Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/72. Verbs ע״וּ

§72. Verbs ע״וּ (vulgo ע״ו), e.g. קוּם to rise up. Paradigm M.

Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 144 ff.; Grundriss, p. 605 ff.

a 1. According to § 67 a a large number of monosyllabic stems were brought into agreement with the triliteral form by a strengthening, or repetition, of the second radical, i.e. of the consonantal element in the stem. In another large class of stems the same object has been attained by strengthening the vocalic element. The ground-form used for these verbs is not, as in other cases (§ 39 a), the 3rd sing. mast. perfect, but always the infinitive construct form (§ 39 b), the û of which is characteristic also of the imperative and of the imperfect indicative Qal. These stems are consequently termed verbs ע״ו or more correctly (see below) ע״וּ.[1] b 2. As in the case of verbs ע״ע, the monosyllabic stem of verbs ע״וּ generally takes the vowel which would have been required in the second syllable of the ordinary strong form, or which belonged to the ground-form, since this is essentially characteristic of the verbal form (§ 43 b; § 67 b). However, it is to be remarked: (a) that the vowel, short in itself, becomes of necessity long in an open syllable as well as in a tone-bearing closed ultima (except in Hophʿal, see d), e.g. 3rd sing. mast. perf. קָם, fem. קָ֫מָה, plur. קָ֫מוּ, but in a closed penultima קַ֫מְתָּ, &c.[2]; (b) that in the forms as we now have them the lengthening of the original short vowel sometimes takes place irregularly. Cf. f.

c Intransitive verbs middle e in the perfect Qal have the form מֵת he is dead; verbs middle o have the form אוֹר he shone, בּשׁ he was ashamed, מוֹב he was good.[3] Cf. n–r.

d 3. In the imperfect Qal, perfect Niphʿal, and throughout Hiphʿîl and Hophʿal the short vowel of the preformatives in an open syllable before the tone is changed into the corresponding tone-long vowel. In Qal and Niphʿal the original ă is the basis of the form and not the ĭ attenuated from ă (§ 67 h; but cf. also h below, on יֵבוֹשׁ), hence יָקוּם, for yăqûm; נָקוֹם for năqôm; on the other hand, in the perfect Hiphʿîl הֵקִים for hĭqîm; participle מֵקִים (on the Ṣere cf. z); perfect Hophʿal הוּקַם for hŭqam.

e A vowel thus lengthened before the tone is naturally changeable and becomes vocal Še when the tone is moved forward, e.g. יְמִיתֶ֫נּוּ he will kill him; so also in the 3rd plur. imperfect Qal with Nûn paragogic; יְמוּת֫וּן (without Nûn יָמ֫וּתוּ). The wholly abnormal scriptio plena of ē in הַֽהֵימִיר Jer 211 (beside הֵמִיר in the same verse) should, with König, be emended to הֲיָמִיר; the incorrect repetition of the interrogative necessarily led to the pointing of the form as perfect instead of imperfect.—But in Hophʿal the û is retained throughout as an unchangeable vowel, when it has been introduced by an abnormal lengthening for the tone-long ō (as in the Hophʿal of verbs ע״ע). f 4. The cases of unusual vowel lengthening mentioned in b are: imperfect Qal יָקוּם (also in Arabic yăqûmu), but jussive with normal lengthening (§ 48 g), יָקֹם, with retraction of the tone יָ֫קָם (yāqŏm), וַיָּ֫קָם (in pause וַיָּ֫קֹם); imperative קוּם, with normal lengthening of the ŭ in the 2nd plur. fem. קֹ֫מְנָה, since, according to § 26 p, the û cannot be retained in a closed penultima; infinitive construct קוּם. In Hiphʿîl the original ĭ is naturally lengthened to î (הֵקִים, imperfect יָקִים, jussive יָקִם, with retraction of the tone יָ֫קֶם, וַיָּ֫קֶם); on the transference of this î to the Hiphʿîl of the strong verb, cf. § 53 a.

g The following forms require special consideration: the participle Qal קָם is to be traced to the ground-form with â unobscured, Arab. qâtĭl, § 9 q, and § 50 b. On this analogy the form would be qâĭm,[4] which after absorption of the ĭ became קָם, owing to the predominating character of the â. The unchangeableness of the â (plur. קָמִים, constr. קָמֵי, &c.) favours this explanation.

h In the imperfect Qal, besides the forms with original ŭ (now û) there are also forms with original ă. This ă was lengthened to ā, and then further obscured to ô; hence especially (יָבֹא) יָבוֹא, וַיָּבֹא, &c., from the perfect בָּא he has come. In the imperfects יֵאוֹר (but cf. וַתָּאֹ֫רְנָה 1 S 1427) and יֵבוֹשׁ from the intransitive perfects אוֹר, בּשׁ (see above, c), most probably also in יֵאֹ֫תוּ 2 K 129, נֵאוֹת Gn 3415 from an unused אות to consent, and perhaps in וַתֵּהֹם 1 S 45, &c., as in the cases noticed in § 63 e and especially § 67 n, the ē of the preformative is lengthened from ĭ (which is attenuated from original ă) and thus yĭ-băš became yĭ-bāš, and finally yē-bôš. Finally the Niph. נָקוֹם (nă-qām), imperfect יִקּוֹם from yiqqām, originally (§ 51 m) yinqăm, arises in the same way from the obscuring of ā lengthened from ă.

i 5. In the perfect Niphʿal and Hiphʿîl a וֹ is inserted before the afformatives beginning with a consonant in the 1st and 2nd persons, and ־ֶי regularly (but see Rem.) in the imperfect Qal, sometimes also in the imperfect Hiphʿîl (as in תְּבִיאֶ֫ינָה Lv 730, cf. תְּהִימֶ֫נַּה Mi 212), before the termination of נָה. As in verbs ע״ע (§ 67 d and note) these separating vowels serve as an artificial opening of the preceding syllable, in order to preserve the long vowel; in the perfect Hiphʿîl, however, before the וֹ, instead of the î an ē is somewhat often found[5] (as a normal lengthening of the original ĭ), especially after wāw consecutive, Dt 439, 301, as well as before the afformatives תֶם and תֶן or before suffixes, Dt 222, 1 S 68, 1 K 834, Ez 344. For in all these cases the tone is removed from the וֹ to the following syllable, and this forward movement of the tone produces at the same time a weakening of the î to ē; thus הֵקִים, הֲקִימ֫וֹתָ (or הֱק׳; on הַֽעֵדֹ֫תָה Ex 1923, cf. x), but וַֽהֲקֵֽמֹתָ, &c., Ex 2630, &c.; Dt 439, Nu 1826 (cf., however, וַֽהֲקֵמֹנ֫וּ Mi 54). In the same way in the 1st pers. sing. of the perfect Niphʿal, the ô before the separating vowel is always modified to û (נְקוּמ֫וֹתִ׳); cf. v. In the imperfect Qal and Hiphʿîl the separating vowel ־ֶי always bears the tone (תְּקוּמֶ֫ינָה).

k Without the separating vowel and consequently with the tone-long ō and ē instead of û and î we find in imperfect Qal תָּבֹ֫אנָה (see § 76 g); תָּשֹׁ֫בְןָ Ez 1655 (also תְּשׁוּבֶ֫ינָה in the same verse); וַתָּשֹׁ֫בְנָה 1 S 714 (cf. Ez 359 Qe; on the Kethîbh תֵּישַׁ֫בְנָה cf. above, note on § 69 b); וַתָּאֹ֫רְנָה 1 S 1427, from אוֹר (Kethîbh וַתִּרְאֶ֫נָה and they saw, see § 75 w); in Hiphʿîl, e.g. הֵנַ֫פְתָּ Ex 2025, also הֲנִיפ֫וֹתִי Jb 3121; וְהֵֽטַלְתִּי Jer 2226; תָּשֵׁ֫בְנָה Jb 2010; with a separating vowel, e.g. תְּבִיאֶ֫ינָה Lv. 730 from בּוֹא. Seghôl without י occurs in the imperfect Qal in תְּמוּתֶ֫נָה Ez 1319, Zc 117; and in Hiphʿîl Mi 212: the Dageš in the Nûn is, with Baer, to be rejected in all three cases according to the best authorities. Wholly abnormal is תָּקִ֫ימְנָה Jer 4425, probably an erroneous transposition of ימ‍ (for תְּקִמֶ֫ינָה), unless it originates from an incorrect spelling תָּקֵ֫ימְנָה or תְּקִימֶ֫נָה.

l 6. The tone, as in verbs ע״ע (cf. § 67 k), is also generally retained on the stem-syllable in verbs ע״וּ before the afformatives ־ָה, וּ, ־ִי; thus קָ֫מָה (but also בָּזָ֫ה לְךָ 2 K 1921, probably for the sake of rhythmical uniformity with the following לָֽעֲגָה לְךָ; after wāw consecutive וְשָׁבָ֫ה Is 2317); קָ֫מוּ (but also קָמ֫וּ, cf. Is 287, 299, Na 318, ψ 766, Pr 56, La 418; וְרָצ֫וּ 1 S 811; so especially before a following א, cf. § 49 l, Nu 1332; וְנָע֫וּ Is 191; before ע, ψ 1311, Pr 3013, La 414); תָּק֫וּמִי, יָק֫וּמוּ, but before a suffix or with Nûn paragogic וַיְסֻכ֫וּם 2 Ch 2815; יְקוּמ֫וּן Dt 3311, &c.

m 7. The formation of the conjugations Piʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl is, strictly speaking, excluded by the nature of verbs ע״וּ. It is only in the latest books that we begin to find a few secondary formations, probably borrowed from Aramaic, on the analogy of verbs ע״ו (with consonantal ו, see below, gg); e.g. the Piʿēl עִוֵּד to surround, only in עִוְּדֻ֫נִי ψ 11961; and with change of ו to י, קִיַּם Est 931, קִיְּמוּ Est 927, impf. וָאֲֽקַיֵ֫מָה ψ 119106, infin. קַיֵּם Ez 136, Ru 47 &c., Est 921 &c., imperat. קַיְּמֵ֫נִי ψ 11928; וְחִיַּכְתֶּם Dn 110 from חוּב to be guilty. The Hithpaʿēl הִצְטַיֵּד Jos 912, which belongs to the older language, is probably a denominative from צַ֫יִד. On the other hand the otherwise less common conjugation Pôlēl (see § 55 c), with its passive and reflexive, is usually employed in the sense of Piʿēl and as a substitute for it, e.g. קוֹמֵם to set up from קוּם; מוֹתֵת to slaughter, 1 S 1413, 1751, 2 S 19, from מוּת; רוֹמֵם to exalt, passive רוֹמַם, from רוּם; reflexive הִתְעוֹרֵר to stir up oneself (cf. יִתְעֹרָֽר Jb 178 in pause) from עוּר; reciprocal הִתְבּשֵׁשׁ to be ashamed before one another, Gn 225. The conjugation Pilpēl (§ 55 f), on the analogy of verbs ע״ע, is less common, e.g., טִלְטֵל to hurl away from טוּל; כִּלְכֵּל to contain from כּוּל; קַרְקַר to destroy from קוּר.


I. On Qal.

n 1. Of verbs middle e and o, in which, as in the strong verb, the perfect and participle have the same form (§ 50 b), the following are the only examples: מֵת he is dead, fem. מֵ֫תָה, 2nd masc. מַ֫תָּה (cf. § 44 g; § 66 h); 1st sing. מַ֫תִּי, וָמַ֫תִּי (even in pause, Gn 1919); plur. מֵ֫תוּ, 1st pers. מַ֫תְנוּ, in pause מָ֫תְנוּ; בּשׁ he was ashamed, בּשְׁתְּ, בּ֫שְׁתִּי, בּ֫שְׁנוּ, בּ֫שׁוּ; אוֹר it has shone, plur. א֫וֹרוּ; טוֹב to be good, טֹ֫בו. Participles מֵת a dead man (plur. מֵתִים, מֵתֵי); בּוֹשִׁים ashamed, Ez 3230. For נֵד Is 2711 read נָד, or, with LXX, עַד.

o Isolated anomalies in the perfect are: וְשָׁבַ֫ת (with the original ending of the fem. for וְשָׁבָ֫ה) Ez 4617 (see § 44 f); צָקוּן Is 2616 (see § 44 l).—In בָּ֫נוּ 1 S 258 (for בָּאנוּ from בּוֹא) the א has been dropped contrary to custom. In בֹּ֫אוּ Jer 2718 (instead of בָּ֫אוּ) the Masora seems to point to the imperfect יָבֹא֫וּ which is what would be expected; as Yôdh precedes, it is perhaps simply a scribal error.

p The form קָם occurs (cf. § 9 b) with א in the perfect, קָאם Ho 1014, also in the participles לָאט softly, Ju 421, רָאשׁ poor, 2 S 121.4, Pr 104, plur. 1323; שָׁאטִים doing despite unto (unless שֹֽׁאֲטִים is to be read, from a stem שׁאט whence שְׁאָט Ez 2515, 365), Ez 2824.26; fem. 1657; also in Zc 1410 רָאמָה is to be read with Ben-Naphtali for רָֽאֲטָה. On the analogy of participles of verbs middle ō (like בּוֹשִׁים, see above) קוֹמִים occurs for קָמִים 2 K 167 and even with a transitive meaning לוֹט occultans, Is 257; בּוֹסִים Zc 105.—Participle passive, מוּל circumcised; but סוּג a backslider, Pr 1414, and סוּרָה put aside, Is 4921 (cf. Jer 1713 Qe), are verbal adjectives of the form qāṭûl (§ 50 f), not passive participles. For חֻשִׁים hastening, Nu 3217, read חֲמֻשִׁים as in Ex 1318; for שׁוּבֵי Mi 28 read שָׁבֵי.

