invariably happen, whenever, from any cause, a vowel originally short remains in a simple syllable, it regularly becomes long to sustain itself, § 27.

4. The general nature of the Hebrew syllable may be deduced from what we have now said. As the language according to a fundamental rule tolerates no short vowel in a simple syllable, therefore to form a syllable there must be a vowel supported by its own inherent length, or by its relative position in the syllable. With this very important preliminary principle before us we are prepared to enter upon the detail of the constitution of syllables, upon which, when once the letters and vowel-signs are mastered, the whole art of reading Hebrew depends.

5. Syllables in Hebrew are either simple or mixed; or, as they may be otherwise termed, open or close.* A simple syllable is one which terminates in a vowel sound, whether with or without a quiescent letter, bâ, nâ, rẽ, without a quiescent; bâ, lo, mī, zēh, with a quiescent. Such a simple or open syllable usually terminates in a long vowel, but it may have a short one, provided it be accompanied by the tone (§ 27.), as □ mă-yim, 77 bă-yìth.†

6. A mixed syllable is one which terminates in a consonant sound, as ěl, ặt, in muth, bi kōl. So in lâ-mădh, 2 mē-lěk, bă-yith, the first syllable is simple, the second mixed. The vowel for the most part in such close or mixed syllables is short, being compressed in utterance and firmly attached to its connected consonant. It is only when the tone adds its influence at the end of a word that the voice permits the vowel in a mixed syllable to be sounded full without compression, as

var,

mal-kâm, where it is long. See § 21.

bâm,

dâ

7. We have remarked above that although the Hebrew, as a general rule, tolerates only one consonant at the end of a syllable in the middle of a word, yet a final syllable, which is freer and more sonorous, may admit of being closed with two different consonants. To this, however, it is requisite that the pronunciation of the last consonant in such a combination should be easy, that is to say, that it should be a letter eapable of being so attached as to be distinctly heard, especially after a liquid, asard, nerd, a hig-dalt, ang ka-thabt, 772

yashq. But where this condition does not exist, then a very short toneless vowel is inserted as euphonic or auxiliary before the last consonant, namely the short e (Segol), the most spontaneous sound in these and similar cases,

* Instead of mixed, Ewald usually employs the epithets compound or shut; a half-mixed he denominates a half-shut syllable. This phraseology is occasionally followed in the present work.

+ The perpendicular stroke in these words () technically called Metheg (§ 17.), is used as an accent to denote the tone-syllable. It is employed for a similar purpose generally throughout the work, except in the chapter which treats expressly of Metheg.

for סֶפֶר as

po, wip for wip. The particular cases in which this euphonic vowel is or is not used, can only be understood by a knowledge of the principles of formation. The following may serve as an epitome of them. (1) In the second pers. sing. fem. pret. of the verb universally (p) the hard sound is always retained, because attaches itself easily and closely to any consonant. (2) In those verbal forms which are produced by apocopation (§ 34. 4.) the euphonic vowel is introduced only occasionally, asyirv, and 77 yi-rev. (3) All the nominal forms constituting the class called Segolates, described hereafter, regularly adopt this mode of facilitating their pronunciation, as for, win for win, &c.

::

§ 9. SHEVA.

1. As before remarked, a leading and fundamental peculiarity of the Shemitic family of languages is, that they are rich in vowel sounds and do not tolerate a great accumulation of consonants, and especially that they never begin a syllable with two or more closely joined consonants, as often happens in European languages, e. .g. XTEIVW, Oπλayxva, Ptolemy, bdellium, &c. But while this is the case, it is a remark of equal importance, that the genius of the Hebrew forbids that any word or syllable should begin with a vowel. A simple consonant must always necessarily precede the first vowel in a word, although such consonant may be either one of the weakest class, a mere gentle breathing, answering to the spiritus lenis of the Greeks (§ 25. 1.), as 'ōmăr, 17 'umin, něktōb, “ yish-ăl, or one of the most firm and substantial, as ¬ hăr, i lō, aņpp mik-tâv.

