Saxons, and therefore, sent Anglo-Saxon clergy to Denmark to humanize the people by Christianity, which office they performed without interpreters. The Scandinavian North, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, all of them spoke German dialects.

It follows then from our preceding remarks, that

I. The Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Chaldean and Egyptian languages are but dialects from one primitive, unknown language.

II. The Greek, and consequently the Latin, are formed and derived from these Oriental tongues.

III. The ancient Gallic was the Celtic.

IV. The Roman or rustic language, was a mixture of Latin and Celtic.

V. The Franconian was the Tudesc (German.)

VI. The present French was formed from the Roman or rustic language.

VII. The Franconian, Anglo-Saxon, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian languages were but dialects from the German.

In deducing the English language, which is composed of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman-French languages, from its sources, we must follow three distinct streams-the one commencing with the Oriental languages, passing through the Greek and Latin to the Roman or rustic tongue of Gaul, then to the French, and finally to the English-the second springing from the Celtic, and descending to the English, also through the Roman or rustic language-the third coming from the Teutonic, and dividing into the various dialects of Franconian or Tudesc, Anglo-Saxon, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, and thence to the English. The two first streams meet and unite in the lingua Romana rustica, and the third flows from the Teutonic source uninterruptedly to the English.

There is no direct communication between the Oriental, Celtic and Teutonic tongues; the two first meet in the Roman or rustic language, and the third is connected to them only through the English. This is the mode, according to our view, after which the English language should be traced backwards, but not, as our author does, trace an English word to the Teutonic, thence to the Oriental or Celtic, and contrariwise; nor will it be correct to trace it to the Celtic, thence to the Teutonic or Oriental languages, for, as we have shown, there is no direct historical communication between them.

* Bartholinus in Ant. Dan. lib. i. c. 10.

VOL. V. NO. 10.

48

And now it is time to discuss with our author the verbal affinities, connexions and analogies, by which he is guided in settling the derivatives in his dictionary, and determine their cor

rectness.

"There is one instance, in the modern languages of Teutonic origin, in which we find the Arabic nunnation: this is the German and Dutch binnen, the Saxon binnan or binnon, signifying within, Hebrew and Chaldee beyn, Arabic, bayn, without the mark of nunnation, when it signifies within; but when it signifies separation, space, interval, the original sense, it is written baynan and pronounced with the nunnation, like the Teutonic word."-Affinity of languages.

Bayn, it is true, in Arabic as well as in Hebrew and Chaldee, signifies between, among, but these words in German are represented by qwischen, unter, and in Dutch tusschen, onder; the word binnen signifies in German within (in time); but baynan, in Arabic, signifies, distinctly, clearly, evidently, and nothing else, and is derived from quite a different root ayin (eye); within is rendered in Arabic by andar or dahhil or dahhla from the root dahhal (to enter) and in Hebrew, by tohh from the root tanahk (middle); the Germans use binnen (within) only in relation to time, but for space they use innerhalb composed of two words inne (in) and halb (half) half-in; binnen seems to be composed of two prepositions bei (by) and in (in); the English within of the prepositions with and in; the French dedans of the prepositions de and dans, so the Italian indentro, and the Latin intra of in and trans. Now is there any resemblance between the Teutonic binnen and the Arab dahhla? Any resemblance between the Arabic baynan (clear, evident) and the German klar, effenbar?

But as many words, in all the languages of Europe and Asia, are formed with prepositions, perhaps it may be found on examination, that some of these prefixes may be common to the families of both stocks, the Japhetic and the Shemitic. We find in German, gemüth, in Dutch, gemoed, from muth, moed, mind, mood. We find mad in Saxon is gemaad; polish the Latin, polio, is in Welsh, caboli; mail, in Italian, is both maglia and camaglia; belief, in Saxon is geleaf, and in German, glaube. We find that in the Shemitic languages mala signifies to fill or be full, and we find in the Arabic kamal has the same signification.-Ibid.

Ge is no preposition is German, and has by itself no signification at all, but is a particle forming by prefixture collective nouns; thus, stern (star) and gestirn (constellation, a collection of stars); wolke (cloud), and gewolke (a collection of clouds) &c. So with muth (courage, disposition) and gemuth (mind, the seat of affections of the soul.) Maglia, it is true, is a mail in

Italian, but camaglio (not as the author spells camaglia) is the neck-piece of a mail, and is probably an abbreviation of coll and maglia; that it is not the same word, is apparent from their different genders, maglia being feminine and camaglio masculine. In the word glaube the g belongs to the root, for laube alone, is in the German a bower, which can have no connexion with belief, consequently the g is no preformative particle, but a letter belonging to the root. The German glaube is the same as the Saxon geleaf, except that the ƒ is changed into b; also mala in the Arabic is full, (Latin multum); but kamal is in Arabic, perfectly, exactly, and may be derived either from Kam (excellent, precious) or from Kamm (quantity); thus the Arabic kim, (many, much) All these words seem to be compounds, contracted of ka and ma (how much?) which is the same in the Hebrew.

"The Greek Taga is doubtless from the root of the English fare, Saxon faran to go, to pass. It signifies from, that is departure-also at, to Lat. ad; near with, beyond and against.