q 2. Imperfects in û almost always have the corresponding imperative and infinitive construct in û, as יָקוּם, imperative and infinitive קוּם (also defectively written יָקֻם, קֻם); but יָדוּשׁ he threshes (infin. דּוּשׁ), has imperative דּ֫וֹשִׁי (fem.), Mi 413; יָמוּט it slippeth, infinitive מוֹט (ψ 3817, 463); cf. נוֹחַ (also נוּחַ) Nu 1125 and נוֹעַ Is 72 (elsewhere נוּעַ) with the imperfects יָנוּחַ and יָנוּעַ; לָעוֹז Is 302; שוֹב Jos 216; רוֹם Ez 1017 (verse 16 רוּם).

r Where the imperfect (always intransitive in meaning) has ô the imperative and infinitive also have it; thus imperfect (יָבֹא) יָבוֹא, infin. and imper. בּוֹא or בֹּא[6]; וַיֵּאֹר 2 S 232, א֫וֹרִי, א֫וֹרוּ; יֵבוֹשׁ, בּוֹשׁ, &c.—יָקוֹט Jb 814 (if it be a verb at all and not rather a substantive) is formed on the analogy of verbs ע״ע, since the imperfect of קוּטֹ appears as אָקוּט in ψ 9510. On the other hand יְקשׁוּן (as if from קוֹשׁ, on the analogy of יָבוֹא, &c.) occurs as imperfect of יָקשׁ (פ״י). The imperfect יָדוֹן, with ô, Gn 63, probably in the sense of to rule, has no corresponding perfect, and is perhaps intentionally differentiated from the common verb יָדִין to judge (from דִּין, ע״י). Or can יָדוֹן be a jussive after לֹא (cf. § 109 d)? Similarly לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינִי (עֵֽינְךָ) might be taken as a case of a jussive after לֹא, with irregular scriptio plena (as in Ju 1630), in Dt 716, 139, 1913.21, 2512, Ez 511, 74.9, 818, 910. But perhaps in all these cases לֹא תָחוּס was originally intended, as in Is 1318, Jer 217, while cases like יָחֹס ψ 7213 are to be explained as in § 109 k.—The infinitive absolute always has ô, e.g. קוֹם יָק֫וּמוּ Jer 4429.

s 3. In the imperative with afformatives (ק֫וּמִי, ק֫וּמוּ) the tone is on the stem syllable (cf., however, עוּרִ֫י Ju 512 intentionally varied from ע֫וּרִי; also עוּרִ֫י Zc 137 and Is 519 beside ע֫וּרִי כִּ֣ימֵי; גִּילִ֫י Zc 99; צוּרִ֫י Is 212, שׁוּבִ֫י ψ 1167, likewise for rhythmical reasons). So also the lengthened form, as שׁ֫וּבָה Jer 312, ψ 78, and ע֫וּרָה verse 7. But if an א follows in close connexion, the lengthened imperative usually has the form קוּמָ֫ה, &c.,[7] in order to avoid a hiatus, e.g. Ju 418, ψ 828; hence also before יְהֹוָה, Qerê perpetuum אֲדֹנָי (§ 17 c), e.g. ψ 38, 77 קוּמָ֫ה (cf., however, in the same verse ע֫וּרָה and in Jer 405, שֻׁ֫בָה before א), and so even before ר ψ 431, 7422, &c. (רִיבָ֫ה).

