« ZurückWeiter »
a final Elif instead of nothing at all; the word L
to bear a close relation to the Arabic J
the accusative of the noun of action
bal root of which is). "To animate, enliven, stir up, be active, 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. " ( 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 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 reuniting 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 flee, to hasten, whence
can only be
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 2 m. s. pret. Pi'hel of, but why is no mention made of the first pers. 728 Jer. 15: 7? again, why have we not Num. 17: 20, and with par. 2 Sam. 17: 1, and also BUEN Ps. 447. 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,11 :19 .Sam 1 אֲבִיאֵל25 :19 .Esth אַבְדָן ; in vain
Exod. 9:31. Jer. 2: 14, 17
Num. 1: 11. 2: 22, FTEN Gen. 25: 4,2 1 Sam. 8: 2, N2 Jer. 10: 1. Words with 1 conversive and conjunctive are of constant occurrence in almost every letter of the alphabet. The author states as one of the "supe rior 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 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 (j, S, m, ii) in the Arabic column, and one (a) in the Syriac. In arranging the Arabic letters opposite the Hebrew, the author has made j=7 and , the reverse of the truth. The initial (named Caf) is properly placed opposite the Heb. ; while its medial form S (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 it. 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 (7) which occurs, and of the first word (2) to which the author requests our particular attention in this respect.
1. He perished, was lost, utterly destroyed; 2. went astray, departed from God;" (this last signification is completely erroneous: we have indeed a lost sheep, but the word 2 is never applied to man in the metaphorical sense here attributed to it ;) "3. became vain, empty, desolate, destitute” (the product of the author's brain). Although synonymous and erroneous interpretations here as elsewhere have lent their aid to give an appearance of fullness to the definitions, the real uses even of the simple or Kal species are not all given, while those of Pi'hel and Hoph'hal are utterly neglected. We will proceed at once to the other parts of the article, dwelling 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 of the two verses it occurs in the Pi'hel with the transitive signification to destroy), "Deut. 32: 28." (the word is here not a preterite but a participle) "Hiph. Num. 24: 9." (not there) "aff. She " (it should be). “Arab. To perish, die. Kimki." (the amount of ignorance and presumption compressed within this small space is truly astonishing: the middle letter of the Arabic root should be an initial not a final Be, thus f; the meaning attributed to it is the direct reverse of the true one, which is to last long, to endure, and in support of it we are referred to Kimki ! The fact is Kimchi never wrote an Arabic lexicon, and the Sepher Hashshorashim makes no mention of the word “'n Targ. Onk. on Deut. 33: 18." (incorrect). “As a n. f. s. 73Ŋ A lost person” (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). "ji Chald." (false: the termination is purely Hebrew, and occurs in a multitude of nouns, e. g. ie, fine, it, 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!)
"y." We pass over the string of synonymes in No. 1, and proceed to "2. he taught, punished, Jud. 8: 16." (the word is here in Hiph'hil, and signifies merely to cause to know, to teach); "3. revealed, made known, Gen. 45: 1." (the word is here in the Hithp. with the reflexive meaning he made himself known); “ 4. was discovered, 1 Sam. 22: 6." (the word is in Niph. the passive of the simple form Kal); "6. he directed, pointed out, Exod. 18: 20." (it is here in Hiph. and with the same meaning as in No. 2.) "7. constituted, etc. 1 Sam. 21:2." (not there); "9. regarded, etc. 1 Sam. 2: 1. 2: 10." (not to be found in either place); “10. was convinced, etc.; 11. he produced, etc.; 12. distinguished,” etc. (in all the passages referred to in support of these senses, the verb retains its primary meaning, to know; except in "Deut. 1: 29," where it does not appear!); "13. acknowledged, etc.; 14. feared," etc. (the same may be observed of the significations here given; for the last we are referred to 1 Sam. 2: 12, where it means simply to know scil. the Lord, as correctly rendered in the English version) “3. m. s. Pret. K. irreg.
Ps. 1: 6." (we here find a participle, but no preterite) "Prov. 27: 23." (a future and an infinitive, but no preterite) “ Dan. 6: 10.” (not there besides the whole chapter is in Chaldee !) "F. 1 Sam. 20: 30." (we find here which as the merest tyro might perceive, is a preterite and not a future)" Deut. 8: 5." ("37"!) “ Job 20: 20." (the root itself!!). "aff. 3 f. s. 2. m. s." (why not also 2. f. s. Jer. 50: 24. ?) "1. c. p." (the Daghesh should be erased)" 2. m. p." (a Daghesh should be inserted in ; why have we not also
Gen. 31: 6. ?) her" (it should be ). Niph. 1 Sam. 22: 6. F. v. 31." (the chapter has but twenty-three verses). "Piail. 1 Sam. 21: 2." (not there). imagine, invent, devise, think" (the only point of resemblance between this and the root to know, that we can discover, is that both contain a 7!)
To בָּדָא Whence »
These are the results of an impartial examination of the two books whose titles stand at the head of these pages. We think we have fully redeemed our promise of showing a warrant for the opinions of their respective merits stated in the outset: viz. that the School Dictionary may be regarded as a valuable accession to the stores of Hebrew lexicography, while the Complete Hebrew and English Dictionary is wholly unworthy of