Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/439

 genitive  then depends, in reality explains nothing; the text is almost certainly corrupt. In  would be expected; in   is a later addition; in , and  , the absolute for the construct state probably rests only on the authority of the Masoretes. In ff. the text is obviously in confusion. In (cf. 6:24)  should come either after  or at the end of the verse, unless, with Moore, we omit  as a gloss (from 6:24); in   is probably a gloss on  which has crept into the text; in , according to the LXX, has dropped out before ; in   is to be omitted with the LXX; if originally in the text, it could only be genitive (= all abominations of evils), not an adjective;  the text is altogether uncertain (the LXX read  for ); in  the preposition  (after a ) has dropped out before  (cf. 12:25).—Elsewhere  the supposed genitives are to be taken rather as words of nearer definition standing in apposition, i.e. with high walls, gates, and bars. In  is either in apposition to  or is better (since not in the LXX) omitted as a gloss.

(b) Genitives after a noun with a suffix (where the suffix prevents the direct government by the ). Thus in, 5, 6, where after  might be taken, contrary to the accents, as subject of the following clause; in , 25 the suffix may refer to Moses. In, namely the garment of linen, unless simply in apposition, cf. (or read ?);, where could at most be explained as an ellipse for , cf. (probably, however, it is a case of dittography of the, which was repeated also before ; so Valeton, xii. 3); equally strange is  , &c. On the other hand,  could not possibly mean if your prophet be a prophet of the Lord; the text is manifestly corrupt (probably  is to be read, with Marti). In  (usually explained as thy divine throne),  is most probably a later addition [another suggestion is to read (’s throne): cf. , note]. In two readings are probably combined,  without any addition, and. In  is in apposition to. On, cf. .

(c) The interposition of a word is assumed between (the whole; cf. ) and the genitive governed by it in,  , and, if the text is correct, in. In reality, however, in all three places the genitive relation is destroyed by the transposition of the words (instead of, &c.), and is rather to be taken adverbially (equivalent to wholly), e.g.  because my life is yet wholly in me, i.e. my whole life; cf. Philippi, ''Stat. Constr.'', p. 10.—On the instances in which the original construct state is used without a following genitive, see the negative sentences,.

2. The dependence of the nomen rectum on the nomen regens by no means represents merely what is, properly speaking, the genitive relation (see the examples under g–i). Very frequently the nomen