God; Hb 215; with an infinitive, ψ 1272; with a noun-suffix (which, according to § 33 c, also represents a genitive), e.g. Gn 414 כָּל־מֹֽצְאִי whosoever findeth me (prop. my finder; cf. עשִֹׁי my maker); 12:3 מְבָֽרֲכֶ֫יךָ that bless thee, מְקַלֶּלְךָ that curseth thee (but read either מְקַלְלֶ֫יךָ, or מְבֽרֶכְךָ in the preceding clause); 27:29, 1 S 230, Is 6313, ψ 1849. In Jer 3322 read מְשָֽׁרְתִים אֹתִי.[1]
[h] Rem. To the class of objective genitives belong also specifications of place after the participles בָּא iniens and יֹצֵא egrediens, since the verbs בּוֹא and יָצָא, in the sense of ingredi, egredi, can be directly connected with an accusative; e.g. Gn 2310, 18 בָּאֵי שַׁ֫עַר עִירוֹ that went in at the gate of his city; La 14; after יֽׄצְאֵי Gn 910, 3424, 4626, &c.—In poetic language the participle in the construct state may be connected not only with a genitive of the object, but also with any other specifications (especially of space) which otherwise can only be made to depend on the verb in question by means of a preposition; cf. Is 3818, and frequently, יֽוֹרְדֵי־בוֹר they that go down into the pit (the grave); ψ 886 שֹֽׁכְבֵי קֶ֫בֶר that lie in the grave; Dt 3224 (Mi 717); 1 K 27, 2 K 115, 7, 9 those that came in (or went out) on the sabbath, Pr 27, 1 Ch 518, &c.; instead of the construction with מִן־, e.g. Is 5920 (those who turn from transgression), Mi 28 (cf. § 72 p).
[i] These genitives of nearer definition appear also in the form of a noun-suffix, e.g. ψ 1840, 49 קָמַי (for קָמִים עָלַי) that rise up against me; cf. Ex 157, Dt 3311, ψ 446, Ex 3225, Is 127 שָׁבֶ֫יהָ her converts; ψ 536 (חֹנָךְ); Pr 219 כָּל־בָּאֶ֫יהָ all that go unto her; the construction is especially bold in Is 297 כָּל־צֹבֶ֫יהָ וּמְצֹֽדָתָהּ all that fight against her and her stronghold (for בָּל־הַצֹּֽבְאִים עָלֶ֫יהָ וְעַל־מ׳); ψ 1029 even with a participle Poʿal, מְהֽוֹלָלַי they that are mad against me (?), but read perhaps with Olshausen מְחֽוֹלְלַי who pierce me.—In Is 130 as a terebinth נׄבֶ֫לֶּת עָלֶ֫הָ fading as regards its leaf, it remains doubtful whether נׄבֶ֫לֶת is in the absolute state, and consequently עָלֶ֫הָ in the accusative, or whether it is to be regarded as construct state, and עָלֶ֫הָ as the genitive. In the latter case it would be analogous to Pr 142 (see k).
[k] 4. The passive participles also may either be in the absolute state, and take the determining word in the accusative,[2] or may be connected
- ↑ When, as in Jb 4019, the participle with the noun-suffix הָֽעשֹׁוֹ he that made him, also has the article (cf. § 127 i), the anomaly is difficult to understand, since a word determined by a genitive does not admit of being determined by the article.—No less remarkable is the use of the constr. st. of the participle before the accusative in Jer 3322 מְשָֽׁרְתֵי אֹתִי that minister unto me (for which there is מְשָֽׁרְתַי in verse 21). In Am 413 an accusative of the product follows the genitive of the object, עשֵֹׁה שַׁחַר עֵיפָה maker of the morning into darkness. In Jer 217 בְּעֵת מֽוֹלִכֵךְ is supposed to mean at the time when he led thee; perhaps the perfect (הוֹל׳) should be read as in 6:15. In Ez 2734, the ancient versions read נִשְׁבַּרְתְּ (ה)עַתָּ now thou art broken, instead of the difficult עֵת נִשְׁבֶּ֫רֶת. In 1 K 2040 read עשֶֹׁה before הֵ֫נָּה וָהֵ֫נָּה.
- ↑ On the proper force of this accusative when retained in the passive construction cf. below, § 117 cc, &c., and § 121 c, d. So also Neh 412 is to be understood, and the builders were אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ אֲסוּרִים עַל־מָתְנָיו girded every one with his sword on his side, and building.
