Less common are the plene, forms אוֹתִי, אֽוֹתְךָ (Nu 2233 אֹֽתְכָה before ה), אוֹתָךְ (Ex 2935, אֹתָ֫כָה), אוֹתוֹ, אוֹתָהּ, אוֹתָ֫נוּ, אוֹתָם. Moreover, for אֶתְכֶם we find אֽוֹתְכֶם Jos 2315; for אֹתָם, five times אֶתְהֶם (Gn 321, Ex 1820, &c.), and in Ez 2345 אֽוֹתְהֶם; for אֶתְהֶן (Gn 198, &c. [13 times]), אֹתָן (only found in Ez 1654; Ex 3526 אֹתָ֫נָה; Ez 3421 אוֹתָ֫נָח), and אֽוֹתְהֶן Ez 2347.—No instance of the 2nd fem. plur. אֶתְכֶן occurs in the O.T.; in Cant 27, &c., אֶתְכֶם is used instead.
[c] 2. The preposition עִם־ with (with suffixes on the model of stems ע״ע, עִמִּי, עִמְּךָ [1 S 126 עִמְּכָה], in pause עִמָּךְ; 2nd fem. עִמּוֹ ;עִמָּךְ, עִמָּהּ) is united with the suffixes נוּ, כֶם, and הֶם by a (pretonic) Qameṣ, which causes the sharpening of the Mêm to be distinctly audible: עִמָּ֫נוּ, עִמָּכֶם, עִמָּהֶם (so in Nu 2212, Dt 2916, both in principal pause, and often in very late passages, otherwise עִמָּם is generally used). In the first person, besides עִמִּי, we also find עִמָּדִי (probably from original ענדי; cf. Arab. ʿinda, beside, with).
[d] 3. It is but seldom that prepositions occur with verbal suffixes, as תַּחְתֵּ֫נִי 2 S 2237.40.48 (for which ψ 1837.40.48 תַּחְתַּי), תַּחְתֶּ֫נָּה Gn 221 and בַּֽעֲדֵ֫נִי ψ 13911 (here probably for the sake of the rhyme with יִשׁוּפֵּ֫נִי).[1]
[e] 2. When pronominal suffixes are added to the prefixes (§ 102), there appears occasionally, especially in the case of the shorter suffixes, an endeavour to lengthen the preposition, so as to give it more strength and body. Hence to בְּ is appended the syllable מוֹ (see below, k), and בְּ and לְ take at least a full vowel, בָּ and לָ (§ 102 d, f).—The following deviations from the analogy of the noun with suffixes are to be noticed (a) in the pausal forms בָּךְ, לָךְ, אֹתְךְ, אִתָּךְ, עִמָּךְ (not bèkhā, &c.); (b) in the similar forms with the suffix of the 2nd sing. fem. (not bēkh, &c.) and in בָּ֫נוּ, לָ֫נוּ, עִמָּ֫נוּ, &c. (not bēnû, &c.).
[f] (a) לְ with Pronominal Suffixes.
| Sing. | Plur. | ||
| 1. c. to me. | לְי | to us. | לָ֫נוּ |
| 2. m. to thee. | לְךָ (לְכָה), in pause לָךְ | to you. | לָכֶם |
| f. | לָךְ......... | [לָכֶן[2]] לָכֶ֫נָה | |
| 3. m. to him. | לוֹ | to them | לָהֶם, לָהֵ֫מָּה poet. לָ֫מוֹ |
| [53 times][3] | |||
| f. to her. | לָהּ | לָהֶן,[4]לָהֵ֫נָּה | |
- ↑ Fînî and bînî (in me), in vulgar Arabic for fiyya and bî, are compared by Socin. Brockelmann, ZA. xiv. 347, note 1, suggests that תחתני, תחתנה, בעדני are later formations on the model of מִמֶּ֫נִּי when its origin from the reduplication of the preposition had become obscured, but see below, m.
- ↑ לָכֶן does not occur in the O.T., by a mere accident, no doubt; Ez 1318 לָכֶ֫נָה.
- ↑ The question whether לָ֫מוֹ can also stand for the sing. לוֹ, which Rödiger and recently W. Diehl (Das Pronomen pers. suff.... des Hebr., p. 20 f.) and P. Haupt (SBOT. on Pr 2320, a contraction of la-humû) have altogether denied, must be answered in the affirmative unless we conclude with Diehl and Haupt that all the instances concerned are due to corruptions of the text. It is true that in such places as Gn 926.27, Dt 332, Is 305, ψ 7310 (all in or immediately before the principal pause; in Dt 332 with Zaqeph qaṭon at least) לָ֫מוֹ can be better explained as plural (in reference to collective nouns); and in Is 538 for נֶ֫גַע לָ֫מוֹ we should read with the LXX נִגַּע לַמָּ֫וֶת. On the other hand, in Is 4415 its explanation as plural would be extremely forced. Even then there would remain—presuming the traditional text to be correct—פָּנֵ֫ימוֹ ψ 117 and כַּפֵּ֫ימוֹ Jb 2723, as well as עָלֵ֫ימוֹ, three times, Jb 2023, 2723 (beside עָלָיו), and especially Jb 222. In all these places the most extreme exegetical artifices can only be avoided by simply admitting a singular suffix (=פָּנָיו, כַּפָּיו, עָלָיו).—On the question of the antiquity of the suffixes in מוֹ see § 91 l.
- ↑ The form לָהֵן in Ru 113 is Aramaic (=therefore).
