User:Ubufox/9

e Paradigm IV: originally changeable vowel in the first syllable, unchangeable in the second, (a) גְּדֹלָה magna, חֲסִידָה stork, properly pia; בְּתוּלָה virgin, properly seiuncta; (b) עֲנִיָה misera.

f 2. A simple ת is added as feminine ending in forms like בְּכִית weeping (masc. בְּכִי, § 93 x, a), בְּרִית covenant; but feminine participles of verbs ל״א, as יׄצֵאת, מֹצֵאת, may be due to contraction from yôṣèʾet, &c. (hardly to lengthening of the ĭ in the ground-form môṣi), whilst forms like מֽוֹצְאֵת, נֽשְֹׁאֵת (see § 74 i) are to be explained on the analogy of the forms treated in § 93 t. Apart from the ל״ה formations, we find the simple ת in the participle מְשָׁרַת 1 K 1, contracted from מְשָׁרַתְתְּ. But וְיׄלַדְתְּ Gn 16, Ju 13 is the ground-form of the ptcp. וְיׄלֶ֫דֶת (as in the same connexion in Gn 17, Is 7), cf. § 80 d and the Q^ere שַׁבְתְּ, &c., discussed in § 90 n.

g The forms which arise by appending the ת feminine to masculine nouns with a changeable vowel in a closed final syllable are, as a rule, developed exactly in the same way as masculine segholate forms. Thus there arise in Paradigm I (a) from גְּבַרְתְּ (for original g^ebirt; § 69 c), the form גְּבֶ֫רֶת mistress (but only in construct st.; in Is 47 also גְּבֶ֫רֶת עַד are to be taken together; the absolute st. is גְּבִירָה); from מְלַכְתְּ, מְלֶ֫כֶת queen (in Paradigm II, a); פְּחֶ֫תֶת (פְּ֫חַת = פַּ֫חַת pit) Lv 13; (c) גָּדֵר wall, גְּדֶ֫רֶת (from גְּדַרְתְּ = g^edirt; cf. זְקַן as construct st. of זָקֵן); on the other hand, חֲמֵ֫שֶׁת is construct st. of חֲמִשָּׁה five, with lengthening of the original ĭ of חֲמִשְׁתְּ.

h Formations with a changeable ō in the second syllable belonging to this class are נְח֫שֶׁת bronze (from נְחֻשְׁתְּ), כְּתֹ֫נֶת the constr. st. of כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת coat, perhaps also כְּתֹ֫בֶת writing (unless it be obscured from כְּתָב, § 93, Paradigm IV, c).—Paradigm III, (a) חֹתֶ֫מֶת (from חֹתַמְתְּ), masc. חוֹתָם seal; (b) יוֹנֶ֫קֶת (properly sucking) sprout (in pause, e.g. חֹבָ֫רֶת Ex 26, &c.), and so most feminines of participles קֹטֵל. On this transition of the ground-form qôṭilt to קֹטַלְתְּ (regularly before suffixes in יֽוֹנַקְתּוֹ, יֽׄלַדְתּוֹ, &c.), cf. § 69 c; qôṭalt serves as the ground-form under the influenee of a guttural as well as before suffixes, e.g. יׄדַ֫עַת, feminine of יׄדֵעַ knowing; in a wider sense, גֻּלְגּׄ֫לֶת skull may also be included here, see § 95, Paradigm IV, c.

On the endings וּת and ־ִית, see § 86 k, l, § 95 at the end.

§95. Paradigms of Feminine Nouns.

a In accordance with the general formative laws, stated in § 92 b–k, the following cases have chiefly to be considered in the flexion of feminines also: (1) a tone-lengthened vowel on the removal of the tone reverts to its original shortness (thus the ā of the termination ־ָה becomes again ā in the construct st. ־ַת). On the other hand, even an originally short vowel is retained as (a long) pretonic vowel before the endings ־ָה and וֹת in the abs. st., e.g. צְדָקָה; (2) without the tone or foretone an originally short vowel almost always becomes Š^ewâ; on the other hand, before a vowel which had thus become Šewâ the ă in the first syllable which had hitherto also been reduced to Š^ewâ returns, although usually attenuated to ĭ, e.g. צִדְקַת from ṣădhăqăth; (3) in the plural of the feminines of segholate forms before the termination of וֹת or ־ִים, and in formations of the latter kind also before the light suffixes, a pretonic Qameṣ reappears, while the short vowel of the first syllable becomes Š^ewâ. This short vowel, however, returns in the construct st. plur., whether ending in וֹת or ־ֵי; in formations of the latter kind also before the grave suffixes.

The following Paradigms (with the exception of I, d) deal only with such of the forms treated in § 94 as incur some vowel changes or other. All forms with unchangeable vowels follow the analogy of Paradigm I, d.

b

	I.
	a.	b.		c.	d.	e.
Sing. absolute	מַלְכָּה	[כִּלְיָה]	הֶרְפָּה	חָרְבָּה	חֻקָּה	[גְּבִירָה]
	(queen)	(kidney)	(reproach)	(waste)	(statute)	(mistress)
Sing. construct	מַלְכַּח		חֶרְפַּת	חָרְבַּת	חֻקַּת	גְּבֶ֫רֶת
Sing. with light suff.	מַלְכָּתִי		חֶרְפָּתִי	חָרְבָּתִי	חֻקָּתִי	גְּבִרְתִּי
Sing. with grave suff.	מַלְכַּתְכֶם		חֶרְפַּתְכֶם	חָרְבַּתְכֶם	חֻקַּתְכֶם	נְּבִרְתְּכֶם
Plur. absolute	מְלָכוֹת	כְּלָיוֹת	חֲרָפוֹת	חֳרָבוֹת	תֻקּוֹת
Plur. construct	מַלְכוֹת	כִּלְיוֹת	חֶרְפּוֹת^[1]	חָרְבוֹת	חֻקּוֹת
Plur. with suff.	מַלְכוֹתַי	כִּלְיוֹתַי		חָרְבוֹתַי	חֻקּוֹתַי
Dual absolute			רִקְמָתַ֫יִם (a double piece of embroidery)			מְצִלְתַּ֫יִם (cymbals)

c

	II.			III.
	a.	b.	c.	a.	b.
Sing. absolute	צְרָקָה	זְעָקָה	שָׁנָה	יוֹנֶ֫קֶת	גֻּלְגֹּ֫לֶת
	(righteousness)	(outcry)	(year)	(sprout)	(skull)
Sing. construct	צִדְקַת	זַֽעֲקַת	שְׁנַת	יוֹנֶ֫קֶת	גֻּלְגֹּ֫לֶת
Sing. with light suff.	צִדְקָתִי	זַֽעֲקָתִי	שְׁנָתִי	יֽוֹנַקְתִּי	גֻּלְגָּלְתִּי
Sing. with grave suff.	צִדְקַתְכֶם	זַֽעֲקַתְכֶם	שְׁנַתְכֶם	יֽוֹנַקְתְּכֶם	גֻּלְגָּלְתְּכֶם
Plur. absolute	צְרָקוֹת		^[2]שָׁנוֹת	[יֽוֹנְקוֹת]
Plur. construct	צִדְקוֹת		שְׁנוֹת	יֽוֹנְקוֹת	גֻּלְגְּלוֹת
Plur. with suff.	צִדְקוֹתַי		שְׁנוֹתַי	יֽוֹנְקוֹתַי	גֻּלְגְּלוֹתַי
Dual absolute	[נְחֻשְׁתַּ֫יִם]		שְׂפָתַ֫יִם
	(fetters of brass)		(lips)
Dual construct			שִׂפְתֵי

Remarks.

d 1. Paradigm I: feminines of segholate forms. (a) The locative of this class has the form גִּבְעָ֫תָה towards Gibeah (masc. גֶּ֫בַע). In some cases, especially with an initial guttural, there is no means of deciding whether the form in question is to be referred to a qăṭl or a qĭṭl base, e.g. חֶזְקָה strength (cf. חֶרְפָּה under b). A dual of this form occurs in שִׁבְעָתַ֫יִם seven times (cf. שֶׁ֫בַע seven, fem.). Analogous to masculine forms like דְּבַשׁ (§ 93 s) is הֲדַסָּה myrtle.—From masculines of the form פְּרִי (ל״ה, cf. § 93 I, k) arise feminines sometimes like גַּֽאֲוָה, שַׁלְוָה, אַלְיָה (see above, § 94 b), sometimes like בְּכִית (§ 94 f); occasionally the final ת is retained before the plural ending, as if it belonged to the stem (cf. § 87 k), e.g. חֲנִיתוֹת spears. Forms like גְּדִיָּה (cf. אֳנִיָּה, a qŭṭl form) are derived directly from the masculine forms גְּדִי kid, אֳנִי, a fleet.—(b) From a stem ע״ן, חִטָּה wheat (for חִנְטָה), plur. חִטִּים.—(c) From עָרְלָה foreskin, the plur. absol. is עֲרָלוֹת (cf. פְּעָלִים, § 93, Paradigm I, f), constr. עָרְלוֹת.—(d) Example of a feminine segholate form from a stem ע״ע (ground-form qŭṭl, like חַיָּה of the form qăṭl,, זִטָּה of the form qĭṭl), with ŏ for ŭ, חָגָּא terror, Is 19 (Aramaic orthography for חָגָּה).

e (e) To the list of segholate forms with ת fem. belong also the infinitives of verbs פ״ו and פ״ן, which have rejected the weak consonant at the beginning, as שֶ֫בֶת (from יָשַׁב), דַּ֫עַת (from יָדַע), גֶּ֫שֶׁת (from נָגַשׁ), as well as קַ֫חַת (from לָקַח); cf. § 69 m and § 66 b and g. The infinitives of verbs פ״ו are, however, also found in the form דֵּעָה, לֵדָה, צֵאָה, and of the same origin also are עֵדָה congregation (from יָעַד), עֵצָה counsel (from יָעַץ), שֵׁנָה sleep (from יָשֵׁן), constr. עֲדַת, שְׁנַת, while in the constr. forms זֵעַת sweat, Gn 3 (from יָזַע to flow), and צֵאַת excrement, Ez 4, the Ṣere has remained firm.

f From a stem ע״וּ (cf. בּוֹשׁ to be ashamed) is בּ֫שֶׁת shame, with suffix בָּשְׁתִּי. From a stem ל״ה (דָּלָה, cf., however, Barth, ZDMG. 1887, p. 607, who assumes a stem ידל) the masculine דַּל appears to have been formed after the rejection of the final Yôdh, and afterwards the feminine דֶּ֫לֶת door; but in the plural דְּלָתוֹת, constr. דַּלְתוֹת, the ת of the termination is retained (see above, d, חֲנִיתוֹת). In a similar way רְפָתִים stalls, Hb 3, has arisen, if it is from the stem רפה, and שֹׁקֶת trough (from שָׁקָה), of which the masc. must have been שֹׁק = שֳׁקִי; on the other hand, the plur. constr. שִֽׁקֲתוֹת Gn 30 (again retaining the feminine ת as an apparent radical) can only be an abnormal formation from the singular שֹׁ֫קֶת, not from a kindred form שֶׁ֫קֶת or שֵׁ֫קֶת.

g 2. Paradigm II: ground-form qăṭălăt, &c., cf. § 94 c, Paradigm II, a and b. Analogous to the masculine forms like קָטָן, plur. קְטַנִּים, we find קְטַנָּה parva, &c.—The constr. forms, like צִדְקַת (ṣidh^eqăth), are distinguished by the vocal Š^ewâ (§ 10 d) from the segholate forms, like כִּבְשַּׂת (kibh-săth). Consequently the constr. st. בִּרְכַּה Gn 28, &c. (from בְּרָכָה blessing), and חֶרְדַּת 1 S 14, &c. (from חֲרָדָה a trembling), are abnormal.—Under the influence of a guttural (see Paradigm b) the original ă is retained in the first syllable in the constr. st. (cf. also אֲדָמָה earth, אַדְמַת); in other cases it is modified to S^eghôl, e.g. עֲגָלָה wagon, עֶגְלָתוֹ. Frequently from an absol. st. in ־ָה the constr. is formed with the termination ת, e.g. עֲטָרָה crown, constr. עֲטֶ֫רֶת (from עֲטַרְתְּ); along with עֲצָרָה assembly, עֲצֶ֫רֶת is found usually, even in the absol. st.; יְבֶ֫מֶת (from יָבָם levir) before suffixes is pointed as in יְבִמְתִּי, and thus entirely agrees with גְּבֶ֫רֶת (Paradigm I e). From a stem (אָמַן) ל״ן is formed אֱמֶת truth (from ʾaɨmant, and this no doubt for an original ʾămint, § 69 c) before suffixes אֲמִתִּי, &c.

h From the masc. form קָטֵל (qăṭĭl) are formed, according to rule, גְּדֵרָה wall, נְבֵלָה corpse, constr. נִבְלַת; בְּהֵמָה cattle, constr. בֶּֽהֱמַת (for בַּֽהֲמַת), with suffix בְּהֶמְתְּךָ Lv 19. More frequently, however, the ē of the second syllable is retained before the termination ath of the constr. st.; thus from נְבֵלָה once נְבֵֽלָתִי Is 26, and always בְּרֵכַת pool, גְּזֵלַת prey, טְמֵאַת unclean, מְלֵֽאֲתִי full, Is 1 (with Ḥireq compaginis, see § 90 l), מְרֵֽרָתִי Jb 16; שְׁאֵֽלָתִי 1 S 1, &c. (with elision of the א, שֵֽׁלָתֵךְ 1 S 1), also שֶֽׁאֱלָתִי Jb 6. Cf. the analogous forms of the constr. st. מַגֵּפַת plague, תַּרְדֵּמַת deep sleep, from מַגֵּפָה, תַּרְדֵּמָה.

i As dual we find יַרְכָתַ֫יִם sides (cf. יַרְכָתוֹ Gn 49, from the obsolete יְרֵכָה, feminine of יָרֵךְ); the constr. st. יַרְכְּתֵי is perhaps to be referred to a segholate form (יַרְכָּה, cf. יֶ֫רֶךְ as constr. st. of יָרֵךְ), unless the closed syllable be due to the analogy of בִּרְכַּת and חֶרְדַּת (see g).

k In the forms with simple ת feminine the ground-form qăṭĭlt is developed (§ 69 c) to q^eṭalt, and this again regularly to קְטֶ֫לֶת. Thus the feminine of הָבֵר companion is חֲבֶ֫רֶת (with suffix חֲבֶרְתָּהּ Mal 2, cf. שְׁכֶנְתָּהּ Ex 3), of גָּדֵר fem. גְּדֶ֫רֶת besides גְּדֵרָה.—Of ע״וּ stems the segholate forms נַ֫חַת rest and שַׁ֫חַת pit (from נוּחַ, שׁוּחַ) belong to this class; Böttcher (Gram. i. 411) rightly distinguished the latter from שַׁ֫חַת corruption (stem שָׁחַת); in the same way also נַ֫חַת rest is distinct from נַ֫חַת a lighting down (stem נָחַת).

l The feminines of the form qăṭĭl from stems ע״וּ, as מֵתָה mortua, עֵדָה fem. witness (from מוּת, עוּד), have likewise an unchangeable vowel in the first syllable. Cf., on the other hand, the forms from פ״י stems mentioned above, under e, such as שֵׁנָה sleep, constr. st. שְׁנַת ; moreover, חֵמָה anger, constr. st. חֲמַת (but חֵ֫מֶת a leathern bottle, in pause חֶ֑מֶת [so Baer, Ginsb., but Kittel חֵ׳] Gn 21, constr. st. חֵ֫מַת מַ֫יִם Gn 21, perhaps from a stem חמת).

m The feminines of the form qăṭŭl, like עֲמֻקָּה (masc. עָמֹק), maintain the original ŭ by sharpening the following consonant (cf. § 93 kk); on the other hand, by appending the fem. ת, segholate forms arise like נְח֫שֶׁת, before suff. נְחֻשְׁתָּם, &c. Dual נְהֻשְׁתַּ֫יִם (see Paradigm II a); but cf. נְחָשְׁתִּי La 3.

n A few (aramaising) feminines from ל״ה stems (Paradigm II, c) are found with the ending ăth;, due to the rejection of the final Wāw or Yôdh and contraction of the preceding ă with the ă of the termination ăth; thus מְנָת portion (for mănăyăth or mănăwăth), קְצָת end (also קָצֶה and קָצָה), plur. מְנָיוֹת (constr. st. Neh 12, 13) and מְנָאוֹת (Neh 12); קְצָוֹת Ex 38; cf. 37 and 39 K^eth.; on נֵּֽאָיֹת valleys, see § 93 v.—אוֹת sign (stem אוה) is obscured from אָת, and this is contracted from ʾâyăth = ʾăwăyăth; plur. אֹתוֹת, with the double feminine ending; cf. above, f, and § 87 k.—The retention of the ā in the first syllable in אָֽלָתִי, &c., Gn 24, &c., is abnormal.

