(5.) The influence of the imagination upon the struc- ture of the Shemitic languages may also be traced in the absence of not a few grammatical forms which we find in other languages. ^Much that is definitely expressed in more highly developed languages is left in the Shemit- ic languages, and especially in the Hebrew, to be caught up by the hearer or reader. In this respect there is an analogy between the language itself and the mode in which it was originally represented in writing. Of the language as \\Titten, the vowel sounds formed no part. The reader must supply these mentally as he goes along. So with tlie language itself. It has not a separate and distinct expression for every shade and turn of thought. IMucli is left to be filled in by the hearer or the reader, and this usually without occasioning any serious incon- venience or difficidty. The Shemitic languages, how- ever, do not all stand on the same level in this respect. In the Syriac, and stiU more in the Arabic, the expres- sion of thought is usually more complete and precise than in Hebrew, though often for that verj' reason less animated and impressive. A principal defect in these languages, and especially in the Hebrew, is the fewness of the particles. The extreme simplicity of the verbal formation also occasions to the European student diffi- culties which can be surmounted only by a very careful study of the principles by which the verb-usages are governed.
In this respect the Hebrew occupies a middle position between those languages which consist almost entirely of roots with a very scanty grammatical development, and the Indo-European class of languages in which the attempt is made to give definite expression even to the most delicate shades of thought. The Greek, says Paul, seeks after wisdom : he reasons, compares, analyzes. The Jew requires a sign — something to strike the imag- ination and carry conviction to the heart at once with- out any formal and lengthened argument. The Greek language, therefore, in its most perfect form, was the off- spring of reason and taste ; the Hebrew, of imagination and intuition. The Shemites have been the quarriers whose great rough blocks the Japhethites have cut, and
polished, and fitted one to another. The former, there- fore, are the teachers of the world in rehgion, tlie latter in philosophy. This peculiar character of the Shemitic mind is very strongly impressed upon the language.
A national language being an embodiment and ])ic- ture of the national mind, there is thus thrown around the otherwise laborious and uninteresting study of gram- mar, even in its earliest stages, an attractive power and value which woidd not otherwise belong to it. It was the same mind that found expression in the Hebrew language, which gave birth, mider the influence of di- vine inspiration, to the sublime revelations of the Old- Testament Scriptures. And it woidd be easy to trace an analogy between these revelations and the language in which they have been conveyed to us. It is curious to find that even the divinest thoughts and names of the Old Testament comiect themselves with questions in Hebrew grammar. Thus, when we investigate the na- ture and use of the Hebrew jilural, and discover from a multitude of examples that it is emjiloyed not only to denote 2)1 ura I it I/, but likewise fr^('/i,s«*//, whether in space or time, as in the Hebrew words for life, youth, old age, etc., and also whatever seems bulky before the mind, we are imwittingly led on to one of the most important questions in the criticism of the Old Testament, viz. the origin of the plural form of the divine name D"^n^X {Elohini), in our version rendered God. Or, again, when we study the difficult question of the tenses, and endeav- or to determine the exact import and force of each, we speedily discover that the grammatical investigation we are pursuing is one of unspeakable moment, for it in* volves the right apprehension of that most sacred name of God which the Jew still refuses to take upon his lips, the four-letter name niiTi, Jehovah (q. v.).
3. In the syntax andgeneral structure of the Shemitic languages and writings we trace the operation of the same principles, the same tendencies of mind which manifest themselves in the structure of words. In this respect the Hebrew language exhibits a more simple and primitive type than any of the sister tongues. The simplicity of the Hebrew composition is very obvious even to the reader of the English Bible, or to the schol- ar who compares the Greek Testament, the style of which is formed on the model of the Old Testament, Avith the classical Greek ASTiters. We observe at once that there is no such thing as the building up of a lengthened period, consisting of several propositions duly subordinated and compacted so as to form a har- monious and impressive whole. Hebrew composition consists rather of a succession of co-ordinate proposi- tions, each of which is for the moment uppermost in the view of the speaker or writer, until it is superseded by that which follows. This results at once from the character of the Shemitic mind, which was more re- markable for rapid movements and vivid glances than for large and comprehensive grasp. Such a mind would give forth its thoughts ux a rapid succession of inde- pendent utterances rather than in sustained and elabo- rated composition. It is a consequence of the same mental pecidiarity that the highest poetrj- of the She- mitic nations is lyrical.