Answers to Correspondents.
By J. H. W.
“In the interpretation of the hand-writing on the wall, Why did Daniel use the word Peres instead of Upharsin? Dan. 5: 28. Please answer in Review.” This question has doubtless arisen in the minds of many readers. There is not the difference in the two words which the English reader would imagine. We think it can be made clear to the understanding of all. 1. In that class of languages almost all words have their roots in the verbs. Nouns are constructed from verbs. 2. They were originally written with consonants only, without vowel points. 3. The writing on the wall was so brief in its expressions that it was impossible to give the interpretation except by inspiration. Thus, it might have been read: “He has numbered—he has weighed—and he has divided.” To what these words referred the “wise men” could not tell. Daniel told, because God revealed unto him their meaning. 4. P and ph are the same letter. 5. The U (sounded oo), in upharsin, is a prefixed conjunction, simply our “and.” 6. The termination, in (i as long e), is the Chaldaic form of the masculine plural. 7. By rejecting the prefixed conjunction, and the plural termination, we have the same consonants left in both words; in other words, we have in them the same root. Thus, PeRes, uPaRSin. 8. From the root, peres, is derived, Parsi, a Persian; Parsin, the Persians. 9. As in the interpretation of the first two words, on account of the exceeding brevity of expression, Daniel added to the words written, so of the last, he used both the root, peres, he has divided, and the derivative, Parsin, given to the Persians. J. H. W.