But permit us now to inquire into the probability of הֵמָּהhēmmâ being even a pronoun. אָנכִיʾānkî a-no-khi is not believed to be a Hebrew word. It is a homophone of the Coptic word [Ⲁⲛⲟⲕ], and used by the Egyptians, who spoke Coptic, as the personal pronoun I. This word is believed to have been borrowed by the Hebrews at the time they were in bondage in Egypt, and the habit of it so strongly established during their four hundred years of servitude, that neither the literature of the age of Moses nor the genius of the people could ever eradicate it. Their original personal pronoun was probably totally lost; nothing analogous to this Coptic term can be found in any other of the Shemitic tongues. But Lee says that Gessenius has found it in Punic, and quotes Lehrege-baude, note, p. 200. In Chaldaic, the personal pronoun, first person singular, is אֲנָהʾănâ a-nah, and its phonetic cognates are found in all the other sister dialects. We may then well suggest that the lost Hebrew term was אֲנָאʾănāʾ a-na, or quite analogous thereto.
Such then being the facts, let us inquire into the origin, composition, and signification of this Coptic pronoun. It will be agreed that some language must have had precedence in the world, and it is usually yielded to the Hebrew. That such precedence was the property of some one of the Asiatic dialects all agree; and the nearer the subsequent language exists to its precedent, the more plainly will its descent be manifest. If the Hebrew was such precedent, or any other of its immediate sisters, the Coptic, existing in their immediate neighbourhood, must have been originally very analogous to them.
It is immaterial whether our suggestion be right or wrong as to what particularly was the lost Hebrew pronoun; let us take the Chaldaic, which, of all these dialects, was the most nearly like the Hebrew—the personal pronoun אֲנָהʾănâ I, I am, and the word כִּיkî ki, which means a mark as a stigma, indelibly fixed, as burned in, a mark intended pointedly to indicate something; and hence it became a particle attached to a word often by Makkaph, whence the attention was to be particularly called, as, mark me, mark ye, are just, &c. &c. Isa. iii. 24: pm tr1 he 'כִּי תַחַת יוׄפִי' 'kî taḥat ywpî' a burned mark of stigma, instead of beauty. Some have doubted the accuracy of the Hebrew in this instance, and the fact is, no doubt, that it is rather an Arabicism; but that in no way affects our deduction; it matters not whether the Coptic borrowed from Chaldean, Hebrew, or Arabic. These two words are beyond question the origin, the compound of the Coptic pronoun, meaning and including the individuality of the first person singular, and originally expressing also the fact, that such person was marked as a stigma indelibly, as burned in, &c. Anoki, I, a marked one; I, one deformed as if branded, &c.; I, one that carry the mark of, &c. &c., was the original idea expressed by this Coptic term of individuality. Thus it expressed the fact that the person was a successor in the curses of Ham and Cain, and in no other manner can the extraordinary appearance of הֵםhēm and sometimes הֵמָּהhēmmâ in the third person of the pronoun be accounted for. It is evidently from a new and other source, the same or cognate with the term applied to the son of Noah.
These adjective associations of the pronoun, through the lapse of ages, would naturally be forgotten by the Copts themselves, and were probably unknown to the Hebrews; just as we ourselves have forgotten that our word obedient still expresses some of the qualities of the Hebrew word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed and abed, from which it has been derived through the Latin.
This pronoun אָנׄכִ֖יʾonkî I, &c. was often contracted by the Hebrews into אֲנִ֖יʾănî ani, and in its declination stood thus:
| 1st person singular, common gender: | |
| אָנכִיʾānkî sometimes אֲנִיʾănî | I. |
| Plural: | |
| אֲנַֽחְנוּʾănaḥnû | We. |
| 2d person singular masculine: | |
| אַתָּ֖הʾattâ | Thou. |
| Plural: | |
| אַתֶּ֖םʾattem | You. |
| Singular feminine: | |
| אַתְּʾat | Thou, fem. |
| Plural: | |
| אֲתֶּןʾăten | You, fem. |
| 3d person singular, masculine: | |
| הֽוּאhûʾ | He. |
| Plural: | |
| הֵ֥םhēm hem—occasionally הֵ֖מָהhēmâ | They. |
Here we find the word in question, if a pronoun. The feminine of the third person is הִי֖אhiyʾ, and plural נָהnâ, and yet הֵֽפָּהhēppâ is used in Canticles in a condition evidently feminine; and yet in Zeph. ii. 12, it is said it must be in the second person plural. But can any one believe that these words, thus arranged in the declination of this pronoun, could ever have had a common origin? The fact is, no original language was ever formed from rules; the rules are merely its description after it is formed. Language, in the infancy of its formation, resents restraint and all laws, except such as apply to its incipient state. Suppose a soldier for life should persist in calling his infant son soldier, either playfully or mournfully; the child would associate the term “soldier” with his individuality, and say soldier am sleepy, &c. In case the soldier’s family was isolated from the rest of the world, in the land of Nod, or elsewhere, then the family of languages would be quite apt to have a new term as a personal pronoun.
More pertinent examples would explain our idea perhaps more fully. There never was a language upon this earth, of which any thing is known, that does not show an extraordinary irregularity in the formation of its personal pronouns,—often giving proof that the different cases and persons have been formed from different roots. Webster says—“I, the pronoun of the first person, the word which expresses one’s self, or that by which a speaker or writer denotes himself.” “In the plural, we use we and us, which appear to be words radically distinct from I.” Under we, he says, “From plural of I, or rather a different word, denoting,” &c. Does any one imagine that I, you, me, and us are from the same root? Webster noticed the discrepancy; we could have hoped that he would have given the world a history of the personal pronoun of all languages: we know of no intellect more capable. Such a history would develop many curious things in the history of man, but would be attended with great labour; and human life has too few days for such a man.
Thus we may, hypothetically at least, point out the class of operating causes whereby the Copts introduced הֵםēm or occasionally הֵמָּהhēmmâ as a person of the pronoun, with the signification that the person to whom it was applied was a descendant of the son of Noah; and the pronoun so introduced derived from the noun חָםḥām Ham. For, can we suppose the first person singular אָנֹכִ֖הʾānōki a-no-ki, and its third person plural הֵ֖םhēm hem, occasionally הֵֽמָּהhēmmâ hemmah, have the same root, or are of the same origin? This הֵםhēm and the word חָםḥām the son of Noah, are identical, except the son of Noah is generally written with a heth, instead of a he; but all know, who have studied the matter, these characters very often interchange, and that copyists have often inadvertently placed the one for the other. That which would seem the pronoun is used in Gen. xiv. 5, and the Septuagint has translated it as a pronoun; but our received version has no doubt restored the true reading. The passage בְּהָ֑םbĕhām is translated “in Ham,” i. e. the land occupied by the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah. The change of Kamets into Tsere, is really of no moment. These characters were never invented until after the language ceased to be spoken, and was long since dead. The points, in reality, are no part of the language. The word in Genesis is indisputably a noun, preceded and governed by the preposition בְּb.
Perhaps no one has ever yet succeeded to satisfy himself and others in the translation of this passage of Zephaniah; all, or others for them, find it full of difficulty: but let us consider הֵמָּהhēmmâ a noun of the same order as the הָםhām of xiv. 5 of Genesis,—in some respect in apposition to כּוּשִיםkûšîm, but more emphatic, as the affix of הh would seem to indicate, by its increase of the intensity, as well as its accounting for the dagesh of the מm mem, or its duplication. Let us consider it to mean the descendants of Ham,—to express the idea, with great intensity, that the Cushites were Hamites. True, it is not in the usual form of a patronymic. But we know not who will account, by grammatical rules, for all the anomalies found in Hebrew, a language so full of ellipses that some have thought it a mere skeleton language. With this view of the subject it will read elliptically, thus: So ye Ethiopians wounded of the sword, Hamites—with the meaning, that the Ethiopians were subject to bondage, and at the same time putting them in mind that the curse of slavery, as to the posterity of Ham, was unalterable.