o 3. Paradigm III, cf. the various forms in § 94 d and f–h. The dual הֽוֹמֹתַ֫יִם two walls, Is 22, &c., taken directly from the plur. חוֹמוֹת, for חֽוֹמָתַ֫יִם, is abnormal (cf. § 87 s, and the proper name גְּדֵֽרֹתַיִם Jos 15).—Among the forms resembling participles Qal of verbs ע״וּ, such as זָרָה (masc. זָר from zâĭr, hence with unchangeable â), must be reckoned also בָּמָה high place (from בּוּם), which has for its constr. st. plur. the pleonastic form בָּֽמוֹתֵי, or written defectively בָּֽמֹתֵי (see § 87 s); for this the Masora everywhere requires בָּֽמֳתֵי, which is to be read bām^othê (not bŏm^othê), with an anomalous shortening of the ô to ־ֳ; but with suffixes בָּֽמוֹתַי, &c.

p In a wider sense the feminines of the form קַטָּל (§ 84^b e) belong to this class, in so far as they shorten the â of the second syllable before the termination ת, e.g. דַּלֶּ֫קֶת inflammation (from dallăqt), with suff. צַדֶּקְתֵּךְ Ez 16; טַבַּ֫עַת signet; also fem. of the forms קִטַּל and קִטֵּל (§ 84^b c and d), as אִוֶּ֫לֶת folly (for ʾiwwălt), and of all the forms which have a changeable vowel in the second syllable, and are formed with the prefix מ‍ (§ 85 g–k), e.g. מַמְלָכָה kingdom, constr. always מַמְלֶ֫כֶת; מַזְמֵרָה (not used in the sing.) pruning-hook, plur. מַזְמֵרוֹת; מַשְׂכֹּ֫רֶת; reward, with suff. מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי; cf. also the examples given in § 85 g and p, like מוֹלֶ֫דֶת birth (but from ל״א, מֽוֹצָאָה outgoing), תּוֹלֶ֫דֶת generation, תּֽוֹעֵבָה abomination, constr. תּֽוֹעֲבַת, &c.

q Sometimes the plural of these forms is to be traced to a secondary form, e.g. אִגֶּ֫רֶת a letter, plur. אִגְּרוֹת (as if from אִגְּרָה); also יֽוֹנְקוֹת, which is merely formed on the analogy of the other plur. fem. of participles Qal, is to be referred to a sing. יוֹנְקָה. Cf., moreover, מַֽחֲרֶ֫שֶׁת ploughshare, plur. מַֽחֲרֵשׁוֹת (as if from מַֽהֲרֵשָׁה)^[3]; on the other hand, כֹּֽתָרוֹת capitals (of columns), and תּֽוֹכָחוֹת reproofs, are the regular plurals of כֹּתֶ֫רֶת and תּוֹכַ֫חַת.

r In כֻּתּ֫נֶת coat the original ŭ of the first syllable is maintained by the sharpening of the following consonant (cf. Arab. qŭṭŭn), with suff. כֻּתָּנְתִּי, the constr. st., however, is כְּתֹ֫נֶת (as also in the absol. st. in Ex 28); plur. כֻּתֳּנוֹת, constr. כָּתְנוֹת.—The form גֻּלְגֹּ֫לֶת given in Paradigm III, b is a Pŭlpŭl-form of the stem גָּלַל, cf. קָדְקֹד, § 84^b p.

s 4. To the fourth class, for which no Paradigm is required, belong all the numerous forms which in classical Hebrew have unchangeable vowels throughout, the originally short vowel of the first syllable having become Š^ewâ, owing to the tone being thrown forward. Of the forms mentioned in §§ 84 and 85 those from ע״ע stems especially belong to this class, as מְגִלָּה scroll, תְּהִלָּה praise, תְּפִלָּה prayer (§ 85 i and q), as well as the feminine of the participle Hiphʿîl of verbs ע״וּ, e.g. מְאִירָה enlightening (from מֵאִיר), and generally the feminines of ע״וּ stems which are compounded with the preformative מ‍, as מְנוּחָה rest (from מָנוֹחַ), see § 85 l; from ל״ה stems perhaps also תְּעָלָה conduit (constr. st. תְּעָלַת Is 7, &c.) and תְּלָאָה travail. Thus all these forms coincide externally with those which already, in the masculine form, have unchangeable vowels throughout (see the list of them in § 93 ww).

t 5. The feminine ending ־ִית (apart from ל״ה-forms like בְּכִית, § 94 f) arises from the addition of the feminine ת to the ending ־ִי, which is employed to form adjectives, &c., see § 86 d, h, and k. The ending וּת, mentioned there, is attached, in segholate forms, sometimes to the ground-form, as עַשְׁתּוּת Jb 12 (v.l. עַשְׁתּוֹת), sometimes to forms with a loosely-closed syllable, as מַלְכוּת kingdom; from ל״ה stems we find forms sometimes like שְׁבוּת captivity (according to others from the stem שׁוּב, like לְזוּת perverseness from לוּז), sometimes like בָּכוּת weeping, גָּלוּת exile, חָזוּת vision; the latter retain the ā of the first syllable even in the constr. st. and before suffixes. From a qăṭĭl-form is formed כְּבֵדוּת heaviness; from a qăṭîl-form פְּקִדוּת, &c.

u In the plural of these forms different methods of treatment may be distinguished. In some cases the whole ending וּת is retained, as if belonging to the stem (cf. above, f), e.g. אַלְמְנוּתַ֫יִךְ from אַלְמָנוּת, in others this ending is resolved, as in מַלְכֻיּוֹת Dn 8 (no doubt for măl^ekhuwwôth), and עֵֽדְוֺת ʿēdh^ewōth, from עֵדוּת testimony, but only with suffixes, עֵֽדְוֺתֶ֫יךָ ψ 119, &c.; עֵֽדְוֺתָיו 1 K 2, &c.

§96. Nouns of Peculiar Formation.

In the following Paradigms,^[4] pp. 282 to 284, a number of frequently used nouns are arranged, whose flexion presents more or less striking peculiarities. These peculiarities, however, are almost always subordinate to the usual phonetic laws, and the usual designation of the nouns as irregular is, therefore, not justified, when once the ground-forms are properly recognized on which the present forms are based.

Sing. absolute	אָב	אָח	אָחוֹת	אִישׁ	אִשָּׁה
	(father)	(brother)	(sister)	(man)	(woman)
" construct	אֲבִי	אֲחִי	אֲחוֹת	אִישׁ	אֵ֫שֶׁת
" with suff. of 1 sing.	אָבִי	אָחִי	אֲחֹתִי	אִישִׁי	אִשְׁתִּי
" 2 masc.	אָבִ֫יךָ	אָחִ֫יךָ	אֲחֽוֹתְךָ		אִשְׁתְּךָ
" 2 fem.	אָבִיךְ	אָחִיךְ	אֲחוֹתֵךְ	אִישֵׁךְ
" 3 masc.	אָבִיו (אָבִ֫יהוּ)	אָחִיו (אָחִ֫יהוּ)	אֲחֹתוֹ	אִישׁוֹ	אִשְׁתּוֹ
" 3 fem.	אָבִ֫יהָ	אָחִ֫יהָ	אֲחֹתָהּ	אִישָׁהּ
" 1 Pl.	אָבִ֫ינוּ	אָחִ֫ינוּ	אֲחֹתֵ֫נוּ
" 2 masc.	אֲבִיכֶם	אֲחִיכֶם	[אֲחֽוֹתְכֶם]
" 2 fem.	אֲבִיכֶן
" 3 masc.	אֲבִיהֶם	אֲחִיהֶם	אֲחֹתָם
" 3 fem.	אֲבִיהֶן
Plur. absolute.	אָבוֹת	אַחִים		אֲנָשִׁים	נָשִׁים
" construct	אֲבוֹת	אֲחֵי		אַנְשֵׁי	נְשֵׁי
" with suff. of 1 sing.	אֲבֹתַי	אַחַי, pause אֶחָי	אַחְיוֹתַי	אֲנָשַׁי	נָשַׁי
" 2 masc.	אֲבֹתֶ֫יךָ	אַחֶ֫יךָ		אֲנָשֶׁ֫יךָ	נָשֶׁ֫יךָ
" 2 fem.		אַחַ֫יִךְ	אֲחוֹתַ֫יִךְ
" 3 masc.	אֲבֹתָיו	אֶחָיו	אַחְיֹתָיו	אֲנָשָׁיו	נָשָׁיו
" 3 fem.		אַחֶ֫יהָ		אֲנָשֶׁ֫יהָ
" 1 Pl.	אֲבֹתֵ֫ינוּ	אַחֵ֫ינוּ		אֲנָשֵׁ֫ינוּ	נָשֵׁ֫ינוּ
" 2 masc.	אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶם	אֲחֵיכֶם	אֲחֽוֹתֵיכֶם		נְשֵׁיכֶם
" 3 masc.	אֲבֹתָם (אֲבֹֽתֵיהֶם)	אֲחֵיהֶם	אַחְיֹֽתֵיהֶם	אַנְשֵׁיהֶם	נְשֵׁיהֶם
" 3 fem.				אַנְשֵׁיהֶן

Remarks.

אָב father; the constr. אֲבִי, like אֲחִי and בְּנִי (which occurs once), belongs to the connective forms discussed in § 90 k, which serve as the model for the Ḥireq compaginis. However, אַב also occurs in compound proper names, e.g. אַבְשָׁלוֹם, beside אֲבִֽישָׁלוֹם, &c.; also Gn 17 אַב־הֲמוֹן for the purpose of explaining the name אב[ר]הם. On the plur. אָבוֹת see § 87 p.

אָח brother. The plur. absol. אַחִים has Dageš forte implicitum (§ 22 c); אֶחָיו stands for אַחָיו according to the phonetic law stated in § 27 q, and so also אֶחָֽי in pause for אַחָֽי. The sharpening of the ח merely serves to keep the preceding Pathaḥ short, as in גְּמַלִּים, &c. (§ 93 ee).

אֶחָד one (for אַחָד, likewise with Dageš forte implicitum, § 22 c, cf. § 27 q), constr. and otherwise in close connexion, אַחַד, Gn 48, 2 S 17, Is 27,

אָמָה	בַּ֫יִת	בֵּן	בַּת	יוֹם	כְּלִי
(handmaid)	(house)	(son)	(daughter)	(day)	(vessel)
	בֵּית	בֶּן־	בַּת	יוֹם	כְּלִי
אֲמָתִי	בֵּיתִי	בְּנִי	בִּתִּי
אֲמָֽתְךָ	בֵּֽיתְךָ	בִּנְךָ, pause בִּנֶ֫ךָ	בִּתְּךָ, pause בִּתֶּ֫ךָ		כֶּלְיְךָ
	בֵּיתֵךְ	בְּנֵךְ
אֲמָתוֹ	בֵּיתוֹ	בְּנוֹ	בִּתּוֹ	יוֹמוֹ
אֲמָתָהּ	בֵּיתָהּ	בְּנָהּ	בִּתָּהּ
		בְּנֵ֫נוּ
	בֵּֽיתְכֶם		בִּתְּכֶם

	בֵּיתָם			יוֹמָם

אֲמָהוֹת	בָּֽתִּים	בָּנִים	בָּנוֹת	יָמִים	כֵּלִים
אַמְהוֹת	בָּֽתֵּי	בְּנֵי	בְּנוֹת	יְמֵי	כְּלֵי
אַמְהֹתַי		בָּנַי	בְּנֹתַי	יָמַי	כֵּלַי
	בָּֽתֶּ֫יךָ	בָּנֶ֫יךָ	בְּנֹתֶ֫יךָ	יָמֶ֫יךָ	כֵּלֶ֫יךָ
	בָּֽתַּ֫יִךְ	בָּנַ֫יִךְ	בְּנֹתַ֫יִךְ	יָמַ֫יִךְ
אַמְהֹתָיו		בָּנָיו	בְּנֹתָיו	יָמָיו	כֵּלָיו
אַמְהֹתֶ֫יהָ		בָּנֶ֫יהָ	בְּנֹתֶ֫יהָ	יָמֶ֫יהָ	כֵּלֶ֫יהָ
	בָּֽתֵּ֫ינוּ	בָּנֵ֫ינוּ	בְּנֹתֵ֫ינוּ	יָמֵ֫ינוּ	כֵּלֵ֫ינוּ
אַמְהֹֽתֵיכֶם	בָּֽתֵּיכֶם	בְּנֵיכֶם	בְּנֹֽתֵיכֶם	יְמֵיכֶם	כְּלֵיכֶם
	בָּֽתֵּיהֶם	בְּנֵיהֶם	בְּנֹֽתֵיהֶם	יְמֵיהֶם	כְּלֵיהֶם
אַמְהֹֽתֵיהֶן	בָּֽתֵּיהֶן	בְּנֵיהֶן

Zc 11; and especially before מִן (מֵ‍) Gn 3, Ex 30, Nu 16, Ju 17, 1 S 9, Ez 18; fem. אַחַת una (for אַחַדְתְּ, according to § 19 d), in pause אֶחָֽת. Once חַד masc. (by aphaeresis, § 19 h), Ez 33, as in Aramaic; plur. אֲחָדִים some, but also iidem.

אָחוֹת sister, from ʾăḥăwăt or ʾăḥăyăt, with elision of the ו or י, and with the â, which has arisen from ăă, obscured to ô.^[5] In Nu 6 אַחֹתוֹ stands for אֲחֹתוֹ (with virtual sharpening of the ח). The plur. absol. (אֲחָיוֹת) does not happen

[מַי]	עִיר	פֶּה	רֹאשׁ	שֵׁם	[שָׁמַי]
(water)	(city)	(mouth)	(head)	(name)	(heaven)
	עִיר	פִּי	רֹאשׁ	שֵׁם, שֶׁם־
	עִירִי	פִּי	רֹאשִׁי	שְׁמִי
	עִֽירְךָ	פִּ֫יךָ	רֹֽאשְׁךָ	שִׁמְךָ, pause שְׁמֶ֫ךָ
			רֹאשֵׁךְ	שְׁמֵךְ
	עִירוֹ	פִּיו, פִּ֫יהוּ	רֹאשׁוֹ	שְׁמוֹ
	עִירָהּ	פִּ֫יהָ	רֹאשָׁהּ	שְׁמָהּ
		פִּ֫ינוּ	רֹאשֵׁ֫נוּ	שְׁמֵ֫נוּ
		פִּיכֶם	רֹֽאשְׁכֶם	שִׁמְכֶם

	עִירָם	פִּיהֶם	רֹאשָׁם	שְׁמָם
		פִּיהֶן	רֹאשָׁן
מַ֫יִם	עָרִים	פִּיּוֹת	רָאשִׁים	שֵׁמוֹת	שָׁמַ֫יִם
מֵי, מֵימֵי	עָרֵי		רָאשֵׁי	שְׁמוֹת	שְׁמֵי
מֵימַי	עָרַי
מֵימֶ֫יךָ	עָרֶ֫יךָ				שָׁמֶ֫יךָ
	עָרַ֫יִךְ
מֵימָיו	עָרָיו		רָאשָׁיו		שָׁמָיו
מֵימֶ֫יהָ	עָרֶ֫יהָ		רָאשֶׁ֫יהָ
מֵימֵ֫ינוּ	עָרֵ֫ינוּ		רָאשֵׁ֫ינוּ
	עָֽרֵיכֶם		רָֽאשֵׁיכֶם		שְׁמֵיכֶם
מֵֽימֵיהֶם	עָֽרֵיהֶם		רָֽאשֵׁיהֶם	שְׁמוֹתָם
			רָֽאשֵׁיהֶן	שְׁמוֹתָן

to occur. In Ez 16 אַֽחֲיוֹתֵךְ occurs (for אַחְיֹתַ֫יִךְ). In the forms אֲחוֹתַי Jos 2 K^eth., אֲחוֹתַ֫יִךְ Ez 16 (to be read also in verse 45 for אֲחוֹתֵךְ, which has been erroneously assimilated to the singular occurring in vv. 48, 49, 56), and אֲחֽוֹתֵיכֶם Ho 2 (for which, however, read אֲחֽוֹתְכֶם), the third radical has been entirely lost.

אִישׁ man, according to the common opinion either incorrectly lengthened for אֵשׁ (from ʾišš, with assimilation of the Nûn of the ground-form ʾinš, which again has been attenuated from ʾanš from the stem אָנַשׁ), or softened directly from ʾinš. It is, however, probable that a separate stem (אישׁ to be strong?) is to be assumed for the singular^[6]; consequently the stem אָנַשׁ to be sociable, would be connected only with the plur. אֲנָשִׁים (אִישִׁים is found only in Is 53, ψ 141, Pr 8).

