This list is sufficiently copious to prove a more than accidental agreement in words of frequent use. Many of these Hebrew roots are evidently related to each other, and most of them are found in several kindred forms. The same is true of their European equivalents. Among these the selection has here been made not so much for the purpose of exhibiting the most palpable similarity, as to include the greatest variety of distinct etymons in each line of descent. We have not room to express the numerous cognates and derivatives of each, to trace the connection of their meanings with the common or generic import, nor to note the various orthographical changes that they have undergone. If the reader will take the trouble to investigate these points at his leisure, as he may readily do, with the help of good lexicons of the respective languages, he will soon satisfy himself how widely these radices have ramified and how intimately they are connected. A comparison with their Arabic and Sanscrit parallels would still further verify the foregoing results.

II. MONOSYLLABIC ROOTS.-It is well settled that the socalled weak radicals in Hebrew verbs, technically denominated Pe-Aleph, Pe-Nun, Pe-Yod, Lamed-He, etc., which drop away in the course of inflection, were not in reality originally triliteral at all, but that these letters were only added in those forms in which they appear, for the sake of uniformity with regular verbs. But these constitute in the aggregate a very large part, we apprehend a decided majority of all the verbs

most frequently employed in the language. Besides these there is another very large class of roots of kindred or analogous signification with each other, and having two radicals in common. All these, as Gesenius has ingeniously shown in his Lexicon, are likewise to be regarded as essentially identical, the idea clinging in the two letters possessed by them in comThus we have reduced nearly the other moiety of Hebrew verbs, and these it must be remembered are the ground or stock of the entire vocabulary, to triliterals. The presumption is not an unwarrantable one, that all the roots might etymologically be similarly retrenched. The few quadriliterals that occur are unceremoniously treated in this manner, being regarded as formed from ordinary roots by reduplication or interpolation.

mon.

Now it is a remarkable coincidence that the ultimate theme of the primitive Greek verb has been ascertained, in like manner, by modern philologists to be a monosyllable, consisting of two consonants vocalized, in precise conformity with the Hebrew system of vowel points, by a single mutable vowel. Thus the basis of such protracted forms even as λανθάνω, μανθάνω, didaoxo, becomes λad, pad, dax. Indeed, Noah Webster has διδάσχω, λαθ, μαθ, δαχ. applied the same principle to all the roots of English words; and in his dictionary (we speak of the quarto edition, originally published at New Haven in two volumes) he has indicated them as "class Dg, No. 28," etc., although he seems never to have published the key or list of this classification.

III. PRIMITIVE TENSES.-In nothing perhaps does the disparity between the Greek and the Hebrew verb strike the student at first more obviously than the multiplicity and variety of tense-forms in the former, compared with the meager and vague array of tenses in the latter A little further examination, however, shows that by means of the various so-called conjugations (Niphal, Hiphil, etc.) the Hebrews managed to extend their paradigm to pretty considerable dimensions. Here the Heb. Piel and other dageshed conjugations evidently correspond with the reduplication of the Greek perfect and pluperfect tenses, while the prefixed syllable of Hiphil, etc., affords a clue to the device of the simple augment in Greek. These, how