Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/388

 (unless, with Beer and others, we read  for ); also  may be a quotation of an ancient maxim.

On the other hand occurs very seldom in prose before a noun actually or apparently undetermined. In  is more closely defined by means of the following relative clause; in   refers to Ishbosheth (as if it were him, who was an innocent man); in   refers to the particular twenty cubits. In (otherwise in verse 29) perhaps the  is used in order to avoid the combination  (as in  to avoid the cacophony ?); in  and 20:10 the accusatives are at any rate defined by the centext.—In   probably means even a single one (and then ipso facto a definite one) of them, as also in   may refer to some definite one of the men-servants. In we should read  with the Samaritan, since the seven lambs have been already mentioned; in  translate with Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 79, ; in  read  with the Samaritan; in   is probably a scribal error due to ; in  read  with the LXX for ; in  read  as in ; in  the  is incorrectly inserted from 20:3, where it refers to the women already mentioned; in  read, or omit both  and  with the LXX and Lucian; in  omit ; in  probably  is to be read; in  the text is corrupt. In  might refer to the strangers in question; but see Smend on the passage.

3. The pronominal object must be represented by with a suffix (instead of a verbal suffix), when (a) it precedes the verb, e.g.  ;, , , , , , 22, 7:19; (b) when a suffix is already attached to the verb, and as a rule when a second accusative with  follows, e.g.  ;  ; , ,  (but cf. also , , &c., and Driver on ); (c) after an infinitive absolute, see above  note; (d) after an infinitive construct, when it is immediately followed by the subject, e.g. , or when the combination of a suffix with the infinitive might lead to a misunderstanding, e.g.  , &c., where  might also mean lest he should smite.

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  and dicendi, e.g., &c.,  (it); also after , , , &c., , , , , &c., , , &c. A personal object is omitted, e.g. in, (after .—The omission of the plural object is remarkable, because it leaves an opportunity for a misunderstanding, in   I heard them saying; perhaps, however, we should read  with the Samaritan.

5. In common formulae the substantival object is also sometimes omitted