אָמָה slave, handmaid; with the plur. אֲמָהוֹת, with consonantal ה, cf. in Aram. אֲבָהָן fathers, and similarly in Phoen. דלהת from דלת, also Arab. ʾabahât (fathers), ʾummahât (mothers), with an artificial expansion into a triliteral stem.

אִשָּׂה woman, probably for אִנְשָׁה; from אָנַשׁ i.e. not (as Aram. אִתְּתָא shows) אָנַשׁ to be sociable (see above, on אִישׁ) but אָנַשׁ to be weak (Arab. ʾănŭṯă). So De Lagarde, Uebersicht, p. 68; König, Lehrgeb., ii. 159 f. The form אֵ֫שֶׁת (for ʾišt, with ת fem., from ʾišš, after rejection of the doubling and lengthening of the ĭ to ē) occurs in Dt 21, 1 S 28, ψ 58, even in absol. st. [cf., however, below, § 130. 4, 5].—In ψ 128 אֶשְׁתְּךָ is found for אִשְׁתְּךָ. Instead of the plur. נָשִׁים, we find in Ez 23 אִשֹּׁת.^[7]

בַּ֫יִת house, locative בַּ֫יְתָה, הַבַּ֫יְתָה, in pause בָּ֫יְתָה, הַבָּ֫יְתָה, constr. בֵּ֫יתָה, plur. בָּֽתִּים (but in Dt 6, 1 Ch 28 בָּתִּים without Metheg), pronounced bâttîm. The explanation of the Dageš in the ת is still a matter of dispute. The Syriac bâttîn, however, shows that the Dageš is original, and belongs to the character of the form.^[8] According to Wright, Comparative Grammar, p. 88, בָּֽתִּים is simply contracted from bai-tîm (as אָן from אַ֫יִן, עֵינָם from עֵינָיִם, &c.), and the Dageš, therefore, is lene; König, Lehrgeb., ii. 56, proposes the name Dageš forte orthoconsonanticum; on the other hand Rahlfs, ThLZ. 1896, col. 587, suggests that the י is assimilated to the ת, while Philippi, ZDMG. xlix, p. 206, assumes for the plural a stem distinct from that of the singular. A definite solution is at present impossible. The incorrectness of the formerly common pronunciation bottîm is sufficiently shown by the Babylonian punctuation (see § 8 g, note 3), which leaves no doubt as to the â.

בֵּן son (Gn 30 בֵּֽן־שִׁשִּׁי) constr. usually בֶּן־ (also with a conjunctive accent as an equivalent for Maqqeph, Gn 17, Is 8, &c., 1 Ch 9; even with smaller disjunctives, especially in the combination מִבֶּן, Ex 30, Lv 27, &c. [מִבֶּן־ only after וְאִם and before חֹ֫דֶשׁ, also in Is 51; see Strack on Ex 30]), rarely בִּן־ (Dt 25, Jon 4 twice, Pr 30, and so always in the combination בִּן־נוּן, and in the proper names בִּנְיָמִין [but בֶּן־יִמִינִי Benjamite] and בִּן־יָקֶה Pr 30), once בְּנִי (cf. § 90 l) Gn 49, and בְּנוֹ (§ 90 o) Nu 23, 24.—In Gn 49 בֵּן, for which בֶּן־ ought to be read, is intended by the Masora for the absol. st., not the constr. בַּת daughter (from bant, and this again, according to the law stated in § 69 c, for bint, fem. of בֵּן), with suff. בִּתִּי for בִּנְתִּי. Plur. בָּנוֹת, from the sing. בָּנָה, comp. בָּנִים sons.

חָם husband’s father, only with suff. חָמִיךְ, חָמִ֫יהָ; and חָמוֹת husband’s mother, only with suff. חֲמוֹתֵךְ, חֲמוֹתָהּ. Cf. אָב, אָח, and especially אָחוֹת.

יוֹם day (Arab. yaum),^[9] dual יוֹמַ֫יִם; the plur. יָמִים is probably from a different sing. (יָם yām), constr. יְמֵי and (poetically) יְמוֹת, Dt 32, ψ 90.

כְּלִי vessel, in pause כֶּ֫לִי (with suff. כֶּלְיְךָ Dt 23) from כָּלָה to contain, plur. כֵּלִים (as if from כֵּל, כֵּ֫לֶה; according to König, ii. 63, shortened from kilyîm).

מַ֫יִם water; on the plur. cf. § 88 d.

עִיר city. The plur. עָרִים is scarcely syncopated from עֲיָרִים, as it is pointed in Ju 10 (no doubt erroneously, in imitation of the preceding עֲיָרִים ass colts), but from a kindred sing. עָר, which still occurs in proper names.

פֶּה mouth, constr, st. פִּי (for original פֵּי = פֵּה?). Its origin is still disputed. According to Gesenius and König (ii. 103), פֶּה stands for פֵּאֶה (ground-form piʿay) from פָּאָה to breathe, to blow; according to Olshausen, for פַּי, from a stem פָּיָה or פָּוָה. But parallel with the Hebrew פֶּה are Assyr. pû, Arab. fû, fam, famm, fumm, bibl. Aram. פֻּם, פֻּמָּא, Syr. pûm, pûmā, so that Barth, ZDMG. xli, p. 634, assumes two forms of development from the same stem (פמו), viz. fm and fw. פִּי my mouth, from pi-y; for פִּיהֶם we find in ψ 17, 58, 59 פִּ֫ימוֹ. The supposed plur. פִּים 1 S 13 is generally explained as a contraction from פִּיִּים, but the text is altogether corrupt. The plur. פִּיּוֹת, for the edges of a sword, occurs in Pr 5; reduplicated פִּֽיפִיוֹת Is 41, ψ 149.

רֹאשׁ head (obscured from רָאשׁ=răʾš); plur. רָאשִׁים (for רְאָשִׁים, § 23 c); רֹאשָׁיו only in Is 15.

שֶׂה a head of small cattle (sheep or goat), constr. st. שֵׂה, with suff. שְׂיֵ֫הוּ 1 S 14 and שֵׂיוֹ Dt 22, according to König, ii. 131, from a ground-form siʾay, but according to De Lagarde, Uebersicht, 81 f., from a stem ושי (שֶׂה=say=wĭsay).

שֵׁם name, constr. generally שֵׁם (only six times שֶׁם־); cf. בֵּן.

שָׁמַ֫יִם heaven (§ 88 d).

§97. Numerals. (a) Cardinal Numbers.

Brockelmann, Sem. Sprachwiss., p. 116 ff.; Grundriss, i. 484 ff.

a 1. The formation of the cardinal numbers from 3 to 10 (on 1 and 2 see below) has this peculiarity, that numerals connected with a masculine substantive take the feminine form, and those with a feminine substantive take the masculine form. The common explanation of this strange phenomenon used to be that the primary form of the numeral was an abstract noun in the feminine (cf. § 122 p). This was originally attached in the constr. st. to the word qualified, then came to be also used in apposition to it, and finally was placed after it like an adjective. The consequence of the appositional, and finally adjectival, construction was, that for numerals connected with feminine nouns a special shorter form came to be used, whilst the original forms, with the abstract feminine ending, were used in connexion with masculine nouns, after as well as before them.

On this view the historical process would have been that originally the abstract numerals (like Latin trias, decas, Greek πεντάς, δεκάς, &c.) were placed in the constr. st. before masculines and feminines alike, e.g. שְׁל֫שֶׁת בָּנִים trias filiorum, עֲשֶׂ֫רֶת נָשִׁים decas mulierum. A trace of this earlier usage was seen in the examples mentioned under c, like שְׁל֫שֶׁת נָשִׁים.—Further, it was possible to say שְׁלשָׁה בָנִים trias, sc. filii, as well as בָּנִים שְׁלשָׁה filii, trias. From this second appositional construction it was only a step to the treatment of the abstract numeral as an adjective, filii tres. Similarly the subsequently shortened forms of the abstract numeral, which were used in connexion with feminines, might stand either in the constr. st. before, or in apposition before or after the word numbered, thus שְׁלשׁ בָּנוֹת trias filiarum, or שָׁלשׁ בָּנוֹת trias, sc. filiae, or בָּנוֹת שָׁלשׁ filiae, trias, or adjectivally filiae tres.

A different and much more intelligible explanation of the striking disagreement between the gender of the numeral and that of the word numbered has recently been given by Reckendorf, Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen, pt. ii, Leiden, 1898, p. 265 ff. He also considers that the earliest forms were abstract numerals which were placed in the constr. st. before the noun numbered, the latter depending on them in the genitive. The original form, however, of the abstract numerals from 3 to 9 is not the feminine, but the masculine, used for both genders, as it still is in the tens, 20, 30, &c. The feminine abstract numeral was first distinguished by a special form in the numbers from 13 to 19 (see further, below) when connected with masculines, and this distinction was afterwards extended to the numbers from 3 to 10. This explanation does not affect the view stated above that the appositional and adjectival use of the abstract numerals was only adopted later in addition to their use in the genitive construction.

The differentiation of the numerals (originally of common gender) into masculine and feminine forms in the second decade, was occasioned, according to Reckendorf, by the use of the abstract feminine עֶשְׂרֵה in compounds. So long as it was felt that שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה simply meant the three of the decade, the gender of the noun numbered made no difference. When, however, the consciousness of this meaning became weakened and the combination of units and tens came to be felt as a copulative rather than a genitive relation, it seemed suitable to connect only feminine nouns with the feminine form עֶשְׂרֵה. New forms were therefore invented, both of the units and the tens, for use with masculine nouns. The former, however, no longer had the form of the constr. but of the absolute state, clearly showing that the consciousness of the original syntactical relation in שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, &c., was lost. On the other hand, after the extension of these new formations to the first decade, the new feminine forms readily came to be used also in the genitive construction (and therefore in the constr. st.) on the analogy of the earlier masculine forms.

Of the first two numerals, אֶחָד, one, with its fem. אַחַת (see § 96), may be recognized, from its form and use, as an adjective, although even so it admits of such combinations as אַחַד הֶֽהָרִים unus e montibus. The numeral two, as would be expected, appears as an abstract in the dual, but, like the other numerals, can also stand in apposition to the noun numbered. In form it always agrees with the gender of its noun. Accordingly, the numerals from 1 to 10 are as follows:

b

	With the Masculine.		With the Feminine.
	Absol.	Constr.	Absol.	Constr.
1.	אֶחָד	אַחַד	אַחַת	אַחַת
2.	שְׁנַ֫יִם	שְׁנֵי	^[10]שְׁתַּ֫יִם	שְׁתֵּי
3.	שְׁלשָׁה	שְׁל֫שֶׁת	שָׁלשׁ	שְׁלשׁ
4.	אַרְבָּעָה	אַרְבַּ֫עַת	אַרְבַּע	אַרְבַּע
5.	^[11]חֲמִשָּׁה	חֲמֵ֫שֶׁת	חָמֵשׁ	חֲמֵשׁ
6	שִׁשָּׁה	שֵׁ֫שֶׁת	שֵׁשׁ	שֵׁשׁ
7.	שִׁבְעָה	שִׁבְעַת	שֶׁ֫בַע	^[12][שְׁבַע]
8.	שְׁמֹנָה	שְׁמֹנַת	שְׁמֹנֶה	שְׁמֹנֶה
9.	תִּשְׁעָה	תִּשְׁעַת	תֵּ֫שַׁע	^[3][תְּשַׁע]
10.	עֲשָׂרָה	עֲשֶׂ֫רֶת	עֶ֫שֶׂר	עֶ֫שֶׂר

On the connective forms שְׁבַע, תְּשַׁע, cf. the analogous forms in § 93 h.

c The other Semitic languages also exhibit the same peculiarity in the external differentiation of the numerals from 3 to 10 as regards gender. The fem. form of the numeral abstracts is only rarely found in connexion with feminine nouns,^[13] e.g. שְׁל֫שֶׁת נָשִׁים Gn 7, 1 S 10, Jb 1, Ez 7 K^eth.; probably also Jos 17, where we should read with Dillmann שׁ׳ הַגָּפּוֹת. In apposition, Zc 3, 4, cf. Jer 36. From what was said above, under a, it follows that these cases are not a return to original usage, but only an intrusion of the form used before masculines into the sphere of the feminine. Conversely in Gn 38 שְׁלשׁ חֳדָשִׁים (but in the Samaritan שְׁל֫שֶׁת).—For שִׁבְעָה seven, there occurs in Jb 42 the strange form שִׁבְעָ֫נָה, according to Ewald [Ausführl, Lehrb.⁸, § 269 b] an old feminine substantive (German ein Siebend, a set of seven), but more probably a scribal error.

d 2. The numerals from 11 to 19 are formed by placing the units, without the copula, before the number ten (in the form עָשָׂר masc., עֶשְׂרֵה fem.), but without the two words being joined into one. As was said above, under a, and as is proved by the use of אַחַד, אַחַת in the numeral 11, the feminine numerals from 13 to 19 are to be regarded as construct forms in a genitive connexion. The connective forms of the masculine abstracts, like שְׁל֫שֶׁת, &c., are not admitted in combination with עָשָׂר, since they are merely in apposition, and not in a genitive relation (see the rare exceptions at the end of e). On the other hand שְׁנֵי and שְׁתֵּי in the numeral 12 are undoubtedly true constructs, like אַחַד and the fem. numerals 13–19. But instead of שְׁנֵי (Ex 28, Jos 3 and four other places) and שְׁתֵּי (Jos 4 and three times in Ezek.), we generally find שְׁנֵים and שְׁתֵּים. Two explanations have been given of these forms: (1) that the K^ethîbh really intends שְׁנַ֫יִם, שְׁתַּ֫יִם, in the absol. st., which was first introduced in the case of שְׁנַ֫יִם, on the analogy of עֲשָׂרָה, &c., and then extended to שְׁתַּ֫יִם; the Masora, however, required שְׁנֵי, שְׁתֵּי (but see below), and therefore pointed שְׁנֵים, שׁתֵּים as a Q^erê perpetuum (see § 17).—(2) that the absolute forms שְׁנֵ֫יִם, שְׁתַּ֫יִם (introduced on the analogy of שְׁלשָׁה, &c.) were contracted to שְׁנֵים, שְׁתֵּים to facilitate the pronunciation of the duals when closely connected with עָשָׂר and עֶשְׂרֵה, and that the contraction is founded on an early and correct tradition. The second explanation is supported by the large number of examples of שנים (66) and שתים (34). It would be strange if the Masora required the alteration of the far commoner forms on account of isolated instances of שְׁנֵי and שְׁתֵּי. As a matter of fact even in regard to the latter forms the tradition often varies between שְׁנֵי and שְׁנַ֫יִם, &c., cf. e.g. Ginsburg on Jos 3. We cannot therefore assume a Q^erê perpetuum.

e Accordingly the numbers from 11 upwards are—

	Masculine.	Feminine.
11.	אַחַד עָשָׂר	אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה
	עָשָׂר^[14] עַשְׁתֵּי	עַשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה
12.	שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר	שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה
	שְׁנֵי עָשָׂר	שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה
13.	שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר	שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה

&c., on the analogy of the last. These numerals regularly have only the above form. In regard to their syntax, cf. § 134 f.

Very rarely the units appear in the masc. in the constr. st., as חֲמֵ֫שֶׁת עָשָׂר fifteen, Ju 8, 2 S 19; שְׁמנַת עָשָׂר eighteen, Ju 20.—Connected by וְ we find עֲשָׂרָה וַָֽחֲמִשָּׁה in Ex 45.

f 3. The tens from 30 to 90 are expressed by the plural forms of the units (so that the plural here always stands for ten times the unit), thus, שְׁלשִׁים 30, אַרְבָּעִים 40, חֲמִשִּׁים 50, שִׁשִּׁים 60, שִׁבְעִים 70, שְׁמֹנִים 80, תִּשְׁעִים 90. But twenty is expressed by עֶשְׂרִים, plur. of עֶ֫שֶׂר ten.^[15] These numerals are all of common gender, and do not admit of the construct state.—In compound numerals, like 22, 23, 44, &c., the units may precede (two and twenty, as in Arabic and English), e.g. Nu 3, 26. Very frequently, however, the reverse order is found (twenty and two, as in Syriac, cf. French and English twenty-two), e.g. 1 Ch 12, 18.^[16] In all cases the units and tens are connected by the copula, ordinarily וְ, but וָ, before numerals with the tone on the penultima, וַ before ־ֲ, וּ before Š^ewâ see § 104 d, e, g.

g The remaining numerals are the substantives—

100	מֵאָה fem., constr. מְאַת.
200	אָמתַ֫יִם dual (contracted from מְאָתַ֫יִם; cf. § 23 c).
300	שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת plur. (but in 2 K 11, K^eth. הַמְּאָיוֹת).
1000	אֶ֫לֶף masc.
2000	אַלְפַּ֫יִם dual.
3000	שְׁל֫שֶׁת אֲלָפִים plur., and so on (except עֲשָׂרָה אֲלָפִים in 2 S 18, 2 K 24 K^eth.; elsewhere always עֲשֶׂ֫רֶת אֲלָפִים).
10000	רְבָבָה, in the later books the aramaising^[17] forms רִבּוֹ, רִבּוֹא, רִבּוֹת (properly multitude, cf. μυριάς).
20000	רִבֹּתַ֫יִם dual (see below, h); but שְׁתֵּי רִבּוֹת Neh 7 (also רִבּוֹא שְׁתֵּי Neh 7).
40000	אַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא Neh 7.
60000	שֵֽׁשׁ־רִבּאֹות Ezr 2 (Baer and Ginsburg רִבֹּאוֹת, as in Dn 11). אַלְפֵי רְבָבָה thousands of myriads, Gn 24.

h Rem. 1. The dual form which occurs in some of the units has the meaning of our ending -fold, e.g. אַרְבַּעְתַּ֫יִם fourfold, 2 S 12; שִׁבְעָתַ֫יִם sevenfold, Gn 4, Is 30, ψ 12, 79 (cf. § 134 r). The dual רִבֹּתַ֫יִם ψ 68 (explained by אַלְפֵי שִׁנְאָן thousands of duplication) is not meant to be taken in the sense of two myriads or twice the number of myriads, but in a multiplicative sense.^[18]—Besides the plural which denotes the tens, there are also the plurals אֲחָדִים some, also iidem, and עֲשָׂרוֹת decades (not decem) Ex 18.

i 2. The suffixes to numerals are, as with other nouns, properly genitives, although they are translated in English as nominatives, e.g. שְׁלָשְׁתְּכֶּם your triad, i.e. you three, Nu 12; חֲמִשָּׁיו his fifty (i.e. the 50 belonging to him) 2 K 1, and חֲמִשֶּׁ֫יךָ 2 K 1.

