following pages, however, the arrangement according to the verbal stem is retained as being simpler for the beginner. Cf. § 79 a.
d 2. Compound nouns as appellatives are very rare in Hebrew, e.g. בְּלִיַּ֫עַל worthlessness, baseness. On the other hand, they very frequently occur as proper names, e.g. גַּבְרִיאֵל (man of God), יְהֽוֹיָקִים (Yahwe raises up), יְהֽוֹנָתָן (Yahwe gave), &c.[11]
The number of primitive nouns in the sense used in § 81 is small, since nouns, which in other languages are represented as independent noun-stems, can easily be traced back in Hebrew to the verbal idea, e.g. names of animals and natural objects, as שָׂעִיר he-goat (prop. shaggy, from שָׂעַר), שְׂעֹרָה barley (prop. prickly, also from שָׂעַר), חֲסִידָה stork (prop. pia, sc. avis), זָהָב gold (from זָהַב=צָהַב to shine, to be yellow). Thus there remain only a few nouns, e.g. several names of members of the body in men or beasts, to which a corresponding verbal stem cannot be assigned at all, or at any rate only indirectly (from other Semitic dialects), as קֶ֫רֶן horn, עַ֫יִן eye.
a 1. In Hebrew, as in Greek and Latin, the verbal nouns are connected in form and meaning primarily with certain forms of the verb, especially the participles and infinitives, which are themselves, even in their ordinary form, frequently used precisely like nouns, e.g. אֹיֵב enemy, דַּ֫עַת to know, knowledge. Still oftener, however, certain forms of the infinitive and participle, which are seldom or never found as such in the strong verb, though in use in the weak verb and in the kindred dialects, came to be commonly used for the verbal noun; e.g. the participial form קָטֵל, the infinitives of the (Aramaic) form מִקְטַל (as a noun also מִקְטָל), further קְטֹ֫לֶת, קִטְלָה, קָטְלָה, קֻטְלָה (§ 45 d), &c. Others (as the Arabic shows) are properly intensive forms of the participle.
b 2. As regards their meaning, it follows from the nature of the case that nouns which have the form of the infinitive regularly denote the action or state, with other closely related ideas, and are therefore mostly abstract; while the participial nouns, on the contrary, denote for the most part the subject of the action or state, and are therefore concrete. Moreover, it is to be noticed, that a particular meaning is attached to many of the special forms of derivative nouns, although it does not appear equally in them all.
c Rem. It need not appear strange, when we consider the analogy of other languages, that a noun which in form is properly abstract afterwards acquired a concrete sense, and vice versa. So in English, we say his acquaintance, for the persons with whom he is acquainted; the Godhead for God himself; in Hebrew מוֹדַע acquaintance and an acquaintance.
d The inner connexion in thought between Semitic noun-forms and the corresponding verbal forms is investigated in the works of De Lagarde and Barth (see the titles at the head of § 79) on very different lines, but with many points of agreement. De Lagarde starts from the fact that language consists of sentences. A sentence which consists of only one word is called a verb, and anything which serves as a complement to it is a noun. The oldest form of the sentence is the imperative. Closely related to it are three kinds of sentences of the nature of verbal forms, differing according as the property of the particular object of sense is to be represented as invariable (form qatula), or as liable to change (form qatila), or, finally, as a circumstance which takes place before our eyes (form qatala). Like the imperative, these three forms of sentences have also been transformed into nouns, by means of certain phonetic changes,—especially by the omission of the final vowels and the addition of different terminations to the last consonant of the stem. But just as the forms of the verbal sentence undergo numerous modifications (in the tenses, moods, and conjugations), so also do the nouns, sometimes by assimilation of the unessential to the characteristic vowel (qutul, qitil), sometimes by the lengthening of the characteristic vowel (qatûl, qatîl, qatâl), or else through the displacement of the accent and the consequent reduction of the noun to a monosyllabic form (qatl, qutl, qitl), or, finally, by their being formed from the derived stems (or conjugations), e.g. qattal, qattâl; qutil, qittâl, &c. Further modifications arise from the use of the various imperfect and infinitive forms, and also from the employment of the prefix m. Lastly, denominalia are formed from deverbalia by appending certain suffixes.
De Lagarde does not, however, claim to be able to show in the case of each particular noun the sense it conveyed in primitive times; the origin of a number of nouns can now no longer be detected. In those, however, which are clearly derived from verbs, the original meaning is chiefly determined by the characteristic vowel.
Barth’s system is based on the thesis that ‘all Semitic nouns, adjectives, and participles are derived from either the perfect or the imperfect stem’. Thus, e.g. קָטוֹל is the infinitive of the perfect stem, קְטֹל the infinitive of the imperfect stem, שְׁכַב infinitive of יִשְׁכַּב, &c. In dissyllabic noun-forms the second vowel is always alone characteristic and essential, the first vowel unessential, and therefore variable. Further modifications of the simple form are effected by strengthening (sharpening) the second or third consonant, by lengthening the characteristic vowel (instead of which, however, the feminine termination may also be used), or by ‘metaplasm’, i.e. by the use of noun-forms derived from one of the two intransitive stems for the other, e.g. qutl for qitl, and vice versa.
In nouns of the perfect stem, the vowels i and u indicate intransitive formations, the vowel a a transitive sense. In nouns of the imperfect stem on the contrary, u and i, being characteristic vowels, indicate a transitive and a an intransitive sense: for yaqtŭlŭ is imperfect of the transitive perfect qatala, and yaqtŭlŭ imperfect of the intransitive perfects qatila and qatula, &c. This explains how nouns, apparently identical in form, may yet in sense belong to different classes: a qutl-form from a u-imperfect has a transitive meaning, but the same form from a u-perfect has an intransitive meaning. This double system of perfect and imperfect forms runs through the whole scheme of noun-formation, not only the forms connected with the conjugations, but also the forms with prefixes and suffixes.
Against the whole theory it has been urged that it postulates for the development of the language a much too abstract mechanism, and further, that the meanings of words as we find them may in many cases be due to a modification of the original sense. But though many of the details (e.g. the alleged unessential character of the vowel of the first syllable) remain doubtful, yet the agreement between the characteristic vowel of certain noun formations and that of the perfect or imperfect stem, is supported by such a number of incontestable instances, that there can be no doubt as to a systematic, intimate connexion between the two. At the same time it must be admitted that De Lagarde has put forward many important and suggestive points, and both scholars agree in laying stress on one characteristic vowel as indicative of the meaning.
a Preliminary remark.—From the statement made above, § 83 d, it follows that an external similarity between forms is no proof of their similar origin, and, vice versa, external difference does not exclude the possibility of their being closely related both in origin and meaning.
I. Nouns with One Vowel, originally Short.
R. Růzička, ‘Beiträge zur Erklärung der nomina segolata,’ in Sitz.-ber. d. böhmischen Ges. d. Wiss., Prag, 1904.
1. Nouns with one of the three short vowels after the first radical: present ground-form qăṭl, qĭṭl, qŭṭl.
The supposition of monosyllabic ground-forms appeared to be required by the character of forms now existing in Hebrew, as well as in Arabic, &c. But there are strong reasons for believing that at least a large proportion of these forms go back to original dissyllabic bases with a short vowel in each syllable. When formative additions were made, the vowel of the 2nd syllable was dropped, i.e. before case-endings in Assyrian and early Arabic, and before pronominal suffixes in Hebrew. From the forms thus produced, the bases qăṭl, qĭṭl, qŭṭl have been assumed, although they never appear in Hebrew except in the singular and then in connexion with suffixes.
In support of this view of a large number of original dissyllabic bases, we must not, however, appeal to the Seghôl or Pathaḥ under the 2nd consonant of the existing developed forms, סֵ֫פֶר, זֶ֫רַע, &c. These are in no sense survivals or modifications of an original full vowel in the 2nd syllable, but are mere helping-vowels (§ 28 e) to make the monosyllabic forms pronounceable,[12] and consequently disappear when no longer needed. Under certain circumstances even (e.g. in קשְׁטְ) they are not used at all. Actual proofs of such original toneless full vowels in the 2nd syllable of existing Segholates are—
1. Forms like Arab. málik, for which rarely malk, corresponding to the Hebrew ground-form; cf. De Lagarde, Uebersicht, p. 72 ff.
2. In Hebrew גֶּ֫דֶר, יֶ֫רֶךְ, כֶּ֫בֶד, כֶּ֫תֶף, the connective forms of גָּדֵר, יָרֵךְ, &c., which latter can only come from ground-forms gădĭr, yărĭk, kăbĭd, kătĭp.
3. The forms treated under § 84a e, which are in many ways related to the Segholates proper, in so far as they are to be referred to original dissyllabic bases.
