Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/117. The Direct Subordination of the Noun to the Verb as Accusative of the Object. The Double Accusative

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar  (1909) 
Wilhelm Gesenius
edited and enlarged by Emil Kautzsch
, translated by Arthur Ernest Cowley
The Direct Subordination of the Noun to the Verb as Accusative of the Object. The Double Accusative

C. The Government of the Verb.
§117. The Direct Subordination of the Noun to the Verb as Accusative of the Object. The Double Accusative.
L. Kaila, Zur Syntax des in verbaler Abhängigkeit stehenden Nomens im alttest. Hebr., Helsingfors, 1906.

117a 1. The simplest way in which a noun is subordinated to a verbal form is by the addition of an accusative of the object to a transitive verb.[1] In the absence of case-endings,[2] this accusative can now be recognized only from the context, or by the particle אֶת־ (אֵת, before suffixes also אֹת, אוֹת)[3] prefixed to it. The use of this nota accusativi is, however, somewhat rare in poetry, and even in prose it is not invariably necessary but is restricted to those cases in which the accusative of the object is more closely determined by being a proper name, or by having the article, or by a following determinate genitive (hence also by the suffixes), or in some other way (see below, c), e.g. Gn 41 and she bare אֶת־קַ֫יִן Cain; 6:10, 1:1 God created אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם וְאֵת הָאָ֫רֶץ the heaven and the earth (but 2:4 אֶ֫רֶץ רְשָׁמַ֫יִם); 1:25 and God made אֶת־חַיַּת הָאָ֫רֶץ the beast of the earth; 2:24.

117b Rem. 1. The rare occurrence of the nota accusativi in poetic style (e.g. it never occurs in Ex 152–18, Dt 32, Ju 5, 1 S 2, &c., though it is frequent in the late Psalms) may be explained from the fact that in this as in other respects (cf. §2q) poetry represents a somewhat more archaic stage of the language than prose. The need of some external means of indicating the accusative could only have been felt after the case-endings had become wholly extinct. Even then the את would probably have been used at first to indicate only an object placed before the verb (when it followed, it was already sufficiently characterized by its position as depending on the verb), or proper names.[4] Finally, however, the nota accusativi became so customary everywhere in prose, that even the pronominal object was expressed rather by את with suffixes than by verbal suffixes, even when none of the reasons mentioned under e can be assigned for it; cf. Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 258 ff., and the statistics of H. Petri, cited above at the head of § 58. Such examples as כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים Gn 622 in the Priestly Code, beside בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֫הוּ יְהֹוָה 7:5 in the Jahvist, are especially instructive.

117c 2. As accusatives determined in other ways, we have in the first place to consider the collectives introduced by כֹּל entirety, without a following article or determinate genitive, inasmuch as the meaning of כֹּל includes a determinative sense, cf. e.g. Gn 121, 30, 8:21, Dt 234, 2 K 259. אֶת־כֹּל is used absolutely in Gn 93, cf. 39:23; similarly, מִי is determinate of itself, since it always denotes a person, hence אֶת־מִי quem? e.g. Is 68, 3723, &c., but never אֶת־מָה quid? So also the relative אֲשֶׁר in the sense of eum qui or quem, &c., e.g. 1 S 163, or id quod, Gn 924, &c. Cf. also such examples as Jos 210, 1 S 2419, where אֵת אֲשֶׁר is equivalent to the circumstance, that, &c.—Elsewhere אֵת stands before nouns which are determinate in sense, although the article is omitted, which according to §126h is very frequently the case in poetic or otherwise elevated style; thus Lv 265, Jos 2414, 15, Is 417 (to distinguish the object from the subject); 50:4 (with the first of two accusatives, also for the sake of clearness); Ez 1320, 4310, Pr 1321 (where the צַדִּיקִים are to be regarded as a distinct class); Jb 1325 (unless, with Beer and others, we read וְאִם for וְאֶת־); also Ec 77 may be a quotation of an ancient maxim.

117d On the other hand אֵת occurs very seldom in prose before a noun actually or apparently undetermined. In 1 S 246 כָּנָף is more closely defined by means of the following relative clause; in 2 S 411 אִישׁ צַדִּיק refers to Ishbosheth (as if it were him, who was an innocent man); in 1 K 616 עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה refers to the particular twenty cubits. In Ex 2128 (otherwise in verse 29) perhaps the אֶת־ is used in order to avoid the combination שׁוֹר אִישׁ (as in Nu 219 to avoid the cacophony נָשַׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ אִישׁ?); in Lv 78 and 20:10 the accusatives are at any rate defined by the centext.—In Nu 1615 אֶת־אַהַד מֵהֶם probably means even a single one (and then ipso facto a definite one) of them, as also in 1 S 93 אֶת־אַחַד מֵֽהַנְּעָרִים may refer to some definite one of the men-servants. In Gn 2130 we should read אֶת־שֶׁ֫בַע הַכְּבָשׂת with the Samaritan, since the seven lambs have been already mentioned; in Ex 21 translate with Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 79, אֶת־בַּת־לֵוִי the daughter of Levi; in Ex 289 read הַשֹּׁ֫הַם with the Samaritan; in Lv 2014 אֶת־אִשָּׁה is probably a scribal error due to וְאֶת־אִמָּה; in 1 S 2620 read נַפְשִׁי with the LXX for פַּרְעשׁ אֶחָד; in 2 S 524 read הַצְּעָדָה as in 1 Ch 1415; in 2 S 1516 the אֶת־ is incorrectly inserted from 20:3, where it refers to the women already mentioned; in 2 S 1818 read הַמַּצֶּ֫בֶת, or omit both אֶת־ and אֲשֶׁר with the LXX and Lucian; in 1 K 1231 omit אֶת־; in 2 K 2320 probably אֶת־עַצְמוֹתָם is to be read; in 2 K 259 the text is corrupt. In Ez 1632 אֶת־זָרִים might refer to the strangers in question; but see Smend on the passage.

