User:Ubufox/8

תְּחִלִּים, as in the headings of the printed editions, as well as סֵ֫פֶר תְּהִלּוֹת the Book of Psalms); אִגֶּ֫רֶת a letter, plur. אִנְּרוֹת; בְּאֵר a well, plur. בְּאֵרוֹת. Feminines in ־ִית form their plural in ־ִיּוֹת, e.g. מִצְרִית an Egyptian woman, plur. מִצְרִיּוֹת; and those in וּת either make ־ֻיּוֹת, as מַלְכוּת kingdom, plur. מַלְכֻיּוֹת, Dn 8 (cf. חֲנֻיּוֹת cells, Jer 37), or are inflected like עֵֽדְוֹת testimonies (pronounced ‛ēdh^ewôth for ‛ēdhŭwôth).

k It is only from a mistake or disregard of these feminine endings ־וּת and ־ִית that some words ending with them form their plural by the addition of ־ִים or ־וֹת, e.g. חֲנִית spear, plur. חֲנִיתִים and חֲנִיתוֹת; זְנוּת whoredom, plur. זְנוּתִים (by the side of זְנוּנִים); אַלְמְנוּתִים widowhood; שְׁחִיתוֹת pits, כְּסָתוֹת amulets (if connected with Assyr. kâsu, to bind), &c.

l The termination -ôth stands primarily for -âth (which is the form it has in Arab., Eth., in the constr. st. of Western Aramaic, in Eastern Syriac, and also in Assyrian; on the change of â into an obscure ô, see § 9 q). On the other hand, it is doubtful whether this âth is to be regarded as a lengthened and stronger form of the singular fem. ending ăth (cf. § 80 b).

How the changeable vowels of a noun are shortened or become Š^ewâ in consequence of the addition of the plural endings is explained in §§ 92–5.

m 3. Words which in the singular are used both as masculine and feminine (§ 122 d), often have in the plural parallel forms with the masculine and feminine terminations, e.g. עָב cloud, plur. עָבִים and עָבוֹת; and each form may be treated either as masculine or feminine, according to the usage of the particular word.—But even those words, of which the gender is invariable, sometimes have both plural forms, e.g. דּוֹר masc. a generation, plur. דּוֹרִים and דּוֹרוֹת; שָׁנָה fem. a year, plur. שָׁנִים and שָׁנוֹת (see the Rem.). In these words the gender of both plural forms remains the same as in the singular, e.g. אֲרִי masc. a lion, plur. אֲרָיוֹת musc., Zp 3, דּוֹרוֹת musc., Jb 42.

n Sometimes usage makes a distinction between the two plural forms of the same word. Thus, יָמִים days, שָׁנִים years are the usual, but יָמוֹת (only twice, in the constr. st. Dt 32, ψ 90) and שָׁנוֹת (also only in the constr. st. and before suffixes) are rarer poetic forms.

o A difference of meaning appears in several names of members of the body, the dual (see § 88) denoting the living members themselves, while the plur. in וֹת expresses something like them, but without life (§ 122 u), e.g. יָדַ֫יִם hands, יָדוֹת artificial hands, also e.g. the arms of a throne; כַּפַּ֫יִם hands, כַּפּוֹת handles (Lat. manubria); פַּ֫עַם foot, פְּעָמוֹת artificial feet (of the ark), קַרְנַ֫יִם horns, קְרָנוֹת horns (of the altar); עֵינַ֫יִם eyes, עֲיָנוֹת fountains; cf. also אֲרָיִים lions, אֲרָיוֹת the figures of lions on Solomon’s throne, תָּמָר palm, תִּֽמֹרָה a palm-like column, plur. תִּֽמֹרִים and תִּֽמֹרוֹת.

p 4. A considerable number of masculines form their plural in וֹת, while many feminines have a plural in ־ִים. The gender of the singular, however, is as a rule retained in the plural. Undoubted instances of masculines with (masculine) plural in ־וֹת are: אָב father, אוֹצָר treasure, בֹּאר and בּוֹר cistern, זָנָב tail, הֲלוֹם dream, כִּםֵּא throne, לֵב and לֵבָב heart, לוּחַ tablet, לַ֫יִל and לַ֫יְלָה night, מִזְבֵּחַ altar, מָקוֹם place, נֹאד skin-bottle, נֵר lamp, עוֹר skin, קוֹל voice, שֻׁלְחָן table, שֵׁם name, שׁוֹפָר trumpet.

q Feminines ending in ־ָה which take in the plural the termination ־ִים are אֵלָה terebinth, אֵימָה terror (but also אֵימוֹת), דְּבֵלָה a cake of figs, חִטָּה wheat, לְבֵנָה a brick, מִלָּה (only in poetry) a word, סְאָה seā, a dry measure, שְׂעוֹרָה barley, and the following names of animals דְּבוֹרָה a bee and יוֹנָה a dove; also, for בֵּיצִים fem. eggs, a singular בֵּיצָה is to be assumed. אֲלֻמָּה sheaf and שָׁנָה year (see above, n) take both ־ִים and וֹת; cf. finally שִׁבֹּ֫לֶת an ear of corn, plur. שִׁבֳּלִים, and without the fem. termination in the singular פִּילֶ֫גֶשׁ concubine, plur. פִּֽילַגְשִׁים.

r 5. A strict distinction in gender between the two plural endings is found, in fact, only in adjectives and participles, e.g. טוֹבִים boni, טוֹבוֹת bonae, קֹֽטְלִים musc., קֹֽטְלוֹת fem. So also in substantives of the same stem, where there is an express distinction of sex, as בָּנִים filii, בָּנוֹת filiae; מְלָכִים reges, מְלָכוֹת reginae.

s Rem. 1. In some few words there is added to the plural ending וֹת a second (masculine) plural termination (in the form of the constr. st. ־ֵי, cf. § 89 c), or a dual ending ־ַ֫ יִם, e.g. בָּמָה a high place, plur. בָּמוֹת, constr. st. בָּֽמוֹתֵי (also בָּֽמֳתֵי bām^othê, Is 14, Jb 9, &c., sometimes as Q^erē to the K^ethîbh במותי; see § 95 o); מֵרַאֲשֹׁתֵי שָׁאוּל from Saul’s head, 1 S 26; חוֹמָה wall, plur. חוֹמוֹת moenia, whence dual חוֹמֹתַ֫יִם double walls. This double indication of the plural appears also in the connexion of suffixes with the plural ending וֹת (§ 91 m).

t 2. Some nouns are only used in the singular (e.g. אָדָם man, and collectively men); a number of other nouns only in the plural, e.g. מְתִים men (the old sing. מְתוּ is only preserved in proper names, see § 90 o; in Eth. the sing. is mĕt, man); some of these have, moreover, a singular meaning (§ 124 a), as פָּנִים face. In such cases, however, the same form can also express plurality, e.g. פָּנִים means also faces, Gn 40, Ez 1; cf. אֱלֹהִים God, and also gods (the sing. אֱלֹהַּ, a later formation from it, occurs only ten times, except in Job forty-one and in Daniel four times).

§88. Of the Dual.

Cf. the literature on the Semitic dual in Grünert, Die Begriffs-Präponderanz und die Duale a potiori im Altarab. (Wien, 1886), p. 21; Brockelmann, Grundriss, p. 455 ff.

a 1. The dual is a further indication of number, which originated in early times. In Hebrew, however, it is almost exclusively used to denote those objects which naturally occur in pairs (see e). The dual termination is never found in adjectives, verbs, or pronouns. In the noun it is indicated in both genders by the termination ־ַ֫ יִם appended to the ground-form,^[1] e.g. יָדַ֫יִם both hands, יוֹמַ֫יִם two days. In the feminine the dual termination is always added to the old ending ath (instead of ־ָה), but necessarily with ā (since it is in an open syllable before the tone), thus ־ָתַ֫יִם, e.g. שָׂפָה lip, שְׂפָתַ֫יִם both lips. From a feminine with the ending ־֫ ־ֶת, e.g. נְח֫שֶׁת (from n^eḥušt) the dual is formed like נְחֻשְׁתַּ֫יִם double fetters.

b With nouns which in the singular have not a feminine ending, the dual termination is likewise really added to the ground-form; but the latter generally undergoes certain changes in consequence of the shifting of the tone, e.g. כָּנָף wing (ground-form kănăph), dual כְּנָפַ֫יִם, the first ă becoming Š^ewâ, since it no longer stands before the tone, and the second ă being lengthened before the new tone-syllable. In 1 K 16, 2 K 5b the form כִּכְּרַ֫יִם (which should be כִּכָּרַ֫יִם) evidently merely points to the constr. st. כִּכְּרֵי, which would be expected before כֶּ֫סֶף; cf. כִּכָּרָ֑יִם in 2 K 5 a, and on the syntax see § 131 d. In the segholate forms (§ 84^a a) the dual ending is mostly added to the ground-form, e.g. רֶ֫גֶל foot (ground-form răgl), dual רַגְלַ֫יִם; cf., however, קְרָנַ֫יִם (only in the book of Daniel), as well as קַרְנַ֫יִם from קֶ֫רֶן horn, and לְחָיַ֫יִם from לְחִי cheek (as if from the plurals קְרָנוֹת, לִחָיִם).—A feminine dual of an adjective used substantivally occurs in עֲצַלְתַּ֫יִם a sluggish pair (of hands) Ec 10 from the sing. עָצֵל.

c Rem. 1. Certain place-names were formerly reckoned as dual-forms (so in earlier editions of this Grammar, and still in König’s Lehrgebäude, ii. 437), viz.— (a) those in ־ַ֫ יִן and ־ָן, e.g. דֹּתַ֫יִן Gn 37 (locative דֹּתָ֑יְּנָה, but in דֹּתָ֑ן), and דֹּתָן 2 K 6; קַרְתָּן Jos 21, identical with קִרְיָתַ֫יִם in 1 Ch 6 (cf. also the Moabite names of towns in the Mêša‛ inscription, line 10 קריתן = Hebrew קִרְיָתַ֫יִם; line 30 בת דבלתן = בֵּית דִּבְלָתַ֫יִם Jer 48; lines 31, 32 חורנן=חֹרוֹנַ֫יִם Is 15, &c.); (b) in ־ָם, Jos 15 הָֽעֵינָם ( = עֵינַ֫יִם Gn 38). The view that ־ָן and ־ָם arise from a contraction of the dual terminations ־ַ֫ יִן (as in Western Aramaic, cf. also nom. âni, accus. aini, of the dual in Arabic) and ־ַ֫ יִם seemed to be supported by the Mêša‛; inscription, where we find (line 20) מאתן two hundred = מָאתַ֫יִן, Hebrew מָאתַ֫יִם. But in many of these supposed duals either a dual sense cannot be detected at all, or it does not agree at any rate with the nature of the Semitic dual, as found elsewhere. Hence it can hardly be doubted that ־ַ֫ יִן and ־ַ֫ יִם in these place-names only arise from a subsequent expansion of the terminations ־ָן and ־ָם: so Wellhausen, Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie, xxi. 433; Philippi, ZDMG. xxxii. 65 f.; Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 319, note 5; Strack, Kommentar zur Genesis, p. 135. The strongest argument in favour of this opinion is that we have a clear case of such an expansion in the Q^erê perpetuum (§ 17 c) יְרֽוּשָׁלַ֫יִם for יְרֽוּשָׂלֵם (so, according to Strack, even in old MSS. of the Mišna; cf. Urusalim in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, and the Aramaic form יְרֽוּשְׁלֵם): similarly in the Aramaic שָֽׁמְרַ֫יִן = שָֽׁמְרָן for the Hebrew שֹֽׁמְרוֹן Samaria.—We may add to this list אֶפְרַ֫יִם, נַֽהְַרַ֫יִם the river country (in the Tel-el-Amarna letters nârima, na’rima), מִצְרַ֫יִם Egypt, Phoenician מצרם; also the words denoting time, צָֽהֳרַ֫יִם midday (Mêša‛ inscription, line 15 צהרם), and perhaps עַרְבַּ֫יִם in the evening, if the regular expression בֵּין־הָֽעַרְבַּ֫יִם Ex 12, 16, &c., is only due to mistaking עַרְבַּ֫יִם for a dual: LXX πρὸς ἑσπέραν, τὸ δειλινόν, ὀψέ and only in Lv 23 ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ἑσπερινῶν. The Arabs also say el ‛išâ’ân, the two evenings, cf. Kuhn’s Literaturblatt, iii. 48.

Instead of the supposed dual יָדַי Ez 13 read יָדַ֫יִם. On חַלּוֹנַי (generally taken to be a double window) Jer 22, see above, § 87 g.

d 2. Only apparently dual-forms (but really plural) are the words מַ֫יִם water and שָׁמַ֫יִם heaven. According to P. Haupt in SBOT. (critical notes on Isaiah, p. 157, line 18 ff.), they are to be derived from the old plural forms (found in Assyrian) mâmi, šamâmi, whence the Hebr. מים, שמים arose by inversion of the i mâmi, mâimi, maim. It is simpler, however, to suppose that the primitive singulars may and šamay, when they took the plural of extension (§ 124 b), kept the tone on the ay, thus causing the îm (which otherwise always has the tone, § 87 a) to be shortened to im. Cf. the analogous formations, Arab. tarḍaina, 2nd fem. sing. imperf. of a verb ל״י, for tarḍay + îna, corresponding to taqtulîna in the strong verb; also bibl.-Aram. בָּנַיִ֫ן the abs. st. plur. of the ptcp. Qal of (ל״י) בְּנָה, which otherwise always ends in în with the tone, e.g. in the ptcp. Qal of the strong verb, דָּֽבְחִין sacrificing.

e 2. The use of the dual in Hebrew is confined, except in the numerals 2, 12, 200, &c. (see § 97), practically to those objects which are by nature or art always found in pairs, especially to the double members of the body (but not necessarily so, cf. זְרֹעִים and זְרֹעוֹת arms, never in the dual), e.g. יָדַ֫יִם both hands, אָזְנַ֫יִם both ears, שִׁנַּ֫יִם teeth (of both rows), also נַֽעֲלַ֫יִם a pair of sandals, מֹֽאזְנַ֫יִם a pair of scales, Lat. bilanx, &c.; or things which are at least thought of as forming a pair, e.g. יוֹמַ֫יִם two (successive) days, Lat. biduum; שְׁבֻעַיִ֫ם two weeks; שְׁנָתַ֫יִם two years (in succession), Lat. biennium; אַמָּתַ֫יִם two cubits.^[2]

f In the former case the dual may be used for a plural, either indefinite or defined by a numeral, where it is thought of in a double arrangement, e.g. אַרְבַּע רַגְלָ֑יִם four feet, Lv 11; שֵׁשׁ כְּנָפַ֫יִם six wings (i.e. three pairs), Is 6, Ez 1; even שִׁבְעָה עֵינַ֫יִם seven eyes, Zc 3, כָּל־בִּרְכַּ֫יִם all knees, Ez 7; כָּל־יָדַ֫יִם all hands, Ez 21; מְצִלְתַּ֫יִם cymbals, Ezr 3; שְׁפַתַּ֫יִם double-hooks, Ez 40.—To express a certain emphasis the numeral two is used with the dual, as in Ju 16, Am 3.—See some other remarks on the use of the dual in § 87 o and s.

g It is not impossible that Hebrew at an earlier period made a more extensive and freer use of the dual, and that the restrictions and limitations of its use, mentioned above, belong to a relatively later phase of development. The Arabic literary language forms the dual in the noun, pronoun, and verb, almost as extensively as the Sanskrit or Greek; but in modern Arabic it has almost entirely disappeared in the verb, pronoun, and adjective. The Syriac has preserved it only in a few stereotyped forms, with which such duals as the Latin duo, ambo, octo may be compared. In the same way, the dual of the Sanskrit is lost in the modern Indian languages, and its full use in Old Slavonic has been restricted later, e.g. in Bohemian, just as in Hebrew, to pairs, such as hands, feet, eyes, ears. On the Germanic dual, see Grimm’s Gramm., 2nd ed., i. p. 814.

§89. The Genitive and the Construct State.

