Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/67. Verbs ע״ע

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar  (1909) 
Wilhelm Gesenius
edited and enlarged by Emil Kautzsch
, translated by Arthur Ernest Cowley
Verbs ע״ע‎

§67. Verbs ע״ע, e.g. סָבַב to surround.
Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 155 ff.; Grundriss, p. 632 ff. See B. Halper, 'The Participial formations of the Geminate Verbs' in ZAW. 1910, pp. 42 ff., 99 ff., 201 ff. (also dealing with the regular verb).

67a 1. A large number of Semitic stems have verbal forms with only two radicals, as well as forms in which the stem has been made triliteral by a repetition of the second radical, hence called verbs ע״ע. Forms with two radicals were formerly explained as being due to contraction from original forms with three radicals. It is more correct to regard them as representing the original stem (with two radicals), and the forms with the second radical repeated as subsequently developed from the monosyllabic stem.[1] The appearance of a general contraction of triliteral stems is due to the fact that in biliteral forms the second radical regularly receives Dageš forte before afformatives, except in the cases noted in §22b and q. This points, however, not to an actual doubling, but merely to a strengthening of the consonant, giving more body to the monosyllabic stem, and making it approximate more to the character of triliteral forms.

The development of biliteral to triliteral stems (ע״ע) generally takes place in the 3rd sing. masc. and fem. and 3rd plur. perfect Qal of transitive verbs, or at any rate of verbs expressing an activity, e.g. סָבַב, סָֽבְבָה, סָֽבְבוּ: חָנַן Gn 335 (but with suffix חַנַּ֫נִי, ver. 11); sometimes with an evident distinction between transitive and intransitive forms, as צָרַר to make strait, צַר to be in a strait; see further details, including the exceptions, in aa. The development of the stem takes place (a) necessarily whenever the strengthening of the 2nd radical is required by the character of the form (e.g. חִלֵּל, שֻׁדֵּד), and (b) as a rule, whenever the 2nd radical is followed or preceded by an essentially long vowel, as, in Qal, סָבוֹב, סָבוּב, in Pôʿl and Pôʿal, סוֹבֵב, סוֹבַב.

67b 2. The biliteral stem always (except in Hiphʿîl and the imperfect Niphʿal, see below) takes the vowel which would have been required between the second and third radical of the ordinary strong form, or which stood in the ground-form, since that vowel is characteristic of the form (§43b), e.g. תַּם answering to קָטַל, תַּ֫מָּה to the ground-form qăṭălăt, תַּ֫מּוּ to the ground-form qăṭălû; infinitive, סֹב to קְטֹל.

67c 3. The insertion of Dageš forte (mentioned under a), for the purpose of strengthening the second radical, never takes place (see §20l) in the final consonant of the word, e.g. תַּם, סֹב, not תַּםּ, סֹבּ; but it appears again on the addition of afformatives or suffixes, e.g. תַּמּ֫וּ, סֹ֫בּוּ, סַבּ֫וּנִי, &c.

67d 4. When the afformative begins with a consonant (נ‍, ת), and hence the strongly pronounced second radical would properly come at the end of a closed syllable, a separating vowel is inserted between the stem-syllable and the afformative. In the perfect this vowel is וֹ, in the imperative and imperfect ־ֶי, e.g. סַבּ֫וֹתָ, סַבּ֫וֹנוּ, imperfect תְּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה (for sabb-tā, sabb-nû, tasōbb-nā). The artificial opening of the syllable by this means is merely intended to make the strengthening of the second radical audible.[2]

67e The perfect תַּ֫מְנוּ (for תַּמּ֫וֹנוּ) Nu 1728, ψ 647 (Jer 4418 תָּֽמְנוֹ with Silluq), owing to omission of the separating vowel, approximates, if the text is right, to the form of verbs ע״וּ (cf. קַ֫מְנוּ from קוּם).

67f 5. Since the preformatives of the imperfect Qal, of the perfect Niphʿal, and of Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal throughout, before a monosyllabic stem form an open syllable, they take a long vowel before the tone (according to §27e), e.g. imperfect Hiphʿîl יָסֵב for yă-sēb, imperative הָסֵב for yă-sēb, &c. Where the preformatives in the strong verb have ĭ, either the original ă (from which the ĭ was attenuated) is retained and lengthened, e.g. יָסֹב in imperfect Qal for yă-sōb, or the ĭ itself is lengthened to ē, e.g. הֵסֵב perfect Hiphʿîl for hĭ-sēb (see further under h). The vowel thus lengthened can be maintained, however, only before the tone (except the û of the Hophʿal, הוּסַב for hŭ-săb); when the tone is thrown forward it becomes Še, according to §27k (under א and ה compound Še), e.g. תָּסֹב, but תֵּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה; imperfect Hiphʿîl תָּסֵב, but תְּסִבֶּ֫ינָה; perfect הֲסִבֹּתִי, &c.