"To understand the cause of the different and apparently contrary significations, we are to attend to the primary sense. The effect of passing to a place is nearness at, presso, prés, and this may be expressed by the participle, or, in a contracted form, by the verb. The act of passing or moving towards a place, readily gives the sense of such prepositions as to and the Latin ad, and this advance may be in favour of or for the benefit of a person or thing, the primary sense of which may perhaps, be best expressed by towards "a present or a measure is towards him." But when the advance of one thing towards another, is in enmity or opposition, we express the sense by against, and this sense is especially expressed when the motion or approach is in front of a person, or intended to meet or counteract another motion. Hence the same word is often used to express both senses; the context determining which signification is intended. Thus, for in English, in the sentence, he that is not for us is against us," denotes in favour of. But in the phrase "for all that," it denotes opposition. "It rains, but for all that, we will take a ride," that is, " in opposition to that, or notwithstanding the rain, we will ride."-Ibid.

The Latin ad (English at) is undoubtedly derived from the Hebrew or Arabic ad, a preposition of extensive meaning; we should be rather inclined to derive the Greek aga from the Persian par, (a wing) also used as a participle (flying) as well as a preposition, again, opposite, over-against, above, upon, and thence the meaning through, beyond, over; we have also in Arabic, par, (flight); in this meaning, the French aller (to go) may come from the Latin ala, (a wing) and again, the Latin ala from the Hebrew halahh (to go); also in Hebrew is ayber, (wing) and from this may also come the Hebrew word abar, (to pass.)

"And, Sax. and Goth, signifies against, opposite. This is the Greek avr, and Latin ante, not borrowed from the Greek or Latin, but a native word. Examples, andstandan, to stand against, to resist; andswarian, answarian, to answer; that is, to speak again, against, or in return."-Ibid.

We should never confound a preposition with a mere particle, however similar they may appear; for example, the German particle ver, which has no meaning at all, except when prefixed to a verb, ought not to be confounded with the preposition vor, which has a distinct meaning of its own, and does not, as our author imagines, stand in any etymological connexion with the particle ver just mentioned; for ver, as a particle, indicates an end, perfection, completion, as arbeiten (to work) and ver arbeiten (to digest, destroy by working); arm (poor) ver armen (to become quite poor) &c.; but the preposition vor denotes a preference or advance in time or place, and answers, in some measure, to the English before. Just so is it with the Saxon and; when a preposition, it answers to the English and, the German und, the Latin et, etiam, quoque; but when it is a particle, it answers to the Latin contra; the proof that they do not belong to one and the same root, is, that the Germans make a distinction between the preposition and the particle, for, as a preposition, the Germans spell it und, and as a particle, it is spelt ent; thus, the German kommen, (to come) and entkommen, (to escape) sagen, (to say) entsagen (to renounce, refuse) &c. Also, the Greek av indicates no opposition or contrariety when used as a preposition; it has this meaning only when used as a particle in composition. This word, we think, is derived from the Arabic anta, (thou) because it is natural that the first idea of opposition should be personified, by ignorant men, by a person standing opposite one's self; hence, anah, (to answer, to agree) may be derived from ano, (I) and hence, we think, that the derivatives in the Arabic anti, (retiring, remaining behind) and in the Latin ante, (before) only denote that the persons or subjects in question, are not in parallel, or that they do not agree.

"Nach, properly nigh, as in nachbar, neighbour; but its most common signification in composition is, after; as in nachgehen, to go after. This sense is easily deducible from its primary sense, which is close, near, from urging, pressing or following. In Dutch, this word is contracted to na, as in nabuur, neighbour; nagaar, to follow. The Russ has na also, a prefix of extensive use, and, probably, the same word. This fact suggests the question, whether the ancestors of these great families of men had not their residence in the same or an adjoining territory. It deserves also to be considered, whether this na is not the Shemitic ", occurring as a prefix to verbs."-Ibid.

Here, again, our author has confounded the German adverb nahe (nigh, near) with the preposition nach, (after) which meaning it has not only in composition, but as a preposition, in itself. The word nachbar, was, perhaps, originally spelled nahbar, and thence the literal English translation neighbour. The Russian na is a preposition, and signifies upon, above, but the preposition after, is expresssed in Russian by the prepositions poslee and za. Then, in the Shemitic language, has no other signification when prefixed (as in the future tense) or suffixed (as in the præterite tense) to verbs, but we, and is nothing but an abbreviation of the pronoun ɑnu, (we.)

Really, to review the whole Introduction of our author in detail, would take a great many more pages than could be appropriated to this article. We are, moreover, afraid of tiring the patience of our readers, especially as our own gave out some time since. We, therefore, think it time to pause, and we may enter more into detail at some future opportunity.

ART. V.-Rationale of Judicial Evidence specially applied to English Practice. From the Manuscripts of JEREMY BENTHAM, Esq. Bencher of Lincoln's-Inn. In 5 vols. 8vo. London. 1828.

THIS is an extension of the Traité des preuves judiciaires, compiled by M. Dumont in 1823, from the notes of Mr. Bentham. M. Dumont, with great propriety, left out of his book all Mr. Bentham's applications to the English system of Law and of Practice. In the present edition, those applications and illustrations have been preserved and enlarged.

We could have wished the present editor had translated the work out of the obscure, involuted, Benthamee dialect in which it is written. A book, more disgustingly affected, and so nearly unintelligible, it is not possible to produce in the English language, with the exception of some of Mr. Bentham's former works, which equally exhibit specimens of what may, by the courtesy due to Mr. Bentham, be called English, but on no other score. Frequently, we have hunted with great care for some new and profound thought involved in a page of this mysterious dialect, and found only common-place notions arranged