On the whole, its closest relationship seems to be with the Hebrew, and its greatest divergence from the Aramaic or Syriac, with which it was yet, locally, in immediate connection.
To attempt anything like a full illustration of these statements in the present place would be manifestly unfitting.

It would be to quit the province of the historian and archeologist, in order to enter upon that of the comparative philologer or the grammarian.

At the same time a certain amount of illustration seems necessary, in order to show that the statements above made are not mere theories, but have a substantial basis.
The Semitic character of the vocabulary will probably be felt to be sufficiently established by the following lists: [Illustration: Partial PAGE 174] [Illustration: PAGE 175] [Illustration: PAGE 176] [Illustration: PAGE 177] [Illustration: Partial PAGE 178].