The Eighth Principle: A discussion to prove that the pattern Paʿal in this class is the pattern that some grammarians have called “quadriliteral.”

The Patterns Paʿal and Puʿal Behold, I have now reached the place where I said at the beginning of the First Treatise that I would prove that the so-called quadriliteral pattern does not exist at all. Know that some grammarians have said concerning the words to’khelehu esh (Job 20:26), meloshni ba-seter (Psalms 101:5), le-mishpati etḥannan (Job 9:15), that they belong to a quadriliteral pattern, because of the ḥataf-qamats on the first root letter, which they take to stand in place of a ḥolam to indicate a quiescent vav after the first root letter.

1. The Past okhel, okhelet; loshen, loshenet; shofet, shofetet — thus, according to them, there are four root letters. So far is their claim. But I say that no proof should be brought from these three, for they are found only in these instances alone, and one does not establish a verbal pattern on their account. Rather, they belong to the class of anomalous or compound forms, as will be explained in the Book of Composition, each one in its proper place.

And what they further said is that there are found in this class true quadriliteral forms, such as from bun one says bonen: the quiescent vav is the middle root letter, and afterward there are two nuns, which they take to be the two final root letters. Thus there are, according to them, four root letters, and therefore they are called true quadriliterals. So far is their claim.

2. To this I reply and say that it is true that konen, qomem, and shovev have a doubled final root letter; but they belong to the pattern Paʿal with dagesh. And since the vav is quiescent, it is impossible to place a dagesh in it, for a dagesh never occurs in a quiescent letter. Therefore they doubled the final root letter in place of the dagesh, and said konen instead of kon. The proof of this is that even in Hitpa‘el in this class they doubled the final root letter in place of the dagesh, and said hitkonen instead of hitkon. Likewise in Paʿal, which also requires a dagesh, they said be-ein tehomot ḥullalti (Proverbs 8:24) instead of ḥullalti; and me-Hashem mitz‘adei gever konanu (Psalms 37:23), which is from the pattern Paʿal in this class, instead of konu; and likewise yimolal ve-yavesh (Psalms 90:6), from the pattern Paʿal of this class. And those who say that these are formed on the pattern yaqomem, yashovev, from a quadriliteral pattern, would need to say that they are intransitive verbs. But this is not my view, for the law of this entire pattern is that it is transitive. And this too supports my position, for it stands in place of Paʿal, which is always transitive, as I wrote in its principle.

And there is yet another proof that this pattern stands in place of Paʿal: for its participle and its passive are formed with a mem with sheva at the beginning, and likewise the prefixed letters b-k-l-m and the letters e-i-t-n are all with a sheva, in accordance with the rule of every Paʿal pattern. And the difference between the participle and the passive is that the participle has a tsere, as in meshovev netivot (Isaiah 58:12).

And the passive has a qamats, as in ve-hu meḥullal mi-pesha‘einu (Isaiah 53:5).

3. And the general rule is this: the pattern Paʿal in this class has the first root letter vocalized with a ḥolam to indicate the quiescent vav, which is the middle root letter; and the final root letter is doubled in place of the dagesh, and it is vocalized with a tsere, as in bonen, qomem. And all the additional prefixed letters at the beginning are with a sheva, following the rule of the pattern Paʿal. In this manner the pattern Paʿal appears, and there is no difference among these forms except according to the sense of the context. Thus konenu ḥitzam (Psalms 11:2) is from the pattern that I call Paʿal; mitz‘adei gever konanu (Psalms 37:23) is from the pattern Paʿal; ḥillalah yado (Job 26:13) is from the pattern Paʿal; and lifnei gva‘ot ḥullalti (Proverbs 8:25) is from the pattern Paʿal, as I wrote above.

