Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/216

 confusion with the following ); , but in the 1st sing. of the  always  , , &c. Rarely, and almost exclusively late or in poetry, the regular inflexions of  are also found: imperf.  (, &c.; but  , ; cf. and h);, also Mêšaʿ inscription, line 14, ; infin.  (,  f.16, );   . On the other hand, the  is always ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , so that a  never arrears unmistakably as the first radical. The usual explanation of the above forms is nevertheless based on a supposed obsolete . It is, however, more correct to regard the apparent  forms of  with Praetorius ( ii. 310 ff.) as originating with the Hiphʿîl, of which the ground-form hahlîkh became hâlîkh, and this again, on the analogy of the of verbs, hôlîkh. This hôlîkh being referred to a supposed haulîkh (properly hawlîkh) gave rise to new formations after the manner of verbs.

Brockelmann,, p. 143 ff.; , p. 603 ff.

Verbs properly differ from verbs  in the following points:

1. In the initial Yôdh never suffers aphaeresis or elision; hence the  has the form, the  , ,. (in .), also written, &c.; and so always with a tone-bearing ă in the second syllable, even after , e.g. , except  , and  , unless  is to be included among verbs  (cf.  ).

2. In the original form  is regularly contracted to  (rarely written, , &c.);  ,. Instances of the uncontracted form are, according to Barth (see above, ), an example of an i-imperfect of , since the  is otherwise always causative;     (the  requires  according to the form of verbs ; cf. ,  ,  ), cf. ;, to be explained as a denominative from ;   (, note), but perhaps the punctuation here is only intended to suggest another reading.