The Semitic negative; with special reference to the negative in Hebrew

n>

UC-NRLF

$B MDb 75b

PJ

3041

W3

1896

MAIN

[ *

\HE SEMITIC NEGATIVE

WITH SPKCIAL REFERENCE TO THK NEGATIVE
IN BEBBEW

Bl

l>KAN A. WALKEB

, N . \ .

CHICAGO

TLbc XTlnirersits of Cbicago press

THE SEMITIC NEGATIVE

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE NEGATIVE
IN HEBREW

BY

DEAN A. WALKER

WELLS COLLEGE, XtJRORA, N. Y.

CHICAGO

ZTbe Tlintverstts of Chicago press

1896

« '<i DISSERiTJ'ftlQN' PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE
\'frnkpV'i?E\&tytfOOLpF''&RTS AND LITERATURE OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CHICAGO, MAY 5, 1895, IN CANDIDACY FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

EXCHANGE

[Reprinted from The American Journal op Semitic Languages and
Literatures, Vol. XIL, Nos. 3 and 4. Chicago, 111.]

V

fiS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

literature. -------- 5

Introduction. ---.... q

On the Negative in General. ----- 7

Table of Negatives. ---... \q

The Negative of Pure Dissent. - - - - 11

The Negative of Transference. .... \i

The Semitic Concept of Non-entity. - - - - 31

I

THE SEMITIC NEGATIVE WITH SPECIAL REFER-
ENCE TO THE NEGATIVE IN HEBREW.

By Professor Dean A. Walker, A.M., B.D., Ph.D.,

Wells College, Aurora, N. Y.

LITERATURE.

The text used in the enumeration and citation of negative
forms and constructions in the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old
iment is that of Mj/rr Levi L<ffcris, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1892. On doubtful prints comparison has been made,
where possible, with the Baer and Delitzsch text, but it seemed
best (o base the work on a text already completed for the entire
Old Testament. The quotations in Arabic are from the Coram'
T'.rlus .\nihirns, editit Gustavus Fluegel, Lipsiae, 1881. In
addition the following books have been consulted constantly:

Gesenius. //</•/•« //• uml KmgUtk Leoeioom of tlie Old Testament, new
edition, by Francis Brown, with the cooperation of S. R. Driver and C.
A. Briggs. Boston, 1891, %qq.

Gesenius, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited
by Edward Robinson. 3d ed. Boston, 1849.

Gesenius, Handwnrterbuch. 8th ed. Leipzig, 1878.

Gesenius-Mitchell, Hebrew Grammar, 1893.

Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebraische Grammatik. 22d ed. Leipzig, 1878.

Gesenius-Rodiger, Hebrew Grammar. 14th ed. Trans, by Conant.
New York. I sir,.

Ewald, Hebrew Grammar. London, 1836.

Ewald, Lehrbnch der hebraischen Sprache. 6th ed. 1855.

Bottcher, Ausfilhrliches Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache. Leip-
zig. 1866.

Green, Hebrew Grammar.

Stade, Hebraische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1879.

Kalisch, Hebrew Grammar.

Sofaroeder, Linguae Hebraeae.

Schroeder, Die Phdnizische Sprache. Halle, 1869.

Stade, Erneute Finding <l<s zwischen dem Phonizischen and Hebra-
ischeo bestehenden Wrwandtschaftsgrades, Morgenldndische For-
sriiungen. Leipzig, 1875.

5

6 The Semitic Negative

Noldeke, Mand&ische Grammatik. Halle, 1875.

Wortabet, Arabic-English Dictionary. Cairo, 1888.

Wright, Arabic Grammar. London, 1859.

Wright, Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Cam-
bridge (Eng.), 1890.

Ewald, Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae. Leipzig, 1831.

Lansing, An Arabic Manual. 2d ed. New York, 1891.

Socin, Arabic Grammar. Leipzig, 1885.

Zimmern, Babylonische Busspsalmen. Leipzig, 1885.

Palmer, The Qur'dn. Sacred Books of the East. Vols. VI. and IX.
Oxford, 1880.

Sale, The Koran. London, 1850.

Torrey, Commercial- Theological Terms in the Qur'dn. Leyden, 1892.

Delitzsch, Assyrisches Worterbuch. Leipzig, 1887.

Delitzsch, Assyrian Grammar. New York, 1889.

Dillmann, Grammatik der Athiopischen Sprache. Leipzig, 1857.

Noldeke, Syriac Grammar.

Wilson, Syriac Grammar.

McCurdy, Aryo-Semitic Speech, 1881.

Delitzsch, Studien ilber Indogermanisch-Semitische Wurzelverwandt-
schaft. Leipzig, 1873.

Lindsay, The Latin Language. Oxford, 1894.

Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar. 2d ed. Leipzig, 1889.

Lanman, Sanskrit Reader. Boston, 1884.

F. Max Miiller, Lectures on the Science of Language. 2d series
London, 1864.

Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, The History of Language. London,
1891.

Halevy, Melanges d'e'pigraphie. Paris, 1874.

INTRODUCTION.

The purpose of this article is

a. To present in comparative tables all the forms of negative
particles or words used as such in the Semitic languages.

b. To classify these forms according to origin in (1) form,
(2) fundamental idea, (3) syntactical usage.

c. To show the relation of different particles to each other in
the same language and in different languages.

d. To trace the development and composition of certain nega-
tives from more primitive forms and ideas.

e. To discuss some previous views as to origin and composi-
tion and offer some new explanations of forms.

The Semitic Negative 7

I.

OF THE NEGATIVE IN GENERAL.

Forms for the expression of the negative idea are found in
every language. There is probably no negative idea that could
not be expressed by some affirmative but circumlocutory formula ;
but the negative particle serves the purpose both of convenience
and force, and in some forms is as old as language itself. It is,
in fact, a necessity, and as language grows, the primitive negative
differentiates or new forms are found to express new and different
shades or degrees of force in the negative idea. Tracing this
development historically we find its first expression in gesture,
in which form it is found even before language begins, as may
be noted in the development of the individual human being, is
seen in the animal, and may be inferred for the human race if the
theory of evolution be accepted. The kicking and balking of a
horse, the growl of the dog when you approach to take from him
his mutton-bone are emphatic expressions of dissent. The first
sture pure and simple, like the shrug of the shoulder or the
shake of the head in man. The growl of the dog might be called
a vocal gesture, and is a second stage in the development of
negative expression, a step toward a vocabulary which man in
articulate language has carried to completion.*

In the mere animal, the negative is an expression of emotional
dissent, in man it may be emotional or intellectual. As emo-
tional, both gesture and voice by modifications and combinations,
the shrug of the shoulders, the toss or shake of the head, the
facial expression, the inflexion of the voice, may add to the idea
of dissent the element of scorn, contempt, disgust or indignation.
As intellectual, the idea of negation by use of a differentiated
vocabulary may be modified to express relations of time as con-
tinuous, previous or subsequent (as in never, not yet, no longer,
which are expressed in some languages by single primitive
words), or of subordination, condition, contingency, etc. In
man, therefore, we have the three steps in the expression of
dissent or negation, the gesture, the natural impulse of the vocal

* On the chronological order of development of the affirmative and negative sentence,
•eo The HUtory of Language, by H. A. Strong, W. S. Logeman and B. I. Wheeler, p. 102.

8 The Semitic Negative

organs, and the intellectual choice of words in a more or less
extended vocabulary. In this vocabulary of the negative, we are
inclined to believe that in every language, at least in every group
of related languages, there will be found at least one negative
particle originating in this primitive natural impulse of the vocal
organs expressing itself in what we have called the vocal gesture
of dissent. The remaining particles have originated in ideas
more or less closely associated with that of negation, or even from
ideas originally quite unrelated. In accordance with this view
we may classify the vocabulary of the negative under four heads:

a. Negative of pure dissent.

b. " by association of ideas.

c. " " transference of idea.

d. " " suggestion or attenuation.

The fuller explanation of these terms will appear in the
classification of the Semitic negatives, but it is in order here to
discuss the meaning and appropriateness of the first designation,
the "negative of pure dissent."

The negative of pure dissent is the particle resulting from the
vocal gesture of dissent. It might be expected that this particle,
originating in the primitive natural impulse of the vocal organs,
would be the same for all men, and be found common to all
languages, but such is not the fact. We do find, however, in a
particular group of languages a common negative stem, which by
its appearance in all the members of the group, is shown to be
the primitive negative for that family. Such a negative is found
for the Indo-European family in the negative stem n, and in the
Semitic family in the stem I, which appears in every member of
the group. There may or may not be a connection between the
two families and a significance in the fact that the negative in
each is a liquid,* but the question why the Indo-European chose
n and the Semitic chose I belongs back of philology to the realm
of psychology, along with the question why among some peoples
the common gesture of dissent is a sidewise shake of the head,
while among others it is the backward toss. The Englishman
and the Arab are agreed in expressing assent by a forward

* For the exchange of yodh for lam in Western Aramaic and Syriac, and for mm and
lam in the Babylonian Talmud and Mandaic as preformatives of the imperfect, see
Wright's Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, p. 183.

The Semitic Negative 9

inclination of the head, and are agreed, too, that dissent is the
opposite of assent, but the Englishman, regarding the gesture of
assent as an up-and-down motion, finds the opposite in a right-
and-left motion; while the Arab, regarding the affirmative as a
forward and downward nod, finds its opposite in a backward and
upward toss of the head. Can psychology explain this? Is it
perhaps that in the Englishman's dissent there is more of deliber-
ation, more of the intellectual, while in the Arab's dissent the
emotional prevails, and the backward toss of the head expresses
primarily that the offer or the proposition offends his pride or is
beneath his notice? For the Arab, too, has a sidewise shake of
the head, which is also intellectual, but with him expresses, not
dissent, but doubt: "I do not understand the question, please
repeat." This distinction, however, does not follow strictly the
ethnic or linguistic lines of separation. The Greeks, perhaps
through contact with Orientals, have adopted their gesture of
dissent, as indicated in the words Karavvm and uvuvvw, while the
Armenians, belonging to the same family, though oriental in all
their surroundings, have yet preserved the sidewise shake of the
head. I am told by an Armenian friend, however, that among
the Armenians also, the toss of the head as a negative gesture is
assumed as a matter of fashion or coquetry for a short period by
young brides and by girls of a marriageable age.