67g Besides the ordinary form of the imperfects, there is another (common in Aramaic), in which the imperfect Qal is pronounced יִסֹּב or יִסַּב, the first radical, not the second, being strengthened by Dageš forte, cf. יִשֹּׁם 1 K 98, וַיִּקֹּד Gn 2426; with a in the second syllable, יִגָּ֑ר Lv 117, יִדַּל Is 174, וַיִּשַּׁח Is 29, &c., יִדֹּם Am 513 and frequently, וָאֶֽכֹּת Dt 921, &c., יִסֹּב (turn intrans.) 1 S 58, &c., וַיִּקֹּב Lv 2411, יִתֹּם Ez 4712, &c., יִחַם (with Dageš forte implicitum) 1 K 11; in the plural, יִתַּ֫מּוּ Nu 1435, &c. (in pause יִתָּ֫מּוּ ψ 10228); perhaps also יִמַּל, יִמַּךְ (unless these forms are rather to be referred to Niphʿal, like יִדָּ֑מּוּ 1 S 29; יִמָּֽלוּ Jb 2424); with suffix תִּקֳּבֶ֫נּוּ occurs (cf. §10h) in Nu 2325; Imperfect Hiphʿîl יַתֵּם, Hophʿal יֻבַּת, &c. The vowel of the preformative (which before Dageš is, of course, short) follows the analogy of the ordinary strong form (cf. also u and y). The same method is then extended to forms with afformatives or suffixes, so that even before these additions the second radical is not strengthened, e.g. וַיִּקְּד֫וּ Gn 4328, &c., for וַיָּקֹ֫דּוּ and they bowed the head; וַיַּבְּתוּ and they beat down, Dt 144 (from כָּתַת); וַיִּתְּמוּ Dt 328; יִדְּמוּ Ex 1516, Jb 2921 (cf., however, וַיַּסֵּ֫בּוּ Ju 1823, 1 S 58, יֻכַּ֫תּוּ Jer 465, Jb 420). To the same class of apparently strong formations belongs תִּצַּ֫לְנָה (without the separating vowel, for תְּצִ֫לָּינָה, cf. 1 S 311 and below, p) they shall tingle, 2 K 2112, Jer 193.—On the various forms of the Niphʿal, see under t.

Rem. According to the prevailing view, this strengthening of the first radical is merely intended to give the bi-literal stem at least a tri-literal appearance. (Possibly aided by the analogy of verbs פ״ן as P. Haupt has suggested to me in conversation.) But cf. Kautzsch, ‘Die sog. aramaisierenden Formen der Verba ע״ע im Hebr.’ in Oriental. Studien zum 70. Geburtstag Th. Nöldekes, 1906, p. 771 ff. It is there shown (1) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often serves to emphasize a particular meaning (cf. יִגָּר, but יְגֹרֵ֫הוּ, יָחֵל and יַחֵל, יִסֹּב and יָסֹב, יִשֹּׁם and תֵּשַׁם), and elsewhere no doubt to dissimilate the vowels (as יִגָּר, יִדַּל, never יָגַר, יָדַל, &c.): (2) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often appears to be occasioned by the nature of the first letter of the stem, especially when it is a sibilant. Whether the masoretic pronunciation is based on an early tradition, or the Masora has arbitrarily adopted aramaizing forms to attain the above objects, must be left undecided. 67h 6. The original vowel is retained, see f, (a) in the preformative of the imperfect Qal יָסֹב for yă-sōb (cf. §§47b, 63b, and for verbs ע״וּ § 72); (b) in the perfect Niphʿal נָסַב for nă-săb (§51a); (c) in Hophʿal הוּסַב, with irregular lengthening (no doubt on the analogy of verbs פ״ו) for hōsăb from hŭ-sab, imperfect יוּסַב from yŭ-sab, &c.

67i On the other hand, an already attenuated vowel (i) underlies the intransitive imperfects Qal with ă in the second syllable (probably for the sake of dissimilating the two vowels), e.g. יֵמַד for yĭ-măr (see p); and in the preformative of Hiphʿîl הֵסֵב from hĭ-sēb (ground-form הַקְטֵל, §53a), as well as of the participle מֵסֵב (ground-form מַקְטֵל), on the analogy of the perfect. In the second syllable of the Perf. the underlying vowel is ĭ, attenuated from an original ă, which in the strong verb is abnormally lengthened to î (§53a). The lengthened from ĭ is, of course, only tone-long, and hence when without the tone and before Dageš forte we have e.g. הֲסִבּ֫וֹתָ. On the retention of the original ă in the second syllable, cf. v.