117e 3. The pronominal object must be represented by את with a suffix (instead of a verbal suffix), when (a) it precedes the verb, e.g. Nu 2233 אֹֽתְכָה הָרַ֫גְתִּי וְאוֹתָהּ הֶֽחֱיֵ֫יתִי I had slain thee and saved her alive; Gn 71, Lv 2228, 1 S 87, Is 4322, 5711, Jer 417, 22, 7:19; (b) when a suffix is already attached to the verb, and as a rule when a second accusative with וְ follows, e.g. 2 S 1525 וְהִרְאַ֫נִי אֹתוֹ and he will show me it; Ex 173 לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת־בָּנַי to kill us and our children; Nu 1632, 1 S 511, 2 S 1416 (but cf. also Dt 116, 1516, &c., and Driver on 1 S 510); (c) after an infinitive absolute, see above §113a note; (d) after an infinitive construct, when it is immediately followed by the subject, e.g. Gn 4139, or when the combination of a suffix with the infinitive might lead to a misunderstanding, e.g. Gn 415 לְבִלְתִּי הַכּֽוֹת־אֹתוֹ lest one should smite him, &c., where לְבִלְתִּי הַכּוֹתוֹ might also mean lest he should smite.

117f 4. The pronominal object is very frequently omitted, when it can be easily supplied from the context; so especially the neuter accusative referring to something previously mentioned (the English it) after verba sentiendi (שָׁמַע) and dicendi, e.g. Gn 922, &c., וַיַּגֵּד and he told (it); also after נָתַן to give, Gn 187, 2441, &c., לָקַח to take, הֵבִיא to bring, שִׂים to lay, Gn 923, &c., מָצָא to find, Gn 3133, &c. A personal object is omitted, e.g. in Gn 1219, 2451 (after לָקַח.—The omission of the plural object is remarkable, because it leaves an opportunity for a misunderstanding, in Gn 3717 שָׁמַ֫עְתּי אֹֽמְרִים[5] I heard them saying; perhaps, however, we should read שְׁמַעְתִּים with the Samaritan.

117g 5. In common formulae the substantival object is also sometimes omitted (an elliptical expression); thus e.g. כָּרַת 1 S 2016, &c. (see the Lexicon) stands for כָּרַת בְּרִית like the English to close (sc. a bargain) with any one; נָטַר to keep (sc. אַף anger) equivalent to to be resentful, ψ 1039, &c.; so also שָׁמַר Jer 35 (beside נָטַר); נָשָׂא for נָשָׂא קוֹל to lift up the voice, Is 37; נָשָׂא לְ for נָשָׂא עָוֹן לְ to take away any one’s sin (to forgive), Gn 1824, 26, Is 29; שָׁלַח to put forth (sc. יָד the hand) equivalent to to reach after something, 2 S 66, ψ 1817.

117h 6. Verba sentiendi may take a second object, generally in the form of a participle or adjective and necessarily indeterminate, to define more exactly the action or state in which the object is perceived, e.g. Nu 1110 וַיִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה אֶת־הָעָם בֹּכֶה and Moses heard the people weeping; Gn 71 אֽתְךָ רָאִ֫יתִי צַדִּיק thee have I seen righteous. Frequently, however, the second object is expressed by a separate clause. This is especially frequent with רָאָה to see, e.g. Gn 14 and God saw the light, that it was good; Gn 62, 1214, 1310, 4915, Ex 22, ψ 2519, Pr 2331, Jb 2212, Ec 224, 817; so with יָדַע to know, Ex 3222, 2 S 325, 178 (with two objects); 1 K 517.

117i 7. In certain instances את serves apparently to introduce or to emphasize a nominative. This cannot be regarded as a reappearance of the original substantival meaning of the את, since all unquestionable examples of the kind belong to the later Books of the Old Testament. They are rather (apart from textual errors or other explanations) cases of virtual dependence on an implied verbum regens understood. The constant use of את to indicate a clause governed by the verb, necessarily led at length to the use of את generally as a defining particle irrespective of a governing verb. So in the Hebrew of the Mishna[6] (see above, §3a) אֹתוֹ and אֹתָהּ are prefixed even to a nominative without any special emphasis.