II.

In the following table a view is presented of the Semitic nega-
tives arranged according to roots and in doubtful cases according
to probable etymological relationship. The table does not claim
to be complete, for some of the other languages if read with as
broad an interpretation of the term negative might yield as large
a list as the Hebrew; while in the Hebrew list are some whose
claim to be called negatives might be disputed, such as the DS
and IT- , though their cognates in the Arabic cannot be disputed
as negatives. Especially doubtful as to etymological relationship
are the 6 and a- a of the Assyrian and an, ak, anbi and
an be of the Ethiopic, while the proper position, in the table, of
Assyrian ul and Ethiopic albo is not certain

10 The Semitic Negative

Table A. — Comparative Table of Semitic Negatives.

Hebeew

Arabic

Assyrian

Syriao

Bibl. Aram.

Ethiopic

Phcenician

irtj, ab

5

la, la-a

(=la)

oi, y

ab

T

aba

(?)

J4-J

lassu

rrb

(ba) ba

(?)ul

b*

ba

(«or")+b?lb

a-a(?),e(?)

Talmudic

A.—

Punic
in Plautus

en, yn

b?

J*

balu(m)

bra, ba

*?

JS

ba-la

^nba

£i

DTB

&??

• T

1?

"?

rra

u

DK

■jK, Dtt

#ib, 6

2

J^i

^ (?)

The Semitic Negative 11

Classifying the negatives according to the root ideas, we have
the following table, illustrated most fully in the Hebrew. Where
it is desired to represent a root that appears in different forms in
several languages, we use English letters, and so also in treating
of vowel sounds common to several forms:

Table B. — Psychological Distribution of Negatives.

a) Negative of pure dissent:

1. Indo-European — n.

2. Semitic — I.

b) Negative by association:

1. Diminution or decay, bs from stem nb2 to ivaste away.

2. Cutting off, D^O-

3. Cessation, CBfct*

4. Removal, fib^T from root b^T to remove.

* ° i

5. Change, y& from stem H3B to turn away, -*« oilier.

6. Separation, "^(?)

c) Negative by transference of force:

1. Conditional, Heb. Q5< if, Arab, ^j! if.

2. Interrogative, Arab. La , Heb. "P&< .

d) Negative by suggestion:

1. Emptiness, D"H.

2. Vanity, biH- '

3. Falsehood, 'jfNZJ.

: t -

•4. Waste or desolation, t)nn •

Cf. the implications in such English expressions as almost,
hardly, eke,

III.

THE NEGATIVE OF PUKE DISSENT.

Of the Semitic negatives, by far the most frequent and the
one which alone is found in every language of the group is the
simple particle of dissent or pure negation, of which the essential
part is the consonantal sound I. That this is the essential ele-
ment in all the score or more of forms in which it appears is
shown in the great variety of vowels by which its pronunciation

12 The Semitic Negative

is assisted and by the fact that its vowel may be long or short
and may follow or precede. Thus the vowel

is long in ab , hblb , if, JJJ, %S, %[, 5f| , Assyr. la-a,

f, «£, tuL, lib', rrb;

is short in b« (b&), jj, UJ, ^J , bH(?) (Phoen.), Assyr. ul,
and fiSVfl ;

is a in ^J , ^ , Si", 5M , Si , j) , ai , *JL , «b , b» , jjj ,

UJ, ^, b«(?) (Phoen.), ft**;

is £ in ^b , tvb ; e in b& , tc in u 1 , and 6 in &<b .

It follows the consonant in most forms, but precedes in b& ,
Assyrian ul, and fi£VO (albo).

The simplest form in which this negative appears is the
Arabic $ , which, though there is in it an aliph of prolongation,
employs this only as a support for the fatha, for it is to be noted
that in the colloquial, to which rather than to poetry we must go
for analogies of primitive values, the word is as often pronounced
short; and so always in ^kj , where the accent, so far as it has

any, falls on the first syllable. Without this supporting aliph,
which is not a hamza though often sounded as such, the negative
would consist of a single consonant with its vowel point standing
alone, a combination that nowhere occurs in Arabic, a particle
consisting of a single consonant and its vowel always attaching
itself as proclitic or enclitic. The negative as proclitic is found
in the Ethiopic A. and Hebrew ''JS and in Indo-European in-,
un-, alpha privative, etc., but in Arabic would be liable to con-
fusion with the prepositions or the J of the jussive or the assev-
erative J . A single consonant must attach itself to a following
word or take a vowel letter, as in £ and Lo , and . j> , ^i> , |<j> .
In Assyrian the syllable is in some cases definitely indicated as
long by the repetition of the vowel (la-a), but elsewhere is
undetermined. The Hebrew, Syriac and Biblical Aramaic always
point it long in the forms in which the vowel follows the conso-
nant, but it is to be remembered that this can at most indicate the
usage in pronunciation at the time when the vowel points were
invented, and while the Hebrew has adopted a sufficient variety

The Semitic Negative 13

of vowel points to indicate fine shades of distinction in its vowel
sounds, the Syriac shows that the same pointing may in different
branches of the language be given very diverse pronunciation,
while the three vowel points of the Arabic, a comparatively late
addition to the alphabetic writing, are quite inadequate to dis-
tinguish the variety of vowel sounds found in the spoken Arabic
of today, and probably when invented, only roughly represented
the three principal groups of vowel sounds then employed. The
utter confusion of values in the English vowel system is an extreme
illustration of what is true in a measure in Arabic, and though
the Hebrew system of vowel points is more minute, it is an arti-
ficial system and can at best represent the pronunciation of
Hebrew as it was at a comparatively late date, and possibly also
over a limited area.* It can furnish no indication of primitive
Semitic pronunciation nor decide, as against the phenomena of
modern colloquial Arabic, that the particle I always employed a
long vowel. The sound which we give to the Hebrew holem is
as difficult for the modern Syrian Arab as French u is for an
Englishman. It may have been equally so for the ancient Israelite,
and the length of the vowel sound in the negative particle may
have been determined as in the modern colloquial Arabic by the
amount of emphasis thrown upon the word or the character of the
emotion expressed.

The significance of the longer writing of the Assyrian particle,
1 a - a , is not clear, nor that of the longer form of the Hebrew
Kib . Does the longer form indicate anything as to length or
emphasis in the original pronunciation, or is it in the Assyrian
merely a scribal device for making the line come out right, or is
it accidental in both, or is it a jH'rsonal scribal characteristic? The
following table and discussion on the Hebrew particle will present
some of the facts, though they may discover no important princi-
ples. The most obvious fact is that the long form is found most
frequently in composition with the interrogative particle "H . For
comparison therefore the table gives the number of cases where
the short form is found with TI and where the long form is
found without "H including a few cases where it is found with the
preposition 21 .

• Cf. the local variations in pronunciation of the German affirmative particle ja.

14

The Semitic Negative

In the accompanying table it is seen that the long form occurs

with H interrogative 141 times, but the same Jl takes the short

form nearly as many times, namely 128, *,._■__

,,.-.,, , .,«; j. ta_ Table C. — Occurrences of

while the long form occurs without » i ^^ s»^>-7 anci s±>\

35 times. From this it is evident that

the particle Jl does not determine the

form of the negative. Is the long form

then characteristic of certain (a) books,

(6) authors, (c) periods of time or (d)

qualities of style and subject matter, as

poetical or prose, historical or liturgical ?

As to (a) books, it is seen that in
the compound, 12 books use only the
long form, while 5 use only the short,
or, leaving out those books in which
the occurrence is so rare as hardly to be
considered characteristic, and taking the
two books of Samuel as one and the two
books of Chronicles as one, we find that
Judges, Job, and Chronicles use the
short form exclusively, occurring re-
spectively 13, 14, and 19 times, while
Samuel is characterized by the exclusive
use of the long form, occurring 34
times. But in 15 books both forms
occur, some showing a preference for
the one, some for the other. The dis-
tinction therefore can hardly be one of
books.

Is the distinction (6) one of author-
ship? Ezekiel, which is confessedly
the work of one author, uses the two
forms in the compound impartially, 8 to
8. So also do Amos and Ruth, each 2
to 2. Jeremiah indeed shows a decided
though not exclusive preference for the
long form, 14 to 3, and in the uncompounded particle, uses the
long form 19 times as against 5 times in the two Isaiahs, which

tfbn

vrton xi

3

Gen. . . .

5

8

1

Ex

3

1 ..

Lev

1

Num. . . .

"6

2 ..

Deut....

3

1

Josh. . . .

1

2 ..

Judg

1 Sam.. .

13

'26

2

2 Sam. . .

14 ..

1 Kgs. . .

2 Kgs. . .
Isa

"9
17

7

6

12 ..
18

a
5

Jer

3

14 1

9

Ezek. . . .

8

8

2

Hos

Joel

"i '.'.

Amos. . .

"2

2 ..

Obad....

4 ..

Jon

1 ..

Mic

5 .

Nah

Hab

4 '.

Zeph. . . .

Hag

Zech. . . .

"i

i !
5 .

Mai

3 .

Ps

ii

1 .

Prov. . . .

3

1 .

Job

14

Cant. . . .

Kuth . . .

"2

"2 !

