User:Ubufox/14
ing of the separate pronoun by הוּא Is 4325 (אָֽנׄכֹי), 1 S 728, Is 3716, ψ 445 (אַתָּה), and אֵ֫לֶּה הֵם these are, Gn 2516, 1 S 48; (b) of time: עַתָּה זֶה now, 1 K 1724; just now, 2 K 522; and rather frequently before words denoting number, e.g. Gn 2736 זֶה פַֽעֲמַ֫יִם twice, now; cf. 31:38, 2 S 142, Jb 112, 73, 193; separated from the numeral in Gn 3141 זֶה־לִּי elliptically for this, i.e. this present period, is to me, i.e. makes altogether, twenty years, &c. The other examples are similarly elliptical.
a The interrogative pronoun מִי who may refer either to a masculine or feminine person (Ct 36), or even to a plural, e.g. מִי אַתֶּם who are ye? Jos 98; מִי־אֵ֫לֶּה Gn 335, Nu 229 (more minutely, מִי וָמִי Ex 108, i.e. who exactly, who in particular?). It is used of the neuter only when the idea of a person is implied, e.g. מִֽי־שְׁכֶם who are the Shechemites? Ju 928, 1317, Gn 338, Mi 15; even more boldly, with the repetition of a מִי used personally, in 1 S 1818, 2 S 718.—Another interrogative is אֵי־זֶה which, what?; of persons only in Est 75.
b Moreover, מִי may also be used in the sense of a genitive, e.g. בַּת־מִי אַתְּ whose daughter art thou? Gn 2423, 1 S 1755, 56, 58; דְּבַר מִי whose word? Jer 4428, 1 S 123; in the accusative, אֶת־מִי quemnam? 1 S 2811, Is 68; with prepositions, e.g. בְּמִי 1 K 2014 (in an abrupt question by whom?); לְמִי Gn 3218; אַֽחֲרֵי מִי 1 S 2415.—Similarly מָה, מַה־, מֶה what? is used for the nominative, or accusative, or genitive (Jer 89), or with prepositions, e.g. עַל־מָה whereupon? Is 15, Jb 386; why? Nu 2232, &c.; עַד־מָה quousque? ψ 749.[1]
c Rem. Both מִי and מָה are used also in indirect questions (on the merely relative distinction between direct and indirect questions in Hebrew, see the Interrogative Sentences), e.g. Gn 398 (but read מְא֫וּמָה with Samar. and LXX), 43:22, Ex 321.—On the meaning of מִי and מָה as interrogatives is based also their use as indefinite pronouns (equivalent to quisquis, quodcunque or quicquam), e.g. Ex 3226, Ju 73, 1 S 204, Is 5010 (read יִשְׁמַע in the apodosis), 54:15, Pr 94, 16, 2 Ch 3623; even שִׁמְרוּ־מִי have a care, whosoever ye be, 2 S 1812 (unless לִי is to be read, with the LXX, for מִי); so also מָה (whatever it be) Jb 1313, 1 S 193, 2 S 1822, 23; cf. Nu 233 וּדְבַר מַה־יַּרְאֵ֫נִי and whatsoever he showeth me. Cf. also מִי אֲשֶׁר whosoever Ex 3233, 2 S 2011, and מִֽי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר any man who Dt 205 ff., Ju 1018. A still further weakening of the indefinite use of מָה is the combination מַה־שֶּׁ· that which, Ec 19, 315 (just like the Syriac מָא דְ); cf. Est 81, and בַּל... מָה Pr 913, לֹא... מָה Neh 212, nothing whatever.—On מְא֫וּמָה quicquam, anything at all (usually with a negative), and as an adverb in any way, 1 S 213, see the Lexicon.
a Relative clauses are most frequently (but not necessarily; cf. § 155 b) introduced by the indeclinable אֲשֶׁר (see § 36).[2] This is not, however, a relative pronoun in the Greek, Latin, or English sense, nor is it a mere nota relationis,[3] but an original demonstrative pronoun [as though iste, istius, &c.].[4] Hence it is used—
(1) In immediate dependence on the substantival idea to be defined, and virtually in the same case as it (hence belonging syntactically to the main clause); e.g. Gn 247... יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַ֫נִי... הוּא יִשְׁלַח the Lord, iste, he took me... he shall send, &c. (= who took me); Gn 22 and God finished מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה his work, istud, he had made (it). Such qualifying clauses may be called dependent relative clauses.
b Rem. 1. In the above examples אֲשֶׁר in Gn 247 is virtually in the nominative, in Gn 22 in the accusative. A further distinction between the examples is that in Gn 247 the main idea (יהוה), to which אֲשֶׁר is added in apposition, is only resumed in the qualifying clause by the subject (he) inherent in לְקָחַ֫נִי, while in Gn 22 it is not resumed at all. This suppression of the retrospective pronoun[5] takes place especially when it (as in Gn 22) would represent an accusative of the object, or when it would be a separate pronoun representing a nominative of the subject in a noun-clause, e.g. Gn 17 הַמַּ֫יִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָֽרָקִיעַ the waters, those, under the firmament, &c. In negative sentences, however, the retrospective pronoun is not infrequently added, e.g. Gn 1712 הוּא; 7:2 הִיא; 1 K 920 הֵ֫מָּה; Dt 2015 הֵ֫נָּה; but cf. also אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי Gn 93. The addition of הִיא in a verbal clause, 2 K 2213, is unusual.
The very frequent omission of the retrospective pronoun is noticeable in cases where the predicate of the qualifying clause is a verbum dicendi, e.g. Nu 1029 we are journeying unto the place, אֲשֶׁר אָמַר יָהוָֹה אֹתוֹ אֶתֵּן לָכֶם that place, the Lord said (of it), It will I give to you; cf. Nu 1440, Ju 815, 1 S 917, 23, 24:5, 1 K 829, Jer 3243.
c 2. When the substantive, followed by אֲשֶׁר and the qualifying clause, expresses an idea of place, it may also be resumed by the adverbs of place שָׁם there, שָׁ֫מָּה thither, מִשָּׁם thence, e.g. Gn 133 אֲשֶׁר־הָיָה שָׁם אָֽהֳלֹה עַד־הַמָּקוֹם unto the place, that one, his tent had been there, i.e. where his tent had been; cf. Gn 323 מִשָּׁם, Ex 2113 שָׁ֫מָּה. But even in this case the retrospective word may be omitted, cf. Gn 3514, Nu 2013, Is 6410, where שָׁם would be expected, and Gn 3038, Nu 1327, 1 K 122, where שָׁ֫מָּה would be expected.—When the appositional clause is added to a word of time, the retrospective pronoun is always omitted, e.g. 1 S 2031 for all the days, אֲשֶׁר בֶּן־יִשַׁי חַי those—the son of Jesse is living (in them); cf. Gn 456, Dt 146, 97, 1 K 1142; see Baumann, op. cit., p. 33.
d 3. If the governing substantive forms part of a statement made in the first or second person, the retrospective pronoun (or the subject of the appositional clause) is in the same person, e.g. Gn 454 I am Joseph, אֲשֶׁר־מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי he—ye sold me, i.e. whom ye sold; Nu 2230, Is 4923; 41:8 thou, Jacob, אֲשֶׁר בְּחַרְתִּ֫יךָ he—I have chosen thee; Jer 3319, Ec 1016 f.; Gn 157 I am the Lord, אֲשֶׁר הֽוֹצֵאתִ֫יךָ he—I brought thee out, &c., Ex 202 (Dt 56).
e (2) Not depending (adjectivally) on a governing substantive, but itself expressing a substantival idea. Clauses introduced in this way may be called independent relative clauses. This use of אֲשֶׁר is generally rendered in English by he who, he whom, &c. (according to the context), or that which, &c., or sometimes of such a kind as (qualis), cf. Ex 1413 b, and in a dependent relative clause Is 717. In reality, however, the אֲשֶׁר is still a demonstrative belonging to the construction of the main clause as subject or object, or as a genitive dependent on a noun or preposition, e.g. Nu 226 אֲשֶׁר תָּאֹר יוּאָר iste—thou cursest (him)—is cursed, i.e. he whom thou cursest, &c.; Ex 228;[6] אֲשֶׁר as object, Gn 441, 49:1, 1 S 163 ff., Mi 61 (אֵת אֲשֶׁר); and even preceding the verb, e.g. Is 5215, ψ 695; אֲשֶׁר as genitive, Ez 2328 I will deliver thee בְּיַד אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵאת into the hand of those—thou hatest (them); depending on a preposition, e.g. לַֽאֲשֶׁר Gn 444, 2 K 1022; בַּֽאֲשֶׁר Gn 2117, בַּֽאֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁם in that (place)—he is there, i.e. where he is; cf. Jul 17:8 and Ru 116 אֶל־אֲשֶׁר whither;[7] 1 K 1812 עַל־אֲשֶׁר whither; מֵֽאֲשֶׁר Ex 511.
f From these examples it follows that in independent relative clauses the retrospective suffix, or adverb of place, may be, and in fact generally is, omitted. As a rule, however (as in the dependent relative clause), this does not apply to eases in which the retrospective pronoun, by the construction of the sentence, depends on a preposition,[8] e.g. Gn 449 f. אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא אִתּוֹ... וָמֵת he—it (the cup) is found with him,—shall die (for the Wāw of the apodosis in וָמֵת cf. § 143 d). In such cases אֲשֶׁר preceded by the preposition is quite anomalous, as in Gn 3132 עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא with whomsoever thou findest, where אֲשֶׁר is a relative pronoun in the English sense; on the other hand, in Is 4712 (and probably also 56:4) בַּֽאֲשֶׁר is to be explained (with Baumann, op. cit., p. 37) by reference to 47:15, as a demonstrative pronoun, stand now with thine enchantments..., with those—thou hast laboured (with them).
[With regard to the preceding explanation of אֲשֶׁר, the student will of course understand that, in Hebrew as we know it, אֲשֶׁר never occurs as a mere demonstrative. A particle which, whatever its origin, is uniformly used with reference to something in another, contiguous clause, will naturally have acquired in practice that force which we denote by the term ‘relative’.]
g Like the original demonstrative pronoun אֲשֶׁר, the demonstratives proper זֶה, זוֹ, זוּ (the last commonly),[9] and sometimes the article, are used somewhat frequently in poetic language to introduce both dependent and independent relative clauses. With regard to the construction of זֶה, &c., the remarks on אֲשֶׁר, under a and e, also hold good.
Examples:—
(a) זֶה in apposition to a governing substantive in the nominative, ψ 10426 לִוְיָתָן זֶה־יָצַ֫רְתָּ (there is) leviathan, he—thou hast formed (him), i.e. whom thou hast formed; Is 4224 (זוּ); in the accusative, Is 259, ψ 742 (in both eases with a retrospective pronoun; זוֹ is used without it in ψ 13212); in apposition to a genitive dependent on a preposition, Pr 2322 שְׁמַע לְאָבִ֫יךָ זֶה יְלָדֶ֑ךָ hearken unto thy father, him—he begat thee, i.e. who begat thee; ψ 179 (זוּ).—In ψ 1048 אֶל־מְקוֹם זֶה יָסַ֫דְתָּ לָהֶם unto the place which thou hadst founded for them (cf. § 130 c), זֶה is in the genitive after the construct state מְקוֹם to the place of that, thou hadst founded (it) for them; on the same analogy we may also take, with Baumann (op. cit., p. 48), ψ 7854, (חַר זֶה) and Ex 1513 (עַם־זוּ גָאָ֑לְתָּ), 15:16, Is 4321, ψ 916, 102, 315, 328, 6212, 1424, 1438 (all examples of זוּ).
h To introduce independent relative clauses זֶה is used as a nominative in Jb 1919; as accusative, Jb 1517 and זוּ Hb 111, ψ 6829 (after a preposition, זֶה Ex 138; but the text is evidently corrupt).
i (b) More certain examples of the use of the article as a relative pronoun (more correctly, perhaps, of the demonstrative which is otherwise used as article) are 1 Ch 2628 כֹּל הַֽהִקְדִּישׁ שְׁמוּאֵל all that Samuel had dedicated, &c.; 1 Ch 298 (where נִמְצָא can only be perfect Niphʿal); 2 Ch 2936, Ezr 1014. In connexion with a plural, Jos 1024 the chiefs of the men of war הֶהָֽלְכוּ אִתּוֹ who went with him; Ezr 825, 1017, 1 Ch 2917. Finally, in the sense of id quod, Jer 513 (where, however, we should read with the LXX הַדָּבָר). Cf. moreover, 1 S 924 the thigh וְהֶֽעָלֶ֫יהָ and that which was upon it (but see k below); 2 Ch 14 בַּֽהֵכִין equivalent to בַּֽאֲשֶׁר הֵכִין to the place, that he had prepared.
k In all the examples adduced except 1 S 924 (where וְהָֽאַלְיָה should probably be read for וְהֶֽעָלֶ֫יהְ the הַ is followed by undoubted perfects; almost all the examples, moreover, belong to the latest Books (Ezra and Chronicles). On the other hand, another series of instances (even in the older texts) is extremely doubtful, in which the Masora likewise requires perfects, either by placing the tone on the penultima, as in Gn 1821, 4627, Jb 211 הַבָּ֫אָה; Is 5110 הַשָּׂ֫מָה; Ez 2617 הַֽהֻלָּ֫לָה Ru 122, 26 and 4:3 הַשָּׁ֫בָה, or by the punctuation, Gn 213 הַנּוֹלַד; 1 K 119, Dn 81 הַנִּרְאָה; Is 563 הַנִּלְוָה, while no doubt the authors in all these cases intended participles (and in fact perfect participles, cf. § 116 d) with the article, thus הַבָּאָ֫ה, &c., Ez 2617 הַֽהֻלָּלָה for הַמְהֻלָּלָה according to § 52 s, and in the other examples הַנּוֹלָד, הַנִּרְאֶה, הַנִּלְוֶה.
