[g] The blending of the לְ with the Infin. constr. into a single grammatical form seems to be indicated by the firmly closed syllable, cf. לִשְׁכַּב Gn 34; לִנְפֹּל ψ 118, with Dageš lene in the פ=lin-pōl; hence, also liq-ṭōl, &c.; but בִּנְפֹל binephōl, Jb 4; כִּנְפֹל 2 S 3. Exceptions לִצְבֹא Nu 4, 8; לִנְתוֹשׁ וְלִנְתוֹץ Jer 1, 18, 31; לִשְׁדוֹד Jer 47; לִטְבוֹחַ Jer 11, &c., ψ 37; לִבְדוֹק 2 Ch 34; according to some also לִסְבֹב Nu 21 and לִכְבשׁ 2 Ch 28 (Baer לִכְבּשׁ); on the other hand בִּשְׁכֹּן Gn 35; כִּזְכֹּר Jer 17. For the meaningless לְדַרְיוֹשׁ Ezr 10 read לִדְרשׁ.
[a] 1. The ground-forms of the Imperative, קְטֹל (properly qeṭŭl, which is for an original qŭṭŭl), and קְטַל (see below, c), the same in pronunciation as the forms of the Infin. constr. (§ 45), are also the basis for the formation of the Imperfect (§ 47).[1] They represent the second person, and have both fem. and plur. forms. The third person is supplied by the Imperfect in the Jussive (§ 109 b); and even the second person must always be expressed by the Jussive, if it be used with a negative, e.g. אַל־תִּקְטֹל ne occidas (not אַל־קְטֹל). The passives have no Imperative, but it occurs in the reflexives, as Niphʿal and Hithpaʿēl.[2]
[b] 2. The Afformatives of the 2nd sing. fem. and the 2nd plur. masc. and fem. are identical in every case with those of the Imperfect (§ 47 c). In the same way, the Imperative of the 2nd sing. masc., in common with the Imperfect, admits of the lengthening by the ־ָה paragogicum (§ 48 i), as, on the other hand, there are certain shortened forms of this person analogous to the Jussive (§ 48. 5).
[c] Rem. 1. Instead of the form קְטֹל (sometimes also plene, e.g. שְׁמוֹר Ec 12; before Maqqeph קְטָל־ with Qameṣ ḥaṭuph), those verbs which have an a in the final syllable of the Imperf. (i.e. especially verbs middle ē) make their Imperative of the form קְטַל, e.g. לְבַשֹׁ dress! (Perf. לָבַשׁ and לָבֵשׁ); שְׁכַב lie down! in pause שְׁכָ֑ב 1 S 3.
[d] 2. The first syllable of the sing. fem. and plur. masc. are usually to be pronounced with Šewâ mobile (qĭṭelî, qĭṭelû, and so שִׁפְכִי, &c., without Dageš lene, and even מִֽשְׁכוּ with Metheg, Ex 12; but cf. אִסְפִּי Jer 10, and with the same phonetic combination חֶשְׂפִּי Is 47; see analogous cases in § 93 m); less frequently we find an ŏ instead of the ĭ, e.g. מָלְכִי rule, Ju 9; מָשְׁכוּ draw, Ez 32; חָרְבוּ Jer 2 (cf. חֳָרָ֑בִי Is 44); on קָֽסֳמִי 1 S 28 Qerê, צֳעָ֫קִי Jer. 22 (cf. 1 K 13), see § 10 h. This ŏ arises (see above, a) from a singular ground-form qŭṭŭl, not from a retraction of the original ŭ of the second syllable. We must abandon the view that the forms with ĭ in the first syllable (cf. also
