7/27/2019 Prof Mannan2
1/3
THE BOOK OF NUMBERS 22
Henry Omonisaye 2/12/2004
This presentation shall consider the morpho-phonetic and syntax
of some of the verses of this
chapter.
The imperative and the phonological shift from /a/ to /o/
yLi-hr"a'(aN"-hk'l. v6 yLi-hb'q") hk'l. v11 andyLi-hb'q")
aN"-hk'l.W v17. A common feature is the use of thelengthened
imperative or the imperative with the paragogich ,' though
originally meant to addthe emphatic nuance, it does not actually
achieve this. However, given some instances of its
occurrence, Joon-Muraoka thinks that it is honorific in some
cases; for instance, when God is
the addressee (Ps 5:2), a Prophet (Num 22:6), Priest (1sam
14:18) Father (Gen 27:19). The
emotive particleaN" is also found in 2 of the imperatives. Since
the nuance of paragogic h' is virtually not so clear, this particle
is added if greater emphasis is needed. (Joon-Muraoka48d) I think
this fits here because of the historicalsietz im leben of the Balak
and his city.
yLi-hb'q' and yLi-hr'a' we expect hB'quand hr'ao. If these forms
are to be read qoballi oralli, the addition of theparagogich causes
no change in the form of the word. If, however, as Jewish tradition
requires, they areto be read qaballi, aralli, then in bolli cases
the Qames must be explained, as the
equivalent of o. ((((((((Gesenius, 67o).The cases in which '
appears to stand in an opensyllable and yet is to be read as o
require special consideration. This is the case, ( a) when
Hateph-Qames follows, e.g. Al[\P' his work, or simple vocal
Sewa, e.g. !
b'r>D' ox goad; Hateph-Pathah follows in
^x]v'm.li1Sam15:1,^g]r'x]l; 24:11; (b)before another Qames- hatuph,
e. g. ^l.['P'thy work; on yLi-hr'a' and yLi-hb'q' Nu 22:6,11,17,
(c)in the twoplural forms ~yvid'q'sanctuaries and ~yvir'v'roots. In
all these cases theJewish grammarians regard the Metheg
accompanying the ' as indicating a Qamesrahabh (broad Qames) and
therefore read the 'as a. However, neither the origin of
theseforms, nor the analogous formations in Hebrew and in the
cognate languages, nor the
transcription of proper names in the LXX, allows us to regard
this view as correct. It is just
possible that Qames is here used loosely fora, as the equivalent
ofo. [Cf. Gesenius 9v also
Kutscher E. Yechezel, A History of Hebrew Language editedby
Richard Kutscher, Leiden-Jerusalem1982,33, 37, Blau, J., A Grammar
of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd amended edition, Harrassotwiz 1993,
9.2-9.3.4
and Jouon-Muraoka 6] this is without doubt complicated but the
point that stands out is that there
is a morpho-phonetic exchange. What is not written is pronounced
in order not to depart from the
expected, as given inthe different traditions.
v. 6 the dagesh in the suffixed preposition - called qyxiD>
(i.e. compressed) bythe Jewish grammarians is a euphonic dagesh. A
consonant is sometimes strengthened merely for
the sake ofeuphony (Dages euphonicum), and the strengthening is
then not so essential.
7/27/2019 Prof Mannan2
2/3
However it adds some morphological complication to our text.
This takes place under some
conditions namely: when two words are closely united in
pronunciation by Dagesforteconjunctivum: in the first letter of a
monosyllable or of a word having the tone (or occasionallythe
counter-tone) on the first syllable, when closely connected with
the preceding word, if that
word ends in a tone-bearing Qames (h') with Sewa mobile
preceding, or a tone-bearing h, Some limit the use of the Dehiq to
the closest connexion of a monosyllablewith a following
Begadkephath. However, it also applies to case we have
hereaN""-hk'l.,AB-hK,n: In all these examples the tone, were it not
for the Maqqeph,would be on the ultima of the first word.(cf.
Gesenius 20c and Juon-Muraoka 18i)
The complimentary verbal idea in v6When a relative verb
(incomplete in itself) receives its necessary complement in the
form of a
verbal idea, the latter is, as a rule, subordinated in the
infinitive construct with or without l.. Inour verse, the principal
idea is contained in the piel infinitive construct- AB-hK,n;the
subordination of the complementary verbal idea is in the
imperfect
(English rendering - to, inorder to orthat) areperadventure I
shall prevail(that) we may smite them, and(that)I may drive
them out of the land. lk;wa may, however, be a scribal error for
lk;Wn, due to theprecedingyl;Wa. (Gesenius 120c)I think the use of
the pronoun in the 1 st person singular isconsistent all through
and the re-vocalization that Gesenius and others suggest may be
linguistically unnecessary.
The use ofrv,a] in v6 as independent relative clausesThis
relative particle is used here not depending (adjectivally) on a
governing substantive, but
itself expressing a substantival idea. Clauses introduced in
this way may be called independent
relative clauses. `ra")Wy raoT' rv
