Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/81

 and for, since both are intended to indicate a hard, i.e. a strong, sound. Hence (see ) is the opposite of both.

2. In MSS. Mappîq is also found with, , , to mark them expressly as consonants, e.g. (gôy),  (qāw, qāu), for which  is also used, as , &c. For the various statements of the Masora (where these points are treated as ), see Ginsburg,, § 5 (also , pp. 557, 609, 637, 770), and ‘The Dageshed Alephs in the Karlsruhe MS.’ (where these points are extremely frequent), in the , Berlin, i. 1881, p. 136 ff. The great differences in the statements found in the Masora point to different schools, one of which appears to have intended that every audible should be pointed. In the printed editions the point occurs only four times with ( or ),, ,  and  (where the point can be taken only as an orthophonetic sign, not with König as ). Cf. Delitzsch,, 2nd ed., p. 439 ff.

2. ( i.e. weak, soft), a horizontal stroke over the letter, is the opposite of both kinds of  and, but especially of. In exact manuscripts every letter has either  or, e.g. , ,. In modern editions (except Ginsburg’s 1st ed.) is used only when the absence of a  or  requires to be expressly pointed out.

On the ordinary accents (see below, ), cf. W. Heidenheim, [The Laws of the Accents], Rödelheim, 1808 (a compilation from older Jewish writers on the accents, with a commentary); W. Wickes (see also below),  [The Accents of the Twenty-one Books], Oxford, 1887, an exhaustive investigation in English; J. M. Japhet,  (exclusive of the books ), ed. by Heinemann, Frankf. a. M. 1896; Prätorius,, Berlin, 1901, and (in answer to Gregory’s criticism in the 1901, no. 22) , Berlin, 1902; P. Kahle, ‘Zur Gesch. der hebr. Accente,’ 55 (1901), 167 ff. (1, on the earliest Jewish lists of accents; 2, on the mutual relation of the various systems of accentuation; on p. 179 ff. he deals with the accents of the 3rd system, see above,, note); Margolis, art. ‘Accents,’ in the, i (1901), 149 ff.; J. Adams, , London, 1906.—On the accents of the Books (see below, ), S. Baer,  [ ], Rödelheim, 1852, and his appendix to Delitzsch’s , vol. ii, Lpz. 1860, and in the 5th ed., 1894 (an epitome is given in Baer-Delitzsch’s, Lpz. 1861, 1874, 1880); cf. also Delitzsch’s most instructive ‘Accentuologischer Commentar’ on Psalms 1–3, in his of 1874, as well as the numerous contributions to the accentual criticism of the text, &c., in the editions of Beer and Delitzsch, and in the commentaries of the latter; W. Wickes,  [], Oxford, 1881; Mitchell, in the, 1891, p. 144 ff.; Beer and Strack, , p. 17 ff.

1. As Prätorius (see above) has convincingly shown, the majority of the Hebrew accents, especially, according to Kahle (see above), the ‘Conjunctivi’, were adopted by the Jews from the neums and punctuation-marks found in Greek gospel-books, and, like these, their primary purpose was to regulate minutely the public reading of the sacred