67k 7. The tone, as a general rule, tends to keep to the stem-syllable, and does not (as in the strong verb) pass to the afformatives ־ָה, וּ and ־ִי (2nd sing. fem. imperfect); e.g. 3rd sing. fem. perfect חַ֫תָּה, in pause חָ֫תָּה; with ר and gutturals מָ֫רָה (for מַ֫רָּה), שָׁ֫חָה ψ 4426; on the other hand, with wāw consecutive וְרַבָּ֫ה Is 612 (but וָחָֽיָה Ex 116). In the 3rd plur. perfect the tone-syllable varies; along with דַּ֫לּוּ, קַ֫לּוּ, we also find דַּלּ֫וּ and קַלּ֫וּ, רַבּ֫וּ Is 5912, שַׁח֫וּ Hb 36, &c.; but in pause always חָ֫תּוּ, תָּ֫מּוּ, &c. The tone likewise remains on the stem-syllable in the imperfect Qal in תָּסֹ֫בִּי, יָסֹ֫בּוּ; perfect Hiphʿîl הֵסֵ֫בָּה, הֵסֵ֫בּוּ; imperfect תָּסֵ֫בִּי, יָ֫סֵבּוּ &c. In the forms with separating vowels, the tone is moved forward to these vowels (or to the final syllable, cf. ee), e.g. סַבּ֫וֹתָ, תְּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה, &c.; except before the endings תֶם and תֶן in the perfect, which always bear the tone. This shifting of the tone naturally causes the shortening of the merely tone-long vowels ē and ō to ĭ and ŭ (or ŏ, see n), hence הֲסִבּ֫וֹתָ from הֵסֵב, תֲּסֻבּ֫ינָה from יָסֹב; on cases in which the vowel of the preformative becomes Še, see above, f

67l 8. In several verbs ע״ע, instead of Piʿēl, Puʿal and Hithpaʿēl, the less frequent conjugation Pôʿēl, with its passive and reflexive, occurs (most probably on the analogy of the corresponding forms of verbs ע״וּ, cf. §72m), generally with the same meaning,[3] e.g. עוֹלֵל to ill-treat, passive עוֹלַל, reflexive הִתְעוֹלֵל (from עָלַל; cf. the Hithpôʿēl from רָעַע and פַּרַד Is 2419 f.); in a few verbs also Pilpēl (§55f) is found, e.g. גִּלְגֵּל to roll, Hithpalpēl הִתְגַּלְגֵּל to roll oneself (from גָּלַל); imperative with suffix סַלְסְלֶהָ exalt her, Pr 48; שִֽׁעֲשַׁע to comfort, to delight in; passive שָֽׁעֳשַׁע to be caressed (from שָׁעַע). These forms cannot appear in a biliteral form any more than Piʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl; cf. עִוְעִים (Is 1914) and קַוְקָו (Is 182,7).—For תִּתָּבָר 2 S 2227 read, according to ψ 1827, תִּתְבָּרָר.

Remarks
I. On Qal.

67m 1. In the perfect, isolated examples are found with ō in the first syllable, which it is customary to refer to triliteral stems with middle ō (like יָכֹל, §43a); viz. רֹ֫מּוּ they are exalted, Jb 2424 to רָמֹם; רֹ֫בּוּ they shot, Gn 4923 to רָבֹב; זֹ֫דוּ Is 16 to זָרֹר. But this explanation is very doubtful: זֹ֫רוּ especially is rather to be classed among the passives of Qal mentioned in §52e.

67n 2. Imperfects Qal with ō in the second syllable keep the original a in the preformative, but lengthen it to ā, as being in an open syllable, hence יָחֹן, יָמֹד, יָעֹז, יָרֹן, יָרֹעַ (trans. he breaks in pieces, but יֵרַע intrans.= he is evil); imperfects with ă have, in the preformative, an ē, lengthened from ĭ. See the examples below, under p, §63c and e, §72h, and specially Barth in ZDMG. 1894, p. 5 f.