Lam. . . .

i

Eccles...

i

i

Esther. .

"i .

Dan

Ezra

i !

Neh

3 .

1 Chron

"4

2 Chron

15

Total...

128

141 1

55

The Semitic Negative 15

make the next most frequent use of it. Testing the question on
the commonly accepted documentary division of Isaiah we have
the following table of occurrences, showing that both forms
occur in each main section and often in close proximity: Long,
8:19; 28:25;37:26; 40:214; 42:24; 43:19; 44:20; 45:21; 48:6;
51:9, 10; 57:4; 58:6,7. Short, 10:8,9,11; 29:17; 36:12; 44:8;
57:11. The distinction therefore cannot be one of authorship.

As to (c) period, we find that the widely separated books of
Judges and Chronicles agree in the exclusive use of the short
form, while Daniel (V), Ezra and Nehemiah, approximately con-
temporary with Chronicles, use only the long form.

As to ((/) literary style and subject matter, we find that the
prophets from Hosea to Malachi, with the exception of Amos and
Ezekiel, who are impartial, and Hosea, Nahum and Zephaniah,
who furnish no data, prefer the long to the short form, 56 to 11,
while the wisdom literature of Psalms, Proverbs, Job and Eccle-
siastes prefers the short form by 29 to 2. But on the other hand,
Judges and Job, as diverse as possible, in these respects agree in
the exclusive use of the short form, while Judges and Samuel,
similar in subject matter, are at opposites, Samuel using only the
long form. Equally fruitless is the effort to find any euphonic or
syntactical distinction, as appears, e. g.f in Isa. 65:1,

&H8 aibb Tra-na

t t • : - : •

"pwpa abb "TWSSffl

where in the same verse, by the same author, in the same con-
struction and practically the same euphonic conditions, we have
the two forms. We are left to the conclusion therefore that in
some books the long form is due to arbitrary scribal preference,
and in others to scribal inconsistency and carelessness perpet-
uated by scribal scrupulosity, or else, wherever it occurs it was
intended originally to indicate some emphasis whose force is now
lost to us, the further definition of which in a dead language and
in the absence of any direct ancient testimony, would be mere
conjecture. The view that the long form is a less corrupted relic
of an original triliteral verb form * fails to account for its preser-

* Presented by Dietrich in QeseniuH W'Orterbuch, see fc{5 . criticised by Bottcher, Lehr-
buch dtr hrbriiischen Sprache, g 532, p. 340, footnote 1.

16 The Semitic Negative

vation in the same author and in close proximity with the shorter
form, and there is no good ground for supposing that this nega-
tive particle ever was a noun.* To the question whether the
noun or the verb was the earliest of the parts of speech the true
answer is "neither; but the interjection," and in the negative par-
ticle I we have preserved one of the original interjections.

In the use of this common particle I, three members of the
Semitic family, the Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, and Phoenician
have differentiated a form to distinguish between prohibition and
deprecation, using for the latter the form b& in which the vowel
precedes the consonant. No such distinction is found in Arabic,
Assyrian, Syriac, or Ethiopic. The explanation of the form lies,
perhaps, in this, that a form beginning with a short vowel is less
explosive than one beginning with a consonant and can less easily
be prolonged for emphasis than one ending in a vowel. Hence
its effect is milder and it serves to express the milder feeling of
entreaty. In actual usage, however, the two forms are some-
times found in the same sentence with consecutive verbs or nouns
where no distinction of force can be assumed, cf. Lev. 10:6.
Where, as in this case, the H'b follows the biS , it might be consid-
ered a case of fcib used to perpetuate another negative, a construc-
tion common enough with ^f in Arabic, but extremely rare with
fcO in Hebrew. But in Prov. 27 : 2, where the negatives are used
with nouns, we have the reversed order, from which we must con-
clude that in some cases, at least, no distinction is made. We
have also two cases, Prov. 12:28 (with noun) and Cant. 7:3 (with
verb) where, if the rendering of the Revised Version be accepted,
b^ is not jussive but declarative.

It is with some hesitation that the Assyrian u 1 is classed with
the I negatives. The word is usually considered as the construct
state of a noun, ullu, "non-existence, nothingness," from a verb,
al&lu, "be feeble, nought," cf. Zimmern, Busspsalmen, p. 83, and
others. \ But if bfc* has any connection with fcO, it seems equally
probable that ul is another form of la from which it differs in
usage even less than bfc< from fcO . J The particular force of u 1 has

* See to the contrary Gesenius-Kautzsch Hebrtiische Grammatik, § 100, 1.
fDelitzsch, Assyrisches WOrterbuch; Idem, Prolegomena, 133, Halevy, Melanges Wipi-
graphie, 165.

t Cf., however, Assyrian al in proper name Al-dugla-nisS, II Rawl. 63c, 42.

The Semitic Negative 17

not been determined. Delitzsch is inclined to make the distinc-
tion that ul is used only in principal clauses while la is found in
both principal and subordinate constructions and with all the
parts of speech susceptible of negation.* The suggestion is due
to Dr. Geo. R. Berry, of The University of Chicago, that there
may be in u 1 an emphasis of contrast, the suggestion being based
on several passages, — Tig.Pil. I., cols. 1:72; 5:38; 7:68, 70: Asur-
nas. 1:43, 108, — where the king in his treatment of a conquered
city or the rebuilding of a temple does not follow the precedents :
"that city (contrary to the usual custom) I did not destroy,
devastate and burn with tire."

In Syriac, alongside of g we find o^, a stronger negative
compounded of g" and on .

In Arab. {jUjJ Syr. * -V; Bib. Aram. Xvb and Assyr. lassu,
we have compounds of this primitive I and the noun of existence
ye$. The Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra fails to compound the two
parts but has ^IVK"Nb and the Hebrew has ID" *6 and 1ZT fit .
The Arabic, on the contrary, not only compounds the parts, but
losing sight of the original character of the parts, treats the com-
pound as a verb, defective indeed but capable of considerable
inflection for person and number.

IV.

NEGATIVE by transference.

Under this term is included the use of the interrogative and
conditional particles as negatives, represented by the Arabic Lo
and «J and the Hebrew fN and D« .

The transition of a particle from an interrogative to a negative
force is a process depending upon the frequency of a certain use
of the interrogative known as the rhetorical question. The rhe-
torical question is one of the most emphatic means for conveying
a positive idea, and even before the introductory particle has lost
its interrogative character, the force of the sentence as a whole
has become that of a negative assertion. Thus in English, "What
have I done?" spoken in a tone of indignant surprise means
emphatically, "I have done nothing (for which I should be

* Dolitzscli, Assyrian Grammar, 1889, § 143, p. 352.

18 The Semitic Negative

blamed)." So in Hebrew, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should
do this thing?" is an emphatic disclaimer of a disparaging impu-
tation. In modern Arabic, a man excusing himself from some
mishap, exclaims, subeddi 'amil, "What did I (or, "do I")
want to do?" = "What could I do (under the circumstances)?"
the equivalent of the English plea, " I couldn't help it." In all
these cases, it is the rhetorical question, expecting no answer
because assuming that there can be but one answer, and hence
very emphatic. The question for information may be very
urgent, but can never be emphatic because by its very nature it
implies doubt, an inquiring rather than an assertive state of mind.
But the rhetorical question is used only where the speaker knows
that there can be but one answer, and that one in accordance
with his own view. Hence it is in force equivalent to a statement
of axiomatic value, that is, a very positive and emphatic one.
Hence the particle converted from this rhetorical interrogative
use to do duty as a negative will be somewhat more emphatic
than the ordinary negative. This will be shown in a discussion
of the Arabic Lo .

There is, however, another process by which the negative
may be derived from the interrogative value. The interrogative
may be, not substantive, but adverbial, i. e., it may ask, not
"what?" but "where?" or "how?" and this may pass into a
negative force by the following process. So long as the query
"where?" is in the mind, there is a consciousness of the absence
or notness of the object sought, and the longer the query remains
unanswered, the stronger becomes the sense of notness, and this
sense of notness, at first local, if the search be continued long
enough, will become a sense of absolute non-existence. Hence
the sense of whereness and notness, inseparably associated, come
in time to be identified, and the same particle may then serve
as the sign of either. This has, in fact, occurred in the Semitic
languages, and is possibly represented in the Hebrew particle
"PiS and its cognates.

The negatives derived from the interrogatives are all based
upon the interrogative roots, m and ay. The former as a negative
is confined to the Arabic, with possibly a few cases in Hebrew
(c/. under ftfl in Table E, Syntactical Constructions) ; the latter

The Semitic Negative 19

is most frequent in Hebrew and Ethiopic, and appears possibly
in the Assyrian^ but is not found in Arabic. We will first
develop the negative of the m root.

A. The Arabic Negative Lo. — Like the negative consonant
I of pure dissent in the Indo-European, the interrogative root m
is found with different vowels under different circumstances.
For the impersonal or neuter it appears in Arabic as Lo and for
the personal as Jwo , but this in the colloquial modern Arabic has
also the pronunciation Jw-oc with the kcsra lengthened perhaps to
distinguish it from the preposition l\Je . In Hebrew we find it
with the a vowel for the impersonal, TV2 and the t vowel for
the personal **2. In this long i, the Hebrew corresponds to the
colloquial Arabic, which raises the question whether both may
not be a degeneration from the original a which the written
Arabic has preserved in t>oth personal and impersonal J»vo and Lo .