117k Naturally the above does not apply to any of the places in which את is not the nota accusativi, but a preposition (on את with, cf. §103b), e.g. Is 5715, 1 S 1734 (וְאֶת־הַדּוֹב and that, with a bear; אֶת־ here, however, has probably been interpolated from verse 36, where it is wanting); nor the places in which the accusative is subordinate to a passive (according to §121c) or to a verb of wanting as in Jos 2217 and Neh 932, see below, z. In Ez 4317 סָבִיב about governs like a verb, being followed by אוֹתָהּ.

117l Other cases are clearly due to attraction to a following relative pronoun in the accusative (Ez 1422, Zc 817; but Hag 25a, to ממצרים, must be omitted, with the LXX, as a later addition), or the accusative depends on a verbal idea, virtually contained in what has gone before, and consequently present to the speaker’s mind as governing the accusative. Thus Nu 326 (the verbal idea contained in ומשמרת verse 25 is they had to take charge of); in Jos 1711 ויהי לְ implies it was given up or they gave him; 1 S 2616 is equivalent to search now for; in 2 S 1125 אל־ירע בעיניך is used in the sense of noli aegre ferre[7]; Jer 3633 he had the brazier before him; in Ec 43 a verb like I esteem is mentally supplied before אֵת אֲשֶׁר. On Jos 2217, Neh 932, see below, aa.—Aposiopesis occurs in Dt 112 (do I mean); still more boldly in Zc 77, where either שְׁמַעְתֶּם or (תַּֽעֲשׂוּ) תִּשְׁמְעוּ is to be supplied.

117m Setting aside a few undoubtedly corrupt passages[8] there still remain the following examples, in which אֶת־ in the later Hebrew manner (almost in the sense of the Latin quod attinet ad) introduces a noun with more or less emphasis, Nu 346, 510, 356, Ju 2044, 46, Ez 1721, 2016, 3510, 443, Neh 919, 34, Dn 913, 2 Ch 3117.—In Ez 4717–19 (cf. also 43:7) it is simplest to emend זֹאת for אֶת־, according to verse 20. However, even the LXX, who have ταῦτα only in verse 18, can hardly have known any other reading than את; consequently in all these passages את must be regarded as virtually dependent on some governing word, such as ecce (LXX 43:7 ἐώακας), and 47:17 ff. as equivalent to thou shalt have as a border, &c.

117n 8. Another solecism of the later period is finally the introduction of the object by the preposition לְ (prop. in relation to, in the direction of), as sometimes in Ethiopic[9] and very commonly in Aramaic.[10]. Less remarkable is this looser connexion of the object with a participle, as with אָכַל La 45, אִסֵּף Nu 1025, זָקַף ψ 14514 (but cf. 146:8), צָרַר Nu 2518, הִשְׂגִּיא and שָׁטַה Jb 1223; before the participle Is 119.—To introduce an object preceding the finite verb לְ is employed in Jb 52 (cf. also Dn 1138); also after אָהֵב Lv 1918, 34; הֶֽאֱרִיךְ ψ 1293; הִבְדִּיל Ezr 824, 2 Ch 2510; הֵבִין Jb 911; בֵּרַךְ 1 Ch 2920 (immediately before with an accusative); הִגְלָה 1 Ch 526; דָּרַשׁ Ezr 621, 1 Ch 2219, 2 Ch 1713; חֶֽהֱיָה Gn 457, where, however, read פְּלֵיטָה with the LXX for לפליטה and take לָכֶם as a dativus commodi; הִלֵּל 1 Ch 1636, 2 Ch 513; הָרַג 2 S 330, ψ 13511 (verse 10 with accusative), 136:19 f.; חָבַשׁ (to bind up) Is 611 (Ez 344 the verb); יָדַע ψ 696; כִּבֵּד ψ 869; לָקַח Jer 402, 2 Ch 231; הִמְלִיךְ and מָשַׁה 1 Ch 2922; נֵהַל 2 Ch 2815; סָמַךְ ψ 14514; עָזַב 1 Ch 1637; הֶֽעֱלָה Ez 263; פִּתַּח ψ 11616; רָדַף Jb 1928; הִצְדִּיק Is 5311; שָׂכַר 2 Ch 2412 (previously accusatives); שִׂים 1 S 227 (but probably וְכֻּלְּכֶם is to be read); הֵשִׁיב (in the connexion, הֵשִׁיב דָּבָר לְ) 2 Ch 106 (but verse 9 and 1 K 129 with an accusative); שִׁחֵת Nu 3215, 1 S 2310; שִׁית ψ 7318; שָׁלַח Ezr 816, 2 Ch 212, 177; שָׁמַר 1 Ch 2918, 2 Ch 511.

117o 9. Sometimes the verb, on which an accusative of the object really depends, is contained only in sense in the verb which apparently governs, e.g. Is 1417 אֲסִירָיו לֹא־פָתַח בָּֽיְתָה his prisoners he let not loose nor sent them back to their home. On this constructio praegnans in general, see §119ff.

