Seite 74 [74]
OCR
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 correspond 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 Hungarian 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 features 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, Miinchen; 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 Grammaticus linguae sanctae hebraeae, Basileae, L. Regis 1609/1629; BELLARMINE, Robert, Institutiones 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 Hungarian grammar, such as 41.$VI. + 72e
