Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/276

 of a few (often undoubtedly very old) proper names, viz. (if compounded of and ),  (for which in   ),  and  (otherwise in Hebrew only in the plur. ; to  corresponds most probably  in ),   (but in ver. 32 ) face of God (otherwise only in the plur.  ). —  (elsewhere ), is the name of an Arab, cf. . On the other hand the terminations and  are most probably to be regarded (with Barth, l. c., p. 597) as having originated on Hebrew soil in order to emphasize the ''constr. st., on the analogy of the constr. st.'' of terms expressing relationship.

In view of the analogies in other languages (see b) there is nothing impossible in the view formerly taken here that the litterae compaginis and  are obsolete (and hence no longer understood) case-endings, î being the old genitive and ô for the nominative sign u. Barth objects that the î and ô almost invariably have the tone, whereas the accusative is toneless, and that they are long, where the Arab. ĭ and ŭ are short. Both these objections, however, lose their force if we consider the special laws of the tone and syllable in Hebrew. The language does not admit a final ĭ or ŭ, and the necessarily lengthened vowel might easily attract the tone to itself. On the other hand a strong argument for Barth’s theory is the fact that these litterae compaginis are almost exclusively used to emphasize the close connexion of one noun with another; hence especially in the ''constr. st. Consequently it seems in the highest degree probable that all these uses are based upon forms in which the constr. st. is expressly emphasized by a special termination, i.e. the constr. st.'' of terms of relationship,, , from , ,  (cf. § 96). The instances given under l and m followed this analogy.

Like î, is also used only to emphasize the ''constr. st.'' (see o), and must therefore have a similar origin, but its exact explanation is difficult. According to Barth, this corresponds to a primitive Semitic â (cf. ) and is traceable to ʾabâ, ʾaḥâ, the accusatives of terms of relationship in the ''constr. st., which have â'' only before a genitive. Against this explanation it may be objected that there is no trace of the supposed Hebrew accusatives, , , and only of the analogous. It is also remarkable that so archaic a form should have been preserved (except in ) only in two words and those in quite late passages. However we have no better explanation to offer in place of Barth’s.

Finally we cannot deny the possibility, in some cases, of Barth’s explanation of the in compound proper names like, &c. (see above), as due to the analogy of terms of relationship with nominative in. But this in no way militates against the view expressed above, that in some very old names, like, , &c., the original common nominative sign has simply been preserved.