# Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/60. Imperfect with Pronominal Suffixes

Layout 2
a In those forms of the imperfect Qal, which have no afformatives, the vowel ō of the second syllable mostly becomes ־ְ (simple Š$^e$wâ mobile), sometimes ־ֳ; thus in the principal pause, Nu 35, Is 27, 62, Jer 31, Ez 35, Ho 10; before the principal pause, ψ 119; before a secondary pause, Ez 17; even before a conjunctive accent, Jos 23. Before ־ְךָ, ​־ְכֶם, however, it is shortened to Qameṣ ḥaṭuph, e.g. יִשְׁמָרְךָ (but in pause יִשְׁמְרֶ֫ךָ or יִשְׁמְרֶ֫ךָּ; with Nûn energicum, see § 58 i), יִשְׁמָרְכֶם, &c. Instead of תִּקְטֹ֫לְנָה, the form תִּקְטְלוּ is used for the 2nd and 3rd fem. plur. before suffixes in three places: Jer 2, Jb 19, Ct 1.
b Rem. 1. יְחָבְרְךָ ψ 94 is an anomalous form for יַחְבָּרְךָ (cf. the analogous יָחְנְךָ § 67 n) and יִֽפְגָֽשְׁךָ (so Baer; others יִפְגָּֽשְׁךָ) Gn 32 for יִפְגָּֽשֲׁךָ. To the same category as יְחָבְרְךָ belong also, according to the usual explanation, תָּֽעָבְדֵם (from תַּֽעֲבֹד), Ex 20, 23, Dt 5, and נָֽעָב׳ Dt 13. As a matter of fact, the explanation of these forms as imperfects of Qal appears to be required by the last of these passages; yet why has the retraction of the ŏ taken place only in these examples (beside numerous forms like יַֽעַבְדֵ֫נִי)? Could the Masora in the two Decalogues and in Ex 23 (on the analogy of which Dt 13 was then wrongly pointed) have intended an imperfect Hophʿal with the suffix, meaning thou shalt not allow thyself to be brought to worship them?
c Verbs which have a in the second syllable of the imperfect, and imperative, Qal (to which class especially verba tertiae and mediae gutturalis belong, § 64 and § 65) do not, as a rule, change the Pathaḥ of the imperfect (nor of the imperative, see § 61 g) into Š$^e$wâ before suffixes; but the Pathaḥ, coming to stand in an open syllable before the tone, is lengthened to Qameṣ, e.g. וַיִּלְבָּשֵׁ֫נִי Jb 29; יִגְאָל֫וּהוּ 3; וַיִּשְׁלָחֵם Jos 8; יִקְרָאֻ֫הוּ ψ 145; but יִקְרְאוֹ Jer 23, is probably a forma mixta combining the readings יִקְרָאוֹ and יִקְרְאוּ, cf. § 74 e.
d 2. Not infrequently suffixes with the connecting vowel a are also found with the imperfect, e.g. תִּדְבָּקַ֫נִי Gn 19, cf. 29, Ex 33, Nu 22, 1 K 2 Q$^e$rê, Is 56, Jb 9; also ־ַ֫נִּי, Gn 27, Jb 7, 9, 13 (in principal pause); וַיַּכִּירָהּ Gn 37, cf. 16, 2 S 11, Is 26, Jb 28, 1 Ch 20; יַכִּירָ֑נוּ Is 63 (manifestly owing to the influence of the preceding יְדָעָ֫נוּ); יִלְבָּשָׁם Ex 29, cf. 2, Nu 21, Dt 7, ψ 74; even אֲמִילַֽם 118; וַיּֽוֹשִׁיעָן Ex 2, and יְחִיתַֽן Hb 2 (where, however, the ancient versions read יְחִתֶּ֫ךָ); even יִרְדְּפוֹ (ô from āhu) Ho 8; cf. Ex 22, Jos 2 (but read וַתִּצְפְּנֵם); 1 S 18 K$^e$th., 21 (where, however, the text is corrupt); 2 S 14 (where read with the old versions וַיַּךְ); Jer 23 (see § 74 e), ψ 35, Ec 4.—On pausal S$^e$ghôl for Ṣere in וַֽאֲבָֽרֲכָֽם Gn 48 and וַתְּאַֽלֲצֶ֑הוּ (so Baer, but ed. Mant., Ginsb. וַתְּאַלְצֵ֑הוּ) Ju 16, see § 29 q.
e 3. Suffixes are also appended in twelve passages to the plural forms in וּן, viz. תְּדַכְּאוּנַ֫נִי, will ye break me in pieces? Jb 19; יְשָֽׁרְת֑וּנֶךְ (here necessarily with a connecting vowel) Is 60; Pr 5 (וֹ but probably corrupt); elsewhere always without a connecting vowel; יִקְרָאֻ֫נְנִי with two other examples Pr 1, 8, Ho 5; cf. ־֫וּנְךָ ψ 63, 91; ־ֻ֫נְהוּ Jer 5; ־֫וּנְהָ Jer 2, all in principal pause. [See Böttcher, Lehrb., § 1047 f.]
f 4. In Piʿēl, Pôʿēl, and Poʿlēl, the Ṣere of the final syllable, like the ō in Qal, becomes vocal Š$^e$wâ; but before the suffixes ־ְךָ and ־ְכֶם it is shortened to S$^e$ghôl, e.g. יְקַבֶּצְךָ Dt 30, ψ 34, Is 51. With a final guttural, however, אֲשַׁלֵּֽחֲךָ Gn 32; also in Pr 4, where with Qimḥi תְּכַבֵּ֫דְךָ is to be read. ē is ​retained in the tone-syllable; an analogous case in Hiphʿîl is וְיַגֵּ֫דְךָ Dt 32. Less frequently Ṣere is sharpened to Ḥireq, e.g. אֲאַמִּצְכֶם Jb 16, cf. Ex 31, Is 1, 52; so in Poʿlēl, Is 25, ψ 30, 37, 145, and probably also in Qal אֹֽסִפְךָ 1 S 15; cf. § 68 h.
g 5. In Hiphʿîl the î remains, e.g. תַּלְבִּישֵׁ֫נִי Jb 10 (after wāw consecutive it is often written defectively, e.g. וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם Gn 3 and ofton); but cf. above, f, Dt 32. Forms like תַּעְשְׁרֶ֫נָּה thou enrichest it, ψ 65, 1 S 17, are rare. Cf. § 53 n.
h 6. Instead of the suffix of the 3rd plur. fem. (ן), the suffix of the 3rd plur. masc. (ם) is affixed to the afformative וּ, to avoid a confusion with the personal ending וּן; cf. וַיְמַלְאוּם Gn 26 (previously also with a perf. סִתְּמוּם); Gn 26, 33, Ex 2 (where וַיּֽוֹשִׁעָן occurs immediately after); 39, 1 S 6 (where also בְּנֵיהֶם is for בְּנֵיהֶן, a neglect of gender which can only be explained by § 135 o).—For יַֽהַרְגֻן Zc 11 read perhaps יַֽהַרְגֵן with M. Lambert.