[k] 4. Plurals of names of animals or things, and of abstracts, whether they be masculine or feminine, are frequently construed with the feminine singular of the verbal predicate[1] (on the collective sense of the feminine form, cf. § 122 s); thus Jo 120 בַּֽהֲמוֹת שָׂדֶה תַּֽעֲרֹג the beasts of the field long; Jer 124 (where the predicate precedes), cf. also Jb 127; names of things with the predicate preceding occur in 2 S 2413, Is 3413, Jer 414, 5129, ψ 1835, 3731, 732 Keth., 103:5 (unless הַֽמְחַדֵּשׁ is to be read for תִּתְחַדֵּשׁ), Jb 1419, 2720; with the predicate following, Gn 4922 (בָּנוֹת=branches); Dt 217, 1 S 415 (וְעֵינָיו קָ֫מָה),[2] 2 S 109, Is 5912, Jer 215 Keth., 48:41, 49:24, Pr 1522, 2018, Jb 4110.[3]
[l] 5. Moreover, the plural of persons (especially in the participle) is sometimes construed with the singular of the predicate, when instead of the whole class of individuals, each severally is to be represented as affected by the statement. Undoubted examples of this distributive singular are Gn 2729 (Nu 249) אֹֽרֲרֶ֫יךָ אָרוּר וּמְבָֽרֲכֶ֫יךָ בָּרוּךְ those that curse thee, cursed be every one of them, and those that bless thee, blessed be every one of them; Ex 3114, Lv 1714 and 19:8 (in both places the Samaritan has אֹֽכְלוֹ); Is 312 unless נֽׄגְשָׂיו is to be regarded as a pluralis maiestatis according to § 124 k; Pr 318.35 (?), 1821 (?), 2127b, 2716, 281b, 28:16 Keth.
[m] Rem. Analogous to the examples above mentioned is the somewhat frequent[4] use of suffixes in the singular (distributively) referring to plurals; cf. the verbal-suffixes in Dt 2110, 2848, Am 610; and the noun-suffixes in Is 28, 3022, Jer 3114, Ho 48 (but since ו follows, נַפְשׁוֹ is undoubtedly a dittography for נָֽפֶשׁ), Zc 1412, ψ 510 (where, however, פִּימוֹ is clearly to be read with all the early versions); 62:5, 141:10 (?), Jb 3832, Ec 1015 [but LXX הַכְּסִיל]; finally, the suffixes with prepositions in Is 220 אֲשֶׁר עָֽשׂוּ־לוֹ which they made each one for himself (according to others, which they (the makers) made for him); 5:26, 8:20, Jb 245, in each case לוֹ; in Gn 219 לוֹ refers to the collectives חַיָּה and עוֹף; cf. further, Jos 247, Is 523 מִמֶּ֫נּוּ after צַדִּיקִים (but read probably צַדִּיק with the LXX, &c.). Conversely in Mi 111 עִבְרִי לָכֶם [cf. Jer 1320 Keth.], but the text is undoubtedly corrupt.
- ↑ Cf. in Greek the construction of the neuter plural with the singular of the predicate τὰ πρόβατα βαίνει; in Attic Greek the plural of the predicate is allowed only when the neuter denotes actual persons, as τὰ ἀνδράποδα ἔλαβον. In Arabic also the pluralis inhumanus (i.e. not denoting persons) is regularly construed with the feminine singular of the attribute or predicate, as are all the plurales fracti (properly collective forms).
- ↑ On the possibility of explaining forms like קָ֫מָה as 3rd plural feminine, cf. above, § 44 m; but this explanation would not apply to all the cases under this head, cf. Jo 120, ψ 3731, 1035.
- ↑ In Pr 141 an abstract plural חָכְמוֹת (to be read thus with 9:1, &c., instead of חַכְמוֹת) is construed with the singular; but cf. § 86 l, § 124 e, end.
- ↑ In several of the above examples the text is doubtful, and hence Mayer Lambert (REJ. xxiv. 110) rejects the theory of distributive singulars generally. [Cf. Driver, Jeremiah, p. 362, on 16:7.]
