since the imperfect of קוּטֹ appears as אָקוּט in ψ 95. On the other hand יְקשׁוּן (as if from קוֹשׁ, on the analogy of יָבוֹא, &c.) occurs as imperfect of יָקשׁ (פ״י). The imperfect יָדוֹן, with ô, Gn 6, probably in the sense of to rule, has no corresponding perfect, and is perhaps intentionally differentiated from the common verb יָדִין to judge (from דִּין, ע״י). Or can יָדוֹן be a jussive after לֹא (cf. § 109 d)? Similarly לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינִי (עֵֽינְךָ) might be taken as a case of a jussive after לֹא, with irregular scriptio plena (as in Ju 16), in Dt 7, 13, 19, 25, Ez 5, 7, 8, 9. But perhaps in all these cases לֹא תָחוּס was originally intended, as in Is 13, Jer 21, while cases like יָחֹס ψ 72 are to be explained as in § 109 k.—The infinitive absolute always has ô, e.g. קוֹם יָק֫וּמוּ Jer 44.
[s] 3. In the imperative with afformatives (ק֫וּמִי, ק֫וּמוּ) the tone is on the stem syllable (cf., however, עוּרִ֫י Ju 5 intentionally varied from ע֫וּרִי; also עוּרִ֫י Zc 13 and Is 51 beside ע֫וּרִי כִּ֣ימֵי; גִּילִ֫י Zc 9; צוּרִ֫י Is 21, שׁוּבִ֫י ψ 116, likewise for rhythmical reasons). So also the lengthened form, as שׁ֫וּבָה Jer 3, ψ 7, and ע֫וּרָה verse 7. But if an א follows in close connexion, the lengthened imperative usually has the form קוּמָ֫ה, &c.,[1] in order to avoid a hiatus, e.g. Ju 4, ψ 82; hence also before יְהֹוָה, Qerê perpetuum אֲדֹנָי (§ 17 c), e.g. ψ 3, 7 קוּמָ֫ה (cf., however, in the same verse ע֫וּרָה and in Jer 40, שֻׁ֫בָה before א), and so even before ר ψ 43, 74, &c. (רִיבָ֫ה).
[t] 4. In the jussive, besides the form יָקֹם (see above, f), יָקוֹם also occurs (as subjunctive, Ec 12; נָסוֹג ψ 80 may also, with Delitzsch, be regarded as a voluntative), incorrectly written plene, and יָקֻ֫ם (Gn 27; cf. Ju 6, Pr 9), which, however, is only orthographically different from יָקוּם (cf. Jer 46). In the imperfect consecutive (וַיָּ֫קָם, in pause וַיָּ֫קֹם, see above, f) if there be a guttural or ר in the last syllable, ă often takes the place of ŏ, e.g. וַיָּ֫נַח and he rested; וַיָּ֫נַע and it was moved; וַיָּ֫סַר and he turned aside, Ju 4, Ru 4 (distinguished only by the sense from Hiphʿîl וַיָּ֫סַר and he removed, Gn 8); וַיָּ֫צַר Ex 21, 2 K 5, 17 (but also וַיָּ֫גָר from both גּוּר to sojourn, and גּוּר to fear); וַיָּ֫עַף (to be distinguished from וַיָּ֫עָף and he flew, Is 6) and he was weary, Ju 4, 1 S 14, 2 S 21, but probably in all these cases וַיִּעַף for וַיִּיעַף from יָעֵף is intended. For ותלוש 2 S 13 Keth., the Qerê rightly requires וַתָּ֫לָשׁ. On the other hand, in an open syllable always וַיָּק֫וּמוּ, וַיָּס֫וּרוּ, &c. On (וָאָֽקֻם) וָאָֽקוּם, see § 49 e.
[u] Examples of the full plural ending וּן with the tone (see above, l) are תְּמֻת֫וּן Gn 3; יְנוּס֫וּן ψ 104; יְרוּצ֫וּן Jo 2.
II. On Niphʿal.
[v] 5. The form of the 1st sing. perf. נְקוּמ֫וֹתִי, which frequently occurs (נְסוּגֹ֫תִי, נְפוּגֹ֫תִי, cf. also the ptcp. plur. נְכוּכִים, Ex 14), serves as a model for the 2nd sing. נְקוּמ֫וֹתָ, נְקוּמוֹת, and the 1st plur. נְקוּמ֫וֹנוּ given in the paradigm, although no instances of these forms are found; but of the 2nd plur. the
