Jump to content

Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/199

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

This page was corrected according to Additions and Corrections that appear in the 1910 edition.

before suffixes קָח (on קָֽחֶם־נָא Gn 48, see § 61 g), paragogic form קְחָת; קְחִי, &c. (but cf. also לְקַח Ex 29, Ez 37, Pr 20, לִקְחִי 1 K 17, perhaps a mistake for לָהּ קְחִי, cf. LXX and Lucian); infinitive construct קַ֫חַת (once קְחַת 2 K 12, cf. § 93 h); with לְ, לָקַ֫חַת; with suffix קַחְתִּי; Hophʿal (cf., however, § 53 u) imperfect יֻקַּח; Niphʿal, however, is always נִלְקַח.—The meaningless form קָח Ez 17 is a mistake; for the equally meaningless קָחָם Ho 11 read וָֽאֶקָּחֵם.

 [h 3. The verb נָתַן to give, mentioned above in d, is the only example of a verb פ״ן with imperfect in ē (יִתֵּן for yintēn; נִתַּן־[1] only in Ju 16, elsewhere before Maqqeph יִתֶּן־, &c.), and a corresponding imperative תֵּן or (very frequently) תְּנָה (but in ψ 8 the very strange reading תְּנָה is no doubt simply meant by the Masora to suggest נָֽתְנָה); before Maqqeph תֶּן־, fem. תְּנִי, &c. Moreover, this very common verb has the peculiarity that its final Nûn, as a weak nasal, is also assimilated; נָתַ֫תִּי for nāthántī, נָתַ֫תָּ or, very frequently, נָתַ֫תָּה, with a kind of orthographic compensation for the assimilated Nûn (cf. § 44 g); Niphʿal perfect נִתַּתֶּם Lv 26, Ezr 9.

 [i In the infinitive construct Qal the ground-form tint is not lengthened to tèneth (as גֶּ֫שֶׁת from נָגַשׁ), but contracted to titt, which is then correctly lengthened to תֵּת, with the omission of Dageš forte in the final consonant, see § 20 l; but with suffixes תִּתִּי, תִּתּוֹ, &c.; before Maqqeph with the prefix לְ = לָֽתֶת־, e.g. Ex 5, and even when closely connected by other means, e.g. Gn 15. However, the strong formation of the infinitive construct also occurs in נְתֹן Nu 20 and נְתָן־ Gn 38; cf. § 69 m, note 2. On the other hand, for לְתִתֵּן 1 K 6 read either לְתִתּוֹ or simply לָתֵת, just as the Qe, 1 K 17, requires תֵּת for תתן.

 [k In other stems, the נ‍ is retained as the third radical, e.g. שָׁכַ֫נְתָּ, זָקַ֫נְתִּי cf. § 19 c and § 44 o. On the entirely anomalous aphaeresis of the Nûn with a strong vowel in תַּ֫תָּה (for נָתַ֫תָּ) 2 S 22, cf. § 19 i.—On the passive imperfect יֻתַּן, cf. § 53 u.

§67. Verbs ע״ע, e.g. סָבַב to surround.
Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 155 ff.; Grundriss, p. 632 ff. See B. Halper, 'The Participial formations of the Geminate Verbs' in ZAW. 1910, pp. 42 ff., 99 ff., 201 ff. (also dealing with the regular verb).

 [a 1. A large number of Semitic stems have verbal forms with only two radicals, as well as forms in which the stem has been made triliteral by a repetition of the second radical, hence called verbs ע״ע. Forms with two radicals were formerly explained as being due to contraction from original forms with three radicals. It is more correct

  1. P. Haupt on Ju 16 in his Bible, compares the form of the Assyrian imperfect iddan or ittan (besides inádin, inámdin) from nadânu = נתן. But could this one passage be the only trace left in Hebrew of an imperf. in a from נתן?