about the beginning of the sixth century. It is certain, however, that there is a great lack of authentic information as to the real agency which these Tiberian Masorites had in perfecting this extensive system of punctuation, and the question of its origin is one of those historical problems which remain to be solved by the labors of future inquirers.

6. From what has been said, it is not difficult to determine the general value of the present punctuation. It is a system constructed with great minuteness and accuracy, as it regards both sound and sense. The labor bestowed upon it cannot be too highly applauded. It undoubtedly conducts us deeply into the interior structure of the language, and affords a very useful and important guide in ascertaining the meaning of the sacred books. Still it is only the representation of a tradition; but that tradition, though not infallible, is the oldest and most authentic which we are ever likely to possess, and no reflecting mind can but be grateful that such a faithful record has been preserved of the interpretalion put upon the inspired oracles by those to whom they were originally given. At the same time, in our researches into the primitive genius and constitution of the Hebrew, it is often necessary to contemplate it as divested of every accidental appendage, and to give due weight to those traces of its character which are at variance with the punctuation, and which are often still preserved in the Kethib and Keri. It is evident that in such a study we must sometimes disregard a system which treats all the books of the Old Testament as if they belonged to precisely the same period of the language, which subjects them all to the same standard and the same constraint, and does not inquire whether the pronunciation of Moses differed at all from that of Ezra.

·

7. It is well known that few subjects in the whole range of ancient learning have given occasion to a sharper controversy, than that which respects the origin and antiquity of the Hebrew Vowel-points. For the sake of those who may be desirous of acquainting themselves with the sources of information on this much litigated question, the following list of authorities is subjoined :Ludov. Capellus Arcanum Punct. Revel. passim. Buxtorf, Fil. Tract. de Orig. et Antiq. Punct. Heb. passim. Walton, Proleg. iii. §§ 38-56. pp. 125–173. Carpzovius, Crit. Sacr. Vet. Test. part i. c. v. § 7. pp. 242–27. Pfeiffer Crit. Sacr. c. iv. § 2. Gerard's Institutes, pp. 32-38. Jahn Introd. to Old Test. pp. 111–114. Prideaux's Connection, vol. i. part 1, book 5. Bauer, Crit. Sacr. pp. 128-141. Whitfield, Trcat. on the Heb. Vow. Points. Glassius, Phil. Sacr. pp. 14, 15, 28, 43, 102, 192. G. I. Vossius, de Arte Gram. Lib. I. c. 38. Lib. II. c. 8. R. Simon Hist. Crit. V. T. Lib. I. c. 27. Morinus Exercit. de Ling. Primit. ubivis. Is. Vossius Dissert. Chronol. p. 248. Leusden Phil. Ebr. Dissert. 13, seq. Calvin in Zech. xi. 7. Jos. Scaliger Epist. 243. Piscator ad Gen. xv. 8. Grotius ad Mat. v. 18. Lud. de Dieu Gram. Lib. I. c. 7. Loescher de Caus. Ling. Heb. Lib. II. c. 3. Erpenius Praef. in Arcan. Punct. Cappelliani. Alex. Morus in Causa Dei, pp. 73, 74. Wasmuth Vind. Hebr, c. i. § 3, p. 105, seq. Fagius, Not. ad Targum Gen. xlvii. 24.

6. OF THE VOWEL SIGNS.

1. The vowels in Hebrew are represented by small strokes and points, variously arranged, and placed either above, below, or in the centre of the consonants to which their sounds severally pertain. Thus the sound of a in far in connection with the letter – is represented by the figure (,) placed thus,ba; and so of other vowel-sounds. These marks, usually termed Vowel-points, are ten in number, of which five are long and five short. Their names, forms, position, and power may be learned from the following table ;

1. The consonants are to be sounded before the vowels and not after; as bâ, not ab; buj shâ-lōm, not âsh-lōm. A single exception to this occurs in the case of Pattah Furtive, § 11.

