Skip to main content

Full text of "A comparative grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Sclavonic languages"

See other formats 


Google 


This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  tliat  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 
to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  doinain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 
to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vaiy  country  to  counti^y.  Public  domain  books 
are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficult  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  marginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 
publisher  to  a  library  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  this  resource,  we  have  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  quen'ing. 

We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Moke  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-cojnjnercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  from  aulomated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attribution  The  Google  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  informing  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use.  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  liability  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful.  Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 


al|http  :  //books  .google  .  com/ 


ouuu4re36- 


lo\^\         Ji.    i^ 


COMPARATIVK    (IKAMMAlr 


COMPARATIVE    GRAMMAR 

or  TOR 

SANSKRIT,  ZEND, 

GREEK.  LATIN,  LITHUANIAN,  GOTHIC,  GERMAN, 

AND  SCLAVONIC  LANGUAGES. 

ay 

PROFESSOR    F.  BOPP. 

TBANSUTKD  FBOM  THK  QEBMAX 
DY 

EDWARD  B.  EASTWICK,  F.R.S.,  F.S.A.,  M.R.A.S. 

OF  UUTOX  COLLMB,  OXroSD,  MIUIIIS  OF  Till  ASIATIC  lOCIITIM  Of  PASU  ANU 

aouBAT,  or  THi  ouwAS  OBiiNTAi.  aocinr,  add  O*  TKI  milOLaOICAL 

aocilTT     Of     UIMDOH,    Ha-fDIlABI     MSUIIZK    Of    tllS    KJtDKAa    LITIRART 

aOCIITT,  FBOriSaOK  or  OHISSTAL    LANQIAatS    /iHV    LIBHARIAN    IH 

THI    SAIT-IKDIA    COLLtOB,    H  A I  LIT  HUH  T,    AND  TBANSLATOB    OV 

TtIK  lABTAIST  HAUAn,  THI  KISS  AH- 1 'IAN  J  AM,  THI  I'BKU 

■  ABAH.  Till  BAOR-a-BAillll,  THI    ai;i,l«TAN,  TUB 

AKlXB-l-SDnAILl,    ITC.    ETC.    ITC. 


SECOND  EOmojI.  ;        / 
V     ^s    0--7 

LONDON :     ^ 
JAMES     M  A  D  D  E  \, 

8,  LEADENHALL  STREKT. 
1856. 


WILLIAM  M.  HATtt,  CUUVia  CttUBT.  TIHPI.I  B&K. 


COMPARATIVE  GIUMMAU. 


PRONOUNS, 

PIBST  AXD  SECOS*I>  PEKSOKS. 

liiQ.  Im  these  proiiouna  the  genders  nrc  not  dtstiuguislied 
in  any  of  the  liidoEuropenn  Inngiiages;  and  all  the  sister 
dialects  agree  with  one  another  surprisingly  in  this  point, 
tliat  tUo  nomiantivu  s'logulnv  first   (ii-i-son  is  from  a    difTo- 
rent  base  froui  th«t  from  which  tlie  ohliquc   cases  come. 
It  is,  San<iknt  W?*^  aham,  Zend  (^^A)  arnn,  Greek  e-yo,  La- 
tin 1^1.  Gothic  it,  LithuRniiU]  iitz.  Old  Sclavonic  ax.    The 
am  at  v^  akam  is  lerinini)tioa,  as  in  Iwam,  "thou,"  oyom. 
•■tiiis,"  and  gwaijam,  "self;"  and  as  in  the  plural,  vtiyam, 
"we,"  tf^t/am,  "ye."     The  vfiolic  eyuv  answers  better  than 
lyia  to  altum ;  l>ut  1  would  prefer  cyor,  in  oi-der  to  explain 
the  lengthening  of  tlic  vowel  in  eyto  as  a  compensation  for 
tli«i  loss  of  the  nasal.     The  abbreviated  c'^u,  raay.  however, 
have  reacted  on  the  more  complete  iyutv,  and  imparted  to  it 
llie  length  of  its  voweL     In  Uie  other  European  languages, 
exceptthc  Latin,  the  entire  terminntion  hris  disappeared,  as  is 
alao  Uie  case  in  Greek  and  Latin  in  ov,  tv,  tu,  contrasted  with 
tiie  San3krit.Zcnd(icrtf»(frt)in/tt-(int),  ^^>50  tum  (§."12).      To 
L         tlie    latter,   however,  answers   the   Ba-ot,   tooi',  and  the   i; 
H         of  the  Doric  and  Lncon.  ruvti.   tovv:^,  is,  perhaps,  an  un- 
I         organic  addition,  as,  in  Gothic,  the  a  in    [O.  Kd.  p.  4C8.J 
■         pronominal  at-tnisa lives  {iha-wi  for  than,  from  Iham.  (§.  149.), 
H        if  not,  vij  must  be  regarded  as  an  annexed  particle.     The 
H        oblique  coses,  in   Sanskrit,  have    in   the  first   person  ma, 
H       and  in  the  second  liva.  as  theme,  which  is  lengthened,  how- 
H       ever,   in  some  eases,  by  the  admixture  of  an  f  (compare 
^L       %.  IbH.);  hence  fn^,  twf.     On  the  other   hand,  two.  in  tlic 


453 


PRONOUNS. 


^ntiv«,  abbreviates  itself  to  ta  (tu-bkyrm),  from  whicli,  also, 
thv  nomiDative  tivam:  in  tlie  genitive  fn-v-n  tlie  u  of  ia 
receives  the  Gunn,  or  the  a  of/im  is  trftnspoeed,  To  tiie 
base  110  answers  the  Greek  MO.  from  wliich  come  tlie  geni- 
tive ^orJ,  and  (Ijitivc  tioi  The  c  of  EMO  rt-sla  ou  tlie  pre- 
vailing disixiaitiou  of  the  Greek  to  prefix  a  vowel  to  forms 
brglnntng  with  a  consonant,  as  in  ovojj.a,  oiou^.  iippvs,  Att^t/r. 
contrasted  with  mima,  dnnln-s,  hlir&'g,  liiijhu-s,  "Uglit."  The 
o  of  MO,  'EMO  is  intcrehauged  with  e  (see  §.  ;).) :  Iienee 
ifuio,  ifxeSev  for  */*»?»,  4ft6-6ev  (compare  noScv,  £S^6-0€v, 
&c.];  ifMo  for  tfiooi*  titcu,  jucv  for  efiov,  fiou.  lu  tlic 
^i)olie-Doric  forms  Cftevf,  ifiovi.  as  in  rei/r,  TcoCr,  the  2  is 
aIa.terad()ition,  introduced  l>y  the  necessity  for  a  Z  as  a  geni- 
tive cliaracter,  ufter  the  old  geuitive  2) — which,  ac-cording  to 
§.  IB9..  in  the  o  deelension  did  not  stand  nt  tlie  end  but  iu  the 
middle — had  been  long  lost.  Compare,  in  this  respect,  the 
regniocd  genitive  sibilunts  in  New  German  fornis  like 
Ilerxens  {p.  167  G- Ed.).  Cn  the  uniofleeted  accusntive  f^e, 
ifxe,  the  final  e  for  o,  which  latter  might  have  been  expected, 
is  to  be  ix-garded  as  similar  to  the  e  of  tlie  vocative 
AvM  in  §.  204.  As  to  the  dispensing  with  the  accusative 
nasal,  however,  it  is  important  to  remark,  that,  in  S;xn5l;rit. 
for  mtlm,  "me,"  ami  (itxlm,  "thee,"  we  also  find  nid,  (livi, 
without  tJie  case-sign;  and  tlic  rejection  of  the  in  has, 
[O.  Ed.  p.  iGO.}  perhaps.  Dext  given  occasion  to  tiie 
IcDgtlicning  of  tlie  a;  so  that  here  that  would  hold 
good  with  regard  to  vuUn  and  /i»lin  that  was  coiijei-lured 
above  of  eyui'  for  eyivA  The  Latin  supjx)rt3  in  like  manner, 
by  its  accusatives  me  and  te,  the  ancient  loss  of  tlie  inflexion. 


4 


•  Th«  form  >KJiu«j  would  hnre,  according  to  tlio  nanal  nili-s  of  con- 
trMtloa,  (o  l>«  ouinpiirod  with  ^vmk,  iifl«r  Iom  of  tho  >  iliroagli  aq  intcr- 
TM^iig  Xvcra. 

t  Tho  rsucm  of  the  IrotpJieniiiK  nii^it  lUao  he  looked  fur  in  tUe  wonis 
bdng  maM^rUaibic }  but  llibfti<i>lic«  tolbo  sblouvts  Jitu',  tuttt. 


raoKocNS. 


•fAO 


327.  The  theme  of  tlic  second  person  (rrii  divides  itself  in 
Greek*  after  ihc  vowel  or  semi-vowel  lias  been  lost,  into 
the  forma  £Y  iiiid  ZO,  for  2fO.  and  tlie  o  is  excliaaged 
Willi  «,  as  in  the  first  person,  uc7o,  o-^fiev.  ^v.  II.  VIII.  37. 
the  e  of  reoTo — Teo-(<r)/o — stands,  as  it  appears,  as  a  melt- 
ing of  tlie  F,  or  tbiouing  of  the  v  (as  ■n^x*""^  f^**  '"VX^^'^i)  > 
and  the  to-bc-prcsiipjiowd  rFoaio  or  tvooio  vroulil  correspond 
cxeeilcntly  to  the  Zend  ifnva-hi/A.  lo  which  a  Sanskj-it  tioa- 
stfa  would  auswer.  in  case  thwahtjA,  which  foriuur!y  ap 
penred  to  me  to  be  an  instrumental,  is  renlly  a  genitive, 
ns,  according-  to  p.  2so,  Rem.  3.,  can  scarcely  be  doubted. 
The  Gothic  tins  weakened  the  a  of  tlic  base  ma  to  i,  and 
contracted  the  ttrmuiation  va  of  the  2d  person  to  «; 
hence  MI,  TIIU,  dative  mt-s,  thn-s,  accuantivc  rni-k,  thti-k. 
The  genitive  is.  in  Sanskrit,  in  departure  from  all  other  ge- 
nitives, mtima,  lava.  The  former  nppenrs  to  have  arisen 
by  reduplication;  the  Zend,  however,  substitutes  fur  it 
mana  f  and,  in  tlie  Gothic,  na  has  assumed  so  much  the 
character  of  an  inflexion,  tltat  it  hiui  uindc  its  way  also  into 
the  2d  person  and  the  3d  person,  which  is  void  of  gender; 
me(-iKi.  llifi-na.  tei-na.  The'mu  I  regard  asnn  abbreviation  of 
thvei-na,  as  t  imagine  »ei-nn  to  come  from  wfi-na,  for  ihunti 
must  have  spning  from  THU.  As,  however,  H  ma  has,  in 
Gotluc.  btx'omc  Ml.  and  from  tliis  has  been  formed,  by  length- 
ening it,  MKl :  so  might  also  iv  tiva  become  Tlli'I  and 
TIIVEI.  According  lo  this,  the  genitive  [O.  Ed.  p.  470.J 
//ipi««— as  the  abbreviation  of /Aii(tm/i — in  respect  to  its  buse, 
lias  the  same  relation  to  thu,  that,  in  Grei'k,  aov  ^from  ofoo) 
has  to  vC,  or  that  tcw  (from  jFiv)  has  to  m 

S2S.  In  Latin,  as  in  Gothic,  the  a  of  the  Indian  ma  has 
been  weakened  to  t,  and  this,  in  a  measure,  has  changed  the 
declension  of  the  pronoun  from  the  second,  which,  according 
to  §.  I  in..  WQB  to  have  been  expected,  into  the  third:  dative 
mi-hi  for  ^W^  ma-hyam  (§.  aii>.);  accusative  vac  for  mem 
(a»  hoate-m  from  IIOSTJ),  not  mu  for  mum,-  ablative  mt 

H  n  2 


4G0 


PBOKOOKS. 


from  mfd,  not  mo  from  mnri  =Sansltrit  in^  ma/.  Tlir  gr- 
nitive  met  is  based,  according  to  §.'200.,  on  the  locative  nfn 
may-i  (euphonic  for  tni-i),  and  belongs,  therefore,  to  Die 
lengthened  theme  S  mA  In  the  second  person,  according  to 
the  nmilogj'  of  mei,  the  form  ltd  might  liiive  hcen  ex- 
pected from  wfti  twuy-i,  and  may  originally  have  existed. 
but  in  the  actuu!  condition  of  tJie  language  is  iuipossible. 
for  »  ennnot  (-onsiat  wiOi  n  jiriwediiig  consonant,  but  in  this 
position  is  cither  resolved  into  u,  ond  at  times,  indeed, 
■with  tho  sacrifice  of  tbo  vowel  following,  as  in  tud-o,  an- 
swering to  ftrc  swid,  "to  awcat";  or  hfis  itself  disap- 
peared, ns  in  cnvis,  nnswe Hug  to  Smm.  "  a  dog,"  snnuM  for 
stHiJius.  answering  to  tu^tia-x.  "a  tone";*  or  boa  dislodged 
the  preceding  consonant,  ns  above  (p.  424),  ic  hia,  as  a 
hardening  of  vh,  from  dwh.  We  should  hence  have  to 
expect  for  tui,  together  with  some  other  forms,  ntao  Ui 
(for  tvei)',  03,  too,  ti-fj't  may  be  tikoo  to  he  an  abbreviation 
of  tvi-bi :  for  although  the  dative  in  Sanskrit  is  ttt-bhyam, 
and  the  transition  from  u  lo  t  in  Latin  is  not  uniisnal 
(fourth  declension  i-ftwi  for  w-Ain),  still  the  Sanskrit  con- 
traction oi  twn-bftyam  lotu-bhi/am  is  scarcely  of  so  old  a  date 

[O.  Ed.  p.  J7I.]  as  to  ser^'c  for  a  point  of  departure  for  the 
Latio  U'hi ;  and  1  therefore  prefer  considering  tihi,  sih},  as 
abbreviations  of  liti-bi,  tw'fbi,  rather  than  as  corruptions  of 
tu-b'i,  MU^h 

329.  In  S-inskrit,  m^.  tf.  exist  as  co-forms  for  the  geni- 
tive and  dative  (^mnma,  («ivi,  mafiyam,  tubhyam):  UK  how- 
ever, is  clearly  an  nbbreviation  of  ttcf.  and  I  have  since  found 
tins  opinion,  which  I  have  expressed  before,  supported  by 
R(«en"s  Veda-specimen  fp.  86},  and  hy  the  Zend.  The 
latter  gives  j*S»s((*<^ /AwiJi  for  the  Vcdic  (ri--^;  hut  at  the  same 
time,  also,  (he  abbreviated  fonns  j^;o  tiU  and  jwp  t^;  by 
which,  na  it  were,  tbo  way  of  corruption  is  pointed  out  to 

•  Tlw  CrvrV  ^urii  ts,  proUibly,  ui  analogoui  word,  and  would,  accord- 


PBONOONS. 


461 


the  Latin  tihi  and  Gothic  ikfi-na.  Altliough,  according  to 
§.336.,  i)  ml  uDil  n  tu'i  lie  at  the  bottum  of  several  cases  aa 
tlieine,  slili>  jicrliaita,  these  forms,  logcthur  with  ihc  ab- 
breviated /«',  where  tliey  appear  as  genitives  or  datives,  are 
not  to  be  re^iinled  as  naked  U'lses,  as  it  is  contrary  to  the 
geoiiis  of  tJte  language  to  introduce  a  theme,  aa  such,  iuto 
tpeeeh;*  but  they  may  be  explained  as  locatives,  according 
to  the  principle  of  the  comniou  u  hoses  (§.  1*J6.}.  especially 
as,  in  Siinsknt,  the  lot-Ativc  very  frequently  supplies  the 
place  of  the  dative,  and  the  dative  relation  is  expressett  by 
the  genitive  even  more  commooly  tlian  by  the  dative  itself. 
But  if  ^  mf  and  i^  1^,  a  tw^.  and  the  corresponding  Zend 
f<iiins,  are  really  locatives,  they  are  then,  according  to 
§.  1 96.,  identical  with  the  Greek  datives  ^i',  aal.  or  reh  which* 
however,  must  be  compared  with  the  avtnal  locatives  iif% 
mayi.  j^  iu^ayi,  by  easting  out  the  setni-vowel,  if  st  m^  and 

Ir  ti  are  to  pass  as  uniutlceted  themes,  extended  only  mc 
chunicitlly. 

330.  The  genitives  mi  mama,  Aj/wf  mana,  [G.  Ed-  p,  478.] 
and  tnva,  serve  the  Lithnanian,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the 
ablative  and  genitive,  also  the  Old  Sclavonic,  03  the  ground- 
work for  the  declouaion  of  the  oblique  singular  cases.  'I'hcy 
are  recognised  with  a  weakening  of  the  final  a  to  >'  moat 
distinctly  in  the  Lithuanian  instrumental  and  locative  mammi, 
mtmiWttnivhni.tawiyf.  The  genitive,  dative,and  accusative  arc 
anomalous — moneas,lutL'finii,maiutuw.maupn.tavieii. — butlmve. 
in  like  manner,  proceeded  from  the  old  genitive.  In  Old  Scla- 
vonic, the  acciiitative  fnyn,  lya,  still  remains  upon  the  old 
Footing,  aud,  according  lo  §.  2J5.  a.  p.  310.,  answers  to  tR  m4t 
"  me,"  m  litd,  "ihec,"  with  loss  of  the  v  in  the  second  person. 
The  genitive  mene,   "of  me,"  answers  exactly  to  the  Zend 


•  The  case  li  dlflerent  when  a  word,  by  rabbin^  off  the  termiosLiuu, 
sinlisbiick  Dgotu  iuto  tlio  <:uii(liliun  uf  a  Ibcme :  bc«idc«,  only  nuulera, 
In  the  ugniUuktivc,  ocuuiotivc  aiul  tracAtive  siii.galQr.exliibit  Uiv  purv  diciiio. 


4G2  PBUNDUKS. 

nana  (see  §.  S25.  o.)  and  teftf,  "orthwrto  tlie  rodo-Zf-nd 
tava.  Cotisitiered  from  n  Sclavonic  point  of  view,  however, 
M£Nt  TEB.  must  be  regarded  ns  themes,  and  e  for  n 
ua  tlie  common  genitive  terniioatiou  (§.  269.)-  Mi^O, 
TEBO,  and  TQBO.  clearly  lie  as  theme*  at  the  bottom  of 
the  dative  and  locative  mnye,  ielye. 

331.  Tliepturalin  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  is,  inmost 
of  the  ludo-Europcnu  languages,  distinct  iu  base  IVom  the 
singular.  I  have  iilrcady  elsewhere  endeavoured  to  explain 
this*  on  the  ground  that '■  I"  is  properly  iucapableof  a  plural; 
for  there  ia  but  one  "  I,'"  and  the  notion  "  wo"  comprehends 
"me  "and  an  indefinite  number  of  other  individuals,  each 
of  which  may  even  belong  to  a  different  species;  while  by 
leone*  a  plnrality  of  individuals  is  represented,  of  which 
each  is  alion.  And  the  case  is  siroilarwith  tlic  pEurals  of  all 
oUier  aubslnntives.  adjectives,  and  pronouns ;  for  "  tlicy  "  is  a 
multiplying  of  "he."  and  "ye"  may  at  least  be  rather  regarded 
as  the  plural  of  "thou."  than  "we"  as  the  plural  of  "I." 

[0.  Rl.  p.  473.]  Wlierc,  however,  the  idea  "  we  "  is  expresai'd 
by  the  plural  of  "  I,"  it  there  happens  on  account  of  the  pre- 
pondentiiig  feeling  of  our  own  personality,  in  whieli  the  "  not 
I "  is  drowned,  and  is  left  unnoticed,  or  is  supplied  by  the 
custom  of  the  lanf^agc.  Hence  one  might  seek  to  compare 
the  Sanskrit  nominative  vm  vnyam  (from  vi  +  am)  by 
tlie  frequent  interchange  of  m  and  v  (J-  03.}  with  tlie  length- 
ened singular  hiise  ^  mt  (p.  -lOS  G.  cd.),  an  interchange  which 
must,  however,  he  very  old,  since  the  German,  scarcely  by 
accident,  partakes  in  it,  and  which  may  bo  favoured  by  tliu 
cirvunistauce  tlint  there  exists  actually  an  iuterual  motive 
For  a  diQcrcnec  iu  the  base  syllable. 

3;i2.  In  tlie  Vcdas  we  find  a-tmi  also  for  vayom  ;  and  tliis 
ofmJ?  is,  according  to  J.  22S..  formed  from  the  theme  asma. 
From  which  alBO,  in  the  common  Sanskrit,  all  the  oblique 


<■  Uial.  Phil.  TraiM.  of  tha  Ac.  of  Lfl.  txi  tlie  year  1834.  f.  134. 


PBONODNS. 


463 


CHses  proceed,  and  to  which  tlie  Greek  allica  iteclf,  com- 
meiidiig  even  with  the  nominative ;  for  the  most  gciliuiit; 
/Eolic  form  ct/i^ec  stands,  by  assimilation,  for  oct^uec  (see 
§.  170.),  aBcpjurfroai  co-jUf, Sanskrit  asmi.  "  lam."  For  cf/ijufff, 
however,  afifiot  ou^lit  to  be  the  forrespondiiig  word  to  the 
Vedic  atmi ;  as  tlic  theme  asmo,  according  to  §.  116.,  would, 
in  the  Greek,  sound  A2MO:  however,  by  dropping  tlie  final 
vowel,  the  Greek  form  has  wandered  into  tlit-  department  of 
another  declension.  The  s-imc  is  llie  case  with  vfi/iei,  an- 
swering to  the  Vedic  yushmf  (euphonic  for  yuitit^).  On  the 
other  imnd,  i)ficiv,v/ith,  pre-suppose  a  theme 'H  Ml, 'YMI,  the  t 
of  which  is  to  be  taken  tia  a  weakcoing  of  the  Indian  a  ofasma, 
yuxkma ;  as,  in  Gothic.  t/A'iS'/,  IZt'I  (§.  I(i7.),  together  with 
VNSA,  IZVA.  The  genitives  (i^/*^wi/,  ififtiaiv,  also — for 
dfj^fit-iuVfVfJ'fir ton,  ani  in  the  common  language  ^/jmv,  vfia>v — 
shewthattlicy  are  deduced  from  bases  in  / ;  just  so  the  datives 
ij/wf,  I'lfuv,  for  ^fit-IP.  vfju-uv,  with  lu  for  die  Indian  b^rminntion 
bhyam  \n<tsttwbhjom,yu»hmnbhy(im  {%.  S22,).  The  accusatives 
17^9.  i/>»af.arecontnictionsof  an  unusual  kind  [O.  Ed.  p.  474.] 
from  »5;t(-cis,  vtu-oi,  for  which  )7(u7?,iV<?.  or  q>Mt?.  t'/*e7s,  might 
be  expected.  The  ./Colic  forms  aft-ixe,  vftfte,  are  uniiiflceted. 
as  in  the  singular  fU,  vi ;  and  in  case  they  are,  in  respect  to 
their  termination,  older  than  ^/io?,  i5^c.  they  admit  of 
derivation  direct  from  the  Sanskrit  axmAn,  t^nthmiin  (for 
asmii'tis,  yu*htna-ns,  §.  236.),  by  abrasion  of  the  case  eufUx, 
without  intervention  of  atlieme  'AMMI,'YMMr. 

333.  In  fismi',  att,fu<!,  the  simple  vowel  a  is  the  characteristic 
element  of  the  first  [terson.  for  the  rest  of  the  word  occurs  aNo 
in  the  second  person — ^m  ytithm/,  Hfi/iet.  If,  then,  this  a  is 
also  connected  with  the  singular  biise  mn,  it  wauld  be  requi- 
site to  assume  an  aphaireais  of  the  m,  which,  however,  would 
appear  to  be  very  old,  from  the  coincidence  of  the  Sanskrit, 
Zend,  &c.  witlj  the  Greek  and  Germau ;  for  the  Gothic  base 
\VNSA  or  UNSI  has  been  regarded  by  us,  in  §.  166..  aa  a 
jlninspositiou  ofufina — Pali  and  Pralci'it  umha;  the  u  for  a  is 


464 


PHONOrNS. 


to  be  explained  by  the  influence  uf  tlie  traua]K>sed  nasal 
(§.  66.).  But  if  the  a  of  wn  aama  is  no  ahbrevintion  of 
mo,  (in  the  opposite  case  it  would  be  ideiilital  with  the 
demoDStrutive  base  a),  and  if,  thereForc,  in  this  pltiral  base, 
the  "I"  ia  aetually  foriaiilly  expressed,  I  would  then  place 
great  stress  on  the  fact,  that,  in  Sauakrit  and  Greek,  the  ap- 
pended pronoun  ama,  or  that  whieh  it  has  become  in  Greek, 
in  the  pronouns  of  the  Ist  and  2d  person  only  occurs  in  the 
plural.  For  as  sma,  which  occurs  also  isolated,*  (an  be  no- 
thing else  than  a  pronoun  of  the  third  person.f  so  would 
[G.  Ed.  p.  475.]  a-fljii*,  as  a  copulative  compound  (Grnmni. 
Crit.  f  G5S.).  sipiify  "I"'  and  "they";  hut  Kua/im^,  *' thou" 
ond  "they";  ao  that  the  sinfjular  "I"  and  "thou"  would 
be  expressed  by  a  and  yu ;  the  plural  "  they "  by  ami; 
and  this  would  be  the  most  n.itural  as  well  as  the  clearest 
ami  most  perfect  desi;'uatiou  of  the  compound  ideas  "we" 
and  "ye."  The  ingress  of  the  appended  pronoun  into 
the  singular  of  the  first  and  second  persons,  in  Zend, 
Piilt.  Friikrit.  and  German  ({.  174.]<  must.  then,  be  ascribed 
to  an  abuse  of  later  introduction.  In  the  pronouns  of  the 
third  person,  however,  the  analogy  of  which  may  have  had 
an  v9cel  on  the  abuse  cited  in  the  declension  of  the  two  first 
persons  in  the  singular,  the  union  of  two,  nay,  even  of  three 
pronouns  of  the  same  person  into  one  wliole  is  extraordinarily 
frequent  and  originally,  it  seems,  betokctncd  only  increast; 
of  emphasis. 

331.  The  sylbble   5  jiu   of  ir^  yushmS.  "  ye,"  is    pro- 


*  Either  with  imperceptible  mcntiing,  or  nrfvrrin^  ihe  aclinn  of  tlic 
pnacRl  to  the  fnrther  rid«  of  the  pnct. 

t  Pad  may  Iki  right  in  vxiiUining  (D«rl.  Aoa.  1633.  Vol.  I.  p.394) 
tma  from  tama,  "Likt;.'*  I  ah  odd,  however,  iht^n  huld  "tlicHrne"  to  be 
llic  itncitnl  mfonloff  of  MHio,  noA  th«  ides  of  ninilarily  lu  o  dcrircd  odo; 
and  also  no  Ioniser  explain  tamo,  aa  in  my  Ulounry,  from  tn<i,  "to  mrA- 
tan,"  but  reftanl  it  u  thv  coDiblnMhio  of  (he  pruaomiiiftl  bnacs  ta  and  ma 
(ooiaparc  tmo,  "tlii»,"  from  i-t-ma). 


PBONOCNS. 


465 


bnbly  a  sortcniug  of  /u,  n-hich  extends  itself  also  to 
the  dual,  to  wliioh  i/uva  serves  as  the  tliome.*  Tlie 
Greek  ^w  lo-tfmT),  however,  lias  beeu  retained  more 
complete,  nnd  represents  the  Siinskrit  8iii<^lAr  base  twn,  willi 
a  for  /,  and  <f»  for  v.  In  the  latter  respect,  coDiptu-c  nJso 
ir^U  and  <7^o9  with  tlie  Siiaskrit  swaynm,  "  self,"  and 
noa-tf  " «!!«,*■  regnrding  which  Iierenfter.j  The  Prakrit  iind 
P£1i.  and  several  other  Iiidinn  di&lects.  [G.Ed  |i. -iTn.) 
have  retained  the  t  in  the  plural  unaltered,  or  restored; 
hence,  Pali-Prakrit  Tj»|(uinW  for  lusmf.  In  Gothic,  however, 
by  rejecting  tlie  u,  and  exchanging  the  m  for  v,  yu-xma  has 
hccome  I-ZFA,  and  by  weakening  the  a  to  r,  T-ZVI  (§.  167.). 
The  Litlmuniau  gives  fU  as  the  theme  of  the  majority  of 
cases  iu  the  dual  and  pluml.  and  in  tlie  Grst  person  MU,  to 
which,  however,  the  nominative  mit  "  we"  does  not  corre- 
spond. The  appended  pronoun  nr  rma  has  been  distinctly 
retained  only  in  the  genitive  dual  iiiid  locative  plural — 
although  it  is  originally  foreign  to  the  dual, — but,  in  the  For- 
nier  ease,  to  which  tlie  numeral  is  annexed,  llie  s,  and  in  the 
latter  ease  the  m,  has  fallen  out ;  hence  niii-mtJ  divie^i,  "  of 
oatwo";  yu-m^  c/witytJ,  "of  you  two"J;  mu-$Utc,  "in  us"; 
vujvte  "  in  yOU." 


*  From^u  +  a,  with  change  of  the  u  into  uv,  according  to  a  uoi  versa) 
euphonic  Uw  (Gramm.  CritJ.fil.). 

t  Aa  I  formerly  look  iho  a.  In  forma  liWc  o^fcn^i  (we  ^.  218.),  for  a 
tni]>l)oniu  ndJitkiii,  I  thought  also  (Hlat.  Phil.  Trfuie.  <>f  the  Ac.  of  Lit. 
f<a  the  ycftr  IH'iS.  ji.  1S<!)  that  I  might  explain  v<^C>,  aiuw«risg  to  tho 
Liitiji  riutnnil  SnnshTU  ni;n,  car,  »  corrupted  by  ]>relixlii{^  a  tr  nlliocl  lo 
tlic  ^.  This  opinion,  hgwcTur,  :itniiJ»  in  no  furtlinr  iitci]  of  HU|i[>ort,  from 
the  iaformatton  which  I  havo  since  then  gnincd  rtghiilinj;  ilu)  a  orforoia 
ina-<pt;  and  I  Bcc«dpso  much  tiin  mors  willingly  lothe  abovcmcnlioneiE 
opinion,  wliieh  was  firsi  Mpjt-ascd  by  Max.  Sclimidi  (Uc  Pron.  Or.  et 
Ut,  p.  9.) 

*  According  In  Mielclce,  alao  mama  dtvieyd  nad  pumrna  dwieyH,  tSui 
latter  with  doubled  m;  ili«lin<tofwliiclii«to  b«  L-xptaioed  byusimiUition 
of  the  f,  ae  in  Uia  J^Hc,  fmut. 


466 


PnOKOUNS. 


333.  It  is.   Iiowevvr,  also    very    probable  that  tliv  s  in 

the  Lilliiianiuu  nominative  m^s.  "we,"  yds.  "ye."  as  well 
ns  the  i  of  tlie  Gothic  wis,  yiu,  is  not  the  ago  of  tJio 
Qominativc,  as  it  appears  to  be  in  the  actual  cauditiou 
of  the  Inu^a^,  hut  an  abbreviation  of  the  sylJiibk 
ima.  Tliis  conjecture  is  rtused  aluiost  to  certainty  by 
the  Z«ocI,  in  which,  together  with  the  ^^^fJC^  ythhhn 
(sec  §.   .11).).  which  rests    on     the    Sanskrit    ^tui    ijuyiim 

(from  yu  +  am,  with  euphonic  y,  §.  43.).  ■>*!'f^^  ^''■»  "'so 
occurs;  tlie  s  uf  which  is  represeuted  by  Buriiouf  (Yasniif 
Notes,  p.  121),  in  which  he  is  clearly  right,  as  identical  with 
the  Sanskrit  ^  sli  ofinniir  yushmal  (abUtivc.  antti  in  the  begin- 
ning of  couipouatis,  n-prcscnting  the  theme,  sec  p.  112G.  cd.). 
[G.Ed.  p.  4770    Wherefore  m^^j^  yilt,  is  an  abbreviation 

of  the  VMic  v^  yushmi;  and  the  a  can  in  nowise  ]>a9S  for 
the  sign  of  the  nominative ;  as  from  a  theme  yu,  according 
to  the  usual  declension  in  the  nominative  and  vocative  plural, 
nmst  come  either  yav6  or  yvS.  According  to  the  prono- 
minal declension,  however,  we  have  already  seen  tftbj*^ 
yashim  developed  from  the  Sanskrit  ijiiM  yuyum.  In 
Lithuanian,  mrs,  if  s  were  the  sign  of  case,  woultl  stand 
completely  isolated  iis  tlic  masculine  plural  nominative*; 
and  as  to  the  German,  that  language  has.  from  the  carliwt 
period,  lost  the  sign  of  the  case  in  the  nominative  plurnl; 
while  the  r  of  trir,  ihr,  which  corresponds  to  tlie  Gothic  f 
of  vetM,  ytu,  has  remained  to  this  day,  which,  with  other 
weighty  reasons,  awards  to  this  r  likewise  a  destination 
other  than  that  of  denoting  the  relation  of  cose. 

336.  According  to  tlie  principle  of  the  Zend-Litlmanian- 
Gothic  yua,  yua,  I  explain  also  the  Sanskrit  irn^  nns.  79^  t-or, 
which  are  used  as  co-forms  in  the  accusative,  dative,  and 


*  AllhoDKh  in  this  pronoun  there  is  iiool'vlmin  dtBtinctiatiofgaDdert 
MtU  tbe  Ssnskftt  dedciuion-forini*,  vut.  lumi?,  luirnin,  aro  Diascolin*. 


FKO  NOUNS. 


487 


g(?nitive  of  tbe  two  first  [venous ;  tlie  s  of  which,  however, 
coiitd  iiut  find  Any  legitimate  place  in  such  different  cases, 
if,  by  its  origin,  it  vraa  destined  to  denote  a.  case-con- 
nection. Iq  the  same  way,  however,  that  the  j?enJ  j/«i.v  ia 
lite  abbreviation  of  yti*m^,  so  may  im  nas  and  wi  vns  he 
deduced  in  tlic  accusative,  frum  nasmdn.  ivi^mdn.  and  in  the 
dative  ftod  genitive,  from  nasmahht/am,  nasmdkam,  vof 
mnbhyam,  vasmQkam ;  and  the  9,  therefort\  suits  all  the 
three  eases,  exactly  bec-auso  it  expresses  none  of  them. 
TJiero  remain,  after  the  dissolution  of  the  rest  of  the 
appended  pronoun,  na  and  va,  as  thu  chief  elements  of 
personal  definition,  from  which  have  proceeded  the  dual 
secondary  forms  ni\a  and  vAm  (for  tulu).  (G.  Ed.  p.  478.] 
The  n  of  wi,  however,  is  a  weakening  of  the  m,  the  high 
ODtiqnity  of  which  may  be  traced  from  the  eoincidence  with 
the  Greek.  Latin,  and  Sclavonic:  but  va  is  an  abbreviation 
of  iwii,  aa,  vhiinii,  "  twenty,"  from  ilwiamti. 

337.  The  bases  tf  tin,  H  va.  would  lend  us  to  expect  in 
Latin  NU,  VV  {no,  vn.  §.  116.).  as  themes;  mi,  vj,  ns  plural 
nomiuntives;  and  nm,  i'd»,  as  aecusntivea.  The  eireum- 
stance,  however,  that  nos,  von,  arc  found  already  in  the 
nominative,  and  that  the  final  s  is  retained  also  in  the  posscs- 
sives  nos'ter,  ves'ter  (for  vos-ter),  must  cause  tlie  as  of  nos, 
voH,  in  the  aceusiitive,  to  appear  to  us  in  an  entirely  diflert-ut 
light  from  that  oi  lupus;  and  the  explanation  wbieh  wo 
have  given  of  the  s  of  the  indisputably  kindred  Sanskrit  forms 
»T^  nn-a,  Hl^  in-s.  must  therefore  extend  also  to  that  of  no-a, 
t»-x,  objectionable  as  it  may  appear  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  self-restricted  Latin  Urninmnri  wbeii  we  seek  in  no* 
and  vot  a  remnant  of  the  appended  pronoun  sma.  treated  of 
in  §.  156.  &c..  which  we  also  recognise  robbed  of  its  a*  in 
the  appended  pliable  met  (eifompt,  memtt,  iumel,  nosmet,  &c.) 


*  Camp,  mcmer  fur  mevnar  with  Sarwltril  fmar;  to,  toOj  Poll  (Lc.) 
rtzpUlu-t  the  Latin  i/isl. 


4GS 


PRONOUNS, 


which  refers  iLHcIf  moat  closely  to  tlie  SaaBkrtt  plural 
ablative  a-smat,  ya-xkinal,  wliicli  is  also  employed  by  the 
language  instead  oftUotticmc  for  nil  coacs  and  numbers 
(§.  LIS.),  Du  which  account  tlio  like  free  use  of  the  Lntiii 
met  cannot  appear  surprising.  Morwivcr,  I  have  else- 
where endeavoured  to  explnin  the  Liitin  imnto  by  Bssimi- 
latiou  from  t-xtno,  aud  so  to  Apportion  the  fir»t  pa.rt  to  the 
demotistmtive  base  /,  and  the  luat  to  our  svvi. 

338.  We  now  torn  to  the  Old  Sclavonic,  where  nn**  and 
t^M    na    genitive   and    locative,    are   completely    identical 

[G.  Ed.  p.  471).]  with  the  »rw  iias  and  m  vas  of  Sanskrit, 
which  in  tlint  language  are,  indeed,  excluded  from  the  locative, 
but  still  hold  the  plaee  of  genitives.  Tliemoucsyllnbic  nature 
of  titese  forma  hat,  in  Sehivonic.  protected  the  old  a  as  well 
AS  the  linnl  a  (§.  'ibb.  n.  I.) ;  but  here,  also,  this  .«  cannot  be 
looked  upon  as  a  casc-cbaractcr,  as,  without  exception,  the 
terminations  sni  mini  and  «  sti  have,  in  Old  Scluvnnie,  be- 
come cA  (p.  356,  Note  *).  The  coneurreiil  disiiicliiiatiun  of 
so  many  languages  to  consider  the  s.  in  the  common  forms 
under  discussion,  as  a  sign  of  ease,  streugtheus  the  evidence 
for  each  single  individual  language.  As  to  the  Sanskrit, 
however,  applying  in  the  dual  the  forms  mlu,  vAm  (for  vAa, 
p.  472,  Nolo '),  iu  cases  to  which  Axt  does  not  belong  as  the 
inflexiuD,  in  tliis  poiut  it  is  uot  supported  by  any  of  the 
Knropeau  sisti'r  lungUHgct:  we  might  still,  however,  admit 
the  conjecture,  that  here,  also,  the  rf«  is  not  a  case-termina- 
tion, but  is  derived  from  a  different  origin,  and,  iu  fact,  to  be 
so  regarded,  oa  that  nAu,  vAa  (corrupU'd  to  vAm)  are  exten- 
sions of  the  plural  nos,  vas,  by  leugtlicniiig  the  a,  aud  by 
resolving  the  «  to  u,  according  to  the  analogy  of  §.  -206. 
For  if  a  case  termination  Am  has  become  ^ft  &u — and  in 
Zcud  every  Enal  Aa,  without  distinction,  bus  hvcomc  ao — it 


•  Bat  see  ^  788.  Note  I,  p.  1016. 


PRONOUN'S. 


469 


cannot  be  surprising  that  n6a,  also,  hng  become  n<iu;  aud 
then  in  ndu  a  dual  caac  trrminatiuii  ia  just  as  little  con- 
tainfftl  as  in  n«i  a  plural.  The  sensual  dunl.  however,  loves 
broatk-r  forms  tlian  the  plural  (eonipare  §.  206.) ;  and 
to  this  inclination  tlie  lengthening  of  the  n  of  net.  va>. 
may  be  nxcribed.  But  tiAa  may.  however — nnil  this  [ 
much  prefer — be  re^rded  ns  a  copulative  compound 
from  ti/i-a;  so  tiint  it  would  atind  in  the  accusative  for 
itd-jrmclu,  in  Uie  genitive  for  tid-amnj/tU,  according  to  the 
principle  of  the  V«lic  pUnfti-mAinrAu,*  "  father  and  motlier." 
litenilly,  "  two  fathers,  two  motlicrs."  [Q.  Ed.  p.  480.] 
AecordiDg  to  this,  ndu  would  properly  mean,  as  act-usative, 
"  me  and  hira,"  as  above  (§.  33a.)  trtmf,  for  mtumS,  "  1  and 
they";  and  tVlm,  for  i-du — Zend  ^Ip  tAo — would  denote,  aa 
at-eusiitive;  *"  thee  oiid  him."  Ai:c«nliii;j  t«  this  prim^iple  of 
cnpulativo  compoaition  we  may  probably  view,  also,  il-vdm. 
(for  (I-ida).  "we  two";  so  that,  with  a  more  retiring' desi^ 
niition  of  the  third  person,  it  would  Hteralty  mean  "  he  and 
I ";  for  a  ia  a  demonstrative  base,  whicU  is  here  lengthened 
to  the  dual  form  d  (%.  206.),  and  vdm  (^nitive  and  locative 
fryiw]  answers,  in  nspeet  to  its  base,  to  vuyttm,  "  we."{p.462.).t 
339,  At  the  base  of  the  two  Brat  persona  of  the  Greek 
dual  lie  NO.  S40,  aa  tlicmes.  which  Kup]K)rt  the  opinion,  that 
in  ^  nAu,  ^m  vAm  (for  viu),  to  which  Uioy  bear  the  same 
rrlation  that  o«t«  dws  to  nxfuAu.  the  Aa  is  not  n  case  termi- 
nation. For  if  NI2,  2*Sl  wero  tlie  themea  in  Greek,  the 
genitive  and  dative  would  necessarily  be  voiv,  <r^ip,  as  it 
would  be  unnatural  that  the  long  vowel,  which,  in  the  no- 
miuativc  and  accusative,  would  be  explicnble  according'  to 


•  See  pp.  aaa,  aw,  mi  shorter  SunakHt  GrammBr,  f .  SBO.  Rem. 

i  I  fiirinerljr  Ihnuglit  (1,c.  ^\27l.)  the  fl  oTih/'int  fu\f;\il  L«  n.'giu^l«laH 
a  u TCDgibfii in g  prefix,  na  in  tlic  loiitillo  oftheO"^  and  3'' dtinl  pcrwm. 
But  tli«  ftWve  view  ansnirs  bitUr  lo  tlie  tui£]>His  which  wna  Kireo, 
^.333^of  Iho  phinU. 


470 


PB0N0US8. 


the  analoj^  of  \vx«>,  Trom  AYKO,  should  be  rctainnl  before 
tlie  tcrniiiintioii  iv.  It  would,  it  seems,  be  righiFy  nssitmed, 
that  in  the  iioininntive  uud  accusative,  va>i,  a^wi*,  «ro  ihc  ori- 
ginal rormSiiiiid  m,  a-^(ror  I'fi.tr^^},  abbrevinlions  ortbem. 
From  vS)Y,  u^i,  spring,  also,  the  posaessives  vWirepov,  a-tptai- 
TtpiK.  But  how  stands  it  with  the  very  isol.'tted  Greek  dual 
forms  *wt,  <T4pCii?  Max. Schmidt  (l.c.  p.  94}  supposes  therein 
a  remnant  of  the  Sanskrit  neuter  dual  termiuntioi)  t  (§.  212.). 
It  would  not  be  neceasary,  if  this  be  so,  to  assume  that  in  »'wi'. 
<ri^i',  u  ransculinc  and  neuter  dual  termination  arc  united. 

[G.  FA.  p.  4BI.3  US  NQ  and  2*a  hnve  already  been  made 
to  pass  as  themes,  from  which  vCt'i,  a^w'i,  would  be  very 
satisfiictoril^  explained  by  the  addition  of  a  single  termination. 
Observe,  however,  that  the  pronouns  of  the  first  and  second 
persons  do  not  originally  distinguish  any  genders,  and  occur 
in  Sanskrit  unly  with  masculine  tei'minations;  that  tlierefore 
a  remnant  of  ib«  lost  neuter  teruiiuution  is  less  to  be  ex- 
pected in  tliese  very  pronouns  iu  Grwk  than  in  any  other 
word  whatever.  Hence  I  prefer  recognising  in  the  t  of  i-w", 
<j^iiit\  a  weakening  of  the  dual-ending  a,  which  originally 
jicrtained  to  the  masculine  and  feminine,  oiul  wliich.  in  the 
common  declension,  has  become  e  (§.  2(K).).  According  to 
this,  the  I  has  the  same  relation  to  this  «  and  the  Zend  a  that 
the  .^lolie  Tiirvpt^  lias  to  Tta-trapn  and  i^JM^fyM^  chalhioiM. 
This  opinion  finds  particular  support  from  the  fact  that  v&e 
actually  occurs  for  uS>-i,  as  in  the  third  person  tr^i,  not 
<rif>wi;  and  in  tfie  second  person,  also,  the  Gramm,ariiuis 
assume  a^mt  together  with  a^i  (Buttmann  Lex.  I.  52). 

340.  We  give  here  a  connected  gcaetTtt  view  of  the  de- 
clension of  the  pronouns  of  the  two  first  persons,  with  the 
remark  tliat  the  compared  languages  do  not  everyivherc 
agree  with  one  another  in  regard  of  inBexion.  We  select 
from  the  Greek,  where  it  is  desirable  for  the  sake  of  com- 
parison, the  dialectic  forms  which  come  nutrcst  to  the 
Suiudtrit  or  the  Zend. 


PRONOUNS. 


4C» 


cannot  be  surprisinj;  that  n^t.  also,  hoa  become  ndu;  and 
then  in  mlu  a  duni  case  tf^rmination  Is  just  as  little  con- 
Inined  ns  in  nag  a  plural.  The  sensual  dual,  however,  loves 
broad«T  forms  than  tli«  plunil  (compiire  §,  208.) ;  and 
to  thia  inclination  the  lengthening  of  the  n  of  mi»,  ivis, 
may  be  ascribed.  But  v/in  may,  however — and  this  I 
much  prefer — be  n^rdcd  ns  a  copulative  compound 
from  n^-o;  so  that  it  would  stand  in  the  acirusativc  for 
vAninihi,  in  the  grniti%'e  for  itd-smnyih,  according  to  the 
principle  of  the  Vcdic  pUarA-mulaTAit,*  "  father  and  mother." 
literally.  "  two  futhcra.  two  molhera."  CO-  Ed.  p.  480.]- 
Accordiiig  (o  this.  n<1ii  would  properly  mean,  as  acetisiLtire, 
••  me  and  him,"  ns  above  (§.  333.)  atmf,  for  masm^,  "  I  and 
they";  and  vdm,  for  udu — Zeud  f*ulf  v&o — would  denote,  as 
accusative,  "  thee  and  him."  According  to  this  principle  of 
copulative  composition  we  may  probably  view,  also,  d-itlm, 
(fttr  li-itlu),  "  we  two  ";  so  thHt,  with  a  more  retiring  desig- 
nation of  the  third  person,  it  would  literally  mcna"heand 
I  ";  for  fl  is  a  dcmonsirative  bsise,  wliich  it>  here  lengthened 
to  (be  dual  form  /i  (§.  20S.),  nnd  vAm  (genitive  and  locative 
tv/y(I«)  answers,  in  i-uSpcct  to  its  base,  to  ixiiffim,  "  wc,"'  (p.  ifiH.).t 
339.  At  the  base  ofthu  two  first  persons  of  tlic  Greek 
dual  tie  NO,  S4f2,  as  themes,  which  support  the  opinion,  that 
in  iA  iidu.'Vm  v/im  (for  v4u).  to  which  they  bear  the  aume 
relnlion  tlmt  Sxrta  dot>s  to  tishulu.  tlie  du  is  not  a  case  termi- 
nation. For  if  NQ,  2<r>fl  were  tlie  themes  in  Greek,  the 
Rcnitivo  and  dative  would  ncccsanrily  be  vofi>,  n^otv,  as  it 
would  be  unnatunil  that  the  long  vowel,  which,  in  the  no- 
minative und  accusative,  would  be  explicable  according  to 


*  Sfv  pp,  2SEt,  301),  and  aliorter  Sanakrll  Grammar,  $.  689.  Ilcin, 

t  I  formerly  thnupht  (I.e.  ^^.2*^  )  Ihe  ri  of  rfi-rfm  iiiiBln  b*  irgardod  no 

a  iin-ngitit'iiing  jirvtlz,  lu  id  tlie  miildlo  of  the '^°'  rdiI  S"*  iJual  (icrenn. 

