Some Hebrew prepositional forms
By H. H. Rowley-Bangor (Wales)
In ZDMG xci, 1937, p. 346, G. R. Driver proposes to
regard "'inS! as a dual, meaning buttocks. Similarly he finds
nnn and 1?? to have the same physiological explanation,
since they both take suffixes in the same way*).
Many considerations render this view improbable. In the
first place, it would be surprising to find Hebrew so rich in
words for buttocks. For in addition to these three alleged
words, we find also rru? in Isaiah xx. 4, 2 Samuel x. 4. While,
of course, if there were compelling philological reasons for
finding the fundamental meaning of all these words to be
buttocks^), no a priori difficulties could be allowed to weigh
against them, there do not seem to be such reasons, for none
are presented. Moreover, even if there were so rich a voca¬
bulary for buttocks^), it would still be astonishing to find
1) I have submitted this article in draft to Driver, and with his
permission add in brackets in the following footnotes his comments,
together with counter-comments.
2) [Does not rm mean base [of trunk), rather than buttock (cf.
Brockelmann, GVGSS i, p. 154, where iSdu is compared with it)?
G. R. D. — Agreed, but it is used for that part of the body, when it
is required in Hebrew, while the other three words, though never used
in this sense, are said to have this primary meaning. H. H. R.]
3) [I see no objection to two words for buttock, if they come from
different sources: namely, "ins from the Assyrian and Arabic strain,
and nnn from the Aramaic and Syriac strain in Hebrew (cf. Acc. idu
from a West-Semitic source, and qätu from an East-Semitic source).
G. R. D. — Agreed, but no evidence is adduced to show that either
of these words had the suggested meaning in the alleged sources, and
the suggestion that Hebrew possessed three words whose primary
meaning was buttocks, in addition to the word which alone is used for
this part of the body, gives an impression of undeniable lexical richness.
H. H. R.]
three of the terms used metaphorically for such different
ideas as behind, under and through, and particularly surprising
to find the buttock of the windows used for through the windows
( Joel ii. 9) Yet again, in the case of nnn and 1?? the forms
without suffixes are always found in the singular, and never
in the dual construct, as we should expect. In the case of
"'■^I!^, indeed, we normally find the plural (or dual) construct, and only less frequently the singular "ins").
Drivkr rejects the view of Baukr and Lkandkr*), shared
by many earlier scholars since Barth*), though resisted by
König'), that the form "'ins is a secondary form due to the
analogy of and that the suffixal forms of nnn are due
1) [Are not tfie two thighs or loins of the earth (71N "'nST'), the heart of the seas (D"'a"' ab), or the belly of Sheol (biNC pn) equally odd?
Such terms have lost all sense of their physical basis in metaphorical
usage. G. R. D. — So far as the last two are concerned, the metaphor
is readily intelligible, nor is tiDT' really difficult. For nST' means
thigh. The reference may be specifically to the inside of the thigh (the loins), or to the outside of the thigh, when it almost comes to mean hip (the evidence for this is stronger in the case of the form "{T', which is used for the loin, and also for the place where the sword hung, or hip).
The loins of the earth would be a very difficult metaphor for the ends
of the earth, but the hips of the earth would be readily intelligible, just
as we speak of the brow or shoulder of a hill. H. H. R.]
2) [I see little difficulty in using both singular and dual forms
together; cf. T'-bs beside ''T'-bs'. G. R. D. — I see no difficulty in
the singular and dual forms of "iriN being both found, but only in the
fact that nnn and i?3 are never found alone except in the singular,
if the meaning is buttock. For we should just as much expect to find
the dual construct before a genitive noun as before a genitive pronoun.
H. H. R. — If the dual T\nr\ never occurs, does it matter? We get Lq«.L and wl.CU.L; it seems to me a pure accident which survived (cf. English
beside and besides, though these by custom have acquired different
shades of meaning). I suggest that the dual forms secundum sensum
were original, but gave way to the singular forms with the early decay
of the dual forms common to all the Semitic languages. G. R. D. —
Is not Syriac an unpromising quarry for proto-Semitic usage, and is
not wLq..!. more likely to be a late development? H. H. R.]
3) Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache, i, 1922, p. 645.
