(3.) Another prominent distinction of the Shemitic languages is the extent to irhich modifcations of the root idea are indicated, not by additions to the root, hut hy changes within the root. "The Shemitic roots," says Bopp {Comparative Grammar of the Indo - European Tongues, i, 99), "on account of their constraction, pos- sess the most surprising capacity for indicating the sec- ondary ideas of grammar by the mere internal moulding of the root, while the Sanscrit roots at the first gram- matical movement are compelled to assume external ad- ditions." These internal changes are principally of two sorts :
(ri) Vowel changes. Nothing is more remarkable in the Shemitic languages than the significance of their vowel sounds ; the sharp a sound, formed by opening the mouth ^vide, being associated as a symbol with the idea of activity, while the e and o sounds are the symbols of rest and passiveness. In the Arabic verb this charac- teristic is verj' marked, many of the roots appearing un- der three forms, each having a different vowel, and the signification being modified in accordance with the na- ture of that vowel. The same law appears in the for- mation of the passives. Thus lcatala—\-)ass. kittela.
(b) Doubling of consonants, usually of the middle let- ter of the root. By means of this most simple and nat- lu-al device, the Shemitic languages express intensity or. repetition of action, and also such qualities as prompt to repeated action, as righteous, merciful, etc. By compar- ing this usage with the expression of the corresponding ideas in our own language, we observe at once the dif- ference in the genius of the two languages. We say merciful, sinful, i. e. full of mercy, full of sin. Not so the Shemitic. What we express formally by means of an added root, the Shemitic indicates by a sign, by sim- ply laying additional stress on one of the root letters. And thus again the observation made under the head sound recurs, viz. that in the formation of the Shemitic languages the dominant influence was that of instinctive feeling, passion, imagination— the hand of natiu-e ap- pearing everywhere, the voice of nature heard in every utterance: in this, how widely separated from the arti- ficial and highly organized languages of the Indo-Euro- jieaii family (Adelung, J/////;/f/«/,.s'. i, 3(U).
(4.) The influence of the imagination on the stnic- ture of the Shemitic languages is further disclosed in the view which they present of nature and of time. To these languages a neuter gender is unknown. All nature viewed by the Shemitic eye appears in.stinct with hfe. The heavens declare God's glory ; the earth showeth his hamliwork. The trees of the field clap their hands and sing for joy. This, though the impassioned utterance of the Hebrew poet, expresses a common national feel- ing, which finds embodiment even in the structure of the national language. Of inanimate natiu-e the He- brew knows nothing : he sees life everj-where. His lan- guage therefore rejects the neuter gender, and classes all objects, even those which we regard as inanimate, as masculine or feminine, according as they appear to his imagination to be endowed with male or female attri- butes. As his imagination thus endowed the lower forms of nature with living properties, so, on the othei hand, under the same influence, he clothed with mate-
HEBREW LANGUAGE
133
HEBREW LANGUAGE
rial and sensiljle form the abstract, the spiritual, even tlic divine. In Hebrew the abstract is constantly ex- pressed by the concrete — the mental quality by the bod- ily member which was regarded as its fittest representa- tive. Thus haml or arm stands for simi'jUi ; rx. /ms- tril, means also anger; the shiniiuj of the Jan stands fur facor and acceptance, the fallinf/ of the fair lor (li.<jil, ns- tire. So also to sa;/ often means to think ; to ."peak irilh me mouth stands for to he of the same sentiment. The verb to /jo is employed to describe mental as well as bod- ily progress. One's course of life is his wag, the path of his feet. Nor only in its description of nature, but also in its mode of indicating time, do we observe the same predominant influence. The Shemitic tense system, es- pecially as it appears in Hebrew, is extremely simple and primitive. It is not threefold like oiu-s, distributing time into past, present, and future, but twofold. The two so-called tenses or rather states of the verb corre- spond to the division of nouns into abstract and con- crete. The verbal idea is conceived of either in its re- alization or in its non-realization, whether actual or ideal. That which lies before the mind as realized, whether in the actual past, present, or futiu-e, the He- brow describes by means of the so-called preterite tense ; tluit which he conceives of as yet to be realized or in process of realization, whether in the actual past, present, or future, he describes by means of the so-called future tense. Hence the use of the future in certain combina- tions as a historical tense, and of the so-called preterite in certain combinations as a prophetic tense. Into the details of the tense usages which branch out from this primitive idea we cannot now enter. It is in the struc- tural laws of the Hebrew language that its influence is most strongly marked : in the Aramasan it is almost lost. (See Ewald, Lehrbuch, § IS-i a ; Journal of Sacred Lit- erature for Oct. 1849.)