Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
STOUPS . Only in these See also:southern dialects do we find, and that under forms substantially identical, the important innovation known as the " broken plurals," consisting in the employment of certain forms, denoting abstracts, for the expression of plurals. They agree, moreover, in employing a See also:peculiar development of the verbal See also:root, formed by inserting an a between the first and second radicals (gatala, tagatala), in using the vowel a before the third See also:radical in all active perfects—for example, (h)aqtala, gattala, instead of the haqtil, gattil of the See also:northern dialects—and in many other grammatical phenomena. This is not at all contradicted by the fact that certain aspirated dentals of Arabic (th, dh, z) are replaced in Ethiopic, as in See also:Hebrew and See also:Assyrian, by pure sibilants—that is, s (Hebrew and Assyrian sh), z whereas in Aramaic they are replaced by See also:simple dentals (t, d, t), which seem to come closer to the Arabic sounds. Still, after the separation of the northern and the southern See also:groups, we suppose, the Semitic See also:languages possessed all these sounds, as the Arabic does, but afterwards simplified them, for the most See also:part, in one direction or the other. Hence there resulted, as it were by See also:chance, occasional similarities. Even in many See also:modern Arabic dialects th, dh become t, d.' Ethiopic, moreover, has kept d, the most peculiar of Arabic sounds, distinct from s, whereas Aramaic has confounded it with the guttural 'See also:ain, and Hebrew and Assyrian with s. It is therefore evident that all these languages once possessed the consonant in question as a distinct one. One See also:sound, See also:sin, appears only in Hebrew, in Phoenician, and in the older Aramaic. It must originally have been pronounced very like sh, since it is represented in See also:writing by the same See also:character; in later times it was changed into an See also:ordinary s. Assyrian does not distinguish it from sh .2 The See also:division of the Semitic languages into the northern See also:group and the southern is- therefore justified by facts. Even if we were to discover really important grammatical phenomena in which one of the southern dialects agreed with the northern, or See also:vice versa, and that in cases where such phenomena could not be regarded either as remnants of See also:primitive Semitic usage or as instances of parallel but See also:independent development, we ought to remember that the division of the two groups was not necessarily a sudden and instantaneous occurrence, that even after the separation intercourse may have been carried on between the various tribes who spoke kindred dialects and were therefore still able to understand one another, and that intermediate dialects may once have existed, perhaps such as were in use ' In words borrowed from the See also:literary See also:language, s, z, habitually appear in See also:place of th, dh. 2 It is not quite certain whether all the Semitic languages originally had the hardest of the gutturals gh and kh in exactly the same places that they occupy in Arabic. In the See also:case of kh we may assume so; since not only Arabic here agrees with Ethiopic, but Assyrian, also, has a particular guttural in roots which in Arabic have kh. But it would appear that in Hebrew and Aramaic the distinction between gh and 'ayin, between kh and h was often different from what it is in Arabic.amongst tribes who came into contact sometimes with the agricultural See also:population of the See also:north and sometimes with the nomads of the See also:south (see below). All this is purely hypothetical, whereas the division between the northern and the southern Semitic languages is a recognized fact. It is perfectly certain, moreover, that Hebraeo-Phoenician and Aramaic are closely related with each other, and See also:form a group of their own, distinct even from Assyrian. In fact, Assyrian seems to be so completely sui generis that we should be well advised to See also:separate it from all the cognate languages, as an independent See also:scion of proto-Semitic. We should classify these languages consequently in the following See also:order: (I) Assyrian; (2) the remaining Semitic languages, viz.: A. Hebraeo-Phoenician and Aramaic, B. the southern Semitic See also:tongues. Although we cannot deny that there may formerly have existed Semitic languages quite distinct from those with which we are acquainted, yet that such was actually the case cannot be proved. Nor is there any See also:reason to think that the domain of the Semitic languages ever extended very far beyond its See also:present limits. Some See also:time ago many scholars believed that they were once spoken in See also:Asia See also:Minor and even in See also:Europe, but, except in the Phoenician colonies, this notion rested upon no solid See also:proof. It cannot be argued with any See also:great degree of plausibility that even the Cilicians, who from a very See also:early See also:period held See also:constant intercourse with the Syrians and the Phoenicians, spoke a Semitic language. Assyrian. See also:Long before there existed any other Semitic culture, there flourished on the See also:Lower See also:Euphrates a See also:sister language which has been preserved to us in the See also:cuneiform See also:inscriptions. It is usually called the Assyrian, after the name of the See also:country where the first and most important excavations were made; but the See also:term " Babylonian " would be more correct, as See also:Babylon was the birthplace of this language and of the See also:civilization to which it belonged. Certain Babylonian inscriptions go back to the See also:fourth See also:millennium before our era; but the great See also:mass of these cuneiform inscriptions date from between Iwo and 500 B.C. Assyrian differs in many respects from all the cognate languages. The See also:ancient perfect has wholly disappeared, or See also:left but few traces, and the gutturals, with the exception of the hard kh, Assyrian. have been smoothed down to a degree which is only paralleled in modern Aramaic dialects. So at least it would appear from the writing, or rather from the manner in which Assyriologists transcribe it. The Babylonian form See also:bel (occurring in Isa. )lvi. I ; See also:Jet. I. 2 and li. 44—passages all belonging to the 6th See also:century B.C., and in many other ancient monuments), the name of the See also:god who was originally called ba'l, is a See also:confirmation of this; but, on the other See also:hand, the name of the country where Babylon was situated, viz. Shin'ar, and that of a Babylonian god, 'Anammelek (2 See also:Kings xvii. 31), as well as those of the tribes Sho'a and Qo'a (Ezek. See also:xxiii. 23) who inhabited the Assyrio-Babylonian territory, seem to militate against this theory, as they are spelt in the Old Testament with `ain. So, too, is the biblico-Aramaic word te'em, ta'am, " order," " See also:decree," which is derived from the Assyrian; and we may also compare some Babylonian See also:local names, e.g. 'Anat. H is found in the name of the See also:town See also:Hit, and in the name of a See also:man, written in Aramaic characters but formed quite in the Babylonian manner, Hadadnadinakh. Thus the Babylonians may have pronounced some gutturals, though they did not write them, precisely as the See also:Persian cuneiform inscriptions omit many h's, which, no doubt, were audible. The Assyrian See also:system of writing is so complicated, and, in spite of its vast apparatus, is so imperfect an See also:instrument for the accurate See also:representation of sounds, that we are hardly yet See also:bound to regard the transcriptions of contemporary Assyriologists as being in all points of detail the final dictum of See also:science. However this may be, the present writer does not feel able to speak at greater length upon Assyrian. See also:Attention may, however, be called to the fact, that, as might have been expected from the important role played by the Babylonians and Assyrians in the See also:history of civilization and of peoples, many words passed over from their language into Hebrew and, more especially, into Aramaic, some of which attained a still wider See also:vogue.3 (Compare the See also:article CUNEIFORM.) Hebrew. Hebrew and Phoenician are but dialects of one and the same language. It is only as the language of the See also:people of See also:Israel that Hebrew can be known with any precision. Since in the Old 2 So the Assyrian mashkenu was adopted into Hebrew and Aramaic as misken; from the Aramaic it was borrowed by Arabic and Ethiopic (misken), and from Arabic it found its way into the See also:Romance languages (mesquinho, mezquino, meschind, mesquin). Lost Semitic languages. Testament a few of the neighbouring peoples are represented as being descended from See also:Eber, the eponym of the See also:Hebrews, that is, are regarded as nearly related to the latter, it was natural to suppose that they likewise spoke Hebrew—a supposition which, at least in the case of the See also:Moa'bites, has been fully confirmed by the See also:discovery of the Mesha inscription (date, soon after 900 B.C.). The language of this inscription scarcely differs from that of the Old Testament; the only important distinction is the occurrence of a reflexive form (with t after the first radical), which appears also in Arabic and Assyrian. We may remark in passing that the See also:style of this inscription is quite that of the Old Testament, and enables us to maintain with certainty that a similar See also:historical literature existed amongst the Moabites. But it must be remembered that ancient Semitic inscriptions exhibit, in a sense, nothing but the See also:skeleton of the language, since they do not See also:express the vowels at all, or do so only in certain cases; still less do they indicate other phonetic modifications, such as the doubling of consonants, &c. It is therefore very possible that to the See also:ear the language of See also:Moab seemed to differ considerably from that of the Judaeans. The Mesha inscription is the only non-Israelite source from which any knowledge of ancient Hebrew can be obtained. Still several Ancient Hebrew words occur even in the Tellel-Amarna letters, dis-Hebrew. covered in See also:Egypt, and written in the Babylonian language by princes of See also:Palestine during the second millennium B.C. They clearly show that the " Hebrew " language existed in Palestine even before the See also:migration of the Israelites into See also:Canaan. Some fragments in the Old Testament belong to the last centuries of the second millennium before our era—particularly the See also:song of See also:Deborah (See also:Judges v.), a document which, in spite of its many obscurities in matters of detail, throws much See also:light on the See also:condition of the Israelites at the time when the Canaanites were still contending with them for the See also:possession of the country. The first rise of an historical literature may very probably date from before the See also:establishment of the See also:monarchy. Various portions of the Old Testament belong to the time of the earlier kings; but it was under the later kings that a great part of extant Hebrew literature came into shape. To this See also:age also belong the See also:Gezer and the Siloam inscriptions and a daily increasing number of See also:seals and gems bearing the names of Israelites. The Hebrew language is thus known to us from a very ancient period. But we are far from being acquainted with its real phonetic Pronun- condition in the time of See also:David or See also:Isaiah. For, much as ciation. we owe to the labours of the later Jewish See also:schools, which with See also:infinite care fixed the See also:pronunciation of the sacred See also:text by adding vowels and other signs, it is evident that even at the best they could only represent the pronunciation of the language in its latest See also:stage, not that of very early ages. Besides, their See also:object was not to exhibit Hebrew simply as it was, but to show how it should be read in the See also:solemn See also:chant of the See also:synagogue. Accordingly, the pronunciation of the older period may have differed considerably from that represented by the See also:punctuation. Such See also:differences are now and then indicated by the customary spelling of the ancient texts,I and sometimes the See also:orthography is directly at variance with the punctuation.' In a few rare cases we may derive help from the somewhat older tradition contained in the representation of Hebrew words and proper names by See also:Greek letters, especially in the ancient Alexandrine See also:translation of the See also:Bible (the so-called See also:Septuagint). It is of particular importance to remark that this older tradition still retains an See also:original a in many cases where the punctuation has the later i or e. We have examined this point somewhat in detail, in order to contradict the false but ever-recurring notion that the ordinary text of the Bible represents without any essential modification the pronunciation of ancient Hebrew, whereas in reality it expresses (in a very instructive and careful manner, it is true) only its latest development, and that for the purpose of solemn public recitation. A clear trace of dialectal differences within Israel is found in Judges xii. 6, which shows that the ancient Ephraimites pronounced samek instead of shin.
