The nature and uses of the perfect and imperfect are the same as in Arabic.1

The verbs which have ē or ō in the second radical have generally an intransitive meaning, and denote states or qualities (52). Sometimes both forms, the transitive and intransitive, exist together, as mālāḥ, to fill; mālēḥ, to be full.2

Although there are in Hebrew some unusual forms of the verb corresponding to the third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh Arabic forms,3 the derived forms on the whole show less thought in Hebrew of the process reaching towards an end as in the third Arabic form, or maintained as in the ninth, and less tendency to reflexive formation expressing occupation about self. The only passive of the simple verb is the reflexive form Niphal.

There was not enough sense of action on an object to think self as an object with much distinction, or to support a passive of the simple form of the verb; it was only when the action was intense or causative that it was so thought as affecting the object that a passive was formed to give subjective expression to that affection.

The infinitives given above are those which are thought with less sense of the subjective process, which accounts for the abbreviation of the first vowel in Kal. The fuller infinitive of Kal is qatol; those also of Niphal, Piel, and Pual have ō with the second radical, and those of Hiphil and Hophal have e; Hithpael has only the one infinitive. These fuller infinitives are more verbal in their meaning, the others more nominal; 5 and o expresses a deeper subjectivity than e, which is taken by the less subjective forms (see below). The passives Pual and Hophal have no imperative (55).

1 Gesenius, sects. 123-125, 126 b. Gesenius, Paradigm, &c., sect. 52.

2 Ibid. sect. 43.

3 Ibid. sect. 54.

5 Ibid. sect. 45.

6 Ibid. sect. 46.

In the imperfect the personal prefixes all have the same vowel as that of the third singular, except the h of the first singular, which in Kal, Niphal, and Hithpael has e, and in Piel and Pual has a according to euphonic rule instead of e (75).

The ō of the second radical in the imperfect is long only on account of the accent.1

There is also a cohortative form of the imperfect which subjoins -āh, expressive probably of motion to (55), accented except in Hiphil; but it is used only in the first singular, and is not found in the passives; and a jussive form or rather abbreviated utterance of the imperfect second and third persons, which shows itself by dropping h when third radical; but the jussive has a distinct form in Hiphil,2 in which the second is relaxed to e by the reduction of utterance of the last syllable.

The imperative also takes -āh, and is shortened also, but not with such significance.2

The perfect expresses what is thought as completed, and the imperfect what is thought as not completed, whether in present, past, or future (see 98, the examples).

In continued narrations of the past, only the first verb is in the perfect, the others being in the imperfect; and in continued descriptions of the future, the first verb is in the imperfect, the others in the perfect (65).

This connection is usually expressed by the copulative v, which in this use of it has such strength of meaning when prefixed to the imperfect that it takes a instead of e, strengthens the first consonant, and sometimes draws back the accent also in the perfect 3 (76).

3

The second radical syllable is stronger in Hiphil than in the other forms, owing to the strong meaning of that form; it consequently has an attraction for the accent; and in the perfect its i becomes a when the consonant of the person concurs with the third radical.1

On comparing the Hebrew formations of the verb with the Arabic, Niphal with the seventh form, Piel and Pual with active and passive of third, Hiphil and Hophal with active and passive of fourth, and Hithpael with hitqattala, a form of the fifth, a close correspondence will be found when it is observed that Hebrew e corresponds to Arabic i, being probably a relaxed utterance of it (75), and similarly Hebrew o to Arabic u, and when it is remembered that the open syllable is long in Hebrew, and that the final syllable is apt. to be lengthened in Hebrew by the accent which in Arabic falls on the antepenultima. Yet, after all this has been taken into account, there still remain differences which are probably due to the reduced sense of the subjective process in Hebrew (77). These are the reduced vocalisation of the personal prefix in the Hebrew imperfect, except in Hiphil and Hophal, in which it takes up the strong significance of causation, and the closer vowels in the perfect of Piel and Hiphil and in the last syllable of the perfect of Hithpael.4