117p 2. With the proper accusatives of the object may also be classed what is called the internal or absolute object (also named schema etymologicum or figura etymologica), i.e. the addition of an object in the form of a noun derived from the same stem,[11] e.g. ψ 145 פָּֽחֲדוּ פַ֫חַד they feared a fear (i.e. they were in great fear), Pr 1527; also with the object preceding, e.g. La 18 חֵטְא חָֽטְאָה יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם Jerusalem hath sinned a sin; with a double accusative (see below, cc), e.g. 1 K 112, אִֽיעָצֵךְ נָא עֵצָה let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel; 1 K 112.[12]

117q Rem. (a) Strictly speaking the only cases of this kind are those in which the verbal idea is supplemented by means of an indeterminate substantive (see the examples above). Such a substantive, except in the case of the addition of the internal object to denominative verbs (see below), is, like the infinitive absolute, never altogether without force, but rather serves like it to strengthen the verbal idea. This strengthening is implied in the indeterminateness of the internal object, analogous to such exclamations as, this was a man![13] Hence it is intelligible that some intensifying attribute is very frequently (as in Greek usually) added to the internal object, e.g. Gn 2734 וַיִּצְעַק צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה וּמָרָה עַד־מְאֹד he cried (with) an exceeding great and bitter cry; cf. the Greek νοσεῖν νόσον κακήν, ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην (Matt. 2:10); magnam pugnare pugnam, tutiorem vitam vivere, &c.

Examples of an internal object after the verb, and without further addition, are Ex 225, 2 S 1216, Is 2422, 352, 4217, Ez 2515), 26:15, 27:35, Mic 49, Zc 12, Pr 2126; with an intensifying attribute, Gn 2733, Ex 3231, Ju 158, 2 S 1336, 1 K 140 (cf. Jon 46, 1 Ch 299); Is 217, 4517, Jon 110, Zc 114, 82a, Dn 113; along with an object proper the internal object occurs with an attribute in Gn 1217, 2 S 1315; cf. also Is 146, Jon 41.—An internal object without an attribute before the verb: Is 2416, Jer 465, Hb 39, Jb 2712; with an attribute before the verb: Jer 1417, Zc 115 (cf. also Gn 308, Jer 2219, 3014, ψ 13922). Instead of the substantive which would naturally be expected, another of kindred meaning is used in Zc 82.

117r (b) Only in a wider sense can the schema etymologicum be made to include cases in which the denominative verb is used in connexion with the noun from which it is derived, e.g. Gn 111, 914, 113, 377, Ez 182, ψ 1446, probably also Mi 24, or where this substantive, made determinate in some way, follows its verb, e.g. Gn 3037, Nu 2511, 2 K 413, 1314, Is 4517, La 358,[14] and, determinate at least in sense, Jer 2216; or precedes it, as in 2 K 216, Is 812, 625, Zc 37; cf. also Ex 39. In both cases the substantive is used, without any special emphasis, merely for clearness or as a more convenient way of connecting the verb with other members of the sentence.

117s 3. Verbs which denote speaking (crying out, weeping), or any external act, frequently take a direct accusative of the organ or means by which the action is performed. In this case, however, the accusative must be more closely determined by an attributive adjective or a noun in the genitive. This fact shows the close relation between these accusatives and the internal objects treated under p, which also, according to q, mostly take an intensifying attribute. On the other hand, they must not be regarded as adverbial (instrumental) accusatives, nor are they to be classed with the second (neuter) subjects treated below in §144l.

117t Examples of the accusative following the verb are וָֽאֶזְעַק קֽוֹל־גָּדוֹל and I cried a loud voice, i.e. with a loud voice, Ez 1113, 2 S 1523 (after the proper object, Dt 519, 1 K 855); ψ 1092 they have spoken unto me לְשׁוֹן שֶׁ֫קֶר a tongue of deceit, i.e. with a lying tongue; Pr 104 he becometh poor עשֶֹׁה כַף־רְמִיְּה dealing a slack hand, i.e. who dealeth with a slack hand; cf. the German eine schöne Stimme singen, to sing a fine voice, eine tüchtige Klinge schlagen, to smite a trusty sword, Schlittschuhe laufen, to run skates (i.e. to skate), and our to write a good hand, to play ball, &c.—Examples of the accusative preceding are שִֹׂפְתֵי רְנָנוֹת יְהַלֶּל־פִּי my mouth shall praise with joyful lips, ψ 636; cf. ψ 123, where a casus instrumenti with בְּ follows the accusative.

117u 4. Many verbs originally intransitive (sometimes even in form; see a, note 2 may be used also as transitives, in consequence of a certain modification of their original meaning, which has gradually become established by usage; cf. e.g. רִיב to strive, but also with an accusative causam alicuius agere (so even in Is 117, &c.; elsewhere with לְ of the person for whom one strives); יָכֹל absolutely to be able, with an accusative to prevail over any one; חָפֵץ to be inclined and רָצָה to have pleasure (usually with בְּ), with an accusative to wish for some one or something; שָׁכַב cubare, then in the sense of concumbere, originally joined with עִם־ cum, but quite early also with the accusative, equivalent to comprimere (feminam), &c. So in 2 S 1314, &c., unless in all or some of the passages the preposition אֵת is intended, e.g. אִתָּהּ for אֹתָהּ; in the earlier passages עִם־ is the more usual.