Rut  tlir  (iWrc  view  answrre  bi-lttr  lo  tbe  aaoIyaSs  which  wns  givon, 

^.3.13,,  flf  tliopltirnt. 


472 


PRONOUNS. 


UKKIIir.  SRWDl    CRtKt. 

»:'  1  uvAb/if/dm,  

IB 

^   '  ^lariiiliy&nt 

-  AvMiyUnt,         .   .   uaiir^ 

^    ^   tU!U,  .   .  .    vinr,'' 

^  vam,  vAv,    e^Siii'^ 
^  ^  lii-ilJit/iim 
<  (  t/umbfigdm 
di'tq/ai, 

\  vdm,  odo,    vrftSm/, 

C    (    rfTOS^»  

^  t  1/vtvj/At,  


ccfTittf.  i.iTii.  OLD  acur. 

nama. 

vatna. 

Mg^,      mttm  dviem,  naxia.'' 

...  ....  n«»*a.» 

ist/ws,     yum  dwiem,  varniL.* 
vama} 


ui/kara,  mwniu  diviryS,  itoffu,* 

noiff!.* 

iffqvara,  ^mu  dwifj/a,  rnyti.* 
iniyii.* 

CtllfU. 

.  - mud. 


■  1  ttgifd  the  (ermiiuUon  <lrn  o»  a  hardening  of  iha  common  da«\  tnr' 
mination  n'u  ()H.-r'ire  rowols  dv) ;  Bad  I  would  crave  attentian  lothe  fivqnmit 
interchange  ofi-ond  rn  l}.63  ,  cnmpnru  ji.  1  lO-  Tliia  linrdcniits  hiui  not, 
iD  the  Ul  pcnon,  rxtcnrlc<]  itito  iho  iccotiiliiry  form ;  mai  in  the  2d  por- 
VIII  tim  7.1,-iid  ivio  M]ifakii  for  nn  nMi-r  Snii«ltrit  fiinn  viiu  ftir  (virn.  Ttici 
Zend  form  r(f«  ocean)  in  the  34ili  clutpicr  of  thtr  Iscshno,  ati^  op|>rnn, 
also,  tOiUndunoRiiDAtivc:.  Ilowovirr,  Lho  Zrod  is itot  wanting  in  an  niut- 
logonsform  to  tlic  Saiukrit  dual  basojfuKa;  fur  thnl  nLJch  Anquulit,  in 
luB  Gloaaar/,  writes  ttouiiJcem,  and  nmdora  by  vout  dmj,  oujtht  pnttvably 
le  bo  5y'W>''-*J.C  if"*^'""!  aniJ  >»  «l««rly  wi  ftiuJogons  dual  gt-nitive 
(p.  473  lU-m.]  to  (lie  pIoTolgcn.  ^ikiU^MC^j^y&tmdkim,v\vch,  Anqtietil 
like«iNC9iind«r«<unan)gna(ivD.  '  Sec  §.  3!}!).  '  ThcKlcarlv  brjuugs 
bt  Uic number twa (t(i»m«  TIFJ),  which,  in  Ltthnanisn,  ia retaiaed  ihrouRh 
allibrcaars.        •  Yetaimno  mudilKL         '  Thi- diitinclionuftlie  i^endt-rs 

[O.  Ell  p.  484.]  tuu  bc«i  introduced,  ciinirary  to  tlw  ornjiiud  prin- 
ciple, (lirougb  tho  aiulif^  oflUc  i^imtnon  diiul  («M-^.i!T3.}.  lu  tbv  Old 
Slavonic,  too.  In  the  ilnnl  iwrsoiULl  tcrminatinns,  which,  in  Sfinskflt, 
Z«Dd,  and  Grc«k,  mark  th«  gend<T>  Jul  a*  link  as  the  oihur  numWni 
distingniabM  tlio  ftminino  from  ihp  niaecnline  by  tlve  termination  ye  {—^ 
/.  ^.  ]66.«)-  •  Femiiiine  yudtci.  '  S«  J.  lOB.  •  The 

conipariilon  with  tba  SiuuVrit  principjil  funn  rt-gnrtli  the  cusa  lenuinaliDii ; 
that  with  tbc  !i«Mudnty  form  the  th<-me 


PRONOUNS. 


473 


SAHiK^IT. 

ioayam, 
Sityam, 

Jamdfi, 
na», 
ymhmdn. 


UNn. 
vaim, 

y&difm 
ySt, 

v6f 


PLURAL. 

OHRBC.  LATIN.  OOTHIC.  LITV.       OLD  KXAV. 

vei»,  

iififtts-,*    nof,'  veU,*  mis,*      my. 


eiifus,'     tw»,>     ytu,*      ^at,*       vy. 
Sf^iu,        .  .  .      uiuU,*    mAi,       ny. 


^H"f 


pw, 


vy. 


4j  1   aamdbhitj  .  .  . 

H  i  yugfim/ibhu,  .  .  . 

,  tumabhyam,  .  .  . 

^  j  nut,  fid, 


_j      attnat,  .... 

^  j  yufhmat,  y&tmat, 


.  .  .  twbit,  .  .  .  fflUffllf,  nami. 
.  .  .  viAit,  .  .  .  pumlf,  vaiRi*. 
Sfifuiv)     .  .  .     utuiM,     munnu,  nam. 

.  .  .        nobit, nam. 

n  1  yu^mabkyam  yiitmaiilya,  Cfi^(f),    .  .  .     ttrvu,      yumtu,  vam, 

^  vtu,  ....  ...        voMf, vam. 

.  .  .        nobis 

.  .  .         vobit 

iatmakam,*  ahmJSkem,  afifiitay,  .  .  .  un$ara,  mi»&,  .  ,  , 
nai,  nd,  ...  nottri, na$. 
yu^m&kam^  yStmd/cim,  ififuttvy  .  .  .  izvaroy  yti>^  .  .  . 
vat,                 vd,                ...        wstri, rxu. 


ji   ,  aamdtu, 
A   \  }/mhmdtu, 

'  See  }.  332. 
»  Sec  fi.  174. 


'  Sec  §.  170. 


muf&se,  not. 

ifut&te,  iNM. 

*  See  $.307.  *  See$.33Q. 


[G.  Ed.  p.  486.]  ■' Remark.— Max  Schmidt  (I.e.  pp.  9,  lo) 
rightly  takes  the  forms  asmfikam,  ymhrndkam,  for  posaesaives ; 
and  Rosen  lias  since  con6rmed  this  view  (Journal  of  Education, 
July— Oct.  1834,  p.  348)  by  the  Veda  dialect  jmranfWr  ^fiffir 
yushmilkdbhir,  Alibhis,  '  vestrts  auxiUia ').  We  must  therefore 
r^ard  nsmtikam,  yuahmAkam,  as  singular  neuters,  which  are, 
as  it  were,  petrified,  and  have  thus  lost  the  power  of  being 
governed  according  to  the  gender,  number,  and  case  of  their 
substantive.  In  the  two  first  res|)ect8  they  may  be  com- 
pared with  numeral  expressions  (§.  318.)  like  ira  pancha, 
'five,' which,  in  the  Greek  irevTe  and  Latin  qumque,  has 
become  completely  indeclinable,  and  therefore  exactly  like 
atmAkam,  yushmdkam,   Zend  ahm&kem,   y^wtdkem  and  the 


1 1 


474 


PBONOUNS. 


dual  form  tncntionrd  at  p.  472.  Note  '.,  yavdkm.      It  is  clear 
that  the  Latin  forms,  nl90>  noatri,  noafrum,  vtslri,  watrutH, 
belong  to  tlie  possessive;  nnd  for  nostrum,  vetitrum.  arc  used 
also  no^fritritm,  tirstrorum  (Schmidt,  p.  HO-     As,  then,  intsara, 
izvarn,  stand  altogctlior  isolated  in  Gothic  as  genilives,  it  is, 
in  my  opinioji,  much  more  nataral  to  derive  them  from  the 
possessive  biises  of  the  snme  sound — which   form,    in   tlie 
nominative  singular  masculine,  unsnr.  izvnr  (see  p.  390  G.  ed. 
Note) — thnn,  on  the  contrary,  to  deduce  the  possessives  From 
the  unexplained  genitives  of  the  j^ersonal  pronoun,  so  that 
they  would  1m?  without  any  derivative  sutlix  whatever,  which 
is  opposed  to  the  common  laws  for  tliti  derivaliou  of  words. 
I  most  prefer  regarding  unwra,  kvotq,  nnd  the  analogous 
dual  forms,  as  singular  and  dual  neuters,  like  the  Sanskrit 
nsmAkam,  tfinsftm'iiam,  aiwl   with  an  antiquated  retention  of 
the  n  of  the  base,  which  in  daur  for  ilaara  (§.  153.)  has  dis- 
appeared.      Ought,  also,  the  singular  genitives  to  be  viewed 
in  this  light  ?  for  ntpina,  Ihe'mn,  whin,  are  possessive  bases  as 
well  RS  the  genitives  of  the  personal  pronouns  ;  and  if  the 
former  Iiad  prot-eedcd  from  tiic  latter,  the  addition  of  a 
BUflix  might  have  been  expected.      Perhai^s  even  in  Sanskrit 
the  expressions  mamn,  tain,  which  arc  far  removed  from  nil 
tlic    forms    of  genitives,  are    originally  posscssives,    from 
whicli.  after  they  were  no  longer  recognised  as  sueli,  sprang 
the    secondary   forms  mAmaka,    tAvaka,  ns   biiluka    cumes, 
without  altemtiun  of  mnaniiig,  from  MUt,  'a  boy.'     Observe, 
also,   the   surprising  accordimcc  between   the  Greek    pos- 
sessive base  TEO,  from  TKfO,  and  the  Sanskj-it  genitive 
/am.      The   form  <ro-«,    however,    has  scarcely  proceeded 
from   aov.  but   from    the    more   entire    t«!(J-«,    by  syncope 
and  exchange  of  the  t   with  tr.      In   regard    to  the   re- 
placing of  the  genitive  of  pronouns  without  gender  by  the 
corresponding  posscssivcs,  it  deserves  further  to  be  remarked, 
[G.  Ed.  p.  480.]     that,   io    Ilinddstaui,    the    forms,  which 
are  represented   in    both   numbers  of  all  d<H;linabIc  wortis 
as  geniti%'es,  are  shewn   tu  be  unmistukeable  possessives. 


PRONOtfHS. 


hy  being  governed  by  tlie  gender  of  tJie  Tollowing  substan- 
tive. Tlie  jtmnouns  nf  tlie  first  nnd  second  person  have 
in  the  mnsi.-ulim>  r/i,  in  the  fominine  rf,  as  the  possessive 
stiffix;  oilier  words,  in  tbe  tnosc-ulinc  kiJ,  feminine  ifi;  nnil 
tbc  latter  an&wera  to  the  Sitnskrit  ka  in  asm'ikn,  yu*hmdJca, 
m^maAa,  Ijlvaia.  In  Hindiisti'ini,  tbcnrforei  mi'r!  wi.  Uri  nui, 
is  literally,  not  '  ijwi  mater'  '  tai  mutrr.'  but  '  mea  maier,' 
•  too  raaler ;"  and  tlie  fvmintnc  termination  i*  answers  to  tbc 
Sanskrit  feminine  fornuition  (§.  119.).  Id  the  musculioe 
the  poescssives  under  discussion  arc  sounded  mMI,  tM, 
plural  Aam/Ird,  (umAdrd.  In  tlus  it  is  remarkable  tliat  the 
formative  suffix  rrl  agrees  with  tbc  Gothic  ra  of  unsaTa, 
istrttra.  dual  uifiora.  igqvnrn.  In  respect,  also,  to  the  trans- 
position of  the  nasal,  tumhilrA  for  tuhmAnt,  from  tusmiird,  is 
similar  to  the  Gothic  ugkara,  vnsara,  if/qvara, 

rROSOUNS  OP  THE  TBIRD  PERSON. 
341.  The  Sanskrit  is  deficient  in  a  simple  substantive 
pronoun  of  the  tliird  person,  devoid  of  gcmlcr :  that  it. 
however,  originally  poesessed  sueh  a  pronoun  is  proved,  not 
only  by  the  unanimous  evidence  of  the  European  cognate 
languages,  bat  especially  by  the  circumstance  that,  in 
Zend,  Mw  hf  and  j^»y  hAi  (also  (om3  «^.  according  to  §.  55.), 
and,  in  Prakrit,  ^  sd,  nrv  used  as  the  genitive  and  itntive 
of  the  third  person  in  ail  genders,*  nnd  indeed  in  the  direct 
sense,  and  in  form  analogous  to  the  secondary  forms 
of  the  first  and  second  ptirson ;  Sanskrit  ft  mA  ?t  tf, 
^  tu-f,  Zend  jj35  mi  or  y^^  mdi.  (w?»  W  or  J^fi  tot, 
j^m^  thic<ii  (§.  3i9.)      In  Siuiskrit  swti.-f  lengthened  to  »irA 

*  In  Zeai  I  remember  on)}-  vxamiHia  at  t)i«  liintl  nlierc  die  pronoun 
mMtioned  refers  to  niucnliacs  i  I'ut  in  Prakfit  ii  j^  is  oHea  foaud  fctni- 
bi»C  ;  t.  ff.  Vrraa  by  r^-nz,  pp.  4U.  &a  f'ieo.  f>ttll  1  hnvo  not  yet  m«t 
witli  exampU'H  for  u'  lu^  i)iit  ivt-,  tin  mcroiia  oa  the  examples  of  llic  (^liitivc 
•n-.  In  Zti)ii  IjoiIi  coses  occur,  tmA  the  dallv^  Indeed,  tnoro  fnriitciitty 
than  cbog«tiitiv«. 

t  An  to  lli«  origin  of  Hie  ^nnkrit  *nvi  we  j,  040, 

119 


476 


PKONOUNS, 


[0.E<1.  p.  4S7.1      must  be  considered  as  the  theme  of  this 
pronoun,  aa,  aceoniing  to  §.  326.,  ma,  mf,  twa,  twi,  arc  the 
singular  bases  of  the  two    first  persons.       From  ■^  awi, 
ia  1-0 oibi nation  vviUi  the  iiontinativc  tcrminatioQ  am,  (§.  336.) 
comes  ^ra*l    tfvayam,   which    means    "self,"    and    in   the 
present  state  of  chL-  laiigunge  is  iudedinabte  in  all  cases, 
iiunilHTS,  and  genders.     The  form  sfivi  prevails  ns  the  iios- 
sessivc.  but  is  tiscd  not  only  for  situs,  but  for  meiJs  and  tuut, 
in  which  it  is  to  be  observed,  tliat  in  the  majority  of  the 
European  cognate  languageB  the  possessive  of  the  thin)  per- 
son may  be  also  used  for  the  two  first,  and  the  Doric  a^c 
corresponds  as  exactly  as  possible  with  the  Sanskrit  swn-s, 
white  2*1  lies  as  theme  nt  the  base  of  the  plural  of  the  ]>er- 
sonat  pronoun  ((j^tv,  a^C-tri).  with  the  old  u  woakeiied  to  i, 
us  in  the  pluml  of  the  two  first  persons  (§.  332.)-     The  appa- 
rent o^eement  of  the  base  n-ith  the  second  person  in  the 
dual  is,  then,  to  be  expUined  thus,  that  in  the  iuttvr  the  a  has 
proceeded  from  au  older  t.  but  in  the  third  person  is  i>rimt- 
tive.     In   o&  oL  !,  for  <nf>ov.  a-^i.  tr^e — of  wlueh  only  the 
latter  lias  been  retain«J — from    afov.  &c.,   the  digamma, 
nhirh  may  remain   after  o-  in  the  form   of  ^,  has   been 
necessarily  suppressed  after  the    o-   hfis   become  a  rough 
breothiug.       Thus   ol  is  similar  to  the  Zend  j^o"  Iwi  and 
|«»>  bf  (for  Iwdi.  hvS),  and    the  Priikrit  d  rf  for  sv^.      A 
similar  rejection  of  the  ?<.  together  with  ii  weakening  of  the 
old  a   to  i,  shews   itsi-lf  in   the  Gothie  sfi-na,   si-t,   st-k,  for 
tvei-na,  mis,  avi-k  (see  5-  .187.).     On  the  other  hand,  the  v 
has  remained  in  the  adverb  ac^,  as  mentioned  at  9-  ^^-t 
which  evidently  l>cIong»  to  a  ihcme  Si'yl,  as  hvf  from  W/t. 
thf  from  T/fjl.     As  4.  according  to  ^.  69.,  stands  sometimes  for 
the  long  ri,Bothe8viformsare.l.c..expIairi«lasinBtrumentaIs. 
They  might,  however,  be  re^rded  as  locatives,  examples  of 
[^Q.E*!.  (1.480.1     vhich   have    been    pointed   out  at  $.21)1. 
Rem.  2.,  with  oo  i^ termination.    The  UthuanLin  and  Old  Scla- 
vodk:  in  tliis  pronoun  follow  ejiactly  the  analogy-  of  the  second 


PRONOUNS.  4T7 

person,  and  diating:ui8h  it  from  the  laRer  only  by  the  initial 
■  for(;  but,  like  the  Latin,  Greek,  and  German,  dispense 
with  the  nominative  as  they  are  only  used  reflectively,  and 
use  the  singular,  also,  instead  of  the  dual  and  plurnl.  From 
the  Latin,  besides  sui,  suus,  perhaps  also  sponfis,  sponte, 
from  SPONT,  are  to  be  adduced  here,  since,  according  to  all 
probability,  the  meaning  "self,"  or  "the  self,  selfnesa,"  is 
the  primitive :  ap,  however,  may  be  regarded  as  the  modi- 
fication oF  sw  (conap.  §.  50.),  as  spiro.  In  my  opinion,  is  con- 
nected with  swna,  "  to  breathe."  The  Doric  '^iv,  for  a-^tv, 
and  the  Latin  ptfi,  of  i-p»e,  which  should  be  declined  ejun- 
-psitts,  ei-psi,  &C.,  for  ipsius,  ipsi,  are  formed,  io  like  man- 
ner, by  transposition.  As  regards  the  termination  itt  of 
SPONT,  it  might  be  carried  back  to  the  Sanskrit  suffix  vant, 
regarding  which  see  §.  324  and  more  hereafter.  It  may  here 
be  further  remarked,  that,  in  Prakrit,  the  pronoun  of  the  second 
person  occurs,  amongst  other  forms,  in -that  of  Jf^pai  and 
^f^  pom  (Urvasi,  pp.  61.  69),  so  that  the  (  of  twa  is  sup- 
pressed, but  the  V  hardened  to  p.  Compare,  in  the  former 
respect,  the  Doric  ^iv  for  ir<f>iv,  vox,  vos,  for  Irnit.  Ivuh  (§•  336.) . 
and,  in  both  respects,  the  Latin  porta,  which  in  this  way  may 
be  compared  with    ir^  dicdr,  "a  door"  {6vpa). 

342.  We  here  give  a  connected  view  of  the  declension 
of  the  pronoun  of  the  third  person,  devoid  of  gender,  in  the 
singular,  which,  excepting  in  the  cose  of  the  Greek,  sup. 
plies  also  the  place  of  the  dual  and  plural. 

FBAI.       EKKD.       aXUK.         LAT.         GOTB.  LITH.  0\J>  SCLAV. 

Accusative o'4^,<f,  se,      tik,      xnwen^     syn,  O 

Instrumental snwmt,'  sohov&.'  ^ 

Dative,  si,  ht,  hdi,  61  liii,  sis,  saw,'  sebye,  sf  V 
Genitive,  s^,  M,  hdi,  o5,  sui,  seinn,  satcem,'  sebe.'  g 
Locative,       snwtye,*    seljye}      '"' 

1  Compare  $  330.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  aasuine,  that,  in  the 
Becond  person,  the  Lithuanian  theme  taw  nml  the  Sclavonic  Itb  have  arisen 
from  the  Sanskrit  genitive  tana;  but  these  forms  mny  l>e  raganled  hs 


47S 


PRO  NOONS. 


truupontionsof  the  boM  ^tiea.  Bi>lli  expluiatiiinssgrcuintJiomHiii,  ns 
thesj'llalik  (<iv  bt'loii)^  lo  the  Ihisc  ia  the  iDdioii  ^eiiitiv«  mirntTuaJao, 
wliFih«r  we  derive  it  by  Cibna  from  Iti,  ivliencu  ifnra  lu-fAyiiui,  "  In 
tlicr,"  or  rcgiini  it  la  the  tmiupwHMl  form  ufH^itui,  In  ilic  rtfli-cliru 
foniu  given  above,  tai-  oiiJ  Kb  arc  b(i».'<l  on  tilt-  wine  piiaciiilo  oa  tlic  tatc 
aiul  tei  }oat  mcntionud,  nnd  hi-ncc  ihi'y  may  lie  derivod,  hy  trdnApOKittDn, 
from  tUe  Indian  tiosefira,'  or  wo  nmy  aiili[>Otcsg<;uitivp«iiitatohBVe  vx- 
tned  in  Sanakiit  also,  which  lanjuogc,  it  may  be  concluded,  originally 
puMcKCd  a  camplet«  'loL'tensian  of  this  pronoua,  Th«  Gotliic  ttlrya, 
"  klngniAn,"  tliemo  t&^nn,  Old  Iligli  Germnn,  tipp-fit,  "rdiitioiuhi|<," 
*'  kith,"  otcTvcs,  In  a  striking  nmiiiu'r,  with  the  Stluvonic  Inwc  srlr;  tunl  it 
woaltl  iiotbcn»|)riaingifthc  "kiiisinim  "has  U-in  di^iguutcdiis"  tliomiui 
Iwlongiiigmhiro,"  "his  ["mill llini,  lln-wiluri',  thu original  rofliiwutiothiu 
tiinua  has  Iieira  hAnlcnrd.  a»  in  Sclnvonk',  to  b.  Tho  Uotbic  tvc'*,  tliciuo 
n'StUf  "  properly,"  ia  also  a  derivative  from  ihif  pronmin, 

343.  The  base  IT  Vi,  femiuuie  in  M,  signifies,  in  Sanslsrit. 
*■  he."    ■'  this."  «iid    ■'  that,"      The   Zend    form    is    idunticnl 
■witJi  tli«  Sanskrit:  tlie  medial,  however,  frerjuently  occurs 
instead  of  the  teuuis,  as  in  the  accusative  singular  mascu- 
line, in  which  tlie  place  of  fgp  tPm  is  commonly  supplied  by 
dem,   or,   still   more    frequently,  by   dim.      In  Greek  and 
German    this  pronoun    has  DSaujned    the  fimc-tions  of  the 
ar^cle,  ivhich  is  not  found  in  the  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  tior 
in  the  Latin.   Lithuanian,  and  Scla%-onic.     The  bases  TO, 
[O.  Ed.  ]».  490.]     Gothic  THJ  (§.87.),  feminine,  TA.  TH. 
Gothic  TflO  (^  C9.),  correspond  regularly  with  tlie  Sanskfit- 
Zend  la,  f<l.  willi  which  llie  Lithuanian  demonstrative  base 
TV/,  nominative  masculine  fai,  "  this,"  feminine  t6,  is  com- 
pk'tely  identical.    The  Old  Sclavonic  base  is,  as  in  Greek, 
in  the  nmsculine  and  neuter*  fo,  in  tbefeuunlDc  ta  H.  Zbb.a.). 
but   in  the  nominative  mnseuline  drops  the  vowrl ;  hence 
l\  la,  fo.  "  this,"  m.  f.  n.     This  pronoun  does  not  occur,  in  its 
simple  state,  in  Latin,  with  the  exception  of  the  adverbial 


*Th,t  with  ibt  ttiui-voiid  k 


PRONOUNS.  479 

accusative  forms  turn,  tunc  (like  hunc),  tarn,  tan-dem,  and 
tamen.  The  latter  resembles  surprisingly  the  Sanskrit 
locative  irfiff^  ta-amin,  "  in  this"  (§.  201.),  only  that  the  s  is 
dropped,  as  in  the  Lithuanian  iami,  (p.  176  G.  ed.};  on  which 
account  I  am  inclined  to  replace  the  derivation  I  formerly 
gave  of  it  by  transposition  from  the  Greek  fthnoi,  by  that 
which  I  now  offer,  and  which  is  less  remote.  Moreover,  in 
Latin,  the  derivative  forms  talis,  iantus,  tot,  iotidem,  totie$, 
totta,*  spring  from  tbis  pronoun,  and  will  be  treated  of 
hereafter.  It  appears,  however,  to  be  declined  in  the  com- 
pound isle,  of  which  the  first  member  is  is  either  to  be 
regarded  as  a  petrified  nominative  masculine,  the  case-sign 
of  which,  unconscious  of  its  derivation,  is  retained  in  the 
oblique  cases — ittius  for  ejustius,  compare  the  German 
jedermann's — or,  which  seems  to  me  less  probable,  the  «  is  a 
pure  phonetic  affix,  adopted  on  account  of  the  favourite  com- 
bination of  s  with  (  (compare  §§.  95.  96.). 

344.  In  the  same  way  that  tste  is  compounded  in  Latin. 
so  also,  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  the  base  ta  combines  with 
another  pronoun  prefixed  to  it,  in  fact,  with  4,  and  thus  forms 
vn  ita,  "  this,"  "  that,"  Zend  AJprtAi  aita  (§.  28.).  The  nomi- 
native singular  ia,  in  Sanskrit,  tpt  iaha,  V^  Sshd,  TITK  (tat; 
in  Zend  ^ct))0-u  aish6  Atcu»A)  aSsha,  rnu^nM  aitfiL  In  Greek, 
avTQ^  is  a  similar  compound,  the  first  syllable  of  which,  aii. 
will  subsequently  be  remarked  upon.  [G.  Ed.  p.  491.] 
This  avToi  is  again  combined  with  the  article  as  a  prefix  to 
it,  and  forms  outo?,  avrt},  tovto,  for  o-oy-ro?,  ij-aw-n/,  ro-av-ro. 
There  are  several  ways  in  which  o5tos,  to&to,  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  arisen :  in  the  first  pifice  as  /i'-oOro?,  t'-oOto, 
by  suppressing  the  vowel  of  the  article  and  weakening  the 
a  of  the  diphthong  av  to  o,  both  changes  being  made  to 
prevent  the  whole  word  from  being  too  ponderous,  for  a  is 


Begnrding  Mas  sec  p.  1343  G.ed.  Note. 


480 


PBONOUNS, 


the  heaviest  of  the  three  represeiitnlives  of  the  Indian  m  a 
(a,  «,  o);  and  for  this  reason  au  ii]>ppars  to  tic  in|>ccia)ty  the 
reprusentative  nf  the  Vriddhi  diphthong  ^  'lu*   while  for 

sft  d  =  «  +  ii,  is  round  eilher  eu  or  oi:  In  llie  feminine 
form  aurti,  if  we  distribute  it  thus,  IC-avns,  the  (li|ihthoiig 
rcniaiiia  uuweakenecl,  as  in  rauro.  But  avrri  may  also  be 
derived  from  'd-vrij,  nnd  the  loss  of  the  first  element  of  the 
iIij>hll)onff  may  be  assumed:  the  gc?iider  would  then  be 
expressed  in  both  mcmbcra  of  the  cnm[)ouii(i,  and  n  better  dis- 
tinction would  be  made  from  the  masculine  and  neuter  base 
TovTo,  But  if,  as  npi)enrs  to  me  preferable,  we  make  the  latter 
accord  vfith  the  esplinmtion  whieh  lius  just  been  given  of  the 
feminine  form,  the  o  of  ov  will  then  be  ascribed  to  the  arti- 
ele,  and  we  shall  likewise  assume  that  the  u  of  at;  is  diopjied; 
thus,  *-5ro^,  Tfl-Oro.  Max.  Sehmidt  {Ih  Prunomini'  Gr.  tt 
/.i'.  p.  3S)  Bees  in  ovrot  only  the  article  compounded  willi 
itself,  and  assumes  that  u  ia  inserted;  tlms  ovto%  for  5ros, 
tJtt/TTi  for  Srrj.  He  adduces,  in  aujijxjrt  of  his  view,  oaovrat, 
TOK/Lrrov,  njX/Koirrof,  which  he  supposes  to  Irnve  admitted  a 
similnr  iitsertion.  1  am  of  opinion,  on  the  contrary,  that 
these  forms  do  not  contain  tlie  simple  base  of  the  article  TO 
as  the  last  element  of  their  eompositioa,  but  *AYT<) ;  for  why 
should  not  this  pronoun,  lhouf;h  itself  already  n  compound, 
[O.  Ed.  p.  403]  Admit,  just  as  welt  as  the  article,  of  being 
combined  with  words  preeeding;  it?  I  do  not  agree  with 
Max.  Schmidt  in  explaining  the  adverbs  tmavQa,  itnfvOfu, 
for  tvdavOa,  tvOevBev,  Ii'nie  ivdaura,  iv6(VTiv,  by  the  simple 
duplication  uf  the  sufBxes  da,  9«v,  but  I  eonbider  them  lo  be 
compounded  of  two  adverbs  of  siniilnr  formation.  Thouirh 
av6a,  aii6(v,  from  the  pronominal  base  'AY,  of  which  more 
hereafter,  have  not  been  retained  in  use  by  themselves,  still 
I  look  upon  imavBa  us  tlic  combination  of  cK^-t  ui/da,  and 
ivrevOo'  aa  that  of  IvOtv+avBtv.     In  order  to  avoid  the  coo- 


•  Sec  VocAliunu*.  Itvin  2.  p.  IU3,  iix. 


PRONOUNS.  48  L 

curi'ence  of  two  brenthings  in  the  two  following  syllables,  the 
breathing  of  the  former  syllable  is  suppressed,  op,  as  in  the 
Ionic  dialect,  thnt  of  the  latter  is  dropped.  It  may  remain 
a  question,  whether  the  e  of  evdev  is  the  thin  sound  of  the 
a  of  aiidev,  in  whiuh  case  the  preeediiig  adverb  has  tost 
not  only  its  p,  but  its  e  also,  or  whether  avdeu  has  been 
weakened  by  the  toss  of  its  a.  In  tiie  latter  case  ivrav0a 
may  be  divided  into  evro'vOa.  [t  is  at  least  more  natural  to 
suppose  the  combination  of  two  adverbs,  and  the  weakening 
of  a  single  one,  on  account  of  the  ponderous  nature  of  the 
compound,  than  to  assume  tlie  mere  doubting  of  the  for- 
mative sufBx  and  the  insertion  of  a  redundant  v,  for  neither 
part  of  this  assumption  can  be  supported  by  analogous  phe- 
nomena elsewhere. 

345,  In  the  nominative  singular  masculine  and  feminine  the 
Sanskrit  substitutes — and  in  this  the  Gothic  remarkably  coin- 
cides with  it— for  the  T  sound  of  the  pronoun  under  discussion 
an  a,  which  in  Zend,  according  to  §.  53.  becomes  »•  h,  and  in 
Greek  the  rough  breathing,  hence  Sanskrit  sq,  sii,  tat,  Gothic 
aa,  a6,  thaia,  Zend  k6,  hi,  tal,  Greek  6,  'a,  -to.  The  Old  Latin 
has  introduced  into  the  accusative  this  originally  purely 
subjective  pronominal  base :  sum  for  eum,  and  snm  for  earn, 
also  sapsal  as  nominative  for  ta-ipsa.*  [G.  EJ.  p.  403.^ 
As  this  8  is  excluded  from  the  neuter,  we  have  found 
in  it  (§.134)  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  nominative 
sign,  the  s  of  which  is  likewise  foreign  to  the  neuter.  A 
remnant  of  the  old  9  of  the  b;ise  is  still  preserved  by  the 
Greek  in  the  adverbs  a-tjfiepov  and  (njrrei;,  tliough  as  these 
compounds  express  an  accusative  relation,  not  that  of  a 
nominative,  they  accord  with  the  use  of  the  Sfinskrit  lan- 
guage less  than  the  Attic  forms  -nqfiepov,  T^res,  as  n  (a  is 
the  general  theme,  but  n  aa  only  that  of  the  nominative. 

*  AcuusutivL'  plural  xos,  ut'.  Max.  Schmidt  "  Dc  Pronomiiw  Gr.  cl  Uit." 
pp.  11,12. 


482 


PnO  NOUNS. 


The  first  member  of  ttie  said  uouifjoiirKls  occurs  in  the 
primary  form  or  theme,  tho  final  o  of  which  (  =  v  u]  haa 
been  changed  into  €,  having  been  melted  down  vrith  the  fol- 
lowing e  and  ij;  thus  Ti/ne?,  trjjre^.  from  Tccret,  tre-frei,  for 
To-erw,  ffo-«T€v;  r^ftepoi',  tn'/fifpoi/,  from  re-i^/iepoi/,  <T€-i]/iff>ov, 
for  To-r)fup«v,  <To-t)fupov.  Tliese  adverbs  correspond  to  tlie 
Sanskrit  adverbial  compounds  {Apyntfi-bMv/}),  which  con- 
tain a  subatantivc,  assuming  mi  aeeusativc  ucuter  form 
as  their  lost  member;  e.g.  4|Kiiqsii  t/athd-skruddham. 
"according  to  troth,"  from  ^TIT  thraddhH,  feminine,  "troth." 

346.  The  Greek  falls  into  an  nhiise,  in  cxtcndin^j  the 
substitution  of  tho  rough  breathing;  for  the  T  sound  also 
to  the  nominative  plural,  as  in  ol,  al,  while  tlie  eoguatc  lan- 
guages preserve  the  Doric-epic  forms  roi,  rat.  as  the  original : 
Sinskrit  A  te.  ni^  Mi,  !Cend  Hjp  /^,  fut^  (/f^  Gothic  thai, 
tti6s  (compare  $.  2!J8.)- 

347.  With  reference  to  the  masculine  nominative  sinj^ular. 
wc  have,  moreover,  to  notice  the  remarkn^ble  eoincidoticc  of 
the  Grreli.Gothiv,  and  Sanskrit  in  rctainin<;  the  case-sij^,  ao 
that  6  for  6v  corrwiHinda  to  tho  Sanskrit-Got  hie  xa  for  sax. 

[G.  Rl.  p.  494.]  The  latter  appears  analogous  to  the  inter- 
rogative hva$.  "who?"  in  Gothic  (§.  135.).  In  Sanskrit. 
however,  tho  snpj>res3ion  of  the  ease-sign  is  not  quite 
universal;  for  before  a  5to])we  find  m  aaS,  wt  jwJ,  cuplumie 
for  vu  {%.  22.  and  Gramm.  CriL  §.  75.  o.)  \  and  ■^  ad,  before 
words  bcgiuuiu};  with  a,  aeeording  to  a  genenil  principle  of 
sound  framse>,  by  melting dowu  tlie  a  1o  u,anil  n-gttlarly  con- 
tracting tlie  a+u  to  d  (§.-2.).  On  tlic  form  s'l  is  based  the 
Zend  ^u>  k6,  the  H  nf  which  is  retained ;  so  lltot  mv>  hi 
which  might  he  expected  for  m  sri.  does  not  occur. 
Altliough.  then,  ^w  Ao'  is  strikingly  similar  to  the  Greek 
6,  still  the  relationship  of  tlic  two  forms  cannot  be  lookpj  for 
In  the  o-sound,  as  the  Greek  6  rests  on  the  suppression  of 
the  ense-sigii  and  uftonl  suhstilittion  of  o  for  w  n  (^.  ->.). 
witile  the  ZcikI  A^  is  to  he  referred  to  the  existence  of  a 


4 


PBONOUNS.  483 

case-sign  (u  for  s),  and  its  coiitractioii  with  the  a  of  the 
base  to  d, 

348.  The  reason  why  this  pronoun  gladly  dispenses 
with  the  usual  nomioative  sign  s  may  be,  partly,  because 
the  said  case-sign  has  itself  proceeded  from  the  base  m, 
and  that  sa  does  not  admit  of  being  re-combined  with 
itself;  and,  partly — and  this  perhaps  is  the  surer  ground 
— that  the  pronouns,  in  general,  are  so  strongly  and 
vividly  personified  by  themselves,  that  they  are  not  in 
need  of  a  very  energetic  and  animated  sign  of  personality ; 
for  which  reason,  although  u^  oAont,  "I,"  rV*  iwam/'thou," 
«ipl  ayam,  "  this,''  ^nni^  aicayam,  "  self,"  have  a  termina- 
tion, it  is  not  that  of  the  usual  nominative,  but  they  ap- 
pear as  neuters  in  the  more  objective  or  accusative  garb; 
while  v^  as&u,  m.  f.  "  that,''  if  its  final  diphthong  is 
combined  with  the  u  of  the  oblique  [G.  Ed.  p.  493.] 
case  VK  amu  (compare  §.  156.),  is  completely  devoid  of  ter- 
miimtiou,  and  merely  adopts  the  Vriddhi  augment  of  tlie 
final  vowel  of  the  base.*  The  Latin  obeys  the  same  prin- 
ciple in  the  pronouns  hi-c,  tile,  iste,  ipse,  which  are  deprived  of 
tlie  nominative  sign,  and  for  which  we  might  have  expected 
his-c  (compare  hun-c  from  ku-mc),  illtts,  istus,  and  ipsta, 
which  latter  actually  occurs ;  and  in  the  same  language  the 
relative  qui  is  distinguished  from  the  more  energetic  inter- 
rogative quts  by  the  absence  of  the  nominative  sign.  In 
agreement  with  this  principle  stands  also  the  circumstance, 
that  in  Sansknt  the  masculine  pronominal  bases  in  a,  in  the 
plural  nominative  have  not,  like  other  words,  as  for  their 
termination,  but,  in  like  manner,  suppress  the  case  suffix, 
and  extend  the  a  of  the  base  to  7  ^,  by  the  admixture  of  a 
purely  phonetic  t ;  hence  it  t&,  from  which  the  dative  and 
ablative  i4-bhyas,  genitive  ti'shdm,  locative  U-ifhu,  It  has 
been  before  pointed  out  (§.  229.)  what  relation  the  cognate 
languages  bear  to  Sanskrit  in  this  respect.    And  it  may 

*  Th«  belief  in  this  actnally  being  the  case  is  Bopported  by  the  P&li,  in 
which  the  form  mu,  without  Vriddhi,  corresponds  totbe  Sanakrit  tud». 


484 


rnoNOUNs. 


be  observed,  furtiier.  tliat  tlie  pronouns  of  the  first  niitl 
aec'ontl  ])L>rsTin  do  not  admit,  in  the  pitirni,  the  terminntion  an, 
but  employ  ^^^  vay-am,'^^^^  tfH-y-im,  with  n  neuter  sin- 
gular furm,  Riiil  in  the  Veda  dinlcct  vi^  inrrnf,  V^ 
yuthmf,  uftiT  the  usu^  of  pronouns  of  the  lliJrd  |KTSon, 
The  Greek  f{)rnis  ififiet.  v/ifte^,  ^f««.  vfAetv.  nppenr.  there- 
fore, so  luuch  the  more  to  be  a  more  recent  adnjiliitiol)  to 
the  ordinary  mode  of  fornmtion ;  and  what  (§.5.  ;i35.  3:t7.) 
hns  been  snid  regarding  the  »  of  the  Lithimniim  m-% 
vdt,  the  Gotliic  vets,  yva,  nud  the  Latin  nos,  vot,  obtains 
oddiUonal  confirmation  from  the  present  remark.  The 
pronomiunl  base  ww  ama,  "  that,"  also  avoi<ls.  in  the 
masculine,  t)ie  noiiiiii!itive<terinin.-k[ioa  us.  nnd  forms  timt, 
itii,  wliich  serves  us  B  theme  to  tlie  oblique  |>]iiral  cjises, 
[G.  Ed.p.4!i«.)      with  the  exception  of  tbeiKTiisiitivo  :  henii; 

Wrifiw  ami-bhis,  mftm^  nmt-bhyirs,  ^tf\vm_^  ami-sfitim,  wftl 
omi'fhu.  These  forms  cunErm  the  opinion  that  the  uomi- 
iiutive  tS  iilsu.  und  the  like,  are  void  of  inflexion. 

M9.  We  here  give  a  generiil  view  of  the  entire  declen- 
sion of  the  pronoun  under  diseussion.  From  the  I^atin 
we  adduce  the  compound  h-te,  as  the  simple  form  does  not 
occur.  Tlie  Zend  forma  in  brockets  I  hiive  not  met  with, 
but  have  formed  them  according  to  the  analogy  of  the 
coniixtuod  Ai^nju*  »i-ta,  »ud  other  prtmouns  of  the  third 
person,  with  whieh  we  may  snjtpose  the  base  jup  fo  to 
have  origtnully  agreed  in  iuflexiun.  observe,  also,  the 
oeeaaioDid  weakening  of  the  f  to  rf,  mentioned  in  §.  343. 
Those  eases  of  the  Lithuanian  and  Sclavonic  to  which  * 
it  prefixed,  etymolot^icslly  do  not  belon|(  to  this  phice,  bnt 
to  thccomijound  n  (yo.  mentioned  in  §.353. 


I 


KINnUI.AR. 
MAtCCUHK- 

Santkrit.         Zitid.  Grttk.     latin. 
N.    :t,tah,»A,  b6,      0,       ig-TIi, 
Ac.  tarn.             tera,    t6v,    ig-TUM, 
I.     f AkTi  (/dj,  


Gotkic.  IJth.     Otd  Sdav. 

att,  fas,         f. 

Ihnnn,  /</«,        f. 

,  .  ,  .  /u,  tiimi,  *iwm. 


PRONOUNS.  485 

SINGULAR. 

HUCULINB. 

SanikrU.         Zend.  Greek.  Latin.  Got/tie.       Uth.    OtdScL 

D.    tasmAV  [takm&i),^  t^.  is-TI,'        thamma,*  ifim,*  tomtL^ 

\h.taam&t,   (takmAt),      ...  vi-TO(D) 

G.    tasya.      {tahS),"  tom,^  ia-TIUS,^  tfd».  to.       togo.* 

L.    ioMmin.*  (tahmi),*       ...  tamenr"      ....        tami.^Uom." 

IfBUIKK. 

N.Ac/at"    tat:*  TO,"         iiTUD.'^    thata:*      iai,"    to," 

The  rest  like  the  Masculine. 

FSHIMIMK. 

N.   *d,  kA,  'a,  ^,       u-TA. 

A&  Mm         (lanm),       ray,  tiJi»,  ia-TAM, 

I.      fctyd,       (tabmyay* 

D.    /asydi,"  (ionAdi) ."   Tf  rf,     is-Tl. 

Ab.  (a»yd«.'»  {tatthdl),""     u-T^D) 

G.  /ajyds,"  (/ajiAdo),"  TO?,  T^,  u-TIUS."  ihizOo,'* 
I*    ia»ydin,"((aAmya),*' 

'  See  ^.  166.  >  /«/j,  and  umiUr  pronomina]  forms,  differ  from  th« 

common  second  declciuion,  to  which  they  tielong,  in  this  particular,  that 
they  preacrre  the  case- term  i  oat  ion  in  preference  to  the  final  vowel  of  the 
base ;  thus,  utt  for  ittol,  opposed  to  btpa  for  lupm.  *  Regarding  mm, 

from  tm,  see  §.  170^  and  with  reference  to  the  termination  §.  356. 
Item.  3.  «  }.  170.  *  {.  2G7.  tubfinem.  •  We  might,  also, 

«xpect  lUUi^p  tonA^and  tutyj^JAi^  /oiftA^,  according  to  the  analogy  of 
MtHjAf  anhS,  which  oA«D  occnn  as  well  as  ah6  (from  the  base  a),  and 
IUU'jSjlJU  mi}h6,  and  Kmilar  forma  ()$.  41.  and  &6.  a.).  ^  $.  189. 

•ij269.  »§20l.  "'J.343.  "  f^.  170. 197.  "The 

m  comes  &am  tlie  appended  prononn  tma  (comp.  $.  2(>7.  *tf>-f)  '•  )»  the 
instrumental  f^fnt,  on  the  contrary,  it  belongs  to  tlie  caae-sign  (\,  266.). 
<■  §}.  Ifi5. 156.  ■*  $$.  Ififi.  and  281.  >*  ^.  157.  >*  The 

Sclaronic  to,  and  umilar  pronominal  neuters,  are  to  be  explained,  like  the 
Greek,  through  the  suppression  of  a  T-sonnd ;  while  sabBtantire  and 
adjective  forms  in  o— with  the  excepticm  of  those  from  baaes  in  (  (as  nebo 
from  NEBES)—have  lost  a  final  nasal,  which  the  Greek  retwns,  botli 


"J, 

ta,       to. 

tha. 

tan     ta" 

1  «  >  « 

ta,        toy  a. 

thixai," 

iai,       tot. 

•  > .  . 



tbhiU,'* 

t6s,      iot/o." 



toye,*^  tut. 

436 


PBONODNS. 


■ocording  to  thn  euphonic  law  in  i.^&.i.  "  $.366.  ■■  $  171. 

"J.I79:  w$.  172.  Note*,  p.  188.  '>  5.  366,  Rem,  3.  «Ifw« 

OMniiie  thiit  tills  lunniiiHlEoa  t/u*.  peculiar  to  tiic  prniiatina,  -wliicli  in 
$.  18£},  iBciiii.iidt.Teil  la  llit;  trmLN]K)n(;d  firm  of  llie  ifunskTil  tcraiiuation 
»i/a,  bcLi>n^'l  originnlly  to  the  fiiininine,  &a<\  from  thai  j^nilcr  luu  \>*en 
uunrgaiiitwlly  tratigferroi!  to  ihu  oIIiitk,  tlm-n  {it)lmt—(ri>m  {U)tt-jus,  f»r 
(it')ta'jua—v!o\i.\A  a^rrx  tolcrablj  well  wiili  tlic  Sonnlirit  taia/'U,  witli  tlic 
loae  of  the  a  {>r«<».'ilii)|;  j  ;  m  thia  resembling  the  Sc'lavoiiio  laija  fnr  'lUi/a, 
}.&71.,  and  Bliort«»'tng  the  lost  fjl>ut  one;  Bneruhiclt  from  llio  slioit  a, 
as  is  so  fri-quently  done  li^fire  a  final  »,  an  onorgADlc  u  ia  fonned. 
a  FrtiD  /Myoa,  f.27I.  "$.209.  »  S-  2fl8.  Not** 


DUAL. 

