Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/291

 tendency to assimilate the dual to the plural in form: so König,, ii. 17), as, with suff. ( ff.; elsewhere always , , &c.), and so always ,  ,  (?).

2. On Paradigms b and e. With a final rejected (but retained orthographically) we find. An initial guttural before suffixes generally receives instead of the original ĭ, e.g., , &c., so in the  , &c.;  forms  , &c., retaining the  of  before the weak .—The pausal forms  and  (out of pause always , ) go back to by-forms , .—On  ( plur. of ) , cf. ;, without before the termination  (see above, ), is probably from the sing. found in the Mišna.

3. On Paradigms c and f. occurs in without a helping vowel; with a middle guttural, &c., but with  also , ; with a final guttural ,  &c., but with , ; with a firmly closed syllable.

Before suffixes the original ŭ sometimes reappears in the sing., e.g.  beside, from ;  (with , and the ŭ repeated in the form of a , cf. ) , &c.;  .—Corresponding to the form   we find  , even without a middle guttural; similarly  (so Jablonski and Opitius) , , from ; but the better reading is, no doubt,  (so ed. Mant., ‘the  proleptically assuming the vowel of the following syllable’; König, , ii. 69), and the form is to be derived, with König, from , not , as Brockelmann quotes him, in , p. 103. The reading (Baer and Ginsburg) is probably not due to a confusion of the above two readings, but  is merely intended to mark the vowel expressly as ŏ. In the forms  (for ) and   (for  ), the lengthening of the original ŭ to ō has been retained even before the suffix; cf. and .—In the same way ō remains before, e.g. ,  , , &c. Dissimilation of the vowel (or a by-form ?) seems to occur in, , for.

In the the original ŭ generally becomes  before the, e.g.  from , , ,  ; on the other hand, with an initial guttural the ŭ-sound reappears as , e.g. , , ; and so even without an initial guttural, , , ; , and  (, &c., with ŏ for ); also  [but , , once ], where, however, the reading frequently fluctuates between  and ; with the article , , , according to Baer and Ginsburg. On these forms cf. especially. From, both and  (cf.  and  above) are found; with light suffixes , &c.; so from ,  (also )—hence only with initial , ‘on account of its weak articulation’ (König, , ii. 45). It seems that by these different ways of writing a distinction was intended between the