With the singular suffixes, the plural nouns take a before the i, but this a is weakened when the singular suffix is an additional syllable after the i. With the plural suffixes, the plural nouns change this a to e; both a and e expressing an extension of the stem by plurality, but e being a weaker expression of it, because it is less distinctly thought in the effort of connection with the heavier plural elements; thus sus, my horse; sus a'i, my horses; susō, his horse; sus'a'i'v, his horses; suse kem, your horse; sūsēïkem, your horses; sus alī, my mare ; sūsō¤1a'i, my mares; sus ã¤1ō, his mare; sūs ō0'a iv, his mares; sus ale kem, your mare; sūs ō¤·ērkem, your mares; see the Syriac suffixes to plural nouns (51). 1 It seems from this that the e, which is the termination of the construct state of the masculine plural and of the dual, consists of two parts, e denoting the number, and i the connection, as in the old forms referred to above (83). This element ei, though it served to connect feminine plurals with the plural suffixes, beginning as they do with a consonant, and requiring, therefore, a connective vowel, was not needed in forming the construct state of feminine plurals; for not only was the plurality which it expressed already expressed in the noun, but it was also connected with the genitive by the abbreviated utterance of the noun; whereas when the masculine plural in the construct state dropped the plural ending, there was no expression of its plurality, and this had to be expressed and connected. That the masculine plural ending should be dropped, was due probably to the same cause which in Arabic required that na of the masculine plural and ni of the dual should be dropped before a genitive (60). In consequence of this the masculine pluralis sanus in Arabic loses the expression of its plurality before a genitive, while the feminine retains it; but there is no connective element needed by the former, because the genitive has its case ending to express the connection. The various vowel changes which nouns experience in Hebrew in the construct state, and in taking the personal suffixes and the elements of number, are due mainly to the euphonic laws which depend on the nature of the syllable and the position of the accent.2 And the extent to which such laws determine the vowels in Hebrew makes a great and far-reaching difference between it and Arabic. For it shows that Hebrew had lost the fine sense of the significance of the vowels which still lived in Arabic, and which must have been present when this family of languages came into being. 85. The Hebrew numerals agree in form and use with the Arabic (63), the cardinals 3 to 10 having a feminine form with a masculine noun, and not with a feminine.3 Hebrew has still fewer pure elements of relation than Arabic, scarcely more than six proper prepositions; with which nouns are often used to denote relations, e.g., which the Lord commanded, beyad Mōseh, by the hand of Moses. There are hardly any conjunctions except the copulative. The proper adverbs also are very few.4 The interrogative prefix ha- seems to correspond to Arabic ha-4 (64). 1 Gesenius, sect. 89. 3 Ibid. sect. 95. 2 Ibid. sect. 90. 3. 4 Ibid. sects. 97-102, 150. 86. In the derived nouns mentioned in 81, as in some similar formations in Arabic, there is an analysis of ideas into a root and an added element. But such formations are few in either language, the tendency being to express ideas as single wholes. In consequence of this tendency, what in other languages is expressed by an adjective or substantive which is formed from a substantive by means of a derivative element, is in these languages often expressed by a substantive master of dreams governed as genitive by another substantive (49), as bajal hazalōmōl, man master of hair dreamer; his bagal segar, hairy man.1 Here we have a governing substantive instead of a derivative element, the mind being inapt to think such an element as part of an idea. The same inaptitude for thinking fine elements separately may be seen in the use of substantives to express self as a separate element, as nefes, soul, qereb, inner part, &c.2 (see 92, 111, 116). None of these are appropriated to this meaning so as to be reduced to it by use, but all retain their other applications and consequently their native fulness of idea. 87. In Hebrew, as in Arabic (66), there is a want of adjectives, the quality being apt to be expressed as a substantive governed by that to garments of art. holiness which it belongs, as bigdrei ha qōdes, the holy garments.3 Not unfrequently also the genitive construction stands in the place of virgin of daughter people my apposition (66), as belula bath jammi, virgin daughter of my people. The adverbial accusative (66) cannot be distinctly made out in Hebrew, probably because the sense of relation was so weak that this use of the noun was not distinguished in thought from its use as object or effect,5 the connection of the verb with the noun not being distinctly thought. But an infinitive following the verb as an accusative is used to affect it adverbially (92), supplementing it with a thought of what it realises, or a verb preceding another verb is used as auxiliary, supplementing the latter with an antecedent subjective process. The first verb may govern the second in the infinitive or be only connected with it (98, Ex. 11-13). 