User:Ubufox/11
dition on which some consequence depends, e.g. Ex 15 if thou wilt diligently hearken, &c., Ex 19, 21, 22, 11 f. 16, 22 (see above, m); 23:22, Nu 21, Ju 16, 1 S 1, 12; after לוּ 1 S 14.
p The infinitive absolute is used to give emphasis to an antithesis, e.g. 2 S 24 nay; but I will verily buy (קָנוֹ אֶקְנֶה) it of thee, &c. (not receive it as a gift); Ju 15 no; but we will bind thee fast ... but surely we will not kill thee; cf. further Gn 31 (thou art indeed gone=) though thou wouldst needs be gone (Vulg. esto), because thou sore longedst, &c.; ψ 118, 18, 126:6 (the second infinitive absolute as a supplement to the first—see below, r—comes after the verb).—Hence also, as permissive, Gn 2 f. אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל thou mayest freely eat, but, &c. (so that verse 16 is in antithesis to verse 17); or concessive, 1 S 2 I said indeed ..., 14:43.
q The infinitive absolute is used to strengthen a question, and especially in impassioned or indignant questions, e.g. Gn 37 הֲמָלֹךְ תִּמְלֹךְ עָ֫לֵינוּ shalt thou indeed reign over us? Gn 37, 43, Ju 11, 1 S 2, 2 S 19, Jer 3, 13, Ez 28, Am 3, Zc 7; but cf. also Gn 24 must I needs bring again?
r (b) The infinitive absolute after the verb, sometimes (as in n) to intensify[1] the idea of the verb (especially after imperatives and participles, since the infinitive absolute can never precede either, e.g. Nu 11, Jb 13, 21, 37 שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמוֹעַ hearken ye attentively; Jer 22; after participles, e.g. Is 22, also elsewhere, e.g. Nu 23, 24 thou hast altogether blessed them; Jos 24, 2 K 5, Dn 11, and with the infinitive absolute strengthened by means of גַּם Gn 31, 46, Nu 16); sometimes to express the long continuance of an action; here again after an imperative, Is 6 שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמוֹעַ hear ye continually; after a perfect, Jer 6; after a participle, Jer 23; after an imperfect consecutive, Gn 19, Nu 11.
s To this class belong especially those cases in which a second infinitive absolute is co-ordinated with the first; the latter then expresses either an accompanying or antithetical action or the aim to which the principal action is directed; e.g. 1 S 6 הָֽלְכוּ הָלֹךְ וְגָעוֹ lowing as they went (lowing continually; so after a participle, Jos 6b Qerê); Gn 8 it went forth to and fro[2]; Is 19 smiting and (i.e. but also) healing again; Jo 2 (see above, m).
t Rem. 1. Instead of a second infinitive absolute (see above) there is sometimes found a perfect consecutive (Jos. 6:13 a and 2 S 13 [but Stade’s וְזָעוֹק is preferable], in both places as perfect frequentative; Is 31 referring to the future, unless with Stade, ZAW. vi. 189, we read וְהַצֵּיל and וְהַמְלֵיט), or an imperfect consecutive (1 S 19, 2 S 16) or participle (2 S 16); cf. also u.
u 2. The idea of long continuance is very frequently expressed by the verb הָלַךְ to go, along with its infinitive absolute, or even by the latter alone, and this occurs not only when it can be taken in its literal sense (to go, to walk, as in the examples given above, Jos 6, 13, 1 S 6, 2 S 3, 13; cf. also, Is 3, where both infinitives stand before the verb, and ψ 126, where הָלוֹךְ precedes), but in cases where הָלַךְ in the sense of to go on, to continue, merely performs also the function of an adverb. The action itself is added in a second infinitive absolute, or sometimes (see above, t) in a participle or verbal adjective. Examples, Gn 8 וַיָּשֻׁ֫בוּ הַמַּ֫יִם... הָלוֹךְ וָשׁוֹב and the waters returned... continually; Gn 8, 12, Ju 14, 2 K 2; with a participle following, Jer 4 (unless we read וּבָכֹה, as in 2 S 3); with an adjective following, Gen 26, Ju 4, 1 S 14, 2 S 5 (1 Ch 11), 2 S 18.[3]
On the other hand, in 1 S 17 the participle הֹלֵךְ is used instead of the infinitive absolute. Of a different kind are the instances in which the participle הֹלֵךְ is used as predicate along with the co-ordinate adjective (Ex 19, 1 S 2, 2 S 3, 15, Est 9, 2 Ch 17) or participle (1 S 17, Jon 1, Pr 4, Ec 1).
v 3. The regular place of the negative is between the intensifying infinitive absolute and the finite verb,[4] e.g. Ex 5 וְהַצֵּל לֹֽא־הִצַּלְתָּ neither hast thou delivered at all, Ju 15, Jer 13, 30; cf. Mi 1 (אַל). Exceptions are Gn 3 (where the negation of the threat pronounced in 2:17 is expressed in the same form of words); Am 9, ψ 49.
w 4. With a finite verb of one of the derived conjugations, not only the infinitive absolute of the same conjugation may be connected (Gn 28 Piʿēl; 17:13, Ex 22, Ez 14 Niphʿal; Gn 40 Puʿal; Ho 4 Hiphʿîl; Ez 16 Hophʿal), but also (especially with Niphʿal, rarely with Piʿēl and Hiphʿîl; see Driver on 2 S 20) that of Qal as the simplest and most general representative of the verbal idea, 2 S 20 (with Piʿēl; but in Gn 37, 44 טֹרַף is a passive of Qal, § 52 e); 46:4 (with Hiphʿîl); Ex 19, 21, 2 S 23, Is 40, Jer 10, Jb 6 (with Niphʿal); Is 24 (with Hithpoʿēl; רֹ֫עָה in the same verse must also, according to the Masora, certainly be the infinitive absolute Qal; see § 67 o), and so always מוֹת יוּמַת he shall surety be put to death. Elsewhere the infinitive absolute of a conjugation with kindred meaning is found, Lv 19, 2 K 3 Hophʿal for Niphʿal (but most probably we should read, with Driver, the infin. Niph. in both places, הִפָּדֵה and הֵֽחָרֵב); 1 S 2 (Piʿēl for Hiphʿîl, unless יְקַטְּרוּן is to be read); Ez 16 (Hophʿal for Puʿal).[5] Finally, the infinitive absolute may equally well be represented by a substantive of kindred stem.[6] In Is 29 the substantive intensifying the verb is found along with the infinitive absolute.
x 5. Instead of the infinitive absolute immediately connected with the finite verb, an infinitive construct form appears (cf. § 73 d), in Nu 23 (גַּם קֹב; cf. Ru 2 גַּם שֹׁל); Jer 50 (רִיב יָרִיב); Pr 23 (בִּין תָּבִין). In the last instances the infinitive is probably assimilated to the imperfect, like the infinitive Niphʿal in the forms noticed in § 51 k and note.—Cf. also 2 K 3 וַיָּבֹ֫אוּ בֹא וְהַכּוֹת (read so with the LXX) before א, hence, no doubt due to the dislike of a hiatus; so in ψ 50, Neh 1 (הֲבֹל), all in rapid style; after the verb, Jos 7, unless הַֽעֲבֵיר is intended.
y 4. Finally the infinitive absolute sometimes appears as a substitute for the finite verb, either when it is sufficient simply to mention the verbal idea (see z), or when the hurried or otherwise excited style intentionally contents itself with this infinitive, in order to bring out the verbal idea in a clearer and more expressive manner (see aa).
z (a) The infinitive absolute as the continuation of a preceding finite verb. In the later books especially it often happens that in a succession of several acts only the first (or sometimes more) of the verbs is inflected, while the second (or third, &c.) is added simply in the infinitive absolute. Thus after several perfects, Dn 9 (cf. verse 11) we have sinned ... and have transgressed thy law, וִסוֹר and have turned aside (prop. a turning aside took place); so after a perfect Ex 36 (?), 1 S 2, Is 37, Jer 14, 19, Hag 1 (four infinitives), Zc 3 (but read with Wellhausen, after the LXX, וְהַלְבִּ֫שׁוּ אֹתוֹ), 7:5, Ec 8, 9, Est 3, 9, 16, 18, 12:6 ff., Neh 9, 13, 1 Ch 5, 2 Ch 28;[7] after the perfect consecutive, Zc 12; after the perfect frequentative 1 K 9 (unless וְהִקְטִיר be intended); after the simple imperfect, Lv 25, Nu 30, Jer 32 (three infinitives), 36:23, 1 Ch 21; after a cohortative, Jos 9; after the imperfect consecutive, Gn 41 (as a continuation of וַיַּרְכֵּב); Ex 8, Ju 7, Jer 37, Neh 8, 1 Ch 16, 2 Ch 7; with אוֹ or after the jussive, Dt 14, Est 2, 6; after the imperative, Is 37b, Am 4f.; after the participle, Hb 2 (strengthened by אַף, and regarded, like the participle itself, as an adverbial accusative); Est 8.
aa (b) At the beginning of the narrative, or at least of a new section of it. The special form of the finite verb which the infinitive absolute represents must be determined from the context. The infinitive absolute is most frequently used in this way, corresponding to the infinitive of command in Greek, &c.[8]:—
bb (α) For an emphatic imperative,[9] e.g. שָׁמוֹר (thou shalt, ye shall), observe Dt 5; זָכוֹר (thou shalt) remember, Ex 13, 20 (the full form occurs in Dt 6 שָׁמוֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן; 7:18 זָכֹר תִּזְכֹּר); Lv 2, Nu 4, 25, Dt 1, 2 K 5, Is 38, Jer 2, followed by a perfect consecutive; Jos 1, 2 K 3, Is 7, 14 (parallel with an imperative; in Na 2 three imperatives follow). But הַבֵּיט ψ 142 may be only an incorrect spelling of הַבֵּט imperative.[10]
cc (β) For the jussive, Lv 6, Nu 6, 2 K 11, Ez 23; cf. also Pr 17 (let it rather meet).
dd (γ) For the cohortative, Is 22b אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ (the exclamation of the mocker); Ez 21, 23, 46; perhaps also Jer 31 (הָלוֹךְ).[11]
ee (δ) For the imperfect in emphatic promises, e.g. 2 K 4 ye shall eat and leave thereof; 19:29 (Is 37), 2 Ch 31; also in indignant questions, Jb 40 shall he that cavilleth contend with the Almighty?[12] (on the addition of the subject cf. the Rem. below); Jer 3 and thinkest thou to return again to me? Jer 7 ff. (six infinitives, continued by means of the perfect consecutive; cf. § 112 o).
ff (ε) For any historical tense (like the Latin historic infinitive) in lively narration (or enumeration) and description, even of what is still taking place in present time, e.g. Hos 4 swearing and breaking faith, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery (in these they are busied); 10:4 (after a perfect); Is 21, 59, Jer 8, 14, Jb 15; cf. further Jer 32, Ec 4.—In Ez 23, Pr 12, 15, and 25:4, the infinitive absolute is best rendered by the passive. gg Rem. The subject is sometimes added to the infinitive absolute when it takes the place of the finite verb, e.g. Lv 6, Nu 15, Dt 15, ψ 17, Pr 17, Jb 40, Ec 4, Est 9. So, probably, also in Gn 17, Ex 12, although here כָּל־זָכָר according to § 121 a might also be taken as an object with a passive verb; cf. Est 3. In 1 S 25, 33 the subject follows an infinitive absolute which is co-ordinated with an infinitive construct, see above, e.
a 1. The infinitive construct, like the infinitive absolute, may also represent a nomen verbale (§ 45 a), but of a much more flexible character than the infinitive absolute (cf. § 113 a). Its close relation with nouns properly so called is especially seen in the readiness with which the infinitive construct may be used for any case whatever; thus,
(a) As the nominative of the subject, e.g. Gn 2 לֹא־טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָֽאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ, literally, not good is the being of man in his separation; Gn 30, 1 S 23, Is 7, Pr 17, 25, 24 (but cf. 21:9 טוֹב לָשֶׁ֫בֶת in the same statement); ψ 32 prop. there is not a coming near unto thee, but the text is probably corrupt. With a feminine predicate, 1 S 18, Jer 2.
b (b) As genitive, e.g. Ec 3 עֵת סְפוֹד וְעֵת רְקוֹד a time of mourning and a time of dancing; Gn 2, 29, Neh 12, 2 Ch 24. This equally includes, according to § 101 a, all those cases in which the infinitive construct depends on a preposition (see below, d) [and Driver, Tenses, § 206].
c (c) As accusative of the object, e.g. 1 K 3 לֹא אֵדַע צֵאת וָבֹא I know not the going out or the coming in (I know not how to go out and come in); Gn 21, 31, Nu 20, Is 1, 37 (even with אֵת), Jer 6, Jb 15 (cf. for the use of the infinitive absolute as object, § 113 f); as accusative with a verb expressing fullness, Is 11.
d 2. The construction of the infinitive with prepositions (as in Greek, ἐν τῷ εἶναι, διὰ τὸ εἶναι, &c.) may usually be resolved in English into the finite verb with a conjunction, e.g. Nu 35 בְּפִגְעוֹ־בוֹ in his meeting him, i.e. if (as soon as) he meets him; Gn 27 (עַד־שׁוּב); Is 30 יַ֫עַן מָֽאָסְכֶם because ye despise; Jer 2 עַל־אָמְרֵךְ because thou sayest; Gn 27 and his eyes were dim מֵרְאֹת from seeing, i.e. so that he could not see.
e This use of the infinitive construct is especially frequent in connexion with בְּ or כְּ to express time-determinations (in English resolved into a temporal clause, as above the combination of the infinitive with יַ֫עַן or עַל־ is resolved into a causal clause), especially after וַיְהִי (see the examples, § 111 g), e.g. 1 S 2 בִּֽהְיוֹתָם בְּמִצְרַ֫יִם when they were in Egypt; Gn 24 וַיְהִי כִרְאֹת אֶת־הַנֶּ֫זֶם... וּכְשְׁמְעוֹ וג׳ and it came to pass, when he saw (prop. in the seeing) the ring..., and when he heard (prop. in his hearing), &c.
f But by far the most frequent is the connexion of the infinitive construct with לְ.[13] Starting from the fundamental meaning of לְ, i.e. direction towards something, infinitives with לְ serve to express the most varied ideas of purpose or aim, and very commonly also (with a weakening or a complete disregard of the original meaning of the לְ) to introduce the object of an action, or finally even (like the infinitive absolute used adverbially, § 113 h, and the Latin gerund in -ndo) to state motives or attendant circumstances. See the instances in the Remarks.
g Rem. 1. The original meaning of the לְ is most plainly seen in those infinitives with לְ which expressly state a purpose (hence as the equivalent of a final clause), e.g. Gn 11 and the Lord came down, לִרְאֹת אֶת־הָעִיר to see the city; also with a change of subject, e.g. 2 S 12 and thou hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite לִֽהְיוֹת לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה to be (i.e. that she may be) thy wife; cf. Gn 28, Jer 38 (לָמוּת).—If there is a special emphasis on the infinitive with לְ, it is placed, with its complement, before the governing verb, e.g. Gn 42, 47, Nu 22, Jos 2, 1 S 16 with בּוֹא; Ju 15, 1 S 17 with עָלָה.
