into va, doubling the consonant which follows. The more forcible and, which removes an action into the past, is produced by the coalescing of these two little words." Ewald adds further that the imperfect tense becomes subordinate to this prefix in the voluntative mood, which mood, by itself, puts an action into motion, and, consequently, renders it dependent, attaching it to some point; in this manner, he says, a certain combination is formed by which the action is removed into the past, attaching it there to some point, already given, within its own series; so that the development of the action may be traced from that point. This, he says, is the imperfectum perfecti, which progresses from a certain given point or thought, and is never placed independently, but always in reference to some preceding point. How is it, we ask, when the syllable commences entire books? According to his statement at the outset of his explanation, we expected Ewald to give us a number of conjunctions, which become thus inseparably connected with verbs; but, with the exception of 1, he does not mention a single other instance, and he admits, himself, that the conjunctions, generally, are more loosely connected with the sentence. And this must necessarily be so, because a conjunction, though it sometimes arises from a relative particle, yet differs from it; for the office of a conjunction does not only consist in connecting parts of the following clause, but also in attaching an entire clause to its leading clause. As regards the whole theory of Ewald in respect to, it may be said it is scitior quam verior. If we choose to proceed in his fashion, anything whatever may be proved, and, compared with him, a certain scholar of antiquity who derived Neptunus from nando, proceeded less arbitrarily. We are at a loss to comprehend why Gesenius's mode of explaining the vav conversivum was ever abondoned by the learned; for it is certainly more natural and less artificial. While the vowel a, in the sense of then (tum), which has been conjured up by Ewald, does not at all exist in the language, and while there is not a single instance on record in which coalesces into one syllable with a following x, in the other explanation everything follows naturally; moreover it has tradition in its favor, which ought not to be neglected, when it can be rationally confirmed, and when it can show analogies in another Semitic idiom. Instead of acknowledging with Rödiger that the theory of former grammarians is wrong, who hold that be arose by a process of shortening and by a contraction from, or b, for which denial he does not offer any reason whatever, we rather agree with the old grammarians — if it is at all proper for us to give an opinion concerning the genesis of this archaic form and we hold that this form which is only found (הָיָה) הָיָה for הֲוָה arose from the old verb in seven places, but still survives in the name in (not as Ewald reads, prompted by a desire of innovation). This verb, like g, n, coalesced with the following word, as in for, and the first syllable was dropped, as in the Syriac. When, subsequently, the verb passed over into, and the people were no longer conscious of the old form, the construction itself, indeed, remained, but the prefix was wrongly taken for the conjunction. The fact that the particular form of construction of commencing with the perfect tense, and following with the future or imperfect tense, did not arise on Hebrew ground, but is founded on the primitive Semitic mode of viewing and representing things, is proved by this consideration, that in the Arabic, also, we meet with a similar form of construction, and, indeed, the verb cana, which in this language is in the the place of the Hebrew he used to love, 3 (132) amabat, (27), literally: it was or came to pass [that] he will (would) ride, i. e. he used to ride. 1 Even in the Ethiopic one single instance, like a solitary relic from older times, perhaps may survive, văyebe, and he said, for it happened that he would or did say. ARTICLE III. A SHAKSPEARIAN GLOSSARY FOR OUR ENGLISH BIBLE. BY REV. LEMUEL S. POTWIN, BRIDGEWATER, CONN. THERE are but two books, we believe, in the English language, which have been honored with a complete concordance. These books-Shakspeare and our English Bible happily originated at nearly the same time; and the comparison of their words, therefore, for which we have such facilities, is a valuable means of clearing up the language of both. The immense range of Shakspeare's vocabulary, and the fact that his writings were finished, though but just finished, before the version of 1611, make his works peculiarly useful as a standard to which to bring the language of the Bible. His topics are indeed largely unlike those of scripture, but this, while it diminishes the number