Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/75. Verbs ל״ה
Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 149 ff.; Grundriss, p. 618 ff.—G. R. Berry, ‘Original Waw in ל״ה verbs’ in AJSL. xx. 256 f.
75a These verbs, like the verbs פ״י (§§69, 70), belong to two different classes, viz. those originally ל״ו and those originally ל״י, which in Arabic, and even more in Ethiopic, are still clearly distinguished. In Hebrew, instead of the original ו or י at the end of the word, a ה always appears (except in the ptcp. pass. Qal) as a purely orthographic indication of a final vowel (§23k); hence both classes are called ל״ה, e.g. גָּלָה for גָּלַי he has revealed; שָׁלָה for שָׁלֵו he has rested. By far the greater number of these verbs are, however, treated as originally ל״י; only isolated forms occur of verbs ל״ו.
74b שָׁלָה to be at rest may be recognized as originally ל״ו, in the forms in which the Wāw appears as a strong consonant, cf. 1st sing. perfect Qal שָׁלַ֫וְתִּי Jb 326, the participle שָׁלֵו and the derivative שַׁלְוָה rest; on the other hand the imperfect is יִשְׁלָ֫יוּ. (with Yôdh). In עָנָה (Arab. עני) to answer, and עָנָה (Arab. ענו) to be afflicted, are to be seen two verbs originally distinct, which have been assimilated in Hebrew (see the Lexicon, s. v. עָנָה). Of quite a different class are those verbs of which the third radical is a consonantal ה (distinguished by Mappîq). These are inflected throughout like verbs tertiae gutturalis. Cf. §65 note on the heading.
75c The grammatical structure of verbs ל״ה (see Paradigm P) is based on the following laws:—
1. In all forms in which the original Yôdh or Wāw would stand at the end of the word, it is dropped (cf. §24g) and ה takes its place as an orthographic indication of the preceding long vowel. Such an indication would have been indispensable, on practical grounds, in the still unvocalized consonantal text. But even after the addition of the vowel signs, the orthographic rule remained, with insignificant exceptions (see §8k, and ā in קָטַ֫לְתָּ, &c.), that a final vowel must be indicated by a vowel letter. In verbs ל״ה the ה which is here employed as a vowel letter is preceded by the same vowel in the same part of the verb throughout all the conjugations. Thus the endings are—
־ָה in all perfects, גָּלָה, נִגְלָה, גִּלָּה, &c.
־ֶה in all imperfects and participles, יִגְלֶה, גֹּלֶה, &c.
־ֵה in all imperatives, גְּלֵה, גַּלֵּה, &c.
־ֹה in the infinitive absolute (גָּלֹה, &c.), except in Hiphʿîl, Hophʿal, and generally also Piēl, see aa and ff.
The participle passive Qal alone forms an exception, the original י (or ו, see v) reappearing at the end, גָּלוּי; and so also some derived nouns (§84ac, ε, &c.).
The infinitive construct always has the ending וֹת (with ת feminine); Qal גְּלוֹת, Piʿēl גַּלּוֹת, &c.; for exceptions, see n and y.
75d These forms may be explained as follows:—in the perfect Qal גָּלָה stands, according to the above, for (י)גָּלַ, and, similarly, in Niphʿal, Puʿal, and Hophʿal. The Piʿēl and Hithpaʿēl may be based on the forms קִטַּל, הִתְקָטַּל (§52l; and §54k), and Hiphʿîl on the form הִקְטַל, on the analogy of the ă in the second syllable of the Arabic ʿáqtălă (§53a). Perhaps, however, the finalā of these conjugations simply follows the analogy of the other conjugations.
75e The explanation of the final tone-bearing ־ֶה of the imperfect is still a matter of dispute. As to the various treatments of it, see Barth, Nominalbildung, i. p. xxx ff, with § 136, Rem., and ZDMG. xliv. 695 f., against Philippi’s objections in the Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, 1890, p. 356 f.; also ZDMG. lvi. 244, where Barth appeals to the rule that, in the period before the differentiation of the North Semitic dialects, final iy becomes ־ֶ (constr. ־ְה), not î; M. Lambert, Journ. Asiat. 1893, p. 285; Prätorius, ZDMG. lv. 365. The most probable explanation now seems to be, first, that the uniform pronunciation of all imperfects and participles with Seghôl in the last syllable merely follows the analogy of the impf. Qal, and secondly, that the Seghôl of the impf. Qal does perhaps ultimately represent a contraction of the original termination ־ַי (= ai), although elsewhere (e.g. in the imperative of ל״ה) ai is usually contracted to ê. 75f 2. When the original Yôdh stands at the end of the syllable before an afformative beginning with a consonant (ת, נ) there arises (a) in the perfects, primarily the diphthong ai (־ַי). In the middle of the word this ought always to be contracted to ê (־ֵי), but this ê is only found consistently in the passive conjugations, whilst regularly in Qal, and frequently in the other active and reflexive conjugations (especially in Piʿēl), it appears as î (cf. x, z, ee). This î, however, in the perf. Qal is not to be explained as a weakening of an original ê, but as the original vowel of the intransitive form. It then became usual also in the transitive forms of Qal (and in some other conjugations on this analogy), whereas e.g. in Syriac the two kinds of forms are still carefully distinguished.—(b) In the imperfects and imperatives, ־ֶי with the tone always appears before the afformative נָה. On the most probable explanation of this ־ֶי, see above, e.
