Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/164

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.


the perfect of the active (Piʿ̄l). The Pathaḥ of the first syllable is, however, with one exception (see m), always attenuated to ĭ in the perfect. In the second syllable, ă has been retained in the majority of cases, so that the conjugation should more correctly be called Piʿal; but very frequently[1] this ă also is attenuated to ĭ, which is then regularly lengthened to ē, under the influence of the tone. Cf. in Aram. קַטֵּל; but in Biblical Aramaic almost always קַטִּל. On the three cases in which ă before a final ר or ס has passed into Seghôl, see below, l.—Hence, for the 3rd sing. masc. perfect, there arise forms like אִבַּד, לִמַּד, קִדַּשׁ; גִּדֵּף, כִּבֵּד, &c.—Before afformatives beginning with a consonant, however, ă is always retained, thus קִטַּ֫לְתָּ, קִטַּלְתֶּם, קִטַּ֫לְנוּ, &c. In the infinitives (absol. קַטֹּל, obscured from qaṭṭâl; constr. קַטֵּל), imperfect (יְקַטֵּל), imperative (קַטֵּל), and participle (טְקַטֵּל) the original ă of the first syllable reappears throughout. The vocal Še of the preformatives is weakened from a short vowel; cf. the Arabic imperfect yŭqăttĭl, participle mŭqăttĭl.

 [52b]  The passive (Puʿal) is distinguished by the obscure vowel ŭ, or very rarely ŏ, in the first syllable, and ŏ (in pause ā) always in the second. In Arabic, also, the passives are formed throughout with ŭ in the first syllable. The inflexion of both these conjugations is analogous to that of Qal.

 [52c]  Rem. 1. The preformative מְ‍, which in the remaining conjugations also is the prefix of the participle, is probably connected with the interrogative or indefinite (cf. § 37) pronoun מִי quis? quicunque (fem. i.e. neuter, מָה); cf. §85e.

 [52d]  2. The Dageš forte, which according to the above is characteristic of the whole of Piʿēl and Puʿal, is often omitted (independently of verbs middle guttural, §64d) when the middle radical has Še under it (cf. §20m), e.g. שִׁלְחָה for שִׁלְּחָה Ez 1717; בִּקְשֻׁ֫הוּ 2 Ch 1515 (but in the imperative always בַּקְּשׁוּ 1 S 287, &c.), and so always in הַלְלוּ praise. The vocal character of the Še under the litera dagessanda is sometimes in such cases (according to §10h) expressly emphasized by its taking the form of a Ḥaṭeph, as in לֻֽקֳחָה Gn 223, with ־ֳ owing to the influence of the preceding u, cf. פָּֽעֳלוֹ for פָּעְלוֹ, &c.; Gn 914, Ju 1616. In the imperfect and participle the Še under the preformatives (Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ under א in the 1st sing. imperfect) serves at the same time as a characteristic of both conjugations (Gn 2614 f.).

 [52e]  3. According to the convincing suggestion of Böttcher[2] (Ausführliches Lehrbuch, §904ff. and § 1022), many supposed perfects of Puʿal are in reality

  1. So in all verbs which end in Nûn, and in almost all which end in Lamed (Olsh. p. 538). Barth is probably right in supposing (ZDMG. 1894, p. 1 ff.) that the vowels of the strengthened perfects have been influenced by the imperfect.
  2. As Mayer Lambert observes, the same view was already expressed by Ibn Ǵanâḥ (see above, §3d) in the Kitāb el-lumaʿ, p. 161. Cf. especially Barth, ‘Das passive Qal und seine Participien,’ in the Festschrift zum Jubiläum Hildesheimer (Berlin, 1890), p. 145 ff.