User:Ubufox/5
even in pause; cf. § 29 s and 65 e. In the 1st sing. imperfect the e-sound occurs in two words for Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ, under the preformative א; אֱזָרֶה Lv 26, Ez 5, 12 and וְאֵסָ֣עֲרֵם Zc 7 (in accordance with § 23 h).—Before the full plural ending וּן (see § 47 m) the Ṣere is retained in pause, e.g. תְּדַבֵּר֑וּן ψ 58 (but Gn 32 תְּדַבְּר֣וּן), cf. 2 K 6, Dt 12; so before Silluq ψ 58, Jb 21 and even before Zaqeph qaṭon Dt 7. Instead of תְּקַטֵּ֫לְנָה, forms like תְּקַטַּ֫לְנָה are also found, e.g. Is 3, 13, in both cases before a sibilant and in pause. Also פַּלַּג ψ 55 occurs as the 2nd sing. imperative (probably an intentional imitation of the sound of the preceding בַּלַּע) and קָרַב (for qarrabh) Ez 37.
o 3. The infinite absolute of Piʿēl has sometimes the special form קַטֹּל given in the paradigm, e.g. יַסֹּר castigando, ψ 118; cf. Ex 21, 1 K 19 (from a verb ל״א); ψ 40 (from a verb ל״ה); but much more frequently the form of the infinitive construct (קַטֵּל) is used instead. The latter has also, in exceptional cases, the form קִטֵּל (with ă attenuated to ĭ as in the perfect), e.g. in 1 Ch 8 שִׁלְחוֹ; perhaps also (if not a substantive) קִטֵּר Jer 44; and for the sake of assonance even for infinitive absolute in 2 S 12 (נִאֵץ נִאַ֫צְתָּ). On the other hand, שִׁלֵּם Dt 32 and דִּבֵּר Jer 5 are better regarded as substantives, while דִּבֶּר Ex 6, Nu 3, Dt 4 (in each case after בְּיוֹם), Ho 1 (after תְּחִלַּת), in all of which places it is considered by König (after Qimḥi) to be infinitive construct, is really perfect of Piʿēl.
p The infinitive construct Piʿēl, with the fem. ending (cf. § 45 d), occurs in יַסְּרָה Lv 26; זַמְּרָה ψ 147; with ת of the fem. before a suffix צַדֶּקְתֵּךְ Ez 16. On the verbal nouns after the form of the Aram. inf. Pa‛il (קַטָּלָה), see § 84b e.
Instead of the abnormal מְאָֽסְפָיו (so Baer, Is 62) as ptcp. Pi‛el, read מְאַסְ׳ with ed. Mant. and Ginsburg.
q 4. In Puʿal ŏ is sometimes found instead of ŭ in the initial syllable, e.g. מְאָדָּם dyed red, Ex 25, &c., Na 2, cf. 3 שָׁדְּדָה; Ez 16, ψ 72, 80. According to Baer’s reading also in תְּרָצְּחוּ ψ 62, and so also Ben Ašer, but Ben Naphtali תְּרַצְּחוּ. It is merely an orthographic licence when ŭ is written fully, e.g. יוּלַּד Ju 18.
r 5. As infinitive absolute, of Puʿal we find גֻּנֹּב Gn 40.—No instance of the inf. constr. occurs in the strong verb in Puʿal; from ל״ה with suffix עֻנּוֹתוֹ ψ 132.
6. A few examples occur of the participle Puʿal without the preformative (מְ), e.g. אֻכָּל Ex 3; יוּלָּד (for מְיֻלָּד) Ju 13; לֻקָּח 2 K 2; סֹעֲרָה Is 54. These participles are distinguished from the perfect (as in Niphʿal) by the ā of the final syllable. For other examples, see Is 30, Ec 9 (where יוּקָשִׁים, according to § 20 n, stands for יֻקָּ׳ = מְיֻקָּ׳); but, according to the Masora, not Ez 26, since הַֽהֻלָּ֫לָה as Mil‛êl can only be the perfect. The rejection of the מְ may be favoured by an initial מ, as in Is 18 (but also מְמֻשָּׁךְ); Pr 25 (where, however, read מוֹעֶ֫דֶת); so also in the participle Piʿēl מָאֵן Ex 7, 9 (always after אִם, but cf. also הַמֵּאֲנִים Jer 13, where, however, הַמָּֽאֲנִים = הַמְמָֽאֲנִים is to be read, with Brockelmann, Grundriss, p. 264 f.) and מַהֵר Zp 1 (and Is 8?). Notice, however, Barth’s suggestion (Nominalbildung, p. 273) that, as the active of forms like אֻכָּל only occurs in Qal, they are perfect participles of former passives of Qal (see e), and in Jer 13, 23, perfect participles of Piʿēl.—On מְרֻבַּע Ez 45, see § 65 d. a 1. The characteristic of the active (Hiphʿîl) is a prefixed הַ (on its origin see § 55 i) in the perfect הִ (with the ă attenuated to ĭ, as in Piʿēl), which forms a closed syllable with the first consonant of the stem. The second syllable of the perfect had also originally an ă; cf. the Arabic conj. iv. ’aqtălă, and in Hebrew the return of the Pathaḥ in the 2nd and 1st pers. הִקְטַ֫לְתָּ, &c. After the attenuation of this ă to ĭ, it ought by rule to have been lengthened to ē in the tone-syllable, as in Aramaic אַקְטֵל, beside הַקְטִל in Biblical Aramaic. Instead of this, however, it is always replaced in the strong verb by î,[1]־ִי, but sometimes written defectively ־ִ; cf. § 9 g. Similarly in the infinitive construct הַקְטִיל, and in the imperfect and participle יַקְטִיל and טַקְטִיל, which are syncopated from יְהַקְטִיל and מְהַקְטִיל; § 23 k. The corresponding Arabic forms (juqtĭl and muqtĭl) point to an original ĭ in the second syllable of these forms. In Hebrew the regular lengthening of this ĭ to ē appears in the strong verb at least in the jussive and in the imperfect consecutive (see n), as also in the imperative of the 2nd sing. masc. (see m); on הַקְטֵ֫לְנָה, תַּקְטֵ֫לְנָה cf. § 26 p. On the return of the original ă in the second syllable of the Imperat., Jussive, &c, under the influence of a guttural, cf. § 65 f.
b In the passive (Hophʿal) the preformative is pronounced with an obscure vowel, whilst the second syllable has ă (in pause ā), as its characteristic, thus:—Perf. הָקְטַל or הֻקְטַל, Imperf. יָקְטַל (syncopated from יְהָקְטַל) or יֻקְטַל, Part. מָקְטָל or מֻקְטָל (from מְהָקְטָל); but the infinitive absolute has the form הָקְטֵל.
Thus the characteristics of both conjugations are the ה preformative in the perfect, imperative, and infinitive; in the imperfect and participle Hiphʿîl, Pathaḥ under the preformatives, in the Hophʿal ŏ or ŭ.
c 2. The meaning of Hiphʿîl is primarily, and even more frequently than in Piʿēl (§ 52 g), causative of Qal, e.g. יָצָא to go forth, Hiph. to bring forth, to lead forth, to draw forth; קָדַשׁ to be holy, Hiph. to sanctify. Under the causative is also included (as in Piʿēl) the declarative sense, e.g. הִצְדִּיק to pronounce just; הִרְשִׁיעַ to make one an evil doer (to pronounce guilty); cf. עקשׁ, in Hiphʿîl, Jb 9, to represent as perverse. If Qal has already a transitive meaning, Hiphʿîl then takes two accusatives (see § 117 cc). In some verbs, Piʿēl and Hiphʿîl occur side by side in the same sense, e.g. אָבַד periit, Piʿēl and Hiphʿîl, perdidit; as a rule, however, only one of these two conjugations is in use, or else they differ from one another in meaning, e.g. כָּבֵד gravem esse, Piʿēl to honour, Hiphʿîl to bring to honour, also to make heavy. Verbs which are intransitive in Qal simply become transitive in Hiphʿîl, e.g. נָטָה to bow oneself, Hiph. to bow, to bend.
d Among the ideas expressed by the causative and transitive are included, moreover, according to the Hebrew point of view (and that of the Semitic languages in general, especially Arabic), a series of actions and ideas, which we have to express by periphrasis, in order to understand their being represented by the Hiphʿîl-form. To these inwardly transitive or intensive Hiphʿîls belong: (a) Hiphʿîl stems which express the obtaining or receiving of a concrete or abstract quality. (In the following examples the Qal stems are given, for the sake of brevity, with the addition of the meaning which—often together with other meanings—belongs to the Hiphʿîl.) Thus אהל, זהר, יפע, צוץ to be bright, to shine (to give forth brightness); opposed to חשׁךְ to become dark; אמץ, גבר, חזק to be strong (to develop strength), עטף to be weak; ארךְ to be long (to acquire length); גבהּ to be high; הום to be in tumult, זעק to cry out, רוע, רנן to make a noise, to exult; חלף to sprout (to put forth shoots), cf. פרח to bloom, עדף, שׁוק to overflow; חרשׁ, חשׁה, סכת, צמת to be silent (silentium facere, Pliny); מתק to be sweet; צלח to have success; שׁפל to be low; אדם to become red, לבן to become white.
e (b) Stems which express in Hiphʿîl the entering into a certain condition and, further, the being in the same: אמן to become firm, to trust in; באשׁ to become stinking; זוד to become boiling, to boil over; חלה to become ill; הסר to come to want; חרה to become hot; יבשׁ to become dry, to become ashamed; יתר to attain superiority; סכן to become familiar; עור, קוץ to become awake; קשׁה to become hard; רגע, שׁקט to become quiet (to keep quiet); שׁמם to be astonished. The Hiphʿîl forms of some verbs of motion constitute a variety of this class: נגשׁ to draw near; קרב to come near; רחק to withdraw far off (all these three are besides used as causatives); קדם to come before.
f (c) Stems which express action in some particular direction: חטא to err; חלק to flatter (to act smoothly); יטב to act well, to do good; סכל to act foolishly, שׂכל to act wisely; ערם to act craftily; צנע to act submissively; רעע, רשׁע to act wickedly, godlessly; שׁחת, תעב to act corruptly, abominably; שׁלם to act peacefully, to be at peace, to be submissive.
g Further, there are in Hiphʿîl a considerable number of denominatives which express the bringing out, the producing of a thing, and so are properly regarded as causatives,[2] e.g. אצר to set over the treasury, Neh 13 (unless וָאְַֽצַוֶּה is to be read, as in Neh 7); בכר to bring forth a firstborn; גשׁם to cause to rain; זרע to produce seed; ימן (Hiphʿîl הֵימִין) to go to the right, cf. הִשְׂמְאִיל to go to the left; פרס to get or to have hoofs; קרן to get or to have horns; שׁכל to produce abortion; שׁלג to become snow-white; שׁמן to grow fat; שׁרשׁ to put forth roots, &c.; so also according to the ordinary acceptation הֶֽאֶזְנִ֫יחוּ Is 19, they have become stinking, from אֶזְנָח stinking or stench, with retention of the א prosthetic, § 19 m (but see below, p). Of a different kind are the denominatives from: אזן (scarcely to prick up the ears, but) to act with the ears, to hear; cf. לשׁן to move the tongue, to slander, and the German äugeln (to make eyes), füsseln, näseln, schwänzeln; שׁבר to sell corn; שׁכם to set out early (to lead the back [of the camel, &c.]?); opposed to הֶֽעֱרִיב.
h 3. The meaning of Hophʿal is (a) primarily that of a passive of Hiphʿîl, e.g. הִשְׁלִיךְ proiecit, הָשְׁלַךְ or הֻשְׁלַךְ proiectus est; (b) sometimes equivalent to a passive of Qal, as נָקַם to avenge, Hoph. to be avenged (but see below, u).
i Rem. 1. The î of the 3rd sing. masc. perf. Hiphʿîl remains, without exception, in the 3rd fem. (in the tone-syllable). That it was, however, only lengthened from a short vowel, and consequently is changeable, is proved by the forms of the imperative and imperfect where ē (or, under the influence of gutturals, ă) takes its place. In an open syllable the î is retained almost throughout; only in very isolated instances has it been weakened to Šewâ (see n and o).
k 2. The infinitive absolute commonly has Ṣere without Yodh, e.g. הַקְדֵּשׁ Ju 17; less frequently it takes ־ֵי, e.g. הַשְׁמֵיד Am 9; cf. Dt 15, Is 59, Jer 3, 23, 44, Jb 34, Ec 10. With א instead of ה (probably a mere scribal error, not an Aramaism) we find אַשְׁכֵּים Jer 25. Rare exceptions, where the form with Ṣere stands for the infinitive construct, are, e.g. Dt 32 (Sam; בְּהַנְחִיל; read perhaps בְּהַנְחִל), Jer 44, Pr 25, Jb 13 (?); on the other hand, for לַעְשְׂר Dt 26 (which looks like an infinitive Hiphʿîl with elision of the ה, for לְהַֽעֲשִׂיר) the right reading is simply לְעַשֵּׂר, since elsewhere the Piʿēl alone occurs with the meaning to tithe; for בַּעְשֵׂר Neh 10 perhaps the inf. Qal (בַּעְשׂר) was intended, as in 1 S 8 (=to take the tithe). At the same time it is doubtful whether the present punctuation does not arise from a conflation of two different readings, the Qal and the Piʿēl.
l Instead of the ordinary form of the infinitive construct הַקְטִיל the form הִקְטִיל sometimes occurs, e.g. הִשְׁמִיד to destroy, Dt 7, 28; cf. Lv 14, Jos 11, Jer 50, 51 and הִקְצוֹת for הַקְצוֹת Lv 14 from קָצָה; scarcely, however, Lv 7 (see § 155 l), 2 S 22 (ψ 18), 1 K 11 (after עַד), and in the passages so explained by König (i. 276) where הִשְׁאִיר appears after prepositions[3]; [cf. Driver on Dt 3, 4, 7, 28].
With ă in the second syllable there occurs הַזְכַּרְכֶם Ez 21 (cf. the substantival infin. הַפְצַ֑ר 1 S 15).—In the Aram. manner לְהַשְׁמָעוּת is found in Ez 24 (as a construct form) for the infinitive Hiphʿîl (cf. the infinitive Hithpa‛el, Dn 11). On the elision of the ה after prefixes, see q.
m 3. In the imperative the î is retained throughout in the open syllable, according to i, and consequently also before suffixes (see § 61 g) and ־ָה paragogic, e.g. הַקְשִׁ֫יבָה attend to, הוֹשִׁ֫יעָה נָּא ψ 118, as in ed. Mant., Jabl;, Baer, not הוֹשִׁיעָ֫ה נָּא as Ginsb. and Kittel; with the tone at the end only הַצְלְיחָה ibid. v.. On the other hand, in the 2nd sing. masc. the original ĭ (cf. Arabic ’áqtĭl) is lengthened to ē, e.g. הַשְׁמֵן make fat, and becomes Seeghôl before Maqqeph, e.g. הַסְכֶּן־נָא Jb 22.—The form הַקְטִיל for הַקְטֵל appears anomalously a few times: ψ 94, Is 43, Jer 17 (cf. § 69 v and § 72 y); elsewhere the Masora has preferred the punctuation הַקְטֵיל, e.g. 2 K 8; cf. ψ 142.—In La 5 הַבִּ֫יטָה is required by the Qerê for הביט. n 4. In the imperfect Hiphʿîl the shorter form with Ṣere prevails for the jussive in the 3rd masc. and fem. and 2nd masc. sing., e.g. אַל־תַּגְדֵּל make not great, Ob 121; יַכְרֵת let Him cut off! ψ 12; even incorrectly תַּגֵּיד Ex 19 and יַגֵּיד Ec 10; cf. also יַבְעֶר־ Ex 22, where the jussive form is to be explained according to § 109 h, and יַֽאֲבֶר Jb 39 before the principal pause. Similarly, after ו consec., e.g. וַיַּבְדֵּל and He divided, Gn 1. On the other hand, î is almost always retained in the 1st sing., e.g. וָאַֽשְׁמִיד Am 2 (but generally without י, as וָאַֽסְתִּר Ez 39 f., &c.); cf. § 49 e and § 74 l, but also § 72 aa; in 1st plur. only in Neh 4; in the 3rd sing. ψ 105. With ă in the principal pause וַתּוֹתַר Ru 2, and in the lesser pause, Gn 49; before a sibilant (see § 29 q) וַיַּגַּשׁ Ju 6; in the lesser pause וַיַּקַּף La 3. Before Maqqeph the Ṣere becomes Seghôl, e.g. וַיַּֽחֲזֶק־בּוֹ Ju 19. In the plural again, and before suffixes, î remains in the forms יַקְטִ֫ילוּ, תַּקְטִ֫ילוּ, even in the jussive and after ו consecutive, e.g. וַיַּדְבִּ֫יקוּ Ju 18. The only exceptions, where the î is weakened to Šewâ, are וַיַּדְרְכוּ Jer 9; וַיַּדְבְּקוּ 1 S 14, 31, 1 Ch 10; יַֽעַבְרוּ Jer 11; וָֽאוֹצְרָה Neh 13, if it is Hiphʿîl of אצר, but probably וָֽאֲצַוֶּה is to be read, as in 7; perhaps also תַּהְכְּרוּ Jb 19 (according to others, imperfect Qal). The same weakening occurs also in the imperfect in 3rd and masc. sing. before suffixes, 1 S 17, 1 K 20, ψ 65, and in Jb 9, unless the form be Piʿēl=וַיְעַקְשֵׁנִי, since the Hiphʿîl is not found elsewhere. It is hardly likely that in these isolated examples we have a trace of the ground-form, yaqtĭl, or an Aramaism. More probably they are due partly to a misunderstanding of the defective writing, which is found, by a purely orthographic licence, in numerous other cases (even in 3rd sing. יַשְׁלִ֑ם Is 44), and partly are intended, as formae mixtae, to combine the forms of Qal and Hiphʿîl. Instead of the firmly closed syllable, the Masora requires in Gn 1 תַּֽדְשֵׁא, with euphonic Ga‛ya (see § 16 h).