Of these two forms, it is only the impersonal that has passed
into the interrogative force. The reason for this is plain. There
is indeed no logical reason why the rhetorical question, " WTiom
have I on earth beside Thee?" should not come to be read as a
negative statement, "I have no one on earth beside Thee," as
well as that the question, " What could I do?" should come to
mean, "I could do nothing." But it must be remembered that
the transition of the particle from the interrogative to the negative
force depend! entirely upon the frequency of its use, that is, the
rhetorical question must l>e used so frequently as to become a
stereotyped formula for a negative thought. The personal
Interrogative in rhetorical question has never attained to such
frequent use as to become a stereotyped formula, and it is for the
same reason that in Hebrew7 even the impersonal TV2 cannot be
regarded as a negative except in the two places in Cant. 8:4,
where the structure of the sentence for the sake of analogy with
2:7 and 3:5 demands it.

In treating this particle Lo we note first that as distinguished

from the adverbial and qualitative interrogative J , this is the
substantive interrogative, and as such may be nominative or accu-
sative, and as nominative may be either subject or predicate

20 The Semitic Negative

nominative, and as accusative may be the direct object or the
second accusative appositive to the object, or the adverbial accu-
sative.

The following cases from the Quran taken first as interrog-
ative will illustrate these uses. Sur. 86:10 s._i> ^ x x_J i t i
( -olj ^L). Neglecting the second part, we may read, "For

what (is there) to him of power?" in which the Lc is subject
nominative, a rhetorical question which easily becomes the nega-
tive statement, "For he has no power," which is continued
and determined as negative by the negative -»oLj ^1. "nor
helper." Compare with this the similar construction in Hebrew,
1 Kgs. 12:16, "TlT-pa nbTO-abl THS pbn XhTm where, how-
ever, we are to regard the first clause as remaining a rhetorical
interrogative,* because the form is not so frequent in Hebrew as
in Arabic, and the j$^ in Hebrew, unlike the ^ in Arabic, is not
used to continue another negative. Sur. 97:2, &JLJ Lo ij!)J>! Lo.
xJJlH "And what can show thee what the night of power is?"
Here the first Lo is plainly subject nominative to ijK^I and has
not departed from its interrogative force, since to do so would
leave the verb without a subject; while the second Lo is as clearly
a predicate nominative to the nominal sentence of which jjJLJ
k JuLlt is the logical subject, and could not be rendered as a nega-
tive without breaking the connection of the clauses.

For Lo as predicate nominative compare also Sur. 70:41 Lc.
^xi* »x*ul»j „^ "And what are we among (or as) those pre-
vented?" cf. German: Was ftir .... sind wir? Here the ^s!
is the logical subject and Lo the predicate nominative, but the
sentence becomes "We are not among those prevented."

Of the three accusative uses, that of the direct object is rare.
In Sur. 53:3, ,^5-g-H ^ ijiaJb Lo. "And what does he speak out
v.f lust?" = "He never speaks out of lust," the Lo is (originally)
dnect object of ,xUi^.

In the two clauses immediately preceding this, *jC^.Lo Jus Lo
i£y£- «>j , "Your companion does not err nor does he go astray,"
the two Lo 's traced back in the same way to the rhetorical inter-

* Cf. also 2 Sam. 20:1, where "pjt is to be similarly explained.

The Semitic Negative 21

rogative give us adverbial accusatives, "In what respect does your
companion err and in what respect does he go astray?" Here
the original interrogative force of Lo is attested by its use in the
second clause, since had the first Lo been merely a negative, it
would more probably have been continued by ^1 . A good case
of accusative of measure or cognate accusative is found in Sur.
74:49, ^xjtiLxJ! «xLi*i *gto*.> Li "For what will the inter-
cession of the intercessors avail them ?"= the intercession of the
intercessors will avail them nothing, will not avail them.

In this way most of the negative uses of Lo may be traced
back to the interrogative, but there remain a few in which the
particle in the construction in which it stands cannot be rendered
as interrogative because the sentence without it is fully supplied
with all it can contain of subject and predicate nominative, and
object and adverbial accusative. Thus in Sur. 74:34, jJLu Lo.
•je ^M Jb» k>**=» "And not does anyone know the armies of thy
Lord except He," the Lo cannot be subject nominative because a
onal subject is required; it cannot be predicate nominative
because the verb is transitive; it cannot be object accusative
became that is supplied by j^xa*. ; and there is no occasion for
an adverbial accusative. The sentence therefore could not be
originally a rhetorical question, and the Lo could be nothing
else than a negative. Here then is a clear case of Lo as having
become I negative before entering into the sentence. It has
come to be a negative particle in and of itself, and capable of
being used like $ in sentences that cannot be read as rhetorical
interrogativee. Such extreme cases, however, are rare, and
nearly all sentences with Lo show a trace of their interrogative
origin.

What now is the peculiar force of the negative Lo as distin-
guished from i) . It has been customary to say, following the
native grammarians, that Lo is used with the perfect, generally of
past time, and is more emphatic than ^. Thus Lansing* has
" Lo = not, negative of the absolute present and of the perfect."
It has also been said that the restrictives f ^| , etc., following a
negative prefer the negative Lo . But while this is true in

* Lansing, An Arabic Manual, § 72, p. 123.

t Ewalrt, Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae, Part II., pp. 201-3.

22 The Semitic Negative

many cases, it is too general and the exceptions are too numerous.
Lo is used freely with both the perfect and imperfect tenses and
in speaking of past, present and future time. And as for S)| , it
is found more often, indeed, preceded by Lo , but so frequently
by ^| and sometimes by 5J , that we can hardly suppose that it
is the ^l| that calls for a Lo , but something further back than
the mere presence of a restrictive. We must find some more fun-
damental distinction between Lo and ^ . The following exam-
ples will show how varied is the use of Lo as to form of verb used
and time referred to, and will serve as a means by which to arrive
at the basal principle.

1. With perfect tense of past time, Sur. 67:10, ^ L_^_5^ Lx
r^xMJ\ ^Lsx-o! "We would not have been among the fellows of
the blaze." Sur. 53:11, A Lo ^yd\ ^Sf Lo "The heart did
not belie what it saw," referring to a definite past event. Sur.
53:17, ,-iis Lo. wO-Jl cK Lo "The sight did not turn aside nor

waver," referring to an incident of Muhammad's vision.

2. With perfect tense of present time (?) Sur. 26:208, Lo.
■ j.^jouo L$J $\ So 3 ^wo LuCJbeJ "And we never destroy (Palmer),
destroyed (Sale), a town except it has (had) warners." For a
clearer case, in which Palmer and Sale are agreed in rendering
the verbs in the present, and the parallelism supports this render-
ing, we have Sur. 53:2, ^...c. Lo. ^jC^Lo Jco Lo "Your com-
panion does not err, nor does he go astray." In v. 3 the thought
is carried out with Lo and the imperfect, tf«.A.'t ,^-e. ls^t5. ^°5
"nor does he speak out of lust." The words occurring at the
opening of the surah are an assertion of the prophet's veracity
and credibility with reference, not to some past occasion, but to
what he is about to say; hence we may fairly assume that present
time is intended and that the three verbs, two in the perfect and
one in the imperfect, are used without distinction.

3. With imperfect referring to present time Sur. 67:19, Lo
vt^ J ^| ^.^jCva+j "Not does there hold them (the birds) up,

except the Merciful."

4. With imperfect referring to the future, Sur. 92:11, Lo.
^t> 3 \'c>\ «JLo &Xs. <JJu "And not shall his wealth avail him

The Semitic Negative 23

when he falls down" (into hell), referring to the day of judg-
ment, hence, evidently future, cf. also Sur. 74:49 above.

In nominal sentences, also, the Lo is used with equal freedom
as to time, though for the past for definiteness we usually find
the verb ^S expressed, as in Sur. 67:10, ^Usv^ol .i \j& Lo
^ouwJI where we might have had (j^l Lo but for the ambiguity
as to time.

In the present we have, Sur. 81:25, *-^» ^Ik-u* Jjb *# Lo,

"And it is not the word of a pelted devil." In the future, Sur.
82:16, ^jjuu\ju L$a£ *jc Lo. "And they will not be among the
absent from it," i. c, from the broiling in hell on the judgment
day.

From the abort rod similar passages we find that Lo is used
with the perfect tense for present and past time, with the imper-
fect for present and future time and in nominal sentences for
present and future time. The distinction between Lo and ^ there-
fore has primarily nothing to do with the tense used or the time
referred to, but must be sought in the nature, i. <?., in the original
force, of the particle itself. We shall find that all the phenom-
ena of Lo , the tenses used, its preference for present and past
time, its greater emphasis as compared with *$ , are sufficiently
explained by its origin as an interrogative and its transition to
the negative force through the rhetorical question.

The rhetorical interrogative as a substitute for a positive asser-
tion of a fact is a stronger method of conveying the thought, but
can be safely resorted to only where the facts are so well known or
at least are so far matter of general consent that the speaker can
be reasonably sure that the answer, should one be returned,
would accord with the impression he intends to convey. If he is
addressing his own partisans, he may venture the rhetorical ques-
tion with more freedom than in speaking to opponents. Such a
question answered in the affirmative when a negative answer is
called for would be fatal to the purpose of the speaker.

On what classes of facts now, may a speaker venture to put
his teachings in the interrogative form? There are two such
classes, (a) facts of the past and present of which his hearers
may reasonably be supposed to have positive historical knowledge

24 The Semitic Negative

or present experience, including such facts in revealed religion as
have had their event in the past, which, though not matter of
human experience, have yet been accepted with equal positiveness
as facts, cf. Sur. 74:30, and (6) general truths holding good for
all time and doctrines as to the future on which there is a
general consensus in the moral and religious consciousness of
the hearers.

Of course in either of these cases the speaker in his confidence
in his own position may be led to substitute his own assurance
for that of his hearers, as when in Sur. 53:17 the prophet relates
with great positiveness the details of his vision, forgetting that
these could not be matters of experience with his followers nor
of general acceptance as history, but relying on the unques-
tioning faith of his followers in himself as sufficient to inspire
them with as much assurance as personal experience could have
furnished.

