Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:21:38.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Art. IX.—Remarks on the Etymology of Ŝabbāth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Extract

The latest researches on the noun in Semitic languages, in particular those of Prof. Barth and the late Prof. Lagarde, have opened up a vast field for discussion. Although starting from quite heterogeneous principles, yet, as they develop, they show many a point in common if examined more closely. The greater or lesser inclination of the student for speculative philology will lead him to devote his main interest to one of the two theories, but it will not absolve him from bestowing full attention on the other also, on account of its numerous important details. It would, however, be a delusion to think that either theory has completely solved the questions of the Semitic noun. No language allows itself to be confined by hard and fast rules, and Hebrew, like others, has developed many words which will not bear uniform treatment. In particular, words which lived in everybody's mouth, and had to undergo constant wear and tear, defy, more or less, violent attempts to force them within concise rules. An instance of those will form the object of the following remarks.

Type
Original Communications
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1896

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 355 note 1 Instit. vii, 14 (Patrologia vi, p. 781): Dies sabbati, qui lingua Hebraeorum a numero nomen accepit, unde septenarius numerus legitimus ac plenus est.

page 355 note 2 Ed. Caillau, p. 151: Quod enim apud Hebraeos sabbatum dicitur Graece redditur hebdomas, quae quidem apud omne humanum genus apellatur; quam autem ob causam ita vocem ignorant.

page 356 note 1 Cf. Delitzsch, , Assyrian Grammar (1889), p. 163Google Scholar.

page 356 note 2 Cf. Wright, , Compar. Grammar (1st ed.), p. 48Google Scholar.

page 356 note 3 Gesenius explains , and derives the first part of the name from , which is hardly correct.

page 356 note 4 Gesenius' verwuestet from , but most improbable. LXX. Σαμαι, the seeming to have still heen sounded.

page 356 note 5 I omit , but see Wright, ib. p. 48 sq.

page 356 note 6 Coincides with Gen. xx, 9.

page 358 note 1 Levy, TW to be corrected.

page 358 note 2 See Barth, in ZDMG. xli, 607, 632Google Scholar.