Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/135. The Personal Pronoun

by Wilhelm Gesenius, edited and enlarged by Emil Kautzsch

Layout 2

III. Syntax of the Pronoun.

§135. The Personal Pronoun.

a 1. The separate pronouns,—apart from their employment as the subject in noun-clauses (cf. § 141 a) and the idiom mentioned under d–h, —are used, according to § 32 b, as a rule, only to give express emphasis to the subject; e.g. Gn 16⁵, 2 S 24¹⁷ אָֽנֹכִי i.e. I myself, so also אֲנִי 2 S 12²⁸, 17¹⁵ (after the verb), Ez 34¹⁵, ψ 2⁶;^[1] but 1 S 10¹⁸, 2 S 12⁷, Is 45¹² אָֽנֹכִי I and none else; cf. also אֲנִי אֲנִי I, I! Ho 5¹⁴, &c.; אַתָּה Gn 15¹⁵, Ju 15¹⁸, 1 S 17⁵⁶ (as in 20:8, 22:18, Ex 18¹⁹, Dt 5²⁴, Ju 8²¹, after the imperative); 1 K 21⁷; אַתֶּם Gn 9⁷, Ex 20¹⁹ (after the verb, Ju 15¹²); fem. Gn 31⁶; הוּא 1 S 22¹⁸; הִיא Gn 3²⁰, Ju 14³; הֵ֫מָּה Jer 5⁵.—Sometimes, however, the separate pronoun appears to be placed before the verb more on rhythmical grounds, i.e. in order to give the statement a fuller sound than that of the bare verbal form (cf. the similar use of the infinitive absolute, § 113 o). Thus Gn 14²³, ψ 139², and most clearly in such passages as Gn 21²⁴, 47³⁰, Ex 8²⁴, Ju 6¹⁸, 11⁹, 1 S 12²⁰, 2 S 3¹³, 21⁶, 1 K 2¹⁸ (in solemn promises). The same explanation applies to אֲנִי at the beginning of sentences, e.g. Gn 24⁴⁵, Ho 5³, 10¹¹, 12¹¹, ψ 39¹¹, 82⁶, Jb 5³.^[2]

b Rem. 1. Different from this is the pleonastic addition of the separate pronoun immediately after the verb (according to Delitzsch on Ct 5⁵ perhaps a trace of popular language), e.g. 1 S 23²²(?), Ct 5⁵, and (like other indications of the very late origin of the book) very frequently in Ecclesiastes, e.g. 1:16, 2:1, 11, 15, 3:17f. and thirteen other places; in Aramaic, Dn 5¹⁶.

c 2. Substantival subjects also are somewhat frequently resumed, and thus expressly emphasized, by the insertion of the corresponding separate pronoun of the 3rd person before the predicate is stated, e.g. Gn 3¹² the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she (הִיא) gave me, &c.; 14:24 (הֵם); 15:4, 24:7, &c.; but הוּא in Is 7¹⁴ after the predicate and subject is equivalent to he himself.^[3]

d 2. Not infrequently the separate pronoun serves to give strong emphasis to a suffix of the same person which precedes (or sometimes even to one which follows), whether the suffix be attached to a verb (as accusative) or to a noun or preposition (as genitive). In English such an emphasis on the pronoun can generally be rendered only by laying greater stress upon it, or sometimes by repeating it; cf., on the contrary, the French mon livre à moi. The separate pronoun in such instances is not to be regarded as casus obliquus (accusative or genitive), but as the subject of an independent sentence, the predicate of which must in each case be supplied according to the context.

e Examples of emphasis:—

(a) On a verbal suffix by means of אֲנִי (אָ֫נִי) Gn 27³⁴ בָּֽרֲכֵ֫נִי גַם־אָ֫נִי bless me, even me also (prop. bless me, I also would be blessed); Zc 7⁵; cf. also Ez 6³, 34¹¹, 20 הִנְנִי אָ֫נִי; by אַתָּה (אָ֫תָּה) Pr 22¹⁹ (but the text is most probably corrupt).—The separate pronoun precedes in Gn 24²⁷ (אָֽנֹכִי); 49:8 (אַתָּה, not Judah, thou art he whom, but Judah thee, thee thy brethren shall praise!), and Ec 2¹⁵ גַּם אֲנִי.