4. The plurals of Hebrew Segholates, since, with very rare exceptions, they take Qameṣ under the 2nd radical before the termination ־ִים, fem. ־וֹת, of the absolute state, as מְלָכִים, מְלָכוֹת, סְפָרִים, &c. This Qameṣ (see note 1 on § 26 e) can only be due to a lengthening of an original short vowel in the 2nd syllable, and hence it would seem as though the vowel were always ă. This is impossible from what has been said, especially under 1 and 2. Hence the explanation of the consistent occurrence of Qameṣ in the plurals of all Segholates can only be that the regularly formed plurals (i.e. from singulars with original ă in the 2nd syllable) became the models for all the others, and ultimately even for some really monosyllabic forms.[13]
(a) From the strong stem the above three ground-forms are further developed to קֶ֫טֶל,[14] קֵ֫טֶל, קֹ֫טֶל (cf. § 27 r and in § 93 the explanations of Paradigm I, a–c); without a helping vowel (§ 28 d) קשְׁטְ truth. If the second or third radical be a guttural, a helping Pathaḥ takes the place of the helping Seghôl, according to § 22 d, e.g. זֶ֫רַע seed, נֵ֫צַח eternity, פֹּ֫עַל work; but with middle ה or ח, note לֶ֫חֶם bread, רֶ֫חֶם (as well as רַ֫חַם) womb, אֹ֫הֶל tent, בֹּ֫הֶן thumb; so with final א, פֶּ֫רֶא a wild ass, &c.; with a middle guttural also the modification of the principal vowel ă to è does not occur, e.g. רַ֫הַב, נַ֫עַר, לַ֫חַץ (exceptions, again, לֶ֫חֶם, רֶ֫חֶם). On the inflexion, cf. § 93, Paradigm I, a–f, and the explanations. In חֵטְא sin, the א has wholly lost its consonantal value.
b Examples of feminines: מַלְכָּה (directly from the ground-form malk, king), סִתְרָה a covering (also סֵ֫תֶר), אָכְלָה food (also אֹ֫כֶל); with a middle guttural נַֽעֲרָה girl, טָֽהֳרָה purity (also טֹ֫הַר). Cf. § 94, Paradigm I.
c (b) From weak stems: (α) from stems ע״ן, e.g. אַף nose (from ʾănp, hence with formative additions, e.g. אַפִּי for ʾanpî, my nose); עֵז a she-goat (ground-form ʿĭnz); fem. חִטָּה wheat; (β) from stems ע״ע (§ 93, Paradigm I, l–n); פַּת a morsel, עַם people (so, when in close connexion with the next word; unconnected עָם; with article הָעָם, לָעָם, &c.); רַב in the sense of much, but רָב great, numerous (in close connexion also רַב); רָע evil, with the article in close connexion הָרַע, unconnected הָרָע; with the ă always lengthened to ā, יָם sea; fem. חַיָּה life, and with attenuation of the ă to ĭ, מִדָּה measure; from the ground-form qĭṭl, אֵם mother; fem. גִּזָּה a shearing; from the ground-form qŭṭl, חֹק statute, fem. חֻקָּה. (γ) from stems ע״וּ (Paradigm I, g and i); מָ֫וֶת death (from má-ut, the u passing into the corresponding consonant, as in תָּ֫וֶךְ middle) or contracted יוֹם day, שׁוֹט whip, שׁוֹר a bull; fem. עַוְלָה perverseness (also contracted עוֹלָה); from the ground-form qŭṭl, צוּר a rock; fem. סוּפָה a storm. (δ) from stems ע״י (Paradigm I, h); זַ֫יִת an olive-tree (with a helping Ḥireq instead of a helping Seghôl) from zá-it, the i passing into the corresponding consonant; or contracted חֵיק bosom, חֵיל 2 K 18 (elsewhere חַ֫יִל) host; fem. שֵׂיבָה grey hair; from the ground-form qĭṭl, דִּין judgement; fem. בִּינָה understanding. (ε) from stems ל״ה (Paradigm I, k); partly forms such as בֶּ֫כֶה weeping, הֶ֫גֶה murmuring, נֶ֫דֶה a present, קֶ֫צֶה the end, partly such as בְּכִי, אֲרִי a lion (ground-form băky, ʾăry); cf. also the forms from stems originally ל״ו, שָׂ֫חוּ swimming (ground-form săḥw); fem. שַׁלְוָה rest, גַּֽאֲוָה exaltation; from stems ל״י, אַלְיה a fat tail, and with attenuation of ă to ĭ שִׁבְיָה captivity, also שְׁבִית, formed no doubt directly from the masc. שְׁבִי with the fem. termination ת; from the ground-form qĭṭl, חֲצִי (from ḥĭṣy); fem. חֶדְוָה joy, עֶרְוָה and עֶרְוָה nakedness; from the ground-form qŭṭl, בֹּ֫הוּ (from bŏhw) waste, תֹּ֫הוּ emptiness; דְּלִי, for דֳּלִי, bucket; fem. אֳנִיָּה a ship (directly from אֳנִי a fleet).
d The masculines as well as the feminines of these segholate forms may have either an abstract or a concrete meaning. In the form קֹ֫טֶל the passive or at any rate the abstract meaning is by far the more common (e.g. נֹ֫עַר youthfulness, abstract of נַ֫עַר boy; אֹ֫כֶל food, &c.).[15]
e 2. Nouns with one of the three short vowels under the second radical (present ground-form qeṭăl, qeṭŭl, qeṭŭl), e.g. דְּבַשׁ honey, דְּוַי sickness, חֲתַת terror; and so always with middle א, בְּאֵר a well, זְאֵב a wolf, בְּאֹשׁ stench. In reality these forms, like the segholates mentioned in No. 1 (see above, § 84a a), are, probably, for the most part to be referred to original dissyllabic forms, but the tone has been shifted from its original place (the penultima) on to the ultima. Thus dibáš (originally dı́baš) as ground-form of דְּבַשׁ is supported both by the Hebrew דִּבְשִׁי (with suffix of the first person), and by the Arabic dibs, the principal form; biʾír (according to Philippi with assimilation of the vowel of the second syllable to that of the first) as ground-form of בְּאֵר is attested by the Arabic biʾr; for בְּאשׁ (Arabic buʾs) similarly a ground-form buʾúš may be inferred, just as a ground-form qŭṭŭl underlies the infinitives of the form קְטֹל.[16]
II. Nouns with an original Short Vowel in both Syllables.
f 3. The ground-form qăṭăl, fem. qăṭălăt, developed in Hebrew to קָטָל (§ 93, Paradigm II, a, b) and קְטָלָה (§§ 94, 95, Paradigm II, a, b), mostly forms intransitive adjectives, as חָכָם wise, חָדָשׁ new, יָשָׁר upright; but also substantives, as דָּבָר a word, and even abstracts, as אָשָׁם guilt, רָעָב hunger, שָׂבָע satiety; in the fem. frequently abstract, as צְדָקָה[17] righteousness; with an initial guttural אֲדָמָה earth.—Of the same formation from verbs ע״ע are בָּדָד alone, עָנָן cloud; passive חָלָל pierced.—In verbs ל״ה a final Yôdh is almost always rejected, and the ă of the second syllable lengthened to è. Thus שָׂדַי field, after rejection of the י and addition of ה as a vowel-letter, becomes שָׂדֶה (cf. § 93, Paradigm II, f); fem. e.g. שָׁנָה year; cf. § 95, Paradigm II, c. From a verb ל״ו the strong form עָנָו afflicted occurs.
g 4. The ground-form qăṭĭl, fem. qăṭĭlăt, developed to קָטֵל (§ 93, Paradigm II, c–e) and קְטֵלָה, is frequently used as participle of verbs middle e (§ 50 b), and hence mostly with an intransitive meaning; cf. זָקִן old, an old man; כָּבֵד heavy; fem. בְּהֵמָה cattle, אֲפֵלָה and חֲשֵׁכָה darkness.—From verbs פ״י: irregularly, דָּֽלִיּוֹתָיו the branches of it, Jer 11, &c., generally referred to a sing. דָּלִית (stem דלה), and הָֽרִיּוֹתָיו Ho 14 (from הָרָה, st. constr. הֲרַת, plur. st. absol. and constr. הָרוֹת).—From a verb ל״ו with consonantal Wāw: שָׁלֵו at ease, incorrectly written plene שָׁלֵיו Jb 21.
h 5. The ground-form qăṭŭl, developed to קָטֹל (also written קָטוֹל), generally forms adjectives, e.g. אָיֹם terrible, בָּרֹד piebald, מָתוֹק sweet, נָקֹד speckled, עָבֹת interwoven, עָגֹל round, עָמֹק deep, עָקֹב hilly, צָהֹב golden; קָטֹן small, only in sing. masc., with a parallel form קָטָן of the class treated under f, fem. קְטַנָּה, plur. קְטַנִּים. These forms are not to be confounded with those in No. III, from the ground-form qăṭâl.—Fem. אֲיֻמָּה, כְּבוּדָּה (glorious), עֲבֻתָּה, עֲנֻגָּה (delicate), עֲגֻלָּה, עֲמֻקָּה, with sharpening of the third radical, in order to keep the original ŭ short, and similarly in the plurals בְּרֻדִּים, נְקֻדִּים, עֲגֻלִּים, אֲסֻפִּים stores, &c.
i 6. The ground-form qĭṭâl develops to קֵטָל (cf. § 93, Paradigm II, Rem. 1), e.g. לֵבָב heart, עֵנָב a bunch of grapes, שֵׁבָר strong drink; from a verb ל״ה, probably of this class is רֵעֶה, generally contracted to רֵע friend, ground-form riʿay: the full form is preserved in רֵעֵ֫הוּ his friend, for רֵעֵ֫יהוּ.