As illustrative of confidence in historical facts the prophet in
Sur. 39:51, referring to the destruction of Thamud and Ad,
exclaims, ^^x^Jo l^jl^Lo «$** ^t.\ Ui "What then did that
avail them which they had been engaged in acquiring?" It was
an unquestioned tradition that the tribe of Thamud had amassed
great wealth. It was equally certain that a terrible destruction
had befallen them. Hence the conclusion followed that their
wealth was of no avail, and to the prophet's question, " Did that
wealth save them?" there could be but one answer, "Most
assuredly not."

So also in regard to the fate of the unbelievers at the judg-
ment day, Muhammad, using the imperfect tense in this case,
could ask with assurance, "What will the intercession of the
intercessors avail them?" and again, "What will his wealth
profit him when he falls down (into hell) ?" To these also there
could be but one answer, "Nothing"; for free grace at the judg-
ment day is something unknown to Islam, and no doctrine is
more emphasized in the Quran than that the awards of the future
life will be apportioned strictly in accordance with what men
have deserved by their conduct in this life, so that neither inter-
cession nor wealth will have influence on the decision. (Cf. Dr
Chas. C. Torrey's Commercial -Theological Terms in the Qur'dn.)

The Semitic Negative 25

We can now see why, as the grammars have noticed, Lo is
found more frequently with past and absolute present time, and
is more emphatic than ^ . It is more emphatic because the rhe-
torical question in which it originated is a more emphatic way of
conveying a negative idea than the simple negative sentence; and
it is found more frequently with the past and absolute present,
not because the particle as such prefers one tense or time rather
than another, but bectaMH matters of history and present personal
experience can be more safely appealed to than matters still in
the future, and offer a wider range of facts. The future is, of
necessity, less certain than the present and past, and it is only
where faith gives to the future something of the reality of expe-
rience, that Le can properly be used of future time.

It cannot be maintained, however, that this distinction is
always in the author's mind where Lo is found. Even in the
Quran there are found such sentences as Sur. 39:(>7, U>Jo Lo.

5»Jl9 lis. «JU! " But they have not rated God at his true power,"

where it is difficult to cast the thought in an interrogative form,
or to see any special force in the negative. In later writings and
in colloquial Arabic we must expect to find Lo and *$ used with
still less discrimination; yet even here, trained and careful
writers and speakers, though ignorant of the basis of distinc-
tion, will feel a difference and instinctively choose the proper
particle according to this law which the grammarians have roughly
formulated.

In this discussion of the Arabic Lo, we have illustrated the
principal steps by which an interrogative particle undergoes
transition to a negative force. The transition of Lo from the
interrogative to the negative is very simple and direct, involving
only two steps, (a) the transition of force and (b) the forgetting
of the original force so far as to allow the use of the particle as a
negative in constructions where the interrogative could not stand.
Here with Lo the process stops, and as a negative it never becomes
anything more than the particle not. We will now follow out a
similar process in the Hebrew, in which there are more steps, and
where the interrogative particle not only becomes a negative
particle, but even a noun of nothingness.

26 The Semitic NecxAtive

B. The Hebrew Negative "pj^ .— Of the three interrogative
stems, m, ay, and ha or a, while the Arabic has developed a neg-
ative from the substantive interrogative m, the Hebrew has
chosen for the same process the qualitative interrogative ay, from
which it has developed a negative which occurs quite as fre-
quently in Hebrew as the Lo in Arabic. This negative is "TK,
construct state "pS . To obtain this form, the Hebrew has added
an element n to the stem ay, and welded the two together so
thoroughly as to lose sight of the original parts and to treat the
compound as a simple stem, as the Assyrian and Syriac seem to
have treated in the same manner some fi formations of verbs, and
as the Arabic has undoubtedly dealt with the I and ySs in its
inflection of {ujjJ . The derivation of the Hebrew "p&$ from the
stem ay is not, therefore, so simple as that of the negative Lo
from the stem tit.

Two principal explanations have been given of the negative
y&<. The first is that of the school of Gesenius, which seeks to
find for every form a nominal or verbal root, as in its attempt to
make the particle xb a relic of some noun* or triliteral verb,f and
the Assyrian u 1 , a contraction of the verb a 1 ft 1 u , to be feeble,
nought, and also finds wherever it can a relation between Semitic
and Aryan roots. In accordance with the first purpose, it bases
"pK upon a hypothetical root 'pK, and by reversing the radicals
connects it with the extant verb {#13, to say "«o," and perhaps
with 37*13 , to nod, which is found possible on the analogy of the
Indo-European ne and in- or no and un-. In pursuance of
the second tendency* it makes this &W3 and -p^ to be related to
the Indo-European negative stem n.\ It then drops the "j from
"piS to get the form "^ on the analogy of the a privative from av
in Greek, and even goes so far as to derive the interrogatives
»T&$ and J from the negative by dropping the "I.

The second explanation has been presented clearly by Bott-
cher|| who rightly finds the basis of "pX in the interrogative stem
ay but with some hesitation accounts for the "j as a nunnation.

* Mitchell's GcsvniuB1 Hebrew Grammar, 1893, p. 255, and Gcsenius-Kautzsch, Hebraische
Grammatik, 1878, § 100, 1.

t Dietrich in Gesenius1 Wiirtcrbuch, criticised by BOttcher, Lehrbuch der hebrtiischcn
Sprache, § 532, p. 340, footnote 1.

t Bottcher's Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprache, § 532.

II Ibid.

The Semitic Negative 27

This derivation from the interrogative is adopted in Driver and
Brown's new edition of Gesenius' Lexicon* where, however, no
explanation is attempted for the "! .

Before offering a third explanation, it is in order to point out
the objections to these two views. The old view of Gesenius is
open to suspicion as a forced attempt to explain the form in
accordance with an assumption that all forms of speech neces-
sarily have their origin in either nominal or verbal roots, an
assumption sufficiently answered in our discussion of the origin
of fctb . The attempt to see in the three letters of ffc< the radi-
cals of a triliteral root can at best carry the derivation back no
tint her than the triliteral stage of the language, which is a late
stage arrived at only by a process such as is still going on in
English in the adoption of regular preterites for irregular verbs
and regular plurals for irregular nouns. Again, to identify the
" with the // of the Indo-European negative, and after thus making
it a radical and tin- strongest one in the triliteral root, to allow the
dropping of it on the analogy of the dropping of the v from dv- in a
privative of the Greek is quite unwarranted; first, because the n of
the Indo-European lias its counterpart in /, not in "TK ; secondly,
because the v of av in Greek and Sanskrit was originally not a true
consonant but merely a nasal vowel like final n in French, the nasal
quality of which was more or less pronounced according as it was
followed by a vocal or consonantal sound, and the dropping of
which was done in accordance with well defined euphonic laws;
while the presence or absence of the n in "PK and its cognates "^ of
the Hebrew, "X of the Phoenician. ///< and en in the Punic of Plau-
tus, and the A. ( f) and the XI (?) of the Ethiopic, is not condi-
tion. (1 by euphonic laws. The same is equally true when the
negative has jmssed, as Gesenius would have us believe, into the
interrogative. -j- The impossibility, on psychological grounds, of
the transition in this direction, from the negative to the inter-
rogative, will be shown later, and it being possible, the n of the
interrogative (c/. Heb, yW2 , Isa. 39:3 and Arab. ^j| ) must be
otherwise accounted for.

Bottcher's explanation of "j as a nunnation^ is unsatisfactory

* See under "pJJ .

tOesonius-Rodiger, Hebrew Grammar, ed. by Conant, pp. 272 sq.

| Bottchor, Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprache, § 532.

28 The Semitic Negative

because it fails to explain how an interrogative could receive the
nunnation, while the admission that the element ay is the inter-
rogative connects it at once with the Arabic J and hence with
^j| in which the \j followed by a vowel certainly cannot be the
nunnation.

What then is the n in "pX ? Accepting as the basis of the
form the interrogative element ay, for reasons that will be given
later, the most reasonable view as to the n is that it is neither
the n of negation* nor the n of indefiniteness but the demon-
strative n which by a common psychological process appears both
in Indo-European and Semitic; in the former in Sanskrit »«,f
Gr. vvv, Latin nunc and English now; and in the latter, in Heb.
Tlltl and the precative particle 50 , and in the Arabic ^>| , and Lls»
and possibly in the energetic form of the verb. This particle nu
in Sanskrit is appended with an intensive or precative force to
the interrogative,^ as in ko-nu, who now? who pray? It has
the same force in 50 appended to the verb in the Hebrew preca-
tive sentence and in doubtful and courteous question.

The interrogative in Hebrew can easily take on this preca-
tive particle, yet it can as easily omit it without affecting the
form of the question. Whether it should be used or not would
depend therefore originally upon the earnestness- of the speaker,
but later might become so stereotyped as to lose its special force.
This would depend upon the habit of mind of the people as a
whole, so that it might prevail more among the Hebrews than
the Phoenicians, just as the rhetorical question with m prevailed
more among the Arabs than among the Hebrews, so that with the
former it became stereotyped as a negative while with the latter
it failed to do so.

Beginning then as &WT5* = HiTT^ and *j| , we have the
vowel of the n preserved in both. But as the Hebrew lost its
case endings, so this vowel also, being unprotected, was lost, the
more so because the n could, though with difficulty, fall back
upon the preceding diphthong, giving the form "piK . A similar
loss of the final vowel in colloquial Arabic reduces the Jo| to

* For the contrary view see Ewald, Hebrew Grammar, tr. London, 1836, p. 288.
t Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, §504, and Lanman, Sanskrit Reader, pp. 138 and 200.
Cf. also, Lindsay, The Latin Language, p. 615.

$ Lanman, Sanskrit Reader, p. 138; Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, § 504.