a Analogous to the periphrases for expressing materials and attributes by means of substantives (§ 128 o and p), is the use of substantives to represent certain kinds of pronominal ideas, for which no special expressions exist. Thus—
b 1. אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה man, woman, are used to express—
(a) The idea of each, every (in the sense of each severally) with reference to persons,[10] and even animals (Gn 1510), e.g. Gn 105, feminine Ex 322; אִישׁ is the object, e.g. in Jer 1215. On אִישׁ—אִישׁ cf. § 123 c.
c In a few passages אִישׁ in the above sense is placed for the sake of emphasis before the governing noun (always a substantive with a suffix), thus מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו Gn 95, according to the usual explanation, stands for מִיַּד אֲחִי אִישׁ at the hand of the brother of every man. But although the explanation seems to be supported by Gn 4225 and Nu 1717, it is inconceivable that such an inversion of nomen regens and rectum should occur. It is more likely, either that the second substantive is in apposition to אִישׁ (thus Gn 95 at the hand of every man, his brother, [unless it is a combination of the two readings מִיַּד אִישׁ and מִיַּד הָֽאָדָם]; similarly 15:10 and he laid each or, more exactly, one piece of it, &c., and so probably also Nu 1717 every one, sc. his name), or אִישׁ precedes as a kind of casus pendens, and only receives its nearer definition from the following substantive with suffix; thus Gn 4112, 4225 (according to the context = to every one in his sack); 42:35, where צְרוֹר־כַּסְפּוֹ בְּשַׂקּוֹ is virtually the predicate of אִישׁ; Ex 124, 2821, Nu 510, 2654, 2 K 2335, and especially Zc 710.[11]
d (b) Any one, some one, e.g. Gn 1316, Ct 87, with a negative no one;[12] so after אַל־ Ex 1619, 29; before לֹא Gn 236 and frequently.—Instead of אִישׁ we sometimes find in a similar sense אָדָם man, homo, e.g. Lv 12 (cf. כְּאַחַד הָֽאָדָם as any one else, Ju 167, 11), נֶ֫פֶשׁ (soul) person, Lv 21, 51, &c., and in a neuter sense דָּבָר (prop. word, thing) for anything, Gn 1814, or כָּל־דָּבָר Lv 52, Nu 3123. With a negative דָּבָר means nothing; thus after אַל־ Gn 198; after לֹא Ec 85.—Cf. finally, מֵֽאַחַד any one, Dt 157; anything, Ez 1810 (but in Lv 42, 513 מֵֽאַחַת) and the expressions noticed in § 144 e. The latter include also instances like Ez 1832 I have no pleasure בְּמֹוֹת הַמֵּת in the death of him that dieth, i.e. of any man.
e (c) In connexion with אָחִיו his brother or רֵעֵ֫הוּ his neighbour, אִישׁ one, masc. (as אִשָּׁה one, fem., in connexion with אֲחוֹתָהּ her sister or רְעוּתָהּ her neighbour) is used to represent the ideas of alter—alter, the one—the other[13] (in reference to persons, animals, or things without life; see the Lexicon) or the idea of one another, e.g. Gn 1311 and they separated them selves אִישׁ מֵעַל אָחִיו the one from the other; Ex 263 five curtains (יְרִיעֹת fem.) shall be coupled together אִשָּׁה אֶל־אֲחֹתָהּ one to another.
f 2. נֶ֫פֶשׁ soul, person expresses the idea of self,[14] both in the singular, Pr 198, 16, 29:24, Jb 184 (in all cases נַפְשׁוֹ equivalent to himself) and in the plural, Jer 379, &c. Similar to this is the use of בְּקִרְבָּךְ Gn 1812 (prop. in her inward part) in the sense of within herself.[15] g 3. עֶ֫צֶם bone (then metaphorically for substance) expresses the idea of self, selfsame, very same, in reference to things (as נֶ֫פֶשׁ to persons, e.g. בְּעֶ֫צֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה in the selfsame day, Gn 713, cf. Jos 1027, Ez 242; כְּעֶ֫צֶם הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם לָטֹהַר as it were the very heaven for clearness, Ex 2410; בְּעֶ֫צֶם תֻּמּוֹ in the very fullness of his strength (= in the midst of his full strength), Jb 2123.
h 4. The simple plural of words denoting time sometimes includes also the idea of a few, some;[16] thus יָמִים a few days, Gn 2455, 404 (here even of a longer period, = for some time); Is 6520, Dn 827 (on the other hand, Gn 2744, 2920 יָמִים אֲחָדִים; see § 96 under אֶחָד); שָׁנִים some years, Dn 116, 8.
CHAPTER II
THE SENTENCE
The Sentence in General.
a 1. Every sentence, the subject and predicate of which are nouns or their equivalents (esp. participles), is called a noun-clause, e.g. יָהוָֹה מַלְכֵּנוּ the Lord is our king, Is 3322; וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners, Gn 1313; פֶּה לָהֶם a mouth is theirs, ψ 1155; see further, § 141.
b 2. Every sentence, the subject of which is a noun (or pronoun included in a verbal-form) and its predicate a finite verb, is called a verbal-clause, e.g. וַיֹּא֫מֶר אֱלֹהִים and God said, Gn 13; וַיַּבְדֵּל and he divided, 1:7; see further, § 142.
c Rem. In the last example the pronominal subject is at least indicated by the preformative (י), and in almost all forms of the perfect by afformatives. The 3rd pers. sing. perf. however, which contains no indication of the subject, must also be regarded as a full verbal-clause.
d 3. Every sentence, the subject or predicate of which is itself a full clause, is called a compound sentence, e.g. ψ 1831 הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ God—his way is perfect, equivalent to God’s way is perfect; Gn 348 שְׁכֶם בְּנִי חָֽשְׁקָה נַפְשׁוֹ בְּבִתְּכֶם my son Shechem—his soul longeth for your daughter; see further, § 143.
e 4. The above distinction between different kinds of sentences—especially between noun- and verbal-clauses—is indispensable to the more delicate appreciation of Hebrew syntax (and that of the Semitic languages generally), since it is by no means merely external or formal, but involves fundamental differences of meaning. Noun-clauses with a substantive as predicate, represent something fixed, a state or in short, a being so and so; verbal-clauses on the other hand, something moveable and in progress, an event or action. The latter description is indeed true in a certain sense also of noun-clauses with a participial predicate, except that in their case the event or action (as distinguished from that expressed by the verbal-clause) is of a fixed and abiding character.
f Rem. By the Arab grammarians every clause beginning with an independent subject is regarded as a noun-clause, and every clause beginning with a finite verb as verbal. If a finite verb follows the noun-subject the two together (since the verb comprises its own subject and is thus a complete verbal-clause) form a compound noun-sentence, just as when the predicate consists of an independent noun-clause. Though this definition of the different kinds of sentence, which we formerly accepted (in § 144 a of the 22nd to the 24th German editions of this Grammar), is rejected above, a–d, we must, nevertheless, mention here the point in which this more complicated view of the Arab grammarians may be regarded as at least relatively correct, namely, in classifying verbal-clauses according as the subject precedes or follows the verb, a distinction which is often of great importance in Hebrew also; see further, in § 142 a.
a 1. The subject of a noun-clause (see § 140 a) may be—
(a) A substantive, e.g. וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵ֫דֶן and a river went out (was going out) of Eden, Gn 210.
(b) A pronoun, e.g. Gn 74 אָֽנֹכִי מַמְטִיר I will cause it to rain; 1418 וְהוּא כֹהֵן and he was priest; 223 (זֹאת before a feminine predicate, as אֵ֫לֶּה before a plural in Ex 324); מִי חָכָם who is wise? Ho 1410.—In 1 Ch 52 וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּ֫נּוּ and of him one became a prince, the subject is contained in מִמֶּ֫נּוּ.[17]
b 2. The predicate of a noun-clause may be—
(a) A substantive, e.g. Dt 141 בָּנִים אַתֶּם וגו׳ ye are children of the Lord your God; Gn 4213. Specially characteristic of the Semitic mode of expression are the cases in which both subject and predicate are substantives, thus emphasizing their identity (‘the thing is its measure, material, or equivalent’), e.g. Ez 4122 הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עֵץ ... וְקִֽירֹתָיו עֵץ the altar (was) wood ..., and the walls thereof (were) wood, i.e. of wood. Cf. below, c.
(b) An adjective or participle, e.g. Gn 212 וּֽזֲהַב הָאָ֫רֶץ הַהִיא טוֹב and the gold of that land is good; וְעֶפְרוֹן ישֵׁב now Ephron was sitting, &c., Gn 2310.[18] Very frequently such noun-clauses, attached by Wāw to a verbal-clause, are used to represent a state contemporaneous with the principal action; cf. e below.
(c) A numeral, e.g. Gn 4213 שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶ֫יךָ the twelve (of us) are thy servants. (d) A pronoun, e.g. Gn 1012 (הִיא), Ex 927 (אֲנִי), Gn 2465 (מִי), 1 K 913 (מָה).[19]
(e) An adverb or (esp. if formed with a preposition) any specification of time, place, quality, possessor, &c., which may be regarded as the equivalent of a noun-idea, e.g. שָׁם הַבְּדֹ֫לַח there is the bdellium, Gn 212; אֵי הֶ֫בֶל where is Abel? 4:9; לְעוֹלָם חַםְדּוֹ his mercy endureth for ever, ψ 1361 f.; ע֫שֶׁר בְּבֵיתוֹ riches are in his house, ψ 1123; לוֹ אֲנָחְ֑נוּ we are his, ψ 1003 Qerê.
c Rem. 1. The employment of a substantive as predicate of a noun-clause is especially frequent, either when no corresponding adjective exists (so mostly with words expressing the material; cf. § 128 o) or when the attribute is intended to receive a certain emphasis. For in all cases there is a much greater stress upon a substantival predicate,[20] since it represents something as identical with the subject (see above, b [a]), than upon an adjectival or verbal predicate; cf. Ct 110; ψ 2510 all the paths of the Lord are חֶ֫סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶת lovingkindness and truth (i.e. wholly lovingkindness, &c.; cf. Jer 1010); Ez 385, ψ 105, 1910, 235, 8819, Pr 317,[21] Jb 2212, 232, 2613, Ru 32. Sometimes the emphasis on the predicate is obtained by the use of the plural form (according to § 124 e), e.g. ψ 1103 thy people are נְדָבֹת altogether willingness; Ct 516, Dn 923.
d Sometimes the boldness of such combinations is modified by the repetition of the subject, as regens of the predicate, e.g. Jb 612 אִם־כֹּחַ אֲבָנִים כֹּחִי is my strength the strength of stones? Pr 317. That the language, however—especially in poetry—is not averse even to the boldest combinations in order to emphasize very strongly the unconditional relation between the subject and predicate, is shown by such examples as ψ 459 myrrh and aloes and cassia are all thy garments (i.e. so perfumed with them that they seem to be composed of them); Ct 115 thine eyes are doves, i.e. dove’s eyes (but 5:12 כְּיוֹנִים);[22] ψ 235, 1094, Jb 89, 1212, Ct 213. In prose, e.g. Ex 931, Ezr 1013 הָעֵת גְּשָׁמִים the season is rain showers, i.e. the rainy season; with a bold enallage of the number, Gn 3430 וַֽאֲנִי מְתֵי מִסְפָּר and I (with my family) am persons few in number. For similarly bold expressions with הָיָה cf. Gn 111, 122, Ex 1712, Is 512, Jer 228, and again with a bold enallage of the number, Jb 2915 I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame, but in prose, Nu 1031 and thou shalt be to us לְעֵנַ֫יִם.
e 2. The noun-clause connected by wāw copulative to a verbal-clause, or its equivalent, always describes a state contemporaneous with the principal action, or (when the predicate is a transitive participle) an action represented in constant duration (cf. § 107 d, as well as § 116 n and o), e.g. Gn 191 and the two angels came to Sodom at even, וְלוֹט ישֵׁב while Lot sat, &c.; 18:1, 8, 16, 22, 25:26, Ju 139, 1 S 19, 2 S 47, 114 (always with a participle); with an adjectival predicate, Gn 1812; with a substantival predicate, 18:27; with an adverbial predicate, 9:23. Not infrequently such a circumstantial clause indicates at the same time some contradictory fact, so that וְ is equivalent to whereas, whilst, although, e.g. Gn 152, 1827, 203, 4814 (although he was the younger); Ju 1615 how canst thou say, I love thee, וְלִבְּךָ אֵין אִתִּי whereas thine heart is not with me? 2 S 339, ψ 283 whilst mischief is in their hearts. These clauses describing a state are, however, only a subdivision of the large class of circumstantial clauses, on which see § 156.