Philippi, Wesen und Ursprung des Stat. Constr. im Hebr...., Weimar, 1871, p. 98 ff: on which cf. Nöldeke in the Gött. Gel. Anzeigen, 1871, p. 23.—Brockelmann, Grundriss, p. 459 ff.

a 1. The Hebrew language no longer makes a living use of case-endings,^[3] but either has no external indication of case (this is so for the nominative, generally also for the accusative) or expresses the relation by means of prepositions (§ 119), while the genitive is mostly indicated by a close connexion (or interdependence) of the Nomen regens and the Nomen rectum. That is to say, the noun which as genitive serves to define more particularly an immediately preceding Nomen regens, remains entirely unchanged in its form. The close combination, however, of the governing with the governed noun causes the tone first of all to be forced on to the latter,^[4] and the consequently weakened tone of the former word then usually involves further changes in it. These changes to some extent affect the consonants, but more especially the vocalization, since vowels which had been lengthened by their position in or before the tone-syllable necessarily become shortened, or are reduced to Š^ewâ (cf. § 9 a, c, k; § 27 e–m); e.g. דָּבָר word, דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים word of God (a sort of compound, as with us in inverted order, God’s-word, housetop, landlord); יָד hand, יַד הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ the hand of the king; דְּבָרִים words, דִּבְרֵי הָעָם the words of the people. Thus in Hebrew only the noun which stands before a genitive suffers a change, and in grammatical language is said to be dependent, or in the construct state, while a noun which has not a genitive after it is said to be in the absolute state. It is sufficiently evident from the above that the construct state is not strictly to be regarded as a syntactical and logical phenomenon, but rather as simply phonetic and rhythmical, depending on the circumstances of the tone. b Very frequently such interdependent words are also united by Maqqeph (§ 16 a); this, however, is not necessary, but depends on the accentuation in the particular case. On the wider uses of the constr. st. see the Syntax, § 130.

c 2. The vowel changes which are occasioned in many nouns by the construct state are more fully described in §§ 92–5. But besides these, the terminations of the noun in the construct state sometimes assume a special form. Thus:

(a) In the construct state, plural and dual, the termination is ־ֵי, e.g. סוּסִים horses, סוּסֵי פַרְעֹה the horses of Pharaoh; עֵינַ֫יִם eyes, עֵינֵי הַפֶּ֫לֶךְ the eyes of the king.

d Rem. The ־ֵי of the dual has evidently arisen from ־ַי (cf. יָ֫דַיִם), but the origin of the termination ־ֵי in the constr. st. plur. is disputed. The Syriac constr. st. in ay and the form of the plural noun before suffixes (סוּסַי, סוּסַ֫יִךְ, &c., § 91 h) would point to a contraction of an original ־ַי, as in the dual. But whether this ay was only transferred from the dual to the plural (so Olshausen, and Nöldeke, Beitr. zur sem. Sprachwiss., Strassb. 1904, p. 48 ff.), or is to be regarded as the abstract, collective termination, as in אִשֶּׁה (see f) and חוֹרַי (so Philippi, ThLZ. 1890, col. 419; Barth, ZDMG. 1904, p. 431 ff.), must be left undecided.

e (b) The original ־ַת is regularly retained as the feminine termination in the construct state sing. of those nouns which in the absolute state end in ־ָה, e.g. מַלְכָּה queen, מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא the queen of Sheba. But the feminine endings ־֫ ־ֶת, ־֫ ־ַת, and also the plural ־וֹת, remain unchanged in the construct state.

f (c) Nouns in ־ֶה (cf. § 75 e) from verbs ל״ה (§ 93, Paradigm III c) form their constr. st. in ־ֵה, e.g. רֹאֶה seer, constr. רֹאֵה. If this ־ֵה is due to contraction of the original ־ַי, with ה added as a vowel letter, we may compare דַּי, constr. דֵּי sufficiency; חַי, constr. חֵי life; (גַּי) גַּיְא, constr. (גֵּי) גֵּיא valley.

On the terminations וֹ and ־ִי in the constr. st. see § 90.

§90. Real and Supposed Remains of Early Case-endings. ־ָה local, וּ in compound proper names, ־ִי and וֹ in the Construct State.

K. U. Nylander, Om Kasusändelserna i Hebräiskan, Upsala, 1882; J. Barth, ‘Die Casusreste im Hebr.,’ ZDMG. liii. 593 ff.

a 1. As the Assyrian and old Arabic distinguish three cases by special endings, so also in the Hebrew noun there are three endings which, in the main, correspond to those of the Arabic. It is, however, a question whether they are all to be regarded as real remnants of former case-endings, or are in some instances to be explained otherwise. It can hardly be doubted (but cf. h, Rem.) that the (locative) termination ־ָה is a survival of the old accusative termination a, and that וּ in certain compound proper names is the old sign of the nominative. The explanation of the î as an old genitive sign, which, as being no longer understood in Hebrew, was used for quite different purposes, and the view that וֹ is a form of the nominative termination וּ, are open to grave doubts.

b In Assyrian the rule is that u marks the nominative, i the genitive, and a the accusative,^[5] ‘in spite of the many and various exceptions to this rule which occur’ (Delitzsch, Assyrische Gramm., § 66). Similarly, the Arabic case-endings in the fully declined nouns (Triptotes) are: -u for the nominative, -i for the genitive, and -a for the accusative; in the Diptotes the ending -a represents the genitive also. In modern Arabic these endings have almost entirely disappeared, and if they are now and then used, as among the Beduin, it is done without regularity, and one is interchanged with another (Wallin, in ZDMG. v, p. 9, xii, p. 874; Wetzstein, ibid., xxii, p. 113 f., and especially Spitta, Gramm. des Arab. Vulgärdialekts von Ägypten, Lpz. 1880, p. 147 ff.). Even as early as the Sinaitic inscriptions, their regular use is not maintained (Beer,Studia Asiatica, iii. 1840, p. xviii; Tuch, ZDMG. iii. 139 f.). Ethiopic has preserved only the -a (in proper names -hâ), which is, however, still used for the whole range of the accusative, and also (the distinction of case being lost) as a termination of the constr. st. to connect it with a following genitive.

c 2. As remarked above, under a, the accusative form is preserved in Hebrew most certainly and clearly in the (usually toneless) ending ־ָה, originally ă, as in the old Arabic accusative. This is appended to the substantive:

(a) Most commonly to express direction towards an object, or motion to a placer,^[6] e.g. יָ֫מָּה seaward, westward, קֵ֫דְמָה eastward, צָפ֫וֹנָה northward, אַשּׁ֫וּרָה to Assyria, בָּבֶ֫לָה to Babylon, הֶ֫רָה (from הַר) to the mountain, Gn 14, אַ֫רְצָה to the earth, בַּ֫יְתָה to the house, תִּרְצָ֫תָה to Tirzah (תִּרְצָה) 1 K 14, &c., עַזָּ֫תָה to Gaza (עַזָּה) Ju 16; with the article הָהָ֫רָה to the mountain, הַבַּ֫יְתָה into the house, הַחַ֫דְרָה into the chamber, 1 K 1; הָאֹ֫הֱלָה^[7] into the tent, Gn 18, &c.; similarly with adverbs, as שָׁ֫מָּה thither, אָ֫נָת whither?; even with the constr. st. before a genitive בֵּ֫יתָה יוֹסֵף into Joseph’s house, Gn 43; אַ֫רְצָה הַנֶּ֫גֶב toward the land of the south, Gn 20; אַ֫רְצָה מִצְרַ֫יִם to the land of Egypt, Ex 4; מִדְבַּ֫רָה דַמֶּ֫שֶׂק to the wilderness of Damascus, 1 K 19; מִזְרְחָ֫ה שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ toward the sun-rising, Dt 4; and even with the plural כַּשְׂדִּימָה into Chaldea, Ez 11; הָשָּׁמַ֫יִמָה towards the heavens.

Rem. The above examples are mostly rendered definite by the article, or by a following genitive of definition, or are proper names. But cases like יָ֫מָּה, הֶ֫רָה, בַּ֫יְתָה show that the locative form of itself possessed a defining power.

d (b) In a somewhat weakened sense, indicating the place where something is or happens (cf. § 118 d), e.g. מַֽחֲנָ֑יְמָה in Maḥanaim, 1 K 4; שָׁ֫מָּה there (usually thither, see c), Jer 18, cf. 2 K 23, and the expression to offer a sacrifice הַמִּזְבֵּ֫חָה, properly towards the altar for on the altar. On the other hand, בָּבֶ֫לָה Jer 29, and זְבֻ֫לָה Hb 3, are to be regarded as ordinary accusatives of direction, to Babylon, into the habitation; also expressions like פְּאַת צָפ֫וֹנָה the quarter towards the north, Jos 15 (at the beginning of the verse, גְּבוּל קֵ֫דְמָה the border toward the east), cf. 18, Ex 26, Jer 23.

e (c) The original force of the ending ־ָה is also disregarded when it is added to a substantive with a preposition prefixed (cf. also עַד־אָ֫נָה how long?), and this not only after לְ, אֶל־ or עַד־ (which are easily explained), e.g. לְמַ֫עְלָה upwards, לְמַ֫טָּה downwards, לִשְׁא֫וֹלָה to Sheol, ψ 9; עַד־אֲפֵ֫קָה unto Aphek, Jos 13, אֶל־הַצָּפ֫וֹנָה toward the north, Ez 8, cf. Ju 20; but also after ב, and even after מִן, e.g. בַּנֶּ֫גְבָּה in the south, Jos 15, cf. Ju 14, 1 S 23, 31, 2 S 20, Jer 52; מִבָּבֶ֫לָה from Babylon, Jer 27; cf. 1, Jos 10, 15, Ju 21, Is 45.

f Rem. Old locative forms (or original accusatives) are, according to the Masora, still to be found in

(a) לַ֫יְלָה, in pause לָ֫יְלָה, the usual word in prose for night, which is always construed as masculine. The nominative of this supposed old accusative^[8] appeared to be preserved in the form לַ֫יִל, only used in poetry, Is 16, constr. st. לֵיל (even used for the absol. st. in pause Is 21). Most probably, however, לַיְלָה is to be referred, with Nöldeke and others, to a reduplicated form לילי; cf. especially the western Aramaic לֵילְיָא, Syr. lilya, &c.—Another instance is מְא֫וּמָה something, probably from מְאוּם, מוּם spot, point, generally with a negative=nothing. Similarly אַ֫רְצָה Is 8 and (in pause) Jb 34, סוּפָ֫תָה Ho 8, and the place-name יַ֫הְצָה 1 Ch 6, might be explained as accusatives. Elsewhere, however, the toneless ־ָה can be regarded only as a meaningless appendage, or at the most as expressing poetic emphasis; thus אָ֫רְצָה (in pause) Jb 37; הַמָּ֫וְתָה death, ψ 116; נֶגְדָּה־נָּא ψ 116; נַ֫חְלָה stream, ψ 124; הַחַשְׁמַ֫לָה amber, Ez 8 [in 1 הַחַשְׁמַל, cf. § 80 k], &c. In Jos 15 הַיָּ֫מָּה is probably only a scribal error (dittography). In Ju 14 instead of the quite unsuitable poetic word הַחַ֫רְסָה (towards the sun??) read as in 15 הַחַ֫דְרָה to the bride-chamber.

g (b) In the termination ־ָ֫ תָה often used in poetry with feminines, viz. אֵימָ֫תָה terror (=אֵימָה), Ex 15; עֶזְרָ֫תָה help (=עֶזְרָה), ψ 44, 63, 94; יְשׁוּעָ֫תָה salvation (=יְשׁוּעָה), ψ 3, 80, Jon 2; עַוְ֫לָתָה unrighteousness (=עַוְלָה), Ez 28, Ho 10, ψ 125; עֹלָ֫תָה ψ 92 K^eth. Jb 5; צָרָ֫תָה ψ 120; עֵיפָ֫תָה darkness, Jb 10; הַמְזִמָּ֫תָה Jer 11 is corrupt, see the LXX and Commentaries. These cases are not to be taken as double feminine endings, since the loss of the tone on the final syllable could then hardly be explained, but they are further instances of an old accusative of direction or intention. In examples like עֶזְרָ֫תָה for help (ψ 44) this is still quite apparent, but elsewhere it has become meaningless and is used merely for the sake of poetical emphasis.^[9]

h This termination ־ָה usually has reference to place (hence called ־ָה locale^[10]); sometimes, however, its use is extended to time, as in מִיָּמִים יָמִ֫ימָה from year to year. Its use in חָלִ֫ילָה properly ad profanum!=absit! is peculiar.

i As the termination ־ָה is almost always toneless (except in מִזְרְחָה constr. st. Dt 4; גִּתָּה and עִתָּה Jos 19) it generally, as the above examples show, exercises no influence whatever upon the vowels of the word; in the constr. st. מִדְבַּ֫רָה Jos 18, 1 K 19, and in the proper names גַּ֫תָה 1 K 2, דַּ֫נָה 2 S 24 (so Baer; ed. Mant. and Ginsb. דַּ֫נָה), צְפַ֫תָה 2 Ch 14, צָֽרְפַ֫תָה 1 K 17, צָֽרְתַ֫נָה 1 K 4, an ă is retained even in an open tone-syllable (cf., however, הֶ֫רָה Gn 14, פַּדֶּ֫נָה Gn 28 from פַּדַּן, with modification of the a to è; also כַּרְמֶ֫לָה 1 S 25 from כַּרְמֶל). In segholate forms, as a general rule, the ־ָה local is joined to the already developed form of the absol. st., except that the helping-vowel before ־ָה naturally becomes Š^ewâ, e.g. בַּ֫יְתָה, הָאֹ֫הֱלָה Gn 18, &c.; הַיַּֽ֫עֲרָה Jos 17, הַשַֹּֽׁ֫עֲרָה^[11] Ju 20, &c., but also נַ֫חְלָה Nu 34 (constr. st.; likewise to be read in the absolute in Ez 47, 48) and שָֽׁעְרָה Is 28 (with Silluq); cf. נֶ֫גְבָּה Ez 47 and גֹּ֫רְנָה (Baer, incorrectly, גֹּֽרְנָ֫ה) Mi 4 (both in pause).—In the case of feminines ending in ־ָה the ־ָה local is added to the original feminine ending ־ָת (§ 80 b), the ă of which (since it then stands in an open tone-syllable) is lengthened to ā, e.g. תִּרְצָ֫תָה.—Moreover the termination ־ָה is even weakened to ־ֶה in נֹ֫בֶה to Nob, 1 S 21, 22; אָ֫נֶה whither, 1 K 2 and דְּדָ֫נֶה to Dedan, Ez 25.

k 3. Of the three other terminations וּ may still be regarded as a survival of the old nominative ending. It occurs only in the middle of a few (often undoubtedly very old) proper names,^[12] viz. אֲחוּמַי (if compounded of אחו and מי), חֲמוּטַל (for which in Jer 52 K^eth. חֲמִיטַל), מְתֽוּשָׁאֵל and מְתוּשֶׁ֫לַח (otherwise in Hebrew only in the plur. מְתִים men; to מְתוּ corresponds most probably בְּתוּ in בְּתוּאֵל), פְּנוּאֵל Gn 32 (but in ver. 32 פְּנִיאֵל) face of God (otherwise only in the plur. פָּנִים constr. st. פְּנֵי).^[13]—גַּשְׁמוּ Neh 6 (elsewhere גֶּ֫שֶׁם), is the name of an Arab, cf. 6. On the other hand the terminations ־ִי and וֹ are most probably to be regarded (with Barth, l. c., p. 597) as having originated on Hebrew soil in order to emphasize the constr. st., on the analogy of the constr. st. of terms expressing relationship.