UA«:iii.iNB. 

Saf»Jb-{/. 

Zmrf.         G/-«*. 

i,!^. 

(^</  stiof. 

Wm,  M,' 

(ido,  M),    Tui, 

/«, 

ia. 

1  I.D.Ab.  MftAylm,  (Inmtja).  D.  tou-,'    D.  '/im,*  I.  D.  •/j/emu.' 

U  MBUTER. 


N.Ac.    (rV           ('r'). 

TW,                .... 

'y/ 

The  rest  like  the  Masculioc. 

rcvixiKE, 

N.Ac.    It:           ilf). 

ra.            /ie. 

fyf.' 

I.D.Ab.  WAy<lm,     (^%o), 

D.  TOO",    torn? 

*lwma. 

G.  L.     Inyfiv,         .... 

G.Tiuv,    G.iA, 

tu^A. 

'  VMIc  form.  soe$.  308. 

'}.  881.            »5  21* 

M 

irra., 

wh(>Tc,  hnwi>vcr,  the  roMMn  fnr  1h«>  f/<r,  iuHltAd  of  the  li».he-a&ticipAt«4i  o, 
HM  inciim-oily  nssifpied  Tho  truth  ia,  oAynua  Ih  founded ou  the  Sanskrit 
1iaac7iraH''A»yii,  nora.itiAa^am,  "lioih";  mid  with  rtgttnl  b>  tbo  dcnigns- 
linnofcJic  aamljcr  two,  ncmoit  olxwrvc,  tlint  tho  Li(hiiAiitau,Blso,  form* 
nmvcaspfifroni  tuicztoudcd  theme  in  m,  euphonic  if ;  vii:.  the  j^n.  rficiVjr*^ 
anil  the  datm  (iuiem;  the foiinvr,  with  rvgard  to  iwylMfore  tJicciuotcr- 
mttuiiioa,  agteet  with  the  Sclnvimlc  t/cwjcii  ami  Suisknt  diean-At  ^§.  373. 
Mote  t):  the  theme  of  both  cosre  ia  Jwie^  from  dwia,  and  ii  fnunded,  in 
ntjr  flpinioa,  «B  the  Sankrit  fit  </'r0ya,  "a|«ir,"  withUienppr««ioa  of 
th*  a  pTModiDg  the  jr.     On  tliU,  then,  b  basadi,  abo,  th*  Selavonie 


I 


PRONOUNS. 

4e 

17 

dvyem,  as  alao  tyem,  on  the  compound  pronominAl  base  iQ  tya  ($.  S6S.). 

»  §.264.  Rem.  1.  p.  277.          •  §.  273.  Note  f. 

'§.212.        •  $.273. 

p.85BG.ed.            •$.213. 

PLURAL. 

UUCnURE. 

Btaukrit.      Zend.                 Greek.             Latin, 

Gothic. 

Zt/A. 

Old  Sclav. 

w       «.^           ToAo;V    M-r/,> 

thai} 

•fw/ 

to 

.     Wn,         (tali).'             ™'^.          ia-TOS, 

thans, 

fu«,  fSs, 

ty.' 

1&U*        (ttla),             

.... 

tats,* 

*/yenii,*o 

Kb.iibhi/as,   taObyd,          b.  Loc.       is-TJS,^ 

tkoim,' 

*i'um(u)a,^  *iyem,^  gi 

«fAdm,"  (tahhanm),^"  t&p,           is-TOWM,' 

'  thixS,!^ 

/d, 

(yecA,"  y 

tisku,       (iaSshva),         D.  Toia-i,     .... 

.... 

iaae. 

tyecb.^'^  6 

HBDTKB. 

1— 1 

\c.Mni.M,"  W,"                 Td,"           i,»-r^.i3 

//id," 

.  .  ,  . 

(a." 

The  rest  like  the  Masculine. 

FBHININB. 

M*.            (tAo),                 Tai.ai,^      ia-TAE} 

M<Jj, 

ioa. 

fy." 

,     tis,           HAo),               t4s.            ia-TAS. 

(A(J», 

tag. 

/j,.» 

mhU,      (lUbii),             

.... 

tomia. 

*/wcmi. 

K\i.mhyas,  (Idbyd),           s.  L.            is-TJS, 

thaim," 

'  /om(«K' 

*lyem.* 

lAtAm?     (MoBAarim),"  rdwv,  rwv,  ia-TARUM? 

'  Ihizo,'* 

/*!, 

iyech}^ 

.... 

fo«a. 

lyech.^^ 

>  $$.228,348.     Regarding  the  Litfanaoian  tie  see,  also,  $.  235.  Note  J, 
and  for  the  Sclavonic  ti  $.  274.  *  $.  239.  >  $.  275.  *  $.  219. 

The  anrpriring  agreement  between  the  Sanskrit  ^n  /(i»  and  Lithnanisn 
tais  is  BO  far  fortnitoDS,  as  that  the  Sanskrit  has  rejected  its  hh  and  the 
Lithuanian  the  m  derived  from  b,  independently  of  each  other.  The 
Sclavonic  iyemi,  from  tyemit  ($.277.),  points  to  a  Lithuanian  ia-mia,  and 
tianali^uBtothfl  VMicformslike  v^l^H^  (uw^Mu,mentionedin$.2I9., 
and  to  the  common  pronominal-instnimeDtal  75re  S-b&it,  "through 
ihia,"  from  the  base  V  a.  It  is,  however,  donbtfnl  whether  the  t/a  of 
tyemi  is  founded  oa  the  corruptioD  of  the  Sanskrit  ^  ^  of  a  VMic  form 
which  may  be  supposed  to  have  existed,  t^hit,  according  to  $.2£5.  e.,  or 
whether,  as  I  am  more  inclined  to  think,  this  case,  like  several  others, 
belongs  to  tho  componnd  base  n  tya,  to  which,  also,  is  to  be  assigned  the 


I 


488 


PRONOUNS. 


Btngtilar  inel.ru  motital  rr/rm,  as  from  tbo  l>w  r«only  low  could  (Mocvw), 
aoeordin^  to  th«  anaJngj^  of  raJi^mt,  (wmthahiao  raJio.  Onthe'itlii'rlbiuid, 
lliv  I()caiiv«  luffh  i«  not  to  I>F  r<'f(-rr4'd  In  tlii.-i  pluri',  m  nil  n  iKurs  in  lliiii 
CMC  hnvo  yc  corrcBpondiDg  to  tlic  SanskrU  i ;  u  rat^cth,  from  the  llicmi; 
ntbti.  Conciirmit  farmsore  wnntin^  in  the  cammnu  dti-lonsion  for  t^eeli : 
UauBwen,  however,  tu  irvm  teskiim.JMtl  on  the  locative  of aJniUnr >ounO 
does  tu  n  tS^hu;  and  fur  it  aim,  tlicrafon^  wc  do  not  luivc  nwoan? 
[O.  £<l.  p.  AOO.)  to  the  pranaon  coroponBiIiid  with  ^  ya,  howover 
nAtnral  it  niigltt  npj>«flT  fnin  tho  paint  of  view  of  \\w  (irammar,  wliich  is 
limited  to  Llic  Siluvontc  iklonc,  iLnt  all  iJic  fK,  whlcli  occur  in  ihls  pro< 
noan,  oroof  the  wmo  origin.  *  I'rom  ulilnm  fur  i»tobu$y  ac«$.  214- 

•  }j.ai5.  iind'288.  It«ni.4.  '  fj.  214,  unci  235.  Note  [.  «  J.  270. 

*  ^.248.  "  Comii.  (w>CU'4A>  uhhanm,  "horum,"  from  llie  Inuc 
a,  Vvnd.S.  p.i!3(),  and  Dlsu'where  (irtToripoasly  mo  >  for  i<A,«i>o$f.6I.A3.), 
"  (.284.  Note  •.  '•  {,  234.  Noic  +.  '»  j.  231.  '*  J.  274. 
'*  $.  S71.  "  Thii  han  found  its  wny  from  tho  other  Renilen  intn  ilie 
feminine,  whore  we  khnuld  expect  fhSm,  whilo  in  iho  moHuliito  nn'l 
noDivT  ihe  oi  haa iu  aiiciuiit  fixed putition  {j. 'ititi.  Rem. i).  In ^duvnnie. 
■U  ohliqoe  plnral  covea  aic  Iiorrowed  from  tlic  lamavuliDe.  Itenoe  t^rmi, 
tfiem,  tyeeh,  tor  tt/ami,  li/iuu,  tuaeh,  or  tami,  l4m,  tacb.  '^  (Jnmporo 
tba  oftim- occurring  ^f^wiau  atrnfaaittt,  "hnrum"  (^.M\],  Sntiskrit 
^Liim,  IroRi  till'  bnxt  d.  Polvi.vlUltk'  Liaso  in  Ztrnd  shorten  (he  feminine 
A  in  tlio  genitive  plural  i  hence,  nut  acldonjuinm,  hat  ^wi|.>>^{omju 
ailanhiittm  (iiocordingto  ^iO*.)  answers  to  the  ^nnakiit  ildtim. 

3S0.  The  weakening  of  the  I  \Xi  d,  mentioned  in  §.313., 
vrliich  mrirasionalljr  enters  into  the  pronominal  base  la, 
Doincidc's  ivitli  that  which  takes  place  in  Greek  in  the  np- 
pended  pnrtic-le  hi,  which,  when  isolated,  is  used  us  a  con- 
juiK-tioa,  and  towhirh  nomoro  suitable  origin  cftij  be  as»i^c<l 
than  the  proDomioal  base  TU.  T)te  wt^enin^  of  the  vowel 
o  to  c  tvsctnhles  that  vrliidi  OLvurs  in  tlic  uiiitiilected  vocittivc 
of  bases  iu  o  (}.  204.),  ua  also  in  the  ciiualijr  iiiiinHcctcc] 
occusntives  >i^,  ai,  f,  (5.  3S6.)'  The  descent  of  the  tenuis^ to 
the  medtul  occurs  also  in  Sanskfit,  in  the  isolated  neuter 
form  i-finm,  "  Ihia,"  and  ei'ttat.  "  that,"  inasmuch  as,  in  my 
opinion,    this    is    the    pro]>er    distribtition "    which    irith 

■  C£  Influence  of  PronouM  on  tlie  Foriraitiou  of  Wonla,  p.  13. 


PRONOUNS. 


489 


reference  to  i-Jam  is  supported,  also,  by  the  Latin  i-dpm, 
gui-<lam.  In  Snnskrit  jj^  i-dnm  and  V^  n-f/ai  are  limited 
to  tJieuomiuativc  and  accusntivo  ucut«r,  which  are  the  aama 
in  snnnd,  and  are  deficient  in  tlie  form&tion  nf  the  other 
craes,  which  originally  may  liave  be-  [G.  Ed.  p.  soi.l 
longffd  to  them ;  as  the  Grvck  Se  has  still  left  behind  it,  in 
Homer,  the  iilural-dativr  Seam,  &eat,  {rol^Seam,  Tot'iSetri), 
which,  according  to  what  was  said  in  §.253.  Rem.,  regardinjf 
the  dative  in  ea-tfi,  sounds  very  homngeneous  to  the  Sanskrit 
□enter  daa,  probably  a  weakened  form  of  dai.  Ai  to  the 
proof  of  the  relation  of  the  idoa  of  the  conjunction  hk  to  that 
of  our  pronoun,  it  is  suQicient  to  remark,  generally,  that  all 
genuine  conjunctions  in  the  Indo-European  family  of  lan- 
guages, as  far  as  tlicir  origin  can  be  traced,  are  derived  from 
prunouns,  llic  uiL-eiiiing  of  whk-h  fretpientty  lira  mure  or  teas 
obscured  in  them.  Those  fnmi  ;ii«vand  Se'arc  contrasted  with 
one  another  like  "this"  apd  "that,"  or  "the  other;"  and  the 
connection  of  our  German  aber.  Old  High  German  n/oTt 
with  the  Indian  v^r^  apnra'S,  "  the  other,"  has  bcfrn 
already  shewn  clscwbcr(\*  and  in  the  aauie  manner  the 
Gothic  Hb,  "  but,'"  of  which  more  hereafter,  is  oT  pronominal 
origin,  juat  as  the  Latin  nU'tem. 

3^1.  A  descent  from  the  tenuis  to  the  medial,  similar 
to  that  which  we  liave  observed  in  the  Greek  Zi,  and 
in  hftva,  which  will  be  discussed  hereafter,  is  exhibited  in 
Latin  in  tlic  adverbs  dum,  dcmum.  doMC,  denifue,  which 
all,  with  more  or  less  certainty,  belong  to  our  demon- 
strative base  Perhaps  dudum,  also,  is  to  be  referred  to 
this  clnss.  and  is  to  bo  regarded  as  the  doubting  of  the 
base  elu  for  /u,  lo,  us  it>tu.<i,  which  has  retained  the  old 
tenuis.  In  Sanskrit,  the  doubliii;^  of  pronouns,  in  winch 
both  are  nevertheless  declined,  expresses  multiplicity; 
jf6    ijiu  signifies   "whoever,"    "^iiicuiryiw,"  and   yrtii   j«in. 


KK 


490 


PKONOUNS. 


"  gvemeungue,"  &c.,  and  la  laS,  tan,  tam  &c.,  answer  to  tbcm. 
[O.  Ed.p.soiC]       Tottu  is  properly  "this  and  this,"   "the 
one  aud  the  other  half,"  hence  "  tlw  whole"    The  ease  is  the 
same  with  gtihquis.     In  dudum,  "  long  ago,"  the  notion  of 
tnuHipUcity  is  equally  clrnr;  and  for  this  reason  I  prefer 
riewing  it  as    the  comhination  of  two  similar  elements 
ratlier    tlian    as    rfiu  and    dam.      Tlie    same    relation,    in 
a  plionetiv  respect,  that  dudum   has    to  (olu?,  dam  has  to 
turn,  which  latter  has  been  designated  above  {%.  343.)  as  the 
accusative.     The  circumstance,   tlmt  in  those  pronominal 
adverbs  the  accusative  iuBexion  does  not  stand  in  its  cus- 
tomary Sense,  ought  not  to  div(!rt  us  from  this  mode  of 
derivation;  for   in   adverbs   the   cnse-in flexions    very   fre- 
quently   overstep   their    ordinary    signiGcrition.      Nolwitli- 
standing,   it    cannot    be    denied   that,   in    all    pronominal 
advcrba  of  this  kind,  or  at  least  in  some  of  them,  the  m 
might  also  belong  to  tho  appended  pronoun  ama,  which  is 
80  widely  diffused  in  Sanskrit  and    its   kindred  languages, 
and  has  been  conjectured  to  exist  in  Ut-mnx   as  aniilogous 
to  the  Sanskrit   locative    iatmm,  and    in    immo  by  assimi- 
lation from    itmo.*     According;  to    this    mode    of  cxplana- 
lion,  in  the  Latin  forms  dum,  turn,  tarn,  ywjwi,  &c.,  tJierc 
would  be  exactly  as    much    left  of  the  npjicnded  pronoun, 
and    tlic   aisc-tt-ruiinatioiis  combined    with  it,    as   in    our 
German    datives,  like    dem,   wem,  and    the  SclaTonie   loca- 
tives, as  tvm.     The   locative    would    be    i,-ery  suitable    for 
(/mm,  "since."  "while,"    (in    which    time),  and    turn  in  the 
meaning  "then."  and  consequently  du-m  and  tu-m    would 
be  =  Sanskrit    Tffpn^    ta-nnin,    Old    Sclavonic  torn.       For 
the  meaning,  "  hereupon."  which  in   Sanskrit  is  expressed 
by  Tfi^  fofo*.  (literally  "  from  there"),  it  might  be  better  to 
refer  to  the  ablative  imf\  tti-amSt,  for  it  is  not  necessary 
that  tttin,  in  alt  its  meanings,  should  belong  to  one  and  the 


•  In  the  aniliar'i  £«ay  mi  IVmotulr&Ure  Bmcs,  p.  2t. 


PBONOUKS. 


4»1 


Eam«  case-form,  as  tlic  rn  approaches  very  [O  Ed,  p.  603.^ 
closely  to  the  tcrminatioDS  i9  tmdi,  mn(^  »ii4t,  and  fvn^  smin. 
359.  Dvmum,  considered  as  a  dumouslrative  form.  ugrMs 
t!zc(!ctluigly  vrci),  apnrt  from  tlic  nrcakciiiiig  of  the  con- 
sonants, with  tlie  Greek  -nj/io^,  with  respect  to  which  thtt 
obsolete  form  tiemvt  is  to  be  remarkwl.  lu  t^/mw.  Uowtver, 
to  which  the  relative  iJ/uk  corrcsjxtnds,  there  is  no  oeoesaity 
to  follow  Buttmant)  in  regarding  the  Intter  portion  of  it  as 
the  substantive  ^f^tp,  iiotwittistundiuj^  the  apparunt  induce- 
ment for  8o  doing  contained  in  aOrt]ii.ap ;  but  [  prefer  divid- 
ing thus,  Ti)-fM%,  ^-/AQi,  and  I  consider  rrj.  17,  to  be  merely 
tiie  lcn<;thcoJng  of  the  base  TO,  as  acoordinj(  to  $$.  3.  \., 
o  =  fifi,  and  ^^wi  A.  Thus  tliis  fj  coincides  with  the 
eof^oate  Sajiskrit  d.  in  several  pronominal  derivatiuiis,  with 
the  base  vowel  Ienf»thened.  as  irmt^  yA-vul,  "  how  much," 
"  how  long,"  "  while,"  &e.,  at)d  with  the  word  answering  to 

it,  iiiTt  iH-vat.  Nay,  we  might  not  perhaps  venture 
too  far  if  we  were  to  rcco^ise  to  f*o<i  a  corruption 
of  ^  rut.  tlie   V  being   hardened   to  ft,  as    we   perceive 

happens  among  other  words  in  ipifi<o  =  -^^i^  drav&mi, 
"  I  run,"  (p.  I  l-l),  with  the  favourite  transition  of  t  to  ¥.  which 
is  necessary  at  the  end  of  words  if  the  T  sound  is  not  to 
be  entirely  dropped,  modifications  which  have  aided  us 
in  explaining  several  furnis  uf  importance  in  Grammar 
(|§.  Ifi2. 193.).  In  demum.  demui,  however,  the  demonstrative 
force  is  not  so  clearly  perceptible  as  in  the  cognate  Greek 
expression,  and  it  lies  concealed  under  the  usual  translation, 
"  then  Grst,"  or  "  at  last,"  which  does  not  alfect  the  genenxl 
sense  of  the  seutaocc.  Still  nunc  denum  venis?  means,  pro* 
porty.  "  now  comcst  thou  at  this  (so  late  a  time)  ?"  The  time 
Is  doubly  denoted ;  and  in  this  lies  the  emphasis,  first  by  nunc, 

tfroni  the  prononiinal  base  nti,  and  next  by  demum.     In  such 
adverbs,  however,  of  place  and  time,  it  is    [G.  Ed,  p.  604.] 
not  required  to  express  the  place  and  time  formally,  and  this 
is  done  very  rarely.     In  general,  the  mind  lias  to  understand 
K  K  2 


402 


PRONOUNS. 


Iliose  categories  in  tlie  interior,  as  it  were,  of  the  verbnl  form. 
It  is  the  property  of  the  pronouns  to  convey  the  secondary 
iiotion  of  space,  vluch  then  admits  of  being  tranifcrred  to 
time.  Thus  our  no,  "vfhere,"  baa  rctcreiice  to  ]>lace;  icann, 
-when."  to  time;  da.  "tht-n"  or  "there."  to  both;  but  the 
pronominal  idea  nionc  is  formally  represented  in  nil  three. 
When  it  is  required  adverbially  to  denote  absolutely  definite 
divisions  of  timi?,  n  pronoun  is  imturally  combined  with  the 
designation  of  tinie  in  qu(?stion,  as  in  hodle,  irrfftepov,  nrid 

heute,  "lo-doy."  (Old  High  German,  hmlu,  §.  162.)-    Bu«  >f. 
in  these  exprt-ssions,  one  of  the  idejis  combined  in  them  were 
to  lose  its  formal  designation,  that  of  time  would  most  easily 
be  dispensed  with  ;  the  important  mattf-T  bciu*;  tlial it  is  "on 
tJiis**  and  not  "on  that  (day);"  and  the  iangungt*  therefore 
adheres  more  tennciously  to  the  pronomiiui.1  element  than  to 
that  of  time,  which  is  ver^'  faintly  seen  in  our  heule,  and  even 
in  the  Old  High  Germnn  hiutit.     Hence  1  cannot  believe  thnt 
the  adverbs  <lum,  dcmxtm,  tlanec,  tlftiUjue,  are  conueeted  witli 
the  term  for  "day"  (§.  122,),  which  is  common  to  the  Latin 
nnd  the  Sanskrit,  to  which  Hartung  (Gr.  Particles,  I.  23ti), 
besides  tlic  forms  wliich  have  been  mentioned,  refers,  among 
other  words, jam  and  the  Gothic  j/m,  "now,"  "already."  and 
yuMon,  ".ilready,"  as   also  the  Ap|)cndcd  dam  in  (jui-dam. 
regarding  which  sec  above  ((.  350.}.     In  the  first  pliicc.  in  the 
dam  of  ijuoa-dam,  and  in  the  dem  of  tan-d«m,  we  might  ndmit 
the  t«rm  denoting  "day,"  witliout  being  eompellcd,  from  thi; 
reason  given  above,  to  this  explanation,   still    less   to   tlie 
inference  timt  fjui-dam,  qui-dem,  and  i-dftn,  also  Imve  arisen 
in  this  manner.    \t  quondam  contains  the  name  of  "day." 
then  its  dam  approaches  most  nearly  to  the  Sanskrit  accusa- 
tive VT^  dtfAm  from   ih  dyA.   "  heaven,"  which,  like  other 
[G.  Ed.  p.£Ofi.}     appellations    of   heaven,   may  also  have 
signified    "  day,"  ns  a  shoot  from  the  root   f^  div,  "  to 
shine,"  {§  122.).      To  this  accuKtiive  wt*(  rfydm.  the  Greek 
Sijv,  "long,"  corresponds,  if,  as   Hnrtung  eonjecturc4,  it  is 


PRONOnNS, 


493 


taken  from  an  uiiix:llatton  of  "day,"  like  the  Latin  4/m 
(Siinskrit  «  flyu,  "  duy.")'  Ou  Uie  otiier  hand,  I  prefer 
referring  the  |mrlicle  Sif  to  our  demonstrative  base,  thti  siguifi- 
cnutaitd  aiiimalin<;  forct*  of  which  iseviucvd  i-k-nrly  cnonoli 
iu  the  way  in  vchivb  it  is  used.  W'v  return  to  Uif  LiilJii 
donee— the  more  complete  form  of  wliich,  d6mcum,t  lias 
bwu  alreiidy,  in  another  plaur,  divided  into  du-nhum — since 
I  Sec  ill  it  a  connection,  in  formation  and  base  [O.  Ed.  p.  SOC.] 
with  the  Greek  TTivUa.  of  which  Uereafler.  "  So  long  as"  is 
equivalent  to  "  the  time  in  which,"  or  *'  io  which  time,"  "  hovr 
long  n  time,"  and  do  here  represents  the  pronominal  idesi, 
and  n«.'c,  nicum.  tJiat  of  time,  as  it  al»o  actually  cxprcMes, 
whicli  Trill  be  shewn  herea^cr.  a  diviaion  of  time.     It)  the 


•  Pcrlinps  wo  atiould  aiw  clnse  under  lliiri  Uc*d  •if'po,  rnid  divide  it  into 
if-fiifia,  vuiuiiJsrin^  it  at  "  iliiy-lirne."  TIia  fimC  member  uf  lliv  cmii|Hiuii<I 
wotdd  h/ir<?ln!t[  llie  7* sound  i>rtlui  SaiMlirit  \nae  OT'.V'.  ii*»  la  J-  l'-iiW« 
have  Kxn  Ju  iiriicccd  frfliii  Dgu,  and  tlio  r()ug:li  brrAthtng  would,  aa  fro- 
qnenUy  lioppras  in  Gtttik—f.g,  in  'jnap,  uiaworing  to  Jeeur  tixxd  VVIt 
yakril—supiiiy  tho  plaoe  of  the  ^-  A«  reghrdti  tlie  second  tioriinn  of 
q-fifpn.  we  iiii);ht  eit«ity  su(i}io)K!  it  connected  widi  ji/pnt.  I  f  tiiis  idea  be 
wall  foundvd,  then  fi-fupa  vouliL  invna  "dity'3-gidc"cir  "lighi-«(!c"Cof 
time).  Hut  fifpa  (ultnitfl,  elon,  of  eotnpiariaon  wiili  n  word  wlticli,  in  San- 
Arit.  means  time  in  gcnvTid  aiid  day  of  the  n-cek  ;  fur  liy  awumiDt:  the  fre- 
qDoady-nu.-Qtioiu:d  haflvnin^  of  a  n  to  yi  [ct  p.  1 16, 1. 9),  and  a  sliurtcuiiiK 
of  tho  middle  vowel,  wc  nrrivo  at  iho  Sanskrit  tfT^  i^ilra,  wliich  haa  bw-n 
befbro  thoinbjwt  ofdiiGuwInn  {j.SVO.  [■.  495, 1. 8),  and  with  which,  loo,  our 
3/at "  time,"  Gotliicm^(tUcmf«i>^ii), IB connccled.  According  to  thiavk-w, 
^-fiipa  would,  thorvfow,  sigitiiy  "dayVlimc"  iu  which  com  uu  elyiuulo- 
gical  conuectioa  betweeo  fupa  and  ^I'/io*  might  slill  vxia,  inaemneli  oa 

tfulpoftai,  tiaai  tho  nwl  MAP  {tifiaprai),  is  probably  coDiii-ctcd  with  the 
Sanvkrit  root  var  (i/ri),  ^*to  cover"  nud  ''to  c^oum")  wticuvo  vara 
(noHiiniilive)'firvi7/i),  "  th*glft,  lent  by  a  god  or  a  B  rail  man,"  "grnoe"; 
and  whmco  i*  dfrivcd,  al:*o,  vdra,  "o[i]i'irl<inity,"  ''linit;,.'*  &c.  For 
hirtber  particnlan  n-gardiiig  the  root  ^^  *-''^  (^  'T^J  ""d  its  bninclics  in 
th«  Europvan  coc^ale  Eanguages,  h«  my  VooallBinDa,  p.  IGO. 
t  luBucneu  of  ibe  Pioiiuuiut  ma  Uiv  Furuiatioa  of  Woidt,  ]x  12, 


494 


PRONOUNS. 


Sanskrit  inwil  t/dmt.  on  the  other  hand,  from  the  relative 
base  j/n.  which  signifies  both  "  so  long  as"  and  "unti),"  the 
pronominal  idea  is  alone  re|)ri?8ented ;  aud  wo  have  hereby 
a  fresh  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  demonstrative  element  to 
donee,  d<micum.  Denique,  in  like  manner,  witli  regard  to  its 
origin,  appears  to  be  relatin]  to  TijViKa,  to  which  it  bears  ft 
surprising  resemblance,  with  tjti  for  k,  as  in  quis,  t/ttid,  cor- 
responding to  VS  kns,  fi««   tim,  ««?,  «o7o«,  &c. 

35S.  Tlie  pronominal  base  n /a  is  combined,  in  Sanskrit, 
with  the  relative  base  ya,  for  the  formation  of  a  new 
pronoun  of  similar  signifiwition,  which  belonj^  especlall)! 
to  the  Vt'da  dialect,  and,  like  many  other  V^Aa  wtmls,  bia 
found  more  frequent  Dae  in  tlie  European  cognate  lauguagea 
than  in  the  common  Sanskrit.  The  a  of  w  to,  is  supprcasod 
in  this  compouml.  hence  w /jr«;  and  in  the  nominative  of 
the  i>LTsoual  genders,  as  In  the  simple  a  Iti,  the  T  sound 
is  replaced  by  t;  hence  wt(^  synx.  ^itJij/A,  Wl  tyat;  accuaa- 
tivo  iq^^  (ynm,  WTO  ly^m.  unt  tyat,  &c.  The  base  sj^a, 
which  18  limited  to  the  nominative,  with  its  feminine  form 
anil,  poflsessea  a  complete  declension  in  several  cognate 
languages,  and  in  the  Sclavonic  has  found  its  way  into 
the  neuter  also.  The  Gothic  has  adhered  most  closely 
to  tlie  Sanskrit,  and  docs  not  {wrmit  thu  pronoun 
to  extend  beyond  the  singular  nominative.  Moreover, 
only  the  feminine  form  si  remains;  and  one  could  wish 
that  a  masculine   ityi-s,  for  wa-t,  (according  to  $.  135.)  oc- 

[G-  Ed.  p.  607]  curred  with  it  Most  of  tbe  forms,  how- 
ever, wliich  express,  in  Gothic,  the  idea  "  be,"  and  its  fcmi- 
uine,  have  proceeded  from  the  demonstrative  base  t,  among 
which  si,  thoug-li,  as  it  were,  an  alien,  has  found  its  place. 
Thissf,  from  thu  base  5Vu=Saiiskrit  syA.  iaan  abbreviation  of 
nya,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  substantive  declension 
of  tlie  like  termination  (Grimm's  sccoud  strong  dcclcnuon), 
as  thivi  for  thiuya,  from  the  base  thiut/v. 

354.  The  Okl  High  Oeruui^  siu — we  will  leave  it  undecided 


PBOKODNS. 


495 


wbether  it  sbonld  be  written  «yit* — u  more  exactly  re- 
tauicd  than  tlie  Gotltic  «f,  and  lias  not  entircl/  dropped 
the  Sanskrit  «i  4,  of  ^n  »yd,  but  has  first  shortened  it  to 
a,  and  then  weakened  it  to  ii.-f  IJ,  however,  in  Old  High 
German,  is  a  favourite  letter  after  t  or  y  (Voimlismus, 
p.  316.  lUm.  80.)<  The  form  »u,  id  Old  High  German,  is 
not  so  iaolated  as  at  in  Qotliic ;  but  from  tiiu  biisc  tid 
springs  also  au  accusatire  tia,  and  in  the  plumJ  the  form 
iio.  which  is  common  to  the  uomiDative  and  occusativD, 
and.  in  a  Gothic  dress,  would  be  sy6t,  in  Sanskrit 
flint,  fyd«.  Contrasted  with  the  singular  nominative 
»iu,  tlic  accusative  nut  may  appear  remarkable,  for  in 
both  cases  similar  forms  mi;;ht  Ikavo  been  expecUxl. 
The  diEercnce.  however,  consists  iu  Uiis,  ttiat  the  numina- 
tivf  form,  Ht  the  oldest  period  to  which  we  can  arrive  by 
tlie  hifltorj'  of  the  language,  termioatt'd  in  a  vowel  without 
any  case-sign  whatever,  while  in  thti  accusative  the  vowel  of 
tho  base  was  protected  by  a  nasnl-  Tliis  nasaJ,  then,  may 
liave  preserved  the  old  ijuontity  of  a,  just  as,  in  Greek,  a 
final  u  frwjucntly  occurs  iu  places  where  a  nasal  was  per- 
mitted to  follow  it  by  the  old  Grammar ;  while,  where  a  short 

kd  Mund  is  found  originally  unprotected,  or    [ti-  Ed.  p.  008.] 
accompanied  by  consonants  not  nasal,  it  is  usually  changed 
into  e  or  o ;  hence  hna,  ivvitu,  SfUa,  answering  to  tlie  Sanskrit 

I  taplaa,  navan,  daian,  tliough  from  these  likewise  in  the  nomi- 
native and  accusative,  arcordiog  to  {$.  139.  313.,  Mipfu,  &c. ; 
jfS(i(a  answering  to  «1i^l|n  tuliksham,  ttoSq  to  ^^  padnm, 
but  eSt'i^  to  *Brf^^  adiktjuit,  XOneJ  to  n  vrika,  iStl^aro 
to  vf^;^ii  atTikihata. 

3&&.  While  the  Gothic  article,  like  that  in  Greek,  is  to 


•  Sec  p.  367,  Rem. 6.;  and  Vocalimiiia.  p.  2d4.  lUra.  31. 
i  Rssfieeting  m,  m  IiKhlcr  tluiu  a  ftiid  heavier  lliui  i,  >c«  Vocoluioma 
,^,  Ran.  10. 


496  PBONOUNS. 

be  referred  to  tlie  bases  discasat^  in  I.  343.,  w  aa.jn  'A,  n  tit. 
If  M,  the  Higli  German,  as  Iins  been  before  remarked  (§.  2SS. 
Rem<  9.x  attaches  itself  chiefly  to  the  compound  n  tya,  fem. 
Iy6,  and  intrcxluces  this  into  the  nominative  also;  hence^ 
in  the  feminiiie,  diu  (or  perhaps  d^ti),  as  above  siu;  Qccaw- 
tivc  dia,  answering-  to  the  Sanslcrit  wn^  tijdm,  and  in  the 
nominative  and  accusstive  plurni  dh  =  lyfis.  With  n-gard  to 
the  innseuline,  compare,  with  the  Sanslcrit  nominative  ftty^, 
the  form  firs,  which  iii  High  German  has  found  ila  way 
also  into  the  acciisiitive,  which  in  thia  language  is  every- 
where the  same  as  the  nominative.  In  the  neuter,  diu 
agrees  with  similar  OM  Hij^h  German  forms,  from  sub- 
stantive bases  in  ia,  ra  cftunma.  In  the  masculine  singular, 
and  in  those  cases  of  the  neuter  which  are  tlie  same  as  tJie 
masuidine.  the  compound  nature  of  our  pronominal  base  ta 
less  palpable ;  and  taking  il  as  our  starting  [joint,  or  restrict- 
ing our  views  to  it,  we  should  have  classed  the  forms  </«■,  rff«. 
d^a.  di^n,  not  under  tt/a,  but,  liko  the  Gothic  forms  of  kin- 
dred signification,  under  the  simple  base  Jt  (a.  But  If  <frr. 
(//■■ji,  be  compared  with  the  corrc9|)ondtng  feminine  cases  diu, 
dia,  and  witli  the  masculine  plural  die,  without  the  suppo* 
sitlon — which  is  refuted  by  the  Sanskrit.  Lithuanian,  nod 
Sclavonic — that  in  the  latter  word  a  redundant  i  is  inserted, 
(Q.  Ei.  p.  SOQ.}  which  never  occurs  in  other  parts  of  tiie 
Old  High  German  Grammar,*  then  the  <iaaumption  becomes 
necessary  that  d'e'r,  d'r$,  d'rmu,  den,  have  had  llieir  origin 
from  older  forms,  as  dyar.  dmta  (=iErit  ti/as,  n^  tynstfa). 
so  that,  as  very  frequently  happens  in  Gothic  (§.  7S.),  in  the 
syllable  ya  the  a  is  dropped,  and  the  v  changed  into  a  vowel ; 
just  as,  above,  wc  have  seen  »  and  thivi  sprinj*  from  iwi 
thttiya.  The  Old  High  Gcmum,  however,  as  is  well  known. 
very  uommouly  employs  r  for  the  Gothic  (. 


«  Sec  Vocsliama^  p. 347. 


PRONOUNS. 


497 


356.  Tlie  distribution  of  forms  with  p  and  t  (or  y) 
mid  a  Tolluwiug  vowel  is  not  fortuitous,  but  rests  on 
an  historical  basis,  so  tbnt  the  contraction  to  if  oocars 
niiivursttlly  «liere  llie  Siinslcrit  has  ft  sliort  «  after  ti  y;* 
but  the  more  full  form  is  found  only  when  a  long  d,  or 
tile  diphthong  f,  accompanies  tlie  Indian  Bemivowel,  though 
this  circumstance  does  not,  in  every  case,  ensure  tlic  mora 
complete  form  in  Otd  High  German;  for  in  thu  genitive 
plural  we  find  dirH  (masculine,  feminine,  and  neuter),  not- 
viihstanding  the  Indiao  ?Nn^  lifishdm  in  the  mnscaline 
and  neuter,  and  mmf[  tifdxAm  in  the  feminine ;  and  in  the 
dative,  togetlit-r  witii  f/iiVu— uecording  to  Notker.  dicn — 
we  find,  also,  rfftn  or  dthi,  and  this,  too,  in  most  authorities. 
Tlie  neuter  instrumental  diu  is  based  on  the  instnimental 
jM^^Q  thyii.'f  whieh  may  be  supposed  to  exist  in  Zend,  and 
where,  thL-rnfore,  we  lave,  in  like  manner,  the  i  or  ureUdned 
with  original  long  vowels  following  that  letter.    Compare 


MASCULINE. 

smouLut. 

rVOKAL. 

Saiutrit. 

OtdH.G. 

SaiuMI.        OtdH.a. 

Nominative. 

syas. 

der. 

tyf,                  dig.      ' 

Accusative, 

iyam. 

(/?». 

ty^n,              die. 

Dative, 

tyasmA 

r,        demv, 

tyf-bhym,       di^m.  ■ 

Genitive, 

tyaaya. 

dfS, 
KEUTEH. 

lyf^Mm,        dero. 

1 

Nom.  Ace. 

ty^t- 

daz, 

tydni,  tyd\    diu. 

Instrumuntal, 

iy^a. 

lliy<P.     diu. 

ty^bhh.            .  . 

The  rest  like  the  maseuline. 

•  nc«i>«:tiajt  Qio  nouWr  daz,  mc  J.  356.  Rem.  9. 
t  I  cannot,  howcvn,  ijuote  this  pruiiuun  in  Zend,  except  in  tb«  Doml- 
naiire  i>laral  moKiilinc  in  CT'intiiiiatiuii  with  tliu  relitLive,  ^.  flS, 

'  The  Ultcr  ia  the  V4<ltc  und  Zcud  form.  Me  j.'i$\.  and  j.'XH.  Nolo  *. 
'  The  lAtter  the  Zeiid  form  pra-tujipuMnJ  nbevv. 


498 

PHONOUNS. 

FBMtNl^B. 

nvachxm. 

nvtiu 

SarnkfU.        Old  B.  G. 

SantkrU.        OU  H.  G 

Nominative, 

tyt\,           a\\^,  diu. 

tydi.              dio. 

AccusatiTc, 

tyAm,         d'ui. 

tyils,                diu. 

Dative, 

it/atyAi,     deru. 

tifdbhyas,       diAm. 

Genitive, 

tyasi/Ait     dera. 

tydidm,          th^TO. 

"  Remark  1.— I  differ  from  Grimm,  whom,  %.  399.  R«m.  S., 
I  liave  followed,  as  I  liere  give  die,  not  dif,  aud  in  the 
fciuininc  plural  din,  not  dit^,  in  the  genitive  plural  d'Tu,  end 
in  the  genitive  and  dative  singular  drra,  d'Mi.  without  n  cir- 
cumflex ;  since  the  circumstance  that  theory^  and  the  history 
of  language,  would  lead  us  to  expect  a  long  vowel,  does 
not  appear  sufficient  ground  for  the  inference  that  the 
original  Jong  quantity,  which  has  been  retained  in  Gotliic, 
was  not  shortened  in  the  three  centuries  and  a  h.ilf  which 
elapsed  between  UlGIas  and  tlie  oldest  High  GeruiiLn 
authorities.  Wlicre  a  long  vowel  is  not  alicwn  by  Kero'a 
doubling  the  vowel,  or  Notker's  avcentiug  it  with  a  cir- 
cumflex, which  is  not  the  ease  in  the  examples  before  ns, 
wo  have  there  to    assume    that  the  vowel,  in  the  course 

[O.  Ed.p.  Sll]  of  centuries,  has  undei;gone  a  weakening 
cltaoge.  To  this,  final  vowels  are,  for  the  most  part,  subject ; 
hence,  atso,  the  subjunctive  present  preserves  the  t,  which 
correspomls  to  the  Sanskrit  5  ^  and  Gothic  at  only  in  per- 
sons in  which  the  vowel  is  protected  by  a  perMnutl  termi- 
nation following  it;  but  in  the  first  and  third  persons 
wiigiilar,  which  have  lost  the  persoual  signs,  the  organic 
length  of  quantity  is  also  lost* 

"Remark  2.— It  is  very  probable  that  the  simple  base 


»  See  ^.  aw. 

■  Grimm  iqypcars  U>  have  comtnilttd  a  misuke  In  tdluriag,,  t.  723.,  tu 
the  Ihinl  p.  ecmy  for  mpjyin  of  the  mippAMil  Icn;^  of  the  «  lu  lh«  nomi- 
ostivs  pbnl.  ■>  St  p.  800  he  ascrilxB  to  it  s  •bon  «. 


PRONOnNS. 


499 


ir  ta.  vras,  in  Old  High  German,  originally  mom  Fully  <!tc- 
clioed,  and  that  rcMiiauQS  of  that  declenaioD  slill  exist.  The 
neuter  dm  hna  the  8trong:est  claim  to  be  vievrcd  as  such, 
which,  contnir>-  to  $.  2^s.  Rem.  fl..  [  now  prefer  referrinj^  to 
the  Sanskrit  tat,  rather  than  Co  tyat,  as  the  syllabic  n  tya 
has  elsewhere,  in  Old  High  Gorman,  universally  become  dif 
($.971.)l  Perhaps,  too,  the  (/'^  which  occurs  in  th«  nomi- 
native plural  masculine,  together  witli  die  (Grimm.  I.  791.), 
is  not  an  abbreviation  ofthu  latter  by  the  rejection  of  tbc 
i.  but  a  remnant  of  the  simple  pronoun,  and  therefore  akin 
to  the  Sanskrit  Ti  U  and  Gothic  thai.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  Old  Sclavonic,  in  the  declension  oftlie  simple  pronoun 
given  at  §•  319.,  several  remains  of  the  compound  n  tyn 
have  become  intermingled,  which  are  there  explained. 
But  the  forms  toi,  toe,  taya,  which  occur  in  the  nominative 
and  acrnsative,  together  with  C  (masculine),  to  (neuter),  ta 
(feminine),  though  they  oonlain  the  same  elements  as  the 
Sanskrit  n  tya,  m  (yd,  were  first  formed  in  Sclavonic, 
in  the  sense  of  §.  294„  otherwise  they  would  not  have  re- 
stored the  vowel  of  the  first  pronoun,  which  the  Saiiakrit 
has  Buppressed  (§.353.);  thus,  li  for  toi,  te  or  iw  for  toe, 
and  tyn  for  taya  (compare  §.  28?.).  The  same  ia  the  case 
with  the  compound  plural  forms  of  the  nominative  and 
accosative  ;  masculine  (ft,  neuter  tayn,  feminine  tyyn. 

"  Remark  3. — In  §.  1  go.  I  have  made  the  assertion  that 
the  German  dative  is  based  on  the  old  instrtunental,  as  it 
often  occurs  with  an  instramcntid  signification.  1  was, 
however,  particularly  impelled  to  this  view  by  the  dative 
form  of  bases  in  t,  as  paata  from  the  tlieme  yasii.  But  if 
we  make  the  division  ynxi-a  and  regard  tlie  a  as  the  case- 
termination,  there  ia  nothing  left  as  but  [G.  Ed.  p.&l2.] 
to  n;fcr  this  form  to  the  lodo-Zcnd  instrumental.  There  is, 
however,  a  nay  of  comparing  this  form  with  the  Sanskrit 
dative,  which  I  now  far  prefer,  as  thcLithiianian  and  Sclavonic, 
which  are  so  near  akin  to  the  German,   have  retained  tlic 


500 


PBONOUNS. 


dative,  together  witli  the  instrumental;  and  tlic  Old  H!gh 
German  lias  presrrvct)  a  particular  form  for  ttiu  tnstrutiiental, 
the  generic  difTerence  of  which  from  the  dative  is  especially 
observable  in  t!ie  pronoun,  in  which  dvmu  answers  to  niA 
iyatmdi;  but  the  instrumental  rfiu.  ami  the  Gothic  M(=($.  la'J.), 
no  more  cxliibit  the  appended  proBOtin  ama,  mentioned 
in  §.  1(!5.  &e.,  thnu  docs  the  Suns krit- Zend  instnimontal. 
Diu  agrees  best  with  the  !i!^ud  ihy^,  supposed  above,  and 
the  Gothic  iM  with  the  simple  lA.*  The  form  tiemu.  and  the 
Gothic  (Aemmo,  compared  with  wd  tyiitm&i  and  itA  tatmiii, 
have  lost  the  t  clement  of  the  Sanskrit  diphthong  %  di 
(=d  +  i);  and  the  long^  d  bos  been  shortened  in  (Jothic, 
otherwise  it  would  have  been  supplied  by  d  or  At  The 
sliort  Gotliic  (1  1)03,  however,  iu  Old  High  German,  been 
still  further  weakened  to  ti.  But  to  retuni  to  the  Gotliie 
yaula  from  the  theme  yasti ;  I  do  not  now  regard  the  ,final 
a  of  this  word  as  a  ease-suDix,  bat  as  a  Guna-vowcl,  after 
which  the  t  of  tlie  baste  hiis  been  dropped,  together  with 
the  case-cliarncter,  vhile  all  bases  in  u,  and  feminine  bases 
ill  i.  liuve  luat  only  the  inflexion,  and  not  a  portiou  ufthc 
base  with  it.  The  same  relation  that  tunau  has  u>  the 
dative  ^iT^  aiinav-t,  from  iiMnu — which  in  Sanskrit  also  re- 
ceives the  Guua — the  feminine  anstai,  from  tlie  theme  un»ti, 
has  to  the  Sanskrit  malay-f,  from  mati.  The  masculine 
goMOy  however,  has  not  only  lost  the  inflexion  of  ijastuy-f, 
OS  it  must  originally  have  been  pronounced,  but  also  the 
y,  which  ought  to  have  reverted  to  i.  lu  the  a-declenaioo 
mjfb  is  readily  made  to  accord  with  the  Sanskrit  ^«n 
vritdjfo,  and  Zend  Aiu^fv^  vthrhtti:  to  the  kttter  it  bears 
the  same  relation  that  (Aui/iinu  above  does  to  mSt  ta-xmAi. 
The  feminine  gibai,   from   tlie  theme  tfibti,  is  as  easily  de- 


*  Tin  Ssoskrlt  tyi-H'a  luts,  on-onling  to  f ,  1S6.,  a  ropho&ic  n  iaaerte'J, 
■nil  die  M  or  llip  tiOAC  ctmniti'd  iiiio  r  by  tlut  liWiiiliitj;  or  nn  i. 
t  The  litllci  actUAllj'  Utk«a  |>UiC«  io  hmmmi-h,  /intryumnM, 


FSONOUNS. 