88. The governing noun is so far merged in the governed that sometimes its plural is expressed by the plural of the latter; and a possessive suffix referring to the whole idea is attached to the genitive, mount holiness my as har gods, my holy mount. And, as in Arabic (69), it is man of made definite by affecting with the article the governed noun, as his war men of art. war milzāmāh, a man of war; hansei ham milzāmāh, the men of war; word of art. prophet debar han nabi, the word of the prophet 8 (98, Ex. 18). In general, as always in Arabic, the article is inapplicable to a noun governing a genitive or affected with a possessive suffix; but sometimes it is so 1 Gesenius, sect. 104. 2. 4 Ibid. sect. 112. 3. 7 Ibid. sects. 106. 3, 119. 6. 2 Ibid. sect. 122. 1. 5 Ibid. sects. 116, 135. 8 Ibid. sect. 109. 2 Ibid. sect. 104. 1. 6 Ibid. sect. 139. 3d sing. suff. art. used to give demonstrative force, as xet'y 0, a half thereof; ha Xet'yo, the (other) half thereof; and when the genitive is a proper art. altar of Bethel name, as ham mizbax bēioḥēl, the altar of Bethel.1 These exceptional applications of the article to a governing noun show that the noun is not so merged in the genitive as it is in Arabic (69). This appears art. altar of art. brass also in such constructions as ham'mizbax han nexōsee, the altar of bearing of art. ark art. covenant 1 brass; noseḥēi hāḥāron hab · berie, bearing the ark of the covenant; in the former of these, if not in the latter, the second article must refer to the governing noun to connect it with the genitive. In rare instances a word is found to intervene between a genitive and its governor, which is not permitted in Arabic. Also the constructions part of art. field man of art. tilled ground Xelqao has sadeh, a part of the field, and his hāḥadāmāh, a husbandman, though exceptional, like the preceding, indicate that the governing noun is less merged in the genitive than in Arabic, the correlation not being thought as so close. The usual construction when the governor is indefinite and the other noun definite is, as in Arabic, to prefix to the latter the preposition le 2 (69). 89. When a substantive has the article, or governs a genitive which has it, or is affected with a possessive suffix, it needs to be represented by the article before an adjective or demonstrative which agrees with art. city art. it in order that it may be connected with these (70), as hag'gir hag great gedōlah, the great city (98, Ex. 4, 8). When a substantive is particularised either by the article or by a genitive or suffix, the unparticularised idea is in these languages merged in the particularisation, the general substantive not being thought strongly enough to be maintained with the particularisation of it. So when a substantive is distinguished by an adjective or a demonstrative, the undistinguished substantive is in these languages merged in the idea as limited by the distinction. But the particularisation is of the general substantive idea, and it cannot therefore in these languages be applied to the limited substantive in which the general idea is merged. And the distinction is of the general substantive idea, distinguishing from the whole extension of the noun, and it cannot therefore in these languages be applied to the particularised idea in which the general idea is merged. The particularisation, therefore, must be made with the general substantive. The adjective or demonstrative must also be thought with the general idea, and having been thus thought is connected with the substantive already particularised by means of the article representing the latter. The substance of nouns (Def. 4) being weakly thought in Hebrew, those nouns which are thought abstractly and therefore with weaker 1 Gesenius, sect. 108. 2. 2 Ibid. sects. 109. 1, 112. 3, 113. 2. substance than other nouns, are apt to take the article to give them though be sins your like art. scarlet like art. definite substance, as him yihyu xataḥei kem kas sānim kas snow they shall be white seleg ya lebinu, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow.1 90. The adjective follows the noun which it qualifies.2 There is no adjectival expression of degrees of comparison.3 When a noun is qualified by another noun with a preposition prefixed (98, Ex. 19), or by a relative clause, it takes the construct state (83); also in other cases where close connection is to be expressed,* as qiryal xanah David, the city where David dwelt; qiryath is construct form of qiryah, city. 91. The numerals 3 to 10 have the noun in the plural even when they precede it and govern it in the genitive; 5 in which case the Arabic uses always the pluralis fractus (63). The multiples of ten, 20 to 90, take the noun after them in the singular, as in Arabic. But they may also follow the noun in apposition to it, the noun being plural, which construction is not in Arabic. The former is the more usual construction, and the plural may be used in it; the singular never occurs in the latter.5 Numerals, compounded of tens and units, take the object numbered either after them in the singular, or before them in the plural, as in the later books of the Bible (Dan. ix. 6), or the object is repeated, in the plural with the smaller number, in the singular with the larger.6 The greater use in Hebrew than in Arabic of the plural form of the noun in counting seems to indicate a stronger sense of the unit, and greater power of counting. 