h 2. Just as clearly the idea of aiming at a definite purpose or turning towards an object may be seen in the combination of the verb הָיָה to be, with לְ and an infinitive. In fact הָיָה לַֽעֲשׂוֹת may mean, either (a) he was in the act of, he was about to (as it were, he set himself), he was ready, to do something, or (b) he or it was appointed or compelled, &c., to do the action in question. In the latter case הָיָה לַֽעֲשׂוֹת corresponds to the Latin faciendum erat, cf. also the English I am to go. In both cases הָיָה (as elsewhere when copula) is often omitted.
i Examples of (a) Gn 15 וַיְהִי הַשֶּׁ֫מֶשׁ לָבוֹא and when the sun was going down (just about to set); 2 Ch 26 וַיְהִי לִדְרשׁ אֱלֹהִים and he set himself to seek God (here with the secondary idea of a continuous action); with the omission of הָיָה Is 38, יְהֹוָה לְהֽוֹשִׁיעֵ֫נִי the Lord is ready to save me; 1 S 14 (?), Jer 51, ψ 25 (et foedus suum manifestaturus est eis); Pr 18 (?), 19:8 (לִמְצֹא consecuturus est, unless we simply read יִמְצָא with the LXX)[14]; 20:25, Ec 3 אֲשֶׁר לִֽהְיוֹת quod futurum est; 2 Ch 11, 12 (in a negative statement); in a question, Est 7 (will he even... ?). Cf. also 1 S 4.
k Of (b) Jos 2 וַיְהִי הַשַּׁ֫עַר לִסְגּוֹר and the gate was to be shut (had to be shut); Is 37, ψ 109.[15] Mostly with the omission of הָיָה, e.g. 2 K 4 מֶה לַֽעֲשׂוֹת לָךְ וג׳ what is to be done for thee? (הֲיֵשׁ לְדַבֶּר־לָךְ) wouldest thou be (lit. is it to be) spoken for to the king, &c.? 2 K 13 לְהַכּוֹת it was to smite equivalent to thou shouldest have smitten; Is 5, ψ 32, 68 (?), Jb 30 (habitandum est iis), 1 Ch 9, 10, 22, 2 Ch 8 (?), 11:22, 19:2, 36:19 (?), Ho 9, Hb 1. In a question 2 Ch 19; after לֹא 1 Ch 5, 15; after אֵין 1 Ch 23, 2 Ch 5 and frequently.
l Of the same kind also are the cases, in which the infinitive with לְ depends on the idea of an obligation or permission (or prohibition); especially in such forms of expression as 2 S 18 עָלַי לָ֫תֶת לְךָ וג׳ it was upon me, i.e. it would have been my duty to give thee, &c.[16]; cf. Mi 3 (2 Ch 13) it is not for you to (i.e. are ye not bound to)?[17] with a negative, 2 Ch 26 לֹא לְךָ וג׳ it pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but only to the priests; also אֵין לְ with an infinitive expresses it is not permitted (nefas est), may not, e.g. Est 4 כִּי אֵין לָבוֹא for none might enter; 8:8, 1 Ch 15;[18] אֵין לְ with an infinitive is used in a somewhat different sense, equivalent to it is not feasible, not possible, e.g. in ψ 40, Ec 3, 2 Ch 5.[19]—With either meaning לֹא can be used instead of אֵין, e.g. Am 6 לֹא לְהַזְכִּיר nefas est, to make mention of the name of the Lord: but Ju 1 for it was not possible to drive out, &c., perhaps, however, the text originally stood as in Jos 17 לֹא יָֽכְלוּ לְה׳; 1 Ch 15.
m
3. A further class comprises the very numerous cases, in which the infinitive with לְ is used as the object[20] of a governing verb, hence, again, for the direction which an action takes. The verbs (or conjugations) which occur most frequently in this combination with לְ and an infinitive are: הֵחֵל (with an infinitive without לְ, e.g. Dt 2, 31, Jos 3), הוֹאִיל to begin, הוֹסִיף, יָסַף (prop. to add) to continue, very frequently, even in prose, with an infinitive without לְ, as Gn 4, 8, 12, 37:5, 1 S 3, Jb 27, &c.; חָדַל to cease from, to desist; כִּלָּה to complete, to make an end of; תָּמַם to be finished; הִקְרִיב to come near to, Gn 12; מִהַר to hasten (with an infinitive without לְ Ex 2); אָבָה to be willing (with an infinitive without לְ Is 28, 30, Jb 39); חָפֵץ to will, to desire; מֵאֵן to refuse (to be unwilling); בִּקֵּשׁ to seek; יָכֹל to be able (with an infinitive without לְ, e.g. Gn 24, 37, Ex 2, 18, Nu 22, Jb 4); נָתַן with an accusative of the person in the sense of to give up to some one, to cause, or permit him to do something, e.g. Gn 20, ψ 16 (with an infinitive abs. Jb 9, see § 113 d), יָדַע to understand how to do something (in Jb 3 הָֽעֲתִידִם עֹיֵר is analogous); לָמַד to learn; קִוָּה to wait, expect (with a change of subject, e.g. Is 5 and he waited for it to bring forth grapes).
n We must further mention here a number of verbs in Hiphʿîl (partly denominatives), which express an action in some definite direction (cf. § 53 f), as הִגְּדִּיל to do greatly, הִשְׁפִּיל to make (it) low, הִגְבִּיהַּ to make (it) high, הֶֽעֱמִיק to make (it) deep, הִרְחִיק to make (it) far, distant, הֵימִיב to make (it) good (with an infinitive without לְ ψ 33, but 1 S 16, in the same combination, with לְ); הִשְׁכִּים to do anything early (ψ 127, along with its opposite אֵחַר to do something late, with an infinitive without לְ); הִרְבָּה to make (it) much, הִפְלָא to make (it) wonderful (even with a passive infinitive 2 Ch 26),[21] &c.
o 4. Finally, the infinitive with לְ is very frequently used in a much looser connexion to state motives, attendant circumstances, or otherwise to define more exactly. In English, such infinitive constructions (like the Latin gerund in -do; cf. f) must frequently be turned by that or a gerund; e.g. 1 S 12 לִשְׁאֹל לָכֶם מֶלֶךְ in asking you a king; 14:33, 19:5, 20:36, Gn 3, 18, 34, 15, Ex 23, Lv 5, 22, 26, 8:15, Nu 14, 2 S 3, 1 K 2 f., 14:8, Jer 44 f., ψ 63, 78, 101, 103, 104 f., 111:6, Pr 2, 8, 18, Neh 13. Sometimes the infinitive with לְ is used in this way simply by itself, e.g. 1 Ch 12 as the roes upon the mountains לְמַהֵר (as regards hasting) in swiftness; Gn 2, 2 S 14 (לְהַלֵּל); Is 21 (לַֽחֲלוֹף); Jo 2, Pr 2, 26 and so very frequently the infinitive לֵאמֹר dicendo which has become stereotyped as an adverb to introduce direct narration (in the sense of thus, as follows).[22]
p 5. In a number of instances—especially in the later books—the infin. constr. with לְ appears to be attached by Wāw (like the infinitive absolute, § 113 z), as the continuation of a previous finite verb. In most examples of this kind it is, however, evident that the infinitive with לְ virtually depends on an idea of intention, effort, or being in the act of, which, according to the sense, is contained in what has preceded, whilst the copula, as sometimes also elsewhere, is used in an emphatic sense (and that too); thus e.g. Ex 32 (if the text be right) fill your hand to-day (sc. with an offering) for the Lord... and that to bring a blessing upon you, i.e. that ye may be blessed; cf. 1 S 25 (otherwise in verses 26 and 33 where the infinitive absolute is used, see § 113 e); ψ 104,[23] Jb 34, Ec 9, Neh 8, 2 Ch 7.—In Lv 10 וּלְהַבְדִּיל might be regarded as an explanatory addition to the command contained in verse (= this prohibition of wine before the service shall ye observe, and that in order to put a difference, &c.); but probably the text has been disturbed by a redactor.—In 2 Ch 30 וְלָשׁוּב depends on the idea of receiving favour which lies in לְרַֽחֲמִים. On the other hand, in 1 S 8 it is sufficient to explain and in order to appoint them unto him for captains of thousands (sc. he will take them). In Is 44 translate and he (Cyrus) shall perform all my pleasure, and that in saying of Jerusalem, &c.
q 3. The period of time to which an action or occurrence represented by the infinitive construct belongs, must sometimes be inferred from the context, or from the character of the principal tenses; cf. e.g. Gn 2 these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, בְּהִבָּֽרְאָם when they were created (prop. in their being created); Ju 6 עַד־בֹּאִי וג׳ until I come unto thee, and bring forth, &c. Cf. 1 S 18 (= when she should have been given); 2 K 2, Ho 7.
r Rem. 1. The constructions of the infinitive with a preposition, described above under d, are almost always continued in the further course of the narrative by means of the finite verb, i.e. by an independent sentence, not by a co-ordinate infinitive. Such a finite verb we regard as governed by a conjunction, which corresponds to the preposition standing before the infinitive. Thus the infinitival construction (frequently even with a change of subject) is continued by a perfect (with לֹא), Jer 9 because they have forsaken (עַל־עָזְבָם) my law ... וְלֹא שָֽׁמְעוּ and have not obeyed my voice; Gn 39, 1 S 24, Am 1; without לֹא Jb 28 (perf. after לְ and infin.); by a perfect with וְ (cf. § 112 i and § v) Am 1 עַל־רָדְפוֹ וג׳ because he did pursue his brother with the sword, וְשִׁחֵת and did cast off continually all pity (a frequentative perfect; for examples of the perfect consecutive proper see Gn 27, Ju 6, 1 S 10, 2 K 18 [Is 36], always after עַד־בֹּאִי until I come); by a simple imperfect, e.g. Pr 1 (after בְּ); Is 30 (after בְּיוֹם in the day, a temporal phrase which has here become equivalent to a preposition); Is 5 (after כְּ), 10:2, 13:9, 14:25, 45:1, 49:5, 1 S 2, Pr 2, 5, 8 (always after לְ)[24]; by an imperfect consecutive, e.g. Gn 39 and it came to pass, כַּֽהֲרִימִי קוֹלִי וָֽאֶקְרָא as I lifted up my voice and cried, that ...; 1 K 10, Jb 38 (after לְ); 1 K 18, Is 38, Jb 38, 9 ff. (after בְּ); Is 30, Jer 7, Ez 34 (after יַ֫עַן).
s 2. The negation of an infinitive construct, on account of the predominance of the noun-element in its character, is effected not by the verbal negative לֹא(except in the compound בְּלֹא, which has come to be used as a preposition, without, Nu 35, Pr 19), but by בִּלְתִּי, originally a substantive (see the Lexicon), with לְ prefixed (but also Nu 14 מִבִּלְתִּי), e.g. Gn 3 לְבִלְתִּי אֲכָל־מִמֶּ֫נּוּ not to eat of it; in a final sense, 4:15 lest any finding him should smite him; only in 2 K 23 is לְ repeated before the infinitive. In ψ 32 (if the text be right) בַּל negatives, not the infinitive, but the predicate which is understood.
a 1. Like the infinitive absolute (see § 113 a), the character of the infinitive construct as a verbal noun is shown by its power of taking the case proper to its verb, and hence in transitive verbs[25] the accusative of the object, e.g. Nu 9 בְּיוֹם הָקִים אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן on the day the tabernacle was reared up; 1 S 19 לְהָמִית אֶת־דָּוִד that they should slay David; Gn 14, 19, Ex 38, 1 K 12, 15; with a negative, e.g. Lv 26 לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹתַי so that ye will not do all my commandments; with the accusative of the personal pronoun, e.g. Dt 29 לְמַ֫עַן הָקִיס־אֹֽתְךָ that he may establish thee; Gn 25, Jer 24; with a verbal suffix, e.g. Ex 2 לְהָרְגֵ֫נִי to kill me; Jer 38 לְבִלְתִּי הֲשִׁיבֵ֫נִי that he would not cause me to return (on the suffix, cf. c). In Is 49 the object even precedes the infinitive with לְ; on this order cf. the note on § 114 r.—If the verb governs a double accusative, the infinitive may also take the same, e.g. Gn 41 אַֽחֲרֵי הוֹדִ֫יעַ אֱלֹהִים֖ אֽוֹתְךָ אֶת־כָּל־זֹאת forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this; Dt 21.
b Rem. 1. The object after the infinitive construct must also always be regarded as in the accusative, even when it is not expressly introduced (as inall the above examples) by the nota accusativi אֶת־, and when therefore the substantive in question might easily be taken as the genitive of the object governed by the infinitive (the usual construction in Arabic), e.g. Pr 21 עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט to do judgement. Against regarding it as a genitive, which is in itself possible (the doing, the executing of judgement), is the fact (a) that elsewhere the nota accusativi is so frequently added; (b) that in such a case the secondary forms of the infinitive, such as רְאֹה for (פָּנֶ֫יךָ) רְאֹת Gn 48 (cf. ψ 101, Pr 16), would be unintelligible; (c) that certain infinitive forms, if they were to be regarded as in the construct state, could hardly retain the pretonic Qameṣ without exception, whereas, when connected with suffixes (i.e. with real genitives; cf. § 33 c), this Qameṣ necessarily becomes Šewâ; e.g. Gn 18 לְהָמִית צַדִּיק to slay the righteous (never as לַֽהֲמִית; cf., on the other hand, above, הֲשִׁיבֵ֫נִי); 2 K 21, Ez 44. Similarly in such cases as Is 3 (ψ 50) instead of לָדִין עַמִּים we should rather expect לְדִין, if the infinitive were regarded as in the construct state, and עַמִּים as the genitive. Hence also in cases like Is 58 (שְׁלַח for שְׁלֹחַ) we must assume, with Sellin, op. cit., p. 78, a merely ‘external phonetic connexion’ and not the genitive construction.
c 2. The verbal suffixes added to the infinitive are (with the exception of לְהֽוֹצִאֵ֫הוּ Jer 39) only the suffix of the 1st pers. sing. (besides the above examples cf. also 1 S 5, 27, 28, Ru 2, 1 Ch 12, &c.) and plural; e.g. לְהַשְׁמִידֵ֫נוּ to destroy us, Dt 1 (immediately after לָתֵת אֹתָ֫נוּ, so that ־ֵ֫ נוּ is doubtless a verbal not a noun-suffix, although in form it might be either); לַֽהֲמִיתֵ֫נוּ Nu 16, Ju 13 (after חָפֵץ). Elsewhere the pronominal object is appended either by means of the accusative sign (e.g. Gn 25 בְּלֶ֫דֶת אֹתָם prop. in the bearing them; לָדַ֫עַת אֹתִי to know me, Jer 24) or in the form of a noun-suffix (as genitive of the object). The latter occurs almost always, whenever the context excludes the possibility of a misunderstanding; e.g. 1 S 20 לְהַכֹּתוֹ (prop. for his smiting) to smite him, not, as the form might also mean, in order that he might smite; cf. 1 K 20; with the suffix of the 3rd sing. fem. Nu 22; of the 3rd plur. Jos 10, 2 S 21, &c. Hence also the suffixes of the 2nd sing. with the infinitive, as לְהַכֹּֽתְךָ Jer 40, cf. Mi 6, and even גַּדֶּלְךָ to magnify thee, Jos 3, must certainly be regarded as nominal not verbal suffixes. The connexion of the noun-suffix, as genitive of the object, with the infinitive, was so fully established, that it could be used not only in such strange cases, as Gn 37 לֹא יָכְֽלוּ דַבְּרוֹ לְשָׁלֹם they could not speak to him peaceably, cf. Zc 3 לְשִׂטְנוֹ to be an adversary to him, but ultimately even in the 1st sing., as in Nu 22 לְתִתִּי to give me leave [Dt 25 לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me; 1 Ch 4 לְבִלְתִּי עָצְבִּי that it may not grieve me!]
