In 1849, De Saulcy contributed two memoirs on cuneiform, which seem to have added considerably to the proof.[1] In the first lie is said to have shown that the two languages agreed in the feminine termination t and in the relative pronoun 'sha'; and in the second he identified the particles for 'and' and 'with.'[2] - In the following-year, Hincks added other forms and words that could be best explained by reference to the Hebrew;[3] and Rawlinson definitely settled the question by an eLborate comparison of its grammatical forms and vocabularv with those of other Semitic languages.[4] Since that time its affinity to the Semitic family has been fully accepted. Rawlinson showed that Babylonian is found in a more primitive state than any other of the Semitic dialects of Asia open to our research. It is held to be the oldest representative of that family yet known, 'the Ethiopic ranking next in point of antiquity.'[5]
Hincks declared that it bears the same relationship to Semitic as Sanscrit to Aryan, an opinion shared by Mr. Sayce and Professor Haupt. It properly belongs to the northern group, which includes Hebrew, Phoenician, Syriac and Chaldee; but there is some disagreement as to the degree of relationship.[6] Mr. King describes it as 'closely akin' to the northern group, while Mr. Pinches considers the differences are often very great, especially in the verbs.[7] Mr. Boscawen finds striking affinities in grammar to Arabic, one of
the southern group. [8] It was some time, however,
- ↑ Sept. 11 and Nov. 27.
- ↑ Hommel, Gieschite, p. 95.
- ↑ 'On the Khorsabad Inscription,' 'Trans. R. I. Acad. xxii. 71.
- ↑ J. R. A. S. xii. 410-16.
- ↑ Ib. p. 414. Prof. Haupt in J. R. A. S. 1878, x. 244-6.
- ↑ King (L. W.), First Steps in Assyrian, 1898, Introduction, p. xvii. See Sayce, J. R. A. S. 1878, ix. 23. Of. Science of Language. ii. 167.
- ↑ Trans. S. B. A. 1822, vol. vii. 'On Assyrian Grammar.'
- ↑ The Bible and the Monuments, p. 30.