f 3. As the examples given under a and b show, the syntactical relation existing between the subject and predicate of a noun-clause is as a rule expressed by simple juxtaposition, without a copula of any kind. To what period of time the statement applies must be inferred from the context; e.g. 1 K 1821 יְהֹוָה הָֽאֱלֹהִים the Lord is the true God; 1 S 919; Is 312 גַּם־הוּא חָכָם yet he also is wise; Gn 4211; on the other hand, Gn 191 וְלוֹט ישֵׁב and (=while) Lot was sitting; Ez 2815; Gn 74 אָֽנֹכִי מַמְטִיר I am raining, i.e. I will rain. Sometimes even a jussive or optative is to be supplied as predicate, Gn 2713 upon me be thy curse; Gn 113, 2013, Ex 122. Cf. § 116 r, note.
g Not infrequently, however, a connexion is established between subject and predicate (a) by adding the separate pronoun of the 3rd person singular or plural, expressly resuming and therefore strengthening the subject, or (b) (especially for the sake of a more exact specification of time) by the help of the verb הָיָה. The first of these will be a compound sentence, since the predicate to the main subject consists of an independent clause.
h Examples of (a): Gn 4126 the seven good kine שֶׁ֫בַע שָׁנִים הֵ֫נָּה they are seven years; Dt 117, 424; Ec 518 זֹה מַתַּת אֱלֹהִים הִיא this—it is a gift of God; Nu 327 אֵ֫לֶּה הֵם; in a question, Gn 2738. Sometimes הוּא is used in this way to strengthen a pronominal subject of the first or second person, and at the same time to connect it with the predicate which follows,[23] e.g. אָֽנֹכִי אָֽנֹכִי הוּא Is 4325 I, even I, am he that blotteth out, &c.; 51:12; אַתָּה הוּא 2 S 728, Is 3716, ψ 445, Neh 96, 7; in an interrogative sentence, Jer 1422;[24] in Jer 4912 הוּא in a verbal-clause strengthens אַתָּה.
i Of (b): naturally this does not apply to the examples, in which הָיָה, in the sense of to become, to fare, to exist, still retains its full force as a verb, and where accordingly the sentence is verbal, and not a noun-clause; especially when the predicate precedes the subject. On the other hand, such examples as Gn 12 and the earth was (הָֽיְתָה) waste and emptiness, can scarcely be regarded as properly verbal clauses; הָֽיְתָה is used here really only for the purpose of referring to past time a statement which, as the description of a state, might also appear in the form of a pure noun-clause; cf. Gn 31. This is especially true of the somewhat numerous instances in which הָיָה occurs as a connecting word between the subject and the participial predicate; e.g. Ju 17, Jb 114 (immediately afterwards a pure noun-clause). The imperfect of הָיָה announces what is future in Nu 1433, &c.; cf. § 116 r. However, especially in the latter case, הָיָה is not wholly without verbal force, but comes very near to being a mere copula, and this use is more frequent in the later books[25] than in the earlier.
k Rem. On the employment of יֵשׁ existence, and אַ֫יִן non-existence, which were originally substantives (on their tendency to be used as verbs, equivalent to est, and non est, cf. § 100 o, and the Negative Sentences, § 152) as a connecting link between a pronominal subject and a participial predicate (especially in conditional and interrogative sentences, Gn 2442, 49, 43:4, &c.), see above, § 116 q, and the various kinds of subordinate clauses mentioned in §§ 150, 159.
l 4. The natural arrangement of words in the noun-clause, as describing a state, is subject—predicate; the principal stress falls on the former since it is the object of the description. Very frequently, however (and not merely in poetry, where greater freedom is naturally allowed in the arrangement of words), the reverse order is found, i.e. predicate—subject. The latter order must be used when special emphasis is laid on the predicate,[26] or when it consists of an interrogative word; thus with a substantival predicate, e.g. Gn 319 עָפָר אַתָּה dust thou art; 4:9, 12:13 (my sister, not my wife); 20:2, 12, 29:14, Is 63 b, Jb 524, 612; with an adjectival predicate, e.g. Is 63 a, 28:21, Jer 106; with a participle, Gn 301, 3212; with an interrogative pronoun, e.g. Gn 2465;[27] with an adverbial interrogative, e.g. Gn 49.
m Rem. On the above cf. the exhaustive investigations of C. Albrecht, ‘Die Wortstellung im hebr. Nominalsatze,’ ZAW. vii. 218 ff. and viii. 249 ff.; with a complete list of the exceptions to the order subject—predicate, p. 254 ff. The predicate must precede for the reasons stated (an adjectival predicate is particularly emphatic when it has the force of a comparative, e.g. Gn 413; the predicate expressed by means of a preposition precedes most frequently when it serves to convey the ideas of having, possessing, e.g. Gn 1814, 2916, &c.; cf. also 26:20, 31:16, 43).
n The predicate may precede: (a) when the subject is a pronoun, for ‘the person assumed to be generally known, does not excite the same interest as that which is stated about him;’ (b) ‘in order not to be a mere appendage to a subject which consists of several words,’ e.g. 2 K 2019; (c) in interrogative sentences (with a substantival or adjectival predicate or one compounded with a preposition), e.g. 1 S 164; finally (d) in a relative clause, when the predicate is adverbial or compounded with a preposition, as a rule closely united (by Maqqeph) with אֲשֶׁר, e.g. Gn 211 אֲשֶׁר־שָׁם; 1:29 f. אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ.
a 1. By § 140 f there is an essential distinction between verbal-clauses, according as the subject stands before or after the verb. In the verbal-clause proper the principal emphasis rests upon the action which proceeds from (or is experienced by) the subject, and accordingly the verb naturally precedes (necessarily so when it is in the perf. consec. or imperf. consec.). Nevertheless, the subject does sometimes precede even in the verbal-clause proper, in the continuation of the narrative, e.g. Gn 719, 1 S 181, 2 S 1912; especially so if there is special emphasis upon it, e.g. Gn 313 (it is not I who am to blame, but) the serpent beguiled me, cf. Gn 25, &c.[28] In the great majority of instances, however, the position of the subject at the beginning of a verbal-clause is to be explained from the fact that the clause is not intended to introduce a new fact carrying on the narrative, but rather to describe a state. Verbal-clauses of this kind approximate closely in character to noun-clauses, and not infrequently (viz. when the verbal form might just as well be read as a participle) it is doubtful whether the writer did not in fact intend a noun-clause.
b The particular state represented in the verb may consist—
(a) Of an act completed long before, to which reference is made only because it is necessary for understanding the sequel of the principal action. If the predicate be a perfect (as it almost always is in these cases), it is generally to be rendered in English by a pluperfect; cf. the examples discussed above in § 106 f (1 S 283, &c.); also Gn 68 (not Noah found grace); 16:1, 18:17, 20:4, 24:1, 39:1 (and Joseph in the meanwhile had been brought down to Egypt); 41:10, Ju 116, 1 S 915, 1427, 2521, 1 K 11, &c.—In a wider sense this applies also to such verbal-clauses as Gn 26 (see further, § 112 e), since when they serve to represent an action continuing for a long period in the past, and thus to some extent a state.
c (b) Of a fact, contemporaneous with the principal events or continuing as the result of them. To the former class belong all those instances in which the predicate is combined with הָיָה (provided that הָיָה has not, as in Gn 12, 31, &c., been weakened to a mere copula, in which case the precedence of the subject is fully explained from the character of the clause as a noun-clause; cf. § 141 i, and the examples of הָיָה, &c., with a participle, § 116 r); as an example of the second class, cf. e.g. Gn 1312 אַבְרָם יָשַׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־כְּנָ֑עַן וגו׳ Abraham accordingly continued to dwell in the land of Canaan, but Lot dwelt, &c.
d Rem. 1. The close relation between verbal-clauses beginning with the subject and actual noun-clauses, is seen finally from the fact that the former also are somewhat frequently added with וְ (or subordinated) to a preceding sentence in order to lay stress upon some accompanying circumstance; on such noun-clauses describing a state or circumstance, cf. § 141 e. This is especially the case, again, when the circumstantial appendage involves an antithesis; cf. Gn 1818 seeing that nevertheless Abraham shall surely become, &c.; 24:56, 26:27, Is 2913, Jer 1415, ψ 5017, Jb 2122, and such examples as Gn 42.4, 29:17, where by means of וְ a new subject is introduced in express antithesis to one just mentioned. Moreover, in the examples treated above, under b and c (1 S 283, &c.), the subject is frequently introduced by וְ, which then corresponds to the Greek δέ, used to interpose an explanation, &c., see Winer, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachidioms, § 53. 7b.
e 2. By a peculiar construction verbal-clauses may be joined by means of וְ and a following subject to participial clauses, e.g. Gn 3825 הִיא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָֽׁלְחָה she was already brought forth, when she sent, &c.; 44:3, 4, Ju 183, 1911, 2 S 208; for other examples, see § 116 u (where it is pointed out, note 1, that the apodosis also frequently appears in the form of a noun-clause, a further proof of the close relation between verbal-clauses beginning with the subject and noun-clauses proper). Without doubt there is in all these cases a kind of inversion of the principal clause and the temporal subordinate clause; the latter for the sake of greater emphasis being raised to an independent noun-clause, while the real principal action is added as though it were an accompanying circumstance, and hence in the form of an ordinary circumstantial clause. [Cf. Driver, Tenses, § 166 ff.]
f 2. According to what has been remarked above, under a, the natural order of words within the verbal sentence is: Verb—Subject, or Verb—Subject—Object. But as in the noun-clause (§ 141 l) so also in the verbal-clause, a variation of the usual order of words frequently occurs when any member of the sentence is to be specially emphasized by priority of position.[29] Thus the order may be:—
(a) Object—Verb—Subject: Gn 3040, 374, 1 S 151, 2 K 2319 and frequently. Naturally the examples are far more numerous, in which the object precedes a verbal form which includes the subject in itself, e.g. Gn 310.14.18, 6:16, 8:17, 9:13, Ex 1823, Ju 143, 1 S 1817, 209, 2110, 2 K 228, Pr 135, &c.
(b) Verb—Object—Subject: Gn 217, Nu 523, 1 S 1533, 2 S 2416 (but המלאך is probably only a subsequent addition); Is 1913, ψ 3422, Jb 1119, &c.
(c) Subject—Object—Verb: Is 317, 118, 1318, Ho 1211, ψ 610, 115, Jb 2925.[30] (d) Object—Subject—Verb (very rarely): 2 K 513, Is 517, 2817, ψ 515, Pr 1316 (read כֹּל).[31]
(e) A substantival complement of the verb היה is placed first in Is 185 וּבֹסֵר גֹּמֵל יִֽהְיֶה נִצָּה and a ripening grape the flower becometh.
g Rem. Of specifications compounded with a preposition those of place stand regularly after the verb, unless they are specially emphatic as e.g. Gn 192, 3016, 325, Mi 51, Est 912; in Gn 2925 בְּרָחֵל with בְּ pretii precedes for the sake of emphasis. Cf., however, in Gn 3513 the order verb—specification of place—subject.—The remoter object precedes for the sake of emphasis, e.g. in Gn 1315 (26:3), 15:3; even before the interrogative. Gn 2737 (cf. Jer 2215 where the subject precedes an interrogative, and 1 S 208, Jb 3431 where a prepositional specification precedes). — Prepositional specifications of time, such as בְּרֵאשִׁית (Gn 11), בְּיוֹם, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, &c. (but not בָּרִֽאשֹׁנָה, nor the simple רִֽאשֹׁנָה, בַּתְּחִלָּה, לְעוֹלָם), stand, as a rule, before the verb, provided it be not in the perf. consec. or imperf. consec.; so also certain adverbs of time, such as אָז, עַתָּה, whilst others like עוֹד, תָּמִיד regularly follow the verb.
a A compound sentence (§ 140 d) is formed by the juxtaposition of a subject[32] (which always precedes, see c) and
(a) An independent noun-clause, which (a) refers to the principal subject by means of a pronoun, e.g. Na 13 יְהֹוָה בְּסוּפָה דַרְכּוֹ the Lord—in the storm is his way; 2 S 236, ψ 1831, 10417, 1252, Ec 214; cf. also Gn 3423, where the predicate is an interrogative clause.—A personal pronoun is somewhat frequently used as the principal subject, e.g. Is 5921 וַֽאֲנִי זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֹתָם and as for me, this is my covenant with them, &c.; Gn 99, 174, Is 17, 1 Ch 282;[33] with an interrogative noun-clause, Gn 3730, Jb 214, 3819:—or (β) is without a retrospective suffix (in which case naturally the connexion between the subject and predicate is much looser), e.g. 1 S 2023 and as touching the matter which, &c.... behold the Lord is between thee and me for ever; Pr 272.
b (b) An independent verbal-clause: (a) with a retrospective suffix,[34] e.g. Gn 96 (cf. § 116 w); 17:15 as for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai; 26:15, 28:13, 34:8, Ex 3037, 321, 1 S 210, 2 K 1029, Is 91, 1110, Ez 332, Ho 911, ψ 114, 465, 654, 7417, Dn 117; with a pronoun as the principal subject, Gn 2427; (β) without a retrospective suffix, Is 1917 every one that mentions it (Judah) to it (Egypt), it (Egypt) is afraid.
c Rem. 1. In all the above examples prominence is given to the principal subject (by its mere separation from the context by means of a greater disjunctive, as a casus pendens[35]) in a manner which would be quite impossible in a simple noun or verbal-clause (e.g. Na 13 if it were דֶּ֫רֶךְ יְהֹוָה בְּסוּפָה); cf. the French c’est moi qu’on a accusé. But the statement or question contained in the clause which forms the predicate also receives greater weight. For the same purpose other members of the sentence also are sometimes placed at the beginning and resumed again by a following suffix; thus the object, Gn 1315, 2113, 3512, 4721 (with the Samaritan and LXX read perhaps הֶֹֽעֱבִיד); 1 S 2529; a specification of place, Gn 217, 2 K 2218, &c.; a substantive with לְ, 1 S 920, 2 S 623; cf. the examples in § 135 a.—In Nu 1529 a dative is co-ordinated with the casus pendens, i.e. there is a transition to a different construction.
