))The verbs, whose first root letter is the quiescent 
usually drop it or change it into a 
. And so the simple active verbs (kal) in addition to the infinitives 
, and 
or 
, often have 
, and 
; and also when a paragogic 
or 
is added the 
is always dropped, and it becomes 
from 
and 
instead of 
. In the past tense the 
always remains, in the imperative it frequently is dropped, and finally in the future it is either quiescent or dropped. For example, from the form 
and 
the imperative becomes 
and 
. Therefore, they differ also in this respect from verbs of the first conjugation in that their imperatives are not formed from the infinitive 
; which came about perhaps for the reason that they are not to be confused with verbs whose median radical is 
, of which we shall speak in its proper place. These verbs therefore are conjugated in the imperative in this manner:
The pausal accents athnach and siluk, in the imperative, change their sheva 
into a 
, and so 
, and 
become 
, and 
.
Next, although in the Bible the imperative 
or 
is not found I believe that it was nevertheless in use, and from it was formed the form of the future 
and 
. The verb 
, being composed from this and the second conjugations, has the imperative 
fear. So from 
be able, by changing the 
into a 
, the future is formed 
, etc., which I believe may not be permitted in the others, so as not to be confused with the future of the passive reflexive verb, which the verb 
lacks.
Next, passive verbs (niph‘al) change the 
into a 
, and are in the infinitive 
in place of 
, and, if I am not mistaken, 
in place of 
, from which the past third person 
, the second person, 
, etc., and also from the infinitive 
the imperative is formed:
and the future 1. 
, 2. 
, etc.
Next, the intensives, both active and passive, (pi‘el and pu‘al), agree altogether with verbs of the first conjugation. The 
is retained and does not become quiescent unless the passive form should have the character 
(which, as I said in Chapter 17, is usually also prefixed to the passive intensive); but in that case the 
also changes into a 
, like 
for 
and 
for 
. Next, the future of the active verb may also be contracted, and in place of 
it may be written 
and 
in place of 
. In the causative, however, it (the yod) is either silent or, as happens mostly, changed to a 
. Thus in the infinitive they have 
instead of 
or 
instead of 
.
Where the 
is either silent or changed to a 
.
Finally, the future ending of these, as in verbs of the first conjugation, is either a chirek or a tsere; but the 
, as in the imperative, is either silenced or changed into a 
; so that is has the following forms: 
and 
, feminine 
, etc.
And here it must above all be noted, that it is not necessary in these to exclude the characteristic letter of the verb form on account of the characteristic letter of the tense; but one is free to either retain or omit it in the first and second forms above, and in the third and fourth to put a yod in its place. Namely; in place of 
one is able to write 
, etc., and in place of 
to write 
, etc., changing the characteristic 
into a 
. So also for 
and 
it is permitted to write 
and 
.
Next, be it noted that the causative verb form 
to be straight generally retains the 
in the infinitive, imperative, and future; and in this it agrees with verbs of the first conjugation. So that it has the infinitive 
, the imperative f. 
, m. 
, and the future 1. 
, 2. 
, 3. 
, etc.
Next, the causative from 
to go out also appears to be similar in that it retains the yod since at times the scribes in Genesis chap. 8, vs. 17 allowed the imperatives to be read both 
and 
.i I doubt that in these two there is anything unique. Thus far concerning the active accusative verb.
The passive (hoph‘al) changes the 
into a 
, or omits it. The forms of the infinitives are 
and 
, or 
and 
. The past third person m. 
f. 
, 2. 
, etc.; or 3. 
2. 
, etc. The imperative m. 
f. 
. The future 1. 
, 2. m. 
f. 
, etc.
The reciprocal reflective active verbs (hithpael) of this conjugation either retain the 
, and agree entirely with verbs of the first conjugation, or change it to a 
; so that the infinitives are 
and 
, and, except for this, they do not differ in any other way from verbs of the first conjugation.
Finally, the reciprocal passives, which have the characteristic letter 
, and usually compensate the 
with a dagesh (which form I have shown the reciprocal passive to have in addition to others in Chapter 21), change the 
into a 
; like 
and they were made to be disciplined Ezekiel 23:48. Of the other forms indeed, like 
, etc., none are extant, as far as I know, but this does not mean they are on that account impossible.
It must be noted here that there are some verbs whose first root letter is 
or 
, like 
to lay a snare, whose first letter, in place of a 
, is frequently 
, and in place of 
it is 
. Since verbs whose primary root letter is 
, are generally defective verbs (as I shall show below) it seems that these verbs imitate other defective verbs. There is another reason for this which must especially be noted here, namely that letters of the same root are not infrequently transposed, like 
and 
to dig, 
and 
a lamb. This transposition is observed very often in verbs of this conjugation, like 
and 
to be weary, 
and 
to give form; whence it is that these verbs resemble the verbs of the sixth conjugation, whose middle quiescent radical frequently is missing. For by the transposition of the 
from 
it becomes, as we have said, 
whose infinitive 
is contracted into 
, namely into the form of the infinitive of the sixth conjugation; so 
to fear, by transposing the 
and changing it into a 
, as above, the infinitive becomes 
and 
to be ashamed also has the infinitive 
. For this same reason 
, and the others whose primary radical is a 
at one time follow this mode and at other times follow the sixth conjugation in accordance with linguistic analogy (of which below).
i [The ketib is 
and the keri is 
.]