defective writing is especially frequent in the 3rd masc. sing. ־ָו, which in Qerê is almost always changed to ־ָיו, e.g. חִצָּו his arrows, ψ 588, Qerê חִצָּיו. On יַחְדָּו, only three times יַחְדָּיו, cf. § 135 r.
[l] 2. Unusual forms (but for the most part probably only scribal errors) are—Sing. 2nd pers. fem ־ֵיךְ (after אַשְׁרֵי happy! Ec 1017, which has become stereotyped as an interjection, and is therefore unchangeable; cf. Delitzsch on the passage); ־ַ֫ יְכִי (cf. Syr. ־ֵכי) 2 K 43, and 7 in Keth., ψ 1033–5, 1167 (־ָ֫ יְכִי in pause).—In Ez 1631 ־ַ֫ יִךְ (so ־ֵיכֶם in 68) occurs with an infin. ending in וֹת, the וֹת being therefore treated as a plural ending; similarly, the plural suffix is sometimes found with the feminine ending וּת (Nu 1433, Is 544, Jer 38, Ez 1615, 237, as well as in 1620 Qerê, and Zp 320), with the ending îth (Lv 524, reading חֲמִֽשִׁתוֹ), and even with the ordinary feminine ending ath; Is 4713, Ez 3511, ψ 915, Ezr 915.—Wholly abnormal is מַלְאָכֵ֫כֵה thy messengers, Na 214, evidently a case of dittography of the following ה: read מַלְאָכַ֫יִךְ.
3rd masc. ־ֵ֫ יהוּ Hb 310, Jb 2423; ־ֵ֫ הוּ 1 S 3026, Ez 4317, Na 24; וֹ֫הִי (a purely Aramaic form) ψ 11612.—3rd fem. ־ֶ֫ יהָא Ez 4115.
Plur. The strange 2nd pers. masc. תְּפוֹצֽוֹתִיכֶם (with î, so Qimḥi; cf. Norzi) Jer 2534, is probably a mixed form combining תָּפ֫וּצוּ and הֲפִיצֽוֹתִיכֶם; fem. ־ֵיכֶ֫נָה Ez 1320.
3rd masc. ־ֵיהֵ֫מָה Ez 4016; fem. ־ֵיהֶ֫נָה Ez 111.
3. The termination ־ֵ֫מוֹ (also with the dual, e.g. ψ 587, 5913), like מוֹ and ־ָ֫ מוֹ, occurs with the noun (as with the verb, § 58 g) almost exclusively in the later poets [viz. with a substantive in the singular, ψ 2111, 1710.10, 587, 5913, 8918; with a dual or plural, Dt 3227.32.37.38, 3329, ψ 23.3, 117, 3516, 4912, 587, 5914, 735.7, 8312.12, 1404.10, Jb 2723; after prepositions, see § 103 f, o, notes], and cannot, therefore, by itself be taken as an indication of archaic language. On the other hand there can be no doubt that these are revivals of really old forms. That they are consciously and artificially used is shown by the evidently intentional accumulation of them, e.g. in Ex 155.7.9 ψ 23.5, and 1404.10, and also by the fact observed by Diehl (see the heading of this section) that in Ex 15 they occur only as verbal suffixes, in Dt 32 only as noun suffixes.
[m] 3. It is clear and beyond doubt that the Yôdh in these suffixes with the plural noun belongs, in reality, to the ending of the construct state of the masculine plural. Yet the consciousness of this fact became so completely lost as to admit of the striking peculiarity (or rather inaccuracy) of appending those suffix-forms which include the plural ending ־ֵי, even to the feminine plural in וֹת (סֽוּסוֹתֵ֫ינוּ, סֽוּסוֹתֶ֫יךָ, &c.), so that in reality the result is a double indication of the plural.[1]
[n] Such is the rule: the singular suffix, however (see b), also occurs with the ending וֹת (probably through the influence of Aramaic), e.g. צֵֽדְוֹתִי ψ 13212 (unless it be sing. for עֵֽדוּתִי, as, according to Qimḥi in his Lexicon, תַּֽחֲנֹתִי 2 K 68 is for תַּֽחֲנוּתִי); מַכֹּֽתְךָ Dt 2859 (treated on the analogy of an infin. ל״ה);