The Semitic Negative 29

Vjt , pronounced dyn, but unspellable in Arabic because the
vowel system has not been sufficiently developed to indicate the
sound of Hebrew cere to which this exactly corresponds. This
is often further corrupted in the modern colloquial, perhaps by
metathesis of yodh, to wdyn and this sometimes still further to
fiiijn (c/. the opposite movement of p in Greek as it weakens from
the sound of / or v to w and finally disappears). But since the
form "j*K , in which the yodh still has something of consonantal
force, is not agreeable to the Hebrew ear, the yodh must find a
helping vowel after the manner of the so-called segholates, or
change the vowel before it for one with which it can coalesce
into a pure vowel sound. This leads to one of three forms.
Either (a) the yodh takes as a helping vowel its cognate vowel
/. giving the form yst or (6) there is a modification of the
preceding j>dfhdh to cere with which the yodh more easily coales-
ces, giving the Earm 7^ - which being shorter serves for the con-
struct state and exactly corresponds in sound to the unspellable
colloquial Arabic dyn, or (c) the preceding pdthdh is heightened
to <i<~u>n\', and the yodh, changed to waw, takes for its helping
vowel seghol, giving the form "pK.

We have then from this interrogative stem ay and the precative
Off demonstrative no the forms ~o| (colloquial /Vj| , Jo. , J>*i)
MSTPIft, WJIi *"** and "pK , of which the last three have passed
into the negative force. To these, as negatives of cognate origin,
we may add the Phoenician yit and en (Punic dialect in Plautus)*
and probably the Kthiopie fc*l, A»» (for A'Jfr) Mil and X1>fl? ;
and from the same stem ay without the na we have the Heb. ^
(rare), Talmudic "X, Phoenician ^ (no pointed Phoenician texts
have been found by which to determine the voweling) and the
first part of the compound blTit , Ethiopic K. and possibly the
Assyrian a -a and 6.

Having traced the development of the form of "Ttf , it needs
but a few words to trace the transition of the idea from the
interrogative to the negative force. The process is the same as
in the case of Lo, but while in Lo the transition is made through
the rhetorical question using the substantive interrogative what?

•Schroedor, Die FhOnizUche Sprache, 1809, p. 211, § 116, b.

30 The Semitic Negative

in "pH, it is developed from the qualitative or adverbial where?
and not only through the rhetorical question, but possibly also
through the question for information. The former, however, is
certainly the more common and gives the more direct transition.
The rhetorical question, Isa. 33:186, "£© JTK bp;£ fWi "ISO PPB
D'O^ftnTll!* "Where is he that took account, where is he that
weighed (the tribute), where is he that counted the towers?"
conveys in strongest terms the exultant thought of the speaker
that the Assyrian who had come up against the city is gone, is
destroyed, in short, non est.

In a less direct way, the fcWiTK that asks for information
may become Vttt, whereness, which implies the absence or the
nothingness or the emptiness and gives us by successive steps the
"TS of nothingness and the "j1fc< of vanity, worthlessness and sin.
This transition of an adverbial interrogative to a substantive
force is seen in English in such a sentence as, I know neither
the how, nor why, nor when, nor where of it. From its origin
in an adverbial interrogative of place, it comes to be that "pltf is
primarily a negative of existence rather than of action, and is
therefore found most commonly and properly with nominal rather
than with verbal forms. The development of the negative
from ay has been carried much further than that from m, and
appears in several languages, while that from Lo is confined
with few exceptions to the Arabic. For a full presentation
of their development in Hebrew, see the Table E, Syntactical
Constructions.

The theory that makes the negatives "TH and Lo to be related
to the interrogative particles in the reverse order,* that is, that
the interrogatives were derived from the negative particles, which
has been shown to be etymologically improbable, can be shown
to be psychologically impossible. This has been done briefly by
Bottcher in his Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprache, § 532 sq.
Taking the simple sentence X1H "PK, and reading the "p£< as the
rhetorical interrogative JCTPK, "where, pray, is he?" the impli-
cation is evident that he is not, as in the challenge of the Rab-
shakeh, 2 Kgs., 18:34, "Where are the gods of Hamath and
Arpad ?" If now we read the "Pfil as originally negative, he is not,

* Gesenius-ROdiger, Hebrew Grammar, ed. by Conant, pp. 272 sq.

The Semitic Negative 31

we may by the proper inflection indicate a question, he is not? =
is he not? hut the question relates only to the existence of the
person; it asks nothing as to the where? The answer can only
be "yes "or "no." But the interrogative iTK, or, as in 2 Kgs.
20:14, 182^ fWa, " whence do they come?" and the Arabic /^jf,
where? can never be answered by "yes" or "no." Being an
adverbial interrogative, it calls for an adverbial answer. "Where
is he?" asked with rhetorical inflection can easily and naturally
suggest, he is not; but "not is he?" can never by inflection or
by re-arrangement of the order of the words suggest the thought,
where is he?

The same reasoning applies to the substantive interrogative
Lc. The sentence. Jov ^y-o Lc , "What did Zeid (ever) strike,"
with the proper rhetorical emphasis means, "Zeid has not (ever)
struck (anything) ;" but the same sentence rendered originally as
negative, "Zeid has not struck," can never by change of inflec-
tion or of order of words call for a substantive answer, which it
must do if rendered, "What has Zeid struck?" Examples might
be given to show that this holds equally good whether the Lc be
subject or predicate nominative <>r object or adverbial accusative.

V.

THE SEMITIC CONCEPT OF NONENTITY.

Prof. Max Muller. in his Ledum <»i the Science of Language,

2d series. |>j>. .'Ill 7, is at some pains to show that abstract
nothingness was inconceivable to the human mind until the
theologians invented it for use in their discussions on escha-
tology, and made annihilation their bugbear with which to
frighten men into being good. In demonstration of this he
arrays certain facts in Indo-European philology to show that the
nearest approach that language could make to expressing non-
entity was by taking the smallest conceivable concrete thing or
actual existence, and then denying that object or existence.
Hence all words expressive of non-existence in the Indo-European
stock are necessarily compounds. Thus in English, nothing ==
no thing and none = no one; in French, ne . . . rum = Latin ne
. . . rem, " not a thing " and ne . . . . point = Latin ne . . . .

OF THB

jTVTTR fVTTT

32 The Semitic Negative

punchnn, "not a point;" in Italian, niente = Latin ne ... . ens
for essens, "not being;" in Latin, nihil, from which annihilation,
= ne filum, "not a thread," by change of / to h frequently seen
in Spanish words borrowed from the Latin; in Greek, ovhiv, and
in Sanskrit, asat = a privative and sat = Latin sens or ens,
"being."

The position seems well sustained by the Indo-European phi-
lology, but if Professor Miiller had looked at the Hebrew, he
would have found that the Semitic mind, whether early or late,
whether in the clergy or the laity, grasped the idea of abstract
nonentity immediately and expressed it by its simplest uncom-
pounded negative particles. Moreover, in Hebrew the terms are
not used eschatologically. It must be admitted that the simple
negative particles fcO and blK occur but rarely as substantives,
but this is because &0 and bi!< are primarily negatives of action,
not of being, whereas for the idea of nonentity a negative of
entity is wanted. This the Hebrew finds in its "p$ , which,
though a compound indeed as an interrogative, is as a negative
to be considered a simple form, since the compounding took place
previous to its reaching the negative stage. The Hebrew, there-
fore, has expressions which for brevity and directness correspond,
not to our roundabout nothingness, no-thing -ness, but to our not-
ness. The following are examples of the simple negative so used,
Isa. 55:2:

nnb aiba -p team rtsb

v v ; ' •■ v ': : • t t

"Wherefore do ye spend money for the nothing (or notness) of
bread, and your labor for nothing for satisfying." Here if any
should prefer to take the D<";b ^b as a compound like *Q1 SO =
no-thing, or like the peculiar expressions, *UPT&3 and {T-mVJO
of Hos. 1:6, 9; we have yet the second phrase in which the b
before fDDifl cuts it off from compounding with Nib and leaves
the latter to stand by itself as a noun of nothingness in the abso-
lute state. Dan. 4:32, JWSjnTfcS »T18 "IKl bsi , "All the
inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing.'1 Job 24:25,
nnb<2 bKb Dizn ^2hTjh T2 "Who will make me out a liar and put
my words to naught?"

The Semitic Negative 33

Isa. 41:12, fSO ITT "They shall be as naught:'
Isa. 41:24, J*B Dna \H "Behold, ye are of nothing:'
Amos 5:5, "psb iTTT 5» Pl-Zll "And Bethel shall come to
nothingness."

In addition to this use of the simple negative particle to
express nothingness, the Hebrew employs in great variety verbal
nouns such as VIH , CEK , 3Tifc< , blTi , p"H and Tbll to suggest
the same idea, and also uses compounds in the same way as the
Indo-European, as "Ql fctb and H'-^bi of Job 26:7 = no-thing,
though in such cases more often the fc<b is separated from the
noun by the verb or even by the entire remainder of the sentence,
as in the very common constructions bD . . . JO, TZTN . . . 5<b and

■en . . . 16 .

34

The Semitic Negative

Table D. — Occurrences of Negatives in the Old Testament.

o

55

vr

■5
'A

vl"

vr
55

39

j
vr

•
vr

1

j
55

36

j

rA

vr
U

j

»r
U

»

vr
U

j

vr
U

a

j
u

10

a

w

'A

2

ii
rA

11

17

»

"I
vr

-i

ri
'A

4

tJ

1

vr
li
rA

»
ii

3

a

5C

j
u

10

Gen. . . .

212

1

8

3

10

Ex

244

19

22

1

5

4

1

2

8

Lev ....

282

11

21

3

1

1

3

Num. . .