d 3. The power of governing like a verb is also retained in those verbal nouns which, although originally secondary forms of the infinitive, have fully acquired the value of nouns, e.g. Is 11 דֵּעָה אֶת־יְהֹוָה (prop. to know the Lord) the knowledge of the Lord; לְיִרְאָה אֹתִי to fear me, Dt 4, 5, 10; an accusative follows לְאַֽהֲבָה Dt 10, 15, Is 56 (cf. also 1 K 10, Ho 3); לַֽהֲנָפָה Is 30; בְּשִׂנְאַת יְהֹוָה אֹתָ֫נוּ Dt 1; after verbal nouns formed with the prefix מ (cf. § 45 e), Nu 10, Is 13, Am 4, Ez 17. The accusative of the object likewise remains after infinitives (or their secondary forms) which have the article, e.g. Gn 2, Jer 22, or a suffix, e.g. Gn 5, &c., 28:4, 6, 29:19 f., 30:15, 38:5, 2 S 3, Is 29.
e 2. The subject of the action represented by the infinitive is mostly placed immediately[26] after it, either in the genitive or nominative. The subject is in the genitive (§ 33 c) whenever it has the form of a noun-suffix, and also when the infinitive has the termination of the constr. st. fem. sing. (see f); probably also in many other cases, where the infinitive in form and meaning is used more like a substantive, and accordingly governs like a noun. On the other hand, the subject of the infinitive is certainly to be regarded as a nominative, when it is separated from the infinitive by any insertion, and according to certain indications (see g) very probably in ninny other instances.
f Rem. 1. Examples of genitives of the subject after infinitives in the connective form are Dt 1 בְּשִׂנְאַת יְהֹוָה אֹתָ֫נוּ prop. in the Lord’s hating us; cf. 7:8, Gn 19, 1 K 10, Is 13, 47, Ho 3, Am 4. The subject of the infinitive is probably also to be regarded as genitive in such cases as Ex 17 and there was no water לִשְׁתֹּת הָעָם for the people to drink (prop. for the drinking of the people), and in cases like Gn 16 (בְּלֶ֫דֶת הָגָר); Gn 16, Ex 19, Nu 20, 4, 33:38, 1 K 6, ψ 133, 2 Ch 7, &c.
g 2. Examples in which the subject is separated from the infinitive by an insertion, and hence must certainly be regarded as a nominative, are Jb 34 לְהִסָּ֫תֶר שָׁם פֹּֽעֲלֵי אָ֫וֶן that the workers of iniquity may hide themselves there (prop. for the hiding themselves there the workers of iniquity); cf. Gn 34, Nu 35, Dt 19, Ju 9, 2 S 24, ψ 76, and below, i. The subject is likewise to be regarded as a nominative, whenever the Lamedh is prefixed to the infinitive by means of a pretonic Qameṣ (cf. b above), e.g. 2 S 19 לָשׂוּם הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ אֶל־לְבּוֹ, since, if the infinitive were used as a nomen regens, we should rather expect לְשׂוּם according to § 102 f. That the subject of the infinitive is regarded elsewhere also as nominative is again (see above, b) probable, since in such forms as הָנִיחַ Dt 25, Is 14, הָמִיר ψ 46, &c., the pretonic Qameṣ is retained without exception, whereas on the analogy of הֲנִיחִי Ez 24, הֲקִימוֹ Jer 23, &c., we should expect הֲנִיחַ, הֲמִיר, &c., if the infinitive were regarded as a nomen regens. Or was the retention of the Qameṣ (assuming the thorough correctness of the Masoretic punctuation) rendered possible even before a following genitive, because that vowel was characteristic of the form? It is at all events certain that owing to the lack of case-endings,[27] a distinction between the genitival and nominatival constructions could not have been consciously made in the case of most infinitives, e.g. in unchangeable forms like קְטֹל, קוּם, &c.
h 3. When both a subject and an object are connected with the infinitive, the rule is, that the subject should immediately follow the infinitive, and then the object. The latter, in such a case, is necessarily in the accusative, but the subject (as in e) may be either in the genitive or in the nominative. The noun-suffixes again are, of course, to be regarded as genitives, e.g. Gn 39 כַּֽהֲרִימִי קוֹלִי as I lifted up my voice (cf. 1 K 13, and the examples, Gn 5, &c., enumerated above, under d), and so also substantives which follow a connective form, Dt 1, &c.; see above, d and f.
i On the other hand, the subject appears necessarily to be in the nominative in such cases as Is 10 כְּהָנִיף שֵׁ֫בֶט אֶת־מְרִימָיו as if a rod should shake them that lift it up (for the plur. מרימיו cf. § 124 k), not כַּֽהֲנִיף, as would be expected (see g above), if שֵׁ֫בֶט were in the genitive; cf. 2 S 14, Jb 33. And so probably also in other cases, as Gn 5, 13, Jos 14, 1 K 13, 2 K 23, Is 32. The subject is separated from the infinitive by an insertion (and consequently must necessarily be in the nominative; see g above), e.g. in Jer 21.
k Rem. Less frequently the object is placed immediately after the infinitive, and then the nominative of the subject, as a subsequent complement, e.g. Is 20 בִּשְׁלֹחַ אֹתוֹ סַֽרְגוֹן when Sargon sent him; Gn 4, Jos 14, 2 S 18, Is 5, ψ 56, Pr 25. In Nu 24 the subject follows an infinitive which has a noun-suffix in place of the object.
Cf. Sellin (see above at the head of § 113), p. 6 ff., and Kahan, p. 11 ff.
a 1. Like the two infinitives, the participles also occupy a middle place between the noun and the verb. In form they are simple nouns, and most nearly related to the adjective; consequently they cannot in themselves be employed to represent definite relations of tense or mood. On the other hand, their verbal character is shown by their not representing, like the adjectives, a fixed and permanent quality (or state), but one which is in some way connected with an action or activity. The participle active indicates a person or thing conceived as being in the continual uninterrupted exercise of an activity. The participle passive, on the other hand, indicates the person or thing in a state which has been brought about by external actions.
b Rem. That the language was fully conscious of the difference between a state implying action (or effected by external action) and mere passivity, is seen from the fact, that participles proper cannot be formed from the purely stative Qal, but only verbal adjectives of the form qāṭēl (מָלֵא, כָּבֵד, &c.) or qāṭōl (גָּבֹהַּ, &c.), whereas the transitive Qal שָׂנֵא to hate, although it coincides in form with the intransitive Qal (as a verb middle e), nevertheless forms a participle active שׂנֵא, and participle passive שָׂנוּא (cf. the feminine שְׂנוּאָה).—In cases where the participle proper and the verbal adjective both occur, they are by no means synonymous. When the Assyrians are called in Is 28 לַֽעֲגֵי שָׂפָה men of stammering lips, a character is ascribed to them which is inseparably connected with their personality. On the other hand כֻּלֹּה לֹעֵג לִי Jer 20, describes those about the prophet as continually engaged in casting ridicule upon him. Cf. also ψ 9 (שְׁכֵחֵי) with 50:22 (שֹֽׁכְחֵי).
c On the difference between the participle as expressing simple duration and the imperfect as expressing progressive duration, cf. what has been stated above in § 107 d. Nevertheless the participle is sometimes used—especially in the later books, cf. e.g. Neh 6, 2 Ch 17—where we should expect the action to be divided up into its several parts, and consequently should expect the finite verb. But the substitution of the participle for the tempus historicum, which becomes customary in Aramaic (cf. Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram., § 76. 2, d, and e), is nevertheless quite foreign to Hebrew.
d 2. The period of time indicated by (a) a participle active, either as an attribute or predicate, must be inferred from the particular context. Thus מֵת may mean either moriens (Zc 11), or mortuus (so commonly; with the article הַמֵּת regularly = the dead man), or moriturus (Dt 4); בָּא coming, come Gn 18, &c., venturus 1 S 2, &c.; נׄפֵל falling, but also fallen, Ju 3, 1 S 5, and ready to fall (threatening ruin, Is 30, Am 9). For other examples of perfect participles see Gn 27, 43 (הַשָּׁב that was returned; cf. Ezr 6, &c., הַשָּׁבִים which were come again from the captivity); Gn 35, Ex 11, Zc 12, ψ 137, Pr 8, Jb 12 (קֹרֵא), and see m below. For future participles see Gn 41, 1 K 18, Is 5, Jon 1, &c., probably also לֹֽקְחֵי Gn 19. On the futurum instans (esp. after הִנֵּה) see p below.
e (b) Of the passive participles, that of Qal (e.g. כָּתוּב scriptus) always corresponds to a Latin or Greek perfect participle passive, those of the other conjugations, especially Niphʿal, sometimes to a Latin gerundive (or to an adjective in -bilis), e.g. נוֹרָא metuendus, to be feared, ψ 76, &c.; נֶחְמָד desiderandus (desiderabilis) Gn 3, ψ 19, &c.; נִבְרָא creandus ψ 102; נוֹלָד, usually natus, but also (like הַיּוּלָּד Ju 13) procreandus, nasciturus 1 K 13, ψ 22; נַֽעֲרָץ terribilis ψ 89; נִתְעָב abominable Jb 15; נֶחְשָׁב aestimandus Is 2; הַנֶּֽאֱכֶ֫לֶת that may be eaten (an animal) Lv 11. In Puʿal מְהֻלָּל laudandus, worthy to be praised ψ 18. In Hophʿal, 2 S 20 מֻשְׁלָךְ; 2 K 11 הַמּֽוּמָתִים; Is 12 Qerê מוּדַ֫עַת.[28]
f 3. The participles active, in virtue of their partly verbal character, possess the power of governing like verbs, and consequently, when used in the absolute state, may take after them an object either in the accusative, or with the preposition with which the verb in question is elsewhere usually construed, e.g. 1 S 18 אֹיֵב אֶת־דָּוִד hating David; Gn 42; with the suffix of the accusative, e.g. עשֵׂ֫נִי that made me Jb 31; מִי רֹאֵ֫נוּ who seeth us? Is 29 (in Is 47 רֹאָ֫נִי is abnormal); רֹדֵם ruling them ψ 68, sometimes also with the article, e.g. ψ 18 הַֽמְאַזְּרֵ֫נִי that girdeth me (LXX ὁ κραταιῶν με); Dt 8–16, 13:6, 11, 20:1, 2 S 1, Is 9 (where, however, Cheyne omits the article), 63:11, ψ 81, 103, Dn 11; followed by a preposition, e.g. 1 K 9 הָֽרֹדִים בָּעָם which bare rule over the people; 2 K 20 הִֽנְנִי רֹפֵא לָךְ behold, I will heat thee. [29]
By an exhaustive examination of the statistics, Sellin (see the title at the head of § 113), p. 40 ff., shows that the participle when construed as a verb expresses a single and comparatively transitory act, or relates to particular cases, historical facts, and the like, while the participle construed as a noun (see g) indicates repeated, enduring, or commonly occurring acts, occupations, and thoughts.
So also the verbal adjectives of the form qāṭēl may take an accusative of the person or thing, if the finite verb from which they are derived governs an accusative, e.g. Dt 34 מָלֵא רוּחַ חָכְמָה full of the spirit of wisdom; ψ 5 חָפֵץ רֶ֫שַׁע that hath pleasure in wickedness.
g As a sort of noun the participle may, however, also exercise the same government as a noun, being in the construct state, and followed by the object of the action in the genitive (see § 89 a; and cf. § 128 x), e.g. ψ 5 אֹֽהֲבֵי שְׁמֶ֫ךָ that love thy name; cf. ψ 19 f.; also when a verbal adjective, e.g. Gn 22 and often יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים one fearing God; Hb 2; with an infinitive, ψ 127; with a noun-suffix (which, according to § 33 c, also represents a genitive), e.g. Gn 4 כָּל־מֹֽצְאִי whosoever findeth me (prop. my finder; cf. עשִֹׁי my maker); 12:3 מְבָֽרֲכֶ֫יךָ that bless thee, מְקַלֶּלְךָ that curseth thee (but read either מְקַלְלֶ֫יךָ, or מְבֽרֶכְךָ in the preceding clause); 27:29, 1 S 2, Is 63, ψ 18. In Jer 33 read מְשָֽׁרְתִים אֹתִי.[30]
h Rem. To the class of objective genitives belong also specifications of place after the participles בָּא iniens and יֹצֵא egrediens, since the verbs בּוֹא and יָצָא, in the sense of ingredi, egredi, can be directly connected with an accusative; e.g. Gn 23, 18 בָּאֵי שַׁ֫עַר עִירוֹ that went in at the gate of his city; La 1; after יֽׄצְאֵי Gn 9, 34, 46, &c.—In poetic language the participle in the construct state may be connected not only with a genitive of the object, but also with any other specifications (especially of space) which otherwise can only be made to depend on the verb in question by means of a preposition; cf. Is 38, and frequently, יֽוֹרְדֵי־בוֹר they that go down into the pit (the grave); ψ 88 שֹֽׁכְבֵי קֶ֫בֶר that lie in the grave; Dt 32 (Mi 7); 1 K 2, 2 K 11, 7, 9 those that came in (or went out) on the sabbath, Pr 2, 1 Ch 5, &c.; instead of the construction with מִן־, e.g. Is 59 (those who turn from transgression), Mi 2 (cf. § 72 p).
i These genitives of nearer definition appear also in the form of a noun-suffix, e.g. ψ 18, 49 קָמַי (for קָמִים עָלַי) that rise up against me; cf. Ex 15, Dt 33, ψ 44, Ex 32, Is 1 שָׁבֶ֫יהָ her converts; ψ 53 (חֹנָךְ); Pr 2 כָּל־בָּאֶ֫יהָ all that go unto her; the construction is especially bold in Is 29 כָּל־צֹבֶ֫יהָ וּמְצֹֽדָתָהּ all that fight against her and her stronghold (for בָּל־הַצֹּֽבְאִים עָלֶ֫יהָ וְעַל־מ׳); ψ 102 even with a participle Poʿal, מְהֽוֹלָלַי they that are mad against me (?), but read perhaps with Olshausen מְחֽוֹלְלַי who pierce me.—In Is 1 as a terebinth נׄבֶ֫לֶּת עָלֶ֫הָ fading as regards its leaf, it remains doubtful whether נׄבֶ֫לֶת is in the absolute state, and consequently עָלֶ֫הָ in the accusative, or whether it is to be regarded as construct state, and עָלֶ֫הָ as the genitive. In the latter case it would be analogous to Pr 14 (see k).
