Participles are adjectives which express an action, or all things usually expressed by a verb as it has an effect on a thing or a relationship as to tense. Thus it is that there exist as many kinds of participles as verbs; namely simple (kal), intensives (pi‘el), causatives (hiph‘il), and reflexives (hithpael), and all of them both in the active and passive.
They are formed from the verbs in this manner. The simple active form (kal) 
also has the form 
and I claim it also to be a participle. And thus the simple masculine (kal) participle is 
, and with the paragogic 
, feminine 
, or 
, and with the paragogic 
it is 
. Then from the passive (niph‘al) 
the masculine participle is 
and, with the paragogic 
, it is 
feminine 
or 
.
From the intensive (pi‘el) 
the masculine participle is 
, feminine 
or 
, and the passive 
(pu‘al) is in the masculine 
, etc., or 
feminine 
or 
or 
, etc.
So from the causative (hiph‘il) 
the masculine is 
, feminine 
; and from the passive (hoph‘al) 
or 
the masculine is 
or 
, etc.
And finally, from the reflexive (hithpael) 
the masculine is 
, etc. Reflexive passive participles do not exist, except 
, or (compensating the 
by a dagesh) 
; whose characteristic sign 
is in the active form, but the verb 
has the passive form, contrary to the customary usage of this verb form (of which see Chapter 21), and therefore I do not venture to decide anything about it.
Further, the simple participles, which are formed from neuter verbs, usually use the form of the infinitive 
, like 
sleeping, 
cleaning, etc.
Next, the passive participle is most frequently formed from its active, becoming from 
(by changing the cholem into 
) 
visited. But these are very often changed into adjectives.
And I call these participles since they signify a mode by which a thing is considered as in the present. But they themselves are frequently changed into pure adjectives which signify the attributes of things; for example, 
is a participle, which means a counting man, that is, who is now occupied in counting, but most frequently it is used as an attribute without any relationship as to time, and signifies a man who has the job of counting, namely a scribe. So 
signifies a man who is occupied in judging and frequently is attributed to a man who has the office of judging, i.e., it has the same value as among the Latins, the word Judex (Judge). So the passive participle 
(chosen, that is, a man or a thing which is now actually chosen) is frequently attributed to a thing distinguished (excellent), namely of things chosen above all; and in this manner intensive participles and others change often into attributes, that is into adjectives which have no relationship to time whatever.
Next, I believe that the simple participles whose prefix is 
should be distinct from the rest of participles. They are those like 
a litigant, 
one who offends with the tongue. We do not want to exaggerate, but it seems that the simple and the intensive and the rest, all had the characteristic letter 
, and that the later writers abolished it in the simple form; or perhaps intensive participles are formed from simple ones, and that is why their roots lack an intensive verb. This regarding participles in general, and of those which are formed from verbs of the first conjugation.
From verbs of the second conjugation masculine participles are formed in the same manner as the preceding ones but the feminine participles do not have the double segol. The 
is mostly quiescent, and in place of 
, etc., it is 
, etc. The simple participle is also 
.
Further, the participles of this conjugation usually drop the 
altogether and they follow the same procedure as we have said about their verbs.
Participles of the third conjugation very often have a segol in place of a 
, like 
; in the feminine either the 
disappears altogether, like 
for 
or it is changed into a 
, and the 
into a chirek, like 
fruitful.
Adjectives of this and the second conjugations, which follow the form 
change the 
or 
into a 
, like 
existing or inventing from 
, and 
revealed from 
. I do not need to note here all the adjectives of every conjugation in detail since they regularly follow the rules of the verbs from which they were formed.
The participles formed from the verbs whose first root letter is a 
(peh nun verbs) follow the form of the verb; that is, if the past lacks the 
of the root, the participle also will lack it, and contrarily, if the past is analogous (to the first conjugation) the participle also will be analogous. For example the simple active 
has the past 
, and the participle 
, namely both analogous; and the causative 
has the past 
, and the participle 
, that is, both are defective.
However, the participles formed from defective double roots regularly have the active simple 
; but the remaining participles follow the past of the verb. Namely from the simple passive 
the masculine is 
the feminine 
and from the intensive 
it is 
and from 
it is 
, and so from the causative past 
it is 
, and from 
it is 
, and finally from the reflexive 
it is 
. For the rest, the inflection of the participles from singular to plural follows the rules common to the nouns, of which see Chapter 6.
The rest is missing.