o 5. In the participle, מ֫וֹצֵא ψ 135 appears to be traceable to the ground-form, maqtĭl; yet the Ṣere may also possibly be explained by the retraction of the tone. The Masora appears to require the weakening of the vowel to Šewâ (see above, n) in מַהְלְכִים Zc 3 (probably, however, מַֽהֲלָכִים should be read), also in מַחְלְמִים Jer 29, מַעְזְרִים 2 Ch 28 (but as ם precedes, and accordingly dittography may well have taken place, the participle Qal is probably to be read in both places; the reading of the text is perhaps again intended to combine Qal and Hiphʿîl, see above, n), and in the Qerê מַחְצְרִים 1 Ch 15 &c. (where the Kethîbh מַֽחֲצֹֽצְרִים is better).—The fem. is ordinarily pointed as מַזְכֶּ֫רֶת Nu 5, מַשֶּׂגֶת Lv 14; in pause מַשְׂכָּֽלֶת Pr 19.
p 6. In the perfect there occur occasionally such forms as הֶכְלַ֫מְנוּ 1 S 25; cf. Gn 41, 2 K 17, Jer 29, Mi 6, Jb 16; with the original ă in the first syllable וְהַרְאֵיתִ֫י Na 3.—In אֶגְאָֽלְתִּי[4] I have stained, Is 63, א stands at the beginning instead of ה, cf. above, k, on אַשְׁכֵּים. On the other hand, וְהֶֽאֶזְנִ֫יחוּ Is 19 (see above, g) is a mere error of the scribe, who had the Aramaic form in mind and corrected it by prefixing ה.
q 7. In the imperfect and participle the characteristic ה is regularly elided after the preformatives, thus יַקְמִיל, מַקְמִיל; but it is retained in the infinitive after prepositions, e.g. לְהַקְמִיל. The exceptions are in the imperfect, יְהוֹשִׁיעַ He will save for יוֹשִׁיעַ 1 S 17, ψ 116 (in pause); יְהוֹדֶה He will praise for יוֹדֶה Neh 11, ψ 28, 45 (cf. the proper name יְהוּכַל Jer 37, for which 38 יוּכַל [and יְהוֹסֵף ψ 81); [יְהֵילִילוּ (§ 70 d) Is 52, יְהָתֵ֫לּוּ Jer 9, תְּהָתֵ֫לּוּ Jb 13] and מְהֻקְצָעוֹת Ez 46; in the infinitive (where, however, as in Niphʿal, § 51 l, the infinitive Qal is generally to be read) לַסְתִּר Is 29 for לְהַסְתִּיר; לַנְפִּל and לַצְבּוֹת Nu 5; לַֽעֲבִיר 2 S 19; לַֽהֲלִק Jer 37; לַֽחֲטִיא Ec 5; לַלְבֵּן (doubly anomalous for לְהַלְבִּין) Dn 11; לַשְׁמִעַ ψ 26; לַֽאֲדִיב 1 S 2; לַשְׁמִד Is 23; וְלַשְׁבִּית Am 8 (certainly corrupt); בָּעִיר for בְּהָעִיר ψ 73 (but in the city is probably meant); לָבִיא Jer 39 (2 Ch 31); לַמְרוֹת Is 3, ψ 78; לַנְחוֹתָם Ex 13; כַּנְּלוֹת (see, however, § 20 h) Is 33; לַרְאֹֽתְכֶם Dt 1: cf. further, from verbs ל״ה, Nu 5, Jer 27; on Dt 26 and Neh 10, see above, k; for לַמְחוֹת Pr 31 read לְמֹחוֹת or לִמְמַחוֹת.
r 8. With regard to the tone it is to be observed that the afformatives וּ and ־ָה in Hiphʿîl have not the tone, even in the perfect with waw consecutive (except in Ex 26 before ה, Lv 15 before א, to avoid a hiatus); but the plural ending וּן (see § 47 m) always has the tone, e.g. תַּקִרִב֫וּן Dt 1.
s 9. The passive (Hophʿal) has ŭ instead of Qameṣ ḥaṭuph in the first syllable (הֻקְטַל), in the strong verb less frequently in the perfect and infinitive, but generally in the participle, through the influence of the initial מ (but cf. מָשְׁחָת Pr 25); e.g. הֻשְׁכַּב Ez 32 (beside הָשְׁכְּבָה 32); הֻשְׁלַךְ impf. יֻשְׁלַךְ, part. מֻשְׁלָךְ 2 S 20 (beside הָשְׁלַכְתָּ Is 14) הֻמְלַ֫חַתְּ Ez 16; in the partic. Hoph. without elision of the ה: מְהֻקְצָעוֹת Ez 46; on the other hand, verbs פּ״ן always have ŭ (in a sharpened syllable): הֻגַּד, יֻגַּד (cf. § 9 n).
t 10. The infinitive absolute has in Hophʿal (as in Hiphʿîl) Ṣere in the last syllable, e.g. הָחְתֵּל and הָמְלֵחַ Ez 16; הֻגֵּד Jos 9. An infinitive construct does not occur in the strong verb.
11. With regard to the imperative Hophʿal, see above, § 46 a, note.
u 12. According to Böttcher (Ausführliches Lehrbuch, § 906) and Barth (see above, § 52 e) a number of supposed imperfects Hophʿal are, in fact, imperfects of the passive of Qal. As in the case of the perfects passive of Qal (see above, § 52 e) the question is again of verbs of which neither the corresponding causative (i.e. here the Hiphʿîl), nor the other tense of the same conjugation (i.e. here the perfect Hophʿal) is found; so with יֻקַּם (for יֻנְקַם, cf. yuqtălŭ as imperfect Qal in Arabic) and יֻתַּן, from נָקַם and נָתַן; יֻקַּח from לָקַח (cf. § 66 g); יוּאָר Nu 22 from אָרַר; יֻחַן from חָנַן; יוּשָּׁ֑ד Ho 10 (cf. Is 33) from שָׁדַד; Barth adds the verbs פ״ן: תֻּתַּשׁ Ez 19 from נתשׁ; יֻתָּץ Lev 11 from נתץ; the verbs ע״ע: יֻחָ֫קוּ Jb 19 from חקק; יֻכַּת &c. from כּתת; the verb ע״וּ: יוּדַשׁ from דּוּשׁ; the verbs ע״י: יוּחָ֫ל, יוּשַׁר, יוּשַׁת from חִיל, שִׁיר and שִׁית. On וַיִּ֫ישֶׂם &c., § 73 f. In point of fact it would be very strange, especially in the case of יֻתַּן and יֻקַּח, that of these frequently used verbs, amongst all the forms of Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal, only the imperfect Hophʿal should have been preserved. A passive of Qal is also indicated in the Tellel-Amarna letters, according to Knudtzon, by a number of imperfect forms, which are undoubtedly due to Canaanite influence, cf. Beitr. zur Assyriologie, iv. 410.
a 1. The Hithpaʿēl[5] is connected with Piʿēl, being formed by prefixing to the Piʿēl-stem (qaṭṭēl, qaṭṭal) the syllable הִתְ (Western Aramaic אִתְ, but in Biblical Aramaic הִתְ; Syr. ’et[6] ). Like the preformative (הִנְ) נ of Niphʿal, הִתְ has also a reflexive force.
b 2. The ת of the prefix in this conjugation, as also in Hothpaʿal (see h), Hithpôēl, Hithpa‛lēl and Hithpalpel (§ 55), under certain circumstances, suffers the following changes:
(a) When the stem begins with one of the harder sibilants ס, צ, or ש, the ת and the sibilant change places (cf. on this metathesis, § 19 n), and at the same time the ת after a צ becomes the corresponding emphatic ט: thus הִשְׁתַּמֵּר to take heed to oneself, for הִתְשַׁמֵּר; הִסְתַּבֵּל to become burdensome, for הִתְסַבֵּל; הִצְטַדֵּק to justify oneself, from צָדַק. The only exception is in Jer 49, וְהִתְשׁוֹטַ֫טְנָה, to avoid the cacophony of three successive t-sounds.
c (b) When the stem begins with a d- or t-sound (ד, ט, ת), the ת of the preformative is assimilated to it (§ 19 d), e.g. מִדַּבֵּר speaking, conversing; הִדַּכָּא to be crushed, הִטַּהֵר to purify oneself, הִטַּמֵּא to defile oneself, הִתַּמֵּם to act uprightly. (An exception occurs in Ju 19.) The assimilation of the ת occurs also with נ and כ, e.g. הִנַּבֵּא to prophesy, as well as הִתְנַבֵּא (cf. Nu 24, Ez 5, Dn 11); תִּכַּוֹנֵן Nu 21 (cf. Is 54, ψ 59); תִּכַּסֶּה Pr 26; with שׁ Ec 7 with ר Is 33.
d Rem. Metathesis would likewise be expected, as in the cases under b, when ת and ז come together, as well as a change of ת to ד. Instead of this, in the only instance of the kind (הִזַּכּוּ Is 1) the ת is assimilated to the ז, —unless indeed הִזַּ֫כּוּ, imperative Niphʿal of זכך, is intended.
3. As in form, so also in meaning, Hithpaʿēl is primarily (a) reflexive of Piēl, e.g. הִתְאַזֵּר to gird oneself, הִתְקַדֵּשׁ to sanctify oneself. Although in these examples the intensive meaning is not distinctly marked, it is so in other cases, e.g. הִתְנַקֵּם to how oneself revengeful (Niph. simply to take revenge), and in the numerous instances where the Hithpaʿēl expresses to make oneself that which is predicated by the stem, to conduct oneself as such, to show oneself, to imagine oneself, to affect to be of a certain character. E.g. הִתְנַּדֵּל to make oneself great, to act proudly; הִתְחַכֵּם to show oneself wise, crafty; הִתְחַלָּה to pretend to be ill; הִתְעַשֵּׁר to make, i.e. to feign oneself rich; הִשְׂתָּרֵר Nu 16, to make oneself a prince; הִתְנַבֵּא 1 S 18, to act in an excited manner like a prophet, to rave. The meaning of Hithpaʿēl sometimes coincides with that of Qal, both forms being in use together, e.g. אָבַל to mourn, in Qal only in poetic style, in Hithpaʿēl in prose. On the accusative after Hithpaʿēl (regarded as a transitive verb), see § 117 w.
f (b) It expresses reciprocal action, like Niphʿal, § 51 d, e.g. הִתְרָאָה to look upon one another, Gn 42; cf. ψ 41; —but
(c) It more often indicates an action less directly affecting the subject, and describes it as performed with regard to or for oneself, in one’s own special interest (cf. Niphʿal, § 51 e). Hithpaʿēl in such cases readily takes an accusative, e.g. הִתְפָּרֵק Ex 32 and הִתְנַצֵּל Ex 33 to tear off from oneself; הִתְפַּשֵּׁט exuit sibi (vestem), הִתְפַּתַּח solvit sibi (vincula); הִצְטַיֵּד Jos 9, to take (something) as one’s provision; without an accusative, הִתְהַלֵּךְ to walk about for oneself (ambulare); הִתְפַּלֵּל sibi intercedere (see Delitzsch on Is 1); הִתְחַקָּה to draw a line for oneself, Job 13; on Is 14, see § 57, note.
g (d) Only seldom is it passive, e.g. הִיא תִתְהַלָּֽל Pr 31 she shall be praised; הִשְׁתַּכַּח to be forgotten, Ec 8, where the reflexive sense (to bring oneself into oblivion) has altogether disappeared. Cf. Niphʿal, § 51 f.
h The passive form Hothpaʿal is found only in the few following examples: הֻטַּמָּא to be defiled, Dt 24; infinitive הֻכַּבֵּס to be washed, Lv 13; הֻדַּ֫שְׁנָה (for הֻתְדַּשְׁנָה, the נָה being treated as if it were the afformative of the fem. plur.) it is made fat, Is 34. On הָתְפָּֽקְדוּ, see l.
i Denominatives with a reflexive meaning are הִתְיַהֵד to embrace Judaism, from (יְהוּדָה) יְהוּד Judah; הִצְטַיֵּד to provision oneself for a journey, from צֵידָה provision for a journey (see § 72 m).
k Rem. 1. As in Piʿēl, so in Hithpaʿēl, the perfect very frequently (in stems ending in ג, ק, מ, פ) has retained the original Pathaḥ in the final syllable (while in the ordinary form it is attenuated, as in Piʿēl, to ĭ and then lengthened to ē), e.g. הִתְאַנַּף Dt 4, &c.; cf. 2 Ch 13, 15; with וְ consecutive Is 8; so also in the imperfect and imperative, e.g. תִּתְחַכַּם Ec 7; cf. Dt 9, 1 S 3, 2 S 10, 1 K 11, Is 55, 58, 64, ψ 55; הִתְחַזַּק 1 K 20, ψ 37, Est 5; וָאֶֽתְאַפַּק 1 S 13.—In Lv 11, 20 and Ez 38, ĭ takes the place of ă in the final syllable of the stem before שׁ (cf. § 44 d), and in the last passage before ל. In the perfect, imperfect (with the exception of Ec 7), and imperative of Hithpaʿēl (as well as of Hithpô‛ēl, Hithpa‛lēl, Hithpalpēl, § 55) the original ă always returns in pause as Qameṣ, e.g. הִתְאַזָּרָ֑ ψ 93; יִתְאַבָּל Ez 7; יִתְהַלָּךְ Jb 18; יִתְלַכָּֽדוּ 38; הִתְקַדָּ֑שׁוּ Jos 3; cf. Jb 33 and § 74 b.—The ā also appears before the fuller ending וּן in the plural of the imperfect (cf. § 47 m) in ψ 12, Jb 9:6, 16:10.—Like the Piʿēl תְּקַטַּ֫לְנָה (§ 52 n), forms occur in Hithpaʿēl like תִּתְהַלַּ֫כְנָה Zc 6; cf. Am 8, and so in Hithpoʿēl, Jer 49, Am 9; with ē only in La 4.—In the Aramaic manner an infinitive Hithpaʿēl הִתְחַבְּרוּת occurs in Dn 11 (cf. the Hiphʿîl inf. הַשְׁמָעוּת in Ez 24).
l 2. As instances of the reflexive הִתְקַטֵּל (connected with Piʿēl) a few reflexive forms of the verb פָּקַד (to examine) are also probably to be reckoned. Instead of a Pathaḥ in a sharpened syllable after the first radical, these take Qameṣ in an open syllable, e.g. הִתְפָּֽקְדוּ Ju 20, imperfect יִתְפָּקֵד 20, 21. The corresponding passive form הָתְפָּֽקְדוּ also occurs four times, Nu 1, 2, 26, 1 K 20. According to others, these forms are rather reflexives of Qal, in the sense of to present oneself for review, to be reviewed, like the Aramaic ʾIthpeʿēl (Western Aramaic אִתְקְטֵל, Syr. אֶתְקְטֵל) and the Ethiopic taqatela, Arab. ʾiqtatala, the last with the t always placed after the first radical (cf. above, b); but they are more correctly explained, with König, as Hithpaʿēl forms, the doubling of the ק being abnormally omitted.—Such a reflexive of Qal, with the ת transposed, occurs in הלתחם (on the analogy of O.T. Hebrew to be pronounced הִלְתַּחֵם) in the inscription of the Moabite king Mêšaʿ, with the meaning of the O.T. Niphʿal נִלְחַם to fight, to wage war: see the inscription, lines 11, 15, 19, and 32; in the first two places in the imperfect with wāw consecutive וָֽאֶלְתַּחֵם; in line 19 in the infinitive with suffix, בְּהִלְתַּֽחֲמֹה בִי in his fighting against me.