117v Rem. 1. It is certainly difficult to decide whether some verbs, which were afterwards used absolutely or joined with prepositions, were not nevertheless originally transitive, and consequently it is only the supposed original meaning, usually assigned to them in English, which causes them to appear intransitive.[15] In that case there is of course no syntactical peculiarity to be considered, and a list of such verbs would at the most be requisite only for practical purposes. Moreover, it is also possible that certain verbs were originally in use at the same time both as transitive and intransitive, e.g. perhaps לָבֵשׁ to be clothed along with לָבַשׁ to put on (a garment). Finally the analogy of certain transitives in constant use may have led to intransitives of kindred meaning being also united directly with the accusative, so that, in other words, whole classes of verbs came to be regarded in a particular aspect as transitives. See below, y. 117w 2. The modification of the original meaning becomes especially evident when even reflexive conjugations (Niphʿal, Hithpaʿēl, &c.) take an accusative (cf. § 57, note 2); e.g. נִבָּא to prophesy, Jer 2513; נָסַב (prop. to put oneself round) to surround, Ju 1922; נִלְחַם to fight, ψ 1093 (where, however, the Qal וַיִּלְחֲמ֫וּנִי should be read; cf. ψ 351); also הִתְגַּלַּח to shave (something) for oneself, Num 6:19; הִתְנַחֵל to take some one for oneself as a possession, Is 142; הִתְנַכֵּל to make some one an object of craft, Gn 3718; הִתְנַצֵּל to strip a thing off oneself, Ex 336; הִתְעַבֵּר to bring on oneself the anger of any one, to anger him; הִתְבּוֹנֵן to consider something, Jb 3714; הִתְפָּרֵק to break something off from oneself, Ex 323. In Gn 349 after הִתְחַתְּנוּ make ye marriages, read אִתָּ֫נוּ instead of אֹתָ֫נוּ. Cf. §54f.

117x 3. So also it is only owing to a modification of the original meaning of a verb (except where the expression is incorrect, and perhaps derived from the popular language), when sometimes the remoter object (otherwise introduced by לְ) is directly subordinated in the form of an accusative suffix, e.g. Zc 75 הֲצוֹם צַמְתֻּ֫נִי אָ֫נִי did ye fast at all unto me, even to me? as though to say, have ye be-fasted me? have ye reached me with your fasting? Still more strange is Jb 3118 גְּדֵלַ֫נִי כְאָב he (the orphan) grew up to me as to a father; cf. Is 274, 655, Jer 313, and in Aramaic Dn 56; but אֶ֫רֶץ הַנֶּ֫גְב נְתַתָּ֫נִי Jos 1519 is to be regarded as a double accusative after a verb of giving, see ff. In 1 S 225 read וּפִלְלוּ for וּפִלְלוֹ; in Is 4421, instead of the Niphʿal, read תִּנְשֵׁ֫נִי; in Ez 293 either עֲשִׂיתִיו is to be read with Olshausen or עֲשִׂיתִים (and previously יְאֹרָי) with Smend; in ψ 425 אֶדַּדֶּה or אֲדַדֵּם; in ψ 5523 (where König takes יְהָֽבְךָ as he has given it to thee) we must certainly assume a substantive יְהָב (= fate?).

117y 4. Whole classes of verbs, which, according to v above, are regarded as transitive, either on account of their original meaning or (for the sake of analogy) by a modification of that meaning, are—

(a) Verba induendi and exuendi, as לָבַשׁ to put on, פָּשַׁט to put off a garment, עָדָה to put on ornaments, to adorn oneself with (cf. also מְשֻׁבָּצִים זָהָב enclosed in gold, Ex 2820). Also in poetic expressions such as ψ 6514 לָֽבְשׁוּ כָּרִים הַצֹּאן the pastures are clothed with flocks, cf. ψ 10929; 104:2 (עָטָה); 65:14b (עָטַף), &c.[16]

117z (b) Verba copiae and inopiae (also called verba abundandi and deficiendi), as מָלֵא, to be full of something, Ex 817; here, and also frequently elsewhere, construed with אֶת־, and hence evidently with an accusative; Gn 613; with a personal object, Ex 159; with an accusative preceding the verb for the sake of emphasis, e.g. Is 115 your hands דָּמִים מָלֵ֫אוּ are full of blood, cf. Is 222; so also the Niph. נִמְלָא to fill oneself with something, e.g. Gn 611, Ex 17 (where the object is connected by את); Is 27 f., 6:4, Pr 310; נִזְרַע to be fructified with, Nu 528; שָׁרַץ to swarm with, Gn 120, 21 Ex 728; (שָׂבֵעַ) שָׂבַע to be full of, Is 111, Jo 219, Pr 1211; גָּבַר to become strong, to wax mighty in something, Jb 217; פָּרַץ to overflow with something, Pr 310 (with the object preceding); יָרַד prop. to descend, poetically also to pour down, to overflow with something (cf. in Greek προρέειν ὕδωρ, δάκρυα στάζειν), e.g. La 348 פַּלְגֵי מַ֫יִם תֵּרַד עֵינִי mine eye runneth down (with) rivers of water; 1:16, Jer 917, 1317, ψ 119136; so also הָלַךְ to run over with, to flow with, Jo 418; נָזַל to gush out with, Jer 917; נָטַף to drop, to overflow with, Ju 54, Jo 418a; פָּרַח to break forth, Ex 99; שָׁטַף to overflow, but also (transitively) to overflow with, probably in Is 1022; נוּב to bud with, Pr 1031; so perhaps also עָבַר to pass over, to overflow with, Jer 528; יָצָא to go forth with, Am 53.—Especially bold, but still on the analogy of the above examples, is Is 56, where it is said of a vineyard וְעָלָה שָׁמִיר וָשָׁ֫יִת but it shall come up (it shall be overgrown) with briers and thorns; cf. Pr 2431, and still more boldly, Is 3413.

