B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Hi:

In verse 7 we see the word תַּכְּעִסֶנָּה - it is (according to BibleHub) Hiphil imperfect 3fs with 3fs pronomial suffix. I'm not sure how or why the 'nun' is there? (if I had to write the Hiphil imprft 3fs w. 3fs pro.suf. I'd probably write it as תַכְּעִסָהּ

so what is this 'nun'? And there's a dagesh in the nun (not sure why).

Thanxs!

Glenn

When I saw that, it surprised me. So, I looked it up. It's actually תַּכְעִסֶנָּה. There shouldn't be a dagesh in the kaf, and taḵ- forms a closed syllable. It's taḵʿīsénnâ.

Object suffixes can appear in two forms, and one of them has the nun energicum (which is often doubled with dagesh).

This is another point that is brought up in introductory grammars regarding the use of object suffixes. In Kutz & Josberger (Learning Biblical Hebrew: Reading for Comprehension), it is treated on pages 279–281, within which they write:

The dotted column in the suffix chart below presents the alternative forms that are sometimes seen in the Hebrew text. These suffix forms all have an infixed nun (for example, יְקַדְּשֶׁ֫נוּ‎ = ‎יְקַדְּשֶׁ֫נְהוּ‎) in place of the simple form יְקַדְּשֵׁ֫הוּ. These infixed suffixes are relatively infrequent compared to the regular suffix endings, but you should be familiar with them. When they do appear, they are used almost exclusively with the imperfect, suggesting that these forms were probably the original suffix form for the imperfect.

Pratico & Van Pelt (Basics of Biblical Hebrew) discuss it in sections 19.6–19.7, in which they call them "Nun-suffixes" and explain that "the 3ms suffixes וֹ‎, הוּ‎, and ◌ֶנּוּ are all translated with the same objective value, 'him'" (p. 229).

The following is what Gesenius (Second English Edition as translated and edited by Kautzsch) has to say about it in section 58i–58j. It is useful to read the whole of section 58 of Gesenius to get your bearings on these questions.

WOW! That's outstanding info Jason! Thanxs!

I have Pratico & Pelt (2nd Edition) so thanxs for finding the info in that book.

Glenn

Interesting, indeed. I hadn't run across that (nun energeticum) in my reading, or at least didn't pay attention to it. Thanks, Jason.

Hi Jason:

I had another question - when I first saw this word I thought it was Hiphil imperfect 3fp or 2fp. Is the dagesh in the nun the "dead-giveaway" it's NOT imperfect 3fp/2fp?

Glenn

Glenn Dean wrote:Hi Jason:

I had another question - when I first saw this word I thought it was Hiphil imperfect 3fp or 2fp. Is the dagesh in the nun the "dead-giveaway" it's NOT imperfect 3fp/2fp?

Glenn

I know that the ־נה ending looks kinda ambiguous, but notice that in that case, we wouldn't have the additional syllable.

The 2/3fp form builds on the 2ms form. The latter is תַּכְעִיס in this case. To that form, we simply add the -na ending and shift i > e. So, we get:

תַּכְעִיס + נָה > *תַּכְעִ֫יסְנָה > תַּכְעֵ֫סְנָה

This is basically how it happens with all of the binyanim. You start with the 2ms and then modify it.

Do you see how this is different from the form in question?

thanxs Jason, I do see how they are fundamentally different. I would pronounce the 3fs form as "tak - es - na", but the form in 1 S. 1:7 I would pronounce as "tak - i - sen - na" (so the fact one is 3 syllables while the other is 4 syllables makes them distinct).

thanxs!

Glenn

Yes, that's precisely right, Glenn.