The destruction of the Judaean See also:kingdom dealt a heavy See also:blow to the Hebrew language. But it is going too far to suppose that it Period of was altogether banished from ordinary See also:life at the time See also:exile is of the exile, and that Aramaic came into use among all Babyloa. the See also:Jews. In the See also:East even small communities, especially
if they form a religious See also:body, often cling persistently to their See also:mother-See also:tongue, though they may be surrounded by a population of See also:alien speech; and such was probably the case with the Jews in Babylonia. See HEBREW LANGUAGE. Even so See also:late as the time of See also:Ezra, Hebrew was in all See also:probability the ordinary language of the new community. In Neh. xiii. 24 we find a complaint that the See also:children of Jews by wives from Ashdod and other places spoke See also:half in the " Jewish " language and half in the language of Ashdod, or whatever else may have been the tongue of their mothers. No one
I For example, we may conclude with tolerable certainty, from the presence and See also:absence of the vowel-letters y and w, that in older times the accented e and o were not pronounced long, and that, on the other hand, the diphthongs au and ai were used for the later o and e.
2 The very first word of the Bible contains an Aleph (spiritus lenis), which is required by See also:etymology and was once audible, but which the pronunciation represented by the point-system ignores.can suppose that See also:Nehemiah would have been particularly zealous that the children of Jews should speak an Aramaic See also:dialect with correctness. He no doubt refers to Hebrew as it was then spoken—a stage in its development of which .Nehemiah's own See also:work gives a very See also:fair See also:idea.
After the time of See also: Meanwhile the See also:principal language Hebrew of See also:Syria and the neighbouring countries, Aramaic, which supplanted had already become the language of the older Jewish colonies in Egypt (see below), and the See also:influence of which Aramaic. may be perceived even in some pre-exilic writings, began to spread more and more among the Jews of Palestine. Hebrew gradually ceased to be the language of the people and became that of See also:religion and the schools. The See also:book of See also:Daniel, written in 167 or 166 B.C., begins in Hebrew, then suddenly passes into Aramaic, and ends again in Hebrew. Similarly the redactor of Ezra (or more correctly of the See also:Chronicles, of which Ezra and Nehemiah form the conclusion) borrows large portions from an Aramaic work, in most cases without translating them into Hebrew. No reason can be assigned for the use of Aramaic in Jewish See also:works intended primarily for See also:Jerusalem, unless it were already the dominant speech, whilst, on the other hand, it was very natural for a pious See also:Jew to write in the ancient " See also:holy " language even after it had ceased to be spoken. See also:Esther, See also:Ecclesiastes, and a few See also:Psalms, which belong to the 3rd and 2nd centuries before our era, are indeed written in Hebrew, but are so strongly tinctured by the Aramaic influence as to prove that the writers usually spoke Aramaic. It is certain, of course, that there were still many Jews capable both of writing and speaking Hebrew. So the Book of Sirach, composed shortly after 200 B.C., was written in an almost absolutely pure Hebrew, as is proved by the portions of the original, amounting to about two-thirds of the whole, which have come to light in our See also:day. But we are not likely to be far wrong in saying that in the Maccabean age Hebrew had died out among the Jews as a current popular language, and there is nothing to show that it survived longer among any of the neighbouring peoples. But in the last period of the history of Jerusalem, and still more after the destruction of the See also:city by See also:Titus, the Jewish schools played so important a part that the life of the Hebrew language was in a manner prolonged, The lectures and discussions of the learned were carried on in that tongue. We have very extensive specimens of this more modern Hebrew in the Mishnah and other works, and scattered pieces throughout both Talmuds. But, just as the " classical See also:Sanskrit, which has been spoken and written by the Brahmans during the last twenty-five centuries, differs considerably from the language which was once in use among the people, so this " language of the learned " diverges in many respects from the " holy language "; and this distinction is one of which the rabbis were perfectly conscious. The " language of the learned " borrows a great part of its vocabulary from Aramaic,3 and this exercises a strong influence upon the grammatical forms. The See also:grammar is perceptibly modified by the peculiar style of these writings, which for the most part treat of legal and See also:ritual questions in a strangely laconic and pointed manner. But, large as is the proportion of See also:foreign words and artificial as this language is, it contains a considerable number of purely Hebrew elements which by chance do not appear in the Old Testament. Although we may generally assume, in the case of a word occurring in the Mishnah but not found in the Old Testament, that it is borrowed from Aramaic, there are several words of this class which, by their radical consonant,, prove themselves to be genuine Hebrew. And' even some grammatical phenomena of this language are to be regarded as a genuine development of Hebrew, though they are unknown to earlier Hebrew speech. From the beginning of the See also:middle ages down to our own times the Jews have produced an enormous mass of writings in Hebrew, sometimes closely following the language of the Bible, See also:medieval sometimes that of the Mishnah, sometimes introducing aad in a perfectly inorganic manner a great quantity of Modern Aramaic forms, and occasionally imitating the Arabic Hebrew. style. The study of these See also:variations has but little See also:interest for the linguist, since they are nothing but a purely artificial See also:imitation, dependent upon the greater or less skill of the individual. The language of the Mishnah stands in much closer connexion with real life, and has a definite raison d'etre; all later Hebrew is to be classed with medieval and modern Latin. The See also:dream of some Zionists, that Hebrew—a would-be Hebrew, that is to say—will again become a living, popular language in Palestine, has still less prospect of realization than their See also:vision of a restored Jewish See also:empire in the Holy See also:Land. Much Hebrew also was written in the middle ages by the hostile brethren of the Jews, the See also:Samaritans; but for the student of language these productions have, at the most, the See also:charm attaching to curiosities. 3 It is a characteristic feature that " my See also:father" and " my mother " are here expressed by purely Aramaic forms. Even the learned did not wish to See also:call their " papas " and " mammas " by any other names than those to which they had been accustomed in See also:infancy. The ancient Hebrew language, especially in the See also:matter of syntax, has an essentially primitive character. Parataxis of sentences Character prevails over hypotaxis to a greater extent than in any Ch ancient other literary Semitic language with which we are well Henw. acquainted. The favourite method is to See also:link sentences together by means of a simple "and." There is a great lack of particles to express with clearness the more subtle connexion of ideas. The use of the verbal tenses is in a great measure deter-See also:mined by the See also:imagination, which regards things unaccomplished as accomplished, and the past as still present. There are but few words or inflexions to indicate slight modifications of meaning, though in ancient times the language may perhaps have distinguished certain moods of the verb somewhat more plainly than the present punctuation does. But in any case this language was far less suited for the definite expression of studied thought, and less suited still for the treatment of abstract subjects, than for See also:poetry. We must remember, however, that as long as Hebrew was a living language it never had to be used for the expression of the abstract. Had it lived somewhat longer it might very possibly have learnt to adapt itself better to the formulating of systematic conceptions. The only book in the Old Testament which attempts to grapple with an abstract subject in See also:plain See also:prose—namely, Ecclesiastes—See also:dates from a time when Hebrew was dying out or was already dead. That the gifted author does not always succeed in giving clear expression to his ideas is partly due to the fact that the language had never been employed for any scientific purposes whatsoever. With regard to grammatical forms, Hebrew has lost much that is still preserved in Arabic; but the greater richness of Arabic is in part the result of later development. The vocabulary of the Hebrew language is, as we have said, known but imperfectly. The Old Testament is no very large work; vit contains, moreover, many repetitions, and a great Vocabu- oc number of pieces which are of little use to the lexicolary. grapher. On the other hand, much may be derived from certain poetical books, such as See also:Job.' The numerous Sirat; X€yoseva are a sufficient proof that many more words existed than appear in the Old Testament, the writers of which never had occasion to use them. Were we in possession of the,whole Hebrew vocabulary in the time of See also:Jeremiah, for example, we should be far better able to determine the relation in which Hebrew stands to the other Semitic languages, the Old Testament would be far more intelligible to us, and it would be very much easier to detect the numerous corrupt passages in our text. Phoenician. The Phoenician dialect closely resembles Hebrew, and is known to us from only one See also:authentic source, namely, inscriptions, some of Phoeec- which date from about 600 B.C. or earlier; but the great See also:clan. mass of them begin with the end of the 5th century before our era. These inscriptions"-- we owe to the Phoenicians of the mother-country and the neighbouring regions (See also:Cyprus, Egypt and See also:Greece), as well as to the Phoenicians of See also:Africa, especially See also:Carthage. Inscriptions are, however, a very insufficient means for obtaining the knowledge of a language. The number of subjects treated in them is not large; many of the most important grammatical forms and many of the words most used in ordinary life do not occur. Moreover, the " See also:lapidary style " is often very hard to understand. The repetition of obscure phrases, in the same connexion, in several inscriptions does not help to make them more intelligible. Of what use is it to us that, for instance, thousands of Carthaginian inscriptions begin with the very same incomprehensible See also:dedication to two divinities? The difficulty of See also:interpretation is greatly increased by the fact that single words are very seldom separated from one another, and that vowel-letters are used extremely sparingly. We therefore come but too often upon very ambiguous groups of letters. In spite of this, our knowledge of Phoenician has made considerable progress of late. Some assistance is also got from Greek and Latin writers, who cite not only many Phoenician proper names, but single Phoenician words: See also:Plautus in particular inserts in the Poenulus whole passages in Punic, some of which are accompanied by a Latin translation. This source of in-formation must, however, be used with great caution. It was not the object of Plautus to exhibit the Punic language with precision, a task for which the Latin See also:alphabet is but See also:ill adapted, but only to make the populace laugh at the See also:jargon of the hated Carthaginians. Moreover, he had to force the Punic words into Latin senarii; and finally the text, being unintelligible to copyists, is terribly corrupt. Much ingenuity has been wasted on the Punic of Plautus; but the passage yields valuable results to cautious investigation which does not try to explain too much.' In its grammar Phoenician closely resembles Hebrew. In both dialects the consonants are the same, often in contrast to Aramaic i The Siloam inscription affords us one new word, the original of Sirach some others. In the Gezer inscription there seem to be some new words of dubious interpretation. z The scattered materials are being collected in the Corpus inscriptionum Semiticarum of the See also:Paris See also:Academy. ' See Gildemeister, in See also:Ritschl's Plautus (vol. ii. fasc. v., See also:Leipzig, 1884).and other cognate languages.' As to vowels, Phoenician seems to diverge rather more from Hebrew. The connecting of clauses is scarcely carried farther in the former language than in the latter. A slight See also:attempt to define the tenses more sharply appears once at least in the joining of kan (fuit) with a perfect, to express See also:complete accomplishment (or the pluperfect)." One important difference is that the use of wd,w conversive with the imperfect—so See also:common in Hebrew and in the inscription of Mesha—is wanting in Phoenician. The vocabulary of the language is very like that of Hebrew, but words rare in Hebrew are often common in Phoenician. For instance, " to do " is in Phoenician not 'as a but pa`al (the Arabic fa`See also:ala), which in Hebrew occurs only in poetry and elevated language. " See also:Gold " is not (zahab as in most Semitic languages), but harts (Assyrian huras), which is used occasionally in Hebrew poetry. Traces of dialectical distinctions have been found in the great inscription of Byblus, the inhabitants of which seem to be distinguished from the See also:rest of the Phoenicians in Josh. xiii. 5 (and i Kings v. 32? [A.V. v. i8]). It is probable that various differences between the language of the mother-country and that of the See also:African colonies arose at an early date, but our materials do not enable us to come to any definite conclusion on this point. It is tolerably certain that the language of Carthage possessed many dull vowels which were See also:strange to Greek and Latin, so that the manner in which they are reproduced in proper names by the Greeks and See also:Romans shows great diversity. In the later African inscriptions there appear certain phonetic changes, especially in consequence of the softening of the gutturals—changes which show themselves yet more plainly in the so-called Neo-Punic inscriptions (beginning with the 1st, if not the 2nd, century before our era). In these the gutturals, which had lost their real sound, are frequently interchanged in writing: and other modifications may also be perceived. Unfortunately the Neo-Punic inscriptions are written in such a debased indistinct character that it is often impossible to discover with certainty the real form of the words. This dialect was still spoken about 400, and perhaps long afterwards, in those districts of North Africa which had once belonged to Carthage. It would seem that in the mother-country the Phoenician language withstood the encroachment of Greek on the one hand and of Aramaic on the other somewhat longer than Hebrew did.
