plur. by the termination ־ָה, as in Biblical Aramaic. Nöldeke (ZDMG. 38 , p. 411) referred doubtfully to the textual readings in Dt 217, Jos 154, 1812,14,19, Jer 215, 226, where the Masora uniformly inserts the termination û, and to Gn 4810 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Gn 4922, 1 S 415, ψ 1835, Neh 1310. In his Beiträge zur sem. Sprachwiss., p. 19, however, he observes that the construction of a fem. plural with the 3rd sing. fem. is not unexampled, and also that ה is often found as a mistake for ו. On the other hand Mayer Lambert (Une série de Qeré ketib, Paris, 1891, p. 6 ff.) explains all these Kethîbh, as well as ψ 732, Jer 506 (?), and (against Nöldeke) 1 K 2249 (where ה is undoubtedly the article belonging to the next word), Jb 1616 (where the masc. פָּנַי requires the marginal reading), also Jer 4841, 5156, Ez 262, ψ 6814, as remains of the 3rd fem. plur. in ־ָה. The form was abandoned as being indistinguishable from the (later) form of the 3rd fem. sing., but tended to be retained in the perfect of verbs ל״ה, as היה Kethîbh six times in the above examples.
[44n] 5. The afformatives תָּ, (תְּ), תִּי, נוּ are generally toneless, and the forms with these inflexions are consequently Milʿêl (קָטַ֫לְתָּ, &c.); with all the other afformatives they are Milraʿ (§15c). The place of the tone may, however, be shifted: (a) by the pause (§29i–v), whenever a vowel which has become vocal Šewâ under the second stem-consonant is restored by the pause; as קָטָ֫לָה for קָֽטְלָ֫ה (דָּבֵ֫קָה for דָּֽבְקָ֫ה), and קָטָ֫לוּ for קָֽטְל֫וּ (מָלֵ֫אוּ for מָֽלְא֫וּ; (b) in certain cases after wāw consecutive of the Perfect (see §49h).
[44o] 6. Contraction of a final ת with the ת of the afformative occurs e.g. in כָּרַ֫תִּי Hag 25, &c.; cf. Is 1420, &c., in the Perf. Poʿel; Dt 425 in the Hiphʿîl of שׁחת; Is 212, &c., in the Hiphʿîl of שׁבת. Contraction of a final נ with the afformative נוּ occurs in נָתַ֫נּוּ Gn 3416; in Niph. Ezr 97, cf. 2 Ch 1410; in Hiph. 2 Ch 2919; with the afformative נָה in the Imperfect Qal Ez 1723; Piʿēl ψ 7123, where with Baer and Ginsburg תְּרַנֵּ֫נָּה is to be read, according to others תְּרַנֶּ֫נָּה (cf. in Polel תְּקוֹנֶ֫נָּה Ez 3216), but certainly not תְּרַנֵּ֫נָה with the Mantua ed., Opitius and Hahn; with נָה in the Imperat. Hiph. Gn 423, Is 329.
F. Prätorius, ‘Ueber den sog. Inf. absol. des Hebr., ’in ZDMG. 1902, p. 546 ff.
[45a] 1. The Infinitive is represented in Hebrew by two forms, a shorter and a longer; both are, however, strictly speaking, independent nouns (verbal substantives). The shorter form, the Infinitive construct (in Qal קְטֹל, sometimes incorrectly קְטוֹל), is used in very various ways, sometimes in connexion with pronominal suffixes, or governing a substantive in the genitive, or with an accusative of the object (§ 115), sometimes in connexion with prepositions (לִקְטֹל to kill, §114f), and sometimes in dependence upon substantives as genitive, or upon verbs as accusative of the object. On the other hand, the use of the longer form, the Infinitive absolute (in Qal קָטוֹל, sometimes also קָטֹל, obscured from original qăṭâl), is restricted to those cases in which it emphasizes
- Cf. the analogous forms of the noun, §93t.