In view of the analogies in other languages (see b) there is nothing impossible in the view formerly taken here that the litterae compaginis ־ִי and וֹ are obsolete (and hence no longer understood) case-endings, î being the old genitive and ô for the nominative sign u. Barth objects that the î and ô almost invariably have the tone, whereas the accusative ־ָה is toneless, and that they are long, where the Arab. ĭ and ŭ are short. Both these objections, however, lose their force if we consider the special laws of the tone and syllable in Hebrew. The language does not admit a final ĭ or ŭ, and the necessarily lengthened vowel might easily attract the tone to itself. On the other hand a strong argument for Barth’s theory is the fact that these litterae compaginis are almost exclusively used to emphasize the close connexion of one noun with another; hence especially in the constr. st. Consequently it seems in the highest degree probable that all these uses are based upon forms in which the constr. st. is expressly emphasized by a special termination, i.e. the constr. st. of terms of relationship, אֲבִי, אֲחִי, חֲמִי from אָב father, אָח brother, חָם father-in-law (cf. § 96). The instances given under l and m followed this analogy.

Like î, וֹ is also used only to emphasize the constr. st. (see o), and must therefore have a similar origin, but its exact explanation is difficult. According to Barth, this וֹ corresponds to a primitive Semitic â (cf. § 9 q) and is traceable to ʾabâ, ʾaḥâ, the accusatives of terms of relationship in the constr. st., which have â only before a genitive. Against this explanation it may be objected that there is no trace of the supposed Hebrew accusatives אֲבוֹ, אֲחוֹ, חֲמוֹ, and only of the analogous בְּנוֹ. It is also remarkable that so archaic a form should have been preserved (except in בְּנוֹ) only in two words and those in quite late passages. However we have no better explanation to offer in place of Barth’s.

Finally we cannot deny the possibility, in some cases, of Barth’s explanation of the וּ in compound proper names like בְתוּאֵל, &c. (see above), as due to the analogy of terms of relationship with nominative in וּ. But this in no way militates against the view expressed above, that in some very old names, like פְּנוּאֵל, בְּתוּאֵל, &c., the original common nominative sign has simply been preserved.

The instances found are:

l (a) Of the ending ־ִי: בְּנִי אֲתֹנוֹ his ass’s colt, Gn 49; עֹֽזְבִי הַצֹּאן that leaveth the flock, Zc 11 (cf. the preceding רֹעִי הָֽאֱלִיל); שֹֽׁכְנִי סְנֶה the dweller in the bush, Dt 33 (on שֹֽׁבְנִי cf. below Jer 49^16a, Ob 31); appended to the feminine גְּנֻבְֽתִי יוֹם וּגְּנֻבְֽתִי לְ֫יְלְה whether stolen by day or stolen by night, Gn 31 (in prose, but in very emphatic speech); מְלֵֽאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט plena iustitiae, Is 1; רַבָּ֫תִי עָם full of people, La 1 (on the retraction of the tone before a following tone-syllable, cf. § 29 e; in the same verse the second רבתי and שָׂרָ֫תִי, see below, follow the example of רַבָּ֫תִי, although no tone-syllable follows; cf. also Ho 10 below); עַל־דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי־צֶ֫דֶק after the order of Melchizedek, ψ 110; cf. also ψ 113, Jer 49^16b. To the same category belong the rather numerous cases, in which a preposition is inserted between the construct state and its genitive (cf. § 130 a), without actually abolishing the dependent relation, e.g. רַבָּ֫תִי בַגּוֹיִם she that was great among the nations, שָׂרָ֫תִי בַמְּדִינוֹת princess among the provinces, La 1; אֹהַ֫בְתִּי לָדוּשׁ that loveth to tread, Ho 10; cf. also Jer 49a, Ob 31.—In Ex 15 נֶאְדָּרִי can only be so explained if it is a vocative referring to יהוה, but perhaps we should read נֶאְדָּרָה as predicate to יְמִֽינְךָ.

Further, the Ḥireq compaginis is found with certain particles which are really also nouns in the constr. st., as זֽוּלָתִי (=זוּלָת) except, מִנִּי (poetical for מִן) from, בִּלְתִּי not, אַפְסִי not (thrice in the formula אֲנִי וְאַפְסִי עוֹד I am, and there is none else beside me; but many take the ־ִי as a suffix here), Is 47, Zp 2. [The above are all the cases in which this ־ִי is attached to independent words in the O.T.; it occurs, however, besides] in compound proper names (again attached to the constr. st.), as מַלְכִּי־צֶ֫דֶק (king of righteousness), גַּבְרִיאֵל (man of God), חַנִּיאֵל (favour of God), and others (cf. also the Punic name Hannibal, i.e. חַנִּיבַ֫עַל favour of Baʿal).

m Otherwise than in the constr. st. the Ḥireg compaginis is only found in participial forms, evidently with the object of giving them more dignity, just as in the case of the construct forms in î. We must distinguish, however, between passages in which the participle nevertheless does stand in close connexion, as Gn 49, Is 22 (חֹֽצְבִי and חֹֽקְקִי, also in impassioned speech), Mi 7 (probably influenced by Dt 33), ψ 101, 113; and passages in which the î added to the participle with the article merely serves as an ornamental device of poetic style, e.g. in the late Psalms, 113 (on verse 8 see n), 114, 123.

n In K^ethibh the termination î also occurs four times in יושבתי, i.e. יוֹשַׁבְתִּי, Jer 10, 22 (before בְּ), Ez 27 (before עַל־), La 4 (before בְּ). The Q^ere always requires for it יוֹשֶׁ֫בֶת (or ישׁ׳), except in Jer 22 ישַׁבְתְּ; cf. ibid. מקננתי K^eth., מְקֻנַּנְתְּ Q^ere, and finally Jer 51 שׁכנתי K^eth., שֹׁכַנְתְּ Q^ere. Perhaps ישַׁבְתִּי and שֹׁכַנְתִּי are formae mixtae, combining the readings ישֶׁ֫בֶת, &c. and יָשַׁבְתְּ (2nd fem. perf.), &c., but מְקֻנַּנְתִּי may be merely assimilated to ישַׁבְתִּי which immediately precedes it.

The following are simply textual errors: 2 K 4 ההלכתי K^eth., due to the preceding אתי, and to be read הַֽהֹלֶ֫כֶת as in the Q^ere; ψ 30 (read הַֽרֲרֵי), 113 (read לְהֽוֹשִׁיבוֹ), 116 (read קוֹל תח׳, as in five other places). On בְּרִיתִי, thrice, in Lv 26, cf. § 128 d.

o (b) Of the ending וֹ^[14] (always with the tone): in prose only in the Pentateuch, but in elevated style, Gn 1 חַיְתוֹ־אֶרֶץ the beast of the earth (=חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ ver. 25); similarly in ψ 50, 79, 104, Is 56 (twice), Zp 2; otherwise only in בְּנוֹ צִפֹּר son of Zippor, Nu 23; בְּנוֹ בְעֹר son of Beor, Nu 24; and מַעְיְנוֹ מַ֫יִם a fountain of waters, ψ 114.

§91. The Noun with Pronominal Suffixes.

W. Diehl, Das Pronomen pers. suffixum 2 u. 3 pers. plur. des Hebr., Giessen, 1895; A. Ungnad, ‘Das Nomen mit Suffixen im Semit.,’ Vienna Oriental Journal, xx, p. 167 ff.

a With regard to the connexion of the noun with pronominal suffixes, which then stand in a genitive relation (§ 33 c) and are, therefore, necessarily appended to the construct state of the noun, we shall first consider, as in the verb (§ 57 ff.), the forms of the suffixes themselves, and then the various changes in the form of the noun to which they are attached. The nouns are also tabulated in the Paradigms of the flexion of the noun in § 92 ff. Cf. also Paradigm A in the Appendix. We are here primarily concerned with the different forms of the suffixes when added to the singular, plural, and dual.

b 1. The Suffixes of the singular are—

With nouns ending in a—

Vowel.		Consonant.
Sing. 1. c. my.	י	־ִי
2. m. thy.	ךָ	־ְךָ (pause ־ֶ֫ ךָ
f.	ךְ	־ֵךְ
3. m. his.	הוּ, ו	וֹ (הּׄ), ־ֵ֫ וּ
f. her.	הָ	־ָהּ, ־ֶ֫ הָ

Plur.	1. c.	נוּ	־ֵ֫ נוּ	our.
	2. m.	נֶם	־ְכֶם	your.
	f.	כֶן	־ְכֶן
	3. m.	הֶם	־ָם	eorum.
		מוֹ	(poet. ־ָ֫ מוֹ)
	f.	הֶן (הֵן)	־ָן	earum.

c Rem. 1. There is less variety of forms in these than in the verbal suffixes; the particular forms are used as follows:—

(a) Those without a connecting vowel (on the derivation of these ‘connecting vowels’ from original stem-vowels, see note on § 58 f) are generally joined to nouns of a peculiar form (see § 96), the constr. st. of which ends in a vowel, as אָבִ֫יךָ, אָבִ֫יהוּ and אָבִיו, אָבִ֫יהָ, אָבִ֫ינוּ, אֲבִיכֶם, אֲבִיכֶן, אֲבִיהֶם, אֲבִיהֶן, sometimes also to segholate forms ending in î from ל״ה stems (see § 93 x, y), e.g. פְּרִיהֶם the fruit of them, Am 9 (also פִּרְיָם Is 37, &c.), פּרִיהֶן Jer 29 (also פִּרְיָן verse 5); cf., moreover, חֶלְבְּהֶן Lv 8 and similar examples with הֶן (Is 3 הֵן) Gn 21, Ez 13, 16.^[15] Also in Gn 1, 4, Ez 10, Nah 2, &c., the K^eth. perhaps intends the singular, לְמִֽינְהֶם, &c., but the Masora requires the plural with defective ê.

d (b) The forms with connecting vowels (§ 58 f) are joined to nouns ending in a consonant. The connecting vowel is regularly a in the 3rd sing. fem. ־ָהּ (for aha) and 3rd plur. ־ָם, ־ָ֫ מוֹ, ־ָן, also in the 3rd sing. masc. (הֹ) וֹ, since the ô is contracted from a[h]û, and in the pausal form of the 2nd masc. ־ֶ֫ ךָ (a modification of original ־ַ֫ ךָ).

The forms with ē in the above-mentioned persons are common only with nouns in ־ֶה (from stems ל״ה), constr. st. ־ֵה (cf. § 89 f), e.g. שָׂדֵ֫הוּ (from sadaihû) his field; עָלֶ֫הָ its leaf, Is 1; מַרְאֶ֫הָ the appearance thereof, Lv 13 (from mar’aihā; on the S^eghôl see k); but שָׂדָהּ her field. The orthographic retention of the י, e.g. מַֽעֲשֶׂ֫יךָ, מַֽעֲשָׂיו, gives to many forms the appearance of plurals; see the instances in § 93 ss.

Apart from these ל״ה forms the connecting vowel ē in the 3rd pers. occurs only in isolated cases; אוֹרֵ֫הוּ his light, Jb 25; לְמִינֵ֫הוּ after its kind, Gn 1 [+ 12 times]; Na 1; in Ju 19 read פִּֽילַגְשׁוֹ as in vv. 2, 25. On the other hand ־ֵךְ in the 2nd sing. fem. and ־ֵ֫ נוּ in the 1st plur. are by far the more common forms, while ־ָךְ, ־ָ֫ נוּ are of rare occurrence; see e.—Instead of ־ְךָ (־ְכָה in Gn 10, Ex 13, Jer 29, &c., cf. בְּכָה, לְכָה § 103 g), ־ְכֶם, ־ְכֶן (with Š^ewâ mobile), if the last consonant of the noun is a guttural, the forms are ־ֲךָ, ־ֲכֶם, ־ֲכֶן, e.g. רֽוּחֲךָ thy spirit, בֹּרַֽאֲךָ thy creator, Is 43, רֵיֽעֲכֶם your friend, Jb 6 (on such cases as בְּחֶוֹכְכֶם Hag 2, see § 10 g).—With Nun energicum (cf. § 58 i, and on עוֹנֶ֑ךָּ Jb 5, &c., cf. § 61 h) דֶַיּ֑ךָּ occurs in Pr 25, in principal pause.

2. Rare or incorrect forms are—

e Sing. 1st pers. ־ֵ֫ נִי in בְּשׁוּבֵ֫נִי Ez 47 (certainly only a scribal error, caused by וַיְשִׁבֵ֫נִי in verse 6). 2nd pers. m. in pause ־ֶ֫ כָה, e.g. כַּפֶּֽכָה (thy hand), ψ 139, cf. Pr 24; once חֹנָ֑ךְ ψ 53 (cf. the analogous cases in the verbal suffix § 75 ll); fem. ־ֵיךְ Ez 5 (in 16 also for שְׁבִיתַ֫יִךְ probably שְׁבִיתֵיךְ is intended), ־ֵ֫ כִי Jer 11, ψ 103, 116, 135 (corresponding to the Aramaic suffix of the 2nd fem. sing.; on the wholly abnormal ־ֵ֫ כֵה Na 2, cf. l), לֵכִי K^eth. 2 K 4, Ct 2. Also ־ָ֫ ךְ Is 22, Ez 23, 25.

3rd pers. ־ֹה (cf. § 7 c), e.g. אָֽהֳלֹה Gn 9, 12, 13, 35 (always with Q^erê אָֽהֳלוֹ); נֻחֹה Nu 10; לֵחֹה Dt 34; בֻּלֹּה Jer 20, Na 2 Q^erê; קִצֹּה 2 K 19 K^eth., for which קִצּוֹ is read in Is 37; עִירֹה and סוּתֹה Gn 49, cf. Ex 22 (Q^erê עִירוֹ, סוּתוֹ); סֻבֹּה ψ 10, 27 K^eth.; הֲמוֹנֹה Ez 31, &c., K^eth.; תְּבוּאָתֹה Ez 48 [altogether fourteen times in the Pentateuch, and some forty times in other books: see Driver, Samuel, p. xxxv, and on 2 S 2, 21].

3rd fem. ־ָה for ־ָהּ (with the softening of the Mappiq, cf. § 23 k, and the analogous cases in § 58 g) occurs repeatedly before B^eghadhk^ephath and other soft consonants, Ex 9 (before וְ, if the text is right), Lv 13 (before ל), Nu 15, 1 S 1 (unless אָכְלָה, the infin. with fem. termination, is intended; שָׁתֹה follows), Ez 16, 24 (before ב), 1 S 20, 2 K 8, Pr 12 (before א), Na 3 (before וּ), ψ 48 (before פ), Ez 47, Jb 31 twice (before ת), Is 21, Jer 20 (before ה), Nu 32, Am 1 (before ן), Lv 6 (before ע); even in pause, Lv 12 ^a and ^{5 b}; Is 23, Pr 21, also with Zaqeph, Is 45, Jer 6 (probably), 44; on הָשַּׁמָּה Lv 26, &c., see § 67 y. Cf. also ־ָא Ez 36.—Sometimes the Masora appears (but this is very doubtful) to regard the ־ָהּ with feminines as a shortening of ־ָתָהּ, e.g. נִצָּהּ Gn 40 for נִצָּ֫תָהּ, פִּנָּהּ Pr 7 for פִּנָּ֫תָהּ; also ־ָם for ־ָחָם in כִּתְבוּנָם Ho 13, and עָרְמָם Jb 5. The examples, however, are for the most part uncertain, e.g. in Is 28 the reading is simply to be emended to בִּכּוּרָה, and in Zc 4 to גֻּלָּה, Jb 11 to מִדָּה, Neh 5 to פֶּחָה. [See also, after prepositions, § 103 g.]

f Plur. 1st pers. ־ָ֫ נוּ, in pause קִימָ֫נוּ Jb 22 (where, however, קָמֵ֫נוּ is certainly to be read); cf. Ru 3 [Is 47, cf. § 61 c, h], and so always כֻּלָּ֫נוּ all of us, Gn 42, &c [cf. בָּנוּ, לָנוּ, אִתָּנוּ, עִמָּנוּ].

2nd pers. fem. כֶ֫נָה Ez 23.

3rd pers. masc. ־ָ֫ מוֹ ψ 17 (on מוֹ in פִּ֫ימוֹ in the same verse, and in ψ 58 see .l); ־ָ֑ הַם 2 S 23, according to Sievers probably to call attention to the reading כלהם. fem. ־ָ֫ הְנָה 1 K 7, Ez 16 (in pause); ־ֶ֫ נָה Gn 41; ־ֶ֫ נָּה Gn 30; ־ָ֫ נָה Ru 1; elsewhere generally in pause (Gn 21, 42, Jer 8, Pr 31, Jb 39); finally הֵן as suffix to a noun, only in Is 3.