The Ḥōlĕm of the infinitive, imperative, and imperfect (סֹב, יָסֹב) is only tone-long, and therefore, as a rule, is written defectively (with a few exceptions, chiefly in the later orthography, e.g. צוֹר bind up, Is 816; גּוֹל ψ 375; דּוֹם ver. 7; לָבֽוֹז for לָבֹז to plunder, Est 313, 811). When this ō loses the tone, it becomes in the final syllable ŏ, in a sharpened syllable ŭ, or not infrequently even ŏ (see above, k). Examples of ŏ are: (a) in a toneless final syllable, i.e. before Maqqeph or in the imperfect consecutive, רָן־ (rŏn) to rejoice, Jb 387; וַיָ֫סָב Ju 1118 (once even with ŭ in a toneless final syllable, וַיָּ֫רֻם Ex 1620); on the other hand, in the plur. וַיָּסֹ֫בּוּ, fem. וַתְּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה; (b) before a tone-bearing afformative or suffix, e.g. imperative 2nd sing. fem. רָנִּ֫י, גָּזִּ֫י (cf. ff); חָנֵּ֫נִי pity me; סָלּ֫וּהָ Jer 5026; יְשָׁדֵּם Pr 113 Qe; תְּחָגֻּֽהוּ Ex 1214 (for the defective writing, cf. יְסֻבֻּ֫הוּ Jb 4022). In יָחְנְךָ֫ Gn 4329, Is 3019 (for יִחָנְךָ) this ŏ is thrown back to the preformative.

67o On the 2nd plur. fem. imperat. עֹ֫רָה make yourselves naked Is 3211, cf. the analogous forms in §48i.-Quite abnormal is the infinitive absolute רֹ֫עָה Is 2419 (as ה follows, probably only a case of dittography for רֹעַ, cf. קֹב Nu 2325 and שֹׁל Ru 216); so also are the imperatives קָֽבָה־לִּי Nu 2211,17, and אָֽרָה־לִּי 226, 237, with ה paragogic. We should expect קֻ֫בָּה, אֹ֫רָה. If these forms are to be read qŏballî, ʾŏrallî, they would be analogous to such cases as מִדְבַּ֫רָה (§90i), the addition of the paragogic ־ָה causing no change in the form of the word (קָב־ like רָן־ above). If, however, as Jewish tradition requires, they are to be read qāballî, ʾārallî, then in both cases the Qameṣ must be explained, with Stade, as the equivalent of ō (קֹֽבָה־לִּי, &c.; cf. §9v). Still more surprising is קָבְנוֹ curse him, Nu 2313, for קֻבֶּ֫נּוּ or קָבּ׳.[4]

67p 3. Examples with Pathạ in the infinitive, imperative, and imperfect are בַּר (in לְבָרָם to prove them, Ec 318); רָד Is 451; שַׁךְ Jer 526; בְּשַׁגָּם in their error, Gn 63 (so ed. Mant., but there is also good authority for בְּשַׁגַּם, from שַׁ· = שֶׁ· = אֲשֶׁר and גַּם also; so Baer and Ginsburg). Also גַּל take away, ψ 11922; and the imperfects יֵחַם it is hot, Dt 196, &c. (on the ē of the preformative cf. n); יֵמַר it is bitter, Is 249; יֵצַר it is straitened; יֵרַךְ it is soft, Is 74; תֵּשַׁם it is desolate, Ez 1219 (in pause תֵּשָֽׁם Gn 4719); וַתֵּקַ֫ל she was despised, Gn 164 (but elsewhere in the impf. consec. with the tone on the penultima, e.g. וַיֵּ֫צֶר Gn 328, &c.; וַיֵּ֫רַע Gn 2111, &c., cf. Ez 197); in the 1st sing. imperfect אֵיתָ֑ם[5] ψ 1914, abnormally written fully for אֵתָם, unless אֶתָּם is to be read, as in some MSS., on the analogy of the 3rd sing. יִתֹּם.—In the impf. Qal of שׁלל the reading of Hb 28 varies between יְשַׁלּ֫וּךָ (Baer, Ginsb.) and יְשָׁלּ֫וּךָ (ed. Mant., Jabl.).— The following forms are to be explained with Barth (ZDMG. xliii, p. 178) as imperfects Qal with original ĭ in the second syllable, there being no instances of their Hiphʿîl in the same sense: וַיָּ֫גֶל Gn 2910; יָגֵן Is 315, &c.; וַיָּסֶךְ Ex 4021, ψ 914, &c.; perhaps also תְּצִלֶּ֫ינָה 1 S 311 and יָהֵל Job 3126, &c.; in accordance with this last form, (בְּ)הִלּוֹ Job 293 would also be an infinitive Qal, not Hiphʿîl (for בַּֽהֲהִלּוֹ), as formerly explained below, under w. Finally the very peculiar form וַתָּ֫רִץ Ju 953 may probably be added to the list.

