35. The last class of signs has been designated " Substitutes for the mark (:) Shěvá," which, in truth, they are, as we shall see hereafter.

36. Our object in adopting this new nomenclature is, to avoid the inconsistency of detailing a system of long, short, and most short vowels; and then, informing the learner, that after all, every short vowel becomes long in practice; and, that the class of the shortest vowels contains nothing more than substitutes for what, in fact, are no vowels at all.

37. We now come to the figure or form of the vowels: and, in order to give the best account we can of them, we must be allowed to state what we believe to be their real history. Those who wish to see what has been said by Capell, Buxtorf, and others, on the antiquity, &c. of these vowel-points, had better have recourse to their writings,* or, if a mere outline will suffice, they will find one in the "Institutiones ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ," by Albert Schultens, from page 50 to 65. Greater abilities and learning were, perhaps, never displayed than in this controversy; nor indeed a greater degree of rancour. It was with great difficulty, that Capell got his book printed at all; and when it appeared, it was hailed by the Roman Catholics as a document of the greatest value, because, forsooth, it seemed to unsettle every thing connected with the study of the Holy Scriptures. The name of Capell, in consequence, became associated with all that seemed likely to undo the great work of the Reformation, and to bring into jeopardy many of the states of Europe. Among the Lutherans of Germany, the opinions of this elegant, but unfortunate writer, were considered as highly heterodox: so much so, that they gave rise to a new article, to be subscribed by all who were candidates for holy orders, which, as I have been informed, is still in force. Orthodoxy, or heterodoxy, in short, seemed to be comprised in the simple question, whether a man adopted, or rejected, the opinions of Capell. The son of this learned and great man, it should seem, took refuge at length in the Roman Catholic Church, in order, as it is said, to avoid the rancour of the Protestants, who were then but ill acquainted with the principles of toleration. This, however, has only been mentioned to show the great impropriety of such proceedings. Later times have

* Arcanum punctationis revelatum of Capellus, Lugd. Batav. 1624, and Buxtorfii Anticritica seu vindicia adversus Capellum. Basil 1653.

proved, that Protestantism lost nothing by the labours of Capell: but, on the contrary, can boast of one of the ablest scriptural critics, that the Christian Church has ever produced. But to proceed with our history of the vowel-points.

It is very well known, that the Syrians adopted the Hebrew Alphabet as early as the latter end of the first, or the beginning of the second, century; and that the Arabs adopted that of the Syrians, some time about the beginning of the seventh. The most ancient form of this alphabet, as found among the Syrians, has been termed the Estrangelo,* which corresponds in a remarkable degree with the oldest character in use among the Arabians, termed the Cúfic. Upon comparing the Syriac Estrangelo with the Hebrew, a coincidence in form, name, and power is immediately observed, sufficient to shew, that the one is an immediate copy of the other. The same may be said of the similarity observable between the Estrangelo Syriac and the Cúfic.

38. The Syrians appear to have borrowed, with the letter, a system of vowels which they retain to the present day: the Arabs also appear to have borrowed the same (though differing a little in form) from the Syrians. And from the Arabs this system has been carried into Persia, Turkey, India, Tartary, and the islands of the Malays.

39. In the ancient Estrangelo Syriac, then, a single round point, placed above any consonant, took the sound of a or o: beneath any consonant, the sound of e or i. With the letter Vau (Syriac o) this point seems to have had the sound of u, which it still retains, whether placed above, or below, that letter. It may, indeed, originally, have been placed in the middle of the line of consonants, in order to distinguish it from the other points used with Vaw as a consonant: and, of this, some proof is to be found in the situation of Shúrek among the Hebrew vowels, and from the name which it still retains among the Persians of Pésh, i. e. before.

When the Hebrew and Syriac tongues were vernacular, the vowels would only be wanted in words which would otherwise be ambiguous; and we find in the old Syriac Estrangelo manuscripts, that these vowel marks are mostly added, when this would be the case. Thus, a participle present has almost invariably a point placed over the first radical letter, directing the first consonant to be pronounced with an o: the preterite, in like manner, has a single point under one of its radicals,

* See Michaelis' Syriac Gram. pp. 25, 26, 27, 36, 37; G. Amira Gram. Syr. p. 36, 37, &c. De Dieu Gram. Harm. Ed. 1628. pp. 36, 37.