188

14

19

7

1

1

2

3

J

2

Deut. . .

408

21

1

30

4

1

1

28

1

3

5

20

Josh. . . .

98

20

5

1

9

1

2

3

1

9

15

Judg. . .

132

16

1

27

-2

i

1

1

5

2

2

7

1 Sam...

198

25

1

33

2

-6

2

5

7

1

5

2

2

8

2

2 Sam.. .

130

23

1

15

-4(5)

3

2

2

6

1

6

6

lKgs...

177

13

25

-3

3

2

5

1

7

11

2Kgs...

178

23

1

20

3

5

1

2

n

2

1

7

1

1

15

10

432

43

1

91

24

6

5

6

7

13

1

3

4

3

22

5

1

510

1

89

89

4

25

1

4

8

1

21

1

15

2

Ezek....

335

14

24

2

15

1

it

Hos. . . .

67

7

15

2

4

1

1

1

Joel

12

4

3

Amos. . .

72

2

5

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

Obad. . .

4

8

1

9

5

Mic

29

6

6

1

1

Nah....

9

7

-2

. ,

Hab. . . .

21

3

Zeph. . .

25

2

3

2

3

1

4

Hag

4

1

5

1

Zech. ..

51

7

4

4

1

Mai ... .

19

1

6

1

1

1

Ps

329

122

(5

66

30

-2(6)

1

4

1

9

1

3

3

1

2

1

Prov. . . .

134

89

37

10

_o

3

2

17

2

1

Job

290

24

29

1

18

1

1

1

1

1

3

7

Cant.. . .

11

2

5

2

Ruth. . .

18

8

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

Lam . . .

39

5

11

1

2

Eccles. .

65

21

44

1

1

3

Esth . . .

28

4

10

3

Dan. . . .

45

69

6

9

2

1

2

Ezra . . .

15

12

2

4

1

Neh....

61

9

11

2

2

1 Chron.

53

7

9

1

1

1

1

1

3

2Chron.

156

20

13

25
776

3

67

-1

1

'A

2

—

3

i

6

11

Total...

5093

82

732

76

82

17

52

S3

1

128

15

The Semitic Negative 35

notes on table of occurrences.

xb • The enumeration includes all cases where other spellings, as
ib (1 Sam. 2:20) and pj'b (Deut. 3:11) are used for X'b, all compounds
of xb as xbll, X>2 and xbb and both long and short forms. It
includes also its occurrences in the asseverative xb EX » though its neg-
ative force is lost in the rendering "surely." It does not include xb = la.

bx includes also the two occurrences of bx (Isa. 37:10;* Jer. 51:3)
and two of b? for bx (2 Kgs. 23:18; Ezek. 9:5).

"PX includes yx and "pX, but no case of "pX or ''X.

b2 includes all cases where it has the meaning not, lest or but adver-
sative, but not cases where it is merely affirmatively intensive = surely.

"'blS includes its use in the compound b^bs > the number of such
occurrences being indicated by a figure preceded by hyphen, to be under-
stood as included in the larger figure when there are two. It includes
also the one occurrence of rPJ^bll (Job 26: 7) and all compounds with
prepositions.

Tibs includes all forms of this in composition with the prepositions
3 . TQ, etc., and the case rendered "only" or in margin of R. V. "with-
out me" (Isa. 10:4).

CEX includes the occurrences of the verb £SX> to not be, the con-

•• T

junction "2 C5X except that, the use with pronominal suffixes as ""CSX
and as noun of mtfln'iujmss, but does not include its use as a concrete
noun as in \"*X "CEX *nd# of the earth, and D^CSX extremities, i. e.,
hands and feet

"EX occurring but once (Isa. 41:24) is probably a corruption of CSX •

- T

OX includes only those occurrences where, though originally a con-
ditional particle, it now has the force of a negative after formula of
asseveration expressed or implied. It does not, however, include the QX
of xb DX which, though of the same origin and force originally, becomes
in connection with xb equivalent to the affirmative "surely." See note
on xb-

PI'S' The occurrence of fpj iu rhetorical question is analogous to
the use of Lo in Arabic, but occurring far less frequently, can hardly be
said to have become sufficiently common and stereotyped to have lost its
original interrogative force. In two cases, however, Cant. 8:4, it replaces
in similar construction the DX'8 of 2:7 and 3:5 which have the force
of negative particles in adjuration. This seems the only case where we
can fairly render TT2 as a negative in the Hebrew.

"S3 • bsX • "3 . DX "3 • pi • The classification of these particles
as negatives or adversatives being in many cases a matter of interpreta-
tion and opinion, the table enumerates only those cases that seem least

* Pointed with pathah in tbo Baer and Delitzscb text.

36 The Semitic Negative

doubtful, and they are not summarized. Thus, T£) is originally parti-
tive or comparative and after a verb implying separation must be rendered
"from," as in the sentence "he prevented them from speaking." But in
the sentence, Isa.5:6, TttBPffij »Tl£K DVtl b? "I will command the
clouds not to rain," the privative force is not so apparent in the prin-
cipal verb, will command, and the particle may be rendered as negative.
So also in the case of the other particles, the exact value in some cases
is not determined and the enumeration cannot be definite.

Table E. — Syntactical Constructions of the Hebrew Negative.

Kb

1. With finite verb, perf., Gen. 2:5, DTlbK tfST TOSH M&

2. " " " imperf. declarative, Isa. 39:6, -Q'H 1WP K"b

T T ♦• T •

3. " " " " strong jussive, Gen. 2:17, S]3ft£ bjKfl Kb

4. " " " " weak jussive, continuing bK> Lev. 10:6,

Tiisn Kb tas^tmi Ensn bK d^iotn

; • •.•••:• T ; • - V »• T

5. With finite verb, in asseveration — OK ,

Ezek. 14:18, && &£? ab HIST *3TK OK? "S^Ttl

6. With noun, Jer. 18:17, DK^K D^STfcbl CT&

7. " " in nominal sentence, Gen. 42:34, QfiK W^jftD Kb "3

8. " " negating a quality, 2 Chron. 13:9, "that which is a

no-god," = noun in construct, DTl'bK K"bb TID PITH

: i" t t :

9. With adjective, Ex. 22:15, STffllK K'b "HSK PlbWQ

t t •.■ -: t :

10. " " phrase, Gen. 15:13, Dnb Kb y^n

11. With adverb, Gen. 48:18, "UK -p-gb . . ■ ~,CV TDSt*l

12. " " phrase, Ex. 3:19, ripTH T3 K'bl

'tt -: t : :

13. With noun as jussive = bK> Prov. 27:2,

SjTiafe hafl 'nsa *ps Kbi it sjbbrv

14. Independent = nay! Gen. 19:2 (kethibh), -pba ZfilTQ "3 Kb TOK^I

15. With sentence, Ezek. 18:29, "pFP J<b W^TI Kbn

16. After preposition 21 with (a) noun — without, Jer. 22:13,

pn^-Kbn irvn n» "in

" " (Z>) verb imperf., Lam. 4:14,

Drnonba w tor Kbn

" " " " (c) verb, infin., Num. 35:23,

niKn Kbn as rw tick pk bba

The Semitic Negative 37

After preposition 21 with (d) prep, and noun, Isa. 55:2, TV2XDb fcObm
" " (e)adv. phrase, 2 Chron. 30:18," '

avoD ribs ncsrrna tim

t - : - ■.• - v : t

17. After preposition 5 with (a) finite perf., Isa. 65:1,

■Offlja a'bb "f«*?tia

" u (6) adj. phrase, Job 39: 16,

fib-abb TO T1?!?5?

18. After preposition blP with fiuite perf., Ps. 119:136,

^rnin rtash/b by *wj *nr d^-j ■aba

19. After preposition 3 with finite perf., Obad. 16, VH Xib5 *Pm

: t t ;

20. After preposition ^ob==,SBi Ps. 119:80, 'JJ'Qa &<b "J^b

21. Followed by b with infin. = o6k ton, Amos 6:10,

nftr diss rwrh xb ■$ en

^ 0* t : « : • : - : T

22. With "jr = Arab. LrJ, Job 9:33, > 1 'jffaj WS '^ Nb

23. " U& = assuredly, Gen. 24:38, -Af) ^tfTT:rbK tfb"D8

" T

24. " "H independent = Germ, niehi wakrt Judg. 14:15,

abn ttb Dn^p «w*rtn

"1 t t': •• :t: -

1. Deprecation, finite imperf., Gen. 13:8,

ww ■« rcma tm nrb»

!••••• • •• t . : . : T

2. " nominal sentence, 2 Sam. 1:21,

orb? ids bai bts-b^ yhban m

•■• •• -: t t - : - - - : . - .. T

3. Nominal sentence declarative, Prov. 12:28,

wnri* ww sfiTi D^n npTis irita

4. As substantive, Job 24:25, Tib"- bsb OTCI ",w2■,T5', "TO

• t. -; •• t ; ....;- .