f (b) On a noun-suffix with a substantive, by means of אֲנִי 2 S 19¹, Pr 23¹⁵; by אָ֑תָּה 1 K 21¹⁹ אֶת־דָּֽמְךָ גַּס־אָ֑תָּה thy blood, even thine; by הוּא 2 S 17⁵, Jer 27⁷, Mi 7³; by אֲנַ֫חְנוּ 1 S 20⁴², after שְׁנֵ֫ינוּ, but without special stress; Neh 5² (?); by אַתֶּם Nu 14³²; by הֵם ψ 38¹¹ (without special stress), הֵ֫מָּה ψ 9⁷.—The separate pronoun precedes in Jb 21⁴ (אָֽנֹכִי); Gn 40¹⁶, Is 45¹², 1 Ch 28² (אֲנִי); Zc 9¹¹ (אַתְּ); Jos 23⁹ (אַתֶּם); Ez 33¹⁷ (הֵ֫מָּה).—In ψ 89⁴⁸, where אֲנִי might be taken as strengthening חלד (equivalent in sense to חֶלְדִּי), we should read אֲדֹנָי for אֲנִי, as in verse 51.

g (c) On a suffix united with a preposition, 1 S 25²⁴ בִּי אֲנִי upon me, upon me; 1 K 1²⁶ לִי... אֲנִי; 2 Ch 35²¹ לֹֹא־עָלֶ֫יךָ אַתָּה not against thee; 1 S 19²³ עָלָיו גַּם הוּא upon him also; Dt 5³ כִּי אִתָּנוּ אֲנַ֫חְנוּ but with us, even us; Hag 1⁴ לָכֶם אַתֶּם for you yourselves; Jer 25¹⁴ בָּם גַּם־הֵ֫מָּה.—The separate pronoun precedes in 1 S 12²³ אָֽנֹכִי... לִי; 1 K 1²⁰ אַתָּה... עָלֶ֫יךָ; Mi 5¹ אַתָּה... מִמְּךָ, and 2 Ch 28¹⁰ אַתֶּם עִמָּכֶם.

h The same principle also explains Gn 4²⁶ לְשֵׁת גַּם־הוּא to Seth, to him also (not גַּם־לוֹ); cf. 10:21, and Ex 35³⁴, Nu 4²². i 3. The oblique cases of the personal pronouns expressed by means of a preposition (or the nots accus. את) with a suffix may be used either in a demonstrative or reflexive sense,^[4] as לוֹ to him, but also to himself, e.g. Ju 3¹⁶ and Ehud made לוֹ for himself a sword, cf. Gn 33¹⁷; so also לָהֶם sibi, Is 3⁹; אֵלָיו unto him, and Gn 8⁹ unto himself; אִתּוֹ with him, and Gn 22³ with himself; עִמָּהּ with her, and 1 S 1²⁴ with herself; also apparently as a pleonastic dativus ethicus (see § 119 s), Jb 12¹¹, 13¹.

k Rarely, and only when marked emphasis is intended, is the accusative of the reflexive pronoun represented by the nota accusativi את with a suffix (this being ordinarily expressed by the reflexive conjugations Niphʿal and Hithpaʿēl^[5]); thus, אֹתָם se ipsos, Ex 5¹⁹, Jer 7¹⁹ in sharp antithesis to הַֽאֹתִי; Ez 34², 8, 10. Cf. § 57 at the end, together with note 2.

l Rem. There is a similar emphasis in Is 49²⁶ on בְּשָׂרָם and דָּמָם in the sense of their own flesh, their own blood. On the sometimes demonstrative, sometimes reflexive meaning of noun-suffixes of the 3rd person singular and plural, cf. § 91, p and q. For other circumlocutions to express the idea of self, see § 139 f.

