[but see Kittel; so 13:2, 6, 11; 10:26, but LXX מַצִּבַת], Jer 3623, Jb 620 (if the text is correct), 39:15 (read תֵּחָמֵם in v. 14), and to the plurals of names of animals, Is 357, Ezr 115. Conversely, plural suffixes refer to collective singulars, e.g. in Gn 1513, Nu 163, 1 S 28, Zp 27 [but read עַל הַיָּם]; and to a verbal idea contained in the preceding clause, in Ez 3318, Jb 2221 (בָּהֶם thereby), Ez 1826, 3319 (עֲלֵיהֶם on that account, thereby).[1] But the suffix in נְתָנוֹ Dt 2110 refers to the collective idea contained in אֹֽיְבָ֫יךָ; in Jon 13 עִמָּהֶם refers to the sailors included in sense under the term אֳנִיָּה. In Jos 24 read וַתִּצְפְּנֵם; in Is 306 (מֵהֶם), 38:16, ψ 195 (בָּהֶם) the text is most probably corrupt.
[q] 3. In a few examples the force of the noun-suffix or possessive pronoun has become so weak that the language appears to be almost entirely unconscious of it. Thus in אֲדֹנָי my Lord, usually explained as being from the pluralis maiestatis אֲדֹנִים (§ 124 i) with the suffix of the 1st singular (always with Qameṣ to distinguish it from אֲדֹנַי my lords, Gn 192; but see note below), used exclusively of God, not only in addressing him (Gn 152, 183, ψ 3523), but ultimately (see, however, the note below), without any regard to the pronoun, as equivalent to the Lord.[2] On אֲדֹנָי as a Qerê perpetuum of the Masoretes for יהוה see § 17 c and § 102 m.
[r] A similar loss of vitality in the suffix is generally assumed in יַחְדָּו prop. in his unitedness, i.e. he &c. together, e.g. כָּל־הָעָם יַחְדָּו Ex 198; then, without regard to the suffix, even after the 1st person אֲנַ֫חְנוּ יַחְדָּו 1 K 318 in reference to two women; Is 411, Jb 932, Neh 62, 7; after the 2nd person, Is 4520, &c. But the supposed pronominal suffix is perhaps rather to be explained, with Brockelmann, ZA. xiv. 344 f., as an old adverbial ending, which survives in the Arabic adverbs in u and in Assyrian.—Cf. further כֻּלָּם prop. their entirety, but also after the 2nd person equivalent to all together, 1 K 2228, Mi 12 (hear, ye peoples, all of you; cf. § 144 p), and even before the 2nd person, Jb 1710 (in 1 S 64 read לָכֶם with the LXX).—On the redundant suffix in הָֽעֶרְכְּךָ Lv 2723, cf. § 127 i.
- ↑ In 2 K 710 for שֹׁעֵר (the LXX had שַׁ֫עַר) read שֹֽׁעֲרֵי.
- ↑ Cf. the same weakening of the force of the possessive pronoun in רַבִּי prop. my master, from the second century A.D. onwards the master; so also in Syriac מרי my lord, and ultimately as a title the lord; in Italian Madonna, French Madame, Notre Dame, Monsieur, Monseigneur, &c. It can, however, hardly be doubted that the regular distinction between אֲדֹנָי as a holy name, and אֲדֹנִי as an ordinary appellative is merely due to the practice of the later Rabbis. G. H. Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte (Berlin, 1889), in an exhaustive discussion, shows that apart from the book of Daniel and the eight critically doubtful passages, in which אדני is used by God himself, there is nowhere any necessity to regard the suffix as entirely meaningless, since אדני is always used either in an address to or (like אֲדֹנִי, which also is never a mere phrase or title) in reverent language about God—as the Lord of the speaker—like the Assyrian bēli-ia, my lord. Against any original distinction between אֲדֹנָי and אֲדֹנִי it may be urged especially that when unconnected with suffixes the singular אָדוֹן is always used of God, and not the pluralis maiestatis presupposed by אֲדֹנָי.