For examples of singulars with plural suffixes see l.

g 2. In the plural masc. and in the dual the suffixes are to be regarded primarily as affixed to the original ending of the construct state (־ַ֫ י, cf. § 89 d). This ending, however, has been preserved unchanged only in the 2nd fem. In most cases it is contracted to ־ֵי, as in the constr. st. without suffixes (so throughout the plur. and in the poetical suffix ־ֵ֫ יהוּ of the 3rd sing. masc.); in the 2nd masc. and 3rd fem. sing. it is ־ֶי (cf. k). On the 1st pers. and 3rd masc. sing. see i.—Thus there arise the following h

Suffixes of Plulral Nouns.
Singular.		Plural.
1. c. my.	־ַי, pause ־ָי	1. c. our.	־ֵ֫ ינוּ
2. m. thy.	־ֶ֫ יךָ	2. m. your.	־ֵיכֶם
f.	־ַ֫ יִךְ pause ־ָ֫ יִךְ	f.	־ֵיכֶן
3. m. his.	־ָיו, poet. ־ֵ֫ יהוּ	3. m. their.	־ֵיהֶם, poet. ־ֵ֫ ימוֹ
f. her.	־ֶ֫ יהָ	f.	־ֵיהֶן

i Thus the original ־ַי is (a) contracted in the 3rd sing. masc. ־ֵ֫ יהוּ and throughout the plural, as סוּסֵ֫יהוּ, סוּסֵ֫ינוּ, &c.; (b) retained unchanged in the 1st sing. סוּסַי, the real suffix-ending י (see b) being united with the final Yôdh of the ending ־ַי; and in the 2nd fem. sing. סוּסַ֫יִךְ, with a helping-Ḥireq after the Yôdh. On the other hand (c) the Yôdh of ־ַי is lost in pronunciation and the ă lengthened to ā in the 3rd masc. sing. סוּסָיו, i.e. sûsāw (pronounced susā-u).^[16] The 2nd masc. sing. סוּםֶ֫יךָ and the 3rd fem. sing. סוּסֶ֫יהָ were formerly also explained here as having really lost the י, and modified the a of sûsakā, sûsahā to S^eghôl; but cf. the view now given in g and k.

k Rem. 1. As סוּסֵ֫ינוּ represents sûsai-nû, so סוּסֶ֫יךָ and סוּסֶ֫יהָ represent sûsai-kā, sûsai-hā, and the use of S^eghôl instead of the more regular Ṣere is to be explained from the character of the following syllable,—so P. Haupt who points to יִקְטְלֶ֫הָ as compared with יִקְטְלֵ֫הוּ. In support of the view formerly adopted by us that the י is only orthographically retained, too much stress must not be laid on the fact that it is sometimes omitted,^[17] thereby causing confusion in an unpointed text with the singular noun. A number of the examples which follow may be due to an erroneous assumption that the noun is a plural, where in reality it is a singular, and others may be incorrect readings. Cf. דְרָכֶ֫ךָ thy ways (probably דַּרְכְּךָ is intended), Ex 33, Jos 1, ψ 119; for other examples, see Jos 21 ff. (מִגְרָשֶׁ֫הָ; but in 1 Ch 6 ff. always ־ֶ֫ יהָ), Ju 19, 1 K 8, Is 58, ψ 119 (probably, however, in all these cases the sing. is intended); אֱסָרֶ֫הָ Nu 30 (cf. v. 5); מַכֹּתֶ֫הָ Jer 19, 49; מְבִיאֶ֫ה Dn 11. For the orthographic omission of י before suffixes cf. רֵעִ֫הוּ for רֵעֵ֫יהוּ his friends 1 S 30, Pr 29; Jb 42 (but it is possible to explain it here as a collective singular); עֲוֹנֵ֫נוּ our iniquities, Is 64, Jer 14; Ex 10, Neh 10 (לְוִיֵּ֫נוּ from לְוִיִּם which is always written defectively); נִסְכֵּכֶם Nu 29; רָעֹֽתֵכֶם Jer 44; יְדֵכֶם ψ 134; לְמִֽינֵהֶם after their kinds, Gn 1 (but see c), cf. 4 and Na 2. The defective writing is especially frequent in the 3rd masc. sing. ־ָו, which in Q^erê is almost always changed to ־ָיו, e.g. חִצָּו his arrows, ψ 58, Q^erê חִצָּיו. On יַחְדָּו, only three times יַחְדָּיו, cf. § 135 r.

l 2. Unusual forms (but for the most part probably only scribal errors) are—Sing. 2nd pers. fem ־ֵיךְ (after אַשְׁרֵי happy! Ec 10, which has become stereotyped as an interjection, and is therefore unchangeable; cf. Delitzsch on the passage); ־ַ֫ יְכִי (cf. Syr. ־ֵכי) 2 K 4, and ⁷ in K^eth., ψ 103, 116 (־ָ֫ יְכִי in pause).—In Ez 16 ־ַ֫ יִךְ (so ־ֵיכֶם in 6) occurs with an infin. ending in וֹת, the וֹת being therefore treated as a plural ending; similarly, the plural suffix is sometimes found with the feminine ending וּת (Nu 14, Is 54, Jer 3, Ez 16, 23, as well as in 16 Q^erê, and Zp 3), with the ending îth (Lv 5, reading חֲמִֽשִׁתוֹ), and even with the ordinary feminine ending ath; Is 47, Ez 35, ψ 9, Ezr 9.—Wholly abnormal is מַלְאָכֵ֫כֵה thy messengers, Na 2, evidently a case of dittography of the following ה: read מַלְאָכַ֫יִךְ.

3rd masc. ־ֵ֫ יהוּ Hb 3, Jb 24; ־ֵ֫ הוּ 1 S 30, Ez 43, Na 2; וֹ֫הִי (a purely Aramaic form) ψ 116.—3rd fem. ־ֶ֫ יהָא Ez 41.

Plur. The strange 2nd pers. masc. תְּפוֹצֽוֹתִיכֶם (with î, so Qimḥi; cf. Norzi) Jer 25, is probably a mixed form combining תָּפ֫וּצוּ and הֲפִיצֽוֹתִיכֶם; fem. ־ֵיכֶ֫נָה Ez 13.

3rd masc. ־ֵיהֵ֫מָה Ez 40; fem. ־ֵיהֶ֫נָה Ez 1.

3. The termination ־ֵ֫מוֹ (also with the dual, e.g. ψ 58, 59), like מוֹ and ־ָ֫ מוֹ, occurs with the noun (as with the verb, § 58 g) almost exclusively in the later poets [viz. with a substantive in the singular, ψ 21, 17, 58, 59, 89; with a dual or plural, Dt 32, 33, ψ 2, 11, 35, 49, 58, 59, 73, 83, 140, Jb 27; after prepositions, see § 103 f, o, notes], and cannot, therefore, by itself be taken as an indication of archaic language. On the other hand there can be no doubt that these are revivals of really old forms. That they are consciously and artificially used is shown by the evidently intentional accumulation of them, e.g. in Ex 15 ψ 2, and 140, and also by the fact observed by Diehl (see the heading of this section) that in Ex 15 they occur only as verbal suffixes, in Dt 32 only as noun suffixes.

m 3. It is clear and beyond doubt that the Yôdh in these suffixes with the plural noun belongs, in reality, to the ending of the construct state of the masculine plural. Yet the consciousness of this fact became so completely lost as to admit of the striking peculiarity (or rather inaccuracy) of appending those suffix-forms which include the plural ending ־ֵי, even to the feminine plural in וֹת (סֽוּסוֹתֵ֫ינוּ, סֽוּסוֹתֶ֫יךָ, &c.), so that in reality the result is a double indication of the plural.^[18]

n Such is the rule: the singular suffix, however (see b), also occurs with the ending וֹת (probably through the influence of Aramaic), e.g. צֵֽדְוֹתִי ψ 132 (unless it be sing. for עֵֽדוּתִי, as, according to Qimḥi in his Lexicon, תַּֽחֲנֹתִי 2 K 6 is for תַּֽחֲנוּתִי); מַכֹּֽתְךָ Dt 28 (treated on the analogy of an infin. ל״ה); אַֽחֲיוֹתֵךְ Ez 16. On the other hand מִצְוֹתֶ֑ךָ (so Baer, Ginsb.; but Opit. ־ֶ֫ יךָ) ψ 119, Dn 9 is merely written defectively, like גַּרְגְּרֹתֶ֫ךָ according to Baer (not Ginsb.) in Pr 1, &c. In the 3rd plur. the use of the singular suffix is even the rule in the earlier Books (see the instances in Diehl, l. c., p. 8), e.g. אֲבוֹתָם (their fathers) oftener than אֲבֹֽתֵיהֶם (this only in 1 K 14, and in Jer, Ezr, Neh, and Ch [in 1 K, Jer, Ezr, however, אֲבוֹתָם is more common]); so always שְׁמוֹתָם, שְׁמוֹתָן their names, דּוֹרותָם their generations. From parallel passages like 2 S 22 compared with ψ 18, Is 2 with Mi 4, it appears that in many cases the longer form in ־ֵיהֶם can only subsequently have taken the place of ־ָם.

o 4. The following Paradigm of a masculine and feminine noun with suffixes is based upon a monosyllabic noun with one unchangeable vowel. With regard to the ending ־ַת in the constr. st. of the fem. it should be further remarked that the short ă of this ending is only retained before the grave suffixes כֶם and כֶן; before all the others (the light suffixes) it is lengthened to ā.

p

Singular.

		Masculine.		Feminine.
		סוּס	a horse.	סוּסָה	a mare.
Sing. 1.	com.	סוּסִי	my horse.	סֽוּסָתִי	my mare.
2.	m.	סֽוּסְךָ	thy horse.	סוּסָֽתְךָ	thy mare.
	f.	סוּסֵךְ	thy horse.	סֽוּסָתֵךְ	thy mare.
3.	m.	סוּסוֹ	equus eius (suus).	סֽוּסָתוֹ	equa eius (sua).
	f.	סוּסָהּ	equus eius (suus).	סֽוּסָתָהּ	equa eius (sua).
Plur. I.	com.	סוּסֵ֫נוּ	our horse.	סֽוּסָתֵ֫נוּ	our mare.
2.	m.	סֽוּסְכֶם	your horse.	סֽוּסַתְכֶם	your mare.
	f.	סֽוּסְכֶן	your horse.	סֽוּסַתְכֶן	your mare.
3.	m.	סוּסָם	equus eorum (suus).	סֽוּסָתָם	equa eorum (sua).
	f.	סוּסָן	equus earum (suus).	סֽוּסָתָן	equa earum (sua).

q

Plural.

		Masculine.		Feminine.
		סוּסִים	horses.	סוּסוֹת	mares.
Sing. 1.	com.	סוּסַי	my horses.	סֽוּסוֹתַי	my mares.
2.	m.	סוּסֶ֫יךָ	thy horses.	סֽוּסוֹתֶ֫יךָ	thy mares.
	f.	סוּסַ֫יִךְ	thy horses.	סֽוּסוֹתַ֫יִךְ	thy mares.
3.	m.	סוּסָיו	equi eius (sui).	סֽוּסוֹתָיו	equae eius (suae).
	f.	סוּסֶ֫והָ	equi eius (sui).	סֽוּסוֹתֶ֫יהָ	equae eius (suae).
Plur. 1.	com.	סוּסֵ֫ינוּ	our hourses.	סֽוּסוֹתֵ֫ינוּ	our mares.
2.	m.	סֽוּסֵיכֶם	your horses.	סוּסֽוֹתֵיכֶס	your mares.
	f.	סֽוּסֵיכֶן	your horses.	סוּסֽוֹתֵיכֶן	your mares.
3.	m.	סֽוּסֵיהֶם	equi eorum (sui).	סוּסֽוֹתֵיהֶם	equae eorum (suae).
	f.	סֽוּסֵיהֶן	equi eorum (sui).	סוּסֽוֹתֵיהֶן	equae eorum (suae).

§92. Vowel Changes in the Noun.

a 1. Vowel changes in the noun may be caused (a) by dependence on a following genitive, (b) by connexion with pronominal suffixes, (c) by the plural and dual terminations, whether in the form of the absolute state or of the construct (before a following genitive of a noun or suffix).

b 2. In all these cases, the tone of the noun is moved forward either one or two syllables, while the tone of the construct state may even be thrown upon the following word. In this way the following changes may arise:—

(a) When the tone is moved forward only one place, as is the case when the plural and dual endings ־ִים, וֹת and ־ַ֫ יִם are affixed, as well as with all monosyllabic or paroxytone suffixes, then in dissyllabic nouns the originally short vowel of the first syllable (which was lengthened as being in an open syllable before the tone) becomes Š^ewâ, since it no longer stands before the tone. On the other hand, the originally short, but tone-lengthened vowel, of the second syllable is retained as being now the pretonic vowel; e.g. דָּבָר word (ground-form dăbăr), plur. דְּבָרִים; with a light suffix beginning with a vowel, דְּבָרִי, דְּבָרֵ֫נוּ; plur. דְּבָרַי, דְּבָרֶ֫יךָ, &c.; בָּנָף wing, dual כְּנָפַ֫יִם. With an unchangeable vowel in the second syllable: פָּקִיד overseer, plur. פְּקִידִים; with the suffix of the sing. פְּקִידִי, פְּקִידֵ֫נוּ, &c.; with the suff. of the plur. פְּקִידַי, פְּקִידֶ֫יךָ, &c. With an unchangeable vowel in the first syllable: עוֹלָם eternity, plur. עֽוֹלָמִים, with suff. עֽוֹלָמִי, &c.^[19]

c But in participles of the form קֹטֵל, with tone-lengthened ē (originally ĭ) in the second syllable, the ē regularly becomes Š^ewâ mobile before a tone-bearing affix, e.g. אֹיֵב enemy, plur. אֹֽיְבִים, with suff. אֹֽיְבִי, &c. Likewise in words of the form קִטֵּל, קַטֵּל, &c. (with ē in the second syllable; § 84^b d, l, p; § 85 i and k), e.g. אִלֵּם dumb, plur. אִלְּמִים.

d (b) When the tone of the construct state, plural or dual, is carried over to the following word, or, in consequence of the addition of the grave suffixes to the constr. st. plur. or dual, is moved forward two places within the word itself, in such cases the originally short vowel of the second syllable becomes Š^ewâ, while the vowel of the first syllable reverts to its original shortness, e.g. דִּבְרֵי הָעָם the words of the people, דִּבְרֵיכֶ֫ם your words, דִּבְרֵיהֶ֫ם their words (in all which instances the ĭ of the first syllable is attenuated from an original ă).

e In the segholate forms in the singular and mostly in the dual the suffix is appended to the ground-form (מַלְכִּי my king, מַלְכֵּ֫נוּ, &c.); on the other hand, before the endings ־ִים, וֹת (sometimes also before ־ַ֫ יִם) a Qames regularly occurs,^[20] before which the vowel of the first syllable then becomes vocal Š^ewâ (מְלָכִים, מְלָכוֹת). This Qameṣ (on which cf. § 84^a a) remains even before the light suffixes, when attached to the plur. masc. (מְלָכַי, מְלָכֶ֫יךָ, &c.). On the other hand, the constr. st. plur. and dual, regularly, according to d, has the form מַלְכֵי, with grave suffix מַלְכֵיכֶם, &c., דַּלְתֵי from דְּלָתַ֫יִם folding-doors.

f (c) Before the Š^ewâ mobile which precedes the suffix ךָ when following a consonant, the a-sound, as a rule, is the only tone-lengthened vowel which remains in the final syllable (being now in an open syllable before the tone), e.g. דָּֽמְךָ֫, דְּבָֽרְךָ֫, &c. (on the forms with ē in the second syllable, see § 93 qq); but before the grave suffixes ־ְכֶם and ־ְכֶן in the same position it reverts to its original shortness, as דְּבַרְכֶם (d^ebhărkhèm), &c. In the same way the tone-lengthened ā or ē of the second syllable in the constr. st. sing. also becomes short again, since the constr. st. resigns the principal tone to the following word, e.g. דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים; חֲצַר הַבַּ֫יִת (from חָצֵר).

g Rem. The Masora (cf. Diqduqe ha-ṭ^eamim, p. 37) reckons thirteen words which retain Qameṣ in the constr. st., some of which had originally â and therefore need not be considered. On the other hand, אוּלָם or אֻלָם 1 K 7, Ez 40, &c. (in spite of the constr. st. plur. אֻֽלַמֵּי); מִבְטָח ψ 65, Pr 25; מַצָּב 1 S 13 (so Baer, but ed. Mant., Ginsburg, &c. מַצַּב); מִשְׁקָל Ezr 8 and מַתָּן Pr 18 are very peculiar.

h 3. The vowel changes in the inflexion of feminine nouns (§ 95) are not so considerable, since generally in the formation of the feminine either the original vowels have been retained, or they have already become Š^ewâ.

i Besides the vowel changes discussed above in a–g, which take place according to the general formative laws (§§ 25–28), certain further phenomena must also be considered in the inflexion of nouns, an accurate knowledge of which requires in each case an investigation of the original form of the words in question (see §§ 84–86). Such are, e.g., the rejection of the ה of ל״ה stems before all formative additions (cf. § 91 d), the sharpening of the final consonant of ע״ע stems in such cases as חֹק, חֻקִּי, &c.

k A striking difference between the vowel changes in the verb and noun is that in a verb when terminations are added it is mostly the second of two changeable vowels which becomes Š^ewâ (קָטַל, קָֽטְלָה, קָֽטְלוּ), but in a noun, the first (דָּבָר, דְּבָרִי, דְּבָרִים), cf. § 27. 3.