k 4. The passive participles also may either be in the absolute state, and take the determining word in the accusative,[31] or may be connected with it in the construct state, e.g. Ju 18, 1 S 2, Ez 9 לָבוּשׁ בַּדִּים clothed in linen, cf. verse 3 הַלָּבֻשׁ הַבַּדִּים; (even with a suffix קָרוּעַ כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ rent as regards his coat 2 S 15; with the participle following Ju 1); but Ez 9 לְבוּשׁ הַבַּדִּים the one clothed with linen; 2 S 13 קְרֻעֵי בְגָדִים rent in respect of clothes, equivalent to with their clothes rent (cf. Jer 41); Nu 24, Dt 25, Is 3, 33, Jo 1, ψ 32 (נְשׂוּי־פֶּ֫שַׁע forgiven in respect of transgression, כְּסוּי חֲטָאָה covered in respect of sin); with a suffix to the noun, Pr 14 נְלוֹז דְּרָכָיו he that is perverse in his ways.
l Rem. The passive participle occurs in the construct state before a genitive of the cause, e.g. in Is 1 שְׂרֻפוֹת אֵשׁ burnt with fire; cf. Gn 41, Ex 28, Dt 32; before a genitive denoting the author, e.g. Gn 24 בְּרוּךְ יְהֹוָה blessed of the Lord (but ψ 115 בְּרוּכִים לַיהוָֹה, see § 121 f); cf. Is 53, ψ 22, Jb 14 (15:14, 25:4); hence also with noun-suffixes (which are accordingly genitive) Pr 9 קְרֻאֶ֫יהָ her invited ones, i.e. those invited by her; cf. 7:26, ψ 37.
m 5. The use of the participle as predicate is very frequent in noun-clauses (which, according to § 140 e, describe established facts and states), in which the period of time intended by the description must again (see above, d) be inferred from the context. Thus:
n (a) As present, in speaking of truths which hold good at all times, e.g. Ec 1 דּוֹר הֹלֵךְ וְדוֹר בָּא one generation goeth, and another generation cometh; and the earth abideth (עֹמָ֫דֶת) for ever; cf. verse 7; also to represent incidental (continuous) occurrences which are just happening, Gn 3, 16 (I am fleeing); 32:12, Ex 9, 1 S 16, 23, 2 K 7, Is 1; when the subject is introduced by the emphatic demonstrative הִנֵּה behold! (§ 100 o and § 105 b), e.g. Gn 16 הִנָּךְ הָרָה behold, thou art with child, &c.; 27:42; frequently also in circumstantial clauses (connected by Wāw), cf. § 141 e, e.g. Gn 15, &c.
o (b) To represent past actions or states, sometimes in independent noun-clauses, e.g. Ex 20 וְכָל־הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת־הַקּוֹלֹת and all the people saw the thunderings, &c.; 1 K 1; in negative statements, e.g. Gn 39 a; sometimes in relativeclauses, e.g. Gn 39 b, Dt 3 (cf. also the frequent combination of the participle with the article as the equivalent of a relative clause, e.g. Gn 32 הָֽאֹמֵר which saidst; 12:7, 16:13, 35:1, 3, 36:35, 48:16, 2 S 15, &c.); sometimes again (see n) in circumstantial clauses, especially those representing actions or states which occurred simultaneously with other past actions, &c., e.g. Gn 19 and the two angels came to Sodom וְלוֹט ישֵׁב and (i.e. while) Lot sat, &c.; 18:1, 8, 16, 22, 25:26, Ju 13, 2 Ch 22; also with the subject introduced by הִנֵּה 37:7, 41:17. (On הֹלֵךְ with a following adjective or participle to express an action constantly or occasionally recurring, cf. § 113 u.)
p (c) To announce future actions or events, e.g. 1 K 2, 2 K 4 at this season when the time cometh round, אַתְּ חֹבֶ֫קֶת בֵּן thou shalt embrace a son; so after a specification of time, Gn 7, 15, 17, 19, Hag 2 (but in Is 23, where, after וְהָיָה we should rather expect a perfect consecutive, it is better to explain וְנִשְׁכַּ֫חַת, with Qimḥi, as the 3rd sing. fem. of the perfect; on the form, cf. § 44 f); or in relative clauses, Gn 41, Is 5, i.e. am in the act of doing; in a deliberative question, Gn 37; but especially often when the subject is introduced by הִנֵּה (especially also if the subject be attached as a suffix to הִנֵּה as הִנְנִי, הִנְּךָ, &c.), if it is intended to announce the event as imminent, or at least near at hand (and sure to happen), when it is called futurum instans, e.g. Gn 6, 15, 20, 24 f., 48:21, 50:5, Ex 3, 8, 9, 34, Jos 2, Ju 7, 9, 1 S 3, 2 K 7, Is 3, 7, 17, Jer 30, Zc 2, 3; with a participle passive, 2 S 20: cf. also § 112 t.
q Rem. 1. As the above examples show, a noun-clause with a participle as predicate may have for its subject either a substantive or a personal pronoun; in both cases the participle, especially if there be a certain emphasis upon it, may precede the subject. Also in noun-clauses introduced by הִנֵּה the subject may be either a substantive, or (e.g. Gn 37) a separate personal pronoun, or a suffix attached to הִנֵּה. In the same way, the subject may also be introduced by יֵשׁ (est, see the Lexicon) with a suffix, and in negative sentences by אֵין (non est) with a suffix, e.g. Ju 6 אִם־יֶשְׁךָ מוֹשִׁיעַ if thou wilt save; Gn 43 אִם־אֵֽינְךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ if thou wilt not send; 1 S 19.—In such cases as Is 14 יָדוֹ הַנְּטוּיָה the stretched out hand is his, הַנְּטוּיָה is not, like נְטוּיָה in 9:11, 16, &c., the predicate (in which case the participle could not take the article), but the subject; cf. Gn 2, 45, Is 66, Ez 20, Zc 7 (cf. § 126 k), where the participle with the article likewise refers to the present, also Nu 7, Dt 3, 4, &c., 1 S 4, where it refers to the past. In 1 K 12 and 21:11 even in relative clauses after אֲשֶׁר.
r 2. To give express emphasis to an action continuing in the past, the perfect הָיָה in the corresponding person is sometimes added to the participle, and similarly the imperfect יִֽהְיֶה (or the jussive יְהִי, or the imperfect consecutive) is used to emphasize an action continuing in the future, e.g. Jb 1 הַבָּקָר הָיוּ חֹֽרְשׁוֹת the oxen (cows) were plowing; Gn 37, 39, Ex 3, Dt 9, Ju 1, 1 S 2, 2 S 3; the same occurs with a passive participle, e.g. Jos 5, Zc 3; יִֽהְיֶה with a participle is found e.g. in Is 2; the jussive in Gn 1, ψ 109;[32] and ויהי with a participle in Ju 16, Neh 1.
s 3. The personal pronoun which would be expected as the subject of a participial clause is frequently omitted, or at least (as elsewhere in noun-clauses, cf. Is 26, ψ 16, Jb 9) the pronoun of the 3rd pers. הוּא, e.g. Gn 24, 37, 38, 41, 1 S 10, 15, Is 29 (the participle always after הִנֵּה); cf., moreover, Gn 32, Dt 33, 1 S 17, 20, Is 33, 40, ψ 22, 33, 55, Jb 12, 19 ff., 25:2, 26:7.—הִיא is omitted in Lv 18; הֵ֫מָּה in Is 32, Ez 8, Neh 9; in a relative clause, Gn 39, Is 24.—The personal pronoun of the 2nd pers. masc. (אַתָּה) is omitted in Hb 2; the 2nd fem. (אַתְּ) in Gn 20 (where, however, for the participle וְנׄכַ֫חַת the 2nd fem. perf. וְוֹכַ֫חַתְּ is to be read); the pronoun of the 1st sing. in Hb 1 (?), Zc 9, Mal 2; the 2nd plur. (אַתֶּם) 1 S 2 (if the text be right), 6:3, Ez 13 (?). But these passages are all more or less doubtful.
t Of a different kind are the cases in which some undefined subject is to be supplied with the participle; e.g. Is 21 אֵלַי קֹרֵא there is one calling unto me (= one calleth; § 144 d); cf. Is 30, 33.—So with participles in the plur., e.g. Ex 5 (אֹֽמְרִים sc. the taskmasters); Jer 38 (in 33:5 the text is corrupt), Ez 13 (?), 36:13, 37:11 (equivalent to sunt qui dicant). u 4. We must mention as a special class those noun-clauses which occur at the beginning of a period, and are intended to lay stress upon the fact that the first action still continues on the occurrence of the second (always introduced by וְ); e.g. Jb 1 f. עוֹד זֶה מְדַבֵּר וְזֶה בָא he was yet speaking, and (=when) another came, &c.[33]; cf. Gn 29, 1 S 9, 20, 1 K 14 she was entering the threshold of the house, when the child died; 2 K 2, 4, Dn 9 f.; also in Ju 19, 1 S 9, 17, 1 K 1, Jb 1 f., in all which passages the apodosis is introduced by וְהִנֵּה.—On the other hand, in 1 K 1 the noun-clause itself is introduced by הִנֵּה (as in verse 22 by וְהִנֵּה), and denotes an action only just impending.[34] Finally, when the whole sentence is introduced by means of וַיְהִי (cf. § 111 g), and the apodosis by וְהִנֵּה, Gn 42, 2 K 2, 13; without הִנֵּה in the apodosis, 1 S 7, 2 K 19 (Is 37).
v Participles active, which are used in the sense of the perfect participle, and also participles passive, in accordance with their meaning, express in such noun-clauses a state still continuing on the occurrence of the principal action, e.g. Gn 38 הִוא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָֽׁלְחָה she was being brought forth, when she sent, &c.; cf. Gn 50. [See further in Driver, Tenses, §§ 166–169.]
w 5. Different from the examples treated in u and v are the instances in which a participle (either alone or as the attribute of a noun) stands at the beginning of the sentence as a casus pendens (or as the subject of a compound noun-clause, see § 143 c) to indicate a condition, the contingent occurrence of which involves a further consequence; e.g. Gn 9 שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָֽאָדָם בָּֽאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ shedding man’s blood, i.e. if any one sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; Ex 21, ψ 75, Pr 17, Jb 41; so especially if כָּל־ every precedes the participle, Gn 4, 1 S 3 (2 K 21), 2 S 5 (whosoever smiteth), 1 Ch 11. The apodosis is very often introduced by וְ (wāw apodosis), e.g. Ex 12 (with a following perfect consecutive), Nu 35; 1 S 2 הַכֹּהֵן כָּל־אִישׁ זֹבֵחַ זֶ֫בַה וּבָא נַ֫עַר when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, &c.; 2 S 14 (participle with article); 22:41 (where, however, the text is to be emended in accordance with ψ 18); 2 S 23 f., Pr 23 Keth.; 29:9.—As in the instances discussed under u, such sentences are sometimes preceded by וַיְהִי, cf. 1 S 10, 11, 2 S 2 וַיְהִי כָּל־הַבָּא and it came to pass, that as many as came, &c. [or by וְהָיְה, frequentative, Ju 19].—On the other hand, וְהַנִּשְׁבֶּ֫רֶת Dn 8 is a mere catchword (equivalent to and as for that which was broken) to call to mind the contents of verse 8.
6. On the use of the participle after the infinitive absolute הָלוֹךְ cf. § 113 u.
x 7. Almost as a rule the participial construction beginning a sentence (like the infinitival constructions according to § 114 r) is continued by means of a finite verb with or without וְ, before which the English construction requires us to supply the relative pronoun implied in the participle; thus, continued by means of a perfect, Is 14 שָׂם תֵּבֵל כַּמִּדְבָּר וְעָרָיו הָרָ֑ס that made the world as a wilderness, and overthrew the cities thereof[35]; 43:7, Ez 22, ψ 136 ff., Pr 2; by a perfect without Wāw, Gn 49; by a simple imperfect (as the modus rei repetitae in the present), Is 5, 46, Pr 7, Jb 12, 19 ff., 24:21; by an imperfect without Wāw, e.g. 1 S 2, Is 5, Pr 2, 19; by an imperfect consecutive, Gn 27, 35, 1 S 2, Jer 13 (after several participles), ψ 18, 136f.
C. The Government of the Verb.
a 1. The simplest way in which a noun is subordinated to a verbal form is by the addition of an accusative of the object to a transitive verb.[36] In the absence of case-endings,[37] this accusative can now be recognized only from the context, or by the particle אֶת־ (אֵת, before suffixes also אֹת, אוֹת)[38] prefixed to it. The use of this nota accusativi is, however, somewhat rare in poetry, and even in prose it is not invariably necessary but is restricted to those cases in which the accusative of the object is more closely determined by being a proper name, or by having the article, or by a following determinate genitive (hence also by the suffixes), or in some other way (see below, c), e.g. Gn 4 and she bare אֶת־קַ֫יִן Cain; 6, 1 God created אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם וְאֵת הָאָ֫רֶץ the heaven and the earth (but 2 אֶ֫רֶץ וְשָׁמַ֫יִם); 1 and God made אֶת־חַיַּת הָאָ֫רֶץ the beast of the earth; 2.
b Rem. 1. The rare occurrence of the nota accusativi in poetic style (e.g. it never occurs in Ex 15, Dt 32[[:he:דברים לב |]], Ju 5[[:he:שופטים ה |]], 1 S 2[[:he:שמואל א ב |]], &c., though it is frequent in the late Psalms) may be explained from the fact that in this as in other respects (cf. § 2 q) poetry represents a somewhat more archaic stage of the language than prose. The need of some external means of indicating the accusative could only have been felt after the case-endings had become wholly extinct. Even then the את would probably have been used at first to indicate only an object placed before the verb (when it followed, it was already sufficiently characterized by its position as depending on the verb), or proper names.[39] Finally, however, the nota accusativi became so customary everywhere in prose, that even the pronominal object was expressed rather by את with suffixes than by verbal suffixes, even when none of the reasons mentioned under e can be assigned for it; cf. Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 258 ff., and the statistics of H. Petri, cited above at the head of § 58. Such examples as כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים Gn 6 in the Priestly Code, beside בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֫הוּ יְהֹוָה 7:5 in the Jahvist, are especially instructive.