III. Nouns with an original Short Vowel in the First and a Long Vowel in the Second Syllable.
k 7. The ground-form qăṭâl in Hebrew always develops to the form קָטוֹל, the â becoming an obscure ô. The fact that this form is also written קָטֹל must not lead to the confusion of these forms with those mentioned in No. 5, from the ground-form qăṭâl.[18] Moreover the qaṭôl-class includes forms of various origin, and therefore of various meaning, as (a) intransitive adjectives like גָּדוֹל great, קָדוֹשׁ holy, fem. גְּדוֹלָה, the short vowel becoming Šewâ, whereas in גָּדוֹל, &c., before the tone it is lengthened to ā; (b) the infinitives absolute of the form קָטוֹל (§ 45 a) as representing the abstract idea of the verb, and abstract substantives like כָּבוֹד honour, שָׁלוֹם peace (Arab. sălâm); (c) substantives and adjectives in an active sense, as בָּחוֹן assayer (of metals,) עָשׁוֹק an oppressor, חָמוֹץ oppressing; in the feminine בָּֽגוֹדָה treacherous Jer 3, the irregular retention of the ā in the third syllable from the end is no doubt to be explained, with Brockelmann, from Aramaic influence, the punctuator having in mind the Aramaic nomen agentis qâṭôl.
l 8. The ground-form qăṭîl develops to קָטִיל (cf. § 93, Paradigm IV, a and b). Here also forms of various origin and meaning are to be distinguished: (a) adjectives used substantivally with a passive meaning to denote duration in a state, as אָסִיר a prisoner, מָשִׁיחַ an anointed one. These proper qăṭîl-forms are parallel to the purely passive qaṭûl-forms (see m), but others are due to a strengthening of original qaṭĭl-forms. These are either (b) intransitive in meaning, as צָעִיר small, and, from ל״י stems, נָקִי pure, עָנִי poor (see § 93 vv), or (c) active, as נָבִיא a speaker (prophet), פָּקִיד an overseer.—Of a different kind again (according to Do Lagarde, infinitives) are (d) forms like אָסִיף the ingathering, בָּצִיר vintage, חָרִישׁ ploughing time, קָצִיר harvest. On qăṭṭîl forms with a kindred meaning, cf. § 84b f.
m 9. The ground-form qăṭûl develops to קָטוּל. As in the qaṭâl and qaṭîl-forms (see k and l), so here forms of various kinds are to be distinguished: (a) qaṭûl-forms proper, with passive meaning, especially all the passive participles of Qal; fem. e.g. בְּתוּלָה virgin (properly secluded). On the other hand, by strengthening an original qaṭŭl-form we get (b) certain stative adjectives (§ 50 f), as אָנוּשׁ incurable, עָצוּם strong, עָרוּם subtil, or even transitive, as אָחוּז holding; (c) active substantives, as יָקוּשׁ a fowler. Further, some of the forms mentioned in § 84b g belong to this class; see above, the remark on l.
n 10. The ground-form qĭṭâl or qŭṭâl[19] in Hebrew changes the ĭ to vocal Šewâ, and develops to קְטָל (cf. § 93, Paradigm IV, c) or קְטוֹל, with â obscured to ô (as above, § 84a k). Cf. שְׁאָר remnant, יְקָר honour, כְּתָב book (Arab. kĭtâb), קְרָב war (the last three probably loan-words from the Aramaic); of the other form, חֲלוֹם a dream, חֲמוֹר an ass (Arab. ḥĭmâr), אֱלוֹהַּ God (Arab. ʾĭlâh); with א prosthetic (§ 19 m), אֶזְרוֹעַ arm (twice: usually זְרוֹעַ); fem. בְּשׂוֹרָה good news (Arab. bĭšârăt); עֲבוֹדָה service, כְּתֹ֫בֶת (Arab. kĭtâbăt) tattooing.
o 11. The ground-form qĭṭîl seems to occur e.g. in Hebrew אֱוִיל foolish, אֱלִיל vanity, בְּדִיל lead, כְּסִיל a fool, חֲזִיר a swine (the prop. name חֵזִיר points to the ground-form qĭṭîl, cf. Arab. ḥĭnzîr).
p 12. The ground-form qĭṭûl or qŭṭûl, Hebr. קְטוּל, e.g. גְּבוּל a boundary, לְבוּשׁ a garment; fem. גְּבוּרָה strength, אֱמוּנָה faithfulness.
q Rem. When the forms qeṭûl and qeṭôl begin with א, they almost invariably take in the singular a Ṣere under the א instead of the ordinary Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl; cf. אֵבוּס a crib, אֵטוּן thread, אֵמוּן faithful, אֵזוֹב hyssop, אֵזוֹר a waist-band, אֵסוּר a bond, אֵפוֹד an ephod; cf. § 23 h, and the analogous cases of Ṣere for Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl in verbal forms § 52 n, § 63 p, § 76 d.
IV. Nouns with a Long Vocal in the First Syllable and originally a Short Vowel in the Second Syllable.
r 13. The ground-form qâṭăl, in Hebrew, always changes the â into an obscure ô, קוֹטָל (קֹטָל), e.g. עוֹלָם (§ 93, Paradigm III, a), Arab. ʿâlăm, eternity; חוֹתָם (Arab. ḥâtăm) a seal (according to Barth a loan-word of Egyptian origin), fem. חֹתֶ֫מֶת (from ḥôtămt); תּוֹלָע worm (unless from a stem ולע, like תּוֹשָׁב from ושב; see the analogous cases in § 85 b). On the participles Qal of verbs ל״ה (§ 93, Paradigm III, c), cf. § 75 e; on the feminines of the participles Qal, which are formed with the termination ת, see below, s.
Rem. Of a different kind (probably from a ground-form qauṭal) are such forms as אוֹפָן (or אוֹפָן Ez 10 in the same verse) a wheel; גּוֹזָל a young bird, דּוֹנַג wax, &c.
s 14. The ground-form qâṭĭl also becomes in Hebrew almost invariably קוֹטֵל (קֹטֵל). Besides participles active masc. Qal this class includes also feminines of the form קֹטֶ֫לֶת, if their ground-form qôṭalt (§ 69 c) goes back to an original qâṭilt. The substantives of this form, such as כֹּהֵן priest (Arab. kâhĭn), were also originally participles Qal. The fem. of the substantives has ē (lengthened from ĭ) retained before the tone, e.g. יֹֽלֵדה a woman in travail (cf. also בֹּֽגֵדָה the treacherous woman, Jer 3; הַצֹּֽלֵעָה her that halteth, Mi 4 f., Zp 3; סֹֽחֵרָה a buckler, ψ 91); the participles as a rule have the form יֹֽלְדָה, &c., the original ĭ having become Šewâ; however, the form with Ṣere occurs also in the latter, Is 29, 34, ψ 68, 118 (all in principal pause; in subordinate pause 2 S 13, Is 33; with a conjunctive accent, Ct 1). שֹׁמֵמָה 2 S 13.
t 15. The ground-form qûṭăl, Hebrew קוּטַל (as יוּבַל river, Jer 17) or קוּטָל e.g. עוּגָב a pipe, commonly עֻגָב, and to be so read, with Baer, also in ψ 150, not עֻגָּב.
V. Nouns with a Long Vowel in each Syllable
u 16. קִיטוֹל, e.g. קִיטוֹר smoke. The few forms of this kind are probably derived from the ground-form qîṭâl (qĭṭṭâl ?), i.e. the original â has become an obscure ô.
a This includes all forms which have arisen, either through the doubling of the middle radical, or the repetition of one or of two consonants of the simple stem.
VI. Nouns with the Middle Consonant sharpened.
As in the corresponding verbal stems (cf. § 52 f), so also in some noun-formations of this class, the Dageš in the second radical expresses an intensification of the idea of the stem, either emphasizing the energy of the action or relation, or else indicating a longer continuance of the relation or state. Other nouns of this character are evidently only by-forms of the nouns derived from the simple stem, which were treated in the last section: cf. the instances adduced under f and g, and Barth, Nominalbildung, Introd., p. x.
b 17. The ground-form qăṭṭăl is mostly lengthened in Hebrew to קַטָּל; cf. אַיָּל a stag, fem. אַיָּלָה, constr. st. אַיֶּ֫לֶת (from ʾăyyălt); cf. also the fem. (originating from Qal) לֶֽהָבָה a flame (according to § 27 q for lăhhābhā), חָֽרָבָה dry land (for ḥarrābhā), דַּלֶּ֫קֶת and קַדַּ֫חַת a burning fever, יַבָּשָׁה and יַבֶּ֫שֶׁת dry land, טַבַּ֫עַת a seal-ring, שַׁחֶ֫פֶת consumption. Adjectives of this class (‘intensified participles of the active verb’, Barth, ibid., § 33) are חַטָּא sinful, נַגָּח wont to gore, קַנָּא jealous, כֶּחָשׁ (for kaḥḥâš, by § 22 c) lying. Nomina opificum also, curiously enough, are so treated in Hebrew (at least in the constr. state of the sing.), although the corresponding Arabic form qăttâl points to an original (unchangeable) â in the second syllable; cf. גַּנָּב a thief, דַּיָּן a judge (constr. st. דַּיַּן ψ 68), טַבָּח a cook, חָרָשׁ (for ḥarrâš) artificer (constr. st. חָרַשׁ, but plur. constr. חָֽרָשֵׁי); פָּרָשׁ horseman (for parrâš), const. st. פָּרַשׁ Ez 26.
c 18. The ground-form qĭṭṭăl appears in צִחֶה dry, גֵּאֶה haughty (the ĭ being lengthened to ē according to § 22 c), if these forms go back to original ṣĭḥḥăy, gĭʾʾăy. On the analogy, however, of the adjectives denoting defects (see d below), we should rather expect a ground-form qĭṭṭĭl; moreover, ʾiwwalt, ground-form of the fem. אִוֶּ֫לֶת foolishness, goes back to an original iwwilt, see § 69 c.
