PHILOLOGY TO THE TEUTH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 201 



by which, when two nouns, the second of which was in the 

 genitive, combined to form one phrase, the first, if it had shed 

 the original feminine ending t and become d, as in primitive 

 Indo-European, always resumed the old feminine ending t, thus 

 retaining the feeling of its being feminine. For example, 

 riD^D, Susdh, is " mare," but " the mare of the Jdng " is 



"ryb^rr np^D, susath hammeUhh, where the th, another form of 



t, is resumed because of this idiom. 



Indo-European, on the other hand, when once the t had gone 

 from the feminine, never resumed it. 



On such apparent trifles does the development of language 

 depend. The scientific philologist cannot be too careful in 

 avoiding question-begging epithets, statements, and comparisons 

 which close investigations that ought to be left open. For 

 example, by way of warning, Hebraists were accustomed to 

 speak of Piel and Hiphil, the intensive and causative parts of 

 the Hebrew verb, as though the language had been constructed 

 intentionally, like Esperanto. In fact, one gentleman, in an 

 edition of a standard Hebrew grammar from which he has 

 expunged every valuable philological note by the original 

 author, actually cites Esperanto in illustration of the Hiphil 1 A 

 more effective way of stifling real investigation could not easily 

 be conceived. ISTeither of these parts of the verb had originally 

 anything to do with intensive or causative. They were passives, 

 and the Piel of hollow verbs, which are the most primitive in all 

 languages, in Assyrian remained passive in meaning {see Pro- 

 fessor Sayce's Assyrian Grammars, in loc). Many of their 

 peculiar uses can only be properly understood when their 

 historical development is ascertained. 



The users of the language simply developed the materials 

 they had. 



The old diphthongs of au and ai can be traced throughout 

 the ablauts of Indo-European nouns and verbs, and these 

 correspond in a remarkable degree with primitive nouns and 

 verbs in Semitic, that is, with nouns and verbs, with two 

 consonants and a vowel sound between. Those interested will 

 find illustrations in my essay on b^lH, hv\ and, as is there 

 pointed out, the original materials of the extensive pronominal 

 systems have been the same. 



Then philologists will also find that the pronominal root 

 >y/ hv shv has remarkable affinities, not only with pronouns in 

 Semitic and Indo-European, but just as remarkable aflSnities to 

 the groups in these languages with the verbs for heing and for 



