1. Know that the past and the future are the foundations of all the actions, and by means of them a person can suffice and speak in their place for all the other actions. Thus it is the way of Scripture to use them in place of the participle, the infinitive, and the imperative, as will be explained.

2. And the letters used in the past tense to indicate the grammatical persons are the letters t-h-i-m-u-n, and they always appear at the end.

And those used in the future tense are the letters e-i-t-n, and they always appear at the beginning. However, there is no need to elaborate on their usage here, for you will see it in the table of verb patterns that I shall compose, God willing.

3. And know that there are also three letters that are used at the beginning of past tense, whose mnemonic is shaveh; and I shall speak about them further in the chapter on the shimusim (particles).

And the principal one is the vav, and its usage is in two ways.

The first is called the vav of conjunction, and it joins a verb to a verb or a noun to a noun, and so forth, as will be explained in the chapter mentioned.

And the second is called the vav of conversion, and it converts past forms into future forms, and future forms into past forms, as I shall explain here.

4. Know that when you wish to convert a past form into a future form, you place a vav with sheva at its beginning.

For example, from shamar: “ve-shamar Hashem” (Deuteronomy 7:12), which is equivalent to ve-yishmor. Likewise, “ve-shamru benei Yisrael” (Exodus 31:16) is equivalent to ve-yishmeru.

And it is always a vowel point with a shva, except for those (forms) that alter it, turning it into a shuruk, or into a pataḥ, or into a ḥiriq, as will be explained in the aforementioned chapter.

5. And if you ask: how shall I know whether it is the vav of conjunction or the vav of conversion?

Know that when there is no other past verb preceding it, it is a vav of conversion; but if there is, then it is a vav of conjunction. One verse serves as a sign: “mi pa‘al ve-‘asah” (Isaiah 41:4), and the discerning will understand. Likewise, the two vavs in “ve-qara zeh el zeh ve-amar” (Isaiah 6:3) are both vavs of conversion, since it is written before them “va-ereh et Hashem,” which is a past verb on account of the vav with qamats in va-ereh.

6. And if someone should ask: but behold, the verbs yekhasseh and yi‘ofef that precede them are future forms — we reply that it is the way of Scripture to place the future in the place of the past when speaking of something that regularly or continually occurs. For example: “ve-ed ya‘aleh” (Genesis 2:6), “‘al pi Hashem yaḥanu” (Numbers 9:20), and that entire passage.

7. And know that it is the way of Scripture to speak in the past tense in place of the future, and this occurs most often in prophetic speech, for the matter is clear before the Omnipresent as though it had already been done.

But in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job it is the opposite, for most of the future forms found in them stand in place of past forms; likewise in the Song at the Sea and in the section of Ha’azinu. But in narrative accounts of deeds and events, such usages are found only very rarely.

8. And know that for the second person singular and the first person singular there is one sign by which to distinguish the vav of conjunction from the vav of conversion. This is as follows: when they occur with the vav of conjunction, they are generally accented on the penultimate syllable, just as they normally are even without a vav. For example: “ve-akhaltí ḥattat ha-yom” (Leviticus 10:19), “ve-dibbartí ‘al ha-nevi’im” (Hosea 12:11). These are past forms with penultimate stress. But when they occur with the vav of conversion, they generally shift to final stress, as in: “ve-shamartá et kol ḥuqqav” (Exodus 15:26), “ve-dibbartá mishpatai” (Jeremiah 1:16). And this applies in all verb patterns and in all root categories, except for verbs with a weak final lamed–aleph or he, which always retain penultimate stress, whether with the vav or without it, such as ve-qarata, u-matsata, u-vanita, u-fanita, and the like.

And I shall give you one general rule for all nine forms of the past tense, by which you may know which is accented on the penultimate syllable and which on the final syllable:

9. Know that five of them are always accented on the final syllable, whether with the vav or without it, namely: paqad, paqdu, paqedah, paqadtem, peqadten. And two are always accented on the penultimate syllable, whether with the vav or without it, namely: paqadnu and u-paqadt. And two of them, without the vav, are always accented on the penultimate syllable, but with the vav are sometimes accented on the penultimate syllable and sometimes on the final syllable, namely: paqadta and paqadti, as I have written.

And this rule applies to all the verb patterns of the category of complete verbs, except for the third-person masculine and feminine forms of the Hif‘il pattern, which are for the most part accented on the penultimate syllable, as will be explained.

10. And know that the three third-person forms — paqad, paqdu, and paqedah — have a special rule: when they are joined to a short word, or to a word that is accented on the penultimate syllable, they themselves also shift to penultimate stress. For example: “qara laylah” (Genesis 1:5), “ve-sha’al lo” (Numbers 27:21), “ve-qare’u lo” (Deuteronomy 25:8), “bagdu bah” (Lamentations 1:2), and the like.

11. And know that in the future tense there is another sign by which to distinguish the vav of conjunction from the vav of conversion. This is that the vav of conjunction is pointed with a sheva, as I hinted above in section 4; but the vav of conversion is governed to be pointed with a pataḥ and followed by a dagesh, such as va-yomer, va-tomer, va-nomer. And since the aleph does not accept a dagesh, the vav before it is pointed with a qamats. All of this will be explained well in the chapter mentioned above, God willing.

12. Be it well known to you that in the languages of the nations there are three kinds of past tense: the simple past, the imperfect past, and the pluperfect (past already completed).

However, in the Holy Tongue all three appear in a different manner, and according to the context each one is explained in one of these three ways. I shall now give you an example from the word paqad as it appears in Scripture in all three senses. “paqad ‘avonekh bat Edom” (Lamentations 4:22) — this is a completed past. In the Ashkenazic tongue it is expressed as er hot gedokht, and in the vernacular tongue as visito.

“And Hashem paqad et Sarah” (Genesis 21:1) is an imperfect past — that is, it is like “was attending to.” In the Ashkenazic tongue it is expressed as er rakhte, and in the vernacular tongue as visitava. But according to the explanation of Rashi, of blessed memory, it is a past already completed; see there.

“For ki paqad Hashem et ammo” (Ruth 1:6) is a past already completed, for it is as though it said “had already attended to.” In the Ashkenazic tongue it is expressed as er hatte gedokht, and in the vernacular tongue as avia visitamo.

And likewise the vav that converts the future into the past generally converts it into an imperfect past, such as va-yomer and va-yedabber, which are explained as “was saying” and “was speaking.” In the Ashkenazic tongue: er zogte, er redite. Except in certain cases, when a completed past precedes it, in which case it too takes that sense. For example: “ki me‘at asher hayah lekha lefanai va-yifrotz la-rov va-yevarekh Hashem otkha” (Genesis 30:30). Here they are equivalent to paratz and berakh, on account of the word hayah that precedes them.

13. Nevertheless, know that the vav does not have the power to convert the future into a past already completed, except in very few places. For example: “va-yishlaḥ Yitzḥaq et Ya‘aqov [va-yishma‘ Ya‘aqov el aviv ve-el immo] va-yelekh Paddanah Aram” (Genesis 28:7). These are equivalent to “had already sent,” “[had already heard],” and “had already gone,” as Rashi of blessed memory explains there; see there.