§98. Numerals. (b) Ordinal Numbers.

a The ordinal numbers from 2 to 10 are formed from the corresponding cardinals by adding the termination ־ִי (§ 86 h), before which another ־ִי also is generally inserted between the second and third radicals. They are as follows: שֵׁנִי second, שְׁלִישִׁי, רְבִיעִי (like רֶ֫בַע, רֹ֫בַע, רִבֵּעִים, without the prosthetic א, which appears in אַרְבַּע, &c.), חֲמִישִׁי or חֲמִשִׁי (which, according to Strack, is always to be read for חֲמִשִּׁי), שִׁשִּׁי, שְׁבִיעִי, שְׁמִינִי, תְּשִׁיעִי, עֲשִׂירִי. The ordinal first is expressed by רִאשׁוֹן (cf. § 27 w), from רֹאשׁ head, beginning, with the termination וֹן (§ 86 f). On the use of אֶחָד as an ordinal in numbering the days of the month, cf. § 134 p; in such cases as Gn 1, 2, the meaning of first is derived solely from the context.

b The feminine forms have the termination ־ִית, more rarely (and only in the case of 3 and 10) ־ִיָּה. They are employed also to express fractions, e.g. חֲמִשִׁית fifth or fifth part, עֲשִׂירִית and עֲשִֽׂירִיָּה tenth part. Side by side with these, in the same sense, there are also forms like רֹ֫בֵע and רֶֹ֫בַע a quarter, חֹ֫מֶשׁ a fifth part, and with the afformative וֹן, עִשָּׂרוֹן (plur. עֶשְׂרוֹנִים) a tenth part; these are to be regarded as abstracts, and are denominatives from the cardinal numbers. Cf. finally שָׁבוּעַ ἑβδομάς, a week; עָשׂוֹר a decade (of days), and also the tenth day.

On the expression of the other relations of number, for which the Hebrew has no special forms, see the Syntax, § 134 q and r.

CHAPTER IV

THE PARTICLES

§99. General View.

Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 492 f.

a 1. The particles, which in general express the secondary modifications of thought in speech, the closer relation of words to one another, and the mutual connexion of sentences, are for the most part either borrowed or derived from noun-forms, sometimes also from pronouns and verbs (§ 30 s). Primitive particles (apart from a few demonstrative forms, see § 100 i) can only be so called in the sense defined in § 81 f.

b 2. So far as the origin of the particles can be discovered with certainty, they are either (1) borrowed from other parts of speech; i.e. certain forms of the noun, pronoun, or verb, with more or less loss of their original meaning, have come to be employed as particles; cf. in the Indo-Germanic languages, e.g. the Latin certo, falso, partim, verum, causa, the German statt, anstatt, wegen, weg, and the English instead, away; or (2) derived from other parts of speech, either (a) by the addition of formative syllables, as יוֹמִם by day, from יוֹם (cf., however, § 100 g); or most commonly (b) by abbreviations effected in various ways, the extent of their mutilation being in proportion to the frequency of their use, so that in some cases (see below) the original stem has become wholly unrecognizable.

Cf. in German gen, from gegen, Gegend; seit, from Seite; weil (originally a particle of time, like our while), from Weile.

Still more violent abbreviations occur in Greek, Latin, and the Romance languages, e.g. ἀπό, ab, a; ἐξ, ex, e; ad, Fr. à; aut, Fr. ou, Ital. o; super, Ital. su.^[19]

c The greatest shortening occurs in those particles which have entirely lost the character of an independent word, by being reduced to a single consonant with its vowel (generally short) or Š^ewâ. According to the laws of syllable formation in Hebrew (§ 26 m), such particles cannot stand by themselves, but are united, as prefixes, with the following word (§ 102), very much like the preformatives of the imperfect (§a–d).

d The view that this shortening of whole words to single letters has actually taken place in the gradual course of linguistic development is rendered highly probable by the fact that similar abbreviations in later Hebrew and in Aramaic, i.e. as the development of the original Semitic speech progresses, become more and more striking and frequent. Thus the Biblical Aramaic דִּי becomes at a later period דְּ; in modern Arabic, e.g. hallaq (now) is from halwaqt; lêš (why?) from li-ayyi-šaiĭn, &c. Cf. also the analogous cases mentioned above from the Western languages. Nevertheless, the use of the simplest particles is found already in the earliest periods of the Hebrew language, or, at any rate, in the earliest documents which have come down to us.

e 3. Less frequently particles are formed by composition; as מַדּוּעַ wherefore? for מַה־יָּדוּעַ quid edoctus? (τί μαθών; ) or quid cognitum?; בִּלְעֲדֵי (from בַּל and עֲדֵי) besides; מִלְמַ֫עְלָה (from מִן, לְ, מַ֫עְלָה) from above, above.

More frequent is the combination of two words into one without contraction, e.g. אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן, אַף־כִּי, כִּי־אִם, כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּן; cf. also the compounds of אֵי with demonstrative pronouns, as אֵֽי־מִוֶּה from what?; אֵי לָזֹאת wherefore? [R.V. how]. See the lexicon under אֵי.

§100. Adverbs.

On demonstrative adverbs cf. Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 323; on interrogative adverbs, ibid., i. 328; on adverbs in general, i. 492 ff.

a 1. The negative לֹא not, and a few particles of place and time, as שָׁם there, are of obscure origin.

b 2. Forms of other parts of speech, which are used adverbially without further change, are—

(a) Substantives with prepositions, e.g. בִּמְאֹד (with might) very; לְבַד alone (prop. in separation, Fr. à part), with suffix לְבַדִּי I alone; מִבַּ֫יִת from within, within; cf. also כְּאֶחָד (as one) together, לְעֻמַּת and מִלְּעֻמַּת (originally in connexion with) near to, corresponding to, like, &c., cf. § 161 b.

c (b) Substantives in the accusative (the adverbial case of the Semites, § 118 m), cf. τὴν ἀρχήν, δωρεάν, e.g. מְאֹד (might) very, אֶ֫פֶס (cessation) no more, הַיּוֹם (the day) to-day (cf. § 126 b), מָחָר^[20] to-morrow, יַ֫חַד (union) together. Several of these continued to be used, though rarely, as substantives, e.g. סָבִיב, plur. סְבִיבִים and סְבִיבוֹת, circuit, as adverb circum, around; others have quite ceased to be so used, e.g. כְּבָר (length) long ago [Aram.: only in Ec.]; עוֹד (repetition, duration) again or further.

d (c) Adjectives, especially in the feminine (corresponding to the Indo-Germanic neuter), e.g. רִֽאשׁוֹנָה primum, formerly (more frequently בָּרִֽאשׁוֹנָה, also לָרִאשׁוֹנָה); רַבִּה and רַבַּת [both rare] multum, much, enough; נִפְלָאוֹת wonderfully (properly mirabilibus, sc. modis), יְהוּדִית Jewish, i.e. in the Jewish language.

e (d) Verbs in the infinitive absolute, especially in Hiphʿîl, which are likewise to be regarded as accusatives (§ 113 h), e.g. הַרְבֵּה (prop. a multiplying) much [frequent], לְהַרְבֵּה [rare and late] in multitude; הַשְׁכֵּם (mane faciendo) early; הַֽעֲרֵב (vespere faciendo) in the evening.

f (e) Pronouns and numerals, e.g. זֶה (prop. there=at this place) here, הֵ֫נָּה here, hither (also of time, עַד־הֵ֫נָּה till now, cf. the late and rare עֲדֶן and עֲדֶ֫נָּה=עַד־הֵן); אַחַת, שְׁתַּ֫יִם, שֶׁ֫בַע, מֵאָה once, twice, seven times, a hundred times; שֵׁנִית for the second time.

g 3. Some adverbs are formed by the addition of formative syllables (most frequently ־ָם) to substantives or adjectives, e.g. אָמְנָם and אֻמְנָם truly (from אֹמֶן truth); חִנָּם (by favour) gratis (from חֵן gratia); רֵיקָם in vain, frusta, but also empty, (from רֵיק empty, emptiness, vanum), Ru 1, parallel with the fem. מְלֵאָה full; יוֹמָם by day (from יוֹם)^[21]; with ô in the last syllable, פִּתְאֹם, for פִּתְעֹם, in a twinkling, suddenly (from פֶּ֫תַע a twinkling, the ô being probably obscured from an original â).^[22]—Moreover, cf. אֲחֹֽרַנִּית backward, and קְדֹֽרַנִּית darkly attired, Mal 3. In both these cases, the formative syllable an has been first attached to the stem, and then the feminine ending îth, which is elsewhere used to form adverbs, has been added to it.

h The termination ־ָם occurs also in the formation of substantives, e.g. אוּלָם porch, and hence the above adverbs may equally well be regarded as nouns used adverbially, so that ־ָם, ־ׄם, would correspond to ־ָן, וֹן (§ 85, Nos. 53, 54), cf. בְּפִתְאֹם (with prep.) suddenly, 2 Ch 29. According to others, this am is an obsolete accusative ending, to be compared with the indeterminate accusative sing. in ăn in Arabic. i 4. A number of forms standing in very close relation to the demonstrative pronoun may be regarded as primitive adverbs, since they arise directly from a combination of demonstrative sounds. Some of these have subsequently suffered great mutilation, the extent of which, however, can now very rarely be ascertained with certainty. Such are e.g. אָו then, הֵ֫נָּה here (according to Barth, Sprachwiss. Abhandlungen, p. 16, formed from the two demonstrative elements hin and na), כֵּן, כָּ֫כָה thus (cf. אֵיכָה, אֵֽיכָכָה, how?), אַךְ only, אָכֵן truly (on all these adverbs, see the Lexicon), and especially the interrogative הֲ (Hē interrogativum), e.g. הֲלֹא (Dt 3 הֲלֹה) nonne?, הֲגַם num etiam? This Hē interrogativum is perhaps shortened from הַל, which is still used in Arabic, and, according to the view of a certain school of Masoretes, occurs also in Hebrew in Dt 32.^[23]

k The ה interrogative takes—(1) Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ generally before non-gutturals (even before ר), with a firm vowel, e.g. הֲשַׂ֫מְתָּ hast thou set? see the interrogative clause, § 150 c (הַיִּיטַב Lv 10 is an exception).

l (2) Before a consonant with Š^ewâ, usually Pathaḥ without a following Dageš forte, e.g. הַֽבֲרָכָה Gn 27, cf. 18, 29, 30, 34; less frequently (in about ten passages), Pathaḥ with a following Dageš forte, e.g. הַבְּדֶרֶךְ num in via, Ez 20, הַלְּבֶן Gn 17, 18, 37, Nu 13, Jb 23; even in ר, 1 S 10, 17, 2 K 6.

m (3) Before gutturals, not pointed with either Qameṣ or Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ, it takes Pathaḥ, e.g. הַֽאֵלֵךְ shall I go?, הַֽאַתָּה num tu?, הַאִם num si; הַֽאֶרְצֶה Mal 1; also in Ju 6 read הַֽאַתֶּם (not הָֽא׳), likewise הַ in Ju 12, Jer 8, Neh 6.—In הָאִישׁ Nu 16, the Masora intends the article; read הַאִישׁ, and cf. Dt 20; in Ec 3 read הַֽעֹלָה and הֲיֹרֶדֶת; the article is a correction due to doctrinal considerations.

n (4) The ה takes S^eghôl before gutturals pointed with Qameṣ or (as in Ju 9 ff.) Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ, e.g. הֶֽאָמוּר Mi 2; הֶאָֽנֹכִי Jb 21; הֶהָֽיְתָה Jo 1; הֶֽהָשֵׁב Gn 24 (cf. the analogous instances in § 22 c, § 35 k, § 63 k). The place of this interrogative particle is always at the beginning of the clause [but see Jb 34, Neh 13, Jer 22, where one or more words are prefixed for emphasis].

o 5. Some adverbs occur also in connexion with suffixes, thus יֶשְׁךָ thou art there, 3rd sing. masc. יֶשְׁנוֹ^[24] (but see note below), 2nd plur. masc. יֶשְׁבֶם; אֵינֶ֫נִּי I am not, 2nd sing. אֵֽינְךָ, fem. אֵינֵךְ, 3rd sing. אֵינֶ֫נּוּ, fem. אֵינֶ֫נָּה, 2nd plur. אֵֽינְכֶם, 3rd plur. masc. אֵינָם.—Also עוֹדֶ֫נִּי I am yet (עוֹדִי only in בְּעוֹדִי and מֵֽעוֹדִי), עֽוֹדְךָ, עוֹדָךְ, עוֹדֵ֫ינוּ (La 4 Q^erê; עוֹדֶ֫ינָה K^eth.; the oriental school [see above, p. 38, note ²] recognize only the reading עוֹדֵ֫ינוּ), עוֹדָם.—אַיֶּ֫כָּה where art thou?, אַיּוֹ where is he?, אַיָּם where are they? The same applies to הֵן (הֶן־) and הִנֵּה behold! (prop. here, here is; see § 105 b), only in Gn 19 הִנֶּה־נָּא; with suffixes, הִנְנִי, once הִנֶּ֫נִּי (Gn 22 with Munaḥ), in pause הִנֵּ֫נִי behold me (here am I), הִנְּךָ (pause הִנֶּ֫ךָּ ψ 139), הִנָּךְ, הִנּוֹ and הִנֵּ֫הוּ [both very rare], הִנְנוּ (behold us), and הִנֶּ֫נוּ (in pause הִנֵּ֫נוּ), הִנְּכֶם, הִנָּם; [see more fully in the Lexicon, p. 243].

p The usual explanation of these suffixes (especially of the forms with Nûn energicum) as verbal suffixes, which ascribes some power of verbal government even to forms originally substantival (e.g. יֶשְׁנוֹ there is, he is), is at least inadmissible for forms (like אַיּוֹ, בְּעוֹדִי) which are evidently connected with noun-suffixes; even for the other forms it is questionable. Brockelmann suggests that the ן in connexion with these particles is a survival from הנה corresponding to the Arab. ʾánna which introduces dependent clauses.

§101. Prepositions.

Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 494 ff.

a 1. All words, which by usage serve as prepositions, were originally substantives, viz.:

(a) Substantives in the accusative and in the construct state, so that the noun governed by them is to be considered as in the genitive, and in Arabic actually has the genitive ending, cf. in German statt dessen, kraft dessen, in Greek τούτου χάριν, in Latin huius rei causa, or gratia, montis instar.^[25] Cf. אַחַ֫ר (hinder part*) behind, after (Milʿêl in אַ֫חַר כֵּן Lv 14, Dt 21, 1 S 10; אַ֫חַר זֶה 2 Ch 32); אֵ֫צֶל (side) close by; בֵּין (intermediate space*) between; בְּעַד, בַּ֫עַד (distance^[26]) behind, around; זוּלַת, or with Ḥireq compaginis זֽוּלָתִי (removal, want) except; יַ֫עַן (purpose) on account of; מוּל (מוֹל only in Dt 1) before, over against; מִן־ (separation; cf. § 119 v) from, out of; נֶ֫גֶד (coming in front, that which is over against) before, over against; עַד־ (progress, duration*) during, until; עַל־ (height, upper part*) upon, over; עִם־ (connexion?) with; it is doubtful whether this is to be derived from the same stem as עֻמַּת, לְעֻמַּת near, beside, like; תַּ֫חַת (under part*) under, instead of.

b (b) Substantives in the construct state, but to be regarded as in the genitive, since they depend on prepositions (especially the inseparable), e.g. לִפְנֵי (in the face of*) before; כְּפִי, לְפִי (according to the mouth, i.e. the command of*) according to; בִּגְלַל (in the concern of) on account of; לְמַ֫עַן (for the purpose of) on account of.

c 2. Substantives used adverbially very frequently become prepositions in this way, e.g. בְּלִי, בִּבְלִי, מִבְּלִי, בִּלְתִּי, בְּאֵין, בְּאֶ֫פֶס (with cessation) without, בְּעוֹד (in the duration of) during; בְּדֵי, כְּדֵי (according to the requirement of) for, according to.

