ON THE COMPARISON OF ASIATIC LANGUAGES. 219 
explained. Meantime the answer given to all who have 
ee to compare Semitic and other Asiatic languages 
s, that a radical distinction exists in the structure “of the 
ence languages, because theyspring, not from monosyllabic, 
but from bisyllabic roots. When, however, we consider the 
number of very ancient monosyllabic words in Hebrew, such 
aoeeaion tater’; Ben, “son; Gub, “pits Gu, “middle” 
&c., &e., when we hear in ordinary Arab conversation that 
monosyllabic words play much the same part as in other 
languages; we may begin to doubt whether the strict insis- 
tance on triliteral roots is not rather a learned system, than 
a peculiar feature of the genius of the language. And this 
doubt continues when we inspect Hebrew grammars and 
dictionaries, and find that Semitic languages have indeed 
some monosyllabic roots, though these are treated as due to 
contraction. 
A Hebrew dictionary contains nearly 1,500 roots, but out 
of these not a third in all are perfect, that is to say, consist of 
three consonants forming two syllables. The rest, called 
quiescent, defective, and double, are either formed with a vowel, 
or are monosyllabic in the imperative, which is the true root 
in every language. The perfect roots are similar to the third 
class of Aryan roots, and they represent an advanced stage 
in language, such as will not be denied to be that reached 
by Semitic speech. These perfect roots are, in some cases 
as we shall see, the same in sound and meaning found in 
Aryan languages; and in many cases they can be resolved 
into an original monosyllable with a suffix, much as in other 
Hung UGS Thus we find Bad, ‘separate”; Badal, “sepa- 
rate”; Baddk, “cleave ”; where the suffixes J and k have 
evidently been attached to the old original root Bad, which 
may be compared with the Aryan root Bhi id, ‘to divide.” In 
other cases the roots are formed by prefixing NV, which, how- 
ever, disappears in the imperative, as for instance the verb 
Nagash, “to draw near,” of which the imperative is (ésh. 
This prefixed NV occurs in parts of the verb in languages not 
Semitic, and forms the Miphal form in Hebrew, with passive 
signification, appearing to be an ancient auxiliary attached 
to the real root. Such indications, and others which need 
not now be detailed, may incline us to suppose that the 
original roots of Semitic languages were monosyllables, and 
that the present structure arises from the preference for 
secondary roots, as more distinctly conveying a special 
signification; and the fact that many of these ‘second: ary roots 
a) 
: 