75g Summary. Accordingly before afformatives beginning with a consonant the principal vowel is—
In the perfect Qal î, e.g. גָּ֫לִיתָ;
In the perfects of the other active and reflexive conjugations, sometimes ê, sometimes î, גִּלֵּ֫יתָ and גִּלִּ֫יתָ; נִגְלֵ֫יתָ and נִגְ֫לִיתָ;
In the perfects passive always ê, e.g. גֻּלֵּ֫יתָ;
In the imperfects and imperatives always ־ֶי, e.g. גְּלֶ֫ינָה, תִּגְלֶ֫ינָה.
The diphthongal forms have been systematically retained in Arabic and Ethiopic; only as an exception and in the popular language is the diphthong contracted. In Aramaic the contracted forms predominate, yet the Syriac, for example, has in Qal 2nd pers. sing. gelait (but 1st pers. sing. גְּלִית), and so too the Western Aramaic גְּלַיתָ, but also גְּלֵיתָ.
75h 3. Before the vocalic afformatives (וּ, ־ִי, ־ָה) the Yôdh is usually dropped altogether, e.g. גָּלוּ (ground-form găl̆yû), תִּגְלִי, participle fem. גֹּלָה, plur. masc. גֹּלִים; yet the old full forms also not infrequently occur, especially in pause, see u. The elision of the Yôdh takes place regularly before suffixes, e.g. גָּֽלְךָ (see ll).
75i 4. In the 3rd sing. fem. perfect, the original feminine ending ־ַת was appended to the stem; hence, after elision of the Yôdh, arose properly forms like גָּלָת, with ā, in the final syllable with the tone, This form, however, has been but rarely preserved (see below, m). The analogy of the other forms had so much influence, that the common ending ־ָה was added pleonastically to the ending ־ָת. Before the ־ָה the vowel of the ending ־ָת, which thus loses the tone, becomes Šewâ, and thus there arise such forms as גָּֽלְתָה, נִגְלְתָה, &c. (but in pause גָּלָ֫תָה, &c.).
For similar cases see §70d; §91m. 75k 5. Finally, a strongly-marked peculiarity of verbs ל״ה is the rejection of the ending ־ֶה in forming the jussive and the imperfect consecutive. This shortening c curs in all the conjugations, and sometimes also involves further changes in the vocalization (see o, y, bb, gg). Similarly, in some conjugations a shortened imperative (cf. §48k) is formed by apocope of the final ־ֵה (see cc, gg).
75l 6. The ordinary form of the imperfect with the ending ־ֶה serves in verbs ל״ה to express the cohortative also (§48c); cf. Gn 126, 218, 2 Ch 2517, &c. With a final ־ָה there occur only: in Qal, אֶשְׁעָה ψ 119117, אֶֽהֱמָ֑יָה (with the י retained, see below, u) ψ 774; and in Hithpaʿēl וְנִשְׁתָּ֫עָה Is 4123 (with Ṭiphḥa, therefore in lesser pause).
75m 1. The older form of the fem. of the 3rd sing. perf. גָּלָת, mentioned above, under i (cf. §74g), is preserved in עָשָׂת (before א) Lv 2521 (cf. 2 K 937 Kethîbh); likewise in Hiphʿîl הִרְצָת (before א) Lv 2634; הֶלְאָ֑ת Ez 2412; and in Hophʿal הָגְלָת (before יְ) Jer 1319.—The 2nd sing. fem. is also written ־ִיתְ; thus in the textus receptus וְהָיִיתְ 2 S 142, and always in Baer’s editions (since 1872), as in most other verbs; חָזִיתְ and גִּלִּיתְ Is 578; עָשִׂיתְ Jer 223, Ez 1648, &c. (so וְהוֹצֵאתְ 1 K 1713 from יָצָא). In the 3rd pers. plur. the tone, instead of keeping its usual place (גָּלוּ֫, &c.), is retracted in ψ 3720, כָּ֫לוּ, both on account of the pause and also in rhythmical antithesis to the preceding כָּלוּ֫; also in Is 168 תָּעוּ (according to Delitzsch for the sake of the assonance with נָגָ֫עוּ); and in Jb 241 חָ֫זוּ.—On the tone of the perfect consecutive see §49k.
75n 2. The infin. absol. frequently has וֹ (probably a survival of the older orthography) for ־ֹה, e.g. הָיוֹ Gn 1818; עָשׂוֹ Jer 418, &c., Ez 3111; קָנוֹ 2 S 2424; רָאוֹ Gn 2628, Is 69 (cf. 1 S 612), &c., beside רָאֹה. The form שָׁתוֹת Is 2213 (beside שָׁתוֹ in the same verse) appears to have been chosen on account of its similarity in sound to שָׁחֹט; so in Is 4220 Qerê and Ho 104, אָלוֹת (unless it is a substantive, oaths) and כָּדֹת; cf. also עָרוֹת Hb 313.—Conversely, instead of the infinitive construct גְּלוֹת such forms are occasionally found as גְּלֹה or גְּלוֹ, cf. רְאֹה Gn 4811; קְנֹה Pr 1616; עֲשׂה Gn 5020, ψ 1013, also עֲשׂוֹ Gn 3128 (cf. Pr 314), and even with the suffix הוּ the very remarkable form עֲשׂ֫הוּ Ex 1818.—The feminine form רַֽאֲוָה (for דְאוֹת) Ez 2817, analogous to nouns like גַּֽאֲוָה (cf. §45d), is strange, but הֱיֵה as infin. Ez 2115 is quite inexplicable.—The forms הֹגוֹ and הֹרוֹ Is 5913 are perhaps to be regarded with Barth, Nominalbildung, §51a, as infinitives absolute of the passive of Qal (see above, §53u), not of Pôʿēl.—The 2nd sing. masc. imperative וֶחְֽיֶה occurs in the principal pause in Pr 44 and 72; but probably these forms are simply to be attributed to a Masoretic school, which in general marked the difference between certain forms by the use of é for ē, and conversely ē for é; cf. the analogous examples in §52n, and especially §75hh, also Kautzsch, Grammatik des Bibl.-Aram., § 17, 2, Rem. 1.—On the reading וּֽרֲאֵ֫ינָה Ct 311 (for וּֽרֲאֶ֫ינָה, on the analogy of the reading מְצֵ֫אנָה, &c., §74h), see Baer’s note on the passage.