d 2. To compound sentences belong also the numerous examples already treated in the account of the tenses, where the predicate of a casus pendens is introduced by the wāw apodosis. The isolation and prominence of the principal subject is in this case still more marked than in the instances treated above; on the casus pendens with a following imperfect consecutive (e.g. Jer 619, 3324), cf. § 111 h; with a following perfect consecutive (e.g. Ex 421, 1244, Nu 233, 1 S 2527, 2 S 1410, Is 94, 566 f.), § 112 t and mm; on the participle as casus pendens, § 112 oo and § 116 w.—In Jb 1517 wāw apodosis follows with the cohortative; in Jb 2312, ψ 1157, the imperfect is separated by לֹא from the wāw apodosis; in Jb 46 as for thy hope, it is the integrity of thy ways, 36:26, Ec 56, an incomplete noun-clause is appended by wāw apodosis. On wāw apodosis after disconnected specifications of time, cf. § 112 oo at the end, and Gn 409, 2 S 1534 וְעַתָּה וַֽאֲנִי עַבְדֶּ֫ךָ and now (so far as the present is concerned) I will be thy servant, Nu 1212, Jer 41 (me thou needest not fear).
e 3. Sometimes a substantive introduced by לְ (in respect to; cf. § 119 u) serves the same purpose as the casus pendens beginning the sentence, as Nu 188 (unless the לְ here serves to introduce the object, according to § 117 n); Is 321 (where, however, וְשָׂרִים should most probably be read); Ec 94, 1 Ch 71, 2420 ff., 2 Ch 721. On the other hand, ψ 163, 174, 326, 8919, 11991, are very doubtful. The suggestion of P. Haupt (Johns Hopkins University Circulars, xiii. no. 114; Baltimore, 1894) also deserves attention, that in passages like Ec 94, and in לְכֹל Gn 910, 2310, Ex 273, 19, Ez 449, &c., לְ is not the preposition, but an emphasizing particle, answering to the Arab. lă, surely; Assyrian lû; with בֹּל it is equivalent to in short. Cf. also לְ־לְ sive—sive, et—et, Jos 1716, Ezr 111, Assyrian lû—lû.
a 1. According to § 40 ff. most forms of the finite verb include a specification of the subject in the form of personal afformatives (in the imperfect also in the form of preformatives). Not infrequently, however, masculine forms are used in referring to feminines, e.g. וִֽידַעְתֶּם Ez 2349; עֲשִׂיתֶם Ru 18; in the imperfect, Jo 222, Ct 27; in the imperative, Am 41, Zc 137 (for other examples, see § 110 k). On emphasizing the pronominal subject by the addition of the separate pronoun, see § 135 a and b.
On the masculine as prior gender, cf. § 122 g; on similar anomalies in the use of the personal pronoun, § 135 o, in the connexion between substantive and adjective, § 132 d, between subject and predicate, § 145 p, t, u.
b 2. The third person singular is often used impersonally, especially in the masculine, e.g. וַֽיְהִי and it came to pass, וְהָיָה and it shall come to pass; חָרָה followed by לוֹ, &c., it became hot to him, i.e. he became angry, Gn 46, &c.; וַיֵּ֫צֶר לוֹ lit. and it became strait to him, he was distressed, Gn 328;[36] also in the feminine, e.g. 1 S 306 (Ju 109) וַתֵּ֫צֶר לְדָוִד Ju 1139, Jer 731, Ez 1225, Jb 1532 (unless תְּמֽוּרָתוֹ in verse 31 be the subject); cf. also the impersonal passives, Is 16 (רֻכְּכָה), 29:6 (תִּפָּקֵד). Somewhat different are the instances in which the 3rd singular feminine occurs as the predicate of a feminine subject which is not mentioned, but is before the mind of the speaker, e.g. Is 77, 1424, Jer 107, Jb 45, 1815 (in 2 K 247 כָּל־אֲשֶׁר is used in this way with a feminine predicate, and in Jer 195 אֲשֶׁר alone); different, too, are the instances in which the 3rd singular masculine refers to an act just mentioned, e.g. Gn 1711 וְהָיָה and this (the circumcision) shall be a token of a covenant, &c.
c Rem. The expressions for natural phenomena may be either in the 3rd sing. masculine or feminine, e.g. אוֹר it becomes light, 1 S 2910 (but with an explicit subject, Gn 443); וַיֵּאוֹר and it became light; so also יַחְשִׁךְ it grows dark, Jer 1316; but וְחָֽשְׁכָה Mi 36; תָּעֻ֫פָה though there be darkness, Jb 1117; תַּמְטִיר it rains, Am 47 (where, however, the context requires the reading אַמְטִיר); ψ 503 נִשְׂעֲרָה it is tempestuous.
d 3. The indefinite personal subject (our they, one, the French on, and the German man[37]) is expressed—
(a) By the 3rd person singular masculine, e.g. קָרָא one (sc. any one who named it, see the Rem.) called (or calls) it, Gn 119, 1614, 1922, Ex 1523; וַוִּקְרָא Gn 358, 10, 2 S 216, Is 95; וַיֹּא֫מֶר one said, Gn 481, 1 S 164;[38] other examples are Gn 3828 one put out a hand; Nu 2321, 1 K 2238, Is 610 וְרָפָא לוֹ and one heals them; 8:4 (יִשָּׂא); 46:7 (יִצְעַק); Am 612, Mi 24, Jb 2723; by the 3rd singular feminine (יָֽלְדָה) Nu 2659.
e Rem. The Jewish commentators, following the Arab grammarians, usually explain these singulars by the addition of the participle (generally determinate) of the same stem, e.g. קָרָא הַקֹּרֵא. This view is supported by the fact that such a complement sometimes occurs, e.g. Is 1610 יִדְרֹךְ הַדֹּרֵךְ the treader treads out, for one treads out; 28:4, 24 (doth one plow continually?); Dt 176 (Ez 1832), Dt 228, 2 S 179 (Ez 334), Jer 923; with an indeterminate participle (as in Arabic, e.g. qāla qāʾilun, a sayer says, i.e. some one says), e.g. Nu 69, Am 91; cf. above, § 116 t, and, on the whole question, Driver on 1 S 164.
f (b) Very frequently by the 3rd plural masculine, e.g. Gn 292 for out of that well יַשְׁקוּ they (i.e. people generally) watered the flocks; 26:18, 35:5, 41:14, 49:31, 1 K 12, Is 3816, Ho 129, Jb 1818, 3420, Est 22, Neh 27.
g Rem. The 3rd plur. also is sometimes used to express an indefinite subject, where the context does not admit of a human agent or at least not of several, e.g. Gn 3427. In such a case the 3rd plur. comes to be equivalent to a passive, as very commonly in Aramaic (see Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., § 96. 1 c); e.g. Jb 73 wearisome nights מִנּוּ־לִי have they allotted to me (equivalent to were allotted to me; to make ‘invisible powers’ the subject is a merely artificial device); Jb 419, 62, 1818, 1926, 3420, Ez 3225, ψ 6311, Pr 222 (in parallelism with a passive); 9:11.
h (c) By the 2nd singular masculine, e.g. Is 725 לֹֽא־תָבוֹא שָׁ֫מָּה one will (or can) not come thither (prop. thou wilt...); Jer 2337, Pr 1925, 3028 (unless the reading should be תִּתָּפֵשׂ). Cf. also עַד־בֹּֽאֲךָ or simply בֹּֽאֲךָ (Gn 1019, 30, 13:10 בֹּֽאֲבָה) prop. until thy coming, i.e. until one comes.
i (d) By the plural of the participle, e.g. Jer 3823 and all thy wives and thy children מֽוֹצִאִים (prop. are they bringing out=) they will bring out, &c.; cf. Is 3212, Ez 137, Neh 610 (for some are coming to slay thee) and the passages discussed above, § 116 t.[39] In 1 K 51 the text is corrupt.
k (e) By the passive, e.g. Gn 426 אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא then (was it begun=) began men to call upon, &c. (but read זֶה הֵחֵל he began).
l 4. A peculiar idiom, and one always confined to poetic language, is the not infrequent occurrence of two subjects in a verbal sentence,[40] one of the person and the other of the thing. The latter then serves—whether it precedes or follows—to state the instrument, organ, or member by which the action in question is performed, and may be most often rendered in English by an adverb, as a nearer definition of the manner of the action. All the examples of this kind have this in common, that the subject denoting the thing takes a suffix in the same person as the personal subject.[41] They are thus distinguished from the accusatives treated in § 117 s, with which they are often confused.
m (a) Examples where the subject denoting the thing precedes, אֶל־יְהֹוָה אֶקְרָא קוֹלִי my voice—I cry unto the Lord, i.e. I cry aloud unto the Lord, ψ 35, 277, 1422; פִּֽי־קָרָ֫אתִי my mouth—I cried, i.e. I cried aloud, ψ 6617 (cf. 17:10); Is 269 נַפְשִׁי with my soul, i.e. fervently, and parallel with it אָף־רוּחִי; but נַפְשִׁי ψ 575 is rather a periphrasis for the 1st pers. I.
(b) Where the subject denoting the thing follows, צַֽהֲלִי קוֹלֵךְ cry—thy voice (i.e. aloud), Is 1030; so also after an imperative, ψ 1713 (חַרְבֶּ֫ךָ) and verse 14 (יָֽדְךָ); 60:7, 108:7 (יְמִֽינְךָ); after a perfect, Hb 315 (סוּסֶ֫יךָ); after a cohortative, ψ 1082 (אַף־כְּבוֹדִי). The subject denoting the thing stands between the personal subject and the predicate in ψ 443 אַתָּה יָֽדְךָ.[42]
n Rem. 1. Sometimes (as in other languages) an action is ascribed to a subject which can only have been performed at his direction by another person; cf. e.g. Gn 4022 (41:13), 41:14, 43:34 (and he commanded to set before them, &c.); 46:29, 2 S 129.
o 2. Supposed ellipses of a definite subject are due either to a misunderstanding of the passage, or to a corruption of the text. Thus in 1 S 2411 after וַתָּ֫חָס either עֵינִי has dropped out (through confusion with עָלֶ֫יךָ) or we should read with the LXX וָֽאָחֻס. In 2 S 1339 (וַתְּכַל דָּוִד) the text is obviously corrupt.
p 3. In poetic (or prophetic) language[43] there sometimes occurs (supposing the text to be correct) a more or less abrupt transition from one person to another. Thus from the 2nd to the 3rd (i.e. from an address to a statement), Gn 494 (?), Is 316 (?), 42:20, 52:14, 61:7, Mal 215 (where, however, for יִבְגֹּד we should undoubtedly read תִּבְגּׄד); ψ 229 [and regularly after a vocative, Is 2216, 478, 481, 541, 11, Jer 2216, 494, 16, Am 56f., Mic 12 (=1 K 2228), Mal 39, 2 K 931; and after הוֹי Is 58, 2915, Jer 2213]. From the 3rd to the 2nd pers., Dt 3215, Is 129 (but read probably חֶמְדָּתָם for חֲמַדְתֶּם, which has caused the insertion of אֲשֶׁר), 5:8, Jer 2919, Jb 167, cf. also Dt 3217. From the 1st to the 3rd pers., La 31 (in a relative clause). In Jb 1328 the 3rd pers. וְהוּא is probably employed δεικτικῶς for the 1st.
a 1. As in other languages, so also in Hebrew, the predicate in general conforms to the subject in gender and number (even when it is a pronoun, e.g. זֹאת בְּרִיתִי this is my covenant, Gn 1710). There are, however, numerous exceptions to this fundamental rule. These are due partly to the constructio ad sensum (where attention is paid to the meaning rather than to the grammatical form; see b–l below), partly to the position of the predicate (regarded as being without gender) before the subject.
b 2. Singular nouns which include in themselves a collective idea (§ 123 a), or which occasionally have a collective sense (§ 123 b), may readily, in accordance with their meaning, be construed with the plural of the predicate, whether it precedes or follows. This is also the case, when the collective is itself feminine but represents, exclusively or at least generally, masculine persons.
