relation between these languages, cannot he supported. Besides
the objections arising from the difference of grammatical
structure, it. is observed by Vater that any person, who
only opens a Coptic lexicon, finds everywhere not only whole
pages of words which cannot be forced by the most ingenious
etymologist into any resemblance to ; Semitic vocables,
but numerous roots, which, like the Coptic.! to,go, e n To
carry, b e to drink, s c h i to measure, afe by their nature
strikingly different from the character of the verbal roots in
the Hebrew and Arabic.”*
It is well known that the Semitic languages are "distinguished
in a most decided manner from all others, by the
nature of iheir primitive words, and by the whole,rSy'stem of
their grammatical structure. The Verbal roots,f most,. frequently
dissyllabic, simple in the third person of the preterite,
are susceptible of peculiar modification^,, the position- of
pronouns either before or after the root giving rise to thewa-
nations of tense, of which there are only two. A second character
which distinguishes these languages is, that they have
nothing analogous ta_auxiliary verbs, which either disjoined
or in composition, perform in the European idioms so important
a part in the system of verbal conjugation. These traits, to
which may be addedihe incapability of composition,, or of forming
new words by the combination of two or more simple ones,
and the want of any inflection of termination answering to the
cases of nouns, separate the Semitic at a wide interval from the
Indo-European idioms. In both these classes of languages)
however, the greater part of the modifications of which jwords
are susceptible, affect the terminations. By these the numbers
and genders are distinguished in nouns, and for the most part
in verbs.
* Mithridates, Tb. iii. p. 75.
•f* The primitive words are, as every one knows, for the most part triliteral—
sometimes, especially in Arabic, quadriliteral verbal roots. The triliteral form may
perhaps appear to be more extensively prevalent than it really is, owing to the artifice
i of grammarians, and their attempt to maintain uniformity, and to reduce exceptions
under the general rule. Still that this in reality is the nature of Semitic roots in a
degree which forms a broad line of distinction between them and the primitive
words of other languages, must, I apprehend, be conceded. In the Indo-European
languages in general a great proportion of the verbal roots, in Sanskrit all of them
are monosyllabic. On t^e Semitic, compare Michaelis, Orientalische und-Exe-
getische Bibliothek, Num. 16, and Ewald's Ileb. Grammar, translated by Mr.
Nicholson,! 15.
The Coptic differs from both the preceding in
many of - ihefee’lip'aiiti0ulars-.' lté word's-are susceptible of drat
few modificatioh^Exbept by méans of prefixes ahd infixes* In
this, and in almost 'éwërÿ other peculiarity of ; 'grammatical
structure, tbé^Goptic f^éëd'esffrom the cteracter bf the Asiatic
and Eufopeafi*I$m§uages, and aseàfdktës-4t|elC'Vidth several of
the native- idf©ms’vóf 'Africa-.
The distinction both of gènfder and number-in Coptic nouns
is by means of prefix^, or articles, bdtb'dèfinïtë and indefinite,
of Which there - afe'vëifigùlar and' plural^ maedùline ' and
feminine forms, the, nouns themselve^being indefinable^;'
Precisely similar arë the-tnodïficationsffbf Hortós^in other
African idiomA. In thëlfeögtiagë 'of'the* Kafirfe| f^tes$tmple, not>
only the cases but the nuinber& and jfrCnd ©ÉS' ofinObnsare formed
entirely by prefixes, analogous to articles^! The,prefixes .vary
according to numbét, gender-and case, whilëjthé nöüns'remain
unaltered except by a-merely eüpböHtó^èlïaïbgës'Gif thê
initial letters. Thus, in Coptic, from sh e ri, a-so:n, coirfhs the plierai
wew-^Aerj,\he sons, from so ri, accusation, h a n -so r i, accusations.
Analogous'to this we have" in the Kafir am a marking
the plural,' as am a k o sah the plural of k o sah , am a h a sh e th e
plural o f ih a sh e , in s a n a the plural of u s a n a . The Kafir has
a great variety of similar prefixes ; they are equally numerous;
in the .language1 of Kongo, in which, ^as in the Ooptîe and the
Kafir, the genders, numbers, and cases of nouns are Alan-ost
solely distinguished by similar prefixes.*
The Coptic verbs, unlike the* Semitic, have a great variety
of inflections by mood and tèhse*: they - have five .'distinct-
moods, a present tenée, four preterites, and three future
tenses, all i marked by distinct inflections'; Théisè inflections,
contrary to what happens in the Indo-European languages,
are almost entirely produced by change’s in the prefixes-, the
roof of the verb remaining at the end of the word quite
unaltered. The prefixes are sometimes blended with auxiliary
* These, prefixes, i» the African languages, thé Coptic and Kafir at least, are
something more than articles. They are formative prefixes, essential parts of words
of which they determine and particularise the meaning, like the system of nouns
endings in Sanskrit. Compare Tattam’s Coptic Grammar, p. 12.; Boyce’s Grammar
of -the Kafir language, Graham’s Town, 1834, p. 4 ; Vater’s Extracts, from
Brusciotti à Vetralla’s Work on the Congo language, Rom. 1659 ; Mitbridat. iii.
p. 211.