of words used in common, enhances the value of the rest; for it shows that the words thus employed were not technically religious, but used in every-day life. Our Bible, does not admit of a perfectly satisfactory collation, in respect to vocabulary, with other works of its time. For this there are two prominent causes: 1. It is a translation; and no translation represents with correctness and copiousness the language in which it appears. E. g. "Judge," in the sense of rule, is not English, but Hebrew masked as English, and must therefore not be looked for in indigenous English works. In some instances, however, a translation contains the best possible clue to a successful collation of its words, for the original serves as a kind of Glossary for that age. E. g. "Take no thought," as a version of μn μeрiuvâтe, never could have meant "take no reflection." Nothing in the Greek word would have suggested "thought" to the translator, unless thought familiarly meant "anxiety." Carry the word thus explained to contemporary authors, and numerous parallel passages are brought to light. 2. This translation is affected in its vocabulary by previous translations. The discussions of our time respecting "Bible Revision," show how the religious mind will tolerate only those deviations from a "received version" which are imperatively required. Many a word continues to flourish in the sheltered seclusion of religious fervor, when no trace of it can be found in the cold worldliness without. We know that our translators were cautioned against making unnecessary changes. These two causes bring to us a large number of words which find their parallels only in an uncertain age or in a a foreign tongue. Let us now just glance at the peculiarities in our version, arising from the change of vocabulary since 1611. The words that we first think of are, of course, the obsolete. But these, because they convey no intelligible idea, merely obstruct, but do not pervert, the meaning. They send the reader to his unabridged dictionary. More injurious to the sense are those familiar words, which have partially changed their meaning, and, like wellexecuted counterfeits, escape detection because they are not suspected. These may be put into two classes, comprising: 1. Those which convey an obvious but erroneous meaning; e. g. "quick into hell;" "Take no thought;" "Let your conversation," etc. 2. Those which produce a certain obscurity, or infelicity of expression, without leading into positive error; e. g. "Endure hardness;" "The former treatise." Now the difficulties arising from these words the mere reader of English imputes to the sacred writers, while the student of the original, with better piety perhaps, but with no more justice, charges the same to King James's translators. With these few remarks, we present the following Table of scriptural words illustrated in Shakspeare. All but seren are words now in common use, which, indeed, except two or three, had in the time of Shakspeare the same meaning as now, but had additional meaning, since lost. The original word has been added, in almost every case, to show what the translators ought to have meant, while the passages from Shakspeare will show what they did mean. ALLow, approve. (συνευδοκέω, γινώσκω, δοκιμάζω.) That allow the deeds of your fathers. — Luke xi. 48. .... gener Ford (to Falstaff). You are a gentleman of excellent breeding, ally allowed for your many warlike, court-like, and learned preparations. Viola. For I can sing And speak to him in many sorts of music, Merry Wives, ii. 2. That will allow me very worth his service. - Twelfth Night, i. 2. P. John. I like them all and do allow them well.-2nd Hen. IV. iv. 2. ANON, immediately. (evéws.) Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. Mark i. 30. Ford. Up, gentlemen, you shall see sport anon. — - Merry Wives, iii. 3. ATONEMENT, (at-one-ment), reconciliation. (Karaλλayń.) By whom we have now received the atonement. — Rom. v. 11. Lodovico. ..... Is there division 'twixt thy lord and Cassio? Desdemona. A most unhappy one; I would do much Othello iv. 1. To atone them, for the love I bear to Cassio. Buckingham (to Q. Eliz.). Ay, madam; he desires to make atonement Between the duke of Gloster and your brothers. Base things of the world ..... hath God chosen. - 1 Cor. i. 28. Pistol. Discuss unto me; Art thou officer Or art thou base, common, and popular? - Hen. V. iv. 1. BESOм, broom. (NONE) Cade. I will sweep it with the besom of destruction. — Is. xiv. 23. I am the besom that must sweep the court clean of such filth as thou art. 2nd Hen. VI. iv. 7. BOWELS, seat of the affections. (, onλáɣxvα.) The sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies. Is. lxiii. 15. Hector. There is no lady of more softer bowels More spongy to suck in the sense of fear, |