Examples:—
c (a) Of collectives proper (cf. § 132 g): (α) with the predicate preceding, Gn 3038 תָּבֹ֫אןָ הַצֹּאן (cf. 30:39, 31:8 and 33:13); Ju 122 f. בַּ֫יִת representing persons belonging to the tribe; Mi 43 גּוֹי; 2 K 255 חַ֫יִל army; Pr 1126 לְאוֹם the people; Nu 103 כָּל־הָֽעֵדָה all the congregation (cf. 1 K 85); 1 K 140, Is 98, 253, Am 15 עַם; 1 S 1747, Ezr 1012 קָהָל assembly. Cf. also the construction of national names, as אֲרָם (§ 122 i), e.g. 1 K 2020 וַיָּנֻ֫סוּ אֲרָם and the Syrians fled; 1 S 45.—(β) with the predicate following, 1 K 85 צֹאן וּבָקָר sheep and oxen, construed with the plural in the following relative clause; Jb 114 הַבָּקָר הָיוּ חֹֽרְשׁוֹת the cattle (cows) were ploughing; 2 S 31 and 1 Ch 106 בַּ֫יִת=family (in 1 S 613 בֵּית שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ on the analogy of names of countries, is used for the inhabitants of Bethshemesh); Ho 117, Ezr 44 עַם; ψ 6811 חַיָּה herd [if correct, figuratively for people]; Is 2619 נְבֵלָה dead bodies; Is 2711 קָצִיר boughs; 1 S 41 יִשְׂרָאֵל, preceded by a predicate in the singular.
d (b) Of substantives occasionally used as collectives: (α) with the predicate preceding, Gn 3424 זָכָר; Ju 955, 1510 אִישׁ; Is 164 רֹמֵס the treader down.—(β) with the predicate following, Jb 819 אַחֵר=others; Ez 283 סָתוּם a secret; [ψ 97, and even after זֶה Jb 1919.]
e (c) Of feminines as collective terms denoting masculine persons: (α) with the predicate preceding, 1 S 1746 וְיֵדְעוּ כָּל־הָאָרֶץ that all the earth may know, the i.e. all the inhabitants of the earth; cf. Dt 928, ψ 661, 961, 9, &c.; Am 18 שְׁאֵרִית remnant; (ψ 338 כָּל־הָאָ֫רֶץ).—(β) with the predicate following, Gn 4157, 2 S 1523, 1 K 1024, Gn 486 מוֹלֶ֫דֶת issue; 1 S 233 כָּל־מַרְבִּית all the increase; Jb 3012 פִּרְחָח rabble. In Hag 27 read חֲמֻדֹת with the LXX.
f Examples of predicates in the singular, notwithstanding the collective meaning of the subject, occur in Gn 3511, Ex 1024, 1410, Dt 139, &c.—For examples of bold enallage of the number in noun-clauses with a substantival predicate, see above, § 141 c.
g Rem. Not infrequently the construction begins in the singular (especially when the predicate precedes; see o below), but is carried on, after the collective subject has been mentioned, in the plural; e.g. Ex 120 מְאֹד וַיִּ֫רֶב הָעָם וַיַּֽעַצְמוּ and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty; 33:4.
h 3. On the other hand, plurals which have a singular meaning (§ 124 a) are frequently construed with the singular, especially the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis (§ g–i; on the union of these plurals with attributes, cf. § 132 h), as אֱלֹהִים Gn 11, 3, &c. (but see the Rem.), אֲדֹנִים master, Ex 214 בְּעָלִים master, owner, Ex 2129; cf., moreover, פָּנִים with the singular, Jb 1616 Keth., רַֽחֲמִים Pr 1210.—So feminine forms with a masculine meaning are construed with a masculine predicate, e.g. Ec 129 הָיָה קֹהֶ֫לֶת חָכָם the preacher was wise.
i Rem. The construction of אֱלֹהִים God with the plural of the predicate may be explained (apart of course from such passages as 1 K 192, 2010, where the speakers are heathen, and אֱלֹהִים may, therefore, be a numerical plural) partly as an acquiescence in a polytheistic form of expression, partly from the peculiar usage of one of the early documents of the Hexateuch, called E by Wellhausen, &c., B by Dillmann; cf. his commentary on Numbers—Joshua, p. 618, and above, § 124 g, note 2. So Gn 2013 (but in conversation with a heathen); 31:53, 35:7, cf. also Jos 2419. That this construction was afterwards studiously avoided from fear of misconception, is shown by such passages as Neh 918 compared with Ex 324, 8, and 1 Ch 1721 compared with 2 S 723. Cf. Strack’s excursus on Gen 2013 in Die Genesis, Munich, 1905, p. 77.
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[44] (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),[45] 2 S 109, Is 5912, Jer 215 Keth., 48:41, 49:24, Pr 1522, 2018, Jb 4110.[46]
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[47] 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.
n 6. Subjects in the dual are construed with the plural of the predicate, since verbs, adjectives, and pronouns, according to § 88 a, have no dual forms; thus עֵינַ֫יִם, Gn 2917 וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה רַכּוֹת and Leah’s eyes were dull; 2 S 243, Is 3020, Jer 146, Mi 710, ψ 1828, 3811 (on the other hand, in 1 S 415 the predicate is in the feminine singular after the subject, and in Mi 411 before it; on both constructions cf. k above); so also אָזְנַ֫יִם ears, 2 Ch 640; יָדַ֫יִם hands, Is 115, Jb 108, 2010 (in Ex 1712 even with the plural masculine כְּבֵדִים; cf. p); שְׂפָתַ֫יִם lips, 1 S 113, Jb 274; שָׁדַ֫יִם breasts, Ho 914.
o 7. Variations from the fundamental rule (see above, a) very frequently occur when the predicate precedes the subject (denoting animals or things[48]). The speaker or writer begins with the most simple form of the predicate, the uninflected 3rd singular masculine, and leaves us without indication as to which of the following subjects (and so which gender or number) is to define the predicate thus left temporarily indefinite.[49] Thus inflexions are omitted in—
(a) The verb, with a following singular feminine, Is 217 וְשַׁח גַּבְהוּת הָֽאָדָם and bowed down shall be the loftiness of man; 9:18, 14:11, 28:18, 47:11; 1 S 2527 (see note 1 below); 1 K 831b, 22:36, 2 K 326, Jer 5146, Ec 77; with a following plural masc., Is 1322 וְעָנָה אִיִּים and there shall cry wolves, &c.; Ju 1317 Keth., 20:46, 1 S 12, 410, 2 S 2415, 1 K 1333, Jer 5148, ψ 1245, Est 923 (see note 1 below); Gn 114 יְהִי מְאֹרֹת let there be lights; with a following plural feminine, Dt 3235, 1 K 113a, Is 88, Jer 1318, Mi 26, ψ 572; before collectives and mixed subjects, e.g. Gn 1216, 135, 3043, 326, &c.; before a following dual, Is 4418, ψ 737 (where, however, with the LXX עֲוֹנָ֫מוֹ should be read).
p Rem. 1. The instances in which a preceding predicate appears in the plural masculine before a plural (or collective singular) feminine of persons (Ju 2121, 1 K 113b), of animals (Gn 3039 where however צאֹן may refer specially to male animals) or of things (Lv 2633, Jer 1316, Ho 147, ψ 164, Jb 324, Ct 69), or before a dual (2 S 41, Zp 316, 2 Ch 157) are to be explained not on the analogy of the examples under o, but from a dislike of using the 3rd plur. fem. imperf., for this is the only form concerned in the above examples (cf., however, Na 311 תְּהִי instead of תִּֽהְיִי); cf. the examples of a following predicate in the 3rd plur. masc., instead of the fem., under t and u, and on an analogous phenomenon in the imperative, see § 110 k.
q 2. As in the case of verbs proper so also the verb הָיָה, when used as a copula, frequently remains uninflected before the subject; cf. Gn 523 ff., 39:5, Dt 213 (according to the accents); 22:23, Is 185 וּבֹסֶר גֹּמֵל יִֽהְיֶה נִצָּה and a ripening grape the flower becometh.
r (b) The adjective in a noun-clause, e.g. ψ 119137 יָשָׁר מִשְׁפָּטֶ֫יךָ upright are thy judgements; cf. verse 155.[50]—On the other hand, רֹעֵה in רֹעֵה צֹאן עֲבָדֶ֫יךָ thy servants are shepherds, Gn 473, is either an unusual orthography or simply a misspelling for רֹעֵי.
s Rem. 1. As soon as a sentence which begins with an uninflected predicate is carried on after the mention of the subject, the gender and number of the subsequent (co-ordinate) predicates must coincide with those of the subject, e.g. Gn 114 יְהִי מְאֹרֹת... וְהָיוּ (see o above); Nu 96, Ez 141; cf. also Gn 3039 (see p above).
t 2. The dislike mentioned in p above, of using the feminine form (cf., further, § 144 a, with the sections of the Grammar referred to there, and below, under u), is exemplified sometimes by the fact that of several predicates only that which stands next to the feminine substantive is inflected as feminine (cf. the treatment of several attributes following a feminine substantive, § 132 d); thus in Is 149 רָֽגְזָה, and afterwards עוֹרֵר (but עוֹרֵר is better taken as an infin. abs.=excitando, reading הָקֵם for הֵקִים); 33:9 אָבַל אֻמְלְלָה אֶ֫רֶץ mourneth, languisheth the land. Cf. Jer 430, Jb 119, and the examples (§ 47 k) where only the first of several consecutive forms of the 2nd sing. fem. imperf. has the afformative î, Is 578, Jer 35, Ez 224, 2332 (תִּֽהְיֶה after תִּשְׁתִּי); on the converse sequence of genders in imperatives, Na 315, cf. § 110 k.—Of a different kind are instances like Lv 21, 51, 206, where נֶ֫פֶשׁ person (fem.) as the narrative continues, assumes (in agreement with the context) the sense of a masculine person.
u 3. The instances in which the gender or number of the following predicate appears to differ from that of the subject are due partly to manifest errors in the text, e.g. Gn 329 read with the Samaritan הָֽאֶחָד instead of הָֽאַחַת; וְהָיָה then follows correctly; 1 S 220 read with Wellhausen שָׁאֻל, according to 1:28, instead of שָׁאַל; 1 S 164 read וַיּֽאֹמְרוּ; Ez 1829 instead of יִתָּכֵן read the plural as in verse 25; so also Ez 2038 for יָבוֹא, [51] and in Jb 620 for נָּטָ֑ח; in La 510 read נִכְמָר, and cf. in general, § 7 d, note; 1 Ch 248 read יָלְֽדָה; in Jer 4815 also the text is certainly corrupt. Other instances are due to special reasons. The anomalies in Is 4911, Ho 141, Pr 116 (after רַגְלָיו), ψ 114 (after עֵינָיו), 63:4, Pr 52, 1021, 32 18:6, 26:23, Jb 156 (all after שְׂפָתַ֫יִם), Pr 32 (after מִצְוֹתַי), ψ 10228, Jb 1622 (after שָׁנוֹת), Dn 1141 (read וְרִבּוּת), and perhaps Gn 2017 are also to be explained (see p) from the dislike of the 3rd plur. fem. imperf.; moreover, in Jer 4419, Pr 2623 the plur. masc. even of a participle occurs instead of the plur. fem.—In Gn 318 f. יִהְֽיֶה, after a plural subject, is explained as a case of attraction to the following singular predicate.[52]—In Gn 47 רֹבֵץ is a substantival participle (a lurker, a coucher). In Gn 4724 יִֽהְיֶה remains undefined in gender (masc.), although the noun precedes for the sake of emphasis; so also in Gn 2822, Ex 1249, 287, 32, Nu 914, 1529, Jer 5046, Ec 27 (הָיָה לִי as if the sentence began afresh, and servants born in my house... there fell to my lot this possession also). In Jb 2026 לֹֽא־נֻפַּח may (unless אֵשׁ is regarded as masculine, § 122 o) be taken impersonally, fire, without its being blown upon.—In Is 168 and Hb 317 the predicate in the singular is explained from the collective character of שְׁדֵמוֹת (see h above); on the other hand, the masculine form of the predicate is abnormal in ψ 873, Pr 210, 1225, 2925, Jb 87, 3618.
a 1. When the subject is composed of a nomen regens (in the construct state) with a following genitive, the predicate sometimes agrees in gender and number not with the nomen regens, but with the genitive, when this represents the principal idea of the compound subject.[53] Thus 1 S 24 קֶ֫שֶׁת גִּבֹּרִים הַתִּים the bow of the mighty men is broken, as if it were the mighty men with their bow are broken; Ex 2612, Lv 139, 1 K 141 (but the text is clearly very corrupt), 17:16, Is 211, 2117, Zc 810, Jb 1520, 2121, 2910, 327 (רֹב שָׁנִים equivalent to many years); 38:21; with the predicate preceding, 2 S 109, unless it is to be explained according to § 145 k.
b Rem. 1. The cases in which קוֹל (voice, sound) with a following genitive stands at the beginning of a sentence, apparently in this construction, are really of a different kind. The קוֹל is there to be taken as an exclamation, and the supposed predicate as in apposition to the genitive, e.g. Gn 410 the voice of thy brother’s blood, which crieth (prop. as one crying)...!=hark! thy brother’s blood is crying, &c.; Is 134, 666. In Is 528 an independent verbal-clause follows the exclamation the voice of thy watchmen!; in Jer 1022 and Ct 28 an independent noun-clause; in Is 403 קוֹל קֹרֵא the voice of one that crieth! i.e. hark! there is one crying is followed immediately by direct speech; in Mi 69 קוֹל hark! may be used disconnectedly (cf. the almost adverbial use of קוֹל in § 144 m) and יְהֹוָה be taken as the subject to יִקְרָא.
c 2. When the substantive כֹּל (כָּל־) entirety is used in connexion with a genitive as subject of the sentence, the predicate usually agrees in gender and number with the genitive, since כֹּל is equivalent in sense to an attribute (whole, all) of the genitive; hence, e.g. with the predicate preceding, Gn 55 וַיִּֽהְיוּ כָּל־יְמֵי אָדָם and all the days of Adam were, &c. (in 5:23, 9:29, וַיְהִי; but the Samaritan reads ויהיו here also); Ex 1520; with the predicate following, ψ 1506, &c. Exceptions are, e.g. Lv 1714 (but cf. § 145 l), Jos 825, Is 6410, Pr 162, Na 37. On the other hand, in such cases as Ex 1216 the agreement of the predicate with כָּל־ is explained from the stress laid upon the latter, כָּל־מְלָאכָה לֹא being equivalent to the whole of work (is forbidden).
