hich the [Hebrew: bel] is completed. And, finally, it is seen from the
Arabic, where the wife is also called, [Hebrew: belh], [Arabic: **],
just as the husband is called [Hebrew: bel], [Arabic: **].--It is
farther obvious that, in the frequent compositions of [Hebrew: bel]
with other nouns, in order, by way of paraphrasis, to form adjectives,
the signification "lord" is far less suitable than that of "possessor,"
_e.g._, [Hebrew: bel Hlmvt], _the dreamer_, [Hebrew: bel aP], _the
angry one_, [Hebrew: bel npw], _the covetous one_, [Hebrew: bel mzmzt],
_the deceitful one_, [Hebrew: beli eir] _oppidani_, [Hebrew: beli
brit], _the members of the covenant_, etc. We arrive at the same
conclusion, if we look to the dialects. Here, too, the signification
"to possess" appears as the proper and original signification. In the
Ethiopic, the verb signifies _multum possedit, dives fuit._ In Arabic,
the significations are more varied; but they may all be traced back to
one root. Thus, _e.g._ [Arabic: **], [Hebrew: bel], according to the
_Camus_, "a high and elevated land which requires only one annual rain;
farther, a palm-tree, or any other tree or plant which is not watered,
or which the sky alone irrigates;" _i.e._, a land, a tree, a plant
which themselves _possess_, which do not require to _borrow_ from
others. This reason of the appellation clearly appears in _Dsheuhari_
(compare [Pg 378] _Schultens_ l. c.): "It is used of the palm-tree,
which, by its roots, provides for itself drink and sap, so that there
is no need for watering it." In favour of the signification "to rule"
in this verb, the following gloss from the _Camus_ only can be quoted:
"Both (the 1st and 10th conjugations) when construed with [Hebrew:
elih] _super illum_, denote: he has taken possession of a thing, and
behaved himself proudly towards it." But the latter clause must be
struck out; for it has flowed only from the false reading [Arabic: **]
in _Schultens_, for which (compare _Freytag_) [Arabic: **] _noluit_
must be read, [Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: el] accordingly signifies "to
be the possessor of a thing, and, as such, not to be willing to give it
up to another." And thus every ground has been taken from those who,
from the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, would interpret [Hebrew: bel] in a bad
sense,--The same result, however, which we have reached upon
philological grounds, we shall obtain also, when we look to the
context. From it, they are most easily refuted, who