User:Ubufox/6
by this means is merely intended to make the strengthening of the second radical audible.[1]
e The perfect תַּ֫מְנוּ (for תַּמּ֫וֹנוּ) Nu 1728, ψ 647 (Jer 4418 תָּֽמְנוֹ with Silluq), owing to omission of the separating vowel, approximates, if the text is right, to the form of verbs ע״וּ (cf. קַ֫מְנוּ from קוּם).
f 5. Since the preformatives of the imperfect Qal, of the perfect Niphʿal, and of Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal throughout, before a monosyllabic stem form an open syllable, they take a long vowel before the tone (according to § 27 e), e.g. imperfect Hiphʿîl יָסֵב for yă-sēb, imperative הָסֵב for yă-sēb, &c. Where the preformatives in the strong verb have ĭ, either the original ă (from which the ĭ was attenuated) is retained and lengthened, e.g. יָסֹב in imperfect Qal for yă-sōb, or the ĭ itself is lengthened to ē, e.g. הֵסֵב perfect Hiphʿîl for hĭ-sēb (see further under h). The vowel thus lengthened can be maintained, however, only before the tone (except the û of the Hophʿal, הוּסַב for hŭ-săb); when the tone is thrown forward it becomes Šewâ, according to § 27 k (under א and ה compound Šewâ), e.g. תָּסֹב, but תְּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה; imperfect Hiphʿîl תָּסֵב, but תְּסִבֶּ֫ינָה; perfect הֲסִבֹּתִי, &c.
g Besides the ordinary form of the imperfects, there is another (common in Aramaic), in which the imperfect Qal is pronounced יִסֹּב or יִסַּב, the first radical, not the second, being strengthened by Dageš forte, cf. יִשֹּׁם 1 K 98, וַיִּקֹּד Gn 2426; with a in the second syllable, יִגָּ֑ר Lv 117, יִדַּל Is 174, וַיִּשַּׁח Is 29, &c., יִדֹּם Am 513 and frequently, וָאֶֽכֹּת Dt 921, &c., יִסֹּב (turn intrans.) 1 S 58, &c., וַיִּקֹּב Lv 2411, יִתֹּם Ez 4712, &c., יִחַם (with Dageš forte implicitum) 1 K 11; in the plural, יִתַּ֫מּוּ Nu 1435, &c. (in pause יִתָּ֫מּוּ ψ 10228); perhaps also יִמַּל, יִמַּךְ (unless these forms are rather to be referred to Niphʿal, like יִדָּ֑מּוּ 1 S 29; יִמָּֽלוּ Jb 2424); with suffix תִּקֳּבֶ֫נּוּ occurs (cf. § 10 h) in Nu 2325; Imperfect Hiphʿîl יַתֵּם, Hophʿal יֻבַּת, &c. The vowel of the preformative (which before Dageš is, of course, short) follows the analogy of the ordinary strong form (cf. also u and y). The same method is then extended to forms with afformatives or suffixes, so that even before these additions the second radical is not strengthened, e.g. וַיִּקְּד֫וּ Gn 4328, &c., for וַיָּקֹ֫דּוּ and they bowed the head; וַיַּכְּתוּ and they beat down, Dt 144 (from כָּתַת); וַיִּתְּמוּ Dt 328; יִדְּמוּ Ex 1516, Jb 2921 (cf., however, וַיַּסֵּ֫בּוּ Ju 1823, 1 S 58, יֻכַּ֫תּוּ Jer 465, Jb 420). To the same class of apparently strong formations belongs תִּצַּ֫לְנָה (without the separating vowel, for תְּצִ֫לָּינָה, cf. 1 S 311 and below, p) they shall tingle, 2 K 2112, Jer 193.—On the various forms of the Niphʿal, see under t.
Rem. According to the prevailing view, this strengthening of the first radical is merely intended to give the bi-literal stem at least a tri-literal appearance. (Possibly aided by the analogy of verbs פ״ן, as P. Haupt has suggested to me in conversation.) But cf. Kautzsch, ‘Die sog. aramaisierenden Formen der Verba ע״ע im Hebr.’ in Oriental. Studien zum 70. Geburtstag Th. Nöldekes, 1906, p. 771 ff. It is there shown (1) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often serves to emphasize a particular meaning (cf. יִגָּר, but יְגֹרֵ֫הוּ, יָחֵל and יַחֵל, יִסֹּב and יָסֹב, יִשֹּׁם and תֵּשַׁם), and elsewhere no doubt to dissimilate the vowels (as יִגָּר, יִדַּל, never יָגַר, יָדַל, &c.): (2) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often appears to be occasioned by the nature of the first letter of the stem, especially when it is a sibilant. Whether the masoretic pronunciation is based on an early tradition, or the Masora has arbitrarily adopted aramaizing forms to attain the above objects, must be left undecided.
h 6. The original vowel is retained, see f, (a) in the preformative of the imperfect Qal יָסֹב for yă-sōb (cf. §§ 47 b, 63b, and for verbs ע״וּ § 72); (b) in the perfect Niphʿal נָסַב for nă-săb (§ 51 a); (c) in Hophʿal הוּסַב, with irregular lengthening (no doubt on the analogy of verbs פ״ו) for hōsăb from hŭ-sab, imperfect יוּסַב from yŭ-sab, &c.
i On the other hand, an already attenuated vowel (i) underlies the intransitive imperfects Qal with ă in the second syllable (probably for the sake of dissimilating the two vowels), e.g. יֵמַד for yĭ-măr (see p); and in the preformative of Hiphʿîl הֵסֵב from hĭ-sēb (ground-form הַקְטֵל, § 53 a), as well as of the participle מֵסֵב (ground-form מַקְטֵל), on the analogy of the perfect. In the second syllable of the Perf. the underlying vowel is ĭ, attenuated from an original ă, which in the strong verb is abnormally lengthened to î (§ 53 a). The lengthened from ĭ is, of course, only tone-long, and hence when without the tone and before Dageš forte we have e.g. הֲסִבּ֫וֹתָ. On the retention of the original ă in the second syllable, cf. v.
k 7. The tone, as a general rule, tends to keep to the stem-syllable, and does not (as in the strong verb) pass to the afformatives ־ָה, וּ and ־ִי (2nd sing. fem. imperfect); e.g. 3rd sing. fem. perfect חַ֫תָּה, in pause חָ֫תָּה; with ר and gutturals מָ֫רָה (for מַ֫רָּה), שָׁ֫חָה ψ 4426; on the other hand, with wāw consecutive וְרַבָּ֫ה Is 612 (but וָחָֽיָה Ex 116). In the 3rd plur. perfect the tone-syllable varies; along with דַּ֫לּוּ, קַ֫לּוּ, we also find דַּלּ֫וּ and קַלּ֫וּ, רַבּ֫וּ Is 5912, שַׁח֫וּ Hb 36, &c.; but in pause always חָ֫תּוּ, תָּ֫מּוּ, &c. The tone likewise remains on the stem-syllable in the imperfect Qal in תָּסֹ֫בִּי, יָסֹ֫בּוּ; perfect Hiphʿîl הֵסֵ֫בָּה, הֵסֵ֫בּוּ; imperfect תָּסֵ֫בִּי, יָ֫סֵבּוּ &c. In the forms with separating vowels, the tone is moved forward to these vowels (or to the final syllable, cf. ee), e.g. סַבּ֫וֹתָ, תְּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה, &c.; except before the endings תֶם and תֶן in the perfect, which always bear the tone. This shifting of the tone naturally causes the shortening of the merely tone-long vowels ē and ō to ĭ and ŭ (or ŏ, see n), hence הֲסִבּ֫וֹתָ from הֵסֵב, תֲּסֻבּ֫ינָה from יָסֹב; on cases in which the vowel of the preformative becomes Šewâ, see above, f
l 8. In several verbs ע״ע, instead of Piʿēl, Puʿal and Hithpaʿēl, the less frequent conjugation Pôʿēl, with its passive and reflexive, occurs (most probably on the analogy of the corresponding forms of verbs ע״וּ, cf. § 72 m), generally with the same meaning,[2] e.g. עוֹלֵל to ill-treat, passive עוֹלַל, reflexive הִתְעוֹלֵל (from עָלַל; cf. the Hithpôʿēl from רָעַע and פַּרַד Is 2419 f.); in a few verbs also Pilpēl (§ 55 f) is found, e.g. גִּלְגֵּל to roll, Hithpalpēl הִתְגַּלְגֵּל to roll oneself (from גָּלַל); imperative with suffix סַלְסְלֶהָ exalt her, Pr 48; שִֽׁעֲשַׁע to comfort, to delight in; passive שָֽׁעֳשַׁע to be caressed (from שָׁעַע). These forms cannot appear in a biliteral form any more than Piʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl; cf. עִוְעִים (Is 1914) and קַוְקָו (Is 182.7).—For תִּתָּבָר 2 S 2227 read, according to ψ 1827, תִּתְבָּרָר.
Remarks
I. On Qal.
m 1. In the perfect, isolated examples are found with ō in the first syllable, which it is customary to refer to triliteral stems with middle ō (like יָכֹל, § 43 a); viz. רֹ֫מּוּ they are exalted, Jb 2424 to רָמֹם; רֹ֫בּוּ they shot, Gn 4923 to רָבֹב; זֹ֫דוּ Is 16 to זָרֹר. But this explanation is very doubtful: זֹ֫רוּ especially is rather to be classed among the passives of Qal mentioned in § 52 e.
n 2. Imperfects Qal with ō in the second syllable keep the original a in the preformative, but lengthen it to ā, as being in an open syllable, hence יָחֹן, יָמֹד, יָעֹז, יָרֹן, יָרֹעַ (trans. he breaks in pieces, but יֵרַע intrans.= he is evil); imperfects with ă have, in the preformative, an ē, lengthened from ĭ. See the examples below, under p, § 63 c and e, § 72 h, and specially Barth in ZDMG. 1894, p. 5 f.
The Ḥōlĕm of the infinitive, imperative, and imperfect (סֹב, יָסֹב) is only tone-long, and therefore, as a rule, is written defectively (with a few exceptions, chiefly in the later orthography, e.g. צוֹר bind up, Is 816; גּוֹל ψ 375; דּוֹם ver. 7; לָבֽוֹז for לָבֹז to plunder, Est 313, 811). When this ō loses the tone, it becomes in the final syllable ŏ, in a sharpened syllable ŭ, or not infrequently even ŏ (see above, k). Examples of ŏ are: (a) in a toneless final syllable, i.e. before Maqqeph or in the imperfect consecutive, רָן־ (rŏn) to rejoice, Jb 387; וַיָ֫סָב Ju 1118 (once even with ŭ in a toneless final syllable, וַיָּ֫רֻם Ex 1620); on the other hand, in the plur. וַיָּסֹ֫בּוּ, fem. וַתְּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה; (b) before a tone-bearing afformative or suffix, e.g. imperative 2nd sing. fem. רָנִּ֫י, גָּזִּ֫י (cf. ff); חָנֵּ֫נִי pity me; סָלּ֫וּהָ Jer 5026; יְשָׁדֵּם Pr 113 Qerê; תְּחָגֻּֽהוּ Ex 1214 (for the defective writing, cf. יְסֻבֻּ֫הוּ Jb 4022). In יָחְנְךָ֫ Gn 4329, Is 3019 (for יִחָנְךָ) this ŏ is thrown back to the preformative.
o On the 2nd plur. fem. imperat. עֹ֫רָה make yourselves naked Is 3211, cf. the analogous forms in § 48 i.-Quite abnormal is the infinitive absolute רֹ֫עָה Is 2419 (as ה follows, probably only a case of dittography for רֹעַ, cf. קֹב Nu 2325 and שֹׁל Ru 216); so also are the imperatives קָֽבָה־לִּי Nu 2211.17, and אָֽרָה־לִּי 226, 237, with ה paragogic. We should expect קֻ֫בָּה, אֹ֫רָה. If these forms are to be read qŏballî, ʾŏrallî, they would be analogous to such cases as מִדְבַּ֫רָה (§ 90 i), the addition of the paragogic ־ָה causing no change in the form of the word (קָב־ like רָן־ above). If, however, as Jewish tradition requires, they are to be read qāballî, ʾārallî, then in both cases the Qameṣ must be explained, with Stade, as the equivalent of ō (קֹֽבָה־לִּי, &c.; cf. § 9 v). Still more surprising is קָבְנוֹ curse him, Nu 2313, for קֻבֶּ֫נּוּ or קָבּ׳.[3]
p 3. Examples with Pathạ in the infinitive, imperative, and imperfect are בַּר (in לְבָרָם to prove them, Ec 318); רָד Is 451; שַׁךְ Jer 526; בְּשַׁגָּם in their error, Gn 63 (so ed. Mant., but there is also good authority for בְּשַׁגַּם, from שַׁ· = שֶׁ· = אֲשֶׁר and גַּם also; so Baer and Ginsburg). Also גַּל take away, ψ 11922; and the imperfects יֵחַם it is hot, Dt 196, &c. (on the ē of the preformative cf. n); יֵמַר it is bitter, Is 249; יֵצַר it is straitened; יֵרַךְ it is soft, Is 74; תֵּשַׁם it is desolate, Ez 1219 (in pause תֵּשָֽׁם Gn 4719); וַתֵּקַ֫ל she was despised, Gn 164 (but elsewhere in the impf. consec. with the tone on the penultima, e.g. וַיֵּ֫צֶר Gn 328, &c.; וַיֵּ֫רַע Gn 2111, &c., cf. Ez 197); in the 1st sing. imperfect אֵיתָ֑ם[4] ψ 1914, abnormally written fully for אֵתָם, unless אֶתָּם is to be read, as in some MSS., on the analogy of the 3rd sing. יִתֹּם.—In the impf. Qal of שׁלל the reading of Hb 28 varies between יְשַׁלּ֫וּךָ (Baer, Ginsb.) and יְשָׁלּ֫וּךָ (ed. Mant., Jabl.).— The following forms are to be explained with Barth (ZDMG. xliii, p. 178) as imperfects Qal with original ĭ in the second syllable, there being no instances of their Hiphʿîl in the same sense: וַיָּ֫גֶל Gn 2910; יָגֵן Is 315, &c.; וַיָּסֶךְ Ex 4021, ψ 914, &c.; perhaps also תְּצִלֶּ֫ינָה 1 S 311 and יָהֵל Job 3126, &c.; in accordance with this last form, (בְּ)הִלּוֹ Job 293 would also be an infinitive Qal, not Hiphʿîl (for בַּֽהֲהִלּוֹ), as formerly explained below, under w. Finally the very peculiar form וַתָּ֫רִץ Ju 953 may probably be added to the list.
q Imperfects, with an original u in the second syllable, are also found with this ŭ lengthened to û (instead of ō), e.g. יָרוּן, if the text is correct, in Pr 296; יָשׁוּד ψ 916 (unless it be simply an imperfect from שׁוּד to be powerful, to prevail); יָרוּץ (if from רצץ) Is 424, &c. (also defectively אָרֻץ ψ 1830; but in Ec 126, according to Baer, וְתָרוּץ); תִּתֻּם Ez 2411 (on the sharpening of the ת cf. g above).[5]
r A similar analogy with verbs ע״וּ is soon in the infinitives לָבוּר (for בֹּר) Ec 91; בְּחֻקוֹ Pr 827 (cf. בְּחוּקוֹ Pr 829) for בְּחֻקּוֹ, and in the imperfect אֲמֻֽשְׁךָ Gn 2721. (The forms חַנּוֹת in ψ 7710, שַׁמּוֹת Ez 363, חַלּ֫וֹתִי ψ 7711, formerly treated here as infinitives from ע״ע stems, are rather to be referred to ל״ה stems, with Barth, Wurzeluntersuchungen, Lpz. 1902, p. 21.) On other similar cases, see below, under ee. For examples of the aramaïzing imperfect, see above, g.
s 4. In the participle, the aramaïzing form שֹֽׁאֲסַ֫יִךְ for שֹֽׁסְסַ֫יִךְ occurs in Kethîbh, Jer 3016 (the Qerê indicates a participle from שָׁסָה); רֹעָה Pr 2519 appears to be a contraction from רֹֽעֲעָה, part. fem. = breaking in pieces.