d 2. When the subject of the sentence consists of several nouns connected by wāw copulative, usually
(a) The predicate following is put in the plural, e.g. Gn 822 seed time and harvest, and cold and heat... shall not cease (לֹא יִשְׁבֹּ֫תוּ); after subjects of different genders it is in the masculine (as the prior gender, cf. § 132 d), e.g. Gn 1811 אַבְרָהָם וְשָׂרָה זְקֵנִים Abraham and Sarah were old; Dt 2832, 1 K 121.
e Rem. Rare exceptions are Pr 279 שֶׁ֫מֶן וּקְטֹ֫רֶת יְשַׂמַּח־לֵב ointment and perfume rejoice the heart, where the predicate agrees in gender with the masculine שֶׁ֫מֶן (as in Is 513 with שָׂשׂוֹן); on the other hand, in Ex 214 (where הָֽאִשָּׁה וִֽילָדֶ֫יהָ are the subjects) it agrees with הָֽאִשָּׁה as being the principal person; in the compound sentence, Is 94, it agrees with the feminine subject immediately preceding.[54]
f (b) The predicate preceding two or more subjects may likewise be used in the plural (Gn 401, Jb 35, &c.); not infrequently, however, it agrees in gender and number with the first, as being the subject nearest to it. Thus the predicate is put in the singular masculine before several masculines singular in Gn 923, 1129, 2132, 2450, 3420, Ju 145; before a masculine and a feminine singular, e.g. Gn 38, 2455 then said (וַיּאֹ֫מֶר) her brother and her mother; 33:7; before a masculine singular and a plural, e.g. Gn 77 וַיָּבֹא נֹחַ וּבָנָיו and Noah went in, and his sons, &c.; Gn 818 (where feminines plural also follow); 44:14, Ex 151, 2 S 521; before collectives feminine and masculine, 2 S 122.
g Similarly, the feminine singular occurs before several feminines singular, e.g. Gn 3114 וַתַּ֫עַן רָחֵל וְלֵאָה then answered Rachel and Leah; before a feminine singular and a feminine plural, e.g. Gn 2461; before a feminine singular and a masculine singular, Nu 121 וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַֽהֲרוֹן then spake Miriam and Aaron; Ju 51; before a feminine singular and a masculine plural, e.g. Gn 337 (cf., on the other hand, ψ 754 נְמֹגִים אֶ֫רֶץ וְכָל־יֽשְׁבֶ֫יהָ dissolved are the earth and all the inhabitants thereof). The plural feminine occurs before a plural feminine and a plural masculine in Am 813.—In Jer 4425 for אַתֶּם וּנְשֵׁיכֶם read אַתֶּם הַנָּשִׁים with the LXX, and cf. verse 19.
h (c) When other predicates follow after the subjects have been mentioned, they are necessarily put in the plural; cf. Gn 2132, 2461, 3114, 337, &c., and § 145 s.
a 1. Sentences are called incomplete, in which either the subject or the predicate or beth must in some way be supplied from the context.[55] Besides the instances enumerated in § 116 s (omission of the personal pronoun when subject of a participial clause) and the periphrases for negative attributes § 152 u, this description includes certain (noun-) clauses introduced by הִנֵּה (see b below), and also a number of exclamations of the most varied kinds (see c below).
Rem. Incomplete sentences are very common in Chronicles, but are mostly due to the bad condition of the text; cf. Driver, Introd.6, p. 537, no. 27. Thus in 2 Ch 1122b restore חָשַׁב, with the LXX, before לְהַמְלִיכוֹ; in 35:21 add בָּ֫אתִי, with the LXX, after הַיּוֹם and read פְּרָת for בֵּית; in 2 Ch 196 and 28:21 the pronoun הוּא is wanted as subject, and in 30:9 the predicate יִֽהְיוּ; cf. also the unusual expressions in 1 Ch 933 (Ezr 33), 1 Ch 1513 (ye were not present?), 2 Ch 153, 1610, 12 (bis), 18:3.
b 2. The demonstrative particle הֵן, הִנֵּה en, ecce may be used either absolutely (as a kind of interjection, cf. § 105 b) before complete noun-or verbal-clauses, e.g. Gn 2815 וְהִנֵּה אָֽנֹכִי עִמָּךְ and, behold! I am with thee; 37:7, 48:21, Ex 313, 3410, or may take the pronoun, which would be the natural subject of a noun-clause, in the form of a suffix, see § 100 o. Whether these suffixes are to be regarded as in the accusative has been shown to be doubtful in § 100 p. However, in the case of הִנֵּה the analogy of the corresponding Arabic demonstrative particle ’inna (followed by an accusative of the noun) is significant.[56] If הִנֵּה with a suffix and a following adjective or participle (see the examples in § 116 p and q) forms a noun-clause, the subject proper, to which הִנֵּה with the suffix refers, must, strictly speaking, be supplied again before the predicate.[57] Sometimes, however, the pronoun referring to the subject is wanting, and the simple הִנֵּה takes the place of the subject and copula (as Gn 189 הִנֵּה בָאֹ֫הֶל behold she is in the tent; 42:28), or there is no indication whatever of the predicate, so that the sentence is limited to הִנֵּה with the suffix, as in the frequent use of הִנֵּ֫נִי, הִנֶּ֫נִּי here am I, in answer to an address. Elsewhere a substantive follows הִנֵּה (or הֵן Gn 116, Jb 3135), and הִנֵּה then includes the meaning of a demonstrative pronoun and the copula, e.g. Gn 227 הִנֵּה הָאֵשׁ וְהָֽעֵצִים here is the fire and the wood, &c.; 12:19 behold thou hast thy wife! Ex 248; with reference to the past, e.g. Am 71 וְהִנֵּה לֶ֫קֶשׁ וג׳ and lo, it was the latter growth, &c. By a very pregnant construction the simple הִנֵּה is used as the equivalent of a sentence in Jb 919, lo, here am I!
c 3. Examples of exclamations (threatening, complaining, triumphing, especially warlike or seditious) in which, owing to the excitement of the speaker, some indispensable member of the sentence is suppressed, are—(a) with suppression of the predicate (which has frequently to be supplied in the form of a jussive), e.g. Ju 720 a sword for the Lord and for Gideon! (verse 18 without חֶ֫רֶב); 2 S 201 and 2 Ch 1016 (cf. also 1 K 2236) every man to his tents, O Israel! (i.e. let every man go to or remain in his tent); without אִישׁ 1 K 1216; moreover, Is 128, 134 (on the exclamatory קוֹל equivalent to hark! cf. § 146 b); 28:10, 29:16 (הַפְכְּכֶם O your perversity! i.e. how great it is!); Jer 4916 (if תִּפְלַצְתְּךָ be equivalent to terror be upon thee!); Jo 414, Mal 113 (הִנֵּה מַתְּלָאָה behold what a weariness!); Jb 2229; perhaps also Gn 494 פַּ֫חַז כַּמַּ֫יִם a bubbling over as water (sc. happened), unless it is better to supply a subject אַתָּה (thou wast).—(b) With suppression of the subject, Ju 420, cf. § 152 k; Jb 1523 אַיֵּה where sc. is bread?—(c) With suppression of both subject and predicate, Ju 718 (see above); 1 K 1216 (see above); 2 K 927 גַּם אֹתוֹ him also! explained immediately afterwards by הַכֻּהוּ smite him! Ho 58 after thee, Benjamin! sc. is the enemy (differently in Ju 514); ψ 64, 9013, Hb 26 עַד־מָתַי; ψ 749 עַד־מָה.—On וָלֹא and if not (unless וְלוּ is to be read), 2 S 1326, 2 K 517, see § 158 dd.
d Rem. 1. To the class of incomplete sentences naturally belong exclamations introduced by interjections אֲהָהּ, אוֹי, הוֹי, הַס;[58] cf. § 105. After the first two the object of the threat or imprecation follows regularly with לְ (cf. vae tibi) or אֶל־ or עַל־, e.g. אוֹי לָ֫נוּ woe unto us! 1 S 48, Is 65; cf. also אֲהָהּ לַיּוֹם alas for the day! Jo 115; on the other hand, the object of commiseration (after הוֹי) follows mostly in the vocative, or rather in the accusative of exclamation (cf. vae te in Plautus); so in lamentation for the dead, הוֹי אָחִי alas, my brother! 1 K 1330, Jer 2218; הוֹי גּוֹי חֹטֵא ah, sinful nation! Is 14, 58.11.18.20.22 (ah! they that...).— For הַס cf. Hb 220, Zp 17, Zc 217.
e 2. Finally, instances of noun-clauses shortened in an unusual manner may perhaps occur in יְדֵיהֶם and רַגְלֵיהֶם ψ 1157, for יָדַ֫יִם לָהֶם they have hands, &c.; cf. verses 5 and 6 פֶּֽה־לָהֶם, &c. Perhaps also וּפִֽילַגְשׁוֹ Gn 2224, and וְחָלְיוֹ Ec 516 are to be regarded in the same way, but hardly נְבִֽיאֲכֶם Nu 126; cf. § 128 d above.
II. Special Kinds of Sentences.
a The originally interrogative מָה is used to introduce exclamations of wonder or indignation = O how! or ridicule, why! how! sometimes strengthened by זֶה or זֹאת according to § 136 c.—Astonishment or indignation at something which has happened is introduced by אֵיךְ how (likewise originally interrogative) with the perfect; the indignant refusal of a demand by אֵיךְ (but also by מָה Jb 311) with the imperfect; an exclamation of lamentation by אֵיכָה, less frequently אֵיךְ how!; in Jo 118 by מָה.
Examples:—
b מָה (or מַה־ with a following Dagĕš, see § 37) expressing admiration (or astonishment) before verbal-clauses, e.g. Gn 2720 (מַה־זֶּה); 38:29, Nu 245 (how goodly are...!); ψ 212, Ct 72; before the predicate of noun-clauses, e.g. Gn 2817, ψ 82; mockingly before the verb, 2 S 620 (how glorious was...!); Jer 2223, Jb 262 f.; indignantly, Gn 313 מַה־וֹּאת; 4:10, 20:9, 31:26 what hast thou done!
אֵיךְ with the perfect, e.g. Gn 269, ψ 7319; in scornful exclamation, Is 144, 12; in a lament (usually אֵיכָה), 2 S 125, 27; with the imperfect, in a reproachful question, Gn 399, 448, ψ 111, 1374; in a mocking imitation of lament, Mi 24.
אֵיכָה with the perfect, Is 121, La 11; with the imperfect, La 21, 41.
c Rem. 1. The close relation between a question and an exclamation appears also in the interrogative personal pronoun מִי in such cases as Mi 718 מִי־אֵל כָּמ֫וֹךָ who is a God like unto thee? and so in general in rhetorical questions as the expression of a forcible denial; similarly in the use of an interrogative sentence to express a wish, see § 150 d, 151 a.
d 2. A weaker form of exclamation is sometimes produced by the insertion of a corroborative כִּי verily, surely, before the predicate, Gn 1820; cf. 33:11, Is 79, and the analogous cases in the apodoses of conditional sentences, § 159 ee.
a The particle אִם, in the sense of certainly not, and אִם־לֹא (rarely כִּי Gn 2216) in the sense of certainly, are used to introduce promises or threats confirmed by an oath (especially after such formulae as חַי־יְהֹוָה, חֵֽי־נַפְשְׁךָ,[59] חַי אָ֫נִי, בִּי נִשְׁבַּ֫עְתִּי, &c., as well as after imprecations, see below), and also simple asseverations, e.g. 1 S 230, 2 S 2020, Jb 275 after חָלִ֫ילָה לִי far be it from me, but mostly without any introductory formula.
b Rem. No certain explanation of these particles has yet been given. According to the usual view, phrases expressing an oath depend on the suppression of an imprecation upon oneself, e.g. the Lord do so unto me, if I do it equivalent to I certainly will not do it; then naturally אִם־לֹא properly if I do it not equivalent to I certainly will do it. It is indeed difficult to understand such self-imprecations, put into the mouth of God, as in Dt 134 f., Is 1424, 2214, Jer 226, Ez 36, 356, ψ 9511. Possibly, however, the consciousness of the real meaning of the formula was lost at an early period, and אִם־לֹא simply came to express verily, אִם verily not.—In 1 S 2522, where, instead of a self-imprecation, a curse is pronounced upon others, read לְדָוִד with the Lxx for לְאֹֽיְבֵי דָוִד.
