))This conjugation consisting of verbs ending in 
does not differ much from the preceding one; indeed it conforms with it very often. This is because the 
may frequently serve in place of the 
, and contrarily the 
may frequently serve in place of the 
. They differ only in that while a verb ending in 
most frequently retains it and only rarely does it change the 
into a chirek in the second and first persons, on the other hand, those ending in a 
rarely retain it, and they are frequently wont to change the 
into a long chirek and rarely into a short one. Next, they differ also in another way; the 
may be punctuated with a 
and the verb is not punctuated by a double 
but a 
and a 
, like the verbs of the first conjugation. Four verbs of this group have been observed; namely, 
, 
, which are conjugated like verbs of the first conjugation, and for this reason I consider them to be of that group.
Further, certain of these verbs ending in 
have a peculiarity which we will note in its place after the paradigm. Here may I add this in general to be heard by all: first, that a 
after a chirek and tsere and shurek usually changes to 
and after a 
into a 
; second, that a final 
either because of an additional syllable or on account of the construct changes into a 
; and finally, that a quiescent and guttural letter usually interchange one for the other, or one may even omit them. Indeed, we have already shown above that a 
after a sheva frequently disappears. And that this may be observed in verbs, as in nouns, will be evident from the following paradigm.
The infinitive has the following forms 
, and 
, or with the paragogic 
.
We have already noted that an 
can come in place of a 
, or be altogether omitted either in the first and second persons plural of the past and in all the futures, and that a yod is not substituted in its place, but it is conjugated like 
. But this should be noted first, that when the 
is removed in the future its accent is moved toward its first syllable, and the sheva changes into a segol, becoming 1. 
, 2. 
, 3. 
, etc. But if the middle radical of the root is one of the mutes or quiescent letters, then the sheva remains, like 
in place of 
to take captive, and 
to drink. When a 
is changed into a yod, then the vowels are transposed, and they are 1. 
, 2. 
, 3. 
, etc., in place of 
.
Next, the 
of the verb usually is changed not into a 
but into a yod when another 
is added. So 
has the feminine 
instead of 
. So 
with the added paragogic 
becomes not 
but 
.
Finally, the second and third persons plural in the future 
and 
do not usually add the paragogic 
; but their second form, i.e., 
and 
, does, like 
, etc.
Infinitive Forms
The Past
This verb form has nothing singular which we have not noted in the preceding one, except that by the dropping of the 
of the future neither the accent nor the syllable changes. For with the dropped 
it is conjugated 1. 
, 2. 
, 3. 
, etc. I doubt whether the second and third persons of the plural always omit the 
, or, whether as in the active (kal), change it to a 
. However, I believe that all the other things which we noted about the preceding ones pertain to this verb form.
The forms of the infinitive are:
and with the 
paragogic 
This verb form also remains 
in the future when the 
is dropped, and the vowels are not changed. For the dropped 
makes it 1. 
, 2. 
, 3. 
, etc.
Infinitives: 1. 
2. 
or 
.
In Chapter 17 we noted that a kametz chatuf can be used in place of a 
. The verbs of this conjugation provide many examples of this, as in Proverbs chap. 24, vs. 31 
its face was covered, and Psalms chapter 72 last verse 
the prayers are ended.
The fact that the 
, changes to a cholem, when the middle letter of the root cannot receive a dagesh, is similar to the verbs of the first conjugation; and I have not undertaken to note anything in this conjugation unless it differs with verbs of the first conjugation.
The forms of its infinitive are:
The future and imperative, when the 
is dropped, are punctuated with double segol, becoming 
instead of 
, etc. But if the middle letter of the root is a mute or quiescent letter, then the 
remains, and 
changes into a 
like 
for 
he makes to drink, that is, he gives a drink, 
for 
he makes to see, or he shows, etc.
As for the causative passive (hoph‘al) 
and the reciprocal passive (hithpael), 
, they are marked in the same way as the preceding ones in the present, imperative, and future, and they have nothing singular about them which I have not noted about the simple verbs (kal) of this conjugation.
1. [Term not used by Spinoza.—M.L.M.]
2. [Term not used by Spinoza.—M.L.M.]
3. [Term not used by Spinoza.—M.L.M.]
4. [Term not used by Spinoza.—M.L.M.]
5. [Term not used by Spinoza.—M.L.M.]