We have already remarked that there is but slender evidence of the original identity of any part of the radical element of Egyptian with Semitic, the roots identical with Semitic ones being appar. ently borrowed, but in doing so we did not mean to deny the occurrence of identical roots in the two languages as known to us. Among these identical roots some are of two consonants ancl a vowel, others are triliterals of three consonants. The following lists show examples of both classes, and they are unquestionably true Egyptian words, not those which were borrowed at the time of the Rameses family by Semiticising scribes. Here, therefore, we can put the theory of the growth oi Semitic from Egyptian to the test.
of the examples in the first list might seem to countenance the idea that the Hebrew triliteral riots were developed from biliteral ; hat, kam, kap might seem to Indicate that the corresponding Hebrew roots developed the third radical by re peating the sound. Unfortunately, however, for this theory we find karr in Egyptian in one of the senses of kar, and it is quite possible that there may be a triconsonantal form of the other two roots.
In the second list we find in aru, ntrh, ptah, spt, tbh, khtnt, undoubted monosyllabic triliterals which present the same or corresponding radical.; to those of the equivalent Hebrew roots, whereas, according to the theory of development, being monosyllables they should have been biliterals. The cases of? ptak and khtnz are especially re markable. Their relation to the Hebrew roots rim, etc., and tr1r1, is beyond question, for not only are they of corresponding radicals, but if the case of one could be a chance agreement it would be contrary to all criticism to imagine tbis of two words of like signification. The great antiquity of the first in Egyptian is also beyond question. Y et here, if anywhere, we should expect to find biliterals, were Egyptian an earlier stage of Semitic ; for these two Hebrew roots seem especially to offer themselves to the operation of reduction. In rum, the final letter is weak, and accordingly it is twice changed without a change of meaning in Hebrew itself (rim ram, and I/11D unused) ; so that Fiirst unhesitatingly reduces it to a root Mt, with a suffix calm is still more easily reduced ; it begins and ends with a weak letter, but the guttural was the most likely to be additional, and therefore Fiirst makes the root nn, with a prefix 11. Both these ingenious chemical opemtions become very doubtful when we find the words as monosyllables with all their radicals. This by the way however ; our present object is to show that Egyptian monosyl labism is not the parent of Semitic triliteralism. The correspondences in Egyptian to Semitic do not indicate any earlier stage of Semitic than that in which we know it. Egyptian therefore is not the parent of Semitic. How then can we account for
the occurrence of Semitic elements idthis Barbaric language? We are now in a position to define the character and importance of this Semitic part of Egyptian. In the radical portion of the language it is traceable ; but instead of our finding a multi tude of ancestors of Semitic roots, we find a few roots either of the same generation or a little earlier, though not showing such an archaic type as Methusael and Methuselah. Whether the common roots are derived from one source, or are borrowed either from Hebrew by Egyptian, or the converse, cannot yet be determined. It may be of service to this inquiry to suggest that the roots common to Semitic and Iranian should be carefully compared 1.vith Egyptian. Should many such roots be found in Egyptian a step will be gained. We may in stance 1112, circa, kar ; Sansk. math, etc.; mors (t) mu. But there are many Egyptian roots that may be common to Iranian and are not trace able in Semidc ; mr,to love, amare ; mn, to place, establish, tam ; mst, to hate, go-os. In the forma tive portion WC are in many cases on Semitic ground. It would scarcely be incorrect to describe the Egyptian pronouns as Semitic ; and the better we know this part of the language the fuller will be the evidence of its Semitic origin.
Two theories have been proposed for the ex planation of this singular case, based respectively on the theories that all languages sprang from one, and the theory that they had two sources, one civil ised the other barbarous. The former theory has been put forward by the late Baron Bunsen and supported by Prof. Max Miller, and the many learned men who are content with his view of comparative philology. We cannot do better than give Bunsen's views in his own words, from the last published volume of his Egypt's Place.
Khamism [the Egyptian language in its pre historical and historical state] stands in the same relation to West-Asiatic Semism that Turanism does to Arism [Imnism] ; the former [in each case] is the western, the latter the eastern pole of the coinage of a language of concrete particles into a lammage consisting of parts of speech.' ''Khamism is the historical proof of the original unity of those two great languages of the world which took at a later period the form of Semitic and Arian ; and therefore also of that of the lan guage of those Turanians who lived on the borders of Iran, if not indeed of all the known languages of Asia and Europe, which are neither Semitic nor Arian.' Khamism is as different in kind from Semism as it is from Arism and Turanism.' A much vaster period must have intervened be tween the first western formation, the deposit of which we possess in Khamism, and the second, the Semitic of historical Asia, than is admitted by the ordinary rabbinical [not rabbinical technically so called] chronology.