وتختص اي لما بالاستغراق اي استغراق از منة الماضي من وقت الانتفاء الي وقت التكلم بلما تقول ندم فلان ولم ينفعه الندم اي عقيب ندمه ولا يلزم استمرار انتفاء نفع الندم الي وقت التكلم بها واذا قلت ندم زيد ولما ينفعه الندم افاد استمرار

is peculiar لما The particle .ذلك الي وقت التكلم بها .c&

in what is termed

=

w

(immersion), i. e. by an immersion, as it were, into the times of the past, beginning with that in which the negation is made, and continuing up to the time in which it is enounced. You may say, 'such a one has repented, but his repentance does him no good' (when using ), that is to say, the consequence of his repentance: which assertion does not necessarily extend up to the time in which it is made; but if you say, 'Zaid has repented, but his repentance does him no good as yet;' (i. e. using ) this assertion is supposed to hold good up to the very time of its enouncement." Nothing, I think, can be more evident, than that the word preterite () is here used absolutely (), as this commentator terms it; but at the same time, that the verb following or W, is to be reckoned relatively (i. e. K). See my Heb. Gram. p. 344. note. The translation will then be, as I have given it, in the historical present, which will exactly express the force of the tense, as a relative, but not as an absolute preterite. The particles and J, therefore, exert no more influence on such verb, than any other particle, or even the illative, quondam conversivum, actually does. And that Jami used the particle in strict conformity with the principle here mentioned is clear from innumerable passages in this work, as in P. P. MAo,

=

۳۸۰. ان لم تفعله ۳۸۴۰ ۰ وان لم يكن and لم توثر

&c. The only difference then between and is, that the former negatives the action of the verb in a vague manner; the latter up to the very time in which the enunciation is made: and as they are mostly used in narratives, they will necessarily be

used in an absolute past time, though this tense may be a relative present or even a future; as may also be seen in the passages cited Art. 346. Gram. Arabe, tome i. and p. 33. of tome ii. The reason of their being used with present tenses, in the signification of absolute preterites, is not because they have within themselves any conversive power; but because they are used chiefly in narratives, and really signify not yet; (Gram. Arabe, tome ii. pp. 33. 34.) which no one will say is the case with the Hebrew vaw: while in other constructions at least may be used in an absolute future signification, as the passages above cited show. ́

It is worthy of remark, that a similar usage of the present tense prevails in the Greek Testament to a very great extent, and frequently in a future signification without any particular notice, as in the of Leviticus in the past. Of the first case, Matt. iv. 5. Τότε παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν—ver. 6. Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ—ver. 8. Πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν—ver. 9. Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ver. 10. Τότε λέγει αὐτῷ-John ix. 13. "Αγουσιν αὐτὸν πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισαίους: of the second, Matt. vii. 15. oitives ëρxovtaι-ib. ver. 24. öσTIS ἀκούει—ibid. chap. viii. 9. Καὶ πορεύεται—καὶ ἔρχεται—καὶ ποιεῖ are examples. M. de Sacy, however, has a method of solving this difficulty, without having recourse to a kaì conversivum, but which, like some of the preceding, involves a petitio principii. It is this

Il ne faut pas perdre de vue que, dans la plupart des langues, les mêmes formes temporelles ont souvent plusieurs usages, l'un propre, l'autre impropre, ou, si l'on veut, abusif. Ainsi le présent, en Grec, en Latin, en Arabe, (and why not in Hebrew?) en Français, en Italien, en Allemand, sert à exprimer un temps indéfini: λéyovoi, dicunt, on dit, si dice, man sagt, të &c. sout employés hors de leur domaine naturel, &c. My belief, however, is, that this is no improper use of this tense; because, according to my system, it is perfectly natural: and, I contend that Aéyovo means, they now say; that is, in the present tense either absolutely or relatively, as stated in my Hebrew Grammar. It is an exceedingly convenient thing, no doubt, to term that impropriety or abuse, which one does not understand; and thence to tell us, that we must arrange under exceptions, &c. all which certain savans cannot make out. That Mr. Ewald is wrong in supposing that the Hebrew language has no definite tense, I have no doubt; but how M. de Sacy can attempt to set him right by arguments such as this, it is quite out of my power

to say.