75o 3. The shortening of the imperfect (see above, k, and the note on hh) occasions in Qal the following changes:
(a) As a rule the first radical takes a helping Seghôl, or, if the second radical is a guttural, a helping Pathaḥ (according to §28e). Thus יִ֫גֶל for יִגְלְ; וַיִּ֫בֶז and he despised, Gn 2534; וַיִּ֫בֶן and he built; יִ֫שַׁע he looks; וַיִּ֫מַח and he destroyed, Gn 723.
75p (b) The ĭ of the preformative is then sometimes lengthened to ē, e.g. יֵ֫רֶא he sees. This, however, mostly happens only after the preformative ת, whilst after י the homogeneous ĭ remains, e.g. וַתֵּ֫כֶל (but יִ֫כֶל), וַתֵּ֫פֶן (but יִ֫פֶן), וַתֵּ֫רֶב (but וַיִּ֫רֶב); with middle guttural תֵּ֫תַע, וַתֵּ֫כַהּ Jb 177 (from כָּהָה). The unusual position of the tone in תֵּרֵ֫א Zc 95, וְתֵרֵ֫א Mi 710 (so Baer and Ginsb.; ed. Mant. יִרֶ֫א, וְיִרֶ֫א) is best explained (except in יֵרֶ֫א Gn 4133, before פ) on the analogy of קוּמָ֫ה, &c., §72s, as due to the following א. But cf. also hh
75q (c) The helping vowel is elsewhere not used under the circumstances mentioned in §28d; וַיִּשְׁבְּ Nu 211, Jer 4110, cf. וַיִּפְתְּ Jb 3127; on the other hand, with ĭ lengthened into ē (see p) וַיֵּשְׁתְּ, וַיֵּבְךְּ, וַיֵּרְדְּ, יֵשְׂטְ. The form יֵ֫רֶא he sees, occurs parallel with וַיַּרְא and he saw (but 3rd fem. always וַתֵּ֫רֶא), the latter with the original Pathaḥ on account of the following ר, and identical with the 3rd sing. masc. of the imperf. consec. Hiphʿîl, 2 K 114.
75r (d) Examples of verbs primae gutturalis (§ 63), and at the same time ל״ה, are וַיַּ֫עַשׂ, in pause וַיָּ֫עַשׂ and he made, from עָשָׂה; וַיַּ֫עַן and he answered, from עָנָה (always identical with the corresponding forms in Hiphʿîl), וַיַּ֫חַץ and he divided, from חצה. On some similar forms of פ״א see §76d.—In the following cases the initial (hard) guttural does not affect the form: וַיִּ֫חַר and he was wroth, וַיִּ֫חַן and he encamped (3rd plur. וַיִַּֽחֲנוּ), יִ֫חַדְּ (with Dageš lene and Šewâ) let it rejoice, Jb 36; cf. Ex 189.—On וַיִּז, וְיֵז, וַיֵּט (ל״ה as well as פ״ן), &c., see §76b, c, f.
75s (e) The verbs הָיָה to be, and חָיָה to live, of which the shortened imperfects ought to be yihy and yiḥy, change these forms to יְהִי and יְחִי, the second Yôdh being resolved into î at the end of the word; but in pause (§29n) יֶ֫הִי, יֶ֫חִי, with the original ă modified to Seghôl with the tone (cf. also nouns like בְּכִי for bakhy. in pause בֶּ֫כִי; עֳנִי for ‛ŏny, &c., §84ac, and §93x). For תֶּ֫שִׁי, however, in Dt 3218, since no verb שָׁיָה exists, we must read either תֵּשׁ, or better תִּשֶּׁה (Samaritan תשא), as imperfect Qal of נָשָׁה to forget.—Analogous to יְהִי from הָיָה, there occurs once, from הָוָה to be, the form יְהוּא for יְהוּ he will be, Ec 113, but no doubt הוּא is the right reading.
