Nor, again, is it true that no affirmation can be expressed without the assistance of some verb. By verb here, I mean a verb in the state of conjugation, and having the distinctions of person and tense within its meaning. What are termed participles and infinitives are not verbs, in this view of the matter, because they carry with them neither of these particulars. They are therefore nouns, and nothing more; and I now affirm, that in any one of the Shemitic dialects a whole book may be written, without so much as one verb occurring in it. To those conversant with these languages it would be superfluous to give examples.

Again, it is obvious that a verb conjugated, and expressive of tense and person, presents no simple element of language, but a compound made up of a noun and a pronoun; and of this, Mr. Weir's own solution of the Hebrew verbs I take to be proof sufficient (p. 310). Whether these compounds existed in the earliest times, or whether the words were written separately, none can now tell; but this every one can, viz., that in investigating the nature of any language, it is the business of the philosopher to divest it of compounds, and to exhibit it in its simplest forms: and if we do this here, we must divest the Hebrew verbs of the pronouns which have been added to them in order to give them the distinction of person; and this perhaps we cannot do better than by following the example of Mr. Weir. But, if we do this, the verbs will really be reduced to nouns, and must cease to claim the title of verbs. (See my Heb. Gram., p. 190, seq.)

We shall now, therefore, have the infinitive, or verbal noun, and the participle (as certain forms of the noun are not very accurately termed) to deal with, as it regards the formation of verbs in the state of conjugation. Now no one doubts that the infinitive, or abstract verbal noun, implies either action, passion, or neutrality as to these, just as its sense shall be active, passive, or neuter; but neither tense nor person in any determinate manner: e. g. p will signify killing, i. e. as to action; Sp, being, or becoming, killed. And, if any reliance may be placed on this, present (i. e. as to time) action, passion, &c., would seem to be meant. This, I think, is naturally implied in such forms; and hence I have argued, that in attaching the personal pronouns to these, in order to form the verb, present action, passion, &c., would

have here, therefore, no conjugated verbs, in the usual sense of that term; the fact being, that a participial noun is made to sustain every office usually assigned to verbs. I think however that Mr. Carey's view must be defective here, because I do not see how this language could be formed without the existence of abstract verbal roots, participial nouns being necessarily concrete. In the Hebrew

, my visiting, the verbal noun is abstract, and so indeed is the English visiting here, as in, I take an airing, or the like. So Dr. Murphy (p. 202), we rejoice in the good old English phrase, the house is a building, though not in the modern barbarism, the house is being built:' in which I most cordially join Dr. Murphy. These words implying mere action, may be taken either in an active or passive sense; so in the Arabic, the beating of Zaid will signify the beating either given or received by Zaid, just as the case may require. In English, the house is a building is passive, and means exactly what the modern barbarism just adverted to is intended to mean. There is a very interesting dissertation on the subject now before us by Aurivillius. Edit. Michaelis. Goetting. 1790, p. 371, &c.

most

most naturally seem to be intended. But how this is, in fact, dealt with, we shall presently see: still it is not upon these particulars that my theory rests; it receives, indeed, much strength from them, and for no other purpose have they been given by me. But there is another consideration, upon which neither Mr. Weir nor Dr. Murphy have touched it is this, the best native grammarians of Arabia--and none have more minutely investigated the nature of language-consider all their verbs as made up of nouns and pronouns in the manner noticed above. The infinitive, or verbal noun, they term the Masdar (wed!), i.e. the source, and consider every part and form of the verb as derived from it. In like manner-and apparently in imitation of them—the Jews term this noun, which means the same thing. Both of these also have the term root (,), which they take as the leading form in the conjugation. But this in no sense affects our question. I am disposed to attach some importance to the conclusions of the Arabian grammarians, because their language is essentially that of the Hebrews, and because they have given sufficient proof that they have attended much to these considerations, and have evinced very great acuteness and good sense, in their mode of conducting them.

As to the forms usually termed participles, they differ in this respect from the infinitives, that they are always concrete in signification, while the infinitives are abstract. Mr. Weir has no doubt, that the participle has great affinity with the form taken for the preterite tense in Hebrew. In this we entirely agree: but as the participle contains no fixed tense within itself, neither can the form, as such, be taken for the leading person of the preterite." But there is this agreement in their characters, that they are concretes. Now the concrete noun involves, together with the meaning of such word, the notion also of Agent, Patient, &c., just as its meaning may be active, passive, &c. The form ip or p will, therefore, signify one, or some one, killing, i. e. at any time, past, present, or future, as the context may require. But, where no such determining context is given, as the form implies an agent, &c., i. e. a being previously existing, and hence combined with the verbal signification, the prior existence of such agent must necessarily be implied; and, in the absence of every other determining consideration, this might b In a very rare, old, and valuable Arabic MS. Grammar now before me by Ibn ul Fihām, the following passage occurs (fol. 9), The noun itself will, without any verb (accompanying it), carry with it a complete idea; and this shows that the verb is a branch of the noun, and is sustained by it; in another respect, the verbs are, according to the most accurate of our writers, derived from the masdars, which are nouns; and since these are so derived, they are branches of them.'