2. The names of the Vowel-points are derived for the most part from the position of the organs in pronouncing them. Thus Kamets signifies contraction (i. e. of the mouth); Pattah, opening (i. e. of the mouth); Kibbuts, compression (i. e. of the lips), &c. On the other hand, i Segol, a cluster of grapes, derives its name from its form; and

Kamets Hateph

is merely the Hebrew expression for Kamets short, so called to distinguish it from simple Kamets. See § 19.

3. It would seem from the analogy of Hebrew forms that these names Yep Kamets, Pattah, Tseri, pn Hirea, pa

חִירֶק

have been altered from the original Kemets,

Shureq, bia Segol,

Pethah, ➡➡-- Tseri,

Hereq, Shoreq, bia Segol, in order that they might have, in the very

first letter, the vowel-sound which they are intended to represent. With a view to preserve uniformity in this respect throughout, some Hebrew grammarians write Sëgol (-_), Kübbuts, and Kõmets-Hateph.

4. After the vowel-signs above given began to be attached to the text, they often came in contact with the ancient vowel-letters (§ 1. 2.), as, in, ^ne, and although a double vocalization often thus occurred, the power of the consonant being merged in that of the vowel, yet they both remained unchanged beside each other; the ancient one, because they could not omit the primitive vowel-letter, and the new, because it so far exceeded the old in adaptedness to the end. When or, for instance, thus concur with a sign for a vowel, as in in, it is called scriptio plena; when the sign for the vowel stands howalone, as in n, p, scriptio defectiva. In regard to the actual use, ever, of the one or the other of these modes of writing, much was left to the discretion of the transcriber, as the same word is often found in very different forms, e.g. I have raised up, Ezek. 16.60,

Gen. 26. 3,

p Jer. 23. 4, or ip as in other editions. Yet it may be remarked, that the defective mode was most commonly employed when a word received an augment

and that in the later ; זְבְלִי זְבוּל קלוֹת קוֹל וְצַדְקִים צַדִּיק at the end, as

books of the Old Testament the use of the full, and in the earlier, that of the defective mode, is most frequent.

5. Admitting that the present vowel system was elaborated and adopted gradually, as later grammarians are generally agreed was the case, the progressive steps by which the signs arose, were probably the following: (1.) The most simple and ancient we may suppose to have been a point above to signify the high sound, and a point below to signify the deep or low sound. (2.) These were afterwards, when they began to distinguish each of the five vowels, so limited that (-) continued to be used for ō, (-) for i, which is in accordance with the nature of these sounds (§. 7. 3.), while (—) must have heen early appropriated to a, because they endeavored, as much as possible, to write the signs under the letters, as being the most convenient method. For distinguishing the sound of e from that of i, they added an additional point to the sign of the latter, thus, (), which shows the origination of Tseri. The obscurer u was expressed by bringing down the ō- point to the middle of the letter; and thus a point was always placed in the middle of ▾ (1) whenever that letter was used in the ancient mode of writing to express u; when it was not, the more distinct sign ( ) was written under the letter, whether the vowel there was long or short; so that both are often mutually exchanged as being perfectly

הוּכָה and הִכָּה אוּלַי and אֲלַי כְּרוּבִים and כְּרָבִים equivalent to each other, as

:

73.737 and 1737 (3.) Lastly came the distinction of sounds as long and short. This applies less to i and u, because their quantity is naturally more limited, and because from the connection of the word and the ancient mode of writing it can generally be easily inferred; but (÷) was distinguished from (—), so that the latter remained for e, and the former was used for short or sharp ě; while() was lengthened by another stroke to () for the distinction between ǎ and â ; and short ở became represented by the same sign.

