User:Ubufox/4
d 2. The secondary form זוּ occurs only in poetic style, and mostly for the relative, like our that for who [see Lexicon, s. v.]. Like אֲשֶׁר (§ 36), it serves for all numbers and genders.
e Rem. 1. This pronoun takes the article (הַזֶּה, הַזֹּאת, הָאֵ֫לֶּה, הָאֵל) according to the same rule as adjectives, see § 126 u; e.g. הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה this man, but זֶה הָאִישׁ this is the man.
f 2. Rarer secondary forms, with strengthened demonstrative force, are הַלָּזֶה Gn 24, 37; הַלֵּ֫זוּ fem. Ez 36; and shortened הַלָּז, sometimes masc., as in Ju 6, 1 S 17, 2 K 23, Zc 2, Dn 8, sometimes fem., 2 K 4: cf. 1 S 14 [and 20 LXX; see Commentaries and Kittel].
g 3. The personal pronouns of the 3rd person also often have a demonstrative sense, see § 136.
J. Barth, ‘Der heb. u. der aram. Artikel,’ in Sprachwiss. Untersuch. zum Semit., Lpz. 1907, p. 47 ff.
a 1. The article, which is by nature a kind of demonstrative pronoun, never appears in Hebrew as an independent word, but always in closest connexion with the word which is defined by it. It usually takes the form הַּ, with ă and a strengthening of the next consonant, e.g. הַשֶּׁ֫מֶשׁ the sun, הַיְאֹר the river, הַֽלְוִיִּם the Levites (according to § 20 m for הַיְּאֹר, הַלְּוִיִּם).
b Rem. With regard to the Dageš in יְ after the article, the rule is, that it is inserted when a ה or ע follows the יְ e.g. הַיְּהוּדִים the Jews, הַיְּעֵפִים the weary (כַּיְעֵנִים La 4 Qerê is an exception), but הַיְאוֹר, הַיְלָדִים, הַיְסוֹד, &c. Dageš forte also stands after the article in the prefix מְ in certain nouns and in the participles Piʿēl and Puʿal (see § 52 c) before ה, ע and ר, except when the guttural (or ר) has under it a short vowel in a sharpened syllable; thus הַמְּהוּמָה Ez 22, הַמְּעָרָה the cave, בַּמְּרֵעִים ψ 37 (cf. Jb 38, 1 Ch 4); but הַֽמְהַלֵּךְ ψ 104 (Ec 4, 2 Ch 23; before עַ ψ 103); הַֽמְעֻשָּׁקָה Is 23; הַֽמְרַגְּלִים Jos 6. Before letters other than gutturals this מְ remains without Dageš, according to § 20 m.
c 2. When the article stands before a guttural, which (according to § 22 b) cannot properly be strengthened, the following cases arise, according to the character of the guttural (cf. § 27 q).
(1) In the case of the weakest guttural, א, and also with ר (§ 22 c and q), the strengthening is altogether omitted. Consequently, the Pathaḥ of the article (since it stands in an open syllable) is always lengthened to Qameṣ; e.g. הָאָב the father, הָֽאַחֵר the other, הָאֵם the mother, הָאִישׁ the man, הָאוֹר the light, הָֽאֱלֹהִים ὁ θεός, הָרֶ֫גֶל the foot, הָרֹאשׁ the head, הָֽרָשָׁע the wicked.
d So also הָֽשְׁפוֹת Neh 3, because syncopated from הָֽאַשְׁפּוֹת (cf. verse 14 and Baer on the passage); הָֽאזִקִּים (as in Nu 11, Ju 9, 2 S 23, with the א orthographically retained), for הָֽאֲז׳ Jer 40 (cf. בָּֽאז׳ verse 1); הָֽסוּרִים Ec 4 for הָֽאֲס׳; הָֽרַמִּים 2 Ch 22 for הָֽאֲר׳(cf. 2 K 8).
e (2) In the case of the other gutturals either the virtual strengthening takes place (§ 22 c)—especially with the stronger sounds ח and ה, less often with ע—or the strengthening is wholly omitted. In the former case, the Pathaḥ of the article remains, because the syllable is still regarded as closed; in the second case, the Pathaḥ is either modified to Seghôl or fully lengthened to Qameṣ. That is to say:—
f A. When the guttural has any other vowel than ā (־ָ) or ŏ (־ֳ), then
(1) before the stronger sounds ה and ה the article regularly remains הַ; e.g. הַהוּא that, הַחֹ֫דֶשׁ the month, הַחַ֫יִל the force, הַחָכְמָה the wisdom. Before ח, ā occurs only in הָחַי Gn 6 [not elsewhere], הָֽחֲרִיטִים Is 3, הָֽחַמָּנִים Is 17 [not elsewhere]; before ה, always in הָהֵ֫מָּה, הָהֵם.
g (2) before ע the Pathaḥ is generally lengthened to Qameṣ, e.g. הָעַ֫יִן the eye, הָעִיר the city, הָעֶ֫בֶד the servant, plur. הָֽעֲבָדִים; לָֽעֲגָלִים 1 K 12; also in Gn 10 הָֽעַרְקִי is the better reading. Exceptions are כַּֽעוֹפֶ֫רֶת Ex 15, הַֽעִוְרִים 2 S 5, Is 42, כַּעֶ֫בֶד Is 24, הַעֹֽרְכִים Is 65, בַּע֫שֶׁק Ez 22, הַעֹֽזְבִים Pr 2 and הַעֹזֶ֫בֶת Pr 2, לַֽעֵינַיִם 1 S 16, Ec 11; but לָֽעֵינ׳ Gn 3, Pr 10. Cf. Baer on Is 42.
h B. When the guttural has ā (־ָ) then
(1) immediately before a tone-bearing הָ or עָ the article is always הָ, otherwise it is הֶ; e.g. הָעָם the people, הָהָר the mountain, הָעָ֑יִן (in pause) the eye, הָהָ֫רָה towards the mountain; but (according to § 22 c) הֶֽהָרִ֫ים the mountains, הֶֽעָוֹן the iniquity.
i (2) before חָ the article is invariably הֶ without regard to the tone; e.g. הֶֽחָכָם the wise man, הֶחָ֫ג the festival.
k C. When the guttural has ־ֳ the article is הֶ before חֳ e.g. הֶֽחֳדָשִׁים the months; בֶּֽחֳרָבוֹת in the waste places (without the article בָּֽחֳ׳ bŏḥorābhôth) Ez 33, הֶֽחֳרֵבוֹת Ez 36, cf. 2 Ch 27; but הָ before עֳ, as הָֽעֳמָרִים the sheaves Ru 2.
The gender and number of the noun have no influence on the form of the article.
l Rem. 1. The original form of the Hebrew (and the Phoenician) article הַ is generally considered to have been הַל, the ל of which (owing to the proclitic nature of the article) has been invariably assimilated to the following consonant, as in יִקַּח from yilqaḥ, § 19 d. This view was supported by the form of the Arabic article אַל (pronounced hal by some modern Beduin), the ל of which is also assimilated at least before all letters like s and t and before l, n, and r, e.g. ʾal-Qurʾân but ʾas-sắnă (Beduin has-sana)=Hebr. הַשָּׁנָה the year. But Barth (Amer. Journ. of Sem. Laug., 1896, p. 7 ff.), following Hupfeld and Stade, has shown that the Hebrew article is to be connected rather with the original Semitic demonstrative hā,[1] cf. Arab. hāḏa, Aram. hādēn, &c. The sharpening of the following consonant is to be explained exactly like the sharpening after וַ consecutive (§ 49 f; cf. also cases like בַּמָּה, כַּמָּה, &c., § 102 k), from the close connexion of the ha with the following word, and the sharpening necessarily involved the shortening of the vowel.[2]
m The Arabic article is supposed to occur in the Old Testament in אַלְמֻגִּים 1 K 10 (also אַלְגּוּמִּים 2 Ch 2, 9), sandal-wood (?), and in אֶלְגָּבִישׁ hail, ice=גָבִישׁ (Arab. ǵibs) Ez 13, 38, but this explanation can hardly be correct. On the other hand, in the proper name אַלְמוֹדָד Gn 10 the first syllable is probably אֵל God, as suggested by D. H. Müller (see Lexicon, s. v.) and Nöldeke, Sitzungsber. der Berl. Akad., 1882, p. 1186. אַלְקוּם Pr 30, commonly explained as=Arab. al-qaum, the militia, is also quite uncertain.
n 2. When the prefixes בְּ, לְ, כְּ (§ 102) come before the article, the ה is elided, and its vowel is thrown back to the prefix, in the place of the Šewâ (§ 19 k, and § 23 k), e.g. בָּשָּׁמַ֫יִם in the heaven for בְּהַשָּׁמַ֫יִם (so ψ 36); לָעָם for לְהָעָם to the people, בֶּֽהָרִים on the mountains, בֶּֽחֳדָשִׁים in the months; also in Is 41, read כֶּֽעָפָר instead of the impossible כֵּֽעָפָר. Exceptions to this rule occur almost exclusively in the later Books: Ez 40, 47, Ec 8, Dn 8, Neh 9, 12, 2 Ch 10, 25, 29; cf., however, 1 S 13, 2 S 21. Elsewhere, e.g. 2 K 7, the Masora requires the elision in the Qerê. A distinction in meaning is observed between כְּהַיּוֹם about this time (Gn 39, 1 S 9, &c.) and כַּיּוֹם first of all (Gn 25, &c.). After the copula וְ (and) elision of the ה does not take place, e.g. וְהָעָם.
o 3. The words אֶ֫רֶץ earth, הַר mountain, חַג feast, עַם people, פַּר bull, always appear after the article with a long vowel (as in pause); הָאָ֫רֶץ, הָהָר, הֶחָג, הָעָם, הַפָּר; cf. also אֲרוֹן ark (so in the absol. st. in 2 K 12, 2 Ch 24, but to be read אָרוֹן), with the article always הָֽאָרוֹן.
The relative pronoun (cf. § 138) is usually the indeclinable אֲשֶׁר (who, which, &c.), originally a demonstrative pronoun; see further § 138 and 155. In the later books, especially Eccles. and the late Psalms, also Lam. (4 times), Jon. (1), Chron. (twice), Ezra (once),—and always in the Canticle (cf. also Ju 7, 8, 2 K 6), שֶּׁ is used instead; more rarely שַּׁ Ju 5, Ct 1 (Jb 19?); once שָׁ before א Ju 6 (elsewhere שֶׁ before a guttural), before ה even שְׁ Ec 3, and according to some (e.g. Qimḥi) also in Ec 2.[3] [See Lexicon, s. v.]
a 1. The interrogative pronoun is מִי who? (of persons, even before plurals, Gn 33, Is 60, 2 K 18, and sometimes also of things Gn 33, Ju 13, Mi 1; cf. also בַּת־מִי whose daughter? Gn 24; לְמִי to whom? אֶת־מִי whom?)—מָה, מַה (see b) what? (of things).—אֵי־זֶה which? what?
b The form מַהּ, מַּ, &c. (followed by Dageš forte conjunct.: even in יְ, Hb 2, &c., against § 20 m) may be explained (like the art. הַּ § 35 l, and וַּ in the imperf. consec.) from the rapid utterance of the interrogative in connexion with the following word. Most probably, however, the Dageš forte is rather due to the assimilation of an originally audible ה (מַהּ, as Olshausen), which goes back through the intermediate forms math, mat to an original mant: so W. Wright, Comparative Grammar, Cambridge, 1890, p. 124, partly following Böttcher, Hebräische Grammatik, § 261. A ground-form mant would most easily explain מָן (what?), used in Ex 16 in explanation of מָן manna, while מַן is the regular Aramaic for who. Socin calls attention to the Arabic mah (in pause with an audible h: Mufaṣṣal, 193, 8). Observe further that—
c (a) In the closest connexion, by means of Maqqeph, מַה־ takes a following Dageš (§ 20 d), e.g. מַה־לָּךְ what is it to thee? and even in one word, as מַלָּכֶם what is it to you? Is 3; cf. Ex 4, Mal 1, and even before a guttural, מהם Ez 8 Kethîbh.
d (b) Before gutturals in close connexion, by means of Maqqeph or (e.g. Ju 14, 1 S 20) a conjunctive accent, either מַה is used with a virtual strengthening of the guttural (§ 22 c), so especially before ה, and, in Gn 31, Jb 21, before זן—or the doubling is wholly emitted. In the latter case either (cf. § 35 e–k) ă is fully lengthened to Qames (so always before the ה of the article, except in Ec 2; also before הֵ֫מָּה, הֵ֫נָּה, and so ה (Hb 2), א (2 S 18, 2 K 8), ע (Gn 31, 2 K 8), or modified to Seghôl, especially before עָ, חָ, and generally before הָ. The omission of the strengthening also takes place as a rule with ה, ח, ע, when they have not Qameṣ, and then the form is either מָה or מֶה, the latter especially before ח or ע, if Maqqeph follows.
e The longer forms מָה and מֶה are also used (מֶה even before letters which are not gutturals) when not connected by Maqqeph but only by a conjunctive accent. As a rule מָה is then used, but sometimes מֶה when at a greater distance from the principal tone of the sentence, Is 1, ψ 4. (On מֶה in the combinations כַּמֶּה, בַּמֶּה, and even לָ֫מֶה, 1 S 1, cf. § 102 k and l.)
f (c) In the principal pause מָה is used without exception; also as a rule with the smaller disjunctives, and almost always before gutturals (מֶה only in very few cases). On the other hand, מֶה more often stands before letters which are not gutturals, when at a greater distance from the principal tone of the sentence, e.g. 1 S 4, 15, 2 K 1, Hag 1 (see Köhler on the passage), ψ 10, Jb 7; cf., however, Pr 31, and Delitzsch on the passage.
g 2. On מִי and מָה as indefinite pronouns in the sense of quicunque, quodcunque, and as relatives, is qui, id quod, &c., see § 137 c.
