of the matter proposed for instruction, with rules calculated to assist the memory in retaining it; and thus to contribute towards improving the mind by habits of close investigation and inquiry. By these means the Learner will have the advantage of seeing on what grounds his instructions rest, and consequently of determining for himself, whether they are such as are entitled to his cordial reception or not: while, on the other hand, the Grammarian who is accustomed only to consider the Language on which he is treating synthetically, is apt to form rules upon every example with which he meets, less in conformity with its real principles, than with those of that in which he has been accustomed to speak and write: which, it may be shewn, has abundantly been the case with all European Writers on the Arabic and Hebrew Grammar, and of which M. de Sacy (the Writer alluded to) is an illustrious and striking example.*

With the view therefore of accomplishing this, I have, in the first place, considered the Vowels as either perfect or imperfect not abstractedly, or with reference to the nature of things generally; but with reference to the formation of syllables as they are found to exist in this Language. I have, for example, termed (+) Kāméts, (-) Tsēré, (-) Khirik gādól, (i) Khōlém, and () Shurek, Perfect vowels; because, when combined with any one consonant, they will generally form full and perfect syllables. For a similar reason, I have termed another set of vowels, as (-) Páthakh, &c., Imperfect vowels; because, when employed in the forma tion of syllables, they require the addition either of a second consonant or of an accent to form such full and perfect syllables. My reasons are these: When we come to read the Hebrew text, it is important to know where every syllable commences and terminates, in order duly to pronounce the words. And, again, when a Hebrew word is changed from

* Proofs of this will hereafter be given in a Tract which it is my intention to publish.

the singular to the plural form, or when found in what is termed the state of construction, or receives one or other of the pronouns,-the vowels composing it are usually found to vary; and this in exact accordance with this view of the syllabication, in conjunction with the character of their etymology or derivation. I have therefore, in the first place, stated and exemplified this system of perfect and imperfect vowels with regard to the formation of syllables. The exceptions introduced by the accents are next noticed: so that the Learner is, in a few hours, put in possession of one of the main principles which regulate the structure of this Language.

I have, in the next place, considered the forms and force of the several sorts of Nouns, beginning with those which are the most simple, and proceeding to those which are the most augmented. The forms and force of the unaugmented nouns, we must necessarily take as postulates, grounded however on the usage of the Language. For the augmented ones I have endeavoured to account, by supposing them to present two or more of the simpler forms, joined together as compounds. By this means I have also endeavoured to ascertain their precise force; and, in some instances at least, I think I have succeeded.* In all these cases too, or in as many as it seemed necessary, I have accounted for the changes of the vowels, in a way perhaps which can neither be burdensome to the memory, perplexing to the Learner, nor liable to be soon forgotten; and by which the numerous rules and exceptions of the school of Buxtorf are avoided, as is also the multifarious and indistinct doctrine of the German Grammarians, by which these nouns are distributed into not fewer than thirteen declensions !

* See the derivations proposed for the Niphḥál, Hiphḥil, Hophḥal, and Hithpahel, species of the conjugation, Gram., pp. 114-117. 118. 122. 123: and the doctrine respecting the use of the tenses of the Verbs, p. 327.

The Particles I have treated, after Schroderus and others, as fragments of nouns, which enables us at once to ascertain their precise forms, force, and modes of construction.

The Verbs I consider, in the next place, as consisting of nouns either simple or augmented, conjugated with one or other of the pronouns in an abridged form. In this I am not singular; for the Hindoos, Arabs, and even some of our own European Grammarians, have done so before me. I adopt this view of the case, because it is both easy and natural, and because it will at once account both for the form and force of the verb in all its varieties of person. A point, however, of very great importance here is, the investigation of the principles by which primitive words are occasionally abridged, and by which the defective forms of both verbs and nouns can be easily and naturally accounted for. This investigation will be found in the third Lecture of this Work. Its use is, to shew in what particular cases certain letters and vowels are dropped or changed, and how all the verbs termed defective, are reducible to the Paradigm of the regular triliteral verb. This affords the advantage of saving much time and labour, and of cutting off the sources of almost infinite perplexity to the Student: the result being, that the conjugation is only one, and this the most simple and regular possible.

