and he took away, Gn 8. The 1st sing. of the imperfect consecutive commonly has the form וָאָֽשִׁ֫יב Neh 2, or, more often, defectively וָאָֽעִד 1 K 2, less frequently the form וָאָֽשֵׁב Jos 14.—For אָסֵף Zp 1 (after אָסֹף) and in verse 3, read אֹסֵף from אָסַף, on the analogy of אֹמֵד § 68 g: similarly in Jer 8 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 14; תְּח֫וֹלֵֽל לְוֹ Jb 35; cf. Pr 25, and acc. to Baer וַתּתְבֹּ֫נֵֽן בִּֽי Jb 30 (ed. Mant., Ginsb. וַתִּתְבֹּנֶן בִּֽי), always in principal pause; on the Metheg with Ṣere, cf. § 16 f γ.—As Pôlal cf. יְרֹעָ֑ע Is 16.
As participle Hophʿal הַמּוּשַׁב occurs in close connexion, Gn 43; cf.§ 65 d.
[cc] Peculiar contracted forms of Pôlēl (unless they are transitives in Qal) are וַיְכֻנֶ֫נּוּ Jb 31, יְעוּרֶ֫נּוּ 41, וַתְּמוּגֵ֫נוּ Is 64 for וַיְכֹֽנְנֶ֫נּוּ, &c. [but read וַיְכֹנְנֵנוּ (§ 58 k), יְעִירֶנּוּ or יְעוֹרְנֶנּוּ, and וַתְּמַגְּנֵנוּ]; also תְּרֹמֵם Jb 17, for תְּדֹֽמְמֵם.—In Is 15 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 139, 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 4; perfect Niphʿal נָמָרֽ Jer 48 (for נָמוֹר from מוּד, as if from מָרַר). The same explanation equally applies to נָֽקְטָה Jb 10 for נָקַ֫טָּה (cf. § 67 dd) = נָק֫וֹטָה from קוּט, and נָ֫קֹטּוּ Ez 6 (for נָק֫וֹטוּ); יֵר֫וֹמּוּ Ez 10 and וַיֵּדֹ֫מּוּ verse 15; הֵדֹ֫מּוּ (imperative) Nu 17; יִסַּג Mi 2; Hiphʿîl perfect הֵתַז Is 18 for הֵתֵז (cf. § 29 q), which is for הֵתִיז from תּוּז. On the other hand the imperfects יָמֵר Ez 48 (unless it be intended for יָמִר, cf. ψ 15) and יָפֵחַ Hb 2, 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 59 (on הֻ֣קַּם cf. § 29 g); sometimes with a difference of meaning, as הֵנִיחַ to cause to rest,[1] but הִנִּיחַ (imperfect יַנִּיחַ, consecutive וַתַּנִּ֫חַ Gn 39; imperative חַנַּח, plur. הַנִּ֫יחוּ) to set down; for וַהֻנִּ֫יחָה (Baer, Ginsburg וְהֻנִ׳) Zc 5 (which at any rate could only be explained as an isolated passive of Hiphʿîl on the analogy of the biblical Aramaic הֳקִימַת Dn 7) we should probably read וַהִנִּיחֻ֫הָ with
