Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/Additions and Corrections
|←From the German Preface||Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1909)
, translated by Arthur Ernest Cowley
Additions and Corrections
|List of abbreviations→|
Page 42, line 13 from below, for note 1 read note 3.Page 63, §15p.
[So Baer (cf. his note on Jud 2043; Jer 3912, and several of the other passages in question): but Ginsburg only in 10 of the exceptions to b, and Jacob ben Ḥayyim and Kittel only in 5, viz. Jer 3912, Pr 1121, 151, ψ 525, Ezr 96.—S. R. D.]
Rem. According to the prevailing view, this strengthening of the first radical is merely intended to give the bi-literal stem at least a tri-literal appearance. (Possibly aided by the analogy of verbs פ״ן as P. Haupt has suggested to me in conversation.) But cf. Kautzsch, ‘Die sog. aramaisierenden Formen der Verba ע״ע im Hebr.’ in Oriental. Studien zum 70. Geburtstag Th. Nöldekes, 1906, p. 771 ff. It is there shown (1) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often serves to emphasize a particular meaning (cf. יִגָּר, but יְגֹרֵ֫הוּ, יָחֵל and יַחֵל, יִסֹּב and יָסֹב, יִשֹּׁם and תֵּשַׁם), and elsewhere no doubt to dissimilate the vowels (as יִגָּר, יִדַּל, never יָגַר, יָדַל, &c.): (2) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often appears to be occasioned by the nature of the first letter of the stem, especially when it is a sibilant. Whether the masoretic pronunciation is based on an early tradition, or the Masora has arbitrarily adopted aramaizing forms to attain the above objects, must be left undecided.
Page 193, the second and third paragraphs should have the marginal letters d and e respectively.
- Critical annotation: Technical note: Already corrected in the scanned page.—A. E. A.