mostly the second, directing that consonant to be pronounced with an a. The same is observed in other words, which have the same consonants with each other, but which ought to be pronounced with different vowels. This is sufficient, even now, to guard against any ambiguity which might arise in reading the Syriac text. In most of the Arabic manuscripts, if we except the Koran, a few vowels only are added for a similar purpose; which has also been done by some of the best editors of Arabic books in modern times. In these cases, no one will object, that every danger of ambiguity is sufficiently removed; and it may hence be inferred, that a similar practice would be quite sufficient, so long as the Hebrew language continued to be generally spoken. When, however, it became a dead language, and the Jews, dispersed as they were, into different nations of the earth, would naturally forget the true pronunciation of the sacred text, no less than its meaning in many important passages, it became almost necessary that every word should be fully pointed, so as to leave no doubt on the mind of the reader, as far, at least, as such a system of punctuation would go. For this purpose, additional vowel-marks were added, and some new ones invented. To which also a system of accents seems to have been added, which, taken in the aggregate, composes the system of Hebrew orthography as we now have it. At what exact period this began to take place, it is impossible to say: there is, however, good reason for believing, that it must have been after the times of Jerome, as he makes no mention whatever of it. That it was completed later than the twelfth century is scarcely possible, as the names of most of the vowels and accents are found in the Rabbins of that period. The school of Tiberias, and about the period A. D. 500, has generally been fixed upon as the place and time of their invention; and it is not improbable that they were there and then first partially introduced, and afterwards augmented to the number which we now have.

40. Let us now see how the present system will accord with our hypothesis. A single point placed above a consonant, originally represented either a or o: the context would determine which of the two should be taken. At present, Khōlém (1) has the same situation, and the power of o. A point placed under any consonant had the power of e ori which of these should be taken, the context would determine. Khirik (.) has still that situation, and the power of i. All the other vowels marks which stand for ē, e, or ĕ, consist of the same point in the same situation, either doubled, tripled, &c. Thus (-) is open ē, () the same sound preceding a consonant: of this again, (:) and (:::)

are other forms, which still occupy the same situation. Now, in order to distinguish between o and a, it was necessary that some variation of form should take place; and this could not be done better than by lengthening out the point a little, so as to become a straight line, thus (-). The next question would be, where it should be placed. It could not, with propriety, be placed above the line, because a similar straight line had already been placed there, in order to determine the pronunciation of certain consonants.* It was, therefore, placed below the line of consonants, and pronounced a: and for the sound of the open ā, the point was added, thus (-), which in printed books is usually found thus (+), although the manuscripts mostly preserve the original form. The Shurék, or u, probably still retains its ancient power and situation, as already remarked: and when the Vaw is dropped, which is sometimes the case, the Kibbúts () was probably invented to supply its place. This appears to me sufficiently to account for the forms of the vowels, as we now have them; and also, to determine their authority. In many instances, indeed, the simpler vowel points of the ancients may have come down to our times; the rest have probably been supplied by the help of tradition: but, as it is impossible now to say in what words or syllables these ancient vowels are to be found, we can allow to the whole no greater authority than that of men equally liable with ourselves to error.

On the Combination of the Vowels with the Consonants. 41. Considering, as we do, all the letters of the alphabet as consonants, no possible difficulty can arise from their combination with the vowels, when the consonants precede, as is the case in our exemplifications, given with the tables of the vowels (Art. 29.); but, when a consonant also follows, some questions may arise as to the conjoint effect produced. This we now proceed to explain.

42. The only difficulty that can present itself to a learner, will be in the concurrence of the letters termed Ehěví, with certain vowels preceding.

43. It has been remarked (Art. 24.), that these letters will occasionally lose their consonantal powers.

* Raphé, which will be noticed hereafter.

C

We now

say, this happens only when they are preceded by those vowels which are, or may become, homogeneous with them in sound, respectively. In this sense may be quiescent in (†) (-) (·) (·) (·) or (1), as may also . ↑ will be quiescent in Khōlém or Shūrék only: and in Khīrík, Tṣēré, Sēgól, and occasionally in (†); as, 87, 17, 12, ‘3,

, &c. The reason of this seems to be, that as these consonants are made up of sounds allied to those of the vowels respectively, when the vowel precedes both coalesce, and the consonantal power is lost in that of the vowel. When these letters have no vowel, they will of course be silent, as in on Khét; 87 Hēvi, where they are said to be otiose.

44. But when a vowel precedes which is not homogeneous with the consonant, which will happen only in the cases of and ", a diphthongal sound will be formed, as ai in Ådōnaí, oi in “♫ Goi, ui in “↳ Gă-luí. Other diphthongs may be formed; but more do not occur in Hebrew.-It must be remembered, however, that if any of these letters has a vowel of its own, i. e. following it, it will not become quiescent.

T

There are, moreover, some instances in which two such letters are found following a vowel, which is homogeneous with neither of them, as 7, 9, and the like; in which, according to analogy, should become the diphthong ai, and the last letter be considered either as a consonant, or combining with the foregoing in a kind of triphthong, as E-laiv, or E-laiu, Ha-laiv, or Ha-laiu, but, generally, the is considered as being quiescent,*

:

* It seems to be a general rule, that when (:) quiescent, either expressed or understood, comes under or 1, the diphthongal sound takes place in other cases these consonants become quiescent, as in be contrary to usage to supply a Sheva (:) under the, as 7 and y.

or

where it would ,עָלָיו