pour se rendre compte de l'usage fait du prétérit pour énoncer une chose future, ou du futur (ou présent) pour énoncer une chose passée. M. Lee lui-même a vainement cherché à rendre raison du mot par lequel commence le Lévitique.

I must remind M. de Sacy, that the vainement cherché, here offered with so much complacency to his own good understanding, involves a petitio principii. He ought surely to have shown that this was the case, unless he believes that a gratis dictum proceeding from himself, is not subject to the law laid down by himself, as already noticed. But, as he has not given his reasons, I must be content to leave them unrefuted. I may, however, be excused, if I adduce a few examples to show, that the doctrine about the conversivum is a perfect nullity; and if I can do this, I may perhaps be allowed to conclude, that in rejecting it altogether, I have only done what it was my duty to do.

The first passages I shall adduce then, shall be those in which our present (formerly future) tense, must be construed as a preterite, but in which no conversivum appears, in order to guide us

Thus DID" ככה יַעֲשֶׂה איוב כל הימים .5 .in this respect. Job i

למה לא מרחם אמות מבטן יצאתי וְאֶגְרָע

Job continually." (Authorised version.)

T: :

Ib. chap. iii. 11.

"Why DIED I not

from the womb? Why DID I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?" The same is the case with P in verse 12.

in v. 16. I לֹא אֶהְיֶה in verse 13. with יָנוּחַ and וְאֶשְׁקוֹט with must all be taken as תאמץ יקימון תחזק .4 chap. iv. vss. 3 and

preterites, without any conversive to admonish us of this and if it be said that the preceding or leading verb D is sufficient to determine the tense, then I ask, why have we no such verb preceding in chap. iii. 11? In chap. iv. vs. 5. the occurrence of conversive is in two instances entirely neglected by our translators, and they have given a translation according to my rules, but contrary to their own. In verses 15 and 16 we have a succession of these futures, as they have been called, all of which must necessarily be translated as preterites, without so much as one conversive to show us that this is right! Let the reader examine the following passages, to which I believe some hundreds might be added, were it necessary. Job. vi. 15. 17: ib. 17. 2: ib. 18, I♫95", 15y", 1728”—where, mirabile dictu! the last word, like some given above, has a Į, but not a conversive one!—Isaiah i. 21. p. Ib. v. 16. , in which we have a conversive of the future, is

:

manifestly a future in signification and not a preterite, and as such our translators have rendered it, “shall be exalted.” In Is. vi. 2. 2 in each case, as well as

, must be construed as a preterite,

but without the help of the conversive 1. So Is. viii. 2. MTYN?

ib. ix. 11. cannot be a preterite: so, vs. 13. So also vs. 19. See also Is. xiv. 8.

5. In these cases then, we are compelled either to do without this important particle, as M. de Sacy will have it, or entirely to set it at nought. When the participial noun, formerly restricted to the present tense, occurs in similar situations, though occasionally to be construed in a past, as well as a present or future tense, strange to say, these good old grammarians have never given the a conversive power, in order to guide the reader. No, here they have left him to all the uncertainty which he would have had to encounter, bad they given him no such rule with regard to their future; and here he has found no difficulty. The Arabs, Syrians, and Ethiopians too, have all neglected to give this important and wonderful rule, although cases innumerable occur, in which it is just as much wanted as it is in the Hebrew, which M. de Sacy very well knows. On my view of the subject, which is that entertained by the Arabs and Syrians at least, this conversive power is never wanted; and on every view, as shown above, it can never be trusted. M. de Sacy himself too sees no difficulty whatever in using the present tense in French, like the historical one of the Greeks and Latins; nor, according to him, is there the least possible fear of mistaking the context; but take it in his own words:

Je dis, par exemple, en François, si tu viens ici dans deux ans, tu trouveras ce jardin ruiné: il n'est pas douteux que l' action exprimée par ces mots, tu viens, ne soit future; et cependant je dis si tu viens, en employant le temps présent, et non si tu viendras, en employant le futur. Il n'en résulte néanmoins aucune obscurité dans le langage, parce que la conjonction conditionelle si, &c. déterminent suffisamment le sens, &c.

