Those verbs which have a quiescent 
, or 
as the middle root letter generally give it up. Understand, when they are truly quiescent, like 
to rise up, 
to return, 
to rejoice; otherwise they are always retained, like 
to ask, 
to pervert, 
to be hostile, etc. Further, since those which have a quiescent 
as the middle root letter change it most frequently into 
and, except for three or four times, none are found of which it is certain that they have an 
as the middle root letter, therefore the grammarians recognize two classes of verbs having a quiescent middle root letter, namely, one consisting of those which have a middle 
, and the other of those which have a middle 
.
Moreover, 
he got up, and 
to be high, because they occur only once in Scripture, and like 
to thresh, whose 
(which we have shown to happen often) is transposed, are considered as irregular. As a matter of fact, both those which have a middle 
and those which have a middle 
usually change them into a 
. For just as 
is replaced by 
to get up, so also 
to rejoice is replaced by 
, and 
to pass the night by 
, etc. Hence I do not doubt the fact that these three quiescent groups belong to one class especially because their mode of conjugation is the same. To wit: the infinitive of the simple active verb is frequently 
and 
, or by dropping the 
and 
. Indeed it is very rarely found with an 
and those which have a 
like 
etc., we have shown that it frequently is changed to a 
. In the past tense however the quiescent is most frequently dropped. Their form generally is:
The past may also be punctuated with a 
, and a cholem in place of a 
, like 
he despised, 
he lights, 
he was ashamed, 
he died. Because the middle root letter is missing, the first is punctuated with the same vowel and the third root letter usually adheres to it. And there are many forms of the past tense which, like the verbs of the first conjugation, have a second vowel to which the third root adheres, (as we have shown in Chapter 14), which is either 
, or 
, or 
, or 
.
Next, just like those of the first conjugation, so also verbs of this conjugation change in the second and first persons the 
and the 
into a 
, and they retain the cholem. But they have this unique quality, that in the third person singular of the feminine gender and in the third plural they do not change, like verbs of the first conjugation, the cholem, or the 
, or the 
into a sheva, even when the accent is not 
, or 
. For, if it were to change into a sheva, the first root letter in the past would have too short a vowel, contrary to the common practice of the past simple form of the tense.
Further, those which have a yod in the middle usually may retain it also in the past: for example 
to quarrel has the past 3. 
, 2. 
, etc., or 3. 
, 2. 
, f. 
, 1. 
, etc. But others believe, and not without reason, that these are forms of the intensive verb (pi‘el) in place of 
; (of which in a moment), and also others believe them to be reciprocal verbs (hithpael) with the 
omitted, for what reason I do not know.
The imperative has all forms of the infinitive, namely:
And these forms of the future 
and 
or 
and 
.
And to all these forms of the imperative and future the paragogic 
is added for elegance, like 
get up, 
return, 
I shall arise, etc.
The passive (niph‘al) keeps the form of the active (kal) 
and the 
form becomes 
, and the 
form becomes, I believe, 
; whence:
The intensive form of the verb (pi‘el) is unable to double the middle radical 
, seeing that it is a guttural. It may be compensated by a long vowel, but since it is most generally omitted, like the 
and 
, on this account verbs of this conjugation are rarely able to double the second root letter, but generally double the third root letter. Accordingly from 
to get up it becomes 
to erect; whence the pasts 3. m. 
f. 
, 2. m. 
, f. 
, etc., and the imperative m. 
f. 
, etc., finally the futures 1. 
, 2. 
, f. 
, etc.
The passive intensive (pu‘al) is distinguished from the active (pi‘el) only by the patach. Namely, from the active (pi‘el) 
, the passive becomes 
to be erected. Whence the pasts 3. m. 
, f. 
, 2. 
, and the futures 1. 
, 2. 
, f. 
. This mode was common among the ancients in conjugating the verbs of this conjugation. But the later ones made from the verb 
to owe or to be indebted the intensive (pi‘el) 
(perhaps not to be confused with 
to love) and from 
they made 
to establish, to affirm, and the others in this manner.
Then, not infrequently it is usual to double the first root letter, like 
from 
. But of this see Chapter 31.
Beside these forms, some grammarians attribute another form in the intensive (pi‘el), namely, 3. 
, 2. 
, f. 
, 1. 
, etc., and it seems that they do not stray from the truth.
Further, the causative verbs (hiph‘il) lose the quiescent middle radical, and they become in the infinitive 
, and 
; in the past, however, they imitate the endings of the simple active (kal), or (which is more frequently observed in the Bible) the passive (niph‘al).
Thus it is
The Past Tense
The Imperative
But when the accent is put on the first syllable, the 
changes to a -, namely, 
, etc.
The passive (hoph‘al) also losing the quiescent letter, has the infinitive 
and 
or 
and 
, and the past 3. 
, 2. m. 
, f. 
, or 3. 
, 2. m. 
, and so forth; with which also the future agrees. For it is either 1. 
, 2. m. 
, f. 
, etc., or 
, etc.
Next the reciprocal (hithpael) is formed, like in the other conjugations, from its intensive (pi‘el) 
, namely by prefixing to it the syllable 
, and although the intensive (pi‘el) of this conjugation never ends in a 
but always in a 
, the reciprocal (hithpael), however, is ended by both the 
and the 
. Namely: The infinitive 
and 
. The past 3. m. 
, f. 
, etc. The imperative 
. The future 
, etc.
And there is nothing else to note here which they do not have in common with the verbs of the first conjugation.
Further, composite verbs of this and the third conjugation do not exist. For those which have the middle root letter 
or 
, and the third root letter 
their middle root letter does not quiesce, like 
to spin, 
to borrow, 
to be, etc.
Those which have an 
as the final root letter are only 
to come, and 
to restrain, whose simple active (kal) in the past always retains the 
on account of the quiescent 
as 
, and the imperative retains the cholem, namely m. s. 
, f. 
and 
, m. p. 
and 
, f. 
and 
.1
The future beside 1. 
, 2. 
, f. 
, etc., has also the fem. 1. 
, 2. 
, 3. 
. Each of these verbs lacks the simple passive (niph‘al) and the intensive active and passive (pi‘el and pu‘al). The causative is generally terminated like 
; namely the past active (hiph‘il) 3. m. 
, f. 
, 2. 
, f. 
, 1. 
, etc. But frequently it also is 3. 
, 2. 
, f. 
, like 
, etc. The passive (hoph‘al) however is, 1. 
etc. The reflexive (hithpael) is lacking in each, namely both 
and 
. And concerning those whose third root letter is a 
or an 
much has already been observed, which was said in Chapter 24.
or 
.—M.L.M.]