§93. Paradigms of Masculine Nouns.^[21]

a Masculine nouns from the simple stem may, as regards their form and the vowel changes connected with it, be divided into four classes. A synopsis of them is given on pp. 264, 265, and they are further explained below. Two general remarks may be premised:

(a) That all feminines without a distinctive termination (§ 122 h) are treated like these masculine nouns, e.g. חֶ֫רֶב f. sword, like מֶ֫לֶךְ m. king, except that in the plural they usually take the termination ־וֹת; thus חֲרָבוֹת, constr. חַרְבוֹת (and so always before suffixes, see § 95).

b (b) That in the plural of the first three classes a changeable vowel is always retained even before the light suffixes as a lengthened pretonic vowel, whenever it also stands before the plural ending ־ִים. All suffixes, except כֶם, כֶן, הֶם, הֶן (־ֵיכֶם, ־ֵיכֶן, ־ֵיהֶם, ־ֵיהֶן), are called light. Cf. § 92 e.

Explanations of the Paradigms (see pp. 264, 265).

c 1. Paradigm I comprises the large class of segholate nouns (§ 84^a a–a). In the first three examples, from a strong stem, the ground-forms, mălk, sĭphr, qŭdš have been developed by the adoption of a helping S^eghôl to מֶ֫לֶךְ (with ă modified to è), סֵ֫פֶר (ĭ lengthened to ē), קֹ֫דֶשׁ (ŭ lengthened to ō).^[22] The next three examples, instead of the helping S^eghôl, have a helping Pathaḥ, on account of the middle (d, f) or final guttural (e). In all these cases the constr. st. sing. coincides exactly with the absolute. The singular suffixes are added to the ground-form; but in c and f an ŏ takes the place of the original ŭ, and in d and f the guttural requires a repetition of the ă and ŏ in the form of a Ḥaṭeph (נַֽעֲרִי, פָּֽעֳלִי); before a following Š^ewâ this Ḥaṭeph passes into a simple helping vowel (ă, ŏ), according to § 28 c; hence נַֽעַרְךָ, &c.

d In the plural an a-sound almost always appears before the tone-bearing affix ־ִים (on the analogy of forms with original a in the second syllable; cf. § 84^a a), in the form of a pretonic Qameṣ, whilst the short vowel of the first syllable becomes vocal Š^ewâ. The original a of the 2nd syllable is elided in the construct state, so that the short vowel under the first radical then stands in a closed syllable. The omission of Dageš in a following Begadkephath (מַלְכֵי, not מַלְכֵּי, &c.) is due to the loss of a vowel between ל and כ‍. On the other hand, the pretonic Qames of the absolute state is retained before the light plural suffixes, whilst the grave suffixes are added to the form of the construct state.—The ending of the absolute state of the dual is added, as a rule, to the ground-form (so in a–d and h, but cf. k). The construct state of the dual is generally the same as that of the plural, except, of course, in cases like m.

e Paradigms g and h exhibit forms with middle u and i (§ 84^a c, γ and δ); the ground forms maut and zait are always contracted to môth, zêth, except in the absol. sing., where u and i are changed into the corresponding consonants ו and י.

Paradigm i exhibits one of the numerous forms in which the contraction of a middle u or i has already taken place in the absol. sing. (ground-form šauṭ).

Paradigm k is a formation from a stem ל״ה (§ 84^a c, ε).

f Paradigms l, m, n are forms from stems ע״ע, and hence (see § 67 a) originally biliteral, yam, ʾim, ḥuq, with the regular lengthening to יָם, אֵם, חֹק. Before formative additions a sharpening, as in the inflexion of verbs ע״ע, takes place in the second radical, e.g. אִמִּי, יַמִּים, &c. (see § 84^a c, β).

Remarks.

g 1. A. On I. a and d (ground-form qaṭl). In pause the full lengthening to ā generally takes place, thus כָּ֫רֶם vineyard, נָ֫עַר, זָ֫רַע seed (from זֶ֫רַע), and so always (except ψ 48), in אֶ֫רֶץ earth with the article, הָאָ֫רֶץ, according to § 35 o (cf. also in the LXX the forms Ἀβέλ, Ἰαφέθ for הֶ֫בֶל, יֶ֫פֶת). However, the form with è is also sometimes found in pause, along with that in ā, e.g. חֶ֫סֶד together with חָ֫סֶד; and very frequently only the form with S^eghôl, e.g. מֶ֫לֶךְ, דֶּ֫שֶׁא grass, נֶ֫צַח perpetuity, פֶּ֫לֶא a wonder, צֶ֫דֶק righteousness, קֶ֫דֶם the East, יֶ֫שַׁע help, &c.—With two S^eghôls, although with a middle guttural, we find לֶ֫חֶם bread (in pause לָ֫חֶם) and רֶ֫חֶם womb (in pause רָ֫חֶם), besides רַ֫חַם Ju 5 (in pause רָ֫חַם). A helping S^eghôl always stands before a final א, as דֶּ֫שֶׁא, טֶ֫נֶא (with suff. טַנְאֲךָ), פֶּ֫לֶא, פֶּ֫רֶא (also written פֶּ֫רֶה), except in גַּיְא, see v.

h B. The constr. st. is almost always the same as the absolute. Sometimes, however, under the influence of a final guttural or ר, Pathaḥ appears in the second syllable as the principal vowel (see below, § 93 s), e.g. גְּבַר ψ 18; זְרַע

Paradigms of Masculine Nouns.

		I.
		a.	b.	c.	d.	e.	f.
Sing.	absolute	מֶ֫לֶךְ	סֵ֫פֶר	קֹ֫דֶשׁ	נַ֫עַר	נֵ֫צַח	פֹּ֫עַל
		(king)	(book)	(sanctuary)	(a youth)	(perpetuity)	(work)
"	construct	מֶ֫לֶךְ	סֵ֫פֶר	קֹ֫דֶשׁ	נַ֫עַר	נֵ֫צַח	פֹּ֫עַל
"	with light suff.	מַלְכִּי	סִפְרִי	קָדְשִׁי	נַֽעֲרִי	נִצְתִי	פָּֽעֳלִי
		מַלְכְּךָ	סִפְרְךָ	קָדְשְׁךָ	נַֽערְךָ	נִצְחֲךָ	פָּֽעָלְךָ
"	with grave suff.	מַלְכְּכֶם	סִפְרְכֶם	קָדְשְׁכֶם	נַעַֽרְכֶם	נִצְחֲכֶם	פָּֽעָלְכֶם
Plur.	absolute	מְלָכִים	סְפָרִים	[קֳדָשִׁים]	נְעָרִים	נְצָחִים	פְּעָלִים
"	construct	מַלְכֵי	סִפְרֵי	קָדְשֵׁי	נַֽעֲרֵי	נִצְחֵי	פָּֽעֳלֵי
"	with light suff.	מְלָכַי	סְפָרַי	[קֳדָשַׁי]	נְעָרַי	נְצָחַי	פְּעָלַי
"	with grave suff.	מַלְכֵיכֶם	סִפְרֵיכֶם	קָדְשֵׁיכֶם	נַֽעֲרֵיכֶם	נִצְחֵיכֶם	פָּֽעֳלֵיכֶם
Dual	absolute	רַגְלַ֫יִם	קִבְצַ֫יִם	מָתְנַ֫יִם	נַֽעֲלַ֫יִם
		(feet)	(two heaps)	(loins)	(sandals)
			[proper name.]
"	construct	רַגְלֵי		מָתְנֵי	נַֽעֲלֵי
		II.
		a.	b.	c.	d.	e.	f.
Sing.	absolute	דָּבָר	חָכָם	זָקֵן	כָּתֵף	חָצֵר	שָׂדֶה
		(word)	(wise)	(an old man)	(shoulder)	(court)	(field)
"	construct	דְבַר	חֲכַם	זְקַן	כֶּ֫תֶף	חֲצַר	שְׂדֵה
"	with light suff.	דְּבָרִי	חֲכָמִי	זְקֵנִי	כְּתֵפִי	חֲצֵרִי	שָׂדִי
		דְּבָֽרְךָ	חֲכָֽמְךָ				שָֽׂדְךָ
"	with grave suff.	דְּבַרְכֶם	חֲכַמְכֶם
Plur.	absolute	דְּבָרִים	חֲכָמִים	זְקֵנִים		חֲצֵרִים	פָּנִים
"	construct	דִּבְרֵי	חַכְמֵי	זִקְנֵי		חַצְרֵי	פְּנֵי
"	with light suff.	דְּבָרַי	חֲכָמַי	זְקֵנַי		חֲצֵרַי	פָּנַי
"	with grave suff.	דִּבְרֵיכֶם	חַכְמֵיכֶם	זִקְנֵיכֶם		חַצְרֵיכֶם	פְּנֵיכֶם
Dual	absolute	כְּנָפַ֫יִם	חֲלָצַ֫יִם	יְרֵכַ֫יִם
		(wings)	(loins)	(thighs)			(face)
"	construct	כַּנְפֵי

		I.
		g.	h.	i.	k.	l.	m.	n.
Sing.	absolute	מָ֫וֶת	זַ֫יִת	שׁוֹט	פְּרִי	יָם	אֵם	חֹק
		(death)	(olive)	(whip)	(fruit)	(sea)	(mother)	(statute)
"	construct	מוֹת	זֵית	שׁוֹט	פְּרִי	יָם, יַם	אֵם	חָק־
"	with light suff.	מוֹתִי	זֵיתִי	שׁוֹטִי	פִּרְיִי	יַמִּי	אִמִּי	חֻקִּי
		מֽוֹתְךָ	זֵֽיתְךָ	שֽׁוֹטְךָ	פֶּרְיְךָ	יַמְּךָ	אִמְּךָ	חָקְךָ
"	with grave suff.	מֽוֹתְכֶם	זֵֽיתְכֶם	שֽׁוֹטְכֶם	פֶּרְיְכֶם	יַמְּכֶם	אִמְּכֶם	חָקְכֶם
Plur.	absolute	[מוֹתִים]	זֵיתִים	שׁוֹטִים	גְּדָיִים	יַמִּים	אִמּוֹת	חֻקִּים
"	construct	מוֹתֵי	זֵיתֵי	שׁוֹטֵי	גְּדָיֵי	יַמֵּי	אִמּוֹת	חֻקֵּי
"	with light suff.		זֵיתַי	שׁוֹטַי	(kids)	יַמַּי	אִמּוֹתַי	חֻקַּי
"	with grave suff.		זֵיֽתֵיכֶם	שֽׁוֹטֵיכֶם		יַמֵּיכֶם	אִמּֽוֹתֵיכֶם	חֻקֵּיכֶם
Dual	absolute		עֵינַיִם	יוֹמַ֫יִם	לְחָיַ֫יִם	כַּפַּ֫יִם	שִׁנַּ֫יִם
			(eyes)	(two days,	(cheeks)	(hands)	(teeth)
				biduum)
"	construct		עֵינֵי		לְחָיֵי	כַּפֵּי	שִׁנֵּי
		III.				IV.
		a.	b.	c.		a.	b.	c.
Sing.	absolute	עוֹלָם	אֹיֵב	חֹזֶה		פָּקִיד	עָנִי	כְּתָב
		(eternity)	(enemy)	(seer)		(overseer)	(poor)	(writing)
"	construct	עוֹלַם	אֹיֵב	חֹזֵה		פְּקִיד	עֲנִי	כְּתָב
"	with light suff.	עֽוֹלָמִי	אֹֽיְבִי	חֹזִי		פְּקִידִי		כְּתָבִי
		עוֹלָֽמְךָ	אֹֽיִבְךָ	חֹֽזְךָ		פְּקִֽידְךָ		כְּתָֽבְךָ
"	with grave suff.	עֽוֹלַמְכֶם	אֹֽיִבְכֶם	חֹֽזְכֶם		פְּקִֽירְכֶם		כְּתָֽבְכֶם
Plur.	absolute	עֽוֹלָמִים	אֹֽיְבִים	חֹזִים		פְּקידִים	עֲנִיִּים	[כְּתָבִים]
"	construct	עֽוֹלְמֵי	אִֽיְבֵי	חִזֵי		פְּקִידֵי	עֲנִיֵּי	[כְּתָבֵי]
"	with light suff.	עֽוֹלָמַי	אֹֽיְבַי	חֹזַי		פְּקִידַי		[כְּתָבַי]
"	with grave suff.	עֽוֹלְמֵיכֶם	אֹֽיְבֵיכֶם	חֹֽזֵיכֶם		פְּקִֽידֵיכֶם	עֲנִיֵּיכֶם	[כְּתָֽבֵיכֶם]
Dual	absolute	מֶלְקָחַ֫יִם	מֹֽאזְנַ֫יִם			שְׁבֻעַ֫ים
		(pair of tongs)	(balance)			(two weeks)
"	construct		מֹֽאזְנֵי

(only in Nu 11, before Maqqeph), חֲדַר Ju 3 (but Ct 3 חֶ֫דֶר), נְטַע, סְחַר as well as זֶ֫רַע, &c.; cf., moreover, קְחַת 2 K 12 (for קַ֫חַת, infin. constr. from לָקַח).

i C. The ־ָה locale is, according to § 90 i, regularly added to the already developed form, e.g. נֶ֫גְדָה ψ 116: הַפֶּ֑תְחָה Gn 19, to the door; but also with a firmly closed syllable נֶ֫גְבָּה Ex 40; under the influence of a guttural or ר, חַ֫דְרָה, אַ֫רְצָה, in pause אָ֫רְצָה (cf. גָּ֫זְרָה 1 Ch 14, from גֶּ֫זֶר).