§102. Prefixed Prepositions.

a 1. Of the words mentioned in § 101, מִן־ from, out of, frequently occurs as a prefix (§ 99 c), with its Nûn assimilated to the following consonant (by means of Dageš forte), e.g. מִיַּ֫עַר out of a forest.

b Rem. The separate מִן־ (always with a following Maqqeph) is usual (but not necessary, cf. Ju 20 with verse 15, Ez 43, &c.) only before the article, e.g. מִן־הָאָ֫רֶץ, and sometimes occurs before the softer consonants, e.g. מִן־אָז Jer 44, מִן־בְּנֵי Jo 1, 1 Ch 5; cf. Ex 18, Lv 1, 14, Ju 7, 10, 19, ψ 104 (2 K 23 before ר; also before ק in ψ 18), and elsewhere in the later books (as in Aramaic)^[27]; there is besides a poetic by-form מִנִּי (cf. § 90 m) and מִנֵּי Is 30. Its form is most commonly מִ‍· with a following Dageš, which may, however, be omitted in letters which have Š^ewâ (cf. § 20 m). With a following י the מִ‍ is, as a rule, contracted to מִי, e.g. מִידֵי=מִיְּדֵי or מִֽיְדֵי (but cf. מִיְּשֵׁנֵי Dn 12; מִיְּרֻשָּֽׁתְךָ 2 Ch 20); before gutturals it becomes מֵ‍ (according to § 22 c), e.g. מֵֽאָדָם, מֵעָם; before ח the מִ‍ occurs with the guttural virtually sharpened in מִחוּץ on the outside, and in מִחוּט Gn 14; before ה in מִֽהְיוֹת (cf. § 28 b and § 63 q. The closed syllable here is inconsistent with the required virtual sharpening of the ה; probably מִֽהְיוֹת is merely due to the analogy of לִֽהְיוֹת); similarly Is 14 before ר; but in 1 S 23, 2 S 18 מִרְּדֹף is to be read, according to § 22 s.

c 2. There are also three other particles, the most commonly used prepositions and the particle of comparison, which have been reduced by abbreviation (§ 99 c) to a single prefixed consonant with Š^ewâ (but see below, and § 103 e), viz.:

בְּ [poet. בְּמוֹ] in, at, with.

לְ [poet. לְמוֹ] towards, (belonging) to, for, Lat. ad.

כְּ‍ [poet. כְּמוֹ] like, as, according to (no doubt the remnant of a substantive with the meaning of matter, kind, instar).

d With regard to the pointing it is to be observed that—

(a) The Š^ewâ mobile, with which the above prefixes are usually pronounced, has resulted from the weakening of a short vowel (an original ă, according to f)^[28]; the short vowel is regularly retained before Š^ewâ: before Š^ewâ simplex in the form of an ĭ, attenuated from ă: before a Ḥaṭeph the prefix takes the vowel of the Ḥaṭeph, e.g. לִפְרִי for fruit, כַּֽאֲרִי as a lion, בָּֽעֳנִי bŏʿ^onî, in affliction (sometimes with the syllable subsequently closed, cf. § 28 b, and the infinitives with לַ § 63 i): before weak consonants it follows the rule given in § 24 c, e.g. לִֽיהוּדָה for לִיְ׳. When the prefixes בְ, וְ, כְ‍, לְ, precede אֱלֹהִים God, the Š^ewâ and Ḥaṭeph S^eghôl regularly coalesce in Ṣērê, e.g. בֵּֽאלֹהִים, &c., for בֶּֽאֱל׳; so with suffixes וֵאֽלֹהָיו, &c. (once also in the sing. לֵֽאלֹהוֹ Hb 1); also regularly לֵאמֹר to say, for לֶֽאֱמֹר, see § 23 d.

e (b) When the prefixes precede the article, the ה is almost always dropped, and they take its vowel. See further in § 35 n.

f (c) Immediately before the tone-syllable, i.e. before monosyllables and dissyllables with the tone on the penultima (in the fore-tone), they take Qameṣ (undoubtedly a lengthening of an original ă, cf. § 26 e, § 28 a), but only in the following cases:

(aa) לָ before infinitives of the above-mentioned forms, as לָתֵת to give, לָדִין to judge, לָבֹז to plunder, לָגֹז to shear, לָחֹג to keep a festival, לָלֶ֫דֶת to bring forth, לָלֶ֫כֶת to go, לָקַ֫חַת to take, except when the infinitive (as a nomen regens) is closely connected with another word (especially its subject, § 115 e), and consequently, as being in a sort of constr. state, loses the principal tone, e.g. לְצֵאת Ex 19, לְשֶׁ֫בֶת Gn 16, and so always לְבֹא חֲמָת Nu 13, &c. (in such cases as לָֽתֶת־חֶ֫רֶב Ex 5 the ā is protected by the secondary tone; before infinitives of verbs ע״וּ, the לָ is retained even in close connexion; cf. Ez 21, 22);

g (bb) before many pronominal forms, e.g. בָּזֶה (so also in 1 S 21; not בַּזֶּה), לָזֶה, כָּזֶה, לָזֹאת (in close connexion, however, לְזֹאת Gn 2; כְּזֹאת Gn 45); כָּאֵ֫לֶּה as these; an especially בָּכֶם, לָכֶם, כָּכֶם (כָּכֵם) and בָּהֶם, לָהֶם, כָּהֵם (כָּהֶם), see § 103 e;

h (cc) לָ before monosyllables or fore-toned nouns in such combinations as פֶּה לָפֶה mouth to month, 2 K 10, בֵּין מַ֫יִם לָמָ֫יִם between waters and waters, Gn 1; לָטֹ֫רַח for a trouble, Is 1, but always before the principal pause. The instructive example in Dt 17 also shows that the punctuation לָ is only possible with at least the lesser pause after it; in Is 28 the לָ is twice repeated, even before the small and smallest disjunctives;

i (dd) in certain standing expressions, which have become stereotyped almost as adverbs, e.g. לָעַד to eternity, לָרֹב in multitude, לָבֶ֫טַח in security, לָנֶ֫צַח to eternity, but לְנֵ֫צַח נְצָחִים to all eternity, Is 34. Cf. also לָנֶ֫פֶשׁ for the dead, Lv 19, Nu 5, 9.

k (d) With the interrogative מָה they are pointed as in בַּמֶּה; in pause and before א as in בַּמָּה by what? (before a following relative clause, as in Ec 3, בְּמֶה; cf. Delitzsch, Jesaia, 4th ed., on Is 2); כַּמָּה how much? but also כַּמֶּה 1 K 22, in close connexion, and at a greater distance from the pause. The S^eghôl in these forms arises from a modification of the original ă, while the מ‍ is sharpened in order to maintain the original ǎ of the prefixes.

l When לְ (prop. la) is united to מָה, it takes, according to § 49 f, g, the form לָ֫מָּה (Jb 7 לָ֫מָה, 1 S 1 לָ֫מֶה, all Milʿêl, and hence the ă in the tone is lengthened to ā) for what? why? Before the gutturals א, ה, ע, לָמָ֫ה is used for euphonic reasons (exceptions 1 S 28, 2 S 14, Jer 15, before ה; 2 S 2, ψ 49, before א); לָ֫מָּה, however, remains before ח. Before letters which are not gutturals, לָמָ֫ה is found in ψ 42, 43 (immediately after a tone-syllable).

m Rem. The divine name יְהֹוָה, which has not its original vowels (יַהְוֶה) but those of אֲדֹנָי (see § 17 c), except that the י has simple not compound Š^ewâ, takes the prefixes also, after the manner of אֲדֹנָי, thus וַֽיהוָֹה, לַֽיהוָֹה, בַּֽיהוָֹה, מֵֽיְהֹוָה (since they are to be read וַֽאדֹנָי, לַֽאדֹנָי, בַּֽאדֹנָי, מֵֽאֲדֹנָי); for the א of אֲדֹנָי, as of אֲדֹנִי, אֲדֹנִים, &c. (see below), quiesces after the prefixes בַּ, כַּ‍, לַ, וַ, but is audible after מֵ‍ (for מִן), שֶׁ (no instance in the O.T.), and הָ (in הָֽאֲדֹנִים Dt 10, ψ 136, the article, not הַ interrog., is intended; the only example with ה intertog., Jer 8, is to be pointed הַֽיהוָֹה, i.e. הַֽאדֹנָי, not הַיְהֹוָה). Hence the rule, משֶׁה מוֹצִיא Moses brought out (i.e. מ‍, שׁ, ה make the א audible), וְכָלֵב מַכְנִיס and Caleb brought in, (i.e. ו, כ‍, ל, ב allow it to quiesce).^[29]—As regards the other plural forms of אָדוֹן, elision of the א always takes place after בַּ, וַ, כַּ‍, לַ, except in the form אֲדֹנֵי, thus לַֽאדֹנָיו, לַֽאדֹנֶ֫יךָ, &c.; but לַֽאֲדֹנֵי, &c., לַֽאֲדֹנֵ֫ינוּ, &c., לַֽאֲדֹֽנֵיהֶם.

§103. Prepositions with Pronominal Suffixes and in the Plural Form.

a 1. As all prepositions were originally nouns (§ 101) in the accusative, they may be united with the noun-suffixes (§ 91 b–l), e.g. אֶצְלִי (prop. at my side) by me, אִתִּי (in my proximity) with me, תַּחְתָּם (in their place) instead of them, like the Latin mea causa, for my sake.

b Rem. 1. The preposition אֵת (usually אֶת־) near, with, is distinguished from אֵת (see below, and § 117 a, note 4), the sign of the definite accusative (§ 117 a), in its connexion with suffixes, by a difference of pointing, the former making אִתִּי, אִתְּךָ, in pause אִתָּךְ, 2nd fem. אִתָּךְ (Is 54 אִתֵּךְ), אִתּוֹ, אִתָּהּ, אִתָּ֫נוּ, אִתְּכֶם, אִתָּם (also in the later books, especially in Kings, and always in Jer. and Ezek., incorrectly אוֹתִי with me; מֵֽאוֹתָךְ from thee, 1 K 20; מֵֽאֹתוֹ from him, 1 K 22; אֹתָם with them), while the latter retains its ô (obscured from â) before the light suffixes, but before grave suffixes is pointed with S^eghôl. This S^eghôl is to be explained, with Praetorius, ZDMG. Iv. 369 f., as the modification of an ă which again was shortened from original â (in ʾâthî, ʾaîthô, &c.) in a closed syllable (ʾăth-hem, &c.). The same shortening and modification of the original â takes place before words in close connexion, hence אֶת־כֹּל, &c. When not in close connexion, the toneless אֶת becomes tone-long אֵת, e.g. אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם Gn 1. Hence the following forms arise:—

		Sing.		Plur.
1.		אֹתִי me.		אֹתָ֫נוּ us.
	m.	אֹֽתְךָ, pause אֹתָךְ		אֶתְכֶם you.
2.			thee
	f.	אֹתָךְ . . . . .		. . . . . .
	m.	אֹתוֹ him.		אֹתָם, rarely אֶתְהֶם	them
3.
	f.	אֹתָהּ her.		אֶתְהֶן, rarely אֹתָן

Less common are the plene, forms אוֹתִי, אֽוֹתְךָ (Nu 22 אֹֽתְכָה before ה), אוֹתָךְ (Ex 29, אֹתָ֫כָה), אוֹתוֹ, אוֹתָהּ, אוֹתָ֫נוּ, אוֹתָם. Moreover, for אֶתְכֶם we find אֽוֹתְכֶם Jos 23; for אֹתָם, five times אֶתְהֶם (Gn 32, Ex 18, &c.), and in Ez 23 אֽוֹתְהֶם; for אֶתְהֶן (Gn 19, &c. [13 times]), אֹתָן (only found in Ez 16; Ex 35 אֹתָ֫נָה; Ez 34 אוֹתָ֫נָח), and אֽוֹתְהֶן Ez 23.—No instance of the 2nd fem. plur. אֶתְכֶן occurs in the O.T.; in Cant 2, &c., אֶתְכֶם is used instead.

c 2. The preposition עִם־ with (with suffixes on the model of stems ע״ע, עִמִּי, עִמְּךָ [1 S 1 עִמְּכָה], in pause עִמָּךְ; 2nd fem. עִמּוֹ ;עִמָּךְ, עִמָּהּ) is united with the suffixes נוּ, כֶם, and הֶם by a (pretonic) Qameṣ, which causes the sharpening of the Mêm to be distinctly audible: עִמָּ֫נוּ, עִמָּכֶם, עִמָּהֶם (so in Nu 22, Dt 29, both in principal pause, and often in very late passages, otherwise עִמָּם is generally used). In the first person, besides עִמִּי, we also find עִמָּדִי (probably from original ענדי; cf. Arab. ʿinda, beside, with).

d 3. It is but seldom that prepositions occur with verbal suffixes, as תַּחְתֵּ֫נִי 2 S 22 (for which ψ 18 תַּחְתַּי), תַּחְתֶּ֫נָּה Gn 2 and בַּֽעֲדֵ֫נִי ψ 139 (here probably for the sake of the rhyme with יִשׁוּפֵּ֫נִי).^[30]

e 2. When pronominal suffixes are added to the prefixes (§ 102), there appears occasionally, especially in the case of the shorter suffixes, an endeavour to lengthen the preposition, so as to give it more strength and body. Hence to בְּ is appended the syllable מוֹ (see below, k), and בְּ and לְ take at least a full vowel, בָּ and לָ (§ 102 d, f).—The following deviations from the analogy of the noun with suffixes are to be noticed (a) in the pausal forms בָּךְ, לָךְ, אֹתְךְ, אִתָּךְ, עִמָּךְ (not bèkhā, &c.); (b) in the similar forms with the suffix of the 2nd sing. fem. (not bēkh, &c.) and in בָּ֫נוּ, לָ֫נוּ, עִמָּ֫נוּ, &c. (not bēnû, &c.).

f (a) לְ with Pronominal Suffixes.

	Sing.	Plur.
1. c. to me.	לְי	to us.	לָ֫נוּ
2. m. to thee.	לְךָ (לְכָה), in pause לָךְ	to you.	לָכֶם
f.	לָךְ.........		[לָכֶן^[31]] לָכֶ֫נָה
3. m. to him.	לוֹ	to them	לָהֶם, לָהֵ֫מָּה poet. לָ֫מוֹ
			[53 times]^[32]
f. to her.	לָהּ		לָהֶן,^[33]לָהֵ֫נָּה

g בְּ, takes suffixes in the same manner: בִּי, בְּךָ (Ex 7, 2 S 22, ψ 141 בְּכָה, as in Gn 27, 2 S 18, Is 3 לְכָה [for 2nd fem. לָךְ the K^ethîbh לכי occurs in 2 K 4, Ct 2, cf. § 91 e]), בּוֹ, &c.; except that for the 3rd plur., besides בָּהֶם (especially in the later books) and בָּהֵ֫מָּה (only in Ex 30, 36, Hb 1; לָהֵ֫מָּה only in Jer 14), the form בָּם is also used; and for the feminine, besides בָּהֵ֫נָּה (three times), בָּהֵן is found fifteen times, and בָּהֶן only in 1 S 31, Is 38, Ez 42.—According to the Masora, לֹא is found fifteen times for לוֹ (as conversely in 1 S 2, 20 לוֹ for לֹא), e.g. Ex 21, 1 S 2, Is 9, ψ 100 (and, as has been conjectured, also Jb 41); cf. Delitzsch on ψ 100.—In Nu 32, Zc 5, Ru 2, the Masora requires לָהֿ instead of לָהּ (in all three places before a following tone-syllable; cf. § 23 k, and the analogous cases of the loss of Mappîq in § 58 g, § 91 e).

h (b) כְּ with Pronominal Suffixes.