Aramaic.
Aramaic is nearly related to Hebraeo-Phoenician; but there is nevertheless a See also:sharp See also:line of demarcation between the two groups. Of its original See also:home nothing certain is known. In the Old Geo-Testament " See also:Aram " appears at an early period as a l designation of certain districts in Syria (" Aram of gxtehiraphicaof See also:Damascus," &c.) and in See also:Mesopotamia (" Aram of the Two exte t See also:Rivers "). The language of the Aramaeans gradually spread far and wide, and occupied all Syria, both those regions which were before in the possession of the Kheta, probably a non-Semitic people, and those which were most likely inhabited by Canaanite tribes; last of all, Palestine became Aramaized. Towards the east this language was spoken on the Euphrates, and throughout' the districts of the See also:Tigris south and See also:west of the Armenian and Kurdish mountains; the See also:province in which the capitals of the Arsacids and the Sassanids were situated was called " the country of the Aramaeans." In Babylonia and See also:Assyria a large, or perhaps the larger, portion of the population were most probably Aramaeans, even at a very early date, whilst Assyrian was the language of the See also:government.
The See also:oldest extant Aramaic documents consist of inscriptions on monuments and on seals, weights and gems. Latterly, a very remarkable inscription of a See also: The language of all these inscriptions is Aramaic, though in certain places it agrees with Hebrew. It is especially surprising that in the case of the Arabic sounds th, dh, z, they have not t, d, t,—as Aramaic generally has,—but sh, z, s, as is the See also:rule in Hebrew and Assyrian. It is extremely strange, however, that, in place of the Arabic d, 'See also:air does not appear, as elsewhere in Aramaic, nor yet s as in Hebrew and Assyrian,—and, in isolated cases, even in Aramaic,—but q. These phenomena may be observed on several smaller monuments. We have no entirely satisfactory explanation at our disposal: perhaps Assyrian influence has been at work. Individual monuments prove, however, that the phonetic system of See also:general Aramaic was already in existence ' At an early period the Phoenician pronunciation may have distinguished a greater number of original consonants than are distinguished in writing. It is at least remarkable that the Greeks render the name of the city of Sur (Hebrew $or), which must origin-ally have been pronounced Thurr, with a r (Tfpos), and the name of See also:Sidon (where the radicals runs through all the Semitic languages, with a o (1i5mv). Distinctions of this See also:kind, justified by etymology, have perhaps been obscured in Hebrew by the imperfection of the alphabet. In the case of sin and shin this can be positively proved. "Kate nadar, " had vowed," Idal. 5 (C.I.S. Phoen. No. 93). ' The consonants of his name are ZKR; the pronunciation, perhaps, was Zakkiir. in the period of our inscriptions: it would seem, therefore, that we must assume a dialectical cleavage, perhaps originated by the influence of Hebrew or Canaanean. Particularly remarkable is the use of the waw consecutivum in the inscriptions of the king of Hamath hitherto only known from Hebrew. Traces of the divergent phonetic treatment are found in the Hellenistic era, and—here and there—even later. Still, at the most, these can scarcely be more than conscious archaisms,—a view which is particularly corroborated by the fact, that, in certain Aramaic documents of the Persian period, both forms are used interchangeably, e.g. argil, " See also:earth," and ar'a. The latter orthography doubtless represents the actual pronunciation of the writer. It is to be observed, however, that zi for di, held its ground with especial tenacity as a form of the relative pronoun and in other capacities. In the Persian period Aramaic was the See also:official language of the provinces west of the Euphrates; and this explains the fact that coins which were struck by See also:governors and See also:vassal princes in Asia Minor, and of which the See also:stamp was in some cases the work of skilled Greek artists, See also:bear Aramaic inscriptions, whilst those of other coins are Greek. This, of course, does not prove that Aramaic was ever spoken in Asia Minor and as far north as See also:Sinope and the See also:Hellespont. In Egypt some Aramaic inscriptions have been found of the Persian period, one bearing the date of the fourth See also:year of See also:Xerxes (482 B.C.). We possessed, even before this, a few official documents and other written pieces in Aramaic, inscribed upon See also:papyrus, and dating from this period, but unfortunately in a very dilapidated condition. Latterly, however, we have had a whole See also:series of similar documents of the 5th century B.C., in a very See also:good See also:state of preservation, bearing upon the affairs of Jewish colonists in the far south of Egypt. In that country, where the native writing was so formidable to the learner, the Aramaic language and script may well have appeared peculiarly serviceable. Thus they were employed, and frequently, even by indigenous Egyptians. But we need not doubt that, in Egypt, Aramaic was also spoken by many who had migrated from Syria; and this must be assumed to have been the case with the Jewish colonists mentioned. The fact is now established that these Jews who had come to Egypt before the Persian period were military colonists, and were often referred to in documents as " Aramaeans." According to Deut. xvii. 16, the kings of See also:Judah sold their subjects to the kings of Egypt, who at that time obtained n6mbers of warriors from foreign countries, instead of employing their own unwarlike subjects. The Syrian kings also sent soldiers to Egypt, from whom the Jews learned Aramaic. That this was used not only as an official language, but also as a See also:vernacular, is shown by the fact that fragments of ordinary speech are found in Judaeo-Aramaic papyri. That the See also:Egyptian-Aramaic documents exhibit traces of Hebrew and Phoenician influence is a matter for no surprise. Probably the preference shown by the Persians for Aramaic originated under the Assyrian empire, in which a very large proportion of the population spoke Aramaic, and in which this language would naturally occupy a more important position than it did under the Persians. We therefore understand why it was taken for granted that a great Assyrian official could speak Aramaic (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isa. See also:xxxvi. II), and for the same reason the dignitaries of Judah appear to have learned the language (ibid.), namely, in order to communicate with the Assyrians. The See also:short dominion of the Chaldacans very probably strengthened this preponderance of Aramaic. A few ancient Aramaic inscriptions have been discovered far within the limits of See also:Arabia, in the See also:palm See also:oasis of Teima (in the north of the Ilijaz); the oldest and by far the most important of these was very likely made before the Persian period. We may presume that Aramaic was introduced into the district by a See also:mercantile See also:colony, which settled in this ancient seat of See also:commerce, and in consequence of which Aramaic may have remained for some time the literary language of the neighbouring See also:Arabs.
