The Fifth Principle: On the elucidation of the class of roots deficient in the first root letter, such as nigash.

1. The Pattern Qal The past tense, the participle, and the passive appear in full form, and the infinitive as well, for the most part, as in nafol tipol lefanav (Esther 6:13), halokh ve-naso‘a. Likewise, the imperative for the most part appears in full form, as in natsor banai, and lifnei hitgalla‘ ha-riv netosh (Proverbs 17:14), and nidru ve-shallemu (Psalms 76:12), naflu ‘alenu (Hosea 9:8). But there are a few roots in which the nun is missing in the infinitive, and in its place an additional tav appears at the end; these are nagash, naga‘, nata‘, nafaḥ, and there are almost no others, as in be-gishat Yisra’el (Numbers 8:19), laga‘at bakh (2 Samuel 14:10), lifḥot ‘alav (Ezekiel 22:20), ‘et lita‘at (Ecclesiastes 3:2). But know that these forms occur only with the prefixed letters b-k-l-m; without b-k-l-m they never occur with the loss of the nun and the addition of a final tav. And likewise in the imperative, the nun is missing in some of these, as in gash hal’ah (Genesis 19:9), ve-ga‘ el ‘atsmo (Job 2:5), u-feḥi ba-harugim (Ezekiel 37:9). And from nashal: shal na‘alekha. But from nata‘ it is not said ta‘.

2. However, the future tense for the most part comes with the loss of the nun and a dagesh in the middle root letter to indicate it, as in anash yigash; and all of them are with a pataḥ or with a ḥolam, as in epol, yipol. A few are found that come in full form, as in ve-torotav yintseru (Psalms 105:45), ha-yintor le-‘olam (Jeremiah 3:5). But when the middle root letter is a guttural, it always comes like the strong roots, as in lo tina’af, and ve-leḥem setarim yin‘am (Proverbs 9:17), ha-yinaq pere (Job 6:5). Except for a few that come with the e-i-t-n letters in tsere in place of the nun, as in mi yiḥet ‘alenu (Jeremiah 21:13), and va-tehom kol ha-‘ir (Ruth 1:19), whose roots are naḥat and naham.

3. The Pattern Nif‘al I shall include it within the pattern Paʿal with dagesh.

The Patterns Paʿal and Puʿal With roots deficient in the first letter nun, know that because these two patterns always have a dagesh in the middle root letter, as you already know, they therefore come in this class only in full form. For there is no way to drop the nun and place a dagesh in the middle root letter in its stead, since it is already dageshed; and two dageshim cannot occur in a single letter. Nor can one dagesh indicate two things. Therefore, they always appear in full form.

4. And know that in this class there is no difference between verbs that belong to the pattern Nif‘al and those that belong to the pattern Paʿal, for both of them have a dagesh in the middle root letter: in Nif‘al because of the loss of the root nun, and in Paʿal as the identifying sign of the pattern. As in ve-lo nikar shoa‘ lifnei dal (Job 34:19), which is a past tense of Nif‘al; and nikar elidam ito (1 Samuel 23:7), which is a past tense of the pattern Paʿal. And so in every place you will recognize, according to the sense of the context, which form is Nif‘al and which is Paʿal.

5. The Patterns Hif‘il and Hif‘al With roots deficient in the first letter nun, both patterns are identical in their vocalization to the strong roots, except that the root nun is missing and a dagesh appears in the middle root letter in its place throughout the entire pattern.

The Past higgish, which properly would have been haniggish; and likewise the participle magish, the passive mugash, and the infinitive and the imperative hagish with a tsere; higgishu, higgishi with hiriq. Likewise with the prefixed letters b-k-l-m, it is with a hiriq, as in behaggish, kehaggish, and so on. The e-i-t-n forms are agish, yagish.

The Pattern Hif‘al Throughout, the he appears with a ḥataf-qamats, for the dagesh is more clearly perceived after a kubuts than after a ḥataf-qamats.

The Past huggash, huggashta, and so on. It has no participle, passive, or imperative. The infinitive is huggash, as in haggēd haggēd li (Ruth 2:11), and with the prefixed letters b-k-l-m it is not found. The future tense is uggash, yuggash, and so on.

6. The Pattern Hitpa‘el It too appears in full form, for the reason I wrote regarding the pattern Paʿal.

6. And know that there are roots whose first root letter is yod that behave according to the class of roots deficient in the first letter nun; and they are called roots deficient in the first letter yod, and not quiescent first-letter yod roots.

I say that this applies only when the middle root letter has a tsere, as in yatsag, yatsaq, yatsa‘, yatsar, yatsat. Thus you say yatsag gevulot ‘amim (Deuteronomy 32:8), atsigah na ‘immekh min ha-‘am asher (Genesis 33:15), ki atsokh mayim ‘al tsame (Isaiah 44:3), ve-’atsi‘ah She’ol hinnekh (Psalms 139:8), be-terem etzorkha ba-beten yeda‘tikh (Jeremiah 1:5), and va-yatsat esh be-Tsiyon (Lamentations 4:11). In all of these, the tsere is dageshed in place of the yod of the first root letter. But the root yatsa is an exception. Therefore I say hiqifu yemei ha-mishteh (Job 1:5), and likewise lo heniyaḥ adam (Psalms 105:14), for these are dageshed, their roots being naqaf and nuaḥ, and not yaqaf or yanuḥ. I will speak further about this among the quiescent first-letter yod roots.

7. And there is one root whose first root letter is lamed whose infinitive, imperative, and future tense for the most part follow the pattern of roots deficient in the first letter nun. This is the root laqach. From it you say the infinitive qaḥat, be-qaḥat, laqaḥat; and the imperative qaḥ, qḥu, qḥi, and so on.

And in the future tense it comes with a dagesh, as in eqach, yiqach, tiqach; the dagesh stands in place of the lamed of the first root letter. No other lamed is found to drop except this one, and this is because of the frequent use of this root. And sometimes even the dagesh itself is dropped, and this occurs only when the middle root letter has a sheva, as in va-yiqḥu elekha (Numbers 19:2), and ve-eqḥah pat leḥem (Genesis 18:5). In both of these the qof is soft, just as from the root nasa‘ it is said va-yis‘u and va-yaḥanu (Numbers 33:6), and va-yis’u oto banav (Genesis 50:13), where the samekh and the shin are soft because of their frequent use. And there are those who say that the language of “taking” has two roots, laqach and naqach: the past tenses and participles come from laqach and naqach, and the future tenses from naqach, just as the language of “going” likewise has two roots, halakh and yalakh: the past tenses and participles come from halakh, and the future tenses from yalakh, as in elekh, yelekh, and so on. But the first explanation is the more correct.