Stade, as the equivalent of ō (קֹֽבָה־לִּי, &c.; cf. § 9 v). Still more surprising is קָבְנוֹ curse him, Nu 23, for קֻבֶּ֫נּוּ or קָבּ׳.[1]
[p] 3. Examples with Pathaḥ in the infinitive, imperative, and imperfect are בַּר (in לְבָרָם to prove them, Ec 3); רָד Is 45; שַׁךְ Jer 5; בְּשַׁגָּם in their error, Gn 6 (so ed. Mant., but there is also good authority for בְּשַׁגַּם, from שַׁ· = שֶׁ· = אֲשֶׁר and גַּם also; so Baer and Ginsburg). Also גַּל take away, ψ 119; and the imperfects יֵחַם it is hot, Dt 19, &c. (on the ē of the preformative cf. n); יֵמַר it is bitter, Is 24; יֵצַר it is straitened; יֵרַךְ it is soft, Is 7; תֵּשַׁם it is desolate, Ez 12 (in pause תֵּשָֽׁם Gn 47); וַתֵּקַ֫ל she was despised, Gn 16 (but elsewhere in the impf. consec. with the tone on the penultima, e.g. וַיֵּ֫צֶר Gn 32, &c.; וַיֵּ֫רַע Gn 21, &c., cf. Ez 19); in the 1st sing. imperfect אֵיתָ֑ם[2] ψ 19, abnormally written fully for אֵתָם, unless אֶתָּם is to be read, as in some MSS., on the analogy of the 3rd sing. יִתֹּם.—In the impf. Qal of שׁלל the reading of Hb 2 varies between יְשַׁלּ֫וּךָ (Baer, Ginsb.) and יְשָׁלּ֫וּךָ (ed. Mant., Jabl.).— The following forms are to be explained with Barth (ZDMG. xliii, p. 178) as imperfects Qal with original ĭ in the second syllable, there being no instances of their Hiphʿîl in the same sense: וַיָּ֫גֶל Gn 29; יָגֵן Is 31, &c.; וַיָּסֶךְ Ex 40, ψ 91, &c.; perhaps also תְּצִלֶּ֫ינָה 1 S 3 and יָהֵל Job 31, &c.; in accordance with this last form, (בְּ)הִלּוֹ Job 29 would also be an infinitive Qal, not Hiphʿîl (for בַּֽהֲהִלּוֹ), as formerly explained below, under w. Finally the very peculiar form וַתָּ֫רִץ Ju 9 may probably be added to the list.
[q] Imperfects, with an original u in the second syllable, are also found with this ŭ lengthened to û (instead of ō), e.g. יָרוּן, if the text is correct, in Pr 29; יָשׁוּד ψ 91 (unless it be simply an imperfect from שׁוּד to be powerful, to prevail); יָרוּץ (if from רצץ) Is 42, &c. (also defectively אָרֻץ ψ 18; but in Ec 12, according to Baer, וְתָרוּץ); תִּתֻּם Ez 24 (on the sharpening of the ת cf. g above).[3]
[r] A similar analogy with verbs ע״וּ is soon in the infinitives לָבוּר (for בֹּר) Ec 9; בְּחֻקוֹ Pr 8 (cf. בְּחוּקוֹ Pr 8) for בְּחֻקּוֹ, and in the imperfect אֲמֻֽשְׁךָ Gn 27. (The forms חַנּוֹת in ψ 77, שַׁמּוֹת Ez 36, חַלּ֫וֹתִי ψ 77, formerly treated here as infinitives from ע״ע stems, are rather to be referred to ל״ה stems, with Barth, Wurzeluntersuchungen, Lpz. 1902, p. 21.) On other similar cases, see below, under ee. For examples of the aramaïzing imperfect, see above, g.
[s] 4. In the participle, the aramaïzing form שֹֽׁאֲסַ֫יִךְ for שֹֽׁסְסַ֫יִךְ occurs in Kethîbh, Jer 30 (the Qerê indicates a participle from שָׁסָה); רֹעָה Pr 25 appears to be a contraction from רֹֽעֲעָה, part. fem. = breaking in pieces.
- ↑ For נוֹ as suffix of the 3rd person a parallel might be found in יֶשְׁנוֹ, § 100 o, and probably also in the Nûn of the Phoenician suffix נם: cf. Barth, ZDMG. xli. p. 643, and the note on § 100 o.
- ↑ Also in Ez 6, instead of תִּישָׁ֑מְנָה, which could only come from ישׁם, תֵּי֚שׁ׳ is intended, and יֶאְשְׁמוּ in the same verse is probably only an error for יֵשַׁ֫מּוּ.
- ↑ According to Stade, Grammatik, § 95, Rem., the pronunciation with û, since it also appears in Neo-Punic [and in Western Syriac, see Nöldeke, Syr. Gramm., § 48], was that of everyday life.