Now, I may add, with M. de Sacy, the case is the same in Arabic certainly; and further, there can be no doubt that it is in the Hebrew, and all its sister dialects: that not only is it visible in the cases just adduced; but the fact is, the translators have been compelled to give up their rules, and to follow this system alone. Let us now briefly notice the case of occurring at the

commencement of Leviticus; and here I will not repeat what has been said in my Grammar (pp. 361-363). Now, suppose I translate the passage, just as my theory of the verb exhibits it; "So the Lord calls to Moses and speaks to him from the tabernacle of the congregation, saying," &c.-will there be any more

obscurity in the translation, than there is in M. de Sacy's si tu viens? Are not the circumstances of the case quite sufficient to restrict the event mentioned to a past tense? And this M. de Sacy most cordially allows, when he says, (p. 101.)

Au reste, si, dans une simple récit, l'emploi des verbes Hébreux ne laisse dans l'esprit aucune incertitude à l'égard du sens, il faut convenir qu'il n'en est pas toujours de même dans le style relevé ou poëtique. But who will doubt this? Is it not, nevertheless, of some importance, to determine the law which regulates these simple accounts of events, in order that we may be enabled the better to understand those which are of a more elevated, poetic, or less simple character? Is it likely, that rules which must be rejected in plain cases, can help us in difficult ones? But if we can discover a principle which it can be shown is never contravened, I will again ask, is it not more likely, that by an application of this we may be enabled to understand these lofty passages, than by the application of one, which we know will only partially hold? I say, then, in the case above-mentioned, the application of our principle is easy and natural; no obscurity whatever arises from its operation; and, I will affirm, that although every passage will not afford equal cause for conviction that we cannot have mistaken the sense; yet, we do know the principles which regulated the usage of the language, and that we have the best possible means for arriving at the original intention of the writer. In the case of N then, and such simple passages, we find no difficulty, and such must all those be, in which the context affords any clew to the real time of the events mentioned; and I will here affirm with M. de Sacy, that "ce cas est rare," in which difficulties present themselves; and much more so on my principles than it is with his, as it has already been shown.

There is, however, another case to which he adverts it is this, "pour se rendre compte de l'usage fait du prétérit pour énoncer une chose future." (p. 101.) Here I will affirm also, that instances innumerable occur, in which it is impossible to doubt that the context is to be rendered in a future sense, and yet we have no conversivum to assure us of this; take, for example, Is. ix. 5.

"

כי ילד ילד לנו בן נִתַּן לנו ותהי המשרה על שכמו ויקרא שמו which is given in our פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי עד שר שלום:

version, "For unto us a child is born (for shall be born), unto us a Son is given (for shall be given); and the government shall be (not has been, as the conversive would require) upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called (rather, one shall call his name, not one has called his name, as the conversive would again require) Wonderful," &c. Here then we have no 1 conversivum, except with the futures (presents) where it ist manifestly wrong; and yet the

translators and commentators have had no doubt, that these preterites should be understood as futures.1 If we apply this principle to the first verse of this chapter, I think we shall at once see the meaning of the prophet in one of the most regular and splendid predictions of the coming of our Lord to be found any where in the Old Testament; thus, "The people who (now) walk in darkness shall (surely) see a great light; upon those who (now) reside in the land of the shadow of death, the light shall (surely) shine.2 Thou shalt (surely) multiply the nation, shalt thou not increase the joy? They shall (surely) rejoice before thee, like the joy in harvest, and as they rejoice in their dividing the spoil." Here, I am willing to allow, the translators have not unanimously taken what I believe to be the true sense of the passage; but this must have arisen from the circumstance of their not being well aware, how much the preterite is used in strong prophetic declarations. They were probably deterred too, by not finding the mysterious little conversivum here and the consequence has been, one of the plainest declarations of the prophet has been grievously obscured, and scarcely capable of receiving any interpretation. It will not at all be necessary to multiply passages of this description, which indeed may be done to an indefinite extent. I will merely remark, that these passages have frequently a preceding them but when we know, that it is wanting in cases innumerable, and that the Arabian and Syrian grammarians declare, as I have shown in my Grammar, that the preterite tense is so used in order to give the strongest assurance that the thing spoken of shall come to pass; and when we also know, that they feel no want of this ↑

