« FöregåendeFortsätt »
du futur remplaçant l'impératif),' par l'énoncé précédent, ben you
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 3575 by ny—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 Serum you, and the following Max, &c. The one is a present tense, enounced, as it should seem, merely for the purpose of exciting the attention, just like the gin 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 inteuded strongly to inculcate a command, and that of a nature totally different from the preceding. And if the 7 before marTx is to be taken, as M. de Sacy bas 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 ملکه صلي الله عليه وسلم الله تعالي gives us the examples
· 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 you 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
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 myn, natur, mədx, &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
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 fornis ibere 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 à common imperative 22.10 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 WDI, NON, RW., &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 deliverabce from some national calamity. I do not mean to affirm, however, that the verbs porn, &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 X7 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,
Pour expliquer ce qu'on appelle commımément nominatif absolu, terme technique tout-à-fait étranger à la Grammaire Hébraïque, &c.
My answer is, I am surprised to hear M. de Sacy say so; for I find this term applied to the Hebrew Grammar, I think, unanimously by later writers, and by the elder commentators as far back as the time of Piscator.2 Mr. Ewald, it is true, has not used the term, but then he has treated the subject under another ($ 349. 353.); and M. de Sacy himself has allowed the operation of the rule, which is all I am anxious to contend for, in his own translation of the very passage adduced, Et pour nous, &c. (p. 95.) I am inclined to believe, therefore, that M. de Sacy's assertion here is a little rash. The term is certaioly not unknown to the Hebrew Grammar, nor is the doctrine it involves incompatible with it, as M. de Sacy's own application of it may be cited to show. I will now say, however, with M. de Sacy, that I am induced to believe that the translation given of this passage in the Vulgate, and cited by him, is the correct one.
As this article is growing beyond the extent I could wish, I shall offer only a few observations more. Speaking of certain constructions of the infinitive or verbal noun, M. de Sacy says, (p. 96.) Je suis fort porté à y voir, comme M. Lee, de véritables rapports d'annexion. Mais je ne saurois admettre la comparaison qu'il fait avec
دل بر داشتن کاریست مشكل ,ces deux expressions Persanes
و ارادت بي چون دل et non ,دل car dans la premiere il faut lire ; ارادت
; , et il n'y a point de rapport d'annexion ; et dans la seconde,
« est un véritable nom, &c. I answer, true, if we write jäüils ne
js, there will be no construction involving a genitive case, or what M. de Sacy calls rapport d' annexion ; but if we write is ju there will ;
will then be considered as qualifying terms, (See Sir Wm. Jones's Pers. Gram. Edit. 9. artt. 201, 202, 203.) and the preceding word must necessarily take the kesrah. M. de Sacy
Schreder, rule 33. syntax nom. Storr, Observationes ad Analogiam, &c. p. 292. Jahn, Gram. Heb. § 37. 105. Lehrgebäude of Dr. Gesenius, p. 723. Stewart's Heb. Gram. p. 334. &c. edit. 2.
2 My reply to Dr. Laurence, Cambridge, 1822. p. 76.
دل بر داشتن .verbal character without exerting any such power
cannot surely be ignorant, that Persian infinitives1 will govern nouns in the state of construction, no less than stand in their own
. u to take up or elevate, the heart, is, I have no doubt, correct Persian; so is le : Ju the elevating of the heart : and this is the construction which, I argued, regulated the examples adduced, (Heb. Gram. p. 317–318.) and to which M. de Sacy agrees. But why he should have woven this web to catch himself withal, is a' most marvellous thing to me. He thinks the Persian verb might be otherwise construed, and he is right; but he should have shown, which I maintain he cannot, that the construction proposed by me is not Persian; for the fact is, it is both regular and common. With regard to this phrase I have said just what M. de Sacy bas, viz. “In these cases both
097 s. may also be considered as nouns." Then why does our savant object? I suppose, because he is determined to do so, and for no other reason. Nevertheless, both and
« preceding these words act as prepositions ; and my opinion was, and still is, that even in these characters, like their equivalents in Hebrew, they really have the power of placing the preceding noun in the “rapport d'annexion,” or the genitive
But this M. de Sacy has not noticed. In the next paragraph, (p. 97.) and the last which I shall notice, M. de Sacy is if possible still less happy. The passage nyo X X he says, ought to be considered as containing what is usually termed a pregnant construction, (see my Gram. pp. 335—7.) like
; “” , “'
de meme , continues ; قام وقدم اليه for قام اليه the Arabic ou יצא ואתה את העיר est une ellipse pour יצא את העיר " ,he
پاي رفتنم .19
tale 20. ib وقت رفتن So •
, , . 6. , 23. two instances the measure requires the kesrah.
2 In a Ms. critique of M. de Sacy, on the usage of the Persianas of intimation, which some time ago came to my hands; it was affirmed, that this pul such noun into an indefinite state, as to signification,
, i. . did not mean the land which, but, a land which! See the 9th edit. of Sir W. Jones's Persian Grammar, art. 71. &c. I only ask, is not this more than strange from such a writer as M. de Sacy?
زميني که i
. e . that the phrase , که although followed by the particle
nyn OX X1 X3", exivit et venit urbem pour in urbem," &c. I remark, this doctrine of supplying ellipses is a very convenient thing to help us out of difficulties when every thing else fails, as will be beautifully exemplified in this instance. For first, nx *** 799 means, he went out of the city, and not, he went out into the city, as M. de Sacy has so ingeniously made out. The passage occurs in Exodus ix. 33. as mentioned in my Grammar: and there the reader may examine it for himself. The truth seems to be, M. de Sacy has been puzzled by the particle nx, which the grammarians have generally supposed marked the accusative case, although no such case exists in Hebrew, as our reviewer himself confesses. Out of this notion, I suppose, grew his Latin urbem ; and then to make this good, be bas had recourse to his favourite doctrine of the ellipsis ; and so we get “exivit et venit urbem pour in urbem !" My remark went to show, that GX possesses, in reality, no such power ; but that its signification is, with respect to, as to, or the like; and that the passage should be rendered, he went out, (i. e.) WITH RESPECT to the city, or the like. So Neh. ix. 19. nx 7085 vyot tipy, as to the pillar of a cloud, it passed not away, where it is impossible that nå can point out an accusative case. Here then we have a trifling technicality implicating one of the greatest savans in Europe in a most ridiculous mistake: but bis system is more in fault than he ; and I shall now only remark that technicalities are dangerous things. People are apt to imagine, that under every name there must necessarily be couched some reality; and, if they can frame a particular rule on a giveu example, and give this a name, that they have formed a principle, grounded on the very nature of things, and which will, therefore, never fail them. A further insight, however, into the real nature of things, may convince them that no such principle exists, and that the whole is a mere delusion; that the whole is governed by laws of a totally different description, much more simple in their nature, and far more extensive in application. Such were the laws developed by the mighty discoveries of Newton in science; and such, I believe, are those which regulate language, and which ought to be investigated, and laid down in the construction of Gram
Mr. Ewald (as well as myself) has endeavored to do this ; and I am surprised to find the number of instances in which our results perfectly agree. We have, for the first time, for instance, investigated and laid down the laws for the rejection of the 1978 letters, and the contractions of the vowels ; which, I argue, enables us to reduce every apparent anomaly in the forms of nouns and verbs, to the measures of the regular triliteral paradigm of 7p5, as I bave shown in my Grammar. We have, in the next place, accounted for, or attempted to account for, the augments in pouds, in every case where a word exceeds three letters. This,'too, I have applied to the forms of the verbs, arguing, that not only the principle, but the very words themselves are identical in every case.