others (cf. Nöldeke, ZDMG. xxx. 185), נַֽאֲנָה from אָוָה, not Pi‛lel of נאה = נאו; hence, according to § 23 d, נָאווּ they are beautiful (for נַֽאֲווּ) Is 52, Ct 1; but in ψ 93, where Baer requires נָֽאֲוָה, read נַֽאֲנָה with ed. Mant., Ginsb.
[y] 8. The apocope of the imperfect causes no further changes beyond the rejection of the ־ֶה, e.g. יִגָּל from יִגָּלֶה; in one verb middle guttural, however, a form occurs with the Qameṣ shortened to Pathaḥ, viz. יִמַּח (for יִמָּח) ψ 109, as in verbs ע״ע; but in pause תִּמָּֽח verse 14. Cf. bb.—The infinitive absolute נִגְלוֹת emphasizing an infinitive construct, 2 S 6, is very extraordinary; probably it is a subsequent correction of an erroneous repetition of הגלות.—The infin. constr. לְחֵֽרָאֹה occurs in Ju 13, 1 S 3 for לְהֵֽרָאֹת; cf. above, n.—On the infinitive Niphʿal with the ה elided, see § 51 l.—The irregular תֵּֽעֲלוּ Ez 36 has probably arisen from a combination of the readings תַּֽעֲלוּ (Qal) and תֵּֽעָלוּ (Niphʿal). Similarly the solecism נְמִבְזָה 1 S 15 might be due to a combination of the participle fem. Niphʿal (נִבְּזָה, cf. נַחְלָה, נֶחְפָּה, נַֽעֲשָׂח) with the Hophʿal (מֻבְזָה); but it is more correct, with Wellhausen, to explain the מ from a confusion with נמס and to read, in fact, נִבְזָח וְנִמְאָ֫סָת.
III. On Piʿēl, Pôʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl.
[z] 9. In the 1st and 2nd persons of the perfect Piʿēl the second syllable in most of the instances has ־ִי on the analogy of Qal (see f), as דִּמִּ֫יתָ, קִוִּ֫יתִי; always so in the first plur., and before suffixes, e.g. כִּסִּ֫ינוּ Gn 37, דִּכִּיתָ֫נוּ ψ 44. The form with ־ֵי is found only in the 1st sing. (e.g. Jo 4; Is 5, 8 along with the form with î). On the tone of the perf. consec. Pi‛el of ל״ה, see § 49 k.—Hithpaʿēl has (besides ־ֵי Jer 17) as a rule ־ִי (Pr 24, 1 K 2, Jer 50). On the other hand, Puʿal always has ־ֵי, e.g. עֻשֵּׂ֫יתִי ψ 139.—A 1st sing. perfect Pô‛ēl שׁוֹשֵׂ֫תִי ( =שׁוֹוסֵיתִי) occurs in Is 10.
[aa] 10. The infinitive absolute Piʿēl takes the form כַּלֵּה, קַוֵּה (like קַטֵּל, the more frequent form even in the strong verb, see § 52 o); with ô only in ψ 40 קַוֹּה; with ôth Hb 3 עָרוֹת (cf. above, n). On הֹגוֹ and הֹרוֹ, infinitives absolute of the passive of Qal, not of Pô‛ēl, see above, n.—As infinitive construct חַכֵּי occurs in Piʿēl, Ho 6 (only orthographically different from חַכֵּה, if the text is correct); לְכַלֵּא Dn 9 (on the א see rr); עַד־לְכַלֵּה 2 Ch 24, 31, for which in 2 K 13, Ezr 9 עד־כַּלֵּה with infin. abs.; in Puʿal עֻנּוֹת ψ 132.
[bb] 11. The apocopated imperfect must (according to § 20 l) lose the Dageš forte of the second radical, hence וַיְצַו and he commanded, תְּעַר (for תְּעָרֶה=te‛arrè) ψ 141; cf. Gn 24; even in the principal pause אַל־תְּגַֽל Pr 25; Hithpaʿēl וַיִּתְגַּל and he uncovered himself, Gn 9; תִּתְרַע Pr 22; cf. ψ 37. With the lengthening of Pathaḥ to Qameṣ, וַיְתָו and he made marks, 1 S 21 (but read with Thenius וַיָּ֫תָף, and instead of the meaningless וַיְשַׁנּוֹ ibid. read וַיְשַׁן). In Hithpaʿēl אַל־תִּתְגָּר, in close connexion, Dt 2; תִּשְׁתָּע Is 41; according to Qimḥi also יִתְאָו, תִּתְאָו ψ 45, Pr 23, 24, 1 Ch 11, whilst Baer and Ginsburg read with the best authorities יִתְאַו, תִּתְאַו (but cf. König, Lehrgeböude, i. 597).[1]—On אֲחַוְךָ Jb 15 (for אֲחַוְּךָ) cf. § 20 m; on אּכָלְךָ Ex 33, see § 27 q;
