III. Primitive Tenses. — In nothing perhaps does the disparity between the Greek and the Hebrew verb strike the student at first more obviously than the multiplicity and variety of tense-forms in the former, compared with the meagre and vague array of tenses in the latter. A little further examination, however, shows that by means of the various so-called conjugations (Niphal. Hiphil, etc.) the Hebrews managed to extend their paradigm to pret- ty considerable dimensions. Here the Heb. Piel and other dageshed conjugations evidently correspond with the reduplication of the Greek perfect and pluperfect tenses, while the prefixed syllable of Hiphil, etc., af- fords a clew to the device of the simple augment in Greek. These, however, are comparatively unimpor- tant, although interesting analogies.
The root of the Hebrew verb is found in its least dis- guised form in the prieter Kal. The future is but a modification of this, as is especially evident from the facility with which it resumes the preterit import with "vav conversive." The past is naturally the first and most frequent tense in use, because it is historical. In all these respects the prreter answers to the Greek second aorist. The augment of this tense was a secondary or subsequent invention, and, accordingly, Homer habitual- ly disregards it. The "Attic reduplication" (for exam- ple, 7/ynyoj') had a still later origin. The second aorist gives the root in its simplest if not purest form. It is further remarkable that none but primitive verbs have this tense, and no Greek verbs are primitive but those which exhibit a monosyllabic root as found in the stem of the second aorist. We invite the attention of scholars es- pecially to these last enunciated principles. They show- that this tense was originally the ground-form of the verb.
No tense in Greek exhibits greater modifications of the root than the present. This argues that the tense itself was of comparatively late date. Accordingly the derivative verbs most usually have it, although defect- ive in many other parts; and the variety of forms under which it appears occasions most of the so-called irregu- larities set down in tables of Greek verbs. Now the Hebrew has properly no present tense. Present time can only be expressed by means of the participle, with the substantive verb (regularly understood) like our " periphrastic present" (" I am doing," etc.). True to the analogy which we have indicated, the junior mem- bers of the Hebraistic family, especially the Chaldee and Syriac, have constructed a present tense out of the par- ticiple by annexing the inflective terminations appro- priate to the different numbers and persons. This proc- ess illustrates the formation of
IV. Verb Inflections.— In Greek, as in Hebrew, the personal endings are obviously but fragments of the personal pronouns, appended to the verbal root or tense- stem. This is so generally recognised to be the fact with respect to both these languages that we need dwell upon it only for the purpose of explaining, by its means, some of the peculiarities of the Greek verbs in -pi. This termination, which reappears in the optative of other verbs, was doubtless the original and proper sign of the first person, rather than the ending in -w. The former is the basis of the oblique cases of the pronoun of the first person, /<f, me; as the latter is the last, but non- radical, syllable of the nominative, tyio, /. It is in keeping with this that the verbs in -pi are some of the oldest in the language, for example, the substantive verb, tlfil. The passive terminal -pai is doubtless but a modification of the same. Now the principle or fact to which we wish to call particular attention in this connection is this : Every primitive "pure" verb in Greek is a verb in -pt. By this rule the student may always know them, as there are no others, except the few fac- titious verbs in -vpi, and very rare exceptions like piw, ritt), mvu), which are attributable to disguises of the true root. Let it now be further noted, in confirmation of what we have stated above concerning the Greek primal tense, that verbs in -jui have substantially the same inflection as the second aorist, and they have only those tenses tvith which these inflections are compatible. Neither of these last-named principles, it is true, is carried out with exactness, for the aorists passive of other verbs seem to have usurped these active terminations; but we are persuaded they are in general the real clew to the defectiveness and peculiar inflection of the forms in -pi. We therefore look upon the verbs in question as interesting links in the descent from the older Hebrew type.
V. Declensional Endings. — In the absence of any real declensions whatever in the Hebrew, or any proper cases — unless the "construct state" be entitled to be regarded as a genitive— there is little ground of com- parison with the copious series of modifications of the Greek noun and adjective. Yet Webster has noted the resemblance of the plural S"1 and Chaldee "p to the Eng- lish oxen (archaic housen, etc.). The v " ephelcustic" has its analogue in the " paragogic" ", and is strikingly generalized in the " nunnation" of the Arabic.
VI. Vowel Changes. — To the learner the Hebrew lan- guage seems very complicated in this respect ; but the whole process of vocalization is wrought out under the following simple law : that " without the tone, a long vowel cannot stand in a closed syllable, nor a short vowel in an open syllable." From this results practi- cally the alternative of a long vowel 'or an additional con- sonant (or dagesh forte) in every unaccented syllable. In the Greek the following fundamental principle pre- vails: that a long vowel (or diphthong) indicates the omission of a consonant, except where it represents two short vowels; and this latter is tantamount to the other, for there is one letter less. Thus the systems of sylla-