67q Imperfects, with an original u in the second syllable, are also found with this ŭ lengthened to û (instead of ō), e.g. יָרוּן, if the text is correct, in Pr 296; יָשׁוּד ψ 916 (unless it be simply an imperfect from שׁוּד to be powerful, to prevail); יָרוּץ (if from רצץ) Is 424, &c. (also defectively אָרֻץ ψ 1830; but in Ec 126, according to Baer, וְתָרוּץ); תִּתֻּם Ez 2411 (on the sharpening of the ת cf. g above).[6]

67r A similar analogy with verbs ע״וּ is soon in the infinitives לָבוּר (for בֹּד) Ec 91; בְּחֻקוֹ Pr 827 (cf. בְּחוּקוֹ Pr 829) for בְּחֻקּוֹ, and in the imperfect אֲמֻֽשְׁךָ Gn 2721. (The forms חַנּוֹת in ψ 7710, שַׁמּוֹת Ez 363, חַלּ֫וֹתִי ψ 7711, formerly treated here as infinitives from ע״ע stems, are rather to be referred to ל״ה stems, with Barth, Wurzeluntersuchungen, Lpz. 1902, p. 21.) On other similar cases, see below, under ee. For examples of the aramaïzing imperfect, see above, g.

67s

4. In the participle, the aramaïzing form שֹֽׁאֲסַ֫יִךְ for שֹֽׁסְסַ֫יִךְ occurs in Kethîbh, Jer 3016 (the Qe indicates a participle from שָׁסָה); רֹעָה Pr 2519 appears to be a contraction from רֹֽעֲעָה, part. fem. = breaking in pieces.
II. On Niphʿal.

67t 5. Besides the ordinary form of the perfect נָסַב with Pathaḥ (in pause נָסָב) and the participle נָסָב with Qameṣ in the second syllable, there is also another with Ṣere, and a third with Ḥolem, e.g. perfect נָמֵס it melts, Ez 2112, 2215; נָסֵ֫בָּה (for נָסַבָּה) Ez 262; part. נָמֵס molten, 1 S 159, Na 211; נָקֵל it is a light thing, 2 K 2010, Is 496 (perf. נָקַל); with ō, e.g. נָגֹ֫לּוּ they are rolled together, Is 344; cf. 6319, 642, Am 311, Na 112, Ec 126b. In the imperfect with ō in the second syllable, on the analogy of verbs ע״וּ (from which König would also explain the perfects with ō), we find תִּדֹּ֫מִּי thou shalt be brought to silence, Jer 482 (unless this form should be referred to Qal with Qimḥi, Olshausen, König); יֵרוֹעַ he suffers hurt, Pr 1115, 1320; תֵּרוֹץ (for tirrōṣ) Ez 297; with ē in the second syllable תֵּחֵל she profanes herself, Lv 219, but וָֽאֵחַל Ez 2226, and יֵחָ֑ל Is 4811, יֵחַת Is 78, &c. For infinitives, cf. הִמֵּס to melt, ψ 683 (as inf. constr.; 2 S 1710 as inf. absol.); again, with compensatory lengthening in the first syllable, הֵחֵל Ez 209, 1422, but with suffix הֵֽחַלּוֹ Lv 214; also הִבּוֹז to be plundered, and הִבּוֹק to be emptied, Is 243; in the imperative, only הִבָּ֫רוּ be ye clean, Is 5211. On הֵרֹ֫מּוּ get you up, Nu 1710, and the corresponding imperf. יֵרֹ֫מּוּ Ez 1017, &c., cf. dd.

67u Examples of the perfect Niphʿal with sharpening of the initial syllable are, נִחַל it is profaned, Ez 2216, 253 (from חָלַל); נִחַר (from חָרַר) ψ 694, 1024 (also נָחַר Jer 629); נִחַת fractus est (from חָתַת) Mal 25; cf. with this in the participle, נֵֽחָמִים (for niḥḥāmîm) Is 575, and נֵֽאָרִים Mal 39: in the imperative and infinitive Niphʿal such a virtual strengthening of the guttural after preformatives never occurs.—The occurrence of u instead of ô as a separating vowel in the perfect נְשַׁדֻּ֫נוּ Mic 24 is abnormal.

III. On Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal.

67v 6. The second syllable in Hiphʿîl sometimes has Pathaḥ instead of Ṣere, especially under the influence of ר and the gutturals, e.g. perfect הֵמַר he made bitter, הֵשַׁח he bowed, הֵפַר he hath broken, Gn 1714, in pause, cf. §29q; otherwise הֵפֵר, plur. הֵפֵ֫רוּ Is 245. In הֵפִיר ψ 3310, Ez 1719, cf. ψ 8934, and in הֵשׂ֫ירוּ Ho 84 (perhaps also in יְחִיתַן Hab 217, but cf. §20n) there is an assimilation to the corresponding forms of verbs ע״וּ, see z. Also הֵצַר Dt 2852, הֵתַז (in pause) Is 185; inf. לְהָבַֽר to cleanse, Jer 411, in pause. But also with other consonants, e.g. הֵדַק 2 K 2315, הֵקַל Is 823; הֵרַךְ Jb 2316; plur. הֵסַ֫בּוּ 1 S 59,10 (and so usually in the 3rd plur. perf, except before ר and gutturals, e.g. הֵרֵ֫עוּ); imper. הָשַׁ֑ע besmear, Is 610; plur. הָשַׁ֑מּוּ be astonished, Jb 215; imperfect תָּרַ֫ע Thou dost afflict; part. מֵצַל (on ē in the first syllable, see under i) shadowing, Ez 313 (but מֵסִיךְ Ju 324 is assimilated to the form of verbs ע״וּ, unless, with Moore, we simply read מֵסֵךְ, or, with incorrect spelling, מֵסֵיךְ. So in the imperative הֲמִישֵׁ֫נִי Ju 1626 Qe, and in the infinitive הֲתִֽמְךָ is 331).