c 2. As accusatives determined in other ways, we have in the first place to consider the collectives introduced by כֹּל entirety, without a following article or determinate genitive, inasmuch as the meaning of כֹּל includes a determinative sense, cf. e.g. Gn 1, 30, 8:21, Dt 2, 2 K 25. אֶת־כֹּל is used absolutely in Gn 9, cf. 39:23; similarly, מִי is determinate of itself, since it always denotes a person, hence אֶת־מִי quem? e.g. Is 6, 37, &c., but never אֶת־מָה quid? So also the relative אֲשֶׁר in the sense of eum qui or quem, &c., e.g. 1 S 16, or id quod, Gn 9, &c. Cf. also such examples as Jos 2, 1 S 24, where אֵת אֲשֶׁר is equivalent to the circumstance, that, &c.—Elsewhere אֵת stands before nouns which are determinate in sense, although the article is omitted, which according to § 126 h is very frequently the case in poetic or otherwise elevated style; thus Lv 26, Jos 24, 15, Is 41 (to distinguish the object from the subject); 50:4 (with the first of two accusatives, also for the sake of clearness); Ez 13, 43, Pr 13 (where the צַדִּיקִים are to be regarded as a distinct class); Jb 13 (unless, with Beer and others, we read וְאִם for וְאֶת־); also Ec 7 may be a quotation of an ancient maxim.
d On the other hand אֵת occurs very seldom in prose before a noun actually or apparently undetermined. In 1 S 24 כָּנָף is more closely defined by means of the following relative clause; in 2 S 4 אִישׁ צַדִּיק refers to Ishbosheth (as if it were him, who was an innocent man); in 1 K 6 עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה refers to the particular twenty cubits. In Ex 21 (otherwise in verse 29) perhaps the אֶת־ is used in order to avoid the combination שׁוֹר אִישׁ (as in Nu 21 to avoid the cacophony נָשַׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ אִישׁ?); in Lv 7 and 20:10 the accusatives are at any rate defined by the centext.—In Nu 16 אֶת־אַהַד מֵהֶם probably means even a single one (and then ipso facto a definite one) of them, as also in 1 S 9 אֶת־אַחַד מֵֽהַנְּעָרִים may refer to some definite one of the men-servants. In Gn 21 we should read אֶת־שֶׁ֫בַע הַכְּבָשׂת with the Samaritan, since the seven lambs have been already mentioned; in Ex 2 translate with Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 79, אֶת־בַּת־לֵוִי the daughter of Levi; in Ex 28 read הַשֹּׁ֫הַם with the Samaritan; in Lv 20 אֶת־אִשָּׁה is probably a scribal error due to וְאֶת־אִמָּה; in 1 S 26 read נַפְשִׁי with the LXX for פַּרְעשׁ אֶחָד; in 2 S 5 read הַצְּעָדָה as in 1 Ch 14; in 2 S 15 the אֶת־ is incorrectly inserted from 20:3, where it refers to the women already mentioned; in 2 S 18 read הַמַּצֶּ֫בֶת, or omit both אֶת־ and אֲשֶׁר with the LXX and Lucian; in 1 K 12 omit אֶת־; in 2 K 23 probably אֶת־עַצְמוֹתָם is to be read; in 2 K 25 the text is corrupt. In Ez 16 אֶת־זָרִים might refer to the strangers in question; but see Smend on the passage.
e 3. The pronominal object must be represented by את with a suffix (instead of a verbal suffix), when (a) it precedes the verb, e.g. Nu 22 אֹֽתְכָה הָרַ֫גְתִּי וְאוֹתָהּ הֶֽחֱיֵ֫יתִי I had slain thee and saved her alive; Gn 7, Lv 22, 1 S 8, Is 43, 57, Jer 4, 22, 7:19; (b) when a suffix is already attached to the verb, and as a rule when a second accusative with וְ follows, e.g. 2 S 15 וְהִרְאַ֫נִי אֹתוֹ and he will show me it; Ex 17 לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת־בָּנַי to kill us and our children; Nu 16, 1 S 5, 2 S 14 (but cf. also Dt 11, 15, &c., and Driver on 1 S 5); (c) after an infinitive absolute, see above § 113 a note; (d) after an infinitive construct, when it is immediately followed by the subject, e.g. Gn 41, or when the combination of a suffix with the infinitive might lead to a misunderstanding, e.g. Gn 4 לְבִלְתִּי הַכּֽוֹת־אֹתוֹ lest one should smite him, &c., where לְבִלְתִּי הַכּוֹתוֹ might also mean lest he should smite.
f 4. The pronominal object is very frequently omitted, when it can be easily supplied from the context; so especially the neuter accusative referring to something previously mentioned (the English it) after verba sentiendi (שָׁמַע) and dicendi, e.g. Gn 9, &c., וַיַּגֵּד and he told (it); also after נָתַן to give, Gn 18, 24, &c., לָקַח to take, הֵבִיא to bring, שִׂים to lay, Gn 9, &c., מָצָא to find, Gn 31, &c. A personal object is omitted, e.g. in Gn 12, 24 (after לָקַח.—The omission of the plural object is remarkable, because it leaves an opportunity for a misunderstanding, in Gn 37 שָׁמַ֫עְתּי אֹֽמְרִים[40] I heard them saying; perhaps, however, we should read שְׁמַעְתִּים with the Samaritan.
g 5. In common formulae the substantival object is also sometimes omitted (an elliptical expression); thus e.g. כָּרַת 1 S 20, &c. (see the Lexicon) stands for כָּרַת בְּרִית like the English to close (sc. a bargain) with any one; נָטַר to keep (sc. אַף anger) equivalent to to be resentful, ψ 103, &c.; so also שָׁמַר Jer 3 (beside נָטַר); נָשָׂא for נָשָׂא קוֹל to lift up the voice, Is 3; נָשָׂא לְ for נָשָׂא עָוֹן לְ to take away any one’s sin (to forgive), Gn 18, 26, Is 2; שָׁלַח to put forth (sc. יָד the hand) equivalent to to reach after something, 2 S 6, ψ 18.
h 6. Verba sentiendi may take a second object, generally in the form of a participle or adjective and necessarily indeterminate, to define more exactly the action or state in which the object is perceived, e.g. Nu 11 וַיִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה אֶת־הָעָם בֹּכֶה and Moses heard the people weeping; Gn 7 אֽתְךָ רָאִ֫יתִי צַדִּיק thee have I seen righteous. Frequently, however, the second object is expressed by a separate clause. This is especially frequent with רָאָה to see, e.g. Gn 1 and God saw the light, that it was good; Gn 6, 12, 13, 49, Ex 2, ψ 25, Pr 23, Jb 22, Ec 2, 8; so with יָדַע to know, Ex 32, 2 S 3, 17 (with two objects); 1 K 5.
i 7. In certain instances את serves apparently to introduce or to emphasize a nominative. This cannot be regarded as a reappearance of the original substantival meaning of the את, since all unquestionable examples of the kind belong to the later Books of the Old Testament. They are rather (apart from textual errors or other explanations) cases of virtual dependence on an implied verbum regens understood. The constant use of את to indicate a clause governed by the verb, necessarily led at length to the use of את generally as a defining particle irrespective of a governing verb. So in the Hebrew of the Mishna[41] (see above, § 3 a) אֹתוֹ and אֹתָהּ are prefixed even to a nominative without any special emphasis.
k Naturally the above does not apply to any of the places in which את is not the nota accusativi, but a preposition (on את with, cf. § 103 b), e.g. Is 57, 1 S 17 (וְאֶת־הַדּוֹב and that, with a bear; אֶת־ here, however, has probably been interpolated from verse 36, where it is wanting); nor the places in which the accusative is subordinate to a passive (according to § 121 c) or to a verb of wanting as in Jos 22 and Neh 9, see below, z. In Ez 43 סָבִיב about governs like a verb, being followed by אוֹתָהּ.
l Other cases are clearly due to attraction to a following relative pronoun in the accusative (Ez 14, Zc 8; but Hag 2a, to ממצרים, must be omitted, with the LXX, as a later addition), or the accusative depends on a verbal idea, virtually contained in what has gone before, and consequently present to the speaker’s mind as governing the accusative. Thus Nu 3 (the verbal idea contained in ומשמרת verse 25 is they had to take charge of); in Jos 17 ויהי לְ implies it was given up or they gave him; 1 S 26 is equivalent to search now for; in 2 S 11 אל־ירע בעיניך is used in the sense of noli aegre ferre[42]; Jer 36 he had the brazier before him; in Ec 4 a verb like I esteem is mentally supplied before אֵת אֲשֶׁר. On Jos 22, Neh 9, see below, aa.—Aposiopesis occurs in Dt 11 (do I mean); still more boldly in Zc 7, where either שְׁמַעְתֶּם or (תַּֽעֲשׂוּ) תִּשְׁמְעוּ is to be supplied.
m Setting aside a few undoubtedly corrupt passages[43] there still remain the following examples, in which אֶת־ in the later Hebrew manner (almost in the sense of the Latin quod attinet ad) introduces a noun with more or less emphasis, Nu 3, 5, 35, Ju 20, 46, Ez 17, 20, 35, 44, Neh 9, 34, Dn 9, 2 Ch 31.—In Ez 47–19 (cf. also 43:7) it is simplest to emend זֹאת for אֶת־, according to verse 20. However, even the LXX, who have ταῦτα only in verse 18, can hardly have known any other reading than את; consequently in all these passages את must be regarded as virtually dependent on some governing word, such as ecce (LXX 43:7 ἐώακας), and 47:17 ff. as equivalent to thou shalt have as a border, &c.
n 8. Another solecism of the later period is finally the introduction of the object by the preposition לְ (prop. in relation to, in the direction of), as sometimes in Ethiopic[44] and very commonly in Aramaic.[45]. Less remarkable is this looser connexion of the object with a participle, as with אָכַל La 4, אִסֵּף Nu 10, זָקַף ψ 145 (but cf. 146:8), צָרַר Nu 25, הִשְׂגִּיא and שָׁטַה Jb 12; before the participle Is 11.—To introduce an object preceding the finite verb לְ is employed in Jb 5 (cf. also Dn 11); also after אָהֵב Lv 19, 34; הֶֽאֱרִיךְ ψ 129; הִבְדִּיל Ezr 8, 2 Ch 25; הֵבִין Jb 9; בֵּרַךְ 1 Ch 29 (immediately before with an accusative); הִגְלָה 1 Ch 5; דָּרַשׁ Ezr 6, 1 Ch 22, 2 Ch 17; חֶֽהֱיָה Gn 45, where, however, read פְּלֵיטָה with the LXX for לפליטה and take לָכֶם as a dativus commodi; הִלֵּל 1 Ch 16, 2 Ch 5; הָרַג 2 S 3, ψ 135 (verse 10 with accusative), 136:19 f.; חָבַשׁ (to bind up) Is 61 (Ez 34 the verb); יָדַע ψ 69; כִּבֵּד ψ 86; לָקַח Jer 40, 2 Ch 23; הִמְלִיךְ and מָשַׁה 1 Ch 29; נֵהַל 2 Ch 28; סָמַךְ ψ 145; עָזַב 1 Ch 16; הֶֽעֱלָה Ez 26; פִּתַּח ψ 116; רָדַף Jb 19; הִצְדִּיק Is 53; שָׂכַר 2 Ch 24 (previously accusatives); שִׂים 1 S 22 (but probably וְכֻּלְּכֶם is to be read); הֵשִׁיב (in the connexion, הֵשִׁיב דָּבָר לְ) 2 Ch 10 (but verse 9 and 1 K 12 with an accusative); שִׁחֵת Nu 32, 1 S 23; שִׁית ψ 73; שָׁלַח Ezr 8, 2 Ch 2, 17; שָׁמַר 1 Ch 29, 2 Ch 5.
o 9. Sometimes the verb, on which an accusative of the object really depends, is contained only in sense in the verb which apparently governs, e.g. Is 14 אֲסִירָיו לֹא־פָתַח בָּֽיְתָה his prisoners he let not loose nor sent them back to their home. On this constructio praegnans in general, see § 119 ff.
p 2. With the proper accusatives of the object may also be classed what is called the internal or absolute object (also named schema etymologicum or figura etymologica), i.e. the addition of an object in the form of a noun derived from the same stem,[46] e.g. ψ 14 פָּֽחֲדוּ פַ֫חַד they feared a fear (i.e. they were in great fear), Pr 15; also with the object preceding, e.g. La 1 חֵטְא חָֽטְאָה יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם Jerusalem hath sinned a sin; with a double accusative (see below, cc), e.g. 1 K 1, אִֽיעָצֵךְ נָא עֵצָה let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel; 1 K 1.[47]
q Rem. (a) Strictly speaking the only cases of this kind are those in which the verbal idea is supplemented by means of an indeterminate substantive (see the examples above). Such a substantive, except in the case of the addition of the internal object to denominative verbs (see below), is, like the infinitive absolute, never altogether without force, but rather serves like it to strengthen the verbal idea. This strengthening is implied in the indeterminateness of the internal object, analogous to such exclamations as, this was a man![48] Hence it is intelligible that some intensifying attribute is very frequently (as in Greek usually) added to the internal object, e.g. Gn 27 וַיִּצְעַק צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה וּמָרָה עַד־מְאֹד he cried (with) an exceeding great and bitter cry; cf. the Greek νοσεῖν νόσον κακήν, ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην (Matt. 2:10); magnam pugnare pugnam, tutiorem vitam vivere, &c.