CHAPTER II
THE VERB
a Verbal stems are either original or derived. They are usually divided into—
(a) Verbal stems proper (primitive verbs), which exhibit the stem without any addition, e.g. מָלַךְ he has reigned.
b (b) Verbal derivatives, i.e. secondary verbal stems, derived from the pure stem (letter a), e.g. קִדַּשׁ to sanctify, הִתְקַדֵּשׁ to sanctify oneself, from קָדַשׁ to be holy. These are usually called conjugations (§ 39).
c (c) Denominatives,[4] i.e. verbs derived from nouns (like the Latin causari, praedari, and Eng. to skin, to stone), or even from particles (see d, end) either in a primitive or derivative form, e.g. אָהַל, Qal and Piʿēl, to pitch a tent, from אֹ֫הֶל tent; הִשְׁרִישׁ and שֹׁרֵשׁ to take root, and שֵׁרֵשׁ to root out, from שֹׁרֶשׁ root (§ 52 h).
d This does not exclude the possibility that, for nouns, from which denominative verbs are derived, the corresponding (original) verbal stem may still be found either in Hebrew or in the dialects. The meaning, however, is sufficient to show that the denominatives have come from the noun, not from the verbal stem, e.g. לְבֵנָה a brick (verbal stem לבן to be white), denomin. לָבַן to make bricks; דָּג a fish (verbal stem דָּגָה to be prolific), denomin. דּוּג to fish; חָרַף to winter (from חֹ֫רֶף autumn, winter, stem חָרַף to pluck); קוּץ to pass the summer (from קַ֫יִץ summer, stem קִיץ to be hot).
On ‘Semitic verbs derived from particles’ see P. Haupt in the Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang., xxii (1906), 257 ff.
Brockelmann, Sem. Sprachwiss., p. 119 ff.; Grundriss, p. 504 ff.
a 1. The 3rd sing. masc. of the Perfect in the form of the pure stem (i.e. in Qal, see e) is generally regarded, lexicographically and grammatically, as the ground-form of the verb (§ 30 a), e.g. קָטַל he has killed, כָּבֵד he was heavy, קָטֹן he was little.[5] From this form the other persons of the Perfect are derived, and the Participle also is connected with it. קְטֹל or קְטַל, like the Imperative and Infinitive construct in sound, may also be regarded as an alternative ground-form, with which the Imperfect (see § 47) is connected.
b In verbs ע״וּ (i.e. with ו for their second radical) the stem-form, given both in Lexicon and Grammar, is not the 3rd sing. masc. Perfect (consisting of two consonants), but the form with medial ו, which appears in the Imperative and Infinitive; e.g. שׁוּב to return (3rd pers. perf. שָׁב): the same is the case in most stems with medial י, e.g. דִּין to judge.
c 2. From the pure stem, or Qal, the derivative stems are formed according to an unvarying analogy, in which the idea of the stem assumes the most varied shades of meaning, according to the changes in its form (intensive, frequentative, privative, causative, reflexive, reciprocal; some of them with corresponding passive forms), e.g. לָמַד to learn, לִמַּד to teach; שָׁכַב to lie, הִשְׁכִּיב to lay; שָׁפַט to judge, נִשְׁפַּט to contend. In other languages such formations are regarded as new or derivative verbs, e.g. Germ. fallen (to fall), fällen (to fell); trinken (to drink), tränken (to drench); Lat. lactere (to suck, Germ. saugen), lactare (to suckle, Germ. säugen); iacĕre (to throw), iacēre (to lie down); γίνομαι, γεννάω. In Hebrew, however, these formations are incomparably more regular and systematic than (e.g.) in Greek, Latin, or English; and, since the time of Reuchlin, they have usually been called conjugations of the primitive form (among the Jewish grammarians בִּנְיָנִים, i.e. formations, or more correctly species), and are always treated together in the grammar and lexicon.[6]
d 3. The changes in the primitive form consist either in internal modification by means of vowel-change and strengthening of the middle consonant (קִטֵּל, קֻטַּל; קוֹטֵל, קוֹטַל; cf. to lie, to lay; to fall, to fell), or in the repetition of one or two of the stem-consonants (קִטְלַל, קְטַלְטַל), or finally in the introduction of formative additions (נִקְטַל), which may also be accompanied by internal change (הִקְטִיל, הִתְקַטֵּל). Cf. § 31 b.
In Aramaic the formation of the conjugations is effected more by formative additions than by vowel-change. The vocalic distinctions have mostly become obsolete, so that, e.g. the reflexives with the prefix הִתְ, אִתְ, אֶתְ have entirely usurped the place of the passives. On the other hand, Arabic has preserved great wealth in both methods of formation, while Hebrew in this, as in other respects, holds the middle place (§ 1 m).
e 4. Grammarians differ as to the number and arrangement of these conjugations. The common practice, however, of calling them by the old grammatical terms, prevents any misunderstanding. The simple form is called Qal (קַל light, because it has no formative additions); the others (כְּבֵדִים heavy, being weighted, as it were, with the strengthening of consonants or with formative additions) take their names from the paradigm of פָּעַל he has done,[7] which was used in the earliest Jewish grammatical works. Several of these have passives which are distinguished from their actives by more obscure vowels. The common conjugations (including Qal and the passives) are the seven following, but very few verbs exhibit them all:
| Active. | Passive. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Qal | קָטַל to kill. | (Cf. § 52 e.) | |
| 2. Niphʿal | נִקְטַל to kill oneself (rarely passive). | ||
| 3. Piʿēl | קִטֵּל to kill many, to massacre. | 4. Puʿal | קֻטַּל. |
| 5. Hiphʿîl | הִקְטִיל to cause to kill. | 6. Hophʿal | הָקְּטַל. |
| 7. Hithpaʿēl | הִתְקַטֵּל to kill oneself. | [Very rare, Hothpaʿal | הָתְקַטַּל.] |
g There are besides several less frequent conjugations, some of which, however, are more common in the kindred languages, and even in Hebrew (in the weak verb) regularly take the place of the usual conjugations (§ 55).
In Arabic there is a greater variety of conjugations, and their arrangement is more appropriate. According to the Arabic method, the Hebrew conjugations would stand thus: 1. Qal; 2. Piʿēl and Puʿal; 3. Pôʿēl and Pôʿal (see § 55 b); 4. Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal; 5. Hithpaʿēl and Hothpaʿal; 6. Hithpô‛ēl (see § 55 b); 7. Niphʿal; 8. Hithpaʿēl (see § 54 l); 9. Piʿlēl (see § 55 d). A more satisfactory division would be into three classes: (1) The intensive Piʿēl with the derived and analogous forms Puʿal and Hithpaʿēl. (2) The causative Hiphʿîl with its passive Hophʿal, and the analogous forms (Šaphʿēl and Tiphʿēl). (3) The reflexive or passive Niphʿal.
A. Ungnad, ‘Die gegenseitigen Beziehungen der Verbalformen im Grundstamm des semit. Verbs,’ in ZDMG. 59 (1905), 766 ff., and his ‘Zum hebr. Verbalsystem’, in Beiträge zur Assyriologie ed. by Fr. Delitzsch and P. Haupt, 1907, p. 55 ff.
a 1. While the Hebrew verb, owing to these derivative forms or conjugations, possesses a certain richness and copiousness, it is, on the other hand, poor in the matter of tenses and moods. The verb has only two tense-forms (Perfect and Imperfect, see the note on § 47 a), besides an Imperative (but only in the active), two Infinitives and a Participle. All relations of time, absolute and relative, are expressed either by these forms (hence a certain diversity in their meaning, § 106 ff.) or by syntactical combinations. Of moods properly so called (besides the Imperfect Indicative and Imperative), only the Jussive and Optativeare sometimes indicated by express modifications of the Imperfect-form (§ 48).
b 2. The inflexion of the Perfect, Imperfect, and Imperative as to persons, differs from that of the Western languages in having, to a great extent, distinct forms for the two genders, which correspond to the different forms of the personal pronoun. It is from the union of the pronoun with the verbal stem that the personal inflexions of these tenses arise.
c The following table will serve for the beginner as a provisional scheme of the formative syllables (afformatives and preformatives) of the two tenses. The three stem-consonants of the strong verb are denoted by dots. Cf. § 44 ff. and the Paradigms.
| Perfect | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singular. | Plural. | ||||||||||||
| 3. | m. | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | 3. | c. | וּ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | |||
| 3. | f. | ־ָה | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ||||||||
| 2. | m. | תָּ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | 2. | m. | תֶּם | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ||
| 2. | f. | תְּ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | 2. | f. | תֶּן | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ||
| 1. | c. | תִּי | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | 1. | c. | נוּ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ||
| Imperfect | |||||||||||||
| Singular. | Plural. | ||||||||||||
| 3. | m. | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | י | 3. | m. | וּ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | י | |
| 3. | f. | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | תּ | 3. | f. | נָה | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | תּ | |
| 2. | m. | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | תּ | 2. | m. | וּ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | תּ | |
| 2. | f. | ־ִי | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | תּ | 2. | f. | נָה | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | תּ |
| 1. | c. | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | א | 1. | c. | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | נ | ||
a The same laws which are normally exhibited in stems with strong (unchangeable) consonants, hold good for all other verbs. Deviations from the model of the strong verb are only modifications due to the special character or weakness of certain consonants, viz.:—
(a) When one of the stem-consonants (or radicals) is a guttural. In this case, however, the variations only occur in the vocalization (according to § 22), not in the consonants. The guttural verbs (§ 62–65) are, therefore, only a variety of the strong verb.
b (b) When a stem-consonant (radical) disappears by assimilation (§ 19 b–f), or when the stem originally, consisted of only two consonants (verbs פ״ן, ע״ע, and ע״וּ, as נָגַשׁ, קַל, קוּם, §§ 66, 67, 72).
c (c) When one of the stem-consonants (radicals) is a weak letter. In this case, through aphaeresis, elision, &c., of the weak consonant, various important deviations from the regular form occur. Cf. § 68 ff. for these verbs, such as יָשַׁב, מָצָא, גָּלָה.
d Taking the old paradigm פָּעַל as a model, it is usual, following the example of the Jewish grammarians, to call the first radical of any stem פ, the second ע, and the third ל. Hence the expressions, verb פ״א for a verb whose first radical is א (primae radicalis [sc. literae] א); ע״ו for mediae radicalis ו; ע״ע for a verb whose second radical is repeated to form a third.
I. The Strong Verb.
As the formation of the strong verb is the model also for the weak verb, a statement of the general formative laws should precede the treatment of special cases.
Paradigm B, together with the Table of the personal preformatives and afformatives given in § 40 c, offers a complete survey of the normal forms. A full explanation of them is given in the following sections (§§ 43–55), where each point is elucidated on its first occurrence; thus e.g. the inflexion of the Perfect, the Imperfect and its modifications, will be found under Qal, &c.
A. The Pure Stem, or Qal.
a The common form of the 3rd sing. masc. of the Perfect Qal is קָטַל, with ă (Pathaḥ) in the second syllable, especially in transitive verbs (but see § 44 c). There is also a form with ē (Ṣere, originally ĭ), and another with ō (Ḥolem, originally ŭ) in the second syllable, both of which, however, have almost always an intransitive[8] meaning,
and serve to express states and qualities, e.g. כָּבֵד to be heavy, קָטֹן to be small.
In Paradigm B a verb middle a, a verb middle ē, and a verb middle ō are accordingly given side by side. The second example כָּבֵד is chosen as showing, at the same time, when the Dageš lene is to be inserted or omitted.
b Rem. 1. The vowel of the second syllable is the principal vowel, and hence on it depends the distinction between the transitive and intransitive meaning. The Qameṣ of the first syllable is lengthened from an original ă (cf. Arabic qătălă), but it can be retained in Hebrew only immediately before the tone, or at the most (with an open ultima) in the counter-tone with Metheg; otherwise, like all the pretonic vowels (ā, ē), it becomes Šewâ, e.g. קְטַלְתֶּ֫ם 2nd plur. masc. In the Aramaic dialects the vowel of the first syllable is always reduced to Šewâ, as קְטַל=Hebr. קָטַל. The intransitive forms in Arabic are qătĭlă, qătŭlă; in Hebrew (after the rejection of the final vowel) ĭ being in the tone-syllable has been regularly lengthened to ē, and ŭ to ō.
c 2. Examples of denominatives in Qal are: חָמַר to cover with pitch, from חֵמָר pitch ; מָלַח to salt, from מֶ֫לַח salt; שָׁבַר (usually Hiph.) to buy or sell corn, from שֶׁ֫בֶר corn; see above, § 38 c.
a 1. The formation of the persons of the Perfect is effected by the addition of certain forms of the personal pronoun, and marks of the 3rd fem. sing. and 3rd pl. (as afformatives) to the end of the verbal-stem, which contains the idea of a predicate, and may be regarded, in meaning if not in form, as a Participle or verbal adjective. For the 3rd pers. sing. masc. Perfect, the pronominal or subject idea inherent in the finite verb is sufficient: thus, קָטַל he has killed, קָטַ֫לְ־תָּ thou hast killed (as it were, killing thou, or a killer thou), a killer wast thou=קטל אַתָּה; יָרֵא he was fearing, ירֵא־תֶם ye were fearing=יִרא אַתֶּם. The ending of the 1st pers. plur. (־נוּ) is also certainly connected with the termination of אֲנַ֫חְנוּ, אנו we (§ 32 b, d). The afformative of the 1st pers. sing. (תִּי) is to be referred, by an interchange of כ and ת (cf. § 33 f), to that form of the pronoun which also underlies אָֽנֹכִי, I.[10] In the third person ־ָה (originally ־ַת, cf. below, f) is the mark of the feminine, as in a great number of nouns (§ 80 c), and וּ is the termination of the plural; cf., for the latter, the termination of the 3rd and 2nd pers. plur. Imperf. ûna in Arabic and û (often also וּן) in Hebrew, also ûna (in the construct state û) as the plural termination of masc. nouns in literary Arabic.
b 2. The characteristic Pathaḥ of the second syllable becomes Šewâ before an afformative beginning with a vowel, where it would otherwise stand in an open syllable (as קָֽטְלָ֫ה, קָֽטְל֫וּ; but in pause קָטָ֫לָה, קָטָ֫לוּ). Before an afformative beginning with a consonant the Pathaḥ remains, whether in the tone-syllable (קָטַ֫לְתָּ, קָטַ֫לְתְּ, קָטַ֫לְתִּי, קָטַ֫לְנוּ; in pause קָטָ֫לְתָּ &c.) or before it. In the latter case, however, the Qameṣ of the first syllable, being no longer a pretonic vowel, becomes vocal Šewâ; as קְטַלְתֶּ֫ם, קְטַלְתֶּ֫ן; cf. § 27 i and § 43 b. On the retention of ā with Metheg of the counter-tone in the Perf. consecutive, cf. § 49 i.