501 


rivnWe,  in  rcgnnl  to  form,  from  the  dntive  fK^'%  Jihw/ly^}, 
iifi  Trom  the  instruineiitnl  f>|^'i||  jihwny-A.  In  both  ways 
the  it]flexian  has  been  lost,  and  tlie  semivowel  ifreeeding  it 
ehiuigedtoavowe!.  But  if  we  are  to  believe  [O.  Ed  p.  613.] 
that  a  genuine  dative  character  ia  retained  in  German,  we 
should  find  it  only  in  thn  declension  of  the  pronouns,  inas- 
ninch  as,  for  instance,  the  feminine  forra  zai,  in  thi-zai.  is 
directly  dt^rivable  from  llic  Sanskrit  iiyAi.  from  smy^li,  by 
nienHy  dpopping^  the  semivowel ;  so  that  thizai  and  itift 
taxt/tU  stand  historically  near  to  one  another,  as  we  have  re- 
presented in  §.  172.,  where  wc  expressed  our  belief  timt  al, 
in  (hhaK  may  be  explained  on  tlic  same  principle  na  Uinl  of 
gihai !  and  tlius  thizni  must  be  considered  as  an  abbrevia* 
tion  of  ikizaif'tii,  and,  therefore,  as  indeclinable.  But  if 
ihizai  stands  for  thixi;-at,  and  ai  is,  therefore,  in  tliis  and 
similar  [ironomiual  forms,  a  remnant  of  the  S:mskrit  femi- 
nine dative  termination  di.  then  the  Gothic  fit  above  men- 
tioned is  esspntifilly  distinguished  from  the  similar  tenni- 
nation  in  gikai,  "  dono,"  and  i»ij(/ii,  "  ffratitt."  rta  these  two, 
also,  are  diverse  from  one  anotiier,  since  the  i  oi  nnxtni  be- 
long to  tlu?  theme  nn,t^r,  while  an  i  is  foreign  to  the  theme 
of  gifial,  viz.  (jibd,  and  accompanies  tlic  base  in  the  dative 
only :  while  in  the  eoTre8|tonding  class  of  words  in  Smiskrit 
it  is  added  in  several  eases,  after  which  h  aniiexi^  the 
true  inflexion,  which  is  omitted  in  Gothic.  But  if  the  ni 
of  thizm  ia  identical  with  the  Sanskrit  ^Ai  of  irdi  tasydi. 
tlicn  wc  must  distribute  the  genitive  thizrh  into  Ihi- 
-i-6s.  and  this  must  be  considered  ns  an  abbreviation  of 
(Ai-aT^-^ji  =  Skr.  irFim  in'Sy-<U  ;  and  we  should  hare  in  this, 
and  similar  pronominal  forms,*  a  feminine  genitive  termina- 
tion At,  while  elsewhere  in  a)l  genders  the  genitive  sign 
consists  in  a  more  », 
357.  It  has  been  already  remarked,  that  our  diestr  is  acom- 


■  To  thcss  baloiii;  the  (Urong)  lulJMtivcs  combinol  with  n  pronoun. 


|iiir= 


502  FfiONonNS. 

pound  proiioua  (§.  289.  Rem.  3.  p.  3TU.),  the  first  member  of 
vhiiJi  is  founded  on  tho  Sfln&lcrit  bnse  n  fya,  and  our  article 
($.3&3.)h  It  is  not,  however,  ruquisito  to  assume  tlmt  its  i> 
presappoees  on  older  ia.  but  it  may  be  re^rded,  And  this  now 
appears  to  me  preferable,  as  tlic  anorganic  lengthcniii^  of 
the  di-iir  of  Notlicr.  As  regards  the  second  part  of  this 
demonstrative,  its  declension  mi^ht  be  assigned  parlljr  to 
the  simple  Snnslqit  bnse  n  aa,  partly  to  the  compound  tjfa  .* 
to  the  hitter  evidently  belongs  the  feminine  nominatiro 
[G.  Ed.  p.  614.]  (t^SIU  (=wt  «jd,  dkae,  "  this,")  and  the 
neuter  plural  nominative  of  the  same  sound.  But  if  the 
feminine  accusative  is  detot  not  d'-aui,  and  the  oiaaculiuc  deiant 
DOt  dtsian,  or  diaen,  according  to  llie  analogy  uf  dra  (§.  356}, 
then,  instead  of  regarding  tliese  and  fithcr  analogous  forms 
as  retimius  of  the  simple  base  «  ta.  m  sA,  it  mny  be 
assumed  that  the  i  (or  v)  has  been  dropped,  as  occurs  ia 
most  cnscs  of  the  declensiun  of  hirti  (theme  hirlh  or  Ajrfya); 
BO  that  in  the  plural,  hirta,  kirto,  hirtum,  and  in  the  dative 
singular  hirta,  answer  to  tlie  Gothic  hairdvAs,  ludrdut, 
kahdyam,  hainft^i.  If  this  is.  as  I  believe  il  is,  the  proper 
view  of  the  dL-clvusion  ot  des^r.  tJie  deelensional  diSerenee 
between  di^r  and  ih  then  lies  in  this,  that  tt  has  boen 
necessary  to  lighten  the  latter,  owing  to  the  ineumbrani-e 
of  the  base  of  the  article  which  is  prefixed  to  it,  and  thnt, 
therefore,  i  is  rejected ;  henoe  rfraa,  "  Aonc,"  but  without  the 
article  t'la,  "cam."  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Litliuiininn 
prrseuts  us  with  wbut  oppcars  to  be  the  transixwcd  form 
of  our  compound  die-ger.  As  such,  at  least,  I  regard  the 
so-termed  emphatic  demonstrative  uxittai,  in  wliicli  the 
Sonskfit  subjective,  but  compounded  pronoun  IPT  tya,  oc- 
cupies the  first  place,  and  the  objective  uud  simple  ir  la 
the  second.  The  first  i  of  *zHtax.  which  1  divide  thus. 
sxit-tait  is.  in  my  opinion,  a  remnant  of  the  neuter  case- 
sigU  t  (1.  laS,),  and  prcsupjioscs  a  Sansliit  wir  synt.  which 
tyn  would  fonn  in  the  neuter,  if  it  was  used  in  thai  gender. 


PRONOUNS. 


008 


It  tnny  be  observed,  that  iu  Sanskrit,  nlso,  the  neuter  caic- 
siga  U  at  th«  beginning  of  compounds,  is  drawn  into  the 
tlietnc.  and  UU-pulraa,  "  bia  soQi"  is  used,  not  la-putras. 

S5d.  The  sz  (=th)  in  thr  Lithunniiin  szis  and  szUtas 
ia  fouQcIixl  on  the  form  ftssnmed  by  tlie  Sanskrit  base  in 
the  Vedas  under  verlain  eupbonic  conditions  ((.  55.),  which 
change  its  a  into  n^  lA.  For  otherwise  [G.  Ea.  p-filCJ 
the  Lithuanian  as  does  not  agree  with  the  Sanskrit  It  9, 
but  perhaps,  among  other  lcttci*s,  vnth  ^  ^h,  v.  g.  in 
«zfizi  =  H^  ahaih,  "six."  With  regard  to  the  declension 
of  szij.  it  is  to  be  remiirked,  tliat  it  exhibits  suveral  cases,  in 
which  the  t  of  the  base  ssia,  fcniiniui!  tzui,  bus  been  rejected, 
or  which  beloi^ — and  tliis  \-icw  is  the  one  I  prefer^to  the 

simple  prononiinal  base  «  $a,  fdnintnc  m  sd.  which  com- 
pletes the  compound  tsia ;  as,  p.  186,  among  the  cases  of  the 
simple  Sclavonic  base  to,  we  have  seen  remains  of  tliu  com- 
pound n  (jffi.  We  here  annex  the  complete  declension  of 
the  Lithuanian  pronoun  under  discussion,  accompanied  by  the 
kindred  form  in  Old  Sclavonic.  Wo  prefix  *  to  the  cosics 
wliich  belong  to  the  Bimi)!e  base  w  go,  as  also  to  tlic  Old 
Sclavonic  forms  which  do  not  strictly  b{.>long  to  this  place, 
and  regarding  which  reference  is  to  be  made  to  Rem.  1. 
which  follows. 

SINGULAR. 


Nominative^ 
Accusative, 

1^        Instrumental, 

■         Dative. 

H         Genitive, 

H         Locative, 

H  COI 

L 


Lithaanian.            Otd  Selap. 
tzis.                   wy*. 

niMtSIXB. 

lUA.            OidScfav. 

sxtn, 
1,    'jrB,  »zi.m. 

If: 

aim, 

txei,         *si^ 

aztam. 

«*mil. 

szici,          ael. 

azio, 

sxiami,  ssemi, 

3Cf/D, 

.  aem. 

ssiih,        sfyn, 
sziovc,      act. 

'  The  agreeniMit  with  the  Ootliii:  m'<5,3fi3.),  ami,  in  Sclavonic,  the 
coniplutc  itlviitiiy  «'iili  ii,  should  not  be  ovcrloolin].  With  iv«[>etl  to  the 
cmtnutJAn  of  the  ScUvocic  tbemc  fjfo,  somslimcs  to«t,  m  other  tiinea  lo 
$e.  atmiMK  $.  282. 


Nominatire, 
Accusative, 

Instrumental,  sieia, 

Dntivpi  wf'fTWi 

Genitive,  »ziA. 

Locative,  'gxUte, 


■lUTkll. 


Notn.  Ace.  8g. 
Nom.  Ace  dii. 
NoiD.  Ace.  pi, 


stt/a, 
•vm, 
tieh, 

»p. 


IS'Ht, 
fSfS. 

'sxvmia,  titnU 

*snima,  aim. 

ssiA,  sick 

*»xom,  nidi. 


"  Remark  1. — TJie  composition  of  the  Sclnvonic  Iwae  syo, 
which  occurred  in  the  ancient  period  of  the  language,  and 
by  which  it  is  shewn  to  be  identical  with  the  Srinskrlt  w  ■Jf". 
having  been  forgotten,  it  need  not  appear  surprising  thnt  this 
base,  vhich.  in  Sclavonic,  passes  as  a  simple  one.  sliould 
be  again  combini-d  with  tlir  pronoun  which  forms  the 
definite  declenaion,  and  which,  from  thir  first,  forms  its  last 
member;  hence,  in  the  nominative  singular,  toother  witli 
tj/  ii  used  also  sit,  and  in  the  feminine  with  ti  also  nun 
(compare  $.  S84.)<  Id  some  cases  tlic  ancient  com{)ouiHl 
only  is  used,  e.tf.  in  the  feminine  aecasativc  singular  only 
n'-vu  ia  used,  not  nfH. 

"Remark  2.— In  the  ligltt  of  the  Sclavonic  modern  com- 

[0.  &1.  p.517>]      pounds  jiist  mentioned,  as  aht,  li-m,  must 

be  regarded  the  Old  High  German  t^r  (of  Ji>jN<r).  if  the  ^  of 


PRONOUNS. 


605 


this  form  is  a  contraction  of  a -f  t,  as  in  so  maay  oUierplnces. 
While,  therefore,  the  feminine  niu  is  to  be  referred  direct 
to  the  Snnskrit  9n  ajfA,  and  is,  rs  it  were,  its  coBtinuation, 
<^r  has  beeo  formed  first  in  the  Gcrmau  langtiage.  by  com- 
bining ibe  bnse  m,  wbiuh  hns  been  retained  in  Goihic  in 
the  Dominative  of  the  article,  with  the  defining  element  t 
^rrom  t/d).  Compare  what  has  been  before  remarked 
{§.  28S.  Rem.  b.)  regarding  analogous  adjt.\:tive-nominatives. 
as  plinl'ir  from  jilmla-ir.  As  a  corroboration  of  this  dis- 
tribution it  may  be  here  further  observed,  that  each  of 
the  elements  u  and  *',  whi(;h  are  united  in  the  i  of  pHnttr, 
also  occurs  separately,*  em-h  having,  on  dilTurent  octtasions, 
divested  itself  of  the  other.  Thus  plintuT  and  plintir  may 
occur; — a  clear  proof  tiiat pUntir  has  been  contracted  from 
pliiita-ir;  for  diphthongs  are  frequently  subject  to  abbre- 
viations, iu  which  one  of  the  dements  combined  in  them 
is  lost;  as.  in  the  CJotJiic,  haba,  "  I  have."  and  itabam, 
"  we  have,"  are  Qsed  instead  of  hitbni,  kabaim,  as  is  shewn 
by  the  nnnlogy  of  the  other  persons  and  the  Old  High 
Genuaii  habent,  kabime».-f  The  Old  Uigh  German  fur- 
nislies  examjiles  of  forms  in  which  only  the  latter  clt-iueut 
of  ai  is  retained ;  as  ensti,  answering  tu  the  Gotliic  dative 
»nsruj  and  genitive  nnsfah.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore, 
tJiat,  in  the  nominative  of  tlie  definite  adjective,  together 
with  Sr  {=mr)  ar  and  ir  also  occur.  Of  these  tliree  forms 
ffr,  or.  ir),  the  first  appears  to  be  the  original,  since  it  forms 
the  best  medium  of  comparison  for  the  two  others.  But  if 
plintitr,  from  iiUnlaa,  whs  the  origiiinl  form,  the  o  in  this  place 
oould  not  liave  been  preserved  beyond  the  fourili  eeutur^',  not 
to  mention  the  eighth  and  a  still  later  period;  as  a  in  poly- 
svllabir  words  in  Gothic  before  a  tiniil  s.  which  has  from  tlie 


•  Onff,I1.340. 

^  Cr.  Vocalismus,  p.  SOa. 


I.  I, 


006 


PBONUUNS. 


Gr«t  held  this  place,  is  regularly  suppressed,  or,  iifter  y. 
wmkeiied  to  r.*  while  ai  is  rctuiucd  beForc  a  Goal  a;  heUL-e, 
in  the  sc«x»iid  jicTSon  siiigwlar,  snlyiinctive  uis.  Old  High 
Gurman  6it,  answoriug  to  the  Sanskrit  Vf^  6*  (from  ow). 
Lniiti  4jt.  (li,f  and  Greek  oo;." 

£0.  Ed.  p.  £16.]  3a9.  The  Lithuanian  isit-ln-a  has  been 
mentioned  above  (§.  3*7.),  whicli,  with  regard  to  its  last 
)x>rtion,  is  identiciil  with  the  Greek  auT(>-£.  and  with  the 
Sanskfit  ni  tTA  (§.  344.).  But  the  demonstrative  base 
R  iija.  also,  wliieh  is  formed  of  ta  +  ya,  occurs  in  Lithuanian 
at  the  end  of  a  componml  pronoun.  An  suc-h  I  regard  patis 
{paC-s),  "ipse."  which  1  distribute  thus,  pn-ljn :  th  stands, 
according  to  rule,  for  ty'a  from  lwi$,  as  yavnihkh,  "  bride- 
groom,"  ior  younik/ruia  from  yauuUhfai  (^.  13&.).  But  in 
Lithuanijin.  t  before  two  vowels,  iV  excepted,  is  ehaiigetl  into 
cj(=c/i);l  heiice  dative  pa-czia-m,  hx-ative  puc^ia-me,  or 
pfiiim^,  instrumental  pncziu.  In  the  fi;eDitive  pacsio  might 
be  expeeled,  aecording  to  the  anidogy  of  scio  and  ymmikkio  : 
we  find,  however,  pali^*,  according  to  the  analogy  of  aivifn 
(§.  t'J3.)i  tlie  fetnininc  genitive jpacsiJs agrees,  however,  with 
MxiAn.  and  similar  genitives  From  bases  in  a  feminine  a 
(vtd).  As  regards  the  first  member  of  pa-(i»,  I  consider  it 
to  be  identical  with  th«  Snuskrit  base  rwa,  gief,  whence  ^ipi 
tirayam.  "self."  Swa  becomes  ;»  by  the  loss  of  the  initial 
letter,  and  the  hardening  of  the  v  to  p.  na,  in  Prakrit,  trfW 
pnni,  "Uiou,"  proeeeda  from  rVn  lirnm;  ao  in  the  lloheniian 
or  Gipscy  language,  pA». "  sister,"  comes  from  WWT  atmnnr 
(vr«  suMxri).  Indeed,  in  tlie  pronoun  under  discussion,  the 
Lithuanian  admits  of  comparison  with  the  Gipsey  Lm- 
gunge,  as  in  the  latter,  as  has  been  already  pointed  out  in 


«  It  iH  u>  tin  <iWrv«d  UiBt  the  t  cf  nd)Sr,  from  vulfiu,  "  lupi,"  is  not  an 
orifsiiMl  ^nal,  OB  np|H-ani  Uvta  the  San^Ti^  Pf-Ma-Qra  and  Gn»k  \viu(cr)i«. 

{  Wiiitra  alw  et,  aee  p.  1%  bat  line. 


PBONOU  N'S. 


fi07 


anoAer  pUce,*  pe  has  been  fornitd  rruin  ^  stra.  whntirc 
j}e-t,  pe-n,  "  self,"  llie  former  as  singular,  Uie  latter  us  plural 
aceusative.t 

360.  We  turn  to  a  pronominal  base  cod-  [O.  Ei.  p.  519.] 
•foting  of  a  simple  vowel,  viz.  i,  which,  in  Latin  and  German, 
expnMtes  the  idea  "  he-,"  and  iu  Sanskrit  and  Zend  Bi»;iiiliai 
"this,"  and  n-hichhas  Icft.inthosi-  languages,  no  proper  derlcn- 
aion,  but  only  adrerhs;  n»  fjim  itos,  "from  herp,"  "from 
there,*  and  which  supplies  the  plm^e  of  thenblative  after  com- 
paratives ;  ^  ihti,  Z.  A((oi  idlia  and  aj^cSj  Ukra,  "  here,"  i.  e. 
"  at  this,"  with  an  inherent  notion  of  place ;  ^fH  t(j,  Zend  mQj 
iMo,  Latin  ha,  "so,"  ^^r^ftn  if/rfn?oi,  "now,"  analogous  with 
taddnfm  "  then" ;  and  iilso  linn  il-thnm,  " so,"^  at  the  hottom 
of  which  lies  the  obsolete  neuter  it  as  the  theme,^  and  wliich 
occurs  in  the  V^das  also,  as  an  enclitic  particle.  I  ri^rd 
this  ^  it  m  the  Inst  portion  of  ^  chit  "  if"*  (from  cha  -f  it). 
and  ^  n/V,  "  if  not"  (fi-om  nn  +  it)  vehich  hitter  la  in  Zend 
i»j^Y  nSit  (§.  33.),  and  merely  means  *  not ";  since,  like  our 
Germnu  nicht,  it  has  been  for;gx)tten  that  its  initial  ctcmmt 
alone  is  ne^^tive,  wliile  its  tatter  portion  signifies  something 
real — iu  Zend  "  tliis,"  and  in  Gi-rman  "  tliin^',"  {ni-rhl,  from 
ni-wiht,  Gothic  m-vaihts).  From  the  pronominal  root  i  pro- 
ceed, also,  the  derivatives  ^ifTW  Uara-i.  "  the  other,"  with 
the  comparative  suffix;  the  accnaiitivu  of  whieb,  itera-m, 
coincides  with  the  Latin  itn-tiw,  t^V  tdrUa,  and  similar 
forms,  which  signify  "  such,"  and  ^iiw  lyuf,  "  so  many." 
Notwithslanding  these  numerous  oflshools.  which  bnve  sur- 
vived The  declension  of  the  pronoun  under  discussion,  lis 
base  has  been  entirely  overlooked  by  the  Indian  gramnw- 


«  Berlin  Jidirb.  Feb.  133(1.  p.dll. 

t  Pcrliii]«,  alwr  thf  ejlUMv  pen  of  *#/'i/)irn,  "  hcnvcn,"  i»  identic*)  witU 
Iho  KuMliTit  (tivirof  the  tame  nicaiiJiig. 
I  Compare  nliiit  iH  «Id  nt  }.  3dT-  mjtrvUng  the  Lilhoaninn  stit-tat. 

LLS 


^K^ 


508  PRONUDNS. 

nans;  and  I  believe  I  am  the  first  who  brouf^hi  it  to  light.* 
Tlic  Inilinn  graiumariaus,  however,  give  extraordinary  ety- 

[G.  Ed.  p.  020.]  motogii^s  for  some  of  t]ie  abovemcutioned 
words,  and  derive  iti,  "ao,"  from  ^i,  "to  (fo";  itar»-s,  "the 
oilier."  from  i,  "  to  wish  "  (see  Wilson).  In  some,  recuurstt 
is  Imd  to  3^  idam,  "  Ihia";  and  one  would  not  be  en- 
tirply  in  error  in  deriving  from  (his  weird  Has,  "  from  here,"' 
though  there  is  a  difficulty  in  seeing  how  from  Uhm  a.%  the 
lliemc  eaii  spring  tlic  form  itas  by  a  suffix  tat.  We  should 
expeet  idanlaa  or  itlatot. 

361.  In  Latin  the  theme  of  t*  is  lengthened  in  scveml 
cases  hy  an  inorf^anic  u  or  v,  in  the  feminine  by  r,  and 
it  is  tliua  brought  into  the  second  and  first  dt-elension,  in 
whidi  i  is  liable  to  be  enrnipted  to  f,  cspeeiaJIy  before 
vowels.  As  from  the  verbal  root  i.  "  lo  go.'*come«iand*'iiiif. 
in  ojiposition  to  is,  U,  imux.  Hit,  ihnm;  so  from  our  pronoun 
come  eum,  eo,  eorum,  eos,  and  the  feminine  forms  ea,  Mm, 
(Of,  forum,  all  from  the  base  whleh  has  been  subBccjuenlly 
Icngthenrd,  to  wliieh  the  obaolefc  fa-lu*  also  belongs.  To 
the  old  lyi>e  belong  only  it.  tJ,  the  olisolete  forms  hn,  ibta, 
with  whieh  agree  tlic  Gothic  (n-o,  '■  him,"  i-m,  "  to  tbem." 
(from  i-6.  {.  215.).  and  the  gcnicive  and  dative  e-Jus.  e-i, 
which  arc  eommon  to  the  three  genders,  and  also  the  loea- 
tive  i6t— in  form  a  dative,  occordini;  to  the  analogy  of  tihi, 
Wit  (§.215.) — and  probably  the  word  immo,  which  bus  brt^n 
already  mentioned  ($.  351.),  which  we  may  supiKise  formerly 
to  have  been  pronounced  immod.  luid  which  corrcaixtnds  tu 
tlie  Sanskrit  pronominal  ablatives  in  tmdi,  but  by  assimilation 
approaches  very  closely  the  Gotliic  dative  imma,  "  to  him." 
The  dative  ei  stands  isolated  in  Latin  Grammar,  inasmuch 
as  alt  other  bases  In  i  have  permitted  this  vowel  to  be 
melted  into  one  with  ^e  case-termination ;  thus  hotH. 
from  Ao((m  .'  tlie  pronominal  bose  t.  however,  escapes  tliis 


•lleidcL  Jorhli.ieie.  p.  472. 


rRONOUNS, 


500 


combination  by  bein^  (.-liunged  into  e.  In  lay  Voc-alistnus 
(p.  Sui),  I  have  derived  the  length  of  quantity  in  thcdalivo 
chnracttT  from  tliR  combinatioo  of  the  i  of  the  theme  with 
the  t  of  the  iiiQcxioii,  which  is  pro])erty  [O.  E<I.  p.  521.] 
short;  and  I  have  assumed  tlint  bases  terminating  in  a  con- 
souuot  lengthen  the  base  in  the  dative  singular,  as  in  moat  uf 
the  other  casus,  by  an  inorgimic  t,-  thus  pedi  from  pfiJl-t. 
As.  then,  in  this  way  a  long  i  must  he  found  alinoat  univer- 
sally in  tlic  diitivc.  thia  would  come  to  be  tTgardcri  hy  the 
S])irit  of  the  language  as  the.-  true  sign  of  this  case,  and  thus  ei, 
and  the  whole  fourth  and  fifth  declensions,  followed  the  pre- 
vailing example  of  the  more  nunu-rous  class  of  word*.  Cui 
alone  retains  the  proper  short  quantity.  It  cannot  be  objected 
to  the  Latin  language  generaLly  that  it  shews  any  undue  incli- 
nation towards  teruiinations  with  a  It^i);;  i,  and  thereby 
lengthens  unnceesaartly  that  letter  when  originally  short;  for 
tinivcrsnlly  where  a  long  Gnat  i  is  found,  there  is  also  a  reason 
for  its  length,  as  in  the  geoiuvc  singular  and  nominative 
pluml  of  the  second  declension  it  is  the  suppression  of  the 
final  vowel  of  the  base,  which  has  induced  the  Icugthcuiiig 
of  the  termination  as  a  compensation;  thtis  lujt-i,  in  both 
cases,  for  luyoi ;  while  in  the  dative  fw;j5  for /ujwi  the  ter- 
mination has  been  mcrgt^d  in  the  \owcl  of  the  base.  Wu 
have  already  mentioned  (§.  3J9.  p.  4!)7  O.  ed.  Note*)  pro- 
nominal datives  like  uti  for  iatui,  which  would  be  analogous 
to  the  Greek  fioi,  9oi,  oi. 

363.  The  Gothic  pronominal  base  i  has  two  points  of 
superiority  over  tlie  I.atin  base  which  luva  been  just  men- 
tioned:  in  the  first  place  it  has  never  admitted  the 
corruption  of  the  original  vowel  to  ?.  as  generally  tliia 
eonipnratively  recent  vowel  is  as  completely  fopeigii  to 
the  Gothic  as  to  the  Sanskrit ;  and  secondly,  the  theme  i 
in  the  masculine  and  neuter  is  preserved  free  from  tliat 
inorgimic  udmixlure  whii-li  Iraiisfers  the  Latin  kindred 
form   from    the  third  to  the  second  declension,   and   has 


510  PBONOUNS. 


produced  earn  for  im.  eo  for  «  or  i,  ei  or  ei  for  ««,  eorum  for 
iwrn.  The  Gotliic  pronoun,  by  the  side  of  which  are  given 
in  pareinhfses  the  foruis.  which  hiive  been  most  [ipobably 
[Ci.  Ed.  p.  6'22.]  drnwu  from  tlic  corresiionding  Sanskrit 
boae  at  the  time  whea  it  was  declined,  aru  as  follows: — 


MASCULtME. 

aiNQoukR. 

FI.IIBAI* 

SaJukril.         OiUhic. 

Samkrit. 

Gothie. 

Nominative, 

(w),            i-». 

(«>"«), 

€i-it. 

Aei-ii8»tive, 

i-m'              i-na. 

(•■-"), 

i-Tifc 

Dulive, 

{i-skauVy     i-mma. 

(i-bht/aii)t 

i-m. 

Genitive. 

{i-skijay       i-s, 

NEUTGEt. 

(i-s/idm), 

hxi 

Nora.  Ace. 

R'              r /«. 

a-n-i). 

fy-fc* 

'  Thdi  form  Actually  (iccun  in  tho  V^dns,  oee  Rnson's  ^pec^mcn,  p.  10, 
Aad  Note  p.  ii.  Wc  iJiouU  have  anikipjilcd  im  (wiili  short  i),  Aocnnlin;^ 
to  the  Gomninn  iIuckDoioii ;  but  the  oiibetantivc  nnd  adjective  dpclcDsioB 
huuo  inononyUabic  Iinw-x  iDi,anint1icr  luonuayllabicbaaca— vritli  tliucx- 
ceptititi  of  (liotK  in  ^ — use  am  as  ttieLrlertuui&lioa ;  huuce  bhiy^am  for  bkim  ; 
an(I»,  nlw>,  ^-am  might  lj«>t'!«|iccU'4fn)in  i,  ai  inmonnsyllttbti?  word*  boili 
short  aaA  long  i  are  chniig«l  before  tuwfU  into  ij/.  Thp  W-ila  dialect  in 
the  forej^nji;  canv,  Imvrvvrr,  haa  prefrrred  strcnF^euing  tho  Tovel  oi  dw 
boso  to  AD  cxieiuion  of  the  termination,  «r,  whicK  u  more  probable,  it  ha& 
coDiracied  an  existing  it/am  Co  im,  aucoMing  to  the  nnalogjr  of  the  Zenil 
(;. 4Sf.) ;  And  thus,  pertmpfl,  atn)  the  V^dic  tSm,  '*ciim"  citc-d  hy  Howti 
I.e.,  »a  contnctioD  oftt/dm,  othcrwiu  we  mtul  aMum*,  that  uuIcaJ  of 
the  feminine  boas  uty  nicnlioiinl  in  ^.  34A^  H  occami,  aeoonling  to  the 
anali>f7  of  the  Zend  Amit  from  hma  ($.  172.).  It  is  cerViiii);  remnrluiblo 
thatthei,  ^kieb  tieap«cialiy  auhJMlire,  hAsheie  fouu'l  its  «-sr  into  the 
sccoaatlve.  Ukc  ibe  Old  High  Uertnan  tia  and  Old  Latin  raw,  "«■»,' 
t>im,"etitn"  (^344.).  '  Cotnp.  arrin-aAniiit,  from  itimv,  and  (.31. 

'  Conparv  «nu(-f  Ay«,  from  aipim,  wlictice  tt  Appean  that  nil  proUMilU* 
with  whataoevtr  vowel  (htir  tliemc  emis,  hairc,  in  Ihe  g«fll(ivc,  nyo,  or, 
euHtonicmUy,  fi^  (f .  21).  •  $.  IW-  *  j.  -233. 


FBONOUNS. 


511 


3Ga  Altliough  in  Gotltic.  as  Id  Sanskrit,  [G.  Ed.  p.  523.] 
Zend.  Gre«k,  and  Littiii.  the  vowfl  t  in  Bubstautives  is  ai>pro- 
[iriatcd  equiilly  well  to  the  r«minine  tbenie-tcmiinatioii  ns 
tft  the  masculioe;  stitl  in  our  pronoun  of  the  third  person, 
whore  tiic  iileti  ia  csseiitiallv  i>asc(l  on  the  distinction  of  sex, 
80  that  tliat  wliicb  signifies  "lie"  cnuaot  mean  " sJic,"  the 
iKXrssity  for  this  distinction  lus  produixd  an  extension  of 
the  bcise  ?.  in  en»es  which,  without  such  nn  extension,  would 
bu  fully  identical  wiUi  the  tuusculine.*  In  tlio  numinative 
stnifulur  a  totntly  different  |troiic>uQ  is  employed,  which,  in 
High  German,  is  uacd  thn>U|;hout  oil  those  cum;s  which 
arc  formed  in  Gotliic  from  the  extended  base:  Gotliic  sr, 
Old  High  German  giu,  &c.  (§.  351.).  Tlie  aUix  which  is 
used  in  Gothic  to  extend  tlw  base  consists  in  the  tow«I 
wliivb,  from  a  time  far  prior  to  the  formation  of  the  Ger- 
man langnage,  was  especia.! ly  employed  as  the  fulcrum  o| 
feminine  bases,  but  which  in  Gothic  appears  in  the  form 
of  J  instead  of  d  ($.69.);  thus,  it/il  from  f+^,  with  the 
euphonic  chaii^  of  the  i  to  iy.  as  in  lI^e  plural  neuter 
forms  ry-a,  thriy-a.  (§.  233.).  From  tha  base  iyJ  is  formed 
however,  in  the  uninnected  accusative — as  final  vowels  are 
for  the  most  [mrt  liable  to  abbreviation — ri/'r,  an  analogous 
form  to  the  in  Ulce  manner  shortened  Latin  ca,  cum  (for  in, 
iam),  and  in  tlic  nominative  and  nccusiitivc  plural  iyiis.f  In 
the  dative  iiluml  the  i<lentity  with  the  masculine  and  neuter 
^^^K  U  not  avoided,  and  this  case  is,  as  from  [0.  F^.  p.cM.] 
^^^^   the   Old    High    Gernuui   might    be   conjectured,  im.    with 

L 


Tho  Acwnmtirc  «inf^ilnr  wonld,  indet!<I,  be  dlstlsgotlhwl  from  (he 
laaw^uKnp,  sJncu  tlio  reminiiic  litis  icimpktaly  )o«t  tbt  tociuatiro  chariii?. 
ter;  but  It  was  theri'  (irii;irui1ly,  nml  tlirn-riini  the  oeccwty  forn  mark 
of  •JivtiiiotioQ  frum  tlii->  maxculiiu^  lUw  oxistcil. 

t  Tile  avcuttitive  alono  oocara,  yet  it  is  probaMe  tfiat  the  norainutivo 
I  exflclly  ihn  awxie  ((iriinin.  1 .  7(Ki),  !ii  cum>  rl  Jiii  not  ctnne  from  llw 
Mtmt  base  ih  tlic  siiigutitr  ivomiuiitivi;,  anti  it  wrould,  tlicrtforc,  be  tj/it. 


4. 


312 


PEOXOONS. 


regard  to  which  wc  must  observe,  Urnt  in  Lntin,  bIro,  in 
several  of  the  ol)U(|ue  cases,  the  distinction  of  f^ender  is 
less  attended  to  {rjun,  ei,  old  eae).  All  the  cases  which 
distinguish  the  fcinininL*  by  tlie  inflexion  spring  from  the 
original  theme;  thus  i'x4t,  i-sni,  genitive  pluml  izA,  op- 
posed to  u,  imma,  izS.  In  Latin,  also,  the  extension  of  the 
base  i  may  have  been  comnienci^  in  the  feminine,  and 
thus  an  analogous  masculine  ettm  have  been  made  to  cor- 
respond to  cam.  itnd  may  hnve  superseded  the  more  ancient 
im.  Similar  corruptions  have  been  adopted  by  the  lan- 
guage in  the  other  rases;  thus  eoritm  placed  itself  bi-side 
Pfi7iiwi,  iind  thus  the  ium.  which  probably  existed,  fell  into 
disuse:  caftm,  Us,  tis.yrere  followed  by  the  masculine  and 
neuter  ha,  m,  which  supplanted  the  older  tbut, 

364.  If  the  singular  nominntive  of  the  reflective  pro- 
noun given  by  the  old  grammnnans  was  i  and  not  i,  it  might 
be  regarded  us  the  kindred  form  of  the  pronoun  under  dis- 
cussion; and  in  this  view  it  would  be  of  importnnce  that  the 
Vedie  accusative  (m,  mentioaed  above  (p.  610,  Note  '.),  has 
a  reflective  meaning  in  the  passage  quoted,  and  b  rendered 
by  Roaen  "  tnnct  ipsum."  But  if  "  is  the  right  form,  then  it 
probably  belongs  to  the  Saiwlcrit  base*  luw,  su^,  whence 
tvcatfom,  "  self"  ({.  34 1.),  and  is  connected  with  oJ,  m,  I,  imd 
oi^r?,  &C..  the  latter  from  the  base  2^1.  As  in  this  word 
an  I  stands  for  an  original  a,  which  would  lend  us  to  ex|)eut 
[U.  Ed.  p.  £95/]  o.  So  also  in  T;  and  it  descn>'C8  notice,  Oiot  so 
early  as  the  Sanskrit,  together  with  rwa  ia  found  a  vfeakcncd 
form  Jiti't,  from  which  I  tliink  may  be  formed  the  interrogative 


•  Not  DMCMuily  M,  M  the  nu|fa  brulhiog  cccur*  4lai>  in  w«rds 
which  origitially  begin  with  a  pure  votid,  as  Udrtpot,  uwwi'riug  lo 
VSAiM^  t^atan-t.  On  ihc other  huid  the  funn  1  wnuM  noi  pptrmptarDy 
ooadact  <u  to  •  Ima  \h  ^  ituiitl  s  bu  MuiifUnirs  K-«i  cntiraly  lo*t  in 
Urwk. 


PHONOtTNS. 


513 


jmrticle  fwt  sirit,  as  neuter,  nnd  analogous  to  ^ir  if  and 
•f^w  chit.  In  favour  of  the  oiiiiiion  thnt  t  belongs  to  tlie 
old  rcllectire  bnse,  raay  be  ndduced  the  circuHismnw,  that, 
like  Uie  two  other  pronouns  in  which  there  is  no  distinction 
of  gfiider  (^7£u,  ffii).  it  is  without  a  nominative  sign.  If  it 
belonged  to  the*  base  ^  i,  it  would  most  probably  have  had 
the  same  sound  as  the  Latino-Gotliic  is,  unless  we  prefer 
regarding;  t  aa  the  neuter.  The  dative  iv,  from  ita  terrai- 
uatioD,  falls  under  the  pronouns  devoid  of  gender  (^.  SSa.), 
and  mould,  therefore,  likewise  belong  to  tlie  reflective  base. 
The  accusative  iv,  however,  considered  independently,  ■ftouM 
not  furnish  any  objection  to  the  opinion  that  it  is  identical 
with  tlie  Latin  im  and  the  Gotliic  ino.* 

S6i.  We  have  already  mentioned  the  insepiirsble  demon- 
strfllite  t  (§.  157.).  There  is,  however  (and  this  crentes  a 
ditHculty),  another  mode  of  derivation,  according  to  which 
that  I  would  be  identical  with  the  ei  (=i')>  ^^liit^h  is  attached 
in  Gothic,  in  a  sintilar  roanocr,  to  otiier  pronouns,  not 
to  strengtlien  their  demonstralive  meaning,  but  to  give 
them  a  relative  signiBention  :  hn,  from  is  +  fi,  means 
"t/ui,"  and  teU  ft  contmclion  of  «t+«,  in  accordance  with 
a  law  of  sound  univeriially  followed  in  Sanskrit  (Gram. 
Crit  §.  35.)  signifies  "  y»fp."  It  is  most  frceiuently  com- 
bined with  the  article ;  xaei,  sdfi.  thatel,  "  gui,"  "  ijuip,'* 
"t^od";  ihieei,  feminine  f/itzilz»,  "eujiis";  and  so  through  all 
the  eases;  only  in  Uie  feminine  genitive  plural  thi^M  has  as 
yet  not  been  found  to  occur  (Grimm.  III.  15.).  If  the  first 
or  second  person  is  referred  to,  ei  is  attached  [G.  Ed.  p.d20.] 
to  ijt  and  thu:  thus  ikei,  Ihuri;  for  the  Ootliic  relative  re- 
fjuires  that  the  person  to  which  it  refers  should  be  incor- 
porated with  it;  and  as  it  is  itself  iiidectinahle,  the  relations 
of  ease  are  denoted  by  the  pronoun  preceding  it,  which  is 


•  Coinpdrt  Hnrlnngon  the  Caacj.  118;  M.  Schmidt  DePron.  p.  12, 
ttc;  Kuhn«r.p.386. 


514 


PBONOUNS. 


then  merf^tl  in  tbc  mcauiug  of  its  atteiidaat.  Alone,  ei  sig- 
ai6cs  "thaC  lilc«  the  Latm  tjuod  and  the  Sanskrit  relative 
neuter  m  yat-  AikI  I  Imvc  no  doubt  tlmt  tlie  Gothic  ri,  in 
its  origin,  belongs  to  the  Sanskiit-ZeoH  relative  bnse  ya. 
nhich  in  Gottiic  has  bi--come  ei,  ju!.t  us.  iti  mutiir'  other  parts 
of  Gottiie  GratiiiQfir.  ei  (=i)  answers  to  the  Sjinskj-it  ya.  as 
in  the  nominntive  sin)>iilar  hairdth  from  llie  buse  hairdyn* 
With  respect  to  forui,  therefore,  tlie  derivatioQ  uf  the  Gothic 
ei  from  the  Sanskrit  v  yn,  admits  of  u»  doubt ;  and  ainoe 
tlie  Biguification  of  tlie  two  words  are  identical,  we  must 
rest  ^ntisfjL'd  with  this  mode  of  dnlueing^  it,  and  abandon 
Griniiu's  conjecture  that  ei  is  iutiniatcly  conneeted  with  it, 
"her"  or  only  allow  it  a  very  distant  relationship  to  it,  lo  as 
Far  as  the  deri%'atiou  of  tlie  Sanskrit  relative  base  j/o,  rrom 
the  dcmonstmtive  I>ai8e  t,  is  (ulmitted.  The  relationship, 
however,  of  these  two  is  not  susc-cptibti!  of  proof;  for  as 
to,  to,  ma,  no,  are  simple  prituiiry  biues.  why  sliould  not  such 
a  one  have  originated  in  the  semi-vowel  y  also?  But  if  the 
Greek  deuionslrativc  t  is  nkin  to  tlie  Gothic  uppenck^il  pro- 
uouQ  of  similar  sound,  it  likewise  would  proceed  from  the 
Sanskrit  relative  base,  which  apin-ara  to  be  especially  destined 
for  combiniitioD  with  other  pronouns  (sec§.  3&3.);  and  this 
ditipcsitioQ  is  especially  observable  in  Sclavonic,  iu  wliieh 
language  that  base,  when  isolated,  has  laid  nside  tlte  relative 

[G.  Ed.  p.  627.]  signification  (§.282.).  Uence,  before  en- 
tering deeply  into  the  Sclavonit-  syatcn*  of  dctlcusion,  I  mis- 
took tliis  base,  and  tliought  I  saw  in  its  abbreviation  to 
j  (i.  "eimi,"  im,  "ei")  the  Sanskrit  base  i. 

366.  We  return  to  the  Sanskrit  idam,  "  this."  in  onler 
to  notice  Oie  bases  frnm  which  its  declension  is  completed, 
and  of  which  each  is  used  only  in  certain  casirs.  The 
most  simple,  nud  the  one  most  largely  employed*  is  v  a, 
whence  M-«ni(li,  "  Aiiic."  a'smtit,  **  hoc"  o-mun.  "in  Aoc,"  in 


'^1<U     COmpiire  Vooaliuikui,  p.lUI. 


FBONOUNS.  515 

the  dual  A-bkydm,  and  in  the  plural  4Mu — analogous  to 
Vedic  forms  like  aivi-bhia  from  aiva  (§.  219.) — S^hyai,  ishAm, 
S-thu,  exactly  like  U-bhyas,  &&,  from  to,  viz.  by  the  com- 
mingling of  an  t,  as  is  usual  in  the  common  declension  in 
many  cases.  There  is  no  necessity,  therefore,  to  have 
recourse  to  a  distinct  base  i,  but  this  is  only  a  phonetic 
lengthening  of  a,  and  from  it  comes  also  the  masculine 
nominative  vipt  ayam  from  i  +  am,  as  91R  swayam,  "self," 
from  ncS  (for  stDa)+am  ($.  341.).  Max.  Schmidt  is  disposed 
to  compare  with  this  S  the  Latin  e  of  eum,  ea,  &c.  (1.  c  p.  10), 
and  to  regard  the  latter  as  an  abbreviation  of  an  origi- 
nally long  e,'  for  support  of  which  opinion  he  relies  prin- 
cipally on  the  form  aeU  in  an  inscription  to  be  found  in 
Orelli,  and  on  the  circumstance  that,  in  the  older  poets, 
the  dative  ei  has  a  long  e.  But  we  do  not  think  it  right 
to  infer  from  this  dative  that  every  e  of  the  pronoun  is 
is  originally  long;  and  we  adhere  to  the  opinion  ex- 
pressed at  {.  361.,  which  is,  moreover,  confirmed  by  the 
circumstance  that  t  also  occurs  before  vowels;  and  even 
in  the  plural  it,  i'u,  is  more  common  than  ei,  eia.  As  re- 
gards, however,  the  obsolete  dative  singular  with  a  long  e, 
it  may  be  looked  upon  as  the  Guna  form  of  i ;  as  i  in  San- 
skrit, according  to  the  common  declension,  would  form 
mf^=S-i-S.  From  this  6,  however,  which  is  formed  by 
Guna  from  t,  that  which  we  have  seen  [O.  Ed.  p.  63B.2 
formed  from  a  by  the  addition  of  an  i  is  different ;  and  there- 
fore the  Latin  dative,  even  if  it  had  an  originally  long  e, 
would  still  have  nothing  in  common  with  Sanskrit  forms  like 
^bhis,  &c.  The  e  in  the  genitive  ejxts  is  long  through  the 
euphonic  influence  of  tbe^',  and  for  it  occurs,  also,  the  form 
aeiug,  in  an  inscription  given  by  Orelli  (N'.  2866.)  When, 
through  the  inSuence  of  a  j,  the  preceding  vowel  is  long,  it 
should  not  be  termed  long  by  position  :•  j  is  not  a  double 


*  The  loDgth  of  the  vowel  preceding  ihej  inay  Bometimes  ira  dificreDtly 

accounted 


616 


PRONOUNfl. 


consonnnt,  but  the  weakest  of  nl!  simple  consonaDts,  aud  ap- 
proximates in  its  nature  closely  to  tliat  of  a  vowel.  This 
weaJcneas  may  have  occasionvil  the  lengthening  or  the 
preceding  vowel,  in  remarkable  coincidoucc  witli  the  San- 
Bkfit,  in  which  i  mid  u,  where  they  stand  before  a  su£x 
commencing  with  n^  y  sro  always  either  lengthened 
or  strengthened  by  tlie  addition  of  a  / :  hence  the  roots 
ftr/i  and  «r  Ha  form,  in  the  passive,  tfi^  jiy!.  ?^  Hiiy4, 
but  in  the  gerund  in  ya,  jiti/u,  sttiiijn,*  The  ease  is  dilTe- 
rent  where  \i  or  ^  i  in  monosyllabic  forms  arc  changed, 
before  a  vowel  following  thi-m.  into  1^  vj :  the  y  which 
arises  from  i,  i,  hoa  no  lengthening  power.  It  is  scarcely 
possible  to  give  any  decided  explanation  of  the  ortfao- 
graphiitil  doubling  of  tlie  i  for  j  io  Lotiu.  When  Cicero 
wrote  Maiia,  aiio,  he  may  have  pronounce*!  these  words 
[G,  Ed.  p.  fisoj  as  Mai-jti,  ai-jo  (Seliueider,  p.  Sj*  i ) ;  luid  we 
cannot  hence  infer  that  every  Initial  J  was  described  in  writ- 
ing by  it.  If  this  were  the  case,  we  should  be  compelled 
to  the  conclusion,  that  by  doubling  the  i  the  distinguishing 
the  semi.vowel  from  the  vowel  i  was  intended,  as,  in  Zend, 
the  medial  y  is  expressed  by  donble  t  (^i) ;  and  as  double 
u  denotes,  in  Old  German,  the  ir,  tliough  a  single  u.  espe- 
cially after  initial  consonants,  occurs  as  the  representative 
of  u\  But  if  Cicero  meant  a  double  j'  by  hia  double  r,  it 
would  not  follow  that,  in  all  cases,  the  language  intended 
the  same.  The  Indian  grammarians  admit  the  doubling 
of  A  consonant  after  r.  as  tarppa  for  larpu,  "snake."  and 


accouated  for ;  Mmqfcr{§.30l.)  hu  hMn  derived  from  miu^,  wlMr* 
tlie  Tomt  DLsy  lia*«  bevn  UngtbansJ  owing  to  the  ff  briog  dropped.  And 
a  cctuonnnt  tnost  origicuillj'  Immc  pnfc*il«d  cvcu  tlwy  of  the  KcoitiT*  ia 
Jut,  if  IhU  icTDiiiuidoa  is  skin  lo  the  riMiiiiiiu«  SuMkril  ^nVIJMU 
(}.34D.  Note"). 

*  Oompare  «h&i  ho*  been  laid  in  mj  VocalivBioi,  p.213,  n^ardini;  the 
MMkncjr  uf  the  1  to  be  pnx-cdcd  by  a  toi^  vowel. 


PBO  NOONS. 


