תִּקְטֹל is found in Is 57, Jer 3, Ez 22, 23, in every case after the regular form; but cf. also Ez 26. In Is 17, where the 2nd fem. precedes and follows, probably תִּזְרָעִין וּב׳ is to be read with Marti for תִּזְרָעֶ֫נּוּ.—For the 3rd plur. fem. תִּקְטֹ֫לְנַה we find in Jer 49, in pause תִּבְטָ֫חוּ (for תִּבְטַ֫חְנָה), and thrice (as if to distinguish it from the 2nd pers.) the form יִקְטֹ֫לְנָה with the preformative י (as always in Western Aram., Arab, Eth., and Assyr.), in Gn 30, 1 S 6, Dn 8. On the other hand, תִּקְטֹ֫לְנָה appears in some cases to be incorrectly used even for the fem. of the 3rd pers. or for the masc. of the 2nd pers. sing. as תִּשְׁלַ֫חְנָה Ju 5 (where, however, perhaps תִּשְׁלָחֶ֫נָּה is to be read), and Ob 131, for 2nd sing. masc., according to Olshausen a corruption of תִּשְׁלַח יָד; in Pr 1, 8 for תָּרֹ֫נָּה read תִּרְנֶה as in Jb 39; in Ex 1 read תִּקְרָאֵ֫נוּ with the Samaritan.—In Is 27, 28, as also in Jb 17 (if we read טֽוֹבָתִי with LXX for the 2nd תקותי), it is equally possible to explain the form as a plural. This small number of examples hardly justifies our finding in the above-mentioned passages the remains of an emphatic form of the Impf., analogous to the Arab. Modus energicus I, with the termination ănnă.
[l] For נָה we frequently find, especially in the Pentateuch and mostly after wāw consecutive, simply ןָ nā, e.g. Gn 19, 37, Ex 1, 15, Nu 25, Ez 3, 16; in Arab. always nă. According to Elias Levita תִּלְבַּ֫שְׁןָ (2 S 13) is the only example of this kind in the strong verb. The form וַתִּגְּבְּהֶ֫ינָה (so also Qimḥi and ed. Mant.; but Baer, Ginsb. וַתִּגְּבְּהֶ֫נָה) for וַתִּגְבַּ֫הְנָה they were high, Ez 16, is irregular, with ־ֶי inserted after the manner of verbs ע״ע and ע״וּ, § 67 d; § 72 i; according to Olshausen it is an error caused by the following form.
[m] 4. Instead of the plural forms in וּ there are, especially in the older books, over 300 forms[1] with the fuller ending וּן (with Nûn paragogicum), always bearing the tone; cf. § 29 m and § 44 l; on its retention before suffixes, see § 60 e; also defectively יְרִיבֻן Ex 21, 22, &c. This usually expresses marked emphasis, and consequently occurs most commonly at the end of sentences (in the principal pause), in which case also the (pausal) vowel of the second syllable is generally retained. Thus there arise full-sounding forms such as יִלְקֹט֑וּן they collect, ψ 104; יִרְגָּז֑וּן they tremble, Ex 15; תִּשְׁמָע֑וּן ye shall hear, Dt 1; cf. Ex 34, with Zaqeph qaṭon, Athnaḥ, and Silluq; Jos 24, with Segolta; Is 13 and 17 with Zaqeph qaṭon, 17 with Athnaḥ and Silluq, 41 after wāw consec. Without the pause, e.g. ψ 11 יִדְרְכוּן קֶ֫שֶׁת, cf. 4, Gn 18 ff., 44, Nu 32, Jos 4 (יִשְׁאָלוּן); Is 8, 1 S 9, Ru 2 (יִקְצֹרוּן and יִשְׁאֲבוּן); Ju 11 after wāw consec.
Some of these examples may be partly due to euphonic reasons, e.g. certainly Ex 17, Nu 16, 32, 1 S 9, 1 K 9, and often, to avoid a hiatus before א or ע. It was, however, the pause especially which exerted an influence on the restoration of this older and fuller termination (cf. § 159 c, note), as is manifest from Is 26: בַּל־יְֽחֱזָי֑וּן יֶֽחֱזוּ וְיֵב֫שׁוּ they see not; may they see and become