M. de Sacy has told us, moreover, that the particle y will give to the preterite a future signification. This I deny, and M. de Sacy himself may be cited to show, that it is more frequently used with a preterite in a past tense. The truth is, the preterite may

at any time be used in a sense of prayer or command. (See my Hebrew Grammar, p. 354. note, and the Gram. Arabe, tome i. part. 326.) In such case, then, futurity must be intimated, and y may then be added in order to negative the action of such verb : This Y, therefore, possesses no

.may you not meet لا لقيتم as

such conversive power as our savant pretends; but is a mere negative, as in all other cases.

M. de Sacy also objects to my theory of the tenses, because he thinks a difficulty still remains, as to whether a passage should be considered as prophetical or not. (pp. 100, 101.) I answer, the case is perfectly the same in both the Arabic and Persic: and yet no one complains of ambiguity in this respect, as attaching itself to these languages. The phrases, & God, may he be exalted ;

ملكة

ało pls may his kingdom be perpetuated, and the like, may,

it is true, be translated and understood as intimating facts that are past; as, God was exalted; his kingdom remained; and the like; but if one of M. de Sacy's pupils should happen thus to translate them, I believe he would look on him as being scarcely compos mentis. But, I will allow, that passages may occur, in which it may be difficult to say what is to be done and what then? Do not the same difficulties occur, whether we possess these rules or not? Every one accustomed to read the Hebrew Bible very well knows that they do occur, and that very many have not yet been satisfactorily made out. Is it not then valuable to know, that still another, and, as I hold, the true KEY to their solution, may be applied? I need not, perhaps, again cite the passage in Isaiah already adduced in proof of this; but, I will say, I believe (and I speak from a pretty long experience) that no difficulty of this sort, greater than what we meet with in other books, will present itself to us in the Hebrew Bible. Could I indeed have devised rules, calculated to put the reader in possession of a perfect knowlege of Hebrew, without presenting him with any difficulties, I should truly have performed a much greater wonder, than our savant has in his Grammaire Arabe.

Another misfortune noticed is (p. 101.), to suppose that a pre terite having an imperative signification would be

une chose qui jeteroit évidemment le plus grand désordre dans le discours, s'il n'y avoit aussi un antécédent qui déterminât la valeur de la circonstance temporelle, &c. Exemple, lorsque Moïse, (Deut. ch. 6. vs. 5.) dit aux Israélites, Tu aimeras (ou aime) le Seigneur ton Dieu de tout ton cœur, &c. et qu'il emploie des verbes au prétérit,, 7, AJ, &c.—tous ces verbes sont déterminés au sens de l'impératif (ou plutôt NO. LXXX.

VOL. XL.

Cl. JI.

T

X

du futur remplaçant l'impératif), par l'énoncé précédent, baw you Ecoute, Israël. C'est l'application d'une règle sans exception de la grammaire Arabe.

I answer, in the first place, I can see no reason to fear any such disorder, because I know of no instance in which, after due consideration, it can occur. The same fear is expressed by M. de Sacy as to prophecy, and yet no difficulty presents itself in such passages as—for a child has been (i. e. shall be) born to us; although we have no particular word going before to assure us that this is future: and M. de Sacy himself has no doubt, that the imperative above noticed is nothing more than a future remplaçant l'impératif." Nor can I see any such connexion, as he does, between the preceding you, and the following , &c. The one is a present tense, enounced, as it should seem, merely for the purpose of exciting the attention, just like the A hear, which is recommended to beginners in the Hindustani, in order to secure the attention of the native. What follows in the preterite tense is manifestly intended strongly to inculcate a command, and that of a nature totally different from the preceding. And if the before is to be taken, as M. de Sacy has no doubt it occasionally may, in the sense of so, then, now, &c. the passage may be translated, Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord. Now, or therefore, thou shalt (surely) love, &c. But M. de Sacy says, this is a rule in Arabic, admitting of no exception: I deny the fact, and challenge him to produce this rule. The rule cited by me (Heb. Gram. p. 354.) says no such thing; nor does M. de Sacy so much as hint at any such rule, when he