II. On Niphʿal.
t 5. Besides the ordinary form of the perfect נָסַב with Pathaḥ (in pause נָסָב) and the participle נָסָב with Qameṣ in the second syllable, there is also another with Ṣere, and a third with Ḥolem, e.g. perfect נָמֵס it melts, Ez 2112, 2215; נָסֵ֫בָּה (for נָסַבָּה) Ez 262; part. נָמֵס molten, 1 S 159, Na 211; נָקֵל it is a light thing, 2 K 2010, Is 496 (perf. נָקַל); with ō, e.g. נָגֹ֫לּוּ they are rolled together, Is 344; cf. 6319, 642, Am 311, Na 112, Ec 126b. In the imperfect with ō in the second syllable, on the analogy of verbs ע״וּ (from which König would also explain the perfects with ō), we find תִּדֹּ֫מִּי thou shalt be brought to silence, Jer 482 (unless this form should be referred to Qal with Qimḥi, Olshausen, König); יֵרוֹעַ he suffers hurt, Pr 1115, 1320; תֵּרוֹץ (for tirrōṣ) Ez 297; with ē in the second syllable תֵּחֵל she profanes herself, Lv 219, but וָֽאֵחַל Ez 2226, and יֵחָ֑ל Is 4811, יֵחַת Is 78, &c. For infinitives, cf. הִמֵּס to melt, ψ 683 (as inf. constr.; 2 S 1710 as inf. absol.); again, with compensatory lengthening in the first syllable, הֵחֵל Ez 209, 1422, but with suffix הֵֽחַלּוֹ Lv 214; also הִבּוֹז to be plundered, and הִבּוֹק to be emptied, Is 243; in the imperative, only הִבָּ֫רוּ be ye clean, Is 5211. On הֵרֹ֫מּוּ get you up, Nu 1710, and the corresponding imperf. יֵרֹ֫מּוּ Ez 1017, &c., cf. dd.
u Examples of the perfect Niphʿal with sharpening of the initial syllable are, נִחַל it is profaned, Ez 2216, 253 (from חָלַל); נִחַר (from חָרַר) ψ 694, 1024 (also נָחַר Jer 629); נִחַת fractus est (from חָתַת) Mal 25; cf. with this in the participle, נֵֽחָמִים (for niḥḥāmîm) Is 575, and נֵֽאָרִים Mal 39: in the imperative and infinitive Niphʿal such a virtual strengthening of the guttural after preformatives never occurs.—The occurrence of u instead of ô as a separating vowel in the perfect נְשַׁדֻּ֫נוּ Mic 24 is abnormal.
III. On Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal.
v 6. The second syllable in Hiphʿîl sometimes has Pathaḥ instead of Ṣere, especially under the influence of ר and the gutturals, e.g. perfect הֵמַר he made bitter, הֵשַׁח he bowed, הֵפַר he hath broken, Gn 1714, in pause, cf. § 29 q; otherwise הֵפֵר, plur. הֵפֵ֫רוּ Is 245. In הֵפִיר ψ 3310, Ez 1719, cf. ψ 8934, and in הֵשׂ֫ירוּ Ho 84 (perhaps also in יְחִיתַן Hab 217, but cf. § 20 n) there is an assimilation to the corresponding forms of verbs ע״וּ, see z. Also הֵצַר Dt 2852, הֵתַז (in pause) Is 185; inf. לְהָבַֽר to cleanse, Jer 411, in pause. But also with other consonants, e.g. הֵדַק 2 K 2315, הֵקַל Is 823; הֵרַךְ Jb 2316; plur. הֵסַ֫בּוּ 1 S 59.10 (and so usually in the 3rd plur. perf, except before ר and gutturals, e.g. הֵרֵ֫עוּ); imper. הָשַׁ֑ע besmear, Is 610; plur. הָשַׁ֑מּוּ be astonished, Jb 215; imperfect תָּרַ֫ע Thou dost afflict; part. מֵצַל (on ē in the first syllable, see under i) shadowing, Ez 313 (but מֵסִיךְ Ju 324 is assimilated to the form of verbs ע״וּ, unless, with Moore, we simply read מֵסֵךְ, or, with incorrect spelling, מֵסֵיךְ. So in the imperative הֲמִישֵׁ֫נִי Ju 1626 Qerê, and in the infinitive הֲתִֽמְךָ is 331).
w The ē of the second syllable, when without the tone, may become ĕ, e.g. הֵ֫תֶל בִּי Gn 317 (see also x). It is unusual (cf. § 53 k) to find the ē written fully as in the infinitive לְהָפֵיר Zc 1110. Instead of Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ a Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl is found under the preformative in הֱקִלֹּתַ֫נִי 2 S 1944, and a Pathaḥ occurs before ח (with a virtual sharpening of the ח) in such forms as הַֽחִתֹּ֫תָ Is 93; cf. Gn 116, Dt 231, 324, 1 S 2215, Est 613—in all these cases before חִ.—On בְּהִלּוֹ Jb 293, see above, p: on וְהַחְתַּתִּ֫י Jer 4937, see below, dd.
x 7. In the imperfect consecutive of verbs whose second radical is a guttural, ă is retained (§ 22 d) in the second syllable instead of ĕ, e.g. וַיָּ֫רַע 1 K 1625: so also with ר, as וַיָּ֫צַר 2 Ch 2820, Dt 29—but cf. also וַיָּ֫פֶר Neh 49.
y 8. Aramaïzing forms (but cf. Rem. § 67 g) in Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal are, וַיַּסֵּב Ex 1318, &c.; cf. Ju. 1823; אַל־תַּמֵּר Ex 2321, but read אַל־תֶּ֫מֶר from מָרָה: וַיַּכְּתוּ Dt 144 (cf. Nu 1445), but וַיַּסֵּ֫בּוּ Ju 1823, 1 S 58, 2 Ch 296; אַחֵל profanabo, Ez 397; תַּתֵּם Jb 223; without elision of the ה (cf. § 53 q), וַיְהַתֵּל 1 K 1827, but Jer 94 יְהָתֵ֫לוּ, Jb 139 תְּהָתֵ֫לּוּ; with î in the second syllable יַשִּׁים Jer 4920, 5045; cf. וַנַּשִּׁים Nu 2130; in the perfect הִזִּי֫לוּהָ La 18. In Hophʿal, הֻמְּכוּ they are brought low, Jb 2421; יֻכַּת he is smitten, Is 2412 (plur. יֻכַּ֫תּוּ Jer 465, Mi 17); in pause, יֻחָֽקוּ Jb 1923, but also יֻכַּ֑תּוּ Jb 420 (so Baer, Ginsb., but ed. Mant., Jabl. יֻכָּתּוּ); with ŏ in the initial syllable, הָשַּׁמָּהֿ (infinitive with suffix = הָשַּׁמָּהּ, cf. § 91 e) Lv 2634 f., cf. 2 Ch 3621; בָּהְשַׁמָּה, with irregular syncope for בְּהָשַּׁ׳, Lv 2643.
IV. In General.
z 9. Verbs ע״ע are most closely related as regards inflexion to verbs ע״וּ (§ 72). The form of verbs ע״ע is generally the shorter (cf. e.g. יָסֹב and יָקוּם, הֵסֵב and הֵקִים); in a few cases, however, the two classes exactly coincide, e.g. in the imperfect Qal and Hiphʿîl with wāw consecutive, in Hophʿal and in the less common conjugations (see above, l).
aa 10. The developed forms (with three radicals), as mentioned in a, are especially frequent in the 3rd sing. masc. and fem., and the 3rd plur. perf. Qal (i.e. in forms without an afformative or with an afformative beginning with a vowel) of transitive verbs, or verbs, at any rate, expressing action, e.g. סָבַב, סָֽבְבוּ (but before a suffix also סַבּ֫וּנִי, as well as סְבָב֫וּנִי, שַׁדּ֫וּנִי &c.); זָמַם, זָֽמֲמָה, אָֽפֲפוּ, &c. Sometimes the contracted, as well as the uncontracted form, is found, e.g. בָּזַז to plunder, plur. בָּֽזְזוּ; in other parts, only בָּזַ֫זְנוּ Dt 235, as well as בַּזּ֫וֹנוּ Dt 37 זָמַ֫מְתִּי Zc 814.15 and זַמֹּ֫תִי Jer 428. Other examples of biliteral forms in 2nd sing. masc. are Dt 2512, Pr 3032; in 1st sing., Jos 59. A part from Qal the only example of a developed form is וְהַחְתַּתִּ֫יּ Jer 4937.
bb On the other hand, the biliteral forms are the more common in the 3rd sing. and plur. of perfects which are intransitive, and express a state; cf. דַּק Dt 921 (Ex 3220 דָּ֑ק; elsewhere always a transitive verb); חַת, fem. חַ֫תָּה; מַר, fem. מָ֫רָה (for marrā); צַר, fem. צָ֫רָה (cf. וְחָ֫רָה Ez 2411); רַךְ, שַׁח, fem. שַׁ֫חָה, תַּם &c.; plur. חַ֫תּוּ, תַּ֫מּוּ &c. (but on the tone, cf. ee below). Exception, עָֽשְׁשָׁה ψ 68.
cc The intransitive but developed perfects דָּֽלֲלוּ (also דַּ֫לּוּ), חָלַל, נָֽדְדָה, נָֽדְדוּ (in pause נָדָ֫דוּ), סָרַר, עָֽשֲׁשָׁה (plur. in pause עָשֵֽׁשׁוּ ψ 3111), צָֽלֲלוּ, שָֽׁחֲחוּ (also שַׁ֫חוּ), almost all have, as Mayer Lambert observes, at least an active, not a stative meaning. Triliteral forms of the infinitive after לְ are לִסְבֹּב Nu 214; לִשְׁדוֹד Jer 474; לִגְזׄז Gn 3119 (also לָגֹז Gn 3813); cf. also לַחְמָם Is 4714, in subordinate pause, for לַֽחֲמַם; with suffix לַֽחֲנַנְכֶם Is 3018, and, from the same form חֲנַן, with retraction and modification of the vowel, לְחֶנְנָהּ ψ 10214; also שְׂחוֹחַ Is 6014, בִּגְזׄז 1 S 252, כִּמְסֹס Is 1018, בַּֽעֲזוֹז Pr 828, בִּצְרוֹר Pr 268.—Imperative שָׁדְדוּ Jer 4928 (cf. § 20 b, and ibid. also on חַֽנְנֵ֫נִי ψ 914); in the imperfect, יִדּוֹד Na 37 (ψ 6813; cf. Gn 3140) from נדד; the strong form here, after the assimilation of the Nûn, was unavoidable. On the other hand, יְשָׁדְדֵם Jer 56 is anomalous for יְשְׁדֵּם (Pr 113 Qerê; the eastern school read the Poʿēl ישׁודדם in the Kethîbh); the strengthening of the second radical has been afterwards resolved by the insertion of a vocal Šewâ. Cf. also יֶֽחֱנַן Am 515 (elsewhere יָחֹן). In Niphʿal, the triliteral form יִלָּבֵב is found, Jb 1112; in Hiphʿil, all the forms of רנן, thus imperative הַרְנִ֫ינוּ, imperfect תַּרְנִין; infinitive הַשְׁמֵם Mi 613; participle מַשְׁמִים Ez 315. That the developed (triliteral) forms possess a certain emphasis is seen from their frequent use in pause, as in ψ 11811 after a biliteral form (סַבּ֫וּנִי גַם־סְבָב֫וּנִי).
dd 11. The above-mentioned (see g) neglect of the strengthening in aramaïzing forms, such as יִדְּמוּ and the like, occurs elsewhere tolerably often; in the perfect Qal תַּ֫מְנוּ for תַּמּ֫וֹנוּ Nu 1728 (Jer 4418; cf. above, e); imperfect נָבֹ֫זָה 1 S 1436 (־ָה parag. without any influence on the form, cf. o); even with the firm vowel reduced to vocal Šewâ; נָֽבְלָ֫ה Gn 117 for נָבֹ֫לָּה (cohortative from בָּלַל); יָֽזְמ֫וּ for יָזֹ֫מּוּ ibid. ver. 6, they purpose; following the analogy of verbs ע״וּ, אֲמֻֽשְׁךָ (see above, r); from intransitive imperfects Qal, תֵּֽצְרִי Is 4919 (plur. masc. Jb 187); יֵֽרְעוּ Neh 23; also תִּישָׁ֑מְנָה Ez 66 (for which read תֵּישׁ׳=תֵּשׁ׳) might be explained in the same way.—Perfect Niphʿal נָֽסְבָ֫ה for נָסַ֫בָּה Ez 417; נָֽזְלוּ Ju 55 for נְמַלְתֶּם ;נָזֹ֫לּוּ for נְמַלֹּתֶם Gn 1711 (as if from מָלַל not מוּל to circumcise), cf. Is 193, Jer 814; imperfect תִּמַּ֫קְנָה Zc 1412; participle נֵֽחָמִים, cf. u. So also נָפַץ 1 S 1311, נָֽפְצָה Gn 919 (cf. Is 333), are perfects Niphʿal from פצץ (= פּוּץ), not Qal from נָפַץ.—In Hiphʿîl הֵתַ֫לְתָּ (for הֲתִלֹּ֫תָ) Ju 1610 (2 S 1534); הֵעֵ֫זָה for הֵעֵ֫וָּה Pr 713 (cf. Ct 611, 713).
