his Syntax which has respect to the use of the Hebrew tenses. When I had completed my grammatical labour, and finished the printing of my book, I felt a strong desire to re-examine (more at leisure) the theory of Ewald on the subject of the Hebrew tenses. This I have done, and the following translation, with the remarks which are appended, is the result of my reexamination. I give them to the public, because the subject is one of deep interest to every student of Hebrew grammar, and of much importance, to say the least, to Hebrew philology and criticism.

In introducing Prof. Ewald to speak for himself, I hope that I shall avoid the imputation of having misconstrued or misrepresented him. At least this cannot be charged upon me, unless I have purposely mistranslated him. This I have not done; but I cannot assure the reader, that I have always translated him with correctness. I can truly say, that I have done my best to accomplish this; but, I must add, that after being for a quarter of a century somewhat acquainted with the German language, and after having read more in it, during that period of time, than I have in my mother-tongue, I am still unable in some cases to find out the meaning of Prof. Ewald to my satisfaction. I can only say, now and then, as Castalio says in his apologetic note for a version of a passage more literal than he was accustomed to make: "This I have translated literally, because I do not understand it." Perhaps as to one or two passages in Ewald, some one who can better strip off the Umhüllung which this celebrated writer throws over all his speculations than I can do, might feel disposed to question, whether I had gone so far as to give even a literal version. Be it so then; 'Si quis prospiciat― vaticinetur.' He shall do so at least with my liberty, and I will make-not my palinode, for that would imply that I had consciously done wrong, or at least through negligence but, my acknowledgements that there are depths in Ewald, down into which I have not had address or skill or strength enough to plunge.

But some things which I think I do understand, I have called in question. Ewald's views and mine, therefore, are both before the reader; and he has the opportunity of judging for himself. This is all that justice and candour can demand; and in the doing of this, I am satisfied that I have done my duty fairly. -M. S.]

SYNTAX OF THE VERB, by Prof. Ewald.

$470. Five forms of the Hebrew verb serve to designate time or tense; viz. the two Modes [Praeter and Future tense],* which at the same time also mark the distinction of Mode; the same two Modes with Vav relative or conversive prefixed; and the Participle. The Hebrew employs these forms, not according to the method of distinguishing tenses in our languages, (to the spirit of which it is quite foreign), but still with a distinction so definite that they cannot be exchanged for each other, while they plainly mark the principal difference of the

§ 471. THE TWO MODES [Praeter and Future], considered merely in respect to their use as tenses, represent all action aoristically, i. e. without reference to any other action or time. They differ from each other in such a way, that the first Mode marks that which is completed, definite, and certain; the second Mode that which is not completed, indefinite, and dependent on circumstances. Consequently they do not in themselves mark a time which is definite, but are capable of being applied to any portion of time, provided that the leading idea designated by them be retained.

$472. Hence the FIRST MODE [Praeter] is employed, (1) To designate the past, when an action that has once taken place is simply presented, without any reference to any thing else; e. g. God 7, created the world;', what hast thou done?

(2) To designate the present; (a) When any particular action which has once taken place, may be again repeated; e. g. in you, the wicked man despises Jehovah, Ps. 10: 3. (b) When a state or condition began in some undefined past time, and one still sees the completion of it, [i. e. one sees that the same state or condition is still continued]; e. g. 7, I know;, I remember, Num. 11:5;, he loves; N, he hates;, he refuses, Ex. 10: 3; o, he despises. "Of course such a meaning [i. e. that of the present tense] is frequent in [the first mode of] intransitive Verbs. Different from

The passages included in brackets, I have added for the sake of explanation. M. S.

this are various methods of designating the Present, as described in § 473, 2. § 483.

(3) To designate the future. This can happen, only when the thing to be done is, in the mind of the speaker, already regarded as being virtually completed, and consequently as unconditional and certain, (as in German the Present is often put for the Future); e. g. frequently in the declarations of the Divine Being, asn, I will constitute, Gen. 17: 20. In the poets and prophets is the same usage, even in other parts of discourse, although this is not frequent; e. g. 7, they shall perish, Ps. 10: 16. Mic. 1: 11.

§ 473. THE SECOND MODE [Future] has a very extensive

use.

(1) In accordance with the idea it designates of a thing not yet accomplished and indefinite, it is employed, (a) To express a thing simply FUTURE; e. g. 2, he will be. (b) To designate a future in time which is already past, when the context has reference in general to a time past; in which case the idea of that which is past lies merely in the connection; e. g. the first born, who should reign [qui regnaturus erat] in his stead. (c) For the Futurum praeteritum in dependent clauses; e. g. 22, could we have known that he would say? (Like ¬ EDT), I knew that he would say), Gen. 43: 7, 25.

