thus employed iy, during, whilst, continuing, is often attached, Job 1: 16-18.

In like manner actions that continue while other things take place, may be designated by the Participle in connection with

,; as in Gen. 47: 14. 39: 6. Seldom does the Participle stand separately in such a sense; as in Deut. 5: 5. Judg. 18: 1.

(b) In like positions in descriptions of the future, it stands for the Future relative; as in 1 Sam. 10: 8. 1 K. 1: 14. (c) Also for the Present; as in Ps. 35: 5, 6.

§ 485. The language first begins, and that at a late period, to put before the Participle, when it was employed in respect to the past, the verb ; and when respecting the future, the verb; for in this way the time was more definitely desig-. nated, and a kind of independent tense was formed. So when, according to 484, (a) The Participle stands connected with other actions; as Joshua was clothed and standing, and then he said, Zech. 3: 3. Job 1: 14. Seldom does this happen, when the participle has a subsequent position and stands more alone; as in 2 Sam. 3: 6. (b) Even without such a connection, the Participle is employed to mark an action long continuing during a specified time; as have [long and constantly] provoked, Deut. 9: 7. 22: 24. But in narration conducted in this way, by this independent kind of tense, it is sufficient that the verb has been once produced, at the beginning of a paragraph; 1 K. 5: 1.

ye

486. From this use of the Participle as a tense, differs entirely the use of it as a noun; (even as a noun with the article or in the construct state, although it may also be construed as a verb). It may be a simple noun, as, a deserter; or it may be in apposition with a noun; or it may depend on a noun in the construct state. Used thus as a noun, it includes the idea of a subject and a verb in itself; and therefore is employed in cases where with the verb might be employed. Specially is it employed in apposition, where it attaches itself to the noun more easily than the verb. Since there is properly no distinction of time in it, so it may be used respecting any time; e. g. the Present; the Praeter, Gen. 27: 33. 1 Sam. 4: 8. 11: 9. Gen. 19: 14; seldom the Future, as Ex. 11: 5. 2 K. 3: 27.

REMARKS ON THE PRECEDING ACCOUNT OF THE HEBREW TENSES, BY M. STUART.

Let us now endeavour to make as brief a recapitulation of the leading ideas exhibited in these remarks of Ewald, as will consist with doing justice to the author and with perspicuity.

(1) His main position is, that the so called Hebrew tenses were not primarily designed at all to mark tense or time, but only modes of action.

This is more explicitly avowed in the preceding part of his Grammar; where (in $193) he says: "Out of the roots of verbs the [Hebrew] language does not construct so many forms as ours for the designation of tenses and modes. It has, besides the Participle and the Infinitive (both of which belong, in respect to form, to nouns, $ 218-223), only two distinct forms. [the Praeter and Future]; and these make rather the difference of MODE than of tense; and hence this should be named the first and second Mode."

(2) The first Mode, as thus defined, marks (in itself aoristically in the widest sense of the word) that which is complete, definite, and certain. The second Mode (aoristic in the like way) designates that which is incomplete, indefinite, and dependent on circumstances.

On these propositions I have some remarks to make; but I reserve them, as also any others which I may have occasion to make, until I shall have finished the present recapitulation.

(3) THE FIRST MODE (Praeter), in conformity with its fundamental and modal meaning, designates, (a) The Past, in an absolute and unconditional manner, and without reference or relation to any particular thing. (b) The Present, when an action before commenced may and probably will be still repeated. (c) The Future, only when the thing is regarded as completed or as altogether and unconditionally certain.

(4) THE SECOND MODE (Future), in conformity also with its general nature, designates, (a) That which is future or yet to come, in the strict sense. (b) Also (by transition of thought into the past), that which was future in such past time. (c) In like manner, the Paulo-post Future, or Futurum praeteritum, is designated by the second Mode.

But this is not all. Inasmuch as the second Mode designates the idea of that which is incomplete or unfinished, it is conse

quently adapted to express any thing which is coming into being or taking its rise, or is (as we say) in a forming state. Hence as an action now doing is incomplete, the second Mode is adapted to express, (d) The Present. (e) The mind may look back on things that were being done, etc., in time past, and the second Mode is employed to represent them in that state, (like the Latin Imperfect). (ƒ) As kindred to this, and quite analogous to it, is the case of often repeated action, which is conceived of as a thing that has taken place and will again take place. The expression of this, therefore, is appropriate to the second Mode.

Once more; that which is indefined, that which is dependent on feelings, wishes, circumstances, etc., belongs appropriately to the second Mode. Consequently it is employed, (g) to express the sense of the Conjunctive or Subjunctive mode. (h) As a ramification of the same general idea, the second Mode also designates the Optative, or that which is hortatory, desiderative, jussive, or permissive.

