Изображения страниц

one burmed in הָרָה בְעֵינֵי פְל ,anger

1. to burn, used only of anger; with 3) as Ps. 18: 8: 13.77 he burned

, burned s glowed with rage ; with against rson and sy of the object, less often Job 1: 6. Part. pl. 7 Is. 41: 11,

Hiph. 776. fut. apoc. 157 1. to ob 19: 11. 2. to be ardent, zealous. t. 7 ona to enrage one's self, to con12:5. 22: 15. Hithp. fut. apoc. In Ps. 37: 1.”

Dictionary” bas as follows: “ fretful, etc. ; 3. zealous, etc. Neh. 3: nce is the third signification, which is pred with a reference which is refused Pret. K. reg.” (this is an error, as aceology adopted by Mr. Roy the verbs d. 32 : 1,” (it occurs in the eleventh ot t in the first,)“ 12" (the only word ears in this verse is, not the future of


f M. Biesenthal with regard to the obworthy of notice. This word he supisposition from 0770=n77 to rise, as of his opinion the proper noun na???? . Josh. 19: 50. 24: 30, and the words e regards as an instance of paronomaus, however, who considers the primi

heat, and the root on an instance 7745, is by no means destitute of prothe letters r and s being of frequent g. Germ. war, eisen, hase, Eng. was,

“ Dictionary on a New and Improved wing: "07"], in Arab. Lipa" (this monly unfortunate : it contains an ini. medial instead of an initial Shin, and


a final Elif instead of nothing at all the word lip can only be

the accusative of the noun of action




the ter


,حرش able to discern any one of these meanings in the word

we are

bal root of which is

To animate, enliven, stir up,

be tive, lively, vigilant(as neither Golius, Castell, nor Freytag has been

, under the necessity of awarding to Mr. Roy the entire credit of their invention). “As a n. m. s. 077” (17 should have (), as in Job 9: 7, which is changed into (-) only when accompanied by a pause. accent).

The few extracts we have made from the letter of will suffice we think to justify the opinions we have expressed concerning the merits 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 reün. ting when possible those roots which previous lexicographers hare divided without sufficient reason. Thus the root :&; , which Gese. nius 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 Ji, to flee, to hasten, whence Jis 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 giving 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 772% 2 m. s. pret. Pi’hel of 728, but why is no mention made of the first pers. 772% Jer. 15: 7 ? again, why have we not haş Num. 17: 20, and with -7 par. 3 Sam. 17: 1, and also 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 in vain ; 1938 Esth. 9: 5, 58IX 1 Sam. 9: 1, 7041an Exod. 6:24, 53 Exod. 9:31. Jer. 2: 14, 1738 Num. 1:11. 2: 22, 728 Gen. 25: 4, 7938 1 Sam. 8: 2, 215Jer. 10: 1. Words with ; 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 connections 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 verbis thus extensively employed; but we have examined the verb Tip in 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 :777 is also made to form seven distinct articles. We are thus enabled to perceive whence the author derives the boast in his mod. est 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 “ Oniental 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 (se) 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. 3 ; while its medial forms (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 (1) instead of Lam (J). The Arabic

(Sin) is placed opposite to , and (Shin) to . In the Syriac column we have a final Yud (2) instead of an initial Nun (-).

[ocr errors]

and u

[ocr errors]

fly as possible, the claims of the book ess in its definitions ;” and that neither T suspect us of doing him the slightest f the first verb (72) which occurs, hich the author requests our particu


ost, utterly destroyed ; 2. went astray, st signification is completely errone

a lost sheep, but the word is taphorical sense here attributed to it;) te, destitute" (the product of the aunymous and erroneous interpretations eir aid to give an appearance of full

uses even of the simple or Kal speose of Pi'hel and Hoph'hal are utterly it once to the other parts of the article, s possible. “3. m. s. Pret. K. irreg. “Ps. 9: 67.” (for 9: 6,7; in the first che Pi'hel with the transitive significa28.” (the word is here not a preterite n. 24: 9." (not there) “aff. She " MUI To perish, die. Kimki.” (the umption compressed within this small ne middle letter of the Arabic root Be, thus ul; the meaning attributed e true one, which is to last long, to are referred to Kimki ! The fact is lexicon, and the Sepher Hashshoraword usb “ 9979999 Targ. Onk. “ As a n. f. s. 7728 A lost personthings only)" destruction, perdition, less pit” (all false). “Exod. 22: 9." ) “ Deut. 22:5.” (not there : it should -t in the chapter). “;; Chald.” (false : ebrew, and occurs in a multitude of 71197, etc. ; again, as the author supoes he refer for it to “ Job 28: 22.” Is

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »