אִם־כֹּ֣ה יֹאמַ֗ר נְקֻדִּים֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה שְׂכָרֶ֔ךָ וְיָלְד֥וּ כָל־הַצֹּ֖אן נְקֻדִּ֑ים וְאִם־כֹּ֣ה יֹאמַ֗ר עֲקֻדִּים֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה שְׂכָרֶ֔ךָ וְיָלְד֥וּ כָל־הַצֹּ֖אן עֲקֻדִּֽים׃
Lorsqu’il parlait ainsi: ‘Les bêtes pointillées seront ton salaire’, tout le bétail produisait des animaux pointillés; disait-il: ‘Les rayés seront ton salaire’, tout le bétail en produisait des rayés.
Or HaChaim
I have seen an explanation by Ibn Ezra (30,39) who identifies the ברודים with the טלואים. He does not offer any proof for his contention. Furthermore, from a close look at Jacob citing such examples as: אם כה יאמר עקודים יהיה שכרך, it is clear that Jacob took for himself only either עקודים or נקודים. Why would he have the ewes mounted by categories of rams which were not his share at all?
Rashi
לא יתן — Translate this as the Targum does: he will not give leave. Similar uses of נתן followed by ל with the infinitive in sense of permitting are: (Genesis 20:6) “therefore I did not permit thee (נתתיך) to touch her”; (Genesis 31:7) “And God did not permit him (נתנו) to do me evil”. Still all these passages really have the sense of giving”. Some explain the phrase ולא ביד חזקה to signify: “He will not permit you to go, and this will not be because his hand is strong”, for (v. 20) “As soon as I stretch forth My hand I will smite the Egyptians [… and afterwards he will let you go]”. And so the Targum renders it: and not on account that his power is mighty. This explanation was told me in the name of Rabbi Jacob the son of Menachem.