No less irregular is the suppression of the vowel of the stem-syllable in לְהַפְרְכֶם Lv 2615.—On the perfect דַּלְיוּ Pr 267, cf. § 75 u.
ee 12. Cases in which the tone is thrown forward on the afformatives (see k) are (a) in the perfect, the 1st sing. regularly (but cf. וַֽהֲצֵרֹ֫תִי Jer 1018 before לָהֶם) after ו consec., Ex 3319.22, 2 K 1934, &c., also Is 4416 (חַמּוֹתִ֖י before ר); ψ 9211 (but the text is certainly corrupt; see the Lexicon), 1166, perhaps also Jb 1917, וְחַנֹּתִֹי (though in this passage, and in ψ 173, the form might be an infinitive in ôth; see Delitzsch on Jb 1917); in the 2nd sing. וְקַצֹּתָ֫ה (before א) Dt 2512; in the 3rd plural, רַבּ֫וּ multi sunt, ψ 32, 10424, Jer 56, 1 S 2510; רַכּ֫וּ they are soft, ψ 5522 קַלּ֫וּ they are swift, Jer 413, Hb 18; זַכּ֫וּ they are pure, Jb 1515, 255, La 47; שַׁח֫וּ they did bow, Hb 36; חָר֫וּ they are burned, Is 246. A by form of שָׁתוּ (ע״וּ, cf. § 72 dd) is שַׁתּ֫וּ ψ 4915, 739.
ff (b) In the imperative (a command in an emphatic tone) רָנִּ֫י sing, Is 541, Zp 314, Zc 214; רָנּ֫וּ Is 4423, 4913, Jer 317 (but רֹ֫נִּי lament, La 219), חָגִּ֫י keep (thy feasts), Na 21, Jer 729; עוּזָּ֫ה (= עֻזָּה) before א, ψ 6829. On the retention of the short vowels ŭ (ŏ) and ĭ before Dageš forte, in place of the tone-long ō and ē, see above, k; on the change of the vowel of the preformative into Šewâ, when it no longer stands before the tone, see g.
The Weakest Verbs (Verba Quiescentia).
a So far as א retains its full consonantal value as a guttural, these verbs share all the peculiarities of verbs primae gutturalis, mentioned in § 63. They are, however, to be treated as weak verbs, when the א loses its value as a consonant, and coalesces with the preceding vowel (originally short) to form one long syllable. This takes place only in the following very common verbs and forms, as if through phonetic decay:—
b 1. In the imperfect Qal, five verbs (viz. אָבַד to perish, אָבָה to be willing, אָכַל to eat, אָמַר to say, אָפָה to bake) regularly make the א quiesce in a long ô, e.g. יֹאכַל.[6] In a few others the ordinary (strong) form is also in use, as יֹאחֵז (18 times) and יֶֽאֱחֹז (3 times) he takes hold; יׄסֵף (see h), also יֶֽאֱסֹף, he collects. This ô has primarily arisen from an obscuring of ô (§ 9 q), and the â from ־ַאְ, the weak consonant א coalescing with ă to â; cf. § 23 a.
c In the second syllable ō (for original ŭ) never appears, but either ē[7] or ă; and in pause almost always ē, even before the tone-bearing heavy afformative וּן, e.g. יֽאֹכֵלוּן Dt 181, without the pause יֹֽאכְלוּן Dt 428. In the 3rd sing. masc. and 1st sing. of אָמַר, however, ă is always retained in pause, יֹאמַ֫ר and אֹמַ֫ר; but in the 2nd masc. תֹּאמֵ֑ר 1 K 520, in the 3rd fem. תֹּאמַֽר Pr 121; in the plural יֹאמֵ֑רוּ Jer 52, ψ 1456.11, תֹּאמֵ֫רוּ Jer 2338, with Segolta; cf. also תּאֹכַֽל 1 S 17, &c. But with conjunctive accents in the body of the sentence, ă (as being a lighter vowel) is used, e.g. תֹּאבַ֖ד לָעַֽד ψ 919, but in pause תּאֹבֵֽד ψ 16; cf. a similar interchange of ē and ă in § 65 c. The 3rd fem. plur. impf. always has the form תֹּאכַ֫לְנָה Zc 119.
d When the tone moves back, the final syllable of the imperfects of אָבַד and אָכַל, with a conjunctive accent, also always takes Pathaḥ, e.g. יֹ֣אבַד יוֹם Jb 33, וַיּ֫אֹכַל and he did eat; in אָמַר the loss of the tone from the final syllable only occurs in the form with wāw consecutive (but never in the 1st sing. וָֽאֹמַר; cf. וָֽאֹכַל), and then the final syllable, if without the pause, always takes Seghôl, וַ֫יֹּאמֶר and he said (except וַתֹּ֫אמַר לוֹ Pr 713).
e In pause, however, the imperfect consecutive (except the 1st pers. of אָכַל, see below) always has the form וַיֹּאכַ֫ל (but plur. always יֹאכֵ֫לוּ, וַיֹּאכֵ֫לוּ), וַיֹּאמַ֫ר; except וַיֹּ֫אמַר in the poetic portion of the book of Job, as 3:2, 4:1, &c., but not in 32:6, in the middle of the verse. The weak imperfect of אָחַז is always יֹאחֵז and וַיֹּאחֶז, but in the 1st sing., according to § 49 e, וָֽאֹחֵ֫ז Ju 206; cf. וָֽאֹכֵ֫ל Gn. 312.13 in pause.—אָבָה and אָפָה are, at the same time, verbs ל״ה, hence imperfect יֹּאבֶה (§ 75 c).
f Before light suffixes the vowel of the second syllable becomes vocal Šewâ, as יֹֽאכְלֵם, תֹּֽאכְלֶ֫נּוּ but תֹּֽאכַלְכֶם.—In a few cases, instead of the ô in the first syllable an ê is found, which is due to contraction from the group ־ֶֽ ־ֱ (or ־ֶ ־ְ) in place of ־ַ ־ְ; e.g. תֵּאתֶה it shall come, Mi 48, from תֶּֽאֱתֶה (from אָתָה); אֵהָ֑ב (for אֵהַב) I love, Pr 817, also (four times) אֹהַב Mal 12, &c., with suffixes אֹֽהֲבֵ֫הוּ Ho 111, 145, &c. (but only in 1st sing., otherwise יֶֽאֱהַב, &c., from אָהֵב, אָהַב); וָֽאֵחַ֫ר and I stayed, Gn 325. The infinitive construct of אָמַר with לְ is always לֵאמֹר dicendo, for לֶֽאֱמֹר.—According to Barth (ZDMG. 1889, p. 179) וַיָּ֫אצֶל Nu 1125 is to be regarded as an imperfect Qal, without the obscuring of ־ָא to ô, not as imperfect Hiphʿîl, since אצל elsewhere occurs only in the perfect Qal and Niphʿal; on the original i in the second syllable, see above, § 67 p. For תְּאָכְ֫לֵהוּ Jb 2026 we should simply emend תֹּֽאכְל׳; the view that it is imperfect Pôʿēl (which nowhere else occurs) can, as regards the change of ô to ŏ, be supported only by the very doubtful analogies of ψ 624 (see § 52 q) and ψ 1015 Qerê (see § 55 b), while the view that it is Piʿēl (תְּאָכְ׳=תְּאָֽכְ׳=תְּאַכְּ׳) rests on no analogy whatever. It would be more admissible to suppose that תְּאָכְ׳ stands for תְּאֻכְּ׳, Puʿal (cf. אֲכֶלְךָ for אֲכַלְּךָ, § 27 q); but no reason has been discovered for this departure from the natural punctuation תֹּאכְ׳.
g 2. In the 1st pers. sing. imperfect, where two א’s would ordinarily come together, the second (which is radical) is regularly dropped (§ 23 f), as אֹמַר[8] (for אֹאמַר), &c., and even plene וָֽאוֹמַר Neh 27, &c., אֽוֹמְרָה ψ 4210. In the other cases, also, where the א is ordinarily regarded as quiescing in ô or ê, it is only retained orthographically, and on etymological grounds. Hence the possibility of its being dropped in the following cases:—
h Always in the contracted forms of אָסַף, as תֹּסֵף for תֹּאסֵף ψ 10429; וַיֹּ֫סֶף 2 S 61 (but for יֵאָֽסֵףJb 2719 read יֹאסִף=יוֹסִף with the LXX); cf. also in the 1st pers. Mi 46 and אֹסִֽפְךָ 1 S 156, which is apparently (from the Metheg with the i), intended for an imperfect Hiphʿîl: instead of it, however, read, with the Mantua edition, אֹֽסִפְךָ (with ĭ, according to § 60 f). But תֹּֽאסִפוּן Ex 57 (for תּֽוֹס׳), וַיֹּ֫אסֶף 1 S 1829 (for וַיּ֫וֹסֶף), and יאסף Jb 2719 (see above) are due to a mistake, since all three forms must be derived from the stem יָסַף. Furthermore, יֽׄמְר֫וּךָ ψ 13920 (where certainly יַמְר׳ is to be read); תֹּבֵא Pr 110 (cf. § 75 hh); וַתֹּפֵ֫הוּ 1 S 2824; יוֹכְלוּ Ez 425; תֹּֽמְרוּ 2 S 1914; וַתֹּ֫חֶז 2 S 209; תֵּֽוְלִי thou gaddest about (from אָזַל), Jer 236; וַיֵּ֫תֵא Dt 3321 (for יֶֽאֱתֶה), according to other readings (on the analogy of the cases mentioned in § 75 p) וַיֵתֵ֫א, וַיֵּ֫תֶא or וַיֶּ֫תֶא.
Paradigm I shows the weak forms of the imperfect Qal, and merely indicates the other conjugations, which are regular.
i Rem. 1. In the derived conjugations only isolated weak forms occur: Perfect Niphal נֹֽאחֲזוּ Nu 3230, Jos 229; Hiph. וַיָּ֫אצֶל Nu 1125 (but the statement in verse 17 is וְאָֽצַלְתִּי, therefore Qal); equally doubtful is the punctuation of וַיָּ֫רֶב (for וַיַּֽאֲרֵב?) and he laid wait, 1 S 155, and אָזִין I listen, Jb 3211 (on the analogy of verbs ע״וּ); cf. also אוֹכִיל (ô from â) I give to eat, Hos 114; אֹבִ֫ידָה (ô from â) I will destroy, Jer 468; וַיּוֹחֶר 2 S 205 Qerê (for וַיָּאח׳); the Kethîbh appears to require the Piʿēl וַיְיַחֵר, from יחר as a secondary form of אחר; but וַיֵּיחַר=וַיֵּאחַר for וַיֶּֽאֱחַר as imperfect Qal is not impossible. On וָאֽוֹצְרָה Neh 1313, cf. § 53 n.—Infinitive לְהָכִיל Ez 2133 (=לְהַֽאֲכ׳ unless it is rather infin. Hiph. from כּוּל); Participle מֵזִין giveth ear, Pr 174 (clearly by false analogy of verbs ע״וּ, for מַֽאֲזִין); Imperative הֵתָ֫יוּ bring (from אָתָה) Jer 129. (On the same form used for the perfect in Is 2114, cf. § 76 d.)
k 2. In the Piʿēl the א is sometimes elided (like ה in יְהַקְטִיל, יַקְטִיל), thus מַלֵּף (as in Aramaic and Samaritan) teaching, for מְאַלֵּף Jb 3511; יַהֵל (if not a mere scribal error) for יְאַהֵל Is 1320; וַתַּזְרֵ֫נִי thou hast girded me, 2 S 2240, for וַתְּאַזְּרֵ֫נִי as ψ 1840; וָֽאַבֶּדְּךָ Ez 2816; cf. § 23 c.
a Verbs which at present begin with Yôdh when without preformatives are divided into two classes according to their origin and consequent inflexion: (a) Verbs which (as still in Arabic and Ethiopic) originally began with Wāw, e.g. יָלַד to give birth to, Arab. and Eth. wălădă. In consequence of a phonetic change which prevails also with few exceptions in the noun, this Wāw in Hebrew and Aramaic always becomes a Yôdh, at least when it is the initial consonant; but after preformatives it either reappears, or is again changed into Yôdh, or, lastly, is altogether elided; (b) Verbs which (as in Arabic) originally began with Yôdh (called Verba cum Iod originario, see § 70). A few verbs again (some with original Yôdh, and some with original Wāw) form a special class, which in certain forms assimilates the Wāw or Yâdh to the following consonant on the analogy of the Nûn in verbs פ״ן (see § 71).
b With regard to verbs פ״ו (i.e. פ״י with original Wāw) it is to be noticed that—
1. In the imperfect, imperative and infinitive construct Qal there is a twofold inflexion, according as the Wāw is wholly rejected or only changed into Yôdh. The complete rejection (or elision) takes place regularly in eight verbs (see h) in the following manner:
A. Imperfect יֵשֵׁב, יֵדַע with an unchangeable[9] Ṣere in the first syllable and original ĭ in the second, which in the tone-syllable (according to § 27 c) becomes ē (thus יֵלֵד, יֵצֵא, יֵלֵךְ ;יֵרֵד, see x), or, under the influence of a guttural, with ă in the second (יֵדַע, יֵקַע, יֵחַד).
The tone-long ē of the second syllable is of course liable to be shortened or to become Šewâ, e.g. וַיֵּ֫שֶׁב, יֵֽשְׁבוּ, &c.; in the same way ă becomes Šewâ in such cases as יֵֽדְעוּ, &c., but is lengthened to Qameṣ in pause (יֵדָ֫עוּ) and before suffixes (יֵֽדָעֵם).
B. Imperative שֵׁב with aphaeresis of the Wāw and with tone-long ē, from ĭ, as in the imperfect.
C. Infinitive שֶׁ֫בֶת from original šibh, by addition of the feminine ending (ת) lengthened to a segholate form; as in verbs פ״ן (cf. § 66 b) this lengthening affords a certain compensation for loss of the initial consonant.
c Rem. Since the infinitives דֵּעָה, לֵדָה (see below, m) point to a ground-form diʿat, lidat, we must, with Philippi (ZDMG. xxxii. 42) and Barth (ibid. xli. 606), assign to שֶׁ֫בֶת, &c., the ground-form šibt (which, therefore, reappears in שִׁבְתִּי, &c.); the apparent ground-form šabt rests upon the law that the ĭ of the stem-syllable is changed into a whenever the syllable becomes doubly closed by the addition of the vowelless feminine ending. d In more than half the number of verbs פ״ו the original Wāw in the above-mentioned forms gives place to Yôdh, which, unless it suffers aphaeresis (see f), appears:—
in the imperatives יְצֹק, יְרַשׁ and infinitives יְסֹד, יְרֹא, as a strong consonant, but
in the imperfect יִירַשׁ, properly yiyrăš, merges with the preceding ĭ into î.
