We touched briefly above upon the significance of this verb form only because we wanted to show its origin; but since it has various uses it is necessary that we explain it accurately, because already something of its manner has been discussed. The principal and common use of this form is to intensify the simple verb. This is done in various ways, either by rendering an intransitive verb into a transitive, or by broadening its significance, or by expressing it with feeling, etc. For example 
means to be happy 
renders the verb from the intransitive into transitive and signifies to make someone happy; and these changes apply also to nominal verbs, like 
to make words or speak, which is from 
a word. 
means to send somebody somewhere while 
means to dismiss someone, namely an assembly, a servant, etc. Next 
(Belgian schillen) means he broke, 
means he broke strongly or he destroyed.
By the way, this verb sometimes has meaning contrary to the simple active verb, like 
he sinned, 
he purified. But since this form of usage seems already to have disappeared from the language, one should not form new forms in this manner except those which are found in Scriptures. The infinitive forms are 
, and 
.
To the infinitive form 
the paragogic 
is added for elegance, becoming 
, and with the athnach or siluk 
to visit often, changing the sheva into a tsere.
Incidentally, to this form of the infinitive there is sometimes prefixed the definite article 
, like 
2 and that burnt offering that they offered (et illud suffumigare, quod suffumigabant). En dat geduurig Wierooken (Jer. 44:21). In Belgian, the continuous burnt offering. So 
the speaking (illud loqui), dat hoog spreken, dat kaekelen zal kaekelen zal gedaan zijn. In Belgian, the lofty speaking/the sounds like cackling. The 
serves here not so much to indicate a definite action, but also to express action with indignation, reproach, aversion, or some other emotion; and for this reason I believe that this definite article 
can be placed only before a pi‘el form of the verb.
Next if the middle radical is a 
, which cannot have a dagesh, then the previous short syllable changes to long, namely a - into a 
, and a chirek into a tsere, like 
instead of 
, and 
instead of 
to bless (see Numbers 23:24).
But grammarians think that the dagesh is also compensated by a cholem, when the middle radical is a 
or any other letter that does usually admit a dagesh. But they are mistaken; because those of this conjugation which have a cholem and a tsere are not intensive verbs but simple verbs whose infinitives, as we have already said, have the form of a participle, namely by taking the participle without any relationship as to gender. Thus 
to detest is really a simple verb whose infinitive is the participle itself taken without a substantive, and if to this the paragogic 
is added it becomes 
, which is also used in place of the infinitive, just like the infinitive 
observe and 
keep, of which in the section on Syntax. But here I speak expressly of verbs of this conjugation. As for conjugations of verbs which have as the middle radical a vav or yod like 
to discern, 
to arise, the intensives are without a dagesh, but the third radical is doubled in place of the second, becoming 
from 
, and 
from 
. But of this in its place. What deceived the grammarians, I think, is nothing else than that they didn’t believe that there exists a simple active verb 
to take root, to root out; and so they considered its participle, 
, which occurs in Isaiah 40:24 as the past tense of an intensive verb of the first conjugation, and confused it with the passive 
from the intensive verb 
. The double meaning of this verb helped not a little in this, where one is plainly contrary to the other (if we should have faith in the punctuators of the Bible). In chapter 31 of Job it means to root out; in Jer. 12:2 it means to take root. Truly I doubt the passage in Jer., or else the punctuators instead of 
have punctuated 
. But of this enough.
Further, in the form 
without the accent, the 
changes to 
like 
speak to you.
Finally, of verbs whose second and third radical is the same letter, the intensive usually doubles the first, inserting the duplicate letter between the second and the third radicals, like 
from 
to be neat, 
to protect from 
to cover, 
to revolve from 
to roll, and so the others.
The past tense often changes the tsere into a patach, like 
and 
to break in pieces, or into a segol, like 
he has spoken.
The imperative also often changes the tsere into a patach, and before the makaf into a segol, and from 
it becomes either 
or 
, and 
, in place of 
. For the rest it agrees in all with the infinitive.
From 
, adding the paragogic 
, it becomes 
, and with the accent athnach or siluk 
; from 
adding the paragogic 
, it becomes 
. So that the paragogic 
renders the penultimate short from long, the 
on the other hand makes it long from short. Finally in place of 
it is often, as in the imperative 
.
1. [Spinoza does not use this term.]
2. [This seems a misquotation. The proper citation is Jer. 44:21, 
, “The offering which ye offered.”—M.L.M.]