The distinction of the non-Semitic and Semitic elements of the Egyptian language may probably be carried further. The different character of the radical and formative elements suggests that the former are due to a barbarous original, and the latter to a civilised later race. We might therefore expect to find among the roots traces of Semitism wherever the level was above that of a barbarous nation. The late Baron Bunsen bas given a list of Egyptian roots corresponding to Semitic. In this list we find the following to be the only identi fications that can be considered satisfactory or pro bable :— Obviously this list is not sufficiently large for us to form an induction. Some probable inferences may, however, be drawn from it. Classing the Egyptian words as civilised and barbarous, those that may be of the latter class are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, to, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, IS, 19, 20, 21, 23.
Of these, however, 3, II, 20, are words that would be borrowed by neighbours, or taken from neigh bours, as names of objects of trade. zo, the horse was introduced into Egypt probably be tween B.c. 150o and 'Soo. ro is an onomato poetic word, if onomatopcea is to be at all ad mitted. It is contrary to sound philology to acbnit 4, 13; r4, 155 16, 17, r8. for either the form or sense is not sufficiently near. There remain, therefore, t, 2, 6, 7, 9, to, 19, 21, 23, WliiCh must be carefully examined bah, to swell, to over flow. 2. hat, to frighten ; there is another root (hr) with the same sense. 6. kanz, black ; if kam be black in the sense of darkness there are other wholly different roots with the same or a similar sense. 7. kar, to fight, is a like case. So 9. mak, to rule ; and 14. ptah, to open. 19. spt, seems distinctly an instance of exact correspondence. It is, however, remarkable that in Coptic two words are found with the sense `lip ;' this one CII.0'1-07 (C4)01-07) and artpo (2).a...ripo); the latter suggests a compound word from po (pa* the mouth, Eg. ra. 21, if, as originally supposed by Bunsen, of the s- conjugation, is not to be com pared to the Aramaic skab. 23. tha, in its sense to plunder,' can be replaced by a different root ; in its sense to be drunk,' it cannot be considered a barbarous word. It is thus evident that the original identity of any part of the radical element of Egyptian with Semitic rests upon a very slender basis until better evidence is brought forward. In saying this, however, we do 'not mean to deny the identity of some of these Egyptian roots with Semitic ; the question is one of original identity. We shall recur to these and like roots in endeavour ing to determine whether Egyptian be the earlier stage of Semitic : whether they can possibly mark the transition from Egyptian to Semitic, concea'ing the possibilay that they are of Egyptian origin.
It is important to notice that there are two statements in later places of the book of Genesis that bear upon the languages of the dispersed nations. Laban and Jacob called the pile of wit ness differently, the former giving it the Aramaic name Jegar-sahadutha, the latter the Hebrew, Gal-et' (xxxi. 47). The almost irresistible infer ence from this is that the descendants of Abraham in Canaan spoke the language of the country. In Egypt Joseph spoke with his brethren through an interpreter, and they supposed that their speech together in Hebrew was not understood by him (xlii. 23). These facts show that the early existence Of distinct Semitic dialects, or even languages, and the radical difference of Hebrew and Egyptian, were well known to the writer or writers of these portions of Genesis The results of the inquiry thus far may be briefly Elated. The languages that we can assign to the nations of the dispersion are of three groups, Bar baric, Iranian, and Semitic. The Barbaric class belongs to Hamites in Africa, not to Hamites in Asia. The Iranian and Semitic families may pro bably be connected and traced to a common source ; the single example of Barbaric is certainly con nected with Semitic, but appears also to contain a well defined non-Semitic element. The last sub ject, the relation of Eg,yptian and Semitic, will be further discussed in the examination of the next question. It seems evident that the condition of languages after the dispersion cannot on any pro bable theory be supposed to have been one in which the various languages differed more than do the branches of the Semitic family. As the Ham ites in Palestine and the Shemites in Syria both used Semitic forms of speech, we thus obtain what may be fairly considered a measure of difference. As to the character of the separation, whether it were violent or not, the philological evidence is as yet uncertain. The narrative appears to state the forrner, which certainly seems to have been the character of the dispersion.
3. The possibility of tracing all existing languages to one souree.—The first step towards the solution of this problem is an accurate classification of lan guages. Languages may be classified according to what it is convenient to call their degree of develop ment, or according to their relations. The former method gives us the following result :- t. Monosyllabic.