a Of the less common conjugations (§ 39 g) some may be classed with Piʿēl, others with Hiphʿîl. To the former belong those which arise from the lengthening of the vowel or the repetition of one or even two radicals, in fact, from an internal modification or development of the stem; to the latter belong those which are formed by prefixing a consonant, like the ה of Hiphʿîl. Amongst the conjugations analogous to Piʿēl are included the passive forms distinguished by their vowels, as well as the reflexives with the prefix הִתְ, on the analogy of Hithpaʿēl.
b The following conjugations are related to Piʿēl, as regards their inflexion and partly in their meaning:
1. Pôʿēl קוֹטֵל, passive Pôʿal קוֹטַל, reflexive Hithpôʿēl הִתְקוֹטֵל, corresponding to the Arabic conj. iii. qâtălă, pass. qûtĭlă, and conj. vi. reflexive tăqâtălă; imperfect יְקוֹטֵל, participle מְקוֹטֵל, imperfect passive יְקוֹטַל &c. Hence it appears that in Hebrew the ô of the first syllable is in all the forms obscured from â, while the passive form is distinguished simply by the a-sound in the second syllable. In the strong verb these conjugations are rather rare. Examples: participle מְשֹֽׁפְטִי mine adversary, who would contend with me, Jb 9; טְלֽוֹשְׁנִי (denominative from לָשׁוֹן the tongue) slandering (as if intent on injuring with the tongue) ψ 101 Keth. (The Qeré requires מְלָשְׁנִי melŏšnî as Na 1 וּגְדָול־); זֽׄרְמוּ they have poured out, ψ 77 (if not rather Puʿal); יוֹדַ֫עְתִּי I have appointed, 1 S 21 (unless הוֹדַ֫עְתִּי should be read); יְסֹעֵר Ho 13; שֹׁרֵשׁ to take root, passive שׁוֹרַשׁ, denominative from שֹׁ֫רֶשׁ root (but שֵׁרֵשׁ to root out); in Hithpôʿēl הִתְגּֽׄעֲשׁוּ they shall be moved, Jer 25; imperf. 46; from a verb ל״ה, שׁוֹשֵׂ֫תִי Is 10. The participle מִנֹּאָץ Is 52 is probably a forma mixta combining the readings מְנֹאָץ and מִתְנֹאֵץ.
c Poʿel proper (as distinguished from the corresponding conjugations of verbs ע״ע § 67 l and ע״וּ § 72 m, which take the place of the ordinary causative Piʿēl) expresses an aim or endeavour to perform the action, especially with hostile intent, and is hence called, by Ewald, the stem expressing aim (Zielstamm), endeavour (Suche-stamm) or attack (Angriffs-stamm); cf. the examples given above from Jb 9, ψ 101, and עוֹיֵן 1 S 18 Qerê (probably for מְעוֹיֵן, cf. § 52 s; § 55 f: seeking to cast an evil eye).
With קוֹטֵל is connected the formation of quadriliterals by the insertion of a consonant between the first and second radicals (§ 30 p, § 56).
d 2. Paʿlēl, generally with the ă attenuated to ĭ=Piʿlēl[7] (Piʿlal), קִטְלֵל and קִטְלַל; the ē in the final syllable also arises from ĭ, and this again from ă; passive Puʿlal קֻטְלַל, reflexive Hithpaʿlēl הִתְקַטְלֵל, like the Arabic conjugations ix. ʾiqtăllă and xi. ʾiqtâllă, the former used of permanent, the latter of accidental or changing conditions, e.g. of colours; cf. שַֽׁאֲנַן to be at rest, רַֽעֲנַן to be green, passive אֻמְלַל to be withered, all of them found only in the perfect and with no corresponding Qal form. (For the barbarous form צִמְּתֻת֫וּנִי ψ 88 read צִמְתָֽתְנִי; for נִפְלַל Ez 28, which has manifestly arisen only from confusion with the following חלל, read נָפַל). These forms are more common in verbs ע״וּ, where they take the place of Piʿēl and Hithpaʿēl (§ 72 m). Cf. also § 75 kk.
e 3. Peʿalʿal: קְטַלְטַל with repetition of the last two radicals, used of movements repeated in quick succession; e.g. סְחַרְחַר to go about quickly, to palpitate (of the heart) ψ 38, from סָחַר to go about; passive חֳמַרְמַר to be in a ferment, to be heated, to be red, Jb 16, La 1, 2. Probably this is also the explanation of חֲצוֹצַר (denom. from חֲצֽוֹצְרָה a trumpet, but only in the participle, 1 Ch 15 &c. Keth.) for חֲצַרְצַר, by absorption of the first ר, lengthening of ă in the open syllable, and subsequent obscuring of ā to ô. On the other hand, for the meaningless אָֽהֲבוּ הֵב֫וּ Ho 4 (which could only be referred to this conjugation if it stood for אֲהַבְהֲבוּ) read אָֽהֲבוּ, and for the equally meaningless יָפְיָפִ֫יתָ ψ 45 read יָפִ֫יתָ. In both these cases a scribal error (dittography) has been perpetuated by the punctuation, which did not venture to alter the Kethîbh. On the employment of Peʿalʿal in the formation of nouns, cf. § 84b n. Closely related to this form is—
f 4. Pilpēl (pass. Pŏlpal), with a strengthening of the two essential radicals in stems ע״ע, ע״וּ, and ע״י, e.g. גִּלְגֵּל to roll, from גַּל=גָּלַל; reflexive הִתְגַּלְגֵּל to roll oneself down; כִּלְכֵּל from כּוּל, passive כָּלְכַּל; cf. also טֵאטֵא (so Baer and Ginsb. after Qimḥi; others טִאטֵא) Is 14, and with ă in both syllables owing to the influence of ר, קַרְקַר from קוּר Nu 24 (cf. however, in the parallel passage, Jer 48 קָדְקֹד) and Is 22, in the participle; שִׂגְשֵׂג Is 17 to hedge in, acc. to others make to grow. Probably to this form also belongs יְלַעְלְעוּ, the emended reading of Jb 39 instead of the impossible יְעַלְעוּ; also סַאסְּאָה Is 27, if that form is to be referred to an infinitive סַאְסֵא; perhaps also שִׁשֵּׁא Ez 39 for שׁאשׁא. This form also commonly expresses rapidly repeated movement, which all languages incline to indicate by a repetition of the sound,[8] e.g. צִפְצֵף to chirp; cf. in the Lexicon the nouns derived from גָּרַר, עוּף, and צָלַל.
g As Hithpalpel we find יִשְׁתַּקְשְׁקוּן Na 2; וַתִּתְחַלְחַל Est 4; וַיִּתְמַרְמַר Dn 8, 11. Of the same form is אֶדַּדֶּה Is 38, if contracted from אֶתְדַּוְדֶּה or אתדידה from the root דו or די), and also הִתְמַהְמְהוּ tarry ye, Is 29 (but read probably הִתַּמְּהוּ), וַיִּתְמַהְמָהּ (in pause) Gn 19, &c., if it is to be derived from מָהַהּ, and not Hithpaʿel from מַהְמַהּ.
h Only examples more or less doubtful can be adduced of—
5. Tiphʿēl (properly Taphʿēl[9]): תִּקְטֵל, with ת prefixed, cf. תִּרְגַּ֫לְתִּי to teach to walk, to lead (denominative from רֶ֫גֶל) Ho 11; from a stem ל״ה, the imperfect יְרַֽחֲרֶה to contend with, Jer 12; participle, 22 (from חָרָה to be hot, eager). Similarly in Aramaic, תַּרְגֵּם to interpret, whence also in Hebrew the passive participle מְתֻרְגָּם Ezr 4.
i 6. Šaphʿēl: שַׁקְטֵל, frequent in Syriac, e.g. שַׁלְהֵב from להב to flame; whence in Hebrew שַׁלְהֶ֫בֶת flame. Perhaps of the same form is שַׁבְּלוּל a snail (unless it be from the stem שׁבל), and שְׁקַעֲרוּרֹת, cf. § 85, No. 50. This conjugation is perhaps the original of Hiphʿîl, in which case the ה, by a phonetic change which may be exemplified elsewhere, is weakened from a sibilant.
⁂
k Forms of which only isolated examples occur are:—
7. קִטְלַט, passive קֻטְלַט; as מְחֻסְפָּס, Ex 16, from חָסַף, חָשַׂף to peel, to scale.
8. קַטְקַל, in זַרְזִיף, from זָרַף.
9. נִתְקַטֵּל (regularly in Mishnic Hebrew[10]) a form compounded of Niphʿal and Hithpaʿēl; as וְנִוַּסְּרוּ for וְנִתְוַסְּרוּ that they may be taught, Ez 23; נִכַּפֵּר probably an error for הִתְכַּפֵּר, Dt 21. On נִשְׁתָּֽוָה Pr 27, see § 75 x.
On the origin of these altogether secondary formations cf. § 30 p. While quadriliteral nouns are tolerably numerous, only the following examples of the verb occur: (a) On the analogy of Piʿēl: כִּרְסֵם imperfect, יְכַרְסְמֶ֫נָּה, ψ 80 from כָּסַם, cf. גָּזַם. Passive רֻֽטֲפַשׁ, Jb 33. Participle מְכֻרְבָּל (cf. Aramaic כְּבַל), 1 Ch 15. It is usual also to include among the quadriliterals פַּרְשֵׁז Jb 26, as a perfect of Aramaic form with Pathaḥ not attenuated. It is more correctly, however, regarded, with Delitzsch, as the infinitive absolute of a Piʿlel formation, from פָּרַשׂ, with euphonic change of the first שׂ to שׁ, and the second to ז. Moreover, the reading פַּרְשֵׂז also is very well attested, and is adopted by Baer in the text of Job; cf. the Rem. on p. 48 of his edition.
(b) On the analogy of Hiphʿîl: הִשְׂמְאִיל, by syncope הִשְׂמִאיל and הִשְׂמִיל to turn to the left (denom. from שְׂמֹאל) Gn 13, Is 30, &c. On הֶֽאֶזְנִ֫יחוּ cf. § 53 p.
C. Strong Verb with Pronominal Suffixes.[11]
The accusative of the personal pronoun, depending on an active verb,[12] may be expressed (1) by a separate word, אֵת the accusative sign (before a suffix אֶת, אֹת) with the pronominal suffix, e.g. קָטַל אֹתוֹ he has killed him; or (2) by a mere suffix, קְטָלָ֫הוּ or קְטָלוֹ he has killed him. The latter is the usual method (§ 33), and we are here concerned with it alone.[13] Neither of these methods, however, is employed when the accusative of the pronoun is reflexive. In that case a reflexive verb is used, viz. Niphʿal or Hithpaʿēl (§§ 51 and 54), e.g. הִתְקַדֵּשׁ he sanctified himself, not קִדְּשׁוֹ, which could only mean he sanctified him.[14]
Two points must be specially considered here: the form of the suffix itself (§ 58), and the form which the verb takes when suffixes are added to it (§§ 59–61). Cf. the statistics collected by H. Petri, Das Verbum mit Suffixen im Hebr., part ii, in the נביאים ראשנים, Leipzig, 1890. W. Diehl, Das Pronomen pers. suff.... des Hebr., Giessen, 1895. J. Barth, ‘Beiträge zur Suffixlehre des Nordsem.,’ AJSL. xvii (1901), p. 205 f. Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., i. 159 f.; Grundriss, p. 638 ff.
a 1. The pronominal suffixes appended to the verb express the accusative of the personal pronoun. They are the following:—
| A. | B. | C. | ||||
| To a form ending in | To a form in the Perf. | To a form in the Imperf. | ||||
| a Vowel. | ending in a Consonant. | ending in a Consonant. | ||||
| Sing. | 1. | com. | ־֫נִי | ־ַ֫ ני (in pause ־ָ֫ נִי) | ־ֵ֫ נִי | me. |
| 2. | m. | ־֫ךָ | ־ְךָ (in pause ־ֶ ךָ, also ־ָךְ) | thee. | ||
| f. | ־ךְ | ־ֶ֫ ךְ ־ֵךְ, rarely ־ָךְ | ־ֵךְ | |||
| 3. | m. | ־֫הוּ, וֹ | ־ָ֫ הוּ, (הֹ) וֹ | ־ֵ֫ הוּ | him. | |
| f. | ־֫הָ | ־ָהּ | ־ֶ֫ הָ | her. | ||
| Plur. | 1. | com | ־֫נוּ | ־ָ֫ נוּ | ־ֵ֫ נוּ | us. |
| 2. | m. | ־כֶם | ־ְכֶם | you (vos). | ||
| f. | .....[15] | |||||
| 3. | m. | הֶם,[15] ם | ־ָם (from ־ָ֫ הֶם, ־ָ֫ ם | ־ֵם (from ־ֵ֫ הֶם) | eos. | |
| poet. | ־֫מוֹ | ־ָ֫ מוֹ | ־ֵ֫ מוֹ | |||
| f. | ־ן | ־ָן, ־ַ֫ ן | .....1 | eas. | ||
b 2. That these suffixes are connected with the corresponding forms of the personal pronoun (§ 32) is for the most part self-evident, and only a few of them require elucidation.
c The suffixes נִי, נוּ, הוּ, הָ (and ךָ, when a long vowel in an open syllable precedes) never have the tone, which always rests on the preceding syllable; on the other hand, כֶם and הֶם always take the tone.
d In the 3rd pers. masc. ־ָ֫ הוּ, by contraction of a and u after the rejection of the weak ה, frequently gives rise to ô (§ 23 k), ordinarily written וֹ, much less frequently הֹ (see § 7 c). In the feminine, the suffix הָ should be pronounced with a preceding a (cf. below, f, note), as ־ָ֫ הָ or ־ֶ֫ הָ, on the analogy of āhû; instead of ־ָ֫ הָ, however, it was simply pronounced ־ָהּ, with the rejection of the final vowel, and with Mappiq, since the ה is consonantal; but the weakening to ־ָה is also found, see below, g.
e 3. The variety of the suffix-forms is occasioned chiefly by the fact that they are modified differently according to the form and tense of the verb to which they are attached. For almost every suffix three forms may be distinguished:
(a) One beginning with a consonant, as ־֫נִי, ־֫הוּ, ו (only after î), ־֫נוּ, ם (הֶם), &c. These are attached to verbal forms which end with a vowel, e.g. יִקְטְל֫וּנִי; קְטַלְתִּ֫יהוּ, for which by absorption of the ה we also get קְטַלְתִּיו, pronounced qeṭaltîu; cf. § 8 m.
f (b) A second and third with what are called connecting vowels[16] (־ַ֫ נִי, ־ֵ֫ נִי), used with verbal forms ending with a consonant (for exceptions, see § 59 g and § 60 e). This connecting vowel is a with the forms of the perfect, e.g. קְטָלַ֫נִי, קְטָלָ֫נוּ, קְטָלָם (on קְטָלֵךְ, the ordinary form of the 3rd masc. perf. with the 2nd fem. suffix, cf. below, g); and e (less frequently a) with the forms of the imperfect and imperative, e.g. יִקְטְלֵ֫הוּ, קָטְלֵם; also with the infinitive and participles, when these do not take noun-suffixes (cf. § 61 a and h). The form וֹ also belongs to the suffixes of the perfect, since it has arisen from ־ָ֫ הוּ (cf., however, § 60 d). With ךָ, כֶם, the connecting sound is only a vocal Šewâ, which has arisen from an original short vowel, thus ־ְךָ, ־ְכֶם, e.g. קְטָֽלְךָ (qeṭālekhā), or when the final consonant of the verb is a guttural, ־ֲךָ, e.g. שְׁלָֽחֲךָ. In pause, the original short vowel (ă) reappears as Seghôl with the tone ־ֶ֫ ךָ (also ־ָ֫ ךְ, see g). On the appending of suffixes to the final וּן of the imperfect (§ 47 m), see § 60 e.
