A discovrse of the orientall tongves viz. [brace ] Ebrew, Samaritan, Calde, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic : together with A genrall grammer for the said tongues / by Christian Ravis.

A Generall Grammer for Ebrew, Samaritan, Calde, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic.

RULE I.

AS other Tongues may bee written for∣wards or backwards, that is towards the right or left hand, so this.

Therefore Ebrew, Samaritic, Syriac and Arabic is written towards the left, Ethiopic towards the right hand, like Greeke, and Latine, and all other European tongues, descending from this primitive.

Rule II. As other Tongues, so this writes the Letters a part, or joynes them.

The Iewes as they write any tongue with their let∣ters, so did they the bible and other bookes of note with Letters a part, (as we do in printing) yet in their common writings (doubtlesse) they did (as we doe for celerity sake) joyne their Letters. And that by a threefold argument, 1. Because it is naturall to all people to write fast, and ioyning the caracters is the onely way. 2. The heathens contradistinct to the Jewes of that Country, viz. the Syrians being Christians,

and Arabians for the most part Muhammedans, doe write the Letters joyntly, as other Countries do, when they would write fast. And no doubt, it is the com∣mon course of that Country as well as it is of ours. Onely some few Letters they joyne not, (viz. The Syrians a, d, e, u, tz, r, t, or Olaf, dolat, He, Vau, Tzode, Ris, and Taw. The Arabians, a, d, w, z, & r, or Elif, Del, (Dsel) vaw, zayin, ra.) with any following Letter, but with the foregoing they are as well as any other. ••. a, & l, or Aleph, and Lamed are found joyned in one figure by the Jewes.

The Etiopians do write every Letter apart like the Jewes, which I thinke is done by them onely in some bookes of note as the bible, and all Church-books, yet in common writings I doubt not but that they joyne them as well as wee. Otherwise they may be thought to want the common sence in writing. I desire that this may be enquired after, and being found by experience to be so, that Europe may be acquainted with it.

Rule. 3. The essentiall duct (or stroak) of the Letters in this whole primitiue Tongue is one and the same.

Ebrew and Calde Letters are the very same, for there are no Caldeans extant, but the Iewes (since the Babilonian captivity) who gave unto that forme of writing and pronunciation (which they learnt there) the name of Calde; notwithstanding they lived in Jerusalem and the rest of the holy Land. The Iewes use these murabba or square Letters which they call Calde in any tongue whatsoever, as in Italian, Spanish, German, French, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Po∣lonian, or Muscouian tongues.

The Samaritan are the old Ebrew Letters, used by the Jewes before the Babilonian captivity. My reason is this, First, because they are lesse polished more crooked, unproportionable, uneven and illfavou∣red,

then the common Ebrew now in use. For as the Jewes (before the captivity) were lesse civilized, more proud, stifnecked, rebellious, untractable, and hardhearted, not onely to strangers but to themselves also: (as appeares by the generall complaint of the Prophets) so (after that affliction of 70 yeares capti∣vity) they became more meeke, humble, patient, and tractable: and in that time finding that the Caldeans had the same Language, in essence, with them, and that their writing was more neate and comely then their own (by how much those were a better govern∣ed and policy'd people then they) they began not onely to learne, but affect, and that so well that they left their owne, crooked, and illfavoured Character unto those Samaritans, (which they called Cuttims, because descending from Cuthaya, or Scythia,) out of an hatred of their worship, and religion, and love of their owne religion, and new learned Character, which they found to bee more easy and neate than their old. Secondly, because it is the common course of all Nations to mend the fashion of their writing, as the Germans, Low-duch, Polonions, and English them∣selves have done, and do yet dayly.

The Syrian Characters are the same formerly used in Syria, Cnaan, Flistea, or Palestina, by the Heathens or Christians, not the Jewes, and thence it is that the greatest difference betwixt Calde and Syriac is only in the characters, the tongue being the same called Calde, when the Jewes speake it, and Syriac when the Christians. Now wee know well enough, that religion doth not change the tongue, as when popery was cast out of England, the tongue did remaine the same. And those petty differences betweene Calde and Syriac taught by Emira, Ecchellensis, Waserus, Masius, Crinesius, de Dieu, and others following them, shall all be cleared up, and taken away in their pro∣per,

place. Neither do they write downewards (as Masius &c. affirme) but onely some men for their more perfect and accurate writing, turne first their paper downeward, then make they that basis or fundamentall strooke, whereby the characters are joyned, down∣ward, and so write the body of the Letters all a∣long upon it; which fully done, they turne againe upwards; Nor do they use many different fashions of their writings about the lines, but write line for line as wee do. And there are many thousands that do not turne their paper and yet write as faire and swift as the other. And this I have observed my selfe by many that have resolved mee that question; The o∣ther Syriac Estrangelo Letters are also the same, but onely that they are lesse polished as being more an∣cient.

The Arabians as they have the same way of joy∣ning, so have they likewise the essentiall writing. The names (if fully written) would appeare to be, [1.] the same names, [2.] the same fort of Letters, [3.] the names to be taken out of the same tongue, and [4.] that their order should be the same with Ebrew Samaritan, Calde, and the Syriac Alphabet. All the difference may easily bee shewen by degrees, going from Samaritan to the old Syriac, hence to the new Syriac of Trostius his new Testament, or the bookes printed in Germany and Leyden by Erpenius, hence to that latter printed at Rome, given out by Gabriel Sionita, or by that Syriac Old and New Testament lately given out by that same worthy and learned man at Paris. Hence to some farre better Syriac Manuscripts extant in England, which being com∣pared with the most ancient Arabic writing (as I have seene it at Ephesus in a table) that hangs there in a Church built by a Turck to the honour of Iesus Christ called Isa Peigamber; the characters thereof being

like Syriac) you will finde them to be almost all one Nay among my own Manuscripts, I have some pieces of Arabic witten upon Parchment being the Cufi. writing, which comes very neer unto the neatest Syriac extant. There are here in England above 20000 se∣verall fashions of Arabic writings, every Manuscript being different from other, and some of them being composed of severall tracts, bound up together will afford 10, 20, nay 30, severall formes of writing. And I my selfe have one Manuscript that containes above an hundred different sorts. Wherefore you must not stand either upon this or that print, for even as we our selves differ in writing so do they. And therefore I desire you to acquaint your selves with the written bookes as much as possible. Nay there are some coppy bookes published in sundry coun∣tries, wherein (that they might bee thought to bee skillfull in strange tongues) they have made such soul worke about the Syriac, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Malayan, Tatar, and Mogull Letters that I am ashamed of them. Nay among printed bookes onely France and Italy have good Arabic characters, those in Ger∣many, and the Low countries are not good. Nor are Erpenius his characters according to the true and neat Arabic duct in writing. Nor are those Arabick pieces cut in copper, in the deceased Crinesius his booke called Babel, or Joh. Zechendorfius yet living; (both Germans) well performed. But I hope wee shall short∣ly make neater worke in that kinde here in England then hath beene done hitherto in Europe.

Rule 4 They have all one and the same consonants in power and by way of pronouncing: not much different from our English.

The pronunciations, which we have in our Eng∣lish Alfabet of all our letters, we see to be almost the same with French, High and Low Dutch, and other

Nations of Europe; on the same fashion those of the Orient being as well Men as wee, have not much lesse, or much divers soundings of letters. The primitif thus. (a) b g d h (e) v (u) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. y (i) k l m n x (sh.) (o) f (p) (rz) q r s t. Our English is, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, w, x, y, z. just so pronounces the Ebrue, and Samaritic, Calde and Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, viz.

A b c, or g as wee English pronounce g before e or i, ge, gi, the reason is, because that c in Italy, from whence wee fetch our Alfabet, before e or i, is pro∣nounced, as if à t were before je, ji, thus tje, tij: and our g is pronounced as if there were à d before je, ij, thus, dje, dij. So that the difference is betweene the Italian or Roman c and the English, Ebrue, Ara∣bick, Calde aad Syriac g, as the proportion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

D, e, because the Grecians, who did immediatly receive their Alfabet from this primitife Tongue, as the son is the immediate heire of his parents, almost generally have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 e, yet for the most part even that same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they pronounce as if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 e, hence it is no wonder, that in the Greec, Latin, Eng∣lish and all occidentall alfabets is a simple e (in place of that easy, the easiest breath of all the gutturall letters after a,) cald by the Grecians the spiritus lenis and he the spiritus asper.

F is unjustly, yet according to many hundert Na∣tions in the World, arisen in place of the primitive w, or v cōsonant, which being too hard pronounced by the Coptites, the Romans, Italians, Spaniards, French, made filius from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with an interpofition of l betweene two i, viz. u & i; thus is f in place of w, v.

G is come in place of the primitive easy s; for the pronunciation of zayin, is as the Grecians, Germans, and Low Coùntry pronounces in the beginning of

any word. And because that some of the Aeolians and old Latines did pronounce g as the French do, je, ge, hence is it, that they mistaking the second degree of s (done onely by the tongue and the teeth) which is, the tongue not comming at the teeth, as the teeth closed, and the palat made with a cavity, make z a g, as the French ge and je. Then the primitive letter re∣quires a single sibilation, and the Greec letter, from whence the Latines have it, a compound one.

H, this is from the second fort of h in the primitive tongue, the second wherof is here the single h; in Ebreu it is of a double pronunciation: first Kh, easy unto all the Europians almost, except English and French 2. halfe h and halfe kh, almost impossible for all the Europians. Yet by the Jewes yee may learne it the best.

Here followes a letter unknowne unto the Latines, from whence the English have their Alfabet, to wit, th; the Greecs as the nearest unto the Orient and these parts that did speake this tongue, have it from this primitive tongue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thét, theta. And must be pronounced with the bredth of the tongue.

I, is in this primitife tongue the y of the English and French pronunciation. The Latines mistaking it to be naturally a vowell, when it was a consonant, made it a vowell. Yet as in this primitive tongue all the letters are consonants and not vowels, so is also the whole Alfabet of Greec, Latine, English and of all Europe only consonants, not vowels, whereof now and then some become to be vowels, yet by a meer acci∣dent.

K, l, m, n. are of the same nature in the primitife, that they are in English, onely take heed, that you never pronounce, k as kh, but constantly as ca, co, cu. Ka ke, ki, ko. ku.

Here comes in another letter, knowne by the Greecs,

Romans and English (rightly placed onely in the Greec Alfabet) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 x, which all the people pronounce es, but yet many times must be pronounced sc, or sh: and that by these following arguments. 1. You have in all tongues the sound of s and sh. Now if yee pronounce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 x as cs, and not sc, or sh, then you bereave the Greec and all other Europian Alfabets of that sh. And yet as you have in this whole primitife tongue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shin and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sin, or sh and s, (the names of these sounds let them bee, whatso∣ever they will) so naturally in all the occidentall tongues: and if x be pronounced onely like cs, then is sh in n one of our occidentall alfabets, whereby they will become not onely shorter then their parents, the orientall alfabet, but also of their own naturall expression. 2. The name of the letters are not sin and ksin, but sin and shin; as all the World doth agree. Now in the Greec wee have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 syn theo, cum Deo, being that one name of these two letters, ergo must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not be read ksyn, but shyn theo. 3. cs or ks is a compound sound but sh is not a compound sound. 4. The Arabic tongue which is spread through whole Africa and almost a third part of Asia doth pronounce sh in most of those words, which in Ebreu, Calde and Syriac are written with that shamek in whose order and place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greec alfabet expresly stands. 5. The figure of the Greec letter it selfe shews, that it is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. three teeth, onely that in the primitife these teeth stand upright, in the Greec to∣wards the right hand. 6. The name of the letter in the Greec is not from shamek, but from shîn, and n being cut off doth remaine shi, which now commonly is cald csi. Yet in the Jewish, Calde, and Christian, Syriac, or Muhammedan Arabic, and Heathenish Greec and Romish tongue this Letter is not constantly read as sh, but onely as s; whereof many it stances might bee made.

O. In this primitife tongue. ayin is and signifies an

eye and that forme has it in all the tongues; and as no body in English, Latine or Greec calles it gno, ngo, hno, nho, or otherwise, so it must neither be pronounced thus in the primitife. First, because it is a pronunciation of non sense, used by no people 2. Because the Arabians, and Syrians, and Ethiopi∣ans do pronounce it only deep out of the throat. 3. the Latin could not pronounce it. 4. Gn is a compound sound of g and n; but all the alfabet letters are of a single sound 5. it makes a confusion of two instiuments of our speech, the palate and tongue, as if these two made up the throat, when these two are different parts of our mouth as between themselves, so also with the throat. It is therefore the surest way for us, to leave it out wholy in our pronunciation.

P. Is never pronounced thus in this holy tongue, but constantly f, nor has yet whole Africa and that great part of Asia (where this primltife tongue hath continued ever since the Babylonian confusion) any p at all, but f: hence it is that the Ethiopians have gotten in their Alfabet a new letter to a p, which as you may see in the words, where it doth occurre by them, is used onely in such proper names of the Greek Testament and elsewhere, which were pro∣nounced p, as; Paul, Peter. Nay the Persians and Turcs have some words wherewith they jeare the A∣rabians, because they cannot pronounce p. Hence is it that the Romans did use an h by that p, to sweeten it. The Greecs had both sounds, pe and se, which they call pi and fi, nor is that Greec fi more than a fingle f. Here comes in the letter tz, not so much with a t, or d, as different from the hard s by a broad and obscure pronunciation of it. For the hard s, which fol∣lowes, is of an acute sound, and for the most part with the vowels, a, e, i, o, u. but zet, er zade with the vowels a, o, ou.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Q. This letter the Romans, and also wee Northerne people have gotten from this primitife tongue: it hath the pronunciation of k, I confesse, yet a great deale deeper out of the throat. The Greecs being unable to pronounce it so hard, left it out, and put in all places a k insteed thereof. The Romans more Nor∣therly being of a harsher sound than the Grecians re∣tained it, and for difference sake put constantly an u consonant by it, which yet they did not pronounce, as out of Cicerôs jest is observable, ego coque te ad∣iuvabo, for quoque: and hence is it that the French never pronounce qu otherwise then a simple k. there∣fore should we leave out constantly that u, and never pronounce it neither. For this our mother tongue shewes it to be a superfluous v, and not to be expres∣sed with a sound, and that q is expressable without the writing or pronouncing of an v.

R. Has nothing to be noted.

S. This is that fifth degree of an s, as wee con∣stantly pronounce si sharpe at the end of a word. The first degree thereof being as it is used in the be∣ginning of German and Low Dutch words pronoun∣ced like an English z. the second degree like sj. the third sh of a more hard pronunciation, the fourth sa.

T. Is that simple t, which all these dialects in the East, and the most of that of-spring in Europe have at the end of their Alfabets: it must never be pronoun∣ced like th, nor written with an h. And because it doth frequently mingle with the s before, and the s with this t, hence it is, that d doth also now and then mingle with s; yet must they be constantly looked upon as divers letters. And therefore where the Calde and Syriac doth not shew the difference of a naturall d and t from a d and t growne out of s, there the Arabic is more circumspect, and doth shew it. And where in Arabic it should be left out, or superfluous

added, that must not be ascribed to the tongue, but the Authors of them, who do faile therein.

Rule 5. The consonants are either of a hard, or of an easie and sweet pronuneiation.

This is to be observed in all these dialects, how∣soever set downe onely in the Arabic, the observa∣tion whereof doth frequently open the eyes of the Iewes & Christians in the Ebrew, Calde, Samaritic and Syriac. It being the old question, why so many s, so many d and t, h and g, k and a. The answer is, be∣cause they have in the orient for an easy, sweet, and acute pronunciation an easy a, d, h, g, k, and t, for a hard one, an hard a, da, ha, ga, qa, ta. The easy letters are following, 1.2.3.4.5.7. 10.11.12.13.14.15.17. 21.22. the hard letters are 6.8.9.16.18.19.20. In the Arabic names you may easily discerne them, for all those that are of a sweet pronunciation, are with e, i or u: Elif, be, te, the, gim, del, dsel, ze, sin, shin, fe, kef, lem, min, nun, he, ye. The hard with an a, ha, kha, ra sad, dad, ta, da, ayin, gayin, qaf, vaw.

Rule 6. They number by the order of the Al∣fabet.

The first nine begin from one, still adding a unity, arise till nine. The second nine begin from ten and still adding ten, arise to ninty: in the third nine, which is not as yet half, they begin from one hundert, and arise to foure hundert: and so further as in the table. The Arabians have the same order and numbring from whence it is clearly seen, that they had former∣ly the same order with the Ebrue Alfabet. Yet they have also another sort of figures for those nine nu∣merall figures, which as commonly esteemed, they received out of the East Indies, but that is but an old fable. For they do arise from the Ebrue or Arabic letters. You have them at the end of the table. The Etiopians use the Greec letters but of a very old and

rude stamp, whereof you may learn by the way from the Etiopians an old kinde of Greec letters.

Rule 7. The number of them is two and twenty.

The whole tongue has 22 letters; for so many, and no more are in Ebrue and Samaritic, Calde and Sy∣riac, Arabic and Etiopic, confessed by all the Gram∣marians, who do agree about that number. Yet there are some objections. 1. There are 23 consonants because Shamek or Samek, Shemkat or Semkat is a letter a part, Shin and sin being two divers letters, which make up that number of 22. Answer, Shamek or Shemkat is onely a sirname of Shin, and by accident of Sin, as the figure of it in Syriac shewes, which is the same with the Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 onely closed above by quick writing performed with one stroak, and joy∣ned with the following, which joyning the Jewes have not observed in their Ebrue Text, and Calde para∣phrast, where for more perfection sake they do write all their letters a part, as wee in our print. The number (as likewise the order in the following rule) is to be demonstrated out of the Psalmes of David and the Lamentation of Jeremy. The space of time betweene them both is 450 yeares almost, whereof wee see the constancy of that number and order of the Alfabet. In the 25 Psalme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is joyned in the 2 verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 5 verse, no verse beginnes with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contrary has two verses, and thus to make up the number of 22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is placed at the end. In the 34 Psalme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beginnes againe the 2 verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are in the 6 verse, and to make up the number 22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth it, yet it hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the conclusion as in the Psalme before. In the 37 Psalme every letter has two verses, excepting onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which have but one, whereof the second doth lack. The 28 verse must end in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the 29^th begin with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sake, whereunto belongeth the 30^th beginning

with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is now the 29^th, the sum of the verses then being 41, and adding those 3 lacking, it shewes plainly that the Psalme then would have 44 verses, the halfe of it 22, the summe of the Letters. In the 112^th Psalm there are joyned two letters in one verse as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 25 and 34 Psalmes, and thus would the number of the verfes be 11, but now seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is cast to the ninth and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the 10^th, there are but 10 verses. Yet in all these Psalmes there is no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be∣ginning any verse, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Samek or Shamek is con∣stantly there. In the 119 Psalme there are besides 8 verses from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his order, three sh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among 5 s 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in its order, which is the only confusion I finde in these Psalmes in this Letter. In the 145 Psalme it seemes as if the verse beginning from Nun, were loft, whence it is, that this Psalme hath onely 21 verses. In the first Chapter of the Lamentation (made as I say 450 years, or thereabouts after the Psalmes) there are 22 Verses according to the number of the Letters.

Now to answer unto that great objection, which out of all these Psalmes may be made, I say here onely, that in all the Dictionaris of this tongue, already ex∣tant, is to be seene, a great part of the words with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 1.2. & 3. radicall to be written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and not with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and those with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be written by the Iewes in their Rabbinicall books with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet these two names, Shin and Sin to be all along this tongue, except in Syriac. And that the greatest part of those roots which have our Ebrew, Calde, and Syriac, to be written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of three points, which expresly is cald Shin; Yet some words with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have onely in Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of no point: which is an exception. For that which hath the greatest weight, makes by mee the rule; and that which hath the fewest examples, makes by me the exception. I have also observed

in some christian Manuscripts in Arabic written a∣mong the Muhammedans for our christians sake, that they frequently write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 3 points in place of Ebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they do, as I was told of them, onely that the Turkes should not presently understand the christian books, for fear of finding something written against their faith, they might begin a persecution. But I believe it to be rather out of ignorance of Ortho∣graphy then such reason, the Turcs knowing it be∣fore hand, that Christians have other principles, and that they do write something now and then in their bookes to retaine them Christians, and avert them from the Turkish faith. Summa, even this letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not being esteemed to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and anomali∣cally with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, has made that great obstacle, that learned men could not finde that unity of those six tongues; And that what Wemmer sayes in his Etiopie Grammer, that Saut and Saat be of the same sound, both pronounced likes, is false; no tongue in the World lacking these two degrees of s and sh: not E∣brew, Samaritic, Calde, Syriac and Arabic, why than Etiopic? But so men do speake and write, when they learne and teach without reason, and tryall.

Nor 24; as if Vau quiescent or pronounced were two divers letters, which is false, and yet thus set down by Elias Hutter, in his Cubus, forceably brought in onely to fill up the number of 24, and so to make a right square or cubas: where as there is à double vau there must then be given also a double alef movable or quiescent, a double he movable or quiscent, and a double yod movable or quiescent.

Nor 27; as Abraham de Balmes a Jew will have it in his Grammer, faigning the five finall letters in Ebrue to be new letters besides these 22.

Nor 28; as the new Arabians have it in their Garm∣mar; and as all the Christian Grammarians do fol∣low

them; because that six letters do receave a point for a double pronunciation sake: which fix letters added to those 22, should make up 28. For upon the same ground in Ebrue also six letters receaving a point dages (constantly asserted to be for a double pronunciation sake of them, which is false, yet in the interim admitted) would make also in Ebrue 28 letters; wheras in both dialects this point not regarded leaves only 22 letters.

Nor 29, because the new Arabians have joyned two letters in one, Lam Elif, and the Syrians, Lomad olas or claf lomad, and the Rabbines Alef Lamed; for this combination of two letters of the Alfabet makes no new letter, otherwise would the Arabians and Syrians have thousands of letters more, according the variation of joyning two, three, foure, five, six nay seven consonants; from which it is, that the Greec combinations of Letters in the Greec Royall at Paris in the Louvre do amount unto 600 and odde, where there are only 24 letters.

Nor 30; as Wemmer and all those, that have writ∣ten about the Etiopic Alfabet at Rome and elsewhere, do falsly assert: some of the former being doubled in pronunciation, as by the Arabians, and some new Latine or Greec Letters added, who made a new Alfabet.

Rule. 8. Their order onely one, of a divine autho∣rity, of Gods wisdom and of a secret connexion of things signified by them.

The Arabians have formerly changed this order, which is clearly of divine authority and evident unto any one that lookes upon the 25.34.37.112.119 and 145 Psalmes together with the first Chapter of the Lamentation of Jeremy, where alwayes is observed one and the same order, never changed or altered. Now this holy tongue being given by God Almighty

to Adam, and being retained till David, and 450 years further till Ieremy, should not that make us consider, that as God orders all things wisely, so truely there is Gods wisdome in this order also. But mankinde is so blinde, that thousands cannot see, what easily is seene by others, thousands thinke themselves to see something, which others perceive to be nothing at all, some seeing to much, others, to little. Yet if they see with reason, notwithstanding esteemed to see to much, see and looke more truly into things, than those that will not use the eyes of their minde, or reasen. And further, because that the consonants in this tongue make the root, and give them the signi∣fication, it is cleare, that the consonants have to signi∣fie things, and consonants following according to Gods order, here is, no doubt, a secret connexion of those things, which either the consonants, (before they come into the root,) do signifie or their names im∣port. A thing necessary to be studied, inquired, deeply searched, and in many hundert places easily observable, by hundreds observed, and formerly in∣quired.

Yet it is cleare and evident, that the Arabians of old had the very same order of the consonants with Ebrue, Samaritic, Calde, and Syriac, because the same letters with Arabic do signifie the same number with the Ebrue letter. Which numbring arises from their order; And the numbring being the same, the order is the same. Notwithstanding this divine order, some Arabic Grammers, and Masters of their Schooles and children ignorant of Gods Word in the old Testa∣ment not looking upon this order as a divine thing, did change their Alfabeticall order according to the changement of their figure, and brought b and t to∣gether, g and kh, r and z, shin or samek and sin (sh or or x and s) f and q ; yet did retaine some small re∣mainders

of the old Alfabet, a, b, g, d, z, x, tz, e, f, q, k, l, m, n, v, y. Which changing of the figure did imme∣diately descend from the rounder writing of the Siriac letters, as any body may observe. And yet the Etiopians have changed their order a great deal more thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (againe) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whereof having nothing to say, when, by whom, why, how this change of that old divine order came to passe, we rest, till we learne some thing out of Etiopia thereabout. In the Ebrue, Calde and Siriac dictionaries is this order happily observed, and is to bee observed still, onely that upon one rule quiescentes alternant, the quiescent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 auy do change among themselves without alteration) all the words of v and y the 1.2. & 3. radicall are to be brought to a; which hetherto is not done. And that excel∣lent Man Mr. Bedwell as also Mr. Schindler in Germa∣ny did both right well, to bring all the Arabic roots to the Ebrue order. And I wish heartily, that England would remember its honour in that man of this Country.

Rule. 9. The words are usually left wholy and rot brok in two divers lines, as wee do in our writings and printings.

I confesse this not to bee of the essentiall part of things in this tongue about the writings thereof, yet it presents the most diligent and curious cautions of writing, whereof in the whole orient they are a great deale more curious and accurate, then wee or any o∣thers that have the art of printing. The writing of their bookes being very chargeable, they performe it with as great diligency, as formerly the Monkes did among us, whereof wee have at this very day many great, precious, and beautifull remainders in publick, and glorious libraries of private Gentlemen. Hence it is, that the letters are dilated or contracted, are

longer or shorter, are of many and different formes even as among us every one writes diversly: And yet if the line be filled, they write the rest in the margent, parallell with the line, or write it above the last word or syllable: scarce ever breake the word so, as to put the rest in the following line.

