CHAPTER 8

OF THE CONSTRUCT CASE OF NOUNS

Things are expressed either absolutely or in relationship to other things, so that they may be indicated more clearly and distinctly. For example: “The earth is big,” “the earth” is expressed in an absolute state; but “God’s earth is big,” here, “earth” is in a relative state because it is expressed more effectively or indicated more clearly, and this is called the construct state. I will now tell in orderly fashion the manner in which this is usually expressed, beginning with the manner of the singular.

Nouns which ended in a preceded by a kametz or a cholem, change the into a and the kametz into a patach -. Thus becomes in construct case , and means somebody’s prayer. So to do becomes in construct case somebody’s doing, as in the day of the Lord God’s doing.

Those which have a double or only a single kametz in the absolute, change in the construct case the penultimate into a sheva and the ultimate into a patach, like from a word, a talent of gold from a talent, from a wise man, as Job in chapter 9 called God wise of heart. So blessed, peace, visiting, old, etc., change the penultimate kametz to a sheva; so also justice, a blessing, change the ultimate kametz into a patach, and the penultimate into a sheva, and the into a as we have already said, thus becoming . It is only because two shevas cannot occur at the beginning of a word that the first sheva is changed into chirek. This is always the case, I cannot reiterate this too often, with every chirek and patach before a sheva.

A penultimate tsere is sometimes changed into a sheva, and an ultimate sometimes to a patach, like from hair, and from a corner, from an elder, from a stick. But most frequently both the ultimate and the penultimate remain unchanged. Indeed, these and many others like them are completely uncertain; at times a noun changes the tsere and at times it retains it, which shows that in the Scriptures the dialects are mixed up. Thus everyone is at liberty either to change or to leave both the tsere and the kametz in the ultimate; except for the tsere before a which always should be retained because of common usage, like a temple, for example. The word occurs everywhere in the Scriptures in the construct case as , and and become and . Therefore I say everyone is free to write for and for , even though neither is found in the Scriptures. And what I have said about the tsere and the kametz should be said about everything that does not follow a fixed rule. But of this I shall treat copiously in another place. Here let me add a word concerning the matter of which I have spoken thus far, and which I regard to be no less essential toward the purpose of this chapter and toward the general knowledge of this language.

In the previous chapter, we have said that the feminine endings and and the plural are characteristic of adjectives and participles, doubtless because the same noun may have an adjective, which sometimes is referred to as masculine and sometimes as feminine, and for that reason, at one time or another requires either of two endings. This is not the case with the substantive nouns and, therefore, it sometimes happens that substantive nouns which express neither masculine nor feminine are referred to as of feminine gender when they end in or ; or perhaps this is (as we have said) because they derive their origin from feminine adjectives. But it is something else that I intend here: namely, that just as the determinations of the substantives originate from adjectives and participles, so the changes, which nouns experience in the construct case, derive their origin from mutations of infinitives and the participles. For all Hebrew nouns (as is known to all experts in this language) are derived from forms of verbs. It should be added that first and foremost the use of substantive nouns is to indicate something absolute and not relative. Indeed the latter is impossible for proper nouns; which thus are never found in construct case. But actions are seldom expressed without either an active or passive relationship, and, therefore, are rarely found in the absolute state. However it may be, the variations of the substantives are easily learned from the ways in which the infinitive and participial nouns vary. Thus there is no doubt that the one derives its origin from the other. I shall now list here a few examples and their variations in the construct case, as a model for the changes of all nouns, so that they may be easily committed to memory.

Forms of Infinitives

These are the principal examples of the infinitives. And now I proceed toward the participles.

Forms of Participles
Active

Besides these, there are the other forms of the participles, but I am of the opinion these will suffice for the present, so that anyone can easily learn to change a noun from the absolute state to the construct. This rule should be observed: vowels which are unchangeable are retained in the construct case, for example monosyllables and also those referred to as disyllables whose first vowel is a sheva, like writing, a wolf, etc., a double segolate, patach, chirek, and sheva. A cholem is generally retained also but before a makaf we see that it is changed to a short o. The shurek very rarely or perhaps never is changed, and if occasionally a kibbutz is used in its place, it does not on that account become a construct, but because one may serve for the other; for a shurek is a vowel composed of a cholem and a kibbutz, and therefore, in place of a shurek we frequently see used either a cholem or a kibbutz.

But the reason that , and others of this type are in construct , and , etc., is due to common usage of the language. We have already said above that a kametz before a segol replaces the first segol at the end of a sentence, or in the middle of a sentence to divide one part of it from the other, like for and for . Therefore , etc., occurs in the absolute state in place of the construct .

But it should be noted that in this language it is mostly the custom to render the vav quiescent, changing the syllable into a cholem; which is the most frequent usage and it is seen most prevalent in respect to this noun because in the Scriptures it is only once found in the construct, otherwise everywhere from fraud it is and from wickedness ; and so in the rest of these forms.

Finally, may I add something also about the ending of the plural. We see that the plural ending is always retained in the construct; but loses the and the chirek changes into a tsere. This pattern also holds true with the construct of dual , which similarly loses the with the chirek, and the patach changes to tsere, like from eyes, it becomes in the construct state; and this I believe makes it that every patach before with a chirek follows this form in the construct, making it from a house and from wine , etc.

Now before I pass on to the last, I must first of all note that I understand by the word noun all classes of nouns. Every noun, except the proper noun (as we have already said), can be in genitive or can be changed to genitive; and particularly the relative form, or the preposition which is always indicated as relative, and on that account can almost always become a genitive, and is frequently changed; all of which I shall illustrate here very clearly by examples.

	House of God. Both are substantives.
	A heart of a wise one. First is a substantive. The second adjective.
	The creation of God. First is an infinitive.
	Day of the creation of God. Inf. which simultaneously modifies and is modified.
	Early ones to rise, that is, those who are quick to rise.
	Early in the morning, preposition in the genitive and participle in the construct.
	Before the Lord. Preposition is construct from before, so from the midst, it is in the midst of.
	Until and until, that is, indefinite time, here the preposition modifies and is modified.
	Plague without ceasing, that is, a plague which does not cease. Adverb is not modified.
	Not wise; here the word construct from is like in absolute state which like changes in construct state, as we have said, from the patach and chirek into a tsere.

Finally, I want to remind you again, and again, that you consider carefully in your mind all that has been said in Chapter 5 about the noun. For nobody will be able to cultivate this language profitably, unless he rightly learns what we have said there, namely, that the verbs, the participles, the prepositions, and the adverbs among the Hebrews are all pure unmixed nouns.

ⁱ The infinitive in the absolute state often agrees with the perfect tense: for to speak also means he has spoken; to grow, to cook have the form of the perfect, as I have shown in its place. Therefore, I have no doubt that with a double kametz and with kametz and patach were also forms of the infinitive, from which form comes in the construct, namely from , and . And let it suffice to note this in passing here because it is more extensively discussed under the subject of conjugations.

ⁱⁱ In the Bible this particle construct is not found and the meaning does not seem to have been able to be expressed relatively to the extent that it is now always accepted. Nevertheless, since this form is also used occasionally with the same meaning, there is no reason that it should be less able to have a construct.

¹.  [Actually .—M.L.M.]