Examples:—
c (a) The particles אִם and אִם־לֹא used after the utterance of an oath and after formulae of swearing, e.g. 2 S 1111 (see note on a) חַי־יְהֹוָה וְחֵי נַפְשֶׁ֫ךָ אִם־אִֽעֱשֶׂה אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing; 1 S 1445, 2 K 516 (after חַי יְהֹוָה; in 1 S 1439 and 29:6 חַי־י׳ is followed by a simple כִּי); Ct 27, 35 (after הִשְׁבַּ֫עְתִּי I adjure you); cf. also Gn 1423, 2123, 2629; spoken by God, Dt 134 f., 1 S 314, ψ 9511; similarly אִם־לֹא Gn 2437 f.; spoken by God, Is 1424, where אִם־לֹא occurs first with the perfect in the sense of a prophetic perfect, § 106 n, but in the parallel clause with the imperfect; Jer 226; in Gn 3152 the negative oath introduced by אִם־אָ֫נִי, אִם־אַתָּה is immediately afterwards continued by לֹא with the imperfect.—In Ez 3410 the threat introduced in verse 8 by אִם־לֹא is, after a long parenthesis, resumed with הִנְנִי.
d (b) אִם and אִם־לֹא after formulae of cursing, e.g. 1 S 317 כֹּה יַֽעֲשֶׂה־לְּךָ אֱלֹהִים וְכֹה יוֹסִיף אִם־תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּ֫נִּי דָבָר וג׳ God do so to thee, and more also! thou shalt not hide anything from me, &c.; cf. 1 S 2522. On the other hand, כִּי follows the curse, in 1 S 1444, 1 K 223 (here with a perfect), and in 2 S 335 כִּי אִם; in 1 S 2534 the preceding כִּי is repeated before אִם; in 1 S 2013 the purport of the asseveration is repeated (after the insertion of a conditional sentence) in the perfect consecutive.
e (c) אִם and אִם־לֹא as simple particles of asseveration, e.g. Ju 58 מָגֵן אִם־ֵי֥רָאֶה וָרֹמַח וג׳ truly, there was not a shield and spear seen, &c., Is 2214, Jb 628 (in the middle of the sentence); after חָלִ֫ילָה חָלִ֫ילָה absit, 2 S 2020; אִם־לֹא with the imperf. Is 59, with the perfect, Jb 2220.
H. G. Mitchell, ‘The omission of the interrogative particle,’ in Old Test. and Sem. Studies in memory of W. R. Harper, Chicago, 1907, i, 113 ff.
a 1. A question need not necessarily be introduced by a special interrogative pronoun or adverb. Frequently[60] the natural emphasis upon the words is of itself sufficient to indicate an interrogative sentence as such; cf. Gn 2724 אַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו thou art my son Esau? (but cf. note 1 below) Gn 1812, Ex 3314 (פָּנַי י׳); 1 S 1112 שָׁאוּל יִמְלֹךְ עָלֵ֫ינוּ Saul shall reign over us? 1 S 227, 2 S 1617, 1829 שָׁלוֹם לַנַּ֫עַר is it well with the young man? (but cf. note 1); 1 S 164, 1 K 124, Is 2828, Ho 416, Zc 86 (should it also be marvellous in mine eyes?); Pr 516. So especially, when the interrogative clause is connected with a preceding sentence by וְ, e.g. Jn 411 וַֽאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס and I should not have pity? Ex 822 will they not stone us? Ju 1123, 1416, 1 S 209, 2420, 2511, 2 S 1111, 1520, Is 3711, 4419 b, Jer 2529, 455, 4912, Ez 2031, Jb 210, 109; or when (as in some of the examples just given) it is negative (with לֹא for הֲלֹא nonne?), 2 K 526 (but cf. note 1), La 338. [61]
b Rem. The statement formerly made here that the interrogative particle is omitted especially before gutturals, cannot be maintained in view of Mitchell’s statistics (op. cit. p. 123 f.). The supposed considerations of euphony are quite disproved by the 118 cases in which הַ or הֶ occurs before a guttural.
c 2. As a rule, however, the simple question is introduced by He interrogative הֲ (הַ; as to its form, cf. § 100 k–n), ne? num? the disjunctive question by הֲ (num? utrum?) in the first clause, and אִם[62] (also וְאִם, less frequently אוֹ) an? in the second, e.g. 1 K 2215 הֲנֵלֵךְ אִם [63]נֶחְדָּ֑ל shall we go... or shall we forbear? Cf. also אָן where? whither? אָ֫נָה whither, and J. Barth, Sprachwiss. Untersuchungen, i. 13 ff.
The particular uses are as follows:—
d (a) The particle הֲ stands primarily before the simple question, when the questioner is wholly uncertain as to the answer to be expected, and may be used either before noun-clauses, e.g. Gn 437 הַעוֹד אֲבִיכֶם חַי הֲיֵשׁ לָכֶם אָח is your father yet alive? have ye another brother? for הֲיֵשׁ cf. Gn 2423, 1 S 911; for הֲכִי is it that? Jb 622; for הֲכִי יֶשׁ־ is there yet? 2 S 91 (but in 2 S 2319 for הֲכִי read הִנּוֹ with 1 Ch 1125); for הַאֵין is there not? 1 K 227, &c.; or before verbal-clauses, e.g. Jb 23 hast thou considered (הֲשַׂ֫מְתָּ לִבְּךָ) my servant Job? In other cases הֲ (= num?) is used before questions, to which, from their tone and contents, a negative answer is expected, e.g. Jb 1414 if a man die, הֲיִחְֽיֶה shall he indeed live again? Sometimes a question is so used only as a rhetorical form instead of a negative assertion, or of a surprised or indignant refusal,[64] e.g. 2 S 75 הַֽאַתָּה תִבְנֶה־לִּי בַיִת shalt thou build me an house? (in the parallel passage 1 Ch 174 לֹא אַתָּה וג׳ thou shalt not, &c.); Gn 49 הֲשֹׁמֵר אָחִי אָנֹ֫כִי am I my brother’s keeper? cf. 2 K 57, and the two passages where הֲ is used before the infinitive (constr. Jb 3418, absol. Jb 402; on both, see § 113 ee, with the note).—On the other hand, in 1 K 1631 for הֲנָקֵל (after וַיְהִי) read הַנָּקֵל.
e Rem. 1. A few passages deserve special mention, in which the use of the interrogative is altogether different from our idiom, since it serves merely to express the conviction that the contents of the statement are well known to the hearer, and are unconditionally admitted by him. Thus, Gn 311 surely thou hast eaten; Gn 2736 הֲכִי קָרָא prop. is it so that one names? &c., i.e. of a truth he is rightly named Jacob; Gn 2915 verily thou art my brother; Dt 1130, Ju 46, I S 2:27 I did indeed, &c.; 20:37, 1 K 223 ye know surely...; Mi 31, Jb 204.—In 1 S 2319 (cf. ψ 542) a surprising communication is introduced in this way (by הֲלֹא) in order to show it to be absolutely true, and in Am 97 a concession is expressed by הֲלוֹא I have, it is true, &c. Finally, we may include the formula of quotation הֲלֹא הִיא כְתוּבָה Jos 1013 or הֲלֹא־הֵם כְּתוּבִים equivalent to surely it is, they are written (the latter in 1 K 1141, 1429, and very often elsewhere in the books of Kings and Chronicles), synonymous with the simple formula of assertion הִנֵּה כְתוּבָה 2 S 118, and הִנָּם כְּתוּבִים 1 K 1419, 2 K 1511, 2 Ch 277, 3232.
Of very frequent occurrence also are questions introduced by לָ֫מָּה, which really contain an affirmation and are used to state the reason for a request or warning, e.g. 2 S 222 turn thee aside... wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? i.e. otherwise I will (or must) smite, &c.; cf. 1 S 1917, and Driver on the passage; 2 Ch 2516; also Gn 2745, Ex 3212 (Jo 217, ψ 7910, 1152); Ct 17, Ec 55, 717, Dn 110. f 2. The rare cases in which a simple question is introduced by אִם (as sometimes in Latin by an? is it?) are really due to the suppression of the first member of a double question; thus 1 K 127, Is 2916, Jb 612, 3913.
g (b) Disjunctive questions are, as a rule, introduced by אִם—הֲ (utrum—an?) or sometimes by וְאִם[65]—הֲ, e.g. Jo 12, Jb 214 (even with הֲ repeated after וְאִם in a question which implies disbelief, Gn 1717). In Jb 3417, 408 f. special emphasis is given to the first member by הַאַף prop. is it even? The second member is introduced by אוֹ or in 2 K 627, Jb 163, 3828, 3136 (Mal 18 אוֹ הֲ), in each case before מ, and hence no doubt for euphonic reasons, to avoid the combination אִם מ׳; cf. also Ju 1819, Ec 219.
h Double questions with (וְאִם) אִם—הֲ need not always be mutually exclusive; frequently the disjunctive form serves (especially in poetic parallelism; but cf. also e.g. Gn 378) merely to repeat the same question in different words, and thus to express it more emphatically. So Jb 417 shall mortal man be just before God? or (אִם) shall a man be pure before his Maker? Jb 65 f., 8:3, 10:4 f., 11:2, 7, 22:3, Is 1015, Jer 529. The second member may, therefore, just as well be connected by a simple וְ, e.g. Jb 137, 157 f., 38:16 f.22, 32, 39; cf. also ψ 85 after מָה; Jb 2117 f. after כַּמָּה; or even without a conjunction, Jb 811, 224; after מָה ψ 1443.
i (c) With regard to indirect questions[66] after verbs of inquiring, doubting, examining,[67] &c., simple questions of this kind take either הֲ whether, Gn 88,[68] or אִם Gn 155, 2 K 12, Ct 713; even before a noun-clause, Jer 51; in 1 S 2010 the indirect question is introduced by אוֹ, i.e. probably if perchance. In disjunctives (whether—or) אִם—הֲ Nu 1318 at the end (or אִם־לֹא—הֲ Gn 2421, 2721, 3732, Ex 164), and הֲ—הֲ Nu 1318, which is followed by אִם—הֲ; also אוֹ—הֲ Ec 219. The formula מִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם has an affirmative force, who knows whether... not, like the Latin nescio an, Est 414.
k In Jon 17, 8 the relative pronouns שֶׁ· and אֲשֶׁר owing to the following לְמִי have become also interrogative, for whose cause?
l (d) זֶה and הוּא (cf. § 136 c) immediately after the interrogative serve to give vividness to the question; so also אֵפוֹא (for which אֵפוֹ five times in Job) then, now, Gn 2733 מִֽי־אֵפוֹא הוּא who then is he? Ju 938, Is 1912, Jb 1715; אַיֵּה אֵפוֹ
- ↑ A quite different use of מָה was pointed out (privately) by P. Haupt in Ct 58 will ye not tell him? i.e. I charge you that ye tell him, and 7:1 = look now at the Shulamite, corresponding to the late Arabic mâ tarâ, just see! mâ taqûlu, say now! It has long been recognized that מָה is used as a negative in Ct 84.
- ↑ The etymology of the word is still a matter of dispute. Against the identification of אֲשֶׁר, as an original substantive, with the Arabic ‛at̄ar, trace, Aram. אֲתַר place, trace, Nöldeke urges (ZDMG. xl. 738) that the expression trace of... could hardly have developed into the relative conjunction, while the meaning of place has been evolved only in Aramaic, where the word is never used as a relative. According to others, אֲשֶׁר is really a compound of several pronominal roots; cf. Sperling, Die Nota relationis im Hebräischen, Leipzig, 1876, and König, Lehrgeb., ii. 323 ff., who follows Ewald and Böttcher in referring it to an original אֲשַׁל. According to Hommel (ZDMG. xxxii. 708 ff.) אֲשֶׁר is an original substantive, to be distinguished from שֶׁ· and שַׁ· (an original pronominal stem), but used in Hebrew as a nota relationis, or (as זֶה and זוּ are also sometimes used, see below, g and h) simply for the relative pronoun. Baumann (op. cit., p. 44) sees in the Assyrian ša, Phoenician, Punic, and Hebrew שֶׁ, the ground-forms, of which the Phoenician and Punic אש (see above, § 36 note) and the Hebrew אֲשֶׁר are developments.
- ↑ E.g. like Luther’s use of so, in die fremden Götter, so unter euch sind, Gn 352.
- ↑ This is the necessary conclusion both from the analogy of the Arabic ʾallad-i, which is clearly a demonstrative (like the Hebr. הַלָּז, הַלָּזֶה), and from the use of זֶה and זוּ as relatives.
- ↑ The instances in which, instead of a retrospective pronoun, the main idea itself is repeated (Gn 4930, 5013, Jer 3132) are most probably all due to subsequent amplification of the original text by another hand.
- ↑ The absolute use of אֲשֶׁר is very peculiar in the formula אֲשֶׁר הָיָה דְבַר יי׳ אֶל־ this (is it)—it came as the word of the Lord to..., Jer 141, 461, 471, 4934.
- ↑ In Zc 1210 also, instead of the unintelligible אלי את אשר, we should probably read אֶל־אֲשֶׁר, and refer the passage to this class.
- ↑ Such a strong ellipse as in Is 316, where מִמֶּ֫נּוּ would be expected after העמיקו, is only possible in elevated poetic or prophetic language.
- ↑ The etymological equivalent דִּי, דְּ in Aramaic is always a relative.
- ↑ As a rule אִישׁ is used in the particularizing sense of each man, with the plural of the verb, e.g. Gn 4411; sometimes, however, as subject to a verb in the singular, e.g. Gn 4413.
- ↑ Cf. on the whole question the thorough discussion by Budde, Die bibl. Urgeschichte, p. 283 ff.: according to him, the words in Gn 95 are to be rendered at the hand of one another (from men mutually) will I require it. [In support of this view, Budde points to Zc 710 בִּלְבַבְכֶם וְרָעַת אִישׁ אָהִיו אַל־תַּהְשְׁבוּ, which in the light of 8:17, וְאִישׁ אֶת־רָעַת רֵעֵהוּ אַל־תַּחְשְׁבוּ בִּלְבַבְכֶם, can only, he observes, be rendered ‘and devise not the hurt of one another in your heart’. So also König, Syntax, § 33.]
- ↑ Cf. also אֵין־אִישׁ Gn 3911. On the expression of the idea of no one by means of אֵין with a following participle, see the Negative Sentences, § 152 l.