Rule 10. Constantly these Consonants do begin the syllable.

It is not in this tongue as it seemes to be in ours, where many hundrets of words begin with the vowell, not with the consonant: so that if any sillable in this tongue be heard to begin with a, e, i, o, u, you must still imagine an alif or ayin to be before that vowell. And yet, if yee rightly scanne our English, Latine and Greec Alfaber, it is in our tongues as in theirs, in theirs, as in ours, because that notwithstanding some of our Alfabet, viz. a e, i, o, u, being true consonants (which appeares out of this primitife tongue, from whence our Alfabet arises) yet are they taken to be vowells, even so in this primitife tongue, these six 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a, e, i, o, u, and y, notwithstanding that they are true consonants yet many times they are esteemed in place of vowels, and therefore cald matres lectionis, to read by them.

Rule 11. The alfabet is divided into letters of the throat, lip, palate, teeth and tongue.

And this division as it holds in all tongues of the World, so here in this whole tongue, not that the teeth and tongue letters are formed by the teeth and tongue only, as the throat, lip and palate letters are by them, which 12. letters the Arabic Grammarians as∣cribe to the Moone, but the tongue is the chiefest instrument with the teeth in the tongue letters, as the teeth the chiefest instrument with the tongue in the teeth letters: which tongue and teeth letters are by the Arabic Grammarians ascribed unto the Sunne.

Therefore alef, he, Khet, ayin are of the throat. bet, vav, mem, fe, are of the lip, gimel, yod, kaf, quf, are of the palat; zayin, shin or Shamek, Tzade, Res and sin are of the teeth principally, besides the tongue; and dalet, thet, lamed, nun, and tau are of the tongue principally, besides the teeth.

Rule 12. The figure of the consonants are for the most part a little changed at the end of a word.

And thereby you may easily observe the end of every word almost, especially in Arabic, where you have very many of letters written with some confi∣dent strook at the end, more than in Syriac, Calde, and Ebrue, where there is onely five such, kaf, mem, nun, fe, tzade. Besides them in Arabic bêt, gimel, he, khet, yod, lamed, shin, ayin, quf, sin, tau. Whereof we see, that the Jewes in the Ebrue, Samaritic, and Calde, the Christi∣ans in the Siriac and Ethiopic have had many more finall letters, than now are seene, nay in Samaritic and Etiopic as yet wee see none at all. But those are such adiaforâs, and indifferent things, that they as meere triffles cannot make à reall diverfity of these tongues.

Rule 13. Many of the letters are very like one another and therefore well to be distinguished.

In Ebrew and Calde, 1. b, k, n, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b has a sharpe corner within, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 k more round. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 n hath the upper and lower strook shorter, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2. d, k finall, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d is not longer than the rest of the letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 k fi∣nall is longer, and hath in books with pricks either (:) or qamez within. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d is with a sharpe corner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r with a more round one. Hierome sayes of d and r excepto larvo apice similes sunt, they are like one another except a little point: this point wee shall finde in the Siriac Alfabet. 3. h, kh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h is open, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kh is close, 4. v, z, n finall. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; vau doth denote a hooke, and so it is shaped, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Latine z, whereof the sound is al∣most

the same within the Latine S. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 n finall is longer than the rest of the letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 z of the same length with the rest. 5. sh, m finall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sh is round. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m square, 6 kh, t. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kh is made with a direct stroake down∣wards, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 t with a crooked one. The rest are easily discerned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ft, vy, ng, sh m th, tz, a.

In Siriac. 1. ayin and lamed. ayin is not so high as lamed. 2. nun and yod as they have the same figure in Arabic, so in Siriac. Yet for some distinction sake the n is higher, and the y lower. Though, as reason will teach, every man that writes, doth not constantly make the stroaks so perfect as it should be, thence comes it, that n is frequently mistaken for y, which has afterwards caused a false rule by all the Syrians and Calde Grammarians as if n were the formative letter of the third Masculine singular and plurall in the future: which exception in Calde and Syriac from Ebrew Arabic and Etiopic being false (onely a mis∣take in writing) can make no different tongue, r a point above d beneath.

In Arabic you have in the table my nine figures, whereby all the distinction is easily observed.

And so far have you the first Elements of the essen∣tiall parts, viz. Consonants (of this Orientall and primitive tongue, viz. Ebrue, Calde, Samaritick, E∣tiopic, Siriac and Arabic, their uniforme found, num∣ber, order, name, forme either Biblic, or Rabbinic in Italy or Germany, either capitall, midle or finall let∣ters, separated, or joyned, either through the whole Alfabet, or of some among themselves: and how that all the letters are joyned both with the forgoing, and following, except in Siriac and Arabic five, Elif, del, (dsel) ra ze, vâu. Whereunto is added in Siriac three others more 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Arabic table they are shewed separated and joyned, according to the order of the latter Arabians, which Erpenius, and others did pro∣pound:

yet it had bin better not to follow it so close∣ly. And finally you have by mine invention nine figures of those 22 Arabic letters, whereby you may better understand the reason and essentiall strook of their shape.

APPENDIX. Followeth now the second part, viz. of Pricks, and Strooks. The accidentall parts of this whole Tongue.

RULE I. Pricks and Strocks are either in place of Vowels, disting uishing, or Accents.

IT is a great question, and mightily debated by two learned men of this time, whether any of these pricks and strooks, representing the Vowels, Characte∣ristics and Accents, were from the beginning of the use of the tongue, and so in the Ebrue Bibel a part of Gods Word and tongue, without which almost no place in Scripture could be rightly understood or no, I deny them to be coaeva consonis, to have bin written by Moses the holy pen-Man of the Law, and punctu∣ally fet unto the consonants, as wee now see them printed; nor the rest of the books where by any au∣thour of theirs so ill and silly handled, as to have cast so many unnecessary, idle, unreasonable, superfluous, uselesse fancies upon them. I confesse, wee cannot punctually set downe the time, place, method, authors, and other circumstances of these pricks, stroaks and crooked knots, there creeping in in all writings ma∣ny things, whereof the year, authors, place and rea∣son was never set downe. Yet the chiefest reason,

(for here I would have nothing simply rejected with∣out grave reasons) is, because if they were essentiall to this tongue, then would they be constantly the same in Ebrew, Samaritic, Calde and Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic. I beseech the Reader to consider, 1. that it is as old a fashion to have Bibles without pricks as with prics, and in my apprehension, older to; yet here I do speake onely of a time of 1300 yeares or thereabout. If we confesse, Hierome to make men∣tion now and then of points, yet we see also, that there is a great quantity of places otherwise rendred by him, or at least, the proper names otherwise read, than now the prics will suffer. And though Zoar (that very old Rabbinicall book) makes mention of the Names of the Vowells, who will not confesse, that those names might be very easily written by some other in some copy of Zoar, which either by transcription, or im∣pression is now in the Text. Have we not thousands of such incroachings upon the Text in hunderts of Authors. But if that were not so, and that some of them were named, doth it therefore follow that they have bin all at that time? If the Grecians could be content with a, e, o, for vowells, as Plato sayes, and the Arabians had nor have any more, but these three from Platês time till this very day: and if the Sirians could be content without vowells, till they becom∣ming Christians, and translating many books out of Greec in their tongue, did in proper names first, after∣wards also in other Nounes & Verbs assume the Greec a, e, i, o, u, and if the Persians, Turcs, Tatars great and lit∣tle all Mogull and Malaye could be content from their very beginning till this day to bee without prics in∣stead of Vowels, what thinke you was there then a curse of God upon the Jewes and all the Prophets, that they could nor would understand the writing of one another without so many superfluities. Is a, e, i, o, u, y,

enough for us in all occident to read by, and is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enough to do the same, when these do as well represent Consonants and Vowells as those do. And what a malediction will you cast upon Gods Word, that when many hundreds can understand, and that without any hesitation at all, thousands of other books without these prics, they should not be able to understand Gods Booke without such a doe. If that Word of God were written with all that infinity of pricking and stroaking every line and letter, were it not the greatest injury that could be done to it, to have it once printed without them? How thinke yee would the Iewes once dare to offer such an unexpres∣sable sacriledge? Or by what meanes are the Jewes wiser, then God himselfe, who could not finde out an easy way for his Word to be read and fully under∣stood, till the Jewes found it out? Why must onely the Jewes have 15 Vowells, and 20 or 30 Accents, but no characteristicall points betweene a Verbe and a Noun, the second and the third person, active and pas∣sive, as the Syrians are said to have? What a strange thing is it, that the Sirians have never a sva, never a dages forte (as Emira and Ludoyic de Dien do rightly affirme) that there should never be found any dages lene in Arabic, but all dages forte, and contrary, no forte but all lene in Syriac. In Etiopic and Sama∣ritic nothing; in Ebrew Bibles without poynts nor dages forte nor lene; Nay in the Samaritic the whole Law without Vowells and any pricks or stroaks of Accents. No Accents in Etiopic, Arabic and Syriac, no Accents in any other Ebrue booke, nor in my Cal∣de Manuscript, being Questions and Answers upon the Law. No Accents nor Vowells in the Arabic and Syriac old Testament given out in the King of France his Bible, untill added by Gabriel Siouite, as he pub∣lickly confesses. And whence that infinity of ano∣malies

in Vowells, in Accents, and what an absurdi∣ty is in all the Accents, not one onely except. What has atnakh the Duke to make a determination of 25 Verses, otherwise to be done by Silluq the King, when He stands in hundert of places as a boy and ser∣vant, which nor the Text, nor reason regardes. What a boyes trick and childish punctation of atnakh is in the third word of the bible, In the beginning created God. Is it sense or nonsense? And yet there must be the Duke Arnakh. Truely I pitty all those great Man, that are become boyes and children, playing thus for the Vowels, Accents, and diacriticall Notes, that they write whole books about fancies, and childish stuffe, given over unto reprobate minds and labour without the blessing of God.

Rule 2. The Pricks, added unto Consonant Vowells, instead of Vowells, are various, according to the fancy of the inventours in various Countries of the Orient.

In Ebrue, Samaritic, Calde, Arabic, and Eticpic are there naturally none, because superfluous, the same letters by them being the true Vowels, a, e, t, o, u, which are used by us in English; look only to the table and observe their order. Yet with all according to the traditions of Grammarians of several dialects here will we speak distinctly of every one of them separatly.

First in the Ebrue.

1. The sounds a, e, i, o, u, are naturally in every lan∣guage, and therefore in this primitive tongue by all meanes. 2. Because the sound will bee heard more long, when it stands at the end of a syllable, as va, ve vi, vo, vu, sva, sve, svi, svo, svu; and shorter, when after that sound followes a Consonant, vas, ves, vis, vos, vus, therefore did some Jewes, Masters of children, or Grammarians for their Disciples sake invent a double

sort of pricks for that double syllable, which I call long and short, (as the Vowells are of late cald long and short, otherwise cald great and little) viz. for the long syllable qumez, zeri, hireq, holem, sureq. For the short syllable; fatah, segol, hireq, qomez, qubbutz. 3. Those that have but one name as qametz or qomets, and hireq, have also but one shape: which breeding a confusion doth shew us the sillinesse of these Gram∣marians (God being able to make better worke in his primitise tongue) that they were not able to invent two pricks more, thereby to prevent all confusion, which hetherto lies as a plague upon those, who will learne this Ebrue with these pricks, and not otherwise, and being almost impossible to overcome, casts them of from Gods tongue. 4. The difference betweene the long and short hireq is not greatly needfull, be∣cause both is an i.

1. If their follow immediatly the same or any other of these pricks which I named, then is it qamez. Why? because the syllable is long? Why long? because the following Consonants having its proper prick, (WHICH WE FOR FASHION SAKE RATHER THAN WITH REASON CAL VOWELS) or Vowell, concludes a syllable, if none of those but some others, which are cald svâs, then is it qomez. Yet be∣cause there is great trouble with the accent, which changes all this work, and makes new troubles, there∣fore the true easinesse is. 2. If you pronounce a or o ac∣cording to your pleasure. 1. Because the greatest distin∣ction betweene the pronunciation of Ebrew and Ara∣bic, Syriac and Ebrue, Syriac & Arabick, is that the for∣mer loves rather o, the latter a, where the Ebrew sayes foqed, the Arabic sayes faqed. 2. The Ebrew it selfe∣doth change a and o srequently, foqed and faqed, yacöy and ucal, Rôs and Rasim, Enôs, Anasim. 3. The same change is in Calde, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, and that

in the same words, which do so change in Ebrew, that the unity of this tongue is even in the unity of a vow∣ell by this or that letter to be observed in thousands of examples. 5. And because in no language at all just every consonant or letter hath its Vowell, and having none must go either to the forgoing or following letter which hath a Vowell; as: s|va, va|s; these Jewish Masters thought it necessary now and then to prick such letters, that had no vowell, yet not alwayes, with two pricks (:) which they justly called sva (to wit troubles, falshood, vanity, without need and reason, à lye, the Latines, frustra, gratis, mendacium, tumultus, fal∣sum; the Greec LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) with sav of the same root and fignification. Where observe againe following confusions.

I. That they put it not under the last letter, and that againe with a threefold exception 1. The letter kaf shall have it. 2. and the letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b g d θ f q t, if the letter going before have not a Vowell but a sva. 3. That second hath againe exceptions in some words in the Bible.

II. That they make a distinction betweene a mo∣vable and a quiescent. The movable they conceive to sound ordinarily e; and yet 1. they can never pro∣nounce it so short as they say it must be, to wit, as quick as a lightning from Heaven; but sound it as long as the best e in the Bible. 2. They finde in the Greec LXX translation in many names, (where now in the Ebrue Bible a letter hath no Vowell,) an a, e, i, o, u, which confounds againe that tenant, 3. Some alleadge divers Authors which held that opinion, that sva was pronounced according to the following Vowell. The quiescent sva to have no sound, and therfore frequently and almost alwayes in the finall to be left out as su∣perfluous: and yet 1. Now and then left out on the midst also under the quiescent letters. 2. It is frequent∣ly

written where any reasonable man might observe; 1. That it is impossible that one and the same thing should naturally both have and not have a sound. And if they bring in the distinction of places, where it is sounded, to wit, in all, where it is called movable, and of others where not; I answer. 1. That that distin∣ction is broken downe by many examples in Nounes and Verbs, where in place of the quiescent as well as the movable is any Vowell a e i o u in the same pro∣per names pronounced and written. 1. By the Greecs. 2. By the Latines. 3. In Calde. 4. Syriac 5. Arabic. 6. E∣tiopic. 7. By the Persians. 8. Tutcks. 9. Copticks. 10. In the Ebrue Bibel it selfe in divers places. 2. that the Arabians, who have, I confesse, à quiescent, which they call gezme (writing it continually, never leaving it out from under the last letter, nor in the middle under the letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when they are to be pronounc∣ed, better than those silly Jewish Masters with their sva quiescent) but they have no gezme movable, but set any Vowell of theirs in such a case. Yet in hun∣dreds of places, where Ebrue has a sva quiescent they put in any Vowell; whereof, being the selfe same tongue with Ebrue, and having in Ebrue it selfe fre∣quently a Vowell, for the most part an I, men of reason should conclude, that the punctation of the Jewes in the Ebrue Bible and Calde Targum is not authentick, it being so full of variations, incertitudes, confusions, that hitherto there hath beene no end at all found in these things.

About Holem and Sureq these Jewes have many silly wayes, whereby they obstruct and make diffi∣cult the reason of this tongue. First, Holem, 1. must never be set upon the right shoulder of the following letter, as hitherto hath bin constantly done by the Jewes (from whom the Christian Printers got it,) but upon the left shoulder of its owne proper letter,

as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Moze, in place of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for both is as broad as long, onely that is confused and difficult, this pro∣per and easy. In the casting, or cutting the Mattresse of one will cost as much and no more then the other. 2. It should bee written and cast, or cut at the left band of its proper letter, within the line, not above, and than wee had no neede to distinguish it from the point. 1. Of Sin. 2. of the Accent Rbia. 3 It should never be included in the poynt of shin and sin. Be∣cause, 1. that gets no reasonable compendious way in writing. 2. It puts the beginner to a great deale of trouble. 3. It makes a great deale of difficulty in the reading of this holy tongue. For here is to be ob∣served.

• 1. That (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being sh, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 s,) when the forego∣ing letter hath no Holem, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having a Vowell, that poynt denotes an ô of the forgoing letter as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mose.
• 2. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having no other vowell but o, gets two. points 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so.
• 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Having no vowell, this poynt signifies also o; sho.
• 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Having a vowell, and that poynt besides, must be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oshe, because then the forgoing letter doth constantly lack a vowell. Yet all these precepts may be avoided only by making better Mattresses.

The greatest troubles about Sureq is that, that these filly Jewes did not invent a long u, without the ad∣jection of the consonant v, which doth so perplex the Analogy and Etimology of this tongue, that many places and words do thereby become of a dark and obscure explication, notion and interpretation, cau∣sing men many times to misse of the true root: inso∣much that this prick alone were enough to confound all the tongue, to indarken all orientall Ebrue Au∣thors,

and to breed thousands of unnecessary and end∣lesse questions in the Ebrue Bible and Divinity; therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v being the consonant, and the poynt the vowell u, as Grammarians do usely speake, hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the beginning not to be read u but vu. Or other∣wise we run on into eighteene confusions and errors, which I have set down in my Grammer Delin. Printed in Latine at Amsterdam, p. 18. Num. 34.

4. Further in sva there is yet a greater imperfecti∣on, viz. that whereas it hath naturally no sound (for thereby it is distinguished from the vowels, who have a sound) these Jewish Masters would give it one by joyning thereunto the shorter vowels fatah, segol, hireq, qomez, qubbuz. Which Doctrine destroyes that position of sua mobile; for if it be movable and to be pronounced like an e, what need is there to joyne it with segol to make up e? and if it were an e before, hath it not the sound of two e now? and is it not with fatah, ea, or ae? with hireq ei, or, ie, with qomez eo, or oe. With qubbuz eu, or ue? And yet they set it onely a simple a, e, o, And if it may be joyned with a, e, o, why not with i and u? What have these two short vowels sinned? onely the wit failed these Gram∣marians. Or if they did it (to avoid confusion) be∣cause sva joyned with hireq, would make up the form of segol, for three poynts sake, and sva qubbus would get five poynts, and so make up the same forme with sva segol, it is cleare againe, that they had not wit enough, to make such formes of hireq and qubbuz, that sva hireq and sva qubbuz might not make a con∣fusion either with sva segol or segol. And yet where is that compound sva in Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic, for in the Samaritic, the whole Talmud, and divers Rabbines, and thousands of Arabic books, you finde neither it nor any vowell; And if you say, that the Caldeans have all these vowels and these svâs, I say,

either they had them from the Jewes before the Ba∣bilonian captivity or during the time of it: now if any man can produce any one line in any Author (warrantable or not, I care not) shewing us so much as one line onely of the true Calde writings, with vowels and suâs and then I will yeald. If you say, in Daniel and Esra we see it plainly; I answer, do yee not remember, that they were Jewes, nor did they write and point their books with the Calde letters and poynts, but with their own.

For every one of those dialects have a peculiar man∣ner of vowelling differing from the other. Samaritic hath none. Syriac hath assumed the Greec, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or v, and afterwards some who did nor like to take the vowels of the Grecians to their bookes, and to spoyle their own writing therewith, invented an other sort of poynts. And as true as it is, that these Greec vowels are the proper vowels of the Syrians, so true is it, that these Ebrew Jewish vowels were once the Heathenish Caldean vowels also. Arabic hath divers vowels from Syriac, Etiopic has divers from Arabic and Syriac and Ebrue; so that wee finde every dialect of this tongue to be different from the other in the matter of this accidentall worke of pricks for vowels, from whence it clearly appeares, that neither these are proper to the Caldean, or not proper to the Ebrew. Either of them must fall. And we see that the nature of the Jewes constantly is, first: to change the Con∣sonants, secondly: the vowels of any tongue what∣soever. We have example of it in the Persian, Turc, Arabic, Greec, Spanish, Italien, French, German, and Polonian tongues, when there is none of these vowels of theirs, no svâs at all; and yet for all that, they have printed them so; and printed not with our letters, but with theirs. Will you now go and say, that La∣tine hath the Ebrue consonants, and those 15 vowels?

And that the Caldeans had the same poynts with the Ebrew? It is to be pittied, that that excellently learned Man, and My worthily honored Friend Dr. John Buxtorf at Basil Professour of Divinity & of this tongue, hath thus farre deviated from all reason, as to play for the primitivenes of these points, and to write a great book in quarto in defence of it, being con∣demned to such a vaste and yet superfluous labour, that stone of Sisifus. The whole tongue reclaimes their antiquity. Those that looke a little farther then the Ebrue Bible, may easily see, that whereas there is an agreement amongst the Consonants in these dia∣lects, there is none in the vowels. I pray let not au∣thority make here slaves of us, and keepe us still in a feare, and give us an infinite toyle of anomalies in the Ebrue Bible, whereby we shall never be able to get the Siriac, Arabic, and Etiopic tongue.

One onely of these compound suâs, viz. sva fatah read after its Consonant, as it doth stand under it, looses under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 finall the sua, because that sua is not admitted under the last letter, as is said here be∣fore: which fatah makes no syllable, being neither a long vowell, nor a short one, but onely a part of sua. It might have beene left away together with the sua, onely they thought it requisite; that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might bee pronounced with an a being gutturall letters, and not easily to be pronounced without it. And because taken away from sua, it was called gnuba, or taken: which the latter Jewes and our Christian Gammarians not rightly understanding thought, it fig∣nified that it must bee pronounced before its conso∣nant. A false assertion and of such grosse an errour, that it overthrowes the nature of this tongue, wherein every syllable beginnes with a consonant, and yet is here neither reason nor a powerfull cause, why this fatah gnuba should begin a syllables; when it cannot

so much as make a syllable. This gnuba is superflu∣ous, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is its letter, because that sounds hi that point within being hireq, as that excellent learned Schindler it hath in his Grammer, and is frequently un∣derwritten, comming from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This gnuba fals a∣way, if a letter follow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 elohim, God, &c. and is onely after a long ē i ō ū, never a long a. You may leave out the gnuba in your read∣ing.

These compound suâs are frequently in the Ebrue Bibell not under the throate letters, (for the use whereof they are said to be invented,) but under the non-gutturals. b. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 31.39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Num. 10.36. z. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 2.12. q. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very freqently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nehe. 10.34. And con∣trary there are above 200 of examples, where a single sua is under a throat or gutturall letter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I well desist. Job. 16.6. Iud. 15.7. Out of which confusion, multitudes of exceptions; and ex∣ceptions upon exceptions, and that in the Ebrue Bible also, not onely in the Calde part of it, and that all printed and written copies of the Ebrue Bible ne∣ver do agree herein, wee may clearly see, that this Monster and mishape of creating and destroying, this inconstancy and fury of building up & leveling to the ground, will descry unto any wise eye the madnesse of the Authors thereof: whence it is, that if yee take the Calde in the Ebrue Bible, you will finde more examples for anomaly than analogy.

And that all this madnesse of the sua simple and compound, and the fatah gnuba are onely invented by the filly Jewish braines is also seene (besides that inconstancy in all things, which is their one and only lest constancy) by the Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic,

where they have neither single nor compound suâs, lesse a fatah gnuba. I confesse, the Arabians have a gezme, but that is onely in the place of sua quiescent: where is here a sua movable? So in Etiopic Iohn Potken and Wemmer will give us besides ba be bi bo bu, à b with a short a, and a short e, yet that cannot argue, that that short e is sua quiescent, which hath no sound at all, but if any thing, rather a sua movable, and the short a, with a sua fatah. But why is than that figure of the letter with that sua fatah (in the meane while supposed) singler than that with a single sua? There∣fore whatsoever that short e, (which Potken calls a short o) may be by the Etiopians, certaine I am, that the short a is not the sua fatah, nor have they any sua at all, single or compound, whole or gnuba.

By the Syrians, to wit, those that from Jewes be∣came Christians after Chrisis Passion, Resurrection and Ascension at the preaching of the Gospell by the Apostles, who did retaine the vulgar custome of writing at Christs time, (that of the single letters being onely used, as is probable, in the Law of Mo∣ses with the rest of the Bible) in joyning the letters, had never any vowells or sua in their writing: and that by these arguments. 1 Because we finde no sua at all, either single or compound, movable or quies∣cent, in their writing; here the eye is witnesse. 2. The Greec vowels are surely none of their owne; and that is manifest. 3. The Samaritans, who did and do live in the same Country have no vowels at all. 4. The Sirians leave many times a way the vowell, which otherwise they write. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Marci. 9.34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Marci. 1.6 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Marci. 7 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Marci. 7.30 which vowell in this forme of the Noune is never left away by the Arabians, nor alwayes by the Syrians (and the Jewish Calde constantly) because that the

first radicall must have no vowell, but because the vowell of it is so generally knowne and certaine, that if not written yet there will not remaine so much as the least doubt of it; which the Grammarians of Calde and Syriac do not so much as understand, and make a false forme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 5 These poynts or pricks, which they have above and below the Consonants are yet newer by them, han the Greec vowels; which is demonstrated by the greater variety thereof than of the Greec vowells in their writings: Nor is there any Syriac Manuscript to be seene onely with those poynts instead of the Greec vowells: contrarly, wee have many of them, which have neither the Greec vowels, nor those pricks. 6. Nor are the names of them the same with the Calde (falsely supposed) names of vowells, except onely one ftoho, which is fatah of the Ebrue and Arabic, the rest: e is called rboso, the i, Khboso, the o, sqofo, the u asoso: expressed in the following proper names. Abrohom, Esayo, Ishoq, Odom (Adam) Ʋriyo.