517 


tlicy  ndniit,  also,  of  ninny  other  still  more  extraordinary 
accumulutions  of  cnnsoiiaiits,  wiUi  vliich  the  larigunge 
caniiot  be  actaally  encumbered.  But  if  the  doubling  of 
a  confiutmnt  following  r  Iiad  any  real  founila.tion,  the  r 
would  be  nssimitatcd  to  tlie  consonniit  which  followed  it — 
as.  ill  the  PriLkptt  sttvi^i  frooi  tarvn, — aud  then  tlie  simul- 
taneous cwntinuntion  of  tlte  r  in  writing  would  only  be 
in  order  to  retain  the  n^collcctioD  of  its  originally  haring 
existed.* 

30T.  Prom  the  dcmonatrativu  base  v  a.  mentioned  in 
tlie  precedinj^  pnragraph,  a  feminine  base  i  might  have 
arist?n  (see  §.  I  "J  2.),  whence,  by  llie  addition  of  the  termi- 
nntion  am,  no  eommoii  iu  pronouns,  the  nominative  singiiitir 

Ipnr  iynm  (L-uphouic  for  i-am,  Gram.  Crit.  §.  »l.)  may  bo 
derived.  As.  however,  a  short  i  with  am  [C  lid.  p.  &3aj 
might  become  ^ft{^  ii/am.  it  is  uncertnin  if  the  feminine  of 
our  pronoun  should  be  reierrcd  to  ihc  mast-uline  bane  a,  or 
to  t ;  the  former,  however,  appears  to  me  tlie  more  proba.ble, 
since  thus  the  masculine  nonainativu  «^  a^am,  and  its 
feminine  ^v^  h/nm,  would  be  of  the  same  origin,  whilo 
the  base  i  dut-s  not  occur  uiicomiiounded  in  the  \vhule  mtuf 
culino  and  neuter  declension.  The  Gotliic  fyo.  "  edin," 
cannot,  therefore,  be  compari'd  with  ^ffi  iyam,  particularly 
as,  in  §.  363.,  wo  liave  seen  t)ie  Gothic  arrive,  in  a  way 
peculiar  to  itself,  but  still  in  accordance  with  the  Latin, 
at  a  theme  M  leng:tbeDed  from  t;  but  the  am  of  the  Sanskrit 
iynm  is  merely  the  naniinativo  Icrminittinn. 

368.  In  Zeiid  W[  aynm  becomes  fwjj  tidm  (§.  42,).  and 
Tim  ij/am  becomes  fV  ^"*-  '^'***  neuter  JJ^  idam.  however, 
is  replaced  by  iwju^j  imat,  from  the  base  ima,  which,  in 
Sanskrit,  is  one  of  those  which  supply  the  declension  of 
idam.  Hence,  for  example,  come  the  nccuaativo  mascu- 
line   ^H  imam,   feminine   ^m  imAm ;  Zend    ?g5j  ivietn, 

«  Campnrc  th«  aultnilatioDof  m,  itnd  iu  aimulCanroiu  gniphiul  Kipr«- 
wnlaiion  by  *",     (Gram.Orit.^70.) 


518 


PRONOUNS. 


?TS»?. 


Oiight  we,  then,  to  compftpp  with  it  the  QUI 


tmonrr, 

L^tin  em^m  lor  eujKtem,  or,  viiih  Max.  akrMliiat  (I.  u.  p.  llj^ 
coiuuder  it  us  tlie  douUHtig  of  cm  Tor  im?  It  need  not 
aeetn  surprising  that  the  bnse  mm,*  which,  in  the  singii- 
Uir,  occurs  unly  in  the  accusative,  niiJ  which  is  pr)iici[>nllv 
limtt4Ml  to  this  cnse,  should  be  found  in  Latin  it)  ttie  accusa- 
tive only.  I  rc£>;Hrd  ima  aa  tlie  union  of  tvo  prcinnminnl 
bases,  viz.  f  Jind  ma  l§.  105,);  the  latter  docs  not  occur  in 
Stuiskrit  uuconi pounded,  but  ia  most  probably  t-onnectt-d  with 
llic  Greek  ^I'l'.  atiil  the  latter,  therefore,  nitli  the  Old  Lutin 
emtm. 

[0.  Tii.  p.  031.]  369.  As  i  n-ith  ma  has  formed  llic  combina- 
tion intQ,  in  like  maimer  I  rofjard  the  base  ^TH  ana.  which 
likewise  enters  into  tlie  dcelcusionorfc/am  ns  the  combination 
of  V  R  with  another  demonstrative  base,  which  do€;a  not 
occur  in  Sanskrit  and  Zcud  in  isolated  use.  but,  doubtless,  in 
Ptili,  iu  several  oblique  cnscs  of  the  tliree  gciidcrs.t  iu  the 
pluml  also  in  the  uoiniuative,  and  in  ttint  of  the  neuter  sin- 
gular, which,  like  the  masculine  nceusntive,  is  "^  ■nan.'^ 
Clough  gives  the  eases  iu  which  this  pronoun  occurs  an 
secondary  forms  to  tlic  base  Tl/<J.  as,  in  Sanskrit,  in  several 
cases,  a  pronoun  is  found  with  the  compound  imt  fin,  which 
has  na  instead  of  Ut  for  its  last  portion.^  We  will  Irto  give 
the  compound  Sanskrit  pronoun  over  against  the  Piili  simple 
immoun. 


*  In  tlie  pi.  the  Bam.  (^  ifS)  b«l<>nga  Iu  Ihiti  bflao,  and  In  the  Aa»\  ^q) 
fiiuiif,  in  botL  Dom.  nml  uovtimtiro. 

t  In  the  feminiDF  nalaiully  prvxluccil  to  n/L,  the  d  of  whldi,  howtrrr. 
ii  shorteiml  in  the  occnaotivc  •!  nan  "  torn." 

t  1  irrito  tiniii,  not  torn,  ns  ft  fioiU  m  in  Plli,  ■■  tn  Pr6l<rii,  br«ompa  nn 
nnutiwlini.  vhieli  is  prottounci'd  Lilfeaalifltd  n  (jj.!).  10.)  Tlii' nrigicuil 
■n  in  I'/Ui  b4»  bcua  rvuinrcl  unljr  Ixifora  initial  wninda  cammeiKiiig  nidi 
■  vowel  (Bamonf  aud  IsaMii,  i>[>.81,8-2>.  Kiaal  m  ia  lik«i*iw  voif- 
ropUil  in  PkVi  u>  onusivuni,  or  ia  lost  euliroly. 

^  In  Zead  ofaaervv  Dm  fcniinioc  ({ruitivo  uutf^mM  uinaitliita 
lahuiiilMok/tu,\cai.  S.|i.47),  wliicfa  pfempposM ft^«iukrit^it)wjtif«. 


PRONOUNS. 


&19 


MASCULINE. 


HRODLAR. 

Sojukrit.  Pdii. 

N.  hha,  aii, 

Ac  itam,  inam,    tan,  nan, 

I.    Stina,  Snina,  Una,  n^n. 


D.  ilasmdi. 
AhJtasmdt, 
G.  Siasya, 
L.  itaamin, 

N.  ^lai, 
Ac.  Hat,  4nat, 


Santkrit. 

m, 

(tdv,  6n&v, 
Mia, 
iUbhyas, 
Ul&bhyas, 


UasmA,  nasmA, 

(or  tamhd,  namM,  ) 

tasaa,  nasaa,  StSskdm, 

{tasmin,  nasmin,      1 
or  famhi,  namhi,   )     ' 

NEUTER. 


FLUKAL. 

Pdii. 
U,  tii, 
ti.ni. 

mhi,  TiSbhi,  p 
(or  iihi,  n^hi.  S 
'     .  .  .  .  •? 

S 
like  Instr.        ^ 

tisan,  nisan,* 

tint,  nisu. 


tan,  nan, 
tan,  nan. 


efdni, 
Hdni,  indni 


The  rest  like  the  maaculiae. 


tdni,  ndni. 
(tdni,  ndni, 
lor  ti,  nS. 


FEMININE. 


N.  ishd,  sd, 

Ac.Sldm,  hi&m,    tan,  nan, 
I.    itaytt,  inayd,  tdya,  n&ya,* 


D.  Hasydi, 
Ah  Jlasyds, 
G.  itaayAs, 
L.  itaaydm. 


taasd,  tiasA, 
taasd,  iisad,* 
tassan,  tiaaan. 


ftdx,  ^Aa, 

mbhia, 

it6bhyaa, 
it&bkyas, 
Hdsdm, 
Hdau, 


Ud,  nd, 

(or  tdyA,  ndyd. 

ifd,  n&, 

(or  idyd,  ndyd. 

(i^bhi,  ndbhi, 

(or  tdhi,  ndhi. 

like  the  Instr. 

tdaan,  tdsdnan, 
tdav. 


'  Ifl  replaced  by  the  genitive.  *  Or  tStdnan,     [G.  Ed.  p.  583.] 

nSa&nan,  as  the  old  gemtive  is  tftben  u  theme,  after  Buppresslng  the  nasal, 
and  from  it  a  new  one  is  formed  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  common 
declension 

^  Obaerve  the  transposition  of  the  long  voweL  *  In  the  form  tiud 


520 


PRONOUNS. 


tlte  P&li  coincide  in  a  remarlc&blv  inaancr  vriili  tlio  Golhk  Ikuit,  tiaec, 
like  il,  it  has  wcs^voed  the uld  a  toi.  Tiud,  hovovcr,  t>  inferior  to  lb« 
Gottiic  kliKlivil  Farm,  tn  Imvin^  droppeil  the  final  ir ;  jtnA  in  |]ib  |H)InT 
rnnkg  witli  tlw  Old  High  German,  in  which  the  Gnthic  xot  hns  tiM^uitm 
TV  (|i.  AlO.  G.  H.).  Th«  I'&li.  Iiowevor,  faju  abdndoned  all  finnl  i,  irithnnt 
esception.  The  older  fnrm  taM»A(hy  astAmWiilinn  tnm  taty/i),  which  Is  not 
given  by  Clough,  b  nujiplit'd  by  BumoDfand  Lbsm-ei,  with  whom,  how- 
ever, the  form  tiuii  i«  wnntirjg,  tliough  tlicy  furuinh  an  analogous  onr, 
Tix.  iiniind  (Euuii,  ji.  117).  Clnogh  ^ivcs,  moreover,  the  fonus  tUidya 
and  lauAiAi/a.  Tho  former,  like  the  plum!  gonitice,  appmTa  to  lie 
fiirmed  by  the  addition  nfa  now  geoitit^  furm,  aecnrdiiig  to  th«  oonitaoQ 
declcniion,  la  the  pronominfLl  ^^niiive  fnrm.  Prom  lliu  form  tait/ilii^a 
we  miKhl  bo  led  lo  an  obaijlcic  aMative,  which,  in  Sanukrit.  must  hare 
bcun  tattfcU — still  ttttlitc  ^Aiwy/If— which  ie  proved  by  Zend  forms  like 
avanhdi,  ^es  hoe"  (;}.  180.  p.  106  lasi  liuu).  But  if  we  &re  to  give  to 
tiuuUnyit  lint  an  ablative  sense,  hut  a  jJieniiive  and  daiive  one,  I  then  pre- 
fer dividinj:^  it  thua:  tautl-lAya,  so  tbut  the  feminine  biue  tA  woald  be 
contained  in  it  twica — once  with  tho  pronominal,  a.nd  njfsin  with  the 
comituifi  genilivB  terniiniition.  But  it  is  probable  ihat  tho  form  imainhA, 
which  ia  Kiveu  by  Bnmuuf  and  Laascn  (Ktoai,  p.  117j  na  nn  uniininloua 
feminine  insininicnial,  is  criginnlly  an  ablntive;  for  ihw  eatw,  in  iia 
•ipiifiiiiitions,  borders  on  the  instrumcntid,  and  to  it  bclimj^  tho  appended 
pronoun  tmn.  But  if  imamhA  i>  ta  ablnlive.  it  ia,  in  ouo  mpcct,  more  pcr- 
fcet  than  the  Zend  forms,  like  r^KiiWyJviM  avanMt^  «inn)  the  I'&li  form 
has  retaitipil  alio  itie  m  of  tha  appendwl  pronoun  (ina— tramiKwed  tn  mha, 
— while  tho  n  of  m;uj»>>^ »ju  onuiAiif  is  only  an  tniphooJcaflix  {f.Afi*.). 
The  £ual  t,  huvreveri  in  I'ali,  must,  according  to  a  univerMl  law  uf  sound, 
ba  ramov«d,  as  tn  Iho  mascnlino ;  and  ihos  the  ablalire  nature  of  inuimM 
migbt  the  more  easily  lie  hid  before  the  discovery  of  the  Zend  form. 

370.  I  have  alreftdy,  in  my  review  of  ForsteKa  Grammar,* 
and  before  I  became  acquainted,  througb  the  PSIi,  with  the 
isolatrd  pronoun,  considered  the  Latin  conjunction  rmv\  aa 
[G,  Ed.  p.  CM.)  un  iiccusatire  to  be  cluased  here ;  niid  I 
ha%'c  there  also  represented  the  Sanskrit  ina  rs  a  compound. 
and  compared  the  Latin  enim  with  its  nccnsntivc  v^  6nam. 
It  will,  howcwcr,  be  better  to  refer  enim,  as  also  nam,  to  the 


Heidelb.  Jahrbiicher,  1818.  p.  IJi. 


Ji 


TRO  NOUNS. 


»2l 


feminine  accusntive — P.  it  "iii.  Sans,  w^rnf^  fti/im — as  the 
short  niasculiiie  a  iu  Latiu  has  elsewliere  hecroom  u,  among 
oUier  words,  in  nunc  i.e.  "at  this  (time),"  which  (I.e.)  I  have 
explftined  like  lane,  as  nnn]ngous  to  hune.  But  if /nnc  and 
ttMnc  arc  not  accusatives,  their  nc  would  appear  to  be  akin  to 
the  Greek  vt'ica,  anJ  iunc  migiit  be  compared  to  rnvixa,  of 
■which  more  bereaFler.  With  respect  to  nam  and  enim^  we  may 
refer  to  §.  351,  witli  regard  to  the  possibility,  in  similar  prono- 
minal formatioDS.  of  tlieir  m  being  a  remnant  of  the  apjietided 
pronoun  win.  There  is  DO  doubt,  however,  of  the  pronominal 
derivfttion  of  all  these  adverbs.  Wcmay  remark, in  this  respect, 
our  Gcminn  c/ffnn.ati(l  the  Latin  tju.tp'jte  from  <juiJ-jic,  to  which, 
with  regard  to  its  lust  syllable,  nempc  from  nam-pe  (eotnpare 
§.  6.)  is  oualuguus.  The  Sanskrit  kincha,  "moreover"  (eu- 
phonic for  kimcha),  may  he  regarded  as  the  prototype  o?<juippe, 
for  it  consists  of  jtiwi,  "  what  ?"  and  clia  (oommonly  "and*"), 
whieh  takes  from  it  the  inti'rrojjative  meaning,  and  is  in  form 
the  su^c  as  que,  wliicb  also,  in  quiaque,  removes  the  interroga- 
tive sigiHf  cation  of  the  pronoun.  The  syllable  pe,  however,  of 
qu'tppe.  is.  m  its  origin,  identical  witli  que,  and  has  the  same  re- 
lation to  it  that  the  ^olic  trefiire  has  to  qiiintjtif.  As  regards  tlie 
rehttton  of  the  r  of  raim  to  the  a  of  nam,  we  may  I'efer  to  that 
of  nntinyo  to  tango,  and  similar  pheuomiena,  as  also  to  the  Pali 
tiuA  together  with  iatvl  (&ee  Tabic,  §.  369.).  [G.  E<J.  p.  S3i.] 
The  Greek  uiy,  like  fiiy,  has  a  weakened  vowel,  which  appears 
also  in  the  Sanskrit  inseparable  preposition  ni,  "  down," 
whence  has  arisen  our  German  nieder.  Old  High  German 
ni'doT  (p.  382),  which  bears  tlie  same  relation  to  na  that  the 
neuter  interrogative  kirn  has  to  the  masculine  has.  A  »  also, 
in  analogy  with  wnii  ht-tas,  "whence?"  W^  ku-tra,  "where?" 
has  been  developed  iu  our  demonstrative,  and  appears  iu  the 
interrogative  particle  ■q  na.  with  which  we  compare  the 
Latiu  num,  and  the  Greek  vv,  which,  in  form,  and  partly 
in  use.  is  identical  with  g  nu.'      On  the  other  hand,  in 

■  Compare  Hanung,  Greek  rAniclci,  11.99. 
H  M 


A22 


rttONOONS. 


ivf,  nun.  "  now,"  which  likewise  belongs  to  the  base  na  or  nu, 
the  orif^at  demonstrative  significatiou  is  retained  more 
truly.  Are  wa  to  supposu  in  the  v  of  this  word,  as  being 
6  necessary  corruption  of  final  fi,  a  remnant  of  the  aI>pondl^d 
I)ronoim  amti,  and  tlwt  the  vowct  preceding  Ima  been 
leugtheued  in  cotnpeDsntion  for  the  loss  of  the  rest?  Then 
im>  would  perliai»  admit  of  compurison  with  llie  Pali  locative 
nownifl,  or  namhi,  and  the  diange  of  a  to  w  would  have  first 
taken  place  in  Greek  through  the  influence  of  tlie  Iit|uiJB,  us 
trw  answers  to  tlie  Sanskrit  V^^  mm,  "  with."  Our  nwn, 
Gothie  nv,  is  likewise  related,  as  is  also  voch,  os  aualogoua 
to  dock.  The  Gotbic  forms  ore  nauh,  fhauh,  to  the  Bnal  |)ar- 
ticle  of  which.  u!u  we  sbati  recur  hereafter. 

371.  The  Sanskrit  negative  pwrticle  H  no,  which  appears 
in  Gothic  in  the  weakened  form  nt.  comes  next  to  be  con- 
sidered; in  Old  Sclavonic  it  is  nc,  at,  the  lattier  only  as  a  prc- 
6x.*  So  it  is  ni  in  Litbuauian,  in  niikas.  "  none,"  (ni-ektis, 
oomparc  Sanskrit  ^^of,  "one")  and  kindred  compounds;  but 
clscwhert!  it  is  found  as  ne.'  in  Greek  it  is  lenjiftliened  to  vij, 
bat  only  at  the  beginning  of  compounds,  as  v^x<pai<;,  i^o/St;  : 
(O.  Ed.  f.  5960  in  Latin  it  is  found  only  as  a  prcfixf  in  ttie 
form  of  nr.  ni,  ne,  ni  {nefas,  nefanduta,  nrtfue,  nhi,  nimirum). 
This  negative  [Hurticle  occurs  in  the  Vedas  with  the  signifi- 
cation ticut,  which  points  at  its  pronominal  derivation.!  At 
least  I  think  that  wo  cannot  nssame  a  diOeront  origin 
for  the  particle  in  the  two  Bigoificntions  which  are  apjmrently 
BO  distinct;  for  if  the  idea  yi,  "yea."  is  denoted  by  a 
pronominal  expression — in  Latin  by  i-la,  in  Sanskrit  by  ta-thil, 
in  Gothic  by  y«i.  of  which  hereafter — its  opposite  may  be  con- 
trasted with  it,  as  "that "  to  "  this,"  and  n  na  would  therefore, 


•  Sm  KopiUr's  GUftoUu,  p.  77- 

t  I  regard  thv  ronjnnctioD  frf  ■>  a  oomiption  of  mfs^iif,  m  ma,  as 
jiarro,  prolisblj,  from  mam  (sm  VocaluniiUk  p.  lOA.) 

t  Compsre  mj  Bcvicw  «f  It<wD*»  ^'M*  Spcciracu  io  ibc  Ik-il  Jidub. 
See.  IBM.  p.  0A& 


PRONOUNS. 


A23 


as  "  that,"  simply  direct  to  wliat  is  distant;  for  to  say  that  b 
quality  or  thing  docs  not  belong  to  an  individual,  is  not  to  re- 
move it  entirely,  or  to  deny  its  existence,  but  to  take  it  away 
from  tlie  viuinity,  from  the  individmility  of  a  person,  or  to  place 
the  person  on  theothersirfeofthefjuHlity  or  thing  designated, 
and  represent  it  as  somcwiiat  "  other,"  than  the  person.  But 
that  whidi,  in  Sanskfit,  signiBcs  "  this,"  moans  also,  for  the 
most  piirt.  "tJiat."  the  mind  supplying  the  place,  whether  nearor 
remote,  and  the  idea  of  personality  alone  is  actually  expressed 
by  the  pronouns.  The  inseparable  negative  particle  «  a,  too 
— iu  Greek  the  a  privative — is  identical  with  a  demonstrative 
base  (§.  366.).  and  the  prohibitive  particle  *n  OTd=pv  belongs 
to  tho  baso  »i<i.  (§.  3<>8.),  and  the  Greuk  negation  oii  admits  of 
being  compared  with  a  demoustmlive,  aa  will  be  shewn  here- 
after.  Observe,  further,  tliat  as  fi  na  in  the  Vedas  unites  the 
relative  meaning  "  as  "  with  tlie  negative,  so  the  correspond- 
ing ne  in  Latin  appears  both  as  intemiga-  [G.  Ed.  p.  537 .J 
tivc  and  negative;  in  the  former  sense  affixed,  in  the  latter 
prefixed.  It  is  further  to  be  observed  of  the  Sanskrit  no, 
that  when  combined  with  itself,  but  both  times  lcn>;then>rd — 
thus  ^THT  fldfid— it  signifies  "  much,"  "  of  many  kinds."  sa 
it  vere,  "  this  and  tlmt" ;  as  totta  also  has  been  formed  by 
reduplication  (§.  331.).  The  Sanskrit  expression,  however,  is 
indecliniible,  and  is  fomid  only  in  the  beginning  ofcom- 
pomids.  We  may  here  mention,  also,  the  interrogative  aitd 
asscverutive  particle  ^^  nunarat  which  I  agree  with 
Hartmig  (I.  c.  IT.  95.)  in  distributing  into  nfi-nnm.  since  I  re- 
ganl  nil  as  the  lengthened  form  of  the  nu  mentioned  abore^ 
without,  however,  comparing  nam  with  ?n*n^  ?i4jwo», 
"name,"  as  the  pronominal  base  nu  appears  to  me  to  be 
sufTicient  for  tlie  explanation  of  this  Indian  n((m,  as  well  as 
iliiit  in  Latin;  which  Iatti;r,  likewise,  Hartung  endeavours  to 
compare  with  •nv^  ndman.  "  nimic.^' 

373.  We  return  to  the  comi>oundw?!fma.  the  last  element 
of  which  lias  been  considered  by  us  in  §.  :)69.      From  ana 

u  u  2 


524 


PROSOl'NS. 


coQifs,  in  Sanskrit,  the  iiistriini«?iitnl  masculine  and  neuter 
•PTT  nntna,  Zend  m^m  ana  (§.  159.),  feminine  frnn  onayA, 
Sdavonic  onoi/d  (§-  266.),  and  tlie  genitive  and  locative  dual 
of  the  three  genders  anayCs,  which,  in  Sclavonic,  has  become 
oRii  for  onoyii  (§.  273.).  In  Lithunuiun,  ana's,  or  an'-»,  femi- 
nine ana,  signifies  "thfit,"*  and.  like  tlie  Sclavonic  on,  ona, 
ono.  of  the  same  significatioD.  is  fully  declined,  according  to 
the  aniilogj' nf  Uii, ia, C,  la,  to*  being, in  this  respect,  superior 
to  the  eorresponding  wordj  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend.  To  this 
pronoun  belong  the  Latin  and  Greek  an.  av,  as  ntso  1h« 
tiotbic  interro^tive  partiele  an  (Grimm.  III.  756.))  tliouf^h 
elsewhere  In  the  three  sister  tiuiguages  then  is  thematic; 
wliich  ia  eapeeially  evident  in  Gothic,  where,  from  u  theme 
ana  in  the  accusative  masculine,  only  an  could  be  formed, 

[G.  E<].  p.A38.]  and  tlie  sauio  iu  the  neuter  or  anata.  For 
the  Greek  and  Latin  we  should  assume  that  V?  ana  had 
lost  its  final  vowel,  as  t^e  have  before  seen  ?(T  fita  abbre- 
viated to'EN  (§.30S.).  But  if  tlie  n  belonged  to  the  in- 
flexion, or  to  the  appended  pronoun  tn  tma.  which  appears 
to  me  less  probntjie,  then  tlie  simple  base  v  a  (§.  366.) 
would  suffice  for  the  derivation  of  on,  av. 

373.  As  the  Latin  preposition  int^r  is  evidently  identical 
vith  the  Sanskfit  antor  and  the  Gothic  widur,  our  unUfr 
(§§.293.204.).  and  t  is  a  very  common  weakening  of  n,  wc 
must  class  also  the  pn-position  tn  and  the  kindred  Greek  ^k 
with  the  demonstrative  base  m^  »rui,  although  tn  and  ^.con- 
sidered by  themselves,  admit  of  beuig  referred  to  the  base 
^  (,  and  the  rehition  of  ev6a  to  the  Zend  M<vj^idha,  "here." 
might  be  dednccd  through  the  inorganic  commixture  of  a 
nasal,  as  in  ifiijxo,  ambo,  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  u//Miiand 
Sclavonic  oha.  I  now,  however,  prefer  regarding  the  v  of 
t»-0a,  h-dfv,  wbieli  bear  tlie  relation  of  locative  and  ablative 
to  one  another,  as  originally  belonging  to  the  base,  and  iu 


•  8t«  Kepitar's  OUgoUu,  p. «». 


PBOKOtlflfl. 


S2& 


therefore,  and  the  Latin  in.  the  pronominal  uature  of  which 
is  apparent  in  indf,  as  conn?ct«-d  nith  the  Sanskrit  v^  ana. 
The  2  of  ek,  from  iw.  appears  to  me  an  abbreviAtioii  of  the 
suffix  a(,  which,  in  forms  like  Tria-c.  ^Xoa-e,  expresses  direc- 
tion to  a  placfi,  just  OS  «?-^  is  an  abbreviation  of  itr'trt,  Bw  of 
Sadi,  trpm  oi -irpori.  There  would  then  be  a  fitting  reason 
why  €h  should  express  direction  to  a  place :  it  is  o)HToaed  in 
meuning  tow,  justasourAin. "townrds."  to  hier,  "here," only 
tliat  tlic  Greek  expressions  liave  lost  their  indL^pendc^nt  sig- 
rifieation,  and  only  precede  the  particular  place  denoted  of 
rest,  or  to  which  motion  is  implied ;  like  [G.  Ed.  p.  030.] 
an  article  the  meaning  of  wiiich  is  merged  in  that  of  its 
substantive.  The  preposition  mniy  like  the  Golliie  anti.  our 
on,  lias  preserved  more  perfectly  the  pronominal  base 
ander  discussion:  di-ra  is  opjmsei]  to  Karn,  as  "on  this  side." 
to  "on  tiiat  side.'"*  The  Gothic  antihs,  "suddenly,"  may 
lilcewisc.  in  all  probability,  be  classed  here,  and  would 
therefore  originally  mean  "  in  this  (moment)."  Its  forma- 
tion reciills  that  of  aira(,  the  f  of  nhicli  is  perhaps  an  abbrc- 
viation  of  the  suffix  w?  (§.321.).  If  the  Gothic  its  is  con- 
nected with  the  suflix  of  such  numenil  adverbs,  then  the 
removal  of  the  t  has  been  prevented  by  tire  close  vicinity  of 
the  ».  though  elBowhere  the  Gothic  ia  not  indisposed  to  the 
combination  A».  [q  Lithuanian,  an-day,  from  the  base  ana, 
points  to  pist  time,  and  signi&ea  "that time,"  "  lately,"  while 
la-dfiy  refers  to  the  future,  and  means  "  then." 

a?'].  The  base  Wi^  ana  forms,  with  the  relative  vya,  the 
combination  ^PVnnyn,  ami,  with  the  comparative  suffix  n 
hra,  wm  an^ara,both  expressions  mgnifyingn/iiui,  and  in  both 
the  final  vowel  of  the  ileuioiisir-itive  busts  being  dropped;  for 
which  reason  the  In  Jinn  grnnimnriiins  do  not  admit  w^anya 
tobe  a  compound,  any  more  than  tlie  previously  discnsst.'d  bases 


•  Cmnjinre  5- 105,  nnd  "  nem^nslmtir*  Baae«  ani  their  conDeclion 
wiUnUffcKnt  P«i>oeiuoii«anH  ConjnncUoM,"  p.  O,po*«m. 


526 


PRONODNa. 


ntya,  Vf  *ya  ;  nor  do  they  see  in  antora  any  comparative 
suffut,"  partitmlarly  as,  besides  the  irregularity  of  its  rornut- 
tion,t  it  is  removed,  by  its  sigiuficatioQ  also,  from  the  comaion 
proQotnitial  derivatives  farmed  with  (ara  (§.  392.),  and  ex- 
presses, not  "  th  e  one,"  or  "  the  other,  of  two,"  but.  like  ^iR 

[O.  Ed.  p. MO.]  itara.  "the  other"  geuerally.  In  Gotfaic, 
nnthoT,  theme  antkara,  which  hns  tlie  siime  meaning,  corre- 
S|K>nd9;  in  Lithuanian  onf ro-s,  "tlie  other,"  "the  second";  in 
Latin,  alier,  the  n  being  exchanged  for  /  (§.  20.],  on  which  also 
is  bounded  the  relation  of  aUus  to  «m«  anynrs,  the  base  of 
whicli  is  preser%-ed  complete  in  the  Gothic  ALY^-t  The 
Greek  SWot  is  removed  one  step  further  than  atiug  from 
the  original  form,  and,  like  the  Prakrit  ^i^  onna,  and 
the  Old  High  German  adverb  allrg,  "otherwise,"  has  assimi- 
lated the  y  to  the  consonant  preceding  it  (compare  p-  401.)* 
On  the  other  hand,  wm  antja  exists  in  a  truer  form,  but 
with  a  somewhat  altered  meaniog,  in  Greek,  viz.  as  ifioit 
"some."  which  may  be  well  eoiitrastcd  with  the  Sanskrit- 
Zend,  anyf,  "  alii."  From  the  base  'ENIO  comes  also  ept'ort 
"  sometimes,"  as  nnalt^us  to  aXKore,  iKoimnt,  &c.,  for  the 
derivation  of  which,  therefore,  wo  need  not  have  recourse 
to  ivt  5t<,  or  eirrtif  ore.  In  Old  Sclavonic,  in  sijfnifies  "  the 
otiicr,"  and  its  theme  is  tn»,  and  tlius  tlio  y  of  the  Sauskrit- 
Zend  avya  has  been  lost  The  feminine  nominative  in  Scia- 
vonic  is  iaa,  the  neuter  ino. 

yib.  Togetlier  with  amja.  antora,  and  Hnra,  the  Sanskrit 
has  also  two  other  words  for  the  idea  of  "  another,"  vii. 
VTT  apara,  find  ^  para-  Tlie  former  may  have  sprung 
from  tho  preposition  opa,  "from,"  as  apa  itself  from  the 
demonstrative  base  m  a.      With  it  is  eoimeeted,  as  hns  been 


*  jlnjni  U  <leriTe<J  fmiD  an.  <*  to  livv,"  and  aiUara  from  anta,  "  end.* 

I  Th«  refnLar  form  would  Iw  amilara. 

I  A!f*-hindi,  ^'■aSem^entu,"  alyai  ttiAlai,  "odicr  thin^"  a/f»  OM, 
"  elsewluiTe  "  (p.  384  &c.).  In  tlic  nomioatirg  mfievnliiH  I  conjectare 
nffrti, not oAi (p. 368,  Note'). 


PRONOtlNS. 


527 


already  obeervcd  (§,  350.).  our  aber,  Gothic  and  Old  High 
German  afar  (§.  87.),  the  original  nieanin;;  of  which  is  still 
evident  in  abermaU,  "  over  ag»in,"  "  once  more."  Ab'-rtjluitltfji, 
"sujwrstition,"  AbfrwHs,  "over  wit,"  "false  vrii,"  Id  Old 
High  Germnn  nfar  means  also,  "  ogain,"  like  t!ie  Ldtin  iterum, 
answering  to  ^!TT^  i/«TYi-*,  *'  the  other."  iTt  para,  is  de- 
rived by  apocope  fromnpnra;  it  is  more  [0.  Ed.  p. «!]. 
used  than  the  latter;  and  though  it  bos  derivatives  in  the 
European  cognate  languages  also,  the  l-atin  pnendie  may  be 
among  the  first  which  has  led  to  a  rererence  to  a  word  sig- 
nifying •■  another."  It  should  projterly  siguiry  "the  mor- 
row," but  the  use  of  language  often  steps  beyond  the  limits 
of  what  the  actual  form  expresses;  and  thus,  in  the  v'ord 
alluded  to,  by  "ou  the  other  day,"  not  the  next  following  is 
implied,  but  the  day  after  to-morrow.  The  language,  there- 
fore, jiroceeds  from  "  thiB  day  "  (hodie)  to  eras — iu  which  an 
appelliition  of  day  is  not  easily  perceived — and  thence  to  "  the 
other  day,"  perendie,  Uie  first  member  of  which  I  regard  as 
an  adverbial  accusative,  with  n  for  m,  as  In  mndcm.  In  the 
Sanskrit  jmri-di/ua,  "morrow."  pnM  on  the  coiitniry,  is 
apparently  in  the  locative,  and  the  last  member  in  the  accu- 
sative, if  we  regard  it  as  tlio  contraction  of  a  neuter  divaa* 
but  in  jyiTff-di/avi  biitli  are  in  the  locative.  The  Latin  per^n 
occurs  al»o  in  pn-end>no,  pnt-ndinatio,  tlic  Inst  member  of 
which  guides  UB  to  another  Sauskrit  appellation  of  day,  viz. 
to  ft^  d'ma.  Hut  to  dwell  for  n  moment  on  f^^  d'tta$ 
and  ^jifira,  !  am  of  opinion  that  thcic  two  expressions  are 
united  in  ws-ppr,  vet-pena.  and  tinrepa.  as  it  wei-e  f^^Wt. 
(Hvafpara,  which,  if  we  look  upon  para  as  a  neuter  subsljiu- 


•  I  prefer  thin  dcrivAtion  to  ihat  I  formerly  Kavc  (KleUicre  Gramm. 
p.  3S3)froni  tli/u  with  an  irr«giilnr«/  for  fiurii  (/tea*  ttieS'tcp  baaauy  (o 
CLIMBS  from  div  to  t/j/a.  Divai,  however,  does  mil  occur  nlim^-,  Imi  in- 
ttend  of  It  liieata:  atlU  llie  coinponmlj  dlvafjiUi,  "lIpavuTiV'or  "day's 
l«rd ''  oud  divaM-prithivydtt., '*htfiyta  wad  csrtli,''  ahcw  the  trace  ofit; 
(or  in  the  lattrr  It  is  itnpoiwiblu  to  Tef{Hrd  <u  u  a  gsniu  vv  tonninaiiMi, 


528 


PRONOUNS. 


tivc.  would  signify  "  Uie  last,  latest  part  of  the  day,"  and  pura^ 
used  ndjectively,  and  prefixed  to  anotlier  appellation  of  day, 
[G.  Ed.  P.&1-3,]  actually  occurs  with  this  meaniug;  for 
pardfmn  (Troia  para+ahna)  signifies  "the  later,  or  after  part 
or  the  day"  (see Glossary),  as j»iIri-dAno  does  "the  fonncr,  or 
earlier  part"  Coiiacquently  ve^er  would  stand  tordiivt-peri 
and  this  abbreviation  of  the  appellation  of  day  will  not  appear 
more  remarkable  than  tliat  of  fire  dwu.  "twiw","  to  bis.  With 
respect  to  the  loss  of  a  whole  initial  BylloWc,  I  may  rrfer  to 
the  relation  of  the  Greek  f*tlpa^,  fitipd/ttov,  to  wtTCT 
kumdra-Sr  "  boy,"  which,  by  tlie  suppression  of  its  middle 
syllable,  but  with  tlie  retention  of  tlie  initial  one,  has  been 
corrupted  to  KOfm^,  leovpo^.  We  turn  now  to  another  trace  of 
'n.parat  "the  other,"  in  Latin,  which  wc  find  in  the  first 
portion  of  pifre^r  and  pfTcgTitms,  and  which  we  could  not 
well  suppose  to  be  the  prt^position  per.  Perryrr  would 
cousequeiilly  signify  "  being  in  another  land,"  like  the  Old 
High  German  eli-lenti.  and  pereprtriM*,  "*  who  from  another 
land."  We  might  also  refer  jtrr-pmia  to  the  same  source,  as 
the  reduplication  of  ^jcttut  =  xrw  paras,  in  which  the  "bad 
and  wrong "  ia  opjicecd  to  "  the  right,"  aa  the  other.  In  ttio 
cognate  Greek  vipiitpos  the  fundamental  meaning  has  taken 
a  more  special  direction.  Instly.  tlie  [inrticle  itip  remains  to 
be  mentioned,  the  use  of  which  is  more  of  a  pronominal  tlian 
a  prepositional  nature-  A  wortl,  which  originally  signi6es 
"  other,"  was  well  adapted  to  give  particular  emphaaJs  to  a 
relative,  so  as  to  bring  prominently  forward  thr  persons  or 
things  denoted  by  it  as  otiicr  than  those  excluded.  In  this 
light  let  the  French  naus  auires,  vous  aafrrs,  and  our  German 
ir*nn  anflen.  "  if  otlwrnise."  "provided  that,"  be  con- 
sidered, which  is  more  energetic  than  the  simple  wenv,  "  if."* 


'  Bsmark,  klao,  th«ii|>parfDil.vplcoaitt(icDseor<iXXor;B»dBimil8rph0. 
nWHiM  ia  iMiuLrit,  u  VH.  1. 14,  iu  wliicb  mco  ara  oppoMtl  to  ilir  go^ 
and  to  oilier  beia^  aot  hnmsn,  m  otAtrt:  "  Nowhere  tmmg  Uic  piis  or 
VakjIiM  cxiats  mcfa  bewiy,  nor  amoagn.  (otUuaj  nwa  wu  Micti  vw 
btlbrew«D  or  heard  of." 


PBONOONS. 


6S9 


Prom  'VZ.  ptmi  uoines  in  Sanskrit,  pdm,  [0.  Ed.  p.  fl43.) 
"llie  further  shore,"  and  from  this  -pArayAmi,  "  I  complete"  • 
to  the  former  answers  trlpaVf  to  the  latter  irtpatit*  In 
Germat),  io  the  word  under  discussion  the  idea  of  "  other  " 
hu  been  cliflngcd  to  that  of  "  the  further,"  Gothiu  fnhra, 
**  br,"  the  second  r  of  which  seems  to  h»ve  sprung  from 
n  by  assimilation.  So  early  as  even  in  Sanskrit,  para 
occurs  in  the  sense  of  "  far,"  in  the  compound  pnrtisu,  "dead/' 
"having  life  removed." 

376,  The  Gothic  yams  (theme  yaina),  "that,"  Greek  xe'vo^, 
iictiiv^,  {Mo\.  k!}V(k)  and  Doric  ■njvo'i,  correspond,  iu  respect 
to  their  last  element,  with  tlie  bases  in  the  cognate  languages 
which  are  compouuded  with  tia,  no;  among  which  we  may 
especially  notice  anas  (on'«)  en,  which  has  the  same  meaning 
in  Lithuanian  and  Sclavonic.  In  ttie  Duric  Tifvw!,  like 
Tr)XunK,  Ttftn'/ca,  tlie  vowel  of  the  article  is  lengthened 
(comp.  4-  352-)<  "^"^  *^^  ^otic  KfjvtK;  has  the  same  relation  to 
the  interrogative  base  KC),  that  t^w»5  has  to  TO.  But  in 
KeTvo^,  to  which  inTpoK  bears  the  same  relation  that  ifutv  does 
to  fwO  {^.  320.),  instead  of  tlie  base-vowel  being  lengthened 
au  I  is  introduced,  and  tlie  o  is  weakened  to  e:  compare, 
in  the  former  respect,  the  Simskrit  fi  and  the  compound 
r^  ina  (§.  369.).  So,  also,  in  the  Gothic  yuin(a)s.  "  tlwit," 
an  i  has  been  blended  with  the  Sanokrit  relative  base  it  jfi. 
But  if  in  German,  as  in  ScEavouic.  a  tf  preceded  the  old 
initial  vowel,  as  in  yesmy^wfin  nsmi.  Lithuanian  fsmi. 
"1  am"  (§.  255.  n.),  yahit  would    then  shew  itself  to  be  n 

cognate  form  to  FT  ^na.  "this,"  the  real  conntcrtype  of 
wliich  we  have,  however,  already  found  in  the  numeral  om«, 
theme  aina  (§,  30S.)'  '"  Greek,  the  word  [G.  FA.  p.  54i.] 
S<ivtt,  tlieme  AEIN,  may  also  be  claascd  here.  It  is  a  jilural 
neuter,  whicli  has  been  peculiarly  dealt  with  by  the  language: 
its  ei  lua  the  same  relation  to  the  o  of  the  article  that  iceivK 
has  to  KO  (ko-t(.  Korepov),  and  the  tenuis  has  been  removed, 
'  ronipnn-  VoiwlJ^nius,  p.  IT?*  Ace 


530 


PRONOUNS. 


as  in  8f  before  mentioned  (h  350.).  The  »,  however,  of  AEIN 
cen  SL-tircely  be  conoec-ttfd  with  the  &ppt>ndeil  pronoun  n  no, 
but  is  more  probably  a  mere  pboiiietic  affix,  as  in  TIN,  of 
which  hereafter,  and  iu  many  words  of  our  Bo-calli.'d  weak 
declension  (§.  MS.]. 

377.  The  Zend  demonstrative  base  a)»a)  ava.  "  this."  httS 
been  already  repeatedly  mentioned.  In  it  wc  find  a  new 
and  powerful  confirmation  of  the  proposition — which  is  one 
of  importance  for  tiie  history  of  language — tliat  pronoun* 
and  genuine  prepositions  ore  originally  one;  for  in  the 
Sanskrit,  in  which  ava  has  been  lost  as  a  pronoun,  it  has 
remained  as  a  prupoaition.  with  the  signification  "from." 
"down";  as  e.ff.  ava-pla,  ata-iar  (it  tri),  "  to  spring  from,"  "  to 
descend."  but  the  original  meaning  of  which  is  "to  alight  down 
or  at  this  (plaec)."  In  Sctavonic.  ava  has  been  changed,  ae- 
cording  to  rule  (§.  255.  a),  lo  yi-o,  wiUeh  signifies  "  tliis'*  and 
"  that":  its  fern.  nom.  ova  is  almost  identical  with  the  same 
case  in  Zend — uv>m  ava.  With  this  form  is  coniieeted  theGrcek 
au  of  avT6<i*  in  which,  after  the  suppression  of  the  final  vowel, 
the  V  bus  been  changed  to  a  vowel.  When  used  alone  the  pro- 
nominal nature  of  tliis  base  is  most  apparent  in  ai0t,  "here," 
which,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  regarded  ns  an  abbreviation  of 
ainoOi,  for  it  is  quite  as  natural  for  the  locative  sufllx  to  be 
attachcti  to  af^  as  to  otlicr  pronominal  bases.  With  the  same 
[O.  Ed.  p.  64fi.3  signifieatiou  as  avdi  wc  might  expect  to  find 
av0a,  as  analogous  to  (fffa  and  to  the  Zend  jujijjwjkj  twndha, 
whiHi  t-orresponds  in  its  base.  lUlIix.  and  signification.  But  the 
Greek  expression  does  not  occur  atone,  but  only  in  combi- 
oation  with  iv9a  in  hnavBa  for  evdav6a\\  and  so,  also,  the  ab- 
lative adverb  avBev  is  rct'iiiicd  only  in  tlie  t;ompoand  ivTtv6<v 
(p.  480).  The  indeclinable  av,  the  use  of  wliich  is  not  opposed 
to  its  pronominal  origin,  has  probably  lost  some  suffix  of 

•  Comi«re  p,  387,  Now  •■ 

t  4.844.  p.  480.      11m  (Urivatlon  of  m-aCAi  girco  Rtp.387tBtut  be 
MHRetol  aMottUngljr- 


PBONOUNS.  531 

caie  OP  of  another  kimt.  If  it  were  b  neuter  for  ain  or  awS 
the  sappressioD  of  the  T  aoand  would  accord  with  a  aoivcrsal 
phonetic  law  (comj).  §.  155.).  Perliapa  it  is  an  abbreviation 
of  aS^K,  which  lias  the  saiue  meaning,  or  of  avre.  nhich  latter 
agrees  in  its  formation  with  the  pronominal  adverbs  totc,  ore, 
trvre,  though  the  signifii'otion  tins  diverged, 

379.  Through  a  combination  with  tlie  romfwrntivt.*  sufEx 
is  formed  airrap,  "  buC  with  reference  to  wliich  we  must 
again  advert  to  tJie  relationship  of  our  German  after  (Old  High 
Gcraum  afar,  "but,"  "again")  with  the  Sjmakfit  aparot 
"alius."  The  suflix  ot airrtlp  is  distinguished  from  the  cus- 
tomarv  repm  by  tlie  jtreservniion  of  the  original  n-souiid,  and 
in  this  ni.inner  norresponds  exactly  to  tlie  Stinskrit  antar 
(4.  993.).  The  Ljitin  au^ifm,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  to 
contain  the  superlative  suffix,  ns  i-tem  in  opposition  to  i'terum.^ 
The  i  of  iimua  might  easily  be  corrupted  to  e  in  a  word  termi- 
nating with  a  consonant  1  now,  however,  prefer  regarding 
the  sulHx  tern  of  i-tcm  and  nu-tem  as  not  originating  in  the 
Latin  language,  but  na  identical  with  the  suilix  ^n  thorn, 
which,  in  Sanskrit,  likewise  occurs  only  in  [G.  Ed.  p.54C.] 
two  pronominal  adverbs,  viz.  in  ^7ip^  U-tham,  "so,'*  and 
WTiw  Ico-thftm,  "  how  ?"  with  n^gard  to  which  it  may  be  left 
undecided  whether  tlirir  Iham  is  cuunccted,  through  a  pho- 
netic alteration,  with  the  superlative  suffix,  just  as  thama  in 
Ipffin^  prathama-s,  "  the  6r8t "  (p.  379.  1. 12,).  The  Latin 
au-t  Hppenrs  to  me  an  abbreviation  ot  au-ii,  so  that  it  agrees 
in  its  formation  with  uO,  ut,  and  Hi  in  ilidcm,  as  also  with  the 
Sanskpt  ^fw  Hi  "so.*'!  With  regard  to  the  au  o{  au/ugio, 
axtfero,  I  SCO  no  adequate  reason  for  dissenting  fnim  tho 
common  opinion  which  regards  it  as  a  weakened  form  of 


*CoEnpsre  Hcidelb.  Jshib.  181S,  p.  479,  SDd  DvnMMintlve  Bmh^ 

^l4. 

t  Theifif  t/)-'J«in  mighl  alto  bu  n'f^rdod  u  tlw  wfakvuinft  of  ibc a  of 
t/OjOUucd  l>j'  lb««il>ditiuu  of  wcigbt  through  the  dtm.  {of.  (.0.) 


583  PBONOONS. 

oh.*  On  the  other  hand,  the  Snnskrit  inseparable  pre[iosition 
aoa,  mentioned  nbove  (§.  377.),  ovidently  ro-appeara  in  the 
HoniBric  atVpw.f  without  the  ancient  connection  between 
this  prepositional  aC  and  the  pnrticte  aZ  t>eiii»  tlicrcby  re- 
moved, as<  &a  has  been  remarked  above,  the  Sanskrit  preposi- 
tion ava  and  the  Zend  dcmoustrative  bnse  of  similar  aound. 
are  cognate  forms. 