19. The ground-form qŭṭṭăl and qŭṭṭŭl; cf. the fem. כֻּסֶּ֫מֶת spelt, כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת coat.
d 20. The ground-form qăṭṭĭl; from the intensive stem, the infinitives Piʿēl of the form קַטֵּל.
21. The ground-form qĭṭṭĭl, in Hebrew lengthened to קִטֵּל. Of this form are a considerable number of adjectives which denote a bodily or mental fault or defect. Cf. אִטֵּר disabled, אִלֵּם dumb, גִּבֵּן hump-backed, עִוֵּר blind, חֵרֵשׁ deaf (for ḥirrēš), פִּסֵּחַ lame, קֵרֵחַ bald, עִקֵּשׁ perverse; פִּקֵּחַ open-eyed follows the same analogy.
e 22. The ground-form qăṭṭâl, cf. the remarks in b above, on the nomina opificum; moreover, to this class belong infinitives Piʿēl of the Aramaic form בַּקָּרָה a searching out; בַּקָּשָׁה a request; with middle guttural (see § 22 c) נֶֽאָצָה contumely; but cf. also נָאָֽצוֹתֶ֫יךָ Ez 35, with full lengthening of the original ă before א; נֶֽחָמָה comfort. From the attenuation of the ă of this form to ĭ, arises undoubtedly:
23. The ground-form qĭṭṭâl, e.g. אִכָּר husbandman (Arab. ʾăkkâr).
24. The ground-form qĭṭṭôl, most probably only a variety of the form qăṭṭâl with the ă attenuated to ĭ (as in No. 23), and the â obscured to ô (as in n and r); cf. גִּבּוֹר hero (Arab. găbbâr), יִסּוֹר caviller, צִפּוֹר (piper or chirper) a bird, שִׁכּוֹר drunkard. On the other hand, יִלּוֹד born probably arises from yullôd, an old participle passive of Qal, the ŭ being dissimilated in the sharpened syllable before ô: so Barth, ibid., p. 41 f.
f 25. The ground-form qăṭṭîl, קַטִּיל, almost exclusively of persons, who possess some quality in an intensive manner, e.g. אַבִּיר strong, צַדִּיק righteous, בָּרִיחַ fugitive (for barrîaḥ), עָרִיץ violent (for ʿărrîṣ).
That some of these are only by-forms of the qăṭîl-class (see above, remark on a), appears from the constr. st. פְּרִיץ ravenous, Is 35 (but פָּֽרִיצִים, פָּֽרִיצֵי always), and according to Barth (ibid., 35 a) also from the constr. st. אֲבִיר (but also אַבִּיר 1 S 21) of אַבִּיר. However, the form אֲבִיר, as a name of God, may be intentionally differentiated from אַבִּיר, a poetic term for the bull.
In the same way אַסִּיר prisoner, סָרִיס eunuch (constr. st. always סְרִיס, plur. סָֽרִיסִים, constr. st. סְרִיסֵי Gn 40, but in the book of Esther always סָֽרִיסֵי, with suffix סָֽרִיסָיו, &c.), and עַתִּיק weaned, may be regarded as by-forms of the qăṭîl-class with passive meaning, see § 84a l.
g 26. The ground-form qăṭṭûl, קַטּוּל, e.g. חַנּוּן gracious, רַחוּם compassionate (with virtual strengthening of the ח), חָרוּץ diligent (for ḥarrûṣ), probably, again, to a large extent by-forms of the qăṭûl-class, § 84a m. The same applies to substantives like אַשֻּׁר a step (in אַשֻּׁרִי, as well as אֲשֻׁרוֹ, &c.), עַמּוּד pillar; fem. חַבּוּרָה a stripe (also חֲבֻֽרָתוֹ), בַּטֻּחוֹת security: cf. Barth, ibid., § 84.
h 27. The ground-form qăṭṭôl; besides the infinitives absolute Piʿēl of the form קַטֹּל, also קַנּוֹא jealous (as well as קַנָּא, an obscured form of qăṭṭâl, see e).
i 28. The ground-form qĭṭṭûl, קִטּוּל, e.g. צִפּוּי a coating of metal, שִׁלּוּם requital, שִׁקּוּי drink, שִׁקּוּץ detestable thing; with concrete meaning לִמּוּד a disciple, עִזּוּז strong; frequently in the plural in an abstract sense, as גִּדּוּפִים reproach, מִלֻּאִים filling (the induction of a priest), נִֽחֻמִים consolations, compassion, שִׁכֻּלִים bereavement, שִׁלֻּחִים dismissal, שִׁמֻּרִים observance.
VII. Nouns with the Third Consonant repeated.
k 29. The ground-form qăṭḷăl, e.g. שַֽׁאֲנָן quiet, fem. שַֽׁאֲנַנָּה (with sharpening of the second Nûn, in order to keep the preceding vowel short); רַֽעֲנָן green, plur. רַעֲנַנִּים.
l 30. The ground-form qăṭlĭl, in Hebrew קַטְלֵל; of this form are e.g. the infinitives Pi‛lēl (prop. Pa‛lēl), cf. § 55 d.
m 31. The ground-form qăṭlŭl; so the plur. גַּבְנֻנִּים ridges (with sharpening of the Nûn, as in No. 29).
32. The ground-form qĭṭlăl, in פִּרְחָח a brood.
33. The ground-form qŭṭlăl, in אֻמְלָל faint.
34. The ground-form qăṭlîl, e.g. עַבְטִיט plunder, סַגְרִיר rain-storm, שַׁפְרִיר glittering tapestry, Jer 43 Qerê; with attenuation of the ă to i כִּמְרִירִים all that maketh black, Jb 3 (but the better reading is כַּמְרִירֵי).
35. The ground-form qăṭlûl, e.g. שַׁפְרוּר Jer 43 Keth.; נַֽאֲפוּפִים adulteries.
VIII. Nouns with the Second and Third Consonants repeated.
n 36–39. Qeṭălṭăl, qeṭălṭĭl, qeṭălṭŭl; qeṭălṭûl, qeṭălṭôl (in fem. and plur. often with the last consonant sharpened for the reason given in a above); cf. הֲפַכְפַּךְ crooked, חֲלַקְלַקּוֹת slippery places, עֲקַלְקַלּוֹת crooked (ways); פְּתַלְתֹּל tortuous; also words denoting colours, אֲדַמְדָּם (Lv 13 in pause) reddish, fem. אֲדַמְדֶּ֫מֶת, plur. אֲדַמְדַּמֹּת; יְרַקְרַק greenish, plur. fem. יְרַקְרַקֹּת; qeṭalṭĭl, יְפֵיפִיָּה very fair (to be read in Jer 46 for יפהפיה); qeṭalṭŭl, שְׁחַרְחֹ֫רֶת (fem.) blackish; אֲסַפְסֻף a rabble (augmented from אָסוּף collected). From a verb פ״י with aphaeresis of the initial syllable צֶֽאֱצָאִים offspring. Moreover, of the same form, probably, is חֲצֽוֹצְרָה a trumpet (for חֲצַרְצְרָה, cf. § 55 e). Also in Is 2 לַֽחֲפַרְפָּרוֹת is to be read instead of לַחְפֹּר פֵּרוֹת (from the sing. חֲפַרְפָּרָה a digging or burrowing animal, perhaps the mole). But פְּקַחְקוֹחַ opening, Is 61 (ed. Mant., Baer, Ginsb. פְּקַח־קוֹחַ), is an evident mistake due to dittography; read פְּקֹחַ as in 42.
IX. Nouns in which the Whole (Biliteral) Stem is repeated.
o Naturally this class includes only isolated forms of the stems ע״וּ and ע״ע (on פִּֽיפִיּוֹת see § 96 under פֶּה). Thus:—
40. גַּלְגַּל a wheel, and, with attenuation of the first ă to ĭ, גִּלְגָּל (from גלל); fem. חַלְחָלָה anguish (from חוּל or חִיל); כִּכָּר (for kirkar) a talent; cf. also כּוֹכָב a star (from kăwkăb, Arabic kaukăb, for כַּבְכַּב), טֽוֹטָפֹת bands, for טַפְטָפֹת; צְלָצַל probably a whirring locust.
p 41. כַּלְכֵּל infin. Pilpēl (prop. Palpĭl) from כּוּל; fem. טַלְטֵלָה a hurling (from טוּל).
42. כַּדְכֹּד perhaps a ruby (for kădkŭd), from כדד.
43. קָדְקֹד the crown of the head (for qŭdqŭd), from קדד; fem. גֻּלְגֹּ֫לֶת a skull (for gŭlgŭlt), from גלל.
44. זַרְזִיר girded, from זרר; בַּקְבּוּק a bottle, from בקק; בַּרְבֻּרִים fattened birds(?).
a These include nouns which are directly derived from verbal forms having preformatives (Hiphʿîl, Hophʿal, Hithpaʿēl, Niphʿal, &c.), as well as those which are formed with other preformatives (א, י, מ, נ, ת), and finally those which are formed with afformatives. The quadriliterals and quinqueliterals also are taken in connexion with these formations, inasmuch as they arise almost always by the addition or insertion of one or two consonants to the triliteral stem.