c Rem. 1. Verbs middle ē in Hebrew (as in Ethiopic, but not in Arabic or Aramaic) generally change the E-sound in their inflexion into Pathaḥ (frequently so even in the 3rd sing. masc. Perf.). This tendency to assimilate to the moro common verbs middle a may also be explained from the laws of vocalization of the tone-bearing closed penultima, which does not readily admit of Ṣere, and never of Ḥireq, of which the Ṣere is a lengthening (cf. § 26 p). On the other hand, Ṣere is retained in an open syllable; regularly so in the weak stems ל״א (§ 74 g), before suffixes (§ 59 i), and in the pausal forms of the strong stem in an open tone-syllable, e.g. דָּבֵ֫קָה it cleaveth, Jb 29 (not דָּבָ֫קָה, cf. 2 S 1, Jb 41; even (contrary to § 29 q) in a closed pausal syllable, e.g. שָׁכֵן, Dt 33 (out of pause שָׁכַן, Is 32); but קָמַ֑ל Is 33, &c., according to § 29 q.
d 2. In some weak stems middle a, the Pathaḥ under the second radical sometimes, in a closed toneless syllable, becomes ־ִ, and, in one example, ־ֶ. Thus from יָרַשׁ: וִיֽרִשְׁתָּהּ and thou shalt possess it, Dt 17; וִיֽרִשְׁתָּם Dt 19; וִיֽרִשְׁתֶּם Dt 4, and frequently; from יָלַד to bring forth, to beget; יְלִדְתִּ֫יךָ ψ 2 (cf. Nu 11, Jer 2, 15); from פּוּשׁ; וּפִשְׁתֶּם Mal 3; from שָׁאַל; שְׁאלְתִּיו I have asked him, 1 S 1 (Ju 13), and three times שְׁאֶלְתֶּם 1 S 12, 25, Jb 21. Qimḥi already suggests the explanation, that the ĭ (ĕ) of these forms of שׁאל and ירשׁ is the original vowel, since along with שָׁאַל and יָרַשׁ are also found שָׁאֵל and יָרֵשׁ (see the Lexicon). The possibility of this explanation cannot be denied (especially in the case of יָרַשׁ, see § 69 s); the ĭ in these forms might, however, equally well have arisen from an attenuation of ă (§ 27 s), such as must in any case be assumed in the other instances. Moreover, it is worthy of notice that in all the above cases the ĭ is favoured by the character of the following consonant (a sibilant or dental), and in most of them also by the tendency towards assimilation of the vowels (cf. § 54 k and § 64 f).
e 3. In verbs middle ō, the Ḥolem is retained in the tone-syllable, e.g. יָגֹ֫רְתָּ thou didst tremble; יָכֹ֫לוּ in pause for יָֽכְלוּ they were able; but in a toneless closed syllable the original short vowel appears in the form of a Qameṣ haṭuph; יְכָלְתִּ֫יו I have prevailed against him, ψ 13; וְיָֽכָלְתָּ֫ (see § 49 h) then shalt thou be able, Ex 18; in a toneless open syllable it becomes vocal Šewâ, e.g. יָכִֽלָה, יָכְֽלוּ.
f 4. Rarer forms[11] are: Sing. 3rd fem. in ־ַת (as in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aramaic), e.g. אָֽזְלַת it is gone, Dt 32; וְנִשְׁכַּ֫חַת Is 23 (in the Aramaic form, for וְנִשְׁכְּחָה); from a verb ע״וּ, וְשָׁבַת, cf. § 72 o. This original feminine ending -ath is regularly retained before suffixes, see § 59 a; and similarly in stems ל״ה, either in the form āth (which is frequent also in stems ל״א § 74 g), or with the Pathaḥ weakened to vocal Šewâ before the pleonastic ending ־ָה, e.g. גָּֽלְתָה § 75 i. In Ez 31 the Aramaic form גָּֽבְהָא occurs instead of גָּֽבְהָה.
g 2nd masc. תָּה for תָּ (differing only orthographically), e.g. בָּגַ֫דְתָּה thou hast dealt treacherously, Mal 2; cf. 1 S 15, Gn 3 (נָתַ֫תָּה which is twice as common as נָתַ֫תָּ, cf. § 66 h); Gn 21, 2 S 2, 2 K 9, Is 2, ψ 56 (so also in Hiphʿil; 2 K 9, Is 37, ψ 60).
h 2nd fem. has sometimes a Yodh at the end, as in הָלָ֑כְתְּי thou wentest, Jer 31; cf. 2, Jer 3, 4 (but read the ptcp. שֹׁמַ֫עַת, with the LXX, instead of the 2nd fem.),46, and so commonly in Jeremiah, and Ez (16, &c.); see also Mi 4, Ru 3. הָלַ֫כְתִּי, &c., is really intended, for the vowel signs in the text belong to the marginal reading הָלַכְתְּ (without י)[12] as in the corresponding pronoun אַתְּי (אַתִּי) § 32 h. The ordinary form has rejected the final i, but it regularly reappears when pronominal suffixes are added (§ 59 a, c).
i 1st pers. comm. sometimes without Yodh, as יָדַ֫עְתִּ ψ 140, Jb 42, 1 K 8, Ez 16 (all in Kethîbh), ψ 16, without a Qerê; in 2 K 18 also אָמַ֫רְתִּ is really intended, as appears from Is 36. The Qerê requires the ordinary form, to which the vowels of the text properly belong, whilst the Kethîbh is probably to be regarded as the remains of an earlier orthography, which omitted vowel-letters even at the end of the word.
k תֶן as the termination of the 2nd plur. m. for תֶם Ez 33, might just possibly be due to the following ת (cf., for an analogous case, Mi 3, § 87 e), but is probably a copyist’s error. Plur. 2nd fem. in -תֶּ֫נָה (according to others -תֶּ֫נָּה) Am 4, but the reading is very doubtful; since ה follows, it is perhaps merely due to dittography; cf., however, אַתֵּ֫נָה § 32 i.
l 3rd plur. comm. has three times the very strange termination וּן[13]; יָֽדְעוּן Dt 8 (both before א, and hence, no doubt, if the text is correct, to avoid a hiatus), and in the still more doubtful form צָקוּן Is 26; on וּן in the Imperf. see § 47 m; on the affixed א in Jos 10, Is 28, see § 23 i.
m It is very doubtful whether, as in most Semitic languages (see § 47 c, note), the 3rd.fem. plur. in Hebrew was originally distinguished from the 3rd masc. plur. by the termination ־ָה, as in Biblical Aramaic. Nöldeke (ZDMG. 38 [1884], p. 411) referred doubtfully to the textual readings in Dt 21, Jos 15, 18, Jer 2, 22, where the Masora uniformly inserts the termination û, and to Gn 48 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Gn 49, 1 S 4, ψ 18, Neh 13. In his Beiträge zur sem. Sprachwiss., p. 19, however, he observes that the construction of a fem. plural with the 3rd sing. fem. is not unexampled, and also that ה is often found as a mistake for ו. On the other hand Mayer Lambert (Une série de Qeré ketib, Paris, 1891, p. 6 ff.) explains all these Kethîbh, as well as ψ 73, Jer 50 (?), and (against Nöldeke) 1 K 22 (where ה is undoubtedly the article belonging to the next word), Jb 16 (where the masc. פָּנַי requires the marginal reading), also Jer 48, 51, Ez 26, ψ 68, as remains of the 3rd fem. plur. in ־ָה. The form was abandoned as being indistinguishable from the (later) form of the 3rd fem. sing., but tended to be retained in the perfect of verbs ל״ה, as היה Kethîbh six times in the above examples.
n 5. The afformatives תָּ, (תְּ), תִּי, נוּ are generally toneless, and the forms with these inflexions are consequently Milʿêl (קָטַ֫לְתָּ, &c.); with all the other afformatives they are Milraʿ (§ 15 c). The place of the tone may, however, be shifted: (a) by the pause (§ 29 i–v), whenever a vowel which has become vocal Šewâ under the second stem-consonant is restored by the pause; as קָטָ֫לָה for קָֽטְלָ֫ה (דָּבֵ֫קָה for דָּֽבְקָ֫ה), and קָטָ֫לוּ for קָֽטְל֫וּ (מָלֵ֫אוּ for מָֽלְא֫וּ; (b) in certain cases after wāw consecutive of the Perfect (see § 49 h).
o 6. Contraction of a final ת with the ת of the afformative occurs e.g. in כָּרַ֫תִּי Hag 2, &c.; cf. Is 14, &c., in the Perf. Poʿel; Dt 4 in the Hiphʿîl of שׁחת; Is 21, &c., in the Hiphʿîl of שׁבת. Contraction of a final נ with the afformative נוּ occurs in נָתַ֫נּוּ Gn 34; in Niph. Ezr 9, cf. 2 Ch 14; in Hiph. 2 Ch 29; with the afformative נָה in the Imperfect Qal Ez 17; Piʿēl ψ 71, where with Baer and Ginsburg תְּרַנֵּ֫נָּה is to be read, according to others תְּרַנֶּ֫נָּה (cf. in Polel תְּקוֹנֶ֫נָּה Ez 32), but certainly not תְּרַנֵּ֫נָה with the Mantua ed., Opitius and Hahn; with נָה in the Imperat. Hiph. Gn 4, Is 32.
F. Prätorius, ‘Ueber den sog. Inf. absol. des Hebr., ’in ZDMG. 1902, p. 546 ff.
a 1. The Infinitive is represented in Hebrew by two forms, a shorter and a longer; both are, however, strictly speaking, independent nouns (verbal substantives). The shorter form, the Infinitive construct (in Qal קְטֹל,[14] sometimes incorrectly קְטוֹל), is used in very various ways, sometimes in connexion with pronominal suffixes, or governing a substantive in the genitive, or with an accusative of the object (§ 115), sometimes in connexion with prepositions (לִקְטֹל to kill, § 114 f), and sometimes in dependence upon substantives as genitive, or upon verbs as accusative of the object. On the other hand, the use of the longer form, the Infinitive absolute (in Qal קָטוֹל, sometimes also קָטֹל, obscured from original qăṭâl), is restricted to those cases in which it emphasizes the abstract verbal idea, without regard to the subject or object of the action. It stands most frequently as an adverbial accusative with a finite verb of the same stem (§ 113 h–s).[15]
b The flexibility and versatility of the Infin. constr. and the rigidity and inflexibility of the Infin. absol. are reflected in their vocalization. The latter has unchangeable vowels, while the ō of the Infin. constr. may be lost. For קְטֹל, according to § 84a e, goes back to the ground-form qŭṭŭl.
c Other forms of the Infin. constr. Qal of the strong verb are—
(a) קְטַל, e.g. שְׁכַב to lie, Gn 34; שְׁפַל to sink, Ec 12; especially with verbs which have ă in the second syllable of the Imperf.: hence sometimes also with those, whose second or third radical is a guttural (frequently besides the ordinary form). All the examples (except שְׁכַב, see above) occur in the closest connexion with the following word, or with suffixes (see § 61 c). In Ez 21 the Masora seems to treat לְטֶ֫בַה (verse 20, in pause לְטָבַח) as an Infinitive=לִטְבֹּחַ; probably לַטֶ֫בַח should be read.
d (b) קַטְלָה and, attenuated from it, קִטְלָה; קָטְלָה and קֻטְלָה (which are feminine forms[16] of קְטַל and קְטֹל, mostly from intransitive verbs, and sometimes found along with forms having no feminine ending in use), e.g. לְאַשְׁמָה to be guilty, Lv 5, אַֽהֲבָה to love, שִׂנְאָה to hate; לְיִרְאָה, often in Dt., to fear; זִקְנָה to be old; קִרְאָה to meet (in לִקְרַאת § 19 k); לְרִבְעָה to lie down, Lv 20; לְמָשְׁחָה to anoint, Ex 29; לְרָחְצָה to wash, Ex 30, &c.; לְטָמְאָה (also a subst.= uncleanness, like טֻמְאָה) to be unclean, Lv 15; לְקָרְבָה to approach, Ex 36, &c.; cf. Lv 12, Dt 11, Is 30, Ez 21, Hag 1; also רָֽהֳקָה to be far off, Ez 8; חֻמְלָה to pity, Ez 16; cf. Ho 7. On the other hand in חֶמְלָה Gn 19, the original ă has been modified to ĕ; cf. חֶזְקָה Is 8, &c.
e (c) In the Aramaic manner (מִקְטַל but cf. also Arab. maqtal) there occur as Infin. Qal: מִשְׁלוֹחַ to send, Est 9; מִקְרָא to call and מַסַּע to depart, Nu 10 (Dt 10); מִקַּח to take, 2 Ch 19, &c.; מַשָּׂא to carry, Nu 4, &c. (cf. even לְמַשְׂאוֹת Ez 17); also with a feminine ending מַֽעֲלָה to go up, Ezr 7, &c.; cf. for these forms (almost all very late) Ryssel, De Elohistae Pentateuchici sermone, p. 50, and Strack on Nu 4. Cf. also מַהְפֵּכָה followed by את, Is 13, Am 4 (§ 115 d).
