would be connected only with the plur. אֲנָשִׁים (אִישִׁים is found only in Is 533, ψ 1414, Pr 84).
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 2111, 1 S 287, ψ 589, even in absol. st. [cf., however, below, § 130. 4, 5].—In ψ 1283 אֶשְׁתְּךָ is found for אִשְׁתְּךָ. Instead of the plur. נָשִׁים, we find in Ez 2344 אִשֹּׁת.[1]
בַּ֫יִת house, locative בַּ֫יְתָה, הַבַּ֫יְתָה, in pause בָּ֫יְתָה, הַבָּ֫יְתָה, constr. בֵּ֫יתָה, plur. בָּֽתִּים (but in Dt 611, 1 Ch 2811 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.[2] 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 3019 בֵּֽן־שִׁשִּׁי) constr. usually בֶּן־ (also with a conjunctive accent as an equivalent for Maqqeph, Gn 1717, Is 82, &c., 1 Ch 921; even with smaller disjunctives, especially in the combination מִבֶּן, Ex 3014, Lv 273, &c. [מִבֶּן־ only after וְאִם and before חֹ֫דֶשׁ, also in Is 5112; see Strack on Ex 3014]), rarely בִּן־ (Dt 252, Jon 410 twice, Pr 301, and so always in the combination בִּן־נוּן, and in the proper names בִּנְיָמִין [but בֶּן־יִמִינִי Benjamite] and בִּן־יָקֶה Pr 301), once בְּנִי (cf. § 90 l) Gn 4911, and בְּנוֹ (§ 90 o) Nu 2318, 243.15.—In Gn 4922 בֵּן, for which בֶּן־ ought to be read, is intended by the Masora for the absol. st., not the constr.
- ↑ Friedr. Delitzsch (in his Babylonian glosses to Baer’s text of Ezekiel, p. xi) on Ez 2344 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 Yerūšālēm into Yerūšālayim.