379.  It  hiia  been  elsewhere  pointed  out  J  tliat  of  the  tliree 
forma  into  which  the  originally  sliort  a  in  Greek  hns  been 
distributed  («,  o,o),  it  is  e  that  most  oftcu  occurs  in  places 
[G,  EA.  p.  547]  whcrea  Sansh  rit  a  is  combined  nittiu;  more 
rarely  the  weightier  o ;  and  the  still  hcavjf  r  a  uever.^  The 
Greek  diphthong  av,  however,  corresponds  to  the  Vriddlii 
diphthong  flit  dw,  as  »'av?  =  i!h(  ti<Ji«;  its  a  is  therefore 
long,  and  is  found  so  ia  vao^,  &c.,  for  paf oc  =  sfT^  ruivtu. 
If,  tlien,  the  final  vowel  of  the  Indo-Zend  nvo,  Sclavonic  oro, 
he  removed,  and  then  the  u,  formed  by  the  melting  down  of 
lbs  V,  be  combined  in  a  diphthong  with  the  initial  vowd.  we 
should  have  euoT  ov.  As,  however,  at;  has  arisen,  we  must 
regard  tlie  lengthening  of  the  inituil  vowel  as  eouipensation 
for  the  final  vowel,  which  has  been  suppressed.  This  eompeu- 
■Btion,  however,  does  not  take  place  vmiversally ;  for  as  ovv  is 
plainly  ahcwn.  by  its  use,  to  be  of  pronominal  origin,!!  it  may  bo 
best  compared  with  our  demonstrative  base  ata,  of  whteh  it  is 


•  ^ridiflul  this  wcakoaioK,  afffr^  Croni  ah/a^,  would  be  identic^]  with 
iiffkro,  from  aiij'ero  ;  niid  ilic  I'linn;^  of  tli«  b  into  thw  cognnic  vowel  ratty 
have  ukcii  pittcc  in  order  to  amid  ilits  idcniii;,-,  as,  i-mv  vrr»A,  the  u  of 
Av  (<t%iiislly  •  v)  e«4>ni«  to  Imv«  be«n  hatd>(jii«it  jolo  6  iu  /">,  If.  for 
diU  iVMon,  «•■  hu  ariaenfriMD  ofr  oBoaeoccasioii,it  miglit  be  iiUlfurduir 
Bdo|il«d  wuhutit  its  b«ing  occiwioiiMt  from  n  view  to  [>«nptcally. 

t  Compare  A.  Bcnniyiu  tliv  B«r].  Jalirb.  Ma/  1S3(\  p.T<II. 

I  Voenliuiiiis,  p.lBS,  &c 

j  TkivcomliinatJanprodaoa  Wl  A  ik^X  wliicli,  hnTttn  towpIs,  ia  rs- 
aslvcd  hitd  or,  M,  ya%}-4m,  "  hwvm^"  from  gi. 

II  CoKfttK  lIsrUDg  Il.S,  jcc. 


PKONOCSS. 


533 


further  to  be  remarked,  that,  in  Zend,  in  departure  from 
§.  155.,  it  forms  the  nominative  and  accusative  neuter,  not 
by  M  t  but  by  m.  For  aprm.  according  to  §.  42.,  aum  should 
be  employed ;  but  in  its  place  wc  have  the  irrrgularfomi  (4(ju 
aom,  and  the  same  in  the  maaculiue  uccusative.*  I  agree 
with  Hartung  (I.  a)  in  considering  the  Greek  o!iv  likewise  ns 
on  accusative,  whether  it  be maseuliue, or,  as  wemayaasume 
from  the  Zend  aom,  neater.  Tlic  negative  particle  <>i>  is 
alao  to  be  classed  here,  according  to  wlint  has  been  aaid  in 
{.  371.,  and  before,  in  my  Review  of  Rosen's  Vflda  Specimen 
regarding  the  derivation  of  negative  particles  from  pronouns : 
it  has  the  same  relation  to  ovk  which,  owing  to  its  termina- 
ting with  n  consonant,  is  used  before  vowels,  [G.  Ed.  fi.fi4U.] 
tliat,  io  Lntin,  the  prefix  ne  has  to  tufo,  an  abbreviation  of 
neque.  OiiK  in,  therefore,  an  abbreviation  of  aiiKt  (wiUi  tlie 
change  of  the  tenuis,  o^i),  the  Kt  of  wliich  ia,  perhaps,  con- 
nected with  the  Sanskrit  enclitic  pronominal  base  f^  chi,  of 
which  more  hereafter.  To  this  f^chi  the  ^  cha,  which  is 
likewise  encliticalty  used,  and  with  which  the  Latin  tjue  is 
identical,  bears  the  same  relation  that  •^nt  kat,  "  whoj" 
has  to  its  neuter  ^\  A-tnt*  If.  then,  the  syllable  Kt  of  ovit( 
ia  connected  with  the  Indian  ?%  chi,  it  ia  also  related  to 
the  Latin  que  of  nequc  (conipare  §,  380.,  auhjinfm.) 

3B0.  It  remains  for  us  to  shew  tlwit  an  ofl'shoot  of  the  pro- 
nominal base  ava  exists  in  German  also.  Such  is  our  auc/i. 
the  demonstrative sigaificalion  of  which  is  easily  discoverable 
in  sentences  like  er  ist  blind,  und  auch  Uihm,  "he  is  bhnd 
and  also  lame,"  in  which  the  nuch  adds  to  the  (quality  "  blind," 
as  to  "that"  another  "this:"  he  is  lame  and  this, — blind." 
Ttie  anch  performs  the  same  service  for  a  single  cjuality  that 
the  conjunction  dan,  "  thai,"  does  for  an  entire  member  of  a 
sentence ;  for  ia  sentences  like  "  I  am  not  willing  {dast)  ttiat 
he  should   come,  the  conjunction  das»  expresses  generally 


Compare  BurmmrB  Va^Dii.  Noira  p  & 


534 


l-RONOUNS. 


or  only  grammaiically,  the  subject  of  my  will,  and  "  he 
should  come"  expresses  it  particularly  and  logicnlly.  In  Old 
High  Gennau,  auh  {ouh,  ouc.  &c.)  has  other  meanings  Ix-sides 
"also,"  wliioh  are  elsewhere  exprusacd  only  by  derivatives 
from  pronouns,  aa  ilenn,  tAer.  avtidern.  "for,"  "but,"  &c., 
(see  GralT  [.  120.),  and  the  Gothie  mik  occurs  only  with  the 
meaning  "  for."*  If  nuch,  "  also,"  were  the  only  meaning 
of  t]ie  cuiijuDctiou  under  diseussion,  in  alt  German  dialects, 
[Q.  Ed.  p.  &49.]  we  might  suppose  it  to  be  conuocted  with 
the  Gothic  aukan,  "  to  tncrease."t  But  what  connection 
have  rffftiii  and  gondem  ("  for  "  aud  "  bat ")  with  the  verb  "  to 
increase?"  Moreover,  verbal  ideas  and  verbal  roots  arc 
t^ie  last  to  which  I  aliould  be  iuclined  to  refer  the  derira;* 
tion  of  a  conjunction.  All  genuine  conjunctions  spring 
from  pronouns  (§.  105.),  as  I  have  endeavoured  to  shew  in 
a  particular  instance  in  my  lte%*iow  of  Forstcr'a  Grammar.l 
But  whence  comcs  tlie  ch  of  our  auchf  I  do  not  tliink 
that  it  can  he  regarded  iu  the  snmc  tight  oa  ttiat  of  dvch 
and  noc'A,  which  have  been  likewise  explained  as  pro* 
nominal  formation&f  but,  in  Goiliic,  terminate  with  h  (naWi, 
thau}i)i  while  our  aiu:h  bears  the  same  relntion  to  the 
Gothic  auk  that  micb,  dich,  neh,  do  to  mik,  thuk,  fit.  The 
k,  therefore,  of  auk,  may  perhaps,  in  its  origin,  coincide  with 
that  of  the  su-callttl  pronominal  accusative,  and.  like  tlie 
latter,  belong  to  tlie  uppexided  pronoun  m  sma  (§§.  174.  175.X 
which,  in  Zend,  becomes  ftma,  but  in  Prak)it  and  Pali  is 
transposed  to  mka.     But  if  the  pronoun  ava  were  used  in 


•  The  meanings  "but"  mid  "  slxo,"  which  I  Iwtc,  in  iiMordann  with 
Palda.giron  ■•lwwtMTe(I)eiiit>nMratt<r«  liMtt,  p.  I<l),rwl  oniiuautliorit/. 
for  UlfiUft  gives  oaljr  oaA  bd  snawcnag  to  the  Gnxk  yap  (Grimm  III. 
972). 

t  Compere Sanakpt'**.  "'(ocollocl,''  wlwnoc  JiMnft^o,  "crowd." 

I  Heidclb.Jahrfa.iei&,p.473. 

1  f .  370.  snd  UemeuinUve  Bssti,  p.  la 


FHONOUNS- 


335 


Pali,  its  ablntive  would  be  m-amffi  and  locative  aiamki  (comp. 
S-  369.  Tabk).  lu  the  Gothic  auk  tJic  wmmls  which  surround 
the  k  in  tlieso  forms  arc  lost,  and  the  final  vowel  of  the  base 
ia  suppresset),  as  in  the  Greek  avTil?,  With  rtgai-d  to  the 
gutmra!,  however,  auk  be&r»  the  same  relation  to  atamJiA, 
avamhi,  Iliat  tit,  "I,"  does  to  «f  ahoH.  If,  of  the  forms  of 
negntiou  ovk,  oukI,  ov^i,  mentioned  nt  p.  633,  the  lost  were  the 
original  one.  we  might  fluppose  the  ;^i  to  be  related  to  the  Pili 
pronominal  locativr-s  in  fv^  mki,  as  %  usually  [U.  E<I.  p.  fifiO.] 
represents  the  Sanskrit  and  Pali  ■^  A  (^.  8A). 

381.  As  regards  the  etymology  of  tlic  base  ova,  the 
first  member  of  it  is  easily  perceived  to  be  the  demon- 
atrativo  a,  and  the  latter  portion  apjiears  to  be  analogous  to 
ivo,  "as,"  from  tlie  baso  i, aa  also  to ^no,  "also,"  "merely," 
&C.,  nnd  with  the  accusative  termination  Svam,  "so,"  from 
the  baae  i  (§.  366.).  A~va  and  S-va,  therefore,  would  be 
as  closely  conneetcd  aa  a-na  and  ^nn ;  and  as  from  the 
latter  lias  arisen  the  Gothic  term  for  the  numeral  "one." 
(theme  a'lJia  §.  '.ioH,),  so  from  iva  would  ootne  the  Zeud 
numeral  for  "  one,"  ot^a,  with  a  prefixed,  according  to  §.  3B, 
In  Gothic,  ttiv  (theme  oiiKci)  corresponds,  which,  however,  as 
"all  time."  ue.  "eternity,"  answers  to  the  cognate  form 
in  Zend  n«  logical  antithesis,  or  aa  "another"  to  "this." 
It  may  be  observed,  that  it  ia  highly  pnibubic  that  our  <i//. 
Gothic  alls,  "  omnh"  (theme  alio),  has  been  formed  by  assimi- 
lation from  the  base  aJva,  "  ttlhts."  and  has  therefore  expe- 
rienced the  same  fate  as  tlie  Greek  aAAov,  Old  Uigli  German 
alles,  "  else,"  nnd  the  Latin  iile,  olh.  In  Sanskrit,  from 
the  energetic  subjective  dcmotistrativc  base  aa,  "  he,"  "  thia." 
"that,"  (5.  345),  arises  the  general  term  for  "all."  viz. 
W%  $aT-va  "every."  plumi  ^mrvS,  "all."  and  the  adverbs 
of  time,  ^i^  jot//l,  and  Tnn  tand,  "ever";  from  the  latter 
comes  the  adjective  VHTIT?  tandlatui,  "  sempiternus."  TIms 
final  member  of  sarva  is  identical  with  that  of  our  m^  ava, 
V^  Sva.  and  ^  iva;  and,    wilh   reS]>cct  to  the  r.  analogous 


536 


PRONOUNS. 


forma  to  surva  occur  in  iiar-hi,  "  then,"  and  kar-ki.  "  whi^^n?'"* 
the  k  of  ^vliicli  I  foiisider  at  un  abbreviation  of  dh,  and  the 
whole  dhi  as  b  create  suffix  to  the  Greek  ^i  (compare  §.  23.). 
I^G.  Ed.  p.  6fil.]  Thus  Marhi,  exclusive  of  the  prefixed  pro- 
noun t',  answers  to  ro9t,  and  JSmr-fti  to  tradi,  from  icodt.  In 
tlieGotliic,  Ota-r,  "there."  in  cur  dor  in  hnmerrfdr,  (always) 
darbringen,  "lo  ofler,"  daraieUen,  "to  represent,"  &c  and 
IwQ-r.  "where?"  (compare  war-um,  "wherefore,"  ximt-ous, 
"  whence,*'  &c.)  the  syllable  hi  or  dhi  of  the  Indian  pro* 
totype  is  wanting.  ^Ve  may  notice,  also,  tlie  compound 
hfoT-yi»,  "which?"  the  last  member  of  which  belongs  to 
the  Sanakrit  relative  baso  ^  y<i.  lu  Lithuanian  we  have 
in  kittar  (kif-tur),  "somewhere  else,"  a  form  analogous  to 
the  Gothic  locative  ailvcrbs  in  r.  With  the  Siuiskrit  san'a, 
"every,"  may  be  compared  the  Old  High  German  mlr, 
"  iimnino,"  our  schr,  "  mudi,"  But  to  return  to  the  Gothic 
base  aiva,  we  see  clearly  enough  the  pronominal  origin  of 
this  word  in  expressions  like  ni  uiv,  "  nunt/uam,"  niaiva-dagi, 
"on  no  day  whatever,"  and  still  more  in  our  j>,  "  ever,"  Old 
Hi^h  German,  io,  to,  which  lutti^r  has  been  formed  from  aiv,  by 
suppressing  the  o.  and  clianging  the  v  into  a  vowel ;  and  hj 
tliis  alteration  it  has  b(H.-ome  estranged  from  t'ira.  "etcr- 
nitv."  A  word,  however,  signifying  merely  eternity  or 
time,  would  scarcely  have  entered  into  combinntions  like 
lo-mm  "a/t^HU."  oar  "jfimand,"  in  wbicb  io  may  be  re- 
garded as  equivalent  to  the  Zend  o^ra,  "one"  so,  ulao.  in 
io-wihl  "  oti^uid,"  literally.  "  one  thing."  or  "  any  one 
thing":  ionfr  means  "anywhere."  and.  with  respect  to  its 
r,  agrees  with  the  aboveoientioned  locative  adverbs  (Mar, 
kfxtr),  and,  in  regiird  to  its  entire  final  syllable,  with  pro- 
nouns compounded  with  na,  no  (§.  37t>.} ;  and  this  affords  a 
striking  proof  that  llie  preceding  19  cannot,  from  its  origin. 


*  The  IndUa  trsinmnriuu  aauinM,  without  causn  or  reunn.  n  sufRx 
rAt  for  both  \hmt  «xprcad«&a,  aaA  dielribntc  tbvoi  tbos,  &«-rAi,  Au-rU. 


PBONODNS. 


937 


he  a  term  for  denotiof*  time.    Pcrhnpfl,  however,  the  Old 
High  German  tv  is  not  iu  all  places  the  corruption  of  the 
Gothic  nit',  for  a  sliort  way  of  arriving  at  it  ta  through 
the    old    relative    base    ir  yo.       It    is    certain    that    the 
Lithuaiuan  yu  belongs  to  it,  which,  in  its  use  before  com- 
paratives in  sentences  like  yS  bagul6mia  i/S      [G.  Ed  ji.  saa,] 
txyksztesRh,  "je  rtkhcr  dc»to  knrgar,"  "  the  richer  the  more 
nifjgardly,"  corrcBponds  exactly  to  the  uae  oftiie  Germap 
language,  only  that,  as  may  be  done  in  German  also,  the 
»ame  expression  is  always  retained  iu  the  corresponding  sen- 
teoce,  as,   in  Sanskrit,  the   idea  of  one*  is  expressed    by 
Bttraetion,  after  relatives  by  yu,  and  after  interrogatives  by 
kn  (see  §.  30S,).     The  Lithuanian  yii,  however,  is  clearly  the 
instrumental  of  the  base  j/o,  which  claewhcre  siffntBes  "  he," 
but,   iu   tliia   kind    of  expression,    retains  the   old  relativo 
meaning.     In   LithLanian,  t/o  tuny  be  used  for  yu  ,■  and  if 
this  in  not  nIBrely  no  abbreviation  of  yu  (i/u«).  it  is  the  geni- 
tive of  the  pronoun  referred  to;  for  y«  (for yas),  "be,"  forms, 
iji  the  genitive,  «n.     Ruliig  renders,  Je  eher  je  hi^xscr,  "the 
sooner  the  better,"  by  po  pirm-^us  tfo geraus.f   Grafr(l.  517.) 
rightly    compares    the    Old    High    Gertnan   to   with    this 
Lithuanian  yn,  and  the  former  must  therefore  be  dislinguished 
from  the  tu,wb)ch  are  evidently  corruptions  of  the  Gothicotn, 


■  Tlic  inaaaliijof  tiusit,  that  if,  in  Sanskrit,  a  Mntend!  be  inlerrvgiu 
tivr,  tlie  ulijrat  nf  the  verb  likewiso  Iwi-ontca  iaierrogailrv,  jia  ii  vrcn:  by 
attraction,  itutead  «f l>«ing,  aa  iu  EiiRlifh,  iudeftnlte.  Thu*,  in  tho  pa»stg9 
roftrml  W  i^.  308.,  ^  p  j^in  qT%  WT  Tinnifit  -fftl  SKH  A-UVni  m 
puriu/nJi  Pdrtho  !  kan  ghdtayati  hwfti  fcam,  *"  I  low.  0  Parilin !  cslh  (luit 
miui  canoe  ti>  tie  killed  Tchom,  am  he  kill  whom  ?"  The  twine  nittactlon 
faikt^H  ftlnev  Inn  n-Uitivi-  Hrntcnco.  Thus,  in  ttio  Srooiid  Huok  of  the  Hito- 
pH^i^-i,  H^  XVn  tnH  H^  mt^  Uf^i.  gadiva  rivhiUS  gatiHi'd  blianSt 
tat  hwja  tmndarom,  "  WhiUergr  iH  agivuble  to  wlmmtoever  (tn  EnglJah  h 
would  b«  ■  to  Bsy  ooc  Mwvcr'),  that  ta  luai  will  be  bcaoUfuI.*— JVoNffa- 
tw't  NoU. 

t  Ab  mldenda  to  f.Mff.  maybe  noticed  the  nnuiflretcd  compnratiiwf, 
which  accord  wiUi  the  sui)crlativ«i  [n  ntu-o*  (f .  S07.), 


638 


PRONOUNS. 


In  Latin  we  find  in  irvum  a  form  evidently  corresponding 
to  this  aiv  (th«me  aiva),  and  one  wiiich  has  quite  loat  &  pro- 
nominal tignification.  It  may  be  left  undecided  wbether 
the  Greek  alwv  should  be  rcfurred  to  tliia  ctuas.  But  we  must 
remark  tluit  the  syllable  na  of  mn  aca.  n  fva,  and  ^  iva, 
is.  as  it  appears  to  me,  ofitselTa  pronoun,  and  eonnectvd 
with  tlie  enclitic  vat,  "  as."  Perhaps  the  v  is  a  weakened 
form  of  m  ($.  63.),  and  iva  therefore  connected  with  the 
demonstrative  ima.  Observe  that  the  derivative  suQlxes  x'at 
and  mat,  in  the  stronj;  cases  r<in^  mnnf,  are  completely 
identical  in  meaning,  as  are  also  mia  and  vin. 

[G.  Ed.  p.  OfiS]  392.  We  come  now  to  the  relative,  the  base 
of  which  is,  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  yu,  remioine  yil ;  and  the 
oSsboots  of  which,  in  tlie  European  cognate  languages,  bavo 
been  already  frequently  mentioned.  With  respect  to  the 
Greek  of,  i),  5,  answering;  to  the  Sanskrit  yiu.  i/d,  yat,  we 
may  notice  how  frequently  tlie  Indian  vt  3/  is  repreaented 
by  the  Greek  spiritua  as])cr.  And  6f  lias  the  same  rela- 
tion lo  j/as  that  vfitK  has  to  tlie  Vedic  tA  tptthm?.,  "ye." 
vand/ii  to  Vtti  yudhma,  "  strife,"  ^ap  to  'ffwjt  yakril  and 
jiKur,  iija  to  in^  yoj,  "to  honor,"  "to  adore,"  ^}ifpoi  to 
V^  yam,  "  to  restrain."  The  circumstance,  that  the  rela- 
tive is  dioiectically  replaced  by  tbo  article,  is  as  tittle  proof 
of  tbc  connection  of  the  tvro,  oa  tlrnt,  because  our  German 
welcker,  "  which,"  can  be  replaced  by  tlic  demonstrative  dcr, 
"  tlie,"  it  is  cognate  to  it  in  form.  Since,  as  early  as  Homer, 
the  use  of  the  true  relative  is  very  common,  and  tlie 
relative  expressions  5*0?,  w'oc,  7\i«>5,  ^/kk,  answer  to  the 
demonstrative  derivatives  T6<rot,  t*T«,  tijXi'wot,  riifun,  we 
may  find  in  this  alone  sutGcient  evidence,  exclusive  of 
proofs  drawn  from  the  Sanskrit  and  other  cognate  lan- 
guages, of  the  original  existence  of  a  distioct  relative 
base  in  Greek. 

3S3.   In  Zend  the  relative  occurs  also  with  a  demonstra- 
tive   meaning:    thus    we  frequently    find   the    accusative 


PK0K0DN8. 


589 


{j^  lyim  In  the  sense  of  Jmnc  Tliis  guides  us  to  tlie 
Lithuanian  via.  "  lie"  (eii|>houic  for  yos,  §.  135.),*  accu- 
sative jnii.  The  dative  ifam  corresponds  witli  tliu  Sanskrit 
yasmAi.  Ztind  yahm/li ;  as  does  the  locntive  vdmi  (§.  IT6.)  with 
yatmin,  yahmK  In  St^Ifivonip,  wis  tlio  most  per-  [G.  Ed-p-MJ-J 
feet  form  tlutt  bas  beoa  retained  io  the  masculine  and  neuter 
sinj;ular  of  tliis  pronomiaal  base  (see  \t.  3fi8  G.  ed.) :  in  the 
neuter  plumt  yn  agrees  most  exactly  with  the  Zciid  and  Vcdic 
jrd  f  J.  2S5.  a.),  just  as.  in  the  nominative  singular  feminine,  t/« 
(yn-ahe.  "  which")  corresi^uds  to  the  Sauskrit-Zend  yd.  The 
masculine  form  i  it  derived,  as  bas  been  already  remarked, 
by  suppressing*  the  vowel  of  the  base,  and  vocalising  the  y, 
and  thus  resembles  tolerably  closely  tbo  (iothic  rclativo 
particle  ei  (={).  In  Gothic,  faovrevcr,  Uicre  exist  deriva- 
tives from  the  base  under  discusaion,  vrhioh  arc  even  yet 
more  similar.  For  inatnnec.  the  conjunction  yti'Lai,  "  if." 
springs  from  it  as  the  cognate  form  of  the  Sanskrit  iffij  yu-rfi, 
which  signiSes  tlie  same.  The  sulOxcs  alone  differ.  The 
Gothic  bat  is  a  corruption  of  ba,\  and  appears  in  this  form 
lo  tlie  compound  ihavJi-yaba.  There  is  an  Ekuallo(;ous 
form  to  yabai.  vufta.  viz.  tba,  ibai,X  nhith  is  used  particularly 
as  an  intcrrogutivc  purticle,  and  proceeds  from  the  prouo- 
minal  base  r.  Combined,  also,  with  the  negative  particle 
ni,  iba  means  "if";  thus  niba  (for  ni  ibn.  as  niil,  "he  is 
not."  for  ni  ist),  "if  noC'  where  we  must  remark  that  the 
Sanskrit  ^  it  connected  with  iba.  as  regards  its  base, 
likewise  means  "if";   and,  indeed,   in  like  manner   only 


«  In  Zend  di«  ■'  of  ffim  ii  not  pn>du<;4;d  l>y  tbv  capli<niic  inflaenca  «f  die 
y,  for  wc  iilio  fiuJ  dim  for  di>m  (^,343.),  nnil  drvjim  for  ttrujitn,  ftnm 
drwj,  "a  Joiiiou." 

1  Aa  w  thoGodiic  suffix  in  sail  Ulli.;>,  cf.  p.l-HK.  G.cd.  Not*  1.10. 

X  Cffmpara  l>«DaoiMtraUvc  Bam*,  p.  IS,  aoA  Graflr(1. 7&.},  who  lascnU 
to  xay  opinliin,  bat  designaws  tlic  proDominal  trnwa  u  adverbs  of  |ilaor,  or 
IdchUtv  pulicl«>. 

V  H  8 


S40 


PEONODNS. 


in  combination  with  particles  preceding  it;  w  that  ntt 
(na  +  U).  "if  not,"  ia,  as  it  wrrt-,  tlic  prototyjje  of  the  Cothk 
n'-iba  (see  §.  360.).  It  cau  liardly  be  that  the  suEx,  also, 
does  not  cODtaiu  Bomewhat  of  Sanskrit  I  conjecture  a 
connection  with  the  syllables  va  in  ira.  "as,"  h^a-,  "also" 
&c.,  and  ^vam.  "so/'or  what  almost  amounts  to  tlie  aame 
thing,  with  the  enclitic  ^  mt,  "as."  And  thus  the  dcri- 
[Q.  £d.  p.  600.']  vation  of  tiie  Gothlt'  odverbs  in  ba  may 
be  shewn,"  It  cannot  appear  surprising  tlint  the  v  ia 
hardened  to  h,  for  in  BengAIi  every  Sanskrit  v  is  pro- 
nounced as  b,  and  in  New  German,  also,  we  ofirn  find  b 
for  tlte  V  of  the  older  dialeets.  In  Litliiianinn  Uic  v  of 
the  Sanskrit  irn,  "  us,"  is  altered  to  p.  as  we  have  before 
seen  pa  formed  from  Wru-a  (§v359.).  No  more  sntisfaetory 
derivation,  therefore,  can.  in  my  opinion,  be  given  for  pro- 
noniinii)  adverbs  terminating  in  }po  or  ip.  than  from  the 
^  itin  above  mentioned,  particularly  as  the  Intter  is  con- 
stantly subjoined,  as  ir^  ^  tad  iva,  "  like  this."  So,  in 
Lithuanian,  laipo  or  taip,  "  so."  (.  e.  ■'  as  this."  from  the  hiiRe 
ta  +  ipa;  ka'tpo  or  kaip,  "how"?  kilfaipo,  kitloip,  and 
aniraipo,  aniraip,  "else."  Aootlier  view  of  these  expres- 
sions miglit  be  taken,  according  to  which  t  would  bo 
allotU^  to  the  principal  pronoun,  which  would  be  regarded 
as  neuter  (§.  167.);  thus  tai-po.  kai-po,  &c.  In  this  case 
tlie  rowel  of  the  Sanskrit  ^  wa  would  be  lost  in  Lithu- 
anian; but  1  prefer  tlie  former  opiuion,  and  believe  that 
the   Gothic    Ura'tKa,   "  liow " '{    taken   as   hva-lva,    mast   be 


•  Not  aAo,  for  the  A  hclon^  to  iho  a<lji«tive  !»«»;  hpnt*  dic»  in  u 
have.  Dot  v-aba  but  u-Aa  ;  but  (licwc  in  yn,  for  tlio  most  part,  1»y  naide 
llicirfinol  vowtL,  and  fonn  i-ha^t yorha,  Kxamptn:  /hJd!(i-fta,  "iiiu-lll- 
geni,"  from  FRODA  {uam./rStfa);  hardu-ho,  "  horJ,"  from  HARDV ; 
ondaMffi-ta,  "  evid«it,'"p«thiipa  from  th«  mh^UOLiivf  haa»  AS^DA  L'GYA 
(noiniiutire  atmAihj/J),  "  viMg*."    TIw!  full  form  Is  seen  In  ifabaur^'bo, 

»  waung.- 


PB0NO0N3. 


Ml 


referred  to  this  elitss;  for  it  canoot  nppenr  remarkiible  tliat 
tlie  termituition  va,  io  Gotliic,  should  iiot  liave  bouo  every- 
where hardened  to  ba,  but  that  a  trace  of  the  ori^tiaL 
form  should  be  still  left.  But  if  tht:  .na,  "  so,"  answering' 
to  kvaiiia,  duca  uot.  us  baa  been  before  conjectured,  bt-long 
to  the  Sanskrit  reflexive  base  w  xn-n  (§.341.),  I  should  then 
regard  it  as  analogous  to  hvaiva,  and  divide  it  thus,  s'-va, 
BO  that  it  would  coQtuin  the  demonstrative  base  aa.  men- 
tioned in  §.345.,  from  whidi,  in  Siiiiskrit,  [O.  Ed.  p. 506.] 
cornea,  among  other  words,  w^  ju-rfmo,  "aiuiilar,"  lite- 
rally "  like  this  appearing."  But  to  return  to  the  Sanskrit 
yadi,  '*  if,"  its  lii  is  jirobably  a  weakened  form  of  the  su(hz, 
which  we  liave  seen  above  in  ^fW  Ui,  "  thu!i."  and  else- 
where, also,  in  mtlt  oti,  "  over,"  and  altcivd  to  fV  dhi  in 
wfti  arf/it,  "on,*"  "towards."  The  Priikrit  il^  >i  (§.  iw.) 
has  quite  dropped  thn  7' sound,  just  as  the  Lithuanian  f/*^  : 
Uirough  boUi  lan£uaf>os  the  Greek  e!  is,  as  it  were.  pre]Mired; 
aa  to  the  connection  of  which  with  our  relative  base  I  have  no 
longer  any  doubt,  all  being  n-jjular  up  to  the  aupjires&iou  of 
tlie  »emi-vowcl  in  the  initial  sound  ;  and  by  asimilir  suppres- 
sion «e  have  not  been  prevented  from  recognising  the 
Vedic  ^^  yuthm^,  "  yo,"  in  the  j^lie  u/x/if?. 

3St.  The  Gothic  particle  yau,  in  the  si^ilication  "  whether," 
coinciding  with  the  Sanskrit  nfij  ifudi.  which  together  with 
"  if"  meana  olao  "  whether,"  supports  the  derivation  of  6a 
from  voy  given  above;  for  mu  has  essentially  the  Bnmc 
relation  to  ynha,  that,  in  Lithuanian,  Utip  bears  to  the  more 
full  inipa.  The  form  yau,  however,  probably  owes  iu 
origin  to  a  time  when,  in  more  perfeet  aecord»nee  with  the 
Snnskrit,  yntw  for  yafia  wasstill  used,  whence,  afti'rr  suppress- 
ing  the  a,  must  come  wiu,  as  f.g.  the  base  thiva,  "servant," 
forms  in  the  nomiaative  Utiiu,  in  tlic  uucusativc  thla.  But  if 
yau  arose  at  a  time  when  wbu  was  already  in  use  for  y^eo.  we 
should  Imvc  to  refer  to  the  relation  of  the  Latin  an  (aii/u(jifi, 
atiftro)  to  ab.     The  Lithuanian  lias  likewise  a  jArticle  yau. 


S42 


PBONODNS. 


which  u  connected,  in  its  hose  at  least,  with  the  Gothic :  it 
signifies  "already."  le.  "at  this  (time)",  and  therefore 
reminds  us  of  jam.  nhich,  in  Latin,  is  the  only  remnant  of  the 
pronominal  base  under  discussion.  Perhnps  the  u  in  the 
Lithuanian  fonn  is  Itie  dissolution  of  a  nasnl,  by  which _;a»ii 

[G.Ed,  p.fr^.3  and  yau  would  be  brought  still  closer,  and 
the  latter  would  be  related  to  the  former,  as  f/uiiau,  "  1  was," 
to  tho  Sanskrit  W»W(^  abhavtim  (compare  §.  2ji.  g.).  With 
the  Latin  _yairn  and  Lithuaninn  yrm  mu^t  be  classed,  also,  the 
Gothic  yii.  "  now,"  "  already,"  which,  in  respect  to  its  u.  is  an 
analogous  form  to  the  nu,  "  now."  mentioned  above  (p.  535 
a,  ed.),  and,  with  than,  forma  the  combination  yutkav, 
"flipcady."  This  furnishes  o  new  proof  that  «u  is  probably 
but  an  abbreviation  of  the  Sanskrit  ^  dyu,  "  day ,-"  for  if 
this  were  the  caac,  it  would  follow  the  demonstrativr,  and 
thanyu  or  Ihayu  would  be  used,  as  in  Latin  hodie,  and  in  Old 
High  Gorman  hiutn,  in  Satiskfit  a-di/a,  in  Greek  tr^nepop. 
Tlie  Old  High  German  i#  in  te  ruo,  whence  our  Jftro.Jf I xt. 
is  probably  a  weakened  form  of  the  Gothic  «n,  and  literally 
signifies  "  to  tliis,"  with  a  preposition  subjoined.  It  first 
occurs  in  an  inscription  of  the  twelfth  ocntury  (GralTL  616.), 
for  which  reason  it  cannot  be  matter  of  surprise  that  the  u 
ia  corrupted  to  e. 

385.  There  remain  to  be  noticed,  in  order  to  complete 
tbo  list  of  the  remnants  of  the  Sanskrit  relative  base,  the 
affirmative  particle  va.  mi.  (compare  §.  371.)  and  the  copu- 
lative yah,  "  ondr  "  also."  The  form  ya  may  be  taken  as 
neuter,  analogous  to  the  interrogative  Am,  "what?"  and. 
like  the  latter,  it  is  indeclinable.  The  more  usual  fonn 
yai  may  have  sprung  from  ya,  through  the  inclination. 
wliich  the  a  manifests,  even  in  Sauskfit,  to  form  a  diph* 
thong  with  the  addition  of  an  J  ({.  l&S.).  Hence  there 
arises  an  ap|)arent  affinity  of  declension  with  the  sole  pro- 
nominal neuter  in  Lithuanian,  viz.  tai.  The  copulative 
particle  yah  is  identical  in  its  final  h  with  the  Latin  que 


PRONOUNS. 


543 


I 


and  Sanskrit  n  cha.  which  is  hkcniae  subjoiued,  and  which 
owea  its  origiu  to  the  iDterrogative  base  jto.  on  which 
we  will  beslow  a  closer  cxamiuatioa  in  the  follon-ing 
paragraphs. 

386.  The  interrogative  basos  in  Samk|-it  [G.  Ed.  p.  SM.] 
are  three,  according  to  tlie three  primary  vowels,  viz.  hi,  ku,  lei. 
The  two  latter  nuiy  be  looked  upon  as  weakened  forms  of  tlic 
first  and  principal  one.  for  which  reason  I  shall  take  tliem 
in  the  order  of  the  diminution  of  the  weij>ht  of  the  a.* 
Prom  V  ha  springs  the  whole  decleneion  of  the  mascoliue, 
as  also  that  of  tlie  neuter,  with  the  exception  of  the  singular 
Dominativo  and  accusative  fv^  kim.  The  neuter  W\  /eat, 
which  is  obsolete  as  far  as  regards  its  isolated  use,  and  on 
which  the  Latin  form  quod  is  fm]nde<l,  is  easily  recognised 
io  the  interrogative  purlicte  "Wf^  hich-chif.  euphonic  for 
Aai-chit:  it  alsu  appears  as  the  prefix  in  expressions  like 
W^WH^  kad-adfiivnn.^  "  a.  bad  street,"  literally,  "  wliat  sort 
of  a  street!"  Otiier  interrogative  expressions  are  similarly 
prt-'lixcd,  in  order  to  represent  a  person  or  tiling  as  bad  or 
contemptible,  as  I  have  already  previously  noticed.!  But 
since  then  my  conjecture  r<^rding  the  cognate  fono  in 
Sanskrit  has  been  stiti  more  confirmed  by  the  Zend,  where 
wAt^  knl  is  actually  tlie  common  neuter  of  ibo  interrogative. 
From  the  masculine  and  neuter  base  kti  springs,  in  Sanskrit 
and  Zend,  the  feminine  base  M,  which,  according  to  §.  137., 
appears  in  the  nominative  singular  without  inflexion. 
Not  one  of  the  European  cc^iate  languages  agrees  butter 


•  VoaOiemw,  p.  337,  Ren*.  16. 

t  JCailb3tkat,»<xoriiiigto^.Q3K 

I  Ciuttlnif.  AnvviK  I&21,  p.3&2.  Wilaon.nn  the  other  linnd,  ftillon-tthe- 
Diilivc  xminiDAnuiA  in  derivinft  both  tl)«  int«rrn^tiv«  pnrlivltt  tacfichil  au<l 
kad-adliwan,  and  similar  (wmpounds,  from  kat  Sot  kul,  "  boicl ' ;  and  it  ap- 
prvti  ihat  tho  connccUon  uf  the  pnftxnkat  and  ku  wiUi  the  intcrrcigMiv* 
bog  (^aite  escaped  Ibc  ludiiui  grttTnnisriant. 


544 


FBONOONa. 


witb  the  twin  Asiatic  sisUrs  tlian  tlic  LitliuanUu.  iu  wliich 
tim  masculiue  oomiuutLve  has  is  coinplutely  iclL>n1tca)  with 
[G.  Ed-  p.  560.]  the  Sanskrit  ww  has,  over  wliicb,  too,  it 
maiDtiuns  this  superiority  in  the  retention  of  the  original 
form,  tliat  its  c  remains  unalterable,  and  is  not  liable  to 
suppression,  wliile  tlie  Suuakrit  has  is  changed  into  kaH,  kA, 
and  ka,  according  to  the  quantity  of  the  initial  sound  fullow- 
ing,  or  before  a  following  pause,  iind  retains  the  original 
sibilant,  aceording  to  a  universal  law  of  soinid,  only  before 
H^  (.  and  ^  th,  and  changes  it  before  ^  ch,  ^  ckh,  or  ^  ?. 
»  M.  into  thfi  sibilftnt  of  the  corresponding  organ.  In  the 
corres|X)nding  Zend  form  there  is  this  remarkable  jiecuUartty. 
that,  if  foItoweJ  by  the  singular  of  llie  pronoun  of  the  second 
person,  the  tatter  combines  with  tlie  preceding  interrogative, 
and  forms  one  word — a  eoinbinntion  whii-b  is  of  t'Ours<>  outy 
pbonetic,  and  bas  no  inSueiicc  on  tlie  sense.  Though  t  have 
no  doubt  this  combination  lias  been  occasioned  situply  by  the 
tendency  in  several  languages  to  unite  s  aud  i,  or  ih,  still 
in  the  ease  before  ua  u  conjunctive  vowel  has  been,  in  tlie 
course  of  time,  introduced  in  Zend;  and  indeed,  according 
lo  ihc  oldest  MSS..  an  ?,"  in  the  sense  of  §.  ,30.  As,  however, 
in  the  edited  codex  of  the  V.  S..  in  two  out  of  four  passngcs 
in  vbich  ^^■irf&jfjJAij  k-Qif-lhuoiim,  "who  tliec,"  sliouUl  be 
read,  we  find  instead  kaii  thtcantn ,-  and  in  one  pa6BBg:e. 
indeed,  these  words  occur  conibiacd,  but  still  witli  u  long  ^, 
ka%^lhva»m ;  and,  in  tlie  fourib  ease,  there  is  an  erroneous 
reading,  kaiMmi-aiim:  I  was  therefore  formerly  of  opinion 
(Gram.  Crit.  p.  331.),  that  we  miglit  consider  the  4  or  I, 
combined  witli  kaa,  as  analogous  to  the  Greek  demon- 
strative/; a  conjecture  which  must  be  withdrawn,  owing  to 
the  various  readitij^s  since  published  by  Humouf,  and  tlw 
inference  ().  c.  p.  lOB)  thence  deduced.     With  the  dative 


*  BailMHif 's  Vsfaa,  NoU  0.  p.  184. 


PBONOUNS. 


545 


MP  (^,  and  with  Mf  n&,  "  roflH."  jjjuj  *ai  fornw,  without 
lui  nuxilinry  vowel,  tlie  oombinatioa  m^j^aj^  htut^  m^m**^ 
kainA  (Barnouf  I.  c.  p,  409). 

387.  Accordino;  to  §.  I  Ifi.,  from  the  San-  [Q.  Ed.  p.  WW.^ 
skrit-Zend-Litliuaman  interrogative  base  KA  must  come  the 
Greek  KO,  whic-H,  retained  in  Ionic,  has  elsetrhere  become 
no,  through  the  easy  interchange  of  guttnrnis  nnd  labinls. 
The  declension,  however,  of  this  KO  or  TIO  is  disiispd  in 
favour  of  that  of  tk,  and  the  only  remains  of  it  ere  adverbs 
and  derivatives,  as  Kort,  ■irort,  k^,  vw,  xanpov,  irortpov 
(cf.  W1TI7I  katnrat.  "whether  of  the  two?"),  irocros,  T&a(K, 
KoToi,  'jTom,  which  arc  clear  enough  proofs  of  the  original 
existence  of  a  xo?,  x^,  k6.  These  form  the  foundation  of  those 
cases  of  the  Ixtiu  interrogative  and  relative,  which  belonj;  to 
the  second  declension,  viz.  ijuo<l  (=(0x13  kat).  (put,  and,  in 
the  plunk],  fui,  tfuorum,  t/uos.  The  plural  of  the  neuter  (/ucc 
dillrrs  from  the  comtnoo  decleosion,  according  to  which  it 
should  be  qua.  Hic  form  ijure,  however,  may  have  renininrd 
from  the  dual,  which  is  otherwise  lost  in  Latin,  and  may 
have  assumed  a  generally  plural  aignilit^tion ;  for  ffutE* 
agrees,  as  has  been  already  remarked  (§.  S34.),  exactly 
with  the  Sanskrit  dual  %  H.  The  Latin  feminine  in 
founded,  in  the  cases  peculiar  to  it,  on  tlic  ludo-Zend 
feminine  liasc  kA  :  comparr-.  for  inalnnw,  (juam  with  vn 
Mm,  ^t/lrum  with  VTVP^  kdsAm,  tfuiit  with  vn^  tAs.  The 
singular  nominative  qurt.  however,  is  reuitirkablf.  standing 
as  isolated  in  T^tin  grammar  as  the  neuter  plunil  nominative 
just  mentioned ;  for  the  demonstrative  Ate  (of  which  more 
hereafter),  ie,  in  its  orig^Q,  identical  with  the  pronoun  under 
K  discussion,  the  feminine  nominative  of  which  should  be  qua, 
■  which  it  acttialty  is  in  tlie  compound  ali-qaa,  &c.  Wlieace. 
H  then,  the  forms  qw<T  nnd  hte-c9  If  tlicy  arc  not  cor> 
H         niptions  of  qua,  for  which  no  i-eason  can  be  assigned,  or 


*  Regnnliug^irHWBsiil.  oanl«r,  wo  J.3M. 


546 


PRONOUNS. 


wetttcened  forms  of  the  originalt;  long  ftitl  (J.  1 37.),  by  the 
Inst  element  of  d  (=a+a)  becoming  r.  CQ.Ed. p.661.J 
there  is  no  course  left  but  to  regard  the  <c  of  gtue,  h/e-c,  u  a 
remuBnt  of  Uic  feminine  cliaracter  \i,  mentioned  iu  §.  119. 
As,  liowever.  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  tlie  masculine  and 
neuter  a  of  the  primitive  is  dropped  before  this  feminine 
i,  and  from  v  ka  miglit  be  formed,  in  the  feminine  base.  Id 
{compare  §.  172.),  but  not  k4,  I  now  prefer,  contrary  to  my 
former  opinion,*  tlie  explanation  pointed  out  above — tiiat 
the  long  &,  which  sboald  bo  foimd  in  the  uninflected  no- 
minative of  bases  in  &,  has,  in  the  first  place,  been  ao 
weakened,  as  ifl  usual  iu  the  vocative  of  the  corresponding 
Sanskrit  class  of  words,  in  which  nrl  auti,  (  =  mtai) 
"  daughter  T  bears  the  same  relation  to  suiii  that  yuts  does 
to  Wiled;  and,  secondly,  by  the  complete  abbi-eviation 
of  the  6,  whicb,  in  Sanskrit,  is  tlie  case  only  in  a  small  number 
of  vocatives,  e.g.  im  nmma,  "  motherr  from  ammA. 

388.  In  Gothic,  according;  to  a  universal  law  of  pemiula^ 
tion.theold  tenuis  of  the  interrogative  base  has  pnascd  into  A  ; 
and  as  gutturals  freely  combine  with  v.  with  tliis  A  a  v  lias 
been  joined  as  euplionie ;  hence  IIVA  from  tit  ka,  and,  in  the 
feminine,  HVO  (according  to  §.  60.)  from  m  ka.  The  y  has 
remained  alone  in  our  wer,  "  who  ?"  We  have  before  drawn 
attention  to  tlie  masculine  nominativo  Am-*,  with  rcsjKKrt  to 
ita  grammatical  importance  ($.  13&.),  and  have  remarked  that 
tlie  feminine  nominative  /(td,  us  also  td,  "tliis,"  has  not 
admitted,  owing  to  its  being  monosyllabic,  the  aliortcuing  of 
the  d  to  a,  which  takes  place  elsewhere  in  this  case  ($.  V^l.)  In 
the  neuter  hva  the  inflection  ta  is  wanting,  in  which  respect  the 
Old  High  German  hiutz  (Old  Saxon  bunt)  is  more  jierfect.  In 
[G.  Ed.  p.  662.]  Old  Sclavonic,  Recording  to  §,  •2a.a.,a  nuu- 
ealinc  and  neuter  base  ko  and  a  feminine  fea,  might  be  looked 
for;  but  the  simple  declension  of  the  interrogative  does  not 


■  InflacDoe  of  the  Pitmouiu  oo  tbe  ForrasUon  of  WonlB,  p.  3. 


PBONOUMS. 


