Page:The Indian Antiquary, Vol. 4-1875.djvu/50

 Febrwrt, 1875.] SKETCH OP SABiEAN GRAMMAR. 37 C y r a^ta {Hal. 188, 5) ; but it seems fco exist under tlie form of 3 in pa joined to the Perfect (0s. x. 3 j xnr. 3, 10 ; xxvir. 3) or to the Imper- fect (ibid. Jill. 10) j this word appears to Halcvy to represent the Arabic locution ty £ I* ( UJ ) Thus the phrase vrran hen pa tTteai (0*. xin. 3), compared with the variant moan hmr Scm (ibid. XII, 5), may be translated 'in the demand which he demanded of him.' This meaning suits also the other passages. The o may also be doubled to express the vague idea ' whatever may be, whoever,' e.g. ctop era jo (Hal. 149, 10) 'of any damage whatever.' This curious word suggests the striking manner of the Hebrew npwa or m*n used as a substantive in the sense of 'something;' the medial i appears to be the copula ' and ;' and the whole compound properly means ' what and what.' Some of these pronouns are also used as re- latives. First, i is prefixed to verbs : — rmrn (Prcetorius in u. 2) ' he who would break it,' mrcan (Os. xxvu. 2-3) 'in, whom he has confidence/ Li hen of t sometimes p also occurs, e.g. vwon p ' that which he asked from him.* When i ia placed before substantive or proper nouns, it al- ways means ' of, from,' and must never be taken in the sense of the Arabic _ji ' endowed with/ as Osiander fancied. The i serves exclusively to express the periphrasis of the genitive where the object is to be pointed out with greater emphasis: p-m too "pa (Fr. xlv. 3) ' King of Saba and of Raidan,' jreri -vm (Hal. 465, 3) 'A'ttar of yahraq,' pcu Vrwi ^sm row p ti? [Hal. 233, 10- 11) * A'bd son of Ammikarib from Khadlan of (belonging to) the people of Gaban.' It serves also to form adjectives : ym si csapi infn? (Hal. 442, 3) ' A'ttar, Egyptian, and A'thtar, Oriental; for the feminine rn is used, e.g. otto m (Os, xv. 1) ' The Marthadatess,' ni e>*» jnrrt zras (ibid. xxii. 1, 2) 'Halkmthe Beni-A'bdess (i.e. she who belongs to the Beni A'bd) of Raotan.' The ^ is sometimes supplanted by vt, which is evident- ly an alteration of the demonstrative tt : for in- stance, frm rpo 1 !* (Os. TO, 5) = prn eta ' Al- maqqahu of Hirran.' The demonstrative Vt is also used as a relative, and is then treated as a singular, 'he who:' tot fc (Hal. 340, 12) ' he who causes to fructify,' icvr h» {ibid. 6) *he who accelerates (?),' vA to (ibid. 344, 26) ' he who has.' This remarkable fact occurs in vulgar Arabic and in Tigreh, which proves once more that the popular dialects sometimes retain an* cient elements consigned to oblivion in the literary language. As to the origin of Vh, which its biliteral form ranges by the side of vt r, it is doubtless not apro- perly so called pronominal root, because in that case they both ought to be decomposed into two separately used monosyllables, which never takes place with them. No alternative remains bat to consider them as derived from verbal roots forming a kind of infinitive. In fact the verb ntt * to be' exists in Aramtean, and with a slight change in Hebrew rm ; Hale* vy thinks that the original type of b* is the Ethiopia -fin, Tigreh •>» Amh. to * to be, to exist,' whence apparently the Hebrew particles efcri ' in this direction* (properly 'existing,' understood 'place') and rw^n (=mVn) 'in this direction' are derived. Each of these two synonymous verbs has fur- nished a remote demonstrative, which has, in its turn, become transformed into a definite article : win = n in Hebrew and -fin = Jf [ n Arabic; the n is known still to maintain itself in the pronunciation of the Bedavis of the Najd. Let ns pass to the personal pronouns. Here our texts are the best refutation of the precon- ceived idea, broached by numerous psycholo* gists, according to which the Semites in general are an entirely personal and subjective race. A supposition like this has no other basis except the justifiable extension of the Arab national character to the entire Semitic race. It is un- deniable that the eight hundred inscriptions as yet known are all conceived in the third person, and present no trace either of the first or second person, except in certain cases where the use of the first person is indispensable. The same use occurs again in the Hebrew writing and in the Phoenician texts, where the pronoun of the first person is not only rare, but purposely avoided by circumlocution ; thus we read : *nrt (= l-qcrt) for *> (His. 1, 2), -pew (= ?ra?) for -pi (Sid. 3), Ac. Moreover, the personal pronouns of the Semi- tic languages present a phenomenon worthy of the attention of physiologists just as much as of linguists, and which puts the original objectivity of the Semitic race in the beat light : — Whilst the Aryan idiomB possess a radical ak («*»), az (em), ad (am) for the first, and a fw (tu) for the second person, the Semitic languages possess nothing of the kind, so that they are obliged to