In the second syllable imperfects of this form regularly have ă.
e (a) That the latter forms are derived from verbs with an original Wāw (not Yôdh) is shown partly by the inflexion of these verbs in Niphʿal, Hiphʿîl, and Hophʿal (where the original Wāw reappears throughout), and partly by the Arabic, in which verbs פ״ו likewise exhibit a twofold formation; cf. wălădă, imperf. yălĭdu, with elision of the Wāw, and wăǵĭlă, yauǵalu, with retention of the Wāw.
f (b) Sometimes both forms, the weaker and the stronger, occur in the same verb; cf. צַק 2 K 441 and יְצֹק pour, Ez 243 (cf. יִֽצְקוּ 1 K 1834 and the infin. צֶ֫קֶת Ex 3827); רֵשׁ take possession, Dt 121, 1 K 2115 (but cf. s), רָשׁ (in pause for רַשׁ) Dt 224.31; plur. רְשׁוּ Dt 18, 923, but also, with ־ָה paragogic, יְרָ֫שָׁה Dt 3323. In the imperfect יִיקַד Dt 3222 and יֵקַד Is 1016 it shall be kindled; וַיִּיקַר it was precious, 1 S 1830 and יֵקַר ψ 499 (cf. יֵיקַר ψ 7214).—The form וַֽיֱּחֶמוּ Gn 3039, for וַיֵּֽחֲמוּ, beside וַיֵּחַ֫מְנָה verse 38, is remarkable; cf. § 47 k.
g (c) On רַד Ju 1911 for י֖רַד and שׁוֹב Jer 4210 for the infinitive absolute יָשׁוֹב, cf. § 19 i.—But יְרַד Ju 513 (twice) is not intended by the Masora either as perfect (for יָרַד, which really should be restored) or as imperative of יָרַד, but as an apocopated imperfect Piʿēl from רָדָה (=יְרַדֶּה) to have dominion.
h (d) The eight verbs,[10] of which the initial consonant in the above-mentioned forms always suffers elision or aphaeresis, are יָלַד to bring forth, יָצָא to go forth, יָשַׁב to sit, to dwell, יָרַד to descend, also הָלַךְ to go (cf. below, x); and with ă in the second syllable of the imperfect, יָדַע to know, יָחַד to be united, יָקַע to be dislocated. Examples of the other formation (יִיוַשׁ, &c.) are יָעֵף to be wearied, יָעַץ to counsel, יָשֵׁן to sleep, יָרֵא (imperfect יִירָא, imperative יְרָא) to fear.
i 2. The original Wāw is retained as a firm consonant: (a) in the infinitive, imperative, and imperfect Niphʿal, being protected by the strengthening, e.g. הִוָּשֵׁב, יִוָּשֵׁב, which are consequently strong forms like הִקָּטֵל, יִקָּטֵל; (b) in the Hithpaʿel of some verbs, e.g. הִתְוַדַּע from יָדַע, הִתְוַכַּח from יָכַח, הִתְוַדָּה from יָדָה; otherwise a radical Wāw at the beginning of a word is now found only in a few nouns, e.g. וָלָד off spring from יָלַד to bear. At the end of a syllable Wāw with the homogeneous vowel ŭ coalesces into ǔ; so throughout Hophʿal, e.g. הוּשַׁב for hŭwšabh; but with a preceding a the Wāw is contracted into ô (וֹ); so in the perfect and participle Niphʿal and throughout Hiphʿîl, e.g. נוֹשַׁב from an original năwšăbh, הוֹשִׁיב from an original hăwšîbh.
k The first radical always appears as Yôdh in the perfect and participle Qal, יָשַׁב, &c., ישֵׁב, יָשׁוּב, even when וְ precedes, e.g. וְיָשַׁב (but וִיֽשַׁבְתֶּם, according to § 24 b), also throughout Piʿēl and Puʿal, e.g. יִחֵל to wait, יֻלַּד to be born, and in the imperfect and participle יְיַחֵל, מְיֻדָּע known (from יָדַע), and, as a rule, also in Hithpaʿel, e.g. הִתְיַלֵּד, הִתְיַצֵּב, הִתְיַחֵשׂ (as against הִתְוַדַּע, &c., with Wāw).
l The beginner may recognize verbs פ״ו in the imperfect Qal partly by the Ṣere under the preformatives; in Niphʿal and Hiphʿîl by the Wāw (ו, וֹ) before the second radical. (The defective writing, as in הֹלִיד, is rare.) Verbs פ״ו have forms like (דַּע) שֵׁב, שֶׁ֫בֶת, in common with verbs פ״ן. Similarly Hophʿal has the same form as in verbs ע״ע and ע״וּ.
m Rem. 1. The infinitive Qal of the weaker form (שֶׁ֫בֵת, ground-form šibt, רֶ֫שֶׁת; cf. above, c) with suffixes is pointed as שִׁבְתִּי,[11] רִשְׁתּוֹ (the strong form only in לְיָרְשֵׁ֫נוּ Ju 1415). The masculine form is very rare, e.g. דֵּעַ to know, Jb 326.10, as also the feminine ending ־ָה, e.g. דֵּעָ֫ה[12] Ex 24, לֵדָ֫ה Is 373 (2 K 193); Jer 1321, Ho 911; מֵֽרְדָה2 to descend, Gn 463, where the change of the ē into vocal Šewâ is to be explained, with König, from its position between the principal and secondary tone. From יָדַע, under the influence of the guttural, דַּ֫עַת is formed, with suff. דַּעְתִּי, &c.; but from יצא, צֵאת. From יָרַד there occurs in ψ 304 in Qerê מִיָּרְדִי (the Keth. requires מִיּֽוֹרְדֵי) a very remarkable case of the strong form (for מֵֽרִדְתִּי). For לַת 1 S 419 (generally explained as a case of assimilation of ד to ת in the supposed ground-form ladt; according to Mayer Lambert pausal of לֵת=lidt, see above, c) read simply לֶ֫דֶת.
n Examples of the strong form of the infinitive are יְרֹא to fear, Jos 2225, with preposition לִיסֹד Is 5116 (but 2 Ch 317 according to Ben Naphtali לִיסֹּד, where the י is only retained orthographically, but is really assimilated to the ס; the reading of Ben Asher, לְיִסּוֹד, accepted by Baer, is meaningless); לִישׁוֹן Ec 511; לֵרֹא 1 S 1829 is irregular, but probably לִרֹא (for לִירֹא) is intended. With suff.. בְּיָסְדִי Jb 384, cf. Ju 1415, Ezr 312; with ת fem. יְכֹ֫לֶת to be able, Nu 1416. On יְב֫שֶׁת, which is likewise usually referred to this class, cf. the note on § 70 a.
o 2. The imperative Qal frequently has the lengthening by ־ָה, e.g. שְׁבָה sit thou, רְדָה descend thou. From יָהַב to give, Arab. wăhăbă, only the imperative is used in Hebrew; it has the form הַב give, lengthened תָ֫בָה generally with the meaning age, go to, hence in Gn 113.4 even addressed to several persons (Gn 2921 הָבָ֫ה before א to avoid the hiatus); fem. הָבִי Ru 315, Milraʿ on the analogy of the plural הָב֫וּ (once in Jb 622 הָ֫בוּ before the tone-syllable; but cf. Dt 323), whilst, on the analogy of other imperatives Qal of verbs פ״ו, הֲבִי, הֲבוּ would be expected.—On דְּעֶה Pr 2414, cf. § 48 l.
p 3. The imperfect with ו elided takes ă in the second syllable, besides the cases mentioned above (under f), also in תֵּרַד Jer 1317 (cf. La 348) and in the pausal form יֵלַךְ Jb 2721, &c. (from הָלַךְ, see x); on יֵקַד Is 1016 see above, f. The ă in the second syllable, when followed by the afformative נָה (תֵּרַ֫דְנָה &c.), is in accordance with the law mentioned above (under c), by which ă takes the place of ĭ in a doubly closed syllable. Forms with ē in the second syllable shorten the ē to Seghôl, when the tone is drawn back (before a tone-syllable or after wāw consecutive), e.g. יֵֽשֶׁב־נָא Gn 4433; וַיֵּ֫רֶד, וַיּ֫שֶׁב; but ē is retained in an open syllable, even with Milʿel-tone, in יֵ֫צֵא Ex 1629, Ju 939, in both cases with nasog ʾaḥor, § 29 e. The pausal is either of the form וַיֵּשֵׁב Ru 41 or וַיֵּרַ֑ד ψ 1810; the 1st pers. sing., whether in or out of pause, is וָֽאֵרֵד, וָֽאֵלֵד &c., except וָֽאֵלַ֑ךְ Jb 1910, see x.—For יְיֵדָֽע ψ 1386 (cf. the note above, on b and the analogous cases in § 70 d) יֵידָֽע is intended.
q The imperfect of the form יִירַשׁ is frequently (especially before afformatives) written defectively, in which case the î can always be recognized as a long vowel by the Metheg (see § 16 f), e.g. יִֽעֲפוּ Is 4030, יִֽגְעוּ Is 6523; and so always יִֽרְאוּ they fear, as distinguished from יִרְאוּ they see (imperf. Qal of רָאָה).—On וַיִּ֫ישֶׂם Gn 5026, 2433 Keth, and יִיסָךְ Ex 3032, see § 73 f.
r From יָכֹל to prevail, to be able, the imperfect Qal is יוּכַל, which can only have arisen through a depression of the vowel from יוֹכַל (ground-form yaukhal=yawkhal), to distinguish it, according to Qimḥi, from אוֹכַל, just as, according to § 47 b, אֶקְטֹל is differentiated from יִקְטֹל. Cf. the Arabic yauruʿu (yôruʿu) from waruʿa, yauǵalu (yôǵalu) from waǵila, as also the vulgar Arabic (among towns-people) yûṣal, &c., from waṣala. Others regard יוּכַל as an imperfect Hophʿal (he is enabled=he can), always used instead of the imperfect Qal; cf., however, § 53 u.—וַתּוּכָֽל occurs in Jer 35 as 2nd sing. fem. for וַתּוּכָֽלִי, according to König because the 2nd fem. had been sufficiently indicated previously.—Further יוֹרֶה or יֹרֶה is to be regarded with M. Lambert (REJ. xxxvii, no. 73) as impf. Qal (not Hiphʿil) of יָרָה to throw, shoot (the supposed impf. Qal וַנִּירָם Nu 2130 is critically very doubtful). This is shown especially by the passages in which the impf. יוֹרֶהּ is immediately preceded by the imperat. Qal (2 K 1317) or infin. Qal (ψ 645), or is followed by the participle Qal (2 Ch 3523; but in 2 S 1124 by the participle Hiphʿil).
s 4. The attenuation of ă to ĭ in the perfect (in a toneless, closed syllable) which is discussed in § 44 d (cf. § 64 f) occurs in verbs פ״ו in a few forms of יָלַד Nu 1112, Jer 227, ψ 27, &c. (always after יְ), as well as of יָרַשׁ, e.g. וִֽירִשְׁתֶּם, &c., Dt 41, 81, 1714, 191, 261, 313 (always after וִי for וְיְ). In both cases the attenuation might be explained from the tendency to assimilate the vowels, especially if the initial יְ was pronounced, as in Syriac, like i (§ 47 b). In the case of יָרַשׁ, however, a secondary form יַרֵשׁ (cf. § 44 d) is probably to be assumed, since in Arabic also the verb is wărĭṯă. The forms וִֽירֵשׁ֫וּךָ Ez 3612 and וִֽירֵשׁ֫וּהָ ψ 6936, &c., are most simply explained from the return of this ĭ.
t 5. As an exception, the imperfect Niphʿal sometimes has a י instead of the ו, e.g. וַיִּיָּ֫חֶל and he stayed, Gn 812 (unless the Piʿēl or וַיָּחֶל, as in ver. 10, is to be read), cf. Ex 1913; 1 S 138 Kethîbh.—The first person always has the form אִוָּשֵׁב, not אֶוָּשֵׁב, cf. § 51 p.—In the participle the plural נוּגֵי (from יָגָה, with depression of ô to û, cf. § 27 n) is found in Zp 318; cf. La 14. While in these cases some doubt may be felt as to the correctness of the Masoretic pointing, much more is this so in the perfect נוּלְּדוּ nulledhû, 1 Ch 35, 208, for נֽוֹלְדוּ which appears to be required by the wāw in the initial syllable.
u 6. In the imperfect Piʿēl elision of the first radical (י) sometimes takes place after wāw consec. (as in the case of א, § 68 k), e.g. וַיַּגֶּה for וַיְיַגֶּה and he has grieved, La 333, וַיַּדּוּ for וַיְיַדּוּ and they have cast, verse 53, from ידה, which may also be a true verb פ״י (on the other hand, in יַדּוּ גוֹרָל they have east lots, Jo 43, Ob 11111, Na 310, a perfect Qal of יָדַד is required by the context; but as this, being a transitive perfect, ought to have the form יָֽדְדוּ according to § 67 a, perhaps we should read יִדּוּ). So from a verb פ״י, of the second class, וַיַּבְּשֵׁ֫הוּ for וַיְיַבְּשֵׁ֫הוּ and he made it dry, Na 14; cf. וַיַּשְּׁרֵם 2 Ch 3230 Qerê (the Keth. points either to Piʿēl וַיְיַשְּׁרֵם or Hiphʿîl וַיַּיְשִׁרֵם).
v 7. The imperative Hiphʿîl, instead of the usual form הוֹשֵב, sometimes has î in the second syllable; הוֹצִיא Is 438; הוֹפִיעַ ψ 941 (before ה, hence probably a mere mistake for הוֹפִ֫יעָה). On the uncertainty of the tone in הוֹשִׁיעָה־נָּא see § 53 m. When closed by a guttural the second syllable generally has ă, as הוֹדַע, הוֹשַׁע, cf. also הֹקַר Pr 2517 (as in the infin. constr. הוֹכַח Jb 626; see § 65 f). On the other hand, î always appears when the syllable is open, thus הוֹשִׁ֫יבָה, הוֹשִׁ֫יבִי, and so also before suffixes (§ 61 g). הַיְצֵא Gn 817 Qerê (Keth. הוֹצֵא, see § 70 b) is irregular.—The jussive and the imperfect consecutive Hiphʿîl when the tone is drawn back take Seghôl in the second syllable, as in Qal, e.g. י֫וֹסֶף that he may increase, Pr 15, before לֶ֫קַח; cf. Ex 1028 and Dt 326 after אַל־; וַיֹּ֫סֶף (תּ֫וֹסְףְּ Pr 306 is anomalous); in pause, however, also תּוֹסַף as jussive, Jb 4032 (usual jussive in pause יוֹשֵׁב, &c., which occurs even without the pause after wāw consecutive, Gn 4711, Jos 243, 2 S 84, &c.). With a final guttural יֹדַ֫ע and יוֹכַ֫ח (jussive) and וַיּוֹכַה &c.; with a final ר in pause וַתֹּתַֽר Ru 214: on וְישַֽׁעֲכֶם Is 354, cf. § 65 f).—On forms like יְהוֹשִׁיעַ, see § 53 q.