2. As the language then has an insuperable repugnance to such a combination of sounds as is heard in the English words brand, bled, tramp, &c., in order to avoid this, the Hebrew adopts a peculiar expedient in the use of the character called Sheva (NT), indicated by the figure (:) and representing the light fleeting vowel or half-vowel sound of è in its most hurried pronunciation, as in tetigit in Latin, or tenement in English. Thus peri, not pri; kesil, not ksil or xil; i benō, p qetol, all which are to be regarded as strictly monosyllables. According to this analogy the words above mentioned would be pronounced berand, beled, teramp, &c. This Sheva is termed simple to distinguish it from the composite Shevas peculiar to the Gutturals, of which an account will hereafter be given (§ 10). It is found at the beginning and in the middle of words, but as a general rule, a consonant at the end of a word does not receive Sheva, as bem, p qâtăl. This is owing to the fact,

that as one main object of the Sheva is to indicate the absence of a vowel, its insertion under a final letter is unnecessary, because from the very principles of formation, almost all words end in a consonant without a vowel, so that the last consonant may safely be assumed to be vowelless. To this, however, there are the following exceptions; (1.) When the final letter is, which always takes it, as răk, 752 mē-lěk. (2.) When a word ends in two consonants both receive Sheva, as p yapht, yësht, higdalt. (3.) When the final letter has Dagesh (§ 12.) inscribed, Sheva is written, as ra ăn, ngon sha-mă-ặt, nng nô thắt, th gi khăd. (4) In the following anomalous cases it also occurs, viz. hâ-yith, and

bâth, 2 Sam. 14. 2, 3. But wherever a letter occurs without a Sheva either in the middle of a word, or at the end after a Sheva, it denotes that such letter has no consonant power in such a position, but is to be considered as wholly mute or quiescent (§ 18.), as â-le-kâ, 773 â-lâv. The & in such cases as he-ve-thâ, &c., is termed otiant or in otio, as is also in such words as 73, 77, 19, &c.

hhet, * above,

ben,

1 và-yăr,

3. It is to be borne in mind, that we are here considering Sheva entirely in reference to its office as an element of pronunciation. But its use in the language is by no means limited to this. Its very name, as usually interpreted ( vanity, vacuity, nothingness), carries in it a striking intimation of another end designed to be answered by it, viz., to denote the absence or negation of a vowel, and that too as the result of the operation of established laws, and not as the consequence of oversight on the part of transcribers. Viewed in this light, it is not properly to be regarded as a vowel, but as the substitute for a vowel, in which relation it enters essentially into the system of vowel-changes hereafter to be detailed.

It may also be observed, that although the primitive and most legitimate sound of the simple Sheva is properly represented by the short è as above described, yet it would seem, from the hints of the early grammarians and the usage of the Septuagint, that its sound-was in many cases modified by that of the following vowel, so as occasionally to approximate nearer to the sound of a, i, o, or u, than of e. Thus, for instance, in the Greek of certain proper names, we find represented by Lodoua, Colour, zj by Lapen), and nisay by Laßawl. This is similar to the Latin momordi, pupugi, pepigi. So in 37, as the Sheva is a substitute for Kamets (77), the Rabbins inform us that the original vowel exerts some degree of influence upon the Sheva, causing it to be sounded very nearly as da văr instead of de văr. In like manner before a Guttural the same effect is produced, as du u instead of de u.

דְעוּ

But however this might have been anciently, such niceties of utterance are now not at all regarded, but simple Sheva when vocal has always one uniform sound, viz., that of short e as above stated.

4. In allusion to its office as aiding in the enunciation of initial consonants, Sheva is termed mobile, moveable (*),* i. e. vocal, audible, sounded; but when occurring at the end of a syllable, quiescent (), i. e. silent, unpronounced. The former character it of course uniformly sustains,

rim.

(a) At the beginning of words, as 3 levâv, in derō, D¬?? devâ

(b) In the middle of words after another Sheva, as p” yiqtelu, na

miz-behha.