m 4. The possessive pronouns are, according to § 33 c, expressed by the suffixes of the noun (in the genitive),^[6] which may represent either a subjective genitive, or (like the genitives proper, § 128 h) an objective genitive, e.g. חֲמָסִי the wrong done against me, Gn 16⁵, Jer 51³⁵; cf. Gn 9², 18²¹, 27¹³ (2 S 16¹² K^eth.); Gn 30²³, 39²¹ (cf. Ex 3²¹, &c.); 50:4, Ex 20²⁰, 21³⁵, Ju 4⁹, 13¹² (מַֽעֲשֵׂ֫הוּ the treatment of him); Is 56⁷, Jer 9⁷, Na 3¹⁹, Pr 1²⁷, 24²², Jb 20²⁹, 23¹⁴, 34⁶. Cf. also such pregnant expressions as ψ 20³ יִשְׁלַח עֶזְרְךָ he will send thy help (help for thee), i.e. he will send thee help; Gn 30¹⁸, 39²¹, Ex 2⁹, Is 1²⁶ (and I will restore judges for thee); Ez 37¹⁵.

When several substantives are co-ordinated, the pronominal suffix must be attached to each singly, e.g. Gn 36⁶ and Esau took אֶת־נָשָׁיו וְאֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־ בְּנֹתָיו his wives and his sons and his daughters, &c.; 38:18, &c. In 2 S 23⁵ the text is hardly correct. n 5. When the genitive, following a construct state, is used periphrastically to express the idea of a material or attribute (§ 128 o and p), the pronominal suffix, which properly belongs to the compound idea (represented by the nomen regens and genitive), is, like the article (§ 127), attached to the second substantive (the genitive), e.g. הַר־קָדְשִׁי prop. the hill of my holiness, i.e. my holy hill, ψ 2⁶, &c.; עִיר קָדְשְׁךָ thy holy city, Dn 9²⁴; אֱלִילֵי כַסְפּוֹ his idols of silver, Is 2²⁰, 30²², 31⁷;^[7] cf. Dt 1⁴¹, Is 9³, 28⁴, 41¹¹, Ez 9¹f., ψ 41¹⁰, 150¹, Jb 18⁷ צַֽעֲדֵי אוֹנוֹ his steps of strength; 38:6; after an adjective as nomen regens, Is 13³ (Zp 3¹¹) עַלִּיזֵי גַֽאֲוָתִי my proudly exulting ones.—On the same analogy is the use of e.g. כְּלֵי מִלְחַמְתּוֹ Dt 1⁴¹ his weapons of war [cf. Is 41¹²]; Is 56⁷ בֵּית תְּפִלָּתִי my house of prayer, although the genitive here does not convey the idea of an attribute.

o Rem. 1. Through a weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere (cf. § 110 k, 144 a, 145 p, t, u) and which probably passed from the colloquial language^[8] into that of literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives; thus a noun-suffix in the singular, Ex 11⁶, 25¹⁹, Ju 11³⁴;^[9] in the plural, Gn 31⁹, 32¹⁶, 41²³, Ex 1²¹, 2¹⁷, Nu 27⁷ (but the feminine suffix twice immediately after, and so the Samaritan also in verse 7); 36:6 (Samaritan אֲבִיהֶן, but also בְּעֵֽינֵיהֶם); Ju 19²⁴, 21²², 1 S 6⁷, 10b (בְּנֵיהֶם); 9:20, Is 3¹⁶, Ez 23⁴⁵ ff. (alternating with הֶן); Am 4¹ f. (but afterwards a feminine suffix); Jb 1¹⁴, 39³ (חֶבְלֵיהֶם in parallelism with יַלְדֵיהֶן); 42:15, Ct 4², 6⁶, Ru 1⁸ ff. (along with feminine suffixes); Dn 1⁵, 8⁹. Verbal suffixes in the singular, Ex 22²⁵; in the plural, Ju 16³, Pr 6²¹, Jb 1¹⁵. But Gn 26¹⁵, 18, 33:13, Ex 2¹⁷, 1 S 6^{10 a} are to be explained according to § 60 h. On הֵ֫מָּה as feminine, see § 32 n. On the use of the masculine in general as the prior gender, see § 122 g.

