(3.) The Palmyrenp. — Of this dialect no specimens are now extant, except such scanty fragments as are contained in the Falmyrian inscriptions, for an account of which we may refer to R.Wood's Ruins of Palmyra (Lond. 1753), interpreted independently by Barthelemy in Paris, and better by Swinton in Oxford. Some more specimens were given by Eichhorn, i)/«rmo7Y< Palmyre- tia Explicata ((iiittingen, 18'27, 4t()). The inscriptions are chiefly bilingual — in an Aramaic which is much like the common dialect, and in Greek — the earliest being A.D. 49, but most of them being in the '2d and 3d centuries.
(4.) The Old Phanician, torjether ivilli Punic. — A doc- ument of some size in the old Phoenician was first dis- covered in 1855, communicated by Dr. Thomson, of Bei- rut, and purchased by the due de Luynes for the Louvre. Kbdiger, Dietrich, Hitzig, Schlottmaiui, De Luynes, Ewald, and Munk endeavored to interpret it. More recent is the sacriticial tablet discovered at Marseilles, explained by Movers (Breslau, 1847), Ewald, and A. C. Judas. Of chief importance for the Piniic are the Punic passages in the Pcewdus of Plautus, illustrated by Mo- vers and Ewald. The rest of the Phoenician and Punic inscriptions (including those on coins) hitherto discov- ered have been collected and illustrated by (iesenius in 3{on. Limj. Phcen. (Lips. 1837, 3 vols.), to which must be added forty -five inscriptions by the abbe Bourgade (Paris, 1852, fol.j, deciphered by the abbe Barges. See Phcenicia.
Linguixtie Literature. — A. Chaldee. — Pnssin£r over the more aucient works, we will only give some of the more modern :
I. Grammars. — Harris [W.], Elemevts of the Chaldee Langtmge, etc. (Loud. 1S22 ) ; Nohin, An Introduction to Chaldee Orammar, etc. (il)id. lS-21); Rigge [El.], Manual of the Chaldee Language (Boston, 1832) ; Wiiier-Hackett, Grammar of the Oialdee Language (Andover, 184.^); Luz- zntto- Kriiger, Orammatik der bibiisch - chaldciischen Sprache (Bieslan, 1813) ; Chaldee Reading-Lessons, with a Grammatical Praxis, etc. (Lond. ed. Bagster).
II. Lexicons. — In this department the Thrsaiirus is the great work of Buxtoif, Lexicon Chaldaicum, Tabnudinnn, et liabbinicum ( Bnsil. IG-tO; new ed. by Fischer, Leijjs. 1666-74): Schiiuhak, Aramdisch-rahbinisches Worterlmch (Warsaw, 1859); Levy [T.], Chalihii.^chcs Wt'rterbiich iiber die Targumim (Leips. 1867) ; id. yenhcbr. U7id chald. Wor- terbtich (ibid.), now in course of publication.
IX.— T T
B. Siiriar. — I. (irrnnmars. —Cowpev [B. H.], The Prin- cijilcs if the Si/nar (iiiiinnMr (Loud. 1858); Merx [A.], Gramvuitira .sl/iku-a (Il;ille, 1807-09); Nolan [R], An In- tniductiuit to the Siiriac Langnuge, etc. (Loud. 18'il); Philips [S.], Syriac Grammar (Cambridge, 1866); Uhle- ni;inn-llutchinsou, Syriac (r/'awmiar (N. Y. 1855) ; Syriac Jicaiiin.g-Le.s.^i)ns, etc. (I.ond. ed. Bagster).
II. Lexicons. — Froi^l [M.], Lfxicim Syriactim (1628); Gutbir [.(Eg.], Lexicon Syriacutn, continens omnes M. T. Si,r. Dictiimes et Particxilas, etc. (Hiunb. 1067) : a neat and improved edition of this Lexicon was given by Dr. Hen- derson (Lond. 1830, Bagster) ; Bernstein [G. H.], Lexicon Lingum Syr. (Berol. 1857, fol. vol. i). Older ones we omit.
C. Samaritan. — See Samakitan Language, Litekatuuk, etc.
D. The Sabian or Nazarean. — Norberg [M.], Onomasti- con Codicis ^(i.•<((rl'i (Lund. 1817, 2 vols.); id. Lexicon Co- dic.is Masarfi'i (ibid. 1816).
E. Thi' J'iiliiiiinne.—'BaTthe\emy, Reflexions siir V Alpha- bet et svr lit Liuigue dont on se servoit autrefois d Palmyre, in the Meniiurrs ilc I' Academic des In.wriptions, lorn. xxvi.
F. Thr I'lin'uician. — Levy [Dr. M. A.], I'h^nnzlxrlies W'ir- tcrhiirli (I'.rcslau, 1804); Schr.lcler [P.], Gnun ninllsrhr rn- ti'i-siiiiiinigi'ii i/bcr die phi'mizische Spnti-ln-, elc ( Halle, 1809) ; Wiittke [II. ], Entstehung u. Bescliaffenheit des fimi- Icisch-hebr. A Ifabetes, in the Zeitschr. d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft (1857), xi, 75.
3. The third main branch of the Shemitic. the Mid- Shemitic, is best kno^vn to us as the Hebrew lanrptage. (q. v.). As this is the most important to the student of Sacred Writ, we will give a short outline of the same, following its liistory through the different stages, till, like the Arabic, it became an object of philological study.
(1.) Name and Oriyin. — The Hebrew language takes its name from Abraham's descendants, the Israelites, who are ethnographically called //ebrews* and who spoke this language while they were an independent peoi)le. In the Old Test, it is poetically calletl the lan- guaye of Canaan (}^'33 ^r'rpi y\o><yc!a // \avaavlTiQ, Isa. xi.x, 18, "emphatically the language of the holy land consecrated to Jehovah, as contrasted with that of the profane Egj'pt," as Hiivernick expresses it), and also the Jews'' lanyuage {T'^'l^TT^ '|'^"5, 'loyOa'dJ-;, 2 Kings xviii, 2(5 ; Isa. xxxvi, 11, 13 ; Neh. xiii, 24), from the kingdom of Judah. The name " Hebrew language" nowhere occurs in the Old Test., since in general there is rarely anything said of the language of the Israelites; it appears in the prologue to Ecclus., 'E/3paV(Tri, and in .losephus (.4?;/. I, i, 2), yXoJrra riLv ' Ejipahov. In the New Test. 'E/Spcodri (John v, 2; xix, 13, 17, etc.) and 'Kjipa'iQ OtaXf/croc:(Acts xxi, 40; xxii, 2; xxvi, 14) de- note the .4 raniaic, which was spoken in the country at the time.f In later Jewish writers (as in the Targum- ists) the Hebrew language is called Xt'T^p'n y^h (the sacred tongue'), ui contrast with the Aramaic (5in "It's).
(2.) Atdiquify of the Hebrew Language. — On this point, and the question whether the Hebrew was the primitive language, there is a great diversitj' of opin- ion. "It is clear," says Hiivernick {fntrod. p. 128), " that this question can be satisfactorily answered only by those who regard the Biblical narrative (viz. Gen. xi, 1 sq.) as true history. Those who, like the mass of recent interpreters, look at it from a mythical point of view cannot possibly obtain any results. Gesenius says that, as respects the antiquity and origin of the Hebrew language, if we do not take this mythical ac-