117aa With the opposite idea, חָסֵר to be in want of, to lack, Gn 1828; שָׁכֹל to be bereaved of (as though it were to lose), Gn 2745.—In Jos 2217 even הַמְעַט־לָ֫נוּ (prop. was there too little for us of ...?) as being equivalent to a verbum inopiae (= had we too little of ...?) is construed with an accusative; cf. Neh 932.

117bb (c) Several verbs of dwelling; the accusative in this case expresses either the place or the thing at which or with which any one tarries; thus Gn 420, ψ 224 after יָשַׁב, cf. §118g; Ju 517, Is 3314 after גּוּר; ψ 575 after שָׁכַב; ψ 687, Pr 812, Is 3316 with שָׁכַן; or even the person (the people) with whom any one dwells or is a guest, as ψ 55, 1205 after גּוּר, Gn 3020 after זָבַל, ψ 6819 with שָׁכַן.

117cc 5. Two accusatives (usually one of the person and one of the thing) are governed by—

(a) The causative conjugations (Piʿēl, Hiphʿîl, sometimes also Pilpel, e.g. כִּלְכֵּל Gn 4712, &c.) of verbs which are simply transitive in Qal, and hence also of verba induendi and exuendi, &c. (cf. above a and u, and also y, z), e.g. Ex 3318 הַרְאֵ֫נִי נָא אֶת־כְּבֹדֶ֫ךָ show me, I pray thee, thy glory. Thus very frequently הוֹדִיעַ to cause some one to know something; לִמַּד docere aliquem aliquid, &c.; cf. further, Gn 4142 וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ בִגְדֵי־שֵׁשׁ and he caused him to put on vestures of fine linen (he arrayed him in vestures, &c.); cf. in the opposite sense, Gn 3723 (both accusatives after הִפְשִׁיט introduced by אֶת); so with מִלֵּא to fill, to fill up with something, Gn 2119, 2615, Ex 283; אִזֵּר to gird some one with something, ψ 1833; עִטֵּר to crown, ψ 86, &c.; חִסֵּר to cause some one to lack something, ψ 86; הֶֽאֱכִיל to feed some one with something, Ex 1632; הִשְׁקָה to make some one drink something, Gn 1932 ff.

117dd (b) Many verbs (even in Qal) which express an influence upon the object through some external means. The latter, in this case, is attached as a second object. They are especially—

117ee (α) Verbs which express covering, clothing, overlaying, חָגַר Ex 299, צִפָּה Ex 2629, &c., טוּחַ Ez 1310 ff., עָטַר ψ 513; cf. also רָגַם אֶבֶן Jos 725, &c.; hence also verbs which express sowing (זָרַע Jud 945 Is 1710 30:23), planting (Is 52), anointing (ψ 458) with anything.

117ff (β) Expressions of giving, thus נָתַן Jos 1519 where the accusative of the thing precedes; endowing, זָבַד Gn 3020; and its opposite taking away, as קָבַע Pr 2223; בֵּרַךְ to bless some one with something, Gn 4925, Dt 1514; to give graciously, חָנַן Gn 335; to sustain (i.e. to support, to maintain, to furnish) with anything, e.g. Gn 2737, ψ 5114 (סָמַךְ); Ju 195 (סָעַד); to do something to one, גָּמַל Gn 5015, 17, 1 S 2418; cf. also קִדֵּם to come to meet any one with something, ψ 214, שִׁלַּם to repay some one with something (with two accusatives, ψ 3512, Pr 1321), and for the accusative of the person cf. εὖ, κακῶς πράττειν τινά. In a wider sense we may also include such phrases as they hunt every man his brother with a net, Mi 72; to shoot at one with arrows, ψ 648 (though this is against the accents); Pr 1324 (with) discipline, i.e. chastises him betimes, &c.

117gg (γ) Expressions of asking some one for something, desiring something from some one (שָׁאַל Dt 1426, ψ 1373); answering any one anything (עָנָה Mi 65, &c.; cf. in the other conjugations הֵשִׁיב דָּבָר prop. verbum reddere, with an accusative of the person, 1 K 126, &c., also in the sense of announcing; sometimes also הִגִּיד to declare something to some one, Jb 264, &c., for הִגִּיד לְ); צִוָּה to enjoin a person something, Ex 3432, Dt 118, 3246, Jer 723.