(d) קְטֹ֫לֶת in יְב֫שֶׁת Gn 8; יְכֹ֫לֶת Nu 14; probably also חֲר֫שֶׁת Ex 31, 35.
f 2. A kind of Gerund is formed by the Infin. constr. with the preposition לְ; as לִקְטֹל ad interficiendum, לִנְפֹּל ad cadendum (see § 28 a).
g The blending of the לְ with the Infin. constr. into a single grammatical form seems to be indicated by the firmly closed syllable, cf. לִשְׁכַּב Gn 34; לִנְפֹּל ψ 118, with Dageš lene in the פ=lin-pōl; hence, also liq-ṭōl, &c.; but בִּנְפֹל binephōl, Jb 4; כִּנְפֹל 2 S 3. Exceptions לִצְבֹא Nu 4, 8; לִנְתוֹשׁ וְלִנְתוֹץ Jer 1, 18, 31; לִשְׁדוֹד Jer 47; לִטְבוֹחַ Jer 11, &c., ψ 37; לִבְדוֹק 2 Ch 34; according to some also לִסְבֹב Nu 21 and לִכְבשׁ 2 Ch 28 (Baer לִכְבּשׁ); on the other hand בִּשְׁכֹּן Gn 35; כִּזְכֹּר Jer 17. For the meaningless לְדַרְיוֹשׁ Ezr 10 read לִדְרשׁ.
a 1. The ground-forms of the Imperative, קְטֹל (properly qeṭŭl, which is for an original qŭṭŭl), and קְטַל (see below, c), the same in pronunciation as the forms of the Infin. constr. (§ 45), are also the basis for the formation of the Imperfect (§ 47).[17] They represent the second person, and have both fem. and plur. forms. The third person is supplied by the Imperfect in the Jussive (§ 109 b); and even the second person must always be expressed by the Jussive, if it be used with a negative, e.g. אַל־תִּקְטֹל ne occidas (not אַל־קְטֹל). The passives have no Imperative, but it occurs in the reflexives, as Niphʿal and Hithpaʿēl.[18]
b 2. The Afformatives of the 2nd sing. fem. and the 2nd plur. masc. and fem. are identical in every case with those of the Imperfect (§ 47 c). In the same way, the Imperative of the 2nd sing. masc., in common with the Imperfect, admits of the lengthening by the ־ָה paragogicum (§ 48 i), as, on the other hand, there are certain shortened forms of this person analogous to the Jussive (§ 48. 5).
c Rem. 1. Instead of the form קְטֹל (sometimes also plene, e.g. שְׁמוֹר Ec 12; before Maqqeph קְטָל־ with Qameṣ ḥaṭuph), those verbs which have an a in the final syllable of the Imperf. (i.e. especially verbs middle ē) make their Imperative of the form קְטַל, e.g. לְבַשֹׁ dress! (Perf. לָבַשׁ and לָבֵשׁ); שְׁכַב lie down! in pause שְׁכָ֑ב 1 S 3.
d 2. The first syllable of the sing. fem. and plur. masc. are usually to be pronounced with Šewâ mobile (qĭṭelî, qĭṭelû, and so שִׁפְכִי, &c., without Dageš lene, and even מִֽשְׁכוּ with Metheg, Ex 12; but cf. אִסְפִּי Jer 10, and with the same phonetic combination חֶשְׂפִּי Is 47; see analogous cases in § 93 m); less frequently we find an ŏ instead of the ĭ, e.g. מָלְכִי rule, Ju 9; מָשְׁכוּ draw, Ez 32; חָרְבוּ Jer 2 (cf. חֳָרָ֑בִי Is 44); on קָֽסֳמִי 1 S 28 Qerê, צֳעָ֫קִי Jer. 22 (cf. 1 K 13), see § 10 h. This ŏ arises (see above, a) from a singular ground-form qŭṭŭl, not from a retraction of the original ŭ of the second syllable. We must abandon the view that the forms with ĭ in the first syllable (cf. also אִמְרִי, חִגְרִי, מִכְרִי, עִבְרִי) arise from a weakening of the characteristic vowel ŏ. They, or at least some of them, must rather be regarded with Barth (ZDMG. 1889, p. 182) as analogous to the original ĭ-imperfects. See further analogies in §§ 47 i and 48 i; 61 b, 63 n.
e The pausal form of the 2nd plur. masc. is גְּזֹֽרוּ 1 K 3; from שְׁמַע, שְׁמָ֫עוּ, &c.; similarly the 2nd sing. fem. in pause is עֲבֹ֫רִי Is 23; even without the pause מְל֫וֹכִי Ju 9, Keth.; קְס֫וֹמִי 1 S 28, Keth. (cf. with this also מְלוֹכָה, &c., § 48 i); from שְׂמַה, שְׂמָ֫חִי Jo 2.
f 3. In the 2nd plur. fem. שְׁמַ֫עַן occurs once, in Gn 4 (for שְׁמַ֫עְנָה) with loss of the ־ָה and insertion of a helping vowel, unless it is simply to be pointed שְׁמַ֫עְןָ. Also instead of the abnormal קִרְאֶן Ex 2 (for קְרֶ֫אנָה) we should perhaps read as in Ru 1 קְרֶ֫אןָ (cf. מְצֶ֫אןָ 1 and לֵ֫כְןָ 1).
On the examples of a 2nd plur. fem. in ־ָ֫, Is 32, see § 48 i.
a 1. The persons of the Imperfect,[19] in contradistinction to those of the Perfect, are formed by placing abbreviated forms of the personal pronoun (preformatives) before the stem, or rather before the abstract form of the stem (קְטֹל). As, however, the tone is retained on the characteristic vowel of the Stem-form, or even (as in the 2nd sing. fem. and the 3rd and 2nd plur. masc.) passes over to the afformatives, the preformatives of the Imperfect appear in a much more abbreviated form than the afformatives of the Perfect, only one consonant (י, תּ, א, נ) remaining in each form. But as this preformative combined with the stem-form was not always sufficient to express at the same time differences both of gender and number, the distinction had to be farther indicated, in several cases, by special afformatives. Cf. the table, § 40 c.
b 2. The derivation and meaning, both of the preformatives and the afformatives, can still, in most cases, be recognized.
In the first pers. אֶקְטֹל, plur. נִקְטֹל, א is probably connected with אֲנִי, and נ with נָ֫חְנוּ; here no indication of gender or number by a special ending was necessary. As regards the vocalization, the Arabic points to the ground-forms ʾăqṭŭl and năqṭŭl: the ĭ of the 1st plur. is, therefore, as in the other preformatives, attenuated from a. The Seghôl of the 1st sing. is probably to be explained by the preference of the א for this sound (cf. § 22 o, but also § 51 p); according to Qimḥi, it arises from an endeavour to avoid the similarity of sound between אִקְטֹל (which is the Babylonian punctuation) and יִקְטִֹל, which, according to this view, was likewise pronounced iqṭōl.[20]
c The preformative ת of the second persons (תִּקְטֹל, ground-form tăqṭŭl, &c.) is, without doubt, connected with the ת of אַתָּה, אַתֶּם. &c., and the afformative ־ִי of the 2nd fem. sing. תִּקְטְלִי with the i of the original feminine form אַתִּי (see § 32 h). The afformative וּ of the 2nd masc. plur. תִּקְטְלוּ (in its more complete form, וּן, see m) is the sign of the plural, as in the 3rd pers., and also in the Perfect (§ 44 a). In the Imperfect, however, it is restricted in both persons to the masculine,[21] while the afformative נָה (also ןָ) of the 3rd and 2nd plur. fem. is probably connected with הֵ֫נָּה eae and אַתֵּ֫נָה vos (fem.).
d The preformatives of the third persons (י in the masc. יִקְטֹל, ground-form yăqṭŭl, plur. יִקְטְלוּ, ground-form yăqṭŭlû; ת in the fem. תִּקְטֹל, plur. תִָּקְטֹ֫לְנָה) have not yet met with any satisfactory explanation. With ת might most obviously be compared the original feminine ending ־ַת of nouns, and of the 3rd fem. sing. perfect. For the afformatives וּ (וּן) and נָה, see c.
e 3. The characteristic vowel of the second syllable becomes Šewâ before tone-bearing afformatives which begin with a vowel, but is retained (as being in the tone-syllable) before the toneless afformative נָה. Thus: תִּקְטְלִ֫י, יִקְטְל֫וּ, תִּקְטְל֫וּ (but in pause תִּקְטֹ֫לִי &c.), תִּקְטֹ֫לְנָה.
f Rem. 1. The ō of the second syllable (as in the inf. constr. and imperat.), being lengthened from an original ŭ in the tone-syllable, is only tone-long (§ 9 r). Hence it follows that: (a) it is incorrectly, although somewhat frequently, written plene; (b) before Maqqeph the short vowel appears as Qameṣ ḥaṭuph, e.g. וַיִּכְתָּב־שָּׁם and he wrote there, Jos 8 (but cf. also Ex 21, Jos 18); (c) it becomes Šewâ before the tone-bearing afformatives ־ִי and וּ (see above, e; but Jerome still heard e.g. iezbuleni for יִזְבְּלֵ֫נִי; cf. ZAW. iv. 83).
g Quite anomalous are the three examples which, instead of a shortening to Šewâ, exhibit a long û: יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵֽם Ex 18, immediately before the principal pause, but according to Qimḥi (ed. Rittenb. p.18b), ed. Mant., Ginsb., Kittel against the other editions, with the tone on the ultima; likewise לֹֽא־תַֽעֲבוּרִ֖י מִוֶּה֑ Ru 2; תִּשְׁמוּרֵֽם (in principal pause) Pr 14. In the first two cases perhaps יִשְׁפּ֫וֹטוּ and תַּעֲב֫וֹרִי (for יִשְׁפֹּ֫טוּ, &c.) are intended, in virtue of a retrogressive effect of the pause; in Pr 14 תִּשְׁמְרוּם is to be read, with August Müller.
h 2. The ō of the second syllable is to be found almost exclusively with transitive verbs middle a, like קָטַל. Intransitives middle a and ē almost always take ă (Pathaḥ)[22] in the impf., e.g. רָבַץ, יִרְבַּץ to couch, שָׁכַב, יִשְׁכַּב to lie down (לָמַר, יִלְמַד to learn is also originally intransitive = to accustom oneself); גָּדֵל, יִגְדַּל to become great (but cf. שָׁכַן and שָׁכֵן imperf. יִשְׁכֹּן to dwell and to inhabit, נָבֵל imperf. יִבֹּל to wither); also from verbs middle ō, as קָטֹן to be small, the imperf. has the form יִקְטַן.
i Sometimes both forms occur together; those with ō having a transitive, and those with ă an intransitive meaning, e.g. יִקְצֹר he cuts off, יִקְצַר he is cut off, i.e. is short; חָלַשׁ impf. ō, to overcome, Ex 17; impf. ă, to be overcome, Jb 14. More rarely both forms are used without any distinction, e.g. יִשֹּׁךְ and יִשַּׁךְ he bites, יֶחְפַּץ and יַחְפֹּץ he is inclined (but only the latter with a transitive meaning=he bends, in Jb 40). On the a of the impf. of verbs middle and third guttural, cf. § 64 b; § 65 b. In some verbs first guttural (§ 63 n), ע״ע (§ 67 p), פ״י (§ 69 b), and פ״א (§ 68 c), and in יִתֵּן for yintēn from נָתַן to give, instead of ă or ō a movable Ṣere (originally ĭ) is found in the second syllable. A trace of these i-imperfects[23] in the ordinary strong verb is probably to be found in וַיַּטְמִ֫נוּ 2 K 7, since טמן otherwise only occurs in Qal. We call these three forms of the imperfect after their characteristic vowel impf. o, impf. a, impf. e.
k 3. For the 3rd sing. fem. תִּקְטֹל (=tiq-ṭōl), Baer requires in 1 S 25 תִּפְגשׁ (but read with ed. Mant., &c. תִּפְגּשׁ). For the 2nd sing. fem. (תִּקְטְלִי) the form תִּקְטֹל is found in Is 57, Jer 3, Ez 22, 23, in every case after the regular form; but cf. also Ez 26. In Is 17, where the 2nd fem. precedes and follows, probably תִּזְרָעִין וּב׳ is to be read with Marti for תִּזְרָעֶ֫נּוּ.—For the 3rd plur. fem. תִּקְטֹ֫לְנַה we find in Jer 49, in pause תִּבְטָ֫חוּ (for תִּבְטַ֫חְנָה), and thrice (as if to distinguish it from the 2nd pers.) the form יִקְטֹ֫לְנָה with the preformative י (as always in Western Aram., Arab, Eth., and Assyr.), in Gn 30, 1 S 6, Dn 8. On the other hand, תִּקְטֹ֫לְנָה appears in some cases to be incorrectly used even for the fem. of the 3rd pers. or for the masc. of the 2nd pers. sing. as תִּשְׁלַ֫חְנָה Ju 5 (where, however, perhaps תִּשְׁלָחֶ֫נָּה is to be read), and Ob 131, for 2nd sing. masc., according to Olshausen a corruption of תִּשְׁלַח יָד; in Pr 1, 8 for תָּרֹ֫נָּה read תִּרְנֶה as in Jb 39; in Ex 1 read תִּקְרָאֵ֫נוּ with the Samaritan.—In Is 27, 28, as also in Jb 17 (if we read טֽוֹבָתִי with LXX for the 2nd תקותי), it is equally possible to explain the form as a plural. This small number of examples hardly justifies our finding in the above-mentioned passages the remains of an emphatic form of the Impf., analogous to the Arab. Modus energicus I, with the termination ănnă.
l For נָה we frequently find, especially in the Pentateuch and mostly after wāw consecutive, simply ןָ nā, e.g. Gn 19, 37, Ex 1, 15, Nu 25, Ez 3, 16; in Arab. always nă. According to Elias Levita תִּלְבַּ֫שְׁןָ (2 S 13) is the only example of this kind in the strong verb. The form וַתִּגְּבְּהֶ֫ינָה (so also Qimḥi and ed. Mant.; but Baer, Ginsb. וַתִּגְּבְּהֶ֫נָה) for וַתִּגְבַּ֫הְנָה they were high, Ez 16, is irregular, with ־ֶי inserted after the manner of verbs ע״ע and ע״וּ, § 67 d; § 72 i; according to Olshausen it is an error caused by the following form.
m 4. Instead of the plural forms in וּ there are, especially in the older books, over 300 forms[24] with the fuller ending וּן (with Nûn paragogicum), always bearing the tone; cf. § 29 m and § 44 l; on its retention before suffixes, see § 60 e; also defectively יְרִיבֻן Ex 21, 22, &c. This usually expresses marked emphasis, and consequently occurs most commonly at the end of sentences (in the principal pause), in which case also the (pausal) vowel of the second syllable is generally retained. Thus there arise full-sounding forms such as יִלְקֹט֑וּן they collect, ψ 104; יִרְגָּז֑וּן they tremble, Ex 15; תִּשְׁמָע֑וּן ye shall hear, Dt 1; cf. Ex 34, with Zaqeph qaṭon, Athnaḥ, and Silluq; Jos 24, with Segolta; Is 13 and 17 with Zaqeph qaṭon, 17 with Athnaḥ and Silluq, 41 after wāw consec. Without the pause, e.g. ψ 11 יִדְרְכוּן קֶ֫שֶׁת, cf. 4, Gn 18 ff., 44, Nu 32, Jos 4 (יִשְׁאָלוּן); Is 8, 1 S 9, Ru 2 (יִקְצֹרוּן and יִשְׁאֲבוּן); Ju 11 after wāw consec.