75t The full forms (without apocope of the ־ֶה, cf. §49c) not infrequently occur after wāw consecutive, especially in the 1st pers. and in the later books, e.g. וָֽאֶרְאֶה and I saw, twenty times, and Jos 721 in Kethîbh, but never in the Pentateuch (וָאֵ֫רֶא fifteen times, of which three are in the Pent.); also in the 3rd pers. וַיִּרְאֶה Ez 1828, Jb 4216 Qere; וַיַּֽעֲשֶׂה and he made, four times (but וַיַּ֫עַשׂ over 200 times); cf. also Ju 192 (וַתִּזְנֶה); 1 K 1029 (וַתַּֽעֲלֶה); Dt 116 (וָֽאֲצַוֶּה), and Gn 2448. So also occasionally for the jussive, cf. Gn 19, 4134, Jer 286.—For the well attested, but meaningless תִּֽירְאוּ Jb 621 (doubtless caused by the following וַתִּירָֽאוּ), read תִּרְאוּ ye see, with Ginsburg.
75u 4. The original י sometimes appears even before afformatives beginning with a vowel (cf. above, h and l), especially in and before the pause, and before the full plural ending ־וּן, or where for any reason an emphasis rests on the word. Perfect חָסָ֫יָה ψ 572, חָסָ֫יוּ Dt 3237, cf. ψ 732 Qerê; imperative בְּעָ֫יוּ Is 2112. Imperfect יֶאֱֽחָ֑יוּ Jb 1622, 3014 (without the pause, ψ 6832); יִשְׁלָ֫יוּ ψ 1226, Jb 126, cf. ψ 774; יִרְבְּיֻן Dt 813; ψ 369: more frequently like יִשְׁתָּיוּן ψ 7844; Is 1712, 2112, 2611, 313, 337, 415, ψ 368, 397, 833; before a suffix, Jb 325. Also in Pr 267 דָּֽלְיוּ, as perf. Qal from דָּלָה, was perhaps originally intended, but hardly דָּלָ֫יוּ, since these full forms, though they may stand out of pause, do not begin sentences; דַּ֫לְיוּ probably points to דַּ֫לּוּ from דָּלַל as the right reading, since the sense requires an intransitive verb. Cf. further, v, x, dd, gg.
75v 5. The participle active (cf. Vollers, ‘Das Qâtil-Partizipium,’ ZA. 1903, p. 312 ff., and on the participles of ל״ה, ibid., p. 316 ff.), besides feminine forms like עֹלָה Ju 2031, &c., רֹאָה Pr 2012, has also a feminine which retains the 3rd radical י, viz. בּֽוֹכִיָּה ( =בֹּכָה) weeping, La 116; הֽוֹמִיָּה tumultuous, Is 222 (plur. Pr 121); צֽוֹפִיָּה spying, Pr 3127, פֹּֽרִיָּה fruitful, ψ 1283, plur. אֹֽתִיּוֹת the things that are to come, Is 4123. With the ordinary strong inflexion י appears in עֹֽטְיָה Ct 17, but perhaps there also עֹֽטִיָּה was intended, unless it should be טֹֽעִיָּה a wanderer. For רֹאָ֫נִי Is 4710, רֹאֵ֫נִי is to be read.—On עשֵֹׁה 1 K 2040 for עשֶֹׁה, cf. §116g, note.—In the participle passive the 3rd radical still sometimes appears as ו (§24b), cf. עָשׂוּ made, Jb 4125, צָפוּ Jb 1522, contracted from עָשׂוּו, צָפוּו; and before a formative ending, it even has its consonantal sound, העשוום (read הָֽעֲשׂוּוִם) 2 K 234; עשוות (read ‛asûwôth) 1 S 2518 Kethîbh, נטוות (read neṭûwôth) Is 316 Kethîbh. The shortening of the ûin רְאֻיּוֹת Est 29 is irregular.
75w 6. The defective writing is rare in such forms as וְהָיִ֫תָ 2 S 1533; בָּנִ֫תִי 1 K 844, cf. 1 K 93; וַתִּדְלֶ֫נָה Ex 216 (cf. Jer 1821, 486, 1 Ch 715, Jb 175, &c.), and the pronunciation תִּרְאֶ֫ינָּה Mi 710, cf. תַּֽעֲנֶ֑נָּה Ju 529 (unless they are sing. with suff. of the 3rd sing. fem.). Both cases are probably to be explained according to §20i.
75x 7. Here the forms with ־ֵי in the 1st and 2nd pers. sing. of the perfect predominate ־ִי only in נִקִּ֫יתָ Gn 248); on the other hand in the 1st plur, always ־ִי, as נִגְלִ֫ינוּ 1 S 148. No examples of the 2nd plur. occur.—With י retained in pause נִטָּ֔יוּ Nu 246; once with an initial guttural נִֽחֲרוּ Ct 16 for נֶֽחֱרוּ, probably arising from the ordinary strong form niḥru, but the harshness of ח immediately followed by ר is avoided by pronouncing the ח with Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ.—In the 3rd sing. fem. נִשְׁתָּֽוָה Pr 2715 (in pause for נִשְׁתְּוָה) ו and ת may be transposed for euphonic reasons; but probably we should simply read נִשְׁוָ֫תָה.—Among Niphʿal forms of ל״ה must be classed, with Buxtorf and others (cf. Nöldeke, ZDMG. xxx. 185), נַֽאֲנָה from אָוָה, not Pi‛lel of נאה = נאו; hence, according to §23d, נָאווּ they are beautiful (for נַֽאֲווּ) Is 527, Ct 110; but in ψ 935, where Baer requires נָֽאֲוָה, read נַֽאֲנָה with ed. Mant., Ginsb.