117hh (δ) Expressions which mean to make, to form, to build something out of something; in such cases, besides the accusative of the object proper, another accusative is used for the material of which the thing is made, e.g. Gn 27 וַיִּ֫יצֶר יְהֹוָה אֱלהִֹים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה and the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground; so with יָצַר also in 1 K 715; further Ex 383 כָּל־כֵּלָיו עָשָׂה נְח֫שֶׁת all the vessels thereof made he of brass (for another explanation of the accusative נְח֫שֶׁת [into brass], linguistically possible but excluded by the context, see below, ii with kk); cf. Ex 2518, 28, 26:1, 14 f.29, 27:1, 36:8, 1 K 727; with a preceding accusative of the material, Ex 2529, 292, Dt 276 אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת תִּבְנֶה אֶת־מִזֳבַּח יְהֹוָה of unhewn stones shalt thou build the altar of the Lord.

117ii (c) Verbs which express making, preparing, forming into anything, along with the object proper, take a second accusative of the product, e.g. Gn 279 אֶֽעֱשֶׂה אֹתָם מַטְעַמִּים I will make them (the kids) into savoury meat; cf. Gn 614, 16, Ex 261 b, 30:25, 32:4, Is 4415, Ho 84, 1 K 1832 אֶת־הָֽאֲבָנִים מִזְבֵּחַ וַיִּבְנֶה and he built the stones (into) an altar; cf. 10:12. So also אָפָה, with two accusatives, to bake something into something, Ex 1239, Lv 245; שִׂים (prop. to set up for something, cf. Gn 2737, 2818, ψ 399, and similarly הֵרִים Gn 3145) to change into something, Jos 828, Is 502, 5110, Mi 17, 413; with two accusatives of the person (to appoint, promote any one to the position of a...), Is 37; נָתַן is also used in the same sense with two accusatives, Gn 175, and שִׁית 1 K 1134; as a rule, however, the description of the office, and also frequently of the product, is introduced by לְ to, §119t; also שִׁית to make a thing so and so (Is 56, 261; with a personal object, ψ 217,[17] 91:9); הֶחְשִׁיךְ to make dark, Am 58. Of the same class also are instances like Jb 282 אֶ֫בֶן יָצוּק נְחוּשָׁה a stone they smelt into brass; 1 K 1130 וַיִּקְרָעֶ֫הָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר קְרָעִים and rent it (the garment) into twelve pieces; cf. Is 3726, accusative of the product before the object proper, after לְהַשְׁאוֹת to lay waste. On a second object with verba sentiendi (as יָדַע to know something to be something, Ec 725; רָאָה to see, find to be, Gn 71; חָשַׁב to esteem one to be something, Is 534, elsewhere always construed with לְ or כְּ‍), cf. h.

117kk Rem. At first sight some of the examples given above appear to be identical in character with those treated under hh; thus it is possible, e.g. in 1 K 1832, by a translation which equally suits the sense, he built from the stones an altar, to explain מִזְבֵּחַ as the nearer object and אֶת־הָֽאֲבָנִים as an accusative of the material, and the construction would then be exactly the same as in Dt 276. In reality, however, the fundamental idea is by no means the same. Not that in the living language an accusative of the material in the one case, and in the other an accusative of the product were consciously distinguished. As Driver (Tenses, § 195) rightly observes, the remoter accusative in both cases is, strictly speaking, in apposition to the nearer. This is especially evident in such examples as Ex 2025 (the stones of the altar) גָּזִית as hewn stones, cf. also Gn 127. The main point is, which of the two accusatives, as being primarily affected (or aimed at) by the action, is to be made the more prominent; and on this point neither the position of the words (the nearer object, mostly determinate, as a rule follows immediately after the verb), nor even the context admits of much doubt. Thus in 1 K 1832 the treatment of the stones is the primary object in view, the erection of the altar for which they were intended is the secondary; in Dt 276 the case is reversed.

117ll (d) Finally, the second accusative sometimes more closely determines the nearer object by indicating the part or member specially affected by the action,[18] e.g. ψ 38 for thou hast smitten all mine enemies לֶ֫תִי (as to) the cheek bone, equivalent to upon the cheek bone; cf. Gn 3721 נֶ֫פֶשׁ in the life, i.e. let us not kill him; Dt 2226, 2 S 327; also with שׁוּף Gn 315; with רָעָה Jer 216; in poetry the object specially concerned is, by a bold construction, even placed first, Dt 3311 (with מָחַץ).

