^{page 31 note 1} I follow the provisional but convenient enumeration adopted by Harris, , Grammar of the Phœnician Language, 158–9Google Scholar, where the bibliography of these documents is given. An eighth inscription from Byblos, belonging to the period of Byb. l, is dealt with by Albright, in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 73 (02, 1939), 11 sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Obermann, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, lviii (1939), 229 sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Dunand, in the Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, ii (1938), 99 sqqGoogle Scholar. For the present discussion it contains no features of importance.

^{page 31 note 2} I.e. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, i, 1, 1. 6.

^{page 31 note 3} Harris, op. cit., 49 sq.

^{page 31 note 4} The adoption of the dual construct genitive-accusative termination by the plural antedates the historical period of Canaanite. Cf. Leander, Bauer, Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache, § 64 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 31 note 5} Cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, , Hebrew Grammar, § 93 ssGoogle Scholar. In vernaoular Punic there occur syllohom () and ubymysyrthohom () cf. AJSL., xxxix, 87, etc.

^{page 31 note 6} and , both in Byb. 5, 1. 6, and both referring to the preceding . Cf. Lidzbarski, , Altkanaanäische Texte, p. 14 infGoogle Scholar.

^{page 32 note 1} Ugaritian w b n h “and her sons”; Moabite and (Meša' inscription, line 22), and Hebrew -éha.

^{page 32 note 2} Cf. Byb. 2, l. 5. No inferences can be drawn from the Ugaritian material. In the Meša' inscription probably represents migdalōtéha; yod occurs as a mater lectionis in Moabite constructs, e.g. (1. 22), but is more frequently omitted.

^{page 32 note 3} .

^{page 32 note 4} in Byb. 2, 4, 5; in Byb. 4; in Byb. 5; in Byb. 5.

^{page 32 note 5} Cf. Harris, op. cit., 51, and Dunand, in Revue Biblique, xxxix, 329Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 6} Harris, , Development of the Canaanite Dialects, 38Google Scholar. So already, if from the root in Byb. 1, 1. 2. “And his year” would be (or ; we have no clear evidence how long after Byb. 1 the latter form survived).

^{page 32 note 7} Thus “day” at Byblos has as its plural in S. xii–xi b.c. (Byb. 2, 1. 5; cf. Deut. xxxii, 7; Psalm xc, 15), but by S. V b.c. (Byb. 5, 1. 9), which form is found elsewhere in Phœnician, and similarly in Ugaritian (e.g. Dan'el ii, 1, 16), Moabite () and elsewhere in Hebrew.

^{page 33 note 1} Cf. (in Byb. 1, 1. 2) seven times in Biblical Hebrew and (later Phœnician ) over 150 times.

^{page 33 note 2} On the etymology see JAOS., xlvii, 239; OLZ., xl (1937), 345–6Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 3} Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, § 124 g.

^{page 33 note 4} Ibid., § 124 c; cf. Friedrich, in Zeitschrift für Semitistik, ii, 6, noteGoogle Scholar. There is a close parallel in the unusual ⋯ξ αἱμ⋯των in Ev. Joh. 1, 1. 13; cf. Kittel, , Theologisclies Worterbuch, i, 172Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 5} Contrast the suffixal form after a long vowel of pure origin in “I set it” (Kilamuwa, line 11), “it covered him”, i.e. kissāyu or kissāyi for kissāhu (the form kissaya had shortened to kissā before the time of Kilamuwa: cf. and Bauer-Leander, op. cit., § 57p″), “they will erect it” (Lidzbarski, op. cit., 52, 1. 5), “we caused him to dwell” (CIS., i, 3, 1. 17), “let them bless him” (CIS., i, 3778, 1. 1).