w In Hophʿal ô stands instead of וּ, in הוֹדַע (for הוּדַע) Lv 423.28, הֹגָה 2 S 2013, and perhaps in יוֹרֶא (for יוּרֶה) Pr 1125; but cf. Delitzsch on the passage.—Ptcp. מוּדַ֫עַת Is 125 Qere (מְיֻדַּ֫עַת Keth).—An infinitive Hophʿal with feminine ending occurs in הֻלֶּ֫דֶת Gn 4020, for הֻלֶ֫דֶת=הוּל׳; cf. above, t, on נוּלְּדוּ, and § 71 at the end.
x 8. The verb הָלַךְ to go, also belongs in some respects to the פ״ו class, since it forms (as if from וָלַךְ) imperfect יֵלֵךְ, with wāw consecutive וַיֵּ֫לֶךְ (in pause וַיֵּלַֽךְ Gn 2461, &c.), 1st sing. וָֽאֵלֵךְ (but in Jb 1910 וָֽאֵלַ֑ךְֹ); infinitive construct לֶ֫כֶת with suff. לֶכְתִּי (Seghôl under the influence of the following palatal, as in נֶכְדִּי, cf. also נֶגְדִּי); imperative לֵךְ, לֶךְ־, in the lengthened form לְכָה (as an interjection referring even to a feminine, Gn 1932, or a plural, Gn 3144) and לְךָ (Nu 2313, Ju 1913, 2 Ch 2517); Hiph. הוֹלִיךְ (also in Ex 29 הוֹלִ֫יכִי 2nd fem. imperative is to be read for הֵילִ֫יכִי, which probably arose merely through confusion with the following הֵינִקִ֫הוּ); imperfect יוֹלִיךְ, but in the 1st sing. of the imperfect consecutive always וָֽאוֹלֵךְ Lv 2613, Am 210, &c. Rarely, and almost exclusively late or in poetry, the regular inflexions of הָלַךְ are also found: imperf. יַֽהֲלֹךְ (ψ 589, &c.; but תִּֽהֲלַךְ Ex 923, ψ 739; cf. § 64 a and h); אֶֽהֱלֹךְ Jb 1622, also Mêšaʿ inscription, line 14, אהלך; infin. הֲלֹךְ (Ex 319, Nu 2213 f.16,[13] Ec 68.9); imperative plur. הִלְכוּ Jer 5150. On the other hand, the perfect Qal is always הָלַךְ, participle הֹלֵךְ, infinitive absolute הָלוֹךְ, Niphʿal נֶֽהֱלַךְ, Piʿēl הִלֵּךְ, Hithpaʿēl הִתְהַלֵּךְ, so that a י never arrears unmistakably as the first radical. The usual explanation of the above forms is nevertheless based on a supposed obsolete יָלַךְ. It is, however, more correct to regard the apparent פ״ו forms of הלך with Praetorius (ZAW. ii. 310 ff.) as originating with the Hiphʿîl, of which the ground-form hahlîkh became hâlîkh, and this again, on the analogy of the imperfect Qal of verbs פ״א, hôlîkh. This hôlîkh being referred to a supposed haulîkh (properly hawlîkh) gave rise to new formations after the manner of verbs פ״ו.
Verbs properly פ״י differ from verbs פ״ו in the following points:
a 1. In Qal the initial Yôdh never suffers aphaeresis or elision; hence the infinitive has the form יְבשׁ,[14] 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).
b 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, § 67 p), 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 (§ 24 f, note), but perhaps the punctuation here is only intended to suggest another reading אֲיַסְּרֵם.
c 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. § 72 x), and the Hiphʿîl הֵימִין (denominative from יָמִין), infin. לְהֵמִין 2 S 1419 to go to the right.
d 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.
e 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 § 69 u).
In some verbs פ״י, the Yôdh (or the original Wāw) does not quiesce in the preceding vowel, but is regarded as a full consonant, and, like Nûn,[15] is assimilated to the following consonant. These forms, therefore, belong properly to the class of strong verbs. Assimilation invariably takes place in יָצַע (prop. וצע) to spread under; Hiphʿîl הִצִּיעַ, Hophʿal הֻצַּע; יָצַת to burn, imperfect יִצַּת, Niphʿal נִצַּת, Hiphʿîl הִצִּית (in Is 274 also אַצִּיתֶ֫נָּה is to be read with König; in 2 S 1430 the Masora has rightly emended the Kethîbh והוציתיה, which could only be the 1st sing. perf. of a verb פ״ו, to the imperative וְהַצִּית֫וּהָ in agreement with the context and all the early versions); יָצַג, Hiphʿîl הִצִּיג to place, Hophʿal הֻצַּג; and probably also in the forms ordinarily derived from נָצַב, viz. נִצַּב (Niphʿal), הִצִּיב, יַצִּיב, הֻצַּב; at any rate a stem יָצַב is implied by the Hithpaʿēl הִתְיַצֵּב; instead of the anomalous וַתֵּֽתַצַּב Ex 24 read with the Samaritan ותתיצב, i.e. וַתִּתְיַצֵּב. Besides the common form we find once אֶצֹּק in Is 443 (from יָצַק to pour) with a transitive meaning, beside וַיֵּ֫צֶק intransitive, 1 K 2235. Elsewhere the imperfect consecutive has the form וַיִּצֹק Gn 2818, 3514, &c., cf. § 69 f, where also other forms of יָצַק are given; וַיִּ֫יצֶר and יִּצֹּר (Is 4412, 498, Jer 15 Qerê), from יָצַר to form, are, however, used in the same sense. Cf. also אֶסֳּרֵם Ho 1010; וַיִּשַּׁ֫רְנָה (for וַתִּ׳ according to § 47 k) 1 S 612; לִיסֹּד 2 Ch 317 (cf. § 69 n) and מוּסָּד Is 2816. This assimilation is found always with sibilants (most frequently with צ) except in the case of וַיִּקַּץ 1 K 315 (so ed. Mant., Ginsb., Kittel; but Jabl., Baer וַיִּקַץ) and in הֻ֫לֶּדֶת Gn 4020, Ez 165 (cf. הוּלֶּדֶת verse 4), infinitive Hophʿal of יָלַד (cf. נוּלְּדוּ § 69 t).
Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 144 ff.; Grundriss, p. 605 ff.
a 1. According to § 67 a a large number of monosyllabic stems were brought into agreement with the triliteral form by a strengthening, or repetition, of the second radical, i.e. of the consonantal element in the stem. In another large class of stems the same object has been attained by strengthening the vocalic element. The ground-form used for these verbs is not, as in other cases (§ 39 a), the 3rd sing. mast. perfect, but always the infinitive construct form (§ 39 b), the û of which is characteristic also of the imperative and of the imperfect indicative Qal. These stems are consequently termed verbs ע״ו or more correctly (see below) ע״וּ.[16]
b 2. As in the case of verbs ע״ע, the monosyllabic stem of verbs ע״וּ generally takes the vowel which would have been required in the second syllable of the ordinary strong form, or which belonged to the ground-form, since this is essentially characteristic of the verbal form (§ 43 b; § 67 b). However, it is to be remarked: (a) that the vowel, short in itself, becomes of necessity long in an open syllable as well as in a tone-bearing closed ultima (except in Hophʿal, see d), e.g. 3rd sing. mast. perf. קָם, fem. קָ֫מָה, plur. קָ֫מוּ, but in a closed penultima קַ֫מְתָּ, &c.[17]; (b) that in the forms as we now have them the lengthening of the original short vowel sometimes takes place irregularly. Cf. f.
c Intransitive verbs middle e in the perfect Qal have the form מֵת he is dead; verbs middle o have the form אוֹר he shone, בּשׁ he was ashamed, מוֹב he was good.[18] Cf. n–r.
d 3. In the imperfect Qal, perfect Niphʿal, and throughout Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal the short vowel of the preformatives in an open syllable before the tone is changed into the corresponding tone-long vowel. In Qal and Niphʿal the original ă is the basis of the form and not the ĭ attenuated from ă (§ 67 h; but cf. also h below, on יֵבוֹשׁ), hence יָקוּם, for yăqûm; נָקוֹם for năqôm; on the other hand, in the perfect Hiphʿîl הֵקִים for hĭqîm; participle מֵקִים (on the Ṣere cf. z); perfect Hophʿal הוּקַם for hŭqam.
e A vowel thus lengthened before the tone is naturally changeable and becomes vocal Šewâ when the tone is moved forward, e.g. יְמִיתֶ֫נּוּ he will kill him; so also in the 3rd plur. imperfect Qal with Nûn paragogic; יְמוּת֫וּן (without Nûn יָמ֫וּתוּ). The wholly abnormal scriptio plena of ē in הַֽהֵימִיר Jer 211 (beside הֵמִיר in the same verse) should, with König, be emended to הֲיָמִיר; the incorrect repetition of the interrogative necessarily led to the pointing of the form as perfect instead of imperfect.—But in Hophʿal the û is retained throughout as an unchangeable vowel, when it has been introduced by an abnormal lengthening for the tone-long ō (as in the Hophʿal of verbs ע״ע).
f 4. The cases of unusual vowel lengthening mentioned in b are: imperfect Qal יָקוּם (also in Arabic yăqûmu), but jussive with normal lengthening (§ 48 g), יָקֹם, with retraction of the tone יָ֫קָם (yāqŏm), וַיָּ֫קָם (in pause וַיָּ֫קֹם); imperative קוּם, with normal lengthening of the ŭ in the 2nd plur. fem. קֹ֫מְנָה, since, according to § 26 p, the û cannot be retained in a closed penultima; infinitive construct קוּם. In Hiphʿîl the original ĭ is naturally lengthened to î (הֵקִים, imperfect יָקִים, jussive יָקִם, with retraction of the tone יָ֫קֶם, וַיָּ֫קֶם); on the transference of this î to the Hiphʿîl of the strong verb, cf. § 53 a.
g The following forms require special consideration: the participle Qal קָם is to be traced to the ground-form with â unobscured, Arab. qâtĭl, § 9 q, and § 50 b. On this analogy the form would be qâĭm,[19] which after absorption of the ĭ became קָם, owing to the predominating character of the â. The unchangeableness of the â (plur. קָמִים, constr. קָמֵי, &c.) favours this explanation.
h In the imperfect Qal, besides the forms with original ŭ (now û) there are also forms with original ă. This ă was lengthened to ā, and then further obscured to ô; hence especially (יָבֹא) יָבוֹא, וַיָּבֹא, &c., from the perfect בָּא he has come. In the imperfects יֵאוֹר (but cf. וַתָּאֹ֫רְנָה 1 S 1427) and יֵבוֹשׁ from the intransitive perfects אוֹר, בּשׁ (see above, c), most probably also in יֵאֹ֫תוּ 2 K 129, נֵאוֹת Gn 3415 from an unused אות to consent, and perhaps in וַתֵּהֹם 1 S 45, &c., as in the cases noticed in § 63 e and especially § 67 n, the ē of the preformative is lengthened from ĭ (which is attenuated from original ă) and thus yĭ-băš became yĭ-bāš, and finally yē-bôš. Finally the Niph. נָקוֹם (nă-qām), imperfect יִקּוֹם from yiqqām, originally (§ 51 m) yinqăm, arises in the same way from the obscuring of ā lengthened from ă.
i 5. In the perfect Niphʿal and Hiphʿîl a וֹ is inserted before the afformatives beginning with a consonant in the 1st and 2nd persons, and ־ֶי regularly (but see Rem.) in the imperfect Qal, sometimes also in the imperfect Hiphʿîl (as in תְּבִיאֶ֫ינָה Lv 730, cf. תְּהִימֶ֫נַּה Mi 212), before the termination of נָה. As in verbs ע״ע (§ 67 d and note) these separating vowels serve as an artificial opening of the preceding syllable, in order to preserve the long vowel; in the perfect Hiphʿîl, however, before the וֹ, instead of the î an ē is somewhat often found[20] (as a normal lengthening of the original ĭ), especially after wāw consecutive, Dt 439, 301, as well as before the afformatives תֶם and תֶן or before suffixes, Dt 222, 1 S 68, 1 K 834, Ez 344. For in all these cases the tone is removed from the וֹ to the following syllable, and this forward movement of the tone produces at the same time a weakening of the î to ē; thus הֵקִים, הֲקִימ֫וֹתָ (or הֱק׳; on הַֽעֵדֹ֫תָה Ex 1923, cf. x), but וַֽהֲקֵֽמֹתָ, &c., Ex 2630, &c.; Dt 439, Nu 1826 (cf., however, וַֽהֲקֵמֹנ֫וּ Mi 54). In the same way in the 1st pers. sing. of the perfect Niphʿal, the ô before the separating vowel is always modified to û (נְקוּמ֫וֹתִ׳); cf. v. In the imperfect Qal and Hiphʿîl the separating vowel ־ֶי always bears the tone (תְּקוּמֶ֫ינָה).
k Without the separating vowel and consequently with the tone-long ō and ē instead of û and î we find in imperfect Qal תָּבֹ֫אנָה (see § 76 g); תָּשֹׁ֫בְןָ Ez 1655 (also תְּשׁוּבֶ֫ינָה in the same verse); וַתָּשֹׁ֫בְנָה 1 S 714 (cf. Ez 359 Qerê; on the Kethîbh תֵּישַׁ֫בְנָה cf. above, note on § 69 b); וַתָּאֹ֫רְנָה 1 S 1427, from אוֹר (Kethîbh וַתִּרְאֶ֫נָה and they saw, see § 75 w); in Hiphʿîl, e.g. הֵנַ֫פְתָּ Ex 2025, also הֲנִיפ֫וֹתִי Jb 3121; וְהֵֽטַלְתִּי Jer 2226; תָּשֵׁ֫בְנָה Jb 2010; with a separating vowel, e.g. תְּבִיאֶ֫ינָה Lv. 730 from בּוֹא. Seghôl without י occurs in the imperfect Qal in תְּמוּתֶ֫נָה Ez 1319, Zc 117; and in Hiphʿîl Mi 212: the Dageš in the Nûn is, with Baer, to be rejected in all three cases according to the best authorities. Wholly abnormal is תָּקִ֫ימְנָה Jer 4425, probably an erroneous transposition of ימ (for תְּקִמֶ֫ינָה), unless it originates from an incorrect spelling תָּקֵ֫ימְנָה or תְּקִימֶ֫נָה.
l 6. The tone, as in verbs ע״ע (cf. § 67 k), is also generally retained on the stem-syllable in verbs ע״וּ before the afformatives ־ָה, וּ, ־ִי; thus קָ֫מָה (but also בָּזָ֫ה לְךָ 2 K 1921, probably for the sake of rhythmical uniformity with the following לָֽעֲגָה לְךָ; after wāw consecutive וְשָׁבָ֫ה Is 2317); קָ֫מוּ (but also קָמ֫וּ, cf. Is 287, 299, Na 318, ψ 766, Pr 56, La 418; וְרָצ֫וּ 1 S 811; so especially before a following א, cf. § 49 l, Nu 1332; וְנָע֫וּ Is 191; before ע, ψ 1311, Pr 3013, La 414); תָּק֫וּמִי, יָק֫וּמוּ, but before a suffix or with Nûn paragogic וַיְסֻכ֫וּם 2 Ch 2815; יְקוּמ֫וּן Dt 3311, &c.
m 7. The formation of the conjugations Piʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl is, strictly speaking, excluded by the nature of verbs ע״וּ. It is only in the latest books that we begin to find a few secondary formations, probably borrowed from Aramaic, on the analogy of verbs ע״ו (with consonantal ו, see below, gg); e.g. the Piʿēl עִוֵּד to surround, only in עִוְּדֻ֫נִי ψ 11961; and with change of ו to י, קִיַּם Est 931, קִיְּמוּ Est 927, impf. וָאֲֽקַיֵ֫מָה ψ 119106, infin. קַיֵּם Ez 136, Ru 47 &c., Est 921 &c., imperat. קַיְּמֵ֫נִי ψ 11928; וְחִיַּכְתֶּם Dn 110 from חוּב to be guilty. The Hithpaʿēl הִצְטַיֵּד Jos 912, which belongs to the older language, is probably a denominative from צַ֫יִד. On the other hand the otherwise less common conjugation Pôlēl (see § 55 c), with its passive and reflexive, is usually employed in the sense of Piʿēl and as a substitute for it, e.g. קוֹמֵם to set up from קוּם; מוֹתֵת to slaughter, 1 S 1413, 1751, 2 S 19, from מוּת; רוֹמֵם to exalt, passive רוֹמַם, from רוּם; reflexive הִתְעוֹרֵר to stir up oneself (cf. יִתְעֹרָֽר Jb 178 in pause) from עוּר; reciprocal הִתְבּשֵׁשׁ to be ashamed before one another, Gn 225. The conjugation Pilpēl (§ 55 f), on the analogy of verbs ע״ע, is less common, e.g., טִלְטֵל to hurl away from טוּל; כִּלְכֵּל to contain from כּוּל; קַרְקַר to destroy from קוּר.
