tabernacle was reared up; 1 S 191 לְהָמִית אֶת־דָּוִד that they should slay David; Gn 1417, 1929, Ex 3827, 1 K 1215, 154; with a negative, e.g. Lv 2615 לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹתַי so that ye will not do all my commandments; with the accusative of the personal pronoun, e.g. Dt 2912 לְמַ֫עַן הָקִיס־אֹֽתְךָ that he may establish thee; Gn 2526, Jer 247; with a verbal suffix, e.g. Ex 214 לְהָרְגֵ֫נִי to kill me; Jer 3826 לְבִלְתִּי הֲשִׁיבֵ֫נִי that he would not cause me to return (on the suffix, cf. c). In Is 496 the object even precedes the infinitive with לְ; on this order cf. the note on § 114 r.—If the verb governs a double accusative, the infinitive may also take the same, e.g. Gn 4139 אַֽחֲרֵי הוֹדִ֫יעַ אֱלֹהִים֖ אֽוֹתְךָ אֶת־כָּל־זֹאת forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this; Dt 2116.
[b] Rem. 1. The object after the infinitive construct must also always be regarded as in the accusative, even when it is not expressly introduced (as inall the above examples) by the nota accusativi אֶת־, and when therefore the substantive in question might easily be taken as the genitive of the object governed by the infinitive (the usual construction in Arabic), e.g. Pr 2115 עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט to do judgement. Against regarding it as a genitive, which is in itself possible (the doing, the executing of judgement), is the fact (a) that elsewhere the nota accusativi is so frequently added; (b) that in such a case the secondary forms of the infinitive, such as רְאֹה for (פָּנֶ֫יךָ) רְאֹת Gn 4811 (cf. ψ 1013, Pr 1616), would be unintelligible; (c) that certain infinitive forms, if they were to be regarded as in the construct state, could hardly retain the pretonic Qameṣ without exception, whereas, when connected with suffixes (i.e. with real genitives; cf. § 33 c), this Qameṣ necessarily becomes Šewâ; e.g. Gn 1825 לְהָמִית צַדִּיק to slay the righteous (never as לַֽהֲמִית; cf., on the other hand, above, הֲשִׁיבֵ֫נִי); 2 K 218, Ez 4430. Similarly in such cases as Is 313 (ψ 504) instead of לָדִין עַמִּים we should rather expect לְדִין, if the infinitive were regarded as in the construct state, and עַמִּים as the genitive. Hence also in cases like Is 589 (שְׁלַח for שְׁלֹחַ) we must assume, with Sellin, op. cit., p. 78, a merely ‘external phonetic connexion’ and not the genitive construction.
[c] 2. The verbal suffixes added to the infinitive are (with the exception of לְהֽוֹצִאֵ֫הוּ Jer 3914) only the suffix of the 1st pers. sing. (besides the above examples cf. also 1 S 510, 271, 289, Ru 210, 1 Ch 1217, &c.) and plural; e.g. לְהַשְׁמִידֵ֫נוּ to destroy us, Dt 127 (immediately after לָתֵת אֹתָ֫נוּ, so that ־ֵ֫ נוּ is doubtless a verbal not a noun-suffix, although in form it might be either); לַֽהֲמִיתֵ֫נוּ Nu 1613, Ju 1323 (after חָפֵץ). Elsewhere the pronominal object is appended either by means of the accusative sign (e.g. Gn 2526 בְּלֶ֫דֶת אֹתָם prop. in the bearing them; לָדַ֫עַת אֹתִי to know me, Jer 247) or in the form of a noun-suffix (as genitive of the object). The latter occurs almost always, whenever the context excludes the possibility of a misunderstanding; e.g. 1 S 2033 לְהַכֹּתוֹ (prop. for his smiting) to smite him, not, as the form might also mean, in order that he might smite; cf. 1 K 2035; with the suffix of the 3rd sing. fem. Nu 2225; of the 3rd plur. Jos 1020, 2 S 212, &c. Hence also the suffixes of the 2nd sing. with the infinitive, as לְהַכֹּֽתְךָ Jer 4014, cf. Mi 613, and even גַּדֶּלְךָ to magnify thee, Jos 37, must certainly be regarded as nominal not verbal suffixes. The connexion of the noun-suffix, as genitive of the object, with the infinitive,
