278 
am glad the paper has been so thoroughly discussed, as we shall also have 
Dr. Baylee’s reply, and such discussions are a valuable portion of the trans- 
actions of this Institute. 
The Chairman. — I agree with Mr. Reddie that the paper has elicited a 
valuable discussion. There are several, I will not say errors, but apparent 
misinterpretations in Dr. Baylee’s paper. Upon the point as to whether 
Hebrew is to be considered the parent of all languages or not, I think there 
is nothing in Scripture to warrant us in coming to that conclusion. On the 
contrary, the Scriptures themselves, I think, would lead, us to consider that 
Hebrew formed no exception upon the confusion of languages at the building 
of the Tower of Babel. There may, however, be a question as to what was 
the nature of that miraculous confusion of tongues. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
REPLY BY DR. BAYLEE. 
I shall reply to the criticisms on my paper seriatim : — 
I. — Dr. Thornton. 
(i.) The derivation of the word y™ (eretz), from y^p (rootz). Dr. Thornton 
thinks that ara is an important root of the word, and if you compare it with 
the Aramaic and also with the Greek tpa'Ce he thinks that the impression will 
be confirmed. 
Reply. — Ara could not be the root, inasmuch as there is no such root in 
the Hebrew ; and if there were, the radical 2? would be unaccounted for. 
With regard to the Aramaic, the testimony is decisive that s or its cognate 
forms part of the root : e.g. — Syriac sna Chaldee Samaritan 
Further, the Arabic is (a.r.d.). The formation from yn is the or- 
dinary rule of Hebrew formatives : e.g. — )aa (eben), a stone ; nxi ( banah ), 
to build ; rniN ( aguddah ), a knot ; *m (good), to press. The reference 
to ipa'Ce (earthwards) must be a mistake, for the Z,t is merely adverbial, and 
no part of the root. This reduces the word to tpa, which gives no account 
of the radical )£. A Greek root would in any case be an improbable 
original for a Mosaic word. 
(ii.) Dr. Thornton says : — In obtaining the derivation of thehom, or deep, 
I should commence with the word thohu. 
Reply. — Adverbs are formed in Hebrew by the addition of n (m), e.g . — 
amnam, verily. But nouns are not ; and unless Dr. Thornton can show some 
case in which a noun is so formed, he is not at liberty to derive thehom from 
thohu. On the other hand, the formation of a verbal noun by prefixing 
n is the ordinary character of the language : e.g. — nwi ( tha-a-vah ), desire, 
from mw (a-vah), to desire ; wan ( theboo-ah ), produce, wa {boh), to bring 
forth. 