The Aramaic portions of the Old Testament show us the form of the language which was in use among the Jews of Palestine. Isolated Biblical passages in Ezra perhaps belong to the Persian period, but Aramaic. have certainly been remodelled by a later writer.' Yet in
Ezra we find a few See also:antique forms which do not occur in Daniel. The Aramaic pieces contained in the Bible have the great See also:advantage of being furnished with vowels and other orthographical signs, though these were not inserted until long after the See also:composition of the books, and are sometimes at variance with the text itself. But, since Aramaic was still a living language when the punctuation came into existence, and since the See also:lapse of time was not so very great, the tradition ran less See also:risk of corruption than in the case of Hebrew. Its general correctness is further attested by the innumerable points of resemblance between this language and See also:Syriac, with which we are accurately acquainted. The Aramaic of the Bible still exhibits various antique features, found in the Egyptian papyri too, which afterwards disappeared,—for example, the formation of the passive by means of See also:internal vowel-See also:change, and the causative with ha instead of with a,—phenomena which have been falsely explained as Hebraisms. Biblical Aramaic agrees in all essential points with the language used in the numerous inscriptions of See also:Palmyra (beginning soon before the See also:Christian era and extending to about the end of the 3rd century), and on the Nabataean coins and See also: I2 sqq.) Is in its present form a comparatively late See also:production.(concluding about the year too). Aramaic was the language of Palmyra, the See also:aristocracy of which were to a great extent of Arabian extraction. In the northern portion of the Nabataean kingdom (not far from Damascus) there was probably a large Aramaic population, but farther south Arabic was spoken. At that time, however, Aramaic was highly esteemed as a cultivated language, for which reason the Arabs in question made use of it, as their own language was not reduced to writing, just as in those ages Greek inscriptions were set up in many districts where no one spoke Greek. That the See also:Nabataeans were Arabs is sufficiently proved by the fact that, with the exception of a few Greek names, almost all the numerous names which occur in the Nabataean inscriptions are Arabic, in many cases with distinctly Arabic terminations. A further proof of this is that in the great inscriptions over the tombs of Ilejr (not far from Teima) the native Arabic continually shows through the foreign disguise,—for instance, in the use of Arabic words whenever the writer does not happen to remember the corresponding Aramaic terms, in the use of the Arabic ghair, " other than," and in several syntactic features. The great inscriptions cease with the overthrow of the Nabataean kingdom by See also:Trajan (105) ; but the Arabian nomads in those countries, especially in the Sinaitic See also:peninsula, often scratched their names on the rocks down to a later period, adding some benedictory See also:formula in Aramaic. We know hundreds of these Sinaitic inscriptions.' In any case Aramaic then exercised an immense influence. This is also proved by the place which it occupies in the strange See also:Pahlavi writing, various branches of which date from the time of the See also:Parthian empire (see PAHLAVI). Biblical Aramaic, as also the language of the Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions, may be described as an older form of Western Aramaic. The See also:opinion that the Palestinian Jews brought their Aramaic dialect See also:direct from Babylon—whence the incorrect name " See also:Chaldee "—is altogether untenable. We may now trace somewhat farther the development of Western Aramaic in Palestine; but unhappily few of the See also:sources from which we derive our See also:information can be thoroughly trusted. In Aramaic" the synagogues it was necessary that the See also:reading of the Aramais Bible should be followed by an oral " trgum " or translation into Aramaic, the language of the people. The etc' See also:Targum was at a later period fixed in writing, but the officially sanctioned form of the Targum to the See also:Pentateuch (the so-called Targum of Onkelos) and of that to the prophets (the so-called See also:Jonathan) was not finally settled till the 4th or 5th century, and not in Palestine, but in Babylonia. The redactors of the Targum preserved on the whole the older Palestinian dialect; yet that of Babylon, which differed considerably from the former, exercised a vitiating influence. The text of the Targums was punctuated later in Babylonia, in the supra-linear system there prevalent. Although this task was performed carefully, the punctuation is hardly as trustworthy as that of the Aramaic pieces of the Bible,—much less the transcriptions in the known Tiberian system used in the See also:European Targum See also:manuscripts. The language of Onkelos and Jonathan differs but little from Biblical Aramaic. The language spoken some time afterwards by the Palestinian Jews, especially in See also:Galilee, is exhibited in a series of rabbinical works, the so-called Jerusalem Targums (of which, however, those on the Hagiographa are in some cases of later date), a few Midrashic works, and the Jerusalem See also:Talmud. Unfortunately all these books, of which the Midrashim and the Talmud contain much Hebrew as well as Aramaic, have not been handed down with care, and require to be used with great caution for linguistic purposes. Moreover, the influence of the older language and orthography has in part obscured the characteristics of these popular dialects; for example, various gutturals are still written, although they are no longer pronounced. The See also:adaptation of the spelling to the real pronunciation is carried farthest in the Jerusalem Talmud, but not in a consistent manner. Besides, all these books are without vowel-points; but the frequent use of vowel-letters in the later Jewish works renders this defect less noticeable. Attempts have been made latterly to utilize the above-mentioned books as a means of reconstructing to some extent the dialect spoken by Jesus and the Apostles, and of retranslating the utterances of Jesus into their original Galilaean form. This, however, is a far too venturesome undertaking. How far these Jewish works actually exhibit the Galilean language can hardly be definitely determined; and to this must be added the inexactitude of the traditional text, and, finally, the by no means inconsiderable difference in time. Not only the Jews, but also the Christians of Palestine retained their native dialect for some time as an ecclesiastical and literary language. We possess See also:translations of the Gospels and Christian• fragments of other works in this dialect by the Palestinian palestie Christians dating from about the 5th century, partly dialect. accompanied by a scanty punctuation which was not added till some time later. This dialect closely resembles that of the Palestinian Jews, as was to be expected from the fact that those who spoke it were of Jewish origin. 2 Even to the See also:Cosmas Indicopleustes (first half of the 6th century) the Sinaitic inscriptions, the latest of which were then no more than 200–300 years old, were described as memorials of the Israelite See also:exodus under See also:Moses. And similar views have been propounded down to a short while ago! Finally, the Samaritans, among the inhabitants of Palestine, translated their only sacred book, the Pentateuch, into their own dialect. The See also:critical study of this translation proves that samaritan the language which lies at its See also:base was very much the dialect. same as that of the neighbouring Jews. Perhaps, indeed, the Samaritans may have carried the softening of the gutturals a little farther than the Jews of Galilee. Their absurd attempt to embellish the language of the translation by arbitrarily introducing forms borrowed from the Hebrew original has given rise to the false notion that Samaritan is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. The introduction of Hebrew and even of Arabic words and forms was practised in See also:Samaria on a still larger See also:scale by copyists who lived after Aramaic had become See also:extinct. The later works written in the Samaritan dialect are, from a linguistic point of view, as worthless as the compositions of Samaritans in Hebrew; the writers, who spoke Arabic, endeavoured to write in languages with which they were but half acquainted. All these Western Aramaic dialects, including that of the oldest inscriptions, have this feature among others in common, that they form the third See also:person singular masculine and the third person plural masculine and feminine in the imperfect by prefixing y, as do the other Semitic languages. And in these dialects the termination a (the so-called " status emphaticus ") still retained the meaning of a definite article down to a tolerably late period. As early as the 7th century the conquests of the Moslems greatly circumscribed the domain of Aramaic and a few centuries later it was almost completely supplanted in the west by Arabic. For the Christians of those countries, who, like every one else, spoke Arabic, the Palestinian dialect was no longer of importance, and they adopted as their ecclesiastical language the dialect of the other Aramaean Christians, the Syriac (or Edessene). The only localities where a Western Aramaic dialect, much changed from the old language, still survives are a few villages in See also:Anti-Libanus. The popular Aramaic dialect of Babylonia from the 4th to the 6th century of our era is exhibited in the Babylonian Talmud, in which, however, as in the Jerusalem Talmud, there is a Babylo°- constant mingling of Aramaic and Hebrew passages. To Ian and a somewhat later period, and probably not to exactly Mandaean the same district of Babylonia, belong the writings of the dialects. See also:Mandaeans (q.v.), a strange See also:sect, half Christian and half See also:heathen, who from a linguistic point of view possess the peculiar advantage of having remained almost entirely See also:free from the influence of Hebrew, which is so perceptible in the Aramaic writings of Jews as well as of Christians. The orthography of the Mandaeans comes nearer than that of the Talmud to the real pronunciation, and in it the softening of the gutturals is most clearly seen. In other respects there is a See also:close resemblance between Mandaean and the language of the Babylonian Talmud. The forms of the imperfect which we have enumerated above take in these dialects n or 1. In Babylonia, as in Syria, the language of the Arabic conquerors rapidly drove out that of the country. The latter has long been totally extinct, unless possibly a few surviving Mandaeans still speak among themselves a more modern form of their dialect.
At See also:Edessa, in the west of Mesopotamia, the native dialect had already been used for some time as a literary language, and had Syriac or been reduced to rule through the influence of the schools Edessan o (as is proved by the fixity of the grammar and orthography) Aramaic. even before See also:Christianity acquired See also:power in the country in
the 2nd century. At an early period the Old and New Testaments were here translated, with the help of Jewish tradition. This version and its transformations became the Bible of Aramaean Christendom, and Edessa became its See also:capital. Thus the Aramaean Christians of the neighbouring countries, even those who were subjects of the Persian empire, adopted the Edessan dialect as the language of the See also: In the development of this literature the Syrians of the Persian empire took an eager part. In the eastern See also:Roman empire Syriac was, after Greek, by far the most important language; and under the Persian kings it virtually occupied a more prominent The as an See also:organ of culture than the Persian language itself. The conquests of the Arabs totally changed this state of things.625 But meanwhile, even in Edessa, a considerable difference had arisen between the written language and the popular speech, in which the See also:process of modification was still going on. About the year 700 it became a matter of See also:absolute See also:necessity to systematize the grammar of the language and to introduce some means of clearly expressing the vowels. The principal object aimed at was that the text of the Syriac Bible should be recited in a correct manner. But, as it happened, the eastern pronunciation differed in many respects from that of the west. The local dialects had to some extent exercised an influence over the pronunciation of the literary tongue; and, on the other hand, the See also:political separation between See also:Rome and See also:Persia, and yet more the ecclesiastical See also:schism—since the Syrians of the east were mostly See also:Nestorians, those of the west See also:Monophysites and Catholics—had produced divergencies between the traditions of the various schools. Starting, therefore, from a common source, two distinct systems of punctuation were formed, of which the western is the more convenient, but the eastern the more exact and generally the more in accordance with the ancient pronunciation; it has, for example, a in place of the western o, and o in many cases where the western Syrians pronounce u. In later times the two systems have been intermingled in various ways. Arabic everywhere put a speedy end to the predominance of Aramaic—a predominance which had lasted for much more than a thousand years—and soon began to drive Syriac out of use. At the beginning of the sith century the learned See also:metropolitan of See also:Nisibis, See also:Elias See also:bar Shinnaya, wrote his books intended for Christians either entirely in Arabic or in Arabic and Syriac arranged in parallel columns, that is, in