(but never in the 1st sing. וָֽאֹמַר; cf. וָֽאֹכַל), and then the final syllable, if without the pause, always takes Seghôl, וַ֫יֹּאמֶר and he said (except וַתֹּ֫אמַר לוֹ Pr 7).
[e] In pause, however, the imperfect consecutive (except the 1st pers. of אָכַל, see below) always has the form וַיֹּאכַ֫ל (but plur. always יֹאכֵ֫לוּ, וַיֹּאכֵ֫לוּ), וַיֹּאמַ֫ר; except וַיֹּ֫אמַר in the poetic portion of the book of Job, as 3:2, 4:1, &c., but not in 32:6, in the middle of the verse. The weak imperfect of אָחַז is always יֹאחֵז and וַיֹּאחֶז, but in the 1st sing., according to § 49 e, וָֽאֹחֵ֫ז Ju 20; cf. וָֽאֹכֵ֫ל Gn. 3 in pause.—אָבָה and אָפָה are, at the same time, verbs ל״ה, hence imperfect יֹּאבֶה (§ 75 c).
[f] Before light suffixes the vowel of the second syllable becomes vocal Šewâ, as יֹֽאכְלֵם, תֹּֽאכְלֶ֫נּוּ but תֹּֽאכַלְכֶם.—In a few cases, instead of the ô in the first syllable an ê is found, which is due to contraction from the group ־ֶֽ ־ֱ (or ־ֶ ־ְ) in place of ־ַ ־ְ; e.g. תֵּאתֶה it shall come, Mi 4, from תֶּֽאֱתֶה (from אָתָה); אֵהָ֑ב (for אֵהַב) I love, Pr 8, also (four times) אֹהַב Mal 1, &c., with suffixes אֹֽהֲבֵ֫הוּ Ho 11, 14, &c. (but only in 1st sing., otherwise יֶֽאֱהַב, &c., from אָהֵב, אָהַב); וָֽאֵחַ֫ר and I stayed, Gn 32. The infinitive construct of אָמַר with לְ is always לֵאמֹר dicendo, for לֶֽאֱמֹר.—According to Barth (ZDMG. 1889, p. 179) וַיָּ֫אצֶל Nu 11 is to be regarded as an imperfect Qal, without the obscuring of ־ָא to ô, not as imperfect Hiphʿîl, since אצל elsewhere occurs only in the perfect Qal and Niphʿal; on the original i in the second syllable, see above, § 67 p. For תְּאָכְ֫לֵהוּ Jb 20 we should simply emend תֹּֽאכְל׳; the view that it is imperfect Pôʿēl (which nowhere else occurs) can, as regards the change of ô to ŏ, be supported only by the very doubtful analogies of ψ 62 (see § 52 q) and ψ 101 Qerê (see § 55 b), while the view that it is Piʿēl (תְּאָכְ׳=תְּאָֽכְ׳=תְּאַכְּ׳) rests on no analogy whatever. It would be more admissible to suppose that תְּאָכְ׳ stands for תְּאֻכְּ׳, Puʿal (cf. אֲכֶלְךָ for אֲכַלְּךָ, § 27 q); but no reason has been discovered for this departure from the natural punctuation תֹּאכְ׳.
[g] 2. In the 1st pers. sing. imperfect, where two א’s would ordinarily come together, the second (which is radical) is regularly dropped (§ 23 f), as אֹמַר[1] (for אֹאמַר), &c., and even plene וָֽאוֹמַר Neh 2, &c., אֽוֹמְרָה ψ 42. In the other cases, also, where the א is ordinarily regarded as quiescing in ô or ê, it is only retained orthographically, and on etymological grounds. Hence the possibility of its being dropped in the following cases:—
[h] Always in the contracted forms of אָסַף, as תֹּסֵף for תֹּאסֵף ψ 104; וַיֹּ֫סֶף 2 S 6 (but for יֵאָֽסֵףJb 27 read יֹאסִף=יוֹסִף with the LXX); cf. also in
- ↑ The regularity of this orthography indicates that the contraction of אַאְ to â in this 1st pers. occurred at a time when in the 3rd and 2nd persons the א was still audible as a consonant (which accordingly was almost always retained in writing). Nöldeke (ZDMG. xxxii. 593) infers this from the fact that also in Arabic the 3rd and 2nd persons are still written yăʾkŭlŭ, tăʾkŭlŭ, but the 1st pers. ʾâkūlŭ, not ʾăʾkŭlŭ.