X. Nouns with Preformatives.
b 45. Nouns with א prefixed. Cf. the substantives with א prosthetic (§ 19 m), such as אֶזְרוֹעַ arm (Jer 32, Jb 31; elsewhere always זְרוֹעַ); אֶצְבַּע a finger, אַרְבֶּה a locust, אֶגְרוֹף fist (others mattock, or clod), אַשְׁמוּרָה or אַשְׁמֹ֫רֶת a watch. In these examples the א is a ‘euphonic’ prefix (Barth, ibid., § 150 b); in other cases it is ‘essential’; cf. especially the adjectives, אַכְזָב deceitful, אַכְזָר cruel, אֵיתָן perennial (for ʾaitan) [=the Arab. ‘elative’, used for expressing the compar. and superl. degrees]. The fem. אַזְכָּרָה fragrant part[20] (of the meal-offering) is a nomen verbale of Hiphʿîl, answering to the Aramaic infinitive of the causal stem (’Aph‛ēl), hence with suff. אַזְכָּֽרָתָהּ Lv 2, &c.
c 46. Nouns with ה prefixed. Besides the ordinary infinitives of Hiphʿîl הַקְטֵל and הַקְטִיל, of Niphʿal הִקָּטֵל, הִקָּטֹל (for hinq.), and of the conjugations formed with the prefix הִתְ, this class also includes some rare nomina verbalia derived from Hiphʿîl (cf. § 72 z), viz. הַכָּרָה appearance (from נָכַר), Is 3; הֲנָפָה a swinging (from נוּף), [Is 30; הֲנָחָה a rest-giving, Est 2]; הַצָּלָה deliverance (from נָצַל), [Est 4 an Aram. form: cf. הֲזָדָה Dn 5]; perhaps also הֵיכָל palace, from haikăl, unless it is borrowed from the Assyrian; see the Lexicon. Cf. also הַנְזָקָה Ezr 4.
d 47. Nouns with י prefixed, as יִצְהָר oil, יַלְקוּט wallet, יַנְשׁוּף owl(?); from verbs ע״וּ, e.g. יְקוּם a living thing, יתוּר a range; from a verb ע״י, יָרִיב an adversary. Of a different character are the many proper names which have simply adopted the imperfect form, as יַֽעֲקֹב, יִצְחָק, &c.
e 48. Nouns with מ prefixed. This preformative Mêm, which is no doubt connected with מִי who, and מָה what (see § 37 and § 52 c), appears in a very large number of nouns, and serves to express the most varied modifications of the idea of the stem: (1) מ subjective, when preformative of the participles Piʿēl, Hiphʿîl, Hithpaʿēl, and other active conjugations. (2) מ objective, when preformative of the participles Puʿal, Hophʿal, and other passive conjugations, as well as of numerous nouns. (3) מ instrumental, as in מַפְתֵּחַ a key, &c. (4) מ local, as in מִדְבָּר a drive for cattle, &c.
f As regards the formation of these nouns, it is to be remarked that the preformative מ was originally in most cases followed by a short ă. This ă, however, in a closed syllable is frequently attenuated to ĭ; in an open syllable before the tone it is lengthened to ā (so also the ĭ, attenuated from ă, is lengthened to ē), and in מָגֵן shield (with suff. מָֽגִנִּי) it even becomes unchangeable â. But in an open syllable which does not stand before the tone, the a necessarily becomes Šewâ.
g The following forms are especially to be noticed: (a) ground-form măqṭăl, in Hebrew מַקְטָל,[21] e.g. מַֽאֲכָל food; fem. מַמְלָכָה kingdom, מַֽאֲכֶ֫לֶת a knife, מְלָאכָה (for מַלְאָכָה by § 23 c) business; from a verb פ״ן, מַתָּן a gift; from verbs פ״ו, מוֹצָא a going forth, מוֹשָׁב a seat; from verbs פ״ו, מֵיטָב the best (from maiṭăb); with י (or ו) assimilated, מַצָּע a bed; from verbs ע״ע, מָסָךְ a screen, and with the shortening of the ă under the preformative, מֶ֫מֶר bitterness (from מְמַר developed to a segholate), fem. מְשַׁמָּה desolation; from a verb ע״וּ, probably of this class is מָקוֹם place, the ă lengthened to ā and obscured to ô (Arabic măqâm); from verbs ל״ה, מַרְאֶה appearance, מַ֫עַן (for מַֽעֲנֶה) prop. intention, only in לְמַ֫עַן on account of, in order that.
h (b) Ground-form miqṭăl (the usual form of the infin. Qal in Aramaic), Hebr. מִקְטָל, e.g. מִדְבָּר (in Jer 2 also, where Baer requires הֲמִדְבַּר, read with ed. Mant., Ginsburg, &c. הֲמִדְבָּר) a cattle-drive, fem. מִלְחָמָהּ war, מֶרְכָּבָה a chariot (with Seghôl instead of ĭ, but in constr. st. מִרְכֶּ֫בֶת Gn 41; cf. מֶרְחָק distance), מִשְׁמֶ֫רֶת a watch; from verbs ע״ע, e.g. מֵסַב surroundings (from mĭ-săb; ĭ in the open syllable being lengthened to ē; but cf. also מַשַּׁק Is 33 as constr. state from שׁקק with sharpening of the first radical; cf. § 67 g); from verbs ל״ה, מִקְנֶה a possession, fem. מִקְנָה.
i (c) Ground-form măqṭĭl, Hebr. מַקְטֵל, e.g. מַשְׁעֵן a support (fem. מַשְׁעֵנָה), מַסְגֵּר a smith, מַֽעֲשֵׂר a tithe; fem. מַכְשֵׁלָה a ruin; from a verb פ״ן, מַגֵּפָה an overthrow, מַצֵּבָה a pillar; from verbs ע״ע, מָגֵן a shield; fem. מְגִלָּה a roll (from גָּלַל), מְאֵרָה a curse (for me’irrā from אָרַר); from a verb פ״ו, מוֹקֵשׁ a snare (from măwqĭš).
k (d) Ground-form mĭqṭĭl, Hebr. מִקְטֵל, e.g. מִסְפֵּד mourning, מִוְבֵּחַ an altar (place of sacrifice); from a verb ע״ע, e.g. מֵסֵב (מֵסַב?) consessus; (e) ground-from măqṭŭl, Hebr. מַקְטֹל; fem. מַֽאֲכֹ֫לֶת food, מַשְׂכֹּ֫רֶת wages; from a verb ע״ע, fem. מְסֻכָּה a covering (from סָכַךְ). Also from ע״ע, according to the Masora, מָעוֹז a refuge, with suffixes מָֽעֻוִּי and מָֽעוּזִּי, plur. מָֽעֻזִּים, but, very probably, most if not all of these forms are to be referred to the stem עוּז to flee for safety, and therefore should be written מְעוֹזִי, &c. The form מָעֹז, if derived from the stem עזז, would mean stronghold.—Cf. also מֹ֫רֶךְ faintness, developed to a segholate, probably from מְרֹךְ, for mărōkh from רָכַךְ, like מְתֹם soundness of body, from תָּמַם.
l With a long vowel in the second syllable: (f) ground-form maqṭâl, with â always obscured to ô, e.g. מַחְסוֹר want, מַלְקוֹחַ booty; from verbs ע״וּ, e.g. מָגוֹר fear, fem. מְגוֹרָה and מְגוּרָה (with the ô depressed to û in a toneless syllable; cf. § 27 n), מְהוּמָה, &c., Is 22. (g) Ground-form mĭqṭâl, in Hebr. again מִקְטוֹל, e.g. מִסְתּוֹר a covert, מִכְשׁוֹל a stumbling-block (cf. above under i, măkhšēlā); fem. מִכְמֹ֫רֶת a fishing-net; (h) the ground-forms maqṭîl, miqṭîl (cf. מֵקִים) are found only in participles Hiphʿîl; the fem. מַבְלִיגִית, cheerfulness, is a denominative formed from a participle Hiphʿîl; (i) ground-form măqṭûl, as מַלְבּוּשׁ a garment.
m Rem. On מ as preformative of the participles of all the conjugations except Qal and Niphʿal, cf. § 52 c. Many of these participles have become substantives, as מְזַמֶּ֫רֶת snuffers, מַשְׁחִית destroyer, destruction.
n 49. Nouns with נ prefixed. Besides the participles Niphʿal (ground-form năqṭăl, still retained e.g. in נוֹלָד for năwlād, but commonly attenuated to nıqṭăl, Hebr. נִקְטָל) and the infinitive Niphʿal of the form נִקְטֹל, the prefix נ is found in נַפְתּוּלִים wrestlings, Gn 30, which is also to be referred to Niphʿal, and נָזִיד boiled pottage (stem זיד).
o 50. With שׁ prefixed, e.g. שַׁלְהֶ֫בֶת a flame. On this Šaph‛ēl formation, cf. § 55 i.
p 51. Nouns with ת prefixed. Examples of this formation are numerous, especially from weak stems, for the purpose of strengthening them phonetically (see Barth, ibid., p. 283), and notably from verbs פ״ו and ע״וּ. They may be classified as follows:—(a) the ground-form tăqṭăl in תַּחְמָס ostrich (?); from verbs פ״ו, תּוֹשָׁב a settler; fem. תּוֹחֶ֫לֶת expectation, תּוֹכַ֫חַת (from the Hiphʿîl הוֹכִיתַ) correction; from a verb פ״י, תֵּימָן the south; from verbs פ״ו and ל״ה, תּוֹדָה thanksgiving, and תּוֹרָה law, both from Hiphʿîl; from a verb פ״ו and ל״א, תּֽוֹצָאוֹת issues; probably belonging to this class, from verbs ע״ע, תֶּ֫בֶל confusion, and תֶּ֫מֶס a melting away (developed from תְּבַל and תְּמַס, from בָּלַל and מָסַס).