t 4. In the jussive, besides the form יָקֹם (see above, f), יָקוֹם also occurs (as subjunctive, Ec 124; נָסוֹג ψ 8019 may also, with Delitzsch, be regarded as a voluntative), incorrectly written plene, and יָקֻ֫ם (Gn 2731; cf. Ju 618, Pr 94.16), which, however, is only orthographically different from יָקוּם (cf. Jer 466). In the imperfect consecutive (וַיָּ֫קָם, in pause וַיָּ֫קֹם, see above, f) if there be a guttural or ר in the last syllable, ă often takes the place of ŏ, e.g. וַיָּ֫נַח and he rested; וַיָּ֫נַע and it was moved; וַיָּ֫סַר and he turned aside, Ju 418, Ru 41 (distinguished only by the sense from Hiphʿîl וַיָּ֫סַר and he removed, Gn 813); וַיָּ֫צַר Ex 214, 2 K 523, 175 (but also וַיָּ֫גָר from both גּוּר to sojourn, and גּוּר to fear); וַיָּ֫עַף (to be distinguished from וַיָּ֫עָף and he flew, Is 66) and he was weary, Ju 421, 1 S 1428.31, 2 S 2115, but probably in all these cases וַיִּעַף for וַיִּיעַף from יָעֵף is intended. For ותלוש 2 S 138 Keth., the Qerê rightly requires וַתָּ֫לָשׁ. On the other hand, in an open syllable always וַיָּק֫וּמוּ, וַיָּס֫וּרוּ, &c. On (וָאָֽקֻם) וָאָֽקוּם, see § 49 e.

u Examples of the full plural ending וּן with the tone (see above, l) are תְּמֻת֫וּן Gn 33.4; יְנוּס֫וּן ψ 1047; יְרוּצ֫וּן Jo 24.7.9.

II. On Niphʿal.

v 5. The form of the 1st sing. perf. נְקוּמ֫וֹתִי, which frequently occurs (נְסוּגֹ֫תִי, נְפוּגֹ֫תִי, cf. also the ptcp. plur. נְכוּכִים, Ex 143), serves as a model for the 2nd sing. נְקוּמ֫וֹתָ, נְקוּמוֹת, and the 1st plur. נְקוּמ֫וֹנוּ given in the paradigm, although no instances of these forms are found; but of the 2nd plur. the only examples found have ô (not û), viz. נְפֽוֹצֹתֶם ye have been scattered, Ez 1117, 2034.41, and וּנְקֹֽטֹתֶם and ye shall loathe yourselves, Ez 2043, 3631.—To the ĭ (instead of ă) of the preformative may be traced the perfect נֵעוֹר Zc 217 (analogous to the perfect and participle נִמּוֹל, see below, ee), imperfect יֵעוֹר for yiʿʿōr.—The infinitive construct הִדּוּשׁ occurs in Is 2510; in לֵאוֹר Jb 3330, the Masora assumes the elision of the ה (for לִהֵאוֹר); but probably לָאוֹר (Qal) is intended (see § 51 l).—נַמוֹג Is 1431, נָסוֹג Is 5913 are to be regarded as infinitives absolute.

III. On Hiphʿîl, Hophʿal, and Piʿlēl.

w 6. Examples of the perfect without a separating vowel (see above, k), are: הֵבֵ֫אתָ, &c. (see further, § 76 g); הֵמַ֫תָּה (from מוּת) for hēmáth-tā (cf. § 20 a); הֵכַ֫נּוּ 1st plur. perfect Hiphʿîl from כּוּן 2 Ch 2919, even הֲמִתֶּם (§ 27 s) Nu 176, &c.; cf. 1 S 1735, 2 S 1328, also וַֽהֲמִתֶּן Ex 116, and וַֽהֲמִתִּ֫יהָ Ho 25; but elsewhere, with wāw consecutive וְהֵֽמַתִּ֫י Is 1430; cf. וְהֵֽמַלְתִּ֫י Jer 1613, and וְהֵֽנַפְתָּ֫ Ex 2924, &c.—In these cases the ē of the first syllable is retained in the secondary tone; elsewhere in the second syllable before the tone it becomes ־ֱ (1 Ch 1512, &c.) or more frequently ־ֲ, and in the syllable before the antepenultima it is necessarily ־ֲ (e.g. וַֽהֲקִֽמֹתִ֫י Gn 618). Before a suffix in the 3rd sing. mase. (except Gn 4013) and fem., and in the 3rd plur., the vowel of the initial syllable is Ḥaṭeph-Seghôl, in the other persons always Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ (König); on הֲקֵֽמֹתוֹ 2 K 92, ψ 8944, cf. Ex 1923, Nu 3128, Dt 439, 222, 272, 301, Ez 344, and above, i. The 3rd fem. perf. Hiph. הֵסַ֫תָּה 1 K 2125 is quite abnormal for הֵסִ֫יתָה from סוּת or סִית.