67w The ē of the second syllable, when without the tone, may become ĕ, e.g. הֵ֫תֶל בִּי Gn 317 (see also x). It is unusual (cf. §53k) to find the ē written fully as in the infinitive לְהָפֵיר Zc 1110. Instead of Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ a Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl is found under the preformative in הֱקִלֹּתַ֫נִי 2 S 1944, and a Pathaḥ occurs before ח (with a virtual sharpening of the ח) in such forms as הַֽחִתֹּ֫תָ Is 93; cf. Gn 116, Dt 231, 324, 1 S 2215, Est 613—in all these cases before חִ.—On בְּהִלּוֹ Jb 293, see above, p: on וְהַחְתַּתִּ֫י Jer 4937, see below, dd.

67x 7. In the imperfect consecutive of verbs whose second radical is a guttural, ă is retained (§22d) in the second syllable instead of ĕ, e.g. וַיָּ֫רַע 1 K 1625: so also with ר, as וַיָּ֫צַר 2 Ch 2820, Dt 29—but cf. also וַיָּ֫פֶר Neh 49.

67y 8. Aramaïzing forms (but cf. Rem. §67g) in Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal are, וַיַּסֵּב Ex 1318, &c.; cf. Ju. 1823; אַל־תַּמֵּר Ex 2321, but read אַל־תֶּ֫מֶר from מָרָה: וַיַּכְּתוּ Dt 144 (cf. Nu 1445), but וַיַּסֵּ֫בּוּ Ju 1823, 1 S 58, 2 Ch 296; אַחֵל profanabo, Ez 397; תַּתֵּס Jb 223; without elision of the ה (cf. §53q), וַיְהַתֵּל 1 K 1827, but Jer 94 יְהָתֵ֫לוּ, Jb 139 תְּהָתֵ֫לּוּ; with î in the second syllable יַשִּׁים Jer 4920, 5045; cf. וַנַּשִּׁים Nu 2130; in the perfect הִזִּי֫לוּהָ La 18. In Hophʿal, הֻמְּכוּ they are brought low, Jb 2421; יֻכַּת he is smitten, Is 2412 (plur. יֻכַּ֫תּוּ Jer 465, Mi 17); in pause, יֻחָֽקוּ Jb 1923, but also יֻכַּ֑תּוּ Jb 420 (so Baer, Ginsb., but ed. Mant., Jabl. יֻכָּתּוּ); with ŏ in the initial syllable, הָשַּׁמָּהֿ (infinitive with suffix = הָשַּׁמָּהּ, cf. §91e) Lv 2634 f., cf. 2 Ch 3621; בָּהְשַׁמָּה, with irregular syncope for בְּהָשַּׁ׳, Lv 2643.

IV. In General.

67z 9. Verbs ע״ע are most closely related as regards inflexion to verbs ע״וּ (§ 72). The form of verbs ע״ע is generally the shorter (cf. e.g. יָסֹב and יָקוּם, הֵסֵב and הֵקִים); in a few cases, however, the two classes exactly coincide, e.g. in the imperfect Qal and Hiphʿîl with wāw consecutive, in Hophʿal and in the less common conjugations (see above, l).

67aa 10. The developed forms (with three radicals), as mentioned in a, are especially frequent in the 3rd sing. masc. and fem., and the 3rd plur. perf. Qal (i.e. in forms without an afformative or with an afformative beginning with a vowel) of transitive verbs, or verbs, at any rate, expressing action, e.g. סָבַב, סָֽבְבוּ (but before a suffix also סַבּ֫וּנִי, as well as סְבָב֫וּנִי, שַׁדּ֫וּנִי &c.); זָמַם, זָֽמֲמָה, אָֽפֲפוּ, &c. Sometimes the contracted, as well as the uncontracted form, is found, e.g. בָּזַז to plunder, plur. בָּֽזְזוּ; in other parts, only בָּזַ֫זְנוּ Dt 235, as well as בַּזּ֫וֹנוּ Dt 37 זָמַ֫מְתִּי Zc 814,15 and זַמֹּ֫תִי Jer 428. Other examples of biliteral forms in 2nd sing. masc. are Dt 2512, Pr 3032; in 1st sing., Jos 59. A part from Qal the only example of a developed form is וְהַחְתַּתִּ֫יּ Jer 4937.

