This page was corrected according to Additions and Corrections that appear in the 1910 edition.
by this means is merely intended to make the strengthening of the second radical audible.[1]
[e] The perfect תַּ֫מְנוּ (for תַּמּ֫וֹנוּ) Nu 17, ψ 64 (Jer 44 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 9, וַיִּקֹּד Gn 24; with a in the second syllable, יִגָּ֑ר Lv 11, יִדַּל Is 17, וַיִּשַּׁח Is 2, &c., יִדֹּם Am 5 and frequently, וָאֶֽכֹּת Dt 9, &c., יִסֹּב (turn intrans.) 1 S 5, &c., וַיִּקֹּב Lv 24, יִתֹּם Ez 47, &c., יִחַם (with Dageš forte implicitum) 1 K 1; in the plural, יִתַּ֫מּוּ Nu 14, &c. (in pause יִתָּ֫מּוּ ψ 102); perhaps also יִמַּל, יִמַּךְ (unless these forms are rather to be referred to Niphʿal, like יִדָּ֑מּוּ 1 S 2; יִמָּֽלוּ Jb 24); with suffix תִּקֳּבֶ֫נּוּ occurs (cf. § 10 h) in Nu 23; 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 43, &c., for וַיָּקֹ֫דּוּ and they bowed the head; וַיַּכְּתוּ and they beat down, Dt 1 (from כָּתַת); וַיִּתְּמוּ Dt 32; יִדְּמוּ Ex 15, Jb 29 (cf., however, וַיַּסֵּ֫בּוּ Ju 18, 1 S 5, יֻכַּ֫תּוּ Jer 46, Jb 4). To the same class of apparently strong formations belongs תִּצַּ֫לְנָה (without the separating vowel, for תְּצִ֫לָּינָה, cf. 1 S 3 and below, p) they shall tingle, 2 K 21, Jer 19.—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.
- ↑ Of all the explanations of these separating vowels the most satisfactory is that of Rödiger, who, both for the perfect and imperfect (Ewald and Stade, for the imperfect at least), points to the analogy of verbs ל״ה. We must, however, regard סַבּ֫וֹתָ as formed on the analogy not of גָּלִ֫יתָ, but (with P. Haupt) of a form גָּל֫וֹתָ (= gālautā, cf. Arab. ġazauta), while תְּסֻבֶּינָה follows the analogy of תִּגְלֶינָה. [See also Wright, Comp. Gr., 229 f.]
