Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/100. Adverbs

§100. Adverbs.

On demonstrative adverbs cf. Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 323; on interrogative adverbs, ibid., i. 328; on adverbs in general, i. 492 ff.

a 1. The negative לֹא not, and a few particles of place and time, as שָׁם there, are of obscure origin.

b 2. Forms of other parts of speech, which are used adverbially without further change, are—

(a) Substantives with prepositions, e.g. בִּמְאֹד (with might) very; לְבַד alone (prop. in separation, Fr. à part), with suffix לְבַדִּי I alone; מִבַּ֫יִת from within, within; cf. also כְּאֶחָד (as one) together, לְעֻמַּת and מִלְּעֻמַּת (originally in connexion with) near to, corresponding to, like, &c., cf. § 161 b.

c (b) Substantives in the accusative (the adverbial case of the Semites, § 118 m), cf. τὴν ἀρχήν, δωρεάν, e.g. מְאֹד (might) very, אֶ֫פֶס (cessation) no more, הַיּוֹם (the day) to-day (cf. § 126 b), מָחָר[1] to-morrow, יַ֫חַד (union) together. Several of these continued to be used, though rarely, as substantives, e.g. סָבִיב, plur. סְבִיבִים and סְבִיבוֹת, circuit, as adverb circum, around; others have quite ceased to be so used, e.g. כְּבָר (length) long ago [Aram.: only in Ec.]; עוֹד (repetition, duration) again or further.

d (c) Adjectives, especially in the feminine (corresponding to the Indo-Germanic neuter), e.g. רִֽאשׁוֹנָה primum, formerly (more frequently בָּרִֽאשׁוֹנָה, also לָרִאשׁוֹנָה); רַבִּה and רַבַּת [both rare] multum, much, enough; נִפְלָאוֹת wonderfully (properly mirabilibus, sc. modis), יְהוּדִית Jewish, i.e. in the Jewish language.

e (d) Verbs in the infinitive absolute, especially in Hiphʿîl, which are likewise to be regarded as accusatives (§ 113 h), e.g. הַרְבֵּה (prop. a multiplying) much [frequent], לְהַרְבֵּה [rare and late] in multitude; הַשְׁכֵּם (mane faciendo) early; הַֽעֲרֵב (vespere faciendo) in the evening.

f (e) Pronouns and numerals, e.g. זֶה (prop. there=at this place) here, הֵ֫נָּה here, hither (also of time, עַד־הֵ֫נָּה till now, cf. the late and rare עֲדֶן and עֲדֶ֫נָּה=עַד־הֵן); אַחַת, שְׁתַּ֫יִם, שֶׁ֫בַע, מֵאָה once, twice, seven times, a hundred times; שֵׁנִית for the second time.

g 3. Some adverbs are formed by the addition of formative syllables (most frequently ־ָם) to substantives or adjectives, e.g. אָמְנָם and אֻמְנָם truly (from אֹמֶן truth); חִנָּם (by favour) gratis (from חֵן gratia); רֵיקָם in vain, frusta, but also empty, (from רֵיק empty, emptiness, vanum), Ru 121, parallel with the fem. מְלֵאָה full; יוֹמָם by day (from יוֹם)[2]; with ô in the last syllable, פִּתְאֹם, for פִּתְעֹם, in a twinkling, suddenly (from פֶּ֫תַע a twinkling, the ô being probably obscured from an original â).[3]—Moreover, cf. אֲחֹֽרַנִּית backward, and קְדֹֽרַנִּית darkly attired, Mal 314. In both these cases, the formative syllable an has been first attached to the stem, and then the feminine ending îth, which is elsewhere used to form adverbs, has been added to it.

h The termination ־ָם occurs also in the formation of substantives, e.g. אוּלָם porch, and hence the above adverbs may equally well be regarded as nouns used adverbially, so that ־ָם, ־ׄם, would correspond to ־ָן, וֹן (§ 85, Nos. 53, 54), cf. בְּפִתְאֹם (with prep.) suddenly, 2 Ch 2936. According to others, this am is an obsolete accusative ending, to be compared with the indeterminate accusative sing. in ăn in Arabic. i 4. A number of forms standing in very close relation to the demonstrative pronoun may be regarded as primitive adverbs, since they arise directly from a combination of demonstrative sounds. Some of these have subsequently suffered great mutilation, the extent of which, however, can now very rarely be ascertained with certainty. Such are e.g. אָו then, הֵ֫נָּה here (according to Barth, Sprachwiss. Abhandlungen, p. 16, formed from the two demonstrative elements hin and na), כֵּן, כָּ֫כָה thus (cf. אֵיכָה, אֵֽיכָכָה, how?), אַךְ only, אָכֵן truly (on all these adverbs, see the Lexicon), and especially the interrogative הֲ (Hē interrogativum), e.g. הֲלֹא (Dt 311 הֲלֹה) nonne?, הֲגַם num etiam? This Hē interrogativum is perhaps shortened from הַל, which is still used in Arabic, and, according to the view of a certain school of Masoretes, occurs also in Hebrew in Dt 326.[4]

k The ה interrogative takes—(1) Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ generally before non-gutturals (even before ר), with a firm vowel, e.g. הֲשַׂ֫מְתָּ hast thou set? see the interrogative clause, § 150 c (הַיִּיטַב Lv 1019 is an exception).

