52 SYSTEMS OF C N S A N G T I N I T Y AND AFFINITY 



closely to a purely descriptive method by the use of the primary terms. The 

 Erse and Gaelic are nearer to the Arabic in their minute forms than they are to 

 any form of any Aryan nation, except the Armenian and the Scandinavian. 



It is quite probable that the words for uncle and aunt are of comparatively 

 modem use in Arabic as terms of relationship, as they have other meanings, which 

 for a period of time may have been exclusive. In answer to an inquiry upon this 

 point the distinguished American missionary Dr. C. V. A. Van Dyck, of Beirut, 

 Syria, writes : " The Arabic words for uncle and aunt, 'amm 'ammet, IcMl 'khdJet, 

 are derived from pure Arabic roots, but are not necessarily of very ancient use in 

 the above meanings, as they have several other meanings. Their use in describing 

 degrees of relationship may be somewhat later than the early history of the 

 lano'uao-e, yet they are found as far back as we have any remains of the language. 

 If the Himyaritic were sufficiently restored to be of use, it might throw some light 

 upon what you remark concerning the Erse and Gaelic." 



The presence of two of these terms in the Hebrew, and of the four in the Nes- 

 torian, gives to them necessarily a very great antiquity as terms of relationship ; 

 but it may be possible to reach beyond the period of their first introduction. 



The marriage relationships are quite fully discriminated, and reveal some pecu- 

 liarities. For an inspection of them reference is again made to the Table. 



2. Druse and Maronite. — This form is so nearly identical with the last that it 

 does not require a separate notice. The fact of its identity, both in form and terms, 

 is important, however, since it furnishes a criterion for determining the stability of 

 the system during the period these nations have been politically distinct. 



II. Hebraic Branch. Hebrew Nation. The same difficulty that prevented tlie 

 restoration of the Sanskrit system of relationsliip in its full original form exists also 

 with reference to the Hebrew. It ceased to be a living form when the language 

 ceased to be spoken, and from the remains of the language it can only be restored 

 conjecturally beyond the nearest degrees. 



In the lineal line all persons above father and below son must have been described 

 by a combination of the primary terms. This is inferable also from the general 

 tenor of the Scripture genealogies. There are special terms for descendants of the 

 third and fourth generation Avhich were applied to each specifically. 



The series in the first collateral line, male, as given in the Table, is limited to two 

 persons, namely, brother and son of brother. It is to be inferred that the remain- 

 inc descendants were described as son of son of brother, and so downward as fiu- as 

 the relationship was to be traced. 



In this language the term for paternal uncle is dodhi, the literal signification of 

 which is " beloved." Is it to be inferred that this relationship Avas not discrimi- 

 nated until after the Hebrew became a distinct dialect, or that it superseded the 

 original of the Arabic \imm? The first two members of this branch of the line 

 only are given in the table, namely, initernal imcle and son of jja^er?«o^ tinrJe. 

 Without doubt the remaining persons were described as in the Arabic. The ana- 

 logy of the system suggests this inference. In "JJii and "Moth, maternal uncle and 

 aui.t, Ave find Avords from the same root as l-hdl and l-MIet for the same relation- 

 ships. The description of persons in these branches is the same as in the last case. 