Some of these examples may be partly due to euphonic reasons, e.g. certainly Ex 17, Nu 16, 32, 1 S 9, 1 K 9, and often, to avoid a hiatus before א or ע. It was, however, the pause especially which exerted an influence on the restoration of this older and fuller termination (cf. § 159 c, note), as is manifest from Is 26: בַּל־יְֽחֱזָי֑וּן יֶֽחֱזוּ וְיֵב֫שׁוּ they see not; may they see and become ashamed. All this applies also to the corresponding forms in the Imperfect of the derived conjugations.[25] In Aramaic and Arabic this earlier וּן (old Arabic ûnă) is the regular termination; but in some dialects of vulgar Arabic it has also become û.
n With an affixed א we find (in the imperf. Niphʿal) יִנָּשׂוּא Jer 10, evidently an error for יִנָּֽשְׂאוּ, caused by the preceding נָשׂוֹא.—In יְשֻׂשׂוּם Is 35, since מ follows, the ם is no doubt only due to dittography.
o 5. Corresponding to the use of וּן for וּ there occurs in the 2nd sing. fem., although much less frequently, the fuller ending ־ִין (as in Aram. and Arab.; old Arab. înă), also always with the tone, for ־ִי, generally again in the principal pause, and almost in all cases with retention of the vowel of the penultima; thus תִּדְבָּקִין Ru 2, cf. 3, 1 S 1 (תִּשְׁתַּכָּרִין), Jer 31, Is 45.
p 6. On the reappearance in pause of the ō which had become Šewâ in the forms תִּקְטְלִי, &c., see above, e; similarly, the imperfects with ă restore this vowel in pause and at the same time lengthen it (as a tone-vowel) to ā, hence, e.g. תִּגְדָּ֫לִי, יִגְדָּ֫לוּ. This influence of the pause extends even to the forms without afformatives, e.g. וַיִּגְדַּל, in pause וַיִּגְדָּ֑ל. But the fuller forms in ûn and în have the tone always on the ultima, since the vowels û and î in a closed final syllable never allow of the retraction of the tone.
q 7. On the numerous instances of passive forms in the imperfect, mostly treated as Hophʿal, see § 53 u.
a 1. Certain modifications which take place in the form of the imperfect, and express invariably, or nearly so, a distinct shade of meaning, serve to some extent as a compensation for the want of special forms for the Tempora relativa and for certain moods of the verb.
b 2. Along with the usual form of the imperfect, there exists also a lengthened form of it (the cohortative), and a shortened form (the jussive).[26] The former occurs (with few exceptions) only in the 1st person, while the latter is mostly found in the 2nd and 3rd persons, and less frequently in the 1st person. The laws of the tone, however, and of the formation of syllables in Hebrew, not infrequently precluded the indication of the jussive by an actual shortening of the form; consequently it often—and, in the imperfect forms with afformatives, always—coincides with the ordinary imperfect (indicative) form.
In classical Arabic the difference is almost always evident. That language distinguishes, besides the indicative yăqtŭlŭ, (a) a subjunctive, yăqtŭlă; (b) a jussive, yăqtŭl; (c) a double ‘energetic’ mood of the impf., yăqtŭlănnă and yăqtŭlăn, in pause yăqtŭlā, the last form thus corresponding to the Hebrew cohortative.
c 3. The characteristic of the cohortative form is an ā (־ָה) affixed to the 1st pers. sing. or plur., e.g. אֶקְטְלָה from אֶקְטֹל.[27] It occurs in almost all conjugations and classes of the strong and weak verb (except of course in the passives), and this final ־ָה has the tone wherever the afformatives וּ and ־ִי would have it. As before these endings, so also before the ־ָה cohortative, the movable vowel of the last syllable of the verbal form becomes Šeewâ, e.g. in Qal אֶשְׁמְרָ֫ה I will observe, in Piʿel נְנַתְּקָ֫ה let us break asunder, ψ 2; on אֶשְׁקֳטָה Is 18 Qerê (cf. also 27, Ezr 8, &c.), see § 10 h; with the Kethîbh of these passages, compare the analogous cases ישׁפוטו, &c., § 47 g.—On the other hand, an unchangeable vowel in the final syllable is retained as tone-vowel before the ־ָה, as (e.g.) in Hiph. אַזְכִּ֫ירָה I will praise. In pause (as before û and î), the vowel which became Šewâ is restored as tone-vowel; thus for the cohortative אֶשְׁמְרָ֫ה the pausal form is אֶשְׁמֹ֑רָה ψ 59; cf. Gn 18, Is 41.
d The change of ־ָה into the obtuse ־ֶה seems to occur in 1 S 28, unless, with Nestle, we are to assume a conflate reading, וָֽאֶקְרִַא and וָֽאֶקְרֶה; and with the 3rd pers. ψ 20, in a syllable sharpened by a following Dageš forte conjunct.; cf. similar cases of the change of ־ָה into the obtuse ־ֶה in l and in §§ 73 d, 80 i, 90 i. In ψ 20, however, יְדַשְּׁנֶ֫הָ—with suffix—is probably intended. An ־ָה cohort. is also found with the 3rd pers. in Is 5 (twice); Ez 23, and again in verse 16 according to the Qerê, but in both these cases without any effect on the meaning. Probably another instance occurs in Jb 11, although there תָּעֻ֫פָה might also, with Qimḥi, be regarded as 2nd masc. For the doubly irregular form תָּב֫וֹאתָה Dt 33 (explained by Olshausen and König as a scribal error, due to a confusion with תבואת in verse 14), read תָּב֫וֹאנָה. For תְּבוֹאָֽתְךָ Jb 22 the noun תְּבוּאָֽתְךָ thine increase, might be meant, but the Masora has evidently intended an imperfect with the ending ath, instead of ־ָה, before the suffix, on the analogy of the 3rd sing. fem. perfect, see § 59 a; on ותבאתי 1 S 25, see § 76 h.
e The cohortative expresses the direction of the will to an action and thus denotes especially self-encouragement (in the 1st plur. an exhortation to others at the same time), a resolution or a wish, as an optative, &c., see § 108.
f 4. The general characteristic of the jussive form of the imperfect is rapidity of pronunciation, combined with a tendency to retract the tone from the final syllable, in order by that means to express the urgency of the command in the very first syllable. This tendency has, in certain forms, even caused a material shortening of the termination of the word, so that the expression of the command appears to be concentrated on a single syllable. In other cases, however, the jussive is simply marked by a shortening of the vowel of the second syllable, without its losing the tone, and very frequently (see above, b) the nature of the form does not admit of any alteration. It is not impossible, however, that even in such cases the jussive in the living language was distinguished from the indicative by a change in the place of the tone.
g In the strong verb the jussive differs in form from the indicative only in Hiphʿîl (juss. יַקְטֵל, ind. יַקְטִיל), and similarly in the weak verb, wherever the imperfect indicative has î in the second syllable, e.g. from יָשַׁב impf. Hiph. יוֹשִׁיב, juss. יוֹשֵׁב; from מוּת, יָמִית and יָמֵת; also in Qal of the verbs ע״וּ and ע״י, as יָמֹת, ind. יָמוּת; יָגֵל, ind. יָגִיל; in all conjugations of verbs ל״ה, so that the rejection (apocope) of the ending ־ֶה in Qal and Hiph. gives rise to monosyllabic forms, with or without a helping vowel under the second radical, e.g. Qal ind. יִגְלֶה, juss. יִ֫גֶל; Hiph. ind. יַגְלֶה, juss. יֶ֫גֶל; and in the Piʿēl יְצַו from the indic. יְצַוֶּה (called apocopated imperfects). But almost all[28] the plural forms of the jussive coincide with those of the indicative, except that the jussive excludes the fuller ending וּן. Neither do the forms of the 2nd sing. fem., as תַּקְטִ֫ילִי, תָּמ֫וּתִי, תִּגְלִי, &c., admit of any change in the jussive, nor any forms, whether singular or plural, to which suffixes are attached, e.g. תְּמִיתֵ֫נִי as ind. Jer 38, as jussive Jer 41.
h The meaning of the jussive is similar to that of the cohortative, except that in the jussive the command or wish is limited almost exclusively to the and or 3rd pers. On special uses of the jussive, e.g. in hypothetical sentences (even in the 1st pers.), see § 109 h.
i 5. The imperative, in accordance with its other points of connexion with the imperfect in form and meaning, admits of a similar lengthening (by ־ָה, Arab. imper. energicus, with the ending -ănnă or -ăn, in pause -ā) and shortening. Thus in Qal of the strong verb, the lengthened form of שְׁמֹר guard is שָׁמְרָה[29] (šŏmerâ, cf. קִטְלִי qîṭelî, § 46 d); עֲזֹב, עָזְבָה Jer 49; שְׁכַב, שִׁכְבָה lie down; שְׁמַע, שִׁמְעָה hear, in lesser pause שְׁמָ֫עָה Dn 9; in Niphʿal הִשָּֽׁבְעָה Gn 21. Cf., however, also מִכְרָה sell, Gn 25, notwithstanding the impf. יִמְכֹּר; עֶרְכָה Jb 33 (cf. עִרְכוּ Jer 46), but impf. יַֽעֲרֹךְ; אֶֽסְפָה collect, Nu 11 (for אִס׳ cf. § 63 l and the plural אִסְפוּ), but 2nd masc. אֱסֹף; נִצְּרָה ψ 141. Barth (see above, § 47 i note) finds in these forms a trace of old imperfects in i, cf. § 63 n. On the other hand, קָרְבָה ψ 69 (also Imperat. קְרַב Lv 9, &c.), but impf. יִקְרַב. Without ה, we have the form לְךָ go, Nu 23, Ju 19, 2 Ch 25. The form קְטֹל in pause becomes קְטֹ֫לָה, the form קְטַל becomes קְטָ֫לָה, e.g. יְרָ֫שָׁה Dt 33. But also without the pause we find מְ֫לוֹכָה Ju 9 Keth. and צְרוֹפָה ψ 26 Keth., on which see § 46 e. On the other hand רְגָ֫זָה, פְּשֹׁ֫טָה, עֹ֫רָה, חֲג֫וֹרָה Is 32 are to be explained as aramaizing forms of the and plur. fem.; also for חִרְדוּ v. 11 read חֲרָ֫דָה, and for סֹֽפְדִים v. 12 read סְפֹ֫דָה.
k The shortened imperative is found only in verbs ל״ה, e.g. in Piʿēl גַּל from גַּלֵּה. The shade of meaning conveyed by the imperatives with ־ָה is not always so perceptible as in the cohortative forms of the imperfect, but the longer form is frequently emphatic, e.g. קוּם rise up, ק֫וּמָה up! תֵּן give, תְּנָה give up!
l Rem. The form דְּעֶה for דְּעָה, best attested in Pr 24 (where it is taken by the Masora as imperat., not as infin., דַּעָה) is evidently due to the influence of the ה which follows it in close connexion (so Strack, on the analogy of Jb 31); for other examples of this change of a to Seghol, see above, under d, § 73 d, and § 80 i. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether רַבֶּה Ju 9 (from רָבָה) is intended for רַבָּה, and not rather for the common form of the imperative Piʿēl רַבֵּה. In favour of the former explanation it may be urged that the imperative צֵ֫אָה (from יָצָא) follows immediately after; in favour of the latter, that the ending ־ָה, with imperatives of verbs ל״ה, is not found elsewhere, and also that here no guttural follows (as in Pr 24).
a 1. The use of the two tense-forms, as is shown more fully in the Syntax (§§ 106, 107, cf. above, § 47, note on a), is by no means restricted to the expression of the past or future. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses[30] is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect. Thus in 2 K 20, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death (perf.), and Isaiah... came (imperf.) to him, and said (imperf.) to him, &c. On the other hand, Is 7, the Lord shall bring (imperf.) upon thee... days, &c., 7, and it shall come to pass (perf. וְהָיָה) in that day...
b This progress in the sequence of time, is regularly indicated by a pregnant and (called wāw consecutive[31]), which in itself is really only a variety of the ordinary wāw copulative, but which sometimes (in the imperf.) appears with a different vocalization. Further, the tenses connected by wāw consecutive sometimes undergo a change in the tone and consequently are liable also to other variations.
c 2. The wāw consecutive of the imperfect is (a) pronounced with Pathaḥ and a Dageš forte in the next letter, as וַיִּקְטֹל and he killed; before א of the 1st pers. sing. (according to § 22 c) with Qameṣ, as וָֽאֶקְטֹל and I killed. Exceptions are, וַֽאֲכַסֵּךְ Ez 16 according to the Dikduke ha-ṭeamim, § 71; also וַֽאֲמֹתְתֵ֫הוּ 2 S 1 according to Qimḥi; but in Ju 6 וָֽאֲגָרֵשׁ should be read according to Baer, and וָֽאֲ׳ in both places in Ju 20. Dageš forte is always omitted in the preformative יְ, in accordance with § 20 m.
d (b) When a shortening of the imperfect form is possible (cf. § 48 g), it takes effect, as a rule (but cf. § 51 n), after wāw consec., e.g. in Hiphil וַיַּקְטֵל (§ 53 n). The tendency to retract the tone from the final syllable is even stronger after wāw consec. than in the jussive. The throwing back of the tone on to the penultima (conditional upon its being an open syllable with a long vowel, § 29 a), further involves the greatest possible shortening of the vowel of the ultima, since the vowel then comes to stand in a toneless closed syllable, e.g. יָקוּם, juss. יָקֹ֫ם, with wāw consec. וַיָּ֫קָם and he arose (§ 67 n and x, § 68 d, § 69 p, § 71, § 72 t and aa, § 73 e).[32]
e In the first pers. sing. alone the retraction of the tone and even the reducing of the long vowel in the final syllable (û to ō, î to ē, and then to ŏ and ĕ) are not usual,[33] at least according to the Masoretic punctuation, and the apocope in verbs ל״ה occurs more rarely; e.g. always וָֽאָקוּם (or וָֽאָקֻ֫ם, a merely orthographic difference) and I arose; Hiph. וָֽאָקִים (but generally written וָֽאָקִם, implying the pronunciation wāʾā́qem, as וָֽאָקֻם implies wāʾāqŏm); וָֽאֶרְאֶה and I saw, more frequently than וָאֵ֫רֶא, § 75 t. On the other hand, the form with final ־ָה is often used in the 1st pers. both sing. and plur., especially in the later books, e.g. וָֽאֶשְׁלְחָה and I sent, Gn 32, 41, 43, Nu 8 (וָֽאֶתְּנָה, as in Ju 6, 1 S 2, and often, probably a sort of compensation for the lost נ); Ju 6, 12, 2 S 22, ψ 3, 7, 90, 119, Jb 1 ff., 19, Ez 7, 8, 9, Neh 2, 5, 6, 13, &c.—Sometimes, as in ψ 3, with a certain emphasis of expression, and probably often, as in Ju 10, וָֽאוֹשִׁ֫יעָה before א, for euphonic reasons. In Is 8 וָֽאָעִ֫ידָה may have been originally intended; in ψ 73 וָֽאֲח׳ and in Jb 30 וָֽאֲי׳. In Ez 3 read וָאֹֽכְלֶהָ or וָאֹֽכְלָהּ.