Examples of an internal object after the verb, and without further addition, are Ex 22, 2 S 12, Is 24, 35, 42, Ez 25), 26:15, 27:35, Mic 4, Zc 1, Pr 21; with an intensifying attribute, Gn 27, Ex 32, Ju 15, 2 S 13, 1 K 1 (cf. Jon 4, 1 Ch 29); Is 21, 45, Jon 1, Zc 1, 8a, Dn 11; along with an object proper the internal object occurs with an attribute in Gn 12, 2 S 13; cf. also Is 14, Jon 4.—An internal object without an attribute before the verb: Is 24, Jer 46, Hb 3, Jb 27; with an attribute before the verb: Jer 14, Zc 1 (cf. also Gn 30, Jer 22, 30, ψ 139). Instead of the substantive which would naturally be expected, another of kindred meaning is used in Zc 8.
r (b) Only in a wider sense can the schema etymologicum be made to include cases in which the denominative verb is used in connexion with the noun from which it is derived, e.g. Gn 1, 9, 11, 37, Ez 18, ψ 144, probably also Mi 2, or where this substantive, made determinate in some way, follows its verb, e.g. Gn 30, Nu 25, 2 K 4, 13, Is 45, La 3,[49] and, determinate at least in sense, Jer 22; or precedes it, as in 2 K 2, Is 8, 62, Zc 3; cf. also Ex 3. In both cases the substantive is used, without any special emphasis, merely for clearness or as a more convenient way of connecting the verb with other members of the sentence.
s 3. Verbs which denote speaking (crying out, weeping), or any external act, frequently take a direct accusative of the organ or means by which the action is performed. In this case, however, the accusative must be more closely determined by an attributive adjective or a noun in the genitive. This fact shows the close relation between these accusatives and the internal objects treated under p, which also, according to q, mostly take an intensifying attribute. On the other hand, they must not be regarded as adverbial (instrumental) accusatives, nor are they to be classed with the second (neuter) subjects treated below in § 144 l.
t Examples of the accusative following the verb are וָֽאֶזְעַק קֽוֹל־גָּדוֹל and I cried a loud voice, i.e. with a loud voice, Ez 11, 2 S 15 (after the proper object, Dt 5, 1 K 8); ψ 109 they have spoken unto me לְשׁוֹן שֶׁ֫קֶר a tongue of deceit, i.e. with a lying tongue; Pr 10 he becometh poor עשֶֹׁה כַף־רְמִיְּה dealing a slack hand, i.e. who dealeth with a slack hand; cf. the German eine schöne Stimme singen, to sing a fine voice, eine tüchtige Klinge schlagen, to smite a trusty sword, Schlittschuhe laufen, to run skates (i.e. to skate), and our to write a good hand, to play ball, &c.—Examples of the accusative preceding are שִֹׂפְתֵי רְנָנוֹת יְהַלֶּל־פִּי my mouth shall praise with joyful lips, ψ 63; cf. ψ 12, where a casus instrumenti with בְּ follows the accusative.
u 4. Many verbs originally intransitive (sometimes even in form; see a, note 2 may be used also as transitives, in consequence of a certain modification of their original meaning, which has gradually become established by usage; cf. e.g. רִיב to strive, but also with an accusative causam alicuius agere (so even in Is 1, &c.; elsewhere with לְ of the person for whom one strives); יָכֹל absolutely to be able, with an accusative to prevail over any one; חָפֵץ to be inclined and רָצָה to have pleasure (usually with בְּ), with an accusative to wish for some one or something; שָׁכַב cubare, then in the sense of concumbere, originally joined with עִם־ cum, but quite early also with the accusative, equivalent to comprimere (feminam), &c. So in 2 S 13, &c., unless in all or some of the passages the preposition אֵת is intended, e.g. אִתָּהּ for אֹתָהּ; in the earlier passages עִם־ is the more usual.
v Rem. 1. It is certainly difficult to decide whether some verbs, which were afterwards used absolutely or joined with prepositions, were not nevertheless originally transitive, and consequently it is only the supposed original meaning, usually assigned to them in English, which causes them to appear intransitive.[50] In that case there is of course no syntactical peculiarity to be considered, and a list of such verbs would at the most be requisite only for practical purposes. Moreover, it is also possible that certain verbs were originally in use at the same time both as transitive and intransitive, e.g. perhaps לָבֵשׁ to be clothed along with לָבַשׁ to put on (a garment). Finally the analogy of certain transitives in constant use may have led to intransitives of kindred meaning being also united directly with the accusative, so that, in other words, whole classes of verbs came to be regarded in a particular aspect as transitives. See below, y. w 2. The modification of the original meaning becomes especially evident when even reflexive conjugations (Niphʿal, Hithpaʿēl, &c.) take an accusative (cf. § 57, note 2); e.g. נִבָּא to prophesy, Jer 25; נָסַב (prop. to put oneself round) to surround, Ju 19; נִלְחַם to fight, ψ 109 (where, however, the Qal וַיִּלְחֲמ֫וּנִי should be read; cf. ψ 35); also הִתְגַּלַּח to shave (something) for oneself, Num 6:19; הִתְנַחֵל to take some one for oneself as a possession, Is 14; הִתְנַכֵּל to make some one an object of craft, Gn 37; הִתְנַצֵּל to strip a thing off oneself, Ex 33; הִתְעַבֵּר to bring on oneself the anger of any one, to anger him; הִתְבּוֹנֵן to consider something, Jb 37; הִתְפָּרֵק to break something off from oneself, Ex 32. In Gn 34 after הִתְחַתְּנוּ make ye marriages, read אִתָּ֫נוּ instead of אֹתָ֫נוּ. Cf. § 54 f.
x 3. So also it is only owing to a modification of the original meaning of a verb (except where the expression is incorrect, and perhaps derived from the popular language), when sometimes the remoter object (otherwise introduced by לְ) is directly subordinated in the form of an accusative suffix, e.g. Zc 7 הֲצוֹם צַמְתֻּ֫נִי אָ֫נִי did ye fast at all unto me, even to me? as though to say, have ye be-fasted me? have ye reached me with your fasting? Still more strange is Jb 31 גְּדֵלַ֫נִי כְאָב he (the orphan) grew up to me as to a father; cf. Is 27, 65, Jer 31, and in Aramaic Dn 5; but אֶ֫רֶץ הַנֶּ֫גְב נְתַתָּ֫נִי Jos 15 is to be regarded as a double accusative after a verb of giving, see ff. In 1 S 2 read וּפִלְלוּ for וּפִלְלוֹ; in Is 44, instead of the Niphʿal, read תִּנְשֵׁ֫נִי; in Ez 29 either עֲשִׂיתִיו is to be read with Olshausen or עֲשִׂיתִים (and previously יְאֹרָי) with Smend; in ψ 42 אֶדַּדֶּה or אֲדַדֵּם; in ψ 55 (where König takes יְהָֽבְךָ as he has given it to thee) we must certainly assume a substantive יְהָב (= fate?).
y 4. Whole classes of verbs, which, according to v above, are regarded as transitive, either on account of their original meaning or (for the sake of analogy) by a modification of that meaning, are—
(a) Verba induendi and exuendi, as לָבַשׁ to put on, פָּשַׁט to put off a garment, עָדָה to put on ornaments, to adorn oneself with (cf. also מְשֻׁבָּצִים זָהָב enclosed in gold, Ex 28). Also in poetic expressions such as ψ 65 לָֽבְשׁוּ כָּרִים הַצֹּאן the pastures are clothed with flocks, cf. ψ 109; 104:2 (עָטָה); 65:14b (עָטַף), &c.[51]
z (b) Verba copiae and inopiae (also called verba abundandi and deficiendi), as מָלֵא, to be full of something, Ex 8; here, and also frequently elsewhere, construed with אֶת־, and hence evidently with an accusative; Gn 6; with a personal object, Ex 15; with an accusative preceding the verb for the sake of emphasis, e.g. Is 1 your hands דָּמִים מָלֵ֫אוּ are full of blood, cf. Is 22; so also the Niph. נִמְלָא to fill oneself with something, e.g. Gn 6, Ex 1 (where the object is connected by את); Is 2 f., 6:4, Pr 3; נִזְרַע to be fructified with, Nu 5; שָׁרַץ to swarm with, Gn 1, 21 Ex 7; (שָׂבֵעַ) שָׂבַע to be full of, Is 1, Jo 2, Pr 12; גָּבַר to become strong, to wax mighty in something, Jb 21; פָּרַץ to overflow with something, Pr 3 (with the object preceding); יָרַד prop. to descend, poetically also to pour down, to overflow with something (cf. in Greek προρέειν ὕδωρ, δάκρυα στάζειν), e.g. La 3 פַּלְגֵי מַ֫יִם תֵּרַד עֵינִי mine eye runneth down (with) rivers of water; 1:16, Jer 9, 13, ψ 119; so also הָלַךְ to run over with, to flow with, Jo 4; נָזַל to gush out with, Jer 9; נָטַף to drop, to overflow with, Ju 5, Jo 4a; פָּרַח to break forth, Ex 9; שָׁטַף to overflow, but also (transitively) to overflow with, probably in Is 10; נוּב to bud with, Pr 10; so perhaps also עָבַר to pass over, to overflow with, Jer 5; יָצָא to go forth with, Am 5.—Especially bold, but still on the analogy of the above examples, is Is 5, where it is said of a vineyard וְעָלָה שָׁמִיר וָשָׁ֫יִת but it shall come up (it shall be overgrown) with briers and thorns; cf. Pr 24, and still more boldly, Is 34.
aa With the opposite idea, חָסֵר to be in want of, to lack, Gn 18; שָׁכֹל to be bereaved of (as though it were to lose), Gn 27.—In Jos 22 even הַמְעַט־לָ֫נוּ (prop. was there too little for us of ...?) as being equivalent to a verbum inopiae (= had we too little of ...?) is construed with an accusative; cf. Neh 9.
bb (c) Several verbs of dwelling; the accusative in this case expresses either the place or the thing at which or with which any one tarries; thus Gn 4, ψ 22 after יָשַׁב, cf. § 118 g; Ju 5, Is 33 after גּוּר; ψ 57 after שָׁכַב; ψ 68, Pr 8, Is 33 with שָׁכַן; or even the person (the people) with whom any one dwells or is a guest, as ψ 5, 120 after גּוּר, Gn 30 after זָבַל, ψ 68 with שָׁכַן.
cc 5. Two accusatives (usually one of the person and one of the thing) are governed by—
(a) The causative conjugations (Piʿēl, Hiphʿîl, sometimes also Pilpel, e.g. כִּלְכֵּל Gn 47, &c.) of verbs which are simply transitive in Qal, and hence also of verba induendi and exuendi, &c. (cf. above a and u, and also y, z), e.g. Ex 33 הַרְאֵ֫נִי נָא אֶת־כְּבֹדֶ֫ךָ show me, I pray thee, thy glory. Thus very frequently הוֹדִיעַ to cause some one to know something; לִמַּד docere aliquem aliquid, &c.; cf. further, Gn 41 וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ בִגְדֵי־שֵׁשׁ and he caused him to put on vestures of fine linen (he arrayed him in vestures, &c.); cf. in the opposite sense, Gn 37 (both accusatives after הִפְשִׁיט introduced by אֶת); so with מִלֵּא to fill, to fill up with something, Gn 21, 26, Ex 28; אִזֵּר to gird some one with something, ψ 18; עִטֵּר to crown, ψ 8, &c.; חִסֵּר to cause some one to lack something, ψ 8; הֶֽאֱכִיל to feed some one with something, Ex 16; הִשְׁקָה to make some one drink something, Gn 19 ff.
dd (b) Many verbs (even in Qal) which express an influence upon the object through some external means. The latter, in this case, is attached as a second object. They are especially—
ee (α) Verbs which express covering, clothing, overlaying, חָגַר Ex 29, צִפָּה Ex 26, &c., טוּחַ Ez 13 ff., עָטַר ψ 5; cf. also רָגַם אֶבֶן Jos 7, &c.; hence also verbs which express sowing (זָרַע Jud 9 Is 17 30:23), planting (Is 5), anointing (ψ 45) with anything.
ff (β) Expressions of giving, thus נָתַן Jos 15 where the accusative of the thing precedes; endowing, זָבַד Gn 30; and its opposite taking away, as קָבַע Pr 22; בֵּרַךְ to bless some one with something, Gn 49, Dt 15; to give graciously, חָנַן Gn 33; to sustain (i.e. to support, to maintain, to furnish) with anything, e.g. Gn 27, ψ 51 (סָמַךְ); Ju 19 (סָעַד); to do something to one, גָּמַל Gn 50, 17, 1 S 24; cf. also קִדֵּם to come to meet any one with something, ψ 21, שִׁלַּם to repay some one with something (with two accusatives, ψ 35, Pr 13), and for the accusative of the person cf. εὖ, κακῶς πράττειν τινά. In a wider sense we may also include such phrases as they hunt every man his brother with a net, Mi 7; to shoot at one with arrows, ψ 64 (though this is against the accents); Pr 13 (with) discipline, i.e. chastises him betimes, &c.
gg (γ) Expressions of asking some one for something, desiring something from some one (שָׁאַל Dt 14, ψ 137); answering any one anything (עָנָה Mi 6, &c.; cf. in the other conjugations הֵשִׁיב דָּבָר prop. verbum reddere, with an accusative of the person, 1 K 12, &c., also in the sense of announcing; sometimes also הִגִּיד to declare something to some one, Jb 26, &c., for הִגִּיד לְ); צִוָּה to enjoin a person something, Ex 34, Dt 1, 32, Jer 7.
hh (δ) Expressions which mean to make, to form, to build something out of something; in such cases, besides the accusative of the object proper, another accusative is used for the material of which the thing is made, e.g. Gn 2 וַיִּ֫יצֶר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה and the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground; so with יָצַר also in 1 K 7; further Ex 38 כָּל־כֵּלָיו עָשָׂה נְח֫שֶׁת all the vessels thereof made he of brass (for another explanation of the accusative נְח֫שֶׁת [into brass], linguistically possible but excluded by the context, see below, ii with kk); cf. Ex 25, 28, 26:1, 14 f.29, 27:1, 36:8, 1 K 7; with a preceding accusative of the material, Ex 25, 29, Dt 27 אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת תִּבְנֶה אֶת־מִזֳבַּח יְהֹוָה of unhewn stones shalt thou build the altar of the Lord.
ii (c) Verbs which express making, preparing, forming into anything, along with the object proper, take a second accusative of the product, e.g. Gn 27 אֶֽעֱשֶׂה אֹתָם מַטְעַמִּים I will make them (the kids) into savoury meat; cf. Gn 6, 16, Ex 261 b, 30:25, 32:4, Is 44, Ho 8, 1 K 18 אֶת־הָֽאֲבָנִים מִזְבֵּחַ וַיִּבְנֶה and he built the stones (into) an altar; cf. 10:12. So also אָפָה, with two accusatives, to bake something into something, Ex 12, Lv 24; שִׂים (prop. to set up for something, cf. Gn 27, 28, ψ 39, and similarly הֵרִים Gn 31) to change into something, Jos 8, Is 50, 51, Mi 1, 4; with two accusatives of the person (to appoint, promote any one to the position of a...), Is 3; נָתַן is also used in the same sense with two accusatives, Gn 17, and שִׁית 1 K 11; as a rule, however, the description of the office, and also frequently of the product, is introduced by לְ to, § 119 t; also שִׁית to make a thing so and so (Is 5, 26; with a personal object, ψ 21,[52] 91:9); הֶחְשִׁיךְ to make dark, Am 5. Of the same class also are instances like Jb 28 אֶ֫בֶן יָצוּק נְחוּשָׁה a stone they smelt into brass; 1 K 11 וַיִּקְרָעֶ֫הָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר קְרָעִים and rent it (the garment) into twelve pieces; cf. Is 37, accusative of the product before the object proper, after לְהַשְׁאוֹת to lay waste.