p 2. The suffix of the 3rd person singular feminine (as also the separate pronoun הִיא Nu 14⁴¹, Jos 10¹³, Ju 14⁴) sometimes refers in a general sense to the verbal idea contained in a preceding sentence (corresponding to our it); thus the verbal suffix, Gn 15⁶, Nu 23¹⁹, 1 S 11², 1 K 11¹², Is 30⁸, Am 8¹⁰; cf. Gn 24¹⁴ (בָּהּ thereby), 42:36, 47:26, Ex 10¹¹ (אֹתָהּ that), Is 47⁷. Elsewhere the suffix of the 3rd singular feminine refers to the plurals of things, e.g. 2 K 3³ [but see Kittel; so 13:2, 6, 11; 10:26, but LXX מַצִּבַת], Jer 36²³, Jb 6²⁰ (if the text is correct), 39:15 (read תֵּחָמֵם in v. 14), and to the plurals of names of animals, Is 35⁷, Ezr 11⁵. Conversely, plural suffixes refer to collective singulars, e.g. in Gn 15¹³, Nu 16³, 1 S 2⁸, Zp 2⁷ [but read עַל הַיָּם]; and to a verbal idea contained in the preceding clause, in Ez 33¹⁸, Jb 22²¹ (בָּהֶם thereby), Ez 18²⁶, 33¹⁹ (עֲלֵיהֶם on that account, thereby).^[10] But the suffix in נְתָנוֹ Dt 21¹⁰ refers to the collective idea contained in אֹֽיְבָ֫יךָ; in Jon 1³ עִמָּהֶם refers to the sailors included in sense under the term אֳנִיָּה. In Jos 2⁴ read וַתִּצְפְּנֵם; in Is 30⁶ (מֵהֶם), 38:16, ψ 19⁵ (בָּהֶם) the text is most probably corrupt.

q 3. In a few examples the force of the noun-suffix or possessive pronoun has become so weak that the language appears to be almost entirely unconscious of it. Thus in אֲדֹנָי my Lord, usually explained as being from the pluralis maiestatis אֲדֹנִים (§ 124 i) with the suffix of the 1st singular (always with Qameṣ to distinguish it from אֲדֹנַי my lords, Gn 19²; but see note below), used exclusively of God, not only in addressing him (Gn 15², 18³, ψ 35²³), but ultimately (see, however, the note below), without any regard to the pronoun, as equivalent to the Lord.^[11] On אֲדֹנָי as a Q^erê perpetuum of the Masoretes for יהוה see § 17 c and § 102 m.

r A similar loss of vitality in the suffix is generally assumed in יַחְדָּו prop. in his unitedness, i.e. he &c. together, e.g. כָּל־הָעָם יַחְדָּו Ex 19⁸; then, without regard to the suffix, even after the 1st person אֲנַ֫חְנוּ יַחְדָּו 1 K 3¹⁸ in reference to two women; Is 41¹, Jb 9³², Neh 6², 7; after the 2nd person, Is 45²⁰, &c. But the supposed pronominal suffix is perhaps rather to be explained, with Brockelmann, ZA. xiv. 344 f., as an old adverbial ending, which survives in the Arabic adverbs in u and in Assyrian.—Cf. further כֻּלָּם prop. their entirety, but also after the 2nd person equivalent to all together, 1 K 22²⁸, Mi 1² (hear, ye peoples, all of you; cf. § 144 p), and even before the 2nd person, Jb 17¹⁰ (in 1 S 6⁴ read לָכֶם with the LXX).—On the redundant suffix in הָֽעֶרְכְּךָ Lv 27²³, cf. § 127 i.