the spoken and in the learned language. Thus, too, it became necessary to have Syriac-Arabic glossaries. Up to the present day Syriac has remained in use for literary and ecclesiastical purposes, and may perhaps be even spoken in some monasteries and schools; but it has long been a dead language. When Syriac became extinct in Edessa and its neighbourhood is not known with certainty (see SYRIAC LANGUAGE). This language, called Syriac See also:par excellence, is not the immediate source whence are derived the Aramaic dialects still surviving in the northern districts. In the mountains known as the Tur 'Abdin in Mesopotamia, in certain districts east and north of See also:Mosul, in the neighbouring mountains of See also:Kurdistan, and again beyond them on the western See also:coast of the See also:Lake of See also:Urmia, Aramaic dialects are spoken by Christians and occasionally by Jews, and some of these dialects we know with tolerable precision. The dialect of Tur `Abdin differs considerably from all the rest; the country beyond the Tigris is, however, divided, as regards language, amongst a multitude of local dialects. Among these, that of Urmia has become the most important, since See also:American missionaries have formed a new literary language out of it. Moreover, the Roman Propaganda has printed books in two of the Neo-Syriac dialects. All these dialects exhibit a complete transformation of the ancient type, to a degree incomparably greater than is the case, for example, with Mandaean. In particular, the ancient verbal tenses have almost entirely disappeared, but have been successfully replaced by new forms derived from participles. There are also other praiseworthy innovations. The dialect of See also:Tar ` Abdin has, for instance, again coined a definite article. By means of violent contractions and phonetic changes some of these dialects, particularly that of Urmia, have acquired a euphony scarcely known in any other of the Semitic languages, with their stridentia anhelantiaque verba " (See also:Jerome). These Aramaeans have all adopted a See also:motley See also:crowd of foreign words, from the Arabs, Kurds, Persians and See also:Turks, on whose See also:borders they live and of whose languages they can often speak at least one. Aramaic is frequently described as a poor language. This is an opinion which we are unable to See also:share. It is quite possible, even now, to See also:extract a very large vocabulary from the more ancient Aramaic writings, and yet in this predominantly teristks of theological literature a part only of the words that existed Aramaic. in the language have been preserved:,It is true that Aramaic, having from the earliest times come into close contact with foreign languages, has borrowed many words from them, firstly from Assyrian, later from Persian and Greek; but, if we leave out of See also:consideration the fact that many Syrian authors are in the See also:habit of using, as ornaments or for convenience (especially in translations), a great number of Greek words, some of which were unintelligible to their readers, we shall find that the proportion of really foreign words in older Aramaic books is smaller than the proportion of Romance words in See also:German or Dutch. The influence of Greek upon the syntax and phraseology of Syriac is not so great as that which it has exercised, through the See also:medium of Latin, upon the literary languages of modern Europe. The literal See also:reproduction of Greek phraseology and Greek construction is contrary to the whole spirit of the language. With regard to sounds, the most characteristic feature of Aramaic (besides its peculiar treatment of the dentals) is that it is poorer in vowels than Hebrew, not to speak of Arabic, since nearly all short vowels in open syllables either wholly disappear or leave but a slight trace behind them (the so-called shewa). In this respect the punctuation of Biblical Aramaic agrees with Syriac, in which we are able to observe from very early times the number of vowels by examining the metrical pieces constructed according to the number of syllables, and with the Mandaean, which expresses every vowel by means of a vowel-See also:letter. When several distinct dialects so agree, the phenomenon in question must be of great antiquity. There are nevertheless traces which prove that the language once possessed more vowels, and the Aramaeans, for instance, with whom David fought may have pronounced many vowels which afterwards disappeared. Another peculiarity of Aramaic is that it lends itself far more readily to the linking together of sentences than Hebrew and Arabic. It possesses many conjunctions and adverbs to express slight modifications of meaning. It is also very free as regards the order of words. That this quality, which renders it suitable for a clear and limpid prose style, is not the result of Greek influence may be seen by the Mandaean, on which Greek has left no See also:mark. In its attempts to express everything clearly Aramaic often becomes prolix,—for example, by using additional See also:personal and See also:demonstrative pronouns. The contrast between Aramaic as the language of prose and Hebrew as the language of poetry is one which naturally strikes us, but we must beware of carrying it too far. Even the Aramaeans were not wholly destitute of poetical See also:talent. Although the religious poetry of the Syrians has but little charm for us, yet real poetry occurs in the few extant fragments of Gnostic See also:hymns. Moreover, in the modern dialects popular songs have been discovered which, though very simple, are fresh and full of feeling. It is therefore by no means improbable that in ancient times Aramaic was used in poems which, being contrary to the theological tendency of Syrian civilization, were doomed to See also:total oblivion. Arabic. The southern group of Semitic languages consists of Arabic, Ethiopic and Mahri-Socotri. Arabic, again, is subdivided into the Early dialects of the larger portion of Arabia and those of the Arabic south (the Sabaean). At a very much earlier time than /nscrip- we were but lately justified in supposing, some of the See also:boos, northern Arabs reduced their language to writing. For travellers have recently discovered at al Ula in the northern I3ijaz inscriptions in a hitherto unknown character, de-rived from the Sabaean (see below), which appear to have been Thamudlc written before our era. Since it is probable that TLMJ, Thatn di the name of two kings mentioned in them, is IlroXegaiss, /ascrlp- we are directed to the Hellenistic period, and other cir- uoas. cumstances confirm this conjecture. These inscriptions have been called " Thamudic," because they were found in the country of the Thamud; but this designation is scarcely a suitable one, because during the period when the power of the Thamud was at its height, and when the buildings mentioned in the See also:Koran were hewn in the rocks, the language of this country was Nabataean (see above). A more commendable proposal is to call the inscriptions Lihyani, since the tribe of Libyan is sometimes mentioned in them. Unfortunately the inscriptions hitherto discovered are all short and for the most part fragmentary, and consequently furnish but little material to the student of languages. But there can be no doubt that they are written in an Arabic dialect. The treatment of the dentals, among other things, is a sufficient proof of this. In some districts of the northern I,Iijaz and the neighbouring portion of See also:Nejd, other brief inscriptions, for the most part cursorily scratched upon rocks, have been discovered. These have been—not very happily—named " Proto-Arabic," while the See also:title Thamudic has been proposed for them also. Their writing is a somewhat later form of the Lihyani, and the dialect, as well, seems to be very similar to Lihyani. Unfortunately, the brevity of the inscriptions, which generally contain only proper names, together with the incertitude of the meaning of many; does not allow an accurate insight into their language. To the first centuries of the Christian era belong the thousands of Arabic inscriptions, found in the See also:wild, rocky districts south-east of Damascus, which are commonly termed Safaitic, after Safa, a locality in their neighbourhood. For the most part, these also are short fugitive pieces scratched on rough stones, though a few of them show more careful See also:execution. Their writing is, again, a later stage of development of the Sabaean. The task of decipherment was at first rendered extremely difficult by the scanty number of exemplars and the lack of perfectly exact facsimiles. To this must be added the fact that the Safaites insert extraordinarily few vowel letters. But the zeal of several scholars and the ever increasing number of good copies have rapidly brought us farther towards the See also:goal; and we now know the language of the Safa inscriptions much better than that of the Lihyani and " Proto-Arabic,"—to which it stands in a close relationship. Although the inscriptions yield us no information as to unknown events of importance, still they See also:teach us much with regard to the life and occupation of Arabian tribes who seem to have been subsequently displaced by others. The great mass of proper names, alone, is enough to make them of value to the philologist. The Arabs who inhabited the Nabataean kingdom wrote in Aramaic, but, as has been remarked above, their native language, Arabic, often shows through the foreign disguise. We are thus able to satisfy ourselves that these Arabs, who lived a little before and a little after See also:Christ, spoke a dialect closely resembling the later classical Arabic. The nominative of the so-called " triptote " nouns has, nearly as in classical Arabic, the termination u or 5; the genitivehas i (the See also:accusative therefore probably ended in a), but without the addition of n. Generally speaking, those proper names which in classical Arabic are " diptotes ' are here devoid of any inflexional termination. The u of the nominative appears also in Arabic proper names belonging to more northern districts, as, for example, Palmyra and Edessa, All these Arabs were probably of the same See also:race. It is possible that the inscription of Nemara, south-east of Damascus, Arabic, but in Nabataean letters, dating from A.D. 328, and the two oldest known specimens of distinctively Arabic writing—namely, the Arabic portion of the trilingual inscription of Zabad, south-east of Haleb (See also:Aleppo), written in Syriac, Greek and Arabic, and dating from 512 or 513 A.D., and that of the bilingual inscription of See also:Harran, south of Damascus, written in Greek and Arabic, of 568—represent nothing but a somewhat more modern form of this dialect. In these ins riptions proper names take in the genitive the termination u, which shows that the meaning of such inflexions was no longer See also:felt. The three inscriptions have not yet been satisfactorily interpreted in all their details. During the whole period of the preponderance of Aramaic this language exercised a great influence upon the vocabulary of the Arabs. The more carefully we investigate the more clearly does it appear that numerous Arabic words, used for ideas or See also:objects which presuppose a certain degree of civilization, are borrowed from the Aramaeans. Hence the civilizing influence of their northern neighbours must have been very strongly felt ,by the Arabs, and contributed in no small measure to prepare them for playing so important a part in the history of the See also:world. In the 6th century the inhabitants of the greater part of Arabia proper spoke everywhere essentially the same language, which, as being by far the most important of all Arabic dialects, is Classical known simply as the Arabic language. Arabic poetry, Arabia at that time cultivated throughout the whole of central and northern Arabia as far as the lower Euphrates and even beyond it, employed one language only. The extant Arabic poems belonging to the heathen period were not indeed written down till much later, and meanwhile underwent considerable alterations; but the absolute regularity of the See also:metre and See also:rhyme is a sufficient proof that on the whole these poems all obeyed the same See also:laws of language. It is indeed highly probable that the rhapsodists and the grammarians have effaced many slight dialectical peculiarities; in a great number of passages, for example, the poems may have used, in accordance with the See also:fashion of their respective tribes, some other case than that prescribed by the grammarians, and a thing of this kind may after-wards have been altered, unless it happened to occur in rhyme; but such alterations cannot have extended very far. A dialect that diverged in any great measure from the Arabic of the grammarians could not possibly have been made to See also:fit into the metres. More-over, the Arabic philologists recognize the existence of various small distinctions between the dialects of individual tribes and of their poets, and the traditions of the more ancient schools of Koran readers exhibit very many dialectical nuances. It might indeed be conjectured that for the See also:majority of the Arabs the language of poetry was an artificial one,—the speech of certain tribes having been adopted by all the rest as a dialeclus poetica. And this might be possible in the case of wandering minstrels whose See also:art gained them their livelihood, such as Nabigha and A'sha. But, when we find that the Bedouin See also:goat-herds, for instance, in the mountainous district near See also:Mecca composed poems in this very same language upon their insignificant feuds and personal quarrels, that in it the proud chiefs of the Taghlibites and the Bekrites addressed defiant verses to the king of See also:Hira (on the Euphrates), that a Christian in-habitant of Hira, Adi b. Zaid, used this language in his serious poems,—when we reflect that, as far as the Arabic poetry of the