1 Gesenius, sect. 47.

3 Ibid. sects. 48 b, 124, 125.

2 Ibid. sect. 48.
Gesenius, Paradigm.

In Piel and Hiphil the subjective process is thought more weakly than in Kal, because they are both thought more in the effect and less in the subject. And in consequence of this, the first vowel in both is reduced to i in the perfect; but in the other parts of both forms a remains in the corresponding syllable, the sense of subjective process being less in the perfect or completed fact than in the other parts. In Hithpael, however, the sense of the subject strengthened by the reflexiveness maintains a with the first radical even in the perfect. The weakening of the sense of the subjective process is greater in Hiphil than in Piel, because the verb is thought more in the effect, and therefore less in the subject in the former than in the latter; and accordingly the second vowel, which in Kal is a when the verb is transitive and expresses the action passing from the subject (54), is more reduced in Hiphil than in Piel. In both, however, the subjectivity of the first and second persons affects the second syllable of the stem when thought in immediate connection with it, and therefore in those persons of the perfect that syllable has a.

In the passives of these forms the strong sense of the effect leads thought to the subject instead of from it; for in the passive the effect is in the subject. And the passive being thought in Hebrew as the realisation of an effect, rather than as that of a temporary state like the Arabic passive (54), the sense of subjective process in Pual and Hophal is that of the subject receiving into itself an effect which has come from an external source; and while the sense of internal reception suggests for the first vowel u or o, that of an affection from outside suggests a for the second vowel.

In the verbal infinitive of Pual which is more subjective than the nominal infinitive, and more recipient than the verbal infinitive of Hophal, which is partly active (being made to act), the second vowel becomes o, because the subject not being thought with the infinitive the subjectivity enters into the effect, and is thought more deeply in the experience of the subject. Hophal has a verbal infinitive with ē for its second vowel, which expresses an abiding in the subject less deep than u or o.

The ō of the active participle of Kal corresponds to a of the nomen agentis in Arabic. The passive participle of Kal has similar vocalisation to the Arabic passive participle (57. 18); and the other participles are formed after the Arabic rule, except that of Niphal, which only lengthens the second vowel of the perfect.

The participles involve no position in time.1

There are, as in Arabic, irregularities caused by euphonic principles, when one of the radicals is a weak consonant; or by the contractions of indolent utterance (75), when first radical is n, or when second and third are the same.

80. In subjoining to the verb the personal suffixes of the object, the initial consonant of the suffix is attached immediately to the verb if the verb end in a vowel; but if the verb end in a consonant the suffix is joined by a connective vowel which for the perfect is a, and

1 Gesenius, sect. 131.

for the imperfect and imperative is e1 (98, Ex. 17); a expresses that the action is gone to the object; e, which gives less sense of motion forth, expresses that the action is not yet completely gone to the object. But before the suffixes of the second person singular and plural the connective vowel is reduced to sheva or a half vowel, as if it was partly absorbed by the softening aspiration of k. When the object suffix is more strongly thought, it is strengthened by having prefixed to it a demonstrative element n. But the plural suffixes of second and third person are themselves so strong that they do not require this.2 These object suffixes are taken into such close combination with the verb that they cause abridgments of its vocalisation.3

81. There are two genders, masculine and feminine; and nouns are distinguished in this respect just as they are in Arabic. The feminine termination of nouns is -ah accented, or -e unaccented; * the strength of the vowel in the former, which is the most usual, having softened to h. The feminine ending is most used in adjectives and participles, as they strengthen the sense of the substance by their reference to it. The nouns generally involve a verbal idea 5 (48); and verbal nouns have forms and meanings corresponding to infinitives and participles; most frequently, however, deviating from the regular forms of these."

