Dn 919; in Niphʿal הִשָּֽׁבְעָה Gn 2123. Cf., however, also מִכְרָה sell, Gn 2531, notwithstanding the impf. יִמְכֹּר; עֶרְכָה Jb 335 (cf. עִרְכוּ Jer 463), but impf. יַֽעֲרֹךְ; אֶֽסְפָה collect, Nu 1116 (for אִס׳ cf. § 63 l and the plural אִסְפוּ), but 2nd masc. אֱסֹף; נִצְּרָה ψ 1413. Barth (see above, § 47 i note) finds in these forms a trace of old imperfects in i, cf. § 63 n. On the other hand, קָרְבָה ψ 6919 (also Imperat. קְרַב Lv 97, &c.), but impf. יִקְרַב. Without ה, we have the form לְךָ go, Nu 2313, Ju 1913, 2 Ch 2517. The form קְטֹל in pause becomes קְטֹ֫לָה, the form קְטַל becomes קְטָ֫לָה, e.g. יְרָ֫שָׁה Dt 3323. But also without the pause we find מְ֫לוֹכָה Ju 98 Keth. and צְרוֹפָה ψ 262 Keth., on which see § 46 e. On the other hand רְגָ֫זָה, פְּשֹׁ֫טָה, עֹ֫רָה, חֲג֫וֹרָה Is 3211 are to be explained as aramaizing forms of the and plur. fem.; also for חִרְדוּ v. 11 read חֲרָ֫דָה, and for סֹֽפְדִים v. 12 read סְפֹ֫דָה.
[k] The shortened imperative is found only in verbs ל״ה, e.g. in Piʿēl גַּל from גַּלֵּה. The shade of meaning conveyed by the imperatives with ־ָה is not always so perceptible as in the cohortative forms of the imperfect, but the longer form is frequently emphatic, e.g. קוּם rise up, ק֫וּמָה up! תֵּן give, תְּנָה give up!
[l] Rem. The form דְּעֶה for דְּעָה, best attested in Pr 2414 (where it is taken by the Masora as imperat., not as infin., דַּעָה) is evidently due to the influence of the ה which follows it in close connexion (so Strack, on the analogy of Jb 312); for other examples of this change of a to Seghol, see above, under d, § 73 d, and § 80 i. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether רַבֶּה Ju 929 (from רָבָה) is intended for רַבָּה, and not rather for the common form of the imperative Piʿēl רַבֵּה. In favour of the former explanation it may be urged that the imperative צֵ֫אָה (from יָצָא) follows immediately after; in favour of the latter, that the ending ־ָה, with imperatives of verbs ל״ה, is not found elsewhere, and also that here no guttural follows (as in Pr 2414).
[a] 1. The use of the two tense-forms, as is shown more fully in the Syntax (§§ 106, 107, cf. above, § 47, note on a), is by no means restricted to the expression of the past or future. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses[1] is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first
- ↑ The other Semitic languages do not exhibit this peculiarity, excepting the Phoenician, the most closely related to Hebrew, and of course the Moabitish dialect of the Mêšaʿ inscription, which is practically identical with Old Hebrew. It also appears in the inscription of זכר of Hamāth (cf. Nöldeke, ZA. 1908, p. 379) where we find ואשּׂא ידי and I lifted up my hand, ויענני and he answered me, after a perfect of narration.