75y 8. The apocope of the imperfect causes no further changes beyond the rejection of the ־ֶה, e.g. יִגָּל from יִגָּלֶה; in one verb middle guttural, however, a form occurs with the Qameṣ shortened to Pathaḥ, viz. יִמַּח (for יִמָּח) ψ 10913, as in verbs ע״ע; but in pause תִּמָּֽח verse 14. Cf. bb.—The infinitive absolute נִגְלוֹת emphasizing an infinitive construct, 2 S 620, is very extraordinary; probably it is a subsequent correction of an erroneous repetition of הגלות.—The infin. constr. לְחֵֽרָאֹה occurs in Ju 1321, 1 S 321 for לְהֵֽרָאֹת; cf. above, n.—On the infinitive Niphʿal with the ה elided, see §51l.—The irregular תֵּֽעֲלוּ Ez 363 has probably arisen from a combination of the readings תַּֽעֲלוּ (Qal) and תֵּֽעָלוּ (Niphʿal). Similarly the solecism נְמִבְזָה 1 S 159 might be due to a combination of the participle fem. Niphʿal (נִבְּזָה, cf. נַחְלָה, נֶחְפָּה, נַֽעֲשָׂח) with the Hophʿal (מֻבְזָה); but it is more correct, with Wellhausen, to explain the מ from a confusion with נמס and to read, in fact, נִבְזָח וְנִמְאָ֫סָת.
75z 9. In the 1st and 2nd persons of the perfect Piʿēl the second syllable in most of the instances has ־ִי on the analogy of Qal (see f), as דִּמִּ֫יתָ, קִוִּ֫יתִי; always so in the first plur., and before suffixes, e.g. כִּסִּ֫ינוּ Gn 3726, דִּכִּיתָ֫נוּ ψ 4420. The form with ־ֵי is found only in the 1st sing. (e.g. Jo 421; Is 54, 817 along with the form with î). On the tone of the perf. consec. Pi‛el of ל״ה, see §49k.—Hithpaʿēl has (besides ־ֵי Jer 1716) as a rule ־ִי (Pr 2410, 1 K 226, Jer 5024). On the other hand, Puʿal always has ־ֵי, e.g. עֻשֵּׂ֫יתִי ψ 13915.—A 1st sing. perfect Pô‛ēl שׁוֹשֵׂ֫תִי ( =שׁוֹוסֵיתִי) occurs in Is 1013.
75aa 10. The infinitive absolute Piʿēl takes the form כַּלֵּה, קַוֵּה (like קַטֵּל, the more frequent form even in the strong verb, see §52o); with ô only in ψ 402 קַוֹּה; with ôth Hb 313 עָרוֹת (cf. above, n). On הֹגוֹ and הֹרוֹ, infinitives absolute of the passive of Qal, not of Pô‛ēl, see above, n.—As infinitive construct חַכֵּי occurs in Piʿēl, Ho 69 (only orthographically different from חַכֵּה, if the text is correct); לְכַלֵּא Dn 924 (on the א see rr); עַד־לְכַלֵּה 2 Ch 2410, 311, for which in 2 K 1317,19, Ezr 914 עד־כַּלֵּה with infin. abs.; in Puʿal עֻנּוֹת ψ 1321.
75bb 11. The apocopated imperfect must (according to §20l) lose the Dageš forte of the second radical, hence וַיְצַו and he commanded, תְּעַר (for תְּעָרֶה=te‛arrè) ψ 1418; cf. Gn 2420; even in the principal pause אַל־תְּגַֽל Pr 259; Hithpaʿēl וַיִּתְגַּל and he uncovered himself, Gn 921; תִּתְרַע Pr 2224; cf. ψ 371,7,8. With the lengthening of Pathaḥ to Qameṣ, וַיְתָו and he made marks, 1 S 2114 (but read with Thenius וַיָּ֫תָף, and instead of the meaningless וַיְשַׁנּוֹ ibid. read וַיְשַׁן). In Hithpaʿēl אַל־תִּתְגָּר, in close connexion, Dt 29,19; תִּשְׁתָּע Is 4110; according to Qimḥi also יִתְאָו, תִּתְאָו ψ 4512, Pr 233,6, 241, 1 Ch 1117, whilst Baer and Ginsburg read with the best authorities יִתְאַו, תִּתְאַו (but cf. König, Lehrgeböude, i. 597).—On אֲחַוְךָ Jb 1517 (for אֲחַוְּךָ) cf. §20m; on אּכָלְךָ Ex 333, see §27q; on יְרַד Ju 513, see §69g. Finally, on דַּלְיוּ, which is referred to Piʿēl by some, as a supposed imperative, see above, u.
75cc 12. Examples of apocopated imperatives in Piʿēl and Hithpaʿēl are: צַו, also צַוֵּה command thou, גַּל open thou, ψ 11918,22; מַן prepare thou, ψ 618; נַס for נַסֵּה prove thou, Dn 112; הִתְחָ֑ל feign thyself sick, 2 S 135; cf. Dt 224.—On רַבֶּה Ju 929, cf. §48l.—In ψ 1377 עָ֫רוּ rase it, is found twice instead of עָר֫וּ (for ‛arrû) for rhythmical reasons (cf., however, וִיעָ֫רוּ in the imperfect, 2 Ch 2411).
75dd 13. Examples of forms in which the Yôdh is retained are the imperfects תְּדַמְּיוּן Is 4018, cf. verse 25 and 465; יְכַסְיֻמ֑וּ they cover them, Ex 155; participle Puʿal מְמֻֽחָיִם Is 256; for אֲרַיָּ֫וֶךְ Is 169 (from רָוָה) read with Margolis, אֲרַוַּ֫יִךְ.