They have no long, or short vowels, nor the suâs. Whereby we see, that the whole Bible may be under∣stood. 1. Without all these five suâs. Because Siriac Samaritic and Etiopic may bee understood without them. 2. Without that difference of the long and short vowels. Because Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic may; nor has Etiopic long or short-vowels but onely a, e, i, o, u, the name of long being superfluous, where there are none short. 2. The Calde punctation is not precisely made after the rate of that distinction, which was set upon the Ebrue Text; and yet for all that may as well bee understood, as the Ebrue Text.

The Arabians have other prics for vowels different from the Ebrue Syriac, and Etiopic: And as the Gre∣tians (by Plate in Cratylo) had only 3 vowels, ••, v, o,

(for ω is a double o) and as there are onely three quiescent letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a, v, y, and as Ebrue hath onely three compound suâs, so also hath Arabic only three vowels, e, v, o, or fatah, kesra, damma. Fatah is a or e kesra i, Damma o or u. The true pronunciation is in these Orientalls not to be had, because Ebrue, Sama∣ritan, Calde, and Syriac are dialects, which are passed, and no more extant in the World, in respect of 2000 yeares ago (the tongue being one and as yet still remaining,) and Arabic with Etiopic have occupied all Africa and a fixth part of Asia, and containes above a hundred different pronunciations, insomuch that you can not well follow any pronunciation of those dialects,; and therefore if yee cannot learne the pro∣nunciation used by them in their Country, here in England you may pronounce them as yee will: yet if yee will follow Erpenis his pronunciation, yee must observe: to pronounce fatab like (a) upon, (and sometime before) the hard letters (the names wher∣of I have given before) and upon (or before) the easy letters (e): Damma upon (and before) the hard letters (o) and upon (or before) the easy letters (u). If Gab. Sionites, then pronounce fatah constantly like (a) Kesra (e,) and following the (ye) quiescent (i) Dam∣ma (o) and following (vau) quiescent (u) These three vowels they doe now and then pronounce as if there were an (n) but that is only at the end of a word. As an, on, in, the note wherof is, that it hath that vowell doubled; except onely that on hath the forme of (69) for (99) which they thinke to be neater written. Fatha and Damma is written above the letter, Kesra beneath. Fatha and Kesra hath but one figure, so that there are onely two figures of all the Arabic vowels. By the Etiopians there is a great deale of difficulty to make certaine Rules for the vowells apart: out of their printed bookes, and the written Etiopic bookes

are very rare; in so much that I believe there are none in all England, which is a shame for us Christians so to slight other Christians in such a manner, as not to care for their learning and bookes. And as Wemmer and Potken number the letters, there are 202 by which way if wee go, wee shall never easily learne to read Etiopic. And yet as wee have the letters apart, to also should wee have the pricks or stroaks apart, whereby the vowels are pronounced. Ordinarily it is as followeth. 1. A is marked with the stroake of the letter toward the right hand more downward, then ordinarily. 2. E the round circle at the right hand below. 3. I. a little i joyned there where e. 4. O. an o joyned for the most part with the upper part of the letter at the right hand. 5. Ʋ a stroak, like the i was, in the midst of the letter; The first standing by Pot∣ken and Wemmer being onely the most simple figure of the letter, I have brought into the Alfabet among the letters, as the essentiall part of the tongue and word. And every letter with these five vowels, to∣gether with the sixth standing among the accidentall parts of the word, the vowels. Yet what abstract precept properly to give to that sixth standing I know not for the great variation sake. And to expresse it onely by the sua is so unreasonable that thereby you will have many words, that will consist onely of the fixth standing, and if that be constantly by suâ, what pronunciation can be had in them. There are also many exceptions in the Alfabet about every vowell a, e, i, o, u, as the Table shevves. Therefore I wish againe that some man or other would give us here∣after better instruction out of Etiopia it selfe.

Rule. 3. These pricks are uncertaine to make up Syl∣lables, and to further the reading of any of these dialects.

1. Ebrue and Calde have the most perplexed work,

though not by their nature, which is as plaine as English consisting onely of letters, without other ad∣ditions of Pricks for Vowells and Accents (the Vow∣els being extant already in the Alfabet,) but by the filly braine of the inventors. Every letter hath not naturally a Vowell a, e, i, o, u, as for example Lon∣don, l hath the Vowell o, but n following hath none, d hath the Vowell, o, but againe n following hath none; againe, in saying, a prime man. P. hath no vowell, r hath i; So you see there are in every word letters, which have vowells; and others that have none. The Masters of the children observing it, did put a sua underneath such letters as have no vowell. Now I conceave that the inventors of those pricks were able men, honest, willing, good, and carefull teachers, yet too too accurate about a thing of no great matter, but onely for childrens play. Therefore, I confesse, it is truely said, that every letter hath either à vow∣ell or sua, viz. every consonant a part, or two toge∣ther make a syllable, yet I avow it to be à very simple assertion, to make that, which is in thousands of places left alone, and hath no vowell by its pro∣per nature and constitution (following a letter with a vowell, or going before) to become that very marke and signe of no vowell, a vowell and a non-vowell, to sound and not to sound, to live and not to live.

And because. 1. à long vowell hath a long pronun∣ciation, a short vowell a short one; 2. There is re∣quired a long vowell, when à syllable endeth in à vowell; a short when it endeth in a consonant, 3. à syllable ending in a consonant, many times hath na∣turally a long sound; and ending in a vowell, a short sound; Hence did the Ebrue Masters consider foure sorts of syllables.

• 1. A long ending in a vowell, sa, se, si, so, su; sua, sue, sui, suo, svu.

• 2. A short ending in a consonant, vas, ves, vis, vos, vus.
• 3. A long, ending in â consonant, vâs, vês, vîs, vôs, vûs.
• 4. A short, ending (in à vowell; in Latine pêrdore) as e in darkenes, i in syllines.

Yet they did not propound it so naturally, and with a reasonable apprehension, nor did they speake of long and short vowels and syllables; of little and great ones.

Therefore a letter without a Vowell doth go to a letter which hath a Vowell, either

Forgoing,

• 1. The last letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Melek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sefer.
• 2. The letter before one without a Vowell 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dibbrù, the first b.
• 3. Any letters which should bee written twice but compensed with Dages or Teshdid as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 4. After a short vowell, as Dib in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dibru.
• 5. After a long vowell with à Mediatour ac∣cent, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lay la.

or Following.

• 1. The first Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fri.
• 2. The letter after one without a vowell 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dib brù the last b.
• 3. Any letter which should bee written twice but compensed with dages or Teshdid as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 4. After a long; as da, in in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dabru.
• 5. After a short Vowell with a Mediatour Ac∣cent, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 la ylah.

All this (except in the three first numbers) are unconstant in the Jewish Caldean Translation made at Jerusalem or some other places of Jury. Whereby I

conclude, that in no tongue under Heaven there is observed such a strict disruption of the syllables, nay for the most part the love of joyning of consonants, prevailes against the Lawes of the Jewish Grammer, as for example; in English the Grammer teaching to pronounce Tru-stees the tongue pronounces Trus∣tees. So in Ebrue, the Grammar sayes pa-qdà, the pronunciation pàq-da. Hence it is, that in the whole Caldean tongue, and in the Ebrue Bible in hundreds of places that distinction between the long and short vowels is never strictly observed, the reason is, be∣cause this distinction is forced and not naturall.

In Syriac having no sua, it is reasonable, that we con∣ceave, in all Ebrue and Calde sua reasonably to be left away in thousands of places and wheresoever it is, there not to be requisite. Hath Greec, Latine, Eng∣lish, or any occidentall tongue à sua? and conceiving that the letter may not go unto the following and forgoing, except it have a note and character, then are all the European tongues imperfect, nay all the orien∣talls, and of all the World, except onely Arabic (besides the Jewish Ebrue and Calde) having for a sua quiescent à gezmâ, which even it selfe might be left away in Arabic.

In Etiopic, I confesse, the letters with the vowels, and suas to be so confounded, that three, foure let∣ters having no vowell may not be pronounced, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: put these three letters, b l v together without a vowell, and see what pronounciation they will yeeld.

Here is the question to be discussed, if the orien∣tall tongues have any diphthongues; I answer; yea. Ai, ei, oi, ui, au, eu; are expresly in all these dialects: by the following arguments. 1. You will heare them in these dialects yet extant. 2. In all tongues, and

therefore in your owne mother tongue. 3. Because as consonants may bee joyned, so vowels; neither one nor the other being against the nature or practise of any tongue, reather both constantly used. 4. And the chiefest against the denyers that the Alfabet doth not consist onely of consonants, but also of vowels, having 19 consonants, and three letters for five vowels a, e, i, o, u. 5. Because these three 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a u y are not simply consonants, as it is conceaved here, but also in place of vowells which all the occidentall European tongues confirme.

Rule 4. The Pricks for distinction, joynture, and other designes are diverse but uselesse.

In Ebrue and Calde. 1. Maffiq which is onely a point within 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is the last letter, in steede of being below it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being such a superfluous thing, that, 1. Though the Dictionary writers themselves have it (yet they uniustly) confound, it with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quies∣cent; as deriving 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 forswearing. 2. In many places of the Bible this point is lost in that letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is the affix of the three person signifying he, his, him. 3. In Syriac, Arabic and Etio∣pic it is never found. 4. It is not pronounced in the orient as a syllable a part, and yet the Grammar would have it so. 5. It is superfluous because when the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath a fatah gnuba it is sounded ha, what neede then of hi too, either ha must be left out or hi. 6. Be∣cause it falls away, as the Grammarians say, when the letter receaves a hireq, but observe that even this maffiq is that hireq, and that hireq is that maffiq. 7. It is a non necessary thing upon a non-ne∣cessary ground, raised by those unhappy builders the Jewes, who invented these pricks because they con∣ceived a necessity of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent: whereas if there had beene none but moveable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Ebrew, as it is in

Syriac, Arabic, Etiopic and Samaritic, there had beene no neede of that invention of maffiq. It is never in Jod, for that point which is in it, is dages, which is now to be spoken of. 2. Dages a point with in any letter whatsoever, except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and doth double the letter if there go immediatly à vowell before, but if a sua either expressed or un∣derstood under the last letter of a word go before, than is its power of dubling superfluous. Where∣by you may see the superfluity of this poynt. 1. In all places of the Bible without doubling wheresoever it is in any of these letters as bgd kft 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being the first in the word, the last letter of the word forgoing not being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. In the same letters, in the middle of a word an expresse sua going before. All the euphonics are superfluous as not being now ob∣served either by the Iewes, or Christians, in their pronunciation: the true nature condition and use of them being unknown to both parties alike. 4. The Characteristicall are superfluous as being left out in many places. 5. The compensative are superfluous, as being omitted in as many. 6. In Syriac, Samaritic and Etiopic it is generally omitted. 7. The distincti∣on of forte and lene is unknowne to the Sirians and Arabians. 8. It is many times easily mistaken in Ebrue for Sureq.

In Siriac they have two names qusoy and rukok. yet the Grammarians, nay those naturall ones, which doe yet live Sionita, Ecchellensis and Emira, as I take it, do deny, that the Syrians ever had a dages forte. But if not, what is than that qusoy and rukok.? both cannot be lene, both cannot be forte, nay it is denyed that there is any forte at all: this point doth almost never appear: but if it be of a great use, why doth it not appeare, if of none, why is there in the Ebrew such a stirre about it. If it doubles, why is it not

forte, if not, why is there qusoy and rukok both. If superfluous, what need have wee than to trouble us with it?

Farther the Syrians do many times use a poynt a∣bove or beneath the letters, (as in the forgoing to denote a, e, i, o, u, above) distinguish betwixt certaine words of a divers signification. Below, the letter d. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ido a hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hu, he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hi she 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sento sleepe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 khadto new in Masc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abdo a servant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ulo a babe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 biso base (belg. boos) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 henûn they m. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 henen they f. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 min of or from: the same with the poynt above are pronoun∣ced otherwise, and do signifie; aido what Women? hau that Man, hoi that Woman, santo year, the let∣ter r. Khadto new in f, abodo service avolo vvicked. (without it aulo wickednesse) boiso miserable honun they Men honên they Women: Men who? But alas is any man so bereaved of reason, that hee thinkes, he shall not bee able to discerne these words without a poynt? Take from mee these three observations. 1. The Masculine and Feminine genders are adiafo∣ras, and let them not trouble you. 2. Abstract and concrete notions will easily be discerned by the Text. 3. The farther the signification of one is from the signification of the other word, so much the easier will it bee discerned in the Text without a poynt. The same is to bee observed in the poynt which is in the Verbs. 1. Below, it denotes the whole pretertense except the first singular; and the third sem. sing. hath it sometimes above at the left hand of t. 2. It stands frequently with the singular and imperative. 3. All the persons in future tense, except the first person in both numbers. 2. above. 1. The first of the pretertense. 2. the noune agent, otherwise called participle bnoni, denoting together o or a. Yet in the fourth order it is below, the second radicall

being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 3. The first singular and plurall in the fu∣ture. 4. Two do denote the plurall as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ktobe Books the boto goods in Plurall, or in the Verbs of the Feminine gender onely fqadei they did visite, fqadôn do you visite nefqdôn they shall visite, refqdên yee shall visite. If an r be in the word, then is one point unto that of r, added sufficient, to make up two. Where three do occurre (besides these two of the plurall number) the third denotes the vowell, or qusoy, or the tense. In the verbs of a radicail r, one point is for the letter, and one for the first person of the future tense, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qriyt, I have cried and cald, not qrayt, thou didst cry and call. Yet all these points are added out of a childish feare, that the people will not let reason have the soveraignity, ra∣ther then for necessity sake; nor is it to be esteemed, that they are of such necessity or of the essence of the tongue.

In the Arabic the poynts difference some letters, one, above as Kh, ds, z, dh, th, gh, f, and by the Turcks and Persians at k pronounced as gh. one below as b, and by the African Arabians about Fes, Marocco, and Algir sometime the f, that which is above denoting by them the q. two above t, at the end sometimes shaped as an h, only by the contraction of writing. q. which the Afri∣cane Arabians frequently and almost at all times do write above with onely one poynt: two below y. Three above is descending from s, one poynt comming un∣to those two naturalls of the t, for difference sake, sh, and by the Turks and Persians the k pronounced as, ng kitabung of the book. 3. below by the Turks and Persians the b then pronounced as p g. then pronoun∣ced as tie; and; s for a difference from sh. Yet are these three points frequently to be seene above s in Arabic books written at Jerusalem, and elsewhere by the Christians in their Bibles and Service-books, the

reason whereof I have given above, yet many hun∣dred Manuscripts are to be seene even without these diacriticall and superfluous poynts, for them that know perfectly this their mother or learned tongue.

STROACS.

1. In Ebrew and Calde Meteg: Fsiq and Maqqêf, the two first are put downwards, the third in the breadth: meteg betweene any vowell and a following sua, to keepe them asunder, from being reade in one syllable. A thing clearly superfluous, partly in all our Eastern now yet living tongues, where the boyes are able enough to learne the separation of syllables without such troubles; partly in the Bible it selfe, there being such a variety of it in all Prints, that it is past beliefe: it was invented so short (insteed of a longer, which should have begun above the letters and passed betweene them and the vowels underneath them) because the inventors thought it more gentile as it is now, whereas the other would have shewed more plainly their intention. Fsiq such as meteg, between two words, to shew that you must rest there a little, not by the force of sense, but onely to observe the thing following the more accuratly. Maqqef joynes two or three words together, and is placed evidently at random, no reason in the World being found, why written or 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Therefore are these stroaks also in vaine, superfluous, and unnecessary.

2. By the Syrians yee have but one, viz. Maqqef, cald Marhothno under neath a letter which they say shall not bee read or heard in the pronunciation: as the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ana. I 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 akhrino another in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 f 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 akhroyo the last 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 f 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 akhyono a brother in Law, Kinsman, Cousen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enoso, Men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 erozo a secrecy. Yet this line is in many coppies frequently left out. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 idto a Congregation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 khadto new. 3.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yhab hee did give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r humayo a Roman 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thobhu, it is good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Malkauhi his kings. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l in ezelet I went away, ezalt, shee went away. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yamme the Seas. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 n 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 santo a yeare, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zba to at a time, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mdinto a City, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zbi to redeemed shfinto or Sfinto a ship. Any word which is to be reade with a meditation its point is cald Mhagyono III. above the letters, signifying the number. This last is of the best use: but Marhothno and Mhagyono, are not worthy to be observed, it being meere fancy, that those letters should never be pronounced in that tongue: it being certaine, and I my selfe have many times heard it at Constantinople, (where there were many Kershuni, (for so are those cald that retaine the Syriac bookes in their religious service) that they did most con∣stantly pronounce every letter of those: but onely when they were posting through, then I confes for ce∣lerity sake they leave out many letters, as even among us; and what la France leaves out of letters, those are pronounced in the Province and elsewhere: therefore I beseech the Reader, not to think these precepts to be absolutly true and needfull.

3. By the Arabiens yee have medda, wesl, hamz, gezm, and Teshdid. Medd, they use over the letters signifying numbers, as in all Astronomicall bookes is to be seene. 2. Signifying the circle and lines by the Geometriciens described by letters. 3. It stands in stead of the circumflex of the Greecs to pronounce that syllable with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent more long. Wesl onely upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent in the beginning of à word, joyning its word with the forging, as if it were onely one, line as Maqqef by the Ebrwes. Hamz onely upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shewing them to be radicall and naturally move∣able, they being sometime and that more frequently quiescent also. Yet over, or under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they do write

it more frequently, whither it be radicall or servile when the word is written with the vowels. Yet in old coppies of the Alcoran, and in printed bookes the hamza is in the latter case justly and most frequent∣ly left away Gezm is a round circle either whole or halfe, and stands above that letter, which is to bee joyned with the forgoing: not so frequent upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the rest. Teshdid is made of two Gesmes, and is the dages by the Ebrewes, onely one, and yet repre∣senting all, that was falsly esteemed proper unto two, lene and forte.

Rule 5. The stroaks and pricks for the accents are not of the essence of this tongue, and therefore onely in the Ebrue Bible and the Calde translation of Aquila (or Onqelos) on Moses.

As all the rest of things, so truly these stroaks and pricks for accents are set to the Bible without nece∣fity, onely I wished, that the vowels and suas had got no greater credit, than the Accents have, which by the most learned of Europe for almost 150 years, were still left out as not cared for even by them, that tooke upon them the translation of the Ebrue Bible. Nor can or will I blame them, as if they had mighti∣ly mistaken in the translation, because of the ignorance of these Accents, as if onely by their order the true connexion and disjunction of senses could be had. Wherein wee see à more generall and naturall incli∣nation in these, that did strive so eagerly for the vowels (and yet confesse the Accents to be of the same divine Authority,) not to care much for an additi∣onall thing in this tongue: the most of them never working so much in such an idle thing, as Munsterus, Claius, Neander, Buxtorfius, but especially of late Mr. Symson a Scotch man Anno 1617. Mr. Bohlius (decea∣sed) my condisciple under Mr. Trostius, An. 1630. and Mr. Ledebuhr his disciple (both Germans out of

Pommeren) in a booke of 36 sheets printed in Octavo at Leyden by Le Mair 1647. cald salselet hammiqra, as hee out of a high conceit thinkes it to be a chaine of the Scripture (catena Scripturae) written in Latine, as if without the accents the Scripture would fall asunder. If that were so, how was it possible, that the Lxx, Hierome, and all our interpreters for 200 yeares and upwards could so neerly interpret the Bible, that all these new raised great Masters of Israel are not able to shew a sensible, foule and faulty trans∣lation, arising from the ignorance of the Accents, whereas wee know they had no knowledge of these high misteries, which these three late Authors would have the World to believe they have found before all the rest, and brag of it in their books almost in∣tollerably.

Therefore let no Englishman think, that hee hath not learned the Ebrue tongue, if hee know not these Accents, and the infinity of worke in them; and rather with mee pitty the paines of those painfull Germans and Scotchman upon such rotten principles, and learne hereafter of them, to labour upon a sure ground, or to thinke, that God hath laid a curse upon his labour fisyphi saxum, a stone, that will give him an endlesse and unprofitable worke; and I wish this painfull man, and Buxtorf, and all those, that are so busy about the pricks, (and will not believe that excellently and exceedingly learned Authour Mr. Capell a Frenchman professor at Saumur, whose learned booke in Latine Arcanum punctorum revela∣tum, that judicious and illustrious Author Erpenius caused to bee Printed at its owne charge in his owne most excellent orientall Printing house at Leyden, Anno 1625.) that they may bestow their paines upon better worke than about these triffles of the poynt, and the Samaritic Characters, if they or those, where∣with

now the Bible is commonly printed, be the true old Ebrue Characters, whereas both are of the same essence, and one no more true than the other, as I have shewed before. Yet all that can bee said for these stroaks and pricks of the accents (and for those that will care for them) as very necessary is onely this. 1. That one accent may do the businesse. 2. That it stands at the syllable, which is to be lifted up in the pronunciation. 3. That it stands at a cer∣taine letter also. 4. That that letter must have a vowell, because it cannot otherwise be elevated. 5. By consequence, never at a letter with sva. 6. That their forme is either simple, opposite, or compound. 7. That in Ebrue they do give in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vâl (that is after along vow∣ell, when the following letter hath no vowel but sva) the nature of a short vowell, that anothe letter may follow this long vowell in the same syllable, whereas o∣therwise it should go the following sillable or word, the long vowell naturally desiring to end the syllable. And again in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vālē, the nature of a long to a short vowell when the following letter goeth away to the following syllable, having its owne vowell (long or short) when the short vowell had need of it to rely upon; as be∣ing of a short pronunciation. 8. That it is the na∣ture of every accent to change (upon such conditi∣ons) the nature of the short and long vowels. 9. Those conditions failing it doth not change that nature of the vowells. 10. And yet as that nature of the vowels doth not hold constantly, so neither are these stroacks constantly of that nature. 11. There are no euphonic accents, for meteg, who is onely cald so, I shewed to bee onely a stroack keeping two let∣ters asunder. 12. To call accents tonics is a tau∣tology, both words descending from one root, and signifying one thing. 13. That meteg with silluq is

improvidently made of the same figure. 14. That rbia and holem also are improvidently almost con∣founded, whereby arises a necessity of new and ma∣ny Rules. 15. The Accents are unreasonably and without sence cald Grammaticall and Retoricall, for Retoric hath never any accents, nor doth speake of them. 16. It is without profit to give in the Gram∣mer a title and terme for a word, which hath the accents in the last syllable, or the last but one. Not∣withstanding the Grecians did the same, perispomenos, barytonos and oxytonos in the last, properispomenos and paroxytonos in the last syllable but one. 17. It mat∣ters not if yee call the words milra, below the last syllable, milel, above in the last but one, Calde or Ebrue words. 18. To shew the union or disjunction of words by Accents is the invention of men also. 19. As the union of words belong to Syntax, so the signe thereof by the Accents. 20. For that purpose those are invented which yee have in the table with the Names.

THE END OF ORTHOGRAFY.

FIRST RƲLE. THE SECOND PART OF GRAM∣MAR is, cald Etymology, and Analogy.

ETymology is a part of the second part of the Grammer, whereunto all the rules, mediatly or immediately have their respects, and reference. For what∣soever word occurres in the Bible or any orientall Author whatsoever, the question about it is, I confesse (as in the Greec

and Latine tongue) what signifies it, and (to know that) whence is it derived? The first part is again either of the simple and abstract signification, viz. Etymology (that is the Lexicâs and Dictionaries, which handles the first more properly) where if possible. 1. The reason why this roote signifies this and not that should be shewed, but hath bin hitherto neglected by them all. 2. That signification should (according to Retoric, Logic, Fisic, and Metafisic) be distinguished unto all its branches. 3. The division (with the reason there∣of) should be clearly set downe. 4. The Authori∣ty, as not superfluous should be added, that we might see it to bee truly humane, good, sound and sa∣tisfactory reason: which all Authours hetherto want. Or of the signes of the signification whereof as also of their reasonable and analogicall reduce∣ment unto this or that root, the other part of the second part of Grammer doth speake, to wit analogy. From the principall office thereof Authors call it Etymology, yet from the nearest part in respect to us, (as all concrets are more sutable to our apprehen∣sions and the nearest to our senses then abstracts) the old Romans did rather call it Analogy, as Vossius shewes in his Latine Grammer, or great and good booke about the Latine Grammer. The first part considers the root, without any the least consideera∣tion of the parts of a speech, unto how many parts of a speech every root is dividable. The second layes downe certaine rules, into how many parts all the words of this or that or any tongue may be di∣vided, and than applies every word, or layes downe certaine rules, to which they may be applied. The first is mightily abstract, as a new Metafisic, the se∣cond is meerly concret, as a new Fisic. Yet the first part hath the greatest abstraction in the letters and their signification, and the most concretion in

the multiplication of that signification and division by Logick, of these multiplied significations by Rhe∣toric, Fisic, and Metafisic. Both parts hang together, yet so that Analogy is the easiest, grounded and built upon the naturall precepts of any tongue whatso∣ever, viz. a generall Grammer, which ground and foundation is not yet laid downe by any learned man of the whole Universe (how necessary soever) because it requires an excellent wit, a perfect Phi∣losophy, a good Arithmetician, a Retorician, in one word, the most perfect Aristoteles that ever yet lived on earth. Yet before wee come to Analogy wee will heare lay downe onely the precepts for the root according to the Letters, not significations either of the root or words radicall or accidentall, proper or improper, first or second, ideall or naturall, Metafisicall or Fisicall, which things shall bee laid downe in the Dictionary, which is, God willing to follow.