4) ZDMG xlii, 1888, pp. 348-58.
5) Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache, ii, 1895, pp. 305 — 11.
H. H. Rowley, Some Hebrew prepositional forms 55
to the suffixal forms of b» He does so on the ground that
we should then expect plural suffixes, "'ins, "»nnp, etc. This,
however, does less than justice to the view rejected.
It is the view of Driver that the forms b??, bs, T? are
the earlier forms of these prepositions*), and that the forms
■"by, ■'bs, njJ are secondary, and the connected verbal roots
derivative. This is improbable, since (a) it is much more
likely that the poetic forms*) are survivals of older forms*);
(b) the forms with the suffixes are regularly the longer forms'),
1) For other cases of forms created by analogy, cf. Babth, „Form¬
angleichung bei begrifflichen Korrespondenzen" in Nöldeke-Festschrift,
ii, 1906, pp. 787-96. 2) ZDMG xci, 1937, pp. 344f.
3) [Are the longer forms really poetical except by accident in
Hebrew? In Accadian the longer forms occur in normal prose and the
shorter in dialect and poetry; in Syriac the shorter, in Arabic the longer are usual. G. R. D. — Would it not be surprising for Syriac to preserve the early forms and Arabic the later forms, especially since the allegedly
later forms are normal in Accadian? The tendency in Hebrew and Syriac
was to lose vowels at the end of words, and if the longer forms were
the earlier, the process would be normal. H. H. R. — I do not violate
the rule that final short vowels tend to be lost. I merely say that e. g.
the simple bs = upon, gave rise to a triliteral verb nbp to denote
the complex idea of going up to a place, and that this in turn begat
a secondary preposition ■'bs, eli, By a process of unconscious
selection Syriac adopted ""^A., but Arabic ^; there is no question of
priority. Both forms existed side by side in Accadian and in Hebrew;
by chance in Accadian eli was far commoner than el, and survived in
the Arabic while in Hebrew bs was far commoner than "«b» and
survived in Syriac "'^i,. G. R. D.]
4) [Have we any certainty that the longer are the earlier forms?
Judges V has only n» and b» (and once ''3a), for what the Massoretic
tradition is worth. G. R. D. — It is unfortunate that the Song of
Deborah does not contain any suffixal forms, to enable us to see whether
the elsewhere regularly found long forms were already in use. In any
case, the absence of the longer independent form from that Song no
more entitles us to say that where it is found in Hebrew poetry it is
not an archaism, than the absence of the Imperfect termination 'Jl
entitles us to deny that this is an archaism elsewhere in the Old Testa¬
ment. H. H. R.]
5) [In Accadian poetry the shorter forms may take the suffixes,
e. g. eUu for elilu (Thompson, Gilgamesh 20, u). G. R. D. — In view
of the fact that the longer form is normal before suffixes in Accadian,
and it is improbable that the ex hypothesi secondary and
rarer forms, failing to gain wide independent currency for
themselves, should yet succeed in ousting so completely the
forms used with suffixes; (c) in Aramaic and Syriac, where
the allegedly secondary form "^b? is not found at all, the
suffixes are equally with Hebrew those attached to plural
forms*). It is much more natural to suppose that the triliteral
forms of the prepositions are older, giving rise to suffixal
forms which have become identical with those of plural nouns,
and that the termination later became lost in the independent
form of the prepositions, while being retained in the suffixal
forms, owing to its having been merged in what appeared to
be the plural suffixes.
If, now, ■'bp or by was really a singular form, superficially
similar to a plural form because of its weak third radical
(cf. ■'^ip and niip in Ruth i. 6), and supplied with suffixes
which were apparently those attached to plural nouns, it
would not be difficult for its opposite, nnn, while being itself
a singular noun never found in the dual or plural, to take
the plural suffixes, by analogy with '^b? or b?. Hence T^nnri
is not really a dual form, though superficially like one, but
Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, more than an occasional exceptional
usage is required to establish that this widespread agreement represents
a secondary development. H. H. R.]