The next improvement which, I flatter myself, I first presented to the Public, is, an analytical investigation of the principles which regulate the use of the Tenses of the verb. It had been customary to suppose, that the two tenses were a past and a future; and, because it had often been urged, forsooth, that this was extremely philosophical, (there being no point of time which could properly be termed present,) it was thought, that this was one of the greatest beauties of the Hebrew Language! Unfortunately, however, it appears that this future is occasionally used as a present tense, and also as a past. No reason has been offered, as far as I know, for this its usage as a present tense; but, for its use as a past, the conjunction and, so, &c. has, most unaccountably, been made

to account, and thence has taken the name of the conversive Vaw! A considerable number of instances however occurs, in which this tense is so used without any such conversive Vaw and What has been done in these cases? Why, the instances have been said to present an enallage temporis; and here the matter very wisely ended!

The next shift adopted by the Learned was, to term both these tenses Aorists; and by this their uncertainty was regularly determined beyond all doubt. For now the Preterite could be construed as a past, present, or future, tense, as could also this Future, by rule the most indeterminate possible: so that the Translator or Commentator had nothing whatever to do, but to adopt whatever sense he pleased: his Grammar always supplying him with a law comprehensive enough to justify all his wanderings. Upon a little consideration, however, and with the assistance of a few native Commentators on the Arabic Grammar, I felt convinced that the whole of this was a mere tissue of trifling and error. I found (what indeed our Writers on the Arabic Grammar ought long ago to have told us) that these two tenses exhibited really a past, and a present, tense: and that they were universally used as such in one sense or other: it being customary with the Orientals of this family to contemplate past, present, or future, events, either as we do, or, as past, present, &c. with respect to some other time or circumstance introduced into the context: and also, to speak of events, which they believed should surely come to pass, as if they had already taken place. These usages too are not only natural, but they are also found to exist, more or less, in perhaps every language. With the Hebrews and Arabians however, owing probably to their natural warmth of temperament and expression, they are more frequent, and apparently abrupt, than they are found elsewhere. In this view of the case, then, all is natural, regular, and constant. The tenses are as certain and orderly in their use, as any framers of Language could make them: and the only instances in which failure is most likely to happen in their application, are those in which the Interpreter himself

is either uninstructed or unpractised in the usages of these particular dialects.

To this doctrine, however, M. de Sacy has loudly, though not argumentatively, objected: not so much, I believe, because he thought it untrue, as because it appeared to be inconsistent with the doctrines laid down in his own Arabic Grammar; which treats one of them, at least as an Aorist, and gives no just account of the use of the other. But, Is it likely that M. de Sacy can here be right, and the whole nation of the Arabs, the Persians, the Syrians, and others, wrong? Is it probable that they are ignorant of the principles upon which they speak and write? Or, that they speak and write upon no principles whatever, but go on at random (doporos,) leaving the hearer or reader to make them out as well as he can? This is to my mind quite incredible : and, if I am at liberty to believe their best Writers on the subject, it is as untrue as it is incredible. In this view of the case too, there is a perfect end to the power of the conversive Vaw; which I should consider a great advantage gained, knowing as I do, that it is in very many cases worse than useless. To this again my learned opponent loudly objects, although he very well knows that no Arab Writer whatever, circumstanced nevertheless just as every Hebrew one is in this respect, has ever once thought of having recourse to such a conversive power in his conjunctive (,) Waw! The Arabs, as every one knows, can do very well without this unaccountable conversive letter, and so can the Syrians and the Ethiopians, employing nevertheless, at the same time, dialects most intimately connected with that of the Hebrew, and using the tenses of the verbs, just as I have exhibited them in this work. They, moreover, feel no want either of this

* Take one only out of the many which may be cited, viz. Is. ix. 5: I ippy-by nippŋ, which, according to the doctrine about the conversive 1, ought to be translated, "And the government was, or hath been, upon his shoulder," than which nothing can be more incongruous or false.