(c) As a third case of etymological writing, we may note the employment of the sign w to represent 8. This orthography is characteristic of the older forms of Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic, falling gradually into disuse in all of them. Now we know that the words which in Hebrew are written with ἐσ almost invariably correspond to Arabic words with sh. Since a great number of the words which in Arabic have the sibilant that corresponds with Ὁ have that letter in Hebrew also, the desire to avoid confusion may well have perpetuated the old spelling in the cases where a sh had come to be pronounced 8. We learn, moreover, from the well-known passage in Jg 126 that
in parts of Palestine only one of these sibilants could be pro. nounced.
(2) Of the grammatical residues, which are numerous, we need merely notice the variation in the second and third per. sons plural of the imperfect between the forms un and @. All distinction in meaning between these forms is clearly lost ; at most it can be said that some writers have a predilection for one form rather than the other. Classical Arabic, however, distinguishes them very decidedly : the dropping of the n with its vowel is a sign of the subjunctive or jussive mood, and is not an isolated phenomenon, but belongs to a system. What renders the treatment of these forms by the Hebrews peculiarly interesting is that the vulgar Arabic written by Jews, Chris- tians, and even Mohammedans, exhibits the same phenomenon. Such writers as Jephet Ibn Ali are well acquainted with both forms : only the sense of their proper employment fails them.
(3) As a syntactical residue we may instance the treatment of the numerals. Here the Arabic rule is very simple, and its ground can easily be seen. One part of it is that the numbers 11-99 take after them the accusative singular. If the usage of the Hebrew OT be tabulated, the only expression for it seems to be that with words which from their nature are constantly coupled with numerals the Arabic rule is fairly regularly observed ; with others the plural is more common, but the singular optional. Thus in Jg 83 ‘The land rested forty year,’ but v.30 ‘Gideon had seventy sons’; Jg 92 speaks of ‘seventy man,’ but v.24 ‘the seventy sons of Jerubbaal,’ v.56 ‘his seventy brothers.’ In Jos the rule is sometimes observed with the word ‘ man,’ but other variations occur which stamp the language as patois-like and ungrammatical: the following examples of the syntax of the word ‘twelve’ taken from Jos 3 and 4 show how unsettled was the usage in even so ordinary a matter. 312 wx yy ‘ay, 42 OWN TY Oy, 44 TyyA OY wx; 43.9 O33N AIyyY OY, 48’ Tey Ay. The rule seems to be similarly observed when numerals precede the word τὸν ‘a thousand,’ owing to ancient calculations, whereas the old rule about the syntax of words following ἢ Ν seems to be equally often observed and forgotten. From the practically regular observance of the Arabic syntax in the case of the word ‘ year,’ which from its nature must be constantly coupled with numerals, it seems reasonable to infer the antiquity of the Arabic rules. The ordinary style of the OT exhibits therefore in this case, as in the last, a survival from an older language.
At what time the Canaanitish language first began to be written cannot be determined ; but it seems certain that there can have been no break of any length between the writing of Arabic and the writing of Canaanitish; the etymological rem- nants would otherwise be inexplicable. Thus the writing of aiment in French for aime must be inherited from a generation who both pro- nounced and wrote aiment or amant ; had French been first written by persons who pronounced the word aime, the nt could never have been intro- duced. We cannot know either whether the Canaanitish orthography was gradually formed or became fixed at a definite epoch. The evolu- tion of Ethiopic from Sabzean, which offers some striking analogies to that of Canaanitish from Arabic, is in favour of the latter supposition. Those who made Ethiopic a written language abandoned some of the Sabzean letters and intro- duced others. Thosewho gaveCanaanitish a litera- ture omitted some six or seven of the letters of the old Arabic alphabet, but added none. It is prob- able, then, that the double pronunciation of the six letters 52723, with which we are familiar in Hebrew, Pheenician, and Aramaic, was not yet noticeable. The lost letters are to some extent the same as those which are no longer pronouncec in many of the countries where Arabic is spoken, albeit they are still written. In Canaanitish ἐλ coalesces with ὦ, dh with 1, kha with n, ddd and 24 with s, ghain with y. This rule holds good ordi- narily, but human speech is subject to fluctua tions, and irregular correspondence (as ¢.g. 279 Arab. khadhala, ny: Arab. ta'adhdhara) need πο" always imply independent roots, where the signifi- cations are clearly akin. In the case, moreover, of the other letters the Canaanitish dialect shows considerable deviation from the Arabic, sometimes in a manner that can be paralleled from dialects the peculiarities of which are noted by Arabic grammarians. Thus it would 3 iser that there was a tendency to shift from mec ie to tenues (¢.9. ποῦ, Arab. 212; 3n2, Arab. 193; δ, Arab. 97; 15