Rule. 2. All words, (none excepted) of this tongue may, nay must be brought to a certain root.

As this tongue is the primitive from Adam the first man, and remayning yet till our dayes in all A∣frica and a great part of Asia so is it the most simple (or if wee will call it) single and accurate of any other tongue in the World, that I could ever yet attayne any skill in. The Greec Dictionary Writers, and after them the Latines did never lay down such certaine Rules in their tongue (for the finding such accuratenesse) as this tongue hath. The remainders of Greec and Latine Authors (which two Nations are the most accurate writers (as in other things so a∣bout their tongue) of all other Nations, whatsoever) do shew that they did not arise to the hight of this perfection. For what out of this tongue may bee demonstrated to bee a derivative, they tooke for

a primitive; and a primitive, for a derivative. The title they had, but for the thing it selfe to bring to a right stay, so farre they never came. The benefit of this Rule will bee made manifest, when in the Dictionary certaine Rules will be laid down for the abstract signification of the letters: the inquisition and determination whereof doth onely belong to the Dictionaries. And truly without that principle of the inward and naturall signification, which every let∣ter of the Alfabet (being as a naturall dowry bestowed upon it by God) brings to the roote, I see not, why wee should make any Analogy or Grammaticall rules at all, to bring every word to a root. For as the rules shew that so many words, (which otherwise would seeme not to be of one and the same family,) belong unto this or that one root, ••o is the root required for its naturall, ideall, and abstract signification, different from any other what∣soever signification, because proper to another root. And because the root is required and that by all men, that shewes plainly and evidently, that in∣deed there is something in the root, for which it is so sought after and desired, viz. The signification. And that denies none. But another question and that more necessary and before others to be determined is, from whence this signification comes; If they say, from the people, that is false; for Adam alone in the World had the whole tongue and the signifi∣cation of all roots. If ex impositione humanâ by Adams pleasure; that is false, because as Adam was not the orator of himselfe, his reason, wit and tongue, whereby he spake to God, so neither did he invent the significations of every root, hee being inabled by God Almighty with the consequence the words themselves, not a priori, to coyne roots, and from thence words, and then to speak with his creator.

So that this question is almost Analogall to that in Fisic, if the soule be ex traduce or per traducem. I de∣termine it thus, that as nothing makes the root, but the letters, so nothing makes the signification of the root, but the signification of those letters.

Rule 3 A root consists of three consonants, not of 2, 4, 5 or more, much lesse of one only.

This is the formall part, whereby this holy pri∣mitive and orientall tongue (for perfection) excel∣leth all the tongues in the World, because all the other are derived from this. It may be, that some learned men have studied to find out severall wayes, whereby to bring this or that tongue, which they did most affect, unto this or that more ancient, and for the most part unto this primitive tongue; and there∣fore from hence they take a most cautious way to finde out first the root of every word in that tongue, and to bring many words to a most simle and ab∣stract way. Yet I am sure and certaine, that no tongue in the World, but this hath such an extra∣ordinary, holy trinunity and unitrinity: as first, that every word (of how many letters soever, proper or accidentall, naturall or adjectitious) may, nay must be brought to certaine radicall letters. 2. That the least as well as the biggest word hath its equall por∣tion in the root, the least not having fewer letters than three, nor the biggest any more. So that whatsoever lacks or aboundes, must necessarily be made up or detracted by certaine Etimoligy and Rules of Analogy.

And this Rule is not now invented by mee, or a principle of my stampe, but the generality of Gram∣marians in whatsoever dialect of this tongue give this very same Rule. And yet a man would wonder to behold the inconstancy, sloath, and irregularity partly of the Grammarians and partly of the Dicti∣onary

or Lexica writers, who do not observe this their owne and all mens rule, as making no consci∣ence to confound the art of this tongue, by not closly adhering to the principles of it, and thus them∣selves unloose that ty and knot, wherewith they professed to keepe all roots in a strict order, when by their practise it is observable, that they never intended any such thing. And which is the worst of all, none of the Lexicas extant are without that great fault. And so long as the Dictionaries are not brought (amongst many other things yet lacking) to that strict, observation of things propounded by the Grammar, (which is expected and presupposed to lay downe no falfe precepts) there will never be that clearnes and eaisinesse of the tongue, as there would be if the art of the Grammar and the art of the dictionaries were brought to a greater perfecti∣on. I perswade my selfe, that there are very few, that can believe mee: but it is no wonder, for igno∣rance and prejudicated opinions are never able to judge well of any thing.

Rule. 4. Every root consists of letters onely, not of letters and pricks joyned together.

By this Rule all roots as also all letters none ex∣cepted are included, and all pricks even excluded.

Whereby many questions are resolved, which hetherto have troubled the braines of the learned. First, it shewes, that there is a unity in the nature of roots whither in Ebrue, Calde, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic or Etiopic; whereas if you aske a man skil∣full in Ebrue (but not in the other dialects) what the nature of the roots in these dialectsare, he will doubt, not being able to give a determinate answer. Thus learned men make themselves seeme to be un∣learned; and whereas I can make them more learn∣ed, viz. by giving them a good and true notion,

(whereby they may inlarge the use of their know∣ledge, and that without their paines,) invented as I may terme it by my owne industry, and yet I know not whither I shall ever have thanks for it or not, sure I am, hereafter it will do much good. Second∣ly, it is against those tenents, that the root is either in the Noune or Verbe, and herein the most excel∣lent men do disagree: some will have it in the Noune, others in the Verbe, and by some againe it is at∣tributed to the Noune in Siriac, others deny it, thus they strive one against another, and that neither de lana caprina, of the Woole of a Goate, who has none, for whatsoever party hath the prerogative, will give Law unto others, and all the rest, if there be more than two. And it is a great matter in a Kingdom, who swayes the Scepter, the Verbe being Soveraigne in Ebrue, will be so in Siriac, and yet Emira will have it by the Nounes. De Dieu thinkes the Verb hath it by the Syrians, and yet beginnes with the Noune. In this manner I could name a∣bove 300 men, the most whereof (I consesse) do give the radicall dignity and soveraignty unto the verb, yet many unto the Noun. But they all faile herein; for the root is neither in the Verb, nor Noune, nor in any other part of speech (if there weare any, as there are not, which I shall make more cleare hereafter) but absolutly in the letters, though not considered as yet, if a Noune or Verbe; lesse if active, passive, neuter, deponent, Masculine, Feminine, singular, plu∣rall, present, preter or future, participle or pronoun, &c. The reason for this assertion is, because it contra∣dicts the nature of a root, which is never the tree it selfe, the branches, the leaves, the blosomes, the fruits, nor the tronke or body of the tree, but that part which lies under ground, and none of all these is cald the root, and is the first principle and cause

of all these. Thirdly, it shewes that the letters onely, (and not joyned with the pricks,) make the root. The reason is plaine, for if it be pronounced by putting the vowells thereunto, it is no longer a root, but a Noune or Verbe; for the letters onely and not the pricks (esteemed Vowels) are in the Alfabet, much lesse the third singular in the pretertense, or the infinitive, or imperative or any Noune. And therefore it is a false assertion, to say, that because the third person singular in pretertense is not found in the Bible, ergo the root is not extant in Ebrue, Calde, &c. Whereas if there be but one forme found of any root whatsoever in any dialect, person, gen∣der, number, declination, or conjugation, nay if but onely one radicall be extant, so that either the first or second or third, first or third, or any two of them be cast away, yet if there be but one radicall letter to bee found, so that by Grammar rules the two di∣ssident may be recovered, the root is truly extant in this Orientall Tongue.

Thereby it is also cleare, that the division of the letters (into radicall and servile) is false, because all the letters are radicall, viz. They have all one and the same right, to make a root, not onely this but every one of them. Otherwise the Alfabet had not the same honour in the Etymology, which it hath in the Orthography. For as all letters are used in the reading, so all letters are used, in the constitution of any word: and than you might with all reason say, that these 11 Members of the Alfabet, viz. msh v k l b a tyn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be also questioned, whither they had any right at all in the pronouncia∣tion or not, if they have none in the constitution of the root. 3. Then would the practise of all the Lexicâs be false, who have roots not onely forthe first but also second and third radicall, of euery let∣ter

of the Alfabet, none excluded. 4. There must then be given sufficient reason, how it came, that those 11 letters were not radicall, nay, why never radicall; which is impossible to give. But if yee say, the Grammarians do not conceave that they are ne∣ver radicall, but alwayes servile, and the radicalls never servile but alwayes radicall. I answer; that I wish they would then speake plainer and clearer; but when, I dare say, above an hundred Grammari∣ans make that distinction, that 11 are radicalls, and 11 servile, why should I not believe them to speake proper? Why doe they not then call all the letters radicall, and then give a distinction, which of those are for the most part radicalls, though many times servile, and why do they never set downe, what ser∣vise those 11 letters (by them called perpetuall radicals) do performe, when they are now and then found in the Ebrue Bible not to bee radicall? As if it were not as easy to speake proper and plaine, as well in the Rule, as in the explication of the Rule.

Rule. 5. The three quiescent letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do change among themselves without alteration of the essence of the Roote.

As these three letters in the Alfabet are opposite to all the other 19 letters in Orthography, and stand onely as one man, representing the five Vowels, so here in Etymology, they doe stand as one man too, and represent but one letter, not three. And that by these following arguments. 1. You see no practice in any Grammar of any of these dialects to the con∣trary, but you may finde a multitude of examples in every one, and out of many, many thousands; not only in the permutation of the radicall letters, but even, when they are but servile, and do stand to wait upon radicals in any respect whatsoever of

place, part of the word or speech. Open but any Grammer (if yee have skill to understand its pre∣cepts) and yee will finde it. And yet of all those Grammarians there is not one, that sayes they are but one letter in respect of Etymology. 2. It is the practise in all Dictionary and Lexicâs of whatsoever dialect of this tongue: that in truth I pity all the Authors of Dixionaries, not one excepted, that out of so many examples they could not see so much. 3, That this rule doth shew in a very great measure, that all the dialects of this tongue, none excluded, have one and the same nature with each other; if not in other things, (which hereafter will bee seene,) yet in this particular. 4. Because all the Authors speake of that changement of the quiescents, onely I reduce them, 1. From foure unto three, and 2. Unto a unity, not a Trinity.

Now whereas it might be objected, that in Ebrue and Calde there were foure not three, and in the rest three, and that even this diversity of: the number of these do shew the diversity of the nature of the dialect, and therefore no unity; I answer.

1. That à potiori fit denominatio•• You must looke to the highest and greatest number, and then you have Syriac, Arabic, and Eriopic, the Grammars whereof in generall have but these three (and of a Samaritic Grammar you cannot produce any Au∣thor).

2. The Calde is not the true Calde (of those Hea∣thens, amongst whom the Iewes were dispersed in the Babilonian captivity) but onely a rable and mingle mangle made and corruptly made by the Jewes in Jury.

3. The Ebrue tongue it selfe stands against the number of foure 1. For the first radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not changed with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiesent. 2. Because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first

radicall is never quiescent but alwayes moveable. 3. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first radicall is almost never changed with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there being scarce ten examples in all the tongue, and you know unica hirundo one Swallow makes no new spring. 4. All the second radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 remaines and never changes into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, onr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the second into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 5. The third radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is naturally movable as you may see in Siriac, Arabic, and Etio∣pic. But the Iewes have spoyled their root, by bringing in only once the quiescent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in place of the third radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 6. Because the Iewes themselves confesse a distinction betweene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the third radi∣call movable and quiescent, which they never do in the 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 movable and quiescent. 7. They never made that distinction in the first, or second radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as movable and quiescent, being constantly one way movable. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the 1, 2, & 3. radicall movable or quiescent never made any distinction of a root by any one of all the Grammars and Dictionaries.

Rule 6. The order and number of the Roots are easi∣ly to be known, and of a Divine authority.

Both of these things are either never rightly in∣quired after, as being esteemed not worthy of inquiry, and esteemed necessary. And yet if that principle be true, that. 1. The letters onely make up the root. 2. Every letter. 3. And that the order and number of them in the Alfabet bee of a Divine Authority, then the things layd downe in this rule, necessarily follow. Now as the order of the Alfabet is not layd downe by the Spirit of God at randome, so neither is the order of the roots to bee esteemed of a slight and small consequence: whereof partly in the prin∣ciples before the Dictionary will be spoken some∣thing concerning the connexion of the roots through the whole tongue; partly here must bee said, that as it is shewed in the rule before, that these three

quiescent letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are but one, so therefore all the roots beginning (in Ebrue, Calde, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic) with ye or yod and vau must bee brought to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and all that have the second radicall vau and yod must bee brought to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and all that have the third radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent, must be brought to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which done there will follow a double benefit. first, there will bee no neede of that infinity of the remissions by all the Authors none excepted, from one of these letters, to the other; secondly, (which is of the greatest and best use, and for which this right and due ordering is desired) that as the roots which are naturally not diverse but one, are joyned and made whole, and brought to their life (whereas by that unhappy disruption they were torne in peeces and spoyled of their life) so their soule comes now againe to that right, true, and one signification, which without that joyning no man is able to shew the way to get necessarily. So likewise when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes to be the 1, 2, or 3, radicall it must be reduced to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 15^th order.

The number is easily cleared by the number of the Alfabet (containing here in Etymology no more then 20 letters,) which must be understood to bee the 20, first layd downe in the Alfabet, and so as wee proceede in Arithmetick from the right hand to the left (which is just contrary to our manner of writing) even so in this wee must proceede (contra∣ry to their manner of writing) from the left to the right, alwayes beginning with the third radicall, vary∣ing it through the whole Alfabet (the first and se∣cond remaining the same) thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a a a, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a a b, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a a g, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a a d, &c. which being done will make 20 Rootes for the third radi∣call onely. Then after the same manner vary the second radicall through all the Alfabet, and that

will make 20 Roots more for the second radicall, which being multiplyed with the 20 of the third ra∣radicall (the first as yet remaining the same) will make 400 for the first radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as many for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and as many for every one of the letters throughout the Alfabet; which will in all make up the number of 8000 neither more nor lesse, as will appeare more plainly by this adjoyned Cube.

[illustration]

CUBUS OCTO MILLE RARDICUM TRILITERABIC

Whatsoever Dialects have the same number and or∣der of the Alfabet, and the same sormall principle, that three letters do make the Roote, have the same number, and order of Roots with Ebrue. Now

Orthography shewes, that Samaritic, Calde, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic hath the same number and order in the Alfabet, whence it followes, that all these dialects have also the same number and order of the Roots. And if the same letters throughout, then also the same Roots throughout. Which is the foundati∣on of that unity, where of we speake. Nor must wee looke here, what order the Syrians, Arabians, Etio∣pians or Iewes themselves set downe in the Alfabet in the Orthography, or number or order of roots in Etymology; for that which they set downe, is rather an unartificiall then Grammaticall proceeding, for Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, and Phisic with Metafisic proceeds juxta artem by artificiall not mechanicall wayes. And therefore it must not seeme strange unto any man, that I leave the order and number of the Roots of all the Authors allready extant, (as be∣ing meerly mechanicall) and follow the art of the Grammar, setting them downe altogether different from those that have preceded mee.

Rule 7. The first Root hath 36 more speciall Roots all of one and the same essence.

The first letter in the Alfabet being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without doubt the first root must bee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet (as is said) because these three quiescent letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and in Ebrue onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when it is the third radicall) do stand in Etymology onely for one letter, those three Aleffs cannot make up the first root alone, but the fol∣lowing thirthy five doe also belong unto it, viz. 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 3, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 4, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 11, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 12 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 30, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 36. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet in Siriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, there,

are onely 27 speciall roots, because they use not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent in the 3 radicall.

Rule 8. The first and third, or second and third ra∣dicall onely being quiescent, such a Root hath 12 speci∣all Roots in Ebrue, &c. but in Syriac, Arabick, and Etiopick onely nine, all of one, and the same ess nce.

I will instance first in those that have the first and third radicall quiescent: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, now because the quiescents do change among themselves all these following belong unto the same root, viz, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Secondly, in those that have the second and third quiescent, as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto which belong these fol∣lowing, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Rule. 9. The first and second radicall quiescent hath nine speciall roots all of one and the same essence.

Because in the first and second radicall there comes not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent which doth in the third radicall, it comes to passe that (as it was in Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic, in the first and third, or second and third radicall quiescent,) here in Ebrue, Calde, Sa∣maritic, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic, in the first & second radicall quiescent only these nine following, 8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 6 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 9 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Rule to Where the third radicall is onely quiescent there are onely foure speciall roots, in Ebrue, in Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic only three all of one and the same essence, viz.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1.

Rule. 11. Where either the first or second radicall onely are quiescent, there are onely three speciall

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1. or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1.

Rule 12. Where there is no quiescent letter in the first second or third radicall, there is onely one roote without any speciall roots of the same essence as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Rule 13. The quiescent letters changing their place (and the moveable retayning theirs) make a root of the nearest kindered.

As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1. And Which roots yee must not confound with these ten following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 6 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 9 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 8

Which are among themselves of the same affinity, that the first ten are among them selves, but I say the second ten must not bee confound with the first, because the moveable letters have changed their place.

Rule, 14. These quiescent letters are naturally fal∣ling away in any of their roots.

This rule (here in Etymology) though left away by all the Grammarians and Dixionary writers what∣soever, is very necessary; for if wee give that rule here at the root, then have we not need to set it down in Analogy either in Noune of Verbe: for this fal∣ling away is common both in Noune and Verbe. And herein is all the anomalie that they make, viz. When they are cast away; for when they yet ap∣peare in their changing, than the root is still full and present, which is defective, if one or two quiescents be cast away. If they are quiescents or moveable in their appearance, makes no anomaly; and the 12^th. rule tells you, that seeing two radicalls ye may choose to put the quiescent at the 1. 2. or 3 radicall without any sensible error.

Rule 15. The roots of the 1. 2. or 3. radicall quies∣cent are of a neare kindred with the second and third the same.

Because that according to the 13 rule the quies∣cents are easily and frequently cast away, two non quiescent letters onely remaining, the second of them is doubled or written twice, in place of that quies∣cent, so that the roots of the second quiescent more frequently, the others of the first and third quiescent sometimes do change with the roots of the second and third the same, in many tenses, persons, and genders, nay in whole orders: as for instance 1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the third and sixth or∣der hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifying no lesse, than that the root also is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Rule. 16. The roots in generall are of the same pro∣portion betweene themselves, that their letters are be∣tweene themselves.

What all the Grammarians say, concerning those letters of the same organe (to wit, of the throat, lip∣palat, tongue and teeth) that they do frequently in∣terchange is true, and because roots do consist of letters and not of vowels, it comes to passe, that the roots do interchange in like manner: the effect being of the same nature with the ca••fe.

Rule 17. Some teeth letters easily become tongue letters, yet retayning their owne nature, different from that of those tong letters.

The reason is, because these two instruments doe frequently and most constantly concurre unto the pronunciation of their ten letters, wherof five are more especiall teeth and thother five more especiall tongue letters. Zayin is many times changed into d, sade into thet, sin into t, yet they doe retaine their nature, so that these d, th and t arising from

zayin, sade, and sin must bee distinguished from these letters d, th and t when they are naturall, and of their one stock.

Rule 18. Such roots as have the 2 and 3 radicall one and the same, do frequently double the first, and put it between the 2 and 3.

The reason of this transposition, as is conceived is for Euphony sake: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and many other the like.

Rule 18. Some roots take in certaine epenthetick letters, whereby they seeme not to bee any more of three radicall Letters onely, but of foure, five or sixe.

As for instance 1. The letter R, the root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sebeth a Scepter, which is sound with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sarbith whence is the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence is that falsly esteemed persian word parasange (or miles) &c. 2. the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. the root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 g m d which we find thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

3. N. the root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 súr but doth assume n, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bassanvertm in Gen 19.11. 2 Reg. 6.18.

4. M. the root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but assumes m as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Cant. 2.13.15.5. The three quiescents are frequently in erted after the second or third radicall as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Arabic, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; with divers others.

Rule 20. Some roots seeme to be of more than three letters, whereas the fault is in the letters.

As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen 2.12. Num. 11.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ier. 44.30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in∣steed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 41.45. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 insteed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen 2.14.

Rule 21. Some roots seeming to have more letters than three are easily (by many wayes) reduced to that number

As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a band, n in l by the Latines balteus nine times 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Ebrue Bible hath the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. insteed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 band by the Arabians, a rope, cable cord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a flame; thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Rule 22. Some words are compounded of two or three roots together,

As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 compounded from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 teeth and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Elefant, 1 Reg. 10.22. 2 Chr. 9.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dan. 3.5. from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so in all other dialects.

An observation for Etymology.

ALl these rules will be a great deal clearer made out by the insuing dixionary. And therefore I beseech the courteous and gentle Reader not to judge upon halfe done worke. For the chiefest rea∣son, why we cannot see that more perfect unity and identitie, (which is given us by Metafisick) of these dialects, and that they are no otherwise divers tongues than Eolic, Attic, Doric, Jonic are divers from the Greec, is because neither the Grammar nor the Dictionary were ever made to joyne them, ex∣cept in the Grammar of Lud. de Dieu, Anno 1626.

Mr. Gerhard the yeare past. In the Dictionaries, only that excellently learned Schindler in his Pentaglo••∣t••n (given out after his death 1612) made up long be∣fore the smatterings in that kinde of Rapheleng in his Arabic Dictionary Anno 1613. and of Calasius in his Ebrue concordance 1621 And I doubt not, that when hereafter many excellent wits doe fall upon such generall Grammars and Dixionaris or Lexicâs, they will make a great deale bette worke, than ever hetherto is dreamed of. The said Mr. Gerhard is now about such a Dictionary. And I hope, that (be∣sides him) I shall give some further light, and per∣haps open a doore, where no body did expect one; beseeching onely in the meane time my Reader, to helpe and assist me with whatsoever hee is able, assu∣ring him, he shall finde me a thankfull man.

Analogy or the second part of Etymology.

Rule 1. From each of these 8000 roots may bee de∣rived all sorts of words, of whatsoever part of speech.

BEcause that every speech may bee the better un∣derstood and considered, the art of Grammar doth divide all speeches into certaine parts, in some tongues more, in some lesse, according to the grea∣ter or lesse variety of the terminations in every tongue. For the lesse variety of the terminations of words there is in a tongue, the fewer parts of speech in that tongue, and the greater variety, the more. That tongue which hath the fewest parts of speech is the most perfect, and that which hath the most, lesse perfect. The parts of speech in this pri∣mitive tongue is by all set downe and made too ma∣ny, there being onely two, viz. a Noune and Verbe, the greatest part of them have also made particles as the third part. Other 8 parts, some (but very

unreasonably) have made nine, and that ninth only for one letter sake: as if it were to bee conceaved that one letter could make a ninth part of speech; for then there would bee ninteen, eight ordinary, and eleven extraordinary for those several Letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for if the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (one letter of these eleven) be worthy to make a part of speech, all the rest may bee worthy also. Yet more specially of that in the second rule. Here it is enough to observe that any kinde of word whatsoever, none excepted, comes from a root, seeing that the root it selfe never stands in any booke, as the root, but the words descending from the roots. This first rule of Analogy shewes us likewise, by what liberty, and yet with a regularity, words may be multiplied, to wit, (as wee say in La∣tine and Greec, Analogicè,) according to analogy, the right whereof is to forme words in a decent way; For otherwise if there were not such lawfulnesse, then wee might never make bold to forme any new word in this orientall primitive tongue, where wee had none before. As for instance. In Ebrue I may make a verbe of any person and tense, although wee have it not in the Ebrue Bible. And that is demon∣strable à priori by this first rule, and à posteriori by the practise of the Jewes, who have made many Nounes and Verbs not extant in the Bible, which they never could have done, if it were not lawfull. And thus all the tongues become more full and copious. Secondly, it is practised by the Iewes in the Calde translation, in the Talmud, in all Rabbini∣call books; so that it is a meere fancy to call those formed Nounes and Verbs, wee finde with the rab∣bines, and not in the Ebrue Bible, rabbinicall words, and rabbinismes or Talmudicall words, and Tal∣mudisines. Thirdly, the same is done by the Syrians Arabians, and Etiopians, who have many Nounes and Verbs, which are not in the Ebrue Bible.

Rule 2. This the simplest tongue hath onely a Noune and Verbe, and no more parts of speech.

As God is the singlenesse and uncompoundednesse it selfe, so it is no wonder that his tongue, which hee (by reason) gave unto Adam, is the most simple and least compounded tongue. Neither can any tongue be brought to a greater singlenesse, than this, which hath the greatest, to wit, onely two parts of speech according to nature it selfe, which goes al∣most constantly upon a division of two, in an oppo∣site way. One part cannoe make up a whole story, discourse, descrip••ion, or opem but Noune and Verbe, (taken in th•••• sense as here) may. For here in Analogy we consider them for the most part only with relation to their terminations, not significations. Therefore notwithstanding the Greecks and Latines have made 8 or 9 parts, and some Grammarians in this tongue have unreasonably followed them, yet the Arabians and Jewes in their Grammars have the nearest way, that they could finde, and that is a Noune, a Verbe, and a participle. I confesse, a three∣fould distinction is frequently used in nature, by the third to jovne or separate the better the oppo∣sites; as Comenius goes much upon that ground: And so in Logic in every proposition wee have a Noune, and Verbe, and the Copulative, so that con∣sidering the nature of speeches, they go upon a Noune, Verbe and Participles as Copulations. Yet because here wee consider them not logically nor rhetorically, neither Syntactically, or pöetically, there∣fore when all the Nounes and Participles may bee coucht as one part, as they are one by termination onely, and that both Nounes and Participles are un∣variable, and thereby a more compendious way may bee found for Syntax, I thinke not, that I have done amisse, in leaving away the third part, being

in outward shew all one the Nounes in all tongues becomming adverbs, and here, because undeclinable, also prepositions, conjunctions, and interiections, to shew that singlenesse, (whereunto the Arabians and Jewes came very neere) to bee yet more fingle, and that without any hurt to them, remembring that saying of the Jewes; before all things let a Master teach his Disciples the neerest way. And as the Syntax by ma∣ny excellent men is already brought to a more com∣pendious way by this trinity of the parts of speech in analogy (whereas Buxtorf hath 22 Chapters in Syn∣tax, because built upon those 8 parts a Noun, Verbe, Pronoun, Participle, Adverb, Preposition, Conjuncti∣on and Interjection, and Hottinger hath 12 Chapters with an Appendix of three seciall anamalies in the Ebrue Syntax, printed 1647, at Zurich in 80 and many others of that stuffe) so is it certaine that it may bee brought into a neerer way by cutting away the third part, and making it all one with the first which is generally for Ebrew, Samaritic, Calde, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic; whereof I have given (the yeare past, viz. 1647.) The proofe in that little English Grammer. and shall shew it in the following Syntax.

A Noun is defined by all the Logicians, (and that very exactly), to bee a word of no tense or time, yet with capacity of any tense, as present, preter, or fu∣ture. Those Nounes that are substantive Nounes, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bench, Stoole, House, Mouse, Man, Wife, Woman, Table or Cloath are all without a notion of Tense, The ad∣iectives also, have yet a capacity of an Adverbe, as well, good, ill, base, right just, &c. But the Nounes of action as, drinking, sleeping, walking, &c. drinke, sleepe, walke, &c. Have the capacity of any tense of a Verbe; whence, they are sirnamed participles, as participating of the signification of a Verbe by any of

those three tenses. But about a Noune and all the differences of Nounes as their significations, &c. must be spoken in a generall Grammar, which things you may take out of other Authors, and are in the meane while here presupposed.

A Verb cannot be without the signification of a time present, preter, or future. And thereby it is distin∣guished from a Noune, and the Noune from a Vorbe. So that as in nature there is onely the Masculine and Feminine sex, each having its difference, (and regimen being a mishape in nature) so here these two sexes a Noun and Verbe.

Rule 3. Both have two Genders, Masc. and Feminine.

This rule is generall for all tongues in the appri∣cation, though not in the termination. For innalice, hee writes, shee writes; the first is Masculine, the other Feminine, and yet there is no difference in ter∣mination. Even so in this Orientall tongue (to speake the truth) there is no more difference betwixt Mas∣culine and Feminine in Verbs: then there is with us; In the Pretertense (of Ebrue and Calde) the third person both Maseuline and Feminine are the same, for wheresoever you finde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 paragogick it is Masculine, and when it is with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 formative it is Feminine. Now who is able (at the first aspect) to see into the heart of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whither it bee paragogic, and superfluous, or formative and necessary. The second person Masculine and Fe∣minine have both but one letter as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The first hath but one termination, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and is there∣fore called common, which doth not detract any thing from what I say; for the common gender in∣cludes both Masculine and Feminine under one ter∣mination. So likewise is the first and third plurall in Ebrue as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the second plurall in Calde and Syriac as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Therefore the

Masculine and Feminine gender in Verbs is to bee un∣derstood rather for application then termination, yet by the pricks (whereof I shall speake in the Appen∣dix) there is I confesse more difference made, but in common speech there is not halfe so much dif∣ference made as is conceaved, as for instance when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is written with pricks the Masculine is lathasta the Feminine lathast, but in common speech whither it be to man or woman it is pronounced only lathast: It being cleare enough to the eye wither it be a man or woman that is spoken to. Also in the Nounes it is the same, as Malkeka, thy King (to a man) and Malkek, thy King (to a Woman) yet both are commonly expressed onely Malkek. And this distinction in dead things, as Sun, Moone, Soule, Day, Night, &c. is not materiall, for it will not alter the sence at all whither yea put them in the Masculine or Feminine. And hence it is that there are so many exceptions about it, so that in Buxtorfs Thesaurus yee have no lesse then 6 or 8 pages full of rules and exceptions about the gender. And in living things onely men and women are of that worth, to be accuratly distinguished, all the rest deserve not that honour. And againe that must bee a silly braine, which (understanding the sense of the Nounes) should not bee able to know whither the Verbe be Masculine or Feminine, whereas if it speaks of a woman, it cannot but be Feminine, and of a man, Masculine. Yet for the most part every Noune and Verbe that ends upon the third radicall is Masculine. A common gender and a neuter are without neid, this excludes and that includes both.

Rule 4. There is neither Active nor Passive ex∣tant.

I confesse it is otherwise laid downe by all the Grammarians that have written of these Dialects,

except Samaritic, whereof wee have no Grammar necessary: in all the rest this is laid downe as very ne∣cessary. Nor do I deny it to bee naturall, but that in this tongue there is a certaine termination and changing of Consonants for it, that I deny. And the reason is, because it is so naturally sensible unto every one to feele, whither hee gives or receaves blowes, whither he smites or is smitten. So that if wee onely know the signification of the Verbs and Nounes, reason, nature, the antecedent and consequence, will easily shew whither Active or Passive must bee understood, although there be no distinction at all for it. Yet in the Appendix, when wee come to speake of accidentall things in this tongue, there wee shall have some more trouble, because we cannot be contented with ease, and that which is sufficient in our tongues for the very children (as those that have not such a great quicknesse of reason and understand∣ing) will not bee sufficient for our high learned great Schollers, but they must have (besides the Sun) some petty little candles with them in their hand for feare they might misse the Exchange, Church, or Tavern at noone day. Or as if their legs would not serve them well enough to go abroad, but they must have go-carts (whereby children learn to walke,) with them in the street, for feare of falling. I cannot give a better comparison of the madnesse of all the Grammarians, when they (forgetting their and our own naturall strength in such triffles) make such a great matter to finde out, whither the Noun and Verbe bee of an active, or passive signification, as if nature had not made distinction enough to know whither a man carry, or is carried. And why should nature have beene so provident by the senses of every man to distinguish betweene active and pas∣sive, and yet that to bee esteemed nothing, except

it have a speciall termination or punctation all a∣long.

Rule 5. There are no moods in this tongue.

I deny not that there are in tongues an indicative, subjunctive, optative, potentiall, imperative (and by all superfluously added infinitive) yet as the most La∣tine Grammars extant did reject the old way of the former Latine Grammars (who did imitate and follow the steps of the Greec Grammars, yet with∣out reason) in leaving away the oprative and po∣tentiall mood, because of the same termination with the subjunctive, (as in English I teach, the indica∣tive, that I teach or might teach: the optative, when I teach the potentiall, the Verbe teach remaining without distinction in respect of these three moods,) so here in this orientall tongue the subjunctive must be taken away, because no speciall termination for it here. The imperative (as in all other tongues) leaves the expressions of i, he, we, they, as unnatu∣rall and unreasonable in commands, being don on∣ly to the second person, one or more; Which unity is uncapable of distinction, and lesse, to be an acci∣dentall mannen, or mood. And is therefore by me cald the commanding present; and referred to the tenses. The Infinitive is in all tongues a Noun; as in English, (an) act, (to) act, in this orientall tongue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mori, mors; to die, a death.

So then there remaines onely one free mood, viz. the indicative: yet when there is no more but one, you neede not give unto it a title, (the titles for the most part being given for distinction sake) nor call it a mood; as wee use not ordinarily the number one, two, three, in things but one in nature, as Sun, Moone, World, or Matter, a Booke, a Pen; &c. saying one, when there are either more, or supposed to be more; one God, one Booke. Hereby gaining a shor∣ter

way towards our purpose by cutting of that whole long street cald mood, wee fall directly into the next street cald tenses.

Rule 6. Tenses or times are only three; present, fu∣ture and preter.

The present or first position of a time in nature is either commanding some body, or declaring. Which cannot bee but to the second person onely, one or more this is of three persons expressed either by the future or preter, or by the Noune agent with the verbe substantive. The future hath its temporall distinction by the first or third radicall of the 1. 2. or 3. personall Nounes singular or plurall, prefixed be∣fore the root. The terminations of the present re∣maining here, because it gives the being unto the future. The first of both numbers, the second mas∣culine singular and the third singular ends upon the third radicall. The second Feminine singular here as in the present, upon y, the 2 and 3 masculine as the second masculine plurall in the present upon u. The second and third feminine plurall as the second feminine plurall upon n. The preter (under which is comprised imperfect and plusperfect) as nicer dis∣tinctions of the time past, the perfect expressing both sufficiently, because reason will distinguish, where the eye reaches not, either for want of a distinct object, or defect of its power. In Syriac, most frequent, in other dialects now and then the preter with the Verbe substantive makes the plusper∣fect, and the Noune agent with the Verbe substantive, the imperfect. Yet such a constancy is not here to be expected or that the imperfect may be plusperfect, or both to have that verbe substantive onely for fashion, as a certaine emphaticall confirmation of the thing past, as sufficient or its 1. or 3. radicall by the Arabians before the future, a certaine emphati∣call

confirmation of the thing comming. The ter∣mination it hath is t in all the singular of all persons and genders except the third Masculine which ends upon the third radicall; the second Feminine doth frequently put before the affix personall letter a y paragogic, as in Ebrue there is in the 1. singular. The third plurall hath an u in both genders, (the third ra∣dicall of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying two or more,) which, u hath bin already in the present and future. The second plurall hath t as in singular with that paragogic m from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Masculine by E∣brue and Arabic, and in the rest of the dialects with n the Feminine with n from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 throughout. Whereby Calde, Syriac, and Etiopic takes away that distinction betweene Masculine and Feminine, as we have also examples in the Ebrue Bible, m for the Feminine and n for Masculine. The first plurall with the last syllable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nakhnu, we. All these Letters and. Syllables put behinde the root.

Rule 7. As persons are three, 1.2.3. So numbers are only two, singular and plurall.

There are ten or 12 personall, and as many numerall Nounes, the catalogue whereof ought not to be set downe in the Grammar, because what can be said of them must bee done in the Dictionary (under their proper root,) which hetherto hath not being obser∣ved, and thereby the Grammarians become big and confused by heterogene all and superfluous things. The personall Nounes are otherwise cald Pronounes, and have made almost (by all Authors) a seperate part of speech. Which if according to reason, why was not the same done for the numerall Nouns, viz. 1.2.3. 4 5.6.7.8.9.10.100.1000. Person and Number, num∣ber and person having the same right in a Noune and Verber. And if the Nounes of person make up a

part of speech, then the Nounes of Numbers should do it likewise, and then there would bee made 19, (or one being added unto the 19, I spake of before, 20) Or if the numerall Nounes make no part of speech, (as no Grammarians have allotted to them) the personall Nounes make none neither, the former being justly left away by all, the last by many. Here in Analogy they are both to bee made mention of so far forth as there come any certaine severall letters from them, to serve in their steed retaining the signifi∣cation of the whole word. And that shall be done in the following rules of letters. So that we see, the Nouns do not onely denote the third person (be they per∣sonall, proper, or appellative, as Grammarians conceave) but also the first person, if the speaker speakes of himselfe, as there are in all tongues in∣finite examples of; or the second, speaking to some other present or absent supposed to be present, whereof as many examples may be shewen.

That the present commanding, otherwise cald the imperative, is onely found in the second person, I said before; and that all the three persons of the present declaring were made good by other wayes in the future and preter, (an extravagant way from all Europe) or by our wayes in the Noun agent with the Verbe substantive, I said also: and that future and pretertenses have their three full persons; it be∣ing without losse or gaine whither yee begin from the first, and so goe through the second unto the third (as for the most part the Grammarians set in the future) or from the third; and so passing through the second unto the first, (as for the most part Grammarians set in the preter) or whither you be∣gin both alike from the first, or third; or change it so, that yee begin the future from the third, (as, some did,) and the pretertense from the first

as others, for that, or this order, will not alter the case.

Of the numbers there is more worke, viz. whither there bee not three numbers also, as well as three persons, viz. singular, plurall, and duall, (as all the Authors affirme) I answer no, 1. Because onely one and the same letter serves for the duall, that doth for the plurall, it being one and the same numerall Noune, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which fignifies two, or more from whence the third radicall being cut off is imployed instead of the whole word to forme the duall and plurall. 2. Because that in the very personall Nounes there are none distinct for the duall and plurall, in the second or third person. 3. Ebrue, Calde, Samaritic and Syriac with Etiopic, have it not in Verbs. 4. Syriac, Samaritic and Etio∣pic have it not in Nounes. 5. Because the same let∣ters, which in Arabic make the duall in Nounes and Verbs, makes the plurall in Ebrue, Calde, &c. 6. Be∣cause there is onely singular and plurall in the most of our European tongues, Greec seeming to have the duall, but the examples are so few in respect of the plurall, that you will say it is either superfluous or ridiculous. The n, which in Arabic is joyned unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in Greec to o, or on, is paragogic.

Rule 8. Masculines are for the most part the Names of, 1. Men. 2. People, 3. Mountaines, Rivers. 6. Moneths.

The names are either proper, or appellative, there∣fore wee understand here not onely the proper, but also the appellative names of Men, &c. 1. Men as Adam, Qayin, Hebel, Set. A King, A Duke, A Prince, A Freeborne, A Slave. 2. An Aegyptian, Ebrue. Ger∣man. Frenchman Spaniard. 3. Carmel, Hor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by way of Excellency knowne only by the ap∣pellative name, the Mountaine, for that signifies the

name Hor, from whence the Greec 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying a Mountaine. 4. Fisôn, Gihún, Degel, or Deqel, or Hiddeqel, and Frât, (not Eufrât) the foure rivers in Paradise, or Garden of pleasure. 5. Beginning from March, nisan or Abîb, April Ayir (others reade iyyar, but falsly) or Avir, whence our name April. in the Bible sirnamed sîv. 1. Reg. 6.1. May shivân. June tammûs a name onely occurrent by the rab∣bines taken from the Latine name Junius by put∣ting i for t, and ni in m, mistaken in their writings and copies. July, Ab. August. Elûl. September Et∣anîm, or Tisri. October Bul, Mercheshvân. November Kisleu. December Thebet. January Sbâth. February. Adâr.

Rule 9. Feminines are for the most part the names of 1. Women, 2. Countries, 3. Cities, 4. Any opposite part of the World, or things.

1. Women, Havva, Ada, Zilla, Naamah, Noemi, Rut, Rahel, Leah, Bilha, Zilfah, Sharah, ribqah. Hannah or Johanna, or Anna. Fninnah or Margret, &c. Wife, Mother, Daughter, Queene, Princes, Midwife, con∣cubine, &c. 2. Egipt, or Misr. Persia, or Fars, Media, or Midyan, Arabia. 3. Babel, Kharân, Somrôn or Samaria, Yrikho. 4. The opposite parts of the World, South and North, East and West, of things. two hands, seet, legs, shouldiers, armes, eares, eyes, knees, cheeks.

Yet some of them are to bee found in Masculine also.

Rule 10. By termination, any words ending on the third Radicall are Masculine.

Except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

All these I have taken out of that excellent learned Mr. Buxtorf his great Grammaticall treasure p. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. (Whereof the most part are of both genders, and many of them onely feminine. The reason whereof leyes in the two rules going before. The significations of them you may finde there, or in any Dixionary. I was therefore so large with them, because the same holds in Calde, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic. Nay of all these you will finde the most part in Arabic (which Dialect of all these six is unto us the best known, because the fullest of books) first agreeing in the same gender with Ebrue. secondly, in the same variation of the gender, third∣ly, not onely generally in other words, besides these occurrent in Scripture, but even in all these reckon∣ed

up, there being not one of them not to be found in the Arabic tongue, (as yee call it,) or Dialect. And further if that the other words which are or∣dinarily Masculine and ending upon the third radi∣call, should be found in Arabic, Syriac and Etiopic at a variance from the Masculine towards the Femi∣nine, as there are many, that you may wonder the lesse at it, having in the Ebrew Bible it selfe the same variation. Finally, that yee learne hence, not to stand so highly amazed at the frequency of these and other excepted words, nor thinke, that you dare or cannot go without stumbling through the Ebrue Bible or whatsoever, Calde, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic books because of this great block, but rather learne hence to judge, that even this multi∣tude of exceptions demolishes that distinction of Masculine and Feminine, and these two great Moun∣taines of Grizzim (not Gerizzim, or Garizzim) Deut. 11:29.27:12. Ios. 8:33 Jid. 9.7. and Ebâl, Deut. 11:29.27:4.13. Ios. 8:30.33 upon which formerly it seemed the blessing and curse were put by the former Grammarians.

Rule 11. Feminine hath a t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the Root in singular and the Letter of the plurall, and sometimes by accident an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent.

In these the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 t is servile, and not radicall; and yet this servile is not constantly Feminine neither, partly in singular as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 partly in plurall, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and all the infinitives with the third ra∣dicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are many times Masculine: and yet is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 t servile, and they are also otherwise frequently Feminine. So also ending on a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent, as the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before, written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, item, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because all these end on the third radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent by accident in place of the third radi∣call

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is cleare in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and severall others. Now because it is so full of diffi∣culty, to distinguish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 servile from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 radicall, and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 servile from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 radicall, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 paragogic, (being then for the most part Mascu∣line both in Verbs and Noanes,) from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 necessary and formative, these distinctions being so full of difficulties, that not onely the greatest Grammarians of the Christians, (but all the greatest Masters of Yishrael, among whom the Massore∣tes are by no meanes of the least ranke) did so frequently stumble at, that it is a wonder to behold; and observed partly by some others of them, and partly by the Christians, and there are dayly many discoveries more about such mishaps. And why should wee chide and trouble young Schollars, when they did not know the distinction, or that they should know it, or else go no further. That hath bin the crosses, and exceeding great stumbling-blocks, which those blockheads the Jewish Masters did lay in the way for themselves and us; and yet their authority is so highly cried up. The same is true (in Syriac and Calde) of the words ending in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 naturall or accidentall, of a hard taske to be demonstrated, and proved to be this and not that. And God be praised, who raises us out of the dust, by opening unto us the eyes of the vanity of this terrible bufinesse, and Babel. And I hope, I shall have hereafter in some Latine books fuller and lar∣ger occasion, to answer unto severall doubts arising in Scripture, & elsewhere by not greatly regarding the Masculine and Feminine Gender, which I will glad∣ly performe, if God will spare mee my life, and great learned men will bee pleased in the meane time to set themselves on that labour, as to seeke together all the doubts, which either are all ready

made in the behalfe of the Gender, or themselves might bee able to make, so that sparing that labour (which otherwise I could performe as well as they) I finding it ready and done unto my hand, may the ea∣sier go through the resolutions thereof.

Rule 12. Any of the Letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are for the most part the note of the plurall number.

This rule is to be understood to hould. 1. In the duall, (which as we said before appartains to the plu∣rall.) 2. Both in Masculine and Feminine as well of Nounes as Verbs. 3. Both in present, future and pre∣ter. 4. With or without the affixes following. 5. That they are frequently cast away in all these Dia∣lects, as I said in the 14 Rule of Etymology. And than in books without poynts there is no difference betweene singular and plurall, whence is to be seen, that that distinction is not so constantly observed in this tongue, as wee imagine. And therefore wee must go higher, to wit, unto reason (led by the signification of the word, the Syntax, Retoric, Logic, Fisic and Metafific.) And if you thinke to shun it here or there, yet you must resolve some time or other to step forward thereunto by your own rea∣sonable strength, because all these letters will faile you in many particulars. And is it not better to do that willingly, which otherwise you will be forced unto; and to do it quickly, when it is so that you must do it, not being able to avoid it, and when yee have done it, will give you a great joy? viz. that yee are rid of that infinite toyle of the pricks and poynts, whereupon you set your hope as upon that which would lead you through all difficulties and doubts, though as yet they never performed any such thing in matters of consequence, (where your rea∣son could not have led you thorough without them) but only in easy things, where reason would have done

you as good service, and that with as much ease too; But if it bee so that yee did never (and as yet are loath to) try your reason, nor will grant that those (which have done, and do use theirs,) can see as much nay more with reason (though without these pricks) than you without it (though having them.) I say plainly, you are no reasonable Crea∣ture.

Therefore these following Nounes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are ordinarily plurall (and so without anomaly) and so Aquilas (in his Calde Parastase) renders them. And yet Rase or R Slomo Yarkhi takes them all for singular with a yod superfluous, as hee writes upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Es. 20:14. which is with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 movable, because the letter before it (as it is also in all thother Nounes) hath a fatah sounding, ay: And so Buxtorf hath it in his Grammar and Concor∣dance; yet in his great Bible, as also in the King of Spains Bible, with the interlineary translation of Pagninus the letter before it hath a zere e, whereby that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes to bee quiescent: the Masoretic note 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it is not found in Scripture any more is true, whither yee poynt it with fatah or zere. Therefore I pray answer mee to one question: doe you thinke, that the Bible is now utterly spoyled, because it hath a zere and not a fatah? if you do, then let all Buxtorfs, the Kings of Spaines Bible and many other Editions, (which I doubt, will not have observed this fatah) be burned, nay if yee will be so zealous, and punctuall, we shall not leave one Bible in all the World, which would bee the ruine both of Jewes and Christians. Or if you thinke, that you cannot understand that place, except it be pointed with a fatah, who doe you thinke is in the right

Aquilas or Rase, Buxtorf or Aben Esra, for hee will also have them for the most part to bee singular, which hee makes very plaine by shewing that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shaday is joyned with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bo an affix sin∣gular in the 96, Psa. 12. vers and that by that generall Grammar rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent, doe alter among themselves without changing either the Root, signi∣fication, or forme of the word, whither singular or plurall, &c.

Now if others as Rase say, it is a yod formative and not superfluous, they have as much reason. And be∣sides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the first word in the first Psal. in Ebrue, and Calde) in Arabic are both pricked with a farah, and is set by all the Arabic Grammarians for the singular feminine, vix. A blessing, goodnesse, felici∣ty prosperity, And where is than that filly observation of a Ebrisme, blessednesses in the plurall So rendred by men, that are not throughly grounded in this Ori∣entall tongue, but sing and prate like Parats, ne∣ver learning well that which they were taught; So that you may see either of these three letters are the note of the plurall, yet with this caution, 1. That you must not bee punctuall upon the poynts. 2. That yee must not bee punctuall in saying it is either the plurall or singular, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is added. Whither it bee a superfluous or formative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and finally, whither it bee the third Radicall, or (that being cast away) the yod servile: but rather bee content. 1. To reade it as it pleaseth you. 2. To understand it in either number, singular or plurall: and if the sense wil clearly have it, to be singular, then let it be so, if plurall, then let it be plurall, and that will make an end of many thousands of questions and disputes, or endlesse doubts.

Rule 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Is for the most part (and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also sometimes) put after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 formative or superfluous in singular, and plurall.

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is constant in Calde, Syriac, Arabic and E∣tiopic, in the duall and plurall number, but in the Ebrue the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is more frequent, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with divers others; yet many times you shall finde them in the Ebrue Bible with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even as they are in the other Dialects, as for example 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and compounded as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Benya∣myn a Sonne of old age, Gen. 35:16. as it is exprest Gen. 37:3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This paragogic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is therefore. 1. After 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the duall, and Plurall of Nounes, 2. After 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the plu∣rall of Verbs whither present, future or preter: and in the Arabic after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 formative of the plurall as well in Nounes as Verbs as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ragilûn men. 3. After 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the duall Number of Nounes and Verbs in the present (or imperative Mood) and future Tense of Arabic. 4. After 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the singular present and future.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Is onely in the Noune duall and Plurall (ending in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in the Ebrue Dialect; Now because these mems & nuns are only additions, it makes no anomaly, when they are left out in any of the Dialects: but on the contrary the irregularity lies in these superfluities, and the re∣gularity or Analogy in taking them away, as they are most commonly but not alwayes (in such Nounes as follow a Noune of relation to the forgoing) in Ebrue, and Calde: but indeed in Syriac and Ara∣bic it is not considered, as being esteemed an un∣necessary observation. And so wee have in Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 twelve: the Mem remain∣ing in the former word two whereunto ten hath re∣lation to make up twelve, hereunto are to bee re∣ferred

two personall Nounes, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bee, shee which have in the plurall Masculine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Feminine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you, Masculine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fe∣minine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they or both, with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 paragogic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hemmah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hennah (and also hinneh) looke them there: yet in Calde, Syriac and Arabic, nay also in Ebrew this distinction of gender is not observed by mem and nun; mem being now and then found in Feminine, and nun in Masculine. The reason is be∣cause they are onely additionall letters and not for∣matives of the gender, for the distinction thereof is not observed so strictly in this tongue.

Rule. 14. In place of the plurall number (as in all tongues, so in this oriental) the collective singular, are used.