On a second object with verba sentiendi (as יָדַע to know something to be something, Ec 7; רָאָה to see, find to be, Gn 7; חָשַׁב to esteem one to be something, Is 53, elsewhere always construed with לְ or כְּ), cf. h.
kk Rem. At first sight some of the examples given above appear to be identical in character with those treated under hh; thus it is possible, e.g. in 1 K 18, by a translation which equally suits the sense, he built from the stones an altar, to explain מִזְבֵּחַ as the nearer object and אֶת־הָֽאֲבָנִים as an accusative of the material, and the construction would then be exactly the same as in Dt 27. In reality, however, the fundamental idea is by no means the same. Not that in the living language an accusative of the material in the one case, and in the other an accusative of the product were consciously distinguished. As Driver (Tenses, § 195) rightly observes, the remoter accusative in both cases is, strictly speaking, in apposition to the nearer. This is especially evident in such examples as Ex 20 (the stones of the altar) גָּזִית as hewn stones, cf. also Gn 1. The main point is, which of the two accusatives, as being primarily affected (or aimed at) by the action, is to be made the more prominent; and on this point neither the position of the words (the nearer object, mostly determinate, as a rule follows immediately after the verb), nor even the context admits of much doubt. Thus in 1 K 18 the treatment of the stones is the primary object in view, the erection of the altar for which they were intended is the secondary; in Dt 27 the case is reversed.
ll (d) Finally, the second accusative sometimes more closely determines the nearer object by indicating the part or member specially affected by the action,[53] e.g. ψ 3 for thou hast smitten all mine enemies לֶ֫תִי (as to) the cheek bone, equivalent to upon the cheek bone; cf. Gn 37 נֶ֫פֶשׁ in the life, i.e. let us not kill him; Dt 22, 2 S 3; also with שׁוּף Gn 3; with רָעָה Jer 2; in poetry the object specially concerned is, by a bold construction, even placed first, Dt 33 (with מָחַץ).
a 1. The various forms of the looser subordination of a noun to the verb are distinguished from the different kinds of the accusative of the object (§ 117) by their specifying not the persons or things directly affected by the action, but some more immediate circumstance under which an action or an event takes place. Of such circumstances the most common are those of place, time, measure, cause, and finally the manner of performing the action. These nearer definitions are, as a rule, placed after the verb; they may, however, also precede it.
b Rem. That the cases thus loosely subordinated to the verb are to be regarded as accusatives is seen first from the fact that in certain instances the nota accusativi (את) is prefixed; secondly from the fact that in one form of the casus loci a termination (־ָה) is employed, in which (according to § 90 c) the old accusatival ending is preserved; and finally from the consistency with which classical Arabic puts these nearer definitions in the accusative (which may be recognized by its form) even under circumstances in which one would be rather inclined to expect a nominative in apposition.
c The relation subsisting between the circumstantial accusative and the accusative of the object is especially apparent when the former (as e.g. in a statement of the goal after a verb of motion) is immediately connected with its verb. But even the more loosely connected circumstantial definitions are certainly to be regarded as originally objects of a governing word habitually omitted, only that the consciousness of this closer government was at length lost, and the accusative more and more acquired an independent value as a casus adverbialis.
d 2. The accusative serves to define more precisely the place (accus. loci), either (a) in answer to the question whither? after verbs of motion,[54] or (b) in answer to the question where? after verbs of being, dwelling, resting, &c. (but also after transitive verbs, see the examples), or finally (c) to define more precisely the extent in space, in answer to the question how far? how high? how much?, &c.
e Instead of the simple accusative, the locative (see above, § 90 c) [55] is frequently found in the cases mentioned under f (sometimes also in those under g) or the preposition אֶל־,[56] especially before persons as the aim of the movement, or בְּ, usually, to express being at a place.
f Examples of (a): נֵצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה let us go out into the field, 1 S 20; cf. Gn 27, 31, Jb 29; לָלֶ֫כֶת תַּרְשִׁישׁ to go to Tarshish, 2 Ch 20; cf. Gn 10, 13, 24, 26, 31, Ex 4, 17, Ju 1, 2 K 11, Na 1 (?), ψ 134; with לָקַח Nu 23; with נָתַן Jos 6; with the accus. loci emphatically preceding (cf. Driver on 1 S 5), 1 K 2, Is 23, Jer 2, 20, 32; with בּוֹא (in the sense of aggredi, equivalent to עַל־ בּוֹא, cf. § 117 a, note 2) the personal aim also is poetically added in the accusative, Ez 32, 38, Pr 10, 28, Jb 15, 20; but in the last passage it is better taken as an accusative of the object (cf. the German einen ankommen, überkommen). See also Nu 10 (where שׁוּב can hardly be transitive); Ju 11, 1 S 13 (where, however, אֶל־ has probably fallen out after ישראל; so Strack).—Finally, cf. also the use of אֲשֶׁר for אֲשֶׁר ... שָׁ֫מָּה whither, Nu 13.—The accus. loci occurs after a passive, e.g. Gn 12.
g Examples of (b): Gn 38 remain a widow בֵּית אָבִיךְ in thy father’s house; cf. Gn 24, 1 S 17, 2 S 2, Is 3, Hos 12, Mi 6, 2 Ch 33; פֶּ֫תַח הָאֹ֫הֶל in the tent door, Gn 18, 10, 19:11, and frequently. As observed by Driver on 1 S 2, accusatives of this kind are almost without exception (but cf. 1 K 8, Is 16, 28, 2 Ch 33) connected with a noun in the genitive. In all the above examples, however, the accusative may have been preferred to the natural construction with בְּ (which is not rare even with בֵּית and פֶ֫תַח) for euphonic reasons, in order to avoid the combination of such sounds as בְּב׳ and בְּפ׳; cf., moreover, Gn 2, 4, Ex 18, Lv 6 (הַמִּזְבֵּחַ instead of the usual הַמִּזְבֵּ֫חָה Ex 29, &c.); Dt 1, 19,[57] 2 S 17, 1 K 7, Pr 8, 9. On Is 1 see § 116 i; on יָּשַׁב, with the accus. loci, see § 117 bb. On the other hand, in Dt 6, according to the LXX, a verb of giving has dropped out before אֶ֫רֶץ.
h Examples of (c): Gn 7 fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; Gn 31, 41 רַק הַכִּסֵּא אֶגְדַּל מִמֶּ֫ךָּ only in the throne will I be greater than thou; Dt 1 we went (through) all that great and terrible wilderness; cf. Jb 29. Of the same kind also are such cases as Ex 16 (according to the number of your persons, for which elsewhere לְמִסְפַּר־ is used); 1 S 6 (with the accus. preceding); 6:18, 2 S 21, Jb 1.—A statement of weight is put in the accusative in 2 S 14.
i 3. The accusative is employed to determine more precisely the time (accus. temporis), (a) in answer to the question when? e.g. הַיּוֹם the day, i.e. on the day (in question), at that time, but also on this day, i.e. to-day, or finally by day, equivalent to יוֹמָם, like עֶ֫רֶב at evening, לַ֫יְלָה noctu, בֹּ֫קֶר in the morning, early, ψ 5, &c., צָֽהֳרַ֫יִם at noonday, ψ 91; יוֹם אֶחָד on one and the same day, Gn 27; שֵׁנָא in sleep, ψ 127; תְּחִלַּת קְצִיר שְׂעֹרִים (Qerê בִּתְ׳) at the beginning of barley harvest, 2 S 21; in stating a date, Gn 11, 14 in the thirteenth year.
k (b) In answer to the question how long? e.g. Gn 3, &c., כָּל־יְמֵי חַיֶּ֫יךָ all the days of thy life; 7:4 forty days and forty nights; 7:24, 14:4, 15:13, 21:34, 29:18, Ex 20 (for six days); 23:15, 31:17; עֽוֹלָמִים for ever, 1 K 8; also with the accusative made determinate, Ex 13 אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים throughout the seven days in question, mentioned immediately before; cf. Ju 14, Dt 9.
l 4. The accusative is sometimes used of abstract ideas to state the reason (accus. causae), e.g. Is 7 thou shalt not come thither יִרְאַת שָׁמִיר for fear of briers.
m 5. Finally the accusative is used very variously (as an accus. adverbialis in the narrower sense), in order to describe more precisely the manner in which an action or state takes place. In English such accusatives are mostly rendered by in, with, as, in the form or manner of ..., according to, in relation to, with regard to. For more convenient classification we may distinguish them as—
n (a) Adjectives expressing state, placed after the verb to describe more accurately some bodily or other external condition, e.g. Is 20 walking עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף naked and barefoot; cf. verse 3, 8:21, Gn 15, 33 (שָׁלֵם), Ju 8, Mi 1, ψ 107 (but in 15:2 תָּמִים is rather a substantive directly dependent on הוֹלֵךְ = he that walketh in uprightness; cf. § 117 r, note); Jb 30. After an accusative, e.g. Dt 15; to specify some mental state, e.g. Gn 37 (אָבֵל).—Before the verb (and then with a certain emphasis), Am 2, Jb 1, Ec 5; Lv 20, Jb 19, 27, 31 (unless יָקָר be a substantive); Ru 1 (מְלֵאָה parallel with the adverb רֵיקָם). In Mi 2 the text is clearly corrupt.
o Those examples are especially instructive in which the adjective expressing a state, although referring to several, is nevertheless used in the singular, e.g. Jb 24 עָרוֹם הִלְּכוּ naked, i.e. in the condition of one naked, they go about; cf. verse 7 and 12:17. In Is 20 the singular occurs after a plural object, and in Is 47 the masc. after the 2nd sing. fem. imperative, which clearly proves that the term expressing the state is not conceived as being in apposition, but as an indeclinable adverb.
p (b) Participles, again either after the verb, Nu 16, Jer 2, 43, ψ 7, Jb 24, Ct 2, or before it, Gn 49, Is 57, Ez 36, ψ 56, 92, Pr 20; cf. also the substantival use of the participles Niphʿal נֽוֹרָאוֹת in a fearful manner (ψ 139) and נִפְלָאוֹת in a wonderful manner, Jb 37, Dn 8.—Also participles in connexion with genitives, as מִתְהַלֵּךְ Gn 3 (cf. also בָּאָה 1 K 14), are to be regarded as expressing a state and not as being in apposition, since in the latter case they would have to take the article.—In 2 S 13, 1 K 7 and Hb 2 the explicative Wāw (equivalent to and that too) is also prefixed to the participle. In ψ 69 for מְיַחֵל read מִיַּחֵל.—On 1 K 11, 2 K 10, 19, Hag 1, cf. the note on § 131 h.
q (c) Substantives[58] in the most varied relations: thus, as describing an external state, e.g. Mi 2 וְלֹא תֵֽלְכוּ רוֹמָה neither shall ye walk haughtily (as opposed to שְׁחוֹחַ Is 60); Lv 6 (accus. before the verb=as unleavened cakes), Dt 2, 4, Ju 5, Is 57, Pr 7, Jb 31, La 1; as stating the position of a disease, 1 K 15 he was diseased אֶת־רַגְלָיו in his feet (2 Ch 16 בְּרַגְלָיו), analogous to the cases discussed in § 117 ll and § 121 d (d); as describing a spiritual, mental, or moral state, e.g. Nu 32, Jos 9 (פֶּה אֶחָד with one accord, 1 K 22; cf. Ex 24, Zp 3), 1 S 15, 2 S 23, Is 41 (unless שָׁלוֹם is adjectival, and the passage is to be explained as in n); Jer 31, Ho 12, 14, ψ 56, 58, 75, Pr 31, Jb 16, La 1; Lv 19, &c., in the expression הָלַךְ רָכִיל to go up and down as a tale-bearer; also בֶּ֫טַח unawares, Gn 34, Ez 30; מֵֽישָׁרִים uprightly, ψ 58, 75 (in both places before the verb); as stating the age, e.g. 1 S 2 (if the text be right) יָמ֫וּתוּ אֲנָשִׁים they shall die as men, i.e. in the prime of life; cf. 1 S 2 (נַ֫עַר), Is 65, and Gn 15; as specifying a number more accurately, Dt 4, 1 S 13, 2 K 5, Jer 31 [in Jer 13 שְׁלוֹמִים wholly (?) is corrupt; read גָּלוּת שְׁלֵמָה with LXX for הָגְלָת שׁ׳]; as stating the consequence of the action, Lv 15, &c.
r The description of the external or internal state may follow, in poetry, in the form of a comparison with some well-known class, e.g. Is 21 וַיִּקְרָא אַרְיֵה and he cried as a lion; cf. ψ 22, Is 22 (כַּדּוּר like a ball); Is 24, Zc 2, ψ 11 (unless צִפּוֹר be vocative); 58:9 b (unless the force of the preceding כְּ is carried on, as in ψ 90); ψ 144, Jb 24 (פְּרָאִים, before the verb); 41:7 shut up together as with a close seal.[59]
s 6. To the expressions describing a state belong finally those nouns which are introduced by the comparative particle כְּ,[60] since the כְּ is to
- ↑ In Arabic also, the intensifying infinitive regularly stands after the verb, but in Syriac before the verb.
- ↑ Also in Ez 1 for the distorted form רצוא reads simply יָֽצְאוּ יָצוֹא.
- ↑ Cf. in French, Le mal va toujours croissant, la maladie va toujours en augmentant et en empirant, ‘continually increases and becomes worse and worse.’
- ↑ Cf. Rieder, Quo loco ponantur negationes לֹא et אַל... (Zeitschrift für Gymn.Wesen, 1879, p. 395 ff.).
- ↑ In three passages even the infinitive absolute of another stem of like sound occurs; but in Is 28 אָדוֹשׁ is no doubt a mere textual error for דּוֹשׁ, and in Jer 8, according to § 72 aa, we should read אֹֽסְפֵם, and in Zp 1 אֹסֵף. Barth, Nom.-bildung, § 49 b, sees in אַדוֹשׁ and אַסוֹף infinitives Hiphʿîl, exactly corresponding in form to ʾaqâm[ā] the Aram. infin. ʾAphʿēl of קוּם; but there is no more evidence for a Hiph. of דּוּשׁ in Hebrew than for a stem אָדַשׁ.
- ↑ On these substantives (and on the use of the infinitive absolute generally as absolute object, see above, m), cf. the schema etymologicum treated in connexion with the government of the verb in § 117 p, q.
- ↑ In Ez 7 a perfect appears to be continued by means of an infinitive construct; but the text is quite corrupt; Cornill reads תִּקְעוּ תָקוֹעַ הָכִ֫ינוּ הָכֵן.
- ↑ Cf. also such infinitives in French as voir (page so and so, &c.), s’adresser..., se méfier des voleurs!
- ↑ Prätorius, op. cit., p. 547: the extraordinarily common use of the infinitive form qāṭōl in the sense of an imperative, jussive, or cohortative has long since caused it to be compared with the Arab. faʿāli. It thus appears that the infin. qāṭōl in Hebrew could be used from early times as a kind of fixed, invariable word of command.
- ↑ In Ez 21, for the infinitives construct הָסִיר, הָרִים, הַשְׁפִּיל (beside הַגְבֵּהַּ) read with Cornill the infinitives absolute הָסֵר, &c. The Kethîbh probably intends הָסֵיר, &c.
- ↑ In 2 S 3 the infinitive construct appears to be used instead of the cohortative, but אוֹשִׁיעַ should certainly be read for הוֹשִׁיעַ. Also in 1 K 22 (2 Ch 18), which was formerly included under this head (I will disguise myself and go into the battle), read אֶתְחַפֵּשׂ וְאָֹבא.
- ↑ In Jb 34 in a similar question instead of the infinitive constr. we should rather expect the infinitive absolute (הֶאָמֹר), unless with the LXX and Vulg. the participle with the article (הָֽאֹמֵר) is to be read.
- ↑ Cf. § 45 g, according to which the close union of the לְ with the first consonant of the infinitive (לִכְתֹּב with a firmly closed syllable, as opposed to בִּכְתֹב, כִּכְתֹב, &c.) seems to point to the formation of a special new verbal form. Quite distinct are the few examples where the infinitive with לְ serves to express time, as Gn 24 לִפְנוֹת עָ֫רֶב at the eventide (prop. at the time of the return of evening); cf. Dt 23, Ex 14, Ju 19; 2 S 18 when Joab sent the king’s servant.
