וִֽירֵשׁ֫וּךָ Ez 36 and וִֽירֵשׁ֫וּהָ ψ 69, &c., are most simply explained from the return of this ĭ.
[t] 5. As an exception, the imperfect Niphʿal sometimes has a י instead of the ו, e.g. וַיִּיָּ֫חֶל and he stayed, Gn 8 (unless the Piʿēl or וַיָּחֶל, as in ver. 10, is to be read), cf. Ex 19; 1 S 13 Kethîbh.—The first person always has the form אִוָּשֵׁב, not אֶוָּשֵׁב, cf. § 51 p.—In the participle the plural נוּגֵי (from יָגָה, with depression of ô to û, cf. § 27 n) is found in Zp 3; cf. La 1. While in these cases some doubt may be felt as to the correctness of the Masoretic pointing, much more is this so in the perfect נוּלְּדוּ nulledhû, 1 Ch 3, 20, for נֽוֹלְדוּ which appears to be required by the wāw in the initial syllable.
[u] 6. In the imperfect Piʿēl elision of the first radical (י) sometimes takes place after wāw consec. (as in the case of א, § 68 k), e.g. וַיַּגֶּה for וַיְיַגֶּה and he has grieved, La 3, וַיַּדּוּ for וַיְיַדּוּ and they have cast, verse 53, from ידה, which may also be a true verb פ״י (on the other hand, in יַדּוּ גוֹרָל they have east lots, Jo 4, Ob 111, Na 3, a perfect Qal of יָדַד is required by the context; but as this, being a transitive perfect, ought to have the form יָֽדְדוּ according to § 67 a, perhaps we should read יִדּוּ). So from a verb פ״י, of the second class, וַיַּבְּשֵׁ֫הוּ for וַיְיַבְּשֵׁ֫הוּ and he made it dry, Na 1; cf. וַיַּשְּׁרֵם 2 Ch 32 Qerê (the Keth. points either to Piʿēl וַיְיַשְּׁרֵם or Hiphʿîl וַיַּיְשִׁרֵם).
[v] 7. The imperative Hiphʿîl, instead of the usual form הוֹשֵב, sometimes has î in the second syllable; הוֹצִיא Is 43; הוֹפִיעַ ψ 94 (before ה, hence probably a mere mistake for הוֹפִ֫יעָה). On the uncertainty of the tone in הוֹשִׁיעָה־נָּא see § 53 m. When closed by a guttural the second syllable generally has ă, as הוֹדַע, הוֹשַׁע, cf. also הֹקַר Pr 25 (as in the infin. constr. הוֹכַח Jb 6; see § 65 f). On the other hand, î always appears when the syllable is open, thus הוֹשִׁ֫יבָה, הוֹשִׁ֫יבִי, and so also before suffixes (§ 61 g). הַיְצֵא Gn 8 Qerê (Keth. הוֹצֵא, see § 70 b) is irregular.—The jussive and the imperfect consecutive Hiphʿîl when the tone is drawn back take Seghôl in the second syllable, as in Qal, e.g. י֫וֹסֶף that he may increase, Pr 1, before לֶ֫קַח; cf. Ex 10 and Dt 3 after אַל־; וַיֹּ֫סֶף (תּ֫וֹסְףְּ Pr 30 is anomalous); in pause, however, also תּוֹסַף as jussive, Jb 40 (usual jussive in pause יוֹשֵׁב, &c., which occurs even without the pause after wāw consecutive, Gn 47, Jos 24, 2 S 8, &c.). With a final guttural יֹדַ֫ע and יוֹכַ֫ח (jussive) and וַיּוֹכַה &c.; with a final ר in pause וַתֹּתַֽר Ru 2: on וְישַֽׁעֲכֶם Is 35, cf. § 65 f).—On forms like יְהוֹשִׁיעַ, see § 53 q.
[w] In Hophʿal ô stands instead of וּ, in הוֹדַע (for הוּדַע) Lv 4, הֹגָה 2 S 20, and perhaps in יוֹרֶא (for יוּרֶה) Pr 11; but cf. Delitzsch on the passage.—Ptcp. מוּדַ֫עַת Is 12 Qere (מְיֻדַּ֫עַת Keth).—An infinitive Hophʿal with feminine ending occurs in הֻלֶּ֫דֶת Gn 40, for הֻלֶ֫דֶת=הוּל׳; cf. above, t, on נוּלְּדוּ, and § 71 at the end.
[x] 8. The verb הָלַךְ to go, also belongs in some respects to the פ״ו class, since it forms (as if from וָלַךְ) imperfect יֵלֵךְ, with wāw consecutive וַיֵּ֫לֶךְ (in pause וַיֵּלַֽךְ Gn 24, &c.), 1st sing. וָֽאֵלֵךְ (but in Jb 19 וָֽאֵלַ֑ךְֹ); infinitive construct לֶ֫כֶת with suff. לֶכְתִּי (Seghôl under the influence of the following palatal, as in נֶכְדִּי, cf. also נֶגְדִּי); imperative לֵךְ, לֶךְ־, in the lengthened form לְכָה (as an interjection referring even to a feminine, Gn 19, or a plural, Gn 31) and לְךָ (Nu 23, Ju 19, 2 Ch 25); Hiph. הוֹלִיךְ (also in Ex 2 הוֹלִ֫יכִי 2nd fem. imperative is to be read for הֵילִ֫יכִי, which probably arose merely through
