quiescent, is made audible again by the helping Seghôl (unless perhaps there is a confusion with the imperfect consecutive Hiphʿîl of יאל).
[e] (d) Verbs פ״י and ל״א (cf. § 69, § 70, and § 74), as יָצָא to go forth, imperative צֵא go forth, with ־ָה paragogic צֵ֫אָה Ju 929 in principal pause for צְאָה; 2nd fem. plur. צְאֶ֫נָה Ct 311; infinitive צֵאת; Hiphʿîl הוֹצִיא to bring forth.—יָרֵא to fear, imperfect יִירָא and וַיִּירָא (or וַיּרָא), imperative יְרָא; imperfect Niphʿal יִוָּרֵא ψ 1304, participle נוֹרָא.
[f] (e) Verbs פ״י and ל״ה (cf. § 69, § 70, and § 75), e.g. יָדָה to throw, Hiphʿîl to confess, to praise, and יָרָה to throw (both properly verbs פ״ו), and יָפָה to be beautiful. Infinitive יָרֹה, יְרוֹת; imperative יְרֵה; imperfect consecutive וַיִּיף Ez 317 (cf. also וַתִּ֫יפִי 1613); with suffixes וַנִּירָם we have shot at them (from יָרָה) Nu 2130; perhaps, however, it should be read with the LXX וְנִינָם and their race (also in the very corrupt passage ψ 748 נִינָם is probably a substantive, and not the imperfect Qal with suffix from יָנָה); Piʿēl; וַיַּדּוּ for וַיְיַדּוּ, (§ 69 u). Hiphʿîl הוֹדָה, הוֹרָה; infinitive הוֹדֹת (as infinitive absolute 2 Ch 73); imperfect יוֹרֶה, cf. אַל־תֹּנוּ Jer 223; apocopated וַיּוֹר 2 K 1317.
[g] (f) Verbs ע״וּ and ל״א, particularly בּוֹא to come. Perfect בָּא, בָּ֫אתָ, בָּ֫את or בָּאתְ (Gn 168, 2 S 143, Mi 410; cf. § 75 m), once בָּ֫נוּ for בָּ֫אנוּ 1 S 258; for בֹּאוּ Jer 2718, which is apparently the perfect, read יָבֹ֫אוּ. In the imperfect Qal the separating vowel occurs (תְּבֹאָ֫ינָה instead of the more common תָּבֹ֫אנָה, cf. also תָּבֹ֫אןָ Gn 3038) only in Jer 916, ψ 4516, and 1 S 107 Kethîbh.
[h] For וַתָּבֹאת 1 S 2534 Qerê (the Kethîbh ותבאתי evidently combines the two readings וּבָאתְ and וַתָּבֹאִי; cf. Nestle, ZAW. xiv. 319), read וַתָּבֹ֫אִי; on the impossible forms Dt 3316 and Jb 2221 cf. § 48 d.—In the perfect Hiphʿîl הֵבִיא, הֵבֵ֫אתָ and (only before a suffix) הֲבִיאֹתָ; the latter form is also certainly intended in Nu 1431, where the Masora requires וְהֵֽבֵיאתִ֫י, cf. 2 K 92, 1925, Is 4323) Jer 2513, Ct 34. Before suffixes the ē of the first syllable in the 3rd sing. always becomes Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl, e.g. הֱבִֽיאֲךָ, הֱבִיאַ֫נִי; elsewhere invariably Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ, e.g. הֲבֵאתָ֫נוּ or הֲבִֽיאֹתָ֫נוּ. On the other hand, ē is retained in the secondary tone in the perfect consecutive when without suffixes, e.g. וְהֵֽבֵאתָ֫. Cf. moreover, וַֽהֲקֵאֹתוֹ (וַֽהֲקֵאֹתוֹ in Opitius and Hahn is altogether incorrect), Pr 2516, from קִיא; but קְיוּ spue ye, Jer 2527 (perhaps only a mistake for קִיאוּ), is not to be referred to קִיא but to a secondary stem קָיָה. In the imperfect וַתָּקִא is found once, Lv 1825, besides וַיָּקֵא (analogous to וַיָּבֵא).—On אָבִי (for אָבִיא), מֵבִי, יָנִי, see § 74 k.
[i] (g) The form חָיַי to live, in the perfect Qal, besides the ordinary development to חָיָה (fem. חָֽיְתָה), is also treated as a verb ע״ע, and then becomes חַי in the 3rd pers. perfect, in pause חָי, and with wāw consecutive וָחַי Gn 322, and frequently. In Lv 2536 the contracted form וְחֵי is perhaps st. constr. of חַי life, but in any case read וָחַי perfect consecutive as in verse 35. The form וָחָ֫יָה occurs in Ex 116 in pause for וָחַ֫יָּה (3rd fem.) with Dageš omitted in the י on account of the pausal lengthening of ă to ā.
