others (cf. Nöldeke, ZDMG. xxx. 185), נַֽאֲנָה from אָוָה, not Pi‛lel of נאה = נאו; hence, according to § 23 d, נָאווּ they are beautiful (for נַֽאֲווּ) Is 527, Ct 110; but in ψ 935, where Baer requires נָֽאֲוָה, read נַֽאֲנָה with ed. Mant., Ginsb.
[y] 8. The apocope of the imperfect causes no further changes beyond the rejection of the ־ֶה, e.g. יִגָּל from יִגָּלֶה; in one verb middle guttural, however, a form occurs with the Qameṣ shortened to Pathaḥ, viz. יִמַּח (for יִמָּח) ψ 10913, as in verbs ע״ע; but in pause תִּמָּֽח verse 14. Cf. bb.—The infinitive absolute נִגְלוֹת emphasizing an infinitive construct, 2 S 620, is very extraordinary; probably it is a subsequent correction of an erroneous repetition of הגלות.—The infin. constr. לְחֵֽרָאֹה occurs in Ju 1321, 1 S 321 for לְהֵֽרָאֹת; cf. above, n.—On the infinitive Niphʿal with the ה elided, see § 51 l.—The irregular תֵּֽעֲלוּ Ez 363 has probably arisen from a combination of the readings תַּֽעֲלוּ (Qal) and תֵּֽעָלוּ (Niphʿal). Similarly the solecism נְמִבְזָה 1 S 159 might be due to a combination of the participle fem. Niphʿal (נִבְּזָה, cf. נַחְלָה, נֶחְפָּה, נַֽעֲשָׂח) with the Hophʿal (מֻבְזָה); but it is more correct, with Wellhausen, to explain the מ from a confusion with נמס and to read, in fact, נִבְזָח וְנִמְאָ֫סָת.
III. On Piʿēl, Pôʿēl, Puʿal, and Hithpaʿēl.
[z] 9. In the 1st and 2nd persons of the perfect Piʿēl the second syllable in most of the instances has ־ִי on the analogy of Qal (see f), as דִּמִּ֫יתָ, קִוִּ֫יתִי; always so in the first plur., and before suffixes, e.g. כִּסִּ֫ינוּ Gn 3726, דִּכִּיתָ֫נוּ ψ 4420. The form with ־ֵי is found only in the 1st sing. (e.g. Jo 421; Is 54, 817 along with the form with î). On the tone of the perf. consec. Pi‛el of ל״ה, see § 49 k.—Hithpaʿēl has (besides ־ֵי Jer 1716) as a rule ־ִי (Pr 2410, 1 K 226, Jer 5024). On the other hand, Puʿal always has ־ֵי, e.g. עֻשֵּׂ֫יתִי ψ 13915.—A 1st sing. perfect Pô‛ēl שׁוֹשֵׂ֫תִי ( =שׁוֹוסֵיתִי) occurs in Is 1013.
[aa] 10. The infinitive absolute Piʿēl takes the form כַּלֵּה, קַוֵּה (like קַטֵּל, the more frequent form even in the strong verb, see § 52 o); with ô only in ψ 402 קַוֹּה; with ôth Hb 313 עָרוֹת (cf. above, n). On הֹגוֹ and הֹרוֹ, infinitives absolute of the passive of Qal, not of Pô‛ēl, see above, n.—As infinitive construct חַכֵּי occurs in Piʿēl, Ho 69 (only orthographically different from חַכֵּה, if the text is correct); לְכַלֵּא Dn 924 (on the א see rr); עַד־לְכַלֵּה 2 Ch 2410, 311, for which in 2 K 1317.19, Ezr 914 עד־כַּלֵּה with infin. abs.; in Puʿal עֻנּוֹת ψ 1321.
[bb] 11. The apocopated imperfect must (according to § 20 l) lose the Dageš forte of the second radical, hence וַיְצַו and he commanded, תְּעַר (for תְּעָרֶה=te‛arrè) ψ 1418; cf. Gn 2420; even in the principal pause אַל־תְּגַֽל Pr 259; Hithpaʿēl וַיִּתְגַּל and he uncovered himself, Gn 921; תִּתְרַע Pr 2224; cf. ψ 371.7.8. With the lengthening of Pathaḥ to Qameṣ, וַיְתָו and he made marks, 1 S 2114 (but read with Thenius וַיָּ֫תָף, and instead of the meaningless וַיְשַׁנּוֹ ibid. read וַיְשַׁן). In Hithpaʿēl אַל־תִּתְגָּר, in close connexion, Dt 29.19; תִּשְׁתָּע Is 4110; according to Qimḥi also יִתְאָו, תִּתְאָו ψ 4512, Pr 233.6, 241, 1 Ch 1117, whilst Baer and Ginsburg read with the best authorities יִתְאַו, תִּתְאַו (but cf. König, Lehrgeböude, i. 597).[1]—On אֲחַוְךָ Jb 1517 (for אֲחַוְּךָ) cf. § 20 m; on אּכָלְךָ Ex 333, see § 27 q;