92. The pronoun of the third person frequently serves to connect the subject and predicate, and is then a sort of substitute for the copula (71). In this use it may, as in Arabic (70), represent a subject king my thou of the first or second person, as hatāh hūḥ malki, thou art my king.7 The pure copula is rather too fine an element to be thought separately in these languages (71), hence hayah generally has a thought of existence or other more concrete realisation; and hence the copula takes up a sense of presence, and is then expressed by yes existentia, and of negation, being then expressed by hein defectus (see 116). The weak sense of relation is seen in the use of pronominal connectives instead of proper elements of relation; as of he before the accusative, and also of object suffixes, though the object follows; 8 and she saw him art. child va • t·irē·hu ḥe hay yeled, and she saw the child; also in the general inability of the relative pronoun to stand in a relation in the relative clause. The pronoun haser often serves merely as a sign of relation to give a relative signification to nouns, pronouns, or adverbs (73), as haser 1 Gesenius, sect. 107. 3. 4 Ibid. sect. 114. 7 Ibid. sect. 119. 2. 2 Ibid. sect. 110. 8 Ibid. sect. 115. 3 Ibid. sect. 117. 9 Ibid. sect. 119. 6. to him lo, to whom; but the accusative whom may be expressed by haser alone1 (see 98, Ex. 2, 21). The weakness of the sense of relations, greater in Hebrew than in Arabic, shows itself in the absence of the subjunctive mood from the Hebrew verb (77), the imperfect being used instead 2 (98, Ex. 6). It appears also in the more verbal nature of the Hebrew infinitive; for that which reduces the subjectivity of the verb so as to make it infinitive, is that it is thought in a relation external to its subject which withdraws thought from its subjective realisation in the subject (Def. 13). And the more strongly such relation is thought, the more is the subjectivity of the verb reduced, and the idea of the verb assimilated to that of a noun. In Hebrew the sense of relation is weaker than in Arabic, and accordingly there is in Hebrew a more verbal infinitive as well as the less verbal, the former used as an accusative after transitive verbs which have the same subject as itself, and therefore in a relation not altogether external to its subject (Def. 13), the latter used when such relation is more strongly thought, or when the relation is external to the subject of the infinitive, that subject being in the second correlative and not in the first. But even this more nominal infinitive has more sense of subjective realisation than the verbal noun which is used in its place in Arabic. The more verbal infinitive as accusative to a transitive verb of the same subject is used adverbially in Hebrew; and it is used, like the nomen actionis in Arabic, to express either intensity or continuance, preceding the verb in the former sense as strengthening the idea of it, and following it in the latter sense as adding to it in continuation 3 (see 98, Ex. 14, 15). For there is in Hebrew the same want of comparative thought as in Arabic (87), and the same inaptitude for adverbial expression. The weak sense of relations in Hebrew appears also in the use of the more verbal infinitive after a verb with which it is very closely connected in thought; the connection being implied by referring it to the tense and person of the principal verb, rather than expressed by the relation which connects it 4 (see 98, Ex. 6, 16). The weaker sense of relations in Hebrew is also partly the cause of its having fewer derived forms of the verb than Arabic. For there is a less distinct sense of the subject as object; so that Hebrew has only one reflexive form, and that form is the one in which the subject as object is thought least distinctly (52, 79), the reflexive signification passing into the passive. The full explanation, however, of this difference from Arabic must include the weaker sense in Hebrew of the engagement of the subject. 93. The want of close connection of the verb with the objects and conditions, arising from its being thought so much in the subject (53), causes a relation which governs a fact to be thought with the verb rather than with the sentence of which it is the verb. And 1 Gesenius, sect. 121. 3 Ibid. sect. 128. Ibid. sect. 125. 3. 4 Ibid. sect. 128. 4. |