q (b) Tĭqṭăl, e.g. fem. תִּפְאָרָה and תִּפְאֶ֫רֶת glory; from a verb ל״ה, e.g. תִּקְוָה hope; (c) tăqṭĭl, e.g. תַּשְׁבֵּץ chequer work; fem. תַּרְדֵּמָה deep sleep (probably from the Niphʿal נִרְדַּם); from a verb פ״ו, תּֽוֹכֵחָה correction (from the Hiphʿîl-stem, like the constr. st. plur. תּֽוֹלְדוֹת generations); from verbs ע״ע, תְּהִלָּה praise, תְּפִלָּה prayer (from the Piʿēl of the stems הָלַל and פָּלַל).
r With a long vowel in the second syllable: (d) tĭqṭâl, as תְּהוֹם the ocean, the deep (for tĭhâm; in Assyrian the fem. tiâmtu, constr. st. tiâmat, is the usual word for sea), unless it is to be derived with Delitzsch, Prolegomena, p. 113, from the stem תהם; (e) tâqṭîl (in Arabic the usual form of the infinitive of conjugation II. which corresponds to the Hebrew Piʿēl), e.g. from a verb ל״ה, fem. תַּכְלִית completeness; תַּרְבִּית increase, usury, with a parallel form מַרְבִּית; in a passive sense, תַּלְמִיד a disciple; (f) תַּקְטוּל, e.g. תַּפּוּחַ an apple (for tănpûaḥ); very frequently used to form abstracts, e.g. תַּגְמוּל a benefit (also גְּמוּל); from verbs ע״וּ, תְּבוּסָה a treading down, תְּנוּפָה a waving (like תְּרוּמָה a lifting up, from the Hiphʿîl stem), תְּשׁוּקָה a longing, &c.; very frequently also as an abstract plural, e.g. תַּהְפֻּכוֹת perverseness, תַּחְבֻּלוֹת guidance, תַּמְרוּרִים bitterness, תַּנְחוּמִים and תַּנְחוּמוֹת consolation; from a verb ע״וּ, תְּאֻנִים toil.
XI. Nouns with Afformatives.
s 52. Nouns with ל affixed. Perhaps חַשְׁמַל amber(?), and probably בַּרְזֶל iron, כַּרְמֶל garden-land (Seghôl in both cases is probably a modification of the original ă in the tone-syllable), גִּבְעֹל bloom, cf. § 30 q.—According to Prätorius, ZDMG. 1903, p. 530 ff., al is an affix of endearment in the proper names מִיכַל, חֲמוּטַל (little lizard?) אֲבִיגַל (also אֲבִיגַ֫יִל).
t 53. Nouns with ם affixed. With an original ăm as afformative, אוּלָם vestibule (although the ā in the sing. remains unchangeable), plur. אֻֽלַמִּים; but in כִּנָּם a swarm of gnats, the ם is radical. With original afformative ŭm, עֵירֹם (also עֵרֹם) naked (from עור), plur. עֵיֽרֻמִּים Gn 3, parallel form עָרוֹם, plur. עֲרוּמִּים Gn 2.—To this class also belong the adverbs in ām and ōm, mentioned in § 100 g, and many proper names, as גֵּֽרְשֹׁם, also גֵּֽרְשׁוֹם, and גֵּֽרְשׁוֹן (patronymic גֵּֽרְשֻׁנִּי), מִלְכֹּם, עַמְרָם, &c.; but for פִּדְיוֹם ransom (?), Nu 3, probably פְּדוּיִם is to be read.
u 54. Nouns with ן affixed. The ן is added by means of a simple helping vowel in כְּנַ֫עֵן Canaan, and צִפֹּ֫רֶן a finger nail; more frequently the addition is made by means of a tone-bearing ă, which in Hebrew is modified to Seghôl (as גַּרְזֶן axe) or lengthened to ā (but cf. also אֲחֹֽרַנִּית and קְדֹֽרַנִּית); e.g. קִנְיָן a possession, שֻׁלְחָן a table, קָרְבָּן an offering. From an original â being changed into an obscure ô we may probably explain such forms as דְּאָבוֹן a pining away; דָּֽרְבוֹן (also דָּֽרְבָן) a goad; רְעָבוֹן hunger; from verbs ל״ה, גָּאוֹן pride, הָמוֹן noise, תָזוֹן a vision; שִׁרְיוֹן a coat of mail; from a verb פ״ן, מַשָּׁאוֹן guile (the only instance with both מ preformative and ôn afformative)[22]; very frequently from the simple stem with an unorganic sharpening of the second radical, e.g. זִכָּרוֹן memorial, כִּלָּיוֹן destruction (constr. st. זִכְרוֹן and כִּלְיוֹן), &c.; cf. also הֵֽרָיוֹן pregnancy (for הִרָּ׳) and § 93 uu; קִֽיקָלוֹן shame, for קִלְקָלוֹן. Proper names occur with the termination ûn, as יְשֻׁרוּן, § 86 g, and others.
v Rem. A large number of proper names now ending in ־ֹה or ־וֹ used to be classed as nouns originally formed with the affix ־וֹן. The subsequent rejection of the final Nûn seemed to be confirmed by the form מְגִדּוֹן, once used (Zc 12) for מְגִדּוֹ (and conversely in Pr 27 Kethîbh אֲבַדֹּה, Qerê אֲבַדּוֹ for אֲבַדּוֹן destruction), also by the fact that for שְׁלֹמֹה the LXX give the form Σολωμών or Σαλωμών, and especially that in patronymics and tribal names (§ 86 h) a Nûn appears before the termination î, as גִּֽילֹנִי Gilonite from גִּלֹה and שִֽׁילֹנִי from שִׁילֹה (modern name Sailûn). Wetzstein, however (in Delitzsch’s Commentary on Job, 1st ed., p. 599), explained the Nûn in מְגִדּוֹן as a secondary addition to the common old-Palestinian termination ô (יְרִיחוֹ, עַכּוֹ, רִמּוֹנוֹ, &c.), and Barth (Nominalbildung, §224b) has since shown the unsoundness of the prevailing view on other grounds: the rejection of the Nûn would be much more likely to occur in the numerous appellatives in ôn than in proper names, and גִּֽילֹנִי and שִֽׁילֹנִי are due to the necessity of avoiding, for euphonic reasons, such forms as gîlô-î, šîlô-î, &c.; cf. also שֵֽׁלָנִי from שֵׁלָה.
On the afformatives ־ִי, ־ַי, וּת, ־ִית, see below, § 86 h–l.
XII. Quadriliterals and Quinqueliterals.
w 55. גַּלְמוּד barren, חַלָּמִישׁ a flint, and the fem זַלְעָפָה heat, &c., have probably arisen from the insertion of a ל; חַרְגֹּל a locust, קַרְדֹּם an axe, סַרְעַפָּה a branch, Ez 31 (verses 6, 8 סְעַפָּה), שַׂרְעַפִּים (also שְׂעִפִּים) anxious thoughts, שַׁרְבִּיט sceptre, from insertion of a ר, which is common in Aramaic. Cf., moreover, חֶרְמֵשׁ a sickle, סְמָדַר vine-blossom; with an initial ע, עֲטַלֵּף a bat, עַכָּבִישׁ a spider, עַכְבָּר a mouse, עַקְרָב a scorpion,[23] &c.—Quinqueliteral, צְפַרְדֵּעַ a frog.
a 1. Such are all nouns formed immediately from another noun, whether the latter be primitive or derived from a verb, e.g. קַדְמוֹן eastern, immediately from קֶ֫דֶם the east (verbal stem קָדַם to be in front).
b 2. Most of the forms which nouns of this class assume have already been given in §§ 84 and 85, since the denominatives, as secondary (although in some cases very old) forms, invariably follow the analogy of the verbal derivatives. As, for instance, the verbals with a prefixed מ (§ 85 e to m) express the place, &c., of an action, so the denominatives with מ local represent the place where a thing is found or its neighbourhood (see e).
The most common forms of denominatives are—
c 1. Those like the participle Qal (§ 84a s), e.g. שֹׁעֵר a porter, from שַׁ֫עַר a gate; בֹּקֵר a herdsman, from בָּקָר a herd; כֹּרֵם a vinedresser, from כֶּ֫רֶם a vineyard.
d 2. Those like the form qăṭṭāl (§ 84b b), e.g. קַשָּׁת an archer, from קֶ֫שֶׁת a bow.