On this subject, and how the Baron de Sacy has misunderstood it, see my Letter to Mr. Tregelles, pp. 7, 8, note. Seeleys, London, 1847. It is worthy of remark, too, that Ibn ul Fiham (fol. 45, verso) makes the triliteral verb the root

o) in like manner, of all the augmented conjugations of the Arabic verb: whence it should seem that the root, both with Jews and Arabians, is not the etymological source of the verb, but the form taken on which to commence the conjugation, i. e. in the third pers. pret. sing. masc.

d See my Heb. Gram. p. 190, note. Ed. 1841.

be well taken as supplying to the verbal sense priority of action likewise. Not unlike this is our usage in have loved, have been loved, and the like: previous possession of the verbal sense being plainly implied, and hence, as it appears to me, is the preterition of this tense to be ascribed. I think the same with regard to the Hebrew preterite form por: but, as before, whether this be right or wrong, signifies nothing as to the right or wrong of my theory; it depends on other and stronger grounds. They are these:

The Arabians, Syrians, and indeed every one of the Shemitic families, take, what we usually take as the preterite form in verbs, for their simple preterite tense also; and what I have denominated the present, they universally take as their present tense. My proofs will be found sufficiently at length, I trust, in my examination of Dr. Ewald.' I need not, therefore, repeat them here. Now, let it be asked, If all these families have, with one consent and under one uniform practice, done this, how are we to imagine that the Hebrews could have been governed by principles and usages, altogether at variance with these their descendants? Or, how are we to believe, that all these have, at some time subsequent to their separation from their ancestors, cast to the winds their original notions and usages, and adopted new ones? I cannot, for my own part, conceive either of these things possible; and I do affirm, that no man living can prove that they ever took place; and they must have taken, if the theory either of Gesenius, Dr. Ewald, Mr. Weir, or of the modern Jews is correct.

I may perhaps affirm therefore that, so far as authority is concerned, this theory is good and true; but, whether I may have duly availed myself or not of this, is another thing.

6

Of the goodness of my theory, therefore, there ought perhaps to be no doubt; one difficulty that has occurred to Mr. Weir, I shall presently solve. We have now, therefore, to deal with its idiomatical application; and here I shall avail myself of a principle which Mr. Weir has very largely applied, and which he deems to be one of very great importance in this question. The first place in which I find this enounced, is in page 314 of your October number. The principle is this' says Mr. Weir, the Hebrews were accustomed to regard and describe past events as present, because they transported themselves, as it were, to the period when the events of which they speak took place, and thus viewed and described as if they were spectators of them.' This principle I find reverted to as one of paramount importance again and again (pp. 317, 319, 320, 321, 323, 331), and in this last place it appears to be believed by Mr. Weir, that it is the principle which regulated some things laid down in my Grammar. I am sorry that I am here under the necessity of finding some fault with Mr. Weir. truth is, he has taken this his favourite principle from my Grammar,

The

• The same is, most likely, true of the French, German, &c., as to the preterite

so formed. In the Persian the concrete form, &c., of which S, &c., is only an abbreviation.

Seeleys, London, 1847.

where

where you will find it thus enounced (p. 336, ed. 1841): Any writer commencing his narrative will necessarily speak of past, present, or future time, with reference to the period in which his statement is made. . . A person may speak of past, present, or future, with reference to some other period or event already introduced into the context.' Again (p. 337): 'A great number of instances . . . . occurs in which the present tense is used as a preterite, but in which the writer takes the liberty of transporting himself and his reader into a time present to the narration.' In pages 338-9 the doctrine of the Arabian grammarians is given on this subject, as it also is much more at length in my • Examination of Ewald.'s See also my Hebrew Grammar, pages 343, 344, and the preface, p. ix. seq. Now I do not blame Mr. Weir, either for adopting my theory in this particular, or for speaking of it in the terms of approbation alluded to; but I do for not acknowledging the source from which he took it; and from none but my Grammar could it have been taken, for it is nowhere else to be found, except in the grammarians of the East. It was for this, among other things, that I deemed it my duty to chastise Dr. Ewald; and it will presently be seen that I must remind Dr. Murphy of the same plagiarism.

It is under this principle of shifting the point of time from which the tenses are to be reckoned, that Mr. Weir has endeavoured to show that, what is usually termed the preterite, is the present tense. He has very properly cast to the dogs Ewald's notion of finished and unfinished, as implied in Hebrew verbs; let us now see how far his own theory will hold good: but I will first satisfy Mr. Weir's difficulty as to my theory.

