Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/242

, תּומיך, as it stands, looks at first sight as though it were the Hiph. of a verb ימך (ומך). But such a verb is not to be found anywhere else, we must therefore seek some other explanation of the word. It cannot be a substantive in the signification of possession (Maurer, Ewald), for such a substantival form does not exist. It might more readily be explained as a participle = תּומך, somewhat like יוסיף, Isa 29:4; Isa 38:5; Ecc 1:18, = יוסף, - a comparison which has been made by Aben-Ezra (Sefath Jether No. 421) and Kimchi (Michlol 11a), - a form of the participle to which, in writing at least, סוכיב, 2Ki 8:21, forms a transition; but there is good reason to doubt the existence of such a form. Had the poet intended to use the part. of תמך, it is more probable he would have written אתה תּומכי גורלי, just as the lxx translators might have had it before them, taking the Chirek compaginis as a suffix: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀποκαθιστῶν τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἐμοί (Böttcher). For the conjecture of Olshausen and Thenius, תּוסיף in the sense: “thou art continually my portion” halts both in thought and expression. Hitzig's conjecture תּוּמּיך “thou, thy Tummîm are my lot,” is more successful and tempting. But the fact that the תּמּים are never found (not even in Deu 33:8) without the אוּרים, is against it. Nevertheless, we should prefer this conjecture to the other explanations, if the word would not admit of being explained as Hiph. from ימך (ומך), which is the most natural explanation. Schultens has compared the Arabic wamika, to be broad, from which there is a Hiphil form Arab. awmaka, to make broad, in Syro-Arabic, that is in use even in the present day among the common people. And since we must at any rate come down to the supposition of something unusual about this תומיך, it is surely not too bold to regard it as a ἅπαξ γεγραμμ.: Thou