	Sing.	Plur.
1. c. as I.	כָּמ֫וֹני^[34]	as we.	כָּמ֫וֹנוּ
2. m. as thou.	כָּמ֫וֹךָ⁵	as ye.	כָּכֶם, כָּכֵם, rarely כְּמוֹכֶם
f.	...		.........
3. m. as he.	כָּמ֫וֹהוּ	as they	כָּהֵם, [כָּהֶם, כָּהֵ֫מָּה], כְּמוֹהֶם
f. as she.	כָּמ֫וֹהָ		[כָּהֵן], כָּהֵ֫נָּה

i (c) מִן־ with Pronominal Suffixes.

	Sing.	Plur.
1. c. from me.	מִמֶּ֫נִּי poet. מִנִּי [4 times], in pause	from us.	מִמֶּ֫נּוּ
	also מֶ֫נִּי [6 times]
2. m. from thee.	מִטְּךָ, in pause מִמֶּ֫ךָּ	from you.	מִכֶּם
f.	מִמּךְ		מִכֶּן
3. m. from him.	מִמֶּ֫נּוּ, Jb 4 in pause מֶ֫נְהוּ, [מִנֵּ֫הוּ	from them	מֵהֶם, מֵהֵ֫מָּה [twice],
	or מִנֶּ֫הוּ: see below]		Jb 11 מִנְּהֶם
f. from her.	מִמֶּ֫נָּה		מֵהֶן, מֵהֵ֫נָה [7 times]

k The syllable מוֹ (in Arabic mâ מָא=Heb. מָה what) in כָּמ֫וֹנִי (probably from כְּמָה אֲנִי, prop. according to what I, for as I) is, in poetry, appended to the three simple prefixes בְּ, כְּ‍, לְ, even without suffixes, so that בְּמוֹ, כְּמוֹ, לְמוֹ appear as independent words, equivalent in meaning to בְּ, כְּ‍, לְ. Poetry is here distinguished from prose by the use of longer forms; in the case of מִן, on the other hand, it prefers the shorter, which resemble the Syriac and Arabic.

l The form כָּהֶם, enclosed in brackets above, occurs only in 2 K 17 (in pause), כָּהֵ֫מָּה only in Jer 36 (in pause); כָּהֵן (Baer following Qimḥi כָּהֶן) only in Ez 18. Cf. Frensdorff, Massora Magna, p. 234 ff.—For בָּכֶם as ye, Qimḥi requires בָּכֵם (invariably or only in Jb 16?); in Jos 1, Ju 8, Ezr 4 Baer gives בָּכֶם.

m With regard to מִן with suffixes, מִמֶּ֫נִּי from me is usually explained as arising, by a reduplication of מִן, from an original מנמני, just as מִמֶּ֫נּוּ from him, from מנמנ-הו, identical in form with מִמֶּ֫נּוּ^[35] from us, from מנמנ-נו, while מִמֶּ֫נָּה from her, goes back to מנמנה. Far simpler, however, is Mayer Lambert’s explanation (REJ. xxiii. 302 ff.), that מִמֶּ֫נִּי, &c., have arisen from מִנֶּנִּי, &c., and that the forms of the suffixes are to be explained on the analogy of אֵינֶ֫נִּי, עוֹדֶ֫נּוּ, תַּחְתֶּ֫נָּה, § 100 o.—The bracketed form מִנֵּ֫הוּ, for which Baer, following Qimḥi and others, writes מִנֶּ֫הוּ, occurs only in ψ 68, and is there regarded by Delitzsch, Hupfeld, and others (following Simonis) as a substantive (מֵן=portion). The expression מִן־הוּא (for מִמֶּ֫נּוּ?) Is 18 is very strange.—מֵהֵ֫מָּה occurs only in Jer 10, Ec 12 (Jb 11 מִנְּהֶ֑ם); מֵהֶן (so Baer and Ginsburg, following the best authorities, instead of the ordinary reading מֵהֵן) only in Ez 16. n 3. Several prepositions, especially those which express relations of space and time, are (like the German wegen) properly plural nouns (for the reason, see § 124 a), and are, therefore, joined with the pronominal suffixes in the form of the plural construct state, just like other plural nouns (§ 91 g). On the other hand, the apparent connexion of אֶל־, עַד־, עַל־ with plural suffixes is explained from the ground-forms of those prepositions (from stems ל״ה) (אֲלַי) אֱלַי, עֲדַי, עֲלַי(contracted to אֱלֵי, אֲלֵי, &c.).^[36]

o Without suffixes these prepositions are—

אַחַר, more frequently אַֽחֲרֵי (prop. hinder parts) behind, after.

אֶל־,^[37] poet. [4 times in Job] also אֱלֵי (region, direction), towards, to, according to.

בֵּין (interval) between; the suffixes indicating the singular are added to the singular בֵּין, thus בֵּינִי, בֵּינְךָ, &c. (Gn 16 בֵּינֶ֫יךָ, the second Yôdh is, however, marked with a point as critically doubtful; בֵּינָיו, which occurs three times, is only the Masoretic Q^erê for בֵּינוֹ, which is found e.g. in Gn 30). On the other hand, the suffixes indicating a plural are attached to the plural forms בֵּינֵי or בֵּינוֹת.

סָבִיב (circuit) around, as a preposition, always has the plural form, sometimes masc. סְבִיבֶ֫יךָ, &c. [10 times], but much more frequently in the few. סְבִיבוֹת (surroundings). In Ez 43 סָבִיב אוֹתָהּ is a corruption of סְבִיבֹתֶ֫יהָ; [in 1 K 6 סָבִיב אֶת also is so contrary to usage, that it must be due to some textual error].

עַד־ (continuation, duration, from עָדָה) as far as, unto, poet. עֲדֵי [12 times]. In Jb 32 עָֽדֵיכֶם, with the ā retained in the secondary tone, is abnormal. Also in 2 K 9 for עַד־הֵם read עָֽדֵיהֶם.

עַל־ upon, over (cf. the rare subst. עָל height [see Lexicon], from עָלָה to ascend), poet. עֲלֵי [40 times, and 2 Q^erê].

תַּ֫חַת under (prop. what is beneath). On תַּחְתֵּ֫נִי, &c.; cf. above, d. With Suffixes.

p

1	Sing.	אַֽחֲרַי (after me)	בֵּינִי (between me)	סְבִֽיבוֹתַי (around me)	תַּחְתַּי (beneath me)	אֵלַי (to me)	עָדַי (unto me)	עָלַי (on me)
2	S. m.	אַֽחֲרֶ֫יךָ	בֵּֽינְךָ	סְבִֽיבוֹתֶ֫יךָ & סְבִיבֶ֫יךָ	תַּחְתֶּ֫יךָ	אֵלֶ֫יךָ	עָדֶ֫יךָ	עָלֶ֫יךָ
2	S. f.	אַֽחֲרַ֫יִךְ		סְבִֽיבוֹתַ֫יִךְ & סְבִיבַ֫יִךְ		אֵלַ֫יִךְ		עָלַ֫יִךְ
3	S. m.	אַֽחֲרָיו	בֵּינוֹ	סְבִֽיבוֹתָיו & סְבִיבָיו	תַּחְתָּיו	אֵלָיו	עָדָיו	עָלָיו
3	S. f.	אַֽחֲרֶ֫יהָ		סְבִֽיבוֹתֶ֫יהָ & סְבִיבֶ֫יהָ	תַּחְתֶּ֫יהָ	אֵלֶ֫יהָ	עָדֶ֫יהָ	עָלֶ֫יהָ
1	Plur.	אַֽחֲרֵ֫ינוּ &	בֵּינֵ֫ינוּ בֵּינוֹתֵ֫ינוּ^[38]	סְבִֽיבוֹתֵ֫ינוּ	תַּחְתֵּ֫ינוּ	אֵלֵ֫ינו		עָלֵ֫ינוּ
2	Pl. m.	אַֽחֲרֵיכֶם	בֵּֽינֵיכֶם	סְבִיבֽוֹתֵיכֶם	תַּחְתֵּיכֶם	אֲלֵיכֶם	עָֽדֵיכֶם	עֲלֵיכֶם
3	Pl. m.	אַֽחֲרֵיהֶם	בֵּֽינֵיחֶם & בֵּֽינוֹתָם	סְבִיבֽוֹתֵיהֶם & סְבִֽיבוֹתָם	תַּחְתֵּיהֶם usually תַּחְתָּם	אֲלֵיהֶם & אֲלֵהֶם [^[39]אֵלֵ֫ימוֹ]	[עָֽדֵיהֶם]	עֲלֵיהֶם [²עָלֵ֫ימוֹ]
3	Pl. f.	אַֽחֲרֵיהֶן			תַּחְתֵּיהֶן	אֲלֵיהֶן & אֲלֵחֶן		עֲלֵיהֶן

§104. Conjunctions.

a 1. The conjunctions serve to connect sentences, and to express their relations one to another. They may be either—

(a) Original pronouns, e.g. the demonstrative כִּי that, because, for.

(b) Original substantives, which afterwards were reduced to the rank of pronouns, adverbs, or conjunctions; so perhaps אֲשֶׁר (see § 36), which is sometimes used to express the general idea of relation, sometimes as a relative pronoun (properly a demonstrative), but in many cases stands simply for כִּי; also אַל־ (nothing), that not; פֶּן־ that not (the Greek μή of prohibition), &c. To these may be added the adverbial combination of substantives with prepositions, e.g. בְּטֶ֫רֶם (in the not yet) earlier, before, for which מִטֶ֫רֶם is also used. On the combination of two particles to express complex ideas (e.g. אַף־כִּי added to this, that=much more), see the Syntax, § 163 f.

b (c) Prepositions, which with the addition of the conjunction אֲשֶׁר or כִּי together form one single conjunction, e.g. יַ֫עַן אֲשֶׁר because, prop. on account of the fact that; אַחַר אֲשֶׁר, and more frequently אַֽחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר, after that; כַּֽאֲשֶד according as (with כְּ‍); עֵ֫קֶב כִּי and עֵ֫קֶב אֲשֶׁר in consequence of the fact that, for the reason that, because. Sometimes, however, the conjunction in such cases is omitted, and the preposition itself used as a conjunction, e.g. עַל־ (for עַל־אֲשֶׁר) although, Jb 16.

So, at any rate, according to our linguistic principles. It would, however, be more correct to say, that instead of the intermediary אֲשֶׁר the whole of the succeeding sentence is regarded as one substantival idea, under the immediate government of the preposition. In the same way, all prepositions governing the gerund in English may be paraphrased by conjunctions with the finite verb, see §§ 114 and 115, passim.

c 2. Besides those already mentioned, there are certain other small words now used as conjunctions, of which the derivation or original meaning is altogether obscure, thus אוֹ or, אִם־ if (also or before the second member of a double question), אַף also, וְ and, and others.

d Rem. The pointing of the וְ (originally וַ, as still before Ḥaṭeph Pathaḥ and—with a following Dageš forte—in wāw consecutive of the imperfect; cf. § 49 f) is in many respects analogous to that of the prefixes בְּ, כְּ‍, לְ (§ 102 d–i), but as being a weak consonant, the wāw copulative has some further peculiarities:

(a) Usually it takes simple Š^ewâ (וְ).

(b) Before words which begin with a guttural having a compound Š^ewâ, it takes the vowel with which the Š^ewâ is compounded (according to § 28 b), e.g. וַֽחֲכַם and be thou wise, וַֽעֲבָדִים and servants, וַֽעֱזוּז and strength, וֶֽאֱכֹל and eat thou, וָֽחֳלִי and sickness. On וֵאֽלֹהִים, וֵאֽלֹהַי &c., see § 102 d; on וַֽאדֹנַי, &c., see § 102 m; on such cases as וַעְצֹר Jb 4, cf. § 28 b.

e (c) Before words with simple Š^ewâ under the first consonant (except in the cases under f), the Wāw becomes the vowel û (cf. § 26 a), e.g. וּלְכֹל and to all, so also (except in the case under g) before the cognate labials ב, מ‍, פ, hence וּמֶ֫לֶךְ. On the cases in which simple Š^ewâ has become a Ḥaṭeph after וּ copulative (e.g. וּֽזֲהַב Gn 2), cf. § 10 g.

f (d) With a following יְ the וְ coalesces to form וִי according to § 24 b, as וִיהִי and let him be. On the peculiar punctuation of the wāw copulative before forms with initial Š^ewâ from הָיָה to be and חָיָה to live (e.g. וִֽהְיִיתֶם Jos 8, וֶֽחְיֵה Gn 20), cf. § 63 q.

g (e) Immediately before the tone-syllable it frequently takes Qameṣ, like בְּ, כְּ‍, לְ (see § 102 f), but in most cases only at the end of a sentence or clause (but cf. also וָכֹא 1 K 22), e.g. וָמֵ֖ת Ex 21 (on the other hand, in verse 20 וּמֵ֖תִ is in closer logical connexion with what follows); 2 K 7 וָמַ֣הְנוּ שָׁ֔ם, וָמַ֑תָנוּ and וָמָֽתְנוּ; Ru 3 וָסַֹכְתְּ; ψ 10 וָ֝רָֹע; 1 S 9 וָאַ֔יִן; 2 S 13 וָלֹ֔א; Ez 47 וָחָ֔י; cf. also (with Ṭiphḥa) Gn 33, 2 S 15. The very frequent connexion of nouns expressing kindred ideas, by means of וָ, is due simply to considerations of rhythm, for even in such cases the Wāw must immediately precede the tone-syllable, which must be marked by a disjunctive accent, e.g. תֹּ֫הוּ וָבֹ֫הוּ Gn 1, יוֹם וָלַ֫יְלָה Gn 8 (see also the previous examples); Gn 13 (thrice); Ex 25 זָהָב נָכֶ֫סֶף; ψ 96 כָּבוֹד וָעֹז; ψ 76 וְרֶ֫כֶב וָסוּס; Gn 7 וְשֵׁם־וְחָם וָיֶ֫פֶת; נֹחַ 1 K 21 כֹּה וָכֹה ;אֱלֹהִים וָמֶ֑לֶךְ thus and thus; Est 1 אִישׁ־וָאִֽישׁ at the end of the verse, but in ψ 87 אִישׁ וְאִישׁ in spite of the D^eḥi with the second אִישׁ, because it is closely connected with the following predicate. Also with three words פַּ֫חַד וָפַ֫חַת וָפָ֑ה Is 24. On the other hand, the rapid pronunciation וְ occurs before a conjunctive accent (and, when farther removed from the principal pause, even with the smaller disjunctives, in spite of a following tone-syllable), e.g. צֹאן וְעֶ֣בֶד Gn 32; cf. Gn 31, Lv 7, Dt 2, and among the examples given above, Gn 7 and ψ 76. (Exceptions: וָקֵ֥דְמָה Gn 13, where evidently the וָ is intended to ensure the slow and solemn recitation of the promise, but also וָזִ֥יף Jos 15, וָעֵ֣תֶר 19, וָבֶ֥טֶן 19, all immediately before the pause.) For the same rhythmical reason וְ (not וָ) is used regularly with certain monosyllables which, by their nature, lean more closely upon the following word, thus וְזֶה, וְאֵת, וְגַם, וְלֹא (to be distinguished from וָלֹ֔א if not, with Zaqeph gadol, 2 K 5), and others.

§105. Interjections.

a 1. Among the interjections some (as in all languages) are simply natural sounds, or, as it were, vocal gestures, called forth involuntarily by certain impressions or sensations, e.g. אֲהָהּ (Ez 30 הָהּ), אָח ah! הֶאָח aha! (cf. this אָח also in אַחְלַי and אַֽחֲלֵי utinam!), אָֽנָּ֫א Ex 32, &c. (Gn 50 אָ֣נָּ֫א) ah! (from אָהּ and נָא), otherwise written אָֽנָּ֫ה 2 K 20, Jn 1, ψ 116; also הַס (in pause הָס, even in the plural הַ֫סּוּ hold your peace! Neh 8) hush! הוֹי (Am 5 הוֹ־הוֹ) ha! woe! אוֹי, א֫וֹיָה (ψ 120), אִי (in אִילוֹ Ec 4; אִי־לָךְ 10) woe!

b 2. Others, however, originally expressed independent ideas, and become interjections only by rapid pronunciation and by usage, e.g. (הֵא) הֵן or הִנֵּה behold! (prop. here); רְאֵה behold! (prop. imperative); הָ֫בָה, plur. הָבוּ (prop. give, imperative of יָהַב; as to the tone, cf. § 69 o), come, the Latin age, agite! לְכָה (also לְךָ), לְכוּ (prop. go, imperative of הָלַךְ) with the same meaning^[40]; חָלִ֫ילָה far be it! (prop. ad profanum!) בִּי (see the Lexicon) I beseech, hear me! נָא pray!^[41] used to emphasize a demand, warning, or entreaty, and always placed after the expression to which it belongs.^[42]

THIRD PART

SYNTAX^[43]

CHAPTER I

THE PARTS OF SPEECH

I. Syntax of the Verb.

A. Use of the Tenses and Moods.^[44]

§106. Use of the Perfect.

a The perfect serves to express actions, events, or states, which the speaker wishes to represent from the point of view of completion, whether they belong to a determinate past time, or extend into the present, or while still future, are pictured as in their completed state.

