Page:Compendious Syriac Grammar.djvu/56

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
§ 23.
— 18 —

like ܪܴܚܶܡܬ݂ܳܐ, ܩܳܝܶܡܬ݂ܳܐ (to which ܦ݂ܪܱܚܬ݂ܳܐ, ܥܼܡܱܪܬ݂ܳܐ also belong). So ܚܶܡܬ݂ܳܐ "anger", and the like. With u and o we have ܬܷܫܒܘܿܚܬܴ݁ܐ, ܡܷܐܟܽܘܠܬܴ݁ܐ, ܬܷܐܓ݂ܽܘܪܬܴ݁ܐ, &c., overagainst ܡܫܽܘܚܬ݂ܳܐ, ܐܷܣܟܾ݁ܘܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ. Individual peculiarities are very complicated here, and the tradition occasionally varies. On the whole Q. is preferred after r, l, and š, and R. after ʿ, m &c., in the ܬ of the termination ܬܴܐ [i. e. ܬ in that feminine termination, is generally sounded hard after r, l, and š, and R. after ʿ, m &c., in the ܬ of the termination ܬ݂ܐ [i. e. ܬ in that feminine termination, is generally sounded hard after r, l, and š, and soft, or with assibilation, after ʿ and m]. The analogy of words of similar form or meaning has exercised great influence here. Something will be said on this head afterwards in treating of the parts of speech.

F. The quite peculiar Q. of ܫܬܴ݁ܐ, ܫܬܻܳܝܢ (along with ܐܷܫܬܴ݁ܐ, ܐܷܫܬܻ݁ܝܢ) "six", "sixty" points to the loss of a sheva in remote times [v. D].

G. Like ܚܶܡܬ݂ܳܐ "anger" we also have ܚܶܡܬ݂ܝ, ܚܶܡܬ݂ܗܘܿܢ "my, their anger"; here farther, analogy in this way breaks through the old law, that Q. must stand immediately after a consonant [v. C]. Thus ܕܰܗܒ݂ܝ, ܕܰܗܒ݂ܗܘܿܢ "my, their gold", following ܕܰܗܒ݂ܳܐ "gold" (from dahăvā), and many others. Thus the ܬ of the 3. sing. fem. in the Perf. (at least according to the usual pronunciation) remains always soft: ܩܜܰܠܬ݂ܶܗ "she has killed him", ܩܜܰܠܬ݂ܰܢܝ "she has killed me" (as against ܩܜܰܠܬܷ݁ܗ "I have killed him", &c.). On the other hand the ܬ of the 2. pers. in the Perf. is kept hard in all circumstances, thus ܩܜܰܠܬ݁ "thou hast killed" (and ܐܱܢ̄ܬ݁ "thou"), as well as ܓܰܠܻܝܬ݁ "thou hast revealed", ܓܰܠܻܬ݁ܝ "thou (f.) hast revealed"; ܓܰܠܻܝܬ݁ܘܿܢ, ܓܰܠܻܝܬܷ݁ܝܢ "Ye (m. and f.) have revealed" &c.

In other respects too we find remarkable deviations from the fundamental rules, e. g. in ܐܱܪ̈ܒܳܥܼܬ݁ܝܗܶܝܢ (§ 149) "they four (f.)" or "the four of them", where ܬ݂ might have been expected. Although the fundamental rules are still clear, they became practically ineffective even at an early stage; and thus it came about that entirely similar cases often received dissimilar treatment. Besides, fluctuations of all kinds in the dialects and in the school-tradition, manifest themselves in the matter of R. and Q.[1]


  1. Even the best MSS. are not entirely free from error in their use of these points.—And in one or two cases, a distinction, founded upon R. and Q., has been established between words consisting of the same letters,—just through arbitrary pre-