form חֲנַן, with retraction and modification of the vowel, לְחֶנְנָהּ ψ 102; also שְׂחוֹחַ Is 60, בִּגְזׄז 1 S 25, כִּמְסֹס Is 10, בַּֽעֲזוֹז Pr 8, בִּצְרוֹר Pr 26.—Imperative שָׁדְדוּ Jer 49 (cf. § 20 b, and ibid. also on חַֽנְנֵ֫נִי ψ 9); in the imperfect, יִדּוֹד Na 3 (ψ 68; cf. Gn 31) from נדד; the strong form here, after the assimilation of the Nûn, was unavoidable. On the other hand, יְשָׁדְדֵם Jer 5 is anomalous for יְשְׁדֵּם (Pr 11 Qerê; the eastern school read the Poʿēl ישׁודדם in the Kethîbh); the strengthening of the second radical has been afterwards resolved by the insertion of a vocal Šewâ. Cf. also יֶֽחֱנַן Am 5 (elsewhere יָחֹן). In Niphʿal, the triliteral form יִלָּבֵב is found, Jb 11; in Hiphʿil, all the forms of רנן, thus imperative הַרְנִ֫ינוּ, imperfect תַּרְנִין; infinitive הַשְׁמֵם Mi 6; participle מַשְׁמִים Ez 3. That the developed (triliteral) forms possess a certain emphasis is seen from their frequent use in pause, as in ψ 118 after a biliteral form (סַבּ֫וּנִי גַם־סְבָב֫וּנִי).
[dd] 11. The above-mentioned (see g) neglect of the strengthening in aramaïzing forms, such as יִדְּמוּ and the like, occurs elsewhere tolerably often; in the perfect Qal תַּ֫מְנוּ for תַּמּ֫וֹנוּ Nu 17 (Jer 44; cf. above, e); imperfect נָבֹ֫זָה 1 S 14 (־ָה parag. without any influence on the form, cf. o); even with the firm vowel reduced to vocal Šewâ; נָֽבְלָ֫ה Gn 11 for נָבֹ֫לָּה (cohortative from בָּלַל); יָֽזְמ֫וּ for יָזֹ֫מּוּ ibid. ver. 6, they purpose; following the analogy of verbs ע״וּ, אֲמֻֽשְׁךָ (see above, r); from intransitive imperfects Qal, תֵּֽצְרִי Is 49 (plur. masc. Jb 18); יֵֽרְעוּ Neh 2; also תִּישָׁ֑מְנָה Ez 6 (for which read תֵּישׁ׳=תֵּשׁ׳) might be explained in the same way.—Perfect Niphʿal נָֽסְבָ֫ה for נָסַ֫בָּה Ez 41; נָֽזְלוּ Ju 5 for נְמַלְתֶּם ;נָזֹ֫לּוּ for נְמַלֹּתֶם Gn 17 (as if from מָלַל not מוּל to circumcise), cf. Is 19, Jer 8; imperfect תִּמַּ֫קְנָה Zc 14; participle נֵֽחָמִים, cf. u. So also נָפַץ 1 S 13, נָֽפְצָה Gn 9 (cf. Is 33), are perfects Niphʿal from פצץ (= פּוּץ), not Qal from נָפַץ.—In Hiphʿîl הֵתַ֫לְתָּ (for הֲתִלֹּ֫תָ) Ju 16 (2 S 15); הֵעֵ֫זָה for הֵעֵ֫וָּה Pr 7 (cf. Ct 6, 7).
No less irregular is the suppression of the vowel of the stem-syllable in לְהַפְרְכֶם Lv 26.—On the perfect דַּלְיוּ Pr 26, cf. § 75 u.
[ee] 12. Cases in which the tone is thrown forward on the afformatives (see k) are (a) in the perfect, the 1st sing. regularly (but cf. וַֽהֲצֵרֹ֫תִי Jer 10 before לָהֶם) after ו consec., Ex 33, 2 K 19, &c., also Is 44 (חַמּוֹתִ֖י before ר); ψ 92 (but the text is certainly corrupt; see the Lexicon), 116, perhaps also Jb 19, וְחַנֹּתִֹי (though in this passage, and in ψ 17, the form might be an infinitive in ôth; see Delitzsch on Jb 19); in the 2nd sing. וְקַצֹּתָ֫ה (before א) Dt 25; in the 3rd plural, רַבּ֫וּ multi sunt, ψ 3, 104, Jer 5, 1 S 25; רַכּ֫וּ they are soft, ψ 55 קַלּ֫וּ they are swift, Jer 4, Hb 1; זַכּ֫וּ they are pure, Jb 15, 25, La 4; שַׁח֫וּ they did bow, Hb 3; חָר֫וּ they are burned, Is 24. A by form of שָׁתוּ (ע״וּ, cf. § 72 dd) is שַׁתּ֫וּ ψ 49, 73.
[ff] (b) In the imperative (a command in an emphatic tone) רָנִּ֫י sing, Is 54, Zp 3, Zc 2; רָנּ֫וּ Is 44, 49, Jer 31 (but רֹ֫נִּי lament, La 2), חָגִּ֫י keep (thy feasts), Na 2, Jer 7; עוּזָּ֫ה (= עֻזָּה) before א, ψ 68. On the retention of the short vowels ŭ (ŏ) and ĭ before Dageš forte, in place of the tone-long ō and ē, see above, k; on the change of the vowel of the preformative into Šewâ, when it no longer stands before the tone, see g.