75ee 14. The 3rd sing.perfect Hiphʿîl sometimes has Seghôl in the first syllable instead of ĭ (§53p), especially in הֶגְלָה (but perfect consecutive וְהִגְלָה 2 K 2414), הֶרְאָה, הֶלְאָה; also with suffixes, e.g. הֶגְלָם 1 Ch 87, הָלְאָ֑נִי Jb 167, וְהֶפְדָּהּ Ex 218. The Seghôl also occurs in the 1st sing., e.g. הָלְאֵתִ֫יךָ Mi 63. On וְהַרְאֵיתִי Na 35, cf. §53p. The forms with ê in the second syllable (also written defectively, as וְהִכֵּתִ֫י Jer 216) are found throughout in the 1st sing. (except Pr 513), rarely in the 2nd sing. masc., and never in the 1st plur. In the other persons they are about equally common with î, except in the 2nd plur., where î predominates. Before suffixes the forms with î predominate throughout; cf., however, ê in Ex 412, Mi 63, Pr 411. On the tone of the perf. consec. Hiph. of ל״ה, see §49k. In Hophʿal only ־ֵי occurs in the 2nd syllable.
75ff 15. In the infinitive Hiphʿîl of רָבָה to be abundant, besides the construct הַרְבּוֹת we find the absolute הַרְבָּה taking the place of the common form הַרְבֵּה, which had come to be used invariably (but König calls attention to its use as infinitive construct in Ez 2120) as an adverb, in the sense of much; in 2 S 1411 the Qerê requires הַרְבַּת for the Kethîbh הַרְבִּית, an evident scribal error for הַרְבּוֹת. Cf. Gn 4149, 2217, Dt 2863; the pointing הַרְבֶּה Jer 422 probably arises from regarding this form as a noun.—On הַמְּרוֹת Jb 172 (with Dageš f. dirimens) see §20h.—In 2 K 324 הַכּוֹת (before א) is probably infinitive absolute, used in order to avoid the hiatus, cf. §113x, and on a similar case in Qal, see above, n.—On the infinitives with elision of the ה, cf. §53q.
75gg16. The shortened imperfect Hiphʿîl either takes no helping vowel, as יַפְתְּ let him enlarge, Gn 927; יַרְדְּ he shall subdue, Is 412; וַיַּשְׁקְ and he watered, Gn 2910, &c.; וַיַּרְא and he showed, 2 K 114 (see §28d): or else has a helping vowel, as יֶ֫גֶל (for יַ֫גֶל, see §27r), e.g. 2 K 1811; וַיֶּ֫פֶר ψ 10524; וַתֶּ֫מֶר Ez 56; וַיֶּ֫תַע 2 Ch 339; וארב i.e. probably וָאֶ֫רֶב Jos 243 Kethîbh (וָאַֽרְבֶּה Qerê).—Examples of verbs first guttural: וַיַּ֫עַל Nu 232, וָאַ֫עַל, &c., which can be distinguished as Hiphʿîl from the similar forms in Qal only by the sense.—The apocopated imperative Hiphʿîl always (except in verbs פ״ן, e.g. הַךְ, הַט, §76c) has a helping vowel, Seghôl or Pathaḥ, e.g. הֶ֫רֶב increase thou (for harb, הַרְבֵּה) ψ 514 Qerê, also Ju 2038; where, however, it cannot be explained the text stands; הֶ֫רֶף let alone (for הַרְףְּ, הַרְפֵּה Dt 914, &c.; הַ֫עַל (for הַֽעֲלֵה) Ex 81, 3312; but for הָשַׁע ψ 3914, which could only be imperative Hiphʿîl of שָׁעַע (=smear over, as in Is 610), read with Baethgen שְׁעֵה look away.—The imperfect Hiphʿîl with Yôdh retained occurs only in תּוֹגְיוּן Jb 192, from יָגָה. Cf. u.
75hh 17. In Aramaic the imperfect and participle of all the conjugations terminate in ־ֵא or ־ֵי. The Hebrew infinitives, imperatives, and imperfects in ־ֵה, less frequently ־ֵא or ־ֵי, may be due to imitation of these forms. On the infinitive construct Piʿēl חַכֵּי, see above, aa; imperative Qal הֱוֵא Jb 376 (in the sense of fall); imperfect יֵרֵא let him look out, Gn 4133 (but see above, p); יַֽעֲשֵׂה he will do, Is 643; אַל־תִּֽהְיֵה Jer 1717; אַל־תֹּבֵא consent thou not, Pr 110; אַל־תַּֽעֲשֵׂה do thou not, 2 S 1312 (the same form in Gn 2629, Jos 79, Jer 4016 Qerê); אֶֽהְיֵה (so Baer and Ginsburg, after cod. Hillel, &c.) I will be, Jer 311; וַנַּֽעֲשֵׂה Jos 924; תִּרְאֵה Dn 113. Cf. also in Niphʿal יִמָּצֵה Lv 59; תִּבָּנֵה (according to Qimḥi) Nu 2127; in Piʿēl תְּגַלֵּה Lv 187,8,12–17, 2019, in each case לֹא תְגַלֵּה֑, beside תְּגַלֶּה with a minor distinctive; יֲנַקֵּ֑ה (Baer יְנַפֶּה) Na 13; אֱזָרֵה Ez 512 (with Zaqeph; Baer אֱזָרֶה). The fact, however, that a great number of these forms occur in pause and represent at the same time a jussive or voluntative (Jos 79), suggests the view that the Ṣere is used merely to increase the emphasis of the pausal form, and at the same time to make a distinction in sound between the jussive or voluntative and the ordinary imperfect. Elsewhere (Gn 2629, Lv 59, Jer 4016, Dn 113; according to Baer also Mi 710, Zc 95) the pronunciation with ê is probably intended to soften the hiatus caused by a following א or ע; cf. the analogous cases above, §74l.
