in their ultimate and penultimate syllables, will generally change that in the ultimate to its homogeneous imperfect one, and reject that in the penultimate: as, 127 Jehovah's word (from 727); Jehovah's law

.(תּוֹרָה from)

IT

4. All feminine nouns however ending in will change the to, probably for the purpose of rendering the character of such words more susceptible to the ear, than they would be with the remaining (Art. 138. 2.).

5. Exceptions:-All masculine nouns singular ending in * will take when preceding others in the state of construction: as, Abram's stock. Segolate nouns are subject to no variation in the singular number: as, the king of Assyria.

6. Segolate nouns having or for their middle radical letter, will undergo a contraction when preceding other nouns in the state of construction: as, in the midst of the garden, (from 1 of 1) by Art. 87. 1;

-suft (דיה for) דִי בָּעֶר the house of Jacob,f בֵּית יַעֲקֹב

ciency of burning, Isa. xl. 16. (Art. 87, 3.).

1

7. All masculine dual and plural nouns, ending in D and respectively, will take the termination and reject, or otherwise contract, the preceding vowel, whenever it is perfect and mutable; e. g.

or עַיִן .sing) עֵינֵי יְהוָה ;(דָּבָר .Jehovah's words (sing

, dual D) Jehovah's eyes. In these cases, the terminating of the dual and plural may be considered as

*This terminating vowel seems to have been taken in order to avoid the confounding of these nouns with feminines ending in IT

+ Hence, perhaps, the termination in plural masculine nouns, as "77 is for, see Art. 139. 7. note.

euphonic, as the y also is in the Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic (Art. 139. 4..

On the termination, occasionally found in this situation, see Art. 139. 6.

8. From the examples already given, it will be seen that this construction may generally be translated by the genitive case in other languages; but, as one or other of the particles is occasionally introduced for this purpose, as well as to form combinations equivalent to the different cases of the Greek and Latin grammars, the Student is referred to the Syntax for further information on this subject.

LECTURE VI.

ON THE PARTS OF SPEECH IN GENERAL, AND ON THE NOUN IN PARTICULAR.

144. HAVING laid down and exemplified the general principles of syllabication, &c. as found to prevail in this Language, we may now consider its different parts of speech, and shew how they stood in their primitive forms, and how they have been derived from one another.

1. The Hebrew language is, like all others, found to consist of nouns, verbs, and particles,* so arranged in sentences as to convey to the mind such ideas or notions

are intended to be inculcated by any Speaker or Writer. Of these, the third person singular masculine of the verb has generally been taken as the root or theme, from which the others have been derived. For

* The Arabian and Jewish grammarians comprehend in these all the other parts of speech generally given in the grammars of Europe.

my own part, I believe the noun ought rather to be considered as the root; not only because the learner may by this means be enabled more clearly to see how the conjugations of the verbs are carried on, but also because he may ascertain, with a much greater degree of precision, the force of all those nouns which have hitherto been considered as branches of the verb. Again, there are classes of the verb which do not exhibit the root fully in the third person singular masculine of the preterite; and these comprehend all those which have or for the middle radical letter; which are found complete in the noun, but defective in the verb. In some others, indeed, the noun appears in a defective form; but, in these cases, it is not found complete in the verb. Again, the variation found to prevail in the last vowel of the preterite, is more naturally accounted for in the noun than in the verb; and it is a fact, that a noun having the same vowel is almost universally found to exist. Besides, the participial and other nouns, which have no tenses in themselves, are much better understood when considered as derived from the primitive nouns, than when derived from words conjugated as verbs. Add to this the circumstance, that a verb in the state of conjugation either is, or must be considered as, compounded with a pronoun; and, therefore, in a state unfit to be taken for a primitive word. It is when without these pronouns, as well as every other adjunct, and when a word is in its simplest form, that we consider it as the root;* and, this we contend, is

* The school of Basra hold the same opinion, with reference to the Arabic. See Ebn Farhat on this subject in M. de Sacy's Gram. Arabe, vol. i. p. 229, note. M. De Sacy himself thinks it will come to much the same thing, whether we consider the infinitive form as the root, or whether we take the third person singular of the masculine preterite, because the one may be termed the logical root, the other the etymological one, Ib. p. 197. But why, it may be asked, are

the more natural way to proceed. Induced by these considerations to give the noun the first place in the etymology, we shall now proceed to lay down the forms of the personal pronouns, as used either in connection, or not, with other nouns; not, because these words have any prior claim to our consideration; but because, we shall thereby enable ourselves to shew, when we come to detail the forms of the nouns, how these pronouns are connected with them.

Of the PRONOUNS.

145. The pronouns are, in the Hebrew, as in other languages, 1. Personal, 2. Demonstrative, 3. Relative, and, 4. Interrogative, with which, 5. the Reflective, pronouns and the Definite Article, are sometimes classed. We shall at present consider the Personal Pronouns only.

The Personal Pronouns.

1. These are termed Separable, and Inseparable. When Separable, they may be considered as representing the person to which they belong in the nominative case:

we to have two forms of the root for the same word? And why may not that, which is termed the logical root, be also considered as the etymological one? If the one presents a form more simple than the other, which is the fact, Why, I want to know, may not the less simple be considered as derived from the other? I must confess, whatever the school of Koufa may think of it, that of Basra appears to me to have reason on their side in this question; and to their opinion I am therefore compelled to subscribe, which M. De Sacy has also done at p. 128, note a of his second vol. See also the Mikhlol of Kimkhi, The passage will be cited hereafter. I use the small edition of 1545. See also Le Court de Gebelin, Monde Primitif. vol. iii. pp. 55, 56, 80, &c.; Mr. Forster's Essay on Sanscrit Gram., p. 540; Caroli Aurivillii Dissertationes Goet. 1790, p. 376, &c. It is a curious fact, that in the Burman, verbs are nothing more than participial nouns conjugated with the pronouns. See Carey's Grammar of the Burman, p. 79, &c. See also Humboldt on the Chinese, Journal Asiatique, vol. iv. p. 115.

.verso קצא .fol

when Inseparable, they exhibit only a part of the Separable pronoun combined with some other word. When attached to verbs, they may be said to represent either the objective or some other oblique case; but, when attached to nouns, they stand for the correspondent possessive pronoun: there being no other way of expressing the possessive pronominal sense in Hebrew. 2. The Separable personal pronouns are as follows:

3. In a few instances thou, is used in the masculine gender: viz. Num. xi. 15, Deut. v. 24, and Ezek. xxviii. 14. D is used as a feminine in Ezek. xiii. 20:e is also used as a feminine, Cant. vi. 8, Ruth i. 22, Zech. v. 10: and as a masculine, 2 Sam. iv. 6, Jer. 1. 5. also occurs as a masculine, Ruth i. 13. We also have for N, 1 Kings xvii. 15; and for N throughout the Pentateuch, if we except eleven instances. This is