x As in verbs ע״ע with ח for their first radical (§ 67 w), all the forms of עוּד Ex 1923 (where against the rule given under i we find הַֽעֵדֹ֫תָה with ē instead of î), Dt 819, Neh 934, Jer 4219, and עוּר Is 4125, 4513, take Pathaḥ in these conjugations instead of ־ֲ. The irregular וְהֽוֹשְׁבוֹתִים Zc 106 has evidently arisen from a combination of two different readings, viz. וְהֽוֹשַׁבְתִּים (from יָשַׁב) and וַֽהֲשִֽׁבוֹתִים (from שׁוּב): the latter is to be preferred.—On הֵבִישׁ and הוֹבִישׁ as a (metaplastic) perfect Hiphʿîl of בּוֹשׁ, cf. § 78 b.

y 7. In the imperative, besides the short form הָקֵם (on הָשַֽׁב Is 4222 with Silluq, cf. § 29 q; but in Ez 2135 for הָשַׁב read the infinitive הָשֵׁב) the lengthened form הָקִ֫ימָה is also found. With suffix הֲקִימֵ֫נִי, &c. The imperative הָבִיא Jer 1718 is irregular (for הָבֵא Gn 4316); perhaps הָבֵיא (as in 1 S 2040; cf. 2 K 86) is intended, or it was originally הָבִ֫יאָה.

z In the infinitive, elision of the ה occurs in לָבִיא Jer 397, 2 Ch 3110 (for לְהָבִיא); ־ָה fem. is added in לַֽהֲנָפָה Is 3028; cf. Est 218, 414 and the analogous infinitive Haphʿel in biblical Aramaic, Dn 520.—As infinitive absolute הָכִין occurs in Ez 714 (perh. also Jos 43, Jer 1023).—The participles have ē, on the analogy of the perfect, as the vowel of the preformative, like verbs ע״ע (§ 67 i). On מֵבִי 2 S 52, &c. (in Kethîbh), see § 74 k.

aa On the shortened forms of the imperfect (יָקֵם, וַיַָּקֶם, but always וַיָּבֵ֫א; in the jussive also with retraction of the tone אַל־תָּ֫שֶׁב 1 K 220) see above, f. With a guttural or ר the last syllable generally has Pathaḥ (as in Qal), e.g. וַיָ֫עַד and he testified, 2 K 1713; יָרַ֫ח let him smell, 1 S 2619; וַיָּ֫רַח Gn 821; וַיָּ֫סַר and he took away, Gn 813. The 1st sing. of the imperfect consecutive commonly has the form וָאָֽשִׁ֫יב Neh 220, or, more often, defectively וָאָֽעִד 1 K 242, less frequently the form וָאָֽשֵׁב Jos 147.—For אָסֵף Zp 12 (after אָסֹף) and in verse 3, read אֹסֵף from אָסַף, on the analogy of אֹמֵד § 68 g: similarly in Jer 813 אֹֽסְפֵם instead of אֲסִיפֵם.

bb In the imperfect Pôlēl the tone is moved backwards before a following tone-syllable, but without a shortening of the vowel of the final syllable; e.g. תְּד֫וֹמֵֽם נּ֑וֹי Pr 1434; תְּח֫וֹלֵֽל לְוֹ Jb 3514; cf. Pr 2523, and acc. to Baer וַתּתְבֹּ֫נֵֽן בִּֽי Jb 3020 (ed. Mant., Ginsb. וַתִּתְבֹּנֶן בִּֽי), always in principal pause; on the Metheg with Ṣere, cf. § 16 f γ.—As Pôlal cf. יְרֹעָ֑ע Is 1610.

As participle Hophʿal הַמּוּשַׁב occurs in close connexion, Gn 4312; cf.§ 65 d.

cc Peculiar contracted forms of Pôlēl (unless they are transitives in Qal) are וַיְכֻנֶ֫נּוּ Jb 3115, יְעוּרֶ֫נּוּ 412, וַתְּמוּגֵ֫נוּ Is 646 for וַיְכֹֽנְנֶ֫נּוּ, &c. [but read וַיְכֹנְנֵנוּ (§ 58 k), יְעִירֶנּוּ or יְעוֹרְנֶנּוּ, and וַתְּמַגְּנֵנוּ]; also תְּרֹמֵם Jb 174, for תְּדֹֽמְמֵם.—In Is 155 יְעֹעֵ֫רוּ appears to have arisen from the Pilpel יְעַרְעֵָ֫רוּ, the ă after the loss of the ר having been lengthened to ā, which has then been obscured to ô.—For the strange form בִּֽתְקֽוֹמֲמֶ֫יךָ ψ 13921, which cannot (according to § 52 s) be explained as a participle with the מ‍ omitted, read בְּמִתְק׳.