6. Independent = nay! Gen. 19:18, ^18 tfrbtf DHb« taib ^J&OI

t : t - •••••-:

1. Construct state with noun, Gen. 37:29, THSl TCT "Ftf

2. " " « pronoun, Gen. 28:17, BTfcg TO DM "3 HT "ftf

3. « " « suffix, Gen. 37:30, ^r« Tb^n

4. " « " " before participle = copula, Gen. 20:7,

5. - « " adj. phrase, Ex. 8:6, OTA* STfcTO T*

38 The Semitic Negative

6. Construct state with noun and governed by t}3, Isa.6:ll, Q*^ ViX/2

I • T T I •• ••

7. " " " inf. and governed by TQ, Mai. 2:13,

8. " " " adj. phrase and governed by TJJ, Jer. 10:6,

9. " " " noun and governed by 3,, Ezek. 38:11,

rtBti -pan

10. " " " " " " " b, Isa. 40:29, "

raT na» tnia 7*6*1

11. * " " participle and governed by b> Neh. 8:10,

ib rtoa rnb nta vibizn

J t I « : t : • :

12. " " " noun and strengthened by li3J, Isa. 23:10,

nis? rra ^a

13. " " " noun separated by *f&, Jer. 49:7,

■fffta nasn ?fr -pan

14. " " " infin. with ^=ote Am, Eceles. 3:14,

' rub r« sss^ croinb r« rto

-:•!•• v • I • : I •• t r

15. " " " adv. phrase or obj. acc.(?), Hag. 2:17,

*ba ww f«i

16. " " " tZT pleonastic, Ps. 135:17, BTB£.h*HW* T!^

17. " " " noun and after ^bS pleonastic, 2 Kgs. 1:3,

18. " " between partic. noun and its object, Gen. 40:8,

infc f& nns^i ttobri nibn

19. " " " noun and adv. phrase = copula, Gen. 19:31,

■pasi -pa tc"«i

20. Absolute state between noun and adv. phrase, 2 Kgs. 19:3,

mbb f» r&)

21. " " after noun, Lev. 26:37, *pK t|T11

22. " " independent, 1 Kgs. 18:10, -j^ TO^I

23. u u after preposition = substantive; — with b> Isa. 40:23,

-pab mfh -jrvfon

24. " « " " = substantive; — with 3, Hag. 2:3,

em £» rto »ibn

25. " " " " = adv. phrase = almost, Ps. 73:2,

rasp £*fi -ban

The Semitic Negative 39

26. Absolute state after preposition = subst.;— with "!}J, Isa. 41:24,

?bke nbbhsu raw ona -,n

- T " V : T IT I . - .. V - I ••

27. " " " " and followed by adj. phrase, Jer. 30: 7

(but cf. Jer. 10:6, note 8 above), Vita -pK?J ^HH DTH bil3

28. Absolute state with verb perfect = fcfcb , Job 35:15,

mz rr-«bi tea nps> n< ■$ pjfpi

— -t : - •- t !• - • t-:

1. With noun, 1 Sam. 4:21, TOD *K

T •

2. " adjective, Job 22:30, ^pD""!*

1. With noun = mthout, Isa. 28:8, Uip'2 "bs,

2. " adjective, 2 Sam. 1:21, rQTBSi TTXDfC nbn b*ttW3 ",312

I V T - - • T •: T "•• T

3. " finite verb perfect, Gen. 31:20, KTJ Tfh *2 ib TSTI ^b^l b?

4. " " " imperf., Hos. 8:7, rTBjgTto; *bn

5. In composition with noun, Judg. 19:22, by*bni
" u pronoun, Job 26:7, H'J^ba by
" " preposition, with S» Deut. 4:42,

u bi Isa. 5:14,

prnbnb rrs mflB

i . ; . t • t-: it

" -p with noun, Jer. 2:15,
" « " infin., Deut. 9:28,' '

■p«n b» aranb rrtrr nbr "tea

" " fjp with adj. phrase, Job 18:15,

ib "bn-j ibnxa rMn

. : • t: rr : I : .

" " 72 and with "."K pleonastic, Ex. 14:11,

aroma D-ap-yw ^son

• - : • : • t': ' •• • : • -:

13. As substantive = nothingness, "the pit," Isa. 38:17,

■4a nrraa "ipsa npran nnsn
"nbs

1. With noun = except Gen. 21:26, QVH Tlbn TTOT «"b

2. " adj. phrase = onty, Num. 11:6, sirr? TBrrb» Tltol

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.

40 The Semitic Negative

3. With pronom. suffix, 1 Sam. 2:2, SPfibSl -pj$ ^

4. " " " hidden, Hos. 13:4, "And deliverer there is none

except me," ^F)bn "fK TX&VSH

5. " Q^ = except, Gen. 47: 18, ttrM3"D« T&3 "3TO "Dsb IIHfe Kb

6. " nominal sentence, Gen. 43:5, DSntf DSTfiK *V)bjl "OS Wfr^b

7. Independent = nay! Dan. 11:18(?), ib S^F insift "nbS

t t : •-• • :•

8. With preposition "$ before finite verb perf., Num. 21:35,

T"j$ ib "mtfri Tfcsrr? • • • in& w

9. " " b before infin., Gen. 4:15,

: t - • ; • :

10. " " " " finite perf., Jer. 23:14,

11. " " " " " imperf., Ex. 20:20, WtthTl TO3?

12. " " " " band infin., 2 Kgs. 23:10,

'©83 • • • i:n-na t^» TQ?0b ^ribnb

13. « " -p " infin., Num. 14:16 (c/. under ^, No. 10,

Deut. 9:28), BftYhji &?& stfrT nbir t&so '
bs

1. With adjective, Prov. 24:23, nirrba BBTZJESl

2. " " phrase, Prov. 23:7, rr^3?-bn isb

3. " finite perfect, Isa. 26:10, pTI Tab bs 3fah "jlT

4. " " imperf., Isa. 26:10, pi1»3 Wr b^

5. " infinitive = "(S, Ps. 32:9, ^b« n°lp bn

1. = except, Gen. 14:24, Dh"U?2n ^lbS« ^TEtf p"l "HSbSl

• t ; - : it v -: ' - - t : •

2. =not by me, Gen. 41:16, JthB tfftiriTlK >tH£ Btf^K JJ&n

3. With preposition ','2 — besides, Josh. 22:19,

frtfta nirr n^T? 'HJtea rata osb bbrtoa

1. With finite perf., Gen. 21:15, *&& nVS D^t? WST'FW

2. " " imperf., Ex. 9:30, fiTT ^DS/J t»TR CTitt "3 WT

The Semitic Negative 41

3. With finite imperf. for DfilttSli Ex. 12:34,

rem wta ipssrna d?n sw

( t : :■ v * •• : v t t t •-

4. " preposition ^ and followed by perfect, Ps. 90:2,

5. " u " " " " imperf., Gen. 27: 4,

6. " " " before noun, Isa. 17:14, l^K '"ipi DIpS

7. " " " « infin., Zeph. 2:2,

or ^n? lrto pn rnb tma

8. « " »p before infin., Hag. 2:15,

9. « " a and fc*b pleonastic, Zeph. 2:2,

■jinn art* Kin; rib Dips
CM

1. With noun = only, Num. 22:35,

"enn infc *pb« Wipizkji ^jstth* cssn

2. ■ adjective = substantive, 2 Kgs. 14:26, ^IJ CEK1 1*l£y CSH

T V V : T

3. " adverbial phrase, Isa. 54:15, TfiKtt CSX W "ffei

• •• V V T

4. " pronominal sufiix, Isa. 47:10, T\y TB&O "^N

5. " *3 as conjunction = but, except that, Deut. 15:4,

m* «b ^ csx

6. " preposition "j/J- substantive, Isa. 40:17, ?inbl CSX73

7. " " 21 = substantive, Prov. 14:28,

pn rwca oiab csxn^i

8. As verb, Gen. 47:15, rC2 CS5< h3

I V T •• T •

1

1. With perfect, clause of possibility, 2 Kgs. 2:16,

2. " imperf., of caution, Gen. 3:22, VT nbtD"1 "tB

3. u " of adjuration = D», Judg. 15:12,

ona ^a pssn -j3 hb Wttjn

4. " " of mild prohibition =b^, Jer. 51:46, ttfflb TP TjW

5. " omission of verb, Prov. 25:8,

Btwrwa nuggrnu is *ra nib asn ba

t •-:!-; v -: i- I v .• - . t ....

42 The Semitic Negative

1. With noun = onfy, Deut. 4:12, bip n)nblT ETtfn DW* rTffiBtfl

2. " pronominal suffix = except, 1 Sam. 21 : 10,

rtra nnb^iT mna r* *3

V - T T V V - 1 ..

1. In asseveration with imperfect, Gen. 42:15, HtE ^tQPTQK FI3H3 tl

2. " " " nouns, Ezek. 14:16,

»fehsr rfttrqrj cra-E» nrtnj **» dm "ok -n

3. u " after fibril, imperf. /job 27: 5,

v : v » • : - . ■ t • t

4. " adjuration, imperf., Cant. 2:7,

rDnarrntf . . twi d» . . . Mna "raaizjn

t -: i- t v • t • v : v • : - : .

T

In adjuration, imperf., Cant. 8:4 (c/. under Qfc$, No. 4 above),

mnarrna . • • wn-rra • • • osna waion

t -: i- t

VITA.

I, Dean A. Walker, was born at Diarbekr, Turkey, on February 3,
1860. I studied in the public schools of Newton, Mass., from 1867-1880,
at Yale University from 1880-84. After this, I was for the period of one
year, Instructor in the Hopkins Grammar School at New Haven; Pro-
fessor of Languages in Colorado College, 1885-86; and entered the Yale
Divinity School in 1886, where I remained until 1889. From 1889-92 I
was Asssistant and Principal of the Preparatory Department of the
Syrian Protestant College at Beirut, Syria. Shortly after my return to
America in 1893, I entered The University of Chicago as a Graduate
Student in the Semitic Department and acted as a University Extension
Lecturer. During the Summer of 1894 and 1895 I was Lecturer for the
American Institute of Sacred Literature at the Chautauqua Assemblies.
Since Autumn of 1895, I am Professor of English Bible and Instructor
in Social Science at Wells College, Aurora, N. Y. To my former teachers
at Yale University and in The University of Chicago, who have always
assisted me with kind advice and assistance, I herewith express my
gratrful thanks.

Photomount

Pamphlet

Binder

Gaylord Bros., Inc

Makers

Stockton, Calif.

PAT. JAN. 21. 1908

S0C279

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY