12. Of the different kinds of augments or suffixes which produce the effect above described the principal are the following: (a) Those beginning with vowels; as the terminations"., of nominal forms; the , of the fem. sing.; the and ", of plurals; and such pronominal suffixes as "2-, -, 7-, 7, 7., &c. T 'These are (b) Those beginning with a loosely attached consonant; viz. such suffixes as :,, ., &c., all which receive the tone. not attached by a distinct or union vowel (§ 30. 5.), nor are they consonants closely attached, but are united to the word by a floating Sheva (§ 9. 6.), as is evident from the omission of Dagesh lene (§ 12. 10). (c) Those that begin with a closely attached consonant; generally persons of verbs, as p, p, and the nominal forms np for nbup. 13. The vowel of a suffix, in case a mixed syllable precedes it, which most frequently happens, takes the last consonant of that syllable to itself, by which the syllable is broken up. If then the vowel of this syllable is only an auxiliary e (..) §8. 7, it always disappears שָׁפְטְךְ שׁפָט ; קֵדְמָה קָדָם before accented and unaccented suffixes, as If it be a short accented vowel, it can, as before remarked (§ 27. 7.), maintain its place before unaccented suffixes by means of the tone, 7. If it be a vowel long by tone, it .מִדְבֵּרָה מִדְבַּר ; כַּרְמֶלָה כַּרְמֶל as either remains before accented suffixes, or disappears according to the rules of the foretone, § 21. 5, 6. 14. In the cases where the last consonant is taken entirely to the following syllable, e. g. where the last vowel of the word is tone. less auxiliary e, the effect is very obvious and regular, the auxiliary always disappears, as p,;, po, and the suffix-Sheva is to be considered as vocal, just as it becomes always an audible sound after a vowel immutably long; as, bushkâ. But with vowels merely long by tone, the result is not so uniform, the vowel in that case not being always made to disappear; for the last consonant can be entirely drawn over to the last or suffix-syllable in loose connexion, so that the accented vowel before the tone being left in a simple syllable, either remains long or becomes so, as 7737 (137), 737 (from 17), 7722 (from 7235). This longer pronunciation, however, only takes place before the light termination 7:, not before heavy ones ending in a consonant, and even before that regularly only with an a, seldom with e, and never with o; so that it is in fact merely a kind of foretone. Where the vowel cannot thus maintain itself as foretone, one of two results ensues, either, (1) It remains in its place, but is there necessarily so shortened that the following consonant floats between both syllables (§ 9. 6.), in order to leave some trace of the sound of the proper suffix-vowel; even with i and o, as, D, (from ). Or (2) The vowel seeking a firmer seat backwards recedes to the preceding vow. elless consonant, whereby the suffix-Sheva becomes perfectly distinct and moveable, as 3 (for 3, from 5), 77 (for 777, from 122), 777 (for 777), 17777 (for 3). This very seldom happens except with o, the vowel most difficult to be expelled, and again only before the light suffix . It is almost wholly confined to the construct infinitive, § 33. 2, the apparent anomaly of which is thus fully explained. PART III. CHAPTER I. GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE AND FORMS OF WORDS. § 28. HEBREW ROOTS. 1. We have already stated it as a fundamental axiom in regard to the written Hebrew (§ 5. 1.) that consonants are essential, while vowels are merely accidental; the former denoting the most elementary and radical ideas, as well as sounds, of words; the latter expressing their various nicer modifications and distinctions of sense. This is a principle of the utmost importance in order to a right conception of the true nature of most of the roots of the language. Thus in the three consonants 7 there resides the general idea of greatness; but and 37 signify becoming great or growing, great, greatness, to make great, to be made great, to be brought up, or educated. And so in innumerable other instances. The primitive power of words is never dependant on vowels, as in the Latin eo, aro, oro, uro, or the Greek daw, dew, Sow, Suw. It has been usual with most grammarians and lexicographers to regard the Verb as the most primitive element of the language, the parent stock from which nearly every other part of speech was derived. This is doubtless true to a considerable extent, but the more correct theory seems to be, to cansider the verb and the noun as collateral derivatives from an abstract root consisting of consonants only, and involving, as it were, both the verbal and nominal meaning, either of which may be developed by means of certain vowel points. Thus instead of deriving a king, with some grammarians, from to reign, or vice versa, with others, the true method probably is, to refer them both to the abstract root, which is to be considered as intrinsically neither verb nor noun, but which becomes