The definition formerly given here (‘the perfect serves to express completed actions’) applies, strictly speaking, only to some of the varieties of the perfect discussed under b–p: hence the above modification based on the arguments of Knudtzon (for the title see note 2, and cf. further § 107 a).

More particularly the uses of the perfect may be distinguished as follows:—

b 1. To represent actions, events, or states, which, after a shorter

↑ Only in ψ 69, contrary to rule, with a firmly closed syllable, cf. § 93 m.
↑ On שָׁנוֹת as a less frequent (poetic) form for שָׁנִים see § 87 n.
↑ עַשְׁתֹּ֫רֶת Astarte (plur. עַשְׁתָּרוֹת), which was formerly included among these examples, is most probably due to an intentional alteration of the original עַשְׁתֶּ֫רֶת, like מֹ֫לֶךְ Lv 18, &c. (for מֶ֫לֶךְ), with the vowels of בּ֫שֶׁת shame, the latter word being substituted in reading for the name of the goddess.
↑ The only omissions from these Paradigms are אֶחָד, חָם, and חָמוֹת (on which see the remarks), and all forms which are not found in the O.T.
↑ This explanation of אָחוֹת (and חָמוֹת q. v.) still seems to us more probable than the assumption that the fem. ending ăth is lengthened to compensate for the loss of the 3rd radical (so Wellhausen, Skizzen, vi. 258), or that the form is derived from ʾaḥâ, the old-semitic constr. st. of the accusative, with ת feminine (so Barth, ZDMG. 1899, p. 598).
↑ So already Gesenius in his Thes. Linguae Hebr., i. 83 f., and recently again Friedr. Delitzsch, Prolegg., p. 160 ff., Praetorius in Kuhn’s Orient. L.-B., 1884, p. 196; König, Lehrgeb., ii. 38; while Nöldeke (ZDMG. 1886, p. 739 f.), against Delitzsch, would connect both אִישׁ and נָשִׁים with the stem אנשׁ.
↑ Friedr. Delitzsch (in his Babylonian glosses to Baer’s text of Ezekiel, p. xi) on Ez 23 remarks that in Assyro-Babylonian the plur. of aššatu (woman) is aššâti, corresponding, therefore, to אִשּׁוֹת, not to the ordinary plur. נָשִׁים. The a of נָשִׁים (instead of i as in Arab. or e as in Syr.) is to be explained with Barth (Orient. Studien zu Ehren Th. Nöldekes, Giessen, 1906, p. 792) from the natural connexion of the ideas ‘men’ and ‘women’, נָשִׁים and אֲנָשִׁים.
↑ This disposes of the traditional view that the Dageš (after a firm Metheg, see § 16 f ζ) only serves to distinguish if from בָּתִים passing the night, ptcp. Qal of בּוּת, a stem which never occurs in the O.T. According to P. Haupt the stem is בא to go in, ת therefore being the feminine termination, as in bint daughter, and the original form baʾtu, bātu (entrance) is preserved in the plural bāttim where the tt is to be explained as due to the analogy of trisyllabic stems. In the singular bāt passed into bēt (?), and this was resolved into bait, as Y^erūšālēm into Y^erūšālayim.
↑ Cf. Nöldeke, Beitröge, p. 58, yaum, probably an extension of a biliteral word which has survived in יָמִים, יְמֵי. Barth, however, Orient. Studien, p. 791 (see above on אִשָּׂה), sees in יָמִים, יְמֵי, יְמוֹת new formations in Hebrew, caused by the naturally close connexion and association of these plurals with שְׁנִים, שְׁנֵי, שְׁנוֹת years, to which they became assimilated in form. The view that יוֹם is merely an incorrect obscuring of יָם, and therefore distinct from the Arab. yaum, is contradicted by the invariable spelling יוֹם, &c., notwithstanding the spelling ובים (=וּבְיֹם ?) in the Siloam inscription, line 3 (cf. § 7 f), and מִיֹּמָ֑יִם Ho 6. Cf. also the note on § 100 g.
↑ Shortened from שְׁנָתַ֫יִם, which would be the regular feminine form of שְׁנַ֫יִם. Nevertheless, the Dageš in שְׁתַּ֫יִם, &c. (even after מִן; מִֽשְׁתֵּים Jon 4; cf., however, מִשְּׁתֵי Ju 16), can by no means be regarded as a Dageš forte arising from assimilation of the Nûn, for in that case the word could only be שִׁתַּ֫יִם (cf. Arab. ṯintāni). This form does occur in the Codex Babylonicus of A.D. 916, but it is only a later correction for שְׁתַּ֫יִם, while in the Berlin MS. or. qu. 680 described by Kahle (Lpz. 1902) there is no trace of the Dageš. It is rather to be read štáyîm, štê (with Dageš lene), cf. אֶשְׁתַּ֫יִם, representing the later Palestinian pronunciation (Philippi, ZDMG. xlix, p. 206), and Arab. ʾiṯnătāni (with a kind of prosthetic א; cf. § 19 m), as a further feminine form of ʾiṯnāni, duo. According to Barth (Orient. Studien... Th. Nöldeke, ii. 792 f.) the irregularity of שְׁתַּ֫יִם (he takes the Dageš as Dageš forte) is due to the complete assimilation of its vowels to those of the masc. שְׁנַ֫יִם where the Š^ewâ mobile is normal.
↑ With Dageš probably on the analogy of שִׁשָּׁה, as שֵׁ֫שֶׁת on the analogy of חֲמֵ֫שֶׁת. Cf. also J. K. Blake on חֲמִשָּׁה, חֲמִשִּׁים in JAOS. 1905, p. 117 ff.
↑ שְׁבַע and תְּשַּׁע appear only as connective forms before עֶשְׂרֵה and מֵאוֹת.
↑ In the vulgar dialects of Arabic, and in Ethiopic, the feminine form of the numeral is by far the more common. This form appears also in Hebrew, when the number is regarded in the abstract, as in the multiplicatives (see § 97 h).
↑ עַשְׁתֵּי, which remained for a long time unexplained, was recognized (first by J. Oppert) in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions in the form ištin or ištên; cf. Friedr. Delitzsch, Assyrische Grammatik, p. 203, and P. Haupt, in the American Journal of Philology, viii. 279. Accordingly, עַשְׁתֵּי עָשָׂר is a compound, like the Sansk. êkâdaçan, ἕνδεκα, undecim (analogous to the combination of units and tens in the numerals from 12 to 19), and is used at the same time in the composition of the feminine numeral eleven. On the gradual substitution of עַשְׁתֵּי ע׳ for אַחַד ע׳ and אַחַת ׳ see Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 226; עַשְׁתֵּי ע׳ occurs only in Jer., Ez., in the prologue to Deuteronomy (1:3), in the Priestly Code, and in passages undoubtedly post-exilic, so that it may very well be a loan-word from the Babylonian.
↑ For עֶשְׂרִים, שִׁבְעִים, תִּשְׁעִים (from the segholates עֶ֫שֶׂר, שֶׁ֫בַע, תֵּ֫שַׁע), we should expect ʿ^asārîm, š^ebhāʿîm, t^ešāʿîm. Is this very unusual deviation from the common formation (see above, § 93 l, o, r) connected with the special meaning of these plurals, or are these survivals of an older form of the plural of segholates?
↑ According to the conclusions of König (De Criticae Sacrae Argumento, p. 61, and Lehrgeb., ii. p. 215 ff.), the smaller number more commonly precedes in Ezek. and the Priestly Code, but the larger always elsewhere. S. Herner (Syntax der Zahlwörter im A.T., Lund, 1893, p. 71 ff.) arrives at the same conclusion by a full examination of the statistics; cf. also his remarks on König in ZAW. 1896, p. 123, and König’s reply, ibid., p. 328 f.
↑ Cf. Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen im A.T. (Halle, 1902), p. 79 f.
↑ Cf. D. H. Müller, ‘Die numeralia multiplicativa in den Amarnatafeln u. im Hebr.,’ Semitica, i, Wien, 1906, p. 13 ff.
↑ Even short phrases are contracted into one word: Lat. forsitan, from fors sit an,δηλονότι,δηλαδή, Fr. peut-être, Eng. prithee from I pray thee.—In Chinese most of the particles are verbs or nouns; e.g. iù (to give), also the sign of the dative; ı̀ (to make use of), to, for; n̈i (the interior), in.
↑ Generally derived from the ptcp. Puʿal מְאָחָר m^eʾŏḥār (=m^eʾoḥḥār) and hence to be read mŏḥār (cf. מָֽחֳרָת morning); but according to P. Haupt (notes to Esther, p. 159) from יוֹם אַחַר.
↑ Is this ־ָם an instance of the locative or temporal termination (cf. especially צהרם) mentioned in § 88 c? Nöldeke, ZDMG. xl. p. 721, considers יוֹמָם a secondary substantival form (used adverbially like לַ֫יְלָה noctu), corresponding to the Phoenician and Aramaic ימם, Syr. ʾimāmā; cf. on the other hand, König, ii. 255, who follows Olshausen in maintaining that the ām is an adverbial termination.
↑ דּוּמָם silent (an adjective in Is 47, La 3; a substantive in Hb 2), which was formerly included under this head, is better taken, with Barth (Nominal-bildung, p. 352, Rem. 2), as a participle formed like שׁוֹבָב, עוֹלָל, so that דּוּמָם (perhaps assimilated to דּוּמָה) stands for original דּוֹמָם.
↑ The separation of the ה at the beginning of Dt 32, expressly noticed by Qimḥi (ed. Rittenb., p. 40 b) as an unique instance, is perhaps a protestagainst admitting a particle הַל.
↑ This form, which occurs in Dt 29, 1 S 14, 23, Est 3, is textually very doubtful, and cannot be supported by the equally doubtful קָבְנוֹ (for קֻבֶּ֫נּוּ) Nu 23. Most probably, with Stade, Gramm., § 370 b, and P. Haupt, SBOT. Numbers, p. 57, line 37, we should read יֵשֶׁ֫נּוּ.
↑ In the examples which follow, the meaning of the noun is added in parentheses, and, when it is actually in use [though it is mostly in such cases very rare], is marked with an asterisk.—On a similar use in other languages, see W. von Humboldt, Über die Kawisprache, iii, p. 621.
↑ So also J. Hoch de Long, Die hebr. Präpos. בְּעַד, Lpz. 1905.
↑ König, Einleitung ins A.T., p. 393 (cf. also the almost exhaustive statistics in his Lehrgebäude, ii. 292 ff.), enumerates eight instances of מִן before a word without the article in 2 Samuel and Kings, and forty-five in Chronicles.
↑ Jerome (see Siegfried, ZAW. iv. 79) almost always represents בְּ by ba.
↑ Another vox memor. is כָּל־בּוֹ נֶֽעֶלָם all is hidden in him.
↑ Fînî and bînî (in me), in vulgar Arabic for fiyya and bî, are compared by Socin. Brockelmann, ZA. xiv. 347, note 1, suggests that תחתני, תחתנה, בעדני are later formations on the model of מִמֶּ֫נִּי when its origin from the reduplication of the preposition had become obscured, but see below, m.
↑ לָכֶן does not occur in the O.T., by a mere accident, no doubt; Ez 13 לָכֶ֫נָה.
↑ The question whether לָ֫מוֹ can also stand for the sing. לוֹ, which Rödiger and recently W. Diehl (Das Pronomen pers. suff.... des Hebr., p. 20 f.) and P. Haupt (SBOT. on Pr 23, a contraction of la-humû) have altogether denied, must be answered in the affirmative unless we conclude with Diehl and Haupt that all the instances concerned are due to corruptions of the text. It is true that in such places as Gn 9, Dt 33, Is 30, ψ 73 (all in or immediately before the principal pause; in Dt 33 with Zaqeph qaṭon at least) לָ֫מוֹ can be better explained as plural (in reference to collective nouns); and in Is 53 for נֶ֫גַע לָ֫מוֹ we should read with the LXX נִגַּע לַמָּ֫וֶת. On the other hand, in Is 44 its explanation as plural would be extremely forced. Even then there would remain—presuming the traditional text to be correct—פָּנֵ֫ימוֹ ψ 11 and כַּפֵּ֫ימוֹ Jb 27, as well as עָלֵ֫ימוֹ, three times, Jb 20, 27 (beside עָלָיו), and especially Jb 22. In all these places the most extreme exegetical artifices can only be avoided by simply admitting a singular suffix (=פָּנָיו, כַּפָּיו, עָלָיו).—On the question of the antiquity of the suffixes in מוֹ see § 91 l.
↑ The form לָהֵן in Ru 1 is Aramaic (=therefore).
↑ The use of נִי here for ־ִי (cf. above, d) might be due to euphonic reasons.—כָּמֹ֫נִי (defectively) only in the Pentateuch, כָּמֹ֫ךָ Ex 15.
↑ The Babylonian Masora writes מִמֵּ֫נוּ (to distinguish it from the 3rd sing.), which is justly blamed by Ibn Ezra.
↑ The reference of these forms to original plurals has been again expressly supported by De Lagarde, Symmicta, ii. 101 ff.; Nachrichten der G. g. G., 1881, p. 376, cf. Mittheilungen, 1884, p. 63; also GGA. 1884, p. 280 f. According to Barth, ZDMG. xlii. p. 348 ff., and Nominalbildung, p. 375 ff., תַּחְתֶּ֫יךָ, &c., was only formed on the analogy of עָלֶ֫יךָ, &c., and אַֽחֲרֶ֫יךָ &c., only on the analogy of לִפְנֵי, &c., since the real plural forms ought to be תְּחָתֶ֫יךָ, אֲחָרֶ֫יךָ, &c.; cf., however, König, Lehrgebäude, ii. 305 f.
↑ On the use of this particle see § 119 g.
↑ As Mayer Lambert observes, usage (cf. esp. Gn 26) distinguishes between the two forms: בינותינו, means between us and you, whereas בינינו (Jos 22 before וביניכם) means between us on the one side.
↑ The poetical form אֵלֵ֫ימוֹ only in ψ 2; עָלֵ֫ימוֹ, on which see note 3 on f, 12 times [viz. Dt 32, ψ 5, 55, 64, Jb 6, 20, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30].
↑ רְאֵה (Dt 1), הָ֫בָה and לְכָה are also used in connexion with the feminine and the plural, which proves that they have become quite stereotyped as interjections.
↑ נָא serves to express the most various shades of expression, which are discussed in the various parts of the syntax. It is used especially (a) after the imperative, either in commands or entreaty, see § 110 d; (b) with the imperfect, either in the cohortative (§ 108 b) or jussive (§ 109 b); (c) once with perfect, Gn 40; (d) after various particles: הִנֵּה־נָא behold now; particularly after the conjunctions אַל and אִם: אַל־נָא ne quaeso and אִם־נָא if now, εἴπερ, εἴποτε if, in a deprecatory sense, expressive of politeness or modesty. In Nu 12 נָא stands after a noun; but we ought certainly to read אַל־נָא.—In polite language this particle is used constantly in all these ways, Gn 18, 19, and 50.
↑ Against the usual view which regards נָא as a hortatory particle (=up! come! analogous to the original imperatives הָ֫בָה and לְכָה and the Ethiopic năʿâ, properly hither, also come!), P. Haupt, in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars, xiii, no. 114, p. 109, justly observes that we should then expect the particle to be prefixed to the imperative, &c. He proposes to describe נָא as an emphatic particle. Haupt’s suggested identification of this נָא with the Assyrian, Arabic, and Ethiopic particle mā (which is also an enclitic of emphasis), and ultimately with the interrogative mā, we shall not discuss here.
↑ Recent works on Hebrew syntax are: A. B. Davidson, Introductory Heb. Gram., vol. ii, Heb. Syntax, Edinburgh, 1894; Ed. König. Hist.-compar. Syntax der hebr. Sprache, Lpz. 1897 (see above, § 3 f). Important contributions to Hebrew syntax are also contained in H. Reckendorf’s work Die syntakt. Verhältnisse des Arab., 2 pts., Leiden, 1895, 1898, of which we have already made use in § 97 a. Cf. also the same author’s very instructive discussions Ueber syntakt. Forschung, Munich, 1899.
↑ Cf. the sketch of the tenses and moods used in Hebrew in § 40; and on the general characteristics of the perfect and imperfect see the note on § 47 a; also Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (Oxford, 1874; 3rd ed. 1892); Bennett, ‘Notes on the Use of the Hebrew Tenses’ (Hebraica, 1886, vols. ii, iii). A partial modification of the accepted definition of the Semitic perfect and imperfect was proposed by J. A. Knudtzon, Om det saakaldte Perfektum og Imperfektum i Hebraisk, Kristiania, 1890; of which a summary entitled ‘Vom sogenannten Perf. und Imperf. im Hebr.’ appeared in the Transactions of the Oriental Congress at Stockholm, section sémitique b, p. 73 ff. (Leiden, 1893). Cf. also Knudtzon’s articles, ‘Zur assyrischen und allgemein semitischen Grammatik’ in the Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, especially vi. 422 ff. and vii. 33 ff.