4. The Pattern Hif‘il In the past tense throughout, the first root letter has a tsere at the beginning; and in the three concealed persons the first root letter has a hiriq, as in heqim, heqimu, heqimah. But in the other persons it has a pataḥ, as in haqemta, haqemti, and so on. Sometimes even in these the first root letter has a hiriq, but the he has a ḥataf-pataḥ or a ḥataf-segol, as in heqimot, heqimoti, heqitsoti, as in ki Hashem yismekheni (Psalms 3:6).

The Participle The mem has a tsere, like the he of the past tense; but in the other forms the tsere changes to a sheva, as is its rule, as in meqim, meqimim.

The Passive The mem has a shuruq, as is its rule, as in muqam, muqamim, and so on.

The Infinitive It has a he with a qamats in order to distinguish it from the past tense, and the first root letter has a tsere, as in haqem. But with the prefixed letters b-k-l-m it takes a hiriq, as in behakim, kehakim, and so on.

5. And likewise the Imperative For the singular and the plural it has a tsere; and in the other forms with a hiriq, as in haqem, haqimu, haqimi, haqemnah. And sometimes they drop the he of the pattern from the infinitive and the imperative, as in nitsav la-riv Hashem (Isaiah 3:13), and ‘omed la-din ‘amim (ibid.), which correspond to le-hariv, le-hadin. And in the imperative likewise, as sim koh (Genesis 31:37), lin poh (Judges 19:9). And with the addition of a final he, as in binah hagiye, therefore the word has penultimate stress. And for the plural, they are most often found with the loss of the he, as in simu, sikhu, shiru, sithu, gilu, linu, all of them with penultimate stress. And likewise for the feminine, as in shiti libbekh (Jeremiah 31:20), lini ha-laylah (Ruth 3:13). And the dropped he is also found in the past tense, as in binoti ba-sefarim (Daniel 9:2), in place of hevinoti. And likewise in digum rabim and digum (Jeremiah 16:16), which they say is like ve-ha-digum; see the Book of Composition.

But know that this loss occurs only in verbs for which no imperative is found in the pattern Qal, such as those I mentioned; for we cannot say sumu, shukhu, shotu, golu, lonu. Likewise, in most of them the future tense is not found in Qal, so that one does not say avon, ashor, ashot, ashum, ashush, agol. And the other actions of the pattern Qal are not found in them either, except for a few cases, such as asher shar la-Hashem (Psalms 7:1), ki shet li Elohim (Genesis 4:25), binah le-re‘i (Psalms 139:2), and similar cases, which are few. But verbs in which both Qal and Hif‘il are found, for the most part—such as qam, shav, sar, ba, from which are found heqim, heshiv, hevi— the imperative never comes with the loss of the he, for we cannot say qemu, shevu, sirru, bi’u, and the like.

And remember this rule and treasure it, for it is good, and no one has preceded me in it.

6. The Future Here too the letters e-i-t-n come with a qamats, as in avin, yavin, and so on. And it would have been proper for them to be with a tsere, like the mem of the participle, according to the rule I gave for the pattern Paʿal of strong roots (in this treatise, in the Second Principle, section four). But they come with a qamats in order to distinguish them from the future tense of Qal in roots quiescent in the first letter yod, which are with a tsere, as in eshav, yeshav, and so on. Therefore they vocalized the e-i-t-n here with a qamats, like the e-i-t-n of Qal in this class. But there the first root letter has a shuruq, as in aqum, yaqum, whereas here it has a hiriq, as in aqim, yaqim, and so on, or sometimes a tsere, as in yaqem. And when the conversive vav comes with them, the tsere returns to segol, as in va-yaqem, va-yeshev, and this is because they are penultimately stressed.

The Pattern Hif‘al I have already written about it among the roots quiescent in the first letter yod in this treatise, in the Sixth Principle, section eleven.

7. The Pattern Hitpa‘el I have already written above, under the pattern Paʿal in this principle, section two, that its rule is to appear with a doubled final root letter in place of the dagesh, as in hitbonen, hitbonanta, and so on.

The Participle mitkonen. The infinitive and the imperative are hitbonen, like the past tense. The future tense is etbonen, yitbonen, titbonen, and so on.