B47 


occur,  but  only  that  nrnipotiDcled  with  the  definitive,  originally 
relative  pronouu  (§.  2S2.):  h«noe,  nom.  kt/u  (ko-i,  §.255.^. 
p.  332. 0.  ed.),  ka-ya,  jt-«-e.  genitive  mosoulioe  and  neuter 
kn~ego,  frminine  ko-rya,  &c.  The  same  principle  is  Tallowed 
in  Otii  High  German,  only  the  cases  do  not  occur  in  which 
the  cooibLnatioD  of  the  interrogative  base  and  old  relative  base 
would  bo  most  perceptible,  with  the  exception  of  the  iustru- 
mentnl  kuhi  (=Atvtu),  German  wic,  the  simple  form  of  which 
would  be  hutt  {hvm).  It  is  a  question,  however,  whetlier  huiu 
bo  really  on  instrumcntul,  and  not  from  tho  Gothic  kvaha, 
**  how  "  (p.  555.  G.  ed.).  The  feminine,  if  it  were  used,  would 
be,  in  tlie  singular  nominative,  huiu,  and,  in  the  plural,  fniio 
(Grimm,  796.).  The  maficulino  eingular  forms  hu'^,  hues, 
Jtvemu,  huen  (^or  buenan) ;  and  the  case  is  the  same  here  with 
refjnrd  to  the  more  concealed  appended  pronoun,  as  above 
with  tier.  <ii-g,  di-mu,  den  (§.  36€.).  The  Old  Saxon,  on  the  other 
.hand,  clearly  displays  in  the  maaculino  nominative  singular 
huie,  the  old  relative  base,  just  as  in  the  demonstrative  thie, 
which  lalter  forms  the  tniestcoiintertypeof  the  Sansltyit  base 
iV  t^a  (§.3!>3.)  The  Middle  Metherliuidish  shews  ([uite  phunly, 
in  the  whole  masculine  singular  of  tlic  interrogative,  the  ajv 
pcnded  relative  tj  ya,  the  semivowel  being  corrupted  to  i  and 
theater;  butthegutturalof  the  interro^tive  base  has  disap- 
peared, and  only  the  euphonic  affix  U'  has  remained;  tbiUi 
u»-ie. ip-tf s,  wim,  tr-ien.  With  respect  to  the  latter  portion 
of  the  word  compare  the  Sanskrit  yas,  yoiyu.  yaatrwU,  yam ; 
the  Lithuanian  vis.  m,  yam.  yiii ;  and  ttie  Gotliic  yit,  vim, 
ynmfaa.  mna,  contained  in  hvoT-yhi  (p.  55).  G.  ed.)  The  Old 
High  German  yen^  is  ulao  to  be  viewed  in  the  same  li^ht,  the 
bote  of  the  old  relative  bciu;;;  added,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  Gothic 
ba«e  ycina;  and  what  has  been  said  above  [G.  Ed.  p.563.] 
(p.  504)  of  di'sir  applies  to  tlic  long  i.  Perhaps,  too,  the  ^  of 
the  locative  adverb  ion^r,  "anywhere"  (p.  636),  which  has 
been  before  mentioned,  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  same  light,  as 
from  tuna-ir.    The  feminine  of  ^en^  is  t^u,  with  (suppressed 


548 


PRONOUNS, 


(compare  §.  2Sd.  Rem.  5.  p.  3S3.  G.  td.) ;  on  tbu  otln^r  luind.  io 
tbi: Middle  High  (icrninn  ymht,  and,  according  to  Notltcr.  enm, 
and  in  tbe  masculine,  en^r.  U  tb«se  forma,  iu  wlileh  the  initial 
y  is  watitiiig,  are,  not  alibreviated  fi-om  j/piH*r.  i/emu.  but  genu- 
ine, tlten  tliey  would  belong  to  tlie  Snnskrit  ana,  "this,"  and 
Litliuanian  ana-t,  Sclavonic  (m,  "thai"  (comp.  Graff,  1.598). 

389.  We  turn  to  the  scoond  intcrri^atiTC  ba«  men- 
tioned ill  §.  386.,  viz.  ^  jht,  from  which  spring-  odIv  the  ad- 
verb* WT  in-Zm.  "where?"  and  vinf^ku'tas,  "whence?" 
perliaps,  also,  y  two,  "  where  ?"  if  it  is  to  be  distributt'd 
into  ftu-a,  not  into  k'-ita;  further  in  tlie  Zend  Al(3^J  kvtka, 
"  how  ? "  which  would  lead  us  to  expect  a  ^nskrit  y^ 
kviftAi  for  nliicl),  however,  V^  hatham  is  used ;  for  ^ 
ku  ia  prefixed  ia  a  deterioratini;,  dcriaive  senae,  as  iu 
^lTg*t((ori».  "having  an  ngly  body."  properly  "having  a 
what  sort  of  boiiy.!*''.i  title  of  Kuvera.  In  Ztnd  this  itu 
occurs  aa  a  prefix  to  vcrbf,  where  it  gives  ndditional  empb»sis 
to  the  ne^tive  expressed  by  i^^i  mUt,  a.nd  signifies  "any 
one  whatever."  Thus  wc  read  in  the  beginning  of  the  Vendidad, 

n6U  kiulal  xAiUm*  y^idhi  si  mitt  axhn  dauthytinin,  &c„  "  not 
[(J.  Ell,  p.  «M.]  any  one  could  have  created  them  if  I  hiid  not 
created  tliem."  Under  this  class  might  be  brought  the  I-atin 
geoitivo  eu-jua  and  the  dative  ni-i,  wliicii  belong  to  the  fourth 
dcclensioQ.  as  the  obsolete  forms  fjuyua,  quiti,  from  the  boso 
Qf'O^  KO,  M  hi,  do  to  the  second.  It  is  not  re'imaitc, 
therefore,  to  consider  the  cbissiced  forms  cujtu  and  cui  as 
corruptions  of  tjuo-jua,  i/uo-i ;  for  as  tlie  base  cu,  as  is  apparent 
from  the  Sanakrit  and  Zend,  is  in  its  origin  equally  old  with 


•  Thia^>i)ean  to  mo  so  sbbrcrtauim  otiidvaitlm,  and  prcsuppcwee  a 
Swuirit  ithaeat tofftthtr  n-ith  Uticat  (from  /la',  }.  Ml.)-  'I'lio  ■"ilinl  6 
bat  bMia  (Iro{)i>ed,  but  hna  left  ila  influence  on  tiw  BibiUnt  following: 
hease  iditim  tor  ihiUtdn  (.V •  Hi' K),  not kiUt'm.  Rcmnrk  the  Zend 
)jU)I^  'h'tu,  mi-nlloaeit  ti«f.<r<>,  m  f ompmnl  with  iltr  Satwliril  atdu,  nnlOM 
ilie  ronjectttTe  raentlmttl  $.U.  ia  wdl  gmumlcO. 


4 


PHONOUNS. 


549 


QVO,  from  it  may  have  propeedcd  eiijus,  cut,  cvjas,  or  cujatii, 
which  may  have  existed  together  with  guojas,  ijuoi,  »^wy(u,  as 
quid,  from  the   base  QVf,  together  with  tf»od  from  QVO. 
Consideriiif;,  however,  that,  in  Sauskrit,  the  whole  interroga- 
tive declension,  with  llie  exception  only  of  khn,  comes  from 
the  base  ku—on  which  tJie  Latin  QUO  is  based— just  as  in 
LtUiunnian  it  alt  comes  from  Kj4,  and  in  Gothic  from  HVAf 
and  thnt  the  rnrely-oct-uri^ng  base  ht  has,  in  the  Kiiro|>ean 
fognMc  Jangtiog^'s  in  particular,  left  us  no  traces  whitb  can 
bo  relied  upon; — under  ^csc  considerations  1  now  prefer, 
contrary  to    my  former  opinion,*  deriving  cit/'us,  cut,  from 
qunjaa.  t/uoi ;  so  ihiit,  after  rejecting  the  o.  the  aemi-vowel 
preceding  has  been  changed  into  a  %'owel.  as,  in  Sanskrit,  n 
frequently  appears  as  the  abbreviation  of  the  syllable  i;o.  as 
ukin  spoken  for  I'niin.  and  even  in  the  Latin  ctttiu  [conftitio) 
from  quath.     Qit,  however.  =  Ac,  whether  the  v  in  tliis  place 
be  pronoanced  like  the  English  v  or  German  w — and  the 
Latiit  like  the  Gotltic  ($.  86.  1,)  loves  tlie  euphonic  addition  of 
a  1}  after  gutttirnis;  hence  the  forms  Ql' O  nm\  III  A,  in  tlie 
interrogative,  correspond  in  their  dlSerence  from  llie  Sanskrit, 
Zend,  and  Lithuanian  Kji.   and  tlius  aifVa,  and  the  Gothic 
nhva,  "river,"   shew  an  agreement  when    [Q.  Ed.  p. 56ft-] 
contraated    with    the    Sanskrit  *ni   ap,   "water,"   with    tho 
common  intcrcliangc   Lictwccn   gutturals  and    labials.     We 
must  observe,  also,  the  relation  of  an^ /''is  to  the  Siuiskrit 
wfp^  uAi-«,  "anakc,"  and  Greek  ejfUf.     If.  then,  aa  I  doubt 
not,  ctijiiM,  ciijnt,  cui.  spring  from  qttujtis.  iptnjas,  t/uoi,  as  cum, 
••  since,"  from  fpium.  cur,  from  i/tinTe,  then  we  must  also  derive 
vter,  uti,  id,  uhi,  and  unde,  from  lost  forms  like  qtioler,  &e.,  and 
the  latter  would  correspond  tolerably  well  with  the  Gothic 
hviithar  {%  Sd^.)-     I'  iscertain  tliat  u/er,  and  the  other  inter- 
rogative; and  relative  expressions  commencing  with  u,  have 
lost  a  preceding  guttural,  as  nmo  lias,  compared  with  tKimilfx 

Lki'nniiyAmi,  "  I  love,"  and  riosLo,  nanwr.   from  (jiuisca,  r/naxcm: 
Tiie  more  perfect  cu'-i.  canilf.  is  still  preserved   in  the  eom- 


•  loflaence  at  PnjnouQs  oa  the  Fomutliou  of  ^vnla,  p.  3. 


550 


PRONOUNS. 


pounds  o/i-cu&i,  af(-ctfiu/ff;*  as  Uie  root  of  the  verb  substan- 
tive is  retained  more  truly  lu  the  compound  particij>lea  ab-tenM 
aaApro'ieng,  than  in  the  simple  ens,  ausirering  to  tlw  Sanskrit 
sat,  nominative  san,  aL-cusntivc  aantam.  Under  tbis  liead  aro 
to  be  classed,  also,  unyuom,  usr/uam,  uspiam,  utquc:  the  in- 
terrogative meaning,  however,  is  removed  by  tbcir  lost  cle- 
ment, just  as  in  (julsfjunm,  f/uhpium,  and  i/uiBijue,  In  abbre- 
viating ca  (from  QVO)  to  u  all  tlieae  forms  agree,  in  some 
measure,  witli  our  German  irpr,  "who?"  in  which  only  the 
element  which  has  been  added  for  the  snlce  of  eupliony, 
according  to  §.  86. 1.,  has  remained  of  the  consonants  nhich 
bvlongi^d  urigintilly  to  the  base.  It  might,  indeed,  be  as- 
serted, tlmt  the  u  of  ulrr,  and  other  interrog-atii'c  expres- 
sions bediming  with  u,  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
euphonic  v  of  the  base  QVO.  but  that  it  is  the  original  a  of 
[G.  Kd.  p.  £6G.]  "mhi  weakened,  and  thnt  thus  vter  is  a 
corruption  of  WV«  kottirm,  by  simply  dropping  the  k  and 
changinf^  the  o  to  u.  To  this  it  may  be  objected  that  it  la 
Latin,  does,  indeed,  often  enough  correspond  to  an  Indian  o. 
but  still  principally  only  Ijcforc  liquids  and  before  a  final  a: 
the  w  fi  of  WfnM  kittnTn-»,  however,  it  might  be  expected, 
would,  under  the  mo8t  favourable  eircuuiatances.  remaiu 
uncluinged.  or.  more  probably,  be  altered  to  o,  as  in  xorepov, 
or  to  e  or  i. 

390.  The  third  interrogative  base  fv  ki  is  more  fertile 
of  derivatives  than  m  ka,  both  in  Sanskrit  and  in  the  cf^- 
natc  languages.  From  it  comes  the  word  /Jm,  "wbat'V 
(as  nominative  and  accmsative}  which  lias  been  frvqueutly 
mentioned,  which  is  so  far  isolated  iu  Grammar,  as  othex^ 
wise  substantive  and  adjective  neuters  in  a  alone  make  m 
the  ngn  of  ilie  nominative  and  accusati%-c  singuhu*  (J^.  Ibi.'), 


*  I  do  uot  tltiiik  thai  iImr  wonla  cnti  be  dutribDlcd  llinB,  alicubi,  alw- 
-mtJCfOaA  ttiat  wecAii  amuiiic  acompaunJ  vf  ALIQl'I,  witli  ttbi,  uiu/r/ 
bat  aa  fili,  as  tbe  abbr«v>ation  <A  ALtO,\ti  tho  fint  moiiib«f  of  tlie  «»ID- 
pODDd  aliiiuiK  BO  it  is  nlao  thnt  of  aii-eubi  and  aU-euaJt. 


PBONOUNS. 


551 


and  bases  in  i  use  the  sitnplc  theme.  We  should  have 
looked,  therefore,  for  6i.  or,  according  to  the  pronominal 
declension,  f^rif^  kit,  before  sonant  letters  fw.  tid.  Of  the 
prior  existence  of  this  form  tliere  ciui  be  scarce  any  doubt, 
(ifter  what  has  been  before  said  of  the  neuter  jn^  it  and 
fnr  chit:  it  is,  however,  confirmed  by  the  Latin  quid  and 
the  Lithuanian  kiUur,  "  elsewhere,''  which  I  regard  aa  a 
compound,  and  distribute  thus  kit-tur,  with  regard  to  which 
the  tzii-tax  before  cited  (^,  35'.),  may  be  agmn  brought  to 
notice,  which,  with  reference  to  its  lost  portion,  is  identical 
with  that  of  kit'iur,  of  whicli  mention  has  been  before 
made  aa  locatiTe  adverb.  That,  in  Sanskrit  also,  there 
existed  a  masculine  nominative  ftrT(_  kis,  as  prototype  to 
the  Latin  ifttit,  perhaps  witlt  a  more  full  declension,  is  proved 
by  tlte  com|tounds  irrfwn  m&hta  and  ^rf^nr  nafds,  which 
occur,  perhaps,  only  in  the  Vcdas,  and  the  former  of  which 
probably  signifies  the  same  as  tlie  corresponding  ■nhfuia 
(from  m^(/ut5,  §.37  l.)f  and  Zend  mtJc/iit,*  [O.  Ed.  p.  007.] 
while  the  latter  agrees  in  meaning  with  the  Zend  MH^yn^j 
nahhis,  "  not  any  one,"  ■'  no  one."  GrammariaQS,  however, 
include  both  cxprcaaious  among  the  indoclinablos,  and  write 
them  inftf^  mdliir.  ?rf^  nnJKr,  which  Colcbrookc  renders, 
together  with  Wlftiw  mi'tkim  and  «ir«N  ntitcrm,  by  "  uo," 
"except."!  without  signifying  tluii  ihey  are  masculine 
nominatives,  which  might  be  very  easily  understood  without 
the  aid  of  the  Zend. 

S91.  Other  derivatives  ^m  tlie  interrogative  base  f% 


•  OrsiD.  Crit.  p.  328. 

tS(u»krii(!rtiniiiiar,|».  121.  On sccount  oftlie  mnlTiitl  tntnidtinns of 
final  (  anO  r,  and  tlie  uniformity  of  the  [>kon«(ic  Inw-i  lo  wbich  tli>:iy  trt 
subject  Bfl«r  vuvuh  other  tltui  s,  it,  II  might  rcnuin  uiiikwidixl  in  ttia 
cxpre^ioiu  iovun  nbriTe,  wketlivr  *  or  r  in  the  i>rij;!iinl  6tial  letter.  An, 
however,  l>y  n  rtibrcncc  to  m6kim  ttoA  nakun,  ihcy  arc  eliRwn  to  be  miu- 

B         coline  Doniiimiivi-M,  it  is  iiinitrr  of  Asionieluncnt  liut  mdkir  and  nakir 

H         conid  ever  be  tnktn  for  tlic  oriefinol  forma. 


552 


PRONOUNS. 


ki  are  Wrfrm,"  "similar  to  whom?"  nncJ  nnnlogous  forms, 
of  which  more   hereafter,   and  ftinriT  /cijfat,  "how  rtinch?"' 
in  the  stroni;  cnacs  (§.  139.)  f^HFT  iii/ant.hcncc  iinminative 
masculiue  kiijUn.  accusative  kiynnlam.     As  k  easily  |>asses 
into  h.  aiii),  in  Orrmanie.  the  old  tenuca  are  almost  alwnys 
clumged  into  aspirates,  and  e.g.,  h  to  h  ;  and  as  ^  Arid  ard 
hrldaya,  "  Iwart,"  correspoDd  to  the  Latin  cor  and   Greek 
KTjp   and   KapBtec;    ao,    perhaps,  also  f,i.  "for."  niiiy  be  re- 
garded as  the  weakened  form  of  fw  At,  with  the  transition 
oF  the  iDterrogntive   signification  into  the  demonstrati^-e. 
which  is  easily  intelligible,  and  which  occurs  also  in  tho 
Greek  yap.   which,  with   regard    to  ita   formation,  appears 
analogous  to  tlie  Gotliic  hvar,  ihar.  and  Sans,  kar-hi.     As  to 
the  change  of  the  tenuis  to  the  medial,  it  cannot  be  more  a. 
matt^-T  of  difficulty  than  in  it  and  S(7va  (§§.  350.  376.).      Wo 
may  here  mcutioD,  as  derivatives  from  the  interrogative,  tlic 
particles  tc<  (Doric  xa).  tn;  ft  (Doric  yei).     Tlie  Sniisknt  hi, 
[O,  Ed.  p.  5oa]      however,  occurs  in  |re  hyas,  "  yesterday," 
vhich  1  tliiiik  niny  be  distributed  into  hi  +  ns.  and  considered 
as  "  that  day ;"  for  words  which  signify  **  yesterday."  "  to-day,*' 
•'  to-morrow,"  (as  far  as  the  elements,  concealed  in  them,  and 
often  so  altered  as  to  he  quite  undistingnit^hnble.  admit  of 
any  deri^-ation   at   all,)    can    be  trsieed   only    to   pronouns 
and  terms  denoting  "  day."     "Die  as.  thprefore,  of  fiy-aa, 
may  he  a  weak  remnant  of  divas,  "day,"  as  in  oor  er  of 
krurr — Middle   High  German   ftiurc,  from  hiv-}/<\ni — tlterc  is 
concealed  the  word  Jahr,  "  year,"  which  is  in  Zend  P^m/^ 
ydre,  a  remnant  of  which  is  to  be  found,  also,  in  t]ie  Latin 
honius,  with  nu,  no.  as  derivative.     In  the  Greek  x^^-.  the  6 
apjjpars  to  have  urieen  by  a  kind  of  semi-assimilation  from 
the  older  scmi-vowp]  (compare  ^  300.  p.  4 1 1  G.  cH.),  by  which 
its  etymology  is  still  more  obscured.     In  the  Latin  her!,  from 
beti  (compare  hn-ttrnui,  Sanskrit  ht/og-lana-i).  a  demonstra- 
tive clement  ts  more  perceptible  tliau  iu  ^Wt,  from  the  par- 
tial retention  of  Aic      The  g  of  the  German  j/nfrrn.  "yes- 


PBUNUUNS. 


553 


terd&y,"  Gothic  gistrn,*  is  a  consequence  of  tlic  regular 
transition  of  old  aspirates  into  medials.  but  otherwise  the 
git,  to  which  the  im  is  afBxcd  iis  mark  of  derivation, 
resembles  the  S.inslc;-it  ^nr  hyns  tolerably  well. 

392,  From  gestern  we  proceed  to  morgen ;  but  we  must 
first  settle  the  derivntion  of  a  word,  which,  in  Snnskrit,  sig- 
nifies "nil,"  "every,"  and  in  which  I  recognise  an  affinity 
to  "V^^m^wt.  "to-morrow";  I  mean  ft^  mij.n,  which,  in 
Zend,  according  to  §.50.,  becomes  M-^nflf  vnpu.  and  in 
Littiuaninn  is  changed  by  assimilation  into  wUsn-s,  whence 
trtsstir,  "  everj-where,"  analogous  to  the  abuvcmeutionL>d 
kittur,  "  elsewhere."  The  first  portion  of  tlie  Sanskrit 
^Vvvfwth  I  believe  to  be  the  preposition  [O-  £d.  p.  &I18.] 
Ph  which  expresses  " sepamtiou,"  "dissipation,"  "dilTusiQU," 
and.  with  tlie  aid  of  a  proiiouni  may  be  well  adapted  to  ex- 
press the  idea  "all."  There  remaim  -^  iwa.  as  a  pronoun, 
in  which  it  may  be  obser\'ed,  that  s  i  is  of  guttural  origin, 
and  represented,  in  Uie  cla«8ical  languages,  by  A,  c  (§.«].); 
BO  that  iQ  swa  appears  to  be  related  to  the  interrogative  hose, 
with  a  eupbouic  v,  as  in  the  Gotluo  JOA,  and  Latin 
QfO.  Observe  furUier,  that,  in  LitJioaniau,  ka-a,  com- 
bined with  the  appended  particle  gi,  which  is  probably  u 
softened  ij,  signifies  both  "  who  then  ?"  and  "  every." 
And  without  gl.  kas  diin,  means  "all  days,"  and  Jifa- 
iukay,  with  the  interrogative  appended,  signifies  tlie 
Wune.  But  to  return  to  the  Sanskp*  1^  vi-iwa,  "  ati,"  1 
teke  its  latter  portion  to  explain  'VT{^  Ktvas,  "  to-morrow," 
with  which  the  Latin  ctoji  is  connected  [§.  20.)  We  should, 
however,  probably  distribute  thus,  s-vna,  so  that  tlio 
pronominal  base  is  represented  only  by  its  consonant, 
as  in  the  Sclavonic  k-lo,  '•guit?"  (J.  297.).  The  syllable 
^  vat,  however,  we  refer  to  ^V[^  ditaa,  an   appellation 


•  <3Mra<(Ayiroccar3  Matt.vL30.  intheBMise  of  "motron." 
O  0 


S94 


PaON'OVN'S. 


of  "day,"  which  would  therefore  bo  less  altered  by  one 
letter  than  in  ?ni  hy-aa,  "  yegterday."  and  which  agrees 
with  the  Latin  vet  in  vea-pfr  (§.  31  tt.). 

393.  Wc  return  to  the  interrogative  base  ft[  kU  which  has 
led  us  to  its  corruption  ff  hi,  and  thence  to  the  derivation 
of  tn^  Ay-OS,  "  yesterday,"  and  ig^  iwat,  "  morrow,"  In 
Zend  I  have  hitherto  found  the  base  j*  ki,  unchanged  only 
in  the  neuter  plural  nominative,  ua^  ky-a  (from  it-a) 
(§.  233.) ;  with  which  may  be  comjiared  the  Latin  qvi-a,  which 
Max.  Schmidt  (De  Pron.  p.  34).  perhaps  rightly,  lias  taken  as 
the  plural  neuter.  The  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  therefore, 
mutually  complete  tlic  declension  of  tlie  interrogative,  ao 
[G-  Ed.  p.  670.1  that  the  former  admits  the  base  ki  only 
in  the  nominative  and  accusative  singular ;  the  latter  in  the 
plural ;  while  in  Latin  the  correspondiug  Qf'l  enters  more 
largely  into  t>ie  declension;  so  tliat  ijutM  and  ifuem  have 
quite  dislodged  the  (ptui  and  t/uum,  which  might  have 
been  expected  from  the  base  QVO,  op,  in  the  case  of  the 
latter  word,  have  restricted  it  to  its  use  as  a  conjunction. 
And  in  the  dative  plural,  tju'Aus  has  abolished  the  use  of 
quia,  qwi»,  which  spring  from  QVO.  In  the  ablative 
singular,  however,  qui.  from  Qt'f.  has  been  superseded  by 
tjiiS,  from  QVO,  or  its  use  has  been  much  diminished  by 
it;  just  AS.  in  the  plural,  the  obsolete  yu«  is  supplied  by 
<7ui  and  tfuas.  I  have  elsewhere  noticed,  that  four  declen- 
sions (the  first  in  the  feminine),  enter  into  the  declension 
of  the  Latin  relative  interrogative  and  hi-c,  which  is 
identical  with  it  in  origin.'  The  use  of  the  fourth  is, 
however,  only  apparent,  as  cu-i  above  has  been  sliewu  to 
be  a  contraction  of  i/uoi,  wliieh  belongs  to  Uie  second 
declension,  and,  with  respect  to  the  more  true  retention  of 


i 


*  Influciico  of  Pronouns  on  t)>e  Ponnation  of  Worik.  i>p.  3, 4.  Max. 
Schmidt  (Dc  Proa  Gr.  ct  Lkt.  p.  33)  Imi  diicuMcd  tliis  mjhjecl  alinwit 
siiDultAnraiitly  with  mywlf,  and  vwwing  hfai  the  unelij^ht. 


P  BO  NOUN  9. 


dffS 


tbe  case-k^rioinfttion,  agrees  with  other  obsolete  forois,  aa 
poptJoi  Rumanoi  ((.  300.). 

394.  Thnt  hie  is  identical  id  origin  with  qmw,  qui.  is 
shevrn  by  its  simring  in  the  peculiar Itic-S  nnd  mixed 
declension  of  iIr-  latter, — peculiarities  wliich  belong  exclu- 
sively to  hi-c  and  </ui,  guit,  viz.  the  feminine  kte^,  and  the 
pluml  neuter  oftlic  surnu  sound.  The  reaaou  of  the  non- 
existence of  fiu-<,  togctlicr  witli  ihc  form  given  above,  as 
migbt  have  been  expected  from  the  analogy  of  alifpia,  aif/ua, 
&.C.,  is,  that  h<ec  does  not  occur  at  tlia  end  of  compounds ; 
for  it  seems  not  to  admit  of  any  doubt  tliat  qua  is  reduced 

[G.£4.  p.  6710  to  ^aa,  on  account  of  the  increased  weight 
of  the  compound,  whicli  lias  occnaioned  the  lightening  of  its 
hitter  part  Though  $i  qai»$  tie  quia,  may  be  written  seim- 
rately,  and  a  word  may  sometimes  be  interposed  between 
them;  still,  where  they  occur  together,  they  really  belung 
to  one  another,  and  form  »  compound,  like  Uie  correspond- 
ing mftre  tmU-h.  ■Hf^  na/ris.  in  Sansiirit,  anti,  in  Zend, 
^UJ^iiAu^  mAdiia.  MiJifiaMt  uaic/iit.  Contrary  to  the  con- 
jecture cxjhresacd  at  §.  3^7.,  I  now  prefer  regarding  the 
ncutur-plurul  forms  qutt  and  h^e-c,  not  as  remains  of  a 
dual,  and  thus  corresponding  to  the  Sanskrit  ii  l-i.  but  as 
exhibiting  in  their  te  a  weakening  of  the  older  d,  whieU 
originally  belongs  to  the  nominative  nnd  aceusative  plural  of 
the  neuter  of  bases  in  <5  (fromo);  but  which  in  Zend,  oc- 
eordiug  to  (.  2^1.,  is  retained  only  in  monosyllabic  themes, 
just  ns.  in  the  noaunatJve  singular  feminine,  ila  being  mono- 
syllabic is  the  cause  of  the  retctitiun  of  the  original  length 
of  a  {%.  137.).  This  principle  is  observed  in  Gothic  in 
both  places ;  thus  .«J  (from  iwl).  "  heev,"  imi.  "  t/ure  ?"  mid.  in  the 
neuter  plural,  in  which  the  interrogative  cannot  be  cited, 
thd.  This  thd.  then,  being  the  only  monosyllabic  form  of 
its  kind,  and  remarkable  for  its  d  (  =  d),  for  d,  aa  lias  btv.n 
noticed  by  CJrimm  (1.790.),  coincides  with  the  Latin  ijti'p 
and  hfpi;  whicli,  both  in  tlie  singular  nominative  femiuine 

o  o  2 


i 


S69  PRONODK?. 

and  neuter  plural,  are  the  only  monosTtlabic  forms  of 
their  kind;  and  as,  for  tJils  reason,  they  are  qiiaUBcd  to 
retain  the  long  a,  that  letter  is  not  entirely  shortened. 
but  changed  to  j'(=a+r),  and  afterwards,  in  compounds, 
reduced  to  short  a.  which  is  more  suitable  to  jiolysyUabic 
forms:  thus  we  have  aliqua,  both  iu  the  feminine  and  in 
the  neuter  plural. 

[G.  Ed.p.OT2.]  393.  Bi-c  reBemhles  the  Sanskrit  ftr  fii 
before  mentioned  in  the  irregular  cbauf;e  of  tlie  old  tenuis 
tn  the  aspirate.  This  change,  however,  is  not  admitted  in 
ci'i  and  ci-tra,  whieh  arc  likewise  demonstrative,  and  akin  to 
fMki;  and,  lU  hie,  may  Ik:  promoted  or  ocuiaionetl  by  the 
accession  of  c,  in  order  ttiat  like  initial  aud  final  sounds  may 
be  avoided;  aa  in  Sanskrit,  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of 
gutturals,  these,  in  tlie  syllahle  of  reduplication,  are  weak- 
ened to  palatals;  hence  <»irT^  chnf;iira,  "  he  made,"  for  ka- 
tdra;  and,  according  to  the  same  priuciple,  though  ano> 
tnalous,  irf^  jalii.  "  kill  yo,"  for  hahi,  from  the  root  ^7  Uatu 
Thus  also,  iu  Latin,  hie,  h<Bc,  hoc,  for  the  leas  euphonious  cic, 
dec,  cac.  The  final  c  is,  I  doubt  not,  an  abbrcviaiion  of 
er,  which  is  again  oombiued  with  iuelf  in  hitx*;  but  cp,  as 
also  jtf  in  quip-fi€  (from  titiitt'pf)^  is  only  anotlicr  form  of 
que.  by  abandoning  the  euphonic  affix  V.  As.  then,  </up,  pf. 
qiuim  and  piam,  which  are  all  originally  interrogative,  when 
they  are  attached  to  aq  interrogutive  destroy  its  inter- 
rogative meauing,  and  give  a  different  sense  to  the  pronoun ; 
so  also  the  c  of  hie  nmkes  a  similar  change  in  it.  and 
should  Uiereforc  accompany  this  pronoun  tlirough  all  its 
cases,  as  it  perhaps  originally  did.  In  the  neuter  hoc  tlie 
case-sign  makes   way   for  the  e,  as    hodc  would    be   pro- 


*  Ci-Zro  M  aiudogous  witli  nl'tr^  from  Hit,  olle,  ntpprmiiiK  le,  and  ei-i 
wtlh  iii-*,  iho  (  «f  which  may  be  connected  with  the  tireck  Iwatire  suSiac 
A  (ir>t-4(,  &c.),  to  which  il  bean  thv  mn*  rrlntinn  thni  Mt  doe»  to  Ad-A. 
IWnwrk.  tluu  Hiial  >  a  supproMd  in  LatioahnoBi.  univenallf . 


PRONOUNS. 


5S7 


nouncedwith  diScutty,  Tlteintorrogativc  meauing  is  suni- 
Ltrly  ilestroyed  by  tlie  enclitic  uA  in  Gothic,  wliicU  ia  ulsa 
idenlic&l  id  its  origin  with  the  c  of  Aic  or  the  que  ot  quis- 
que.*  Aad  hvaxuh  (euphonic  for  kvasuft.  [G.  Ed.  p.  fi73.J 
$.  S6.  &.)  actually  aiguifics  "  ijuist/ue";  nud  after  verba  uh 
lucaius  "and,"  p.p.  rjotjijUh  i/uUhiduh,  " ite diciteqtie "  (Marc. 
xvL  7.) ;  yah  bigHan  ina  quithunuK,  *'  ei  invenerunt  earn  dixt^ 
rtadgue  (Joh.  vi.  25.).  In  yaft»  "  and."  therefore  (§.395.),  the 
copulative  force  may  lie  iirincipally  in  the  uh,  which  isabbris 
viated  to  A,  aad  to  which  the  prcccdiug  relative  base  serves 
only  as  tho  fulcrum ;  ae^  in  Sanskrit,  the  particle  ^  vA, 
"  or"  (cf.  Latin  re},  which  ought  always  to  be  subjoined,  is  at- 
tached, when  prefixed,  toirfilyat/i,  "if,"  or  ^re  of Aa,  "  then," 
which  then  lose  their  signification,  like  the  Latin  «i  in  jtilip.  As 
to  tlie  abbreviation,  however,  of  u/i  to  k,  this  regularly  occurs 
in  monosyllabic  words  terminating  in  a  vowel;  hence  fivd-h. 
•' (lUtfque"  Is  the  formal  countrrtypr  of /irP<,  just  as  nva-h. 
"  ao,"  from  ri-c  and  ni-h  ("  and  not,"  niA-nih,  "  ueither,  nor  "), 
from  nee.  A'okA,  "  yet,"  and  ihnuh,  "  but,"  form  an  exception, 
iuasmuch  as  they  ought  to  be  divided  nu-uA,  tha-tih,  not  nau-h, 
thau-h.  It  is  clear,  however,  that,  in  Gothic,  in  these  ex- 
pressions the  composition  with  uh  has  been  lost  sight  of: 
they  are  obscurely  tnuiamitted  from  an  ancient  period  of  the 
language,  and  the  se[K"irate  elements  of  compusitiou  are  im 
longer  perceived  in  them.  But  regarded  from  the  Gothic 
point  of  view,  how  is  uA  to  be  derived  ?  I  agree  with  Griuim. 
iti  cousidering  it  as  Aw  transposed,  and  connected  with  hun, 
which  is  likevviae  enclitic  (III.  3U.),  and  occurs  alaiost  ouly  in 
negative  sentences ;  so  that  ni  aituhun  and  ni  kva:skun  siguity 
"not  any  one  whatever."  Jlun,  like  the  Latin  fjMim,  miiy  be 
nnaceusative,  but  of  the  masculine  gender,  [G.  Eil.  p.  6'*.] 
as  feminiiies  in  Gothic  have  generally  lost  the  accusative 


*  ContparcOrmiin  til. 33.^ where  ttA'fuv^  Ui«  Lalin^Hcr  (=m)  an  for 
rflnt  tune  Bhcvni  lu  bo  Idenilcal. 


558  PBONOUNS. 

sism.  Bat  if  hun  be  the  accusative  masculine  it  hns  lost 
the  filial  a,  wliU-ti  is  added  iii  Gotliic  to  the  original  final 
□asal  (§.  149.):  in  this  respert  it  agrees  with  tlie  adverbial 
pronomiual  acciistitives  than,  "  then,"  &c..  and  fivan.  "  when  ?" 
■'  how  ?"  Perhaps,  however,  hun  is  only  a  contraction  of  the 
latter,  by  suppressing  the  a,  and  changing  the  v  into  a  vowel^ 
just  like  the  Latin  cujtm,  ctii,  from  qVojua,  qVoi  (§■  389.},  and 
like  cum  from  i/rwrn.  But  in  the  Gothic  there  waa  greater 
ground  for  tliis  abbreviation,  as  hun  occurs  only  in  compo- 
sition, and  must  not  therefore  be  too  broad.  Tiie  same 
applies  to  uh  aa  the  transposition  ot  h»,  inasmuch  as  this  is 
actually  a  contraction  of  the  base  IDA.  The  possibility, 
however,  of  a  different  derivation  of  uh  and  hun  will  be 
shewn  subsequently  (5.  398,) 

396.  To  the  Sanskrit-Zend  interrogative  base  ti,  and 
the  Latin  QVT,  HI,  and  CI.  the  Gothic  demonstrative 
base  ///  corresponds;  of  this,  hon-ever.  as  of  the  Latin 
CI,  from  which  it  is  only  distinguished  by  the  legitimate 
transposition  of  sounds,  but  few  derivatives  remain,  viz. 
Ihc  dative  liimma.  and  tlic  accusative  hina,  as  also  the  ad- 
verbial neuter  accusative  hita,  which  are  used  only  with 
reference  to  Ume  ;  himma  and  hita  iu  the  sense  of  "now." 
and  himmnititga,  "  on  this  day."  "  to-day,"  hinadag,  "  this  day." 
The  adverb  hi-drf,  "hiUier,"  is  also  a  dcrivntiTe  from /f/; 
BiHi  hff.  "here,"  is  likewise  irregularly  connected  witli  it, 
being,  with  respect  to  its  r,  analogous  to  the  fArrrand  hvar 
mcntiottcd  at  J.  381,  A  rcguhtr  and  undoubted  derivative 
of  tlic  base  JJl,  viz.  Arr,  occurs  in  the  compound  hh-mn,  "  to 
descend";  in  which,  however.  Ilie  prouominal  expression  lias 
an   accusative    meaning,  signifying    direction   to  a  place. 

[O.Ri.f.67&.2  On  the  Gothic  accusative  hina  is  based 
the  German  hin,  properly  "  to  this  or  that  (plact-),"  which  sup- 
plies tlie  place  of  a  preposition  in  compounds  like  hin- 
i/rhrrt,  "  atliri:"  Instcud  of  the  Gothic  dative  in  himmit- 
daga,  the  Old  High  Gerainn    U6cs    the   inatrumeotal    Aim. 


PRO  NOONS. 


959 


contained  in  hiuta.  Ovrman  hevle,  "  to-day  " — according;  to 
Grimm's  very  sntigfactory  derivntion,  an  abbreviated  form 
of  hitttagu — axiil  wUidi  is  Foutid  also  in  the  Middle  HigJi 
German  Aiure,  iifrroan /tcuer,  "this  year,"  wliicli  presuppgses 
an  Old  -High  German  hiuru,  and  is  evidently  an  abbrevia- 
tion of  Atu-^ilru;  for  the  Latin  homut  cannot  be  considered 
as  the  root,  but  must  itseir  be  compounded  of  a  demon- 
strative and  an  ai>pcIlation  of  "year,*  the  age  of  whidi  is 
shewn  by  the  Zend  {compare  5- 3yi.).  In  Old  llish  Ger- 
man, in  combination  with  naht,  "  night,"  wo  find  the  form 
hlnaht,  Middle  High  German  lifnaftt.aad  h(nte,  German  Arun^ 
for  Amu/.  I  agree  with  Grimm  iu  considering  hi  as  nn  ab- 
breviutinn  at  hia,  which  must  be  3up])o»ed  to  exist  as  the 
accusative  feminine;  so  that  tlie  suppression  of  the  a  ia 
compensated  by  lengthening  the  i,  v^liich  is  short  of  itself. 
The  base  ///,  therefore,  is  lou^^tened  in  tlie  feminine  in 
the  same  manner  us.  in  Gothic,  tlie  base  *  (§.  363.),  the  femi- 
nine accusative  of  which,  iya  (euphonic  for  ia),  coincides 
with  tfae  to-be-presupposed  Old  High  German  hia,  the  uomins- 
tive  of  which  was  probably  hiu,  in  analogy  witli  tiu,  accu- 
sative tia  ({.  3M.).  Tim  opinion  ia  supported  by  Uic 
Auglo-Suxon  and  Old  Frisian,  which  express  "  he,"  by 
this  pronoun,  but,  in  the  feminine,  lengthen  the  base  hi  by 
the  inorganic  aSix  mentioned;  thus,  OIJ  Frisiiin.  hiu.  "ra." 
hia,  "earn"";  and  for  the  former,  in  Anglo-Saxon.  Aeu.  and 
io  the  accusative  hi,  nbbreviutcd  from  hia.  As,  then,  as 
appears  from  nhnt  has  been  said,  the  base  HI  refers  prin- 
cipally to  appellations  of  time,  it  may  be  observed  that  the 
Sanskrit  had  already  furnished  the  cxam]>lc  for  this  by  its 
Vlt  %as,  "  yesterday."   from   hi+m. 

397.  The  Latin  tii-hii  ia  to  be  mentioned      [G.  EiV  p.*7fl.] 
here,  the  t  of  which  springs  perhaps  from  the  freciuent  cor^ 
niption  of  (/  toloT  T,n.  wenkening  which  takes  plat«  especially 
in  compounds,  to  prevent  the  whole  word  from  becoming  too 
ponderous.     In  this  respect  we  may  adduce  the  instance  of 


560 


PKONOUKS. 


tlic  nnniber  tcu  (flR  liotan,  ^ina),  tlic  d  of  which  brcomos  r 
in  Hiiidustaui  mid  Bengali,  in  the  compounil  numernU  eleven, 
twelve,  &a  (p.  449),  nnd  I  in  Germanic  nnd  Lithunnion.  IF, 
then,  nt'^i/  U  A  carruptioD  otmhiJ,  it  tlum  literally  means 
"Dot  something";  nnd  may  thus  be  cfunporcd  with  Hic 
Zend  Mtij^nxtf  naichh,  "  none."  "  not  any  one,"  mentioned 
at  §.  390.,  the  neuter  of  which,  which  I  am  unable  to  dte, 
cnn  scnree  be  any  thing  but  i»j^Mkij  nafchiL  From  nihil, 
n»  in  its  change  to  I  tho  infleauon  is  no  longer  ]>erceived 
to  be  tbc  case-sign,  might  easily  come  tlie  lengthened  form 
nihtiam,  and  hUnm,  after  removing  the  uegatiou,  and  length- 
ening the  vowel.  Tlie  Sinisknt  intensitive  particle  fti^ 
tUn  must  also  be  niuntioned,  which  has  also  probiibly 
proceeded  from  the  pronominal  base  fit  ki.  And  from 
this  qnarter  must  be  further  adduced  fv^n  khiht-st  "  tat- 
CHMm"  the  negative  of  which,  vfii^  ulhihi.  signifies  "all," 
'"whole."  literally.  "Imviiig  nutliiiig  empty";  whence,  by 
assimilation,  may  have  arisen  the  German  olf.  Gothic  alls, 
theme  ALLA,  sup))osing  it  has  nut  been  formed  by  a  reverse 
assimilation  from  ALXA.  "  alius.'"  With  regard  to  tJie  Lntin 
omnu,  the  conjecture  has  been  already  elsewhere  expressed, 
that  ita  o  is  a  particular  modification  of  the  negative  a,  and 
ntnis  may  be  an  abbrcviatiDn  of  mhiax  ;  so  that  o-mnii  would 
proj>erly  mean  "  having  no  mhitts,"  and  would  be  based  on 
the  B!ime  ideal  process  as  the  Indian  vftr^  akhih. 

[G,  VA.  p.ft77.]  398.  The  reason  tliat  the  Soiiskrit  liTf%^ 
mAi-iii.  Trfww  mikif,  mentioned  at  §.  3S0.,  are,  in  /end,  cor- 
rupted to  JVi^M^  m/lchh.  ^"^j^Ajf  na&:lih,  may  be  this,  that 
efit  H  lofter  and  weaker  thou  Jt,  is  more  suitable  in  forms 
encumbered  by  coniiKwition.  The  same  cxplaiialion  may  bo 
applied  to  liic  Sanskpt  appended  panicle  chit  (for  kil. 
§.  390.).  tlie  use  of  which,  in  Zend,  is  more  eiteiisive,  and 
which  is  there  combined,  amongst  other  words,  with  ai^a^^bju* 
kalara,  "  ultr,"  whence,  io  iJie  nominative  mastuliitc. 
wjpjJAj'VuOAjj  /iataraichi(  (V.  S.  p.  40.),   which,   when    con- 


PRO  NOOKS. 


561 


tnuted  with  the  Latin  itlfT«/ue  for  aUftque,  nnd  the  Gothic 
huitoTtth.  is  c-k'iirly  accn  to  be  cognate  in  form,  as  in 
ttieaning.  In  Siiuslcrit,  also,  fVl^  chit  removes  from  thi! 
intprrogotive  expression  preceding  it  its  intprrogntive  foree, 
^  and  forms  knschit,  "any  one,"  "one,"  from  Wfi  ka-t,  "who?" 
and  siinUarly  in  the  other  genders ;  and  so  kad&cbtt,  *  at 
any  time,"  kalhtinckU,  "  in  any  manner."  kioackU,  "  any 
where,"  from  kadA.  "when?"  kafham,  "how?"  and  jttwi, 
"where?"  And  as  the  bRse  chi  has  proceeded  from  ki^ 
in  the  same  manner  the  enclitic  ^  eha,  which  signillea 
"nml,"  "but,"  ami  "for,"  springs  from  the  priocipul  base 
ka,  which  therefore  appears  more  corrupted  in  cho,  thna 
the  Latin  QIO  in  the  enclitic  tpie.  The  Sanskrit  ^  ^-hit 
is  further  combined  with  no.  and  forms  ^<t  chtina.  which 
is  likewise  enclitic,  and  occurs  pri  net  pally,  if  not  solely,  in 
negative  sentences  like  the  Gothic  liun  mentioned  above: 
na  ktuchana  siguilies  "  nuUtis,"*  na  koddchana,  "  nanrjaam," 
and  na  k'lthnnchana,  "  nulla  vutdo."  Hence  tlie  appended  na 
may  be  regarded  both  as  the  negation,  and  as  strengthening 
nhat  is  expressed  by  the  simple  phrase.  But  by  this  ^tf 
chana  a  derivation  may  be  given  to  tlic  Gothic  liun,  difR-rent 
From  that  fiiruish«d  above  (p.  558).  It  is  certain  cbat  if 
the  u  of  hun  is  not  tJie  vocalised  v  of  hvos,  it  can  only 
h.-ivc  proceeded  from  an  older  a,  whether  from  the  inQueuce 
of  the  liquid  {§.56.},  or  from  the  weight  [G.  Ed.  p.  478-] 
of  the  vowel  of  tlic  appended  particle  being  lesBPiied  on 
QccouDt  of  the  composition.  But  if  hun  be  identical  with 
chnna  from  kana,  I  should  also  prefer  regarding  tlic  u  of  the 

t  appended  particle  uh  (p.  tbl),  not  as  ttic  solution  of  an  older  v, 
but  as  the  weakened  form  of  a  prior  a  ;  and  thus  uh  from  ku 
might  be  eompiired  with  die  Sanskrit  cka  from  hi. 
399.  As  expresaioDS,  which  occur  chieOy  in  negative  sen- 
tences, readily  adopt, as  it  were,  a  negative  nature, so  that,e\-en 
when  the  true  element  of  negation  is  omitted,  they  obtain  an 
independent  negative  force,  ase.y.  the  French  riea  by  itself 


562 


PRONOUNS. 


signifie*  "  nothing."  and  the  Old  High  German  nih-ein.  "uul. 
lus,"  hae.  in  tlieGeruitui  /-i«iii,  tost  prt'cisely  that  whicli  is  tlie ele- 
ment of  negation ;  so  we  may  suppose  that,  in  the  Old  Northern 
expreasiona,  before  the  enclitic  ki  or  gi  (Grimm  III.  33.)> 
n  piirticlc  of  negation  originally  exisbrd.  lu  the  present  state  of 
the  IsDguftge.  however,  the  said  particle  is  of  itacIT negative; 
e.  p.  eingi^  "  nallus,"  einakls,  "  nutliua,"  mangi,  "  nemo,"  manskh. 
"nftninis,"  vaetki,  "nthiL"  I  consider  this  partit-lo  to  be  a 
derivative  of  the  old  and  wide1y-di  (Fused  interrogative  base 
Ai,  which,  by  ita  bciiig  always  subjoined  to  some  other  word, 
lias  been  protected  from  the  usual  alteration  of  sound ;  so  that, 
in  the  senae  of  §.  99.>  the  old  tenuis  has  been  left  unchanged 
after  s,  but  tJie  medial  liaii  been  intruduecd  after  vowela 
and  r. 

400.  With  regard  to  what  has  been  observed  of  the  Old 
Sulavooie,  §.  3B8.,  tliat  its  interrogative  base  ko  occurs  only  in 
combination  with  the  clc6nite  and  originally  relative  pronoun, 
it  must,  howcrer,  be  understood  that  A'O,  after  the  o  is  dropped, 
19  combined  also  with  the  demonstrative  liasf  TO.  since  klo 
[O.  Ed.  p.  579]  signifies  " qui»"  though  to  by  itself  is  only 
neuter;  And  in  the  masculine  nominative  and  aceusati%'e,  as 
in  all  bases  in  o,  this  vowel  ia  suppressed.  In  the  oblique 
cases*  kii)  abaudonii  the  demonstrative  element,  and  appears 
as  the  simple  base  KO.  Compare  the  genitive  ko-go  and 
dative  lcv~mii  with  the  Sanskrit  hi'tija  ($.  269.).  ka-smAi.  Tlie 
instrumental  kym  follows  the  declension  of  the  definite  adjec- 
tive (§.  S8i.},  and  is.  therefore,  not  simple.  The  neuter  is 
attached  to  the  Sanskrit- Zend  softened  interrogative  base  c/d. 
And  is,  in  the  nominative,  ckh,  with  tlie  vowel  of  the  base 
suppressed,  as  in  the  mn-tculinc  Ho.  The  oblique  coses  like- 
wise drop  llie  demonstrative  element:  the  geuitivu  is  che-yo 


*  Whli  ttic  rxw|>Tion  of  die  nccowtirc,  vrliid)  t«  tlie  eamv  as  iko  nomi- 
native. This  pronoon  doM  not  sppcnr  to  \>c  mmA  in  ihv  plural,  nnd  thu 
reininiiw,  also,  b  wanting.    Ccritipaie  Kciiilar'a  UlHgDliiA,  p.  SO. 


