Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/192
[63n] יַאְטֵם ψ 585 and יַעְרִם to deal subtilly, 1 S 2322, Pr 155, 1925, may be explained with Barth (ZDMG. 1889, p. 179) as i-imperfects (see above, §47i),—the latter for the purpose of distinction from the causative יַֽעֲרִים ψ 834.—Instead of the unintelligible form וַיֵּחָֽלְקֵם (so ed. Mant.; Baer and Ginsb. as in 243) 1 Ch 236 and וַיֶּֽחָ׳ 243 (partly analogous to תָּֽעָבְדֵם §60b) the Qal וַיַּחְלְקֵם is to be read. The form יִֽרַדֹּף ψ 76 which is, according to Qimḥi (in Mikhlol; but in his Lexicon he explains it as Hithpaʿēl), a composite form of Qal (יִרְדֹּף) and Piʿēl (יְרַדֵּף), can only be understood as a development of יִֽרְדֹף (cf. §64h on יִֽצֲחַק, and §69x on תִּֽהֲלַךְ Ex 923, ψ 739). Pathaḥ has taken the place of Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ, but as a mere helping-vowel (as in שָׁמַעַתְּ §28e, note 2) and without preventing the closing of the syllable. It is much simpler, however, to take it as a forma mixta, combining the readings יִרְדֹּף (impf. Qal) and יְרַדֵּף (impf. Piʿel).
[63o] 3. The above-mentioned (f, 3) change of ־ֶֽ־ֱ to ־ַֽ־ֲ occurs in the perfect Hiphʿîl, especially when wāw consecutive precedes, and the tone is in consequence thrown forward upon the afformative, e.g. הֶֽעֱמַ֫דְתָּ, but וְהַֽעֲמַרְתָּ֫ Nu 36, 813, 2719; הֶֽעֱבַ֫רְתִּי, but וְהַֽעֲבַרְתִּ֫י Jer 1514, Ez 2037; even in the 3rd sing. וְהַֽאֲוִין ψ 772.—On the contrary ־ֶֽ־ֱ occurs instead of ־ַֽ־ֲ in the imperative Hiphʿil, Jer 498,30; and in the infinitive Jer 3132. The preformative of עתר in Hiphʿîl always takes a in a closed syllable: Ex 84 הַעְתִּ֫ירוּ; verse 5 אַעְתִּיר; also verse 25 and Jb 2227.
[63p] 4. In the perfect Hiphʿîl ־ֶֽ־ֱ is sometimes changed into ־ֵֽ־ֲ, and in Hophʿal ־ֶֽ־ֳ into ־ֽׄ־ֲ (cf. §23h); הֵֽעֲבַ֫רְתָּ Jos 77, הֵֽעֲלָה Hb 115, הֹֽעֲלָה Ju 628, 2 Ch 2034, Na 28, always before ע, and hence evidently with the intention of strengthening the countertone-syllable (הֵֽ or הֹֽ) before the guttural. On a further case of this kind (זֹֽעֲמָה) see §64c. Something similar occurs in the formation of segholate nouns of the form qŏṭl; cf. §93q, and (on אֵמוּן &c. for אֱמוּן) §84aq.—In the imperfect consecutive וַיַּֽחֲזֶק בּוֹ the tone is thrown back on to the first syllable. On the Hophʿal תָּֽעָבְדֵם Ex 205, &c., see §60b.
[63q] 5. In the verbs הָיָה to be, and חָיָה to live, the guttural hardly ever affects the addition of preformatives; thus imperfect Qal יִֽהְיֶה and יִֽחְיֶה, Niphʿal נִֽהְיָה); but in the perfect Hiphʿîl הֶֽחֱיָה (2nd plur. וְהַֽחֲיִתֶם Jos 213, and even without wāw consecutive, Ju 819). Initial ה always has Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl instead of vocal Šewâ; הֱיֵה, הֱיוֹת, הֱיוֹתָם 1 S 257, הֱיִיתֶם (except הֲיִי be thou! fem. Gn 2460). The 2nd sing. fem. imperative of חָיָה is חֲיִי live thou, Ez 166; the infinitive, with suffix, חֲיוֹתָם Jos 58. After the prefixes וְ, בְ, כְ, לְ, מִ (=מִן) both ה and ח retain the simple Šewâ (§28b) and the prefix takes ĭ, as elsewhere before strong consonants with Šewâ; hence in the perfect Qal וִֽהְיִיתֶם, imperative וִֽהְיוּ, infinitive לֽהְיוֹת, בִּֽהְיוֹת &c. (cf. §16f, ε). The only exception is the 2nd sing. masc. of the imperative after wāw; וֶֽהְיֵה Gn 122, &c., וֶֽחְיֵה Gn 207.