The Twelfth Principle: On the elucidation of the five remaining verbal patterns in the class of doubled roots.

1. The Pattern Paʿal This pattern for the most part follows the manner of the strong roots, as in qillel, qillalta, and the like, and there is no need to explain it. But sometimes it follows the manner of the Paʿal pattern of roots quiescent in the middle letter, in which the final root letter is doubled in place of the dagesh; only that in these cases the vowels are with pataḥ, as in ve-romem taḥat le-shoni (Psalms 66:17), asher ‘olal li (Lamentations 1:12). But roots quiescent in the middle letter take a tsere, as I wrote above, and thus we say from ramam: romemu Hashem Eloheinu (Psalms 99:9), aromem, yeromem, and so on. And likewise from bun: bonen, bonenu. The reason is that since the last two letters are identical, it was difficult in their view to place a dagesh in one of the doubled letters, for it would appear as though there were three identical letters in succession, since the dagesh indicates a doubled letter, as I explained. Therefore they sometimes dropped the dagesh and placed in its stead a quiescent vav. As a result, doubt arises in some of these verbs whether they belong to the class of roots quiescent in the middle letter or to the class of doubled roots.

2. But the participle and the passive occur only in complete form, as in mesovev, mehallel. Therefore, everything that you find in the pattern mefu‘al with a tsere, or mefu‘al with qamats, such as meshovev netivot (Isaiah 58:12), me‘onen u-menachesh (Deuteronomy 18:10), ve-hu meḥullal mi-pesha‘einu (Isaiah 53:5), u-meromam ‘al kol berakhah (Nehemiah 9:5), belong to the class of roots quiescent in the middle letter, and not to the doubled roots. This is also the view of R. Abraham ibn Ezra in his book Ṣaḥut.

But I find difficulty with u-meḥonnen ‘anavim (Proverbs 14:21), for it is certainly from the doubled roots, its root being ḥanan. And Rabbi David Kimḥi has brought some such forms both among the roots quiescent in the middle letter and among the doubled roots; see his discussion under that root.

The Hitpa‘el For the most part it comes in complete form, as in hitpallel, hitḥannen, and the like. But sometimes it comes according to the manner of roots quiescent in the middle letter, as from madad: va-yitmoded ‘al ha-yeled (1 Kings 17:21); and from galal: mitgalel ba-dam (2 Samuel 20:12), and similar cases.

3. The Pattern Hif‘il — The Past It comes in two forms, and in both the prefixed he has a tsere. In the first, the first root letter also has a tsere, as in ve-hesav lev melekh Ashur (Ezra 6:22), heḥel ha-negef (Numbers 17:11), he‘ez ish rasha‘ (Proverbs 21:29). In the second, the first root letter comes with a pataḥ, as in he-mar Shaddai li me’od (Ruth 1:20), he-qel artsah Zevulun (Isaiah 8:23). Likewise, the third-person masculine and feminine appear in these two patterns with a tsere, as in hesebu elai et ha-aron (1 Samuel 5:10), ve-ha-massa’ah heḥelah (Judges 20:40); and with a pataḥ, as in hemakku, hemakkah. But all the other past forms follow the manner of roots quiescent in the middle letter, except that here they are doubled, as in hesivota et libbam (1 Kings 18:37), ve-hizkita bor kappi (Job 9:30), whereas roots quiescent in the middle letter are light, as in ve-heshivota, ve-heshivoti, and so on. And if the first root letter is guttural, the prefixed he is vocalized with a pataḥ, as in heḥeloti Sha’ul lo (1 Samuel 22:15).

4. The Participle Here too it is with a tsere, as in roots quiescent in the middle letter. But whereas there the first root letter has a ḥiriq, as in meqim, meshiv, in these it has a tsere, as in meseb kele milḥamah (Jeremiah 21:4), meḥel le-hara‘ (Jeremiah 25:29). And the remaining forms are with a dagesh, as in mesibbim, mesibbah, whereas roots quiescent in the middle letter are light, as in meshivim, meshivah.

The Passive With a mem with a shuruq or a qubbuts, as is always its rule, as in musav. The remaining forms are with a dagesh, as in musabbim, musabbah, musabbot; some are written in full and some defectively, according to the Masoretic tradition. But roots quiescent in the middle letter are light, as in moshavin, moshavah, moshavot.

5. The Infinitive It has a he with a qamats and a tsere, as in ha-meq basaro (Zechariah 14:12). And it comes with a tsere even with the prefixed letters b-k-l-m, as in le-ḥal, le-hadeq; but katat le-hadeq (2 Chronicles 34:7) has a pataḥ in place of a tsere on the first root letter. This is not so with roots quiescent in the middle letter, which have a ḥiriq, as in le-haqim, le-hashiv.

6. And likewise the Imperative It is with a tsere, as in haḥel rash (Deuteronomy 2:24). The other forms are doubled, as in hassevu, hassevi ‘einekh (Song of Songs 6:5), all with penultimate stress, for otherwise the dagesh could not occur. And in the feminine plural: hassevnah.

7. The Future The e-i-t-n letters come with a qamats, as with roots quiescent in the middle letter, yet they are distinguished from them, for in these the first root letter has a tsere, as in aḥel gadlekha (Joshua 3:7), yaqel et yado (1 Samuel 6:5), whereas in those it has a ḥiriq, as in aqim, yaqim. And when they come with the conversive vav, the tsere returns to a segol, because the stress shifts to the penultimate, as in va-yigal et ha-even (Genesis 29:10), va-yideq le-‘afar (2 Kings 23:6). In this respect they resemble roots quiescent in the middle letter, as I wrote there.

And there is also a pattern in which the e-i-t-n letter has a pataḥ and a dagesh follows it, as in va-yasev Elohim (Exodus 13:18), ki titammu derakhekha (Job 22:3). And one also finds va-yasovu penehem (Judges 18:23), va-yasovu et ha-aron (1 Samuel 5:8), where the samekh and the bet are doubled, contrary to the usual practice, in order to absorb one letter; the expected form would have been va-yasovu. And the feminine plural forms are with a sheva, as in va-teḥilnah sheva shenei ha-ra‘av (Genesis 41:54).

8. The Pattern Huf‘al In the past tense, the prefixed he has a shuruq, as in husav, as I wrote above concerning roots quiescent in the middle letter. The remaining forms have a doubled middle root letter, as in husavot, husavoti, and so on. But roots quiescent in the middle letter are light, as in hushavta, hushavtem levadkhem (Isaiah 5:8).

The Future It comes in two forms. The first, which is the more common, has the e-i-t-n letters with a shuruq and a following light consonant, as in leḥem yuddaq (Isaiah 28:28), ‘al kamots yusav, u-mivtsarekha yushad (Hosea 10:14), ke-hitmokh shoded tushad (Isaiah 33:1). These have a dagesh together with a quiescent vowel, contrary to the normal rule. The second form has three dots (qibbuts) together with a dagesh, as in yukkat sha‘ar (Isaiah 24:12), mi-boqer la-‘erev yukkatu (Job 4:20).

The Pattern Hitpa‘el I have already included it within the discussion of the pattern Paʿal, and there is no need to repeat it.