Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/217

This page was corrected according to Additions and Corrections that appear in the 1910 edition.

 [c]  Rem. 1. The only verbs of this kind are: יָטַב to be good (only in the imperfect Qal and in Hiphʿîl; in the perfect Qal טוֹב, a verb ע״וּ, is used instead), יָנַק to suck, יָקַץ to awake, יָצַר to form (but see above, a), יָלַל only in Hiphʿîl הֵילִיל to bewail, יָשַׁר to be straight, right, also יָבֵשׁ (Arabic yăbĭsă) to be dry (but Hiphʿîl הוֹבִישׁ 2 S 19⁶, on the analogy of verbs פ״ו; on Is 30⁵, cf. § 72 x), and the Hiphʿîl הֵימִין (denominative from יָמִין), infin. לְהֵמִין 2 S 14¹⁹ to go to the right.

 [d]  2. In some examples of the imperfect Hiphʿîl the preformative has been subsequently added to the contracted form: יְיֵטִיב Jb 24²¹; יְיֵלִיל Is 15^2.3, 16⁷; אֲיֵלִיל Jer 48³¹; plur. יְיֵלִ֫ילוּ Ho 7¹⁴, cf. Is 65¹⁴. Qimḥi and others explain the above forms from a phonetic interchange of Yôdh and He, arising from the unsyncopated forms יְהֵילִיל, &c. (cf. Is 52⁵). It is, perhaps, more correct to suppose that the regular forms (יֵיטִיב, יֵילִיל) were originally intended, but that in the later pronunciation the syllable was broken up in order to restore artificially the preformative which had become merged in the first radical.

 [e]  Isolated anomalies are: perfect Hiphʿîl וְהֵיטִֽבֹתִי Ez 36¹¹ with separating vowel (for הֵיטַ֫בְתִּי) on the analogy of verbs ע״וּ; imperfect יֵיטֵיב for יֵיטִיב 1 K 1⁴⁷; תֵּֽיטְבִי (imperfect Qal for תִּיטְבִי) Na 3⁸; וַתְּנִיקֵ֫הוּ imperfect Hiphʿîl Ex 2⁹, either an error for וַתֵּֽינִק׳, or an irregular shortening of the first syllable, caused by the forward movement of the tone. Similarly, the Hiphʿîl הֵקִיץ (from קוּץ) is always used instead of הֵיקִיץ from יָקַץ; hence also הֲקִיצ֫וֹתָ, הֱקִיצֹ֫תִי, imperat. הָקִ֫יצָה, infin. הָקִיץ.—On וַיַּבְּשֵׁ֫הוּ Na 1⁴, see § 69 u).

§71. Verbs פ״י. Third Class, or Verbs with Yôdh assimilated.

In some verbs פ״י, the Yôdh (or the original Wāw) does not quiesce in the preceding vowel, but is regarded as a full consonant, and, like Nûn,^[1] is assimilated to the following consonant. These forms, therefore, belong properly to the class of strong verbs. Assimilation invariably takes place in יָצַע (prop. וצע) to spread under; Hiphʿîl הִצִּיעַ, Hophʿal הֻצַּע; יָצַת to burn, imperfect יִצַּת, Niphʿal נִצַּת, Hiphʿîl הִצִּית (in Is 27⁴ also אַצִּיתֶ֫נָּה is to be read with König; in 2 S 14³⁰ the Masora has rightly emended the K^ethîbh והוציתיה, which could only be the 1st sing. perf. of a verb פ״ו, to the imperative וְהַצִּית֫וּהָ in agreement with the context and all the early versions); יָצַג, Hiphʿîl הִצִּיג to place, Hophʿal הֻצַּג; and probably also in the forms ordinarily derived from נָצַב, viz. נִצַּב (Niphʿal), הִצִּיב, יַצִּיב, הֻצַּב; at any rate a stem יָצַב is implied by the Hithpaʿēl הִתְיַצֵּב; instead of the anomalous וַתֵּֽתַצַּב Ex 2⁴ read with the Samaritan ותתיצב, i.e. וַתִּתְיַצֵּב. Besides the common form we find once אֶצֹּק in Is 44³ (from יָצַק to pour) with a transitive meaning, beside וַיֵּ֫צֶק intransitive, 1 K 22³⁵. Elsewhere the imperfect

1. These verbs, like verbs ע״ע (cf. above, note on § 67 g), may perhaps have been influenced by the analogy of verbs פ״ן.