Both these forms (c and d) indicate customary occupations, inhering in the subject, like Greek nouns in της, τεύς, e.g. πολίτης, γραμματεύς.
e 3. Nouns with מ prefixed, denoting the place where a thing is (cf. § 85 e), or its neighbourhood, e.g. מַעְיָן a place of fountains, from עַ֫יִן; מַרְגְּלוֹת the place about the feet, מְרַֽאֲשׁוֹת the place about the head, from רֶ֫גֶל, רֹאשׁ; מִקְשָׁה (for מִקְשְׁאָה) a cucumber field, from קִשֻּׁא cucumber. Cf. ἀμπελών from ἄμπελος.
f 4. Nouns with the termination ־ָן or וֹן expressing adjectival ideas: קַדְמוֹן eastern, from קֶ֫דֶם; אַֽחֲרוֹן posterior, from אַחַר; חִיצוֹן exterior, from חוּץ; probably also לִוְיָתָן coiled, hence coiled animal, serpent, from לִוְיָה a winding; נְחֻשְׁתָּן brazen, from נְח֫שֶׁת brass. Also abstracts, e.g. עִוָּרוֹן blindness, from עִוֵּר. Cf. § 85 u.— With a double termination (ôn or ân with î) אַדְמֹנִי reddish, יִדְּעֹנִי a knowing (spirit); צִפְעֹנִי basilisk; רַֽחֲמָֽנִיּוֹת merciful [fem. plur.].
g וֹן appears to be used as a diminutive ending (cf. the Syriac וּן) in אִישׁוֹן little man (in the eye), apple of the eye, from אִישׁ[24]; on the other hand שְׁפִיפֹן adder, which was formerly regarded as a diminutive, is properly an adjectival form from שָׁפַף to rub (hence, as it were, a rubbing creature); in the same way יְשֻׁרוּן is a denominative from יָשָׁוּר (=יָשָׁר), properly upright (righteous people), and not a diminutive (pious little people, and the like); finally, שַֽׂהֲרוֹן is not lunula, but an artificial moon (used as an ornament), and צַוְּרֹנִים not little neck, but necklace (from צַוָּאר neck). Cf. Delitzsch on Ct 4.
h 5. Peculiar to denominatives is the termination ־ִי, which converts a substantive into an adjective, and is added especially to numerals and names of persons and countries, in order to form ordinals, patronymics, and tribal names; e.g. רַגְלִי footman, plur. רַגְלִים, from רֶ֫גֶל foot; אַכְזָרִי cruel, נָכְרִי strange, from נֹ֫כֶר strangeness, תַּחְתִּי lower, from תַּ֫חַת below, fem. תָּחְתִּית and תַּחְתִּיָּה, plur. תַּחְתִּיִּים, תַּחְתִּיּוֹת; שִׁשִּׁי the sixth, from שֵׁשׁ six; מֽוֹאָבִי Moabite, from מוֹאָב, plur. מֹֽאָבִים, fem. מֽוֹאֲבִיָּה and מֽוֹאָבִית, plur. מֽוֹאֲבִיּוֹת; עִבְרִי Hebrew, plur. עִבְרִים and עבְרִיִּים, fem. עִבְרִיָּה, plur. עִבְרִיּוֹת; ישְׂרְאֵלִי Israelite, from יִשְׂרָאֵל When the original substantive is a compound, it is resolved again into two words, e.g. בֶּן־יְמִינִי Benjamite, from בִּנְיָמִין (cf. on the use of the article in such cases, § 127 d).
i Instead of ־ִי we find in a few cases (a) the ending ־ַי (as in Aram.), e.g. כִּילַי (crafty, or, according to others, churlish) if it stands for נְכִילַי and is not rather from a stem כלא or כלה; חוֹרָי white cloth, Is 19 in pause; perhaps also גֹּבַי a swarm of locusts, Am 7 (גּוֹבָ֑י Na 3); hardly נְגִֽינוֹתַי Is 38, Hb 3; but certainly in proper names as בּרְזִלַּי (ferreus) Barzillai;[25] and (b) ־ֶה,
arising from ăy, in אִשֶּׁה belonging to fire (אֵשׁ), i.e. a sacrifice offered by fire; לִבְנֶה (prop. milky) the storax-shrub, Arabic lubnay.
k 6. Abstract nouns formed from concretes by the addition of וּת, ת[־ִי] (§ 95 t), cf. our terminations -dom, -hood, -ness, e.g. יַלְדוּת youth, מַלְכוּת kingdom (the omission of the Dageš in כ shows that the Šewâ is weakened from a full vowel; on malik as underlying the present form מֶ֫לֶךְ cf. § 84a a); אַלְמָנוּת widowhood, from אַלְמָן widower, אַלְמָנָה widow. In Aram. this fem. ending וּת (or וּ with rejection of the ת) is a common termination of the infinitive in the derived conjugations (cf., as substantival infinitives of this kind, הַשְׁמָעוּת the announcing, Ez 24, and הִתְחַבְּרוּת the making of a league, Dn 11); in Hebr. וּת as a termination to express abstract ideas (including some which appear to be directly derived from the verbal stem, as סִכְלוּת folly, רִפְאוּת a heating[26]) becomes more common only in the later books. It is affixed to adjectives ending in î (see above, h) in אַכְזְרִיּוּת cruelty, and קֽוֹמְמִיּוּת upright position (Lv 26, used adverbially).
l The ending ־ִית is found earlier, e.g. in שְׁאֵרִית remainder, רֵאשִׁית principium, from רֵאשׁ=רֹאשׁ (head) princeps. The termination ôth seems to occur in הָכְמוֹת wisdom (in Pr 1, 9, joined to a singular; so also חַכְמוֹת Pr 14, where, probably, חָכְמוֹת should likewise be read) and in הֽוֹלֵלוֹת Ec 1, &c., with the parallel form הֽוֹלֵלוּת Ec 10.
a 1. The regular plural termination for the masculine gender is ־ִים, always with the tone, e.g. סוּס horse, plur. סוּסִים horses; but also very often written defectively ־ִם, especially when in the same word one of the vowel letters, ו or י, precedes, e.g. Gn 1 תַּנִּינִם. Nouns in ־ִי make their plural in ־ִיִּים, e.g. עִבְרִי a Hebrew, plur. עִבְריִּים (Ex 3); but usually contraction takes place, e.g. עִבְרִים; שָׁנִים crimson garments, from שָׁנִי.
b Nouns in ־ֶה lose this termination when they take the plural ending, e.g. חֹזֶה seer, plur. חֹזִים (cf. § 75 h).—In regard to the loss of the tone from the ־ִם in the two old plurals מַ֫יִם water and שָׁמַ֫יִם heaven, cf. § 88 d and § 96.
c The termination ־ִים is sometimes assumed also by feminines (cf. נָשִׁים women, § 96 under אִשָּׁה; שָׁנִים years, from שָׁנָה; רְחֵלִים ewes, from רָחֵל), so that an indication of gender is not necessarily implied in it (cf. also below, m–p).—On the use of this termination ־ִים to express abstract, extensive, and intensive ideas, cf. § 124.
d The ending îm is also common in Phoenician, e.g. צדנם Sidonii; Assyrian has âni (acc. to P. Haupt originally âmi, cf. § 88 d); Aramaic has în; Arabic ûna (nominative) and îna (in the oblique cases, but in vulgar Arabic în is also used for the nominative); Ethiopic ân. Cf. also the verbal ending וּן in the 3rd plur. perf. (§ 44 l) and in the 3rd and 2nd plur. impf. (§ 47 m).[27]
e Less frequent, or only apparent terminations of the plur. masc. are—
(a) ־ִין, as in Aramaic,[28] found almost exclusively in the later books of the O.T. (apart from the poetical use in some of the older and even the oldest portions), viz. מְלָכִין kings, Pr 31, צִֽדֹנִין 1 K 11, רָצִין the guard, 2 K 11, חִטִּין wheat, Ez 4; defectively אִיִּן islands, Ez 26; יָמִין days, Dn 12. Cf. also מִדִּין carpets, Ju 5, in the North-Palestinian song of Deborah, which also has other linguistic peculiarities; עִיִּין heaps, Mi 3 (before ת; cf. § 44 k); מִלִּין words (from the really Aram. מִלָּה), Jb 4, and twelve other places in Job (beside מִלִּים, ten times in Job); further, חַיִּין Jb 24, אֲחֵרִין 31, and שׁוֹמֵמִין La 1, תַּנִּין 4.—The following forms are doubtful:
f (b) ־ִי (with the ם rejected, as, according to some, in the dual יָדַי for יָדַ֫יִם Ez 13, cf. § 88 c), e.g. מִנִּי stringed instruments, ψ 45 for מִנִּים (unless it is to be so written)[29]; עַמִּי peoples, ψ 144, and, probably, also La 3 (in 2 S 22 it may be taken as עַמִּי my people; cf. in the parallel passage ψ 18 עָם; also in Ct 8 the î of רִמֹּנִי is better regarded as a suffix); see also 2 S 23 as compared with 1 Ch 11, and on the whole question Gesenius, Lehrgebäude, p. 524 ff. More doubtful still is—
g (c) ־ַי (like the constr. state in Syriac), which is supposed to appear in e.g. שָׂרַי princes, Ju 5 (perhaps my princes is intended: read either the constr. st. שָׂרֵי, which also has good authority, or with LXX שָׁרִים); for חַלּוֹנָ֔י וס׳ Jer 22 (according to others dual, see § 88 c, or a loan word, cf. ZA. iii. 93) read חַלּוֹנָיו סָפוֹן. On גּוֹבַי and חוֹרַי, which have also been so explained, see above, § 86 i.—חֲשׂוּפַי Is 20 (where the right reading is certainly חֲשׂוּפֵי) must be intended by the Masora either as a singular with the formative syllable ־ַי =bareness or, more probably, as a constr. st. with the original termination ay (cf. § 89 d) to avoid the harsh combination hasûfê šēt[30]; in אֲדֹנָי the Lord (prop. my lord, from the plur. majestatis, אֲדֹנִים lord), the ay was originally a suffix, § 135 q.
h (d) ־ָם a supposed plural ending in כִּנָּם=כִּנִּים gnats (or lice), and סֻלָּם ladder (supposed by some to be a plur. like our stairs); but cf. on the former, § 85 t.
i 2. The plural termination of the feminine gender is generally indicated by the termination וֹת (often written defectively ־תֹ, e.g. תְּהִלָּה song of praise, psalm, plur. תְּהִלּוֹת (only in post-biblical Hebrew
- ↑ In the Siloam inscription also (see above, § 2 d), line 3, הית may be read הָיָת quite as well as [ה]הָֽיְתָ.
