Oldal 74 [74]
JÓZSEF ZSENGELLÉR
also used at the end of the conjugated verbs.? In his categorization there are
three types of conjugation. Ihese are 1) according to meaning; 2) according
to objects; 3) according to guality. According to Komáromi the first two types
are based on Hebrew grammar. In type 1) there are 8 kinds from which 7 cor¬
respond to the Hebrew binyanim.® Type 2), conjugation with object, has four
kinds, and corresponds to the Hebrew conjugation with suffixes.°*
The Hungarian grammar of Komaromi Csipkés is quite extraordinary, and
not because it uses Hebrew parallels, but because it takes the conjugational
and suffix system of the Hebrew language as a base of the categorization of
Hungarian conjugation. And this grammar was quite well known in his time
throughout Europe: it survives in a large number of libraries.” In his Hebrew
grammar, Schola hebraica published in 1654 in Utrecht, Komäromi Csipkés
described the necessity and importance of learning Hebrew: “To understand
Hebrew fundamentally, we must grasp the very mind [or thought-process or
essence] of the Hebrew language, by which not only words are written, read
and understood, but also by which the ideas of the Hebrew spirit, the Hebrew
style, are expressed in letters, in speeches, and in poetry.”* This is a descriptive
grammar with few examples,” nonetheless, it sometimes refers to specific Hun¬
garian parallels, such as the third person singular as the root of the verb, and
the similar usage of” (i) at the end of a word to sign the origin (e.g. Jerushalmi).**
The correlation of Hebrew-Hungarian parallels in the two grammars highlights
Ibid., 80-81. Komáromi, a little unscrupulously, suggests that only Hungarian possesses such fea¬
tures in parallel with Hebrew. Cf. VLADAR, Egy rendhagy6 magyar garmmatika, 23, 61, and 275.
Ibid., 108. In Hebrew there are seven binyanim (buildings) in the conjugation of verbs.
Ibid., 108-109. This feature was also mentioned in the grammar of Janos Sylvester, but he did
not utilise it as the basis of categorization as opposed to Komaromi Csipkés. See VLADAR, Egy
rendhagy6 magyar garmmatika, 24.; TELEGDI, A Magyar nyelvtanirds kezdetei, 10-11.
58 There are copies in the Sachsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Miin¬
chen; Bibliothek der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, Miinchen; Staatsbibliothek, Berlin; Herzog
August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel; Universitäts und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle;
Niedersächsiche Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen; the British Library, London.
KOMÁROMI CSIPKÉS, Schola Hebraica, 27. "Per to fundamentaliter intellegere autem linguam
hebraicam, intelligimus eam linguae hebreae cognitionem, gua non solum scripta et lecta
intelligantur, sed et, gua conceptus animi hebraicae, stylo hebraico, exprimantur in epistolis,
orationibus et versibus hebraicis."
In writing this grammar Komáromi utilised inter alia BUXTORE, Johannes, Thesaurus Gram¬
maticus linguae sanctae hebraeae, Basileae, L. Regis 1609/1629; BELLARMINE, Robert, Insti¬
tutiones linguae hebraicae, Lugduni, 1596, and KisMARJAI WESZELIN, Pal, Brevis Institutio ad
Locutionem Linguae Hebreae, Franeker, 1643, cf. the references in KoMAROMI CsIPKES, Schola
Hebraica, 17-18, 21, 24, and 45.
58 KOMÁROMI CSIPKÉS, Schola Hebraica, 53, 37 and 42. There are other references to the Hungar¬
ian grammar, such as 41.$VI.
+ 72e