The collective Nounes and Speeches, to wit, when the singular Noune or Verbe is put for the plurall, are naturall in all tongues. And are either in the same tongue, or in translations into any other tongue, rendered by the plurall. As for instance. Worke Gen. 2.2. in the new Testament worke, Ebr. 4 4. and againe the singular Psa. 95.9. in the new Testament, workes Ebr. 3.9. Him the people. Exod. 7.8. the Lxx, and Acts 7.34. them soule Gen. 12.5. Lxx every soule, dweller Gen. 4.20. Lxx dwellers. Heart Psa. 95.8. hearts Ebr. 3.8. Jebusite Gen. 10.16. (Aquilas in Calde) Iebusites: parable, Psal. 78.2. parables Mat. 13.35. (In Ebrue both fingular and plurall, because the fignification is plurall as man, 1 Cor. 10.1. men, 1 Sam. 31.1. Jebufite the inhabitant 2 Sam. 5.6. in∣habitants. 1 Cor. 11.4. enemy, 1 King. 8.37.44. enemies 2 Cor. 6.28.34. spear, 2 Ki. 11, 10. spears. 2 C. 23.9. ship. 1 Kioto. 22 ships, 2 C. 9.21. dweller. 2. Sam. 5.6. dwellert 1. C. 1.4. wizard 2 C. 33.6. wizards. 2. Ki. 21.6. so tree Gen. 3.2. for trees. And figtree in Ebr. alwayes singular, in the English translation is seven∣teene

times rendered in singular, and foure times in plurall, viz. Deut. 8.8. Psa. 10.33. Ier. 5.17. Hos. 2:12. (but that place Nahu: 3.12. speaks not of the tree, as it is falsly rendred, but of the fruit, of the figs themselves, and contrary Num. 20.5. the fruit is falsly taken for the tree, as it was rightly taken, Deut. 8.8.) Leafe Gen. 3.7. for Leaves. And an infinity of such examples more, in all Dialects, in all tongues in our English as frequent, as elsewhere, if it please you to observe it.

In the Syriac and Arabic dialects (because in both there are the collective Nounes as frequent, as these pluralls ending on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Masculine or Feminine.) Those that did formerly put the points unto cer∣taine books, did adde two points as a signe, that it should and must bee taken in the plural, notwith∣standing it be singular by forme. But what must bee done where the poynts are not added? Truly I would not alwayes rely upon him (in poynted books) that hath I know not what skill in the tongue, nor in unpointed bookes despaire of my owne reason, but to use that well I would bestow all diligency, to learne a great quantity of Nounes and Verbs with their significations, and that my greatest study should fiercely fall upon the New Testament, thence to the old; thence to other Authors. In Arabic there hath bin the greatest puzling about this plurall number in the Nounes. And there things were set downe so obscurely, partly by the Arabic Grammarians, who are exceeding large, and unskilfull in this worke, partly by the Christians, as Erpenius, Guadagnolus and some others, that it may bee thought, they left more to bee cleared up, than they cleared in the A∣rabian method, because they gave us their termes, and titles, which are so strange, that no body knowes what to make of them, some Nouns were sound, others

broken, whereof no sound sense can be made at this very day in all England, unlesse it bee by three or foure learned men. The businesse is; what they cald sound, there those three letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were extant in Masculine or Feminine, and do follow the common road of this tongue: and that was easy to bee under∣stood, but what these broken Nounes were, none did understand. I say they are collective Nounes, singular by termination and plurall in fignification. Erpenius sets downe 22 formes of these collective Nounes, but that is a superfluous toyle; because the easinesse of learning them, lies not in knowing their formes, which are the same with the sound Nounes, which in fingular termination have but the fingular significa∣tion, and not plurall; 2. one sound or common singu∣lar, having two or three collective singulars of di∣vers formes, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an ey pl. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a servant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sea. pl. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; nay the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with∣out pricks is a collective plurall, and what distincti∣on then? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a witnesse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a soule 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Boy whence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maid Es. 7.14. The collective is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the same in outward forme with the Feminine a Maid) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here you may say, alas how shall I get out of that mingle mangle of a Boy and Mayd, many and one. I shall helpe you shortly, stay a lit∣tle. Therefore here the knowledge of formes no∣thing helps us, if you know the fignification of every Noune and Verbe, you have before you in the Text. I warrant you, as our English translators could trans∣late Figtrees in plurall in foure places, notwithstand∣ing the Noune bee singular in Ebrew, even so they could do in hundreds of other places, under∣standing the word and context, and seeing by rea∣son,

that the plurall must bee understood; and that not onely the English translators, but every one that did medle with the translation of the Bible either in part or wholly, or did make observations upon the translations; so may you (or any body else, that hath reason) see well enough, when the Text desires singular or plurall, bee they never so much confounded by the termination. And yet here the Arabic Dixionares already extant, and which are to come abroad do helpe and are to helpe you, telling you in every root these formes, wherein besides the common singular the collective plurall are extant, and that is enough. The Masculine or Feminine sex is cleare by the circumstances in persons, and in things is not very necessary. And here yee must know, before wee part, that all these collectives are Feminine, and the refore construed constantly with a Noune or Verbe Feminine singular.

Rule 15. The personall Nounes do yeald one, or two of their Letters to stand in place of themselves.

For the composition of words (therby to avoyd the mul∣titude of words which would otherwise ensue, by fre∣quent repeating the whole Nounes) here is common that contraction which in other tongues is now and then be∣gun, but not finished and constantly used.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any I or me yealds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not onely in Ebrue, Calde, and Samaritic, but also in all the other Dialects, notwithstanding the third radicall as well as the first bee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they retaine the Let∣ter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the syllable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to denote the first per∣son.

2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou (in singular) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Masculine and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Feminine yee (in Plurall) yealds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the third radicall in singular, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Masculine and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fe∣minine in plurall; which being to signify not the personall but possessive Nounes, as in singular thing,

in plurall yours. For distinction sake changes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he, his, him shee her, it, or its, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 masculine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 feminine (in plural) doth yeald in singular either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or both, in plurall they remaine as they are.

4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wee, us, yealds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. our, ours.

5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that, which, hee, who, by casting away the first ladicall Aleph, (according to the 14 rule in in Etymology there remaines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the third radicall whereof (viz res) being either left out in writ∣ing, or cast away their remaines onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the beginning of divers words in Ebrue, Calde and Siriac.

6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Masculine and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, feminine: this, that, these, those, theirs, them. yeald 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yealds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in all the Dialects yea many times it remaines entire in the Bible (but in Arabic most constantly) as Psa. 2.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the truth Ez. 13.11. 13.38.22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the pearle, metaph: the haile as big us pearle, compounded of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 extant in Yob. 28.18. and sundry other examples. The Iewes using constantly (insteede thereof) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Etiopians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Caldeans and Syri∣ans, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Rule 16. Some other words most frequently used in speech do the fame.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vau a hooke (of the first root) signifyes to attend, to long or desire or wish for joyning, comming. fetching; the first letter there of being put before a Noune or Verbe signifying: and, but, both, for, if, and if, namely, or, that, that is, that, which, then, therefore, who and which. To be briefe it denotes all the Greek and Latine conjunctions of whatsoever signification;

whereby you may see the playnnesse of this tongue and the easinesse to know how yee shall tender van in this or has place, it being absolutly left unto your reason, wisdome, and learning so that if you tender it ill the fault is not in the difficulty of this tongue, but in your selfe, viz. your ignorance, and onreason∣able discretion.

2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈…〉〈…〉 (of the 420 〈◊〉〈◊〉) signifyes to lodge, yealds the first better which is put onely her sore a Noune, (never, before a Verbe) and denotes the greatest quantity of prepositions, I will set them downe here in Latine (you may put them into eng∣lish at your leasure) ad, ante, spud, comra, cum, de, e, ex, in, inter, intra, juxta, per, prope, propier, &c. whereby you may see againe the easmere of this tougue.

3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 koh: or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ki: so, why, (of the, 3201 root) it signifyes to cleare, it yealds the first letter and puts it for the most part before a Noune very seldome before a Verbe, it denotes (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) sic ut, quod, uts, sicut, sicuti, silicet; (and before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) si, nisi, quia, liun, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quom, quamvis, nam, cer∣te, &c.

4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Min, of from, (of the 4232 root) it signi∣syes gratiously to give and take, and is placed before any Noune, never before a Verbe, and should bee written apart as it is constantly in other Dialects; onely the Ebrews delighting in a compendious way of writing when they put it before a word do alwayes cast away the nun, (whereunto they seeme to bee cruell enemies) and in compensation of it do double the following letter, which sancy cannot make Ebrew a tongue apart notwithstanding none of the other Dialects do the same, which is easily enough obser∣ved. 1. In regard all the other dialects disclaime it. a Because reason shewes it not to bee a compendium

of such value as to bee worthily esteemed a princi∣ple or a rule, (as some Grammarians have made it) whereby to seperate Ebrue from the other dialects as if it were a tongue a part, and more accurate then the rest.

5. In Arabie (besides these foure) there is an o∣ther word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suf, (from the 7215 root) signifying, further, certainty, and is set either whole before the future, (whereby to restraine it to the determinate signification of a future because other∣wise it would bee now and then taken for a present, or preter.) or the letters su, or s alone, or f onely, signifying further, then, and relates constantly to something which went before, whereby it differs from the plaine vau, which is onely a pure con∣junction.

Observation.

From hence came the occasion of those 11 servill letters, which the Grammarians constantly take by meere accident to be radicall. whereas on the con∣trary wee see them to become servile meerly by accident, viz. upon occasion of the junction of some particular, the most frequent words in this tongue with others lesse frequent, and that in a contract manner. And yet neither are they just 11, for there are two more, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nun and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fe; and in the 19 rule of Etymology wee had, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 res, in the twntieth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 khet, and I am certaine all the Letters of the Alfabet, none excepted, will in such respect bee found servile.

Rule. 17. Nounes and Verbs are distinguished into 7 degrees or orders of an externall forme, and internall signification.

The first order is presented onely by the third ra∣dical, (the serviles of present, preter, and future,

as also of certaine Nounes are not to bee reckoned here) so that naturally there are no serviles be∣tweene them, but all the servils are either after, or before the root, except a superfluous vau betweene the second and third radicall in present, preter, and future.

The second order is the same with the first, onely that it hath the second radicall twice pronounced, and if not twice written, compensed (with an in∣vention called dages and Teshdid,) which in Ebrue is onely a poynt in the middle of the letter, to signify an emphaticall expression.

The third order is the same, onely with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or some one of them) put in betweene the first and se∣cond radicall.

The fourth order is by putting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before the root in present, and pretertence; but in future that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is never, (but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes) expressed, and when neither he nor alef is expressed, then that order (in the externall forme of it) is like unto the first, unlesse vau and yod be now and then put in be∣tweene the second and third radicall, or when the second is alef, vau, or yod, the yod constantly appear∣ing.

The fifth order is the same with the second, onely that it hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prefixed, yet in the future that hee and alef (except it bee alef in the first person) do constantly fall away, and we see by the taw, that the taw is onely the characteristicall letter of this order, because constant in all tenses.

The sixth order is the same with the third onely observing the same things (in generall) that are to be observed in the fifth order.

The seventh order hath nun prefixed before the root; either alone or with the same hee or alef, put before it in the present and pretertense. By the

Jewes the nun is not expressed in future, and pre∣sent, but then the following is for the most part doubled by compensation. The Arabians doe con∣stantly write it, but onely when the first radicall is a nun also, then they write it not, but in stead of it, they double the radicall nun with a marke called Teshdid.

Rule 18. Besides these seven there are six other or∣ders, which because more rare, I put asunder.

The eigth order (but the first of these six) is knowne by putting taw after the first radicall; but when the first radicall is a taw (whither naturall or taken in for sin, whereof is spoken in the 17 rule of Etymology) or alef, vau, yod, when any of these is the first radicall, it is cast away, and the servile taw doubled instead thereof.

The ninth order is the very same with the first, on∣ly that it hath the third radicall doubled either by setting the letter down twice, or else by that marke called Dages or Teshdid.

The tenth order is knowne by putting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ist (an old Arabic and thence a Turkish word signify∣ing desire) before the root; the alef is put away in the future Tense, excepting onely in the first person singular, which will have it even as the fourth Order hath.

The eleventh order is the same with the ninth only it hath alef, vau, or yod, put before the third radicall doubled.

The twelfth order is knowne by putting a vaw (doubled by Dages or Teshdid.) after the second ra∣dicall.

The thirteenth order hath the second radicall doubled and a vaw movable put betweene it,

In the 7.8.9.10.11.12. & 13. Orders there is an alef superfluous in the present and preter, which (as

is said) is cast away in the future (but onely in the first person of the future, whereof it is formative) as well as in the fourth, where the alef (or he) is the Cha∣racter of the order.

Observation.

The signification and speciall respects of each of them in changing the orders belongs properly un∣to the Dictionary (where it must and may bee set downe) and not unto the Grammer; it being alto∣gether unfit and uselesse therein.

Rule 19. The termination of the present, future and preter Tense of any Number and Gender doth hold through all the 13 Orders.

This rule doth shew. 1. That there are no Moods or manners, as indicative, optative, potentiall, and subjunctive, as in Greec and Latine. 2. That there are not 4, 6 or more conjugations in this tongue, as there is in Latine and Greec, where there are divers terminations not onely in the indicative, but also imperative and conjunctive, in active and and passive for those foure or more conjugations. All which is not here in this tongue, where all the Verbs through all the Dialects are formed after one generall, fundamentall, essentiall manner; and the termination of the pretertense is the same for all Verbs through all the 13. Orders, the same in the future and present tense. Nay the terminatives of the present and future being one, there are onely two sorts of terminations through all the 13 orders for all Verbs, through all the six Dialects, one for the present and future, the second for the preter tense. In the present 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the third radicall, in the preter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the third radicall, so that it could not be almost more simple

than it is, except that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might have onely a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which would have beene enough, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 onely either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which would suffice. Nor must yee looke upon the Vowell, (which wee doe not here speake of) but onely upon the letters, neither that the third radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are sometimes cast away, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 changed among themselves, or superfluously added.

Rule 20. The same 13. Orders, belong unto the Nouns as well as Verbs.

That is the greatest task in this Orientall tongue, to sinde out the signification of the Nouns accord∣ing to those thirteene orders, whereof wee say the same, that Seneca did of the Latine Cases of the Nouns, not that every Noun hath them all, but that none have any more. To finde out the reason a pri∣ori, what this or that order signifyes in the Verbs is an easie thing, and what respect, proportion, de∣gree or reason one order has to the other is easier to bee found then in the Nounes. And yet the same is in the Nouns also. Which (as I promised) wee shall observe as in the Verbs, so also in the Nouns, in the following Dictionary; (if the publick wealth and the private aide will sufficiently assist mee in that, which no Learned man, whosoever that hath any understanding in this tongue, and observes the obscurity in the translations of the most excel∣lent places in Scripture, and which are framed by the Holy Ghost in a Poeticall way,) can deny to be the onely way, whereby to cure all these diseases, wherewith our translation is burthened (it being full of non-sense, and falsehoods,) and to advance a more perfect, cleare, certaine, and reasonable knowledge of the whole tongue, (which is not onely Ebrue and Calde, nor yet onely Samaritic, and Syriac, but also Arabic, and Etiopic) both in the

true Grammar and Dictionary, except our Ministers will preach and quote non-sense and falshood, and the Right Honorable the Lords and Commons As∣sembled in the High Court of Parliament, (the ex∣pected Great Reformers of the Church) will not have it otherwise. For many godly Ministers see and finde it well enough, that the translation is as yet very full of non-sense, and almost in every Chapter some falshood, nay very many pious, religious, and onely worthy Members of the Church of England do heartily and instantly wish for this worke, which is as yet not laid to heart, nor so much as once moved to the Parliament. God grant wee may become thankfull after such infinite mercies, and not lay aside, (I will not say trample under our feete,) that exceeding bright shining light of this holy tongue, which God has first allighted in our Neighbour Countries, where they did and doe la∣bour heartily for it, spending not onely much labour, but money also in the midst of the War; that they might have clearer expositions of the Word of God, than heretofore, and do print Ebrue, Calde, Syriac, Arabic Samaritic and Eticpic parts of the Bible, pro∣cure all forts of books in this tongue, entertaine the laborious schollars, nay the best Gentlemen, Princes, Earles, Dukes, States, and Kings have a delight to study or to promote these tongues; and God bles∣ses them and prospers their good and Christian du∣ties and works; whereas we might reape the fruit of their labour without labour, if we will proove living Christians.

APPENDIX OF ANALOGY For the Pricks and Stroaks.

Rules 1. Any of the letters being cast away, are for the most part compensed, or as yet remaining by vertue of Dages and Teshdid.

IN the Orthography it is told us, that there are two conditions, that you must rely upon (in Ebrue, Calde and Arabic) to see the Dages or Teshdid expressed. 1. That the former syllable end upon a Vowell. 2. That the letter which is to have Dages or Teshîd have a vowell, or go to the following letter with a Vowell. If any of those two conditions faile there is no Dages or Teshdid to be expected, and if it be there, it wants almost all its vertue and power. Yet yee must not expect to finde this Dages constantly in any Manuscripts without pricks, and yet you will finde it in some places of those Manuscripts that are written with the least care. And therefore it must be denyed to the Samaritic, Syriac, and Etiopic in some measure, because they have not written it, ex∣cept in Syriac now and then, and in some measure yee must confesse it to be not onely in Syriac (for if it bee but once written in the booke, it is enough to demonstrate that it is extant;) but also in Sa∣maritic and Etiopic to. Wheresoever you finde it in Ebrue, Calde and Arabic, you will either finde it (or else must understand it to be) in Syriac, Sama∣ritic and Etiopic. The profit of this Rule is; that it takes away all these anomalicall examples, in Ebrue

Syriac, Calde, and Arabic, where any Radicall or servil letter is compensed; for than that letter is yet extant, it being onely a compendious way in writ∣ing, not observed in all places or Dialects. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at thou, in Syriac and Arabic ant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mibbne, n Syriac and Arabic min bne.

Rule 2. The Dages or Teshdid is either characteristi∣call, eufonic, or superfluous.

This Rule is by all Grammarians given in Ortho∣graphy, where it is not proper. For I would onely know of them whither a beginner bee able to reade Ebrue, &c. without this distinction; or whither he must needs know it? I am sure hee may read Ebrue, Calde Syriac and Arabic without it. And why than must it bee put there, where nothing is taught, but onely that which belongs to reading. Tell the beginner, that Dages and Teshdid double the letter, and thou hast done all that is needfull in Orthography. But as for Analogy, here these differences, (if there bee any) which expresse the inward nature of it, are to be set downe. And for that purpose, the Gram∣marians have allowed unto Ebrue and Calde, a com∣pensative, a characteristic and an Euphonic, where∣unto R. D. Qimhi in his mielol puts one which hee calls Atemerakhiq, a forraigner, stranger, comming from forraigne unexpected, unprovided way of rea∣son. The Eufonic is by Erpenius subdistinguished into Deltale, Lambdale and Initiale. Deltale is the Teshdid upon the letter t after the letter d without a Vowell. Lambdale is upon the teeth and tongue letter after the letter l in the personall Noune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (ille, a, ud) without a Vowell. Initiale or that Teshdid written upon the first letter, is onely upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when the letter n is the last without a Vow∣ell in the foregoing word, either expresse or in the Vowell, an, on, in. And thus much they say.

I give my judgement thus, that I esteeme, the title of compensative to bee superfluous, it being the nature or intention of all the species of Dages and Teshdid to compense the letter before, left out in writing or pronounciating, with doubling of that fol∣lowing letter, that hath a Vowell.

The characteristic is onely that which is written in the second Radicall when the first is not cast a∣way; and that both in Nounes and Verbs in the second, fifth, ninth, and eleventh order. Now this is also compensative, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are onely for a compendious writ∣ing contracted into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not for any vertue residing in this Da∣ges or Teshdid. Whereby is to be observed. 1. That the title of characteristic is not necessary. 2. That this doubling of the second and third radicall is a meere accident. And therefore in thousands of Ebrue, Calde, Syriac and Arabic words left away. 3. That the doubling of the second or third radicall dependeth upon the pleasure of the Reader 4. That leaving the Dages or Teshdid out of the second or third Radicall the first, second and ninth Order hath one and the same externall forme; and hence it is that there are so few examples for the ninth order in Ebrue, where notwithstanding there are some. 5. The same reason may bee given for Syriac where there are none, because Dages is almost never writ∣ten. 6. That there is no essentiall alteration in the signification of the word with or without the Dages or Teshdid characteristic. 7. Why some word have the same letter doubled, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yisshakar which is now in the Ebrue Bible 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to bee read yisshashkar; the name of the fifth son of Jacob by Leah. And so in many other words. 8. That this doubling of a letter is used in every tongue (as well

as in this primitive,) where a man will expresse∣some emfaticall pronunciation. 9. That a man may easily adde such an emfaticall pronunciation unto the Ebrue, when hee observes the matter, as Jud. 14: 6. of Simson when hee with force tore in peeces the Lion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the puncta∣tours considering, (to expresse that force) did write the radicall twice, or which is the same, did prick it, to be pronounced twice. And so far of the characteristicall dages or Teshdid

The Eufonic is no new species of Dages, or Tesh∣did, because every one of them are for eufony in the sweet pronunciation with an emfaticall expression. Here is to bee observed that the Grammarians call that Dages or Teshdid (in the third radicall eufonicr which I call characteristic, Erpenins compensative. Compensative and Eufonic are generall names, ap∣pliable also to the characteristic. Therefore is it not to bee esteemed, as if I were at variance with them. That which Qimhi cals Ate merakhiq, is also eufonic. not contradistinct unto it; and is the same, which otherwise the Grammarians call Dages lene in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b g d k f t, when the forgoing word ends on a Vowell with or without an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quies∣cent intercurring. As for instance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hayahbbayyôm, which quiescent h doth nothing against that eufonic joyning of these two words by this Da∣ges, falsly cald lene: and this Qimhi calls atemerakhiq, when it is in any other letter besides bgdkft, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mahzzôt Ashitalli Lamma Lo Higgadtalli. What neede is there to call this Dages by a new fancied name out of the Calde Dialect, when it is the same with that falsly esteemed lene? Further that which Erpenis cals eafonic, 1. In 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is cald Dages lene in

Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saqatta or faqadta) I call superfluous. Because it is of no purpose in the pronunciation of it. 2. After n without a Vowel in lvnmir, is the same with the other letters bgdkft, for if t after d without a Vowell receives a Dages or Teshdid the other five, viz. bgdkf in Ebrue and Calde, and six more. viz. lvnmyr in Arabic do so also. Ergo that lene is not only in six, but 12. letters. And if it be not lene but forte in Arabic, neither is it in Ebrue, but forte. 3 five letters more (besiders some of those 12) have it after l (of the personall Noune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) without a Vowell. Ergo summa summarum, that Dages lene, or superfluous is in 17 letters if yee will pronounce the letter before, which by the Arabians is not always left away, as Erpenius and others teach.

Rule 3. There is a certaine Analogy of the five Vowels.

The paradigmes of Ebrue, Calde, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic in Nounes, and Verbs made with the Vowels or pricks, will give these particulars 1 That you may observe in every Dialect which let∣ter hath a Vowell, and which hath not. 2. Whi∣ther it hath a, e, i, o, or u. 3. That the uncertainty of them in the severall Dialects doth shew their fallibil∣ty. 4. That the rules in Ebrue, Calde, Syriac, Ara∣bic and Etiopic are too many. 5. That Arabic hath a Vowell on a letter, where Ebrue, &c. hath none. 5. and Ebrue, &c. hath it where the Arabic hath none. 6. That this generall variation (when the essenci∣alls are unanimous) sheweth these pricks to be on∣ly accidentals. 7. That that rule or observation which sets downe diversity of Vowels, Accents, or Dages, in any of these Dialects for distinction sake, is not sound. 8. That it is convenient for beginners to know these paradigmes, as a helpe for hereafter to read without these Vowels. That there is some

small accidentall agreement in these pricks in some certaine words throughout every dialect; And ther∣fore the Analogy of the place of these pricks, (that is, either this or that Vowell stands for the most part in this or that dialect) is to bee set downe. 10. That this Anomaly ought to bee distinguished from the Analogy. And many such other observations, which may be deduced out from them by a diligent and industrious minde and memory. The speciall explication of every dialect I will set downe here as short as may bee, and give some reasons for these alterations, which I use, (and have formerly intro∣duced,) to the end, you may observe, that I con∣stantly intend and indeavour a facility.

Of the Paradigme for Ebrue.

OF the seven Orders of the Verbs and Nounes I have spoken before. These seven Orders become so many rather by the pricks, than consonants, or letters. In the present Masculine singular the se∣cond radicall hath onely a Vowell, and that three∣fould, a, e (whereunder is comprehended i) or o (whereunder is placed u) for the expressing where∣of you have fatah, zere, and Holem in the poynt of sin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By this multiplication of the Vowell under the second radicall is taken away many hundred anomalicall observations extant by Buxtorf, and the greatest part of the Grammarians, who setting only fatah, the examples of zere and Holem must neces∣sarily become anomalies. The same holdes in the future, and in the pretertense, so long as the accent is at that second radicall. So is it than, that the first and third Radicall for the most part hath not a vowel nor accent. The same variation of the second radicall, doth hold in the first and third, if it receaves

a Vowell: the variation thereof will bee generally under any letter whatsoever, yet which Vowels are the most frequent in the Ebrue Bible, you see out of the Paradigme. Onely you must remember that this extends onely unto Ebrue, not to Calde, Syriac, Etiopic and Arabic. For in these dialects the chang∣ings and variations are a great deale lesse frequent, then in Ebrue; as for instance, that the letter hath never a sva movable, but alwayes a Vowell: that the letter hath neither constantly a gezm or sva quiescent, but in many places in steed of that, a Vowell. So that all these petty observations, which Buxtorf and the rest have in a great quantity, con∣cerning the Vowels (not the letters) and accents, are not considerable. Under the name of the in∣finitive onely in the first order there are expressed formes of a Noune, that you may see and observe the same multiplication in the following orders. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. six with the qamez under the first radi∣call six with zere, six with Hireq. &c and in so doing wee have brought in the greatest part of all the forms of the Nounes, which are to bee found in qimbi his miklôl, and in Abram de Balmes, nay many of these also, which Buxtorf and other Grammarians thinke to be meere Rabbinicall and Talmudicall, not Bibli∣call formes of them, an opinion of no worth, be∣cause false, among whom there are many of those, which miklôl has as Biblicall formes of Nounes. And in truth, whatsoever Author teacheth and speaketh of the Rabbinicall and Talmudicall Dialects, and thinkes those formes and many other things do not belong to the Ebrue, and doth include the Ebrue into so narrow a compasse as the Bible, hee sees not that formes of words (Nounes and Verbs, Frases

and Speeches) may bee Latine and of the true Latine tongue, though not extant in Cicero: and the same of Greeke words not extant in Demosthe∣nes.

