Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/438



Cf. especially Philippi’s work cited at the head of.

1. The genitive relation is regularly expressed (see ) by the close connexion of the (in the construct state) with the nomen rectum (in the genitive). Since only one nomen regens can be immediately connected with a nomen rectum, it follows that the same genitive cannot depend on two or more co-ordinate nouns, but a second (sometimes even a third, &c.) regens must be added with a suffix referring to the nomen rectum, e.g. (not ); cf. . The language also prefers to avoid a series of several co-ordinate genitives depending upon one and the same nomen regens (such as occur in, , [], , , , , ), and rather tends to repeat the nomen regens, e.g.   (so in  the regens is five times repeated). A lengthened series of genitives may, however, be formed by a nomen rectum serving at the same time as regens to a genitive depending on it (cf. [d]); e.g.  ; cf. , where there are three genitives, four, and 21:17 five (unless the last three are in apposition). As a rule, indeed, such an inconvenient accumulation of genitives is avoided by means of a circumlocution in the case of one of them (see ).

Rem. As the fundamental rules stated above are the necessary consequence not merely of logical but more especially of rhythmical relations (see ), we must feel the more hesitation in admitting examples in which genitives are supposed to be loosely attached to forms other than the construct state. Some of these examples (the supposed genitives following a regens which is determined by the article) have been already discussed in –h. Compare, moreover:

(a) Genitives after the absolute state, e.g. . The usual explanation that  forms one single idea (in German Fettigkeitstal), on which the