There remain, however, a number of Canaanitish words which cannot be identified from any of the sources that have been enumerated. Several of these were probably tribal words of the com- munities that migrated northwards, and, though ancient and Semitic, never formed part of the old classical language ; while others may have belonged to the classical language, though they have become obsolete in all its other descendants. It is likely, moreover, that a considerable number of Canaan- itish words were learned from the Canaanitish aborigines. A race that may be named in this connexion, the Hittites, has left monuments the decipherment of which has occupied many scholars without as yet leading to any satisfactory result. An eminent Assyriologist has recently endeavoured to identify the Hittites with the Armenians (Jensen, Hittiter und Armenier, 1898) ; and since the Hittite race at one time played an important part in Pales- tine, we should expect, if Jensen’s conjecture were correct, to find some considerable illustration of the Canaanitish vocabulary in the Armenian language. The mixed nature of that language (of which the basis is Indo-germanic) renders its employment for the explanation of Hebrew extremely hazardous; and many tempting identifications of words can be shown to be due to pure accident.|| The local names of Palestine, of which the Bk. of Joshua in yarticular furnishes a yreat number, throw less ight than might be expected on the character of the aboriginal languages employed there. The greater number seem very certainly Semitic, albeit they not infrequently, both in vocabulary 7 and
*In Frd. Delitzsch’s Handwérterbuch some 160 words and roots can be illustrated from Hebrew, but not from Arabic. Examples of the words referred to above are sha (Heb. τ, whence, perhaps, We), k-i 03), Wa (perhaps *Sy), itti (x), a-a-ka (n>), a-ta-a (Any), ésh-té (NYY), ma-a-du (78D), ts-su-ri (058), na-si-ku (703). Other examples of common words in which Canaanitish and Assyrian agree against the S. Semitic group are: OF¥, ΠΡῚΝ, WN, TW, DN, Wx, WIN, WN; ma; Pi (dart); By; mp?; Hyd, RSD; ἽΝ), ND (hinder); pw (kiss); 220 (fool); 75D (mourn); M3y, ὍΣ} (produce); Ἵν (body) ; OY (guard); Ἴδη (maintain). 52m is said to be a Sumerian word, borrowed first by the Assyrians, and from them by the Canaanites.
t ie. the waw conversive. Most of the Assyrian chronicles exhibit only one tense, the Heb. imperfect. It would seem possible that the annalistic employment of this term in Hebrew was at first an imitation of the Assyrian, which then developed idiomatically.
+ So ‘to open the ear’ (Κ. 95. 15in 5, A. Smith, ΚΤ' Assur- banipals) ; " to break in pieces like a potter's vessel’ (Sargon, passim) ; 3b 215 for ‘cheerfulness,’ O%D3'> 20)" as an epithet of the Deity, etc. Many cases are collected by Karppe i hi articles in the Journal Asiatique, ser. 9, vol. τ ee aaa
§ The phrase *s9p 52x occurs in the Tel el-Amarna tablets. In Budge’s notes to ‘Rabban Hormizd’ some interesting illus- trations of this are given.
"ΣΝ is Amnenian, according to Lagarde (Ges. Abh. p. 8). A word that may possibly be Armenian is ]*S ‘a stele’ or ‘monu- ment’ (ὦ Καὶ 2317, Jer 3121, Ezk 3915), Arm. siun ‘apillar.’ Thisis an old Armenian word=Greek κιών with the proper changes, Lagarde first thought 122 (Hos 10° etc.) ‘a priest,’ borrowed from
the Arm. khurm, but afterwards reversed his judgment. 35h ‘a mole’ is sire like Arm. khlourd ‘a mole,’ which might seem a derivative of khlem ‘to pluck up,’ ‘root out’; but from Lagarde’s Arm. Stud. it appears to have another derivation.
« e.g. npadx Jos 1944, perhaps Arab. utikd ‘battle,’ Koran, id 11, εἰς. Perhaps the form jprbx has preserved the tanwin.
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.
srammatical form,* exhibit traces of an older anguage than that known to us as Canaanitish. A considerable number of these names can be traced to the 15th cent. B.c., and even earlier, in Egyptian and Assyrian records. An un-Semitic remnant there is, but its linguistic character is difficult to fix.
5. Progress of the Language.—The Tel el- Amarna tablets represent the country as settled in States, somewhat as we find it described in the Bk. of Joshua. The States in which Canaanitish was spoken must have acquired the language either prior to their separation, or posterior to it if that consisted in the hegemony of the community whose native language it was.
Dialectic differences developed as the Canaanites began to write, each dialect preserving something which the others discarded,t+ but also evolving peculiarities of its own. It would not, however, appear that the Canaanites down to a late period had any difliculty in understanding each other. Jeremiah (27°) expects his message to be understood by Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tyrians, and Sidonians ; and the tombstone of Eshmunazar con- tains phrases which seem to imply some acquaint- ance on that king’s part with the Hebrew Scrip- tures.} When David succeeded in welding together an Israelitish empire, it would seem that he took steps to make the language of Israel § (rather than that of Judah) official; and to the extent of the elements of grammar such as were taught in the schools the Israelitish language was thereafter uniform. These elements would, however, appear to have been exceedingly meagre. The scientific spirit would seem to have failed the ancient Israel- ites absolutely ;|| and it is the same habit of mind which seeks to codify the order of nature and to find regularity in human speech. The Israelites could indeed distinguish and despise a foreign