Remarks
I. On Qal.
n 1. Of verbs middle e and o, in which, as in the strong verb, the perfect and participle have the same form (§ 50 b), the following are the only examples: מֵת he is dead, fem. מֵ֫תָה, 2nd masc. מַ֫תָּה (cf. § 44 g; § 66 h); 1st sing. מַ֫תִּי, וָמַ֫תִּי (even in pause, Gn 1919); plur. מֵ֫תוּ, 1st pers. מַ֫תְנוּ, in pause מָ֫תְנוּ; בּשׁ he was ashamed, בּשְׁתְּ, בּ֫שְׁתִּי, בּ֫שְׁנוּ, בּ֫שׁוּ; אוֹר it has shone, plur. א֫וֹרוּ; טוֹב to be good, טֹ֫בו. Participles מֵת a dead man (plur. מֵתִים, מֵתֵי); בּוֹשִׁים ashamed, Ez 3230. For נֵד Is 2711 read נָד, or, with LXX, עַד.
o Isolated anomalies in the perfect are: וְשָׁבַ֫ת (with the original ending of the fem. for וְשָׁבָ֫ה) Ez 4617 (see § 44 f); צָקוּן Is 2616 (see § 44 l).—In בָּ֫נוּ 1 S 258 (for בָּאנוּ from בּוֹא) the א has been dropped contrary to custom. In בֹּ֫אוּ Jer 2718 (instead of בָּ֫אוּ) the Masora seems to point to the imperfect יָבֹא֫וּ which is what would be expected; as Yôdh precedes, it is perhaps simply a scribal error.
p The form קָם occurs (cf. § 9 b) with א in the perfect, קָאם Ho 1014, also in the participles לָאט softly, Ju 421, רָאשׁ poor, 2 S 121.4, Pr 104, plur. 1323; שָׁאטִים doing despite unto (unless שֹֽׁאֲטִים is to be read, from a stem שׁאט whence שְׁאָט Ez 2515, 365), Ez 2824.26; fem. 1657; also in Zc 1410 רָאמָה is to be read with Ben-Naphtali for רָֽאֲטָה. On the analogy of participles of verbs middle ō (like בּוֹשִׁים, see above) קוֹמִים occurs for קָמִים 2 K 167 and even with a transitive meaning לוֹט occultans, Is 257; בּוֹסִים Zc 105.—Participle passive, מוּל circumcised; but סוּג a backslider, Pr 1414, and סוּרָה put aside, Is 4921 (cf. Jer 1713 Qerê), are verbal adjectives of the form qāṭûl (§ 50 f), not passive participles. For חֻשִׁים hastening, Nu 3217, read חֲמֻשִׁים as in Ex 1318; for שׁוּבֵי Mi 28 read שָׁבֵי.
q 2. Imperfects in û almost always have the corresponding imperative and infinitive construct in û, as יָקוּם, imperative and infinitive קוּם (also defectively written יָקֻם, קֻם); but יָדוּשׁ he threshes (infin. דּוּשׁ), has imperative דּ֫וֹשִׁי (fem.), Mi 413; יָמוּט it slippeth, infinitive מוֹט (ψ 3817, 463); cf. נוֹחַ (also נוּחַ) Nu 1125 and נוֹעַ Is 72 (elsewhere נוּעַ) with the imperfects יָנוּחַ and יָנוּעַ; לָעוֹז Is 302; שוֹב Jos 216; רוֹם Ez 1017 (verse 16 רוּם).
r Where the imperfect (always intransitive in meaning) has ô the imperative and infinitive also have it; thus imperfect (יָבֹא) יָבוֹא, infin. and imper. בּוֹא or בֹּא[21]; וַיֵּאֹר 2 S 232, א֫וֹרִי, א֫וֹרוּ; יֵבוֹשׁ, בּוֹשׁ, &c.—יָקוֹט Jb 814 (if it be a verb at all and not rather a substantive) is formed on the analogy of verbs ע״ע, since the imperfect of קוּטֹ appears as אָקוּט in ψ 9510. On the other hand יְקשׁוּן (as if from קוֹשׁ, on the analogy of יָבוֹא, &c.) occurs as imperfect of יָקשׁ (פ״י). The imperfect יָדוֹן, with ô, Gn 63, probably in the sense of to rule, has no corresponding perfect, and is perhaps intentionally differentiated from the common verb יָדִין to judge (from דִּין, ע״י). Or can יָדוֹן be a jussive after לֹא (cf. § 109 d)? Similarly לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינִי (עֵֽינְךָ) might be taken as a case of a jussive after לֹא, with irregular scriptio plena (as in Ju 1630), in Dt 716, 139, 1913.21, 2512, Ez 511, 74.9, 818, 910. But perhaps in all these cases לֹא תָחוּס was originally intended, as in Is 1318, Jer 217, while cases like יָחֹס ψ 7213 are to be explained as in § 109 k.—The infinitive absolute always has ô, e.g. קוֹם יָק֫וּמוּ Jer 4429.
s 3. In the imperative with afformatives (ק֫וּמִי, ק֫וּמוּ) the tone is on the stem syllable (cf., however, עוּרִ֫י Ju 512 intentionally varied from ע֫וּרִי; also עוּרִ֫י Zc 137 and Is 519 beside ע֫וּרִי כִּ֣ימֵי; גִּילִ֫י Zc 99; צוּרִ֫י Is 212, שׁוּבִ֫י ψ 1167, likewise for rhythmical reasons). So also the lengthened form, as שׁ֫וּבָה Jer 312, ψ 78, and ע֫וּרָה verse 7. But if an א follows in close connexion, the lengthened imperative usually has the form קוּמָ֫ה, &c.,[22] in order to avoid a hiatus, e.g. Ju 418, ψ 828; hence also before יְהֹוָה, Qerê perpetuum אֲדֹנָי (§ 17 c), e.g. ψ 38, 77 קוּמָ֫ה (cf., however, in the same verse ע֫וּרָה and in Jer 405, שֻׁ֫בָה before א), and so even before ר ψ 431, 7422, &c. (רִיבָ֫ה).
t 4. In the jussive, besides the form יָקֹם (see above, f), יָקוֹם also occurs (as subjunctive, Ec 124; נָסוֹג ψ 8019 may also, with Delitzsch, be regarded as a voluntative), incorrectly written plene, and יָקֻ֫ם (Gn 2731; cf. Ju 618, Pr 94.16), which, however, is only orthographically different from יָקוּם (cf. Jer 466). In the imperfect consecutive (וַיָּ֫קָם, in pause וַיָּ֫קֹם, see above, f) if there be a guttural or ר in the last syllable, ă often takes the place of ŏ, e.g. וַיָּ֫נַח and he rested; וַיָּ֫נַע and it was moved; וַיָּ֫סַר and he turned aside, Ju 418, Ru 41 (distinguished only by the sense from Hiphʿîl וַיָּ֫סַר and he removed, Gn 813); וַיָּ֫צַר Ex 214, 2 K 523, 175 (but also וַיָּ֫גָר from both גּוּר to sojourn, and גּוּר to fear); וַיָּ֫עַף (to be distinguished from וַיָּ֫עָף and he flew, Is 66) and he was weary, Ju 421, 1 S 1428.31, 2 S 2115, but probably in all these cases וַיִּעַף for וַיִּיעַף from יָעֵף is intended. For ותלוש 2 S 138 Keth., the Qerê rightly requires וַתָּ֫לָשׁ. On the other hand, in an open syllable always וַיָּק֫וּמוּ, וַיָּס֫וּרוּ, &c. On (וָאָֽקֻם) וָאָֽקוּם, see § 49 e.
u Examples of the full plural ending וּן with the tone (see above, l) are תְּמֻת֫וּן Gn 33.4; יְנוּס֫וּן ψ 1047; יְרוּצ֫וּן Jo 24.7.9.
II. On Niphʿal.
v 5. The form of the 1st sing. perf. נְקוּמ֫וֹתִי, which frequently occurs (נְסוּגֹ֫תִי, נְפוּגֹ֫תִי, cf. also the ptcp. plur. נְכוּכִים, Ex 143), serves as a model for the 2nd sing. נְקוּמ֫וֹתָ, נְקוּמוֹת, and the 1st plur. נְקוּמ֫וֹנוּ given in the paradigm, although no instances of these forms are found; but of the 2nd plur. the only examples found have ô (not û), viz. נְפֽוֹצֹתֶם ye have been scattered, Ez 1117, 2034.41, and וּנְקֹֽטֹתֶם and ye shall loathe yourselves, Ez 2043, 3631.—To the ĭ (instead of ă) of the preformative may be traced the perfect נֵעוֹר Zc 217 (analogous to the perfect and participle נִמּוֹל, see below, ee), imperfect יֵעוֹר for yiʿʿōr.—The infinitive construct הִדּוּשׁ occurs in Is 2510; in לֵאוֹר Jb 3330, the Masora assumes the elision of the ה (for לִהֵאוֹר); but probably לָאוֹר (Qal) is intended (see § 51 l).—נַמוֹג Is 1431, נָסוֹג Is 5913 are to be regarded as infinitives absolute.
III. On Hiphʿîl, Hophʿal, and Piʿlēl.
w 6. Examples of the perfect without a separating vowel (see above, k), are: הֵבֵ֫אתָ, &c. (see further, § 76 g); הֵמַ֫תָּה (from מוּת) for hēmáth-tā (cf. § 20 a); הֵכַ֫נּוּ 1st plur. perfect Hiphʿîl from כּוּן 2 Ch 2919, even הֲמִתֶּם (§ 27 s) Nu 176, &c.; cf. 1 S 1735, 2 S 1328, also וַֽהֲמִתֶּן Ex 116, and וַֽהֲמִתִּ֫יהָ Ho 25; but elsewhere, with wāw consecutive וְהֵֽמַתִּ֫י Is 1430; cf. וְהֵֽמַלְתִּ֫י Jer 1613, and וְהֵֽנַפְתָּ֫ Ex 2924, &c.—In these cases the ē of the first syllable is retained in the secondary tone; elsewhere in the second syllable before the tone it becomes ־ֱ (1 Ch 1512, &c.) or more frequently ־ֲ, and in the syllable before the antepenultima it is necessarily ־ֲ (e.g. וַֽהֲקִֽמֹתִ֫י Gn 618). Before a suffix in the 3rd sing. mase. (except Gn 4013) and fem., and in the 3rd plur., the vowel of the initial syllable is Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl, in the other persons always Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ (König); on הֲקֵֽמֹתוֹ 2 K 92, ψ 8944, cf. Ex 1923, Nu 3128, Dt 439, 222, 272, 301, Ez 344, and above, i. The 3rd fem. perf. Hiph. הֵסַ֫תָּה 1 K 2125 is quite abnormal for הֵסִ֫יתָה from סוּת or סִית.
x As in verbs ע״ע with ח for their first radical (§ 67 w), all the forms of עוּד Ex 1923 (where against the rule given under i we find הַֽעֵדֹ֫תָה with ē instead of î), Dt 819, Neh 934, Jer 4219, and עוּר Is 4125, 4513, take Pathaḥ in these conjugations instead of ־ֲ. The irregular וְהֽוֹשְׁבוֹתִים Zc 106 has evidently arisen from a combination of two different readings, viz. וְהֽוֹשַׁבְתִּים (from יָשַׁב) and וַֽהֲשִֽׁבוֹתִים (from שׁוּב): the latter is to be preferred.—On הֵבִישׁ and הוֹבִישׁ as a (metaplastic) perfect Hiphʿîl of בּוֹשׁ, cf. § 78 b.
y 7. In the imperative, besides the short form הָקֵם (on הָשַֽׁב Is 4222 with Silluq, cf. § 29 q; but in Ez 2135 for הָשַׁב read the infinitive הָשֵׁב) the lengthened form הָקִ֫ימָה is also found. With suffix הֲקִימֵ֫נִי, &c. The imperative הָבִיא Jer 1718 is irregular (for הָבֵא Gn 4316); perhaps הָבֵיא (as in 1 S 2040; cf. 2 K 86) is intended, or it was originally הָבִ֫יאָה.
z In the infinitive, elision of the ה occurs in לָבִיא Jer 397, 2 Ch 3110 (for לְהָבִיא); ־ָה fem. is added in לַֽהֲנָפָה Is 3028; cf. Est 218, 414 and the analogous infinitive Haphʿel in biblical Aramaic, Dn 520.—As infinitive absolute הָכִין occurs in Ez 714 (perh. also Jos 43, Jer 1023).—The participles have ē, on the analogy of the perfect, as the vowel of the preformative, like verbs ע״ע (§ 67 i). On מֵבִי 2 S 52, &c. (in Kethîbh), see § 74 k.
aa On the shortened forms of the imperfect (יָקֵם, וַיַָּקֶם, but always וַיָּבֵ֫א; in the jussive also with retraction of the tone אַל־תָּ֫שֶׁב 1 K 220) see above, f. With a guttural or ר the last syllable generally has Pathaḥ (as in Qal), e.g. וַיָ֫עַד and he testified, 2 K 1713; יָרַ֫ח let him smell, 1 S 2619; וַיָּ֫רַח Gn 821; וַיָּ֫סַר and he took away, Gn 813. The 1st sing. of the imperfect consecutive commonly has the form וָאָֽשִׁ֫יב Neh 220, or, more often, defectively וָאָֽעִד 1 K 242, less frequently the form וָאָֽשֵׁב Jos 147.—For אָסֵף Zp 12 (after אָסֹף) and in verse 3, read אֹסֵף from אָסַף, on the analogy of אֹמֵד § 68 g: similarly in Jer 813 אֹֽסְפֵם instead of אֲסִיפֵם.
bb In the imperfect Pôlēl the tone is moved backwards before a following tone-syllable, but without a shortening of the vowel of the final syllable; e.g. תְּד֫וֹמֵֽם נּ֑וֹי Pr 1434; תְּח֫וֹלֵֽל לְוֹ Jb 3514; cf. Pr 2523, and acc. to Baer וַתּתְבֹּ֫נֵֽן בִּֽי Jb 3020 (ed. Mant., Ginsb. וַתִּתְבֹּנֶן בִּֽי), always in principal pause; on the Metheg with Ṣere, cf. § 16 f γ.—As Pôlal cf. יְרֹעָ֑ע Is 1610.