67bb On the other hand, the biliteral forms are the more common in the 3rd sing. and plur. of perfects which are intransitive, and express a state; cf. דַּק Dt 921 (Ex 3220 דָּ֑ק; elsewhere always a transitive verb); חַת, fem. חַ֫תָּה; מַר, fem. מָ֫רָה (for marrā); צַר, fem. צָ֫רָה (cf. וְחָ֫רָה Ez 2411); רַךְ, שַׁח, fem. שַׁ֫חָה, תַּם &c.; plur. חַ֫תּוּ, תַּ֫מּוּ &c. (but on the tone, cf. ee below). Exception, עָֽשְׁשָׁה ψ 68.

67cc The intransitive but developed perfects דָּֽלֲלוּ (also דַּ֫לּוּ), חָלַל, נָֽדְדָה, נָֽדְדוּ (in pause נָדָ֫דוּ), סָרַר, עָֽשֲׁשָׁה (plur. in pause עָשֵֽׁשׁוּ ψ 3111), צָֽלֲלוּ, שָֽׁחֲחוּ (also שַׁ֫חוּ), almost all have, as Mayer Lambert observes, at least an active, not a stative meaning. Triliteral forms of the infinitive after לְ are לִסְבֹּב Nu 214; לִשְׁדוֹד Jer 474; לִגְזׄז Gn 3119 (also לָגֹז Gn 3813); cf. also לַחְמָם Is 4714, in subordinate pause, for לַֽחֲמַם; with suffix לַֽחֲנַנְכֶם Is 3018, and, from the same form חֲנַן, with retraction and modification of the vowel, לְחֶנְנָהּ ψ 10214; also שְׂחוֹחַ Is 6014, בִּגְזׄז 1 S 252, כִּמְסֹס Is 1018, בַּֽעֲזוֹז Pr 828, בִּצְרוֹר Pr 268.—Imperative שָׁדְדוּ Jer 4928 (cf. §20b, and ibid. also on חַֽנְנֵ֫נִי ψ 914); in the imperfect, יִדּוֹד Na 37 (ψ 6813; cf. Gn 3140) from נדד; the strong form here, after the assimilation of the Nûn, was unavoidable. On the other hand, יְשָׁדְדֵם Jer 56 is anomalous for יְשְׁדֵּם (Pr 113 Qe; the eastern school read the Poʿēl ישׁודדם in the Kethîbh); the strengthening of the second radical has been afterwards resolved by the insertion of a vocal Še. Cf. also יֶֽחֱנַן Am 515 (elsewhere יָחֹן). In Niphʿal, the triliteral form יִלָּבֵב is found, Jb 1112; in Hiphʿil, all the forms of רנן, thus imperative הַרְנִ֫ינוּ, imperfect תַּרְנִין; infinitive הַשְׁמֵם Mi 613; participle מַשְׁמִים Ez 315. That the developed (triliteral) forms possess a certain emphasis is seen from their frequent use in pause, as in ψ 11811 after a biliteral form (סַבּ֫וּנִי גַם־סְבָב֫וּנִי).

67dd 11. The above-mentioned (see g) neglect of the strengthening in aramaïzing forms, such as יִדְּמוּ and the like, occurs elsewhere tolerably often; in the perfect Qal תַּ֫מְנוּ for תַּמּ֫וֹנוּ Nu 1728 (Jer 4418; cf. above, e); imperfect נָבֹ֫זָה 1 S 1436 (־ָה parag. without any influence on the form, cf. o); even with the firm vowel reduced to vocal Šewâ; נָֽבְלָ֫ה Gn 117 for נָבֹ֫לָּה (cohortative from בָּלַל); יָֽזְמ֫וּ for יָזֹ֫מּוּ ibid. ver. 6, they purpose; following the analogy of verbs ע״וּ, אֲמֻֽשְׁךָ (see above, r); from intransitive imperfects Qal, תֵּֽצְרִי Is 4919 (plur. masc. Jb 187); יֵֽרְעוּ Neh 23; also תִּישָׁ֑מְנָה Ez 66 (for which read תֵּישׁ׳=תֵּשׁ׳) might be explained in the same way.—Perfect Niphʿal נָֽסְבָ֫ה for נָסַ֫בָּה Ez 417; נָֽזְלוּ Ju 55 for נְמַלְתֶּם ;נָזֹ֫לּוּ for נְמַלֹּתֶם Gn 1711 (as if from מָלַל not מוּל to circumcise), cf. Is 193, Jer 814; imperfect תִּמַּ֫קְנָה Zc 1412; participle נֵֽחָמִים, cf. u. So also נָפַץ 1 S 1311, נָֽפְצָה Gn 919 (cf. Is 333), are perfects Niphʿal from פצץ (= פּוּץ), not Qal from נָפַץ.—In Hiphʿîl הֵתַ֫לְתָּ (for הֲתִלֹּ֫תָ) Ju 1610 (2 S 1534); הֵעֵ֫זָה for הֵעֵ֫וָּה Pr 713 (cf. Ct 611, 713).