g Rem. 1. As rare forms may be mentioned sing. 2nd pers. masc. ־ְכָה Gn 27, 1 K 18, &c., in pause also ־ֶ֫ כָּה (see below, i); fem. כִי, ־ֵ֫ כִי ψ 103, 137. Instead of the form ־ֵךְ, which is usual even in the perfect (e.g. Ju 4, Ez 27), ־ָךְ occurs as fem. Is 60 (as masc. Dt 6, 28, Is 30, 55 always in pause); with Munaḥ Is 54, Jer 23.—In the 3rd masc. הֹ Ex 32, Nu 23; in the 3rd fem. ־ָה without Mappîq (cf. § 91 e) Ex 2, Jer 44; Am 1, with retraction of the tone before a following tone-syllable, but read certainly שָׁמַר לָנֶ֫צַח.—The forms ־֫מוֹ, ־ָ֫ מוֹ, ־ֵ֫ מוֹ occur 23 times, all in poetry[17] (except Ex 23) [viz. with the perfect Ex 15, 23, ψ 73; with the imperfect Ex 15 (מוּ for מוֹ), 15, ψ 2, 21, 22, 45, 80, 140; with the imperative ψ 5, 59, 83]. On the age of these forms, see § 91 l 3; on ־ַן and ־ָן as suffixes of the 3rd fem. plur. of the imperfect, § 60 d.—In Gn 48 קָֽחֶם־נָא (cf. וַיַּכֶּם־שָׁם 1 Ch 14 according to Baer), ־ֵם has lost the tone before Maqqeph and so is shortened to ־ֶם.—In Ez 44 וַתְּשִׂימוּן is probably only an error for וַתְּשִׂימוּם.
h 2. From a comparison of these verbal suffixes with the noun-suffixes (§ 91) we find that (a) there is a greater variety of forms amongst the verbal than amongst the noun-suffixes, the forms and relations of the verb itself being more various;—(b) the verbal suffix, where it differs from that of the noun, is longer; cf. e.g. ־֫נִי, ־ַ֫ נִי, ־ֵ֫ נִי (me) with ־ִי (my). The reason is that the pronominal object is less closely connected with the verb than the possessive pronoun (the genitive) is with the noun; consequently the former can also be expressed by a separate word (את in אֹתִי, &c.).
i 4. A verbal form with a suffix gains additional strength, and sometimes intentional emphasis, when, instead of the mere connecting vowel, a special connecting-syllable[18] (ăn)[19] is inserted between the suffix and the verbal stem. Since, however, this syllable always has the tone, the ă is invariably (except in the 1st pers. sing.) modified to tone-bearing Seghôl. This is called the Nûn energicum[20] (less suitably demonstrativum or epentheticum), and occurs principally (see, however, Dt 32 bis) in pausal forms of the imperfect, e.g. יְבָֽרֲכֶֽנְהוּ he will bless him (ψ 72, cf. Jer 5), אֶתְּקֶ֫נְךָּ Jer 22; יְכַ֫בְּדָ֥נְנִי he will honour me (ψ 50) is unusual; rarely in the perfect, Dt 24 בֵּֽרְכֶךָּ. On examples like דָּנַ֫נִּי Gn 30, cf. § 26 g, § 59 f. In far the greatest number of cases, however, this Nûn is assimilated to the following consonant (נ, כ), or the latter is lost in pronunciation (so ה), and the Nûn consequently sharpened. Hence we get the following series of suffix-forms:— 1st pers. ־ַ֫ נִּי (even in pause, Jb 7, &c.), ־ֶ֫ נִּי (for ־ַ֫ נְנִי, ־ֶ֫ נְנִי).
2nd pers. ־ֶ֫ ךָּ (Jer 22 in pause ־ֶנְךָּ) and, only orthographically different,
־ֶ֫ כָּה (Is 10, Pr 2 in pause).
3rd pers. ־ֶ֫ נּוּ (for ־ֶ֫ נְהוּ),[21] fem. ־ֶ֫ נָּה for ־ֶ֫ נְהָ.
[1st pers. plur. ־ֶ֫ נּוּ (for ־ֶ֫ נְנוּ), see the Rem.]
In the other persons Nûn energetic does not occur.
k Rem. The uncontracted forms with Nûn are rare, and occur only in poetic or elevated style (Ex 15, Dt 32 [bis], Jer 5, 22); they are never found in the 3rd fem. sing. and 1st plur. On the other hand, the contracted forms are tolerably frequent, even in prose. An example of ־ֶ֫ נּוּ as 1st plur. occurs perhaps in Jb 31 [but read ־ֵנוּ and cf. § 72 cc], hardly in Ho 12; cf. הִנֶּ֫נּוּ behold us, Gn 44, 50, Nu 14 for הִנְנוּ (instead of הִנְּנוּ; see § 20 m).—In Ez 4 the Masora requires תְּעֻגֶ֫נָה, without Dageš in the Nûn.
l That the forms with Nûn energicum are intended to give greater emphasis to the verbal form is seen from their special frequency in pause. Apart from the verb, however, Nûn energicum occurs also in the union of suffixes with certain particles (§ 100 o).
This Nûn is frequent in Western Aramaic. In Arabic the corresponding forms are the two energetic moods (see § 48 b) ending in an and anna, which are used in connexion with suffixes (e.g. yaqtulan-ka or yaqtulanna-ka) as well as without them.
a 1. The endings (afformatives) of the perfect occasionally vary somewhat from the ordinary form, when connected with pronominal suffixes; viz.:—
(a) In the 3rd sing. fem. the original feminine ending ־ַת or ־ָת is used for ־ָה.
(b) In the 2nd sing. masc. besides תָּ we find תּ, to which the connecting vowel is directly attached, but the only clear instances of this are with ־ַ֫ נִי.[22]
(c) In the 2nd sing. fem. תִּי, the original form of תְּ, appears; cf. אַתִּי, קָטַ֫לְתִּי, § 32 f; § 44 g. This form can be distinguished from the 1st pers. only by the context.
(d) 2nd plur. masc. תּוּ for תֶּם. The only examples are Nu 20, 21, Zc 7. The fem. קְטַלְתֶּן never occurs with suffixes; probably it had the same form as the masculine.
We exhibit first the forms of the perfect Hiphʿîl, as used in connexion with suffixes, since here no further changes take place in the stem itself, except as regards the tone (see c). | Singular. | Plural. |
| 3. m. הִקְטִיל | 3. c. הִקְטִילוּ |
| 3. f. הִקְטִילַת | |
| 2. m. הִקְטַלְתָּ, הִקְטַלְתּ | 2. m. הִקְטַלְתּוּ |
| 2. f. הִקְטַלְתִּי, הִקְטַלְתּ | |
| 1. c. הִקְטַלְתִּי | 1. c. הִקְטַלְנוּ |
The beginner should first practise connecting the suffixes with these Hiphʿîl forms and then go on to unite them to the Perfect Qal (see d).
c 2. The addition of the suffix generally causes the tone to be thrown forward towards the end of the word, since it would otherwise fall, in some cases, on the ante-penultima; with the heavy suffixes (see e) the tone is even transferred to the suffix itself. Considerations of tone, especially in the Perfect Qal, occasion certain vowel changes: (a) the Qameṣ of the first syllable, no longer standing before the tone, always becomes vocal Šewâ; (b) the original Pathaḥ of the second syllable, which in the 3rd sing. fem. and 3rd plur. had become Šewâ, reappears before the suffix, and, in an open syllable before the tone, is lengthened to Qameṣ; similarly original ĭ (as in the 3rd sing. masc. without a suffix) is lengthened to ē, e.g. אֲהֵב֫וּךָ 1 S 18, Pr 19.
d The forms of the perfect of Qal consequently appear as follows:—
| Singular. | Plural. |
| 3. m. קְטָל | 3. c. קְטָלוּ |
| 3. f. קְטָלַת (קְטָלָת, see g) | |
| 2. m. קְטַלְתָּ (קְטַלְתּ, see h) | 2. m. קְטַלְתּוּ |
| 2. f. קְטַלְתִּי (קְטַלְתּ, see h) | |
| 1. c. קְטַלְתִּי | 1. c. קְטַלְנוּ |
The connexion of these forms with all the suffixes is shown in Paradigm C. It will be seen there also, how the Ṣere in the Perfect Piʿēl changes sometimes into Seghôl, and sometimes into vocal Šewâ.
e Rem. 1. The suffixes of the 2nd and 3rd pers. plur. כֶם and הֶם, since they end in a consonant and also always have the tone, are distinguished as heavy suffixes (suffixa gravia) from the rest, which are called light suffixes. Compare the connexion of these (and of the corresponding feminine forms כֶן and הֶן) with the noun, § 91. With a perfect כֶם alone occurs, ψ 118. The form קְטַל which is usually given as the connective form of the 3rd sing. masc. before כֶם and כֶן is only formed by analogy, and is without example in the O.T.
f 2. In the 3rd sing. masc. קְטָלָ֫הוּ (especially in verbs ל״ה; in the strong verb only in Jer 20 in Piʿēl) is mostly contracted to קְטָלוֹ, according to § 23 k; likewise in the 2nd sing. masc. קְטַלְתָּ֫הוּ to קְטַלְתּוֹ.—As a suffix of the 1st sing. ־ָ֫ נִי occurs several times with the 3rd sing. masc. perf. Qal of verbs ל״ה, not only in pause (as עָנָ֫נִי ψ 118; קָנָ֫נִי Pr 8 with Deḥi), but even with a conjunctive accent, as הֹרָ֫נִי Jb 30; עָנָ֫נִי 1 S 28 (where, however, the reading עָנַ֫נִי is also found). With a sharpened נ: דָּנַ֫נִּי Gn 30, יִסְרַ֫נִּי ψ 118.
g 3. The 3rd sing. fem. קְטָלַת (=קָֽטְלָה) has the twofold peculiarity that (a) the ending ath always takes the tone,[23] and consequently is joined to those suffixes which form a syllable of themselves (נִי, ךָ, הוּ, הָ, נוּ), without a connecting vowel, contrary to the general rule, § 58 f; (b) before the other suffixes the connecting vowel is indeed employed, but the tone is drawn back to the penultima, so that they are pronounced with shortened vowels, viz. ־֫ ־ֶךְ, ־֫ ־ַם, e.g. אֲהֵבָ֫תֶךְ she loves thee, Ru 4, cf. Is 47; גְּנָבָ֫תַם she has stolen them, Gn 31; שְׂרָפָּ֫תַם it burns them, Is 47, Jos 2, Ho 2, ψ 48. For ־ַ֫ תְנִי, ־ַ֫ תְךָ &c., in pause ־ָֽ תְנִי is found, Jer 8, ψ 69, and ־ָֽ תְךָ Ct 8; and also without the pause for the sake of the assonance חִבְּלָֽתְךָ, she was in travail with thee, ibid. The form קְטָלַ֫תּוּ (e.g. Ru 4) has arisen, through the loss of the ה and the consequent sharpening of the ת (as in ־ֶ֫ נּוּ and ־ֶ֫ נָּה for ־ֶ֫ נְהוּ and ־ֶ֫ נְהָ, cf. § 58 i), from the form קְטָלַ֫תְהוּ, which is also found even in pause (אֲהֵבַֽתְהוּ 1 S 18; elsewhere it takes in pause the form סְמָכָֽתְהוּ Is 59); so קְטָלַ֫תָּה from קֵטָלַ֫תְהָ; cf. 1 S 1, Is 34, Jer 49, Ru 3; in pause Ez 14, always, on the authority of Qimḥi, without Mappîq in the ה, which is consequently always a more vowel-letter.
h 4. In the 2nd sing. masc. the form קְטַלְתָּ is mostly used, and the suffixes have, therefore, no connecting vowel, e.g. זְנַחְתָּ֫נוּ פְרַצְתָּ֑נוּ thou hast cast us off, thou hast broken us down, ψ 60; but with the suff. of the 1st sing. the form קְטַלְתַּ֫נִי is used, e.g. חֲקַרְתַּ֫נִי ψ 139; in pause, however, with Qameṣ, e.g. עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי ψ 22; Ju 1 (with Zaqeph qaṭon); but cf. also צְרַפְתָּ֫נִי ψ 17 with Merekha.—In the 2nd sing. fem. ־תִּי— is also written defectively, רִמִּיתִ֫נִי 1 S 19, Ju 11, Jer 15, Ct 4. Occasionally the suffix is appended to the ordinary form ־ְתּ, viz. הִשְׁבַּעְתָּ֫נוּ thou (fem.) dost adjure us, Ct 5, Jos 2; cf. Jer 2, and, quite abnormally, with Ṣere הוֹרַדְתֵּ֫נוּ thou (fem.) didst let us down, Jos 2, where הוֹרַדְתִּ֫נוּ would be expected. In Is 8 וְיִסְּרֵ֫נִי is probably intended as an imperfect.
i 5. In verbs middle ē, the ē remains even before suffixes (see above, c), e.g. אֲהֵֽבְךָ֫ Dt 15, אֲהֵבַ֫תְהוּ 1 S 18, cf. 18; יְרֵא֫וּהוּ Jb 37. From a verb middle ō there occurs יְכָלְתִּיו I have prevailed against him, ψ 13, from יָכֹל with ŏ instead of ō in a syllable which has lost the tone (§ 44 e).
a In those forms of the imperfect Qal, which have no afformatives, the vowel ō of the second syllable mostly becomes ־ְ (simple Šewâ mobile), sometimes ־ֳ; thus in the principal pause, Nu 35, Is 27, 62, Jer 31, Ez 35, Ho 10; before the principal pause, ψ 119; before a secondary pause, Ez 17; even before a conjunctive accent, Jos 23. Before ־ְךָ, ־ְכֶם, however, it is shortened to Qameṣ ḥaṭuph, e.g. יִשְׁמָרְךָ (but in pause יִשְׁמְרֶ֫ךָ or יִשְׁמְרֶ֫ךָּ; with Nûn energicum, see § 58 i), יִשְׁמָרְכֶם, &c. Instead of תִּקְטֹ֫לְנָה, the form תִּקְטְלוּ[24] is used for the 2nd and 3rd fem. plur. before suffixes in three places: Jer 2, Jb 19, Ct 1.
b Rem. 1. יְחָבְרְךָ ψ 94 is an anomalous form for יַחְבָּרְךָ (cf. the analogous יָחְנְךָ § 67 n) and יִֽפְגָֽשְׁךָ (so Baer; others יִפְגָּֽשְׁךָ) Gn 32 for יִפְגָּֽשֲׁךָ. To the same category as יְחָבְרְךָ belong also, according to the usual explanation, תָּֽעָבְדֵם (from תַּֽעֲבֹד), Ex 20, 23, Dt 5, and נָֽעָב׳ Dt 13. As a matter of fact, the explanation of these forms as imperfects of Qal appears to be required by the last of these passages; yet why has the retraction of the ŏ taken place only in these examples (beside numerous forms like יַֽעַבְדֵ֫נִי)? Could the Masora in the two Decalogues and in Ex 23 (on the analogy of which Dt 13 was then wrongly pointed) have intended an imperfect Hophʿal with the suffix, meaning thou shalt not allow thyself to be brought to worship them?
c Verbs which have a in the second syllable of the imperfect, and imperative, Qal (to which class especially verba tertiae and mediae gutturalis belong, § 64 and § 65) do not, as a rule, change the Pathaḥ of the imperfect (nor of the imperative, see § 61 g) into Šewâ before suffixes; but the Pathaḥ, coming to stand in an open syllable before the tone, is lengthened to Qameṣ, e.g. וַיִּלְבָּשֵׁ֫נִי Jb 29; יִגְאָל֫וּהוּ 3; וַיִּשְׁלָחֵם Jos 8; יִקְרָאֻ֫הוּ ψ 145; but יִקְרְאוֹ Jer 23, is probably a forma mixta combining the readings יִקְרָאוֹ and יִקְרְאוּ, cf. § 74 e.
