tema'shight vocabulary.-pkolegomena. 569 
lard), comes itwarabba^ he is reared (Luke, iv. 16.): from yurez, 
he chained ; ittdrez, he chains ; itwarzan, they are chained (Luke 
iv. 19.); though here w may seem to be in the root: issen, he 
knew; itwassen, it is known (Luke, vi. 44.); u atsayalad^ sagha 
attattusayalam (Matthew, vii. 1.), is intended to express, "Judge 
not, that ye be not judged;" strictly, perhaps, Non interrogate, 
ne-forte inter rogemini ; Sidi Hamed often uses the (Arabic ?) verb 
isayal, he asked, for he judged. Here also we have ittusayal, he 
is judged ; which yields usayal or wasayal, as the passive root, 
and wa as the passive element. Again, inwaddar, it was trodden 
under foot (Luke, viii. 5.), compared with atar, the foot, suggests 
that {dd being euphonic for double tT) n and wa here combine for 
a passive idea. I have recited these cases, because the form is 
rare, and might seem doubtful. Now in Barth, besides irna^ he 
exceeded, surpassed, conquered (superavit), we find itwarna, he is 
conquered ; which denotes a like passive formation. 
13. The system of Prepositions is not wholly the same in Temglit 
as in Kabail. Yet they have in common, en or na, of ; si-^ from 
or by ; ghur, apud (pronounced ror, with Barth) ; fel, upon ; 
ger, between ; dau, under ; g-, in ; degh or der^ at or in ? 
d-, an untranslateable prefix, sometimes meaning with. This 
may seem the same as id, d, meaning and. Behind, dar^ in 
Barth, is perhaps a contraction of Kabail dajffir. Kabail azzaO, 
zad, front, before, is dat in Barth ; seemingly the same element. 
All this shows a very close relation of the two languages. 
14. The vocabularies, with very great likeness, show also grave 
diversities, making it impossible to regard the two idioms as mere 
dialects of one language. Undoubtedly a stranger is liable to 
overrate in detail the significance of this, and unduly to assume 
that words of the one are wholly foreign to the other. Thus, 
when the Tawarek say ishek (De Slane) for a tree, which in 
Kabail is Qasta, Qasatta, we are struck by the contrast. Never- 
theless, in Kabail, ishig means, a branch : hence it is nearly as 
our colonists say bush for forest, wood. Barth writes ehishk for 
ishek, which still more obscures the relation. But after all allow- 
ance, it remains that the two languages have deviated so widely 
from their original, that their identity is only an etymological, not 
a popular fact. If Negro words be duly ejected from the Temght, 
and intrusive Arabic from the Kabail, Shilha, &c., the remaining 