No less irregular is the suppression of the vowel of the stem-syllable in לְהַפְרְכֶם Lv 2615.—On the perfect דַּלְיוּ Pr 267, cf. §75u.

67ee 12. Cases in which the tone is thrown forward on the afformatives (see k) are (a) in the perfect, the 1st sing. regularly (but cf. וַֽהֲצֵרֹ֫תִי Jer 1018 before לָהֶם) after ו consec., Ex 3319,22, 2 K 1934, &c., also Is 4416 (חַמּוֹתִ֖י before ר); ψ 9211 (but the text is certainly corrupt; see the Lexicon), 1166, perhaps also Jb 1917, וְחַנֹּתִֹי (though in this passage, and in ψ 173, the form might be an infinitive in ôth; see Delitzsch on Jb 1917); in the 2nd sing. וְקַצֹּתָ֫ה (before א) Dt 2512; in the 3rd plural, רַבּ֫וּ multi sunt, ψ 32, 10424, Jer 56, 1 S 2510; רַכּ֫וּ they are soft, ψ 5522 קַלּ֫וּ they are swift, Jer 413, Hb 18; זַכּ֫וּ they are pure, Jb 1515, 255, La 47; שַׁח֫וּ they did bow, Hb 36; חָר֫וּ they are burned, Is 246. A by form of שָׁתוּ (ע״וּ, cf. §72dd) is שַׁתּ֫וּ ψ 4915, 739.

67ff (b) In the imperative (a command in an emphatic tone) רָנִּ֫י sing, Is 541, Zp 314, Zc 214; רָנּ֫וּ Is 4423, 4913, Jer 317 (but רֹ֫נִּי lament, La 219), חָגִּ֫י keep (thy feasts), Na 21, Jer 729; עוּזָּ֫ה (= עֻזָּה) before א, ψ 6829. On the retention of the short vowels ŭ (ŏ) and ĭ before Dageš forte, in place of the tone-long ō and ē, see above, k; on the change of the vowel of the preformative into Še, when it no longer stands before the tone, see g.

  1. So (partly following Ewald and Böttcher) A. Müller, ZDMG. xxxiii. p. 698 ff.; Stade, Lehrbuch, §385b, c; Nöldeke, and more recently Wellhausen, ‘Ueber einige Arten schwacher Verba im Hebr.’ (Skizzen u. Vorarb. vi. 250 ff.). Against Böttcher see M. Lambert, REJ. xxxv. 330 ff., and Brockelmann, as above.
  2. Of all the explanations of these separating vowels the most satisfactory is that of Rödiger, who, both for the perfect and imperfect (Ewald and Stade, for the imperfect at least), points to the analogy of verbs ל״ה. We must, however, regard סַבּ֫וֹתָ as formed on the analogy not of גָּלִ֫יתָ, but (with P. Haupt) of a form גָּל֫וֹתָ (= gālautā, cf. Arab. ġazauta), while תְּסֻבֶּינָה follows the analogy of תִּגְלֶינָה. [See also Wright, Comp. Gr., 229 f.]
  3. Sometimes both Piʿēl and Pôʿēl are formed from the same stem, though with a difference of meaning, e.g. רִצֵּץ to break in pieces, רֹצֵץ to oppress; חִנֵּן to make pleasing, חוֹנֵן to have pity; סִבֵּב to turn, to change, סוֹבֵב to go round, to encompass.
  4. For נוֹ as suffix of the 3rd person a parallel might be found in יֶשְׁנוֹ, §100o, and probably also in the Nûn of the Phoenician suffix נם: cf. Barth, ZDMG. xli. p. 643, and the note on §100o.
  5. Also in Ez 66, instead of תִּישָׁ֑מְנָה, which could only come from ישׁם, תֵּי֚שׁ׳ is intended, and יֶאְשְׁמוּ in the same verse is probably only an error for יֵשַׁ֫מּוּ.
  6. According to Stade, Grammatik, § 95, Rem., the pronunciation with û, since it also appears in Neo-Punic [and in Western Syriac, see Nöldeke, Syr. Gramm., § 48], was that of everyday life.