M. de Sacy's statements in toto. I deny that any such anomalies of punctuation, grammar, &c. exist, as he so roundly asserts; and I will maintain, that the Hebrew Grammar is more simple and regular, than that of the Arabic, the Greek, the Latin, or even the French; and that the text of the Hebrew Bible itself has come down to us in a state much nearer to its original one, than any ancient book which M. de Sacy can name. I object, therefore, both to the facts and the philosophy of M. de Sacy in this instance; and until arguments more cogent than any to be found in these articles are produced, and facts less questionable advanced, I shall continue to do so.

Having dwelt thus far on the first article of M. de Sacy, let us now proceed to the second, i. e. to the Journal of January, 1829. The first subject I shall now notice is, M. de Sacy's objection to my method of treating the nouns termed segolate; at which I am the more surprised, because it will perhaps be impossible to choose one more conformable with that recommended by himself. The reader will be aware that these nouns occasionally present them

.c& סְפְרוֹ סִפְרִי סֶפֶר .c& מַלְכוֹ מַלְכִי מֶלֶךְ selves in the forms of

phn, phm, iphy, &c. wp,

:

p, p, &c. these are the facts. M. de Sacy, after objecting to my arrangement, proceeds:

Il vaudroit beaucoup mieux se borner à exposer les faits, en réunisant les cas individuels par groupes, autant que faire se peut.

Now, in my grammar, these several forms are classed together, and the several accidents, stated, in order to show the learner how they are found in the plural numbers masculine and feminine, in and out of the state of construction, and with the several pronouns; and when found in the feminine gender, or in the state of construction; but not in the dual number, as M. de Sacy says; for this reason, because they are never found in it. It cannot be to the arrangement, therefore, that M. de Sacy objects: no, it is to the supposition offered by me after Schroeder and others, that the segol, introduced between the second and third radical letter, has been introduced for the sake of euphony. M. de Sacy's words

are,

Je ne sais si je me fais illusion, mais il me semble que tout cet échafaudage, dont M. Lee n'est pas l'inventeur, n'est fait que pour ramener autant que possible les mots primitives à l'état de monosyllabe, et peut-être aussi pour rendre plus facilement raison des changemens de voyelles qui ont lieu quand on veut former de ces noms. Il est certain que l'euphonie, laquelle on a recours pour justifier ces transmutations de malc en malec, puis en mélec, de sifr en sifer, puis en séfer, n'est alléguée que faute d'une meilleure raison; car il n'est pas plus difficile de prononcer malc quenard, et up koscht, &c.

I will only remark, that I think this exceedingly unworthy of the

: "

learning of M. de Sacy. A vowel, apparently euphonic, has certainly been introduced, as I had said: yet he affirms that it can be said on grounds no better than conjecture!" Enfin, qu'au lieu de marcher ainsi de supposition en supposition!" But, might it not be answered, that on this mode of proceeding, his own Grammaire Arabe, no less than the three tomes of his Chrestomathie, is, the one half at least, nothing but a tissue of conjecture; and that the learned author of both ought to have confined himself solely to the exhibition of facts, and not to have had recourse to supposition after supposition? But I will not dwell on matter so childish as this: I will allow, too, that male might have been pronounced without the euphonic vowel, had the Hebrews thought proper to do so, just as well as 77nard, or up koscht; and that the same euphonic vowel might also have been added to N, ND, &c.; but the fact is, it is not found so, I will add, however, that this is nevertheless contrary to the general usage of both the Hebrew and Arabic languages, which avoid the concurrence of two quiescent letters after a vowel, as M. de Sacy very well knows. But when he says that this system has been adopted in order to reduce the primitive noun to a monosyllable, I must again object; because the fact of the case is, the noun appeared as a monosyllable in the forms,, &c. before the system had been recurred to by me. That the arrangement has been adopted to assist the memory, there can be no doubt; but this is just what M. de Sacy has recommended. I cannot help treating his objection, therefore, in this place as quite beneath himself, and perfectly childish; and because the arrangement given exhibits the pure facts of the case, and not so much as one supposition, to which the learned Baron can withhold his assent, unless he will be hardy enough to maintain that two quiescents may regularly follow one vowel in Hebrew.

The next subject I shall notice is M. de Sacy's doctrine respecting some of the species of the Hebrew conjugation. This is given at p. 17. in his remarks on the Grammar of M. Sarchi:

Si l'on admettoit cette nomenclature, (says M. de Sacy,) il y auroit en Hébreu une forme verbale primitive by, trois formes verbales dérivées, byn, bon et bya, et la forme primitive, ainsi que les deux

premières formes dérivées, seroient susceptibles de la distinction en voix active et voix passive; les voix passives de byp, byp et by, seroient bypa, by et by. La troisième forme dérivée ayant essentiellement le sens réfléchi, il étoit naturel qu'elle ne fût point susceptible de

donner naissance à une voix passive. . . Je sais que, d'après l'analogie de la langue Arabe, on peut contester à la forme byşɔ le caractère pri

mitif de voir passive; mais cela est peu important; et puisque les formes (Syp) Sp

ont incontestablement leur voix passive, il me הִפְעִיל et (פְּעַל פְּעֵל

semble très-naturel de considérer comme passif de y, ce qui n'em

pêche point que cette forme ne puisse être détournée quelquefois de cet usage, comme dans M. Ewald ne regarde la signification passive de by? que comme une déviation de sa destination primitive, et peut-être

a-t-il raison.

