Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/204

 Stade, as the equivalent of ō (, &c.; cf. ). Still more surprising is, , for  or.

3. Examples with Pathạ in the infinitive, imperative, and are  (in, );  ;  ; ,  (so ed. Mant., but there is also good authority for , from  =  =  and  also; so Baer and Ginsburg). Also, ; and the imperfects , , &c. (on the ē of the preformative cf. n);, ; ; , ; , (in   ); ,  (but elsewhere in the impf. consec. with the tone on the penultima, e.g.  , &c.;  , &c., cf. ); in the 1st ''sing. imperfect'', abnormally written fully for , unless  is to be read, as in some MSS., on the analogy of the 3rd sing. .—In the ''impf. Qal of the reading of  varies between  (Baer, Ginsb.) and  (ed. Mant., ).— The following forms are to be explained with Barth ( xliii, p. 178) as imperfects Qal with original ĭ'' in the second syllable, there being no instances of their Hiphʿîl in the same sense:  ; , &c.;  , , &c.; perhaps also   and  , &c.; in accordance with this last form,   would also be an , not Hiphʿîl (for ), as formerly explained below, under w. Finally the very peculiar form   may probably be added to the list.

Imperfects, with an original u in the second syllable, are also found with this ŭ lengthened to û (instead of ō), e.g., if the text is correct, in ;  (unless it be simply an imperfect from );  (if from ) , &c. (also defectively ; but in, according to Baer, );   (on the sharpening of the  cf. g above).

A similar analogy with verbs is soon in the infinitives  (for ) ;   (cf.  ) for, and in the. (The forms in,  ,  , formerly treated here as infinitives from  stems, are rather to be referred to  stems, with Barth, Wurzeluntersuchungen, Lpz. 1902, p. 21.) On other similar cases, see below, under ee. For examples of the aramaïzing imperfect, see above, g.

4. In the, the aramaïzing form for  occurs in ,  (the  indicates a  from );   appears to be a contraction from , ''part. fem. = breaking in pieces.''