In this Paradigme of the seven first orders you may see the distinction of Active and Passive onely in the second and fourth Order, by the distinct prick un∣der the first Radicall in the second, and the servile of the fourth Order. And according to the receaved rule and opinion of all Grammarians, the present passive in the second and fourth Order is left away. Yet the reason given by them, because it is impos∣sible or at least improper in the passive to be comman∣ded by himselfe, is false, whereas wee finde. 1. Nif∣qad to be for the most part (as all Grammarians, agree) the passive of qal, or the first Order, and yet it hath a present commanding or imperative. And it hath the same among the Arabians. 2. Hitpael or Hitfaqqed, Hitlatthas, the fifth Order (by all the forgoing Authors the fourth conjugation ('is to have the active signification, and reciprocall; and yet we finde many places of Scripture, where it is the passive; nay the reciprocall signification is that which is both active and passive, as, I love my selfe, there I am the same man that loves, and is beloved: so that in this forme the Arabians looke more for the pas∣sive signification, then the active, using it almost constantly for the passive: and notwithstanding all this, it hath the second person of the present com∣manding or the imperative in singular and plurall, not onely in Ebrue, but also in Calde, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic. Whence it is clear and evident that, that exception of the Ebrue Grammarians, that only Pual and Hofal (as they call the second and fourth Order) because pasive have no imperative, is false, I warrant you, if nifal & hitpaelitpeal and itpael in Ebrue, Calde,

and Syric, and tefaal in Arabic may have the pre∣sent commanding being passive, then pual and Hofal may have it to.

In the Nounes there is not that diversity introdu∣ced by the Grammarians, notwithstanding in all tongues, the Nounes appellative or substantive are of divers sorts, 1. The ability of the act, to write or drinke. 2. The act it selfe. Writing or drinking. 3. The actor, writer, drinker. 4. The abstraction of the act, drunkennesse, and by Analogy, writnesse. 5. The instrument wherewith is acted, ink, drinke. 6. The place appointed or accustomary to the action, whereunto in English for the most part is added house, place, room, yet in some words the very latine termination of it is taken as Oratorium, and Oratory, au∣ditorium an auditory, so by Analogy printery, writery, drinkery. 7. The inclination in a person, drunkard, sluggard, by Analogy writard, or with a circunscrip∣tion by adding the word Master, whoremaster, &c. 8. The abstraction of that inclination; as wee say hardnesse, so drunkardnesse, sluggardnesse, writhardnesse. 9. Speciall Man, Woman, Husband, Wife, Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Son, Daughter, Child, &c. 10. individuall, Adam, Havva, Qayin, He∣bel, Sêt, Enós, Ada, Zilla, Lemek, &c.

Now as all these are in many tongues clearly distinguished by divers formes, so were it well, if our Grammarians or the Jewes had done so; but because they have not done it, therefore it followes not, that wee must leave it undon. And yet if this tongue doth not afford a cleare distinction of forms by this or that Letter and Vowell unto every sort, as wee see, other tongues do not, why should wee than be so mightily vexed with neere 350, or 400 formes of Nounes, the greatest part whereof are set down by Qimhi in his Miklôl, the rest by others,

as well Jewes as Christians; or at least with those, 311. formes, or severall scapes of dwelling-houses of the Nounes, which are divided into 26 streets by A∣braham de Balmes p. h. 8. li. 25. & 28. when these things are meerly superfluous, if they do not so much as distinguishe unto us 10 or 12 sorts of severall ac∣cidents of a signification of the root, except to do that, whereunto hee leades us by his Motto, (which doth comprehend the number of 311, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉), which is seven times in the Bible,) to set all these 26 streets and 311 Houses on a lusty huge, great fire, (as the name of the Lord in little lesse than a blasphemy is taken by these Jewes, to inlarge, and amplify a thing by) and to make a good fire at the victory of such a terrible enemy.

The speciall Analogy in Ebrue, is to be observed in these following joynts.

1. Qamez the long a, is for the most part found in the Noune of the first Order, under the first Ra¦dicall, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the second of the whole first preter tense, without or with the affix letters of the personall Nounes as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These are the examples of the first preter with qamez, when they receave the personall Nouns

by their letters onely, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have a long qamez a, as all other persons in that first preter without the affixes, but with the affixes they yeeld constant∣ly no qamez, (and therefore left it away,) except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has a qamez a in any person, but that comes not within the compasse of the first second or third Radicall.

Except where the second radicall hath a kholem, there it turnes into a short qamez o, because the mediator doth fly from the second to the third. As for instance, under the second radicall k 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the preter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yakôl we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ex. 18.23. vyacolta 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Esa. 13.5. the reason of that changing of the o long in a short o, I give, because the mediator accent doth leave the Vowell: and in the manuall concordance in Ebrue it will be plainly seene, whither a verbe hath really or is capable to have the kholem at the second radicall, which is easily seene, if it have kholem in any Person, number, Tense, Order and Gender, at least in one place, for then it may have it in all places.

2. This long qamez is in the whole first preter without affixes, as yee see in the paradigme. 3. The same in nifal the seventh present and future under the first radicall, as is also to be seene by the paradigme. 4. Under almost any letter following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and fre∣quently following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as you partly see by the para∣digme in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And an abun∣dance of such examples through the whole para∣digma.

Zere a long e; 1. Under the second radicall of whatsoever verbe, conjugation or order, tense, per∣son, number, and gender. For what I sayd of qamez, and of kholem, the same I say of zere. If yee finde onely one example among a hundert in the Bible through all the orders, &c. which hath a zere, that is warrant enough to admit it in all the rest of the places and persons, if it please you, for this liberty is used in all the rest of the Dialects; so that yee need not feare to wrong the tongue: and good rea∣son for it: such a foundation being layd by God in nature for a variety of pronunciation of every tongue (not onely of tongues, 5.6. 700 or a 1000 miles distant from each other, but even in every tongue) insomuch that there is not one tongue under the Sun, that doth not change within every 20 miles (I confesse insensible,) but sensible within 40, or 50, and odde miles; which holdes also in this Orien∣tall tongue; whence it is, that this primitife mo∣ther tongue to whole Africa, and a fifth part of Asia being but one and the same, and seeing that the greatest changing and alteration of the sound (be∣sides the letters) being in the vowells and that within so narrow a compasse, viz. onely five, a, e, i, o, u, it is no wonder at all, that there is a greater harmony of the very vowels, (being onely the 19^th part of the Alfabet) then is believed or e∣steemed.

Secondly, Zere before the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a note of the plurall (the duall included) in such words, as have relation to the following, where the m and n being ordinarily superfluous as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 malke haarez the Kings of the Earth are cast away: which the Gra∣marians call in statu constructo. But without vowels there is no matter, whither yee pronounce, e or i,

even as wee see in Latine it selfe such a variation of a, e, i, pango, pepigi, compingo, compegi, in one and the same word changing a, e, i.

Thirdly, Zere is under the first radicall, where the second being the same with the thirdis cast a∣way, and that in the fourth order 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yassêb: because the root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but this holdes not con∣stantly, for there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yassim yirm. 49.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vannassîm, Num. 21.30. and yet the root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And some such more. Whereby wee see, that even this observation of the Grammarians about zere, is not constant. And the truth is, there is not one constant without exceptions, whereby wee see the instability of them, the inconstancy of those that did put these pricks unto the Bible. And good reason for the anomaly of this third is, because the second radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is of the neerest kindred with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as wee told in Etymology rule 14.

3. Hireq the long i is under the second radicall, in the fourth order active as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hilthis or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 malthis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 David or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And this the Grammarians take to bee constant in the roots that have the second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But in the same conjugation wee have the present commanding for the most part with zere; and in Syriac and Arabic the second radicall hath in that fourth Order a. e, i, o, as well in active as passive. And that neither acci∣dentally, but one and the same root in Ebrue, Calde, Syriac and Arabic hath frequently one and the same vowell in the second radicall in the fourth Order: ergo all the variation is here without prejudice unto Ebrue because it is without prejudice in Arabic: and

as the Arabic hath a, so the Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 higlah, so that zere or hireq is not the characte risticall vowell of this order in active.

Second, under the letter before the following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ser∣vile in plurall, (duall encluded) out of constructi∣on, as they call it, that is when the following sub∣stantive hath no relation to this foregoing, or stands absolutly for it selfe as for instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m l a k i m Kings. Yod is the true formative of the plu∣rall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 onely the paragogic: and in such a case wee have a long hireq before the Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent: yet one word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 masculine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 feminine two, hath a zere. Nay where that yod is left away as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and sometimes a segol or short e as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otherwise written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which, with many other examples wee see a vari∣ety, which teaches us, not to stand too precisly upon pricks.

The same hireq we have also when a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 followes a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Holem first, with a following vau quiescent either radicall or servile, 1. After the first radicall through∣out the third and sixth Order as well in Nounes as Verbs. 2. Before the vau quiescent in the plurall Feminine (a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the most part following) or mas∣culine a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 paragogic following as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; both the quiescent vaus have a kholem before them. Thirdly, after the second radicall in the present com∣manding, future and preter tense as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fqôd visit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 efqôd I will visit, I do visite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yacôl hee may or can; yet this vau is superfluous and should not be there.

Secondly, without a following vau quiescent, as 1. In all present, future, and preters in all Orders, and persons, and members, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 efqôd is better written than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. but where the se∣cond radicall hath ormay have a kholem wil be easily seene in the Ebrew concordance, for if wee have but one example, that will shew for all the rest, and in Arabic there are many Dictionaries onely for that purpose to shew what verbs, whither perfect or im∣perfect have a fatah a, or Kesra e, or damma o, in which vowell Ebrue, Calde, Syriac, and Arabic do marveilously agree. And in many other places.

Sureq is never written without Vau, from whence many times a confusion of Roots pro∣cedeth, the Vau sureq servile not being discern∣able from the Radicall, where it comes to passe that many Grammarians, and all Dictionary writ∣ters, none except, have set downe false roots. Now whereas the root is as it were the House, wherein a certaine signification doth constantly dwell, and is not to bee found else where, it must necessarily follow, that when the root is mistaken, the significa∣tion must be mistaken also. Therefore I set downe first the sureq as without that vau. 1. In the letter vau servile, signifying all sorts of conjunctions be, fore a word beginning from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vu∣bderek, and in the way. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vumiyyôm and from the day. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vufetakh, and the doore. 2. In the formative Letter vav of the plurall number in the verbs as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 la thsu where the poynt sureq should stand before the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 belonging to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sin, not to vau. 3. When that letter is the third radi∣call: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tohu, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bohu, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayyis

tákhu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hit-u. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 higlu. 4. When it is the servile at the end of a Noune, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 malkû. 5. Where the second radicall is vau, in all the first Order, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aqûm, &c. 6. When it is el∣ther betweene the second and third radicall, the second and servile, (the third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being cast away) or the third and servile. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lathûs 7. When it is in the first Radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ucàl J can. 8. When it is before the first radicall at the servile letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the fourth Order pas∣sive as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 huqam, where that vau is clearely superfluous, and should not be there. And in many other places.

Fatah: first, under the Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 demonstratives as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hayyom to day, this day. 2. under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put away, for yet understood, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bayyôm, cayyôm, layyôm. 3. Un∣der the servile letter before the root in the present and suture of the fourth order active. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 halthis, althis. 4. Under the first radicall in the second present and future active, in all the fifth order. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 latthes, alatthes, hitlatthes, etlatthes, under the second radicall of any Verbe, Order, Tense, Person and Number. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lathàs, &c. 6. Before the yod in duall with an accent, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 samáyim. 7. Under the second radicall in some (though few) Nouns. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dbas Hony 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mah. 8. Before the affix 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an accent very frevently 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

fqadáni. 9. Before a letter with a sva fatah, its let∣ter being to give a sua or short hireq, and no other Vowell, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rakhazu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rikhzu. And in many other places. Segol. 1. under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the preformative of the first person, in the first and seventh future. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 elthas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ellathas. 2. In Nounes it is very frequent in the last syllable. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sefer. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yrusalem. 3. In some few Verbs, in lac of zere under the second radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kiffer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kib∣bes. Yet constantly in the future, when the third radicall is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yaashèh. 4. Before the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ser∣vile which is afformative of the Feminine Gender. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nkhoset frequently also a double segol before it, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mneqet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 foqedet, and in many Nounes, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 melek. And in other places.

Rule 4. The greatest Anomaly is in Ebrue, in the rest of the dialects there is lesse according to the quantity of the vowel prics.

This part of the inward variance, anomaly, or mutation of poynts and prics, which are wrongly cald vowels, dependeth in method upon Orthografy in matter upon Orthografy and analogy. The me∣thod of their variance arises from their variety in Orthografy, from whence it comes that where there are fewest, there is the easier and lesse variance. In Arabic where there are onely three vowels and one sua, it is impossible that the anomaly of them should be so great, as that of the Ethiopians and Syriac, where there are six or five, and the Caldeans, where there are as many as in Ebrue, but yet without in∣tent of such a strictnesse, as is observed by the Iewes, where the fifteene pricks are divided into three

orders, long, short, and shortest, for certaine severall uses, not observed in Calde Orthografy.

The Anomaly of them in Ebrue.

This is threefold, 1. When any one long vowell is changed for any other long vowell: as for in∣stance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bên, a son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 banim, sonnes. Nor is it needfull to make a new and unusuall singular, (so cald, because never found in the Ebrue Bible) as R. D. qimhi in his Miklôl in this and many other ex∣amples would have it, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, baneh item, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fen, a face, (whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fen, least otherwise) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fa∣nîm from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faneh, because this permutation of ē into ā will do as much as a coyne of a new unufuall singular: the like is in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rôs a Head, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rasim, Heads. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ir a City, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arim and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ayarîm Cities.

2. Or short for short. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lekhem and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Calde, Syriac and Arabic also hath, whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bêt lákhem from Betlehem. Lemek & Lamek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3. Or the shortest among themselves, the fingle instead of the compound, or compound instead of the single: or one compound in stead of ano∣ther.

Yet to speake more fully of every one, wee shall follow the orders layd downe in Orthografy, viz. qamez, zeri, hirek, the long kholem surek, fatah, segol, hireq the short, qomez the short, qubbuz, sva, sva fatah, sva segol, sva qomez.

1. Qamez for zere, and zere for qamez in one and the same word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rasim, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

resit, the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath both a and e, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bayit, pl. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 battim, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the affixes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beti, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bêtkà.

2. Qamez for Hireq, and Hireq for qamez both long. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rasim and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rison, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ir and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arîm. Item where there should be a hireq (as under the second radicall in the fourth order active) when the thi•• Radical is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

3. Qamez, for Holem, and Holem for qamez. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rôs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rasîm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enôs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anasim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ziffôr, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ziffarîm. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 misôr, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mesarîm.

4. Qamez for surek, and sureq for qamez. In the first person of the future. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ucàl and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aqul here the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath a or u: so under the same ra∣dicall in divers tenses, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qâm, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, qúm.

5. Zere for hirek the long, and hireq the long for zere. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hafqed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hafqîd. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tomêk 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tomick, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yosef, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yosif, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 misor and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mesarim.

6 Zere for Holem, and Holem for zere. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rôs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 resit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 êt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ôt (whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oti, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otkà 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otâm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otân, &c.

7. Zere for sureq, and sureq for zere. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faqed and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faqûd. Which two formes have one and the same signification.

8 Hireq the long for Holem, and Holem for Hireq the long. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 môt, mors, mortis, with an inter∣position

of r, more, death, and in many other places and formes that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Hireq, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hemît. And ma∣ny more.

9. Hireq the long for sureq, and sureq for Hireq the long, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rakhîm, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rakhúm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faqid, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faqud, which two formes have one and the same signification.

10. Holem for sureq and sureq for Holem, is the last among the long Vowels, and is very frequent. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yarôm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yarûm Because that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth quiesce both in o and u.

There are ten changings also among the short vow∣els where either two sorts of short vowels are found either in divers formes, at the same letter, or in the same forme at the same letter.

1. Fatah for segol and segol for fatah. Here all the Grammarians do give many examples; especially if the last or one before the last be a guttural letter, and the accent at the syllable before the last: in place of one or two segols is for the most part a fatah and do call that a fata vicar for segol, wheras they should call all Vowels vicar, none of them being exempt from that changing, as we saw in the long.

2. Fatah for short Hireq, and short Hireq for Fatah As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and all those, that have the first radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3. Fatah for short qomez or qubbuz, and short qomez or qubbus for fatah is not frequent but rare: except in the active of the second order, where there is fa∣tah or short hireq, in the passive there is qubbuz at the first radicall, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fiqqad, pass. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fuqqad.

An unnecessary alteration because of the vowels, our reason discernes the gender.

4. Segol for short hireq, and hireq for segol. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this permutation is constant in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh future, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath segol, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hireq. Except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in all the Verbs that have the first radicall vau and yod.

5. Segol for short qomez or qubbuz, and short qomez, or qubbuz for Segol is not frequent, but rare: The examples of that alteration yee must put here∣in.

6. Short hireq for short qomez or qubbuz, and the short qomez or qubbuz, for the short hireq. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. B N Adde hereto

Fatah for segol p. 217. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the letter Rês wil have it also, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the last 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 regards it not, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also cares not for it sometimes, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 never, but sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the fatah before the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being made long for any great vowell sake, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fre∣quently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seldom. By these many examples, you see that whither you read a or e: it is all one. And, segol for fatah: when the gutturall Letters have a long a, or sva qamez. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with fatah, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath no qamez ā. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which be∣fore the Nounes hath for the most part qamez not

segol. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and many more. By which you may againe perceive the liberty yee have to pronounce, and to poynt otherwise than the bible now is in every word, there being almost none ex∣ample for any forme, person, tense, or order, where yee will not easily finde many exceptions. And I wonder that all the learned men should not have bin able to make that necessary conclusion out of such an innumerable multitude of anomalicall puncta∣tions, that there was no neede at all to seeke for and observe that punctation.

The shortest do interchange among themselves. 1. Under gurturall letters in place of a single sva is assumed a compounded. Instead of fqod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first letter (without a vowell) because no gutturall hath no compound but a single sva; whereas in the same forme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath sva fatah, because gutturall: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sva segol, because gutturall; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fri, fruyt with a single sva, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kholi, with a sva qemez, (because a gutturall letter,) in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 khli. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adonay because gutturall hath sva fatah, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yhovah, because no gutturall, a single sva. That name doth not so much as once take the vowels or pricks of the name adonay, neither doth adonay ad∣mit of these belonging to yhovah: there being a great diversity betweene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yhovah and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adonay, as there is betweene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abôd to perish, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 elôh God, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fqod to visite, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thom, an abysse. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bahovâh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lahováh hath not the points of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for then it must

be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so wee never finde is, nor is it regular∣ly capable of these poynts; but looses its single sva, and the letter before hath fa ah for hireq onely by permutation of one short vowell for another. Where with wee determine that great question about the pronounciation of the name yhovah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saying, that it hath alwayes its owne vowels, and never those of adonay, nor doth it loose a compound but a single sva in the compositions with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (and those who say it hath the pricks of adonay are either blinde, or unskilfull in Grammar;) and therefore it is never to be pronounced adonay, nor to bee esteemed un∣utterable by the pricks, it hath, or by the losse of its proper pricks, which are as proper now to it, as zere and Hireq were or are to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 brefit, and so, no ignorance, nor mystery is there to bee conceaved about the pronounciation of it. And if the Jewes did it because they would not have that name profained by pronouncing it, then is it partly à childish, (nay impious) invention, where the command of God Almighty for not profaining is precedent, and more binding the consciences, part∣ly blasphemous, striving thereby never to have it pronounced at all, whereas God forbids onely the irreverent and vaine using thereof. But to ex∣communicate them that should offer to pronounce it, as if they (by the abolition of Gods proper Name out of mens hearts) desired to pull the very memory of God himselfe out of the heart of men, that God forbid wee Christians should allow of in them or us, or any sort of people.

Secondly, instead of one compound sva, there is another by the same pronunciation. As for instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and once 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rest alwayes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Thirdly, in many places under these gutturall letters there is a single sva in place of a compound, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Fourthly, under a non gutturall à compound for a single sva, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and many others. The use whereof is, that this sva whither single or compound is a meere fancy, without any the lest use, as being in none of all the tongues in the World, ex∣cept brought here into by these Jewsh dreamers and high philosofers in needles things.

The second degree is the true mutation for neces∣sity sake, and is fourefold, a long vowell is precise∣ly changed into its contrary short one, viz ā in ā, ē, ē, i, i, ō, ō, ū, ū:

1. When that syllable which was a long one, he comes a short one. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ba 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bul: as for instance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bhēmāh: the long syllable mā, becomming mat instatu constructe, (or with a relation to the following word) getting in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bhemat: and againe the first long bhē, becomming bhem, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bhem tka gets a segol: the reason is, because the long syllable becomes a short, therefore the long vowell a short.

2. Constantly, a short vowell becomes long, when the short syllable becomes long. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bal into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ba, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bel into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bil into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bel into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bul into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bu. As for instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fa qad with the affix 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fqa do. Also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 written with the sva expressed or understood under the finall non gutturall letters, but never under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when a long vowell goeth before, but when a short one preceeds it, is there also understood. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ehyeh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Againe the long vowell becomes short.

Thirdly, when standing in a short syllable with a Mediator, that Mediator doth sall away: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bil into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bêl into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bîl into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bôl into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bol, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bûl into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bul. For instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the accent being taken away by the following maqqef. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 côl becom∣ming 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 col.

Again 4. the short vowel becomes a long if either the Mediator leave its syllable, or being a lower, do be∣come one of the higher degrees, which they call the kingly accents: as for instance; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hassamayim, the accent is Mediator, and therby the short vowell is able to make up a long syllable: but in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has∣samayma: the same Mediator is a great Duke, cald atnakh, hence the short vowell is changed into a long: so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faqad with a Kingly accent is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faqâd. In statu constructo, (or in relation to the fol∣lowing substantive.) he accent is understood to bee gone, which is all one, as if it were really gon, and hath the same vertue, notwithstanding the accent be present. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in∣stead

of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 becomming 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because the quiescent letter makes the vowell long for long to change by permutation.

Observation.

WHere this downe right opposite change (from a long a, into a short a, or short into long) is not found, but some other not so opposite, as for example e, i, o, u, for a, or a, i, o, u, for e, or a, e, o, u, for i, or a, e, i, u, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a, e, i, o, for u, yee must con∣ceave first that the downe right opposite mutation hath beene there, and then that the other permuta∣tion came in, and brought an e, i, o, u, for a: a, i, o, u, for e: a, e, o, u, for i: a, e, i, u, for o: a, e, i, o, for u: and then the thing is well, and rules remaine con∣stant.

Foure exceptions about the Rule.

As the true mutation is sourefold, so the excepti∣on is foure fould. 1. Where a short vowell (with∣out a following moveable letter in the same syllable, or without dages, or an accent mediator,) absolves a long syllable: as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by permutation of a short fatah for a short hireq. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. N. B. that false conceit of the Gram∣marians, as if all the compound svas were movable, viz. constantly to go to the following letter, hath made them to put a meteg by the short vowell be∣fore, whereby they raise another errour, teaching that meteg hath the same authority, that the true accents have, viz. to keepe short vowells in a long syllable by its mediation, and so make meteg a true accent. Three salse things, for meteg is no ac∣cent,

nor hath the propriety of a mediator, nor is necessary by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For instance in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ohlo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eshe.

• 2. That long vowels may stand in a short syllable, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that con∣stantly in the last syllable ending on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a nun paragogic, but without a mediator.
• 3. In relation, or statu constructo the long vowell is not changed, as for instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ctâb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mibtâh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mattân, &c.
• 4. Of the fourth except, that a short vowell doth not change into à long, notwithstanding the word be in statu constructo, or in relation to the following, and thereby the accent is esteemed to bee lost, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Kings 4.5. instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The third sort of Anomaly is the contraction of syllables, viz. when one or two syllabies (more then there more before) some into the word. This contraction of fillables cannot bee done by casting away any letters, (whither necessary or unnecessa∣ry) of that word, but rather by casting away of these pricks esteemed vowels: whither long or short, none excepted. After which casting away of any vow∣ell, the fashion of these masters is to put the sva simple or compound underneath that letter, (as you had it in Orthografy.) The reason or signe of this casting away of vowels is, when the accent looseth its place, going from its letter to the next, or the next save one or two following: As for instance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lathas, lathês, lathôs, the accent is at the second radicall, which hath either fatah, zere or kholem. Now if à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with a vowell given unto the third radicall, do come unto this word, then the accent must go to∣wards

that third radicall, as yee shall have it in the following rules of accents. Which being done thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all sorts of vowells (none excepted) that are at the second radicall fall away and then it becomes thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 viz. Only of two syllables, wheras otherwise it would have bin of three.