As participle Hophʿal הַמּוּשַׁב occurs in close connexion, Gn 4312; cf.§ 65 d.
cc Peculiar contracted forms of Pôlēl (unless they are transitives in Qal) are וַיְכֻנֶ֫נּוּ Jb 3115, יְעוּרֶ֫נּוּ 412, וַתְּמוּגֵ֫נוּ Is 646 for וַיְכֹֽנְנֶ֫נּוּ, &c. [but read וַיְכֹנְנֵנוּ (§ 58 k), יְעִירֶנּוּ or יְעוֹרְנֶנּוּ, and וַתְּמַגְּנֵנוּ]; also תְּרֹמֵם Jb 174, for תְּדֹֽמְמֵם.—In Is 155 יְעֹעֵ֫רוּ appears to have arisen from the Pilpel יְעַרְעֵָ֫רוּ, the ă after the loss of the ר having been lengthened to ā, which has then been obscured to ô.—For the strange form בִּֽתְקֽוֹמֲמֶ֫יךָ ψ 13921, which cannot (according to § 52 s) be explained as a participle with the מ omitted, read בְּמִתְק׳.
IV. In General.
dd 8. The verbs ע״וּ are primarily related to the verbs ע״ע (§ 67), which were also originally biliteral, so that it is especially necessary in analysing them to pay attention to the differences between the inflexion of the two classes. Several forms are exactly the same in both, e.g. imperfect Qal and Hiphʿîl with wāw consecutive, the whole of Hophʿal, the Piʿlēl of verbs ע״וּ, and the Pôʿēl of verbs ע״ע; see § 67 z. Owing to this close relation, verbs ע״וּ sometimes have forms which follow the analogy of verbs ע״ע, e.g. perfect Qal בַּז he has despised (from בּוּז, as if from בָּזַז) Zc 410; perfect Niphʿal נָמָרֽ Jer 4811 (for נָמוֹר from מוּד, as if from מָרַר). The same explanation equally applies to נָֽקְטָה Jb 101 for נָקַ֫טָּה (cf. § 67 dd) = נָק֫וֹטָה from קוּט, and נָ֫קֹטּוּ Ez 69 (for נָק֫וֹטוּ); יֵר֫וֹמּוּ Ez 1017 and וַיֵּדֹ֫מּוּ verse 15; הֵדֹ֫מּוּ (imperative) Nu 1710; יִסַּג Mi 26; Hiphʿîl perfect הֵתַז Is 185 for הֵתֵז (cf. § 29 q), which is for הֵתִיז from תּוּז. On the other hand the imperfects יָמֵר Ez 4814 (unless it be intended for יָמִר, cf. ψ 154) and יָפֵחַ Hb 23, are to be regarded according to § 109 i, simply as rhythmically shortened forms of יָמִיר and יָפִיחַ.
ee 9. In common with verbs ע״ע (§ 67 g) verbs ע״וּ sometimes have in Niphʿal and Hiphʿîl the quasi-Aramaic formation, by which, instead of the long vowel under the preformative, they take a short vowel with Dages̆ forte in the following consonant; this variety is frequently found even along with the ordinary form, e.g. הִסִּית to incite, imperfect יַסִּית (also הֵסִית, יָסִית); הִסִּיג, imperfect יַסִּיג to remove (from סוּנ), also Hophʿal הֻסַּג Is 5914 (on הֻ֣קַּם cf. § 29 g); sometimes with a difference of meaning, as הֵנִיחַ to cause to rest,[23] but הִנִּיחַ (imperfect יַנִּיחַ, consecutive וַתַּנִּ֫חַ Gn 3916; imperative חַנַּח, plur. הַנִּ֫יחוּ) to set down; for וַהֻנִּ֫יחָה (Baer, Ginsburg וְהֻנִ׳) Zc 511 (which at any rate could only be explained as an isolated passive of Hiphʿîl on the analogy of the biblical Aramaic הֳקִימַת Dn 74) we should probably read וַהִנִּיחֻ֫הָ with
Klostermann after the LXX. In Dn 811 the Kethîbh הדים is intended for a perfect Hiphʿîl. There is also a distinction in meaning between יָלִין to spend the night, to remain, and יַלִּין Ex 167 Qerê (Kethîbh תּלּוֹנוּ; conversely, verse 2 Kethîbh יַלִּ֫ינוּ, Qerê יִלּ֫וֹנוּ), participle מַלִּין Ex 168, Nu 1427, 1720, to be stubborn, obstinate: in the latter sense from the form יָלִין only וַיָּ֫לֶן is found, Ex 173. Other examples are Niphʿal נִמּוֹל he was circumcised, Gn 1726 f.; participle 3422 (from מוּל, not נָמַל); נֵעוֹר he is waked up, Zc 217 (see above, v); Hiphʿîl הִזִּיל֫וּהַ La 18; יַלִּ֫יזוּ Pr 421.
ff Perhaps the same explanation applies to some forms of verbs first guttural with Dageš forte implicitum, which others derive differently or would emend, e.g. וַתַּ֫חַשׁ for וַתָּ֫חַשׁ and she hastened (from חוּשׁ) Jb 315; וַיַּ֫עַט (another reading is וַיָּ֫עַט), וַתַּ֫עַט 1 S 1519, 2514 (1432 Qerê) from עוּט or עִיט to fly at anything. Both, as far as the form is concerned, would be correct apocopated imperfects from חָשָׁה and עָטָה (ל״ה), but these stems only occur with a wholly different meaning.
gg 10. Verbs with a consonantal Wāw for their second radical, are inflected throughout like the strong form, provided the first or third radical is not a weak letter, e.g. חָוַר, imperfect יֶֽחֱוַר to be white; גָּוַע, imperfect יִגְוַע to expire; רָוַח to be wide; צָוַח to cry; Piʿēl עִוֵּל, imperfect יְעַוֵּל to act wickedly; עִוֵּת to bend, Hithpaʿēl הִתְעַוֵּת to bend oneself; and this is especially the case with verbs which are at the same time ל״ה, e.g. צָוָה, Piʿēl צִוָּה to command, קִוָּה to wait, רָוָה to drink, Piʿēl רִוָּה (on אֲרַיָּ֫וֶךְ Is 169, see § 75 dd) and Hiphʿîl הִרְוָה to give to drink, &c.
a 1. These verbs agree, as regards their structure, exactly with verbs ע״וּ, and in contrast to them may be termed ע״י, or more correctly, ʿayin-î verbs, from the characteristic vowel of the impf., imper., and infin. constr. This distinction is justified in so far as it refers to a difference in the pronunciation of the imperfect and its kindred forms, the imperative and infin. constr.—the ע״וּ verbs having û lengthened from original ŭ and ע״י having î lengthened from original ĭ. In other respects verbs ע״י simply belong to the class of really monosyllabic stems, which, by a strengthening of their vocalic element, have been assimilated to the triliteral form[24] (§ 67 a). In the perfect Qal the monosyllabic stem, as in ע״וּ, has ā lengthened from ă, thus: שָׁת he has set; infinitive שִׁית, infinitive absolute שׁוֹת, imperative שִׁית, imperfect יָשִׁית, jussive יָשֵׁת (§ 48 g), imperfect consecutive וַיָ֫שֶׁת.—The perfect Qal of some verbs used to be treated as having a double set of forms, a regular series, and others like Hiphʿîl without the preformative, e.g. בִּין Dn 101; בִּינֹ֫תִי Dn 92, also בַּ֫נְתָּ ψ 1392; רִיב֫וֹתָ thou strivest, Jb 3313, also רַ֫בְתָּ La 358. The above perfects (בִּין, רִיב, &c.) might no doubt be taken as forms middle ē (properly ĭ), the ĭ of which has been lengthened to î (like the ŭ lengthened to ŭ in the imperfect Qal of קוּם). It is more probable, however, that they are really shortened forms of Hiphʿîl. This is supported by the fact that, especially in the case of בִּין, the shortened forms are few and probably all late, while the corresponding unshortened forms with the same meaning are very numerous, e.g. perfect הֵבִין (but בִּין only in Dn 101), הֲבִֽינוֹתֶם, infinitive הָבִין (but infin. abs. בִּין only in Pr 231), imperative הָבֵן (only in Dn 923 וּבִין immediately before וְהָבֵן, also בִּ֫ינוּ three times, and בִּ֫ינָה ψ 52), participle מֵבִין.[25] Elsewhere Hiphʿîl-forms are in use along with actual Qal-forms with the same meaning, thus: מֵרִיב (also רָב), מֵשִׂים placing (but only in Jb 420, which, with the critically untenable הָשִׂ֫ימִי Ez 2121, is the only instance of שׂוּם in Hiphʿîl), מֵגִיחַ breaking forth Ju 2033, with infin. Qal גִּיתוֹ; הַחִ֫ישׁוּ they rushed forth Ju 2037, with תָשׁ, חַ֫שְׁתּי; מֵצִיץ glancing, also in perfect צָץ; הֵקִיא he spat out, with imperat. Qal קְיוּ. As passives we find a few apparent imperfects Hophʿal, which are really (according to § 53 u) imperfects passive of Qal, e.g. יוּחַל Is 668 from חִיל to turn round, יוּשָׁר from שִׁיר to sing, יוּשַׁת from שִׁית to set.
b 2. The above-mentioned Hiphʿîl-forms might equally well be derived from verbs ע״וּ; and the influence of the analogy of verbs ע״וּ is distinctly seen in the Niphʿal נָבוֹן (ground-form nabān), Pôlēl בּוֹנֵן, and Hithpôlēl הִתְבּוֹנֵן. The very close relation existing between verbs ע״י and ע״וּ is evident also from the fact that from some stems both forms occur side by side in Qal, thus from תִיל to turn round, imperative also ח֫וּלִי Mi 410; שִׂים to place, infinitive construct commonly שׂוּם (2 S 147 שׂים Qere), imperfect יָשִׂים, but Ex 411 יָשׂוּם. In other verbs one form is, at any rate, the more common, e.g. גִּיל to exult (גּוּל only Pr 2324 Kethîbh); from לוּן (perhaps denominative from לַ֫יִל) to spend the night, לָלוּן occurs six times as infinitive construct, לָלִין only in Gn 2423; but the imperative is always לִין, &c.—Of verbs ע״י the most common are שִׁית to set, רִיב to strive, דִּין to judge, שִׂישׂ to rejoice; cf. also perfect בָּל (middle Yôdh in Arabic) to comprehend, to measure, Is 4012; עִיט (as in Arabic and Syriac) to rush upon, and the denominative perfect קָץ (from קַ֫יִץ) to pass the summer, Is 186. On the other hand, וְדִיגוּם and they shall fish them, Jer 1616, generally explained as perfect Qal, denominative from דָּג fish, probably represents a denominative Piʿēl, וְדִיְגוּ.
c Corresponding to verbs properly ע״ו, mentioned in § 72 gg, there are certain verbs ע״י with consonantal Yôdh, as אָיַב to hate, עָיֵף to faint, הָיָה to become, to be, חָיָה to live.
d Rem. 1. In the perfect Qal 3rd fem. sing. וְלָ֫נֶה occurs once, Zc 54, for וְלָ֫נָה, with the weakening of the toneless ā to ĕ (as in the fem. participle זוּרֶה Is 595); cf. the analogous examples in § 48 l and § 80 i.—2nd sing. masc. שַׁתָּ֫ה ψ 908, Qerê (before ע; cf. § 72 s); 1st sing. once שַׁתִּ֫י ψ 7328, milraʿ, without any apparent reason; 1st plur. וְלַ֫נּוּ Ju 1913 for lán-nû. The lengthened imperative has the tone on the ultima before gutturals, רִיבָ֫ה יהוה ψ 351; see further, § 72 s.—Examples of the infinitive absolute are: רֹב litigando, Ju 1125, Jb 402; שׂוֹם Jer 4215; שֹׁת ponendo, Is 227. On the other hand, דִיב יָדִיב (for דֹב) Jer 5034, בִּין תָּבִין Pr 231, חול תחיל Ez 3016 Keth., are irregular and perhaps due to incorrect scriptio plena; for the last the Qerê requires הוּל תָּחוּל, but read חוֹל; cf. § 113 x.
e 2. The shortened imperfect usually has the form יָבֵן, יָשֵׂם, יָשֵׁת; more rarely, with the tone moved back, e.g. יָ֫רֶב לוֹ Ju 631, cf. Ex 231, אַל־תָּ֫שֶׁת 1 S 920. So with wāw consecutive וַיָ֫שֶׂם and he placed, וַיָ֫בֶן and he perceived; with a middle guttural וַיָ֫עַט בָּהֶם 1 S 2514 (see § 72 ee); with ר as 3rd radical, וַתָּ֫שַׁר Ju 51. As jussive of לִין, תָּלַ֫ן is found in Ju 1920 (in pause) and Jb 172, for תָּלֵן.—For אַל־תָּרוֹב Pr 330 Keth. (Qere תָּרִיב) read תָּרֵב.
f 3. As participle active Qal לֵן spending the night, occurs once, Neh 1321; participle passive שִׂים Nu 2421, 1 S 924, Ob 414; feminine שׂוּמָה 2 S 1332, in the Qerê, even according to the reading of the Oriental schools (see p. 38, note 2): the Kethîbh has שִׂימָה. A passive of Qal (cf. above, § 52 e and s, and § 53 u) from שִׂים may perhaps be seen in וַיִּ֫ישֶׂם Gn 5026 (also Gn 2433 Kethîbh ויישם, Qerê וַיּוּשָׂם; the Samaritan in both places has ויושם), and also in יִיסָךְ Ex 3032, Samaritan יוסך. Against the explanation of ייסך as a Hophʿal-form from סוּךְ, Barth (Jubelschrift... Hildesheimer, Berlin, 1890, p. 151) rightly urges that the only example of a Hiphʿîl of סוּךְ is the doubtful וַיָ֫םֶךְ, which is probably an ĭ-imperfect of Qal.—The explanation of יישם, &c., as a passive of Qal arising from yiysam, &c. = yuysam (so Barth, ibid., note 1), is certainly also unconvincing, so that the correctness of the traditional reading is open to question.
