38 LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.
Arab. 25e; yew, Arab. pay; 15, Arab. 713), which san be paralleled from what has happened in other languages (¢.g. modern Armenian as compared with ancient). The Canaanitish language shows further considerable confusion of the gutturals: besides the tendency to pronounce ? for 3 (¢.g. 1p3 for 723, Τῶν for &2y, pns for Wns), we find π for y (Amp, Arab. =p), 7 for n (e.g. 713, Syr. ma, Arab. md), 3 for ἢ (n22 for Arab. 124), etc. There is also considerable confusion of the sibilants (Ὁ for 1 in yos, Ὁ for s in pao, 1 for s in vy1, etc.), and of the liquids (e.g. 37: for 3p, je for ox, no for προ); moreover, the letter n is frequently displaced by the emphatic Ὁ, e.g. S»p for dnp, ete., and Ὁ by 3 (e.g. 30) for ov, Ὡπν for ory, jna for jnD). Further phenomena which often meet us in vulgar dialects are the frequent assimilation of the nasal n before another consonant (cf. Ital. mese for mensem, mod. Armen. gigni for gingni, ‘he falls’), and the misplacement of the aspirate. Indeed, in Canaanitish as well as in the older Aramaic and in some of the S. Arabian dialects, an initial breathing seems regularly to be aspir- ated when it is a grammatical prefix, and some- times when it is radical (so 727 for 75x); but, on the other hand, the Hebrew sometimes substitutes the soft breathing for the aspirate (cf. sox with Arab. 72°57), especially in the middle of a word (so ay ‘a witness’ for 17y ‘one who knows’; οὗ. Jer 293 337 yw; ὙΠ through 17 for 777). Where two of these irregular changes occur in the same word, it often becomes unrecognizable ; and the occa- sional transposition of radicals introduces great difficulty : just as some mod. Armenian dialects have tepur tor phethur, so Hebrew has ms for a», ™? for ad; ef. osy for Arab. yoy. The chief gram- matical differences between Arabic and Hebrew are due (1) to the loss of the final vowels, which in the older language have syntactical value ; (2) to the exaggeration of the accent, resulting in the strengthening of some vowels and the loss of others; (3) to the tendency to simplify, which explains the loss of whole series of forms in many of those languages that have grown out of the decay of classical idioms. In the opinion of some, the language has by these changes gained in vigour what it has lost in finesse—a matter which must be left to the individual taste.*
Of the families of words in use in Canaanitish, it would seem that more than half can be identified with roots known to the lexicographers of classical Arabic ; but the waywardness which characterizes human speech has not failed to leave its mark on the treatment of the old words in respect both of their preservation and the evolution of their significations. Thus Canaanitish and classical Arabic have the same word for ‘ peace,’ but dif- ferent words for ‘war’; the same for ‘ to eat,’ but different for ‘to drink’; the same for ‘near,’ but different for ‘far’; the same for ‘low,’ but dif- ferent for ‘high’; the same for ‘gold,’ but dif- ferent for ‘silver’; the same for ‘to ride,’ but different for ‘ to sit’ and ‘to stand’; the same for ‘ass,’ but different for ‘horse,’ though the same for ‘horseman.’ In several of these cases, and in numerous others, while the same words or the same families are retained in both lan-
* Of many of the elegances of Arabic grammar there are faint traces in the OT. The Arab. rubba ‘many a,’ appears once, Pr 206, Of the broken plural the only real example in the OT appears to be 13] plural of 721; in other cases its meaning is lost, even though its form be present, e.g. xp Nu 215. In Béttcher’s Lehrbuch the most is made of these relics as well as of supposed remains of the dual of verbs and pronouns. The syntax of the Book of Joshua seems to show that there was a time when the old rules of the article were in danger of being lost (314 721 $10.33), but this (like Is 368 16) may be due to corruption of the text. A remarkable relic is in Jer 2218 niny ‘5, which resembles the ah added in Arabic, wa Zaidah, ‘alas, Zaid !’ (Vernier, Gram. Arabe, § 565).
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.
guages, the meaning in one or other has been so generalized or specialized as to render the introduction of another necessary in order to represent the original meaning. In some cases it is likely that neither language retains the original sense; but in most it would seem that, in spite of the late date of our Arabic documents, the Arabic signification is prior ; and good service has been done by those acquainted with both lan- guages since the days of the Talmudists in track- ing out the development of these significations.
A few familiar cases are—(1) the Hebrew for ‘to say’ Ὅν, in Arab. ‘to command’: that ‘to command’ is the original sense is shown by occa- sional relics of that meaning in the OT (28 15) and by the derivative 7oxnn ‘to be proud,’ a sens¢ which can scarcely be connected with the Hebrew ‘to say,’ but derives very naturally from the Arab. ‘to play the prince or commander,’ like the words nwa (Nu 16"), xwana (26. 16%). (2) πὶ, in Heb. ‘to act insolently,’ in Arab. ‘to increase’ : a relic of the older usage seems to be found in Dt 18% ‘the prophet who shall add to speak in my name words which I have not commanded him’: the Latin loguetur ultro would exactly illustrate the transference of ideas. (3) The Hebrew $n ‘to profane,’ and $na ‘to begin,’ seem both trace- able to the Arab. $n ‘to Toosen,? whence both ideas flow by a course of reasoning exactly similar to that illustrated in the evolution of the Aramaic mw. In several cases what we have in Canaanitish is apparently an expression current in the mouths of the vulgar exalted into a classical phrase: the Hebrew words for ‘ hand- maid’ and ‘family’ would appear to have a very obvious etymology in Arabic (cf Koran, iv. 28; Romane of Saif, i. 28), which, however, would exclude them at the first from the mouths of the well-bred. A certain number of alterations in meaning can be explained by popular misappli- cations, e.g. the Canaanites use for ‘blind’ the word which in Arab. means ‘ one-eyed,’ for ‘deaf’ the word which in Arab. means ‘dumb.’