k D. The suffixes of the singular are likewise added to the ground-form, but forms with middle guttural take Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ instead of the Š^ewâ quiescens; נַֽעֲרִי, &c. (but also לַחְמִי, זַעְמִי, &c.). In a rather large number of qăṭl-forms, however, before suffixes in the sing., as well as in the constr. st. plur. and dual, the ă of the first syllable is attenuated to ĭ,^[23] thus בִּטְנִי my womb, יִתְרוֹ; so in בֶּ֫גֶד, בֶּ֫צַע, גֶּ֫זַע, זֶ֫בַח, טֶ֫בַח, פֶּ֫שַׁע, פֶּ֫תַח, צֶ֫דֶק, קֶ֫בֶר, קֶ֫רֶב, רֶ֫שַׁע, שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ, and many others. In some cases of this kind besides the form with ă there most probably existed another with original ĭ in the first syllable; thus certainly with יֵ֫שַׁע beside יֶ֫שַׁע, נֵ֫צַח beside נֶ֫צַ֫ח, &c. (According to the Diqduqe ha-ṭ^eamim, § 36, the absolute st. in such cases takes è, the constr. ē; cf. נֶ֫דֶר Nu 30 (absol.) and נֵ֫דֶר 30 (constr.); שֶׁ֫בֶר Lv 24 (absol.) and שֵׁ֫בֶר Am 6 (constr.). According to this theory^[24] פֵּ֫לֶא (so the best authorities) Is 9 would be the constr. st., although the accentuation requires an absol. st.)—A weakening of the firmly closed syllable occurs in בִּגְדִי, &c. from בֶּ֫גֶד and יִקְבֶ֫ךָ Dt 15, 16, in both cases evidently owing to the influence of the palatal in the middle of the stem. With S^eghôl for ĭ: הֶבְלִי, יֶשְׁעֲךָ, נֶגְדִּי, &c.

l E. In the plural the termination וֹת is found as well as ־ִים, e.g. נְפָשׁוֹת, עֲצָמוֹת together with נְפָשִׁים (Ez 13 [but read חָפְשִׁים; see comm.]), &c., constr. st. נַפְשׁוֹת. Other nouns have only the ending וֹת, e.g. אֲרָצוֹת, constr. אַרְצוֹת from אֶ֫רֶץ. Without Qaṃeṣ before the ending ־ִים we find רַֽחֲמִים (bowels) mercy. On the numerals עֶשְׂרִים twenty, &c., cf. § 97 f, note 2. Moreover a is not inserted before plural suffixes with the tone on the penultima in אַשְׁרֶ֫יךָ, &c., properly thy happiness! (a word which is only used in the constr. st. pl. and at an early period became stereotyped as a kind of interjection).

m F. In the constr. st. plural a firmly closed syllable is sometimes found, contrary to the rule, e.g. כַּסְפֵּיהֶם Gn 42; רִשְׁפֵּי Ct 8 (רִשְׁפֵי ψ 76); טַרְפֵּי Ez 17; צִמְדֵּי Is 5, and so always in נִסְכֵּיכֶם Nu 29, נִסְכֵּיהֶם ψ 16, &c. (on the other hand, according to the best authorities not in חַסְדֵי Is 55, &c., though in ψ 107 Ginsburg reads חַסְדֵּי); cf. § 46 d. Even with a middle guttural בַּעְלֵיהֶן Est 1.—The attenuation of ă to ĭ also occurs sometimes in this form (see above, k), e.g. זִבְחֵי, &c., even יִלְדֵי Is 57 beside יַלְדֵי Ho 1, &c.

n G. In the dual absol. beside forms like רַגְלַ֫יִם feet, with suff. רַגְלֶ֫יךָ, רַגְלָיו, &c. אַלְפַּ֫יִם two thousand, נַֽעֲלַ֫יִם sandals, בִּרְכַּ֫יִם knees (ă attenuated to ĭ, constr. st. בִּרְכֵּי with a firmly closed syllable), with suffixes בִּרְכַּי, &c. (cf., however, בִּרְכֵיהֶם Ju 7), forms with pretonic Qameṣ are also found (in consequence of the tendency to assimilate the dual to the plural in form: so König, Lehrgeb., ii. 17), as קְרָנַ֫יִם horns, with suff. קְרָנָיו (Dn 8 ff.; elsewhere always קַרְנַ֫יִם, קַרְנָיו, &c.), and so always דְּלָתַ֫יִם, constr. st. דַּלְתֵי folding-doors, דְּרָכַ֫יִם (?) double way.

o 2. On Paradigms b and e. With a final א rejected (but retained orthographically) we find חֵטְא sin. An initial guttural before suffixes generally receives S^eghôl instead of the original ĭ, e.g. חֶלְקִי, עֶזְרִי, &c., so in the constr. st. plur. עֶגְלֵי, &c.; חֵטְא forms חֲטָאֵי 2 K 10, &c., retaining the Qameṣ of חֲטָאִים before the weak א.—The pausal forms סָ֫תֶר and שָׁ֫בֶט (out of pause always סֵ֫תֶר, שֵׁ֫בֶט) go back to by-forms סֶ֫תֶר, שֶׁ֫בֶט.—On עִשְּׂבוֹת (constr. st. plur. of עֵ֫שֶׂב) Pr 27, cf. § 20 h; שִׁקְמִים sycamores, without Qameṣ before the termination ־ִים (see above, l), is probably from the sing. שִׁקְמָה found in the Mišna.

p 3. On Paradigms c and f. קשְׁטְ occurs in Pr 22 without a helping vowel; with a middle guttural פֹּ֫עַל, &c., but with ה also אֹ֫הֶל, בֹּ֫הֶן; with a final guttural גֹּ֫בַהּ, רֹ֫בַע &c., but with א, גֹּ֫מֶא; with a firmly closed syllable אָסְפֵּי Mi 7.

q Before suffixes the original ŭ sometimes reappears in the sing., e.g. גֻּדְלוֹ (ψ 150) beside גָּדְלוֹ, from גֹּ֫דֶל greatness; סֻבֳּלוֹ (with Dageš forte dirimens, and the ŭ repeated in the form of a Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ, cf. § 10 h) Is 9, &c.; גֻּשְׁמָהּ Ez 22.—Corresponding to the form פָּֽעָלְכֶם pŏʿŏl^ekhèm we find קָֽטָבְךָ Ho 13, even without a middle guttural; similarly קָֽטֳנִי (so Jablonski and Opitius) 1 K 12, 2 Ch 10, from קֹ֫טֶן little finger; but the better reading is, no doubt, קָֽטָנִּי (so ed. Mant., ‘the ק proleptically assuming the vowel of the following syllable’; König, Lehrgeb., ii. 69), and the form is to be derived, with König, from קְטֹן, not qŭtŭn, as Brockelmann quotes him, in Grundriss, p. 103. The reading קָֽטֳנִּי (Baer and Ginsburg) is probably not due to a confusion of the above two readings, but ־ֳ is merely intended to mark the vowel expressly as ŏ. In the forms פֹּֽעֲלוֹ Is 1 (for פָּֽעֳלוֹ) and תֹּֽאֲרוֹ Is 52 (for תָּֽאֳרוֹ 1 S 28), the lengthening of the original ŭ to ō has been retained even before the suffix; cf. § 63 p and § 74 h (בְּמֹצַֽאֲכֶם Gn 32).—In the same way ō remains before ־ָה locale, e.g. גּ֫ׄרְנָה, הָאֹהֱלָה Gn 18, 24, &c. Dissimilation of the vowel (or a by-form נֶ֫כַח?) seems to occur in נִכְחוֹ Ex 14, Ez 46, for נָכְחוֹ.

r In the absol. st. plur. the original ŭ generally becomes Š^ewâ before the Qameṣ, e.g. בְּקָרִים from בֹּ֫קֶר morning, פְּעָלִים works, רְמָחִים lances, שְׁעָלִים handfuls (constr. st. שַֽׁעֲלֵי Ez 13); on the other hand, with an initial guttural the ŭ-sound reappears as Ḥaṭeph Qameṣ, e.g. חֳדָשִׁים months, עֳפָרִים gazelles, אֳרָחוֹת ways; and so even without an initial guttural, הַגֳּרָנוֹת the threshing-floors, 1 S 23, Jo 2; קָֽדָשִׁים sanctuaries, and שָֽׁרָשִׁים roots (qŏdhāšîm, &c., with ŏ for ־ֳ); also קָֽדָשַׁי [but קֳדָשֶׁ֫יךָ, קֳדָשָׁיו, once קָֽ׳], where, however, the reading frequently fluctuates between קָֽ׳ and קֳ׳; with the article הַקֳּ׳, בַּקֳּ׳, לַקֳּ׳, according to Baer and Ginsburg. On these forms cf. especially § 9 v. From אֹ֫הֶל tent, both בָּֽאֳהָלִים and אֹֽהָלִים (cf. § 23 h and פֹּֽעֲלוֹ above) are found; with light suffixes אֹֽהָלַי, &c.; so from אֹרַח way, אֹֽרְחֹתָיו (also אָרְחֹתַי)—hence only with initial א, ‘on account of its weak articulation’ (König, Lehrgeb., ii. 45). It seems that by these different ways of writing a distinction was intended between the plural of אֹרְחָה caravan, and of אֹרַח way; however, אָרְחוֹת is also found in the former sense (in constr. st. Jb 6) and אֹֽרְחוֹת in the latter (e.g. Jb 13 according to the reading of Ben Naphtali and Qimḥi); cf. also אֽוֹנִיּוֹת 2 Ch 8 K^eth. (אֳנ׳ Q^erê).—The constr. st. plural of בֹּ֫הֶן thumb is בְּהֹנוֹת Ju 1 f., as if from a sing. בְּהֹן: of נׄ֫גַהּ brightness, Is 59 נְגׄהוֹת (on these q^eṭōl-forms, cf. t).—If אָפְנָיו Pr 25 is not dual but plural (see the Lexicon) it is then analogous to the examples, given in l and 0, of plurals without a pretonic Qameṣ; cf. בָּטְנִים pistachio nuts, probably from a sing. בָּטְנָה. According to Barth, ZDMG. xlii, 345 f. אָפְנָיו is a sing. (אָפְנַי, the ground-form of אָפְנֶה, with suffix).

In the constr. st. plur. the only example with original ŭ is רֻכְסֵי ψ 31; otherwise like קָדְשֵׁי, אָֽהֳלֵי, &c.

s 4. Besides the forms treated hitherto we have to consider also a series of formations, which have their characteristic vowel under the second radical, as is ordinarily the case in Aramaic (on the origin of these forms see further, § 84^a e). Thus (a) of the form קְטַל; דְּבַשׁ honey, מְעַט little; in pause, דְּבָשׁ, מְעָט; גְּבַר man (as constr. st., see above, h), ψ 18 (elsewhere always גֶּ֫בֶר), and infinitives like שְׁכַב (§ 45 c; on קְחַת, see above, h); שְׁכֶם shoulder, ă being modified to è (but in pause שֶׁ֫כֶם); locative שְׁכֶ֫מָה, also שֶׁ֫כְמָה Ho 6. With suffixes in the usual manner שִׁכְמִי, שִׁכְבָהּ Gn 19 (an infin. with suffix, therefore not שִׁכְבָּהּ). On the other hand, the ă is retained in the plur. absol. by sharpening the final consonant: אֲגַמִּים (constr. אַגְמֵי) marshes, הֲדַסִּים myrtles, מְעַטִּים few.

t (b) Of the form קְטֵל: בְּאֵר a well, זְאֵב wolf, &c.^[25]; locative בְּאֵרָה, with suff. בְּאֵרִי, plur. זְאֵבִים, זְאֵבֵי; but בְּאֵרוֹת, constr. בֶּֽאֱרוֹת; on the infin. constr. שְׂאֵת, cf. § 76 b.

(c) of the form קְטֹל: בְּאשׁ stench (with suff. בָּאְשׁוֹ, just as סֻבְּכוֹ occurs in Jer 4 along with the constr. st. סְבָךְ־ ψ 74; cf. for the Dageš, § 20 h), perhaps also לְאֹם nation, pl. לְאֻמִּים.

u 5. Paradigms g–i comprise the segholate forms with middle ו or י: (a) of the form qăṭl with Wāw as a strong consonant, in which cases the original ă is almost always lengthened to ā (Paradigm g), thus מָ֫וֶת, אָ֫וֶן vanity, עָ֫וֶל iniquity, תָּ֫וֶךְ midst; with final א, שָׁוְא falsehood; cf. however, also רֶ֫וַח space. In the constr. st. contraction always occurs, מוֹת, &c. (from original maut), and likewise before suffixes מוֹתוֹ, &c. Exception, עָ֫וֶל as constr. st. Ez 28 (according to Qimḥi) and with suff. עַוְלוֹ. The contraction remains also in all cases in the plural (but see below, w).

v (b) Of the form qăṭl with consonantal Yôdh (Paradigm h). With final א, גַּיְא (also גַּי), in Is 40 גֶּיא, in the constr. st. (also absol. Zc 14) גֵּיא (also גֵּי); plur. 2 K 2 and Ez 6 K^eth. according to Baer גאות, i.e. doubtless גֵּאוֹת (cf. גֵּֽיאוֹתֶיךָ Ez 35; according to another reading [and so Ginsburg] גיאות, i.e. doubtless גְּיָאוֹת), but in Q^erê, and all other passages, נֵּֽאָיוֹת. The uncontracted form (in the absol. st. with helping Ḥireq) remains also before ־ָה locale, e.g. בַּ֫יְתָה (but in the constr. st. e.g. בֵּ֫יתָה יוֹסֵף).—עִירֹה (from עַ֫יִר) Gn 49 is peculiar, so also שִׁיתוֹ Is 10 (from שַׁ֫יִת).—In the plural absol. uncontracted forms occur, like חֲיָלִים hosts, עֲיָנוֹת springs, עֲיָרִים young asses, תְּיָשִׁים he-goats, &c.; as constr. st. Pr 8 עִינוֹת for עֵינוֹת.

w (c) With the contraction of the ו and י even in the absol. st. sing. (Paradigm i). In this way there arise formations which are unchangeable throughout; thus from the ground-form qăṭl: יוֹם (cf., however, § 96), סוֹף, שׁוֹר, &c.; with middle Yôdh, חֵיל 1 Ch 9 (elsewhere חַ֫יִל), לֵיל Is 21 (elsewhere לַ֫יִל, in prose לַ֫יְלָה, see above, § 90 f); from the ground-form qĭṭl, דִּין, שִׁיר, עִיר (see, however, § 96); from the ground-form qŭṭl, גּוּר, רוּחַ &c. The plurals דְּוָדִים pots, שְׁוָקִים streets, שְׁוָרִים oxen, have a strong formation (but for חֲוָחִים 1 S 13 read חוֹרִים as in 14). Finally, forms with a quiescent middle א also belong to this class, such as רֹאשׁ head (obscured from רָאשׁ=raʾš, see § 96) and צֹאן sheep.

x 6. On Paradigm k: segholate forms from ל״ה stems. Besides the formations mentioned in § 84^a c, ε, like בֶּ֫כֶה, &c., and שָׂ֫חוּ Ez 47, with the original ו resolved, according to § 24 d (cf. the constr. plur. חַגְוֵי clefts, Ob 31, &c., and קַצְוֵי ends, ψ 48, &c., where the ו becomes again a strong consonant,^[26] from חֶ֫גֶו and קֶ֫צֶו or חָ֫גוּ and קָ֫צוּ), there occur also (a) commonly, of the ground-form qaṭl, forms like פְּרִי, בְּכִי, גְּדִי, לְחִי, צְבִי, אֲרִי, &c.; in pause פֶּ֫רִי, בֶּ֫כִי, לֶ֫חִי, צֶ֫בִי (cf. § 29 m), but אֲרִ֑י Ju 14; with suffixes פִּרְיוֹ (attenuated from păryô), בִּכְיִי ψ 6, but also פֶּרְיְךָ, לֶחְיוֹ &c.; before a grave suffix פְּרִיהֶם, but also פֶּרְיְכֶם. Plur. גְּדָיִים (constr. גְּדָיֵי, see above, o, חֲטָאֵי), אֲרָיִים and אֲרָיוֹת; with softening of the י to א (as elsewhere in בְּלוֹאֵי Jer 38 for which there is בְּלוֹיֵ in verse 11, according to § 8 k; עַרְבִיאִים 2 Ch 17, cf. 26 K^eth.; probably in דּֽוּדָאִים, לֻֽלָאוֹת from דּוּדַי and לוּלַי; also חלכאים ψ 10 K^eth., divided into two words by the Masora, is to be referred to a sing. חֶלְכַּי hapless): חֲלָאִים jewels, Ct 7 (from חֲלִי), טְלָאִים lambs, Is 40 (from טְלִי); but instead of פְּתָאִים and צְבָאִים (from פֶּ֫תִי and צְבִי) the Masora requires פְּתָאיִם and צְבָאיִם; dual: לְחָיַ֫יִם, constr. st. לְחָיֵי, with suff. לְחָיַי, &c. On דַּל door, cf. § 95 f, and on such formations generally, see Barth on biliteral nouns in ZDMG. 1887, p. 603 ff., and Nominal-bildung (isolated nouns), p. 1 ff.

y (b) From the ground-form qiṭl, חֲצִי half, in pause חֵ֫צִי, with suff. חֶצְיוֹ, &c.—From stems with middle Wāw arise such forms as אִי (from ʾiwy), עִי, צִי ship, plur. אִיִּים, צִיִּים, &c.; instead of the extraordinary plur. צִים Nu 24 read with the Samaritan יֽוֹצְאִים, and for בַּצִּים Ez 30 read probably with Cornill אָצִים.

z (c) From the ground-form qŭṭl sometimes forms like תֹּ֫הוּ, בֹּ֫הוּ (from tŭhw, bŭhw), sometimes like חֳלִי, עֳנִי, and even without an initial guttural דֳּמִי, יֳפִי, צֳרִי (also יְפִי דְּמִי, צְרִי), רָאִי, &c; in pause חֹ֫לִי, &c., with suff. חָלְיוֹ, plur. חֳלָיִים. From עֳפִי branch, there occurs in ψ 104 the plur. עֳפָאיִם (analogous to פְּתָאיִם, &c., see above, x); the K^eeth. evidently intends עֳפָאִים (so Opitius and others). Dual, with suff. דָּלְיָו Nu 24, bucket (from דְּלִי, for דֳּלִי), more correctly, with the Masora, דָּ֣לְיָו with Munaḥ for Metheg. This unusual Metheg is to be treated as following the analogy of the cases mentioned in § 9 v.

aa 7. On Paradigms l–n: segholate forms from stems ע״ע (see § 84^a c, β).