دام ملكه صلي الله عليه وسلّم الله تعالي gives us the examples

1 M. de Sacy here, as in other cases, takes for granted what I totally deny. I deny the existence of the conversive power, which he here talks of, in every case; and maintain, that the context can be explained without it; the "tous les verbes sont déterminés," &c. I must, therefore, treat as a petitio principii. That the preterites here used must be understood as imperatives, surely there can be no doubt; and, if the usage of the Hebrew verbs, in other cases, will justify this acceptation of them, I can see no reason why we should recur to any preceding verb for further assistance. Besides, when we know that the preceding sentence is quite complete in the assertion, the Lord our God is one Lord, to which the imperative y must have been intended to call the attention; I must confess, I see no reason which will justify us in carrying on the imperative power of this verb to others following, which relate to a totally different question. See Gen xlv. 13.

&c. Gram. Arabe, tome i. art. 326. And the truth is, no such rule any where exists; it is the mere figment of M. de Sacy, and it has been framed for this particular occasion.

But M. de Sacy has some doubt whether such imperatives do not really occur; and, on this point, he cites the 85th Psalm. His words are,―

Dans les trois premiers versets, le poëte, employant des verbes au prétérit, semble annoncer que Dieu s'est réconcilié avec Israël, et a oublié sa colère et ses projets de vengeance: Benedixisti, Domine, terram tuam; avertisti captivitatem Jacob. Remisisti iniquitatem plebis tuæ, &c.; puis, au quatrième verset et dans les suivans, il prie Dieu de suspendre les effets de sa fureur: Converte nos, Deus. . . . et averte iram tuam a nobis, &c. He adds, Coniment concilier cela? Faut-il considérer les prétérits MY, ANW), ADON, &c., comme ayant ici la valeur d'un futur, d'un optatif, ou d'un impératif? C'est une question que je ne veux pas résoudre. And he concludes, Mais je fais observer qu'elle est d'autant plus embarrassante, qu'il n'y a point ici d'antécédent auquel on puisse avoir

recours.

It is very true, no previous word is given in order to show us whether the verbs should be taken as preterites or imperatives. That they are preterite forms there can be no doubt; and that preterite forms have occasionally a future, imperative, or precative signification is equally true. These verbs then may be taken, so far, either as preterites or futures. The next step must be to look at the context: and, as M. de Sacy tells us, verse 5. commences with a common imperative turn thou us, &c. At v. 6. it appears that they are still labouring under affliction. At the 8th another prayer is offered, and at the 9th the answer is expected: and at the 10th a strong assurance to this effect is mentioned. Verses 11, 12, 13, 14, then, I should prefer taking as predictions, and the verbs, yn, p, &c. all in the future tense, the preterites in a strong prophetical sense, and the presents as being relatively present with respect to them. In that case, I should also prefer taking all the preceding preterites also as futures in a precative sense and then the whole Psalm will be a most beautiful prayer for deliverance from some national calamity. I do not mean to affirm, however, that the verbs 7, &c. may not be taken as preterites in a historical point of view; but I think, if that had been the intention of the writer, some such words as according as, like as, &c. would have been added, as in Psalms xxv. 7. li. 2. cvi. 45. cix. 26. cxix. 124, &c. But in the other case, we have a mere anticipation of the real tense, just as we have in the instance of already noticed in Levit. i. 1. the subsequent context being quite sufficient to guide us in this respect, In page 95 of this third article it is said,