« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
"fut. apoc. 1. to burn, used only of anger; with Nanger, or elliptically (§ 573) as Ps. 18: 8: ibn he burned es entbrannte ihm) scil. with anger, one burned in he eyes as though his eyes glowed with rage; with against ɔne, usually with of the person and of the object, less often with. Niph. 3 pl. to be angry, with ? with one. Hiph. ♫♫♫ fut. apoc.
Job 1: 6.
Part. pl. a Is. 41: 11,
let or cause anger to burn. Job 19: 11. 2. to be ardent, zealous. Tiph. fut. 2 pers. Part. n to enrage one's self, to contend, with with one. Jer. 12:5. 22: 15. Hithp. fut. apoc.
to enrage, irritate one's self. Ps. 37: 1.”
On this word the "Critical Dictionary" has as follows: " 1. He was irritated, etc.; 2. fretful, etc.; 3. zealous, etc. Neh. 3: 20," (by what rule of preference is the third signification, which is that of the Hiph. species, favored with a reference which is refused to the two first?) "3. m. s. Pret. K. reg." (this is an error, as according to the common phraseology adopted by Mr. Roy the verbs
are irregular). "F. Exod. 32: 1," (it occurs in the eleventh verse of this chapter, but not in the first,)" 12" (the only word which appears in this verse is, not the future of the verb, but the noun ji¬n).
חָרָה from the root
The ingenious suggestion of M. Biesenthal with regard to the obscure word sun, is well worthy of notice. This word he supposes to have arisen by transposition from to rise, as the sun, and cites in support of his opinion the proper noun nan or Judg. 2: 9. Josh. 19: 50. 24: 30, and the words
Job 9: 7, which he regards as an instance of paronomasia. The opinion of Gesenius, however, who considers the primitive idea to be that of dryness, heat, and the root an instance of the change of into for, is by no means destitute of probability; the commutation of the letters r and s being of frequent and universal occurrence, e. g. Germ. war, eisen, hase, Eng. was, iron, hare.
Turning to this root in the "Dictionary on a New and Improved Plan,” we meet with the following: ", in Arab. Lɲ” (this word is even more than commonly unfortunate: it contains an initial instead of a medial Re, a medial instead of an initial Shin, and VOL. XI. No. 30.
a final Elif instead of nothing at all; the word
the accusative of the noun of action
bal root of which is
.). "To animate, enliven, stir up, be ac tive, lively, vigilant" (as neither Golius, Castell, nor Freytag has been able to discern any one of these meanings in the word
under the necessity of awarding to Mr. Roy the entire credit of their invention). "As a n. m. s. 7" (♬ should have (—), as in Job 9: 7, which is changed into (-) only when accompanied by a pauseaccent).
The few extracts we have made from the letter will suffice we think to justify the opinions we have expressed concerning the mer its of the School Dictionary. At the same time it were much to be desired, that its author had carried out more fully his idea of reuni ting when possible those roots which previous lexicographers have divided without sufficient reason. Thus the root, which Gesenius has separated into two parts, the first signifying to be foolish, the second to desire, to attempt to go, might we think easily be shown to bear a close relation to the Arabic to flee, to hasten, whence
S first, foremost; from which is naturally derived the idea of
acting with haste or inconsiderateness, and hence foolishly. The hastening or pushing of one's self forward, so characteristic of youth, is closely connected and especially by the grave Orientals with the idea of folly, while the deliberateness of movement peculiar to age is united in our minds with the notion of wisdom. This union of haste and folly is expressed in the forcible German proverbs, "Der Narr ist immer vorn an," "Mit dem Narren macht man Bahn." We could also have wished that M. Biesenthal had devoted some share of his attention to the comparison of the Hebrew with other languages; for, although his work is designed principally to be a student's manual, we agree with the opinion expressed by Gesenius in the preface to his smaller Grammar, that the exhibition of the relations which a language bears to others is an excellent means of keeping alive an interest in the young philologist for the objects of his pursuit an opinion, be it said, which applies with greater pro
priety to lexicography than to grammar. The author could easily have materially increased the interest and utility of his work, by givng at the end of each article the results of those comparisons in which Gesenius may be considered to have attained complete success. This, however, his desire for originality in all likelihood forbade.
