between the latter verbs in Tibetan, and all the verbs in Chinese, none of which take up into the verbal stem any modification in the idea of the verb, but all of them add this as a distinct idea, the stem being thought with so little difference from a substantive that the verbal idea of the root suggests no difference of expression from that of the substantive idea. (See also III. 93; VI. 25, 159.) Now, this sense of verbal process which in the degree in which it exists in Tibetan causes the difference mentioned between Tibetan and Chinese, existing in a still greater degree in the Syro-Arabian languages, along with greater fulness of idea, causes the difference between them and Tibetan; that whereas Tibetan has a monosyllabic character, they are in their native form trisyllabic. For it is this abundant sense of the process of being or doing expressed in the successive syllables that has enlarged the Syro-Arabian stem. And that this sense of process has got expression without breaking the unity of the stem or getting outside the limits of the root as an external element is a striking evidence of the fulness of the mental act in which the stem is thought, so as to take up this element, and at the same time of the singleness of thought with which the mind absorbs the whole of the latter into the former, instead of spreading into it as an additional part. This sense of process completed or going on has in the life of the race become associated in one idea with that which the root expresses, and is simultaneously thought with the latter in a single act of the mind. It has a length, as of beginning, middle, and end, which gives a corresponding length to the expression. And of this incorporated sense of process the Chinese is destitute, while the Tibetan has it without this fulness of succession. It is not only the Syro-Arabian verb which has this pregnant singleness, it tends to show itself also in the stem of the noun; for, in truth, the noun, if a verbal noun, involves the process which is in the verb, and if it be not verbal, yet its attributive part may be thought in its substance (Def. 4) as a process of being or doing or as part of such a process, and will tend to be thought so when, as in these languages, such is the habitual conception of the verb (81). Elements of gender, number, and case, and even some derivative elements expressive merely of connection with a substance, may belong to the noun as external adjuncts, but they are so fine that they little affect its singleness. The pronominal suffixes, objective and possessive, are quite external, the mind passing to them with partial mingling in the connection, or with a connective element. And thus in both noun and verb the Syro-Arabian languages show a tendency to think the natural units of thought as undivided wholes, though not so strictly as Chinese (Book I., chap. i., 10). 49. This tendency to singleness of idea without separation of parts contained in the idea, causes that comparative absence of roots as distinct and separable elements of words derived from them, which distinguishes these languages. Instead of such formations consisting of a root and a derivative element added to it, there are in the SyroArabian languages combinations of two distinct words which are not unlike some of the so-called compounds in Chinese (5), and which indicate a similar cause in the mental action of the race. Chinese thought indeed is more objective than Syro-Arabian. The former thinks substantive objects more in their concrete objectivity, the latter more in their attributive nature (Def. 4). And the Syro-Arabian having more sense of the general, and less concrete particularity of thought, does not find it necessary, like the Chinese, to join together two nouns of kindred meaning in order to think a common nature. Substantive objects are better distinguished from each other by the roots in Syro-Arabian speech, because the nature which belongs to them is more fully thought. There is no need therefore for the synonymous compounds which distinguish the meanings of the Chinese monosyllables. But the fundamental similarity between the two families in the singleness of thought which belongs to both appears in the tendency to modify a radical idea with a distinct word, thought separately, instead of with a derivative element thought as part of the idea. This is to be seen in the SyroArabian languages as well as in Chinese (5), Siamese (19), and Burmese (21). Tibetan has somewhat more power of thinking an additional element without passing from the radical idea (38), and it forms adjectives by adding derivative elements to its nouns (33), as it also distinguishes tense and mood in some verbs by adding particles (36). But the Syro-Arabian tends to use instead of a derivative element a separate word connected with the radical word by syntax. "The Arabs use several nouns with a following substantive in the genitive as a substitute for adjectives. These quasi adjectives are placed after the noun which they qualify, and in apposition to it." Thus possessor of learning for learned; mistress of thorns for thorny; son of the way for traveller. The same feature may be noted in the other languages of the family (86, 111); and it is probably owing to the inaptitude for separating fine elements that in these languages the verb to be, is thought so concretely, and not as the abstract copula. ARABIC. 50. The Syro-Arabian languages developed very deep gutturals; and in their most perfect form, the Arabic, utterance had retreated from the lips, and brought into active service the root of the tongue, speech being from the chest with strong pressure of breath; which facilitated and attracted guttural utterance. This tendency to guttural utterance seems to have been favoured by the characteristic structure of these languages. The Syro-Arabian principle that the radicals should generally be consonants, and the vowels only modifiers of the radical idea, tends to oblige every syllable to begin with a consonant; and this rule often required in roots which had a radical vowel originally, the development out of the radical vowel of a consonant to go before it and bear the radical significance. Such consonant would naturally be a deep guttural thickening of the vowel utterance. Thus Dillmann says of the 1 Wright, Arabic Grammar, Syntax, p. 138. guttural spirants or aspirates: "From their middle nature between consonants and vowels may be explained their extensive use in the Semitic languages. They very often occur in the formation of roots where roots having an initial middle or final vowel strive to get a consonant element, and the weaker utterances first occurring are thickened to the harder breathings, principally through the influence. of the other radicals." 1 It is, however, only in their pure and native form, Arabic, that this guttural character of these languages has been preserved. In the other languages the peculiar gutturals g and g have been well-nigh lost, and the preference of w to y as a first radical, which is in Arabic, has in Hebrew and Syriac been reversed into a preference of y to w (75, 121). رع The Arabic consonants are: h, ḥ, q, j, Ÿ, X, k, g, x, y, t, d, ť, ₫, s, t, d, s, z, r, l, n, 0, §, ƒ, b, w, m ; h is the spiritus lenis denoted by hemza; g is jain, described as a guttural g; ÿ is‘ain described as a strong guttural, unpronounceable to Europeans as well as to Turks and Persians, uttered with a smart compression of the upper part of the windpipe and a forcible emission of the breath; t is tā b, a strongly articulated palatalt; d is dad, a strongly articulated palatal d; ť and dare sad and zāb, the aspirates of t, d pronounced with a sibilation.2 The vowels being subordinate to the consonants, are in general somewhat indistinctly enunciated. When preceded or followed by ġ, ,, or x, or by q, t, d, t, d, they are rather more open than with the other consonants, but as distinguished in writing they are only a, i, u, long and short, and the diphthongs are ai and au.3 ص The vowel of a shut syllable is almost always short, that of an open syllable may be either long or short. A syllable cannot begin with two consonants, nor can it end with two except in pause, that is, at the end of a period. The accent is on the penultimate when long by nature or position, but when this is short the accent is on the antepenultimate.5 51. The personal pronouns in Arabic are given in the following tables, in which a parenthesis denotes that the included letter is eclipsed. The pronoun of the first person, which in Egyptian is anok, seems akin to the Egyptian root any, life. And the hu of the third person is akin to Hebrew hawah, to be. In the second person ant- corresponds to Egyptian ent, and is demonstrative. The dual is stronger than the plural, for it doubles the idea of the stem which the plural thinks less distinctly. The slender vowel i, and the breathless mute t, are significant of the feminine. The t of the suffix of first person is of different significance. 1 Dillmann, Gram. Æthiop., p. 36; 2 Wright, Arabic Grammar, p. 3-6. 5 Ibid. p. 25. Fürst, Lehrgeb. Aram., sect. 100. |