^{page 33 note 6} I am indebted to Professor W. F. Albright of the Johns Hopkins University for this and other suggestions. Compare the similar form in Habakkuk iii. 10, and contrast Bohl, , Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe, 27, 83Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 7} Larnax tes Lapethou 2, 1. 11. The form corresponds to that in Ezekiel xxiii, 44, and to Accadian aššati; cf. Phœnician , plural (Biblical Hebrew three times). The reference both at Lapethos and in Ezekiel is to two women, and theoretically the forms might equally well be dual (i.e. in Ezekiel or ); cf. Ugaritian 'a ṯ t m, construct a ṯ t (Birth 39, 64; cf. BASOR., 71 (10, 1938), 37)Google Scholar. But in Phœnician the dual is restricted to numerals and the like; cf. Gesenius, op. cit., § 88 e, g. See further JEA., xxvi (06, 1940), 57 sqqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 34 note 1} Cf. Bauer-Leander, op. cit., § 17r.; Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, i, § 17 g.Google Scholar; Harris, op. cit., 29 sqq., 50; Burckhardt, , Altkanaanäische Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Ägyptischen, § 160Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 2} Harris, ibid., 55.

^{page 34 note 3} Cf. Sperber, in HUCA., xii–xiii, 199Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 4} Examples in Kahle, , Der Masoretische Text … der Babylonischen Juden, 99, etc.Google Scholar; Porath, , Mishnaic Hebrew … of the Babylonian Jews, 93, 106, etc.Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 5} This is best seen in the divergences in proper names; e.g. 'Iορδανης

^{page 34 note 6} Cf. Delitzsch, . Lese und Schreibfehler, § 18 dGoogle Scholar.

^{page 34 note 7} To those listed in Bauer-Leander, § 29 v (cf. g, l′), to all of which parallel forms in -â(y)w can be cited from the Hebrew Bible, there should be added , correctly rendered by Targum Onqelos in Genesis i, 12, 21, 25, vi, 20, vii, 14; Leviticus xi, 16, 22, 29; Deuteronomy xiv, 15, as , while (Genesis i, 11) is translated and (Genesis i, 21) as The other versions are less consistent in their renderings.

^{page 35 note 1} E.g. . The reduced forms, as is to be expected, are made to follow the analogy of the plurals, thus—“the sight (singular) of him”, Job xli, 1, but elsewhere; “his conduct”, 1 Samuel xix, 4, but “its ascent”, Ezekiel xl, 31, 34, 37; “his drink”, Daniel i, 5, 8; cf. Brockelmann, , Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen, § 40, 1Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 2} E.g. Massoretic 'ālā(y)w for 'ālēw, but correctly from 'alayhumō (cf. Bauer-Leander, § 25, 1); Massoretio but Lachish (iv, 8), both from 'ayyēhu; (Nash Papyrus, 1. 16), for Massoretic (cf. Cook, S. A. in PSBA., xxv (1903), 41Google Scholar; von Gall, in ZAW., 1903, 349Google Scholar; Sperber, op. cit., 172). Albright, (JBL., Ivi, 145 sqq.Google Scholar) assigns Papyrus Nash to the Maccabean period.

^{page 35 note 3} It is quite true, as Jouon, (Grammaire de l'Hébreu Biblique, 231)Google Scholar remarks, that we must connect the Biblical in not with the infrequent “friend (of the king)”—a court title, like the Ptolemaic ϕιλος, but with the common ; the latter, however, is but an abbreviated variant of the former, and the two forms are secondary differentiations of the same word ri'ayu, as, e.g. 'ilay > and (see Driver, G. R. in ZDMG., xci, 343 sqq.Google Scholar, and König, , Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache, ii, 116Google Scholar). Cf. Bauer-Leander, § 61 d″, Gesenius, § 84a, i. Since occurs 115 times and (Jeremiah, vi, 21) but once (properly ), and since both Meša' and the later Lachish ostraca would represent the 3 m.s. suffix to the shorter form by , there is little ground for regarding the waw in the Siloam as vocalic.

^{page 36 note 1} So perhaps p n h (Aliyan Ba'al, A ii, 8)beside p n t h(Aliyan Ba'al, v, 17). Mr. D. M. L. Urie draws my attention to Ugaritian l p n w h ('Anat, 6), with which may be compared South Arabian p n w t.

^{page 36 note 2} Cf. Harris, , Development of the Canaanite Dialects, 97, n. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 3} Cf. Torczyner, , The Lachish Letters, 40, 56Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 4} Cf. Harris, , Grammar, 48 sqq.Google Scholar; Rosenthal, in Orientalia, vii, 171Google Scholar.