- ↑ Elsewhere זֶה... זֶה are used in a similar sense, Ex 1420, Is 63; also הָֽאֶחָד... הָֽאֶחָד 2 S 146, or the substantive is repeated, e.g. Gn 4721 (from one end... to the other end).
- ↑ On the representation of this idea by pronouns, separate and suffixed, see § 135 a, i and k.
- ↑ In a similar way the idea of self in Arabic, as in Sanskrit (âtman), is paraphrased by soul, spirit; in Arabic also by eye; in Rabbinic by גּוּף body, גֶּ֫רֶם or עֶ֫צֶם bone, in Ethiopic and Amharic by head, in Egyptian by mouth, hand, &c.; cf. also the Middle High German mîn lîp, dîn lîp, for ich, du. However, נֶ֫פֶשׁ in such cases is never (not even in Is 462 נַפְשָׁם they themselves) a merely otiose periphrasis for the personal pronoun, but always involves a reference to the mental personality, as affected by the senses, desires, &c.
- ↑ Some in reference to persons in Ex 1620 is expressed by אֲנָשִׁים, and in Neh 52–4 by יֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר sunt qui, with a participle following.
- ↑ For other remarkable instances of ellipse in the Chronicler, see Driver, Introduction, ed. 8, p. 537, no. 27.
- ↑ Cf. the numerous examples in § 116 n–p.
- ↑ Why in these examples the pronouns, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, are to be considered as predicates and not as subjects, may be seen from what has been remarked above, § 126 k.
- ↑ The same naturally applies to most of those cases which are not pure noun-clauses, but have the substantival predicate connected with the subject by הָיָה (e.g. Gn 12 and the earth was a waste and emptiness; cf. ψ 356, Pr 830, Jb 34) or where a preposition precedes the substantival predicate, as ψ 294 the voice of the Lord is with power, i.e. powerful.
- ↑ שָׁלוֹם here, as in Jb 219, is evidently a substantive after a plural subject; on the other hand, it is doubtful whether שָׁלוֹם in such passages as Gn 4327, 2 S 209, ψ 1207, &c., is not rather to be regarded as an adjective.
- ↑ As a rule, in such comparisons כְּ (which is then to be regarded as nominative) stands before the predicate, e.g. Is 632 wherefore are thy garments כְּדֹרֵךְ בְּגַת like those of one that treadeth in the wine-press? (prop. the like of one that treadeth, instar calcantis); Jer 509. The comparison is then much less emphatic than in the noun-clauses cited above.
- ↑ On a similar use of the separate pronoun of the third person in Aramaic (Dn 238, Ezr 511, &c.) see Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., § 87. 3.
- ↑ This is of course to be distinguished from the use of הוּא (to be inferred from the context) as predicate in the sense of ὁ αὐτός; see above, § 135 a, note 1; or such cases as Dt 3239 see now כִּי אֲנִי הוּא that I, even I, am he; 1 Ch 2117.
- ↑ According to Albrecht, ZAW. viii. 252, especially in Deuteronomy and in the Priestly Code.
- ↑ For the same reason specifications of place (e.g. Gn 47) or other adverbial qualifications may stand at the beginning of the sentence.
- ↑ The only exceptions, according to Albrecht (see the Rem. above), are Ex 167, 8.
- ↑ This of course applies also to the cases, in which the subject consists of a strongly emphasized personal pronoun, e.g. Gn 3213 אַתָּה thou thyself; 33:3 הוּא he himself.
- ↑ Not infrequently also the striving after chiasmus mentioned in § 114 r, note, occasions a departure from the usual arrangement of words.
- ↑ This sequence occurs even in prose (Gn 179, 236, &c.); it is, however, more doubtful here than in the above prophetical and poetical passages, whether the preceding subject should not be regarded rather as the subject of a compound sentence (§ 143), the predicate of which is an independent verbal-clause; this would explain why the verbal-clause is usually separated from the subject by one of the greater disjunctives.—On the other hand, the sequence Subject—Object—Verb is quite common in Aramaic (e.g. Dn 27, 10); cf. Gesenius, Comm. on Is 4224, and Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., § 84. 1 b. The pure Aramaic usage of placing the object before the infinitive occurs in Hebrew in Lv 199, 2121, Dt 2856, 2 S 1119, Is 496, 2 Ch 2810, 317, 3619 (?).
- ↑ This sequence occurs more frequently in noun-clauses with a participial predicate, e.g. Gn 3716, 419, 2 S 134, &c., in interrogative sentences, e.g. 2 K 622, Jer 719; in all which cases the emphasized object is placed before the natural sequence of subject—predicate. [Cf. Driver, Tenses, § 208.]
- ↑ In Gn 3140 a verbal-clause (הָיִ֫יתִי I was) occurs instead of the subject, and is then explained by another verbal-clause.
- ↑ In 1 Chr 282 (cf. also 22:7 אֲנִי הָיָה עִם־לְבָבִי) אֲנִי might also be taken as strengthening the pronominal suffix which follows (equivalent to I myself had it in my mind), as e.g. Ez 3317 whereas their own way is not equal; cf. § 135 f.
- ↑ Cf. the Mêšaʿ inscription, l. 31, and Ḥoronain, therein dwelt, &c.
- ↑ But this term must not (any more than that formerly used ‘the subject preceding absolutely’) be misunderstood to mean that the principal subject is, as it were, floating in the air, and that the whole sentence results in an anacoluthon. On the contrary, to the Semitic mind, such sentences appear quite as correctly formed as ordinary noun- and verbal-clauses.
- ↑ In Arabic and Ethiopic the masculine is commonly used in this case, in Syriac the feminine.—The forms חַם hot, טוֹב good, well, מַר bitter, צַר narrow, רַע evil (frequently joined by לִי, לוֹ, &c.), which many regard as impersonal, are no doubt to be regarded in most cases not as forms of the 3rd pers. sing. perf., but, with Hupfeld on ψ 187, as adjectives.
- ↑ In 1 S 99 הָאִישׁ (prop. the man) is used in exactly the same sense as our one.
- ↑ Elsewhere in such cases וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ usually occurs (but not in the perfect, e.g. 1 S 2322), so that it is doubtful whether the present reading of Gn 481, &c., would not be better explained according to § 7 d, note. In Gn 482 for the extraordinary וַיַּגֵּד the common form וַיֻּגַּד is to be read; so in 50:26 for וַיִּישֶׂם (after a plural) either וַיּוּשַׂם or the 3rd plur.; in 2 K 2126 וַיִּקְבְּרוּ.
- ↑ That this form of expression also (see g) comes to be equivalent to a passive is seen from the analogy of such Aramaic passages as Dn 422, which exclude any idea of human agency. Cf. Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., § 76. 2 e at the end, and in post.-bibl. Hebrew, e.g. Pirqe Aboth 2, 16; 3, 5, &c.
- ↑ Two subjects occur in a noun-clause in ψ 8319.
- ↑ In Ex 63 שְׁמִי is subordinated to the following passive נוֹדַ֫עְתִּי (§ 121 b); in 1 S 2526, 33 יָדִי, יָֽדְךָ are subjects to the infinitive absolute הוֹשֵׁעַ, according to § 113 gg. In ψ 6911 read וָֽאֲעַנֶּה for וָֽאֶבְכֶּה.
- ↑ In several of the above examples it might naturally be supposed that the subject denoting the thing (especially when it follows the verb) is to be explained rather as a casus instrumentalis, i.e. as an accusative, analogous to the adverbial accusatives in § 118 q. But although it is true that the subject denoting the thing often defines more closely the manner in which the action is performed, and although in similar (but still different) examples, ψ 892, 10930, Jb 1916, פִּי occurs with בְּ instrumentale, the explanation given above must nevertheless be accepted.
- ↑ In prose, Lv 28; but וְהִקְרִיבָהּ here is hardly the original reading. Different from this is Gn 267, where there is a transition to direct narration.
- ↑ 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.]
- ↑ Only rarely does an uninflected predicate precede a personal subject, as 1 S 2527 (but הֵבִ֫יאָה should probably be read, as in verse 35); Est 923 (before a plur. mass.). Such examples as Jb 4215 are to be explained according to § 121 a.
- ↑ In a certain sense this is analogous to the German es kommt ein Mann, eine Frau, &c.
- ↑ This does not include such cases as Jb 247, 10, where עָרוֹם is rather to be explained as an accusative denoting a state, § 118 n.
- ↑ יבוא probably an error for יבאו. The Masora on Lv 1134 reckons fourteen instances of יָבֹא, where we should expect the plural.
- ↑ So also the pronoun הוּא emphatically resuming the subject (see § 141 h) is attracted to the predicate in number in Jos 1314 אִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה... הוּא נַֽחֲלָתוֹ the offerings of the Lord... that is his inheritance; in number and gender, Lv 2533 Qerê; Jer 103.
- ↑ Sometimes, however, the attraction of the predicate to the genitive may be merely due to juxtaposition.
- ↑ Similarly with a mixed object, Gn 332 he put... Leah and her children אַֽחֲרֹנִים after; אַֽחֲרֹנִים agrees with the masculine immediately preceding.
- ↑ This does not apply to such cases as Gn 338, where an infinitive with לְ appears alone in answer to a question, the substance of the question being presupposed as a main clause; cf. also Gn 267, where הִיא must again be supplied after אִשְׁתִּי.
- ↑ On the same analogy any substantive following הִנֵּה would have to be regarded as originally a virtual accusative. Since, however, Hebrew does not possess case-terminations (as the Arabic does, and uses the accusative necessarily after ’inna), it is very doubtful whether, and how far, substantives following הִנֵּה were felt to be accusatives.
- ↑ That these are real noun-clauses and that the participle (e.g. מֵת in הִנְּךָ מֵת Gn 208) cannot be taken as a second accusative (as it were ecce te moriturum), is also shown by the analogy of Arabic, where after ’inna with an accusative the predicate is expressly in the nominative.
- ↑ We do not consider here the cases in which these interjections (e.g. הַם Ju 319, Am 610) stand quite disconnectedly (so always אָח and הֶאָח).
- ↑ Also combined חַי־יְהֹוָה וְחֵי נַפְשְׁךָ 1 S 203, 2526 as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul (i.e. thou) liveth! (Also in 2 S 1111 read חַי־יהוה instead of the impossible חַיֶּ֫ךְ). On חַי and חֵי in these noun-clauses (prop. living is the Lord, &c.), cf. § 93 aa, note.
- ↑ Mitchell (op. cit.) restricts the number of instances to 39, of which he attributes 12 (or 17) to corruption of the text. Thus in Gn 2724 he would road, with the Samaritan, הַֽאַתָּה as in verso 21, in 1 S 164 הֲשָׁלֹם, in 2 S 1829 הֲשָׁלוֹם as in verse 32; similarly he would read the interrogative particle in 2 K 526, Ez 113, Jb 4025, 411; 1 S 308, 2 K 919, Ez 1113, 179.
- ↑ But in 1 S 2710 instead of אַל־ (which according to the usual explanation would expect a negative answer) read either אֶל־מִי (עַל־מִי) with the LXX, or better, אָן (אָ֫נָה) whither? with the Targum. In 2 S 235 read חֶפְצִי הֲלֹא with Wellhausen.
- ↑ Quite exceptional is the use of the particle אִין num? (common in Aramaic) in 1 S 219 וְאִין יֶשׁ־פֹּה num est hic? The text is, however, undoubtedly corrupt; according to Wellhausen, Text der Bücher Sam., the LXX express the reading רְאֵה הֲיֵשׁ; but cf. the full discussion of the passage by König, ZAW. xviii. 239 ff.—The above does not apply to interrogative sentences introduced by interrogative pronouns (§ 37) or by the interrogatives compounded with מָה what? such as כַּמָּה how many? לָ֫מָּה why? (see § 102 k), מַדּוּעַ why? (§ 99 e), or by אַיֵּה where? אֵיךְ, אֵיכָה how? (§ 148), &c. On the transformation of pronouns and adverbs into interrogative words by means of a prefixed אֵי, see the Lexicon.
- ↑ On the use of the imperfect in deliberative questions, see § 107 t; on the perfectum confidentiae in interrogative sentences, see § 106 n.
- ↑ Analogous to this is the use of the interrogative מָה in the sense of a reproachful remonstrance instead of a prohibition, as Ct 84 מַה־תָּעִירוּ why should ye stir up? i.e. pray, stir not up; cf. also Jb 311; see above, § 148.
- ↑ וְאִם occurs in Pr 2724 after a negative statement; we should, however, with Dyserinck read וְאֵין. Not less irregular is הֲלֹא instead of אִם לֹא in the second clause of Ju 1415, but the text can hardly be correct (cf. Moore, Judges, New York, 1895, p. 337); in 1 S 2311 the second הֲ introduces a fresh question which is only loosely connected with the first.—In Nu 1728 and in the third clause of Jb 613, הַאִם is best taken with Ewald in the sense of הֲלֹא, since אִם from its use in oaths (see above, § 149 b) may simply mean verily not.
- ↑ It should here be remarked that the distinction between direct and indirect questions cannot have been recognized by the Hebrew mind to the same extent as it is in Latin or English. In Hebrew there is no difference between the two kinds of sentence, either as regards mood (as in Latin) or in tense and position of the words (as in English). Cf. also § 137 c.
- ↑ In Gn 436 the הַ after לְהַגִּיד is explained from the fact that the latter, according to the context, implies to give information upon a question.
- ↑ Also in Ec 321 we should read הַֽעֹלָה and הֲיׄרֶ֫דֶת (whether—whether) instead of the article which is assumed by the Masora.