1) [I suggest that the longer came to be preferred to the shorter
forms with suffixes as more euphonic (cf. nraon forPtjabn). G. R.D. —
Is the comparison quite relevant? The second radical of Double 'Ayin
verbs may be assimilated to the preceding consonant, as normally in
.\ramaic, or to the following consonant, as normally in Hebrew. The
form nraon did not arise as a euphonic variation of n:abn, which
^TTXt * Tl*
provides no greater difficulties in this respect than does n3bb;:n, but
from njabn or njaon. In the case of the prepositions concerned no
doubled consonant is involved. H. H. R. — Possibly not. Yet in the
Perfect, forms with •'m-, etc. are commoner than with simple Ti--.
the former in Ni., Hi., and the latter in Qal (and minor themes, Pu.,
Pol., which are not anyhow frequent). Again, Hebrew seems to have
liked these euphonic elements; cf. the "double ending" in is^irnpix.
G. R. D. — The relevance of the illustration is again doubtful. Nor
do I see why Tjb? should have been euphonicaliy more exceptionable
than, say, ^b'ip."H. H. R.]
H. H. Rowley, Some Hebrew prepositional forms 57
a singular form with a plural suffix, just as TJ'^bP is not really
a plural form, but a singular form with a suffix which has
become harmonized with the plural suffix. This will sufficiently
explain why we do not find such forms as ""finri, and why,
on the other hand, we do find DrinP, beside on'^Finri.
That forms which look like duals with suffixes may not
really be such may be illustrated by such examples as T^rri]
or i^n;;i), where we clearly have a singular noun with a
suffix pointed by the Massoretes as a plural suffixal form,
and , T^^Tlii* , where we have a plural noun irregularly
employing the construct form before light suffixes").
On the other hand, CSS is a true plural form, giving rise
to \3sb, a true plural construct, and "'psb, Tpssb, etc., true
plural suffixal forms. Its antonym is "'ins or "irti*. So far as
the forms with suffixes are concerned, they could either be
regarded as from "'insi, treating it as a dual construct, or
from ins, singular, supplied with plural suffixes by analogy
with its opposite, ^^^b, precisely as nn?i'), and it seems
1) [I think that Tin; has no value as evidence, as the Kt. evidently implies i'ln; (cf. Arab. Ij^ j) ; there is no root ftdy, and either a dual
or a plural form is out cf the question in view of the sense. G. R. D. —
There are occasional plene forms supporting the Massoretic pointing,
and some support may also be given by the corresponding word in
Syriac, loA., which takes plural suffixes. H. H. R.]
2) [Ehelich on Ps. i. 1 explains "'■^iSN as an archaic abstract singular
noun of the form qatlay, and Eitan (AJSL xlv, p. 62) thinks iTiicS
a similar formation. This view is probably right. G. R. D. — We are
therefore agreed that it is possible to have a singular noun with suffixes
that look like those normally attached to a plural noun, and the ac¬
ceptance of Ehblich's view strengthens my case. H. H. R.]
3) [But T'lt^?? is not analogous to T^?^ Why not T"'?? ^nd
-fnnn? G. R. D. — I only suggest that the suffixes are analogous,
since the suffixes to the singular nouns nnn and "ins were assimilated to the suffixes of the antithetic nouns '''bs and "'DDb — in the one case itself really a singular, though superficially appearing to be a plural, and in the other case being genuinely a plural. Assuming for the moment that O'lDD = features, and "iriN = back, we should not expect the latter
noun to be turned into a plural through association with the former,
even though the suffix in Ais back were assimilated to the suffix in
his features. H. H. R.]
preferable to accept an explanation which applies equally to
rnn, rather than to decide in favour of a different one here.
On this view ins is the older form of the preposition, and
the suffixal forms arose by analogy with those of "'Spb, but
whereas the one used plural suffixes with a plural noun, the
other used plural suffixes with a singular noun. Similarly
for the independent form of the preposition, "'ins arose by
analogy with "'JJsb. In the case of nnn there was no need
for any such independent form, since the independent form
of its opposite, "iby, became early shortened to b?, and so
lost the superficial appearance of a plural.
This explanation will apply equally to T2?a, in so far as
any difficulty attaches to that word. For while 1?? is not
quite a synonym of "'in'?, "'.^sb is the antonym of both. But
since T?? was used so much more rarely than "^ins, the
influence of the analogy would necessarily be weaker in this
case. Hence we find normally the regular suffixes of a singiüar
noun, and only exceptionally a plural suffixal form, 13''7.??,
in Amos ix. 10*).
