By defective verbs I mean those of which one of the root letters is deficient, as are the verbs of the second and third conjugations, or those whose first root letter is a 
, or a 
, or those whose middle root is an 
, or a 
, or a 
, or those whose second and third root is the same letter. Concerning the verbs of the first and second conjugations and concerning those whose first root is a 
or whose middle root is an 
or a 
, we have spoken in Chapters 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27. It remains that I speak concerning the two other defective groups. First concerning those whose primary root is a 
. Of these I say that many of them, though not all, in certain cases either omit or retain the 
, but since it is required to be compensated by a dagesh, it is called defective only in writing but not in pronunciation. No, I say, on that account, even though a syllable is occasionally missing. For monosyllabic verbs, provided that no letter of the root is missing, are not usually defective, just as polysyllables like 
should also not be called superfluous.
Their paradigm is a verb of the first conjugation 
to approach, whose form of the simple infinitive (kal) is also 
, and with the paragogic 
, and whose construct is 
.
The past always is analogous (to the first conjugation) and with the paragogic 
, and with the athnach or siluk accent 
.
The verb 
to give, to concede, instead of 
, has 
, and the imperative 
give; whence the future 
, etc.
The second conjugation verb 
to bear, to carry, imitates the verb 
.
Of these which are of the third conjugation, all the simple active (kal) with the exception of future are analogous, like 
or 
etc., to stretch, to incline. Its imperative is 
; but the future is 
, etc., and with the dropping of the 
it is 
, etc.
Next, verbs of the fourth conjugation imitate the paradigm of the first, like 
to blow 
, and with a paragogic 
and with a 
.
The verbs of the sixth are always analogous and like verbs of the eighth conjugation, except the Aramaic 
to descend, of which I am in doubt.
The simple passive (niph‘al) is analogous, except that in the past, because of the characteristic 
of the niph‘al, the root letter 
is omitted and is compensated by a dagesh, like 
for 
. To be sure, this analogy is one of those of which we spoke in Chapter 15.
Next, the intensive verb, both active (pi‘el) and passive (pu‘al), is always analogous. The causative (hiph‘il), instead of 
and 
, is 
, and 
.
Thus the verb of the third conjugation 
has the causative (hiph‘il) 
, 
, and 
. Whence the past 
, f. 
, 2. 
, and the imperative 
, and the future 
2. 
, f. 
, etc., or with the dropped 
it is 
, etc. So also the fourth conjugation 
to move out has the reflexive 
, or contracted to 
, whence the future 
, etc.
For the rest, it is noted that the causative form of the verb (hiph‘il) very frequently lacks the 
, like the simple (kal); except verbs of the sixth and the eighth conjugations, which, as we have said, are always analogous. The causative passive (hoph‘al) infinitive is either 
or 
.
The reflexive, both active (hithpael) and passive (hothpael), is analogous.
Finally the verb 
to take. This must be referred to here because it alone follows this paradigm. But the others whose first root letter is a 
are analogous.