Assyrian and other Languages, especially Hebrew. 5 



second person singular feminine, the masculine being Idmadtd. These again 

 correspond to aiii and attd, which of course stand for anti and antd. Looking 

 then to the Assyrian language, it is quite plain that an is a verbal root, and that 

 the true subjective pronouns are dku, ta, and ti, corresponding to the Latin ego 

 and tu. 



8. It is remarkable that in all the languages of the Lido-European family 

 the subjective pronoun of the second person singular is common to both genders, 

 while in all those of the Hebrseo- Assyrian a distinction of gender exists.* 

 From the resemblance in termination of tu to aku, it is probable that it was the 

 more ancient form ; and that the double form was a refinement, made by the 

 one race after the other had separated from it. It is uncertain whether the 

 old Egyptian had one or two forms for this pronoun. It was rarely used; and 

 in Coptic it is altogether wanting.f 



9. It is next to be considered what this verbal root an signifies. What would 

 first occur to most persons would be that it was the as or es of the Indo-Euro- 

 pean languages ; so that andku would be equivalent to the Latin sum. Further 

 examination will, however, prove that it must mean something more. The 

 Assyrian inscriptions contain a sentence equivalent to sum rex ; and this is not 

 expressed by sar andku, but by sarrdku. Andku is therefore something diffe- 

 rent from sum ; and I take it to be adsum. This verbal prefix, it will be ob- 



•In Latin and Doric Greek we have /m,- other Greek, su; Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, and Icelandic, thu ■ 

 old German, du; Lithuanian and Sclavonic, tu; with the addition of am, we have the old Persian 

 tuwam, the Zend tiim, and the Sanskrit twain; all these are equally applicable to masculines and 

 feminines. On the other hand, atta, and in Arabic anta, are addressed to males ; atti and alt, and 

 in Arabic anti, to females. 



^ Antok will be explained hereafter. It is compounded o{ anto and k, not of an and to/c. No 

 comparison can, therefore, be made with propriety between this word and the HebrEo- Assyrian 

 pronouns of the second person. In a few old Egyptian forms tu is used for the pronoun of the 

 second person singular masculine. I do not recollect having met with these forms addressed to a 

 female; and I can scarcely say whether I should e.xpect tu. or ti. On the one hand, there is the fact 

 that the Egyptians had distinct affi.'ces h and t for the second person singular masculine and femi- 

 nine; but, on the other band, it should be observed that the form tu is the Indo-European one of 

 the common gender, not the Hebreeo- Assyrian masculine. The plural affix of the second person 

 is the same, to the eye at least, in botli genders. It is not certain, Iiowever, that it was not pro- 

 nounced tun when masculine, and tin when ftmiuiue; the short vowel, interposed between the 

 consonants, not being expressed. 