It may be further noted that in Aramaic Dip early appears
as the antonym of "»inN. The latter is found frequently in
the Elephantine Papyri, and occasionally in Biblical Aramaic;
and in Aramaic, as in Hebrew, it regularly has the plural
suffixes. But in Aramaic the reflex analogy of ''"inS influenced
the forms of mp, so that though the independent form of
the preposition is regularly a singular, the plural suffixes are
always added to it, from the time of the Nerab inscriptions
on (cf. moip CooKB, NSI 65,2). Later, by the extension
1) [I modify my view to this extent, that I now prefer to explain
^y3 as meaning primarily at a distance from, but specialized to denote
far behind, and, in the case of doors and windows, through and away.
The singular forms are normal, and there is only one case of the dual
iD-i-iya, Am. ix, 10, where it is easily explained as a scribal error for
^3"i5a, due to the false analogy of iriN and nnn; moreover, many
MSS read I3i5a. G. R. D. — I agree that the reading in Am. ix. 10 is
probably a false one, in which case no difficulty at all attaches to this
word, and since the meaning buttock is now abandoned, the word falls
out of the group under discussion. H. H. R.]
H. H. Rowley, Some Hebrew prepositional forms 59
of the process, a plural form "'^'Jp, giving rise to the later
"«■api), was created. On the other hand, "ira seems to have
been a relatively late substitute for "'ins. In the Zenjirli
and Nerab inscriptions we find ItS'N used as a true noun» and
in the early Hadad inscription we find mtS'Sa (Cooke,
NSI 61, 32) approximating to the prepositional use, but with
a singular suffix. Even in the later period, when "inn became
the normal preposition for after, the process of assimilating
its forms to those of its opposite, Q^p., was never completed,
for whereas in Aramaic we normally find the plural suffixes,
there are still examples of the singular, while in Syriac the
singular suffixes are regularly found.
1) Cf. Dalhan, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch,
2nd ed., 1905, p. 230.
Traditionssammlung
Von Johann Fück-Halle
Nächst dem Koran erfreut sich kein Werk im orthodoxen
Islam einer solchen Wertschätzung wie die unter dem Namen
as-Sakih bekannte Traditionssammlung al-Buhäri's*). Ihr
Studium nimmt im Lehrbetrieb der Madrasen eine beherr¬
schende Stellung ein und ist mit einem ähnlichen Nimbus
wie das des Korans umgeben; man veranstaltet Feiern, wenn
man mit ihrer Lektüre zu Ende ist, man liest aus ihr in Not¬
zeiten vor, und vor allem im maghribinischen Gebiet gilt sie
als ein wunderwirkendes Buch Diese hohe Verehrung erklärt
sich zunächst daraus, daß der Sahih die für authentisch
geltenden Äußerungen des Propheten enthält, denen für die
Lebensführung der Gläubigen eine nicht minder große Be¬
deutung zukommt als dem Worte Gottes im Koran. Daß
aber gerade Buhäri's Sammlung im Wettbewerbe so vieler
Werke vom Consensus der islamischen Welt als die beste
Darstellung der Sünna anerkannt worden ist, so daß sie auch
unter den sechs kanonischen Sammlungen (al-kutub as-sitta)
eine ganz eigenartige Stellung einnimmt, hat seinen Grund
in der kritischen Auswahl des Inhalts, seiner ungemeinen
Reichhaltigkeit und seiner übersichtlichen Anordnung. In der
Schärfe seiner jeden einzelnen Gewährsmann einer sorgsamen
Prüfung unterziehenden Kritik steht Buhäri unerreicht da;
1) Über Bui)ärl und sein Werk s. Brockelmann, GAL 1, 157—60
und Supplement 1, 260 — 65.
2) Beispiele gibt Brockelmann, Suppl. 1, 261. Wie den Koran, so
hat man auch den $aliili auswendig gelernt, s. z. B. Ibn BaSkuwäl,
Sila (BAH I/Il) 63 pu und Ibn Abbär, Takmila (BAH V/VI) 271, e;
696,18; 751,8.
