An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

d For complex historical reasons, a few nouns have dual morphology, but behave in
no way as duals. The two most common are plurals: םִי מַ
֫ ‘water’ and םִי מַ ֫ ָשׁ
‘heavens’; both words have final-weak roots (ימ, ימשׁ), and their plural shapes
fall together with the usual dual. Some other terms have been given fanciful
“dual” etymologies: םִי תַּ ֫ ְשׁ חֻ ְנ ‘(double?) fetters of bronze,’ םִי ר֫ ַהֳ
ָצ ‘noon (time
of the double shadow?),’ םִי בַּ֫ רְ ַע ‘evening (time between day and night?),’ and
םִי ר֫ ַ ְצ ִמ ‘Egypt (composed of Upper and Lower Egypt).’ A handful of toponyms
have dual forms of no obvious significance: םִי ר֫ ַ ְפאֶ ‘Ephraim,’ םִי תָי ַ֫
רְ ִק
‘Kiryathaim,’ and the Qere of ‘Jerusalem,’ ַל֫ ָשׁוּרְי
ם ֵל ָשׁוּרְי).
7.4 Plural
םִי (the Kethiv is apparently
a Whereas English largely restricts its use of the plural to enumerate countables,
the Hebrew plural is used with many different significations. It has a variety of
basic uses, chiefly with countable and collective nouns, and a special set of senses
with abstract nouns. The honorific plurals are important for theological and
literary reasons.
b Some points of morphology are worth noting. The standard plural ending -îm has
overtaken many of the occurrences of the enclitic mem (see 9.8); thus some cases
in which a plural form seems difficult may, in fact, be in error. The Hebrew plural
ending -îm (also found in Phoenician) is rarely replaced by -în (standard in
Aramaic and Moabite). This occurs in several poetic passages as well as in later
books, for example, ןירִ חֵ א ֲ ‘other’ (Job 31:10), ןִיּא ִ ‘islands’ (Ezek 26:18), ןיטִּ ח ִ
‘wheat’ (Ezek 4:9), ןיִיּח ַ ‘life’ (Job 24:22), ןימָ ִ י ‘days’ (Dan 12:13), ןידִּ מ ִ
‘garments’ (Judg 5:10), ןי ִלּ ִמ ‘words’ (Job 4:2), ןי ִכל ָ ְמ ‘kings’ (Prov 31:3), ןיִיּ ִע
‘rubble’ (Mic 3:12), ןינֹד ִ ִצ ‘Sidonians’ (1 Kgs 11:33), ןי ִצר ָ ‘runners’ (2 Kgs
11:13), ןימִ ֵמוֹשׁ ‘desolate’ (Lam 1:4). The Hebrew plural endings are almost
always external to the singular form, but there are some signs of the use of
changes in the base to form plurals, as in other Semitic languages. These include
(1) the base-stretching -ōh- syllable found in the plural of biradical nouns (sing.
לא ֵ ‘god,’[Page 119] pl. םיהלֹ ִ א; ֱ the rare, alternative singular, הּלֹ ַ א, ֱ is probably
a secondary formation; sing. ה ָמ אָ
‘maid,’ pl. תֹה ָמ א); ֲ (2) perhaps a variant base
in the plurals of segholate nouns (sing. ךְ ֶל ֶמ ֫ ‘king,’ pl. םי ִכל ָ ְמ); and (3) the
geminating plurals of nouns from geminate roots (רה ַ ‘hill,’ regular pl. םירִ ָ
sing. singular
pl. plural
ה,