173–74. Used Prevailingly in Divine Threats and Promises. 196. 197. N7 and Similar Compounds with Perfect Denoting Future Action. With Final Connotation. 198-99. With Perfect Denoting Past Action. 1. Since there are two relatives in Hebrew, N and w, of similar grammatical usage, it is quite natural that grammarians have sought to trace them to a common origin. The older attempts, referred to by Sperling,' to trace both to verbal roots are so manifestly arbitrary and artificial that we shall not waste time in mentioning or discussing them. 2. In recent times other theories have been offered. According to some scholars and look to a common pronominal root, while others hold that there is no etymological relation between the two, only being regarded as pronominal in character, while N is derived from a substantive. 3. Among those again who maintain the pronominal derivation of both particles there is no agreement as to how the two distinct forms arose. Some scholars hold that N is the original form of which is said to be a mutilated fragment. Olshausen says, for example, that the form is a remnant of N by the elision of N and the assimilation of to the consonant of the following word.2 So also Gesenius, who calls With this a forma decurtata of. 1 Die nota relationis im Hebräischen (Leipzig, 1876). 2 Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache (Braunschweig, 1861), p. 439. 3 Thesaurus, s.v. 7 view may be classed the theory of Ewald, inasmuch as he also assigns the priority to N, although he gives his own explanation of the origin of this form. In the opinion of this great scholar is made up of three demonstrative elements, (=, 7, 1), 5, and N, resulting in the form N, analogous to the Arabic. From this arose the form through the hardening of the, while the is supposed to be due to the assimilation of and the rejection 1.א of 4. Others, as indicated, reverse the relation between the two particles, assigning the priority to , of which the form N is supposed to be an extended formation. Sperling devotes many pages to the elaboration of his theory of a progressive development from an original through the Phoenician N() to the final in Hebrew. He, too, in common with Ewald, holds that is due to the hardening of in to. Thus, while accepting the Ewaldian form, Sperling contends that this represents the final stage in the development of , while it is the original groundform according to Ewald. König, in the first volume of his elaborate grammar, favored the view of Boettcher, which derives both and ¬WN from an original S, and regards & as merely prosthetic.2 In the second volume of the same work, however, he abandoned this view in favor of an original b, laying, in common with Sperling, great stress on the importance of the Phoenician N as the connecting link between and N. Substantially the same view is held by Baumann, Philippi" ("das wird demnach gelautet haben"), and others. 4 5. Boettcher, as already stated, takes a different position. Regarding Ewald's N as being artificially constructed (künstlich konstruiert), he substituted for it the simpler, analogous to , as the ground-form both of and of N, the being prosthetic. Wright, while not taking a definite position, inclines toward 1 Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache, 8. Ausg. (Göttingen, 1870), § 1816. ? Historisch-krit. Lehrgeb. der hebr. Sprache (Leipzig, 1881), I, 140. Op. cit., II, 323 f. 4 Hebräische Relativsätze (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 42 f. Status constructus im Hebräischen (Weimar, 1871), pp. 72 f. the views of Ewald or Boettcher, because he prefers to "seek the origin of the relative pronoun somewhere in the region of the demonstratives." 6. The difficulties with which these views are encumbered have led many scholars to regard the attempt to trace the two Hebrew relatives to a common etymological source as futile. They deny that there is any etymological relationship between them, the longer particle being in their opinion originally a substantive signifying place, the Hebrew equivalent of the Assyrian aš ru, the Arabic the Aramaic, 2. Among the defenders of the substantive origin of N are Fleischer, Mühlau, Friedrich Delitzsch,3 Hommel, Stade5 (who though assuming the substantive character of still considers as a remnant of the longer particle), W. R. Harper, Kraetzschmar, Zimmern, and, recently, Brockelmann." And the writer of this thesis will endeavor to show in the following pages that this is the only tenable theory. On the other hand, the grammar of Gesenius-Kautzsch suspends its judgment with regard to the matter ("Die Etymologie ist noch immer streitig," § 138). 4 2 b) THEORY OF THE COMMON PRONOMINAL ORIGIN OF N AND EXAMINED 7. Let us now examine the various views represented by those scholars who seek to uphold the common pronominal derivation of the two particles. In general, it may be said at the outset that there is little or no noticeable resemblance between N and w beyond the bare fact that the letter forms an element in N. 1 Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Cambridge University Press, 1890), p. 118. 2 Cf. Boettcher, op. cit., II, 79, note. Prolegomena (Leipzig, 1886), p. 44, note. 4 ZDMG, XXXII, 100 f. 5 Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache (Leipzig, 1879), p. 133. Elements of Hebrew (Scribner, 1906), p. 63. 7 "The Origin of the nota relationis in Hebrew," Hebraica, VI (1890), 296 f. Vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (Berlin, 1898), p. 77. 'Ibid. (Berlin, 1908), § 109 g and ß. This alone might seem to preclude the possibility of finding a common origin for both by any other than artificial combinations. However, it is a fact well known to linguistic science that words are often mutilated and disfigured beyond immediate recognition in the course of their history. Assuming then the priority of, there may, after all, be no a priori reason why should not be a mere remnant of the earlier complete form, though such a radical change in the physiognomy of a word would certainly represent about the utmost limit in the process of phonetic decay. But similar changes have actually occurred in other languages. We can hardly recognize the Low Latin aetaticum in the English word "age," nor the Latin demonstrative ille in the enclitical of the Roumanian homul (homo ille), yet they belong etymologically together. However, such phenomena do not warrant the assumption that the same thing has happened with N, for the reason that meets us simultaneously with, already in the earlier stages of the language, whereas the examples referred to above represent the result of a long process of decay, the shorter forms not being found side by side with the full and unimpaired originals. We are, of course, well aware that is employed much more extensively in the later literature than in the earlier. But the fact remains that it is also found, though with less frequency, in the earlier writings, e.g., in the song of Deborah, which is by many regarded as the oldest monument of biblical Hebrew. Nor need we doubt that the pronominal element in such compound names as (Exod. 6:21); perhaps also in D is contained as an (Gen. 4:18), and (Gen. 6:3). These facts are very troublesome for the theory of common origin. 8. Moreover, a glance at the corresponding forms in other Semitic languages clearly shows that is etymologically independent of N. It is now generally agreed that all undoubted Semitic relatives1 (originally demonstratives) are traceable to the two demonstrative roots ta and da, the "lisped dentals forming part of the 'protosemitic' stock of sounds preserved in Arabic alone." From da are derived the Ethiopie H, Syriac, Aramaic 7, and the Arabic .is not included here אשר 1 2 Wright, Comparative Grammar, p. 55. |