[1] Only in ψ 69, contrary to rule, with a firmly closed syllable, cf. § 93 m.

[2] On שָׁנוֹת as a less frequent (poetic) form for שָׁנִים see § 87 n.

[3] עַשְׁתֹּ֫רֶת Astarte (plur. עַשְׁתָּרוֹת), which was formerly included among these examples, is most probably due to an intentional alteration of the original עַשְׁתֶּ֫רֶת, like מֹ֫לֶךְ Lv 18, &c. (for מֶ֫לֶךְ), with the vowels of בּ֫שֶׁת shame, the latter word being substituted in reading for the name of the goddess.

[4] The only omissions from these Paradigms are אֶחָד, חָם, and חָמוֹת (on which see the remarks), and all forms which are not found in the O.T.

[5] This explanation of אָחוֹת (and חָמוֹת q. v.) still seems to us more probable than the assumption that the fem. ending ăth is lengthened to compensate for the loss of the 3rd radical (so Wellhausen, Skizzen, vi. 258), or that the form is derived from ʾaḥâ, the old-semitic constr. st. of the accusative, with ת feminine (so Barth, ZDMG. 1899, p. 598).

[6] So already Gesenius in his Thes. Linguae Hebr., i. 83 f., and recently again Friedr. Delitzsch, Prolegg., p. 160 ff., Praetorius in Kuhn’s Orient. L.-B., 1884, p. 196; König, Lehrgeb., ii. 38; while Nöldeke (ZDMG. 1886, p. 739 f.), against Delitzsch, would connect both אִישׁ and נָשִׁים with the stem אנשׁ.

[7] Friedr. Delitzsch (in his Babylonian glosses to Baer’s text of Ezekiel, p. xi) on Ez 23 remarks that in Assyro-Babylonian the plur. of aššatu (woman) is aššâti, corresponding, therefore, to אִשּׁוֹת, not to the ordinary plur. נָשִׁים. The a of נָשִׁים (instead of i as in Arab. or e as in Syr.) is to be explained with Barth (Orient. Studien zu Ehren Th. Nöldekes, Giessen, 1906, p. 792) from the natural connexion of the ideas ‘men’ and ‘women’, נָשִׁים and אֲנָשִׁים.

[8] This disposes of the traditional view that the Dageš (after a firm Metheg, see § 16 f ζ) only serves to distinguish if from בָּתִים passing the night, ptcp. Qal of בּוּת, a stem which never occurs in the O.T. According to P. Haupt the stem is בא to go in, ת therefore being the feminine termination, as in bint daughter, and the original form baʾtu, bātu (entrance) is preserved in the plural bāttim where the tt is to be explained as due to the analogy of trisyllabic stems. In the singular bāt passed into bēt (?), and this was resolved into bait, as Y^erūšālēm into Y^erūšālayim.

[9] Cf. Nöldeke, Beitröge, p. 58, yaum, probably an extension of a biliteral word which has survived in יָמִים, יְמֵי. Barth, however, Orient. Studien, p. 791 (see above on אִשָּׂה), sees in יָמִים, יְמֵי, יְמוֹת new formations in Hebrew, caused by the naturally close connexion and association of these plurals with שְׁנִים, שְׁנֵי, שְׁנוֹת years, to which they became assimilated in form. The view that יוֹם is merely an incorrect obscuring of יָם, and therefore distinct from the Arab. yaum, is contradicted by the invariable spelling יוֹם, &c., notwithstanding the spelling ובים (=וּבְיֹם ?) in the Siloam inscription, line 3 (cf. § 7 f), and מִיֹּמָ֑יִם Ho 6. Cf. also the note on § 100 g.

[10] Shortened from שְׁנָתַ֫יִם, which would be the regular feminine form of שְׁנַ֫יִם. Nevertheless, the Dageš in שְׁתַּ֫יִם, &c. (even after מִן; מִֽשְׁתֵּים Jon 4; cf., however, מִשְּׁתֵי Ju 16), can by no means be regarded as a Dageš forte arising from assimilation of the Nûn, for in that case the word could only be שִׁתַּ֫יִם (cf. Arab. ṯintāni). This form does occur in the Codex Babylonicus of A.D. 916, but it is only a later correction for שְׁתַּ֫יִם, while in the Berlin MS. or. qu. 680 described by Kahle (Lpz. 1902) there is no trace of the Dageš. It is rather to be read štáyîm, štê (with Dageš lene), cf. אֶשְׁתַּ֫יִם, representing the later Palestinian pronunciation (Philippi, ZDMG. xlix, p. 206), and Arab. ʾiṯnătāni (with a kind of prosthetic א; cf. § 19 m), as a further feminine form of ʾiṯnāni, duo. According to Barth (Orient. Studien... Th. Nöldeke, ii. 792 f.) the irregularity of שְׁתַּ֫יִם (he takes the Dageš as Dageš forte) is due to the complete assimilation of its vowels to those of the masc. שְׁנַ֫יִם where the Š^ewâ mobile is normal.

[11] With Dageš probably on the analogy of שִׁשָּׁה, as שֵׁ֫שֶׁת on the analogy of חֲמֵ֫שֶׁת. Cf. also J. K. Blake on חֲמִשָּׁה, חֲמִשִּׁים in JAOS. 1905, p. 117 ff.

[12] שְׁבַע and תְּשַּׁע appear only as connective forms before עֶשְׂרֵה and מֵאוֹת.

[13] In the vulgar dialects of Arabic, and in Ethiopic, the feminine form of the numeral is by far the more common. This form appears also in Hebrew, when the number is regarded in the abstract, as in the multiplicatives (see § 97 h).

[14] עַשְׁתֵּי, which remained for a long time unexplained, was recognized (first by J. Oppert) in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions in the form ištin or ištên; cf. Friedr. Delitzsch, Assyrische Grammatik, p. 203, and P. Haupt, in the American Journal of Philology, viii. 279. Accordingly, עַשְׁתֵּי עָשָׂר is a compound, like the Sansk. êkâdaçan, ἕνδεκα, undecim (analogous to the combination of units and tens in the numerals from 12 to 19), and is used at the same time in the composition of the feminine numeral eleven. On the gradual substitution of עַשְׁתֵּי ע׳ for אַחַד ע׳ and אַחַת ׳ see Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 226; עַשְׁתֵּי ע׳ occurs only in Jer., Ez., in the prologue to Deuteronomy (1:3), in the Priestly Code, and in passages undoubtedly post-exilic, so that it may very well be a loan-word from the Babylonian.

[15] For עֶשְׂרִים, שִׁבְעִים, תִּשְׁעִים (from the segholates עֶ֫שֶׂר, שֶׁ֫בַע, תֵּ֫שַׁע), we should expect ʿ^asārîm, š^ebhāʿîm, t^ešāʿîm. Is this very unusual deviation from the common formation (see above, § 93 l, o, r) connected with the special meaning of these plurals, or are these survivals of an older form of the plural of segholates?

[16] According to the conclusions of König (De Criticae Sacrae Argumento, p. 61, and Lehrgeb., ii. p. 215 ff.), the smaller number more commonly precedes in Ezek. and the Priestly Code, but the larger always elsewhere. S. Herner (Syntax der Zahlwörter im A.T., Lund, 1893, p. 71 ff.) arrives at the same conclusion by a full examination of the statistics; cf. also his remarks on König in ZAW. 1896, p. 123, and König’s reply, ibid., p. 328 f.

[17] Cf. Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen im A.T. (Halle, 1902), p. 79 f.

[18] Cf. D. H. Müller, ‘Die numeralia multiplicativa in den Amarnatafeln u. im Hebr.,’ Semitica, i, Wien, 1906, p. 13 ff.

[19] Even short phrases are contracted into one word: Lat. forsitan, from fors sit an,δηλονότι,δηλαδή, Fr. peut-être, Eng. prithee from I pray thee.—In Chinese most of the particles are verbs or nouns; e.g. iù (to give), also the sign of the dative; ı̀ (to make use of), to, for; n̈i (the interior), in.

[20] Generally derived from the ptcp. Puʿal מְאָחָר m^eʾŏḥār (=m^eʾoḥḥār) and hence to be read mŏḥār (cf. מָֽחֳרָת morning); but according to P. Haupt (notes to Esther, p. 159) from יוֹם אַחַר.

[21] Is this ־ָם an instance of the locative or temporal termination (cf. especially צהרם) mentioned in § 88 c? Nöldeke, ZDMG. xl. p. 721, considers יוֹמָם a secondary substantival form (used adverbially like לַ֫יְלָה noctu), corresponding to the Phoenician and Aramaic ימם, Syr. ʾimāmā; cf. on the other hand, König, ii. 255, who follows Olshausen in maintaining that the ām is an adverbial termination.

[22] דּוּמָם silent (an adjective in Is 47, La 3; a substantive in Hb 2), which was formerly included under this head, is better taken, with Barth (Nominal-bildung, p. 352, Rem. 2), as a participle formed like שׁוֹבָב, עוֹלָל, so that דּוּמָם (perhaps assimilated to דּוּמָה) stands for original דּוֹמָם.

[23] The separation of the ה at the beginning of Dt 32, expressly noticed by Qimḥi (ed. Rittenb., p. 40 b) as an unique instance, is perhaps a protestagainst admitting a particle הַל.

[24] This form, which occurs in Dt 29, 1 S 14, 23, Est 3, is textually very doubtful, and cannot be supported by the equally doubtful קָבְנוֹ (for קֻבֶּ֫נּוּ) Nu 23. Most probably, with Stade, Gramm., § 370 b, and P. Haupt, SBOT. Numbers, p. 57, line 37, we should read יֵשֶׁ֫נּוּ.

[25] In the examples which follow, the meaning of the noun is added in parentheses, and, when it is actually in use [though it is mostly in such cases very rare], is marked with an asterisk.—On a similar use in other languages, see W. von Humboldt, Über die Kawisprache, iii, p. 621.

[26] So also J. Hoch de Long, Die hebr. Präpos. בְּעַד, Lpz. 1905.

[27] König, Einleitung ins A.T., p. 393 (cf. also the almost exhaustive statistics in his Lehrgebäude, ii. 292 ff.), enumerates eight instances of מִן before a word without the article in 2 Samuel and Kings, and forty-five in Chronicles.

[28] Jerome (see Siegfried, ZAW. iv. 79) almost always represents בְּ by ba.

[29] Another vox memor. is כָּל־בּוֹ נֶֽעֶלָם all is hidden in him.

[30] Fînî and bînî (in me), in vulgar Arabic for fiyya and bî, are compared by Socin. Brockelmann, ZA. xiv. 347, note 1, suggests that תחתני, תחתנה, בעדני are later formations on the model of מִמֶּ֫נִּי when its origin from the reduplication of the preposition had become obscured, but see below, m.

[31] לָכֶן does not occur in the O.T., by a mere accident, no doubt; Ez 13 לָכֶ֫נָה.

[32] The question whether לָ֫מוֹ can also stand for the sing. לוֹ, which Rödiger and recently W. Diehl (Das Pronomen pers. suff.... des Hebr., p. 20 f.) and P. Haupt (SBOT. on Pr 23, a contraction of la-humû) have altogether denied, must be answered in the affirmative unless we conclude with Diehl and Haupt that all the instances concerned are due to corruptions of the text. It is true that in such places as Gn 9, Dt 33, Is 30, ψ 73 (all in or immediately before the principal pause; in Dt 33 with Zaqeph qaṭon at least) לָ֫מוֹ can be better explained as plural (in reference to collective nouns); and in Is 53 for נֶ֫גַע לָ֫מוֹ we should read with the LXX נִגַּע לַמָּ֫וֶת. On the other hand, in Is 44 its explanation as plural would be extremely forced. Even then there would remain—presuming the traditional text to be correct—פָּנֵ֫ימוֹ ψ 11 and כַּפֵּ֫ימוֹ Jb 27, as well as עָלֵ֫ימוֹ, three times, Jb 20, 27 (beside עָלָיו), and especially Jb 22. In all these places the most extreme exegetical artifices can only be avoided by simply admitting a singular suffix (=פָּנָיו, כַּפָּיו, עָלָיו).—On the question of the antiquity of the suffixes in מוֹ see § 91 l.

[33] The form לָהֵן in Ru 1 is Aramaic (=therefore).

[34] The use of נִי here for ־ִי (cf. above, d) might be due to euphonic reasons.—כָּמֹ֫נִי (defectively) only in the Pentateuch, כָּמֹ֫ךָ Ex 15.

[35] The Babylonian Masora writes מִמֵּ֫נוּ (to distinguish it from the 3rd sing.), which is justly blamed by Ibn Ezra.

[36] The reference of these forms to original plurals has been again expressly supported by De Lagarde, Symmicta, ii. 101 ff.; Nachrichten der G. g. G., 1881, p. 376, cf. Mittheilungen, 1884, p. 63; also GGA. 1884, p. 280 f. According to Barth, ZDMG. xlii. p. 348 ff., and Nominalbildung, p. 375 ff., תַּחְתֶּ֫יךָ, &c., was only formed on the analogy of עָלֶ֫יךָ, &c., and אַֽחֲרֶ֫יךָ &c., only on the analogy of לִפְנֵי, &c., since the real plural forms ought to be תְּחָתֶ֫יךָ, אֲחָרֶ֫יךָ, &c.; cf., however, König, Lehrgebäude, ii. 305 f.

[37] On the use of this particle see § 119 g.

[38] As Mayer Lambert observes, usage (cf. esp. Gn 26) distinguishes between the two forms: בינותינו, means between us and you, whereas בינינו (Jos 22 before וביניכם) means between us on the one side.

[39] The poetical form אֵלֵ֫ימוֹ only in ψ 2; עָלֵ֫ימוֹ, on which see note 3 on f, 12 times [viz. Dt 32, ψ 5, 55, 64, Jb 6, 20, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30].

[40] רְאֵה (Dt 1), הָ֫בָה and לְכָה are also used in connexion with the feminine and the plural, which proves that they have become quite stereotyped as interjections.

[41] נָא serves to express the most various shades of expression, which are discussed in the various parts of the syntax. It is used especially (a) after the imperative, either in commands or entreaty, see § 110 d; (b) with the imperfect, either in the cohortative (§ 108 b) or jussive (§ 109 b); (c) once with perfect, Gn 40; (d) after various particles: הִנֵּה־נָא behold now; particularly after the conjunctions אַל and אִם: אַל־נָא ne quaeso and אִם־נָא if now, εἴπερ, εἴποτε if, in a deprecatory sense, expressive of politeness or modesty. In Nu 12 נָא stands after a noun; but we ought certainly to read אַל־נָא.—In polite language this particle is used constantly in all these ways, Gn 18, 19, and 50.

[42] Against the usual view which regards נָא as a hortatory particle (=up! come! analogous to the original imperatives הָ֫בָה and לְכָה and the Ethiopic năʿâ, properly hither, also come!), P. Haupt, in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars, xiii, no. 114, p. 109, justly observes that we should then expect the particle to be prefixed to the imperative, &c. He proposes to describe נָא as an emphatic particle. Haupt’s suggested identification of this נָא with the Assyrian, Arabic, and Ethiopic particle mā (which is also an enclitic of emphasis), and ultimately with the interrogative mā, we shall not discuss here.

[43] Recent works on Hebrew syntax are: A. B. Davidson, Introductory Heb. Gram., vol. ii, Heb. Syntax, Edinburgh, 1894; Ed. König. Hist.-compar. Syntax der hebr. Sprache, Lpz. 1897 (see above, § 3 f). Important contributions to Hebrew syntax are also contained in H. Reckendorf’s work Die syntakt. Verhältnisse des Arab., 2 pts., Leiden, 1895, 1898, of which we have already made use in § 97 a. Cf. also the same author’s very instructive discussions Ueber syntakt. Forschung, Munich, 1899.

[44] Cf. the sketch of the tenses and moods used in Hebrew in § 40; and on the general characteristics of the perfect and imperfect see the note on § 47 a; also Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (Oxford, 1874; 3rd ed. 1892); Bennett, ‘Notes on the Use of the Hebrew Tenses’ (Hebraica, 1886, vols. ii, iii). A partial modification of the accepted definition of the Semitic perfect and imperfect was proposed by J. A. Knudtzon, Om det saakaldte Perfektum og Imperfektum i Hebraisk, Kristiania, 1890; of which a summary entitled ‘Vom sogenannten Perf. und Imperf. im Hebr.’ appeared in the Transactions of the Oriental Congress at Stockholm, section sémitique b, p. 73 ff. (Leiden, 1893). Cf. also Knudtzon’s articles, ‘Zur assyrischen und allgemein semitischen Grammatik’ in the Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, especially vi. 422 ff. and vii. 33 ff.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

User:Ubufox/9

Navigation menu

Search