The rules for discriminating when is to be considered as conversive or not, are given by Buxtorf in the Thesaurus Grammaticus, lib. ii. cap. 21. "Si præcesserit," says he, "aliud præteritum, (vel futurum loco præteriti positum) tum copulativum est; sin minus, conversivum judicabitur." We then have some remarks about the situation of the accents; but every one knows that no reliance can be placed on them; not to insist on the difficulty, on this system, of ascertaining when the futurum est loco præteriti positum. In the next page we are also told, that when conversive of the future it will receive pathach; but, from the passages adduced above, it will be seen, that this rule also fails. I am tempted to believe, that this conversivum might, by the earlier grammarians, have been noted as occasionally marking a change from the absolute to the relative use of the tenses, and in this sense have been called Hippuk, or conversivum, never intending, however, to speak of it in the rigid and technical sense adopted by their followers. Of this, however, I cannot speak positively, as I have no access to them. Of one thing, however, I am sure; the cases, in which it will not apply, are too numerous and important to be treated as exceptions in the ordinary language of M. de Sacy.

T

2 See Matt. iv. 14, 15, 16. where the preterites are preserved in the Greek just as they are in the Hebrew, and the Greek participles answer to the participle and present tense of the Hebrew.

conversive; we have every reason for concluding, that this is nothing more than an illative conjunction, just as the or

و

ف

is in the Arabic. An assertion of mine to this effect was noticed by M. de Sacy in his second article, and there reprobated. In his third, however, he has told us, that Mr. Ewald has given it the same signification; and he concludes,

Et je crois que, sous ce point de vue, il répond à la particle conjonctive Arabe, qui diffère de la simple conjonction, par cette même valeur illative ;

which, indeed, had been said by Kimchi long before his time. If then this which was once conversive, is nothing more than the Arabic, and equivalent to so, then, therefore, and the like, what has become of its conversive power? I begin to believe, therefore, that M. de Sacy too is more than half inclined to get rid of this conversive vaw. Mr. Ewald, who has retained it, seems to have made a greater impression on his mind than I have done ; and because perhaps he was as much determined to resist Mr. Ewald's views as he was to refute mine.

We are next told,

On trouve quelque chose d' analogue en Arabe, ou, après l'adverbe nega

W

tive Jou L, on doit toujours employer le futur ou aoriste, pour exprimer ce qui le seroit par le prétérit, si la proposition étoit affirmative; et, au contraire, l' adverbe negatif Y, consacré au futur, prend souvent après lui un prétérit, qui dès-lors reçoit la valeur du futur.

To which I answer-All this may be very good for those who have no disposition to search for themselves; but I either find, or think I find, the facts of the case to be different. In the Gospel of St.

تقع في الارض 240 .John I find, c. xii ان حبة الحنطة إن لم

that a grain of wheat, if IT FALL not into the earth, &c. Again,

,and he who denies - ومن جحدني ولم يقبل كلامي 48 . ...

me and RECEIVES NOT my word, &c. Again, in the Arabian

ان اعفا عني الملك ولم يقتلني ففي الليلة المقبلة ',Nights

If the king will pardon me, and (will) not kill me, then

on the following night I will tell the story. But if this authority is objected to, let us see what Jāmi says on the subject in his commentary on Ibn Ulhajib on the force of these particles, p.

1 Calcutta edition, vol. i. p. o.