But there are also nouns formed from other nouns, by prefixing mto denote its place (57), by subjoining -on, -un to denote diminutives, by subjoining - to denote what is connected with the object denoted by the root (57), by subjoining -ū0 and -70 to express the abstract idea of the root, and by subjoining -on, -an to denote that to which the root belongs as an attribute, as qadmon, eastern, from qěděm, east, haxaron, hinder, from ḥaxar, hinder part, livyābān, serpent, from livyah, winding.

7

82. The Hebrew noun has not only a plural number but also a dual; the use of which, however, is confined chiefly to such objects as are by nature or art in pairs, so that it is suggested by the idea of the noun. The plural involves a weak sense of the manifold individuality, as appears from its use in expressing mere extension or greatness; but a stronger sense of that individuality than is in Arabic, as appears from the absence of the pluralis fractus. The plural element is -īm masculine, -ō0 feminine, the former akin to m, the masculine plural ending of the second and third personal pronouns in Arabic and Hebrew, the latter to at, the feminine plural element in Arabic. The dual ending for both genders is -āīm, a being a dual element in Arabic too (51). In feminine nouns the final h becomes before the dual ending.

A considerable number of masculine nouns form their plural in -ō0, while many feminines have a plural in -im (59). It is chiefly only in adjectives and participles that we find the plural endings regularly and constantly distinguished acccording to the gender.8

1 Gesenius, sect. 57. 3 Ibid. sects. 58-60. 6 Ibid. sect. 82.

2 Ibid. sect. 58, Rem. 1.
4 Ibid. sects. 79, 105.
7 Ibid. sect. 85.

5 Ibid. sect. 81. 8 Ibid. sects. 86, 86 b, 106.

The masculine plural ending -im is external to the stem of the noun, as if the idea of the individual remained in the plural. The feminine -ō0 is an alteration of the final syllable of the stem, as if the idea of the individual was in some degree merged in the plurality (59). But a masculine noun may be so thought that different individuals denoted by it correspond imperfectly with each other, and that consequently a plurality so weakens the individuality by reduction to what is common to them all, as to suggest for the plural the feminine form. On the other hand, a feminine noun may in the plural lose the subordinate nature which it has as thought singly, and be so strengthened in its individuality as to suggest for its plural the masculine ending (59). Thus father is originally a very special thought, and is weakened by plurality, so that the plural of ab is ābō0. On the contrary, word is less subordinate when thought in the plural, and millah makes millim.

The adjective and participle supplement the substantive idea, which is pluralised, and in doing so they strengthen the sense of the individual and of its gender, so that the plural ending proper to the gender is taken by them.

83. Hebrew has no case endings except some remains of the accusative -a, signifying towards or to a place, sometimes also, but very rarely, to a time. The genitive relation is indicated by a close connection between the two nouns (69); the genitive following its governor and remaining unchanged, while the governor is generally shortened by changes, partly in the consonants, but chiefly in the vowels, while the tone hastens on to the genitive. The governor, when thus changed, is said to be in the construct state; the endings aim of the dual and im of the plural are changed to ēi, the ā of the feminine singular is reduced to a, and the h returns to 0. The feminine plural ending is not changed. The connection between the two nouns seems to have been in older times expressed by subjoining or - to the governing noun,2 an application of the connective significance of these vowels quite different from their use in Arabic as case endings, - of the genitive, -u of the nominative, and which seems to indicate the ancient absence of these case endings from Hebrew (see 131).

84. The singular noun, in taking the possessive suffixes singular and plural if it ends in a vowel, subjoins them immediately; but if it ends in a consonant it takes a vowel before them all except first singular, which vowel for the third person is usually a, forming -ō singular, -ām plural; for the second person and first plural it is usually -e; a indicates the third person as the more remote, e the other as the less remote.3

Dual nouns are suffixed like plural nouns.

The suffixes of plural nouns all take i before them (132), which, though feebly sounded, is present, and seems to be a connective element not needed with singular nouns by reason of their simplicity and the comparative facility with which in consequence they take up an element. 3 Ibid. sect. 89.

1 Gesenius, sect. 87.

2 Ibid. sect. 88.