IV. In General.

dd 8. The verbs ע״וּ are primarily related to the verbs ע״ע (§ 67), which were also originally biliteral, so that it is especially necessary in analysing them to pay attention to the differences between the inflexion of the two classes. Several forms are exactly the same in both, e.g. imperfect Qal and Hiphʿîl with wāw consecutive, the whole of Hophʿal, the Piʿlēl of verbs ע״וּ, and the Pôʿēl of verbs ע״ע; see § 67 z. Owing to this close relation, verbs ע״וּ sometimes have forms which follow the analogy of verbs ע״ע, e.g. perfect Qal בַּז he has despised (from בּוּז, as if from בָּזַז) Zc 410; perfect Niphʿal נָמָרֽ Jer 4811 (for נָמוֹר from מוּד, as if from מָרַר). The same explanation equally applies to נָֽקְטָה Jb 101 for נָקַ֫טָּה (cf. § 67 dd) = נָק֫וֹטָה from קוּט, and נָ֫קֹטּוּ Ez 69 (for נָק֫וֹטוּ); יֵר֫וֹמּוּ Ez 1017 and וַיֵּדֹ֫מּוּ verse 15; הֵדֹ֫מּוּ (imperative) Nu 1710; יִסַּג Mi 26; Hiphʿîl perfect הֵתַז Is 185 for הֵתֵז (cf. § 29 q), which is for הֵתִיז from תּוּז. On the other hand the imperfects יָמֵר Ez 4814 (unless it be intended for יָמִר, cf. ψ 154) and יָפֵחַ Hb 23, are to be regarded according to § 109 i, simply as rhythmically shortened forms of יָמִיר and יָפִיחַ.

ee 9. In common with verbs ע״ע (§ 67 g) verbs ע״וּ sometimes have in Niphʿal and Hiphʿîl the quasi-Aramaic formation, by which, instead of the long vowel under the preformative, they take a short vowel with Dages̆ forte in the following consonant; this variety is frequently found even along with the ordinary form, e.g. הִסִּית to incite, imperfect יַסִּית (also הֵסִית, יָסִית); הִסִּיג, imperfect יַסִּיג to remove (from סוּנ‍), also Hophʿal הֻסַּג Is 5914 (on הֻ֣קַּם cf. § 29 g); sometimes with a difference of meaning, as הֵנִיחַ to cause to rest,[8] but הִנִּיחַ (imperfect יַנִּיחַ, consecutive וַתַּנִּ֫חַ Gn 3916; imperative חַנַּח, plur. הַנִּ֫יחוּ) to set down; for וַהֻנִּ֫יחָה (Baer, Ginsburg וְהֻנִ׳) Zc 511 (which at any rate could only be explained as an isolated passive of Hiphʿîl on the analogy of the biblical Aramaic הֳקִימַת Dn 74) we should probably read וַהִנִּיחֻ֫הָ with Klostermann after the LXX. In Dn 811 the Kethîbh הדים is intended for a perfect Hiphʿîl. There is also a distinction in meaning between יָלִין to spend the night, to remain, and יַלִּין Ex 167 Qe (Kethîbh תּלּוֹנוּ; conversely, verse 2 Kethîbh יַלִּ֫ינוּ, Qe יִלּ֫וֹנוּ), participle מַלִּין Ex 168, Nu 1427, 1720, to be stubborn, obstinate: in the latter sense from the form יָלִין only וַיָּ֫לֶן is found, Ex 173. Other examples are Niphʿal נִמּוֹל he was circumcised, Gn 1726 f.; participle 3422 (from מוּל, not נָמַל); נֵעוֹר he is waked up, Zc 217 (see above, v); Hiphʿîl הִזִּיל֫וּהַ La 18; יַלִּ֫יזוּ Pr 421.

ff Perhaps the same explanation applies to some forms of verbs first guttural with Dageš forte implicitum, which others derive differently or would emend, e.g. וַתַּ֫חַשׁ for וַתָּ֫חַשׁ and she hastened (from חוּשׁ) Jb 315; וַיַּ֫עַט (another reading is וַיָּ֫עַט), וַתַּ֫עַט 1 S 1519, 2514 (1432 Qe) from עוּט or עִיט to fly at anything. Both, as far as the form is concerned, would be correct apocopated imperfects from חָשָׁה and עָטָה (ל״ה), but these stems only occur with a wholly different meaning.

gg 10. Verbs with a consonantal Wāw for their second radical, are inflected throughout like the strong form, provided the first or third radical is not a weak letter, e.g. חָוַר, imperfect יֶֽחֱוַר to be white; גָּוַע, imperfect יִגְוַע to expire; רָוַח to be wide; צָוַח to cry; Piʿēl עִוֵּל, imperfect יְעַוֵּל to act wickedly; עִוֵּת to bend, Hithpaʿēl הִתְעַוֵּת to bend oneself; and this is especially the case with verbs which are at the same time ל״ה, e.g. צָוָה, Piʿēl צִוָּה to command, קִוָּה to wait, רָוָה to drink, Piʿēl רִוָּה (on אֲרַיָּ֫וֶךְ Is 169, see § 75 dd) and Hiphʿîl הִרְוָה to give to drink, &c.

