consecutive has the form וַיִּצֹק Gn 28, 35, &c., cf. § 69 f, where also other forms of יָצַק are given; וַיִּ֫יצֶר and יִּצֹּר (Is 44, 49, Jer 1 Qerê), from יָצַר to form, are, however, used in the same sense. Cf. also אֶסֳּרֵם Ho 10; וַיִּשַּׁ֫רְנָה (for וַתִּ׳ according to § 47 k) 1 S 6; לִיסֹּד 2 Ch 31 (cf. § 69 n) and מוּסָּד Is 28. This assimilation is found always with sibilants (most frequently with צ) except in the case of וַיִּקַּץ 1 K 3 (so ed. Mant., Ginsb., Kittel; but Jabl., Baer וַיִּקַץ) and in הֻ֫לֶּדֶת Gn 40, Ez 16 (cf. הוּלֶּדֶת verse 4), infinitive Hophʿal of יָלַד (cf. נוּלְּדוּ § 69 t).
Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 144 ff.; Grundriss, p. 605 ff.
[a] 1. According to § 67 a a large number of monosyllabic stems were brought into agreement with the triliteral form by a strengthening, or repetition, of the second radical, i.e. of the consonantal element in the stem. In another large class of stems the same object has been attained by strengthening the vocalic element. The ground-form used for these verbs is not, as in other cases (§ 39 a), the 3rd sing. mast. perfect, but always the infinitive construct form (§ 39 b), the û of which is characteristic also of the imperative and of the imperfect indicative Qal. These stems are consequently termed verbs ע״ו or more correctly (see below) ע״וּ.[1]
- ↑ The term ע״ו was consequent on the view that the Wāw (or י in the case of verbs ע״ו) in these stems was originally consonantal. This view seemed especially to be supported by the return of the Wāw in Piʿēl (עִוֵּד, the ו usually passing into י as in קִיַּם, cf. Arabic qáwwămă), and by certain forms of the absolute state of the nouns of such stems, e.g. מֶ֫וֶת death, compared with מוּת to die. Hence in explaining the verbal forms a supposed stem qawam (in verbs ע״י e.g. šayat) was always assumed, and יָקוּם was referred to an original yaqwŭm, the infinitive absolute קוֹם to original qawôm, the participle passive קוּם to original qawûm. It must, however, be admitted: (1) that forms like עִוֵּד, קִים (see m) are only to be found in the latest books, and are hence evidently secondary as compared with the pure Hebrew forms קוֹמֵם, &c.; (2) that to refer the verbal forms invariably to the stem קָוַם, leads in many cases to phonetic combinations which are essentially improbable, whereas the assumption of original middle-vowel stems renders a simple and natural explanation almost always possible. These ע״וּ stems are therefore to be rigidly distinguished from the real ע״ו stems of the strong forms, such as רָוַח, גָּוַע, &c. (see below, gg).—As early as the eleventh century the right view with regard to ״וּ stems was taken by Samuel Hannagîd (cf. Bacher, Leben und Werke des AbulwaléÆd, p. 16); recently by Böttcher (Lehrbuch, § 1112), and (also as to ע״ע stems) especially by Müller, Stade, and Wellhausen (see above, § 67 a, note). On the other hand, the old view of ו and י as consonants has been recently revived by Philippi, Barth, M. Lambert, and especially Brockelmann (op. cit.).
