Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/Additions and Corrections


Page 42, line 13 from below, for note 1 read note 3.

Page 63, §15p. [See also Wickes, Prose Accentuation, 130 f., 87 n. (who, however, regards the superlinear, Babylonian system as the earlier); and Ginsburg, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 76, 78. In Ginsburg’s Hebrew Bible, ed. 2 (1908), pp. 108 f., 267 f., the two systems of division are printed in extenso, in parallel columns—the 10 verses of the superlinear (Babylonian) system consisting (in Exodus) of v.2.3-6.7.8- (as numbered in ordinary texts), and the 12 verses of the sublinear (Palestinian) system, consisting of v.2-—S. R. D.]

Page 65, note 1, for אָֽ֫נָּא read אָֽנָּ֫א (as §105a).

[Editions often vary in individual passages, as regards the accentuation of the first syllable: but in the 7 occurrences of אנא, and the 6 of אנה, Baer, Ginsburg, and Kittel agree in having an accent on both syllables (as אָ֣נָּ֗א) in Gn 5017, Ex 3231, ψ 11616, and Metheg on the first syllable and an accent on the second syllable (as אָֽנָּ֣ה) in 2 K 203=Is 383, Jon 114, 42, ψ 1164, 11825.25, Dn 94, Ne 15.11, except that in ψ 1164 Ginsburg has אָנָּ֥ה.—S. R. D.]

Page 79, §22s, before הִרְּדִיפֻהוּ insert exceptions to b are. After Jer 3912 add ψ 525; and for Ez 96 read Ezr 96.

[So Baer (cf. his note on Jud 2043; also on Jer 3912, and several of the other passages in question): but Ginsburg only in 10 of the exceptions to b, and Jacob ben Ḥayyim and Kittel only in 5, viz. Jer 3912, Pr 1121, 151, ψ 525, Ezr 96.—S. R. D.]

Page 111, line 12, for הַהוּה read הַהוּא.[1]

Page 123, §45e, add: Cf. also מַהְפֵּכָה followed by את, Is 1319, Am 411 (§115d).

Page 175, §67. See B. Halper, 'The Participial formations of the Geminate Verbs' in ZAW. 1910, pp. 42 ff., 99 ff., 201 ff. (also dealing with the regular verb).

Page 177, at the end of §67g the following paragraph has been accidentally omitted:

Rem. According to the prevailing view, this strengthening of the first radical is merely intended to give the bi-literal stem at least a tri-literal appearance. (Possibly aided by the analogy of verbs פ״ן, as P. Haupt has suggested to me in conversation.) But cf. Kautzsch, ‘Die sog. aramaisierenden Formen der Verba ע״ע im Hebr.’ in Oriental. Studien zum 70. Geburtstag Th. Nöldekes, 1906, p. 771 ff. It is there shown (1) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often serves to emphasize a particular meaning (cf. יִגָּר, but יְגֹרֵ֫הוּ, יָחֵל and יַחֵל, יִסֹּב and יָסֹב, יִשֹּׁם and תֵּשַׁם), and elsewhere no doubt to dissimilate the vowels (as יִגָּר, יִדַּל, never יָגַר, יָדַל, &c.): (2) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often appears to be occasioned by the nature of the first letter of the stem, especially when it is a sibilant. Whether the masoretic pronunciation is based on an early tradition, or the Masora has arbitrarily adopted aramaizing forms to attain the above objects, must be left undecided.

Page 193, the second and third paragraphs should have the marginal letters d and e respectively.

Page 200, §72z, line 2, after Est 218 add 414.

Page 232, §84as, add שֹׁמֵמָה 2 S 1320.

Page 236, §85c, add הַנְזָקָה Ezr 422.

Page 273, §93qq end, add מוֹסֵרוֹת Jer 55, רִבֵּעִים, שִׁלֵּשִׁים Ex 205, שֹׁמֵמוֹת Is 498, שֹׁמֵמִים La 116 (cf. König, ii. 109).

  1. Critical annotation: Technical note: Already corrected in the scanned page.—A. E. A.