Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/156

 ; in Niphʿal. Cf., however, also, , notwithstanding the impf. ;  (cf.  ), but impf. ;, (for  cf.  and the plural ), but 2nd masc. ;. Barth (see above, note) finds in these forms a trace of old imperfects in i, cf. . On the other hand,  (also Imperat. , &c.), but impf. . Without, we have the form , , ,. The form in pause becomes, the form  becomes , e.g.  . But also without the pause we find    and   , on which see. On the other hand, , ,  are to be explained as aramaizing forms of the and plur. fem.; also for v. 11 read, and for  v. 12 read.

The shortened imperative is found only in verbs, e.g. in  from. The shade of meaning conveyed by the imperatives with is not always so perceptible as in the cohortative forms of the imperfect, but the longer form is frequently emphatic, e.g.,  ,

Rem. The form for, best attested in  (where it is taken by the Masora as imperat., not as infin., ) is evidently due to the influence of the  which follows it in close connexion (so Strack, on the analogy of ); for other examples of this change of a to Seghol, see above, under d, , and. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether  (from ) is intended for, and not rather for the common form of the imperative. In favour of the former explanation it may be urged that the imperative (from ) follows immediately after; in favour of the latter, that the ending, with imperatives of verbs , is not found elsewhere, and also that here no guttural follows (as in ).

1. The use of the two tense-forms, as is shown more fully in the Syntax (§§ 106, 107, cf. above, § 47, note on a), is by no means restricted to the expression of the past or future. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first