d 2. Not infrequently suffixes with the connecting vowel a are also found with the imperfect, e.g. תִּדְבָּקַ֫נִי Gn 19, cf. 29, Ex 33, Nu 22, 1 K 2 Qerê, Is 56, Jb 9; also ־ַ֫נִּי, Gn 27, Jb 7, 9, 13 (in principal pause); וַיַּכִּירָהּ Gn 37, cf. 16, 2 S 11, Is 26, Jb 28, 1 Ch 20; יַכִּירָ֑נוּ Is 63 (manifestly owing to the influence of the preceding יְדָעָ֫נוּ); יִלְבָּשָׁם Ex 29, cf. 2, Nu 21, Dt 7, ψ 74; even אֲמִילַֽם 118; וַיּֽוֹשִׁיעָן Ex 2, and יְחִיתַֽן Hb 2 (where, however, the ancient versions read יְחִתֶּ֫ךָ); even יִרְדְּפוֹ (ô from āhu) Ho 8; cf. Ex 22, Jos 2 (but read וַתִּצְפְּנֵם); 1 S 18 Keth., 21 (where, however, the text is corrupt); 2 S 14 (where read with the old versions וַיַּךְ); Jer 23 (see § 74 e), ψ 35, Ec 4.—On pausal Seghôl for Ṣere in וַֽאֲבָֽרֲכָֽם Gn 48 and וַתְּאַֽלֲצֶ֑הוּ (so Baer, but ed. Mant., Ginsb. וַתְּאַלְצֵ֑הוּ) Ju 16, see § 29 q.
e 3. Suffixes are also appended in twelve passages to the plural forms in וּן, viz. תְּדַכְּאוּנַ֫נִי, will ye break me in pieces? Jb 19; יְשָֽׁרְת֑וּנֶךְ (here necessarily with a connecting vowel) Is 60; Pr 5 (וֹ but probably corrupt); elsewhere always without a connecting vowel; יִקְרָאֻ֫נְנִי with two other examples Pr 1, 8, Ho 5; cf. ־֫וּנְךָ ψ 63, 91; ־ֻ֫נְהוּ Jer 5; ־֫וּנְהָ Jer 2, all in principal pause. [See Böttcher, Lehrb., § 1047 f.]
f 4. In Piʿēl, Pôʿēl, and Poʿlēl, the Ṣere of the final syllable, like the ō in Qal, becomes vocal Šewâ; but before the suffixes ־ְךָ and ־ְכֶם it is shortened to Seghôl, e.g. יְקַבֶּצְךָ Dt 30, ψ 34, Is 51. With a final guttural, however, אֲשַׁלֵּֽחֲךָ Gn 32; also in Pr 4, where with Qimḥi תְּכַבֵּ֫דְךָ is to be read. ē is retained in the tone-syllable; an analogous case in Hiphʿîl is וְיַגֵּ֫דְךָ Dt 32. Less frequently Ṣere is sharpened to Ḥireq, e.g. אֲאַמִּצְכֶם Jb 16, cf. Ex 31, Is 1, 52; so in Poʿlēl, Is 25, ψ 30, 37, 145, and probably also in Qal אֹֽסִפְךָ 1 S 15; cf. § 68 h.
g 5. In Hiphʿîl the î remains, e.g. תַּלְבִּישֵׁ֫נִי Jb 10 (after wāw consecutive it is often written defectively, e.g. וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם Gn 3 and ofton); but cf. above, f, Dt 32. Forms like תַּעְשְׁרֶ֫נָּה thou enrichest it, ψ 65, 1 S 17, are rare. Cf. § 53 n.
h 6. Instead of the suffix of the 3rd plur. fem. (ן), the suffix of the 3rd plur. masc. (ם) is affixed to the afformative וּ, to avoid a confusion with the personal ending וּן; cf. וַיְמַלְאוּם Gn 26 (previously also with a perf. סִתְּמוּם); Gn 26, 33, Ex 2 (where וַיּֽוֹשִׁעָן occurs immediately after); 39, 1 S 6 (where also בְּנֵיהֶם is for בְּנֵיהֶן, a neglect of gender which can only be explained by § 135 o).—For יַֽהַרְגֻן Zc 11 read perhaps יַֽהַרְגֵן with M. Lambert.
a 1. The infinitive construct of an active verb may be construed with an accusative, and therefore can also take a verbal suffix, i.e. the accusative of the personal pronoun. The only undoubted instances of the kind, however, in the O.T. are infinitives with the verbal suffix of the 1st pers. sing., e.g. לְדָרְשֵׁ֫נִי to inquire of me, Jer 37. As a rule the infinitive (as a noun) takes noun-suffixes (in the genitive, which may be either subjective or objective, cf. § 115 c), e.g. עָבְרִי my passing by; מָלְכוֹ his reigning, see § 115 a and e. The infinitive Qal, then, usually has the form qŏṭl, retaining the original short vowel under the first radical (on the probable ground-form qŭṭŭl, see § 46 a). The resulting syllable as a rule allows a following Begadkephath to be spirant, e.g. בְּכָתְבוֹ in his writing, Jer 45; cf., however, הָפְכִּי Gn 19; נָגְפּוֹ (so ed. Mant.; others נָגְפוֹ) Ex 12; עָצְבִּי 1 Ch 4; before ־ְךָ and ־ְכֶם also the syllable is completely closed, e.g. בְּאָסְפְּךָ Ex 23, Lv 23 (but in pause לְהָרְגֶֽ֫ךָ Gn 27), unless the vowel be retained in the second syllable; see d. With the form קְטֹל generally, compare the closely allied nouns of the form קֹ֫טֶל (before a suffix קָטְל or קֻטְל), § 84a a; § 93 q.
b Rem. 1. The infin. of verbs which have ō in the last syllable of the imperfect of Qal, sometimes takes the form qiṭl before suffixes, e.g. בְּבִגְדוֹ Ex 21; מִכְרָם Am 2 (but מָכְרָהּ Ex 21) נִפְלוֹ 2 S 1 (but נָפְלוֹ 1 S 29), לשִׂטְנוֹ Zc 3, שִׁבְרִי Lv 26, Ez 30 &c. According to Barth (see above, § 47 i with the note) these forms with i in the first syllable point to former i-imperfects.
c Infinitives of the form קְטַל (§ 45 c) in verbs middle or third guttural (but cf. also שִׁכְבָה Gn 19—elsewhere שָׁכְבְּךָ and שָׁכְבוֹ) before suffixes sometimes take the form qaṭl, as זַעְפּוֹ Jon 1 (and, with the syllable loosely closed. פַּֽעֲמוֹ Ju 13), מַחְאֲךָ and רַקְעֲךָ Ez 25; sometimes qiṭl, with the a attenuated to i, especially in verbs third guttural; as בִּטְחֵךְ, בִּלְעִי, בִּקְעָם, פִּגְעוֹ, פִּתְחִי, רִבְעָהּ—Contrary to § 58 f ־ַ֫נִי (1 Ch 12) and ־ָ֫נוּ (Ex 14) are sometimes found with the infinitive instead of ־ֵ֫ נִי and ־ֵ֫ נוּ. On רדופי my following ψ 38 (but Qerê רָדְפִי), cf. the analogous examples in § 46 e.
d 2. With the suffixes ־ְךָ and ־ְכֶם, contrary to the analogy of the correspending nouns, forms occur like אֲכָלְךָ thy eating, Gn 2; אֲכָלְכֶם Gn 3; עֲמָדְךָ (others עֲמָֽדְךָ) Ob 111, i.e. with ō shortened in the same way as in the imperfect, see § 60. But the analogy of the nouns is followed in such forms as קֻצְרְכֶם your harvesting, Lv 19, 23 (with retention of the original ŭ), and מָֽאָסְכֶם (read mŏʾŏsekhèm) your despising, Is 30; cf. Dt 20; on בְּמֹצַֽאֲכֶם Gn 32 (for בְּמָצְ׳), see § 74 h.—Very unusual are the infinitive suffixes of the 2nd sing. masc. with נ energicum (on the analogy of suffixes with the imperfect, § 58 i), as יַסְּרֶ֑ךָּ Dt 4, cf. 23, Jb 33, all in principal pause.
e Examples of the infinitive Niphʿal with suffixes are, הִכָּֽבְדִי Ex 14; הִשָּֽׁמֶדְךָ Dt 28 (in pause, הִשָּֽׁמְדָֽךְ verse 24); הִשָּֽׁפְטוֹ ψ 37; הִזָּֽכֶרְכֶם Ez 21; הִשָּֽׁמְדָם Dt 7. In the infinitive of Piʿēl (as also in the imperfect, see § 60 f) the ē before the suff. ־ְךָ, ־ְכֶם becomes Seghôl, e.g. דַּבֶּ֫רְךָ Ex 4, and with a sharpening to ĭ פָּֽרִשְׂכָם Is 1 (see § 60 f). In the infinitive Pôʿēl, בּֽוֹשַׁסְכָם occurs (with a for ĕ or ĭ) Am 5, but probably בּֽוּסְכָם, with Wellhausen, is the right reading; the correction ס has crept into the text alongside of the corrigendum ש.
f 2. The leading form of the imperative Qal before suffixes (קָטְל) is due probably (see § 46 d) to the retention of the original short vowel of the first syllable (ground-form qŭṭŭl). In the imperative also ŏ is not followed by Dageš lene, e.g. כָּתְבֵם kŏthbhēm (not kŏthbēm), &c.[25] As in the imperfect (§ 60 d) and infinitive (see above, § 61 c), so also in the imperative, suffixes are found united to the stem by an a-sound; e.g. כָּתְבָהּ Is 30; cf. 2 S 12.—The forms קִטְלִי, קִטְלוּ, which are not exhibited in Paradigm C, undergo no change. Instead of קְטֹ֫לְנָה, the masc. form (קִטְלוּ) is used, as in the imperfect.
g In verbs which form the imperative with a, like שְׁלַח (to which class belong especially verbs middle and third guttural, §§ 64 and 65), this a retains its place when pronominal suffixes are added, but, since it then stands in an open syllable, is, as a matter of course, lengthened to Qameṣ (just as in imperfects Qal in a, § 60 c), e.g. שְׁלָחֵ֫נִי send me, Is 6, בְּחָנֵ֫נִי ψ 26, קְרָאֵ֫נִי ψ 50, שְׁמָע֫וּנִי Gn 23. In Am 9, בְּצָ֫עַם (so ed. Mant., Baer, Ginsb., instead of the ordinary reading בְּצַ֫עְם) is to be explained, with Margolis, AJSL. xix, p. 45 ff., from an original בְּצַעְמוֹ, as וַֽהֲרָגָ֑תַם Am 9 from original וַֽהֲרָגָ֑תְמוֹ.—In the imperative Hiphʿîl, the form used in conjunction with suffixes is not the 2nd sing. masc. חַקְטֵל, but הַקְטִיל (with î on account of the open syllable, cf. § 60 g), e.g. הַקְרִיבֵ֫הוּ present it, Mal 1.
h 3. Like the infinitives, the participles can also be united with either verbal or noun-suffixes; see § 116 f. In both cases the vowel of the participles is shortened or becomes Šewâ before the suffix, as in the corresponding noun-forms, e.g. from the form קֹטֵל: רֹֽדְפִי, רֹֽדְפוֹ, &c.; but before Šewâ mobile יֹֽצֶרְךָ, &c., or with the original ĭ, אֹֽיִבְךָ Ex 23, &c., אֹֽסִפְךָ 2 K 22 (coinciding in form with the 1st sing. imperfect Qal, 1 S 15; cf. § 68 h); with a middle guttural (גֹּֽאֲלִי), גֹּֽאַלְךָ; with a third guttural, בֹּרַֽאֲךָ Is 43, but שֹׁלֵֽחֲךָ, מְשַׁלֵּֽחֲךָ Jer 28, cf. § 65 d. The form מְקַטֵּל, with suffix מְקַטְּלִי; before Šewâ sometimes like מְלַמֶּדְךָ Is 48, מְנַחֶמְכֶם 51, sometimes like מְאַסִּפְכֶם 52. In Is 47 רֹאָ֫נִי is irregular for רֹאֵ֫נִי; instead of the meaningless כֻּלֹּה מְקַלְלַֽוְנִי Jer 15 read כֻּלְּהֶם קִלְל֫וּנִי.
Also unusual (see above, d) with participles are the suffixes of the 2nd sing. masc. with נ energicum, as עוֹנֶ֫ךָּ Jb 5; cf. Dt 8, 12.
Brockelmann, Grundriss, p. 584 ff.
Verbs which have a guttural for one of the three radicals differ in their inflexion from the ordinary strong verb, according to the general rules in § 22. These differences do not affect the consonantal part of the stem, and it is, therefore, more correct to regard the guttural verbs as a subdivision of the strong verb. At the most, only the entire omission of the strengthening in some of the verbs middle guttural (as well as in the imperfect Niphʿal of verbs first guttural) can be regarded as a real weakness (§§ 63 h, 64 e). On the other hand, some original elements have been preserved in guttural stems, which have degenerated in the ordinary strong verb; e.g. the ă of the initial syllable in the imperfect Qal, as in יַחְמֹד, which elsewhere is attenuated to ĭ, יִקְטֹל.—In guttural verbs א and ה are only taken into consideration when they are actual consonants, and not vowel-letters like the א in some verbs פ״א (§ 68), in a few ע״א (§ 73 g), and in most ל״א (§ 74). In all these cases, however, the א was at least originally a full consonant, while the ה in verbs ל״ה was never anything but a vowel letter, cf. § 75. The really consonantal ה at the end of the word is marked by Mappîq.—Verbs containing a ר also, according to § 22 q, r, share some of the peculiarities of the guttural verbs. For more convenient treatment, the cases will be distinguished, according as the guttural is the first, second, or third radical. (Cf. the Paradigms D, E, F, in which only those conjugations are omitted which are wholly regular.)
a In this class the deviations from the ordinary strong verb may be referred to the following cases:—
1. Instead of a simple Šewâ mobile, the initial guttural takes a compound Šewâ (Ḥaṭeph, § 10 f, § 22 l). Thus the infinitives עֲמֹד, אֱכֹל to eat, and the perfects, 2nd plur. masc. עֲמַדְתֶּם, חֲפַצְתֶּם from חָפֵץ to be inclined, correspond to the forms קְטֹל and קְטַלְתֶּם; also אֲכָלוֹ to קְטָלוֹ, and so always with initial ־ֲ before a suffix for an original ă, according to § 22 o.
b 2. When a preformative is placed before an initial guttural, either the two may form a closed syllable, or the vowel of the preformative is repeated as a Ḥaṭeph under the guttural. If the vowel of the preformative was originally a, two methods of formation may again be distinguished, according as this a remains or passes into Seghôl.
c Examples: (a) of firmly closed syllables after the original vowel of the preformative (always with ō in the second syllable, except וַתַּעְגַּב Ez 23, תַּעְדֶה &c. from עָדָה to adorn oneself, and יַעְטֶה; but cf. e): יַחְמֹד, יַחְמֹל, יַהְשֹׁב, יַהְשֹׁךְ, יַעְקֹב Jer 9 (probably to distinguish it from the name יַֽעֲקֹב, just as in Jer 10, &c., the participle fem. Niphʿal of חָלָה is נַחְלָה to distinguish it from נַֽחֲלָה), &c., and so generally in the imperfect Qal of stems beginning with ח, although sometimes parallel forms exist, which repeat the ă as a Ḥaṭeph, e.g. יַֽחֲשֹׁב, &c. The same form appears also in the imperfect Hiphʿîl יַחְסִיר, &c. Very rarely the original ă is retained in a closed syllable under the preformative נ of the perfect Niphʿal: נַחְבֵּ֫אתָ Gn 31; cf. 1 S 19, Jos 2; also the infinitive absolute נַחְתּוֹם Est 8, נַעְתּוֹר 1 Ch 5, and the participle fem. נַחְלָה (see above), plur. נַעְתָּרוֹת Pr 27. In these forms the original ă is commonly kept under the preformative and is followed by Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ; thus in the perfect of some verbs ל״ה, e.g. נַֽעֲשָׂה, &c.; in the infinitive absolute, נַֽהֲפוֹךְ Est 9; in the participle נַֽעֲרָץ, ψ 89, &c.
d (b) Of the corresponding Ḥaṭeph after the original vowel: יַֽחֲבשׁ (but יֶחְבָּֽשׁ Jb 5 in pause), יֽחֲלֹם, יַֽעֲמֹד, יַֽהֲרֹס, and so almost always with ע and often with ה in the imperfects of Qal and Hiphʿîl; in Hophʿal, הָֽעֳמַד, יָֽעֳמַד; but cf. also הָחְבָּ֑אוּ Is 42, הָחְתֵּל Ez 16.