heathen period extends, there is nowhere a trace of any important linguistic difference, it would surely be a See also:paradox to assume that all these Arabs, who for the most part were quite illiterate and yet extremely jealous of the See also:honour of their tribes, could have taken the trouble to clothe their ideas and feelings in a foreign, or even a perfectly artificial, language. The Arabic philologists also invariably regarded the language of the poets as being that of the Arabs in general. Even in the 3rd century after See also:Mahomet the See also:Bedouins of Arabia proper, with the exception of a few outlying districts, were considered as being in possession of this pure Arabic. The most learned grammarians were in the habit of appealing to any uneducated man who happened to have just arrived with his camels from the See also:desert, though he did not know by See also:heart twenty verses of the Koran, and had no conception of theoretical grammar, in order that he might decide whether in Arabic it were allowable or necessary to express oneself in this or that manner. It is evident that these profound scholars knew of only one classical language, which was still spoken by the Bedouins. The tribes which produced the principal poets of the earlier period belonged for the most part to portions of the Hijaz, to Najd and its neighbourhood, and to the region which stretches thence towards the Euphrates. A great part of the Hijaz, on the other hand, plays a very unimportant part in this poetry, and the Arabs of the north-west, who were under the Roman dominion, have no share whatever in it. The dialects of these latter tribes probably diverged farther from the ordinary language. The fact that they were Christians does not explain this, since the Taghlibites and other tribes who produced eminent poets also professed Christianity. Moreover, poets from the interior were gladly welcomed at the See also:court of the Ghassanian princes, who were Christian vassals of the See also:emperor residing near Damascus; in this district, therefore, their language was at least understood. It may be added that most of the tribes which cultivated poetry appear to have been near neighbours at an See also:epoch not very far removed from that in question, and afterwards to have been scattered in large bands over a much wider extent of country. And nearly all those who were not Christians paid respect to the See also:sanctuary of Mecca. It is a total See also:mistake, but one frequently made by Europeans, tb Dialed designate the Arabic language as " the Koraishite dia- of the lect." This expression never occurs in any Arabic author. Koraish. True, in a few rare cases we do read of the dialect of the Koraish, by which is meant the peculiar local tinge that distinguished the speech of Mecca; but to describe the Arabic language as " Koraishite " is as absurd as it would be to speak of See also:English as the dialect of See also:London or of See also:Oxford. This unfortunate designation has been made the basis of a theory very often repeated in modern times—namely, that classical Arabic is nothing else but the dialect of Mecca, which the Koran first brought into fashion. So far from this being the case, it is certain that the speech of the towns in the Hijaz did not agree in every point with the language of the poets, and, as it happens, the Koran itself contains some remarkable deviations from the rules of the classical language. This would be still more evident if the punctuation, which was introduced at a somewhat later time, did not obscure many details. The traditions which represent the Koraish as speaking the purest of all Arabic dialects are partly the work of the imagination and partly compliments paid to the rulers descended from the Koraish, but are no doubt at variance with the ordinary opinion of the Arabs themselves in earlier days. In the Koran Mahomet has imitated the poets, though, generally speaking, with little success; the poets, on the other hand, never imitated him. Thus the Koran and its language exercised but very little influence upon the poetry of the following century and upon that of later times, whereas this poetry closely and slavishly copied the productions of the old heathen period. The fact that the poetical literature of the early Moslems has been preserved in a much more authentic form than the works of the heathen poets proves that our idea of the language of its See also:pattern, the ancient poetry, is on the whole just. The Koran and See also:Islam raised Arabic to the position of one of the principal languages of the world. Under the leadership of the Changes Koraish the Bedouins subjected half the world to both is their dominion and their faith. Thus Arabic acquired the classical additional character of a sacred language. But soon it Arabic. became evident that not nearly all the Arabs spoke a language precisely identical with the classical Arabic of the poets. The north-western Arabs played a particularly important part during the period of the Omayyads. The ordinary speech of Mecca and See also:Medina was, as we have seen, no longer quite so primitive as that of the desert. To this may be added that the military expeditions brought those Arabs who spoke the classical language into contact with tribes from out-of-the-way districts, such as `See also:Oman, See also:Bahrain (Bahrein), and particularly the north of See also:Yemen. The fact that See also:numbers of foreigners, on passing over to Islam, became rapidly Arabized was also little calculated to preserve the unity of the language. Finally, the violent internal and See also:external commotions which were produced by the great events, of that time, and stirred the whole nation, probably accelerated linguistic change. In any case, we know from good tradition that even in the 1st century of the See also:Flight the distinction between correct and incorrect speech was in places quite perceptible. About the end of the and century the system of Arabic grammar was constructed, and never underwent any essential modification in later times. The theory as to how one should express oneself was now definitely fixed. The majority of those Arabs who lived beyond the limits of Arabia already diverged far from this See also:standard; and in particular the final vowels which serve to indicate cases and moods were no longer pronounced. This change, by which Arabic lost one of its principal advantages, was no doubt hastened by the fact that even in the classical style such terminations were omitted whenever the word stood at the end of a See also:sentence (in pause) ; and in the living language of the Arabs this dividing of sentences is very frequent. Hence people were already quite accustomed to forms without grammatical terminations. But in the language of certain Bedouin tribes remnants of those terminations have been preserved down to our time. Through the See also:industry of Arabic philologists we are able to make ourselves intimately acquainted with the system, and still more with vocaba- the vocabulary of the language. Although they have not Lary. always performed their task in a critical manner, we are obliged to thank them sincerely. We should be all the more disposed to admire the richness of the ancient Arabic vocabulary when we remember how simple are the conditions of life amongst the Arabs, how painfully monotonous their country, and consequently how limited'the range of their ideas must be. Within this range, however, the slightest modification is expressed by a particular word. It must be confessed that the Arabic See also:lexicon has been greatly augmented by the habit of citing as words by themselves such rhetorical phrases as an individual poet has used to describe an object: for example, if one poet calls the See also:lion the " tearer "and another calls him the " mangler," each of these terms is explained by the lexicographers as See also:equivalent to " lion." One See also:branch of literature in particular, namely, lampoons and satirical poems, which for the most part have perished, no doubt introduced into the lexicon many expressions coined in an arbitrary and sometirne in a very strange manner. Moreover, Arabic philologists seem to have underrated the number of words which, though they occur now and then in poems, were never in general use except among particular tribes. But in spite of these qualifications it must be admitted that the vocabulary is surprisingly See also:rich, and the Arabic See also:dictionary will always remain the principal resource for the elucidation of obscure expressions in all the other Semitic tongues. This method, if pursued with the necessary caution, is a perfectly legitimate one. Poems seldom enable us to form a clear idea of the language of ordinary life, and Arabic poetry happens to have been distinguished from the very beginning by a certain tendency to artificiality and mannerism. Still less does the Koran exhibit the language in its spoken form. This See also:office is more performed by the prose of the ancient normative traditions (Hadrth). And the genuine accounts of the deeds of the See also:Prophet and of his companions, and especially the stories concerning the battles and adventures of the Bedouins in the heathen period and in the earlier days of Islam, are excellent See also:models of a prose style, although in some cases their redaction dates from a later time. Classical Arabic is rich not only in words but in grammatical forms. The wanton development of the broken plurals, and sometimes of the verbal nouns, must be regarded as an excess of See also:wealth. Qram The sparing use of the ancient terminations which mark ara tkal the plural has somewhat obscured the distinction between plurals, collectives, abstract nouns, and feminines inr ss and general. In its manner of employing the verbal tenses genuine Arabic still exhibits traces of that poetical freedom which we see in Hebrew; this characteristic disappears in the later literary language. In connecting sentences Arabic can go much further than Hebrew, but the simple parataxis is by far the most usual construction. Arabic has, however, this great advantage, that it scarcely ever leaves us in doubt as to where the apodosis begins. The attempts to define the tenses more clearly by the addition of adverbs and See also:auxiliary verbs See also:lead to no very See also:positive result (as is the case in other Semitic languages also), since they are not carried out in a systematic manner. The arrangement of words in a sentence is governed by very strict rules. As the subject and object, at least in ordinary cases, occupy fixed positions, and as the genitive is invariably placed after the noun that governs it, the use of case-endings loses much of its significance. This languge of the Bedouins had now, as we have seen, become that of religion, courts and polished society. In the streets of the towns the language already diverged considerably from this, but the upper classes took pains to speak " Arabic." ed icsied The poets and the See also:beaux esprits never ventured to employ j, any but the classical language, and the " Atticists," with soviet . pedantic seriousness, convicted the most celebrated among the later poets (for instance, Motanabbf) of occasional deviations from the standard of correct speech. P.t the same time, however, classical Arabic was the language of business and of science, and at the present day still holds this position. There are, of course, many gradations between the pedantry of purists and the use of what is simply a vulgar dialect. Sensil le writers employ a kind of Kowit, which does not aim at being strictly correct and calls modern things by modern names, ,but which, nevertheless, avoids coarse vulgarisms, aiming principally at making itself intelligible to all educated men. The reader may pronounce or omit the ancient terminations as he chooses. This language lived on, in a sense, through the whole of the middle ages, owing chiefly to the fact that it was intended for educated persons in general and not only for the learned, whereas the poetical schools strove to preserve exactly the grammar and the lexicon of the long extinct language of the Bedouins. As might be expected, this Kouo , like the Kocvrt of the Greeks, has a comparatively limited vocabulary, since its principle is to retain only those expressions from the ancient language which were generally understood, and it does not See also:borrow much new material from the vulgar dialects. It is entirely a mistake to suppose that Arabic is unsuited for the treatment of abstract subjects. On the contrary, scarcely any language is so well adapted to be the organ of See also:scholasticism in all its branches. Even the tongue of the ancient Bedouins had a strong preference for the use of abstract verbal nouns (in striking contrast to the Latin, for example); thus they oftener said " Needful is thy sitting " than " It is needful that See also:thou shouldest sit." This tendency was very advantageous to philosophical phraseology. The strict rules as to the order of words, though very unfavourable to the development of a truly eloquent style, render it all the easier to express ideas in a rigidly scientific form. In the meantime Arabic, like every other widely spread language, necessarily began to undergo modification and to split up into dialects. The Arabic scholars are mistaken in attributing 1{ffao this development to the influence of those foreign languages Arabicr with which Arabic came into contact. Such influences can dialects. have had but little to do with the matter; for were it otherwise the language of the interior of Arabia must have remained unchanged, yet even in this region the inhabitants are very far from speaking as they did a thousand years back. A person who in Arabia or elsewhere should See also:trust to his knowledge of classical Arabic only would resemble those travellers from the north who endeavour to make themselves understood by See also:Italian waiters through the medium of a kind of Latin. The