4 The Rev. Edward Hincks on the Personal Pronouns of the 



equivalent of the Hebrew anoki, with the Greek and Latin ego; the final vowel 

 of which is dropped in the Gothic and Lithuanian sub-families, as it is in the 

 Coptic, and probably in the Phoenician ; while the Sanskrit sub-family annexes 

 a new syllable to the mutilated Lithuanian form.* 



5. Two questions respecting this pronoun were unanswered in that paper. 

 What is the nature of the syllable an, which commences it and all similar forms 

 belonging to the first and second persons? and what the distinction between 

 the two Hebrew forms belonging to the first person singular, anoki and ani ? 

 I am now prepared to answer these questions, and in answering them I shall 

 be able to introduce all that I have to say respecting the other pronouns. 



6. First then, as to the prefix an. I have discovered that it is a verbal 

 theme ; so that anoki is in fact the first person singular of a verb, of which atta 

 and attem are the second person masculine, singular and plural. In the second 

 person, the prominal termination is the same as what appears in verbs ; but in 

 the first the verb has ti and nu, while the pronoun has oki and akhnu. Look- 

 ing, then, to the Hebrew alone, or (I may add) to it and the languages of the 

 same family that have been heretofore known, there existed no good grounds 

 for considering an to be a verb. It is possible that it may have been conjec- 

 tured to be so ; but I am not aware that it was. 



7. The case is different in Assyrian. In that language the first person of 

 the verb corresponding to the Hebrew lamadti would be lamdaku, the form of 

 which is identical with that of andku. Lamadti would be in Assyrian the 



* The changes in the latter part of the so-called pronoun of the first person singular in the 

 junior members of the Hebrajo- Assyrian family are very similar to those which have taken place 

 in the Gothic and Lithuanian sub-families. The final vowel is retained in the Hebrew anoki and 

 the Assyrian anafcu, but in these only. The Phoenician ~f3S was probably pronounced anak; anah 

 was used in the Aramsean dialect, commonly called Chaldee; ana in the same language, and in 

 Arabic. The Coptic forms were anok and anak ; the ancient Egyptian was probably anuka. Let 

 these forms, deprived of the initial an, which is common to them all, be compared with the Maeso- 

 Gothic and Anglo-Sa.\on ik, the old German ih, the Icelandic eg, the Lithuanian asz, the old Prussian 

 as, and the Sclavonic az. The Zend form is azem, the old Persian adam, and the Sanskrit aham. 

 If we had only this pronoun to consider, it would be natural to suppose the final syllable in these 

 last forms to represent the u at the end of the Assyrian word. This is, however, an inadmissible 

 e.Kplanation of it, because the same syllable is attached to other pronouns, as in tivam and wayam, 

 where no such substitution could have taken place. 



