T:

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, bar, he became polluted; pin, he became strong; DIN,

"T:

זי

he became red; or, if the context require it, he made himself so,

reflectively; or, was made so, passively. So in Arabic,

ïşl 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 niphbal, we have a form with N 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 slo or subjection, as already noticed.

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 iu 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

cussing my theory of the Hebrew verb. I have affirmed, and I do so still, that the ground form of the verb is nothing more than a noun of one form or other; and that the Hebrew grammarians, David Kimchi, and De Balmes, have said the same thing. M. de Sacy remarks,

Il (Mr. Lee) appuie ce paradoxe sur l'autorite de Kimchi, qui ne dit rien de semblable; car autre chose est de dire, comme ce grammarien Hébreu, que les verbes viennent des noms, et que le nom est comme le corps, et le verbe comme l'accident, ou de dire comme M. Lee, que le verbe n'est rien qu'un nom, que la troisième personne du singulier du prétérit du verbe simple nommé p kal, est toujours un nom primitif de l'une des formes T, The ou T, et que pour le présent (ou aoriste), le fond de ce temps est un nom du nombre des noms primitifs qui ont pour signe charactéristique le ségol, et de l'une des formes TP, Tou T. Dans ce système, l'impératif aussi est un nom... et il ne faut pas oublier que ces prétendus noms primitifs p, p, p, ne sont que les créations d'un esprit systématique, desquelles on peut dire, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. D'ailleurs, si les temps personnels du verbe n'étoient dans la réalité que des noms joints à des pronoms, pourquoi tous les temps, tous les modes n'auroient-ils pas pris pour base le même nom? Pourquoi le nom qui, dans le prétérit, forme la troisième personne du singulier, n'auroit-il pas conservé sa forme dans toutes les personnes du même temps, et de , par exemple, auroit-on fait ? C'en est

assez sur cette doctrine."

T:"T

This is making short work of it, truly. But let us see how all this is founded: and first let us review the sentiment of Kimchi on this subject. In the Michlol, fol. 3rd verso, we have, yw NI

דקדוק הפעלים בתחלה ואף כי שהשם קודם לפעל כי הפעל יצא מהשם ואמרו כי השם כמו הגוף נושא המקרים והפעל כמו מקרה וגו'

I first proceed to write the chapter on the grammar of verbs, although a noun precedes the verb: for the verb proceeds from the noun. And they say that the "noun is as the body, the subject of accident; but that the verb is the accident." (Gramm. p. 189.) I repeat the whole passage, in order that no mistake may arise as to the sentiment of this grammarian, and, as it should seem, of others also, who had preceded him. Now, M. de Sacy thinks that it is one thing to say all this, and another that the verb is nothing more than a noun with a pronoun attached to it. I answer, if M. de Sacy means that Kimchi has not delivered his sentiment in exactly the words which I have used, he is perfectly right; and I certainly do not intend to argue such a question with him or any other man: but I will contend that I have correctly advanced the sentiment of Kimchi, and that he did intend to inculcate the doctrine, viz. that nouns present the body, or ground form on which the verb is constructed; that the noun receives the accidents whereby the verb is framed;

and that the verb itself, when so framed, may be termed the accident, and the noun the body or root: and, I will further maintain, that if Kimchi did not mean this, there is no meaning whatever discoverable in what he has said. Again: fol. NYP verso, y

ישכילך האלהים כי השמות שנים חלקים יש מהם שם שהוא נגזר מהפועל או הפועל ממנו כמו ראובן' שמעון' זבולן שהוא שם נגזר מן הפועל חכס' רשע' צדיק' חרב' שלג והדומים להם נגזר

DUN ID Syn. Know, may God give thee intelligence, that nouns are of two sorts of some the noun is deduced from the verb, or the verb from it; as Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun, where the noun

the like, the verb is deduced from the noun. He adds, NWTW DV V”)

and שלג חרב צדיק רשע חכם is deduced from the verb. In

שם דבר ואיננו נגזר מן הפועל ולא יהיה פועל נגזר ממנו כמו איש' אשה' אבן' גפן' סוס פרד' חמור' גמל' שור' עץ ברזל והדומים

D. There are nouns, however, which are names of things, which are neither deduced from verbs, nor are verbs deduced from them; as, UN, MUN, &c. And again, fol. under the form of the

ובא שם התאר על משקל זה כי לא אֵל,,he says פָּעַל preterite There is a verbal noun חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אתה' לא תאכל עליו חָמֵץ:

And in the same

of this form: as, Ps. v. 5. and Deut. xvi. 3. page, speaking of the preterite of the form by, he says, w

And the verbal nouns .התאר על משקל זה גָּדוֹל קָטן' רָחוֹק' קָרוֹב

of this form are, i, j, &c. Extracts from what he has said under the form by, in the same page, will be found in my Grammar, p. 198, in the note. Now, I say, if Kimchi did not mean to affirm that the noun is the root of the verb in the first extract, and to show in the others that no form of verb occurs to which a noun of a similar form is not to be found (I mean in kal), and hence to inculcate that in every case the noun is the body or root, and the verb the accident; it is quite out of my power, and I think of that of M. de Sacy himself to say, why Kimchi has thus expressed himself. It will not be necessary to cite De Balmes on this subject, because no objection has been made relating to him; and perhaps I may now say, that is enough on this subject. "C'en est assez," &c.