(a) In the qaṭl-form the ă of the contracted formation is sometimes lengthened in the absol. st., sing. as in יָם (so also in the constr. st., except in the combination יַם־סוּף the Red sea; and even before Maqqeph, יָֽם־הַמֶּ֫לַח the salt sea), sometimes it remains short, e.g. פַּת morsel, עַם people, but even these formations generally have Qameṣ in pause, as well as after the article (e.g. הָעָם). Adjectives under the influence of a guttural either have forms like לַחִים, צַחִים, or, with compensatory lengthening, רָעִים, רָעֵי. In the constr. st. חַי living (in the plural חַיִּים also a substantive, life), and דַּי sufficiency, are contracted to חֵי^[27] and דֵּי. As a locative form notice הֶ֫רָה to the mountain, Gn 14 (see § 27 q) beside הָהָ֫רָה. The stem is expanded to a triliteral form in הֲרָרִי (unless it is simply derived from a by-form הָרָר on the analogy of qătăl-forms) Jer 17 (but in ψ 30 for הַֽרֲרִי read הַֽרֲרֵי) and הַֽרֲרָם Gn 14; plur. constr. הַֽרֲרֵי Nu 23, &c. (but only in poetical passages), with suffix, הֲרָרֶ֫יהָ Dt 8; עֲמָמִים Ju 5 (where, however, read probably בְּעַמֶּ֫ךָ), Neh 9; עַֽמֲמֵי Neh 9: elsewhere עַמִּים, עַמֵּי.—Before suffixes and in the plur. ă is sometimes attenuated to ĭ, e.g. פִּתִּי, פִּתִּים, from פַּת; סִפִּים and סִפּוֹת (also סַפּוֹת 2 S 17) from סַף. Before ח ă is retained in a virtually sharpened syllable, e.g. פַּחִים traps.

bb (b) Qiṭl-forms: אֵם, אֵשׁ fire (with suff. אִשִּׁי, but cf. also אֶשְׁכֶם Is 50), חֵן favour, &c.; of a triliteral form, the plur. חֲצָצֶ֫יךָ ψ 77.

(c) Qŭṭl-forms: חֹק, כֹּל totality, before Maqqeph חָק־, כָּל־, with suff. חֻקִּי, &c., with omission of Dageš forte (according to § 20 m) always חָקְךָ, חָקְכֶם, but from עֹז, עֻזִּי, עֻזְּךָ, עֻזְּכֶם, for which עָזִּי and עָזְּךָ are also found. חִקְקֵי, expanded to a triliteral form, Ju 5 and Is 10, generally explained as a secondary form of חֻקְקֵי with abnormal weakening of the ŭ to ĭ, is more probably to be referred to a qiṭl-form=Arabic ḥiqq.

cc The forms with assimilated middle Nûn likewise follow the analogy of Paradigms l–n, e.g. אַף nose, anger (אַפִּי, dual אַפַּ֫יִם, also face) for ʾanp; חֵךְ palate for ḥink, זִקִּים fetters, עֵז goat, plur. עִזִּים, for ʿinz, probably also אֵב green herb, for ʾinb.

dd 2. Paradigm II comprises all formations with original short vowels, whether in the first or second syllable; cf. § 84^a f–f, and the general laws of formation, § 92 b–g.

Rem. 1. On Paradigms a and b: ground-form qătăl. The lengthening of the second ă to ā is maintained in the constr. st. sing. only in ל״א-forms, e.g. צָבָא army, צְבָא. For the construct forms חֲלֵב milk, לְבֶן־ white, Gn 49, instead of the ordinary absolutes חָלָב, לָבָן, a secondary form חָלֵב, לָבֵן must be assumed; from עָשָׁן smoke, the constr. st. עֶ֫שֶׁן occurs once, Ex 19, beside עֲשַׁן, from הָדָר ornament the constr. st. הֶ֫דֶר Dn 11, beside the common form הֲדַר.—The plur. פָּֽרָשִׁים horses, Is 21 (instead of פְּרָשִׁים, ground-form părăš) is no doubt due to a confusion with the qaṭṭâl-form פָּרָשׁ horseman.

ee A. Sometimes a sharpening of the third radical takes place, in order to keep the preceding vowel short, e.g. גְּמַלִּים camels, קְטַנִּים small ones, פְּלַגּוֹת brooks (see § 20 a).—The attenuation of the ă of the first syllable to ĭ does not take place in the constr. st. plur. as a rule after an initial guttural, as חַכְמֵי, עַנְוַי, but חִזְקֵי, and never before a middle guttural, e.g. נַֽהֲרֵי; nor (according to König, owing to the influence of the nasal) in the non-guttural forms זַנְבוֹת tails, כַּנְפוֹת, and (in the dual) כַּנְפֵי wings, from זָנָב, כָּנָף.—The dual נַֽהֲרַ֫יִם from נָהָר river, shows an abnormal omission of the lengthening of the ă before a tone-bearing termination, but cf. § 88 c.

ff B. From ע״ע stems, forms like חָלָל, עָנָן, &c., belong to this class.

gg C. The few nouns of the ground-form qĭṭăl follow the same analogy, such as לֵבָב heart, שֵׁכָר strong drink, עֵנָב grape, &c. From שֵׂעָר hair, in the constr. st. besides שְׂעַר the form שַׂ֫עַר is also found (perhaps a survival of a secondary form like those in Paradigm I, d); so from צֵלָע rib, צֶ֫לַע and even צֵ֫לַע 2 S 16 (so ed. Mant., Ginsb.; but Baer צֶ֫לַע), both, probably, old secondary forms (also used for the absol. st.) of צֵלָע; cf. also צַלְעִי and צַלְעוֹ, as well as the constr. st. plur. צַלְעוֹת; also from נֵכָר strangeness, the constr. st. נֵ֫כַר־ is found, Dt 31.

hh 2. On Paradigms c–e: ground-form qăṭĭl, developed to qāṭēl; with a final guttural, e.g. שָׂבֵעַ satisfied. In the constr. st. the original ĭ of the second syllable, probably on the analogy of the forms discussed in § 69 c, becomes ă, e.g. זְקַן, חֲדַל, חֲסַר, &c., but not before suffixes, כְּתֵפִי, &c., nor in forms from ל״א stems, e.g. מָלֵא full, מְלֵא; cf., moreover, עֲקֵב Gn 25 from עָקֵב heel, and אֲבֶל־ ψ 35, mourning. Paradigm d represents forms which in the constr. st. instead of the ordinary כְּתַף, &c., have a segholate form, as אֶ֫רֶךְ, גֶּ֫דֶר, יֶ֫רֶךְ, גֵּ֫זֶל, עֶ֫רֶל (Ez 44), constr. st. of אָרֵךְ long, גָּדֵר wall, יָרֵךְ thigh, גָּזֵל robbery, עָרֵל uncircumcised. In Is 11 בְּכָתֵף would be altogether without precedent as a constr. st. (for בְּכֶ֫תֶף); most probably the absol. st. is intended by the Masora (according to Nöldeke, Gött. Gel. Anzeigen, 1871, No. 23 [p. 896] for בכ׳ אֶחָד with one shoulder, i.e. shoulder to shoulder); [cf. Driver, Tenses, § 190, Obs.].

ii In the plur. constr. the ē lengthened from ĭ is frequently retained in verbal adjectives of this formation, e.g. שְׁכֵחֵי, שְׂמֵחֵי, אֲבֵלֵי, יְשֵׁנֵי, חֲפֵצֵי; cf. also יְתֵֽדֹתָיו (with ē under the protection of the secondary tone) from יָתֵד tent-peg. On the other hand from יָרֵא fearing, always יִרְאֵי; cf. also רִגְעֵי ψ 35 from רָגֵעַ.—With ă retained in the initial syllable cf. אַחֵר alius (with a virtual sharpening of the ח).—From ע״וּ stems come forms like מֵת dead person, גֵּר resident stranger, עֵד witness, with unchangeable Qameṣ; hence מֵתִים, מֵתֵי, &c.

kk Kindred in character are the formations from the ground-form qăṭŭl. This ground-form is regularly lengthened to qāṭōl, e.g. עָנֹל round, עָמֹק deep, אָדֹם red; but before formative additions the short ŭ returns, protected by the sharpening of the following consonant (see ee above), as עֲגֻלִּים, &c. (but in stems with a third guttural or ר, גְּבֹהָה, שְׁחֹרִים). The form עָגוֹל, 1 K 10, is abnormal; likewise עֲמוּקָה Pr 23, Jablonski (ed. Mant. עֲמֻקָה, Baer and Ginsburg עֲמֻקָּה).

ll 3. On Paradigm f: ground-form qăṭăl from ל״ה stems. As in verbs ל״ה § 75 h, the general rule is that before the terminations of the plur. and dual and before suffixes beginning with a vowel, the third radical is usually elided altogether. But besides שָׂדֶה the form שָׂדַי, with the final Yôdh retained, is also found in poetry (cf. also the singulars with suffixes, like מִשְׁתֵּיהֶם, in ss); in the same way final ו is retained in עֲנָוִים the poor, constr. עַנְוֵי. The plur. of שָׂדֶה is שָׂדוֹת, constr. שְׂדוֹת (also שְׂדֵי, unless this is a sing., contracted from שְׂדַי; so Barth, ZDMG. xlii, p. 351). The qĭṭăl-form (see § 84^a i) רֵעֶה 2 S 15, 16, 1 K 4 is remarkable as a constr. st. (the reading רֵעֵה of Opitius and others is opposed to the express statement of the Masora). To the category of these forms also belongs without doubt פָּנִים face (only in plur.), פְנֵי, פָּנַי, פְּנֵיכֶם, &c.

mm In a few formations of this kind the vowel of the second syllable appears to have been already lost in the absol. st. sing.; so according to the ordinary view, in יָד hand, constr. יַד, with suff. יָדוֹ, but יֶדְכֶם; plur. יָדוֹת, constr. יְדוֹת, dual יָדַ֫יִם, יְדֵי, with suff. יָדַי, יְדֵיכֶם, &c., and in דָּם blood, constr. דַּם, with suff. דָּמִי, but דִּמְכֶם (ă attenuated to ĭ), plur. דָּמִים, דְּמֵי. But perhaps both these nouns are to be regarded as primitive (§ 81), and as original monosyllabic formations.

nn 3. Paradigm III comprises forms with an unchangeable vowel in the first syllable, whilst the vowel of the second syllable has been lengthened from an original short vowel, and is therefore changeable. The special cases are to be distinguished in which the original short vowel is lengthened both in and before the tone, but in an open syllable becomes Š^ewâ (Paradigm a, but cf. also examples like אֽוֹפַנִּים wheels, for אֽוֹפָנִים, and אֻֽלַמִּים porches), secondly, the cases in which the vowel becomes Š^ewâ even before the tone (Paradigm b), and finally, those in which the termination of ל״ה formations is entirely lost (Paradigm c).

oo Rem. 1. On the model of עוֹלָם (which, moreover, is obscured from ʿâlăm), the following forms also are inflected: מִקְמָל (§ 85 h), in some cases with virtual sharpening of the third radical (see § 20 a), as מִבְטַחוֹ Jer 17, ψ 40, Jb 8, &c.; ל״א nouns of this form maintain the Qameṣ in the constr. st. plur., e.g. מִקְרָאֵי from מִקְרָא^[28]; on the other hand, in the plur. of the participles Niph. (§ 85 n) of verbs ל״אֹ (which likewise belong to this class), are found not only regular forms like נִקְרָאִים but also נֶחְבְּאִים Jos 10, נִטְמְאִים Ez 20 f., and so always נִבְּאִים (except Ez 13 הַנִּבָּאִ֑ים) and נִמְצְאִים 1 S 13, 2 K 14, &c. (except Ezr 8 הַנִּמְצָאִֽים in pause).^[29]

pp Moreover, the other participles in ā also follow the analogy of עוֹלָם as regards the final syllable (מְקֻטָּל, מָקְטָל; cf., however, הַמּוּשַׁב Gn 43 in close connexion; see the analogous cases in § 65 d); also שֻׁלְחָן table (§ 85 u; plur. שֻׁלְחָנוֹת, constr. שֻׁלְחֲנוֹת), קָרְבָּן, constr. קָרְבַּן, hence in plur. constr. with suff. קָרְבְּנֵיהֶם Lv 7; עַקְרָב (§ 85 w), plur. עַקְרַבִּים (with sharpening of the final consonant for עַקְרָבִים, cf. also עֵירֹם naked, plur. עֵֽירֻמִּים Gn 3 [but in 2 עֲרוּמִּים, according to § 9 o an orthographic licence for עֲרֻמִּים from עָרֹם, מַֽעֲרֻמִּים nakedness, 2 Ch 28; קַרְדֹּם, קַרְדֻּמּוֹ; מַֽעֲמַקֵּי Is 51; נִכְבַּדֵּי Is 23 f.; מִשְׂגַּבִּי ψ 18; even with attenuation of the ă to ĭ, מֽוֹרִגִּים threshing instruments, 2 S 24, 1 Ch 21, from מוֹרָג), מַתָּן (§ 85 g), מָגֵן (§ 85 i), מָעֹז (§ 85 k), inasmuch as they retain the ā of the first syllable, contrary to rule, even when not pretonic, e.g. מָֽגִנִּי, מָֽעֻזִּי; מוֹשָׁב (§ 85 g); תּוֹשָׁב (§ 85 p), constr. st. plur. תּֽשָׁבֵי 1 K 17; also isolated forms according to § 84^a t, and § 84^b b, c, k, m, n, o. Cf. finally, צַוָּאר neck (from ṣăwʾăr), constr. st. צַוַּאר Jer 28 ff., constr. st. plur. צַוְּארֵי Gn 45, &c.