f This ו· is in meaning a strengthened wāw copulative, and resembles in pronunciation the form which is retained in Arabic as the ordinary copula (wă).[34] The close connexion of this wă with the following consonant, caused the latter in Hebrew to take Dageš, especially as ă could not have been retained in an open syllable. Cf. בַּמָּה, כַּמָּה, לָ֫מָּה (for לַמָּה), where the prepositions בְּ and לְ, and the particle כְּ, are closely connected with מָה in the same way (§ 102 k).
g The retraction of the tone also occurs in such combinations, as in לָ֫מָּה (for לַמָּ֫ה § 102 l).—The identity of many consecutive forms with jussives of the same conjugation must not mislead us into supposing an intimate relation between the moods. In the consecutive forms the shortening of the vowel (and the retraction of the tone) seems rather to be occasioned solely by the strengthening of the preformative syllable, while in the jussives the shortening (and retraction) belongs to the character of the form.
h 3. The counterpart of wāw consecutive of the imperfect is wāw consecutive of the perfect, by means of which perfects are placed as the sequels in the future to preceding actions or events regarded as incomplete at the time of speaking, and therefore in the imperfect, imperative, or even participle. This wāw is in form an ordinary wāw copulative, and therefore shares its various vocalization (וְ, וּ, וָ, as 2 K 7, and וַ); e.g. וְהָיָה, after an imperfect, &c., and so it happens = and it will happen. It has, however, the effect, in certain verbal forms, of shifting the tone from the penultima, generally on to the ultima, e.g. הָלַ֫כְתִּי I went, consecutive form וְהָֽלַכְתִּ֫י and I will go, Ju 1, where it is co-ordinated with another perfect consecutive, which again is the consecutive to an imperative. See further on this usage in § 112.
i As innumerable examples show, the Qameṣ of the first syllable is retained in the strong perf. consec. Qal, as formerly before the tone, so now in the secondary tone, and therefore necessarily takes Metheg. On the other hand, the ō of the second syllable in verbs middle ō upon losing the tone necessarily becomes ŏ, e.g. וְיָֽכָלְתָּ֫ Ex 18.
k The shifting forward of the tone after the wāw consecutive of the perfect is, however, not consistently carried out. It is omitred—(a) always in the 1st pers. pl., e.g. וְיָשַ֫בְנוּ Gn 34; (b) regularly in Hiphʿil before the afformatives ־ָה and וּ, see § 53 r; and (c) in many cases in verbs ל״א and ל״ה, almost always in the 1st sing. of ל״א (Jer 29), and in ל״ה if the vowel of the 2nd syllable is î, Ex 17, 26 ff., Ju 6, &c., except In Qal (only Lv 24, before א) and the 2nd sing. masc. of Hiphʿil-forms before א, Nu 20, Dt 20, 1 S 15, 2 K 13; similarly in Piʿēl before א, Ex 25, Jer 27. On the other hand the tone is generally moved forward if the second syllable has ê (in ל״א Gn 27 &c., in ל״ה Ex 40, Jer 33, Ez 32); but cf. also וְיָרֵ֫אתָ Lv 19 and frequently, always before the counter-tone, Jo 4, ψ 19.[35] With ā in the penultima the form is וְנָשָׂ֫אתָ Is 14, and probably also וְקָרָ֫אתָ Jer 2, 3, 1 S 10 with little Tēlîšā, a postpositive accent.
l But before a following א the ultima mostly bears the tone on phonetic grounds, e.g. וּבָאתָ֫ אֶל־ Gn 6, Ex 3, Zc 6 (by the side of וּבָ֫אתָ), &c. (cf., however, וְקָרָ֫אתָ, before א, Gn 17, Jer 7, Ex 36); וְהִכִּיתָ֫ אֶת־ Ju 6, cf. Ex 25, Lv 24 (but also וְצִוִּ֫יתִי אֶת־ Lv 25). Likewise, before ה, Am 8, and ע, e.g. Gn 26, 27, Lv 26 (cf., however, וְקָרָ֫אתִי עָלָיו, Ez 38); on verbs ע״ע, see § 67 k and § ee.
m (d) The tone always keeps its place when such a perfect stands in pause, e.g. וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ Dt 6, 11; וְאָמָ֑רְתָּ Is 14, Ju 4; sometimes even in the lesser pause, as Dt 2, Ez 3, 1 S 29 (where see Driver), with Zaqeph qaṭon; and frequently also immediately before a tone-syllable (according to § 29 e), as in וְיָשַׁ֫בְתָּה בָּ֑הּ Dt 17, Ez 14, 17, Am 1—but also וְחָֽשַׁקְתָּ֫ בָ֔הּ Dt 21, 23. 24, 1 K 8.
a 1. Qal has both an active participle, called Pôʿēl from its form (פֹּעֵל), and a passive, Pāʿûl (פָּעוּל).[36]
Pāʿûl is generally regarded as a survival of a passive of Qal, which still exists throughout in Arabic, but has been lost in Hebrew (see, however, § 52 e), just as in Aramaic the passives of Piʿēl and Hiphʿîl are lost, except in the participles. But instances of the form quṭṭāl are better regarded as remnants of the passive participle Qal (see § 52 s), so that פָּעוּל must be considered as an original verbal noun; cf. Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 173 ff.
b 2. In the intransitive verbs mid. e and mid. o, the form of the participle active of Qal coincides in form with the 3rd sing. of the perfect, e.g. יָשֵׁן sleeping, from יָשֵׁן; יָגוֹר (only orthographically different from the perf. יָגֹר) fearing; cf. the formation of the participle in Niphʿal, § 51 a. On the other hand, the participle of verbs mid. a takes the form קֹטֵל (so even from the transitive שָׂנֵא to hate, part. שׂנֵא). The ô of these forms has arisen through an obscuring of the â, and is therefore unchangeable, cf. § 9 q. The form קָטָל (with a changeable Qameṣ in both syllables), which would correspond to the forms יָשֵׂן and יָגֹר, is only in use as a noun, cf. § 84a f. The formation of the participle in Piʿēl, Hiphʿîl, and Hîthpaʿēl follows a different method.
c 3. Participles form their feminine (קֹֽטְלָה or קֹטֶ֫לֶת) and their plural like other nouns (§ 80 e, § 84a r, s, § 94).
d Rem. 1. From the above it follows, that the ā of the form יָשֵׁן is lengthened from ă, and consequently changeable (e.g. fem. יְשֵׁנָה); and that the ô of קֹטֵל on the other hand is obscured from an unchangeable â.[37] In Arabic the verbal adjective of the form qătĭl corresponds to the form qāṭēl, and the part. qâtĭl to qôṭēl. In both cases, therefore, the ē of the second syllable is lengthened from ĭ, and is consequently changeable (e.g. קֹטֵל, plur. קֹֽטְלִים; כָּבֵד, constr. pl. כִּבְדֵי).
e תּוֹמִיךְ ψ 16, instead of the form qôṭēl, is an anomaly; it is possible, however, that תּוֹמֵיךְ (incorrectly written fully) is intended (cf. סֹבֵיב 2 K 8), or even the imperfect Hiphʿîl of יָמַךְ. The form יֹסִף in Is 29, 38 appears to stand for יֹסֵף, but most probably the Masora here (as certainly in יוֹסִיף Ec 1) intends the 3rd sing. imperf. Hiph., for which the better form would be יוֹסֵף; אוֹבִיל 1 Ch 27, being a proper name and a foreign word, need not be considered.—אֹבַד (constr. state of אֹבֵד), with ă in the second syllable, occurs in Dt 32 (cf. moreover, § 65 d). On ה֫וֹלֶם Is 41 (for הוֹלֵם), see § 29 f.
f 2. A form like the pass. ptcp. Pāʿŭl, but not to be confused with it, is sometimes found from intransitive verbs, to denote an inherent quality, e.g. אָמוּן faithful; אָנוּשׁ desperate, Jer 15, &c.; בָּטוּחַ trustful, Is 26, ψ 112; עָצוּם strong; שָׁכוּר drunken, Is 51; and even from transitive verbs, אָחוּז handling, Ct 3; זָכוּר mindful, ψ 103; יָדוּעָ knowing, Is 53; cf. § 84a m.
Verba Derivativa, or Derived Conjugations.
a 1. The essential characteristic of this conjugation consists in a prefix[39] to the stem. This exists in two forms: (a) the (probably original) prepositive nă, as in the Hebrew perfect and participle, although in the strong verb the ă is always attenuated to ĭ: נִקְטַל for original nă-qăṭăl, participle נִקְטָל, infinitive absolute sometimes נִקְטוֹל; (b) the (later) proclitic in (as in all the forms of the corresponding Arabic conjugation vii. ʾinqătălă), found in the imperfect יִקָּטֵל for yinqāṭēl, in the imperative and infinitive construct, with a secondary ה added, הִקָּטֵל (for hinqāṭēl), and in the infinitive absolute הִקָּטֹל The inflexion of Niphʿal is perfectly analogous to that of Qal.
b The features of Niphʿal are accordingly in the perfect and participle the prefixed Nûn, in the imperative, infinitive, and imperfect, the Dageš in the first radical. These characteristics hold good also for the weak verb. In the case of an initial guttural, which, according to § 22 b, cannot take Dageš forte, the emission of the strengthening invariably causes the lengthening of the preceding vowel (see § 63 h).
c 2. As regards its meaning, Niphʿal bears some resemblance to the Greek middle voice, in being—(a) primarily reflexive of Qal, e.g. נִלְחַץ to thrust oneself (against), נִשְׁמַר to take heed to oneself, φυλάσσεσθαι, נִסְתַּר to hide oneself, נִגְאַל to redeem oneself; cf. also נַֽעֲנֶה to answer for oneself. Equally characteristic of Niphʿal is its frequent use to express emotions which react upon the mind; נִחַם to trouble oneself, נֶֽאֱנַח to sigh (to bemoan oneself, cf. ὀδύρεσθαι, lamentari, contristari); as well as to express actions which the subject allows to happen to himself, or to have an effect upon himself (Niphʿal tolerativum), e.g. דָּרַשׁ to search, to inquire, Niph. to allow oneself to be inquired of, Is 65, Ez 14, &c.; so the Niph. of מָצָא to find, יָסַר to warn, to correct, Jer 6, 31, &c.
d (b) It expresses reciprocal or mutual action, e.g. דִּבֶּר to speak, Niph. to speak to one another; שָׁפַט to judge, Niph. to go to law with one another; יָעַץ to counsel, Niph. to take counsel, cf. the middle and deponent verbs βουλεύεσθαι (נוֹעַץ), μάξεσθαι (נְלְחַם), altercari, luctari (נִצָּה to strive with one another) proeliari.
e (c) It has also, like Hithpaʿēl (§ 54 f) and the Greek middle, the meaning of the active, with the addition of to oneself (sibi), for oneself, e.g. נִשְׁאַל to ask (something) for oneself (1 S 20, Neh 13), cf. αἰτοῦμαί σε τοῦτο, ἐνδύσασθαι χιτῶνα to put out on (oneself) a tunic.
f (d) In consequence of a looseness of thought at an early period of the language, Niphʿal comes finally in many cases to represent the passive[40] of Qal, e.g. יָלַד to bear, Niph. to be born; קָבַר to bury, Niph. to be buried. In cases where Qal is intransitive in meaning, or is not used, Niphʿal appears also as the passive of Piʿēl and Hiphʿîl, e.g. כָּבֵד to be in honour, Piʿēl to honour, Niph. to be honoured (as well as Puʿal כֻּבַּד); כָּחַד Piʿēl to conceal, Hiph. to destroy, Niph. passive of either. In such cases Niphʿal may again coincide in meaning with Qal (חָלָה Qal and Niph. to be ill) and even take an accusative.
g Examples of denominatives are, נִזְכַּר to be born a male, Ex 34 (from זָכָר; but probably הַזָּכָר should here be read); נִלְבַּב cordatum fieri, Jb 11 (from לֵבָב cor); doubtless also נִבְנָה to obtain children, Gn 16, 30.
h The older grammarians were decidedly wrong in representing Niphʿal simply as the passive of Qal; for Niphʿal has (as the frequent use of its imperat. shows), in no respect the character of the other passives, and in Arabic a special conjugation (ʾinqătălă) corresponds to it with a passive of its own. Moreover, the forms mentioned in § 52 e point to a differently formed passive of Qal.—The form נְגֹֽאֲלוּ Is 59, La 4, is not to be regarded as a passive of Niphʿal, but with König and Cheyne as a forma mixta, in the sense that the punctuators intended to combine two optional readings, נִגְאֲלוּ, perf. Niph., and גֹּֽאֲלוּ, perf. Puʿal [cf. also Wright, Compar. Gramm., p. 224]. Although the passive use of Niphʿal was introduced at an early period, and became tolerably common, it is nevertheless quite secondary to the reflexive use.
i Rem. 1 The infin. absol. נִקְטוֹל is connected in form with the perfect, to which it bears the same relation as קָטוֹל to קָטַל in Qal, the ô in the second syllable being obscured from an original â. Examples are, נִכְסֹף Gn 31; נִלְחֹם Ju 11; נִשְׁאֹל 1 S 20, all in connexion with the perfect.
k Examples of the form הִקָּטֹל (in connexion with imperfects) are, הִנָּתֹן Jer 32; הֵֽאָכֹל Lv 7; once אִדָּרֹשׁ Ez 14, where, perhaps, the subsequent אִדָּרֵשׁ has led to the substitution of א for ה.—Moreover, the form הִקָּטֵל is not infrequently used also for the infin. absol.,[41] e.g. Ex 22, Nu 15, Dt 4, 1 K 20. On the other hand, כְּהִנָּדֵף should simply be read for the wholly abnormal כְּהִנְדֹּף, ψ 68 (commonly explained as being intended to correspond in sound with the subsequent תִּנְדֹּף but probably a ‘forma mixta’, combining the readings כְּהִנָּדֵף and כִּנְדֹף).
