Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/60. Imperfect with Pronominal Suffixes
|←The Perfect with Pronominal Suffixes||Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1909)
, translated by Arthur Ernest Cowley
Imperfect with Pronominal Suffixes
|Infinitive, Imperative and Participle with Pronominal Suffixes →|
60a In those forms of the imperfect Qal, which have no afformatives, the vowel ō of the second syllable mostly becomes ־ְ (simple Šewâ mobile), sometimes ־ֳ; thus in the principal pause, Nu 3520, Is 273, 622, Jer 3133, Ez 356, Ho 1010; before the principal pause, ψ 11933; before a secondary pause, Ez 1723; even before a conjunctive accent, Jos 235. Before ־ְךָ, ־ְכֶם, however, it is shortened to Qameṣ ḥaṭuph, e.g. יִשְׁמָרְךָ (but in pause יִשְׁמְרֶ֫ךָ or יִשְׁמְרֶ֫ךָּ; with Nûn energicum, see §58i), יִשְׁמָרְכֶם, &c. Instead of תִּקְטֹ֫לְנָה, the form תִּקְטְלוּ is used for the 2nd and 3rd fem. plur. before suffixes in three places: Jer 219, Jb 1915, Ct 16.
60b Rem. 1. יְחָבְרְךָ ψ 9420 is an anomalous form for יַחְבָּרְךָ (cf. the analogous יָחְנְךָ §67n) and יִֽפְגָֽשְׁךָ (so Baer; others יִפְגָּֽשְׁךָ) Gn 3218 for יִפְגָּֽשֲׁךָ. To the same category as יְחָבְרְךָ belong also, according to the usual explanation, תָּֽעָבְדֵם (from תַּֽעֲבֹד), Ex 205, 2324, Dt 59, and נָֽעָב׳ Dt 133. As a matter of fact, the explanation of these forms as imperfects of Qal appears to be required by the last of these passages; yet why has the retraction of the ŏ taken place only in these examples (beside numerous forms like יַֽעַבְדֵ֫נִי)? Could the Masora in the two Decalogues and in Ex 2324 (on the analogy of which Dt 133 was then wrongly pointed) have intended an imperfect Hophʿal with the suffix, meaning thou shalt not allow thyself to be brought to worship them?
60c Verbs which have a in the second syllable of the imperfect, and imperative, Qal (to which class especially verba tertiae and mediae gutturalis belong, §64 and §65) do not, as a rule, change the Pathaḥ of the imperfect (nor of the imperative, see §61g) into Šewâ before suffixes; but the Pathaḥ, coming to stand in an open syllable before the tone, is lengthened to Qameṣ, e.g. וַיִּלְבָּשֵׁ֫נִי Jb 2914; יִגְאָל֫וּהוּ 35; וַיִּשְׁלָחֵם Jos 83; יִקְרָאֻ֫הוּ ψ 14518; but יִקְרְאוֹ Jer 236, is probably a combining the readings יִקְרָאוֹ and יִקְרְאוּ, cf. §74e.
60d 2. Not infrequently suffixes with the connecting vowel a are also found with the imperfect, e.g. תִּדְבָּקַ֫נִי Gn 1919, cf. 2932, Ex 3320, Nu 2233, 1 K 224 Qerê, Is 563, Jb 918; also ־ַ֫נִּי, Gn 2719,31, Jb 714, 934, 1321 (in principal pause); וַיַּכִּירָהּ Gn 3733, cf. 167, 2 S 1127, Is 265, Jb 2827, 1 Ch 202; יַכִּירָ֑נוּ Is 6316 (manifestly owing to the influence of the preceding יְדָעָ֫נוּ); יִלְבָּשָׁם Ex 2930, cf. 217, Nu 2130, Dt 715, ψ 748; even אֲמִילַֽם 11810–12; וַיּֽוֹשִׁיעָן Ex 217, and יְחִיתַֽן Hb 217 (where, however, the ancient versions read יְחִתֶּ֫ךָ); even יִרְדְּפוֹ (ô from āhu) Ho 83; cf. Ex 2229, Jos 24 (but read וַתִּצְפְּנֵם); 1 S 181 Keth., 2114 (where, however, the text is corrupt); 2 S 146 (where read with the old versions וַיַּךְ); Jer 236 (see §74e), ψ 358, Ec 412.—On pausal Seghôl for Ṣere in וַֽאֲבָֽרֲכָֽם Gn 489 and וַתְּאַֽלֲצֶ֑הוּ (so Baer, but ed. Mant., Ginsb. וַתְּאַלְצֵ֑הוּ) Ju 1616, see §29q.
60e 3. Suffixes are also appended in twelve passages to the plural forms in וּן, viz. תְּדַכְּאוּנַ֫נִי, will ye break me in pieces? Jb 192; יְשָֽׁרְת֑וּנֶךְ (here necessarily with a connecting vowel) Is 607,10; Pr 522 (וֹ but probably corrupt); elsewhere always without a connecting vowel; יִקְרָאֻ֫נְנִי with two other examples Pr 128, 817, Ho 515; cf. ־֫וּנְךָ ψ 634, 9112; ־ֻ֫נְהוּ Jer 522; ־֫וּנְהָ Jer 224, all in principal pause. [See Böttcher, Lehrb., § 1047 f.]
60f 4. In Piʿēl, Pôʿēl, and Poʿlēl, the Ṣere of the final syllable, like the ō in Qal, becomes vocal Šewâ; but before the suffixes ־ְךָ and ־ְכֶם it is shortened to Seghôl, e.g. יְקַבֶּצְךָ Dt 304, ψ 3412, Is 512. With a final guttural, however, אֲשַׁלֵּֽחֲךָ Gn 3227; also in Pr 48, where with Qimḥi תְּכַבֵּ֫דְךָ is to be read. ē is retained in the tone-syllable; an analogous case in Hiphʿîl is וְיַגֵּ֫דְךָ Dt 327. Less frequently Ṣere is sharpened to Ḥireq, e.g. אֲאַמִּצְכֶם Jb 165, cf. Ex 3113, Is 115, 5212; so in Poʿlēl, Is 251, ψ 302, 3734, 1451, and probably also in Qal אֹֽסִפְךָ 1 S 156; cf. §68h.
60g 5. In Hiphʿîl the î remains, e.g. תַּלְבִּישֵׁ֫נִי Jb 1011 (after wāw consecutive it is often written defectively, e.g. וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם Gn 321 and ofton); but cf. above, f, Dt 327. Forms like תַּעְשְׁרֶ֫נָּה thou enrichest it, ψ 6510, 1 S 1725, are rare. Cf. §53n.
60h 6. Instead of the suffix of the 3rd plur. fem. (ן), the suffix of the 3rd plur. masc. (ם) is affixed to the afformative וּ, to avoid a confusion with the personal ending וּן; cf. וַיְמַלְאוּם Gn 2615 (previously also with a perf. סִתְּמוּם); Gn 2618, 3313, Ex 217 (where וַיּֽוֹשִׁעָן occurs immediately after); 3918,20, 1 S 610 (where also בְּנֵיהֶם is for בְּנֵיהֶן, a neglect of gender which can only be explained by §135o).—For יַֽהַרְגֻן Zc 115 read perhaps יַֽהַרְגֵן with M. Lambert.