l (2) Before a consonant with Še, usually Pathaḥ without a following Dageš forte, e.g. הַֽבֲרָכָה Gn 2738, cf. 1817, 295, 3015, 3431; less frequently (in about ten passages), Pathaḥ with a following Dageš forte, e.g. הַבְּדֶרֶךְ num in via, Ez 2030, הַלְּבֶן Gn 1717, 1821, 3732, Nu 1319, Jb 236; even in ר, 1 S 1024, 1725, 2 K 632.

m (3) Before gutturals, not pointed with either Qameṣ or Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ, it takes Pathaḥ, e.g. הַֽאֵלֵךְ shall I go?, הַֽאַתָּה num tu?, הַאִם num si; הַֽאֶרְצֶה Mal 113; also in Ju 631 read הַֽאַתֶּם (not הָֽא׳), likewise הַ in Ju 125, Jer 819, Neh 611.—In הָאִישׁ Nu 1622, the Masora intends the article; read הַאִישׁ, and cf. Dt 2019; in Ec 321 read הַֽעֹלָה and הֲיֹרֶדֶת; the article is a correction due to doctrinal considerations.

n (4) The ה takes Seghôl before gutturals pointed with Qameṣ or (as in Ju 99 ff.) Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ, e.g. הֶֽאָמוּר Mi 27; הֶאָֽנֹכִי Jb 214; הֶהָֽיְתָה Jo 12; הֶֽהָשֵׁב Gn 245 (cf. the analogous instances in § 22 c, § 35 k, § 63 k). The place of this interrogative particle is always at the beginning of the clause [but see Jb 3431, Neh 1327, Jer 2215, where one or more words are prefixed for emphasis].

o 5. Some adverbs occur also in connexion with suffixes, thus יֶשְׁךָ thou art there, 3rd sing. masc. יֶשְׁנוֹ[5] (but see note below), 2nd plur. masc. יֶשְׁבֶם; אֵינֶ֫נִּי I am not, 2nd sing. אֵֽינְךָ, fem. אֵינֵךְ, 3rd sing. אֵינֶ֫נּוּ, fem. אֵינֶ֫נָּה, 2nd plur. אֵֽינְכֶם, 3rd plur. masc. אֵינָם.—Also עוֹדֶ֫נִּי I am yet (עוֹדִי only in בְּעוֹדִי and מֵֽעוֹדִי), עֽוֹדְךָ, עוֹדָךְ, עוֹדֵ֫ינוּ (La 417 Qe; עוֹדֶ֫ינָה Keth.; the oriental school [see above, p. 38, note 2] recognize only the reading עוֹדֵ֫ינוּ), עוֹדָם.—אַיֶּ֫כָּה where art thou?, אַיּוֹ where is he?, אַיָּם where are they? The same applies to הֵן (הֶן־) and הִנֵּה behold! (prop. here, here is; see § 105 b), only in Gn 192 הִנֶּה־נָּא; with suffixes, הִנְנִי, once הִנֶּ֫נִּי (Gn 227 with Munaḥ), in pause הִנֵּ֫נִי behold me (here am I), הִנְּךָ (pause הִנֶּ֫ךָּ ψ 1398), הִנָּךְ, הִנּוֹ and הִנֵּ֫הוּ [both very rare], הִנְנוּ (behold us), and הִנֶּ֫נוּ (in pause הִנֵּ֫נוּ), הִנְּכֶם, הִנָּם; [see more fully in the Lexicon, p. 243].

p The usual explanation of these suffixes (especially of the forms with Nûn energicum) as verbal suffixes, which ascribes some power of verbal government even to forms originally substantival (e.g. יֶשְׁנוֹ there is, he is), is at least inadmissible for forms (like אַיּוֹ, בְּעוֹדִי) which are evidently connected with noun-suffixes; even for the other forms it is questionable. Brockelmann suggests that the ן in connexion with these particles is a survival from הנה corresponding to the Arab. ʾánna which introduces dependent clauses.

  1. Generally derived from the ptcp. Puʿal מְאָחָר meʾŏḥār (=meʾoḥḥār) and hence to be read mŏḥār (cf. מָֽחֳרָת morning); but according to P. Haupt (notes to Esther, p. 159) from יוֹם אַחַר.
  2. Is this ־ָם an instance of the locative or temporal termination (cf. especially צהרם) mentioned in § 88 c? Nöldeke, ZDMG. xl. p. 721, considers יוֹמָם a secondary substantival form (used adverbially like לַ֫יְלָה noctu), corresponding to the Phoenician and Aramaic ימם, Syr. ʾimāmā; cf. on the other hand, König, ii. 255, who follows Olshausen in maintaining that the ām is an adverbial termination.
  3. דּוּמָם silent (an adjective in Is 475, La 326; a substantive in Hb 219), which was formerly included under this head, is better taken, with Barth (Nominal-bildung, p. 352, Rem. 2), as a participle formed like שׁוֹבָב, עוֹלָל, so that דּוּמָם (perhaps assimilated to דּוּמָה) stands for original דּוֹמָם.
  4. The separation of the ה at the beginning of Dt 326, expressly noticed by Qimḥi (ed. Rittenb., p. 40 b) as an unique instance, is perhaps a protestagainst admitting a particle הַל.
  5. This form, which occurs in Dt 2914, 1 S 1439, 2323, Est 38, is textually very doubtful, and cannot be supported by the equally doubtful קָבְנוֹ (for קֻבֶּ֫נּוּ) Nu 2313. Most probably, with Stade, Gramm., § 370 b, and P. Haupt, SBOT. Numbers, p. 57, line 37, we should read יֵשֶׁ֫נּוּ.