(2) Out of the idea of that which is incomplete flows the idea of becoming, of origination, of taking rise. Hence, (a) The second Mode designates an action not yet completed, but which is being_completed or finished; (we designate this by the Present). E. g. Why are ye coming out,' N, 1 Sam. 17: 8. In this sense the second Mode comes near to occupying the same ground with the first, which sometimes designates the Present. There is still, however, this distinction, that the first Mode speaks of a thing as already completed, and the second of that which is becoming completed; e. g. 7, whence art thou come? [as having already arrived]; and 782

, whence dost thou come? [the action not being yet complete]. It should be noted, however, that the first Mode is not often employed in this way.

(b) The second Mode also designates an origination or becoming so and so in time past, [i. e. a thing once present and becoming completed in time that is past]. The poets use this form frequently, (1) In order to transfer an action to the time

of its rise or origination, when it was present; (like the Latin Imperfect); as, then thou wast born, Job 38: 21. See also Job 3: 3, 11. 15: 7. (2) When in vivid narration they transfer past things to the present; as, he conducts me, Num. 23: 7. In prose the first of these two usages sometimes may be found; as, we were knowing, Gen. 43:7. Often, moreover, the second Mode stands connected in such cases with then; as, then sang he, Ex. 15: 1. Jos. 8: 30.

(c) In particular, the idea of an action often repeated or continued, flows out of the preceding view of the second Mode; for every action of this kind can be regarded as still continuing and yet to be renewed. So for the Present,, dicitur, dicunt; specially in comparisons, as NN, as one is wont to uphold, Deut. 1:31. So also for the Past, the idea of which flows merely out of the connection of the views of the speaker; as, he was wont to do yearly, 1 Sam. 1: 7. 2: 19.

(3) From the meaning comprised in the second Mode arises further the idea of that which is indefinite, or dependent on circumstances or feelings; so that it answers to express the Subjunctive; e. g., how can I curse? Num. 23: 8. Even the Subjunctive past is expressed by it; as I might have sent thee away, Gen. 31: 27.

1, that

This mode is also employed in quoting the thoughts of another, and stands, (a) In indirect quotation; as 7, he commands that they shall return, Job 36: 10. So ... 121, and he gave order. . . that they should stand, Dan. 1:5. This method of speaking, however, is not frequent, as the general spirit of simple syntax would naturally lead us to suppose. (b) The second Mode is employed in uttering direct commands or unconditional wishes; e. g. n, thou shalt eat, Gen. 2: 16., which should not be done, Gen. 20: 9. 34: 7. Lev. 7: 2. So respecting the Past; as, I would have died, Job 3: 11. 3: 16. 10: 18, 19.

(4) More expressly still to designate this idea of command and wish, an abridged form of the second Mode arose, viz. the Jussive and Imperative; and still more expressly to render the wish or command emphatic, the paragogic is appended to the Imperative. See 240-243.

474. According to these leading distinctions of meaning are the two Modes employed in a variety of ways with particles; of these I shall treat particularly in the sequel.

[B]

Of the two modes with VAV RELATIVE or CONVERSIVE, the two relative historic forms.

§ 475. From the simple copulative (and) we must carefully separate the more expressive particle which connects sentences, and which at the same time includes in itself the idea of time or a sequency of ideas; and answers, therefore, to the German und dann, und so, dann, so, so dass, [and then, and so, then, so, so that]. The idea of advance in respect to time is transferred to a sequency of thought. This Vav stands only in the beginning of a sentence, which holds such a relation to a preceding one; as that in the junction of them a sequency of time or of thought is expressed. Thence the Vav inserted here may most appropriately be named Vav relative. This more significant Vav is also designated by a different mode of pronouncing it. In the full form in which it is commonly associated with the second Mode, it sounds 1 (vay) and [frequently] it alters the tone [or place of accent]. Before the first Mode, (and elsewhere, 591), it is sounded as is the simple copula (1), but it also [oftentimes] changes the tone, when placed before the first Mode, § 245. Thence both the Vav relative and the Mode of the verb are so inseparably connected, that they cannot be dissevered without entirely losing their force; and so too that the more intimate connection, such as and he comes, is directly the opposite of the looser connection, N. . . ? and he came, § 478.

Vav relative with the second Mode.

§ 476. (1) When Vav relative is placed before the second Mode, it involves in this continually the idea of becoming, of taking rise, or originating; this union [of with the Future] represents the sequency of the new becoming [of a thing, or] originating of an action out of something which precedes. Consequently, (a) Since this Vav marks sequency of time, it is most frequently employed to designate an action once done, but so that the first Mode stands as a correlative with it in a simple aoristic sense, e. g. 18, he spake and then it was, or and so it was, it began to be, it became; n, thou sawest and then thou didst rejoice, or and so thou didst rejoice. And in this way is Vav relative constantly employed in the narration VOL. XI. No. 29.

18