Many more examples might bee given for this kinde of casting away, it being so frequent that there is scarce one line in the Ebrue Bible without it. Fur∣ther, because there may arise a doubt, which of two vowells is cast away, the first, or the second, and why in that example not as well the first as the se∣cond, I must give here some small directions, when the first or second, or both vowels are cast away. (Yet for a beginner these are unneedfull, for hee will see well enough, if hee hath the full word before him, which is there cast away; if not, let not that trouble him.) 1. Without affixes (in all orders, tenses and persons ending on these letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (so that the foregoing letter receive a vowell, in all verbs with∣out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the third, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first and second radicall,) the second vowell is cast away, as we saw it in three letters: one example more for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lthas, lthês, lthôs, (I confesse it is onely one syl∣lable, yet it is the same case as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first radicall had a vowell) I say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lithsi, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lithsu: where you see the second radicall hath lost its vowel. But why? because it hath lost its accent, which is gone to the third radicall and it went thither, because that hath got the vowel. 2. The same persons, and tenses which have two vowels, if they get the affixes, loose the first vowell: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 becomes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lthasor

and thus with all affixes, the same in these following and the like Nounes, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gadol 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maor, &c. 3. Both Vowels, in Nounes ending on a short Syllable as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 melek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sayit, &c.

All the monosyllables, both Nounes and Verbs: in the Noun is comprehended the infinitive of the first order; in the Verbs, the imperative or present com∣manding of the first order. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Or looke to my Gramma∣ticall delineation in Latine. 1646. at Amsterdam printed in quarto, where you finde it in the paradig∣mes, therein more cleare, because I did put there black next to white, that is, whereas in the Bible, or other Grammars you should onely finde the anomaly without the shew of analogy, where, that it might be clearer, (a thing very necessary for all beginners in Ebrue onely, and that for those, who will not go on in this tongue without these pricks, unjustly cald vowels,) there I did set the analogy by it.

The exceptions of this third sort of anomaly is, when the vowels remaine, where otherwise they are usually cast away (in Ebrue onely, for this speech of the pricks doth extend no further for the pre∣sent) as for instance. 1. When the accent is not falling away, for its going downward to the follow∣ing Letter or syllable, was the requisite condition, ergo that not being performed, the casting away of these vowels cannot be expected: for instance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abi à father, hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also, abi my Father instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a brother and my brother, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a father in Law, and my father in Law. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because the accent is gon frō b to k in abikem, hence is that qamez fallen away

from under the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the like in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which for the most part is so at those accents, which are of some higher ranke, as silluq, atnakh, rbia, saqefqathon, &c. Because they love not to stand at the last syllable, but for the rest sake choose rather the last syllable save one. 2. No short vowell in a short syllable can be cast away; for instance, hireq and fatah in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hitfaqqad∣tèm: because it is said, that all vowels long or short may be cast away, when the accent descendes, with provision that the short or long vovvel bee in a long syllable, or the syllable before short, become now long.

The reason of the necessity of the long and not of the short syllable is, because that in the short syl∣lable there being already one sva, if that short vowel should also fall away, there must needs come in its place another sva Now two svâs in the beginning of a word cannot be pronounced, or to speak more accuratly, in this tongue no Letter with a Vowell doth take before it selfe two Letters without one, as wee do in English, in spring time, where onely r hath the Vowell i, s and p hath none, and yet both these Letters without a Vowell are pronounced to∣gether with ri, saying, spring; but this I say is not used in this tongue, for in place of sva under the first Letter (if it ever had a Vowell) a Vowell must returne, so that it is better not to cast it away at all, then after such casting away to fetch it, and place it there againe.

3. A short vowell in a long syllable as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hassamayim cannot bee cast away: because the ac∣cent must first bee gon; and a short vowell in a

long syllable doth presuppose the presence of the accent. Now the presence and absence of the ac∣cent at one and the same time, are contrarieties, and cannot be expected; therefore the short vowel can∣not be cast away being in a long syllable.

4. Vpon the same ground a long vowel cannot be east away in a short syllable, because the accent is required togither with the long vowel in a short syl∣lable, and here is required the accents losse.

5. Neither can a long vowel be cast out of a long syllable, which having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescens, stands in stead of a short syllable: for instance: if in hitfaqqadtèm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 none of these short vowels can be cast away, by the reason given, ergo neither if the se∣cond letter of any short syllable should loose its moveablenesse or sva, the vowell notwithstanding by the necessary mutation becomming long, could be cast away, let the accent go never so far: as for instance; if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lo do stand in place of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 liv, this is a short syllable, that a long, there are in both alike two Letters, onely here the second is movable, and so makes a short syllable, there the second is quies∣cent, and makes a long; I say, that the vowel can∣not be cast away either in the one or the other, when the accent goes away, notwithstanding the long stayes in a long syllable, because it is in place of a short one, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

6. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent bee cast away, yet because they are in certaine places necessarily understood, the long vowel in such a long syllable cannot be cast away, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lothsim.

7. Where there goeth before the long vowel in a long syllable a sva either belonging to that long

syllable or not, as for instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And this fasshion of sva is in this tongue. 1. Expresly in the same syllable: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. In the syllable be∣fore as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ascarà. 3. In dages. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 baqqasa in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 4. understood under the quies∣cent going before. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 motzaim the same observation is about the long vowel zere, hirec, holem, surec, and other short vowels, if such examples are to be had. Except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sabuim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 salisim in∣stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sbu, sli, for distinctio sake, as Grammarians wil have it, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but I believe no such distinction to be in the pricks, but onely by a meere accident in these and sundry other words this long vowell is not fallen or cast away, notwith∣standing the accents removall from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sabu, salis.

Analogall unto this contraction is the combinati∣on of two letters without a vowel into one syllable, which the Grammarians in Latine give by this rule: duobus svayim concurrentibus pro priori assumitur hireq: that is; if two svâs come together for the first is put à hireq: for instance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fqod; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath a sva, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the second radicall hath both a vowell and an accent: in the feminine gender this fqod re∣ceaves an i, to say, di, whence the accent goes to the third radicall d, because it receaves a vowel, hence is that o of qo cast away, and q remaining without a vowel receives a sva, thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In such a case the first letter receaves à hireq and then I say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fiqdi, because here in this tongue three con∣sonants before one vowell the masters do not allow,

but after the vowel it may bee. About this rule are to be observed these following things. 1. The Letters that have no vowell must go before that letter that hath one in the same syllable, so that no vowel go before these two svas, for then each of these two vowels take to them the neerest Lettre without a vowel as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yifqdu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are without vowels, d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and yod have vowels, therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 takes the nearest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 f, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d the nearest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. there comes not in only hireq, and sometimes fatah and segol as the Grammarians say, but also qomez the short; as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hofqad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 holtas, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hfqad, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hlthas; and qubbuz. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fuqqad instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fqqad, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lut∣thas instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ltthas: so that the rule must be more generall, duobus svayim concurrentibus as∣sumitur vocalis brevis. Two svâs comming together before a vowel in the same syllable, assume any of the short vowels in stead of the first sva. 3. No long vowel can bee taken instead of the first sva, because it is against the nature of a long vowel to stand with a sva following in the same syllable with∣out à mediator accent, as is shewed in Orthografy. 4. That it must not be understood to be meant only of a singlesva, but also of a compound one, not onely under a non gutturall, but also under a gutturall Let∣ter: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kholyo, in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 firyo in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fri. 5. If the second letter be a gutturall, looke what vowell it doth then assum to its single sva to make a compound one, such a vowel is constantly taken under the soregoing letter with a sva, which the Grammari∣ans

give by some other new rule, viz. gutturales punctuant se & praecedentem, whereas that rule is su∣perfluous, being already inclosed in that rule; svayim concurrentibus propriori assumitur vocalis parva: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in yamod receives fatah, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has sva fatah. 6. Nor is here any exception to be made as if sva qomez gave to the foregoing letter a long qamez, as some Grammarians fasly assert, reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vakholi, where you may nay must reade vo∣kholi: so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oholibamah, not aholibamah, as in the English translation. 7. If three svas come together, as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gbéret, with the affix of the first person in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the middle or second sva is put a short vowell, gbirti 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Oppofite to this contraction is a frequency of re∣maning vowels, because the Accent remaines at its place, and notwithstanding one or two syllables are joyned unto that words end, yet the accent remaining, where it was before, the vowell, either at the accent or before, is not cast away. 1. Nounes and Verbs ending in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without the affix letters of the personall Nounes: for instance in Verbs. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Nounes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sebi for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sbi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ani for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ni, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yofi for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yfi: also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kholi for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 khli or with affixes, in stead of sva is set qamez, fatah, zere or segol before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaréka for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zarkà. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yiraséka for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yiraskà. Before which Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ka in some words one syllable remaines by transpositi∣on

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 2. More especially in the 1. and 2. person of the 1. and 4. preterrense in verbs that have the 2. and 3. Radi∣call the same, there is constantly a holem in stead of sva, the accent remaining or going downe to the new fillables: of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zmm is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zammóta for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 zammtà of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mqq, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nmaqqotem for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nmaqqtém: of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 khll is hakhillota 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hakhillta 3 The same is always in the se∣venth pretertense, but in the fourth pretertense only sometimes in verbs of the Radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fuz, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vunfozotem, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vunfoz tem. Of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qûm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vahaqimoti, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vahaqimti. 4. In the fourth order active in all persons ending with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 paragogic, the second Radicall hath a vowel in stead of sva, be∣cause the accent remaines. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hafqidu, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hafqdù. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tafqidu for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tafqdù. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hifqida for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hifqdàh. 5. In verbs of the second Radicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same persons and tenses of the same termination 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in in any order whatsoever: of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qûm is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qamu for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qmù 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qumu for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qumù. The same. 6. when the 2 and third Radicall are the same; viz. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sbb. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sábbu for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sabbú. 7. of the personall Noune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taken onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either with vau 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or without it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hi, with hirec the long, as it had it in the whole Noune. This notwithstanding by no Grammarians is esteemed a syllable, yet it is a good, full, and true long syllable; hi, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hi

is a true full word, This hirec is sir-named maffiq, because it brings its letter to be heard, no letter without a sound or vowell being capable of a pro∣nunciation, as bi, so hi, and as b without ae i ou is not pronounced, so neither h. Notwithstanding this syllable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is now most frequently & only yet falsly written) the accent not tending to the vowel, is not cast away, nor the syllables contracted, as being a thing of no great importance, if one syllable be more or lesse. This maffiq or hirec is most fre∣quently cast away and leaves the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if it were quiescênt, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 heirs, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lahi: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sicmàh, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sicmahi, which is constantly in the affix 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Observation. These three sorts of per∣mutation, mutation and contraction of syllables, or Alternation, Alteration and Abjection do compre∣hend all that infinity of Rules, whereof a man might easily collect above a thousand out of divers 〈…〉〈…〉. And yet the whole sense of Scripture is not better or clearer, if yee know them, nor worse, if yee know them not.

Rule 5. The Analogy of the vowels in Calde is not much different from Ebrue.

Qamez the long a. is 1. In the affix personall Noun of the second person. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 osifca. 2. Before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ana I, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anakhna nos, wee. 3. Under the first radicall in the Nounes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qathêl, killing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qathil. killed, for it is a meere tale and fancy, to say, that the participle peil under the first radicall hath no vowels but a sva. For the fashion of writing in the Orient is, that in their Manuscripts they leave away for the most part that vowel, which is so well knowne, that whither

it bee written or not, no body doth doubt of it. Therefore in the Syriac wee have examples of the vowel under the first radicall. 4. Instead of a fatah, where the following Letter (in place of a svà) doth receive à vowel, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aqim, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aqyîm, &c.

Zere ē, 1. Under the second radicall very con∣stantly in all the orders, especially in the fourth. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abrek, to bow the knees. 2. In the plurall instatu constructo following or not following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 para∣gogic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 trên two, Masc. and Neuter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tre and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tarvè the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tarrên duae, o, two, femi∣nine & Neuter. 3 Under the first radicall in Nounes & Verbs, where the second or third is cast away, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ém, à Mother. 4. A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quiescent following without the plurall, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lelvân neights, 5. Instead of the segol in the second plurall of the pretertense in any orders, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ithastén instead of Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ithastèn, &c.

Hireq the long is for the most part, where yod quiescent is following. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 obida, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 osifkà, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yyethib 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yhosia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 himsiv instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 himsu. &c.

Holem, for the most part where it is in Ebrue, espe∣cially when there follows à vau quiescent. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 obida 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mhuqzaôt.

Surek is as in Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 heeznikhu.

Patah is before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Character of the feminine gender, as in Ebrue constantly before the Nounes, and in some Verbes, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 azlat hee went.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 helât hee wearyed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hoglât, it is cast out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vashât, but these 3 by anomaly are writ∣ten constantly with a long qamez, not fatah, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fiqdat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lithsat. And good reason, because here the syllable at is short, therefore à short vowel, but in Ebrue ordinarily the syllable is long, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lathsà, therefore a long vowel. And that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the true formative of the third Feminine, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 onely by accident, we may easily see by the constancy of it in Syric, Arabic and Etiopic; item in Ebrue in the examples wee gave, and many other, when any Letter is joyned to the end of that per∣son either paragogic superfluous, or formatiue: item from the second Feminine, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 formes the Fe∣minine constantly, as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also (but of another Noune) the second Masculine, item the first person fingular being of a common gender, hath a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both in Mas∣culine and Feminine in all orders, in all dialects. 2. Fatakh is under the second radicall, as in Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 etkhabbar. 3. under the first radicall in pael and etpael, or the second and fifth order in all tenses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Segol is almost in all places, as in Ebrue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 heezinu they have heard: so in Calde. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vheeznikhu Es. 16.9. they have cast far of. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 el∣thas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 etkhabbar, &c.

Hireq the short is unjustly come in under the first radicall in the first Preterrense, instead of qamez a by Ebrue, and Fatah a, by Arabic upon that false principle, as if the first radicall in the first preter∣tense had no vowel, which I say is false: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nor esteeme I the puncta∣tors

of the Ebrue Bible, and consequently Daniel so very old, lesse or far lesse the punctators of the Calde Targum, as they call it, it being done, written & used after the Babylonian captivity, but points a long time since Christ. 2. In many other places, as in Ebrue. Qomez the short, and Qubbuz just as in Ebrue. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hoglat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mhuqzaôt, &c.

Rule 6. The Anomaly of these pricks may in some measure (but not constantly) bee reduced to the Ebrue Anomaly

Because the punctation of the Targum is latter, and not done with such accuratenes, nor by such learned Jewes, lesse upon such principles as the Ebrue for the generality is, hence is it, that the punctation is very anomalicall in all places. Now these five Reasons by me given. 1. Not the same principles. 2. Not the same learning. 3. Not the same accuratenesse 4. Not the same Authors and. 5. Not the same time; thew well enough the Roo••e of that disagreeing of the Ebrue and Calde punctation. And how greater that difference is, the easier it hath bin to perswade the common sort of learned men in this tongue, that they are either two diverse tongues (for so many Authors do ignorantly speake) or at least dialects of a great distance one from another; whereas it is knowne, and clear, that Ebrue and this Calde was spoken in one and the same Jury, nay City of Jerusalem, onely the time differing, Ebrue before the Babylonian cap∣tivity, Calde after it. And if a diversity of puncta∣tion makes a divers tongue or dialect, then am I sure, that Abraham de Balmes (a Jew Grammarian,) who wrote an hundred yeares since in Italy, hath a diverse dialect, for if any would scanne that punctation of his Grammar, hee would neither finde true Ebrue, nor true Calde. The same might wee say of that

late Edition of Mis••ayot pointed by a Iew in the Low Countries and Pointed at Amsterdam by R. Mnasse ben Yishrael Theresore I desire the Rea∣der to believe the pricks to be but meere fancies.

Rule 7. In Siriac, Arabick and Ettopic the anc∣maly is no more to bee regarded, than in Ebrue and Calde.

To shorten all the long and tedious, (though un∣usefull) observations either of mine, or all the rest of the Authors before mee, seeing that the greatest part of them are individuall, and the same of them nothing worth at all, for the Syriac Manuscripts that are at this day extant, are without prics, and stroacs, and among the Arabic Books not one of a thousand is to be found pricked or pointed, and in the Etto∣pic there are none found amongst us, except the New Testament printed at Rome, and Psalms at Colen, and both of them fully to be understood by letters out of the generality of this tongue, without the observation of the standings or diverse vowels, I shall here shut up, that which would otherwise scarce be compre∣hended in an hundred leaves, and yet doe nothing to the sense of the Text, and so consequently in∣stead of the easing the Reader, burthen him exces∣fively.

Rule 8. All the Observations of the variety of the formes in the Syntax are needlesse.

The formes are either in Nounes or Ʋerbs, both are considered in the outward forme either as they stand a part without reference to the foregoing or following word in the Text, or in reference to them, this the Grammarians call Syntax, supposing the pricks to be of the nature of this tongue, (as if by them onely the sense were cleare, without them im∣possible to be had) hence are all bookes full of such

like Observations, and Directions: all which (though in number they cannot amount, to lesse then fifthy thousand) yet are superfluous, the pricks being on∣ly brought in by some Jewes, the names wherof are uncertaine to them & us, and they are given by them onely to shew us, what they thought to be now and then in a Syntax; whereas we may see, (if we know the significations of the words and phrases) the same thing without them, and that they many times have mistaken, and from their mistakes arise many ex∣amples for Anomaly, so that the divers formes either in Nounes or Ʋerbs in the Treasure of the Ebrue Grammer, writte•• by that excellently leatned and painfull Grammarian Iohn Buxtorf are needlesse, also two Chapters of his Syntax, to wit, the seventh and seventeenth are absolutely superfluous concer∣ning the points or pricks, which they call vowels.

Rule 9. Whatsoever Observations are or may be made upon the Bible, Calde, Targum, Syric, Arabic, and Etiopic Authors onely in reference to their pricks, are of no use.

The Jewes and Christian Authors have made up∣on the Bible an infinity of observations, whereof that body of the Masoreticall notes is no small part of, almost all which are to be rejected, as of no use. Hence also the very concordances of D. John Buxtorf are of no more authority and use, (if the eafinesse, truth, and nature of the tongue be onely the maine scope and drift of him,) than R Natans concor∣dance, who followeth without regard of prics the or∣der of the Ebrue Text without points.

Rule 10. The Accents not being of the nature of this tongue, are in Ftymology and Analogy of no use.

To Analogy (or otherwise cald Etymology) belong∣eth the greatest part of Doctor John Buxtorf his Ob∣servations

in his Grammaticall Treasure about them, by him set downe in Orthografy, which fault is also frequent by others. The substance of whatso∣ever can bee said of them concerning Analogy, is, that their place is to bee considered, and that not onely in respect of the syllable either in the last of a word, or one before the last, but also in words onely of one syllable; and there of the concurrence of two Accents. Therefore more especially in reference to every Letter, at what Letter of two, three or foure in one syllable, to wit, that they do stand onely at a Letter with one of the prick vowels long or short, not at the Letter with a single or compound sva And that every Accent may go to the following Letter. Or come back to the forgoing Letter. Or be wholy cast away. Whereof maqqef is the signe nor the cause. or understood to be absent in the first of two Nouns joynt together in relation of possession, not of ap∣pellation or apposition. And because the second radicall hath before others the vowel, therefore the Accents doe stand more regularly and frequently at the second radicall From whence it doth remove to the first radicall, if the first radicall onely have the vowel. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yoma day, the first radicll y hath the Accent, because the second radical vau is quies∣cent, and hath no vowel, nor hath the third radi∣call m any vowel; therefore onely the first having the vowel o, yo, hath the Accent: so also in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Khet, Nerd, Qost. Or if the third radicall be cast away. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Váicall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vaizav 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vattqas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vayyitgal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vattitcas the accent in these is at the first radicall, k, z, q, g; and many and many hundred such like. Or where the third radicall hath no vowel, and the second a short vowel,

whereby the two last radicals make up a short syl∣lable. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sefer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 melek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 erez or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arez. To the third radicall, if it doth receive a vowel. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sfarim by r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 malka by k 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arazot, by z. To the serviie Praefix, when the third being cast away, the first and second doth make a short syllable: as for instance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayyáan, by y, the Roote being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To the service suffix, if it doe make a short syllable with the following servile: e. g. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fqadtem, by t, the Roote being fqd. And yet all these foregoing Rules are so many times violated, or not observed by the Authors of them, that you will finde many sorts of Anomalicall places of them, where they are at the right syllable, yet not at the right Letter, or at the false syllable, before or after the right Letter and Syllable, whereof I have set downe some Ob∣servations in my Notes on P. Martinius Ebru Gram∣mar Englished, Printed at Amsterdam twice, both Anno 1645. and 1646. Item in my Latine Deline a∣tion of the Ebrue Grammar Printed at Amsterdam in 4^o 1646. page 80.

Rule 11. The accents are supposed to joyne and disjoyne words for the making up a true and right sense.

Before I have fully done about these accents, there is as yet one use of them remaining to be handled, which is assigned unto them by all the Grammarians that have written hitherto, to wit, that they have the power of a Syntacticall combination of words, and disjunctions of them, that is, to shew which words are to be joyned together to make up a plaine sense such as is intended by the Holy Ghost in every

place, & in every verse of the Bible, whereon also for the most part depends distinction of verses, which according to the best observation of mine and o∣thers upon such a supposall (notwithstanding I am not of the mind that it is truely in them, So that I doe disclaime here what formerly I have precepti∣cally set down either in my English or Latine Books concerning it, yet if some men will stand to it, be it right or wrong I will shortly repeale it here) is as followeth.

1. That they are the accidentall signe of a Con∣junction or disjunction of words. 2 That they signi∣fie; first, a greater or fuller point; secondly, a lesser point; thirdly, two little points; fourthly, a little point with a Comma; fiftly, the stroke Comma; sixtly, yet they never shew where there is an excla∣mation or interogation, neither which words toge∣ther belong to a comma, comma with a point, two little points, the lesse and the greater or full point. 3. All this in a naturall order, where a sence is full ei∣ther of one word, or of two joynd, or of three, whereof the two first or last be more neerely joyned, yet in respect to the third or fourth words, where al∣so the two or three former or latter more neerely to be joyned with relation to the body of fewer or of many more with none greater, or greater distincti∣on; now by reason these five degrees of distinctions which are in all manner of speech in any tongue whatsoever used here in the occident and the North, though not in the whole Orient. 4 The accents are of five degrees thus call d by the Grammarians. 1 One King, Silluq. 2 Dukes, Atnah, and compound merca. 3 Earles, zaqef, sgolta, and tifha. 4 Lords, salselet, rbia single or compound with a silluq, sasta, zarqa, tbir, a double merca, ytib, five Knights, fazr, qarne∣farah, t lisa geres. 5 These make up whole senses ac∣cording

to those five degrees of senses. 6 The rest are called servants, because they onely joyne words, two three or foure, to bring them to the following Knight, Lord, Earle, Duke or King, to make up the full sense. 7 Every one of these according to his de∣gree makes a greater or lesser joynr, and hath before him first a great distinguisher: secondly, a lesser, (but Knights have none of both before them;) thirdly, a joyner, each with his servants of a greater or lesser di∣stinguisher before him: & finally followes the fourth, the King. 8 Yet whereas in the whole Bible there is almost one and the same order observed) three bookes, viz. Job, the Proverbs, and the Psalmes have no Earles, and doe differ in some small matter besides, as to the following fiame. 9 They are gene∣rally in the Bible thus.

4. Kingssilluc, 3 joyner merca. 2 the lesser distin∣guisher tifha. 1 the greater distinguisher zaqef.

4. Duke Atnah. 3 munah. 2 tifqa. 1 zahef or sgolta.

4. Earle, either the higher zaqef, sgolta, or the lower, tifqa. 3 munah or merca. 2 fasta, zarca, tbir, 1 Rbia.

4. Lord, either the higher, salselet, rbia, or the lower, fastha zarca, tbir, mercayim, ytib. 3 munah, mahfac, merca, darga. 2 (fsic) geres. 1 tlisa, fazr.

4. Knight, Fazr, qarnefara, tlisa, geres. 3 munch, yerah, qadma, tlisa, merca. 2 and 1 none.

10 But in the said three Bookes there is such an order as is in some sort differing.

3. King, silluc, 2 munah, merca, 1 rbia compound with zaqef, or salselet.

• 3. Duke Higher, compound merca. 2 yrah, (zar∣qa) 1 rbia.
• 3. Duke Lower, atnah, 2 munah, merca (tifha) 1 rbia.

• 3 Lord Higher, rbia fingle or compound, salselet 2 merca, mahfac, munah. 1 none.
• 3 Lord Lower, zarca. 2 merca, munah. 1 fazr, or the lower, tifha. 2 munah. 1 fazr.

3. Knights, Fazr. 2 Yerah. 1 none.

This is that faigned commonwealth which was set up by the Jewes, which for the matter I esteeme to be against the fundamentall lawes of that tongue: and for the manner this palpable vast difference is not onely in three bookes by which notwitstan∣ding wee may perceive one and the same spirit did not frame and order all, but there are above ten thousand examples, where neither in the generall, nor in this particular agreement is kept: so that I utterly disclaime it from being either naturall, mo∣rall, politicall or juris divini. And so I conclude the Etymology or Analogy.