confusion with the following הֵינִקִ֫הוּ); imperfect יוֹלִיךְ, but in the 1st sing. of the imperfect consecutive always וָֽאוֹלֵךְ Lv 2613, Am 210, &c. Rarely, and almost exclusively late or in poetry, the regular inflexions of הָלַךְ are also found: imperf. יַֽהֲלֹךְ (ψ 589, &c.; but תִּֽהֲלַךְ Ex 923, ψ 739; cf. § 64 a and h); אֶֽהֱלֹךְ Jb 1622, also Mêšaʿ inscription, line 14, אהלך; infin. הֲלֹךְ (Ex 319, Nu 2213 f.16,[1] Ec 68.9); imperative plur. הִלְכוּ Jer 5150. On the other hand, the perfect Qal is always הָלַךְ, participle הֹלֵךְ, infinitive absolute הָלוֹךְ, Niphʿal נֶֽהֱלַךְ, Piʿēl הִלֵּךְ, Hithpaʿēl הִתְהַלֵּךְ, so that a י never arrears unmistakably as the first radical. The usual explanation of the above forms is nevertheless based on a supposed obsolete יָלַךְ. It is, however, more correct to regard the apparent פ״ו forms of הלך with Praetorius (ZAW. ii. 310 ff.) as originating with the Hiphʿîl, of which the ground-form hahlîkh became hâlîkh, and this again, on the analogy of the imperfect Qal of verbs פ״א, hôlîkh. This hôlîkh being referred to a supposed haulîkh (properly hawlîkh) gave rise to new formations after the manner of verbs פ״ו.
Verbs properly פ״י differ from verbs פ״ו in the following points:
[a] 1. In Qal the initial Yôdh never suffers aphaeresis or elision; hence the infinitive has the form יְבשׁ,[2] the imperfect יִיטַב, יִיקַץ, יִינַק. (in pause יִינָק.), also written יִטַב, &c.; and so always with a tone-bearing ă in the second syllable, even after wāw consec., e.g. וַיִּיקַ֫ץ, except וַיִּ֫יקֶץ Gn 924, and וַיִּ֫יצֶר Gn 27.19, unless יָצַר is to be included among verbs פ״ו (cf. נוֹצַר Is 4310).
[b] 2. In Hiphʿîl the original form הַיְטִיב is regularly contracted to הֵיטִיב (rarely written הֵטִיב, הֵיטִב, &c.); imperfect יֵיטִיב, וַיֵּ֫יטֶב. Instances of the uncontracted form are יַיְשִׁ֫רוּ Pr 425, according to Barth (see above, § 67 p), an example of an i-imperfect of Qal, since the Hiphʿîl is otherwise always causative; הַיְשַׁר (imperative) ψ 59 Qerê (the Keth. requires הושׁר according to the form of verbs פ״ו; cf. Is 452, אושׁר Keth., אֲיַשֵּׁר Qerê), cf. Gn 817 Qerê; מַיְמִינִים 1 Ch 122, to be explained as a denominative from יָמִין; אַיְסִירֵם Ho 712 (§ 24 f, note), but perhaps the punctuation here is only intended to suggest another reading אֲיַסְּרֵם.
- ↑ Cf. above, m, note 2.
- ↑ This may be inferred from בִּיבשׁ (=בִּיְ׳) Is 2711, which with its fem. יְב֫שֶׁת Gn 87, is the only example of an infinitive construct Qal of these verbs. No example of the imperative Qal is found: consequently the forms יְטַב, &c. (in Paradigm L of the earlier editions of this Grammar), are only inferred from the imperfect.
