of a few (often undoubtedly very old) proper names,[1] viz. אֲחוּמַי (if compounded of אחו and מי), חֲמוּטַל (for which in Jer 521 Keth. חֲמִיטַל), מְתֽוּשָׁאֵל and מְתוּשֶׁ֫לַח (otherwise in Hebrew only in the plur. מְתִים men; to מְתוּ corresponds most probably בְּתוּ in בְּתוּאֵל), פְּנוּאֵל Gn 3231 (but in ver. 32 פְּנִיאֵל) face of God (otherwise only in the plur. פָּנִים constr. st. פְּנֵי).[2]—גַּשְׁמוּ Neh 66 (elsewhere גֶּ֫שֶׁם), is the name of an Arab, cf. 61. On the other hand the terminations ־ִי and וֹ are most probably to be regarded (with Barth, l. c., p. 597) as having originated on Hebrew soil in order to emphasize the constr. st., on the analogy of the constr. st. of terms expressing relationship.
In view of the analogies in other languages (see b) there is nothing impossible in the view formerly taken here that the litterae compaginis ־ִי and וֹ are obsolete (and hence no longer understood) case-endings, î being the old genitive and ô for the nominative sign u. Barth objects that the î and ô almost invariably have the tone, whereas the accusative ־ָה is toneless, and that they are long, where the Arab. ĭ and ŭ are short. Both these objections, however, lose their force if we consider the special laws of the tone and syllable in Hebrew. The language does not admit a final ĭ or ŭ, and the necessarily lengthened vowel might easily attract the tone to itself. On the other hand a strong argument for Barth’s theory is the fact that these litterae compaginis are almost exclusively used to emphasize the close connexion of one noun with another; hence especially in the constr. st. Consequently it seems in the highest degree probable that all these uses are based upon forms in which the constr. st. is expressly emphasized by a special termination, i.e. the constr. st. of terms of relationship, אֲבִי, אֲחִי, חֲמִי from אָב father, אָח brother, חָם father-in-law (cf. § 96). The instances given under l and m followed this analogy.
Like î, וֹ is also used only to emphasize the constr. st. (see o), and must therefore have a similar origin, but its exact explanation is difficult. According to Barth, this וֹ corresponds to a primitive Semitic â (cf. § 9 q) and is traceable to ʾabâ, ʾaḥâ, the accusatives of terms of relationship in the constr. st., which have â only before a genitive. Against this explanation it may be objected that there is no trace of the supposed Hebrew accusatives אֲבוֹ, אֲחוֹ, חֲמוֹ, and only of the analogous בְּנוֹ. It is also remarkable that so archaic a form should have been preserved (except in בְּנוֹ) only in two words and those in quite late passages. However we have no better explanation to offer in place of Barth’s.
Finally we cannot deny the possibility, in some cases, of Barth’s explanation of the וּ in compound proper names like בְתוּאֵל, &c. (see above), as due to the analogy of terms of relationship with nominative in וּ. But this in no way militates against the view expressed above, that in some very old names, like פְּנוּאֵל, בְּתוּאֵל, &c., the original common nominative sign has simply been preserved.
- ↑ Cf. the list in L. Kaila, Zur Syntax des in verbaler Abhängigkeit stehenden Nomens im alttest. Hebr., Helsingfors, 1906, p. 54.
- ↑ The name שְׁמוּאֵל formerly regarded as a compound of שְׁמוּ=שֵׁם name and אֵל, is better explained with Prätorius, ZDMG. 1903, p. 777, as a name of affection, for שְׁמוּעַ אֵל=יִשְׁמָעֵאל [but see Driver on 1 S 120]; similarly, according to Prätorius, פְּתוּאֵל=פְּתוּחַ אֵל and many others.