The next objection is to the form of the present, or what M. de Sacy terms the aorist. I bad stated that one or other of the

will be found to be the ground form of פְּקֵד or פְּקַד פְּקר forms

this tense, and that these are forms of the segolate noun. The objection is in this system, the imperative also is a noun; and

that it ought not to be forgotten, that these pretended primitive

are nothing more than creatures of a פְּקֵד פְּקַד פְּקֹד nouns

theorizing imagination. To the first I answer, I see no reason why the imperative of a verb might not be a noun, especially as we occasionally find the verbal noun or infinitive of the form of

,observe ,שָׁמוֹר ;2 .go, Jer. ii הָלוֹךְ,used imperatively ; as פָּקוֹד

Deut. v. 12: for if the verbal noun was pronounced with energy, as Schroderus has judiciously remarked, it could not be understood in any other sense, than that of giving a command. M. de Sacy, therefore, need not have been surprised at this. In the next place, the forms p, p, and are not creatures of the imagination, but are found both as nouns, and as the imperatives, as well It as infinitive or verbal nouns used in the state of construction. would be a work of supererogation to exemplify a thing, of which every tyro in Hebrew is well acquainted; but I doubt whether any sort of proof would suffice to convince my learned reviewer.

The last question on this subject is, why is not the form of this noun, if it be such, preserved through its proper tense, i. e. why does in the third person masc. of the preterite become

т: чт

, and not of the second? I reply, if M. de Sacy had condescended to turn over one leaf more of my Grammar, he would have seen, (p. 200.) "Hence in the second form, exemplified by willing, the (.), when made imperfect, becomes (-) instead of (*), by what has been termed an oblique correspondence, (art. 102. 2.): as in " &c. I will now add, when yen,"

፡፡

the terminating consonant happens to be, this vowel (...) is always retained; as, NT, NT, &c.; and, in the Arabic univer

,c. I am a good deal surprised& وعلمت وعلمت و علم sally

therefore, that M. de Sacy should have made a remark so silly and unfounded.

One remark more on this subject. Is it not an extraordinary thing, that in the Chaldaic we have confessedly a participial noun conjugated with the pronouns, and used as a preterite? as, TRE, ATRE, ATR, &c. See De Dieu's Grammar, Hebrew,

Chaldaic, and Syriac, p. 212. Jahn's Elementa Aramaicæ Linguæ, p. 104. And in the Syriac, the participial noun of the present tense

9

१

is also conjugated, þ¿o for 'll, go for `] JAO,

&c. Now, I might ask, if the Syrians and Chaldeans have acted so unphilosophically, according to M. de Sacy's views of this subject, as to have conjugated a participial noun, and thus made it into a verb; why might not their equally unrefined neighbors, the Hebrews, have done the same thing, and supposed with Kimchi and myself, that the noun is really the body on which this verbal character has been grafted? I certainly see nothing impossible in this; and from what has been advanced by some very able writers on this subject, such as Court de Gebelin,' and others, as well as the nature of the case, I must confess I am inclined to believe that the things called verbs are mere creatures of the imagination; that they have no existence in nature; while, like many other technicalities which might be named, they are useful enough in detailing the elements of technical grammar. I am disposed, therefore, to dismiss the cool remark, "C'en est assez sur cette doctrine," with which this paragraph closes, as being rather more remarkable for the self-complacency with which it has been made, than for either its philosophy or its candor.

ON THE EPIC POETRY OF THE
ROMANS.

No. II. [Concluded from No. LXXVIII.]

BUT another series of years ensued, and brought with it a fatal change. In the republican times poetry had indeed lost some of its importance; and in consequence of the division of intellectual labor enlisted fewer men of genius in its service: still it was awake and active and vigorous, being fostered in part by the stimulus of public applause, but above all by the mysteries and manifold ways in which liberty of action promotes liberty of thought and imagination. But the evil days of Greece were come; the various causes, which had been for ages preparing the decay of Greece, at length fulfilled their work; the Greeks ceased to be a nation, and the Athenians a people. Longinus has observed, in a passage of melancholy beauty, (and his own apparent, and only apparent, disapprobation of the opinion takes nothing from its truth,)-Oi νῦν ἐοίκαμεν παιδομαθεῖς εἶναι δουλείας δικαίας, τοῖς αὐτῆς ἔθεσι καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἐξ ἁπαλῶν ἔτι φρονημάτων μόνον οὐκ ἐνεσπαργανωμένοι, καὶ ἄγευστοι καλλίστου καὶ γονιμωτάτου λόγων νάματος, τὴν ἐλευθε

As cited in my Hebrew Grammar, p. 80.