e The ă of the preformative before a guttural almost always (§ 22 i, cf. § 27 p) becomes Seghôl (cf., however, q). This Seghôl again appears sometimes
(c) in a closed syllable, e.g. יֶחְבַּשׁ, יֶחְסַד, יֶעְתַּד, יֶאְשַׁם, always with ă in the second syllable, corresponding to the imperfects of verbs ע״ע, with original ĭ in the first and ă in the second syllable, § 67 n, and also to the imperfects of verbs ע״וּ, § 72 h; but cf. also יֶאְפֹּד, יֶאְסֹר, and יֶהְדֹּף; in Niph., e.g. נֶהְפַּךְ; נֶחְלוּ Am 6, &c.; in Hiph. הֶחְסִיר, הֶעְלִים 2 K 4 &c.: sometimes
(d) followed by Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl, e.g. יֶֽחֱזַק, יֶֽאֱסֹף, יֶֽחֱשׂף, יֶעֱרַב in imperfect Qal; הֶֽעֱמִיד Hiphʿîl; נֶֽעֱנַשׁ Niphʿal.
f Rem. With regard to the above examples the following points may also be noted: (1) The forms with a firmly closed syllable (called the hard combination) frequently occur in the same verb with forms containing a loosely closed syllable (the soft combination). (2) In the 1st sing. imperfect Qal the preformative א invariably takes Seghôl, whether in a firmly or loosely closed syllable, e.g. אֶֽחֱבשׁ (with the cohortative אֶחְבְּשָׁה), אֶחְסָר (in pause), &c. In Jb 32 אַֽעֲנֶה must unquestionably be Hiphʿîl, since elsewhere the pointing is always אֶֽעֱ׳. Cohortatives like אַֽהַרְגָה Gn 27 and אַחְדְּלָה Jb 16, are explained by the next remark. (3) The shifting of the tone towards the end frequently causes the Pathaḥ of the preformative to change into Seghôl, and vice versa, e.g. נַֽעֲשָׂה, but נֶֽעֶשְׂתָה 3rd sing. fem.; יֶֽאֱסֹף, but תַּֽאַסְפִי; הֶֽעֱמִיד, but with wāw consecutive וְהַֽעֲמַדְתָּ֫, &c.; so וַיַּחְסְרוּ Gn 8 the plur. of וַיֶּחְסַר, cf. Gn 11; and thus generally a change of the stronger Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl group (־ֶֽ־ֱ) into the lighter Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ group takes place whenever the tone is moved one place toward the end (cf. § 27 v).
g 3. When in forms like יַֽעֲמֹד, נֶֽעֱמַד, the vowel of the final syllable becomes a vocal Šewâ in consequence of the addition of an afformative (וּ, ־ִי, ־ָה) or suffix, the compound Šewâ of the guttural is changed into the corresponding short vowel, e.g. יַֽעֲמֹד, plur. יַֽעַמְדוּ (ya-ʿa-me-dhû as an equivalent for yaʿ-me-dhû); נֶֽעֶזְבָה she is forsaken. But even in these forms the hard combination frequently occurs, e.g. יַחְבְּלוּ they take as a pledge (cf. in the sing. תַּחְבֹּל, also יַֽחֲבֹל); יֶחְזְקוּ (also יֶֽחֶזְקוּ) they are strong. Cf. § 22 m and, in general, m, § 28 c.
h 4. In the infinitive, imperative, and imperfect Niphʿal, where the first radical should by rule be strengthened (הִקָּטֵל, יִקָּטֵל), the strengthening is always omitted, and the vowel of the preformative lengthened to Ṣere; יֵֽעָמֵד for yiʿʿāmēd,[26] &c. Cf. § 22 c—For תֵּֽיעָשֶׂה Ex 25 (according to Dillmann, to prevent the pronunciation תַּֽעֲשֶׂה, which the LXX and Samaritan follow) read תֵּֽעָשֶׂה.
Remarks
I. On Qal.
i 1. In verbs פ״א the infinitive construct and imperative take Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl in the first syllable (according to § 22 o), e.g. אֱזֹר gird thou, Jb 38, אֱהַב love thou, Ho 3, אֱחֹז seize thou, Ex 4 (on אֵפוּ bake ye, Ex 16, see § 76 d); אֱכֹל to eat; infinitive with a prefix לֶֽאֱחֹז, לֶֽאֱכֹל, כֶּֽאֱכֹל Is 5; לֶֽאֱהֹב Ec 3. Sometimes, however, Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ is found as well, e.g. infinitive אֲחֹז 1 K 6; בַּֽאֲכֹל הָאֵשׁ Nu 26 (before a suffix אֲכָלְךָ, אֲמָרְךָ, אֲכָלְכֶם, אֲמָרְכֶם § 61 d); cf. Dt 7, 12, Ez 25, ψ 102, Pr 25 (אֲמָר־לְךָ), Jb 34, always in close connexion with the following word. With a firmly closed syllable after ל cf. לַחְסוֹת Is 30; לַחְפֹּר Jos 2 f. (on Is 2, cf. § 84b n); לַחְתּוֹת Is 30, Hag 2; לַחְשֹׁב Ex 31, &c.; לַעְזֹר 2 S 18 Qerê, but also בֶּֽעְזׄר 1 Ch 15.
k הֶֽחֳדַ֫לְתִּי Ju 9 is altogether anomalous, and only a few authorities give הֶֽחֱדַלְתִּי (Hiphʿil), adopted by Moore in Haupt’s Bible. According to Qimḥi, Olshausen, and others, the Masora intended a perfect Hophʿal with syncope of the preformative after the ה interrogative = הֶהָֽחֳדַ֫לְתִּי, or (according to Olshausen) with the omission of the ה interrogative. But since the Hiphʿil and Hophʿal of חָדֵל nowhere occur, it is difficult to believe that such was the intention of the Masora. We should expect the perfect Qal, הֶֽחָדַ֫לְתִּי. But the Qameṣ under the ה, falling between the tone and counter-tone, was naturally less emphasized than in חָדַ֫לְתִּי, without the ה interrogative. Consequently it was weakened, not to simple Šewâ, but to ־ֳ, in order to represent the sound of the Qameṣ (likewise pronounced as å) at least in a shortened form. The Seghôl of the ה interrogative is explained, in any case, from § 100 n (cf. the similar pointing of the article, e.g. in הֶֽחֳדָשִׁים, § 35 k). For the accusative after חָדֵל, instead of the usual מִן, Jb 3 affords sufficient evidence.
l Also in the other forms of the imperative the guttural not infrequently influences the vowel, causing a change of ĭ (on this ĭ cf. § 48 i) into Seghôl, e.g. אֶסְפָה gather thou, Nu 11; עֶרְכָה set in order, Jb 33; חֶשְׂפִּי strip off, Is 47 (on this irregular Dageš cf. § 46 d), especially when the second radical is also a guttural, e.g. אֶֽהֱבוּ Am 5, ψ 31; cf. Zc 8; אֶֽחֱזוּ Ct 2; cf. also in verbs ל״ה, עֱנוּ sing ye, Nu 21, ψ 147 (compared with עֲנוּ answer ye, 1 S 12) and אֱלִי Jo 1.—Pathaḥ occurs in חַבְלֵ֫הוּ hold him in pledge, Pr 20, and probably also in ψ 9 (חַֽנְנֵ֫נִי).—As a pausal form for חָרְבִי (cf. the plur. Jer 2) we find in Is 44 חֳרָ֑בִי (cf. the imperf. יֶֽחֱרַב) with the ŏ repeated in the form of a Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ. For other examples of this kind, see § 10 h and § 46 e.
m 2. The pronunciation (mentioned above, No. 2) of the imperfects in ă with Seghôl under the preformative in a firmly closed syllable (e.g. יֶחְדַּל, יֶחְכַּם) regularly gives way to the soft combination in verbs which are at the same time ל״ה, e.g. יֶֽחֱזֶה, יֶֽחֱצֶה &c. (but cf. יֶהְגֶּה &c., יַחְתֶּה Pr 6, אֶעְשֶׂה ed. Mant., Ex 3). Even in the strong verb וַיֶּֽחֱזַק is found along with יֶחְזַק. Cf. also וַתַּעְגַּב Ez 23; וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי Gn 27 (so Ben-Asher; but Ben-Naphtali וַיַּֽעַקְ׳); וַתַּחְלְקֵם Neh 9, and so always in the imperfect Qal of עָזַר with suffixes, Gn 49, &c.—תְּאֵֽהֲבוּ Pr 1 is to be explained from the endeavour to avoid too great an accumulation of short sounds by the insertion of a long vowel, but it is a question whether we should not simply read תֵּֽאהֲבוּ with Haupt in his Bible, Proverbs, p. 34, 1. 44 ff.; cf. the analogous instances under p, and such nouns as בְּאֵר, זְאֵב, § 93 t.—On יְחָבְרְךָ ψ 94 for יַחְבָּרְךָ (according to Qimḥi, and others, rather Puʿal) cf. § 60 b.
n יַאְטֵם ψ 58 and יַעְרִם to deal subtilly, 1 S 23, Pr 15, 19, may be explained with Barth (ZDMG. 1889, p. 179) as i-imperfects (see above, § 47 i),—the latter for the purpose of distinction from the causative יַֽעֲרִים ψ 83.—Instead of the unintelligible form וַיֵּחָֽלְקֵם (so ed. Mant.; Baer and Ginsb. as in 24) 1 Ch 23 and וַיֶּֽחָ׳ 24 (partly analogous to תָּֽעָבְדֵם § 60 b) the Qal וַיַּחְלְקֵם is to be read. The form יִֽרַדֹּף ψ 7 which is, according to Qimḥi (in Mikhlol; but in his Lexicon he explains it as Hithpaʿēl), a composite form of Qal (יִרְדֹּף) and Piʿēl (יְרַדֵּף), can only be understood as a development of יִֽרְדֹף (cf. § 64 h on יִֽצֲחַק, and § 69 x on תִּֽהֲלַךְ Ex 9, ψ 73). Pathaḥ has taken the place of Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ, but as a mere helping-vowel (as in שָׁמַעַתְּ § 28 e, note 2) and without preventing the closing of the syllable. It is much simpler, however, to take it as a forma mixta, combining the readings יִרְדֹּף (impf. Qal) and יְרַדֵּף (impf. Piʿel).
II. On Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal.
o 3. The above-mentioned (f, 3) change of ־ֶֽ־ֱ to ־ַֽ־ֲ occurs in the perfect Hiphʿîl, especially when wāw consecutive precedes, and the tone is in consequence thrown forward upon the afformative, e.g. הֶֽעֱמַ֫דְתָּ, but וְהַֽעֲמַדְתָּ֫ Nu 3, 8, 27; הֶֽעֱבַ֫רְתִּי, but וְהַֽעֲבַרְתִּ֫י Jer 15, Ez 20; even in the 3rd sing. וְהַֽאֲוִין ψ 77.—On the contrary ־ֶֽ־ֱ occurs instead of ־ַֽ־ֲ in the imperative Hiphʿil, Jer 49; and in the infinitive Jer 31. The preformative of עתר in Hiphʿîl always takes a in a closed syllable: Ex 8 הַעְתִּ֫ירוּ; verse 5 אַעְתִּיר; also verse 25 and Jb 22.
p 4. In the perfect Hiphʿîl ־ֶֽ־ֱ is sometimes changed into ־ֵֽ־ֲ, and in Hophʿal ־ֶֽ־ֳ into ־ֽׄ־ֲ (cf. § 23 h); הֵֽעֲבַ֫רְתָּ Jos 7, הֵֽעֲלָה Hb 1, הֹֽעֲלָה Ju 6, 2 Ch 20, Na 2, always before ע, and hence evidently with the intention of strengthening the countertone-syllable (הֵֽ or הֹֽ) before the guttural. On a further case of this kind (זֹֽעֲמָה) see § 64 c. Something similar occurs in the formation of segholate nouns of the form qŏṭl; cf. § 93 q, and (on אֵמוּן &c. for אֱמוּן) § 84a q.—In the imperfect consecutive וַיַּֽחֲזֶק בּוֹ the tone is thrown back on to the first syllable. On the Hophʿal תָּֽעָבְדֵם Ex 20, &c., see § 60 b.
III. הָיָה and חָיָה.
a The slight deviations from the ordinary inflexion are confined chiefly to the following[27]:—
1. When the guttural would stand at the beginning of a syllable with simple Šewâ, it necessarily takes a Ḥaṭeph, and almost always Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ, e.g. perfect שָֽׁחֲטוּ, imperfect יִשְׁחֲטוּ, imperative Niphʿal הִשָּֽׁחֲטוּ. In the imperative Qal, before the afformatives î and û, the original Pathaḥ is retained in the first syllable, and is followed by Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ, thus, זַֽעֲקִי, זַֽעֲקוּ, &c.; in אֶֽהֱבוּ the preference of the א for Seghôl (but cf. also יֹֽאחֱזוּךְ Jer 13) has caused the change from ă to ĕ; in שִֽׁחֲדוּ Jb 6, even ĭ remains before a hard guttural.
So in the infinitive Qal fem., e.g. אַֽהֲבָה to love, דַּֽאֲבָה to pine; and in the infinitive with a suffix לְסַֽעֲדָהּ Is 9; the doubtful form שַֽׁחֲטָה Ho 5, is better explained as infinitive Piʿēl (= שַֽׁחֲתָה).
b 2. Since the preference of the gutturals for the a-sound has less influence on the following than on the preceding vowel, not only is Ḥolem retained after the middle guttural in the infinitive Qal שְׁחֹט (with the fem. ending and retraction and shortening of the o רָחְצָה and רָֽחֳקָה cf. § 45 b), but generally also the Ṣere in the imperfect Niphʿal and Piʿēl, e.g. יִלָּחֵם he fights, יְנַחֵם he comforts, and even the more feeble Seghôl after wāw consecutive in such forms as וַיִּלָּ֫חֶם, וַתִּפָּ֫עֶם Gn 41 (cf., however, וַיִּוָּעַ֫ץ 1 K 12, &c.). But in the imperative and imperfect Qal, the final syllable, through the influence of the guttural, mostly takes Pathaḥ, even in transitive verbs, e.g. שְׁחַט, יִשְׁחַט; זְעַק, יִזְעַק; בְּחַר, יִבְחַר; with suffixes (according to § 60 c), imperative בְּחָנֵ֫נִי, שְׁאָל֫וּנִי, imperfect יִגְאָלוּ֫הוּ.
c With ō in the imperative Qal, the only instances are נְעֹל 2 S 13; אֱחֹז Ex 4, 2 S 2, fem. אֶֽחֳזִי Ru 3 (with the unusual repetition of the lost ō as Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ; 2nd plur. masc. in pause אֱחֹ֑זוּ Neh 7; without the pause אֶֽחֱזוּ Ct 2); סְעָד־ Ju 19.[28] Finally זֹֽעֲמָה for זָֽעֳמָה, Nu 23, is an example of the same kind, see § 63 p. Just as rare are the imperfects in ō of verbs middle guttural, as יִנְהֹם, יֶֽאֱחֹז, תִּמְעֹל Lv 5, Nu 5 (but וַיִּמְעַל 2 Ch 26); cf. וַתִּשְׁחֳדִי Ez 16; תִּפְעָל־ Jb 35. Also in the perfect Piʿēl, Pathaḥ occurs somewhat more frequently than in the strong verb, e.g. נִחַם to comfort (cf., however, כִּהֵן, כִּחֵד, כִּחֵשׁ, שִׁחֵת); but א and ע always have ē in 3rd sing.—On the infinitive with suffixes, cf. § 61 b.
d 3. In Piʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl, the Dageš forte being inadmissible in the middle radical, the preceding vowel, especially before ה, ח and ע, nevertheless, generally remains short, and the guttural is consequently to be regarded as, at least, virtually strengthened, cf. § 22 c; e.g. Piʿēl שִׂחַק, נִֽחֲלוּ Jos 14, וּבִֽעַרְתִּי 1 K 14, נִהַג Ex 10 (cf., however, אֵחַר Gn 34; נֵהַ֫לְתָּ Ex 15, but in the imperfect and participle יְנַהֵל, &c.; in verbs ל״ה, e.g. רֵעָה), infinitive שַׂחֵק, Puʿal רֻחַץ (but cf. דֹּחוּ ψ 36 from דָּחָה, also the unusual position of the tone in בֹּ֫חַן[29] Ez 21, and in the perfect Hithpaʿēl הִתְרָחַ֫צְתִּי Jb 9); Hithpaʿēl perfect and imperative הִטַּֽהֲרוּ, &c.; in pause (see §§ 22 c, 27 q, 29 v, 54 k) הִטֶּהָֽרוּ Nu 8, 2 Ch 30; יִתְנֶחָם Nu 23, &c.