  1. The term ע״ו was consequent on the view that the Wāw (or י in the case of verbs ע״ו) in these stems was originally consonantal. This view seemed especially to be supported by the return of the Wāw in Piʿēl (עִוֵּד, the ו usually passing into י as in קִיַּם, cf. Arabic qáwwămă), and by certain forms of the absolute state of the nouns of such stems, e.g. מֶ֫וֶת death, compared with מוּת to die. Hence in explaining the verbal forms a supposed stem qawam (in verbs ע״י e.g. šayat) was always assumed, and יָקוּם was referred to an original yaqwŭm, the infinitive absolute קוֹם to original qawôm, the participle passive קוּם to original qawûm. It must, however, be admitted: (1) that forms like עִוֵּד, קִים (see m) are only to be found in the latest books, and are hence evidently secondary as compared with the pure Hebrew forms קוֹמֵם, &c.; (2) that to refer the verbal forms invariably to the stem קָוַם, leads in many cases to phonetic combinations which are essentially improbable, whereas the assumption of original middle-vowel stems renders a simple and natural explanation almost always possible. These ע״וּ stems are therefore to be rigidly distinguished from the real ע״ו stems of the strong forms, such as רָוַח, גָּוַע, &c. (see below, gg).—As early as the eleventh century the right view with regard to ״וּ stems was taken by Samuel Hannagîd (cf. Bacher, Leben und Werke des AbulwaléÆd, p. 16); recently by Böttcher (Lehrbuch, § 1112), and (also as to ע״ע stems) especially by Müller, Stade, and Wellhausen (see above, § 67 a, note). On the other hand, the old view of ו and י as consonants has been recently revived by Philippi, Barth, M. Lambert, and especially Brockelmann (op. cit.).
  2. In Aramaic, however, always קָ֫מְתָּ; also in Hebrew grammars before Qimḥi קָ֫מְתָּ, קָ֫מְתִּי, &c., are found, but in our editions of the Bible this occurs only in pause, e.g. קָ֑מְתִּי Mi 78, מָ֫תְנוּ 2 K 73.4.
  3. According to Stade (Grammatik, § 385 e and f) the e in מֵת is of the nature of a diphthong (from ai, which arose from the union of the vowel ĭ, the sign of the intransitive, with the ă of the root), and likewise the o in אוֹר, &c. (from au). But ô (from au) could not, by § 26 p, remain in a closed penultima (בּ֫שְׁתָּ, &c.); consequently the o of these forms can only be tone-long, i.e. due to lengthening of an original ŭ, and similarly the ē of מֵת to lengthening of an original ĭ. This is confirmed by the fact that the ō in בּשְׁתְּ, בּ֫שְׁתִּי, בּ֫שְׁנוּ is always, and in בּ֫שׁוּ, 3rd plur. perfect, nearly always (the instances are 11 to 2), written defectively. Forms like בּ֫וֹשָׁה, בּ֫וֹשׁוּ, א֫וֹרוּ, &c., are therefore due to orthographic licence.
  4. So in Arabic, prop. qâʾĭm, since the two vowels are kept apart by the insertion of an א, cf. Aram. קָאֵם; but also contracted, as šâk, hâr, for šâʾĭk, &c. (cf. Wright’s Gramm. of the Arabic Language, 2nd ed. vol. i. p. 164).
  5. וַֽהֲשֵֽׁיבֹתֶם 1 S 67 (cf. 2 Ch 625) could only be an orthographic licence for והשֵֽׁב׳; perhaps, however, והשִֽׁיב׳ was originally intended.
  6. In 1 K 1412 (בְּבֹאָה before a genitive), the text is evidently corrupt: read with Klostermann after the LXX בְּבֹאֵךְ.
  7. Cf. Delitzsch’s commentary on ψ 38.
  8. As the passive of this Hiphʿîl we should expect the Hophʿal הוּנַח, which is, no doubt, to be read for הוּנַּח in La 55.