The only questions I shall moot here, will be respecting the forms or species termed by niphhal and by hithpahel. M. de Sacy species is the passive

seems here to have no doubt that the by form for by, though he thinks with Mr. Ewald that it might be true that this is a deviation from its primitive destination. What this primitive destination might have been, however, neither he nor Mr. Ewald has told us.' It is very extraordinary, I think, that M. de Sacy should have passed over the remarks made on this

' Mr. Ewald, indeed, says, p. 191. "Ein dem einfachen Stamm vorgesetztes hat reflexive Bedeutung," &c.; and at p. 202. he says much the same of the hithpàhel form and in both cases he afterwards affirms, the passive signification, to which these forms are subject, must have grown out of this reflective power. There are cases, however, in which both have complements in the sense of the objective case, which should seem to take the place of the word self (sich) which he supplies in these cases; but here he supplies a preposition, as in, Lev. xxv. 46. which

he translates, für sich etwas erben. But here we have bnanm

where the fiir sich must surely be displaced by אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם

D"? for your children, unless this verb has three complementary adjuncts, which I should think improbable. On my system it might be translated: and ye shall BECOME possessing them for your children. This is the force which the equivalent Arabic forms have; and as the Arabians see no such purely reflective power in these cases, nor any thing like a departure from the true one in forming a passive voice; and further, as no difficulty is in any case experienced by viewing these forms as they do, I cannot help believing that their view is the true one. The German werden, the English to become, and the Persian

or

when construed with other verbs, seem to me to give the precise force of these Hebrew forms. But we have nothing reflective in these combinations.

subject in my Hebrew Grammar; and the more so, as some great mistakes made in his Grammaire Arabe have there been pointed out by me: I mean in pp. 122. 125-6. The truth, however, appears to be, that M. de Sacy has no adequate notion whatever of the real force of these forms. According to the Arabian grammarians, these forms involve what is termed a clo, (see my Hebrew Grammar, p. 121-2.) and intimate the accidental, not any habitual impression made on the agent of the verb; as, in the exam

BB

- I broke the glass, and it كسرت الزجاج فانكسر ples

and it BECAME broken. So that this she, or participially

مطاوع not) مطاوع

شدن

as M. de Sacy erroneously writes it), can

not in any way correspond to the term passive, as used in European grammars, or as M. de Sacy has erroneously interpreted it in the passages alluded to. The truth is, a change of circumstance in the agent, and a subjection to the action of the verb, is solely and purely the force of these forms in the Arabic; and to this the to go, or become, which is used in forming what have been called passive verbs in the Persian, and the L to go, used in a similar way in the Hindustani, are perfectly equivalent. That the same is not the case with both they and Sy of the Hebrew, no one will, I am sure, doubt for one moment, who will take the trouble carefully to examine a few passages in which those forms occur. From these considerations, will appear, as I have shown in my Grammar,' the real difference between the participial passive form of by or kal, and the past participial form of by: the one will imply habit generally, the other an accidental change in the character of the person or thing subject to the influence of the verb. The instances I have given in exemplification of this are, a tree planted, i. e. remaining in y a tree (which has become)

פָּעַל form of

that state; and, in niphhal

planted, i. e. which has been subjected to this action accidentally so,

Sanballat had hired him, because סַנְבַּלַט שְׂכָרוֹ: לְמַעַן שָׁכוּר הוּא

he was an hireling, Neh. vi. 12, 13: and we onka bwaw

Page 125, &c.

those who are (habitually) full, are (occasionally) hired for bread, 1 Sam. ii. 5. The by form, signifies, as I have stated, (p. 121.) first, to be, or become, that which the primitive word signifies: as, ba, he became polluted; pin, he became strong; DIŅI, he became red; or, if the context require it, he made himself so, reflectively; or, was made so, passively. So in Arabic, —ï ï I corrected him, and he became corrected. The hithpàhel form is not, therefore, "essentiellement réfléchi," nor any thing like it; nor is the niphhal, in its real character, a passive either of kal, or of any other species of the Hebrew conjugation; but both may, as the context shall require, be translated by us, either as being passive or reflective; because the real force of these forms will signify either the one or the other of these, just as the respective nominatives and subsequent context shall require. In this sense, therefore, niphhal and hithpàhel will have either the same, or very nearly the same force; and this will be found on an extended inquiry to be the fact: and it is worth while to remark, that in the Syriac and Chaldaic, in which we have no form corresponding with niphhal, we have a form with ♫ prefixed, which particle is identical with the ♫ of the Hebrew hithpahel. To these the forms and of the Arabs are very nearly allied, both in sense and form; and are described by the native grammarians as involving a or subjection, as already noticed.

تفعل

To conclude, on this subject. Nothing can exceed my surprise, that a person so learned in Arabic, as M. de Sacy certainly is, should neither in these articles, nor yet in his Grammaire Arabe, ever have attempted to develope the real character of these forms. That M. Sarchi, or Mr. Ewald, should have omitted to do this, is what might have been expected; because it is probable that neither of them has access to original works on Arabic grammar; but that M. de Sacy should not only have made this omission in every case, but also have neglected to notice it when made both by Mr. Lumsden and myself, is truly marvellous! My argument is: it is highly probable that the Hebrew forms correspond in sense with those similar to them in the Syriac, Chaldaic, Ethiopic, and Arabic. The Arabians tell us how they understand theirs; and, ́on comparison, we find that the Syrians, Chaldeans, Ethiopians, and Hebrews, have certainly ascribed the same powers to theirs. Now, I ask, can any thing short of either perverseness or a determination never to depart from the paths of custom and of ignorance, induce any writer to close his eyes against circumstances such as these?

The next subject I shall notice is, M. de Sacy's method of dis