l Elision of the ה after prepositions is required by the Masora in בִּכָּֽשְׁלוֹ Pr 24 (for בְּהִכָּ׳), בֵּֽהָרֵג Ez 26 and בֵּֽעָטֵף La 2; also in verbs ל״ה Ex 10 (לֵֽעָנוֹת); 34, Dt 31, Is 1 (לֵֽרָאוֹת); in verbs ע״וּ Jb 33 (לֵאוֹר). It is, however, extremely doubtful whether the infin. Qal of the Kethîbh is not rather intended in all these examples; it certainly is so in La 2, cf. ψ 61.
m 2. Instead of the Ṣere in the ultima of the imperfect, Pathaḥ often occurs in pause, e.g. וַיִּגָּמַֽל Gn 21; cf. Ex 31, 2 S 12 (with final שׁ); 17 (with ק); Jon 1 (with מ); see § 29 q. In the 2nd and 3rd plur. fem. Pathaḥ predominates, e.g. תִּזָּכַ֫רְנָה Is 65; Ṣere occurs only in תֵּֽעָגֵ֫נָה Ru 1, from עגן, and hence, with loss of the doubling, for תֵּֽעָגֵ֫נָּה; cf. even תֵּֽאָמַֽנָה Is 60.—With Nûn paragogicum (see § 47 m) in the 2nd and 3rd plur. masc. are found, יִלָּֽכְדוּן, תִּלָּֽחֲמוּן, &c., in pause יִבָּֽהֵלוּן, תִּשָּֽׁמֵדוּן, &c.; but Jb 19 (cf. 24) יֵחָֽצְבֽוּן.
n 3. When the imperfect, the infinitive (in ē), or the imperative is followed in close connexion by a monosyllable, or by a word with the gone on the first syllable, the tone is, as a rule (but cf. וַיֵּאָֽבֵק אִישׁ Gn 32), shifted back from the ultima to the penultima, while the ultima, which thus loses the tone, takes Seghôl instead of Ṣere; e.g. יִכָּ֫שֶׁל בָּהּ Ez 33; וַיֵּעָ֫תֶר לוֹ Gn 25; in the imperative, 13.—So always הִשָּׁ֫מֶר לְךָ (since לְךָ counts as one syllable) Gn 24, &c., cf. 1 S 19; and even with Pathaḥ in the ultima, תֵּעָ֫זַב אָ֑רֶץ Jb 18 (but cf. וַיֵּעָֽתֵ֫ר אֱלֹהִים 2 S 21). Although in isolated cases (e.g. Gn 32, Ezr 8) the tone is not thrown back, in spite of a tone-syllable following, the retraction has become usual in certain forms, even when the next word begins with a toneless syllable; especially after ו consec., e.g. וַיִּשָּׁ֫אֶר Gn 7; וַיִּלָּ֫חֶם Nu 21 and frequently, וַיִּצָּ֫מֶד 25; and always so in the imperative הִשָּׁ֫מֶר Ex 23, Jb 36, and (before Metheg of the counter-tone) Dt 24, 2 K 6. On the avoidance of pausal-forms in the imperative (Am 2 with Silluq, Zc 2 with Athnaḥ), and imperfect (Pr 24, &c.), see § 29 o, and note; on the other hand, always הִמָּלֵט, יִמָּלֵט, &c.
o In the imperative, נִקְבְּצוּ, for הִקָּֽבְצוּ, with the rejection of the initial ה, occurs in Is 43, and in Joel 4 in pause נִקְבָּ֑צוּ (cf. נִלְווּ Jer 50); but in these examples either the reading or the explanation is doubtful. The 2nd sing. imperat. of נִשְׁבַּע is always (with ־ָה paragogicum) הִשָּׁ֫בְעָה לִּי swear to me, Gn 21, &c. (also הִשָּֽׁבְעָה לִי Gn 47, 1 S 30).
p 4. For the 1st sing. of the imperfect, the form אִקָּטֵל is as frequent as אֶקָּטֵל, e.g. אִדָּרֵשׁ I shall be inquired of, Ez 14; אִשָּׁבֵעַ I will swear, Gn 21; cf. 16, Nu 23, Ez 20, and so always in the cohortative, e.g. אִנָּֽקְמָה I will avenge me, Is 1; cf. 1 S 12, Ez 26, and in the impf. Niph. of פ״ו (§ 69 t). The Babylonian punctuation admits only ĭ under the preformative of the 1st person.
a 1. The characteristic of this conjugation consists in the strengthening of the middle radical. From the simple stem qaṭal (cf. § 43 b) the form קַטַּל (cf. the Arabic conj. ii. qăttălă) would naturally follow as the perfect of the active (Piʿ̄l). The Pathaḥ of the first syllable is, however, with one exception (see m), always attenuated to ĭ in the perfect. In the second syllable, ă has been retained in the majority of cases, so that the conjugation should more correctly be called Piʿal; but very frequently[42] this ă also is attenuated to ĭ, which is then regularly lengthened to ē, under the influence of the tone. Cf. in Aram. קַטֵּל; but in Biblical Aramaic almost always קַטִּל. On the three cases in which ă before a final ר or ס has passed into Seghôl, see below, l.—Hence, for the 3rd sing. masc. perfect, there arise forms like אִבַּד, לִמַּד, קִדַּשׁ; גִּדֵּף, כִּבֵּד, &c.—Before afformatives beginning with a consonant, however, ă is always retained, thus קִטַּ֫לְתָּ, קִטַּלְתֶּם, קִטַּ֫לְנוּ, &c. In the infinitives (absol. קַטֹּל, obscured from qaṭṭâl; constr. קַטֵּל), imperfect (יְקַטֵּל), imperative (קַטֵּל), and participle (מְקַטֵּל) the original ă of the first syllable reappears throughout. The vocal Šewâ of the preformatives is weakened from a short vowel; cf. the Arabic imperfect yŭqăttĭl, participle mŭqăttĭl.
b The passive (Puʿal) is distinguished by the obscure vowel ŭ, or very rarely ŏ, in the first syllable, and ŏ (in pause ā) always in the second. In Arabic, also, the passives are formed throughout with ŭ in the first syllable. The inflexion of both these conjugations is analogous to that of Qal.
c Rem. 1. The preformative מְ, which in the remaining conjugations also is the prefix of the participle, is probably connected with the interrogative or indefinite (cf. § 37) pronoun מִי quis? quicunque (fem. i.e. neuter, מָה); cf. § 85 e.
d 2. The Dageš forte, which according to the above is characteristic of the whole of Piʿēl and Puʿal, is often omitted (independently of verbs middle guttural, § 64 d) when the middle radical has Šewâ under it (cf. § 20 m), e.g. שִׁלְחָה for שִׁלְּחָה Ez 17; בִּקְשֻׁ֫הוּ 2 Ch 15 (but in the imperative always בַּקְּשׁוּ 1 S 28, &c.), and so always in הַלְלוּ praise. The vocal character of the Šewâ under the litera dagessanda is sometimes in such cases (according to § 10 h) expressly emphasized by its taking the form of a Ḥaṭeph, as in לֻֽקֳחָה Gn 2, with ־ֳ owing to the influence of the preceding u, cf. פָּֽעֳלוֹ for פָּעְלוֹ, &c.; Gn 9, Ju 16. In the imperfect and participle the Šewâ under the preformatives (Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ under א in the 1st sing. imperfect) serves at the same time as a characteristic of both conjugations (Gn 26 f.).
e 3. According to the convincing suggestion of Böttcher[43] (Ausführliches Lehrbuch, § 904 ff. and § 1022), many supposed perfects of Puʿal are in reality passives of Qal. He reckons as such all those perfects, of which the Piʿēl (which ought to express the corresponding active) is either not found at all, or only (as in the case of יִלֵּד) with a different meaning, and which form their imperfect from another conjugation, generally Niphʿal. Such perfects are the quṭṭal form of the stems אבל (imperfect תְּאֻבְּלוּ Is 1), חפשׁ, טרף, ילד, יצר, לקח, עבד, שׁגל, שׁטף, שׁפךְ. Barth (see below) adds to the list the apparent Puʿal-perfects of אסר, בזז, זנה, חצב, כרת, נפח, עזב, עשה, ראה, and of verbs with middle ר (hence with ŭ of the first syllable lengthened to ō), הרג, הרה Jb 3 [זרה, see § 67 m], זרע, זרק, טרף, מרט, קרא, שׂרף; also the infinitives absolute הֹרוֹ וְהֹגוֹ Is 59. In these cases there is no need to assume any error on the part of the punctuators; the sharpening of the second radical may have taken place in order to retain the characteristic ŭ of the first syllable (cf. Arab. qŭtĭlă as passive of qătălă), and the a of the second syllable is in accordance with the vocalization of all the other passives (see § 39 f). Cf. § 52 s and § 53 u.
f 2. The fundamental idea of Piʿēl, to which all the various shades of meaning in this conjugation may be referred, is to busy oneself eagerly with the action indicated by the stem. This intensifying of the idea of the stem, which is outwardly expressed by the strengthening of the second radical, appears in individual cases as—(a) a strengthening and repetition of the action (cf. the intensive and iterative nouns with the middle radical strengthened, § 84b),[44] e.g. צָחַק to laugh, Piʿēl to jest, to make sport (to laugh repeatedly); שָׁאַל to ask, Piʿēl to beg; hence when an action has reference to many, e.g. קָבַר to bury (a person) Gn 23, Piʿēl to bury (many) 1 K 11, and often so in Syr. and Arab. Other varieties of the intensive and iterative meaning are, e.g. פָּתַח to open, Piʿēl to loose; סָפַר to count, Piʿēl to recount: [cf. כִּתֵּב, חִשֵּׁב, הִלֵּךְ, רִפֵּא, חִפֵּשׂ, תִּפֵּשׂ; מְאַהֵב, מְרַצֵּחַ].
g The eager pursuit of an action may also consist in urging and causing others to do the same. Hence Piʿēl has also—(b) a causative sense (like Hiphʿîl), e.g. לָמַד to learn, Piʿēl to teach. It may often be turned by such phrases as to permit to, to declare or hold as (the declarative Piʿēl), to help to, e.g. חִיָּה to cause to live, צִדֵּק to declare innocent, יִלֵּד to help in child-bearing.
h (c) Denominatives (see § 38 b) are frequently formed in this conjugation, and generally express a being occupied with the object expressed by the noun, either to form or to make use of it, e.g. קִנֵּן to make a nest, to nest (from קֵן), עִפֵּר to throw dust, to dust (from עָפָר), עִנֵּן to gather the clouds together (from עָנָן), שִׁלֵּשׁ to divide in three parts, or to do a thing for the third time (from שָׁלשׁ); probably also דִּבֶּר to speak, from דָּבָר a word. Or again, the denominative may express taking away, injuring, &c., the object denoted by the noun (privative Piʿēl, cf. our to skin, to behead, to bone), e.g. שֵׁרֵשׁ, from שֹׁ֫רֶשׁ to root out, to extirpate, זִנֵּב prop. to injure the tail (זָנָב), hence to rout the rear of an army, to attack it; לִבֵּב to ravish the heart; דִּשֵּׁן to remove the ashes (דֶּ֫שֶׁן), חִטֵּא to free from sin (חֵטְא), עִצֵּם to break any one’s bones (עֶ֫צֶם; cf., in the same sense, גֵּרֵם from גֶּ֫רֶם); סֵעֵף to lop the boughs, Is 10 (from סְעִיף a bough). Some words are clearly denominatives, although the noun from which they are derived is no longer found, e.g. סִקֵּל to stone, to pelt with stones (also used in this sense in Qal), and to remove stones (from a field), to clear away stones; cf. our to stone, used also in the sense of taking out the stones from fruit.
The meaning of the passive (Puʿal) follows naturally from the above, e.g. בִּקֵּשׁ Piʿēl to seek, Puʿal to be sought.
i In Piʿēl the literal, concrete meaning of the verb has sometimes been retained, when Qal has acquired a figurative sense, e.g. גָּלָה, Piʿēl to uncover, Qal to reveal, also to emigrate, i.e. to make the land bare.
k Also with an intransitive sense Piʿēl occurs as an intensive form, but only in poetic language, e.g. חתת in Piʿēl to be broken in pieces, Jer 51; פִּחַד to tremble, Is 51, Pr 28; רִוָּה to be drunken, Is 34; [מִעֵט to be few, Ec 12]; but in Is 48, 60 instead of the Piʿēl of פתח the Niphʿal is certainly to be read, with Cheyne.
l Rem. 1. The (more frequent) form of the perfect with Pathaḥ in the second syllable appears especially before Maqqeph (Ec 9, 12) and in the middle of sentences in continuous discourse, but at the end of the sentence (in pause) the form with Ṣere is more common. Cf. גִּדֵּל Is 49 with גִּדַּל Jos 4, Est 3; מִלֵּט Ez 33 with מִלַּט Ec 9; קִצַּץ 2 K 8 with קִצֵּץ ψ 129; but Qameṣ never appears in this pausal form. The 3rd sing. fem. in pause is always of the form קִטֵּ֫לָה, except קִבָּ֫צָה Mi 1; the 3rd plur. always as קִטֵּ֫לוּ; the 2nd and 1st sing. and 1st plur. of course as קִטָּ֫לְתָּ, קִטָּ֫לְתְּ, קִטָּ֫לְתִּי (but always דִּבַּֽרְתִּי and לִמַּ֫דְתִּי), קִטָּ֫לְנוּ. In the 3rd sing. perf. דִּבֶּר to speak, כִּפֶּר to pardon, and כִּבֶּס to wash clothes (also כִבֵּס Gn 49) take Seghôl, but become in pause דִּבֵּר, כִּבֵּס (2 S 19); the pausal form of כִּפֶּר does not occur.
m Pathaḥ in the first syllable (as in Aramaic and Arabic) occurs only once, Gn 41, נַ֫שַּׁנִי he made me forget, to emphasize more clearly the play on the name מְנַשֶּׁה.
n 2. In the imperfect (and jussive Ju 16), infinitive, and imperative Piʿēl (as also in Hithpaʿēl) the Ṣere in the final syllable, when followed by Maqqeph, is usually shortened into Seghôl, e.g. יְבַקֶּשׁ־לוֹ he seeks for himself, Is 40; קַדֶּשׁ־לִי sanctify unto me, Ex 13. Pausal-forms with Seghôl instead of Ṣere, as יְרַחֶף Dt 32, אֲרַחֶם Ho 2 (cf. Ex 32 in the infinitive, and Gn 21 in the participle), owe their origin to some particular school of Masoretes, and are wrongly accepted by Baer; cf. the analogous cases in § 75 n and hh. If the final syllable of the imperfect Piʿēl has Pathaḥ (before a guttural or ר), it remains
- ↑ An original form han, proposed by Ungnad, ‘Der hebr. Art.,’ in OLZ. x (1907), col. 210 f., and ZDMG. 1908, p. 80 ff., is open to grave objections.