We will now devote a short space to a consideration of the general character of the Complete Dictionary, although we fear that the reader like ourselves is already heartily disgusted with the subject; for, as the book is a native production, it behooves us once for all to make its real character completely known. The first point to which the attention is naturally directed on taking into consideration the character of a work is its general plan; but as we candidly confess our inability to discover in the present instance aught deserving the name, we will briefly state what appears to have been the mode of its fabrication. The grand idea then of the author it appears was this to copy from the Concordance all the forms of each word that occur in the Bible, and arrange them in the order of the alphabet, whether beginning with a radical or a servile letter. But this brilliant undertaking has not been crowned with success, as will sufficiently appear from the numerous deficiencies disclosed by a comparison of the first full page of the Dictionary with the lexicon of Gesenius, which we have made in compliance with the author's own proposal. In the first place, we find, agreeably to the alphabetical arrangement, the word 22 m. s. pret. Pi'hel of 2, but why is no mention made of the first pers. Jer. 15: 7? again, why par. 3 Sam. 17: 1, and
have we not Num. 17: 20, and with also ng Ps. 44: 7. 55: 24, etc.? It is true that these are not made separate articles by Gesenius, but they should be so to carry out the alphabetical principle of Mr. Roy; the following independent words, however, occur in the Bible and consequently in Gesenius, although in the "Complete Dictionary" they will be sought for
,6:24 .Exod אֲבִיאָסָף ,1 :19 .Sam 1 אֲבִיאֵל,175 :19 .Esth אַבְדָן ; in vain
Exod. 9: 31. Jer. 2: 14, 772 Gen. 25: 4,228 1 Sam. 8: 2, 7
Num. 1: 11. 2: 22,
conversive and conjunctive are of constant occurrence in almost every letter of the alphabet. The author states as one of the “superior advantages" of his Dictionary, that it will supply the place of a
concordance. He does not however appear to have the remotest idea of the real nature of such a work, the peculiar design of which is, not to give all the forms in which words occur together with their prefixes and suffixes, but to state in what places and in what connec tions they are found.
And even were the scheme of giving every word in the order of the alphabet completely carried into effect, its ridiculous absurdity will at once become apparent, when we reflect that were a verb conjugated through all the modes, tenses, and persons of all species, it would be necessary to insert it in not less than one hundred places, not including the prefixed particles. It is true, that no one verb is thus extensively employed; but we have examined the verb the Dictionary, and find that it occurs no less than twenty-nine times, while Gesenius in his lexicon has given it but a single place. The noun is also made to form seven distinct articles. We are thus enabled to perceive whence the author derives the boast in his modest preface of having given "several thousand more words than Hebrew lexicons in general."
That the author is not familiar with even the characters of the Arabic and Syriac, is obvious from the fact that out of every twenty words from either of those languages not three are correct. As we have already exhibited some specimens of this, we will here confine our remarks to the Arabic and Syriac columns in the table of “Oriental Alphabets" placed at the beginning. As only one form of each letter is given in mutilated alphabets of this sort, which by the way are intended not for use but for show, initials only should be employed; yet we meet with four medials in the Arabic column, and one (so) in the Syriac. In arranging the Arabic letters opposite the Hebrew, the author has made j=▾ 7, the reverse of the truth. The initial (named Caf) is properly placed opposite the Heb. ; while its medial form (named Kaf) is made to correspond to, the author evidently taking it for a different letter of the alphabet! The letter below this is Elif () instead of Lam (J). The Arabic (Sin) is placed
opposite to, and (Shin) to . In the Syriac column we have a final Yud () instead of an initial Nun (+).
We will now discuss, as briefly as possible, the claims of the book to "correctness and completeness in its definitions ;" and that neither himself or others may accuse or suspect us of doing him the slightest injustice, we will speak only of the first verb (72) which occurs, and of the first word (7) to which the author requests our particuar attention in this respect.
1. He perished, was lost, utterly destroyed; 2. went astray, departed from God;" (this last signification is completely erroneps: we have indeed a lost sheep, but the word is never applied to man in the metaphorical sense here attributed to it ;) 3. became vain, empty, desolate, destitute" (the product of the aur's brain). Although synonymous and erroneous interpretations re as elsewhere have lent their aid to give an appearance of fullto the definitions, the real uses even of the simple or Kal speare not all given, while those of Pi'hel and Hoph'hal are utterly glected. We will proceed at once to the other parts of the article, elling on them as slightly as possible. "3. m. s. Pret. K. irreg. Num. 17: 12." (not there) "Ps. 9: 67." (for 9: 6, 7; in the first the two verses it occurs in the Pi'hel with the transitive significato destroy), "Deut. 32: 28." (the word is here not a preterite a participle) "Hiph. Num. 24: 9." (not there) "aff. She " should be ). “Arab. To perish, die. Kimki.” (the mount of ignorance and presumption compressed within this small ace is truly astonishing: the middle letter of the Arabic root hould be an initial not a final Be, thus ; the meaning attributed it is the direct reverse of the true one, which is to last long, to dure, and in support of it we are referred to Kimki! The fact is Kimchi never wrote an Arabic lexicon, and the Sepher Hashshorahim makes no mention of the word Deut. 33: 18." (incorrect). "As a n. f. s. A lost person" 77EN untrue: the word is applied to things only)" destruction, perdition, the invisible state, the bottomless pit" (all false). “ Exod. 22: 9." not there: it should be 22: 8.) " Deut. 22: 5." (not there: it should be 22: 3.) "Prov. 22: 20." (not in the chapter). " Chald." (false: the termination i is purely Hebrew, and occurs in a multitude of Bouns, e. g. in, in, im, etc.; again, as the author supposes it to be Chaldee, why does he refer for it to " Job 28: 22." Is Job written in Chaldee!)
.Targ. Onk תֵיבִידוּן