may precede (two and twenty, as in Arabic and English), e.g. Nu 3, 26. Very frequently, however, the reverse order is found (twenty and two, as in Syriac, cf. French and English twenty-two), e.g. 1 Ch 12, 18.[1] In all cases the units and tens are connected by the copula, ordinarily וְ, but וָ, before numerals with the tone on the penultima, וַ before ־ֲ, וּ before Šewâ see § 104 d, e, g.
[g] The remaining numerals are the substantives—
| 100 | מֵאָה fem., constr. מְאַת. |
| 200 | אָמתַ֫יִם dual (contracted from מְאָתַ֫יִם; cf. § 23 c). |
| 300 | שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת plur. (but in 2 K 11, Keth. הַמְּאָיוֹת). |
| 1000 | אֶ֫לֶף masc. |
| 2000 | אַלְפַּ֫יִם dual. |
| 3000 | שְׁל֫שֶׁת אֲלָפִים plur., and so on (except עֲשָׂרָה אֲלָפִים in 2 S 18, 2 K 24 Keth.; elsewhere always עֲשֶׂ֫רֶת אֲלָפִים). |
| 10000 | רְבָבָה, in the later books the aramaising[2] forms רִבּוֹ, רִבּוֹא, רִבּוֹת (properly multitude, cf. μυριάς). |
| 20000 | רִבֹּתַ֫יִם dual (see below, h); but שְׁתֵּי רִבּוֹת Neh 7 (also רִבּוֹא שְׁתֵּי Neh 7). |
| 40000 | אַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא Neh 7. |
| 60000 | שֵֽׁשׁ־רִבּאֹות Ezr 2 (Baer and Ginsburg רִבֹּאוֹת, as in Dn 11). אַלְפֵי רְבָבָה thousands of myriads, Gn 24. |
[h] Rem. 1. The dual form which occurs in some of the units has the meaning of our ending -fold, e.g. אַרְבַּעְתַּ֫יִם fourfold, 2 S 12; שִׁבְעָתַ֫יִם sevenfold, Gn 4, Is 30, ψ 12, 79 (cf. § 134 r). The dual רִבֹּתַ֫יִם ψ 68 (explained by אַלְפֵי שִׁנְאָן thousands of duplication) is not meant to be taken in the sense of two myriads or twice the number of myriads, but in a multiplicative sense.[3]—Besides the plural which denotes the tens, there are also the plurals אֲחָדִים some, also iidem, and עֲשָׂרוֹת decades (not decem) Ex 18.
[i] 2. The suffixes to numerals are, as with other nouns, properly genitives, although they are translated in English as nominatives, e.g. שְׁלָשְׁתְּכֶּם your triad, i.e. you three, Nu 12; חֲמִשָּׁיו his fifty (i.e. the 50 belonging to him) 2 K 1, and חֲמִשֶּׁ֫יךָ 2 K 1.
- ↑ According to the conclusions of König (De Criticae Sacrae Argumento, p. 61, and Lehrgeb., ii. p. 215 ff.), the smaller number more commonly precedes in Ezek. and the Priestly Code, but the larger always elsewhere. S. Herner (Syntax der Zahlwörter im A.T., Lund, 1893, p. 71 ff.) arrives at the same conclusion by a full examination of the statistics; cf. also his remarks on König in ZAW. 1896, p. 123, and König’s reply, ibid., p. 328 f.
- ↑ Cf. Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen im A.T. (Halle, 1902), p. 79 f.
- ↑ Cf. D. H. Müller, ‘Die numeralia multiplicativa in den Amarnatafeln u. im Hebr.,’ Semitica, i, Wien, 1906, p. 13 ff.