- ↑ P. Haupt (SBOT., Proverbs, p. 52, lines 10 ff.; Critical Notes on Esther, p. 170, on 7:8) considers it possible that here and in Pr 2, 6, 7, 16, 30, as well as in 14:35, 17:21 before a noun, the ל is a survival of the emphatic ל with an imperf., which is especially common in Arabic. In that case לִמְצֹא must be read לִמְצָא, i.e. ל##יִמַצָא. But all the above instances can be taken as infinitives with ל without difficulty.
- ↑ Somewhat different are the cases where הָיָה לְ with the infinitive (which is then used exactly as a substantive) implies to become something, i.e. to meet with a particular fate, as Nu 24 (cf. Is 5, 6) לְבָעֵר for wasting, for which elsewhere frequently לְשַׁמָּה and the like; probably also לְבַלּוֹת ψ 49 is to be explained in this way, the הָיָה being omitted.
- ↑ 2 S 4 (cui dandum erat mihi) appears to be similar; it may, however, be better, with Wellhausen, to omit the אֲשֶׁר.
- ↑ But in 1 S 23 after וְלָ֫נוּ and our part shall be the infinitive without לְ stands as the subject of the sentence.
- ↑ Quite different of course are such cases as Is 37 וְכֹחַ אַ֫יִן לְלֵדָה and there is not strength to bring forth; cf. Nu 20, Ru 4.
- ↑ In 2 S 14 אִשׁ (= יֵשׁ it is, there is) is used in a similar sense after אִם, the negative particle of asseveration, of a truth it is not possible to turn to the right hand or to the left.
- ↑ This view is based upon the fact, that in numerous expressions of this kind (see the examples above) the לְ may be omitted, and the infinitive consequently stand as an actual accusative of the object (see above, c). However, the connexion of the verb with the object is in the latter case closer and more emphatic (hence especially adapted to poetic or prophetic diction), than the looser addition of the infinitive with לְ; thus לֹא אָבוּ שְׁמוֹעַ Is 28 is equivalent to they desired not obeying (לֹא אָבוּ also with the infin. abs. in Is 42; cf. § 113 d); but לֹא אָבוּ לִשְׁמֹעַ Ez 20 rather expresses they could not make up their mind as to hearkening. When connected with לְ, the governing verb has a more independent sense than when it directly governs the accusative of the object.
- ↑ In almost all these examples the principal idea is properly contained in the infinitive, whilst the governing verb strictly speaking contains only a subordinate adverbial statement, and is therefore best rendered in English by an adverb; e.g. Gn 27 how is it that thou hast found it so quickly? (prop. how thou hast hastened to find!), Gn 31 wherefore didst thou flee secretly? So frequently with הִרְבָּה (= often, abundantly), Ex 36, 1 S 1, 2 K 21, Is 55, Am 4, ψ 78, &c.; with שׁוּב (= again), Dt 30, 1 K 13, Ho 11, Ezr 9; cf. also 2 S 19, Jer 1, Jn 4, and the analogous instances in § 120 g; also 2 K 2 thou hast asked a hard thing.
- ↑ לֵאמֹר is very often so used after וַיְדַבֵּר in the Priestly document (Gn 8, 17, &c., and numberless times in the legal parts of Exod., Lev., and Num.)—a pleonasm which is not surprising considering the admittedly prolix and formal style of the document.
- ↑ When Delitzsch on ψ 104, referring to Hb 1, explains the infinitive with לְ as an elliptical mode of expressing the coniugatio periphrastica (equivalent to flagitaturi sunt a deo cibum suum), this is, in point of fact, certainly applicable to this and a few other places mentioned above; but all these passages, in which the infinitive with וּלְ follows, are to be distinguished from the cases treated above under h, where the infinitive with לְ without Wāw corresponds to a Latin gerundive, or is actually used to express the coniugatio periphrastica.
- ↑ The great frequency of examples of this kind, especially in the poetical books, is due to a striving after what is called chiasmus in the arrangement of the parallel members in the two halves of the verse, i.e. in the instances given, the finite verb at the end of the second (co-ordinate) clause is parallel with the infinitive at the beginning of the first. In this way the verbal form necessarily became separated from the וְ, and consequently the imperfect had to be used instead of the perfect consecutive. Such a parallelism of the external and internal members of a verse is frequent also in other cases, and was evidently felt to be an elegance of elevated—poetic or prophetic—style.
- ↑ For examples of the accus. of the object with a pass. infin., see § 121 c.
- ↑ In Gn 24 the subject of כִּרְאֹת is wanting (but כְּשָׁמְעוֹ follows); the original reading was undoubtedly כִּרְאֹתוֹ, and the text is now in a state of confusion; verse 30a should come before verse 29b. In Gn 19, 25, Ex 9, 13, 1 S 18, Jer 41, ψ 42 the subject, although not indicated, is easily supplied from the context. The infinitive in such cases is best rendered in English by a passive.
- ↑ In Arabic, where the case-endings leave no doubt as to the construction, it is equally possible to say either qatlu Zaidin (gen. of subj.) ʿAmran (acc.), literally Zaid’s killing ʿAmr, or qatlu ʿAmrin (gen. of obj.) Zaidun (nom. of subj.), or even el-qatlu (with article) Zaidun (nom. of subj.) ʿAmran (acc. of obj.).
- ↑ Such examples as נוֹרָא, נֶחְמָד, מְהֻלָּל show plainly the origin of this gerundive use of the participle passive. A person or thing feared, desired, or praised at all times is shown thereby to be terrible, desirable, or praiseworthy, and therefore also to be feared, &c.
- ↑ On the other hand, in Is. 11 as the waters לַיָּם מְכַסִּים covering the sea, the ל serves only to introduce the object preceding the participle [cf. the Arabic parallels cited by Driver, Tenses, § 135, 7 Obs.]. Cf. Hab. 2:14.
- ↑ When, as in Jb 40, the participle with the noun-suffix הָֽעשֹׁוֹ he that made him, also has the article (cf. § 127 i), the anomaly is difficult to understand, since a word determined by a genitive does not admit of being determined by the article.—No less remarkable is the use of the constr. st. of the participle before the accusative in Jer 33 מְשָֽׁרְתֵי אֹתִי that minister unto me (for which there is מְשָֽׁרְתַי in verse 21). In Am 4 an accusative of the product follows the genitive of the object, עשֵֹׁה שַׁחַר עֵיפָה maker of the morning into darkness. In Jer 2 בְּעֵת מֽוֹלִכֵךְ is supposed to mean at the time when he led thee; perhaps the perfect (הוֹל׳) should be read as in 6:15. In Ez 27, the ancient versions read נִשְׁבַּרְתְּ (ה)עַתָּ now thou art broken, instead of the difficult עֵת נִשְׁבֶּ֫רֶת. In 1 K 20 read עשֶֹׁה before הֵ֫נָּה וָהֵ֫נָּה.
- ↑ On the proper force of this accusative when retained in the passive construction cf. below, § 117 cc, &c., and § 121 c, d. So also Neh 4 is to be understood, and the builders were אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ אֲסוּרִים עַל־מָתְנָיו girded every one with his sword on his side, and building.
- ↑ A jussive is practically to be supplied also in the formulae of blessing and cursing, בָּרוּךְ blessed be ... Gn 9, &c.; אָרוּר cursed art thou ... 3:14, &c.
- ↑ The independent noun-clause here lays stress upon the simultaneous occurrence (and consequently the overlapping) of the events far more forcibly than could be done by a subordinate expression of time (as e.g. וַיְהִי בְדַבְּרוֹ). In English it may be represented by scarcely had he finished speaking when. ... As the above examples show, the apodosis also frequently consists of a noun-clause.
- ↑ At the same time the preceding עוֹד still shows that what is announced is not merely a future event, but a future event contemporaneous with something else; the case thus entirely differs from the examples given in § 112 t, where הִנֵּה refers to the following participle, while here it belongs properlyto the apodosis, before which it is therefore generally placed; see the examples.
- ↑ On the parallelism between the external and internal members, which appears here and in many other examples of this kind, see the note on § 114 r.
- ↑ The verb in question may either have been originally transitive, or only have become transitive by a modification of its original meaning. Thus the vocalization shows that חָפֵץ (to have pleasure, usually with בְּ) to desire, מָלֵא (to be full of something, also transitive) to fill, were originally intransitive. Cf. also such cases as בָּכָה to weep (generally with עַל־, אֶל־ or לְ), but also to bewail with an accusative; יָשַׁב to dwell (usually with בְּ), but also to inhabit with an accusative (cf. further, under u).—The examples are different in which verbs of motion such as בּוֹא intrare, also aggredi, יָצָֹא egredi (cf. § 116 h above), שׁוּב redire, Is 52, take an accusative of the aim of the motion, while בּוֹא according to the Old Semitic usage, even takes an accusative of the person (at least in poetry, equivalent to בּוֹא אֶל־ in prose).
- ↑ On traces of these endings, especially the remains of a former accusative ending in a, cf. § 90 c.
- ↑ אֶת־ (toneless owing to the following Maqqeph), and אֵת (with a tone-long ē, אֵֽת־ only in Jb 41), אֹת or אוֹת before the light suffixes (on all these forms cf. § 103 b: the underlying form āth was obscured in Hebrew to ôth, shortened to ăth before suffixes beginning with a consonant and then modified to אֶת־, whence finally the secondary form אֵת with the tone), Phoenician אית i.e. probably iyyāth (for the Phoenician form, cf. G. Hoffmann, Einige phönik. Inschriften, Göttingen, 1889, p. 39 f.), Punic yth or (according to Euting) pronounced even as a mere prefixed t, Arabic, before suffixes, ’iyyâ, Aram. יָת, יַת. It was no doubt originally a substantive, meaning essence, substance, self (like the Syriac yāth; on the other hand, any connexion with the Hebrew אוֹת, Syriac ’āiā, Arabic ’āyat, a sign, must, with Nöldeke, ZDMG. xl. 738, be rejected), but now united in the construct state with a following noun or suffix stands for the pronoun ipse, αὐτός. In common use, however (cf. Wilson, ‘The particle את in Hebrew,’ Hebraica, vi. 2, 3, and the precise statistics of the use of את on p. 140 ff.), it has so little force (like the oblique cases αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, αὐτόν, sometimes also ipsius, ipsum, and the Germ. desselben, &c.) that it merely serves to introduce a determinate object; אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם prop. αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν (cf. αὐτὴν Χρυσηΐδα, Iliad i. 143) is no stronger than the simple הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם τὸν οὐρανόν. Cf., further, P. Haupt on Pr 18 in his Rainbow Bible, and also in the Notes on Esther, p. 191.
- ↑ Thus, in Dt 33, את occurs only in verse 9 (twice, with an object preceding the verb), in Gn 49 in the blessing of Jacob only in verse 15 with a co-ordinate second object (consequently farther removed from the verb). Of the thirteen instances of את in the Mêša‛ inscription, seven stand directly and four indirectly before proper names.
- ↑ According to the ordinary rules of syntax (cf. § 116 t) we should translate, I heard men who said, &c.
- ↑ Cf. Weiss, משפט לשון המשנה (Vienna, 1867), p. 112.
- ↑ So also in 1 S 20 the Qal (יִיטַב) is, with Wellhausen, to be read instead of the Hiphʿîl.
- ↑ Thus 1 S 26, where וְאֵי is to be read for וְאֶת; 1 K 11, where at present the predicate of the relative clause is wanting; in 2 K 6 the את is probably derived from a text which read the Hiphʿîl instead of נָפַל. In Jer 23 instead of the artificial explanation what a burden (is, do ye ask?) we should read with the LXX and Vulg. אַתֶּם הַמַּשָּׂא ye are the burden. In Ez 10 מַרְאֵיהֶם וְאוֹתָם is unintelligible; in 37:19 read with Hitzig אֶל־ for את; in Hag 2 for אתכם read with the LXX שֻֽׁבְכֶם [or אֵינְכֶם; for the אֶל cf. 2 K 6, Jer 15, Ez 36].
- ↑ Dillmann, Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache, p. 349.
- ↑ With regard to Biblical Aramaic, see Kautzsch’s Grammatik des Bibl.-Aram., p. 151 f. In other ways, also, a tendency may be observed in later Hebrew to make use of the looser connexion by means of prepositions instead of the closer subordination of the noun in the accusative.
- ↑ On a kindred use of the infinitive absolute as an internal object, see above, § 113 w.
- ↑ Cf. βουλὰς βουλεύειν, Iliad x. 147.
- ↑ The Arab grammarians assign to the indeterminate eases generally an intensive sense in many instances; hence the commentators on the Qorân usually explain such cases by adding and what ...! see § 125 b.
- ↑ Also in ψ 13 lest I sleep the sleep of death, הַמָּ֫וֶת is only used pregnantly for שְׁנַת הַמָּ֫וֶת (cf. Jer 51), as צְדָקוֹת Is 33 for דֶּ֫רֶךְ צְדָקוֹת. On the similar use of הֹלֵךְ תָּמִים in ψ 15, see § 118 n.
- ↑ Thus e.g. עָנָה to reply to (ἀμείβεσθαί τινα), to answer any one; צִוָּה to command (iubere aliquem); זָכַר to remember; קִוָּה (also with לְ) to wait for any one (to expect any one); בִּשַֹׂר to bring glad tidings to any one (see the Lexicon); נָאַף and נִאֵף to commit adultery (adulterare matronam); עָבַד to serve (colere); עָרַב to become surety for ..., and many others.
- ↑ From the idea of covering oneself with something, we might also, if necessary, explain Ex 30 יִרְחֲצוּ מַיִם they shall wash themselves with water; but the reading is simply to be emended to the ordinary בַּמַּיִם.
- ↑ Cf. a very pregnant expression of this kind in ψ 21 כִּי תְשִׁיתֵ֫מוֹ שֶׁ֫כֶם for thou shalt make them (as) a neck, i.e. thou shalt cause them to turn their necks (backs) to me; similarly ψ 18 (2 S 22, Ex 23); אֹֽיְבַי נָתַ֫תָּה לִּי עֹרֶף thou hast given mine enemies unto me as a back; cf. Jer 18.
- ↑ Analogous to this is the σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος in Greek epic poetry, e.g. ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγε ἕρκος ὀδόντων.
- ↑ So commonly in Sanskrit; in Greek only poetically, e.g. Iliad i. 317 κνίση δ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν: in Latin, e.g. rus ire, Romam proficisci.
- ↑ Hence e.g. in 1 S 9 the Masora requires הַגָּ֫גָה instead of the Keth. הַגָּג.
- ↑ So in Ju 19 for אֶת־בֵּית י׳ the better reading is אֶל־בּ׳.
- ↑ In ψ 2 דֶּ֫רֶךְ is not to be taken as an accus. loci (on the way), but as an accus. of respect (with regard to the way); see below, m.
- ↑ Cf. above, § 100 c, on certain substantives which have completely become adverbs; and § 113 h and k on the adverbial use of the infinitive absolute.
- ↑ It is, as a matter of fact, permissible to speak of the above examples as comparatio decurtata, but it must not be assumed that the comparative particle כְּ, which is otherwise regularly prefixed (see s), has actually dropped out.
- ↑ On the use of כְּ as a prefix, cf. § 102 c.