75ii The ending ־ִי appears to stand for ־ֶה in the imperfect Qal in וַתִּזְנִי־שָׁם and there hath she played the harlot, Jer 36; perhaps, however, the 2nd sing. fem. is intended, or it may have been introduced into the text of Jeremiah from Ez 1615, &c. Still more strange is it in the imperfect Hiphʿîl אַל־תֶּ֑מְחִי Jer 1823; but the Mil‛ēl-tone probably points to תֶּ֫מַח as the correct reading (cf. Neh 1314). The ־ִי stands for ־ָה in the perfect Hiphʿîl הֶֽחֱלִי he made sick, Is 5310, which is probably for החליא from חלא, a secondary form of חלה; see rr. The plur. הִמְסִיו (Baer הִמְסִיוְ) they made to melt, Jos 148, is a purely Aramaic form.
75kk 18. In two verbs the rare conjugation Pa‛lēl or its reflexive (§55d) occurs: מְטַֽחֲוֵי archers, Gn 2116 (from טָחָה); but most frequently in שָׁחָה to bend, Pa‛lēl שַֽׁחֲוָה not in use, whence reflexive הִשְׁתַּֽחֲוָה to bow oneself, to prostrate oneself, 2nd pers. in ־ִ֫ יתָ and 1st pers. in ־ֵ֫ יתִי, imperfect יִשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶה, consecutive 3rd sing. masc. וַיִּשְׁתַּ֫חוּ for wayyištaḥw (analogous to the noun-forms, like שָׂ֫חוּ for saḥw); 3rd plur. יִשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ.—Instead of the aramaizing infinitive with suffix בְּהִשְׁתַּֽחֲיָיָֽתִי 2 K 518 read with König בְּהִשְׁתַּֽחֲווֹתִי; in Ez 816 מִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִיתֶם is still more certainly a scribal error for מִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִים.
75ll 19. Before suffixes in all forms ending in ה, a connecting vowel is employed instead of the ה and the connecting vowel which precedes it (§58f), e.g. נָחַ֫נִי Gn 2427; in pause עָנָ֫נִי 1 K 230, &c., even with lesser disjunctives, ψ 1185, Pr 822, or with a conjunctive accent, 1 S 2815 (but Baer עָנַ֫נִי), Jb 3019; cf. §59h; עָֽנְךָ֫, in pause עָנָךְ, Is 3019 (and even when not in pause Jer 2337) or like קָנֶ֫ךָ Dt 326; וְיַרְבֶּ֑ךָ, וְיַפְרְךָ Gn 283; cf. also עָנָ֫הוּ, עָנָם, imperfect יַֽעֲנֵ֫הוּ, יַֽעַנְךָ֫ Hiphʿîl הִכַּ֫נִי, הָֽעֶלְךָ֫, הִכֶּ֫הוּ.
75mm Only very seldom does the imperat. or impf. end in ־ֵי before suffixes, e.g. אַפְאֵיהֶם Dt 3226; יְכַסֵּ֫ימוֹ ψ 14010 Qerê; הַכֵּ֫ינִי smite me, 1 K 2035,37; cf. Hb 32, Is 3816. Even in these examples a return to the original ending ay might be assumed; but perhaps they are merely due to a less correct plene writing. In the 3rd sing. perf. fem. the older form גָּלַת (see i) is always used before a suffix, e.g. כִּלַּ֫תּוּ (for כִּלַּתְהוּ) Zc 54; in pause עָשָׂ֑תְנִי Jb 334; רָאָֽתְךָ 425.
75nn 20. The close relation existing between verbs ל״א and ל״ה is shown in Hebrew by the fact that the verbs of one class often borrow forms from the other, especially in the later writers and the poets.
75oo 21. Thus there are forms of verbs ל״א—
(a) Which have adopted the vowels of verbs ל״ה, e.g. perfect Qal כָּלִ֫אתִי I have refrained, ψ 119101; participle חוֹטֶא (חֹטֶא) sinning, Ec 226, 812, 92,18; cf. Is 6520; מוֹצֶא Ec 726; נשֶׁא lending, 1 S 222; Piʿēl perfect מִלָּא he has filled, Jer 5134; cf. 1 K 911, Am 42 (where, however, the perfect Niph. is perhaps intended), ψ 8911, 1433; רִפִּ֫אתִו I heal, 2 K 221; cf. Jer 519; imperfect יְגַמֶּא Jb 3924; Niphʿal perfect נִפְלְאַ֫תָה (like נִגְלְתֶה) it was wonderful, 2 S 126; Hiphʿîl perfect הִפְלָא Dt 2859; תֶחְבְּאַ֫תָה (not ־אָ֫תָה, cf. above, 2 S 126) she hid, Jos 617. On the other hand, forms like חֹטִאים 1 S 1433, קֹרִאים ψ 996, נִרְפּאוּ Ez 478, תְּדַכּאוּנַ֫נִי, according to the correct reading, Jb 192 (cf. Gn 3139 אֲחַטֶּ֫נָה), and יְראוּ imperative plur. masc. from יָרֵא Jos 2414, 1 S 1224, ψ 3410, are due to the elision of the א, see §74i. On יִנָּשׂוּא Jer 105 and נָשׂוּא ψ 13920, see §23i.
