94 SEMITIC LANGUAGE 



these the former was dropped by all Semitic dialects except Assyrian 

 and Ethiopic, and in these two were differentiated in function. 

 Further, there grew up a differentiation by means of vowels : yaktul 

 and yaktal; and the prefix was written sometimes yu instead of ya 

 (yi). These were originally simple phonetic differences, later func- 

 tionally differentiated. In the derived stems the Imperfect prefix 

 follows the same phonetic laws as the stem prefix. Thus from 

 inkatala (for nakatala) we have yankatilu (for yanakatilu), from 

 istaktala (for satakatala), we have yastaktilu (for yasatakatilu) . 



The Assyrian Permansive presents a curious degraded aspect. 

 It resembles the ordinary Semitic Perfect in form, being made by 

 the addition of a pronoun to the simple stem. On the other hand it 

 has a prevailingly passive signification, and is of rare occurrence. 

 Two explanations of this state of things are possible: it may be 

 supposed that the Permansive is an embryonic Perfect, exhibiting 

 the attempt to create a form by the addition of a pronoun to the 

 stem, an attempt never completely carried out; or we may suppose 

 that the Permansive was a true Perfect which has fallen into relative 

 desuetude. The widespread use of the Perfect in the other Semitic 

 dialects, taken together with the linguistic unity of the Semitic 

 peoples, is a consideration that tells against the supposition that the 

 Permansive is an abortive Perfect; it would be strange if this form, 

 developed everywhere else in the Semitic area, had simply failed to 

 come to completion in Babylonia and Assyria. On the other hand, 

 the infrequency of its use in Assyrian may be accounted for by the 

 fact that the Imperfect was developed in a peculiar way. The func- 

 tion of the Perfect is to express the act pure and simple. This simple 

 act the Assyrian expresses by means of one of the Imperfect forms. 

 How it was led to this we do not know; but supposing that this usage 

 grew up, then it is conceivable that the Perfect should gradually 

 have fallen out, being retained only to express certain peculiar con- 

 ceptions. There are examples elsewhere of similar depression of 

 grammatical forms. 



In this discussion no attempt has been made to discover the origin 

 of the Imperfect preformatives ya, ta, a, na ; it is only in regard to 

 their function as prefixes that they are examined. The view stated 

 above is not antagonistic to, is rather intended to be explanatory 

 of, the theory that the yaktulu of the Imperfect is originally a noun, 

 meaning "he who kills"; what is suggested is that this noun means 

 properly "he who moves toward the act of killing," and that the 

 Imperfect bears to the Perfect a relation similar to that borne by 

 the derived stems to the simple stem. 