e The complete omission of the strengthening, and a consequent lengthening of the preceding vowel, occurs invariably only with ר (כָּרַּת Ez 16 is an exception; כֹּרָ֑תָה also occurs, Ju 6), e g. בֵּרַךְ (in pause בֵּרֵךְ), imperfect יְבָרֵךְ, Puʿal בֹּרַךְ. Before א it occurs regularly in the stems בֵּאֵר, גֵּאֵל, מֵאֵן, פֵּאֵר, and in the Hithpaʿēl of באשׁ, ראה, and שׁאה; on the other hand, א is virtually strengthened in the perfects, נִאֵף (once in the imperfect, Jer 29) to commit adultery, נִאֵץ to despise (in the participle, Nu 14, Is 60, Jer 23; according to Baer, but not ed. Mant., or Ginsb., even in the imperfect יְנַאֵץ ψ 74), נִאֵר to abhor La 2 (also נֵאַ֫רְתָּה ψ 89) and שִׁאֵל ψ 109; moreover, in the infinitive יַאֵשׁ Ec 2, according to the best reading. On the Mappîq in the Puʿal רֻאִ֫וּ Jb 33, cf. § 14 d.
f Rem. 1. In the verb שָׁאַל to ask, to beg, some forms of the perfect Qal appear to be based upon a secondary form middle e, which is Ṣere when the vowel of the א stands in an open syllable, cf. שְׁאֵֽלְךָ Gn 32, Ju 4; שְׁאֵל֫וּנִי ψ 137; but in a closed syllable, even without a suffix, שְׁאֶלְתֶּם 1 S 12, 25, Jb 21; שְׁאִלְתִּ֫יהוּ Ju 13, 1 S 1. Cf., however, similar cases of attenuation of an original ă, § 69 s, and especially § 44 d. In the first three examples, if explained on that analogy, the ĭ attenuated from ă would have been lengthened to ē (before the tone); in the next three ĭ would have been modified to ĕ. Also in the Hiphʿil-form הִשְׁאִלְתִּ֫יהוּ 1 S 1 the אִ is merely attenuated from אַ.
g 2. In Piʿēl and Hithpaʿēl the lengthening of the vowel before the guttural causes the tone to be thrown back upon the penultima, and consequently the Ṣere of the ultima to be shortened to Seghôl. Thus (a) before monosyllables, according to § 29 e, e.g. לְשָׁ֫רֶת שָׁם to minister there, Dt 17, even in the case of a guttural which is virtually strengthened, Gn 39, Jb 8 (see § 29 g). (b) after wāw consecutive, e.g. רַיְבָ֫רֶךְ and he blessed, Gn 1 and frequently, וַיְגָ֫רֶשׁ and he drove out, Ex 10, וַתִּתפָּ֫עֶם Dn 2. h 3. The following are a few rarer anomalies; in the imperfect Qal יִֽצֲחַק Gn 21 (elsewhere תִּצְחַק, &c., in pause יִצְחָק, cf. § 10 g (c) and § 63 n); וָֽאֵחַר Gn 32 (for וָאֶֽאֱחַר); in the perfect Piʿēl אֶֽחֱרוּ Ju 5 (perhaps primarily for אִֽחֲרוּ; according to Gn 34 אֵֽחֲרוּ would be expected), and similarly יֶחֱֽמַ֫תְנִי ψ 51 for יִחֲֽמַ֫תְנִי; in the imperative Piʿēl קָרַב Ez 37 (cf. above, § 52 n); finally, in the imperative Hiphʿîl הַרְחַק Jb 13 and הַמְעַד ψ 69, in both cases probably influenced by the closing consonant, and by the preference for Pathaḥ in pause (according to § 29 q); without the pause הַרְחֵק Pr 4, &c.; but also הַנְחַת Jo 4.
i 4. As infinitive Hithpaʿēl with a suffix we find הִתְיַחְשָׂם Ezr 8, &c., with a firmly closed syllable, also the participle מִתְיַחְשִׂים Neh 7; Baer, however, reads in all these cases, on good authority, הִתְיַֽחֲשָׂם &c.—The quite meaningless Kethîbh ונאשאר Ez 9 (for which the Qerê requires the equally unintelligible וְנֵֽשֲׁאַר) evidently combines two different readings, viz. וְנִשְׁאָר (part. Niph.) and וָֽאֶשָּׁאֵר (imperf. consec.); cf. König, Lehrgebäude, i. p. 266 f.—In יְתָֽאֳרֵ֫הוּ Is 44 (also יְתָֽאֲרֵ֫הוּ in the same verse) an imperfect Pôʿēl appears to be intended by the Masora with an irregular shortening of the ô for יְתֹֽאֲר׳; cf. § 55 b מְלָשְׁנִי ψ 101 Qerê; on the other hand Qimḥi, with whom Delitzsch agrees, explains the form as Piʿēl, with an irregular ־ֳ for ־ֲ, as in the reading אֲלַקֳּטָה Ru 2; cf. § 10 h.
5. A few examples in which א, as middle radical, entirely loses its consonantal value and quiesces in a vowel, will be found in § 73 g.
a 1. According to § 22 d, when the last syllable has a vowel incompatible with the guttural (i.e. not an a-sound), two possibilities present themselves, viz. either the regular vowel remains, and the guttural then takes furtive Pathaḥ, or Pathaḥ (in pause Qameṣ) takes its place. More particularly it is to be remarked that—
(a) The unchangeable vowels ־ִי, וֹ, וּ (§ 25 b) are always retained, even under such circumstances; hence inf. abs. Qal שָׁלוֹחַ, part. pass. שָׁלוּחַ, Hiph. הִשְׁלִיחַ, imperf. יַשְׁלִיחַ, part. מַשְׁלִיחַ. So also the less firm ō in the inf. constr. שְׁלֹח is almost always retained: cf., however, שְׁלַח, in close connexion with a substantive, Is 58, and גְּוַע Nu 20. Examples of the infinitive with suffixes are בְּבָרְחֲךָ Gn 35; בְּפִגְעוֹ Nu 35; לְרִבְעָהּ Lv 18, &c.
b (b) The imperfect and imperative Qal almost always have ă in the second syllable, sometimes, no doubt, due simply to the influence of the guttural (for a tone-long ō, originally ŭ), but sometimes as being the original vowel, thus יִשְׁלַח, שְׁלַח, &c.; with suffixes יִשְׁלָחֵ֫נִי, שְׁלָחֵ֫נִי, see § 60 c. Exceptions, in the imperfect אסלוח Jer 5, Keth. (אֶסְלַח Qerê); in the imperative טְבֹחַ Gn 43. On such cases as אֶפְשֳׂעָה Is 27, cf. § 10 h.
c (c) Where Ṣere would be the regular vowel of the final syllable, both forms (with ēa and ă) are sometimes in use; the choice of one or the other is decided by the special circumstances of the tone, i.e.:—
d Rem. 1. In the absolute state of the participle Qal, Piʿēl and Hithpaʿēl, the forms שֹׁלֵחַ (with suff. שֹֽׁלְחִי, but שֹׁלֵֽחֲךָ), מְשַׁלֵּחַ (with suff. מְשַׁלּֽחֲךָ), and מִשְׁתַּגֵּעַ are used exclusively; except in verbs ל״ע where we find, in close connexion, also נֹטַע ψ 94, רֹגַע Is 51, Jer 31, רֹקַע Is 42, 44, רוֹקַע ψ 136, שֹׁסָע Lv 11, all with the tone on the last syllable.—The part. Puʿal is מְרֻבַּע Ez 45 according to the best authorities (Kittel מְרֻבָּע).
e 2. Similarly, in the imperf. and inf. Niphʿal, and in the perf. inf. and imperf. Piʿēl the (probably more original) form with ă commonly occurs in the body of the sentence, and the fuller form with ēa in pause (and even with the lesser distinctives, e.g. with Dehi ψ 86 in the imperative Piʿēl; with Ṭiphḥa 1 K 12 in the infinitive Piʿēl; Jer 4 imperfect Hithpaʿēl; Jer 16 imperfect Niphʿal), cf. e.g. יִגָּרַע Nu 27, with יִגָּרֵעַֽ 36; וַיִּשָּׁבַע Dt 1, even with retraction of the tone in the inf. abs. Niphʿal הִשָּׁבַע Nu 30 (elsewhere הִשָּׁבֵעַ Jer 7, 12 twice, in each case without the pause); תְּבַקַּע־ Hb 3, with תְּבַקֵּֽעַ Ez 13; בַּלַּע to devour Hb 1, Nu 4 with בַּלֵּ֑עַ La 2; for infinitive Hithpaʿēl, cf. Is 28. The infinitive absolute Piʿē̇l has the from שַׁלֵּחַ Dt 22, 1 K 11; the infinitive construct, on the other hand, when without the pause is always as שַׁלַּח except לְשַׁלֵּחַ Ex 10.— יְזַבֵּחַ Hb 1 has ē, though not in pause, and even וַיְזַבֵּחַ 2 K 16, 2 Ch 28; but a in pause in the imperative Niphʿal הֵֽאָנַ֑ח Ez 21; jussive Piʿēl תְּאַחַר ψ 40; cf. § 52 n. An example of ă in the imperative Piʿēl under the influence of a final ר is כַּתַּר־ Jb 36, in the imperfect Niphʿal וָתֵּֽעָצַר Nu 17, &c.—In יַפְרִחַ Jb 14 (cf. ψ 92, Pr 14), Barth (see above, § 63 n) finds an i-imperfect of Qal, since the intransitive meaning is only found in Qal.
f 3. In the 2nd sing. masc. of the imperative, and in the forms of the jussive and imperfect consecutive of Hiphʿîl which end in gutturals, a alone occurs, e.g. הַצְלַח prosper thou, יַבְטַח let him make to trust, וַיַּצְמַח and he made to grow (so in Hithpalpel יִחְמַהְמַהּ, &c., Hb 2); even in pause וַיַּצְלַ֑ח 1 Ch 29, and, with the best authorities, וְיוֹכָֽח 1 Ch 12; וְישַֽׁעֲכֶ Is 35 is perhaps to be emended into וְישִֽׁעֲ׳ (=וְיוֹשִׁיע׳).—In the infinitive absolute Ṣere remains, e.g. הַגְבֵּהַּ to make high; as infinitive construct חוֹכַח also occurs in close connexion (Jb 6); on הוֹשֵׁעַ as infinitive construct (1 S 25), cf. § 53 k.
g 2. When the guttural with quiescent Šewâ stands at the end of a syllable, the ordinary strong form remains when not connected with suffixes, e.g. שָׁלַ֫חְתָּ, שָׁלַ֫חְתִּי. But in the 2nd sing. fem. perfect a helping-Pathaḥ takes the place of the Šewâ, שָׁכַ֫חַתְּ Jer 13 (§ 28 e); also in, 1 K 14, לָקַ֫חַתְּ is to be read, not לָקַחְתְּ.
h Rem. The soft combination with compound Šewâ occurs only in the 1st plur. perfect with suffixes, since in these forms the tone is thrown one place farther forward, e.g. יְדַֽעֲנ֫וּךָ we know thee, Ho 8 (cf. Gn 26, ψ 44, 132). Before the suffixes ךָ and בֶם, the guttural must have ־ֲ, e.g. אֶשְׁלָֽחֲךָ I will send thee, 1 S 16; וָֽאֲשַׁלֵּֽחֲךָ Gn 31; אַשְׁמִֽיעֲךָ Jer 18.
On the weak verbs ל״א, see especially § 74. II. The Weak Verb.[31]
a The weakness of initial נ consists chiefly in its suffering aphaeresis in the infinitive construct and imperative in some of these verbs (cf. § 19 h). On the other hand, the assimilation of the נ (see below) cannot properly be regarded as weakness, since the triliteral character of the stem is still preserved by the strengthening of the second consonant. The special points to be noticed are—
b 1. The aphaeresis of the Nûn (a) in the infinitive construct. This occurs only (though not necessarily) in those verbs which have a in the second syllable of the imperfect. Thus from the stem נגשׁ, imperfect יִגַּשׁ, infinitive properly גַּשׁ, but always lengthened by the feminine termination ת to the segholate form גֶּ֫שֶׁת[32]; with suffix גִּשְׁתּוֹ Gn 33; with the concurrence of a guttural נָגַע to touch, imperfect יִגַּע, infinitive גַּ֫עַת[33] (also נְגֹעַ, see below); נָטַע to plant, infinitive טַ֫עַת (also נְטֹעַ, see below); on the verb נָתַן to give, see especially h and i. On the other hand, aphaeresis does not take place in verbs which have ō in the imperfect, e.g. נָפַל to fall, imperfect יִפֹּל, infinitive נְפֹל, with suffix נָפְלוֹ, also נִפְלוֹ; לִנְדֹּר Nu 6, &c.; cf., moreover, לִנְגֹּעַ Gn 20, &c., וּנְגֹעַ Ex 19 (even לִנְגּוֹעַ Jb 6; cf. Jer 1); with suffix בְּנָגְעוֹ Lv 15. Also לִנְטֹעַ Is 51 (but לָטַ֫עַת Ec 3); נְשׂא Is 1, 18; with suffix בְּנָשְׂאִי ψ 28 (elsewhere שְׂאֵת, cf. § 74 i and § 76 b), לִנְשָׁק־ 2 S 20.
c (b) In the imperative. Here the Nûn is always dropped in verbs with a in the imperfect, e.g. נגשׁ, imperative גַּשׁ (more frequently with paragogic ā, גְּשָׁה; before Maqqeph also גֶּשׁ־ Gn 19), plur. גְּשׁוּ, &c. Parallel with these there are the curious forms with ō, גּ֫שִֽׁי Ru 2 (with retarding Metheg in the second syllable, and also nasog ʾaḥor, according to § 29 e, before הֲלֹם) and גּ֫שׁוּ Jos 3 (before ה֫נָּה), 1 S 14 (before הֲלֹם) and 2 Ch 29; in all these cases without the pause. With Nûn retained, as if in a strong verb, נְהַג drive, 2 K 4 (imperfect יִנְהַג, without assimilation of the Nûn), וְנִטְעוּ 2 K 19, Is 37, Jer 29; cf. also the verbs ל״ה, which are at the same time פ״ן; נְהֵה Ez 32, נְחֵה Ex 32, נְטֵה Ex 8, &c.; the verb ל״א, נְשָׂא ψ 10 (usually שָׂא); cf. § 76 b. But, as in the infinitive, the aphaeresis never takes place in verbs which have ō in the imperfect, e.g. נְצֹר, נְתֹץ, &c. d 2. When, through the addition of a preformative, Nûn stands at the end of a syllable, it is readily assimilated to the second radical (§ 19 c); thus in the imperfect Qal,[34] e.g. יִפֹּל for yinpōl, he will fall; יִגַּ֫שׁ for yingaš; יִתֵּן for yintēn, he will give (on this single example of an imperfect with original i in the second syllable, cf. h)[35]; also in the perfect Niphʿal נִגַּשׁ for ningaš; throughout Hiphʿîl (הִגִּישׁ, &c.) and Hophʿal (which in these verbs always has Qibbuṣ, in a sharpened syllable, cf. § 9 n) הֻגַּשׁ.
The other forms are all quite regular, e.g. the perfect, infinitive absolute and participle Qal, all Piʿēl, Puʿal, &c.
