Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/199

 before   (on , see ),  form ; , &c. (but cf. also, , ,  , perhaps a mistake for , cf. LXX and Lucian);   (once  , cf. ); with , ; with  ;  (cf., however, )  ; , however, is always .—The meaningless form   is a mistake; for the equally meaningless   read.

3. The verb, mentioned above in , is the only example of a verb with  in ē ( for ;  only in , elsewhere before  , &c.), and a corresponding   or (very frequently)  (but in  the very strange reading  is no doubt simply meant by the Masora to suggest ); before  ,  , &c. Moreover, this very common verb has the peculiarity that its final Nûn, as a weak nasal, is also assimilated; for,  or, very frequently, , with a kind of orthographic compensation for the assimilated Nûn (cf. );   ,.

In the the ground-form  is not lengthened to  (as  from ), but contracted to, which is then correctly lengthened to , with the omission of  in the final consonant, see ; but with suffixes , , &c.; before  with the prefix  = , e.g. , and even when closely connected by other means, e.g. . However, the strong formation of the  also occurs in   and  ; cf. , note 2. On the other hand, for  read either  or simply, just as the , , requires  for.

In other stems, the is retained as the third radical, e.g.,  cf. and. On the entirely anomalous aphaeresis of the Nûn with a strong vowel in (for ), cf. .—On the, cf. .

Brockelmann,, p. 155 ff.; , p. 632 ff.

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. Forms with two radicals were formerly explained as being due to contraction from original forms with three radicals. It is more correct