))We have said that these verbs of the second conjugation are the verbs which end in an a, namely in a guttural and quiescent letter. Wherein these differ from verbs of the first conjugation will be shown by the paradigm.
The forms of the infinitive are 
, or with the paragogic 
, and also 
in place of 
.
The form 
does not appear here, and on that account the second 
and tsere are retained in the remaining persons and not changed to patach as in verbs of the first conjugation. Further, the form 
is not found in the past and I believe it is not used. Finally, in the second and third forms the 
is mainly omitted, like 
in place of 
I am full.
The imperative with paragogic 
does not change the sheva into a chirek, as in verbs of the first conjugation, but it remains together with the kametz, making it instead of 
into 
(you) find. These facts together with what we have noted above about the past, are the peculiarities of this verb form; for the rest it agrees with the verbs of the first conjugation. Let me now go into the paradigm of the passive verb of this conjugation.
The imperative and the future agree in everything with the imperative and future of the first conjugation. Further, the remaining verbs of this conjugation differ from the verbs of the first in the same way as we see these two 
and 
differ from 
and 
; namely that instead of a patach, a kametz is inserted in every place, but in its place a chirek is substituted in the second and first persons; except in 
where the chirek in the first and second person changes to tsere, like 
, etc.; and also that the tsere is always retained and not changed into a patach, like 
and finally that the 
may also be omitted.
1. [Term not used by Spinoza.—M.L.M.]