No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
In no Semitic tongue there seems not to be more than two primitive tenses, not having, however, in each dialect the same force. The form expressing the present in Hebrew is used for the subjunctive in Ethiopian, the perfect in Assyrian, etc. As for comparative purposes a common name is required for each form, we will take those adopted by the late Vicomte de Rougé in his Egyptian Grammar: Aorist-Past to denote the tense which appears to be formed by suffixes, as 
qabal-ti, and Aorist-Present for that which appears to be formed by prefixes, as 
ä-qbol.
page 105 note 1 See de Rougé's Grammar.
page 106 note 1 In this paper I limit myself to the Semitic group, and refer only occasionally to the Egyptian to make the explanations clearer.
page 106 note 2 See the table A.
page 106 note 3 The masculine form in u is the only one retained in Coptic, though in Egyptian we have the two forms 
u and 
sen, hut in Egyptian they had already lost their value, and were used indifferently for both genders.
page 107 note 1 This is the opinion of the learned scholar ProfWright, , Arabic Grammar, vol. i. p. 61Google Scholar, though he gives no opinion as to the etymology of the suffixes of the Aorist-Past.
page 108 note 1 The pronoun of the second person antu, fem. anti, which appears in all the dialects, must have been primitively anta-K for the mase, at least as the comparison of the Semitic pronouns with the Coptic drawn by Gesenius would seem to show. This pronoun lost at an early time the k, which has been the case with the pronoun of the first person in Aramæan, Arabic and Ethiopian. In Egyptian there are forms exactly similar to the above-mentioned Assyrian formation:
sutenni-ek “thou art king,” 
ḥaqi-ek “thou art ruler.” It will be seen further on that the particle an (expressed in anaku sometimes by a single wedge) is the verb “to be.”
page 109 note 1 W.A.I, i. 17, 32.
page 109 note 2 W.A.I, iv. 26, 47.
page 111 note 1 W.A.I, rol. iv. plate 10.
page 111 note 2 These forms recall to mind the Energetic perfect of the Arabic.
page 111 note 3 This prefix n appears in the Arabic dialect of Algeria for the first person sing.
page 112 note 1 Some of the forms are considered by grammarians to be derived from an Aphel.
page 113 note 1 The Egyptian particle 
an is used exactly in the same way as a support to the pronouns and nouns, and is undoubtedly a primitive substantive verb, as has been shown by Maspero, M. (Journal Asiatique, Aout-09 1871)Google Scholar and Ancessi, M. (Eevue Philologique, “le theme N dans les langues de Sem et de Cham”). See Zeitschrift, 1879, p. 49.Google Scholar Dr. Birch had many years ago suggested it.
page 114 note 1 The primitive meaning of the prefix appears clearly in a kind of emphatic pronoun formed by adding to it the pronominal possessive suffixes: 
atanu, “our being,” as in English “ourselves,” i.e. “we,” 
ätkem “yourselves.”