בַּת daughter (from bant, and this again, according to the law stated in §69c, for bint, fem. of בֵּן), with suff. בִּתִּי for בִּנְתִּי. Plur. בָּנוֹת, from the sing. בָּנָה, comp. בָּנִים sons.
חָם husband’s father, only with suff. חָמִיךְ, חָמִ֫יהָ; and חָמוֹת husband’s mother, only with suff. חֲמוֹתֵךְ, חֲמוֹתָהּ. Cf. אָב, אָח, and especially אָחוֹת.
מַ֫יִם water; on the plur. cf. §88d.
עִיר city. The plur. עָרִים is scarcely syncopated from עֲיָרִים, as it is pointed in Ju 104 (no doubt erroneously, in imitation of the preceding עֲיָרִים ass colts), but from a kindred sing. עָר, which still occurs in proper names.
פֶּה mouth, constr, st. פִּי (for original פֵּי = פֵּה?). Its origin is still disputed. According to Gesenius and König (ii. 103), פֶּה stands for פֵּאֶה (ground-form piʿay) from פָּאָה to breathe, to blow; according to Olshausen, for פַּי, from a stem פָּיָה or פָּוָה. But parallel with the Hebrew פֶּה are Assyr. pû, Arab. fû, fam, famm, fumm, bibl. Aram. פֻּם, פֻּמָּא, Syr. pûm, pûmā, so that Barth, ZDMG. xli, p. 634, assumes two forms of development from the same stem (פמו), viz. fm and fw. פִּי my mouth, from pi-y; for פִּיהֶם we find in ψ 1710, 587, 5913 פִּ֫ימוֹ. The supposed plur. פִּים 1 S 1321 is generally explained as a contraction from פִּיִּים, but the text is altogether corrupt. The plur. פִּיּוֹת, for the edges of a sword, occurs in Pr 54; reduplicated פִּֽיפִיוֹת Is 4115, ψ 1496.
שֶׂה a head of small cattle (sheep or goat), constr. st. שֵׂה, with suff. שְׂיֵ֫הוּ 1 S 1434 and שֵׂיוֹ Dt 221, according to König, ii. 131, from a ground-form siʾay, but according to De Lagarde, Uebersicht, 81 f., from a stem ושי (שֶׂה=say=wĭsay).
שֵׁם name, constr. generally שֵׁם (only six times שֶׁם־); cf. בֵּן.
שָׁמַ֫יִם heaven (§88d).
[97a] 1. The formation of the cardinal numbers from 3 to 10 (on 1 and 2 see below) has this peculiarity, that numerals connected with a mascu-
- Cf. Nöldeke, Beitröge, p. 58, yaum, probably an extension of a biliteral word which has survived in יָמִים, יְמֵי. Barth, however, Orient. Studien, p. 791 (see above on אִשָּׂה), sees in יָמִים, יְמֵי, יְמוֹת new formations in Hebrew, caused by the naturally close connexion and association of these plurals with שְׁנִים, שְׁנֵי, שְׁנוֹת years, to which they became assimilated in form. The view that יוֹם is merely an incorrect obscuring of יָם, and therefore distinct from the Arab. yaum, is contradicted by the invariable spelling יוֹם, &c., notwithstanding the spelling ובים (=וּבְיֹם ?) in the Siloam inscription, line 3 (cf. §7f), and מִיֹּמָ֑יִם Ho 62. Cf. also the note on §100g.