  1. The verb in question may either have been originally transitive, or only have become transitive by a modification of its original meaning. Thus the vocalization shows that חָפֵץ (to have pleasure, usually with בְּ) to desire, מָלֵא (to be full of something, also transitive) to fill, were originally intransitive. Cf. also such cases as בָּכָה to weep (generally with עַל־, אֶל־ or לְ), but also to bewail with an accusative; יָשַׁב to dwell (usually with בְּ), but also to inhabit with an accusative (cf. further, under u).—The examples are different in which verbs of motion such as בּוֹא intrare, also aggredi, יָצָֹא egredi (cf. §116h above), שׁוּב redire, Is 528, take an accusative of the aim of the motion, while בּוֹא according to the Old Semitic usage, even takes an accusative of the person (at least in poetry, equivalent to בּוֹא אֶל־ in prose).
  2. On traces of these endings, especially the remains of a former accusative ending in a, cf. §90c.
  3. אֶת־ (toneless owing to the following Maqqeph), and אֵת (with a tone-long ē, אֵֽת־ only in Jb 4126), אֹת or אוֹת before the light suffixes (on all these forms cf. §103b: the underlying form āth was obscured in Hebrew to ôth, shortened to ăth before suffixes beginning with a consonant and then modified to אֶת־, whence finally the secondary form אֵת with the tone), Phoenician אית i.e. probably iyyāth (for the Phoenician form, cf. G. Hoffmann, Einige phönik. Inschriften, Göttingen, 1889, p. 39 f.), Punic yth or (according to Euting) pronounced even as a mere prefixed t, Arabic, before suffixes, ’iyyâ, Aram. יָת, יַת. It was no doubt originally a substantive, meaning essence, substance, self (like the Syriac yāth; on the other hand, any connexion with the Hebrew אוֹת, Syriac ’āiā, Arabic ’āyat, a sign, must, with Nöldeke, ZDMG. xl. 738, be rejected), but now united in the construct state with a following noun or suffix stands for the pronoun ipse, αὐτός. In common use, however (cf. Wilson, ‘The particle את in Hebrew,’ Hebraica, vi. 2, 3, and the precise statistics of the use of את on p. 140 ff.), it has so little force (like the oblique cases αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, αὐτόν, sometimes also ipsius, ipsum, and the Germ. desselben, &c.) that it merely serves to introduce a determinate object; אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם prop. αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν (cf. αὐτὴν Χρυσηΐδα, Iliad i. 143) is no stronger than the simple הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם τὸν οὐρανόν. Cf., further, P. Haupt on Pr 1824 in his Rainbow Bible, and also in the Notes on Esther, p. 191.
  4. Thus, in Dt 33, את occurs only in verse 9 (twice, with an object preceding the verb), in Gn 49 in the blessing of Jacob only in verse 15 with a co-ordinate second object (consequently farther removed from the verb). Of the thirteen instances of את in the Mêša‛ inscription, seven stand directly and four indirectly before proper names.
  5. According to the ordinary rules of syntax (cf. §116t) we should translate, I heard men who said, &c.
  6. Cf. Weiss, משפט לשון המשנה (Vienna, 1867), p. 112.
  7. So also in 1 S 2013 the Qal (יִיטַב) is, with Wellhausen, to be read instead of the Hiphʿîl.
  8. Thus 1 S 2616, where וְאֵי is to be read for וְאֶת; 1 K 1125, where at present the predicate of the relative clause is wanting; in 2 K 65 the את is probably derived from a text which read the Hiphʿîl instead of נָפַל. In Jer 2333 instead of the artificial explanation what a burden (is, do ye ask?) we should read with the LXX and Vulg. אַתֶּם הַמַּשָּׂא ye are the burden. In Ez 1022 מַרְאֵיהֶם וְאוֹתָם is unintelligible; in 37:19 read with Hitzig אֶל־ for את; in Hag 217 for אתכם read with the LXX שֻֽׁבְכֶם [or אֵינְכֶם; for the אֶל cf. 2 K 611, Jer 151, Ez 369].
  9. Dillmann, Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache, p. 349.
  10. With regard to Biblical Aramaic, see Kautzsch’s Grammatik des Bibl.-Aram., p. 151 f. In other ways, also, a tendency may be observed in later Hebrew to make use of the looser connexion by means of prepositions instead of the closer subordination of the noun in the accusative.
  11. On a kindred use of the infinitive absolute as an internal object, see above, §113w.
  12. Cf. βουλὰς βουλεύειν, Iliad x. 147.
  13. The Arab grammarians assign to the indeterminate eases generally an intensive sense in many instances; hence the commentators on the Qorân usually explain such cases by adding and what ...! see §125b.
  14. Also in ψ 134 lest I sleep the sleep of death, הַמָּ֫וֶת is only used pregnantly for שְׁנַת הַמָּ֫וֶת (cf. Jer 5139), as צְדָקוֹת Is 3315 for דֶּ֫רֶךְ צְדָקוֹת. On the similar use of הֹלֵךְ תָּמִים in ψ 152, see §118n.
  15. Thus e.g. עָנָה to reply to (ἀμείβεσθαί τινα), to answer any one; צִוָּה to command (iubere aliquem); זָכַר to remember; קִוָּה (also with לְ) to wait for any one (to expect any one); בִּשַֹׂר to bring glad tidings to any one (see the Lexicon); נָאַף and נִאֵף to commit adultery (adulterare matronam); עָבַד to serve (colere); עָרַב to become surety for ..., and many others.
  16. From the idea of covering oneself with something, we might also, if necessary, explain Ex 3020 יִרְחֲצוּ מַיִם they shall wash themselves with water; but the reading is simply to be emended to the ordinary בַּמַּיִם.
  17. Cf. a very pregnant expression of this kind in ψ 2113 כִּי תְשִׁיתֵ֫מוֹ שֶׁ֫כֶם for thou shalt make them (as) a neck, i.e. thou shalt cause them to turn their necks (backs) to me; similarly ψ 1841 (2 S 2241, Ex 2327); אֹֽיְבַי נָתַ֫תָּה לִּי עֹרֶף thou hast given mine enemies unto me as a back; cf. Jer 1817.
  18. Analogous to this is the σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος in Greek epic poetry, e.g. ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγε ἕρκος ὀδόντων.