The place had in view by Mr. Weir occurs in pages 344-5 of my Hebrew Grammar, and stands thus: We must not... suppose ... that the sacred writers never recur to the original time from which they set out. This they appear to do optionally, just as we find it done in

-וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם וּלָחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא .the Greek and Latin historians,h e. g

2. Exod. xvi. 24 is also given. The objection is, But, with all deference to Dr. Lee, we object in toto to the latter clause (i. e. as now given), and cannot but be surprised that Dr. Lee should have written it.'

It may seem strange, indeed, that the scene, as to time from which we estimate the tense, should be so abruptly changed: but this is not at all unusual with Oriental writers; and it would have been well, if much greater regard had been paid to this particular than has been. In the Latin and Greek classical authors it does not extend beyond what is termed the historical use of the tenses, of which I have given an example from each, in a note to the place just cited. But, in the New Testament, which hebraïzes to an amazing extent, the usage is frequent, as it also is in the simplest and plainest Arabic, Syriac, and other Oriental, writers.

I will now present Mr. Weir with a few places from the New

Page 19, seq.

Livy and Xenophon are cited here as affording examples of this, in ‘Instant Volsci recentes, qui e castris impetum fecerant; integrant illi pugnam, qui .... simulata cesserant fuga, aud * με κελεύεις φυλάττειν; μὰ δὲ ἔφη ὁ κῦρος.

Testament

Testament, and he may collect hundreds of others, if he please, to the same effect. I will premise, that if the writers of the New Testament who wrote in Greek have taken the liberty so to depart from the idiom of that language, where, I ask, must we look for the cause of this but in that Hebrew? We have then (Mark i. 12) kaì ev¤ùç tò πveõμa avtòr ἐκβάλλει . . . καὶ ἦν ἐκεὶ, . . . καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ, where, as the doctrine of the tenses is fixed in Greek-and so it is indeed in Hebrew, Arabic, &c., were the fact but as well known-there can be no doubt, we have a present tense just as abruptly followed by preterites, as we have in the places adduced from my grammar by Mr. Weir. Again (Ib. v. 27), étiráooel ... ¿¿ñλ0ɛ, &c. Again (Ib. 30, 31), λέγουσιν . . . καὶ προσελθὼν ἤγειρεν. Ib. 38, 39, λέγει αὐτοῖς καὶ ἦν κηρύσσων. So also Ib. 41, λέγει αὐτῷ . καὶ εὐθέως ἀπῆλθεν. Ιb. ii. 3, 4, καὶ ἔρχονται . . . ἀπεστέγασαν χαλῶαι . . . κατέκειτω: 10. 5, 6, λέγει ἦσαν δέ τινες, &ε. Ver. 8, διαλογίζονται . . . εἶπεν αὐτοις. Ib. 11, ὕπαγε . . . καὶ ἠγέρθη. It would be endless to point out the instances of this sort which occur in the Gospels only, as it likewise would those found in writers of all the Shemitic families, as far as we possess documents derived from them.1

...

...

...

...

Now, how ready soever Mr. Weir may be to object in toto to idiomatic usages of this sort, cited from classical Greek and Latin generally; it is, nevertheless, the fact, that they do exist, to an almost incredible extent, in the Hebraistic Greek of the New Testament; and here they could not have been derived from any but Hebrew sources. Mr. Weir's objection is, that I have ascribed this usage of the Hebrew to choice, without assigning any satisfactory reason for it. I may perhaps answer, that the fact of such usage occurring is quite sufficient for my purpose. And, as I have now transferred the question to the usages of the New Testament-and the use of the tenses is too well known in Greek to be doubted-I may perhaps call upon Mr. Weir to render the reason of this usage there. If, however, I might offer a conjecture on the point I should say, the desirableness of variety is perhaps the only cause of its existence. It will be seen that it is found, not fewer than six times in the first chapter of Genesis; where, if any one will take the trouble to change the forms into those beginning with and the present tense, he will instantly see, that the harmony of the composition is impaired. The same would be the case were a similar alteration made in any Arabic, Syriac, &c. composition. Besides, it would be contrary to fact to imagine, that much is not left to the choice of writers in every language; for, if it were not, then could there be no variety of style; which is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. I conclude then, on this point, that whether my reason here satisfy Mr. Weir or not, I think my facts, as to the occurrence of this usage, will prove too stubborn to be got rid of.

i The Arabian grammarians term this usage an Isteenäf, that is, a recommencement, or the like, of the construction. Golius gives a very good definition of it in his Arabic Lexicon (col. 174), from a Persian writer. Dr. Ewald, with his usual positiveness and want of knowledge, tells us that it means the present tense! See my 'Examination,' &c., pp. 16, 17.

Let