- ↑ In the Liḥyanitic inscriptions collected by Euting (ed. by D. H. Müller in Epigraphische Denkmäler aus Arabien, Wien, 1889) the article is ה, and also in a North Arabian dialect, according to E. Littmann, Safa-inschriften, p. 2, Rem., and p. 34.
- ↑ The full form אשר does not occur in Phoenician, but only אש (=אֲשֶּׁ?), pronounced asse, esse (also as, es, is, ys, us), or—especially in the later Punic and in the Poenulus of Plautus—ש (sa, si, sy, su). Also in New Hebrew שֶּׁ has become the common form. Cf. Schröder, Phön. Sprache, p. 162 ff. and below, § 155; also Bergsträsser, ‘Das hebr. Präfix ש,’ in ZAW. 1909, p. 40 ff.
- ↑ Cf. W. J. Gerber, Die hebr. Verbs denom., insbes. im theol. Sprachgebr. des A.T., Lpz. 1896.
- ↑ For the sake of brevity, however, the meaning in Hebrew-English Lexicons is usually given in the Infinitive, e.g. לָמַד to learn, properly he has learnt.
- ↑ The term Conjugation thus has an entirely different meaning in Hebrew and Greek or Latin grammar.
- ↑ This paradigm was borrowed from the Arabic grammarians, and, according to Bacher, probably first adopted throughout by Abulwalîd. It was, however, unsuitable on account of the guttural, and was, therefore, usually exchanged in later times for פָּקַד, after the example of Moses Qimḥi. This verb has the advantage, that all its conjugations are actually found in the Old Testament. On the other hand, it has the disadvantage of indistinctness in the pronunciation of some of its forms, e.g. פָּקַדְתָּ, פְּקַדְתֶּם. The paradigm of קָטַל, commonly used since the time of Danz, avoids this defect, and is especially adapted for the comparative treatment of the Semitic dialects, inasmuch as it is found with slight change (Arab. and Ethiop. קתל) in all of them. It is true that in Hebrew it occurs only three times in Qal, and even then only in poetic style (ψ 139, Jb 13, 24); yet it is worth retaining as a model which has been sanctioned by usage. More serious is the defect, that a number of forms of the paradigm of קטל leave the beginner in doubt as to whether or not there should be a Dageš in the Begadkephath letters, and consequently as to the correct division of the syllables.
- ↑ But cf. such instances as Jer 48. In Arabic also, transitive verbs are found with middle ĭ, corresponding to Hebrew verbs with ē in the second syllable. Hence P. Haupt (Proc. Amer. Or. Soc., 1894, p. ci f.) prefers to distinguish them as verba voluntaria (actions which depend on the will of the subject) and involuntaria (actions or states independent of the will of the subject).
- ↑ Cf. Nöldeke, ‘Die Endungen des Perfects’ (Untersuchungen zur semit. Gramm. ii.), in ZDMG. vol. 38, p. 407 ff., and more fully in Beiträge zur sem. Sprachwiss., Strassb. 1904, p. 15 ff.
- ↑ According to Nöldeke, l.c., p. 419, the original Semitic termination of the 1st sing. Perf. was most probably kû; cf. the Ethiopic qatalku, Arabic qataltu.
- ↑ Many of these forms, which are uncommon in Hebrew, are usual in the other Semitic dialects, and may, therefore, be called Aramaisms (Syriasms) or Arabisms. They must not, however, be regarded as cases of borrowing, but as a return to original forms.
- ↑ Where the Masora apparently regards the תִּי as the termination of the 2nd sing. fem., e.g. in Jer 2 (twice), Mi 4, it has rather taken the form as 1st pers. sing. (cf. Stade, Gramm., p. 253); so in Ju 5, where קַ֫מְתִּי, on account of verse 12, must either have originally been intended as 2nd sing. fem., or is due to an erroneous pronunciation of the form קמת as קַ֫מְתִּ instead of 3rd sing. fem. קָ֫מַת (as LXX).
- ↑ That these examples can hardly be referred to a primitive Semitic ending ûn in the 3rd plur. Perf., has been shown by Nöldeke in ZDMG. vol. 38, p. 409 ff.; cf. also ZDMG. vol. 32, p. 757 f., where G. Hoffmann proves that the terminations in Nûn of the 3rd plur. in Aramaic, formerly adduced by us, are secondary forms. [See also Driver, Heb. Tenses3, p. 6 note.]
- ↑ Cf. the analogous forms of the noun, § 93 t.
- ↑ The terms absolute and construct are of course not to be understood as implying that the Infin. constr. קְטֹל forms the construct state (see § 89) of the Infin. absol. (קָטוֹל ground-form qăṭâl). In the Paradigms the Inf. constr., as the principal form, is placed before the other, under the name of Infinitive simply.
- ↑ According to the remark of Elias Levita on Qimḥi’s Mikhlol, ed. Rittenb., 14 a, these feminine forms occur almost exclusively in connexion with the preposition לְ.
- ↑ The Infin. absol., like the Greek Infin., is also sometimes used for the Imperative (§ 113 bb). Cf. in general, Koch, Der semitische Inf. (Schaffhausen, 1874).
- ↑ In Hophʿal an Imperative is found only twice (Ez 32, Jer. 49), and closely approximating in meaning to the reflexive.
- ↑ On the use of the Semitic Perfect and Imperfect cf. 106 ff. and the literature cited in § 106. For our present purpose the following account will suffice :—The name Imperfect is here used in direct contrast to the Perfect, and is to be taken in a wider sense than in Latin and Greek grammar. The Hebrew (Semitic) Perf. denotes in general that which is concluded, completed, and past, that which has happened and has come into effect; but at the same time, also that which is represented as accomplished, even though it be continued into present time or even be actually still future. The Imperf. denotes, on the other hand, the beginning, the unfinished, and the continuing, that which is just happening, which is conceived as in process of coming to pass, and hence, also, that which is yet future; likewise also that which occurs repeatedly or in a continuous sequence in the past (Latin Imperf.). It follows from the above that the once common designation of the Imperf. as a Future emphasizes only one side of its meaning. In fact, the use of Indo-Germanic tense-names for the Semitic tenses, which was adopted by the Syrians under the influence of the Greek grammarians, and after their example by the Arabs, and finally by Jewish scholars, has involved many misconceptions. The Indo-Germanic scheme of three periods of time (past, present, and future) is entirely foreign to the Semitic tense-idea, which regards an occurrence only from the point of view of Completed or incomplete action.—In the formation of the two tenses the chief distinction is that in the Perfect the verbal stem precedes and the indication of the person is added afterwards for precision, while in the Imperf. the subject, from which the action proceeds or about which a condition is predicated, is expressed by a prefixed pronoun.
- ↑ Cf. § 24 e. In favour of the above view of Qimḥi may be urged the phonetic orthography אִשׁ (in Pr 18 אִישׁ), 2 S 14 (unless, with Perles, אָשֻׁב is to be read), Mi 6, for יֵשׁ, and אִישַׁי 1 Ch 2 for יִשַׁי (as verse 12). Also הַֽאֶזְכֶּה Mi 6 is probably for הַֽאִזְ׳ = הֲיִזְ׳, אפקד Is 10 for אנחמך ;יִטְקֹד Is 51 for יְנַֽחֲמֵךְ; and conversely יששכר is for אשש׳=אִישׁ שָׂכָר. Similarly, ישוי 1 S 14 is probably for אִשְׁיוֹ or אִשְׁיָה; in 2 S 23 ישׁב בשבת is, according to the LXX, an error for ישבשת=אִשְׁבּ֫שֶׁת. In Assyrian also the simple i corresponds to the Hebrew י as the preformative of the Impf. Qal.
- ↑ This is also the proper gender of the plural syllable û, ûn. In Hebrew, indeed, it is used in the 3rd plur. Perfect for both genders, but in the kindred languages even there only for the masculine, e.g. in Syriac qeṭálû, qeṭálûn, with the feminine form qeṭálên, in Western Aram. qeṭálû, fem. qeṭálā; in Arab. qătălû, fem. qătálnă, Eth. qătălû, qătălâ.
- ↑ This ă is, however, by no means restricted to intransitive strong verbs; apart from verbs third guttural (§ 65 b), it is to be found in פ״ן and ע״ע, and in many verbs פ״א and פ״י (§§ 69–71).
- ↑ Cf. Barth, ‘Das ĭ-Imperfekt im Nordsemitischen,’ ZDMG. 1889, p. 177 ff.
- ↑ [See details in F. Böttcher, Lehrb., § 930; and cf. Driver on 1 S 2.]
- ↑ It is to be observed that the Chronicles often omit the Nûn, where it is found in the parallel passage in the Books of Kings; cf. 1 K 8 with 2 Ch 6; 1 K 12, 2 K 11 with 2 Ch 11, 23.
- ↑ The perfect has only one form, since it cannot be used, like the imperfect, to express mood-relations (see § 106 p).
- ↑ Probably this ā goes back to the syllable an, which in Arabic (see above, Rem. to b) is used for the formation of the ‘energetic’ mood, and in Hebrew (see the footnote to § 58 i) often stands before suffixes.
- ↑ Only in 1st plur. do we find a few shortened forms, as נַשְׁאֵר 1 S 14, parallel with cohortatives; and נֵ֫רֶא Is 41 Keth.
- ↑ On the reading שָֽׁמְרָה (i.e. šāmera, according to the Jewish grammarians), required by the Masora in ψ 86, 119 (cf. also Is 38, and שָֽׁמְרֵנִי ψ 16), see § 9 v; on מלוכה, Ju 9 Keth., see § 46 e.
- ↑ The other Semitic languages do not exhibit this peculiarity, excepting the Phoenician, the most closely related to Hebrew, and of course the Moabitish dialect of the Mêšaʿ inscription, which is practically identical with Old Hebrew. It also appears in the inscription of זכר of Hamāth (cf. Nöldeke, ZA. 1908, p. 379) where we find ואשּׂא ידי and I lifted up my hand, ויענני and he answered me, after a perfect of narration.
- ↑ This name best expresses the prevailing syntactical relation, for by wāw consecutive an action is always represented as the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action. Moreover, it is clear from the above examples, that the wāw consecutive can only be thus used in immediate conjunction with the verb. As soon as wāw, owing to an insertion (e.g. a negative), is separated from the verb, the imperfect follows instead of the perfect consecutive, the perfect instead of the imperfect consecutive. The fact that whole Books (Lev., Num., Josh., Jud., Sam., 2 Kings, Ezek., Ruth, Esth., Neh., 2 Chron.) begin with the imperfect consecutive, and others (Exod., 1 Kings, Ezra) with wāw copulative, is taken as a sign of their close connexion with the historical Books now or originally preceding them. Cf., on the other hand, the independent beginning of Job and Daniel. It is a merely superficial description to call the wāw consecutive by the old-fashioned name wāw conversive, on the ground that it always converts the meaning of the respective tenses into its opposite, i.e. according to the old view, the future into the preterite, and vice versa.
- ↑ The plural forms in וּן also occur less frequently after wāw consecutive; cf., however, וַיְרִיבוּן Ju 8, 11, Am 6, Ez 44, Dt 4, 5. The 2nd fem. sing. in ־ִין never occurs after wāw consecutive.
- ↑ In the 1st plur. וַנַּֽעֲמִיד) Neh 4 is the only instance in which the vowel remains unreduced (cf. ונשׁוב, i.e. וַנָּשׁוּב, 4 Keth.; Qerê וַנָּ֫שָׁב). On the treatment of the tone in the imperfect, imperative, and infinitive Niphʿal, see § 51 n.
- ↑ In usage the Hebrew wāw does duty for the Arabic fă (wāw apodosis, see § 143 d) as well as wă.
- ↑ The irregularity in the tone of these perfects manifestly results from following conflicting theories, not that of Ben Asher alone.
- ↑ The constr. st. נְאֻם in the formula נאם יהוה, the word (properly the whispering) of the Lord, &c., is always written defectively.
- ↑ Cf. Vollers, ‘Das Qâtil-partizipium,’ in ZA. 1903, p. 312 ff.
- ↑ Cf. A. Rieder, De linguae Hebr. verbis, quae vocantur derivata nifal et hitpael, Gumbinnen (Progr. des Gymn.), 1884, a list of all the strong Niphʿal forms (81) and Hithpaʿēl forms (36) in the Old Testament; and especially M. Lambert, ‘L’emploi du Nifal en Hébreu,’ REJ. 41, 196 ff.
- ↑ See Philippi in ZDMG. 1886, p. 650, and Barth, ibid. 1894, p. 8 f.
- ↑ Cf. Halfmann, Beiträge zur Syntax der hebräischen Sprache, I. Stück, Wittenb., 1888, 2. St. 1892 (Gymn.-Programm), statistics of the Niphʿal (Puʿal, Hophʿal, and qāṭûl) forms at different periods of the language, for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of Niph. and its relation to the passive; the selection of periods is, however, very questionable from the standpoint of literary criticism.
- ↑ But, like הִקָּטֹל, only in connexion with imperfects, except Jer 7. Barth is therefore right in describing (Nominalbildung, p. 74) both forms as later analogous formations (in addition to the original Semitic נִקְטוֹל), intended to assimilate the infinitive to the imperfect which it strengthens.
- ↑ So in all verbs which end in Nûn, and in almost all which end in Lamed (Olsh. p. 538). Barth is probably right in supposing (ZDMG. 1894, p. 1 ff.) that the vowels of the strengthened perfects have been influenced by the imperfect.
- ↑ As Mayer Lambert observes, the same view was already expressed by Ibn Ǵanâḥ (see above, § 3 d) in the Kitāb el-lumaʿ, p. 161. Cf. especially Barth, ‘Das passive Qal und seine Participien,’ in the Festschrift zum Jubiläum Hildesheimer (Berlin, 1890), p. 145 ff.
- ↑ Analogous examples, in which the strengthening of a letter has likewise an intensive force, are such German words as reichen, recken (Eng. to reach, to rack); streichen (stringo), strecken: cf. Strich (a stroke), Strecke (a stretch); wacker from wachen; others, in which it has the causative sense, are stechen, stecken; wachen (watch), wecken (wake); τέλλω to bring to an end (cf. the stem τέλω to end, in τέλος, τελέω); γεννάω to beget, from the stem γένω to come into being (cf. γένος).