6. This last peculiarity is very remarkable; for â and Ŏ could not originally have been written with the same sign. That they are now so written has probably arisen from a confusion in later times of two signs which were originally somewhat similar (7) and (or), and from a like confusion, by the later Jews, of the sounds of a and o themselves. This incorrect pronunciation of o for a is still prevalent among large bodies of modern Jews, particularly those of Poland; but it is impossible that the punctuation which in other cases distinguishes long and short vowels so minutely, could have originally set out with this utter confusion of â and ŏ, and such total forgetfulness of all forms. Great indistinctness and perplexity have actually come into the otherwise clear vowel system from this source; as must necessarily be the case from an attempt to distinguish different sounds by the same sign. The fact is, that in the present mode the distinction between â and o has to be determined, not by the symbol, but by a familiar acquaintance with the etymology of the language; so that the object of the sign, which is to be intelligible to the eye, is effectually frustrated.

7. Though we have in the above Table distinguished the vowels as long and short, yet it is to be remarked, that these terms are somewhat loosely employed in this application of them, as the laws of quantity, which have been reduced to so exact a system in the Latin and Greek, are altogether foreign to the genius of the Hebrew. The distinction is adopted rather as a matter of convenience, than one of perfect accuracy; although it has still such a general approximation to truth, that while the learner is in no danger of being led by it into any material error, it will be found, from its superior simplicity, to possess decided advantages over the complex and elaborate classifications of some modern grammarians. Of the vowels denominated long, those which are accompanied by a quiescent (§ 4. c.) or impure (§ 7. 5.) letter, are best entitled to that character, viz., Hireq Magnum, Holem, Shureq, and Segol. Kamets is in itself more doubtful. It stands in many cases for a vowel originally short, and can only be considered long from the syllable's closing with a vowel sound, or having the tone accent upon it. Thus in, where both these conditions exist, the original form of the words was undoubtedly,, but the pointing has been changed in consequence of the operation of the causes mentioned § 27. c. And the Kamets is said to be long, principally for the reason that it is longer than the Pattahh. So with Tseri ini, where it is put by the force of the tone for Segol (pi), while the Holem in the first syllable is intrinsically and immutably long. On the contrary, the Kamets in nis, being used for original Pattah (i) is only adventitiously long. See a fuller developement of the principles regarding the quantity of the vowels, § 27.

IT T

§7. VOWEL SOUNDS AND LETTERS.

1. The primary and fundamental vowel sounds of the Hebrew and the Shemitic languages generally are those represented by the

letters A, I, U.* Of these A is the purest and most native sound, and is consequently predominant in the language. I and U, being pronounced with a more distinct compression of the anterior organs, are of firmer and more substantial sound, and hence they easily change into their still firmer semi-vowels J (pron. yea) and V, and are also, from their close inter-relation, easily attracted to and exchanged for each other, I being only the sharper, U the obscurer sound, but both being deeper than their common opposite A.

2. These radical vowel sounds have, however, a very strong tendency to softening, so that each sound may be changed into a feebler one closely related to it. A, for instance, becomes broader and descends to E; I and U expand themselves, and ascend to E, O; while the dipthongs ai and au melt into the softer sounds ē and ō, which again, as a possible case, may be further changed into the simple i and u. This mutual affinity of the vowel sounds may be not inaptly represented to the eye by the following diagram ;—

Let the experiment be made according to this scheme, and it will be found, that in passing vocally from a to i the opening of the lips is the most elongated, and in passing from a to u, the most contracted, that the muscles of the mouth will admit; and that ai and è on the one side, and au and ō on the other, represent the natural intermediate sounds between these extremes. The mouth is in fact in this case converted into a kind of tube, which is lengthened or shortened according as the sound of i or u is to be given. This view of the subject is important from the fact, that the reciprocal

It is important for the learner to be advised in the outset, that the English letters here and elsewhere employed to illustrate the vowel system, have not their ordinary sounds. On the contrary, they are to be considered as representing the sounds assigned to them in the preceding Table (§ 6.) in the column headed 'power.' With our utmost efforts, it is impracticable to attain perfect precision in this point, but our remarks may perhaps be sufficiently intelligible if it be recollected that A (â) is to be sounded as a in far, father; E (e) as a in hate: I (i) as ee in queen; and U (ú) as oo in moon.