In Paradigm H, only those conjugations are given which differ from the regular form.
e The characteristic of these verbs in all forms with a preformative is Dageš following it in the second radical. Such forms, however, are also found in certain verbs פ״י (§ 71), and even in verbs ע״ע (§ 67). The infinitive גֶּ֫שֶׁת and the imperative גַּשׁ, also גֶשׁ־ (Gn 19) and תֵּן, resemble the corresponding forms of verbs פ״ו (§ 69).—On יִקַּח, קַח, and קַ֫חַת, from לָקַח to take, see g.—In יִקּוֹם (imperfect Niphʿal of קוּם), and in similar forms of verbs ע״וּ (§ 72), the full writing of the ô indicates, as a rule, that they are not to be regarded as imperfects Qal of נָקַם, &c.—Also אֶסַּק (ψ 139) is not to be derived from נסק, but stands for אֶסְלַק (with a sharpening of the ס as compensation for the loss of the ל), from סָלַק to ascend, see § 19 f, and Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram., § 44. Similarly the Hiphʿil-forms הִשִּׂיקוּ Ez 39, יַשִּׂיק Is 44, and the Niphʿal נִשְּׂקָה ψ 78 are most probably from a stem שֹלק, not נשֹק.
f Rem. 1. The instances are comparatively few in which the forms retain their Nûn before a firm consonant, e.g. נָטַר, imperfect יִנְטֹר Jer 3 (elsewhere יִטֹּר); also from נָצַר the pausal form is always יִנְצֹ֫רוּ (without the pause יִצְּרוּ Pr 20); similarly in Is 29, 58, ψ 61, 68 (where, however, תִּנָּדֵף is intended), 140, Pr 2, Jb 40, the retention of the Nûn is always connected with the pause. In Niphʿal this never occurs (except in the irregular inf. כְּהִנְדֹּף ψ 68, cf. § 51 k), in Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal very seldom; e.g. לְהַנְתִּיךְ Ez 22, תָנְתְּקוּ Ju 20; for לַנְפִּל Nu 5 read לִנְפֹּל, according to § 53 q. On the other hand, the Nûn is regularly retained in all verbs, of which the second radical is a guttural, e.g. יִנְחַל he will possess, although there are rare cases like יֵחַת (also יִנְחַת) he will descend, Jer 21 (even תֵּ֫חַת Pr 17; without apparent reason accented as Milʿēl), plur. יֵחַ֫תּוּ Jb 21 (cf. § 20 i; the Masora, however, probably regards יֵחַת and יֵחַ֫תּוּ as imperfect Niphʿal from חָתַת); Niphʿal נִחַם for נִנְחַם he has grieved.
g 2. The ל of לָקַח to take is treated like the Nûn of verbs פ״ן (§ 19 d). Hence imperfect Qal יִקַּח, cohortative (§ 20 m) אֶקְחָה, imperative קַח, in pause and before suffixes קָח (on קָֽחֶם־נָא Gn 48, see § 61 g), paragogic form קְחָת; קְחִי, &c. (but cf. also לְקַח Ex 29, Ez 37, Pr 20, לִקְחִי 1 K 17, perhaps a mistake for לָהּ קְחִי, cf. LXX and Lucian); infinitive construct קַ֫חַת (once קְחַת 2 K 12, cf. § 93 h); with לְ, לָקַ֫חַת; with suffix קַחְתִּי; Hophʿal (cf., however, § 53 u) imperfect יֻקַּח; Niphʿal, however, is always נִלְקַח.—The meaningless form קָח Ez 17 is a mistake; for the equally meaningless קָחָם Ho 11 read וָֽאֶקָּחֵם.
h 3. The verb נָתַן to give, mentioned above in d, is the only example of a verb פ״ן with imperfect in ē (יִתֵּן for yintēn; נִתַּן־[36] only in Ju 16, elsewhere before Maqqeph יִתֶּן־, &c.), and a corresponding imperative תֵּן or (very frequently) תְּנָה (but in ψ 8 the very strange reading תְּנָה is no doubt simply meant by the Masora to suggest נָֽתְנָה); before Maqqeph תֶּן־, fem. תְּנִי, &c. Moreover, this very common verb has the peculiarity that its final Nûn, as a weak nasal, is also assimilated; נָתַ֫תִּי for nāthántī, נָתַ֫תָּ or, very frequently, נָתַ֫תָּה, with a kind of orthographic compensation for the assimilated Nûn (cf. § 44 g); Niphʿal perfect נִתַּתֶּם Lv 26, Ezr 9.
i In the infinitive construct Qal the ground-form tint is not lengthened to tèneth (as גֶּ֫שֶׁת from נָגַשׁ), but contracted to titt, which is then correctly lengthened to תֵּת, with the omission of Dageš forte in the final consonant, see § 20 l; but with suffixes תִּתִּי, תִּתּוֹ, &c.; before Maqqeph with the prefix לְ = לָֽתֶת־, e.g. Ex 5, and even when closely connected by other means, e.g. Gn 15. However, the strong formation of the infinitive construct also occurs in נְתֹן Nu 20 and נְתָן־ Gn 38; cf. § 69 m, note 2. On the other hand, for לְתִתֵּן 1 K 6 read either לְתִתּוֹ or simply לָתֵת, just as the Qerê, 1 K 17, requires תֵּת for תתן.
k In other stems, the נ is retained as the third radical, e.g. שָׁכַ֫נְתָּ, זָקַ֫נְתִּי cf. § 19 c and § 44 o. On the entirely anomalous aphaeresis of the Nûn with a strong vowel in תַּ֫תָּה (for נָתַ֫תָּ) 2 S 22, cf. § 19 i.—On the passive imperfect יֻתַּן, cf. § 53 u.
a 1. A large number of Semitic stems have verbal forms with only two radicals, as well as forms in which the stem has been made triliteral by a repetition of the second radical, hence called verbs ע״ע. Forms with two radicals were formerly explained as being due to contraction from original forms with three radicals. It is more correct to regard them as representing the original stem (with two radicals), and the forms with the second radical repeated as subsequently developed from the monosyllabic stem.[37] The appearance of a general contraction of triliteral stems is due to the fact that in biliteral forms the second radical regularly receives Dageš forte before afformatives, except in the cases noted in § 22 b and q. This points, however, not to an actual doubling, but merely to a strengthening of the consonant, giving more body to the monosyllabic stem, and making it approximate more to the character of triliteral forms.
The development of biliteral to triliteral stems (ע״ע) generally takes place in the 3rd sing. masc. and fem. and 3rd plur. perfect Qal of transitive verbs, or at any rate of verbs expressing an activity, e.g. סָבַב, סָֽבְבָה, סָֽבְבוּ: חָנַן Gn 33 (but with suffix חַנַּ֫נִי, ver. 11); sometimes with an evident distinction between transitive and intransitive forms, as צָרַר to make strait, צַר to be in a strait; see further details, including the exceptions, in aa. The development of the stem takes place (a) necessarily whenever the strengthening of the 2nd radical is required by the character of the form (e.g. חִלֵּל, שֻׁדֵּד), and (b) as a rule, whenever the 2nd radical is followed or preceded by an essentially long vowel, as, in Qal, סָבוֹב, סָבוּב, in Pôʿl and Pôʿal, סוֹבֵב, סוֹבַב.
b 2. The biliteral stem always (except in Hiphʿîl and the imperfect Niphʿal, see below) takes the vowel which would have been required between the second and third radical of the ordinary strong form, or which stood in the ground-form, since that vowel is characteristic of the form (§ 43 b), e.g. תַּם answering to קָטַל, תַּ֫מָּה to the ground-form qăṭălăt, תַּ֫מּוּ to the ground-form qăṭălû; infinitive, סֹב to קְטֹל.
c 3. The insertion of Dageš forte (mentioned under a), for the purpose of strengthening the second radical, never takes place (see § 20 l) in the final consonant of the word, e.g. תַּם, סֹב, not תַּםּ, סֹבּ; but it appears again on the addition of afformatives or suffixes, e.g. תַּמּ֫וּ, סֹ֫בּוּ, סַבּ֫וּנִי, &c.
d 4. When the afformative begins with a consonant (נ, ת), and hence the strongly pronounced second radical would properly come at the end of a closed syllable, a separating vowel is inserted between the stem-syllable and the afformative. In the perfect this vowel is וֹ, in the imperative and imperfect ־ֶי, e.g. סַבּ֫וֹתָ, סַבּ֫וֹנוּ, imperfect תְּסֻבֶּ֫ינָה (for sabb-tā, sabb-nû, tasōbb-nā). The artificial opening of the syllable
- ↑ This î may have been transferred originally from the imperfects of verbs ע״וּ, as a convenient means of distinction between the indicative and jussive, to the imperfect of the strong verb and afterwards to the whole of Hiphʿîl; so Stade, Philippi, Praetorius, ZAW. 1883, p. 52 f.
- ↑ The same ideas are also paraphrased by the verb עָשָׂה (to make), e.g. to make fat, for, to produce fat upon his body, Jb 15; to make fruit, to make branches, for, to put forth, to yield, Jb 14, Ho 8, cf. the Lat. corpus, robur, sobolem, divitias facere, and the Ital. far corpo, far forze, far frutto.
- ↑ As to the doubtfulness, on general grounds, of this form of the Inf. Hiph., see Robertson Smith in the Journ. of Philol., xvi. p. 72 f.
- ↑ Most probably, however, גֵּאָ֫לְתִּי (perfect Piʿēl) is to be read, and the א is only an indication of the change of the perfect into the imperfect, as also previously, by a change of punctuation, וְאדרכם and וְיֵז (instead of וָֽאֶדְ׳ and וָיֵּז) are made future instead of past. Jewish exegesis applied these Edomoracles to the Roman (i.e. Christian) empire. So G. Moore in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1887, col. 292.
- ↑ A. Stein, Der Stamm des Hithpael im Hebr. pt. 1, Schwerin, 1893, gives alphabetical statistics of the 1151 forms.
- ↑ So also in Hebrew אֶתְחַבַּר 2 Ch 20; cf. ψ 76 (אֶשְׁתּוֹלְלוּ).
- ↑ Cf. Wolfensohn, ‘The Piʿlel in Hebrew,’ Amer. Journ. of Or. Studies, xxvii (1907), p. 303 ff.
- ↑ Cf. Lat. tinnio, tintinno, our tick-tack, ding-dong, and the German wirrwarr, klingklang. The repetition of the radical in verbs ע״ע also produces this effect; as in לָקַק to lick, דָּקַק to pound, טָפֵף. The same thing is expressed also by diminutive forms, as in Latin by the termination -illo, e.g. cantillo, in German by -eln, -ern, e.g. flimmern, trillern, tröpfeln, to trickle.
- ↑ The existence of a Taphʿēl is contested on good grounds by Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 279.
- ↑ [See Segal, Mišnaic Hebrew, Oxf. 1909, p. 30 ff.]
- ↑ This subject of the verbal suffixes is treated here in connexion with the strong verb, in order that both the forms of the suffixes and the general laws which regulate their union with verbal forms may be clearly seen. The rules which relate to the union of the suffixes with weak verbs will be given under the several classes of those verbs.
- ↑ An accusative suffix occurs with Niphʿal in ψ 109 (since נִלְחַם is used in the sense of to attack), and according to some, in Is 44; with Hithpaʿēl Is 14 (הִתְנַחֵל to appropriate somebody to oneself as a possession); cf. above, § 54 f, and § 117 w.
- ↑ On the cases where אֵת is necessary, see § 117 e.
- ↑ The exceptions in Jer 7, Ez 34 are only apparent. In all these instances the sharp antithesis between אֹתָם (themselves) and another object could only be expressed by retaining the same verb; also in Ex 5 אֹתָם after an active verb serves to emphasize the idea of themselves.
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 According to Diehl (see above), p. 61, כֶם occurs only once with the perfect (see § 59 e), 7 times with the imperfect, but never in pre-exilic passages, whereas the accus. אֶתְכֶם occurs 40 times in Jer. and 36 times in Ezek.—הֶם occurs only once as a verbal suffix (Dt 32, unless, with Kahan, Infinitive u. Participien, p. 13, אַפְאִיהֵם from פָּאַהּ is to be read), while the forms כֶן (2nd f. pl.) and ־ֵן and הֶן (3rd f. pl.), added by Qimḥi, never occur.
- ↑ We have kept the term connecting vowel, although it is rather a superficial description, and moreover these vowels are of various origin. The connective a is most probably the remains of the old verbal termination, like the i in the 2nd pers. fem. sing. קְטַלְתִּ֫יהוּ. Observe e.g. the Hebrew form qeṭāl-ani in connexion with the Arabic qatala-ni, contrasted with Hebrew qeṭālat-ni and Arabic qatalat-ni. König accordingly prefers the expression ‘vocalic ending of the stem’, instead of ‘connecting syllable’. The connective ē, aŒ¬, as Prätorius (ZDMG. 55, 267 ff.) and Barth (ibid. p. 205 f.) show by reference to the Syriac connective ai in the imperf. of the strong verb, is originally due to the analogy of verbs ל״י (מְחֵנִי = מְחֵינִי from meḥainî), in which the final ê was used as a connecting vowel first of the imperat., then of the impf. (besides many forms with a, § 60 d), and of the infin. and participle.
- ↑ Thus in Ps 2 ־מוֹ occurs five times [four times attached to a noun or preposition, §§ 91 f, 103 c], and ־ֵם only twice.
- ↑ It is, however, a question whether, instead of a connecting syllable, we should not assume a special verbal form, analogous to the Arabic energetic mood (see l, at the end) and probably also appearing in the Hebrew cohortative (see the footnote on § 48 c).—As M. Lambert has shown in REJ. 1903, p. 178 ff. (‘De l’emploi des suffixes pronominaux...’), the suffixes of the 3rd pers. with the impf. without waw in prose are ־ֶ֫ נּוּ and ־ֶ֫ נָּה, but with waw consec. ־ֵ֫ הוּ and ־ֶ֫ הָ or ־ָהּ; with the jussive in the 2nd and 3rd pers. always ־ֵ֫ הוּ, ־ֶ֫ ההָ, the 1st pers. more often ־ֶ֫ נּוּ than ־ֵ֫ הוּ, and always ־ֶ֫ נָּה.
- ↑ According to Barth ‘n-haltige Suffixe’ in Sprachwiss. Untersuchungen, Lpz. 1907, p. 1 ff., the connecting element, as in Aramaic, was originally in, which in Hebrew became en in a closed tone-syllable.
- ↑ So König, Lehrgeb., i. p. 226.
- ↑ On נוֹ = ־ֶנּוּ Nu 23, see § 67 o.
- ↑ On the ă as an original element of the verbal form, see § 58 f, note.
- ↑ חִבְּלָֽתְךָ֣ Ct 8 is an exception. כֶם would probably even here have the tone (see e); but no example of the kind occurs in the O.T. In Is 51 the imperfect is used instead of the perfect with a suffix.
- ↑ This form is also found as feminine without a suffix, in Jer 49, Ez 37. In the latter passage וַתִּקְרְבוּ is probably to be regarded, with König, as a clumsy correction of the original וַיִּק׳, intended to suggest the reading וַתִּקְרַ֫בְנָה, to agree with the usual gender of עֲצָמוֹת.
- ↑ שָֽׁמְרֵ֫נִי šāmerēnî required by the Masora in ψ 16 (also שָֽׁמְרָה ψ 86, 119; cf. Is 38 and עֲמָֽדְךָ Ob 111), belongs to the disputed cases discussed in § 9 v and § 48 i note.
- ↑ אֶֽעָנֶה Jb 19 (so even the Mantua ed.) is altogether abnormal: read אֵֽעָנֶה, with Baer, Ginsb.
- ↑ Hophʿal, which is not exhibited in the paradigm, follows the analogy of Qal; Hiphʿîl is regular.
- ↑ Also Ju 19 (where Qimḥi would read seʿād), read seʿŏd, and on the use of the conjunctive accent (here Darga) as a substitute for Metheg, at. § 9 u (c) and § 16 b.
- ↑ בֹּ֫חַן is explained by Abulwalîd as the 3rd pers. perfect Puʿal, but by Qimḥi as a noun.
- ↑ Verbs ל״ה in which the ה is consonantal obviously belong also to this class, e.g. גָּבַהּ to be high, תָּמַהּ to be astonished, מָהַהּ (only in Hithpalpel) to delay.
- ↑ Cf. the summary, § 41.
- ↑ The law allowing the addition of the feminine termination to the unlengthened form, instead of a lengthening of the vowel, is suitably called by Barth ‘the law of compensation’ (Nominalbildung, p. xiii).
- ↑ Critical annotation: In the printed book גַּעַ֫ת, but גַּ֫עַת is definitely correct.—A. E. A.
- ↑ Cf. Mayer Lambert, ‘Le futur qal des verbes פ״ו, פ״ן, פ״א’, in the REJ. xxvii, 136 ff.
- ↑ An imperfect in a (יִגַּשׁ) is given in the Paradigm, simply because it is the actual form in use in this verb.
- ↑ P. Haupt on Ju 16 in his Bible, compares the form of the Assyrian imperfect iddan or ittan (besides inádin, inámdin) from nadânu = נתן. But could this one passage be the only trace left in Hebrew of an imperf. in a from נתן?
- ↑ So (partly following Ewald and Böttcher) A. Müller, ZDMG. xxxiii. p. 698 ff.; Stade, Lehrbuch, § 385 b, c; Nöldeke, and more recently Wellhausen, ‘Ueber einige Arten schwacher Verba im Hebr.’ (Skizzen u. Vorarb. vi. 250 ff.). Against Böttcher see M. Lambert, REJ. xxxv. 330 ff., and Brockelmann, as above.