75pp (b) Forms in ה, but keeping their ל״א vowels, e.g. imperfect Qal אֶרְפָּה Jer 322; imperative רְפָה heal thou, ψ 604; Niphʿal; נֶחְבָּה Jer 4910 (which must evidently be a perfect; read with Ewald the infinitive absolute נֶחְבֹּה as in verse 23), and הֵחָבֵה to hide oneself, 1 K 2225, cf. Jer 1911; Piʿēl imperfect יְמַלֵּה he will fill, Jb 821.
75qq (c) Forms entirely of a ל״ה character, e.g. perfect Qal וְצֶמִת and when thou art athirst, Ru 29, cf. 2 S 38; כָּלוּ they shut up, 1 S 610; cf. 2533; מָלוּ they are full, Ez 2816, cf. 3926; infinitive חֲטוֹ (see above, n) to sin, Gn 206 (on מְלֹאת see above, §74h); imperative sing. fem. חֲבִי Is 2620; imperfect יִכְלֶה (for יִכְלָא) he will keep back, Gn 236; תִּרְפֶּ֫ינָה they heal, Jb 518; participle בּוֹוטֶה Pr 1218; fem. יׄצָא Ec 105; plur. צֹבֶ֫יהָ Is 297; participle passive נָשׂוּי ψ 321; Niphʿal נִרְפָּ֫תָה Jer 519; נִבֵּ֫יתָ thou hast prophesied, Jer 269 (cf. ψ 13914, Jb 183); imperfect וַיֵּרָֽפוּ 2 K 222 (infinitive Jer 1911); Piʿēl imperfect וַיְרַפּוּ Jer 811, cf. Gn 3139; Hiphʿîl participle מַקְנֶה Ez 83; Hithpa‛el הִתְנַבִּ֫יתָ 1 S 106; infinitive הִתְנַבּוֹת 1 S 1013. For the Kethîbh להשות 2 K 1925, Jablonski and others require as Qerê the form לְהַשְׁאוֹת (so Is 3726); the Kethîbh would have to be read לַהְשׁוֹת, with elision of the א and retraction of the vowel.
75rr 22. On the other hand, there are forms of verbs ל״ה, which wholly or in part follow the analogy of verbs ל״א, e.g. in their consonants אָתָא he comes, Is 2112; בָּרָא 2 S 1217 (textus receptus בָּרָה); וְרָצִ֫אתִי Ez 4327; יִשְׂגֶּא Jb 811; יִשְׁנֶא La 41; וַיֶּֽחֶלֶא 2 Ch 1612; תִּקְרֶ֫אנָה Ex 110, Lv 1019; תְּלֻאִים Dt 2866 (cf. Ho 117); נִקְרֹא (infin. absol. Niphʿal beside נִקְרֵ֫יתִי) 2 S 16; שִׁנָּא 2 K 2529; מְרַפֵּא Jer 384; יְשֻׁנֶּא Ec 81: in their vowels, אָתָ֫נוּ Jer 322; יִקְרָה Dn 1014; תִּכְלָה 1 K 1714: in both, יִקְרָא Gn 491; cf. 424, Is 5119; תְּלָאוּם 2 S 2112 Qerê; לִירוֹא 2 Ch 2615 (cf. ויראו המוראים 2 S 1124 Kethîbh); מֹֽרְאָה (participle fem. Qal) Zp 31; יַפְרִיא Ho 1315; מְסֻלָּאִים La 42.—For פֹּרֹאות (so Baer, Ez 176, cf. 318), which can only be intended for פֹּֽרְאוֹת participle fem. plur. from פָּרָא=פָּרָה, read פֹּארוֹת branches, according to Ez 315, &c.
- According to Wellheusen, ‘Ueber einige Arten schwacher Verbs‘ in his Skizzen, vi. p. 255 ff., the ל״ה verbs, apart from some true ל״ו and some probable ל״י, are to be regarded as originally biliteral. To compensate for their arrested development they lengthened the vowel after the 2nd radical, as the ע״ו verbs did after the 1st radical. But although there is much to be said for this view, it fails to explain pausal forms like חָסָ֫יָה (see u). It seems impossible that these should all be late formations.
- In the Mêšaʿ inscription, line 5, ויענו and he oppressed occurs as 3rd sing. masc. imperfect Piʿēl, and in line 6, אענו I will oppress as 1st sing.
- In the Siloam inscription also (see above, §2d), line 3, הית may be read הָיָת quite as well as [ה]הָֽיְתָ.
- All these infinitives construct in ô, in the Pentateuch, belong to the document called E; cf. §69m, second note.
- In Nu 347 f., according to verse 10, תִּתְאַוֻּ (=תִּתְאַוּוּ) is intended to be read for תְּתָאוּ (imperfect Piʿēl from תָּאָה).
- Possibly these examples (like the eases of Seghôl in pause, see n) represent the view of a particular Masoretic school, which was intended to be consistently carried out.