Ho 3, אֱחֹז seize thou, Ex 4 (on אֵפוּ bake ye, Ex 16, see § 76 d); אֱכֹל to eat; infinitive with a prefix לֶֽאֱחֹז, לֶֽאֱכֹל, כֶּֽאֱכֹל Is 5; לֶֽאֱהֹב Ec 3. Sometimes, however, Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ is found as well, e.g. infinitive אֲחֹז 1 K 6; בַּֽאֲכֹל הָאֵשׁ Nu 26 (before a suffix אֲכָלְךָ, אֲמָרְךָ, אֲכָלְכֶם, אֲמָרְכֶם § 61 d); cf. Dt 7, 12, Ez 25, ψ 102, Pr 25 (אֲמָר־לְךָ), Jb 34, always in close connexion with the following word. With a firmly closed syllable after ל cf. לַחְסוֹת Is 30; לַחְפֹּר Jos 2 f. (on Is 2, cf. § 84b n); לַחְתּוֹת Is 30, Hag 2; לַחְשֹׁב Ex 31, &c.; לַעְזֹר 2 S 18 Qerê, but also בֶּֽעְזׄר 1 Ch 15.
[k] הֶֽחֳדַ֫לְתִּי Ju 9 is altogether anomalous, and only a few authorities give הֶֽחֱדַלְתִּי (Hiphʿil), adopted by Moore in Haupt’s Bible. According to Qimḥi, Olshausen, and others, the Masora intended a perfect Hophʿal with syncope of the preformative after the ה interrogative = הֶהָֽחֳדַ֫לְתִּי, or (according to Olshausen) with the omission of the ה interrogative. But since the Hiphʿil and Hophʿal of חָדֵל nowhere occur, it is difficult to believe that such was the intention of the Masora. We should expect the perfect Qal, הֶֽחָדַ֫לְתִּי. But the Qameṣ under the ה, falling between the tone and counter-tone, was naturally less emphasized than in חָדַ֫לְתִּי, without the ה interrogative. Consequently it was weakened, not to simple Šewâ, but to ־ֳ, in order to represent the sound of the Qameṣ (likewise pronounced as å) at least in a shortened form. The Seghôl of the ה interrogative is explained, in any case, from § 100 n (cf. the similar pointing of the article, e.g. in הֶֽחֳדָשִׁים, § 35 k). For the accusative after חָדֵל, instead of the usual מִן, Jb 3 affords sufficient evidence.
[l] Also in the other forms of the imperative the guttural not infrequently influences the vowel, causing a change of ĭ (on this ĭ cf. § 48 i) into Seghôl, e.g. אֶסְפָה gather thou, Nu 11; עֶרְכָה set in order, Jb 33; חֶשְׂפִּי strip off, Is 47 (on this irregular Dageš cf. § 46 d), especially when the second radical is also a guttural, e.g. אֶֽהֱבוּ Am 5, ψ 31; cf. Zc 8; אֶֽחֱזוּ Ct 2; cf. also in verbs ל״ה, עֱנוּ sing ye, Nu 21, ψ 147 (compared with עֲנוּ answer ye, 1 S 12) and אֱלִי Jo 1.—Pathaḥ occurs in חַבְלֵ֫הוּ hold him in pledge, Pr 20, and probably also in ψ 9 (חַֽנְנֵ֫נִי).—As a pausal form for חָרְבִי (cf. the plur. Jer 2) we find in Is 44 חֳרָ֑בִי (cf. the imperf. יֶֽחֱרַב) with the ŏ repeated in the form of a Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ. For other examples of this kind, see § 10 h and § 46 e.
[m] 2. The pronunciation (mentioned above, No. 2) of the imperfects in ă with Seghôl under the preformative in a firmly closed syllable (e.g. יֶחְדַּל, יֶחְכַּם) regularly gives way to the soft combination in verbs which are at the same time ל״ה, e.g. יֶֽחֱזֶה, יֶֽחֱצֶה &c. (but cf. יֶהְגֶּה &c., יַחְתֶּה Pr 6, אֶעְשֶׂה ed. Mant., Ex 3). Even in the strong verb וַיֶּֽחֱזַק is found along with יֶחְזַק. Cf. also וַתַּעְגַּב Ez 23; וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי Gn 27 (so Ben-Asher; but Ben-Naphtali וַיַּֽעַקְ׳); וַתַּחְלְקֵם Neh 9, and so always in the imperfect Qal of עָזַר with suffixes, Gn 49, &c.—תְּאֵֽהֲבוּ Pr 1 is to be explained from the endeavour to avoid too great an accumulation of short sounds by the insertion of a long vowel, but it is a question whether we should not simply read תֵּֽאהֲבוּ with Haupt in his Bible, Proverbs, p. 34, 1. 44 ff.; cf. the analogous instances under p, and