a verb if written or a noun if written. According to this, therefore, the root strictly speaking exists only as a pure abstraction, as an invisible root, hidden, as it were, in the earth, whose trunk and branches are alone to be seen. Because the verb, however, gives a more animated and complete idea, and the noun is conceived of as more easily derivable from the verb than the reverse, the verb has come to be regarded, in the theory of forms, as the most primitive of the two; and since in etymology the root must be briefly and distinctly given in some way or other, it has therefore become customary, especially in the Lexicon, to assume the shortest verbal form (2) as the radical form, just as in the European languages we give the Infinitive, although historically considered it is neither the root, nor the first off-shoot from the root. 2. Another distinguishing peculiarity of the Hebrew and its cognate languages, at least in their existing state, is, that the roots consist for the most part of only three letters, usually making two syllables, as he killed, the earth. From such triliteral roots has arisen that vast variety of formations used to express case, number, gender, person, tense, &c. Exceptions, however, occur to this general principle of derivation in the case of many of the particles, of the primitive pronouns, and several nouns constituting the names of familiar objects, as father, mother, hand, &c., which ap pear to be biliteral in their root. But the principle notwithstanding is so deeply inwrought into the genius of the language, that some words which are really primitive and biliteral are treated in flexion as though they were derived from triliteral roots. Thus from and and אָבִי as if from אִמָּךְ and אָבִיךָ mentioned above are formed אֵם pps (from D), although they appear to be borrowed from the spontaneous sounds of an infant in its first lisping efforts at speech; as the fact is somewhat remarkable that the labial sounds pa or ba, ma, or the inverted ap, ab, am, are those applied by children to parents in most of the ancient, and many of the modern, languages.See Nordheimer's Heb. Gram. p. 77. 3. It is highly probable, from some appearances in the Hebrew, that it originally contained a much greater number of biliteral roots than it does at present; and that its triliteral forms resulted, in many instances, from doubling the second radical or adding to it some other letter. Thus the idea of cutting is common to all the words 7, that of breathing or blowing to ; קצב and קָצַר קָצַע קְצֵץ קְצָה קִיץ ,, and П; leading us inevitably to the inference, that the biliterals and were the original roots of the two classes. Sơ also and to go, common root; and to be good, common root; 27, 77, 2, to thrust down, common root 77. The letters thus employed to form triliterals from biliterals are first and mainly the semivowels 7 and; secondly, the liquids, particu larly; thirdly, the gutturals, especially the weak and . Another very natural and usual expedient is the doubling of the last of the two consonants, as in 7, 77, and 7. Quadriliteral or quinquiliteral roots are very rare in Hebrew, such as to devour, N to be quiet, &c. They are generally formed by the repetition or addition of one or more letters to the triliteral root, to which they give an intensive import. 4. The Hebrew affords but few instances of the composition of separable and independent words, so as to form a new whole, like the Greek pododanruλos rosy-fingered, avoρwrapɛoxɛia man-pleasing. The following belong to this class, by shadow of death, from a shadow and death; Belial, from not and profit, i. e. worthlessness, vileness, wickedness; Carmel, from a fertile place and God. Most other instances of a similar kind occur in proper names. "T 5. The Hebrew differs from the languages of the West in the mode of writing many of its particles, and the oblique cases of many of its personal pronouns. These instead of standing by themselves, are commonly united with the verbs, nouns, &c. to which they belong, or on which they depend, so as to form with them but one word. Thus from for king, by adding a pronoun we have ; to a king לְמֶלֶךְ your king; adding a preposition מַלְכָּכֶם,my king מַלְכִּי with the article the king; with both article and preposition 33 for 33 (§ 29. 4.) to the king; and with the conjunction superadded, and to the king. 1. The Hebrew has but one article, viz., and even this might perhaps be more properly termed a demonstrative particle, as it is only in conformity to the grammatical usages of European tongues that it is treated apart from that class of words. Though at present found in the form of , yet it is supposed by Gesenius and others with much plausibility that the original word was (from which is derived the Arabic ), and that the has become uniformly assimilated before the word to which it belongs, the omission being compensated as usual by Dagesh forte, or by some equivalent, as הַלְמָטָר the rain for הַמָּטָר ; הַלְשֶׁמֶשׁ the sun for |