Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/70. Verbs פ״י. Second Class, or Verbs properly פ״י
Verbs properly פ״י differ from verbs פ״ו in the following points:
70a 1. In Qal the initial Yôdh never suffers aphaeresis or elision; hence the infinitive has the form יְבשׁ, 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).
70b 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, §67p), 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 (§24f, note), but perhaps the punctuation here is only intended to suggest another reading אֲיַסְּרֵם. 70c Rem. 1. The only verbs of this kind are: יָטַב to be good (only in the imperfect Qal and in Hiphʿîl; in the perfect Qal טוֹב, a verb ע״וּ, is used instead), יָנַק to suck, יָקַץ to awake, יָצַר to form (but see above, a), יָלַל only in Hiphʿîl הֵילִיל to bewail, יָשַׁר to be straight, right, also יָבֵשׁ (Arabic yăbĭsă) to be dry (but Hiphʿîl הוֹבִישׁ 2 S 196, on the analogy of verbs פ״ו; on Is 305, cf. §72x), and the Hiphʿîl הֵימִין (denominative from יָמִין), infin. לְהֵמִין 2 S 1419 to go to the right.
70d 2. In some examples of the imperfect Hiphʿîl the preformative has been subsequently added to the contracted form: יְיֵטִיב Jb 2421; יְיֵלִיל Is 152.3, 167; אֲיֵלִיל Jer 4831; plur. יְיֵלִ֫ילוּ Ho 714, cf. Is 6514. Qimḥi and others explain the above forms from a phonetic interchange of Yôdh and He, arising from the unsyncopated forms יְהֵילִיל, &c. (cf. Is 525). It is, perhaps, more correct to suppose that the regular forms (יֵיטִיב, יֵילִיל) were originally intended, but that in the later pronunciation the syllable was broken up in order to restore artificially the preformative which had become merged in the first radical.
70e Isolated anomalies are: perfect Hiphʿîl וְהֵיטִֽבֹתִי Ez 3611 with separating vowel (for הֵיטַ֫בְתִּי) on the analogy of verbs ע״וּ; imperfect יֵיטֵיב for יֵיטִיב 1 K 147; תֵּֽיטְבִי (imperfect Qal for תִּיטְבִי) Na 38; וַתְּנִיקֵ֫הוּ imperfect Hiphʿîl Ex 29, either an error for וַתֵּֽינִק׳, or an irregular shortening of the first syllable, caused by the forward movement of the tone. Similarly, the Hiphʿîl הֵקִיץ (from קוּץ) is always used instead of הֵיקִיץ from יָקַץ; hence also הֲקִיצ֫וֹתָ, הֱקִיצֹ֫תִי, imperat. הָקִ֫יצָה, infin. הָקִיץ.—On וַיַּבְּשֵׁ֫הוּ Na 14, see §69u).
- 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.