* * * * * *
g 4. In verbs ע״א the א always retains its censonantal value; these stems are, therefore, to be regarded as verbs middle Guttural (§ 64). An exception is יָנֵאץ Ec 125 if it be imperfect Hiphʿîl of נאץ (for יַנְאֵץ); but if the form has really been correctly transmitted, it should rather be referred to נָצַץ, and regarded as incorrectly written for יָנֵץ. On נָאווּ (from נַֽאֲוָה), which was formerly treated here as ע״א, see now § 75 x.
a The א in these verbs, as in verbs פ״א, is treated in some cases as a consonant, i.e. as a guttural, in others as having no consonantal value (as a quiescent or vowel letter), viz.:
1. In those forms which terminate with the א, the final syllable always has the regular vowels, if long, e.g. מֹצֵא, מִצֵּא, מָצוּא, הִמְצִיא, i.e. the א simply quiesces in the long vowel, without the latter suffering any change whatever. It is just possible that after the altogether heterogeneous vowel û the א may originally have preserved a certain consonantal value. On the other band, if the final א quiesces in a preceding ă (as in the perfect, imperfect, and imperative Qal, in the perfect Niphʿal, and in Puʿal and Hophʿal) this ă is necessarily lengthened to ā, by § 27 g, as standing in an open syllable; e.g. מָצָא, יִמְצָא, &c.
b The imperfect and imperative Qal invariably have ā in the final syllable, on the analogy of verbs tertiae gutturalis; cf., however, § 76 e.—In the imperfect Hithpaʿēl ā occurs in the final syllable not only (according to § 54 k) in the principal pause (Nu 3123), or immediately before it (Jb 1016), or with the lesser disjunctives (Lv 211.4, Nu 1913.20), but even out of pause with Merekha, Nu 67, and even before Maqqeph in Nu 1912.
c 2. When א stands at the end of a syllable before an afformative beginning with a consonant (ת, נ), it likewise quiesces with the preceding vowel; thus in the perfect Qal (and Hophʿal, see below) quiescing with ă it regularly becomes Qumeṣ (מָצָ֫אתָ for מָצַ֫אְתָּ, &c.); but in the perfect of all the other active and reflexive conjugations, so far as they occur, it is preceded by S̥̥ere (נִמְצֵ֫אתָ, &c.), and in the imperative and imperfect by Seghôl, מְצֶ֫אנָה, תִּמְצֶאנָה.
d (a) The Seghôl of these forms of the imperfect and imperative might be considered as a modification, and at the same time a lengthening of an original ă (see § 8 a). In the same way the ē of the perfect forms in Piʿēl, Hithpaʿēl, and Hiphʿîl might be traced to an original ĭ (as in other cases the ē and î in the final syllable of the 3rd sing. muse. perfect of these conjugations), although this ĭ may have only been attenuated from an original ă. According to another, and probably the correct explanation, however, both the Ṣere and the Seghôl are due to the analogy of verbs ל״ה (§ 75 f) in consequence of the close relation between the two classes, cf. § 75 nn.—No form of this kind occurs in Puʿal; in the perfect Hophʿal only the 2nd masc. sing. הֻבָ֫אתָה Ez 404, lengthened according to rule.
e (b) Before suffixes attached by a connecting vowel (e.g. יִקְרָאֵ֫נִי) the א retains its consonantal value; so before ךָ and בֶם, e.g. אֶמְצָֽאֲךָ Ct 81; הִבָּרַֽאֲךָ Ez 2813 (cf. § 65 h), not אֶמְצָאךָ, &c., since these suffixes, by § 58 f, are likewise attached to the verb-form by a connecting vowel in the form of Šewâ mobile.—As infinitive Qal with suffix notice מַחְאֲךָ Ez 256; participle with suffix בֹּדַֽאֲךָ Is 431; infinitive Piʿēl בְּטַמַּֽאֲכֶם.—The doubly anomalous form יִקְרְאוֹ Jer 236 (for יִקְרָאֵ֫הוּ or יִקְרָאֶ֫נּוּ) is perhaps a forma mixta combining the readings יִקְרָאוֹ and יִקְרְאוּ.
Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/230 Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/231 Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/232 Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/233
- ↑ Of all the explanations of these separating vowels the most satisfactory is that of Rödiger, who, both for the Template:GHGterm and Template:GHGterm (Ewald and Stade, for the Template:GHGterm at least), points to the analogy of verbs Template:GHGheb. We must, however, regard Template:GHGheb as formed on the analogy not of Template:GHGheb, but (with P. Haupt) of a form Template:GHGheb (= gālautā, cf. Arab. ġazauta), while Template:GHGheb follows the analogy of Template:GHGheb. [See also Wright, Comp. Gr., 229 f.]
- ↑ Sometimes both Template:GHGterm and Template:GHGterm are formed from the same stem, though with a difference of meaning, e.g. Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb; Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb; Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ For Template:GHGheb as suffix of the 3rd person a parallel might be found in Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGpar, and probably also in the Nûn of the Phoenician suffix Template:GHGheb: cf. Barth, Template:GHGcite xli. p. 643, and the note on Template:GHGpar.
- ↑ Also in Template:GHGbible-ref, instead of Template:GHGheb, which could only come from Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb is intended, and Template:GHGheb in the same verse is probably only an error for Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ According to Stade, Template:GHGcite, § 95, Rem., the pronunciation with û, since it also appears in Neo-Punic [and in Western Syriac, see Nöldeke, Template:GHGcite, § 48], was that of everyday life.
- ↑ So in the modern vulgar Arabic of South Palestine, yaʾkul (he eats) becomes yôkul.
- ↑ On this ē (originally ĭ) as a dissimilation from ō (originally ŭ), cf. Template:GHGpar, and F. Philippi, in the Template:GHGcite, xiv. 178. The latter rightly observes that the existence of an original u in the Template:GHGterm of Template:GHGheb is indicated by the form of the Template:GHGterm Template:GHGheb, the Arabic yaʾkul and the Aramaic Template:GHGheb, as well as by the fact that Template:GHGheb and Template:GHGheb are found along with Template:GHGheb and Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ The regularity of this orthography indicates that the contraction of Template:GHGheb to â in this 1st pers. occurred at a time when in the 3rd and 2nd persons the Template:GHGheb was still audible as a consonant (which accordingly was almost always retained in writing). Nöldeke (Template:GHGcite xxxii. 593) infers this from the fact that also in Arabic the 3rd and 2nd persons are still written yăʾkŭlŭ, tăʾkŭlŭ, but the 1st pers. ʾâkūlŭ, not ʾăʾkŭlŭ.
- ↑ The e of the first syllable is really ê, not tone-long ē, since it is retained not merely before the tone, and in the counter-tone (e.g. Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref), but also in Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref. It is no objection to this view that the scriptio plena of this ê occurs (with the exception of Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref, elsewhere pointed Template:GHGheb) only in Template:GHGbible-ref and Template:GHGbible-ref Template:GHGterm; in Template:GHGbible-ref the Masora prefers to point Template:GHGheb.—Of the various explanations of the ê the most satisfactory is that of Philippi (Template:GHGcite xl. p. 653) that an original yălĭd, for example (see above), became yilid by assimilation of the vowel of the first syllable to that of the second; this then became yêlēd instead of yēlēd, in an attempt to raise the word again in this way (by writing ê instead of ē) to a triliteral form.
- ↑ A ninth Template:GHGheb, is also to be included. In the Mêšaʿ-inscription, l. 21, the Template:GHGterm is written Template:GHGheb (cf. Template:GHGheb, l. 29); hence read in Template:GHGbible-ref (Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref) Template:GHGheb for Template:GHGheb. The 2nd plur. masc. imperative Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGbible-ref corresponds to Template:GHGheb; thus in proof of a supposed Template:GHGheb, there remains only Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref, for which, according to Template:GHGbible-ref, read Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref can hardly be intended for an infin. with suffix from Template:GHGheb, but rather for a perf. consec. from Template:GHGheb; but read Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ The infinitives Template:GHGheb and Template:GHGheb belong to the source marked E (Dillmann’s B) in the modern criticism of the Pentateuch. The same document also has Template:GHGheb, for Template:GHGheb; Template:GHGheb, for Template:GHGheb; and Template:GHGheb, for Template:GHGheb. See Dillmann, Template:GHGcite, p. 618.
- ↑ Cf. above, m, note 2.
- ↑ This may be inferred from Template:GHGheb (=Template:GHGheb) Template:GHGbible-ref, which with its fem. Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref, is the only example of an infinitive construct Qal of these verbs. No example of the Template:GHGterm is found: consequently the forms Template:GHGheb, &c. (in Paradigm L of the earlier editions of this Grammar), are only inferred from the Template:GHGterm.
- ↑ These verbs, like verbs Template:GHGheb (cf. above, note on Template:GHGpar), may perhaps have been influenced by the analogy of verbs Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ The term Template:GHGheb was consequent on the view that the Template:GHGterm (or Template:GHGheb in the case of verbs Template:GHGheb) in these stems was originally consonantal. This view seemed especially to be supported by the return of the Template:GHGterm in Template:GHGterm (Template:GHGheb, the Template:GHGheb usually passing into Template:GHGheb as in Template:GHGheb, cf. Arabic qáwwămă), and by certain forms of the Template:GHGterm of the nouns of such stems, e.g. Template:GHGheb, compared with Template:GHGheb. Hence in explaining the verbal forms a supposed stem qawam (in verbs Template:GHGheb e.g. šayat) was always assumed, and Template:GHGheb was referred to an original yaqwŭm, the Template:GHGterm Template:GHGheb to original qawôm, the Template:GHGterm Template:GHGheb to original qawûm. It must, however, be admitted: (1) that forms like Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb (see m) are only to be found in the latest books, and are hence evidently secondary as compared with the pure Hebrew forms Template:GHGheb, &c.; (2) that to refer the verbal forms invariably to the stem Template:GHGheb, leads in many cases to phonetic combinations which are essentially improbable, whereas the assumption of original middle-vowel stems renders a simple and natural explanation almost always possible. These Template:GHGheb stems are therefore to be rigidly distinguished from the real Template:GHGheb stems of the strong forms, such as Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb, &c. (see below, gg).—As early as the eleventh century the right view with regard to Template:GHGheb stems was taken by Samuel Hannagîd (cf. Bacher, Leben und Werke des AbulwaléÆd, p. 16); recently by Böttcher (Lehrbuch, § 1112), and (also as to Template:GHGheb stems) especially by Müller, Stade, and Wellhausen (see above, Template:GHGpar, note). On the other hand, the old view of Template:GHGheb and Template:GHGheb as consonants has been recently revived by Philippi, Barth, M. Lambert, and especially Brockelmann (op. cit.).
- ↑ In Aramaic, however, always Template:GHGheb; also in Hebrew grammars before Qimḥi Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb, &c., are found, but in our editions of the Bible this occurs only in Template:GHGterm, e.g. Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref, Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref.
- ↑ According to Stade (Template:GHGcite, Template:GHGpar and f) the e in Template:GHGheb is of the nature of a diphthong (from ai, which arose from the union of the vowel ĭ, the sign of the intransitive, with the ă of the root), and likewise the o in Template:GHGheb, &c. (from au). But ô (from au) could not, by Template:GHGpar, remain in a closed penultima (Template:GHGheb, &c.); consequently the o of these forms can only be tone-long, i.e. due to lengthening of an original ŭ, and similarly the ē of Template:GHGheb to lengthening of an original ĭ. This is confirmed by the fact that the ō in Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb is always, and in Template:GHGheb, 3rd plur. perfect, nearly always (the instances are 11 to 2), written defectively. Forms like Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb, &c., are therefore due to orthographic licence.
- ↑ So in Arabic, prop. qâʾĭm, since the two vowels are kept apart by the insertion of an Template:GHGheb, cf. Aram. Template:GHGheb; but also contracted, as šâk, hâr, for šâʾĭk, &c. (cf. Wright’s Gramm. of the Arabic Language, 2nd ed. vol. i. p. 164).
- ↑ Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref (cf. Template:GHGbible-ref) could only be an orthographic licence for Template:GHGheb; perhaps, however, Template:GHGheb was originally intended.
- ↑ In Template:GHGbible-ref (Template:GHGheb before a genitive), the text is evidently corrupt: read with Klostermann after the LXX Template:GHGheb.
- ↑ Cf. Delitzsch’s commentary on Template:GHGbible-ref.
- ↑ As the passive of this Template:GHGterm we should expect the Template:GHGterm Template:GHGheb, which is, no doubt, to be read for Template:GHGheb in Template:GHGbible-ref.
- ↑ That verbs Template:GHGheb and Template:GHGheb are developed from biliteral roots at a period before the differentiation of the Semitic languages is admitted even by Nöldeke (Template:GHGcite, Strassburg, 1904, p. 34 ff.), although he contests the view that Template:GHGheb and Template:GHGheb are to be referred to Template:GHGterm with the preformative dropped.
- ↑ Since Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref might be intended for Template:GHGheb, there remains really no form of Template:GHGheb which must necessarily be explained as a Qal, except the ptcp. plur. Template:GHGheb Template:GHGbible-ref. Nevertheless it is highly probable that all the above instances of Hiphʿîl-forms, parallel with Qal-forms of the same meaning, are merely due to a secondary formation from the imperfects Qal Template:GHGheb, Template:GHGheb, &c., which were wrongly regarded as imperfects Hiphʿîl: so Barth, Template:GHGcite xliii. p. 190 f., and Template:GHGcite, p. 119 f.
- ↑ According to Wellheusen, ‘Ueber einige Arten schwacher Verbs‘ in his Skizzen, vi. p. 255 ff., the Template:GHGheb verbs, apart from some true Template:GHGheb and some probable Template:GHGheb, are to be regarded as originally biliteral. To compensate for their arrested development they lengthened the vowel after the 2nd radical, as the Template:GHGheb verbs did after the 1st radical. But although there is much to be said for this view, it fails to explain pausal forms like Template:GHGheb (see u). It seems impossible that these should all be late formations.
- ↑ In the Mêšaʿ inscription, line 5, Template:GHGheb occurs as 3rd sing. masc. imperfect Piʿēl, and in line 6, Template:GHGheb as 1st sing.