written language has, it is true, greatly retarded the development of the dialects. Every good Moslem repeats at least a few short suras several times a day in his prayers. Nor is this all: the sacred book meets him everywhere. Now the majority of Arabian Moslems understand something at least of the passages they recite or hear; so that the Koran was bound to exercise, on the language of the widest circles, an influence such as has been exercised by no other book in the world. The See also:idiom of the church, of learning and of See also:diplomacy was brought—partially at least—nearer to the See also:average man, with the result that many of its words and locutions passed, with more or less correctitude, into the language of common life, or that its mode of expression was taken as a See also:model, precisely as Latin, the language of the church, science and the state, exerted a powerful influence on the living Romance tongues, even before the See also:Renaissance. Yet, in spite of this, the Arabic dialects have See also:developed on their own lines and have diverged widely from each other. Our knowledge of them has made rapid progress in late years, and we have now good grammars of several dialects. We are best acquainted with the present speech of Egypt, and we are well posted in the dialects of the Maghribthe African coastal lands from See also:Tripoli to See also:Morocco. To the Maghrib group of dialects belonged that once spoken in See also:Sicily, of which we know little in especial, together with the See also:Spanish Arabic of former times, which is better known to us through several Iiterary monuments and the Grammar and Lexicon of Pedro de See also:Alcala (1505). The See also:shibboleth of these Western dialects is that, in the imperfect, they pronounce the 1st person plural with the ending u (as the and and 3rd), and give to the 1st person singular the prefix n (as in the plural form). Maltese, also, is of the Maghrib See also:family. This Arabic dialect, the only one spoken exclusively by Christians, is of peculiar interest to the philologist, owing to the fact that for some 900 years it has been completely withdrawn from the See also:action of literary Arabic. On the other hand, it has been exposed to the influence of Italian. Nevertheless, it has developed in a very similar manner to the dialects of the neighbouring African coast: still it possesses many features which are peculiar to itself. Of the dialects of Syria, inner and southern Arabia, and other See also:oriental countries, we also know more than was the case a short while ago; but the gaps in our knowledge are still too great to allow us to classify them in fixed groups. For the most part the Bedouin language is somewhat strongly distinguished from that of the sedentary tribes; but we should hardly be justified in believing that the Bedouin dialects form a contrasting unity as against the other idioms. There can be no doubt that the development of these dialects is in part the result of older dialectical variations which were already in existence in the time of the Prophet. The histories of dialects which differ completely from one another often pursue an analogous course. In general, the Arabic dialects still resemble one another more than we might expect when we take into consideration the immense extent of country over which they are spoken and the very considerable See also:geographical obstacles that stand in the way of communication. But we must not suppose that people, for instance, from Mosul, Morocco, See also:San`a, and the interior of Arabia would be able to understand one another without difficulty. It is a total See also:error to regard the difference between the Arabic dialects and the ancient language as a trifling one, or to represent the development of these dialects as something wholly unlike the development of the Romance languages. No living Arabic dialect diverges from classical Arabic so much as See also:French or Roumari from Latin; but, on the other hand, no Arabic dialect resembles the classical language so closely as the Lugodoric dialect, which is still spoken in See also:Sardinia, resembles its See also:parent speech, and yet the lapse of time is very much greater in the case of the latter. See also:Side by side with the poetry of the old literary language there arose, in quite early days, another school of poetry which availed itself of the younger, living dialects. So, even in the 12th century, See also:dialectic poetry was flourishing in See also:Spain; and down to the present day, in the most diverse quarters of the vast linguistic domain of Arabic, songs have been composed in the various dialects. But this poetry, probably with the See also:sole exception of Maltese, stands in some connexion or other with the antique, and is subject, more or less, to the influence of the classical language. And this is still more the case in other departments of literature. Mdrehen,.and other tales, written by the uneducated, merely show a dialectic colouring, frequently combined with a catachrestic use of the grammatical forms of classical Arabic, not the genuine aspect of the dialect itself. These features are particularly evident in works by Jews and Christians. Purely vulgar texts, of any magnitude, would be hard to discover. The isolated Maltese alone has succeeded in producing a new written language distinct from the classical tongue; and in this a .fair amount of material has already been printed in Latin characters. In See also:recent years, however, See also:earnest attempts have been made to elevate the Egyptian dialect to the See also:rank of a literary language: whether these attempts will be crowned with permanent success is a question to be resolved by time. In any case, the ancient writtenlanguage, though with all kinds of modifications, will long continue to exist. The very fact that it does not express the vocalization with exactitude is an advantage; for thus the Arabs, from the Persian Gulf to the See also:Atlantic, can recognize the same word, although they may pronounce it with different vowels. Sabaean. Long before Mahomet, a peculiar and highly developed form of civilization had flourished in the table-land to the south-west of Arabia. The more we become acquainted with the Sabaean country of the ancient See also:Sabaeans and with its See also:colossal inscriy edifices, and the better we are able to decipher its in- Pions. scriptions, which are being discovered in ever-increasing numbers, the easier it is for us to See also:account for the haze of mythical See also:glory wherewith the Sabaeans were once invested. The Sabaean incriptions (which till lately were more often called by the less correct name of " Himyaritic ") begin long before our era and continue till the 6th century, The somewhat stiff character is always very distinct; and the habit of regularly dividing the•words from one another renders decipherment easier, which, however, has not yet been performed in a very satisfactory manner, owing in part to the fact that the vast majority of the documents in question consist of religious votive tablets with peculiar sacerdotal expressions, or of architectural notices abounding in technical terms. These inscriptions fall into two classes, distinguished partly by grammatical peculiarities and partly by peculiarities of phraseology. One dialect, which forms the causative with ha, like Hebrew and others, and employs, like nearly all the Semitic languages, the termination h (ha) as the suffix of the third person singular, is the Sabaean properly speaking. The other, which expresses the causative by sa (corresponding to the Shaphel of the Aramaeans and others), and for the suffix uses s (like the Assyrian sh), is the Minaic. To this latter branch belong the numerous South Arabic inscriptions recently found in the north of the Hijaz, near IIejr, where the Minaeans must have had a commercial See also:settlement. On the other hand, the very old inscriptions, emanating from a colony at Jeha in See also:Abyssinia, are Sabaean. The difference between the two classes of inscriptions is no doubt ultimately based upon a real divergence of dialect. But the singular manner in which districts containing Sabaean inscriptions and those containing Minaic alternate with one another seems to point in part to a See also:mere See also:hieratic practice of clinging to ancient modes of expression. Indeed it is very probably due to conscious literary conservatism that the language of the inscriptions remains almost entirely unchanged through many centuries. A few inscriptions from districts rather more to the east exhibit certain linguistic peculiarities, which, however, may perhaps be explained by the supposition that the writers did not, as a rule, speak this dialect, and therefore were but imperfectly acquainted with it. A great hindrance to the completion of our knowledge of the Sabaean language lies in the paucity of vowel-letters in the inscriptions. The unvarying style of the inscriptions See also:pram- excludes further a great number of the commonest a grammatical forms. Not a single occurrence of the first r forms. or second person has yet been detected, with the possible exception of one proper name, in which " our god " apparently occurs. But the knowledge which we already possess amply suffices to prove that Sabaean is closely related to Arabic as we are acquainted with it. The former language possesses the same phonetic elements as the latter. It possesses the broken plural, a dual form resembling that used in Arabic, &c. It is especially important to See also:notice that Sabaean expresses the idea of indefiniteness by means of an appended m, just as Arabic expresses it by means of an n, which in all probability is a modification of the former sound. But we may maintain that, in the later centuries, the m had fallen away in the pronunciation, either completely or in the majority of cases. Both in this point and in some others Sabaean appears more primitive than Arabic, as might be expected from the earlier date of its monuments. The article is formed by appending an n. In its vocabulary also Sabaean bears a great resemblance to Arabic, although, on the other hand, it often approaches more nearly to the northern Semitic languages in this respect; and it possesses much that is peculiar to itself. Soon after the Christian era Sabaean civilization began to decline, and completely perished in the See also:wars with the Abyssinians, who several times occupied the country, and in the 6th century remained in possession of it for a considerable period. In that age the language of central Arabia was already penetrating into the Sabaean domain. It is further possible that many tribes which dwelt not far to the north of the civilized districts had always spoken dialects resembling central Arabic rather than Sabaean. About the year 600 "Arabic" was the language of all Yemen, with the exception perhaps of a few isolated districts, and this process of assimilation continued in later times. True, a few echoes of Sabaean have survived in certain grammatical forms and the vocabulary of present-day dialects in those districts; but these dialects are, on the whole, thoroughly " Arabic." Several centuries after Mahomet, learned Yemenites were acquainted with the characters of the inscriptions which abounded in their country; they were also able to decipher the proper names and a small number of Saoaean words the meaning of which was still known to them, but they could no longer understand the inscriptions as a whole. Being zealous local patriots, they discovered in those inscriptions which they imagined themselves to be capable of deciphering many fabulous stories respecting the glory of the ancient Yemenites. Mahri and Socotri. Farther to the east, in the See also:sea-coast districts of Shihr and Mahra, up to the borders of the barren desert of the interior, and also in the See also:island of Socotra, dialects very unlike Arabic are still spoken. Allusions to this fact are found in Arabic writers of the loth century. Mahri, from which Shkhauri forms a distinct dialect, and Socotri are probably scions of dialects which were related to Sabaean and Minaean; but they have developed on altogether independent lines, and we can scarcely See also:hope that they will render us any great assistance in the interpretation of the inscriptions. They certainly show the southern Semitic type in a most pronounced manner. The strange form of the words is produced, inter alia, by all manner of vowel lengthenings and violent mutations of consonants (e.g. in Socotri s frequently becomes h, a phonetic change otherwise unknown in Semitic See also:philology). Exact investigation will undoubtedly still discover an old acquaintance in many a strange-seeming word. Here and there, however, in Mahri we discover words which at the first glance we recognize as common in Hebrew or Aramaic, while Arabic knows them either not at all or only in derivative significations. Still, a very large part—perhaps the preponderating part—of the Mahri vocabulary is formed by words which have been borrowed from the Arabic at different periods. Many of them have subsequently undergone drastic phonetic alterations, so that at first they might be taken for genuine Mahri. In Socotri, which has been more protected by its insular position, the borrowed Arabic words are rarer, but even here they are not lacking. These languages, how-ever, especially Socotri, still contain a number of words, with regard to which we may well doubt whether they are Semitic at all. The conjecture that Hamites also were once settled in those 'districts and have left traces of themselves in the language, appears to be favoured by the bodily characteristics of the inhabitants.' Ethiopic. In Abyssinia, too, and in the neighbouring countries we find languages which bear a certain resemblance to Arabic. The Geez, or Ethiopic2 proper, the language of the ancient kingdom Gees, or of Axum, was reduced to writing at an early date. At Ethiopic first Sabaean letters