(c) Under a Dageshed letter (§ 12.), as p git-telu, a lib. bekem. This is evidently equivalent to the foregoing, as such letter is to be considered as reduplicated, and each accompanied with

5. In other instances the character of Sheva as vocal or silent depends upon its peculiar relation to the syllable, which is less easy to be determined. The only question in any case is, whether it begins or ends a syllable. If the former, it is vocal; if the latter, silent. The solution of this point depends, as a general rule, upon the quantity of the preceding vowel. If the vowel be short, the Sheva is silent and the syllable of course mixed, as opp mag-til, 2 nil-mădh. If the vowel be long, the previous syllable being already complete, the Sheva goes to the succeeding one, and becomes vocal, just as at the beginning of a word, as qâ-telu, ♫ të-ledhĩ. This effect however is reversed whenever the tone accent falls upon such a long vowel, it being an invariable rule in Hebrew, that a long vowel with the tone should make with the ensuing Sheva a mixed syllable, as shov-nah, pa tiq-tōl-nâh. The fact of accentuation alone here renders the syllable mixed, nor without a knowledge of this fact could the learner determine whether in the above cases the correct pronunciation were shōv-nâh, tĩq-tōl-nâh, or shō-venâh, tìq-tolenah. But there is usually no difficulty in ascertaining the tone-syllable of words, and consequently little or none in determining the true character of the Sheva. On the tone see § 21. 6. It is to be remarked, however, that the line of distinction which we, in common with most grammarians, have drawn above between vocal and silent Sheva, is not in fact always so broad as

* A moveable letter is one which is pronounced. The term is used to distinguish such letters from those that are from any cause quiescent. A moveable Sheva is the same as a vocal Sheva.

might be inferred from our statement. A multitude of cases occur in which the Sheva cannot in strict propriety be considered as either fully vocal or silent; as for instance, where a vowelless consonant, and therefore one requiring Sheva, belongs neither to the preceeding nor to the succeeding syllable entirely, but floats, as it were, between them both. Thus in the pronunciation is not properly yăl-dhë, nor ya-ledhë, but rather yalledhe. So n bikk' thov, not bik-thōv. In like manner, such cases as hallelu,

hinn'ni are doubtless to be resolved on the same principle, though generally treated as having Dagesh forte (§ 12. 2.) implied. This kind of Sheva, which is of indispensable importance in explaining the peculiarities of Dagesh lene (§ 12. 7.), may be very appropriately termed floating Sheva, or Sheva medial, and the imperfectly mixed syllable which it forms, a half-mixed or half-shut syllable. The cases, however, in which such syllables arise, can be learned only from the principles of formation as detailed § 12. 10. a.

7. Those compound syllables whose final consonant is identical with the first consonant of the succeeding syllable, like p qāl-lũ, □ặp qũl-lâm, iby tsil-lō, are marked by several peculiarities which require to be distinctly stated. As the sound arising from such a concurrence of letters is little more than a thickening or prolongation of the sound of one of them, it was doubtless deemed sufficient to express but one in writing. It will be evident, moreover, upon consideration, that when the two consonants only produce the same sound prolonged, the vowel is not so compressed as before two differing consonants which clash with one another. The sound of Pattah, for instance, is more open and free in 13 găl-lī-nũ than it is in băn-tâ, that is to say, the voice more easily dwells longer on the vowel in the former than in the latter. This is made still clearer from the fact, that in several instances, from the natural great protraction of the previous vowel, an adventitious letter has actually intruded itself, and prevented the usual reduplication, as for ip, a prickly weed, Hos. 9. 6, for concubine, Judg. 19. 1, 2, hangin for Damascus. But it is

threshing sledge, 1 Chr. 21, 23, pr for p

by no means uniformly the case that the same consonants coming together do thus coalesce in sound, for in order to render such a reduplication distinctly audible, a peculiar and appropriate condition of the sounds themselves is necessary. It is only possible for them to unite when there is not an immutable long vowel either between or before the two sounds to keep them apart, as is

Still less is the effect possible if the first of these מֶסוֹבְבוֹת וּסְבוּבִים the case in

consonants is in itself double, since its vowel is then as firmly supported as if it were long, as 33. As a general rule, the reduplication is most easy when the letters stand between two distinct vowels; and firm consonants are more capable of it than weak or liquid ones, and the unaspirated than the aspirated.