1. Also הוּא, הִיא he himself, she herself (of persons and things), e.g. Is 7¹⁴ אֲדֹנָי הוּא the Lord himself; Est 9¹ הַיְּהוּדִים הֵ֫מָּה the Jews themselves. In the sense of the same (ὁ αὐτός) or (one and) the same, הוּא is used in Is 41⁴, 43¹⁰, 13, 46:4, 48:12 (always אֲנִי הוּא), ψ 102²⁸ (אַתָּה הוּא), and probably also Jb 3¹⁹.—The position of הֵ֫מָּה, as an accusative of the object, before a perfect in 1 Ch 9²², can at most be explained on the analogy of Aramaic (Ezr 5¹²).
2. As early as the Mêšaʿ inscription (line 21 ff.) אנך frequently stands at the beginning of a new sentence after the dividing stroke.
3. Analogous to this is the resumption of a noun dependent on a preposition, by means of a pronominal suffix united with the same preposition, e.g. Gn 2¹⁷, 2 S 6²², 2 K 22¹⁸, or of an object by means of the nota accusativi את with suffix, e.g. 1 S 15⁹ (where וְנִמְאֶ֫סֶת is certainly to be read), Is 8¹³.
4. As in Luther’s Bible jm (ihm), jr (ihr) for sich, and in our version him, her for himself, herself.
5. Niphʿal according to § 51 e (like Hithpaʿēl according to § 54 f) may also include the dative of the reflexive pronoun.
6. Like the substantival genitive, according to § 129 h, the possessive pronoun may also be paraphrased by a relative clause, e.g. Ru 2²¹ הַנְּעָרִים אֲשֶׁר לִי the young men, which are to me, i.e. my young men; so especially, when the substantive, which should take a genitive suffix, is already followed by a genitive, e.g. 1 S 17⁴⁰. In this case, however, the suffix also is sometimes attached pleonastically, e.g. Ct 1⁶ כַּרְמִי שֶׁלִּי my vineyard, which belongs to me. Cf. Ct 3⁷, and the analogous pleonasms in 2 S 22² (but see ψ 18²) and ψ 27².
7. On the other hand, more explicitly in prose, Gn 44² אֶת־גְּבִיעִי גְבִיעַ הַכֶּ֫כֶף my cup, the silver cup.
8. According to Diehl (see the title at the head of § 91 a), who adduces numerous instances on pp. 44 ff., 54 ff., 67 f., many of these cases may be set down to corruption of the traditional text, while the sudden (and sometimes repeated) change of gender in suffixes is mainly due to the influence exercised on the copyists by the Mishnic and popular Aramaic dialects, neither of which recognizes such distinctions. Such influence, however, is insufficient to explain the large number of instances of this weakening, occurring even in the earlier documents.
9. The Masora reckons six instances of מִמֶּ֫נּוּ, where מִמֶּ֫נָּה would be expected (Ju 11³⁴, where, however, the text is most probably corrupt), Ex 25¹⁵ (?), Lv 6⁸, 7¹⁸, 27⁹, Jos 1⁷; almost all these passages can, however, be easily explained in other ways.
10. In 2 K 7¹⁰ for שֹׁעֵר (the LXX had שַׁ֫עַר) read שֹֽׁעֲרֵי.
11. Cf. the same weakening of the force of the possessive pronoun in רַבִּי prop. my master, from the second century A.D. onwards the master; so also in Syriac מרי my lord, and ultimately as a title the lord; in Italian Madonna, French Madame, Notre Dame, Monsieur, Monseigneur, &c. It can, however, hardly be doubted that the regular distinction between אֲדֹנָי as a holy name, and אֲדֹנִי as an ordinary appellative is merely due to the practice of the later Rabbis. G. H. Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte (Berlin, 1889), in an exhaustive discussion, shows that apart from the book of Daniel and the eight critically doubtful passages, in which אדני is used by God himself, there is nowhere any necessity to regard the suffix as entirely meaningless, since אדני is always used either in an address to or (like אֲדֹנִי, which also is never a mere phrase or title) in reverent language about God—as the Lord of the speaker—like the Assyrian bēli-ia, my lord. Against any original distinction between אֲדֹנָי and אֲדֹנִי it may be urged especially that when unconnected with suffixes the singular אָדוֹן is always used of God, and not the pluralis maiestatis presupposed by אֲדֹנָי.