- ↑ All these infinitives construct in ô, in the Pentateuch, belong to the document called E; cf. § 69 m, second note.
- ↑ In Nu 34 f., according to verse 10, תִּתְאַוֻּ (=תִּתְאַוּוּ) is intended to be read for תְּתָאוּ (imperfect Piʿēl from תָּאָה).
- ↑ Possibly these examples (like the eases of Seghôl in pause, see n) represent the view of a particular Masoretic school, which was intended to be consistently carried out.
- ↑ To speak of these changes as a declension of the Hebrew noun, as is usually done, is accordingly incorrect.
- ↑ In Mal 1 מָשְׁחַת (so e.g. ed. Mant.) would stand for מָשְׁחֶ֫תֶת, the ptcp. fem. Hophʿal; but מָשְׁחָת (so Baer and Ginsb.) is also supported by good authority.
- ↑ In the list of Palestinian towns taken by Pharaoh Shoshenq, the feminine town-names all end in t. Cf. also the Mêšaʿ inscription, line 3, הבמת זאת this high place; line 26, המסלת the highway [see also Driver, Tenses, § 181, note].
- ↑ In 1 S 20 also, where the Masora (see Baer on Jos 5) for some unknown reason requires ממחרָת, read with ed. Mant., Jablonski, Opitius, and Ginsburg, ממחרַת.
- ↑ In this ending the ה h can only be considered consonantal in the sense that the ת was originally aspirated, and afterwards ‘the mute ת was dropped before h, just as the old Persian mithra became in modern Persian mihrʾ; so Socin, who also points to the Arabic pausal form in ah, and observes that among some of the modern Beduin an h is still heard as a fem. ending, cf. Socin, Diwan aus Centralarabien, iii. 98, ed. by H. Stumme, Lpz. 1901. In Hebrew this consonantal termination was entirely abandoned, at any rate in later times.
- ↑ From this vox memorialis the nomina aucta are also called by the older grammarians nomina heemantica.
- ↑ G. Rammelt (Über die zusammengesetzten Nomina im Hebr., Halle, 1883, and Leipzig, 1884) recognizes as appellatives only צְפַרְדֵּעַ (cf. below, § 85 w) and צַלְמָ֫וֶת (the latter certainly incorrectly [see, however, Nöldeke, ZATW. 1897, p. 183 ff.]). In p. 8 ff. the author gives a list of ‘logical compounds’, i.e. new terms formed by composition with the negatives לֹא, בְּלִי, מִבְּלִי.
- ↑ According to Delitzsch (Assyr. Gram., p. 157 f.) the same is true in Assyrian of the corresponding qaṭl-forms. Without case-endings they are kalab, šamas, aban (= כֶּ֫לֶב, שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ, אֶ֫בֶן), with case-endings kalbu, šamsu, abnu. On the other hand, acc. to Sievers, Metrik, i. 261, Hebrew ground-forms probably have a twofold origin: they are shortened according to Hebrew rules partly from old absolute forms like kálbu, sífru, qúdšu, and partly from old construct-forms like the Assyrian types kalab, sifir, quduš.
- ↑ On the other hand, Ungnad, ZA. 1903, p. 333 ff., rejecting all previous explanations, maintains that the a in melākhîm, melākhôth is inserted merely to facilitate the pronunciation. From qaṭlîm arose qaṭalim, then qaṭalîm and finally qeṭālîm. See, however, Nöldeke, ‘Zur semit. Pluralendung,’ ZA. 1904, p. 68 ff., who points out that the Semitic nouns faʿl, fiʿl, fuʿl with their corresponding feminines faʿla, &c., on assuming the plural termination commonly take an a before the 3rd radical, but that no satisfactory account can be given for it. M. Margolis, ‘The plural of Segolates’ (Proc. of the Philol. Assoc. of the Pacific Coast, San Francisco, 1903, p. 4 ff.), and S. Brooks, Vestiges of the broken plural in Hebrew, Dublin, 1883, explain melākhîm as a pluralis fractus.
- ↑ It is worthy of notice that St. Jerome also (cf. Siegfried, ZAW. iv. 76) frequently represents the vowel of the first syllable by a, e.g. gader, aben, ader, areb, for גֶּדֶר, אֶבֶן, אֶדֶר, חֶרֶב, but cedem, secel, deber, &c., for קֶדֶם, שֶׁקֶל, דֶּבֶר, &c.
- ↑ M. Lambert also (REJ. 1896, p. 18 ff.), from statistics of the Segholates, arrives at the conclusion that the qaṭl-form is especially used for concretes (in nouns without gutturals he reckons twenty concretes as against two abstracts), and the qiṭl-form, and less strictly the quṭl, for abstracts.
- ↑ On this theory cf. Stade, Hebräische Grammatik, § 199 b; De Lagarde, Übersicht, p. 57 f.; A. Müller, ZDMG. xlv, p. 226, and especially Philippi, ZDMG. xlix, p. 208.
- ↑ In St. Jerome’s time these forms were still pronounced ṣadaca (צְדָקָה), ṣaaca (צְעָקָה), nabala (נְבָלָה), &c., see Siegfried, ZAW. iv. 79. Moreover, the numerous abstracts of this form (e.g. even קְצָפָה a splintering, צְוָחָה a crying, &c.) are undoubtedly to be regarded (with Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 87) as feminines of infinitives of the form qăṭâl, the lengthening of the second syllable being balanced, as in other cases, by the addition of the feminine termination.
- ↑ In Na 1 only the Qerê requires גְּדָל־ (in the constr. state) for the Kethîbh גְּדוֹל.
- ↑ On the fuʿâl-forms (regarded by Wellhausen as original diminutives) see Nöldeke, Beiträge (Strassb. 1904), p. 30 ff. He includes among them נְעֹ֫רֶת tow, and טְחֹרִים hemorrhoids.
- ↑ Or perhaps more correctly with Jacob, ZAW. 1897, p. 79, ‘declaration,’ i.e. the part of the meal-offering which ‘announces the sacrifice and its object’.
- ↑ In מַֽמְתַֿקִּים Ct 5, Neh 8, the first syllable is artificially opened to avoid the cacophony; on the ă of the second syllable cf. § 93 ee.
- ↑ The plurals נִצָנִים flowers, Ct 2, and קִמְּשׂנִים thorns appear to be formed directly from the singulars נֵץ (cf. נִצָה) and קִמּוֹשׂ with the insertion of ân (which in קמ׳ is obscured to ôn). See Nöldeke, Mand. Gr., p. 169, Rem. 3; similarly, according to Hoffmann, ‘Einige phöniz. Inschriften,’ p. 15 ({{{title}}}, xxxvi), עִזְּבוֹנִים wares, Ez 27 from עֶ֫זֶב=עֶ֫צֶן.
- ↑ Derenbourg (REJ., 1883, p. 165) infers from the above examples and a comparison of the Arabic ‛uṣfûr, sparrow (from ṣafara, to chirp), that ע was especially employed to form quadriliteral names of animals.
- ↑ Cf. Barth, § 212; König, ii. 1, 413. Diminutives in Semitic languages are, however, most commonly formed by inserting a y after the second radical, e.g. Aram. עוּלֵּימָא, Syr. ܥܰܠܝܡܳܐ, Arab. غُلَيِّمٌ a very young man, kulaib, a little dog, &c. Since Olshausen (§ 180), זְעֵיר a little (Is 28, Jb 36) has commonly been regarded as an example of the same form, to which others have added שְׁבִיסִים Is 3 (as though a foreign dialectical form for šumais, little sun), and אֲמִינוֹן 2 S 13, as a contemptuous diminutive form of אַמְינוֹן; cf. Ewald, § 167, W. Wright, Arab. Gramm.2 i. § 269, De Lagarde, Nominalbildung, pp. 85–87, König. ii. 1, p. 143 f. The existence of the form in Hebrew is disputed by Barth, § 192 d.]
- ↑ On ־ַי as an old fem. ending, see above, § 80 l.
- ↑ [See a complete list of instances in König, Lehrgebäude, ii. 1, p. 205 f.]
- ↑ On the connexion between all these endings see Dietrich’s Abhandl. zur hebr. Gramm., Leipzig, 1846, p. 51 ff.; Halévy, REJ. 1888, p. 138 ff. [cf. also Driver, Tenses, § 6, Obs. 2].
- ↑ So also always in the Mêša‛ inscription, e.g. line 2 שלשן thirty; line 4 מלכן kings; line 5 ימן רבן many days, &c.
- ↑ According to some this î is simply due to a neglect of the point (§ 5 m), which in MSS. and elsewhere marked the abbreviation of the plur. ending.
- ↑ Prätorius, ZDMG. 1903, p. 525, regards הֲשׂוּפַי as an instance of the affix of endearment (cf. אֲחוּמַי, כְּלוּבַי) transferred to an appellative, but such an explanation is rendered unlikely by the meaning of this isolated instance.