Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/150

 stem-form was not always sufficient to express at the same time differences both of gender and number, the distinction had to be farther indicated, in several cases, by special afformatives. Cf. the table,.

2. The derivation and meaning, both of the preformatives and the afformatives, can still, in most cases, be recognized.

In the first pers. , plur. , is probably connected with, and  with ; here no indication of gender or number by a special ending was necessary. As regards the vocalization, the Arabic points to the ground-forms ʾăqṭŭl and năqṭŭl: the ĭ of the 1st plur. is, therefore, as in the other preformatives, attenuated from a. The of the 1st sing. is probably to be explained by the preference of the for this sound (cf., but also ); according to Qimḥi, it arises from an endeavour to avoid the similarity of sound between  (which is the Babylonian punctuation) and , which, according to this view, was likewise pronounced iqṭōl.

The preformative of the second persons (, ground-form tăqṭŭl, &c.) is, without doubt, connected with the  of,. &c., and the afformative of the 2nd fem. sing. with the i of the original feminine form (see ). The afformative of the 2nd masc. plur. (in its more complete form,, see m) is the sign of the plural, as in the 3rd pers., and also in the Perfect. In the Imperfect, however, it is restricted in both persons to the masculine, while the afformative (also ) of the 3rd and 2nd plur. fem. is probably connected with and  (fem.).

The preformatives of the third persons ( in the masc., ground-form yăqṭŭl, plur. , ground-form yăqṭŭlû; in the fem. , plur. ) have not yet met with any satisfactory explanation. With might most obviously be compared the original feminine