196 Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. [Sept. 



erroneous idea, that T considered the final n in aman as related/, e. to 

 the n in ciU-jJ-w, Gib'orc (root gaba'), <D\y^ from the root jla., or in 

 ruhono from ruh. But to mix up the etymological n in derivatives 

 with the 3rd radical n in Uiliteral roots is a monstrosity, of which I 

 certainly never thought. By an accessory, I mean that 3rd letter, 

 which Mr. Beames and I do not consider as belonging to an ultimate 

 biliteral root. I might have called it the modifyer of the idea of the 

 root. Thus the ultimate root iai, which people quote so often, has 

 yielded many triliteral roots as Joj f cUaJ, jk$^ ^Jai. In calling the 

 j*, J, j. a accessories, I do not consider ^lai as a compound or gram- 

 matical process (?) of the biliteral lai ? but I maintain, that the syllable 

 iai contains the general idea of catting and that the accessories reduce 

 the general idea of cutting to a particular kind of cutting. Thus the 

 letter j*, which we pronounce by closing our lips, superadds to every 

 Shemitic verb ending in (*, the idea of closing. The syllable k.s means 

 cutting generally, and *Jai must combine the meanings of cutting and 

 closing. On referring to the Dictionary we find that /Jai is applied 

 to cattle tearing off grass with their lips. (Freytag : extremis denti- 

 bus prehendit et gustavit). 



11 1 trust Mr. Beames will now understand the term accessory or 

 modifyer. I need not here explain the modification produced by the 

 accessory n in ' amaw,' as Mr. Beames holds a different view. But I 

 must ask Mr. Beames, to let me know the meaning of his prosthetic 

 Aleph. For if it be a true axiom that language forms nothing use- 

 lessly, and if the syllable man be the ultimate biliteral root of aman, 

 the first Aleph must exercise some influence on the general meaning 

 of the biliteral man, which Mr. Beames will now have to explain. 

 To call it a prosthetic Aleph merely, implies nothing, and is besides, 

 to say the least of it, a misnomer. For the term prosthetic is given 

 to the Aleph in <jjl>^| for Plato, eshkol a grape for shkol, &c, and is 

 purely euphonic. But the syllable man is so easily pronounced, 

 that no language on earth would put a prosthetic Aleph before it. 



" Mr. Beames calls my proposed etymology, " fanciful" and " unsup- 

 ported." I pass in silence over the former epithet, but I shall prove 

 that the latter was applied too hastily. If Mr. Beames will kindly 

 refer to the root 1p2 j&£ in Gesenius' Lexicon, he will find it 

 compared with, and of similar meanings as, II^ ")^ and ")?M, 