Such is the wide ground that the Praeter and Future occupy in their simple state, according to the views of Ewald. But, (5) There is another state in which the usage of the Hebrew has placed them both, without the formality of a different mode of declension. This is by prefixing Vav relative to them; to the Future by Vav with Pattahh and Daghesh following it, to the Praeter by Vav with the usual conjunction-vowel, i. e. Sheva. This gives rise to a great variety of expression in both tenses, or (to speak with Ewald) in both Modes.

He

In § 244, Ewald has stated, that Vav prefixed to the Future by Pattahh and followed by Daghesh forte is entirely different from (and) the usual conjunction. In § 245 he has affirmed the same, as to this difference from the common, respecting Vav before the Praeter. In his larger Grammar he gives his solution of the difficulty which apparently arises from the punctuation of the Vav being so different in these two cases. there states (p. 539), that the Vav of the Future (1) arose from the verb, so that in is equivalent to, or the same as in, and it came to pass [that] he would write wrote. The old root of he makes to be; then by syncope we have ; and then is easily abridged into 7. In this way the Vav prefixed to the Future received its shape and meaning; for the Future with this prefixed becomes a compound form, and, like the verb of existence with

=

he

the Future tense in Arabic and Syriac, expresses the meaning of the past. Ewald, however, does not admit this analogy, because the Vav conversive in Hebrew also retains in itself a copulative sense (and), as well as a conversive one.

But there are other difficulties here, which this theory does not explain, and which will be mentioned in the sequel.

(6) VAV RELATIVE WITH THE FUTURE always refers to a new rise and originating of an action out of that which precedes. It signifies, (a) A sequency of time, (viewing it as past time), -a sequency to something that preceded it and that is aoristically narrated. But when introduced thus, it may go on successively indicating things that followed one another. (b) It may also designate the Future and the Present; but this must be shewn by the tenor of the discourse, and lies not in the nature of the form. (c) It indicates a sequency in respect to thought; and so it designates a consequence that follows from premises, or an apodosis, or a resuming of the thread of narration which has been interrupted by a clause thrown in.

(d) It must always be preceded by some clause; for it has a sense that must always be relative. It matters not, however, what that preceding clause is, whether a verb, a clause without one, or a detached sentiment.

From this view it follows, (a) That where sequency is not indicated by the sense, this form of the Future is excluded. Other tenses are then employed. Of course, (f) This future is excluded in a subordinate clause thrown in, which does not advance the narration. So, (g) When such clauses begin with

,, etc., which constitute as it were a new sentence, inserted not in the regular succession of the discourse. (h) When any word in the sentence or clause must stand before the verb, this form (relative Future) is excluded; of course (which always precedes) excludes it. But in order to preserve the power of employing the conversive or relative Future in such cases, (and it came to pass) is often inserted before circumstances thus thrown in, e. g. before limitations of time, in some cases before other words, and then the narration may go on again with the relative Future.

(7) VAV RELATIVE WITH THE PRAETER is employed when things certain are designated; or things which (if they are yet to happen) are looked upon as certain. In this case the Future precedes as Aorist; and then, the relative Praeter designates, (a) The Future. (b) The Present, specially in contin

ued or often recurring actions. Here the verb in any form, or a participle, may precede. (c) The Conjunctive mode. (d) The relative Praeter stands after the Imperative mode, in order to designate the action which follows the command.

(8) Of both the relative Tenses it may be said; (a) That they cannot stand in the beginning of a discourse, paragraph, etc. (b) Of the relative Praeter we may also say, that when it precedes a Future, and is itself used in a future sense, then the Future tense which follows must be taken as an aoristic tense. (c) Instead of (see $479) employed so as to preserve the continuity of relative Futures, (and it shall come to pass) is used in like circumstances, i. e. before clauses denoting limitation of time, etc.

(9) PARTICIPLE OR RELATIVE TENSE. The generic sense denotes something as continuing, established, enduring; while the Modes express the development itself of action, etc. Hence the Participle is employed to designate,

(a) The relative Present. (b) The relative Future; one which is speedily to commence-like the Latin Future in -rus. (c) The relative Praeter. (d) An action continuing while others were doing or continuing; or a state or condition which lasted while other things took place. (e) The Participle sometimes joins the verb of existence with it, and thus forms a kind of independent tense by itself.

My object in making this summary has been, to facilitate the understanding of the whole subject as represented by Ewald. But on reviewing it, I cannot promise myself that the reader will not be puzzled, at times, and find it difficult to satisfy himself precisely in respect to the object aimed at. If so, I can only say, that he will not probably be more perplexed than I have been, in reading and endeavouring to understand and translate Ewald's remarks. He has so much of tenuous theory and of hair-splitting distinctions, and withal is so negligent as to his style, that it needs a mind more like his own than mine is, to comprehend, certainly to be satisfied with, all the diangiosis which he makes.

But now to the substance of the matter itself. I begin my remarks by observing, that, for the most part, he has only brought before us old things with new names, or well known facts with new and sometimes ingenious theories to account for them. This seems to be the tendency of his whole grammati