were employed. But even the proper. See also:monument of King Aeizanas (c. A.D. 350), as is now well established, bears, in addition to the Greek inscription, one in Ethiopian. This, however, is both in Sabaean and in Geez characters, i.e. in a systematic transformation of the Sabaean. Here the Geez is still unvocalized; and some few inscriptions besides, without vowel signs, have been discovered. But two great inscriptions of the same king of Axum—so it appears to be after the newest researches —already have the full vocalization which obtains in the Ethiopian Bible and the remaining literature: the language, too, is identically the same. The indication of the vowels gives Ethiopic an advantage over all other Semitic scripts. By whom it was introduced is unknown. Not long after the time of the inscriptions the Bible was translated into Geez from the Greek, in part by Jews; for Jews and Christians were at that time actively competing with one another, both in Arabia and in Abyssinia; nor were the former unsuccessful in making proselytes. The missionaries who gave the Bible to the Abyssinians must, at least in some cases, have spoken Aramaic as their mother-tongue, for this alone can explain the fact that in the Ethiopic Bible certain religious conceptions are expressed by Aramaic words. During the following centuries various works were produced by the Abyssinians in this language; they were all, so far as we are able to See also:judge, of a more or less theological character, almost invariably translations from the Greek. We cannot say with certainty when Geez ceased to be the language of the people,. but it was probably about a thousand years ago. From the time when the Abyssinian kingdom was reconstituted, towards the end of the 13th century, by the se-called Solomonian See also:dynasty (which was of southern origin), the language of the court and of the government was Amharic; but Geez remained the ecclesiastical and literary language, and Geez literature even showed a certain activity in numerous translations from those Arabic and Coptic works which were in use amongst the Christians of Egypt; besides these, original writings were composed by monks and priests, namely, lives of See also:saints, hymns, &c. This literary condition lasted till modern times. The language, which had long become extinct, was by no means invariably written in a pure form: we may often observe, inter alia, a servile imitation of Arabic modes of expression. Even in manuscripts of more ancient works we find many linguistic corruptions, which have crept in partly through mere carelessness and See also:ignorance, partly through the influence of the later dialects. On points of detail we 'What certain knowledge we possess of Mahri and Socotri is almost wholly based on the researches of See also:Vienna scholars. We hope to receive from them still more light on these strange tongues. "This name is due to the fact that the Abyssinians, under the influence of false erudition, applied the name AWB,o rta to their own kingdom.are still sometimes left in doubt, as we possess no manuscripts be-longing to the older period. Geez is more nearly related to Sabaean than to Arabic, though scarcely to such a degree as we might expect. The historical inter-course between the Sabaeans and the people of Axum does not, however, prove that those who spoke Geez were simply a colony from Sabaea; the language may be descended from an extinct cognate dialect of south Arabia, or may have arisen from a mingling of several such dialects. And this colonization in Africa probably began much sooner than is usually supposed. In certain respects Geez represents a more modern stage of development than Arabic; we may cite as instances the loss of some inflexional terminations and of the ancient passive, the change of the aspirated dentals into sibilants, &c. In the manuscripts, especially those of later date, many letters are See also:con-founded, namely, h, It, and kh, s and sh, and d; this, however, is no doubt due only to the influence of the modern dialects. To this same influence, and indirectly perhaps to that of the Hamitic languages, we may ascribe the very hard sound now given to certain letters, q, f, .r, and d, in the reading of Geez. The last two are at present pronounced something like fs and is (the German z). A peculiar advantage possessed by Geez and by all Ethiopic languages is the sharp distinction between the imperfect and the subjunctive: in the former a vowel is inserted after the first radical, a formation which exists also in Mahri and Socotri, and—though in another signification—in Assyrian as well. Geez has no definite article, but is very rich in particles. In the ease with which it joins sentences together and in its freedom as to the order of words it resembles Aramaic. The vocabulary is but imperfectly known, as the theological literature, which is for the most part very arid, supplies us with comparatively few expressions that do not occur in the Bible, whereas the more modern works borrow their phraseology in part from the spoken dialects, particularly Amharic. With regard to the vocabulary, Geez has much in common with the other Semitic tongues, but at the same time possesses many words peculiar to itself; of these a considerable proportion may be of Hamitic origin. However, the grammar shows, at most, some slight and dubious traces of Hamitic influence. Geez seems to have been originally the language of a tribe almost exempt from non-Semitic See also:blood. But we must not suppose that all the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Axum were pure Semites. The See also:immigration of the Semites from Arabia was, in all probability, a slow process, beginning at a very ancient period, and under such circumstances there is every reason to assume that they largely intermingled with the See also:aborigines. This opinion seems to be confirmed by anthropological facts. See also:Tigre and Tigrina. Not only in what is properly the territory of Axum (namely, Tigre, north-eastern Abyssinia), but also in the countries bordering upon it to the north, including the islands of Dahlak, dialects are still spoken 'which are but more modern forms of the linguistic type clearly exhibited in Geez, viz, that spoken in Tigre proper and that of the neighbouring countries. In reality, the name of Tigre belongs to both, and it would be desirable to distinguish them from one another as Northern and Southern Tigre. But it is the See also:custom to call the northern dialect Tigre simply, whilst that spoken in Tigre itself bears the name of Tigrai or, with an Amharic termination, Tigrina. Tigre bears a somewhat closer resemblance to Geez than does Tigrina, although this latter is spoken in the very home of Geez, for Tigrifia has during several centuries been very strongly influenced by Amharic, which has not been the case with Tigre, which is spoken mostly by nomads. But Tigre, on the other hand, seems to have been greatly influenced by Hamitic dialects. In late years careful observations on both languages have been made by scholars in loco, and we already have a number of printed texts, comprising partly original works, partly translations of Biblical books and so forth. But in this domain our knowledge still stands in great need of being perfected. Amharic. Although Tigre and Tigrina are not free from foreign influences, yet at the core they are purely Semitic. This is not fundamentally the case with Amharic, a language of which the domain extends from the left See also:bank of the Takkaze into regions far to the south. Although by no means the only language spoken in these countries, it always tends to displace those foreign tongues which surround it and with which it is interspersed. We here refer especially to the Agaw dialects. Although Amharic has been driven back by the invasions of the Galla tribes, it has already compensated itself to some extent for this loss, as the Yedju and Wollo See also:Gallas, who penetrated into eastern Abyssinia, have adopted it as their language. With the exception, of course, of Arabic, no Semitic tongue is spoken by so large a number of human beings as Amharic. The very fact that the Agaw languages are being gradually, and, as it were, before our own eyes, absorbed by Amharic makes it appear probable that this language must be spoken chiefly by people who are not of Semitic race.' This supposition is confirmed by a study of the language ' Only an advanced guard of the Agaw languages, the See also:Bilin or dialect of the See also:Bogos, is being similarly absorbed by the Tigre. Characteristics of Gees. itself. Amharic has diverged from the ancient Semitic type to a far greater extent than any of the dialects which we have hitherto enumerated. Many of the old formations preserved in Geez are completely modified in Amharic. Of the feminine forms there remain but a few traces; and that is the case also with the ancient plural of the noun. The strangest innovations occur in the personal pronouns. And certainly not more than half the vocabulary can without improbability be made to correspond with that of the other Semitic languages. In this, as also in the grammar, we must leave out of account all that is borrowed from Geez, which, as being the ecclesiastical tongue, exercises a great influence everywhere in Abyssinia. On the other hand, we must make See also:allowance for the fact that in this language the very considerable phonetic modifications often produce a total change of form, so that many words which at first have a thoroughly foreign See also:appearance prove on further examination to be but the See also:regular development of words with which we are already acquainted. But the most striking deviations occur in the syntax. Things which we are accustomed to regard as usual or even universal in the Semitic languages, such as the placing of the verb before the subject, of the governing noun before the genitive, and of the attributive relative clause after its substantive, are here totally reversed. Words which are marked as genitives by the prefixing of the relative particle, and even whole relative clauses, are treated as one word, and are capable of having the See also:objective suffix added to them. It is scarcely going too far to say that a person who has learnt no Semitic language would have less difficulty in mastering the Amharic construction than one to whom the Semitic syntax is See also:familiar. What here appears contrary to Semitic See also:analogy is sometimes the rule in Agaw. Hence it is probable that in this case tribes originally Hamitic retained their former modes of thought and expression after they had adopted a Semitic speech, and that they modified their new language accordingly. And it is not certain that the partial Semitization of the southern districts of Abyssinia (which had scarcely any connexion with the civilization of Axum during its best period) was entirely or even principally due to influences from the north. In spite of its dominant position, Amharic did not for several centuries show any signs of becoming a literary language. The oldest documents which we possess are a few songs of the 15th and 16th centuries, which were not, however, written down till a later time, and are very difficult to interpret. There are also a few Geez-Amharic glossaries, which may be tolerably old. Since the 17th century various attempts have been made, sometimes by European missionaries, to write in Amharic, and in modern times this language has to a considerable extent been employed for literary purposes; nor is this to be ascribed exclusively to foreign influence. A literary language, fixed in a sufficient measure, has thus been formed. Books belonging to a somewhat earlier period contain tolerably clear proofs of dialectical differences. Scattered notices by travellers seem to indicate that in some districts the language diverges in a very much greater degree from the recognized type. The Abyssinian chronicles have for centuries been written in Geez, largely intermingled with Amharic elements. This " language of the chronicles," in itself a dreary See also:chaos, often enables us to discover what were the older forms of Amharic words. A similar mixture of Geez and Amharic is exemplified in various other books, especially such as refer to the affairs of the government and of the court. Harari and Gurague. The town of Harar, situated at some distance east of See also:Shoa, forms a Semitic island; for its language is extremely similar to Amharic. In comparison with this, it exhibits sometimes later, sometimes older formations. A few centuries ago, Harari was perhaps a dialect only slightly divergent from Amharic. To-day, Amharians and the inhabitants of Harar can no longer understand each other, especially as the latter have See also:drawn largely on the languages of the surrounding Hamites (Galla, Somal, and probably also Danakil), and on Arabic, which exercises a strong influence upon them as Moslems. We may fairly regard them as an old colony of Abyssinians. As the case is with Harari, so it is probably with the dialects of Gurague (south of Shoa). These dialects, which are markedly divergent from one another and have assumed a highly peculiar form, placed as they are in the midst of entirely alien idioms, yet give unmistakable signs of an origin either from Amharic or a dialect extremely close to Amharic. It is certainly a matter for See also:desire that we should soon receive some really comprehensive and at the same time trustworthy account of Harari and the language of Gurague. We repeat that the immigration of the Semites into these parts of Africa was probably no one single See also:act, that it may have taken place at different times, that the immigrants perhaps belonged to different tribes and to different districts of Arabia, and that very heterogeneous peoples and languages appear to have been variously mingled together in these regions. (TH. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
[back] STOUGHTON, JOHN (1807-1897) |
[next] STOUR |