qq 2. (Paradigm b; cf. § 84^a s.) Instead of the original ĭ in such forms as אֹֽיִבְכֶם (cf. 2 K 22), the second syllable more frequently has ĕ, e.g. יֽׄצֶרְךָ thy creator; with a closing guttural (according to § 91 d; but cf. also אֹבַד Dt 32) forms are found sometimes like שֹׁלֵֽחֲךָ, sometimes like בֹּרַֽאֲךָ; constr. st. without suff. נֹטַ֫ע ψ 94 (according to § 65 d); with a middle guttural גּֽׄאַלְךָ Is 48; cf. 43.—The same analogy also is followed in the flexion of the other participles which have ē in the final syllable (מְקַטֵּל, מִתְקַטֵּל, &c.), see further, in § 84^b d, גִּבֵּן, &c. (but with exceptions, as שִׁלֵּשִׁים, רִבֵּעִים), and ibid. l, p; § 85 i, k (מִזְבֵּחַ altar, constr. st. מִזְבַּח, plur. מִזְבְּחוֹת), and ibid. q , but here also there are exceptions like מַקְהֵלִים ψ 26, מוֹסֵרוֹת Jer 5, רִבֵּעִים, שִׁלֵּשִׁים Ex 20, שֹׁמֵמוֹת Is 49, שֹׁמֵמִים La 1 (cf. König, ii. 109).

rr 3. (Paradigm c: part. Qal of verbs ל״ה, differing from Paradigm II, f in the unchangeableness of the vowel of the first syllable.) In Ez 17 ē in the absol. st. is abnormal, and S^eghôl in the constr. st. in 2 S 24 (so Opitius, Ginsburg; but Baer חֹזֵה), Ec 2 (according to Baer, but not the Mantua ed.; מִקְרֶה Ec 3 is in the absol. st.). To this class belong, as regards their formation, the ל״ה-forms mentioned in § 84^a r, § 85 g (with suff., e.g. הַמַּֽעַלְךָ Dt 20, which brought thee up), and h.

ss In a few instances, before a suffix beginning with a consonant, the original ăy of the termination has been contracted to ê, and thus there arise forms which have apparently plural suffixes; as מִשְׁתֵּיהֶם Is 5, Dn 1; מַרְאֵיהֶם their appearance, Dn 1, Gn 41, cf. Na 2; נֽוֹטֵיהֶם who stretched them forth, Is 42; defectively אֹֽפֵהֶם Ho 7 (cf. נְוֵהֶם Ez 34); on the other hand, the examples in Is 14, Gn 47, which were formerly classed with the above, are really plurals. But מַֽחֲנֶ֫יךָ thy camp, Dt 23 (מַֽחֲנֶ֫ךָ occurs just before), מִקְנֶ֫יךָ thy cattle, Is 30 (probably also שָׂדֶ֫יךָ 1 K 2), מַרְאַ֫יִךְ Ct 2, and מַרְאָיו the sight of him, Jb 41 (with the י here retained orthographically), מַֽעֲלָיו Ez 40, &c., are still to be explained as singulars.—On a few other examples which may perhaps be thus explained, see § 124 k. Before the plural ending the original termination ay reappears in מְמֻֽחָיִם Is 25 (part. Pu. from מָחָה).

tt 4. Paradigm IV comprises the forms with a changeable vowel (a, b), or a vowel which has already become Š^ewâ (c), in the first syllable, and an unchangeable vowel in the second. With Paradigm c (which, however, for the most part consists merely of forms based on analogy, without biblical parallels) are also connected all the forms which have unchangeable vowels in both syllables, and therefore (like כְּתָב) cannot undergo any vowel changes.

uu Rem. 1. Analogous to פָּקִיד (ground-form păqîd) are § 84^a k, גָּדוֹל, &c. (with ô, not changeable ô for ŭ); in substantives like שָׁלוֹם, this ̂ is demonstrably obscured from â (Arab. sălâm); ibid. k, m, אָסוּר, אָסִיר, &c.; § 85 u, זִכָּרוֹן, constr. זִכְרוֹן; חִזָּיוֹן, constr. חֶזְיוֹן; כִּלָּיוֹן, constr. כִּלְיוֹן (cf., however, the forms in the constr. st. עִצְּבוֹן, קִנְּמוֹן, and with the plural suffix עִזְּבוֹנַ֫יִךְ Ez 27 ff.); § 85 w, חַלָּמִישׁ, constr. חַלְמִישׁ; § 85 l, מָקוֹם, &c.

vv 2. עָנִי (ground-form ʿănîy, stem עָנָה) represents forms in which a final Yôdh has been resolved into î; before formative additions the original Yôdh under the protection of a Dageš forte again becomes audible as a firm consonant, whilst the (originally short) vowel of the first Syllable becomes Š^ewâ; cf. § 84^a l, נָקִי, plur. נְקִיִּים, and § 87 a.

ww 3. כְּתָב with unchangeable â in the second syllable, whilst the Š^ewâ is weakened from a short vowel (Arab. kĭtâb); constr. st. כְּתָֽב־ Est 4 (readings like כְּתַב 2 Ch 35 are incorrect, although יְקַר Est 1 and כְּתַב־ 4 are supported by fairly good authority; however, these q^eṭâl-forms in Hebrew are probably all loan-words from the Aramaic). The only plural form found in the O.T. is עֲבָֽדֵיהֶם their deeds, Ec 9. In a narrower sense the forms enumerated in § 84^a n–p belong to this class; in a wider sense all those which have unchangeable vowels throughout, thus § 84^a u, § 84^b e (קַטָּל, cf., however, the anomalous forms mentioned there), ibid. f–i, m (No. 34 f.), n (No. 39), p (No. 44), also partly § 85 b–w (especially l and r).

xx In opposition to the anomalous shortening of the form קַטָּל (see above), cases are also found where pretonic vowels are retained even in the antepenultima (with the secondary tone); cf. above, ii and pp, also of the form קָטִיל (properly qăṭîl) the examples סָֽרִיסִים, פָּֽרִיצִים, שָֽׁלִישִׁים, whilst the constr. st. sing. according to the rule, changes the ā into S^ewâ (סְרִיס, פְּרִיץ). (These are not to be confounded with forms like עָרִיץ tyrant, which is for עַרִּיץ, and consequently has an unchangeable Qameṣ.) Of the form קָטוּל (qăṭûl) in this class are שָׁבוּעַ week, plur. שָֽׁבֻעִים and שָֽׁבֻעוֹת, constr. שְׁבֻעוֹת, but with Metheg of the secondary tone in the fifth syllable from the end, שָֽׁבֻעֹֽתֵיבֶם.—On מָעוֹז, מָֽעֻזִּי, &c., cf. § 85 k.

§94. Formation of Feminine Nouns.

a 1. The feminine ending ־ָה, when appended to the masculine forms treated in § 93, effects in almost all cases the same changes as are produced in the masculine forms by the addition of a light suffix, since in both cases the tone is moved one place farther forward (see § 92 b). The following scheme is based on the same division into four classes, with their subdivisions, as in § 93; a few special forms will be treated in § 95 in connexion with the paradigms of feminine nouns.

b Paradigm I: segholate forms, with the feminine ending always added to the ground-form, (a) מַלְכָּה queen, כַּבְשָׂ֫ה, and with attenuation of ă to ĭ כִּבְשָׂ֫ה lamb, רִצְפָּה hot stone, Is 6 (from another root רִֽצְפָה; see Baer on Ez 40), חֶזְקָה strength (unless belonging to Paradigm b); (b) סִתְרָה covering (masc. סֵ֫תֶר); עֶדְנָה pleasure (עֵ֫דֶן), not to be confounded with the unchangeable forms with a prefixed מ‍, derived from ל״ה stems, as מִצְוָה command, plur. מִצְו‌ֹת; (c) חֻלְדָּה, proper name (חֹ֫לֶד mole), אָכְלָה food (אֹ֫כֶל); (d) נַֽעֲרָה girl (נַ֫עַר); (f) בָּאְשָׁה weed, טָֽהֳרָה purity (טֹ֫הַר); (g) עַוְלָה wrong (also עוֹלָה, Paradigm i); (i) צֵידָה victuals (masc. צַ֫יִד, cf. Paradigm h); from qiṭl and quṭl-forms, בִּינָה understanding, סוּפָה tempest; (k) אַלְיָה fat tail (as if from אֲלִי), שִׁבְיָה (ă attenuated to ĭ) captivity (שְׁבִי), לִוְיָה wreath (probably an original qiṭl-form); (l) חַיָּה life, מִדָּה measure (attenuated from מַדָּה). Adjectives derived from ע״ע stems also belong in flexion to this class, as רַבָּה multa, with middle guttural רָעָה mala; (m) זִמָּה plan; (n) חֻקָּה statute (חֹק).

c Paradigm II: ground-form qăṭălăt, &c., (a) נְקָמָה vengeance (נָקָם); (b) אֲדָמָה earth; (c) נְבֵלָה corpse; (d) עֲיֵפָה languida; (f) יָפָה beautiful, קָצָה end (from יָפֶה, קָצֶה). From stems ע״וּ arise such forms as עֵדָה (masc. עֵד, properly part. Qal from עוּד) female witness. From the ground-form qătŭl, עֲמֻקָּה profunda (masc. עָמֹק), עֲבֻדָּה servitude, &c.

d Paradigm III: unchangeable vowel in the first, changeable in the second syllable, (a) יֽׄלֵדָה a woman with child (cf. the examples in § 84^a s, and the retention of the ē in the part. Piʿēl, Ex 22, 23; in the Hithpaʿēl 1 K 14), but also with the change of the ē (originally ĭ) into Š^ewâ, יֽשְׁבָה dwelling, Na 3. However, in these participial forms the feminine is mostly indicated by ־ֶת (see below, h); (c) גּוֹלָה those of the captivity (masc. גּוֹלֶה), but also with a return of the final Yôdh, הֹֽמִיָּה clamorous, Pr 7, and the examples in § 75 v. On the â of the participles of verbs ע״וּ, which also belong to this class, such as זָרָה peregrina, cf. § 72 g.

1. On dual endings appended to the plural see § 87 s and § 95 o at the beginning.
2. But for דְּרָכַ֫יִם Pr 28 (which the Masora takes as two roads leading from the cross-ways) דְּרָכִים is to be read.
3. On some remains of obsolete case-endings see § 90.
4. The same phenomenon of the tone may also be easily seen in other languages, when two words are closely connected in a similar way. Observe, for example, in German the natural stress on the last word in ‘der Thron des Königs’; though here the other order of the words (inadmissible in Hebrew) ‘des Königs Thron’ exhibits the same peculiarity.
5. This rule is almost always observed in the Tell-el-Amarna letters (see § 2 f); cf. the instances cited by Barth, l. c., p. 595, from Winckler’s edition.
6. On this meaning of the accusative see the Syntax, § 118 d, and cf. the Latin accusative of motion to a place, as in Romam profectus est, domum reverti, rus ire.
7. הָאֹֽהֱלָ֫ה in Baer’s text, Gn 18, is an error, according to his preface to Isaiah, p. v.
8. Brockelmann, Sem. Sprachwiss., p. 113, also takes it as such, láylā being properly at night, then night simply. Barth, however (Sprachwiss. Abhandlungen, p. 16, note 1), refers it to an original לַיְלֶה, like אָנָה from אָנֶ֫ה.
9. The form clings also to a few place-names, as גֻּדְגֹּ֫דָה Dt 10; שָׁלִ֫שָׁה 1 S 9, 2 K 4; קְהֵלָ֫תָה Nu 33 f.; יָטְבָּ֫תָה verse 33 f.; תִּמְנָ֫תָה Jos 19, &c.; אֶפְרָ֫תָה Mi 5, &c.]
10. Cf. Sarauw, ‘Der hebr. Lokativ,’ ZA. 1907, p. 183 ff. He derives the ־ָה from the adverbs שָׁ֫מָּה, אָ֫נָה and holds that it has nothing whatever to do with the old accusative.
11. So Qimḥi, and the Mant. ed. (Baer הַשַֹּׁ֫עְרָה), i.e. locative from שַׂ֫עַר (Is 7). The reading הַשַּֽׂעֲרָה (Opit., Ginsb.) implies a feminine in ־ָה.
12. Cf. the list in L. Kaila, Zur Syntax des in verbaler Abhängigkeit stehenden Nomens im alttest. Hebr., Helsingfors, 1906, p. 54.
13. The name שְׁמוּאֵל formerly regarded as a compound of שְׁמוּ=שֵׁם name and אֵל, is better explained with Prätorius, ZDMG. 1903, p. 777, as a name of affection, for שְׁמוּעַ אֵל=יִשְׁמָעֵאל [but see Driver on 1 S 1]; similarly, according to Prätorius, פְּתוּאֵל=פְּתוּחַ אֵל and many others.
14. Cf. Kaila, l. c., p. 59 ff.
15. Also in Jer 15 read (according to § 61 h, end) כֻּלְּהֶם קִלְּלוּנִי; in Ho 7 probably אַפְּהֶם for אֹֽפֵהֶם.
16. In the papyrus of the decalogue from the Fayyûm, line 16, ויקדשיו occurs for ויקדשהו Ex 20. Gall, ZAW. 1903, p. 349, takes this as an indication that the traditional forms of the noun-suffix יו or ו represent aiŭ or eŭ. P. Haupt aptly compares the Greek use of the iota subscript (ᾷ).
17. So in the Mêša‛ inscription, l. 22 מגדלתה its towers (along with שעריה its gates). Can it have been the rule to omit י after the termination ôth? Cf. below, n.
18. See an analogous case in § 87 s. Cf. also the double feminine ending in the 3rd sing. perf. of verbs ל״ה, § 75 i.
19. The participles Niphʿal נִדַּֽחֲךָ Dt 30, נִדְּחוֹ 2 S 14, and some plurals of the participle Niph. of verbs ל״א form an exception; cf. § 93 oo.
20. For the rare exceptions see § 93 l and § 97 f, note 2.
21. A sort of detailed commentary on the following scheme of Hebrew declensions is supplied by E. König in his Hist.-krit. Lehrgeb. der hebr. Spr., it. 1, p. 1 ff.
22. According to P. Haupt ‘The book of Nahum’ in the Journ. of bibl. Lit., 1907, p. 29, the e in סֵ֫פֶר and the o in קֹ֫דֶשׁ are not long but accented, and hence to be pronounced σέφρ, ὄζν (אֹ֫זֶן), a theory unknown at any rate to the Jewish grammarians.
23. According to M. Lambert, REJ. 1896, p. 21, a tends to remain with labials; so in 14 cases out of 22 masculines, and in 3 out of 6 feminines.
24. Probably only a theory of one particular school and not generally accepted, or at any rate not consistently carried out; cf. König, Lehrgeb., ii. 22.
25. The proposal of Haupt (SBOT. ‘Proverbs’, p. 34, l. 44 ff.) to read בֵּאר, זֵאב, &c., does not seem to be warranted. The case here is quite different from that in Pr 1 where the Masora requires תְּאֵֽהֲבוּ, no doubt on the analogy of בְּאֵר, &c., for תֵּֽאהֲבוּ, which was probably intended, see § 63 m.
26. Nöldeke, Beiträge, p. 58: the direct or indirect retention of this ו is hardly a feature of early Hebrew. The true Hebrew forms from קָצֶה would be קְצֵה, קָצוֹת, קְצוֹת, the aramaizing forms קָצָה, קְצָת, קְצָווֹת.
27. חֵי only in Dn 12 as constr. st., since in the asseverative formulae (cf. § 149) חֵי פַרְעֹה, חֵי נַפְשְׁךָ (otherwise only in 2 S 15, after חַי יהוה, and Amos 8), חֵי is a contracted form of the absol. st. (prop. living is Pharaoh! &c.). It is evidently only a rabbinical refinement which makes the pronunciation חַי distinctive of an oath by God (or of God by himself), as in the regular formulae חַי אָ֫נִי (חַי אָֽנֹכִי Dt 32) and חַי יְהֹוָה (=חַי אֲדֹנָי).
28. מְקַדְשֵׁיהֶם Ez 7 for מִקְדְּשׁ׳ (from מִקְדָּשׁ) is wholly irregular; perhaps, however, the part. Piʿēl is intended, without Dageš in the ד (according to § 20 m).
29. Brockelmann, Grundriss, p. 659, observes that except in 2 Ch 5, 35 הַנִּמְצְאִים is always followed by a preposition governing a word, so that the punctuators perhaps intended to indicate a sort of constr. st.