PRONOUNS. 


S63 


and  c/i?-«o,*  dative  che-tnQ.  locative  che-m,  instrumentnl 
chi-m.  These  forms  muy  be  explained  in  two  ways  :  either 
the  f  of  che~go,  &r.,  is  a  corruption  of  the  i  of  tho  Sanskrit- 
Zend  base  chi.  as  the  bases  rjmti  and  koaii  (§.390.)  form,  in 
the  dative  and  locativr  plural,  guslc-m,  <;otfc~ch,  k-odt-m 
ko*te-ck  i  or  the  original  base  eld  has  assumed,  iu  Sclavonic,  a 
second  inorganic  affix,  and  been  lengthened  to  ClIYO(iX)m- 
pare  §.  259.),  from  which,  according  to  §.255.  n.,  mast  be 
formed  c/iye  or  cite,  and  then,  by  rejecting  the  final  vowel, 
cAj,  as,  |.  S82.,  we  have  aecii  the  base  vo  in  several  cases 
contracted  to  i.  Compare,  also,  $.  8B0.,  the  declension  of  the 
bases  KNYAZJO  and  MOJifO. 

40 1 .  Tlicrc  remains  to  be  mentioned  the  Greek  interroga- 
tive Ti'f,  Ti'utK'.  and  the  indefinite  nV,  rivof.  [Ci.  Ed.  p.  680] 
The  origin  of  both  is.  I  have  no  doubt,  similar,  and  they  are 
derived  from  the  bases  H  and  ehi,  which,  in  Sanskrit  and 
Zend,  have  not  only  an  iuterrc^tivc  signification,  but,  under 
certain  circumstances,  ao  indefinite  one  also.  In  Greek  the 
old  ^eine  in  i  has  been  lengthened  by  tlie  ailix  of  a  f ;  but,  in 
regard  tu  ita  t,  TIN  has  the  same  relation  to  chi  and  to  the 
Latin  Qri  that  ritrrafiti  has  to  'WT'rfl  chahvUras  and  qtta- 
iuvr,  and  that  irhTE  has  to  ^^ pancha  and  ^ujuQKjE.  Still 
I  am  not  of  opinion  that  the  Greek  t  in  these  forms  has 
arisen  from  the  ch  of  the  coj*natc  Asiatic  languages,  but  that 
it  has  sprung  directly  from  the  orginal  k,  from  whidi.  at  tho 
time  of  the  unity  of  langun<^.  ch  had  not  as  yet  been  de- 
veloped, as  this  letter  has,  in  the  classical  languages  also,  no 
existence,  but  was  first  formed  in  Italian  from  the  Latin  c 
(always^/-)  before  e  and  i.  But  if  k  has  been  fretjuently 
changed  into  the  labial  tenuis,  and  thus  IIO  has  been  formed 


*  This  G>riu.  which  foriuAtly  c6CA|jed  me,  la  iuiporlaiit,  ns  testifying 
tiut  lhc>^  of  ili4i  conitTion  pronominal  termiiiatiiin  i/o  has  apriinf^  from  ttio 
s,  Jiii<l  not  from  the  Mmi-vowel  of  ihe  Suukfit  tcrniitnuion  gjfa  (sec 


561 


PRONOUKS, 


from  KO.ncfive  from  the  to-bo-prc-supposcd  Treyxe.  we  may 
also  see  no  difficulty  iii  its  occa&ioual  trsasition  iuto  the 
Ungual  tenuis,  particularly  as  '  is  tlie  primary  element  of 
the  Indian  ch.  But  if  tiV  comes  from  Jt/f,  and  is  akin  to  the 
Latin  i/uix  and  Sauskrit  ^i~s  and  chi't,  then  ))erliaps,  also,  tlie 
particEc  Te  is  conuected  with  que  and  the  eorrespoiiding  ^ 
cha  (§.398.).  and  has  therefore  sprung  from  «,  and  is  alien 
to  the  baa*  of  the  article,  which  would  be  at  variaace  with 
my  former  conjecture.* 

41)2.  Here  may  be  mentioned,  also,  the  Old  Sclavonic  en- 
clitic partivie  she  (xe),  which  signifies  "hu I,"  and  has  Uic 
effect  of  rcBtoriiig  to  the  pronoun  »,  "he,"  its  original  rela^ 
live  signification  (§. 282.)'  for  i-she  signifies  "which."    On 

^G.  Bd,  P.6CI.3  the  other  hand,  when  combiued  with  intcr- 
rogatives,  it  removes,  like  the  Latin  tyuf,  their  interrogative 
meaning;  hence,  ni  chexmhe,  "nihil,"  "' not  of  auy  tiiii)g,"f 
I  consider  this  particle  us  identical  with  the  Sanskrit  ^  cha, 
"  iind,"  "  hut,"  "  for,"  and  witli  the  Latin  tjtie,  and  therefore  as 
a  derivative  from  the  interrogative  base,  tho  tenuis  of  which 
appears  in  tliis  particle,  as  in  the  Greek  ^e  and  yup  (§.  39 1.).  to 
have  descended  to  a  medial.  G  in  Sclavonic  before  e,  however. 
is  regularly  changed,  in  several  parts  of  grammar,  into  sA;  asin 
the  vocative  singular,  where,  in  bases  in  o,  this  vowf>l  is  weak- 
ened, as  in  Greek,  to  «  (e)  ;  but  by  the  inHupnce  of  this  e  the 
g  preceding  becomes  sk,  hence,  l/oske,  "  God  I*'  from  the  base 
BOGO,  iiominntive  Aoi;,  whence,  also,  boshii,  "godlike."  I 
inteutionatly  select  this  word  us  an  example,  since  it  is  im- 
portant to  me  to  be  able  to  compare  it  with  an  Indian  appel- 
lation of  the  highest  divinities:  I  think,  that  is  tu  say,  that 
the  Sclavonic  baeo  BOGO  is  idpniieal  with  the  Sanskrit 
wn^  l/fiat/avaU  "  the  exalted,    the    worthy   of  veneration," 


*  IdSmiicc  of  ProDouiu  «b  ibc  Famutlioa  of  Warda,  p.  0. 

t  Ko(ii(ar*  Q[i«ary,  p  £0.     Kcguxling cAno,  sei'sbure,  p.i)63. 


I'BONODNS, 


r>r,5 


literally  "  gifted  with  hnppiness,  power,  splemlor."  This 
bhntfavat.  nominative  bhogavAn,  occurs  principally  as  au 
njipellation  of  Vi$hnu>  t-ff-  in  the  episodo  of  Sunda  and 
UpasniKla  (III.  23.).  and  in  the  title  of  an  episode  of  tlic 
Mahabh&rnta,  Khmjnvnd-GitA.  ie.  "Song  of  tho  exaltod," 
because  it  refers  to  Krishna,  on  incarnation  of  Vishiiu, 
Reft;rnng  to  Brahma  and  Vishnu,  bhagavat  is  only  uacd  tid- 
jectivcly  ;  thus  Sunda  and  Upmiinda  III.  24.  and  FV.  23. :  it 
comes  from  hharja.  with  the  suIEix  vuU  in  the  strong  case* 
vant ;  but  Mafja  comes  from  tlie  root  hhnj.  "  to  vtrncrate." 
The  Sdavonif  base  DOGO  has  dropped  the  derivative  suffix 
of  the  Sanskrit  hhatjnvnt ;  but  this  appears  in  an  abbrt-viatcd 
form,  and  with  an  inorganic  affix,  in  boyal  [O.  Ed.  p.  S82.1 
(theme  boffalo),  *"  rich,"  wliich,  too,  might  be  the  meaning  of 
^T^  bliri/javat,  as  "gifted  with  fortune." 

403.  Tlie  same  relation  that,  in  an  etymological  respect, 
the  Sclavonic  sh  has  to  //,  ch  has  to  k,  and  springs  from 
the  latter  according  to  the  same  rule  by  which  g  becomes  tA, 
vii!.  before  e  ;  hence,  if  hi,  "I  run,"  in  the  second  and  third 
persons  forms  ieckeski,  Uchet,  on  tlie  samo  principle  by  which 
motikesfii  and  mosliet  come  from  rnuy^  "  I  can."  Altliougli, 
then,  above,  at  §.  400.,  we  have  seen  the  Sanskrit-Zend  inter- 
rogative chi  in  the  same  form  iu  Sclavonic,  or  in  that  of  che 
— ehr~go,  "of  whom?"  chim,  "by  which?"  chto,  "wliat?"  for 
ehe-lo  or  chi-to — it  is  not  requisite  to  assume  that  these 
forms  brought  tlie  sound  ch  with  them  from  the  East,  because 
there  exists  an  interrogative  chi  there  also ;  but  iu  the  Scla- 
vonic and  its  Asiatic  cognate  idioms  the  weakened  ch  might 
have  arisen  independently  from  the  old  guttural,  wliich,  per- 
haps. ntoDc  existed  at  the  time  of  their  identity  ;  and  in  the 
Sclavonic,  according  to  a  phonetic  law  which  lias  been  given, 
an  interrogative  form  che  would  have  proceeded  from  lei  or 
hja,  though  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend  a  base  chi  never  existed. 


5G6 


PUOKOCNS. 


DERIVATIVE  PRONOM1NA.L  ADJECTIVES. 

404.  By  tlic  Bu&ix  ha  are  formed,  in  Sanskrit,  m'lmatrr. 
"  meus''  and  t&vuka,  "  iuus"  from  tlie  gentti%'es  of  the  iwrsoiial 
pronounB.  viama,  tuva,  with  tlie  vowel  of  the  first  syllable 
lengthenet].  To  tliese  the  Vvdic  plural  poesessivea  are 
(infilngous;  nitmflhi,  "our."  ywyArmU-a,  "your,"  from  which  we 
have  seen  the  plural  genitives  of  the  jwrsonal    pronouns 

[^G.  £d.  p,  £83.]  atmAJcam,  jfuthmAkam,  formed.  Perhaps. 
OS  Rosen  conjectured,*  these  forms  spring  from  the  persoonl 
ablatives  nsmnl,  yu^hmat,  so  that  the  suppression  of  tlic  i  is 
made  up  by  lengtlieuing  the  preceding  vowel.  It  must 
here  be  observed,  that,  as  bus  been  already  repeatedly  re- 
marked, the  i  of  the  nominative  and  nct^usative  singular  neuter 
of  pronouns  of  the  third  person,  as  niso  that  of  the  ablative 
singular  and  plural  of  proiiouus  of  tlic  first  and  second 
persons,  is  so  far  used  as  a  theme  by  the  language,  that  it  is 
retained  at  the  begloniug  of  compounds,  where  ollierwisc 
we  fioil  the  mere  base  (compare  §.  337.);  and  that  several 
derivative  words  have  proceeded  from  the  form  in(,  whether 
the  T  sound  has  been  actually  retained  in  them  C§-  -105.),  or 
replaced  by  IcngtheniDg  the  vowel  preceding.  On  the  Vedic 
wimAka,  "  our,"  is  based  the  Zend  ai«xu(»>a)  niimAka, 
whence  V.S.  p.  30^  the  instrumental  mojjm^»u^wm  ahmAkAia. 
\  am  unable  to  cite  the  iwssessive  of  the  singular,  and  of 
the  second  person,  as  the  use  of  posseegivca  in  Zend,  as 
ID  Sanskrit,  is  very  rare,  because  they  are  generally  sup- 
plied by  ttie  genitives  of  the  personal  pronouns. 

4ti3.  In  Sansknt,  posacssivcs  arc  formed  with  the  suffix  \n 
(ya,  from  the  ablative  singular  and  plunil  of  pronouns  of  the 
first  and  second  person,  and  from  the  neuter /«/ of  the  thinl  per- 
son; also  from  S^sarta,  "everj*,"  the  a  of  which  is  rejected 
before  the  suOix  lyn,  while  (  is  changed  before    it  into  rf; 


I 


In  the  [dace  iiDole^l  at  |>.  473. 


I'BONOUNS. 


567 


bence  madiya,  "  miac,"  from  mai ;  t-uxtdiya,  "  thine,"  from 
tuxit;  <unuult't/a,  "our,"  from  atmal ;  yushmadiyn,  "your," 
rrom  yu^knud  ;  tadtija,  "  belonging  to  him,  to  this  nifiii,  or  be- 
longing to  her,  to  this  woman,"  from  tat.*  An  analogous  for- 
mation ifl,  I  think,  to  be  found  in  the  Greek  [G.  Ed.  p.  sOL] 
I^ioj,  whether  it  belongs  to  the  demonstrative  base  (,f  and 
the  td  preceding  the  io$  be  identical  with  the  Sanskrit  i^  (before 
sonant  letters  id),  contained  in  ifl^  nH,  and  ^  Ml.  and  the 
LatintWiorwhether— and  this  conjecture  I  prefer— the  breath- 
ing hag  been  softened,  and  iSioi  for  iSto^  belong  to  the  rcBexire 
({.  304.) ;  with  regard  to  whicli  it  may  be  remarked,  Uiat  the 
cognate  Sanskrit  ^  swa,  "  his,"  signifies,  also,  "own,"  and 
COD  he  applied  to  all  three  persons.  There  does  not.  indeed, 
exist,  in  Sanskrit,  a  pronoun  of  the  third  person  devoid  of 
gender,  with  a  jwrfect  declension,  but  only  the  remains  of 
one,  ^nm  swnifam,  "  self."  and,  in  Prakrit,  if  se  (for  swf)  "sui  " 
f§.  34 1.).  There  is,  however,  every  reiison  for  supposing  that 
9  t\m,  aa  a  personal  prooominal  base,  did  possess  a  complete 
declension  analogous  to  the  pronouns  of  tlie  first  and  second 
person.  Its  ablative  must,  therefore,  have  been  ^r?T  swal ; 
and  thcnec  might  have  arisen  swadtyn,  " autis''  analogous 
to  madfyot  tmidiya,  and  a  cognate  form  to  tSio^  for  i^ioE, 
from  afiSio^',  like  iSjOc^,  from  afiSpiof.  corresponding  to  the 
Sanskrit  ^  switfo,  and  the  German  Svhtveisa,"  sweat";  and 
aSCs.  Jj^Ci,  from  <yFaJiJ-5=  Sanskj-it  HTW  swidat.  In  regard 
to  farm,  the  correlatives  iroioc,  rofOf,  oiof,  which  appear  to 
have  lost  a  middle  S,  agree  with  the  posscssives  in  fv  tya: 
in  other  respects,  toIoj  answers  tolerably  well  to  iaditjn-*, 
which  has  not  only  a  possessive,  but  also  a  clear  demon- 
strative meaning.t 

t*  CoitipftroIIiutDiigOiithc  Cues,  p.  1 17. 
1  TatTit/a  occun,  aim,  in  tlit'scns^nf  iupriinliive;  BuRAghunum,  nc- 
rdiog  to  SlenzUr  I.  81.,  ami  BrocUiiiunV  PiitHlipotn,  61. 2.    The  |<<»- 
Mve  signiiication  occurs  at  llagtiuvaiuall.SS. 


568 


PRONOUNS. 


406.  TIk  Sclavonic  possessives  are  based  on  the  Sanskrit 
[O.  E:<I.  p.  &3&.]  in  iyat  but  have  dropped  the  /of  this  suUix, 
and  the  T  sound  of  the  primitive  pronoun.  Act-ording  to 
§.  2i7.  n  ya  must  Lecome  ya,  and  according  to  §.  255.  «..  i/o 
becomes  w  or  e :  the  latter  is  the  form  ssstimed ;  and  in 
those  cases  whieh  are  uninBectecl,  ant)  at  the  same  time  de- 
prived of  the  final  vowel  of  the  hose,  the  u  has  become  >,  aa 
always  takes  place  after  vowcla;  ht-ucc  nmi,  "  uipuk,"  miwa, 
"  meu,"  mae,  "  merim,"  corresponding  to  the  Sanskrit  mo- 
dlj/a-s.  madfyd.  madtija-m.  And  in  the  second  person,  /poi, 
(tiiiya,  ivof,  bears  the  same  relation  to  Iwnth'i/fi-s,  tuxiditfA, 
tiDiidiya-m  ;  nnd  the  possessive  tliird  person,  si'oJ,  tvnya,  wot, 
presupposes,  like  the  Greek  1^105 — if  this  stands  for  iJtoc 
— a  Sanskj-it  twadlya.  It  appears  that  these  possessive* 
have  been  trausuiitted  to  the  S(;luvouitt  from  the  ancient 
period  of  the  Ittngiiagp.  ajid  arc,  as  it  were,  the  conti- 
nuance of  the  Sanskrit  forms;  for  if  they  were  originally 
Sclavonic  we  should  theu  find  in  them  the  same  corruptioa 
oF  the  base  of  the  primitive  pronouns  that  we  have  before 
remarked  in  those  pronouns.  The  possessives  would  then 
most  probably  be,  in  the  nominative  masculine,  meny  or  mnv, 
teby,  sehy,  or  ItibVt  solry;  but  no  case  of  the  persoaul  pronouns 
would  lead  us  to  expect  mot,  stilt  less  ivoi,  svoi.  In  Lithuanian, 
ou  the  contrary,  the  possessives  vnina-»,  Mf«-s,  sawa-s,  are 
comparatively  of  quite  recent  date,  for  they  agree  with 
ifae  particular  modification  of  personal  bases  in  the  oblique 
coses  ainj^lar  (see  §§.  3t0. 313.) :  thus,  iu  Latin,  mcun, 
tuut,  Muut,  probably  from  met,  tui,  tut ;  and  in  Greek,  £^{, 
trof,  Ss,  arc,  in  their  tlicme,  identical  with  that  from  which 
proceed  e/xotS,  cfzoi'  <roD,  0*01'.  ou,  di.  On  the  other  baud,  <r^)os, 
o-^,  ff^f,  is  llie  exact  countertypeof  the  Sanskrit  swa-a,  suvj, 
tKa-ntj  which  affords  the  oldest  example  of  poissessives  witli- 
out  any  affix  expressing  the  possession ;  for  tiva  is  purely 
personal  in  ita  form,  and.  as  has  been  already  observed,  the 
[O.  Ed.p.Wfl.]    tbemc   of  «nm    wu^at/am,   "self."  (§._3ll.). 


PBONOITNS. 


569 


The  formation  oF  possessives  in  tlie  plural  niuubere  hy  tlm 
comparative  suflix  la  peculiar  to  the  Grwk  and  Latin; 
but  this  suffix  is  not  extraorditmry  in  possessives,  which 
promiiienlly  contrast  the  person  or  persons  possessing  with 
t})ow>  not  possessing,  and  thus  contain  a  duality,  which  the 
comparative  suiSx  in  pronouus  is  adapted  to  express. 

407.  Thi:  Lithuanian  plural  ponscasivcs  are  musiazku, 
"  oar,"  yuMiszleiii.  ■■  your ,"  the  theme  of  which  terminatea  in 
Itia  (§.  136.),  and  rcmiiiils  us  of  the  Sanskrit  possessives  in 
ka;  viz.  anruika.  j/uiiimAtra.  It  is  certain  that  the  syllable  $i 
in  muSIrTk-is,  yaSIsTkis.  ia  connect*^  with  the  appended  pro- 
noun n  «m<i  (compare  §.  33j.);  but  we  shall  leave  unde- 
cided the  origin  of  the  as  {^th)  which  precedes  the  *. 
The  Old  Sclavonic  forms  tJie  plural  possessives  nu<,  vos, 
from  the  genitives  of  tlie  jM;rsoDal  pronouns,  by  the  same 
suSix,  which  we  have  noted  in  nwt,  Ivai,  svui,  ouly  with 
the  necessary  phonetic  diOcrence ;  hence  nashu,  " our," 
iriithy,  "your."*  genitive  tumfieyo,  vtisfiego.  With  this  suffix, 
tlie  interrogalivo  forms,  in  Sclavonic,  also  a  possessive, 
viz.  chii,  •'  belonging  lo  whom?"  feminine  chiya,  neuter 
tkie.  It  belongs  to  the  Sanskrit  weaker  base  A-i,  which  we 
have  already  noticed  in  (kcfjo,  ch'tm,  &c.  ($.  40(}.).  As  to 
the  weakening  nf  the  k  to  c/i,  wc  must  refer  to  what  has 
been  snjd  on  this  subject  at  %.  403. 

■tOS.  Hie  Germanic  jiossessives  are  most  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  geuitives  of  the  personal  [O.  Eil.  p.  597.] 
pronotius,  aud  arc  idouiical  with  them  in  tiieirtlieme  (p. '174). 
If  it  be  assumed  thai,  in  the  geiiitt%'e  plural,  the  forms  umara, 
izvara,  like  the  Latin  niistri,  i^sfri,  nmirum,  tfdrum,  and 
the  Sanskrit  aum^knm,  ^u^hrndtcam,  are  of  possessive  origin, 
the  r  may  then  be   very  satisfactorily  explained    as    the 


•  Wiitu-n  oJso  without  y,  itutA,  vath.  Thu  cliaiiR«  of  the  t  to  <A  ia  Uiv 
consequeDcc  uflliu  en  phonic  Inilaeacp  of  the  ^,  or,  m  the  oblique  camb,  of 
Uic«(DoUowsli>,  pp  39.41) 


p  r 


370 


PHONODNS. 


wcdteniiig    of  the    rf    of  the    Sanakfit  nsmaciii/a,    "our." 
yuahmadiya,    "yonr."      Observe    wlmt  lias   been   remarked 
at  p.  441  regarding  an  originftl  d  beoomiug  r  in  a  similar 
case,  and,  moreover,  the   circumstance  that,  in  Hindustani 
also,  Uie  d  of  the  possessives  untter  discussion  has  become 
r;  hence,  mira*  mhi,  "meiWi"  "  mea,"'   for  «(^fl  mndiytu 
ir^tVT  maclit/ti.        The    dual    genitives,  ufjknra.   igqvara.  and 
the  dual  possessive  baSL-a  of  tlie  same  sound,  the  singular 
nomiualives    masctiline    of  which    are    ui^kar,    igijinir,   are. 
uocording  to  what  has  been  remarked  at  j^.  160^  originally 
ouly  different  modifications  of  plural  forms,  and   their  r, 
therefore,  is   founded  on  the  some   principle  witli  that  of 
the  plural  number.     If  we  arc  to  supjKiae  that  the  singular 
genitives   memo,    Iheina,   aeina,   have   proceeded    from    po«- 
aessive  bases  of  the  same  sound,  wc  should    then  have  to 
assume  a    weakening  of  the   mcdiul   to   the   na»:U  of  the 
same     ot^n,    as,    in    general,     on     interchange    between 
medials  and   nasals  of  the  same    organ   is  not    unusual. 
Bnt  as  to  the  formation,  in  New  High  German,  of  an  in- 
organie  possessive,    foreign    to  tlic  old  dialects  —  vi».  ihr. 
"tyut  (femina)  projrriut"  and  "enrtira  or  tforam  propriia" 
from    the    feminine    genitive    singular    and    the   genitive 
plural  of  the  pronoun  of  the  third  person,  which  is  com- 
mtm  to  all  the  genders — litis  cinnimstanci}  aflbrds  no  proof 
that  the  genuine  and  original  possessives  also  lutve  sprung 
from  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronouns;  but  only  shews 
that  it  is  agreeable  to  the  use  of  language  to  form  poa- 
aessive  adjectives  from  the  personal  genitives. 

[G.  Ed.  p.  C8(i.]  409.  The  forms  corresponding  in  sense  to  the 
Greek  correlatives  iroiToj,  -nwrof.  S-aoi,  are,  in  Sanskrit  and 
Zend,  those  with  the  derivative  suHix  vant.  in  the  weak  eases 
vat  (§.  129.),  before  wliich  an  a  final  of  the  primitive  base  is 


•  Thus,  in  the  Otp»fy  iMipiBRP,  ""i**,  "Biiw,"  miri,  "aino"  (frni.); 
»  Deri  Jahrb.  Vvb.  IBUO.  p.  310. 


rBonouNS. 


571 


lungtliened,*  perimps  as  compcnsstioD  for  tlie  dropping  of 
tbe  T  soiuid  of  the  neuter,  which  probably  forms  the 
fouiulation  and  theme  of  tiiesc  forms  (compare  $. '104.); 
hence  in^  ticanl.  nomiuQtive  maseuliuc  ITWT,  tAvdn,  roaos, 
^npl(^  t/iivanl.  nomioative  musciUincinYT^  i/dt>(in,  a7«{.  From 
the  interrogative  base  ka,  or  the  lost  neuter  l-at,  vte  miglit 
expect  kdvai4,  which  would  servo  as  prototype  to  the  Latin 
</uaritus,  and  would  bear  that  relation  to  it,  which  vn^ 
tdvani  docs  to  tanlua.  In  the  Latin  Uintux.  quantut,  there- 
fore, a  whole  syllable  is  rejected,  as  in  malo,  from  mavolo; 
but  externally  tfic  tliome  is  icngthened,  in  analogy  with  the 
Pali  (larticipial  Torms  mentiouud  at  pp.  300, 301 ;  thus  lonius 
for  tAvantut,  and  the  latter  for  Idvana.  Tlie  quantity  oC 
the  a  of  quanlut,  iantut,  OD  account  of  its  position,  cannot 
be  discovered:  the  a,  however,  appears  to  spring  from  an 
originally  long  d,  inasmuch  as  from  n  short  xi  a  probably 
^  ur  o  would  be  cTolved.  as  in  tut,  tjaut,  answering  to  vfi  taii, 
«fii  kali,  uf  wliich  hereafter.  In  Gothic,  the  suffix  vs«^  vant 
is  corrupted  in  three  ways;  first  in  consequence  ofUieeiisy 
mutation  and  interchange  of  the  semi-vowels  ;t  secondly 
through  the  no-leas- fref]ucnt  vocalization  of  the  naaat  %ou\X 
and  lastly  by  extending  tlio  theme  with  a,     [O.  Ed.  p,  fie(h] 


*  la  ZvDd  die  long  lioa  trlapscd  into  the  short  vowel,  at  very  freqnendy 
occort  in  lh«  Antrpcaultimate. 

t  ^.  '20.  Coaipnro,  slso,  tliv  Ootliit;  «/i^ia,  "  I  ftlecp,"  with  tha  Siui«ln;it 
Vf^lfif  iwapimi ;  tlie  Latin  laudo  with  ^IF  rand,  "■  to  praise  ";  and  ilui 
Lithuonion  miUlU'i,  Old  Sdnroiiiv  anUoAi  (p.  412,  Noto«),  "swwt,"  vritll 
the  Snnakrit  HTira  neudu-i.  Witli  mpect  to  thcr  intcrcliAii^c  oTrand  r. 
In  which  the  Old  High  tionnon  hirumli,  u  Don1nit«d  with  the  Banakrlt 
il^nn  ^/iarunuM,  "wPaj«,"&froril»uaAreryint«iMlitigo(»mparisca),And 
one  which  hoabeen  Einc«  eatAblishcd  by  Gra{F(!l.320.),  wawillhon  n^ 
mind  the  reader  of  (he  relation  of  the  Gotliicritzn,  "house  "(theme  rama, 
whb  s  eujiltonic  ior  t,  accordinf;  to  i}.  80.  (S)  )i  to  the  i^anakiii  root  ^n  nu 
"lo  itihAbit,"  whence  ^TVva«ra,  "hoiue,"  whichPibtetratto^iiosiatbe 
Irialiy&ira(Jouni.As.  Ill  Serie,  T.ll.p.443). 

1  daufj.230.2M.jr.aiida07. 

p  P  2 


372 


PRONOUNS. 


which,  however,  in  nocordance  with§.  13S,  U  tuppresged 
in  the  nominative.  In  tlie  first  and  Inst  respect  LAXJTiA 
coincides  vny  remnrkably  with  the  form  which,  in  Ijitin, 
the  9u(6x  ^W  uani  nssumvs.  or  mny  naaumi",  vrhcre  it  do<'9 
not  form  pranominnl  corrclutivcs,  but  poseeasive  udjectivea. 
AS  opateniiu  (with  the  more  orgamc  opuli^a),  viratenfvt,*  Sec. 
He  long  vowet  required  in  Snnskrit  before  the  suffix  vtivt, 
where  it  forms  correlatives,  is  retained  in  the  Gothic 
hvSlawdii,  "  quantusr  the  old  d  (§•  69.)  being  supplied  hy  f; 
whence  it  appenrs  as  if  the  instrumental  hv4  were  contained 
in  hvi-laufh.  We  should  expect  u  demonstrative  th&auda, 
ToiTot,  ns  forrcspondiug'  to  hvilauda,  iroao^,  annlo^iis  to  tl«; 
Sanskrit  ttt^^  tdmnt  and  Latin  tantia :  this  thUaudt,  how- 
ever, is  rendered  superfluous  t^  a  tvalaufts,  fonned  from 
the  original  base  of  the  genderlcss  pronoun  of  the  third 
person  (comp.  §.  34 1 .).  ^irhLcb.  however,  has  not  preserved 
the  original  long  vowel. 

4L0.  The  derivative  kdvUt,  from  the  Sanslirit  interro»ii- 
tire  base  h/,  which  is  wanting,  is  siipplit'd  by  kitjnnt,  from 
the  haw  hi;  analogous  to  vvhicli  is  ^tpir  iyant.  "  so  mnch," 
from  tlio  demonstrative  base  t.  I  conjecture  f^i^t  kiyant 
[O.  EA.  ]i.  50O.J  and  ^V^Jt^  iyont  to  be  abbreviations  of 
kirtmt  and  fvanf,  formed  by  suppressing  thet-;  after  which, 
in  accordance  with  a  universal  phonetic  law.f  the  preceding  t 
moat  become  it/.  This  conjecture  is  supported  by  the  Zend, 
in  so  fur  as  tlie  interrogative  form  under  discussion  has  re- 
tained the  fall  suffix  vant :  instead  of  this,  however,  an  abbre- 
viation luis  taken  place  in  the  base,  by  suppressing  the  i 
and  weakening   the  *  to  ji  ch,  heuce  in   tlie  nominative 


•  We  must  araid  refprrinj  \ht  tr  lo  ih«  mRix:  H  b  cimrly  the  final 
vowflof  die  irimiiivc  word,  wliicli.  however,  ibrwigh  eho  inflnMw*  nf 
ihe  li<|nid,  ii|ip««»  in  iImj  furni  of  u  (compaiv  Voatliomu*,  p,  102,  Note  •). 

f  Oram.  Cril.  ^.ai. 


PROXOUNS. 


«73 


mnacullne  jjwm^  chvattx.  accusative  ^^^a^jLiMfi  chvantem* 
neuter  r»Ai»f»  c/trut.i  To  the  Sanskrit  relative  yfltonf  cor- 
responds (jp^Ai^A)^  yovan(,  of  which,  however.  I  am 
iinablu  to  quotu  any  case  iii  the  maseuliiiL*,  ant)  ou]y  tlie 
iieut«r  ynvfit  and  the  feminine  ynraiti.  The  former  uevurs 
tolerably  often ;  th«  latter  I  am  ocqudinted  with  only 
through  a  )>assage  f^ven  by  Bumouf.t  where,  in  the  litlio- 
graphcd  codex  (V.S.  p.  83),  avaiti  ocfura,  through  an  error, 
for  yovaiti.^  The  lAvant  which  answers  to  [G.  Ed.  p.  £01.] 
the  above  interrogative  and  relative  expressions,  appears  to 
be  wanting  in  Zend,  as  in  Gothic,  and  is  supplied  by  aa^ 
logons  derivatives  from  other  demonstrntive  bases ;  viz.  by 
M^A)»A)»A]  avavani  from  ava.  and  fjfiMM»M  avatit  from  a. 
The  latter  forma,  in  the  masculine  uoaiinativo,  not  avaiii, 
according  to  the  imalogy  of  chvana,  "  how  much  ?"  nnd 
thvAvan},  "  as  thou,"  hut  ^»ai  nvAo.  which  I  agree  with 
Btiruoufll  in  explaining  by  supposing  that  the  n/ has  given 


"  after  liow  mucli  time?"  (Vund,  S.  p.2-2)t}.  The  naminativii  oAiujte' oe- 
ruRt  VeoJ.  S.p.6C.  From  the  priitiitivu  Ihho  (hi  I  have  Htill  ta  meotioD 
here  the  n*at«riM^  o/nV,  of  whicH  trnly  llio  enclitic  nw,  w]i«roby  lh«  ili- 
Icrrogntive  tneanlng  Is  removed,  bflB  been  mralioned  t»pfcire.  Bat  u  rc|>T*- 
Bcnting  the  more  commoa  kal  ii  ocean  I.  c.  p.  80,  ^^^mI;  qpAi»JU  najni 
eMt  aval  vatJiS,  "  wlwt  (is)  that  word?" 

■t  Often  oeeiirs  ndverliially,  c.  j.  ^>f  At/  j'wp^As  i»m»^  ehfat  an~ 
tartiiaretu,  *'lUIlang^aw  inaoy  men?"  (Vcaid.  S.p.30). 

t  Y&;iia,  Note  A.,  p.  12. 

^  We  ah«nld  n«iic«  n\*a  here  tha  ex^nmhn  ^QMji  fralM  (with 
mjft  thU,  t^^MM^MM  fraihai-chii),  rincc  it  blicw  Uutl  iho  ri,  wliich 
MratAined  full  in  ihe  ^finsliril  prilhu,  isauabbroriatlonof  tbc  «ylliiLIani 
which  i>  also  pointed  out  by  the  Greek  hXatuV.  I  think  I  have  xulfK-icniJy 
proved,  in  my  VocnlianiDS  (  Rem.  I.  p.  |fin,&c-)>  timt  ili<;  SAnnkrit  vowel 
ri  is,  ia  ftU  piMes,  an  &bhrerl«tion  of  n  syllable,  which  containa  ih*  cm«o- 
nmt  r  before  or  after  a  vowel. 

II  Yav'oa,  ^»to  A.,p.l]. 


574 


fEOKOtJSS. 


place  before  tbe  nominative  sig^n  i,  and  has  been  supplied  by 
the  lengthening  of  the  a  tod;  wliicli  Intter,  \vith  the  &nal 
sibilant,  must  produce  the  diphthong  Ao  (^  66*.). 

411.  Thu  Lilhuauiau  iJajit.  which  signifies  "that"  and 
"  tlwrouglily,''  is  most  probably  a  remnant  of  the  forms 
which  terminnte,  in  Sanskrit  and  Zeud,  in  vant,  and  in  Latin 
io  h(u-»,'  and,  indeed,  in  the  d  of  iDnnt,  the  neuter  csae-tcr- 
mination  appears  to  be  rctiiincd,  which  is  replaeed  in  the 
cognate  Asiatic  langnogrs  by  lengthening  tJic  preceding 
vowel:  the  syllable  yti  of  the  relative  base  has,  then,  been 
contracted  to  i.  The  pronominal  origin  of  tliis  if/oTi(  ia  shewn 
by  its  stgni6cntion  "that,"  and  also  particularly  by  tlie  eir- 
cunistnnee  that  other  terms  also  for  this  conjunction  lutvo 
sprung,  both  in  Lithuanian  itself  and  in  the  cognate  tangunges, 
from  the  relative  base  under  di&cussion;  vii.  tjeib  (^.  3S3.),  in 
the  sense  of  ut.  Sanskrit  ya~thi},  Greek  if,  Gothic  ei  (§.365.), 
and  uiSy,  in  the  sense  of  inline/.  Sanskrit  yat,  Greek  art.  The 
secondary  idea  of  multitude,  expressed  in  Sanskrit,  Zend,  and 
Latin,  by  the  formations  in  vavl,  is  represented  in  tilant  by 
tile  signifitntion  "  thorougtily."  From  tlic  particular  ease  of 
the  Lithuanian  language,  however,  we  could  aeurcely  argue 

[G .  Kd.  p.  693.]  the  possibility  of  a  connection  between  the 
6ufEx  an(  of  Itl-ant,  and  Uiat  of  kieli,  "  how  many  ?"  Kuii  is 
a  masculine  plural  nominative,  according  to  the  analogy  of 
geri  from  GERA :  the  theme,  therefore,  is  KfELA,  and.  for 
a  few  cases.  KIEL! A  (see  p.  251,  Note  J);  and  la  the  deriva- 
tive suflix,  which  admits  of  being  rt^arded  as  au  abbreviation 
of  vo-nf,  with  a  similar  exchange  of  v  and  /,  as  we  have  seen 
above  in  tlio  Gotiiie  hvfiaudi.  Tliis  conjectnre  is  strongly 
supported  by  kiclth,  whieli  likcwis<;  rarana  "how  much  i*" 
but  is  80  limited  in  its  use  that  it  can  only  be  applied  to 
living  beings.  Every  letter  of  the  Sanskfit  sufFix  vnt  (tlie 
tliemc  oftlic  weak  eases)  is  represented  in  tins  kisLETs, 
and  we  even  find  an  interrogative  expression,  in  wliieh  the 
n  also  of  tbe  strong  form  vw  vant  is  contained ; — I  aioan 


PRONOUNS. 


fi7fi 


kolinta-9,  "tJer  wievMHef"  "the  how  manycth?"*  with  ta 
n3  ordinal  suQix  {§.  3S1.).  probably,  therefore,  for  h/Unt-taa; 
so  that  koiint,  "  how  many  ?"  by  ftilding  ta-s,  becomes  the 
"how  mauyuth  I'"  But  to  return  to  id-ant.  its  suflix  ant  has 
lost  oaly  tlic  c  of  the  original  tun/ ;  but  It.  the  snffiz  of  tieti, 
has  retained  the  t'  in  the  form  of  t,  atid  lost,  in  plaee  of  it,  the 
final  ni.  Tlicre  is,  Iiowever,  no  demonstrative  t'leli  corre- 
sponding to  kieli,  bat  "so  many"  is  expressed  by  lick  or 
tifkas,^  wliich  has  also  a  conx'spondtng  interrogative  kick. 
The  suflix  of  tlicsc  foruiB  appears  connected  with  that  oftnkis 
or  tok.i  (tliemc  tokta),  "  such."  and  A-dft.it>  "  what  kind  of  one  ?" 
413.  Tliough  at  §.  409.  we  couimeuced  wiUi  the-cumiiarison 
of  the  Greek  correlatives  it6oo^,  r&ros,  &roi,  we  must  not, 
therefore,  suppose  tliat  tlie  Greek  suflix  £0  is  identical  with 
the  Sanskrit  vattt,  and  those  related  to  it  in  the  cognate  lan- 
guages. The  tnmsition  of  T  Into  2,  as  also  [O.  Ed.  p.  6B3.] 
the  alEtx  of  on  O,  would  not  be  extraordinary;  but  as  tho 
vowel  of  tho  pronominal  biisR  is  ori^nally  long  in  this  deri- 
vative, the  retention  of  this  long  vowel  would  be  to  be  ex- 
pected in  Greek ;  and  the  ratlier.  as  most  probably  the  dropping 
of  the  initial  sound  of  the  suffix  vant  would  have  found  acom- 
pensation  in  tlie  preceding  sylLible.  even  if  tliis  had  not  been 
naturally  long  from  the  first  A  form  tike  roSffos  might  be 
regarded  as  identical  with  the  Sanskrit  idvanl;  but  r&joi 
appears  to  mc,  witli  reference  to  its  6nal  element,  as  of  a 
diDcrent  origin,  and  I  would  rather  recognise  in  it  the  Zend 
«Ai'a,  which  forms  words  like  A)»i-(jj7d'/AmAfa,  "a  third," 
u»tp>'^6M^  chatkrmhva,  "a  quarter,"  and  is  identical  with 
the  Sanskrit  stea-s,  "  mus."  From  ^re  »tra-s,  which,  when 
uncompounded,  tios  become  Sg  or  o*^,  liardly  any  thing 


*  It  seems  Bnrprhing  UikI  Uibn  slunUd  b«  no  word  in  EnglJrii  lor 
vtesMbfa.  "Whoof  the  ntiiitWr  tzpreaaes  ciniu  a  diflertiit  Hem,  I 
hav*  b«*a  obliged,  tlierefore,  to  coin  h  want. —  Tratulaiar' m  y»le. 

t  TlfJr,  tubelaiilivo  and  iiidevliiiulilc  litka-t  Mij*vtive,  TemMnt  litka. 


576 


FHONOCNS. 


but  ff&c  could  arise  in  tlie  preceding  compounds ;  and  ■n&^of 
would,  according  to  this  view,  originally  signify  "what  part?" 
or,  HR  possessive  compound.  "haWng  what  part?"  from  which 
the  meaning  "how  much?"  is  not  far  removed."  Never- 
theless, if  what  has  been  before  said  (§.332.)  regarding  the 
origin  of  Ttjtioi,  ?juof,  ia  well  founded,  there  ore  not  wnnting 
in  Greek  points  of  companion  with  the  pronominal  forma- 
tions in  vnnt  or  vat.  In  Snnstrit  the  adverbial  neuter  ac- 
cusative KTWll  t/ivat  signifies,  amongst  other  things,  also 
[G.  E.1.  p. Sfi4,]  "now,"  "at  this  time";  and  the  relative 
adverb  m^  v'^'"''''  o^so-  which  serves  as  prototype  to  the 
Greek  5f*os.  is  used  principally  with  reference  to  time,  and 
signifies  "bow  long?"  "while,"  "bow  often?"  "how  far?" 
"  up  to."  and  "  lh«t."  It  may  be  cited  in  the  6rst  sense  from 
a  passage  in  tlie  Nalah  (V.  23.) : — 

w^v^chckn  mf  dhtiThhyanti  prAnA  d4fiS,  Sufhhmiti 
(deal  Ivatji   hh^viahyimi ;  tntyam  (tad  brovtmi  M 

"qmim  dinque  mei  conslabitnt  xpiritus  in  cnrpore,  sereno-ritu 
prtrdila!  tarn  diu  iecum  ero;  Vfrril^em  hane  dico  tihi." 

As  it  frequently  happens  that  one  and  the  same  word  is 
divided  into  several  forma,  of  which  each  represents  one  of 
the  meaDiDgs  wliicli  formerly  co'i-xisted  in  the  one  original 
form,  so  may  also  riiat  and  ewf  be  identical  with  Ulmt  and 
ijAvat ;  so  that  the  digamma,  which  has  been  hardened 
above  to  fi.  Ims  been  here,  as  usually  happens,  entirely 
dropped,  but  the  quantities  have  been  transposed  ;  thus  eois 


•  To  tbne  fortDstions  motA  probaUjr  urot,  also,  Iwlongs,  whJcb  atlgl- 
nsU;  niiu(  liavo  eiKolfiefl  "  m>  great,"  whcnco  the  inennins  "  r^iiud  "  tiii];hl 
Miflj  sriM.  I  fonnprly  ihongbi  it  nitg^ht  be  uaigncd  to  th«  d«moo«tra- 
tin  base  i  (DrmoiutrBtivA  Baws,  p.  8):  n»,  however  (wliioh  was  ihF>re 
overfawkad],  it  hoa  •  diKUDDa,  il  would  bo  better  rrfitmHl  to  t)iv  rrflexivc 
bMe,  and  eonporcd  with  Uie  Sauukrit  in  (^  364. ;  and  aK  Poti't  Etymol. 
Fonch.  P.S7S). 


PBONODNS. 


577 


for  ?(f>of.  Tiui  fop  Tij(F)ot.  But  it  is  proljable  that  tliu  first 
syllable  hns  been  shortened  through  the  inflnence  of  the 
vowel  following ;  and  this  weakening,  and  tJie  abbreviation 
cntiscd  by  dropping  tlie  dignmma,  have  been  comjiensated 
by  Iengdieninj,r  tlie  syllabEe  foltowiiag.  The  common  adverbs 
in  (ii{,  rIso,  of  whiL-h  an  account  has  been  given  at  f.  183., 
have  operated  by  their  example  on  owe,  t^uj.  For  the  rest 
there  exists  a  form  t^Toj,  as  well  as  i-eui,  re/wf. 

413.  Perhaps  the  Sclavonic  pronominal  adverbs  in  mo 
may  also  be  classed  Itere,  whicb  express  directioa  to  a  phu'o 
(Dobr.  p.  430):  ka-mo.  "whitlier?"  (u-mo.  "thittier."  Tho 
rrlntiv'n  ynmn  is  wanting,  tvliidi  would  coincide  with  the 
Sunski-it  iinni  yAvaf,  "  how  fur  ?"  in  the  signihcatton 
"therein,"  since  the  former  word  likewise  expresses  tbe 
rJiroetiou  to  which  movement  is  made.  As  to  the  relation 
iu  form  of  tlic  suffix  mo  to  TV  vat,  the  t  in  Sclavonic,  like 
all  original  final  consonants,  must  necessarily  disappear 
(f.  255,  /.),  and  a  in  Sclavonic  becomes  o  or  [Q.  EA.  p.  506.] 
c  almost  universally;  but  to  the  long  A,  which,  in  Sanskrit, 
precedes  the  derivative  stiflix.  the  Sclavonic  a  corresponds 
according  to  rule  (§.  256.  a.):  thus  ta-mo,  answers  to  the  Indian 
t/i-v/it,  with  n  for  v,  as  in  the  Greek  adverbs  of  time 
?iuo^,  Ttjfiof,  above  mentioned.  If  an  origin  for  Uie  Sclavonic 
aufiix  mo,  dilTercnt  from  tlmt  here  assigned,  be  sought  for, 
the  appended  prououu  m  ma  might  be  next  adduced, 
which  drops  the  »  in  SKlavonic.  But  to  take  the  demon- 
strative as  an  example,  to  the  Sanskrit  dative  tasmdi,  and 
locative  t/i-smifi,  correspond,  iu  Sclavonic,  fo-tnr], /»-in;  and 
all  Uiat  is  left  to  find  is  an  analogous  form  in  Sclavonic 
to  the  ablative  nwm  la-xmSt.  But  the  ablative  is  most 
opposed  in  meaning  to  the  adverbs  iu  mo,  expressing  direc- 
tion to  a  place;  aud.  oa  regards  form,  vrc  could  only 
expect  for  irmn^  ia-miAt,  a  form  toma  or  tomo,  and  not  ta- 
mv.  For  as  tlie  Sanskrit  sliort  n,  at  tljc  end  of  old 
Sclavonic  bases  always  becomes  o  (f.  237.).  an  uuweakened 


578 


PnONOONS. 


n.  ill  this  sole  case,  cannot  but  appear  surprisitig ;  and  tlierc 
appears  no  reason  nhy  ta-mo  sliould  difTc-r  from  the 
analogy  of  io-md  aud  to-m.  There  only  remains  one  otber 
possible  means  of  derivjnfj  adverbs  in  mo,  via.  by  supposing 
mo  ta  be  a  more  full  form  of  tlie  plurul  dutive  tcrminatton ; 
so  that,  of  the  Sanskrit  tLTmination  mn  bfiyas,  I.atiu  bux. 
Litiiuanian  mus  or  ma  (sec  §.  215.).  which  elsewhere,  in 
Sclavonic,  has  become  mere  m.  in  the  case  before  us  a 
Towel  also  is  retained.  If  this  opinion  be  the  true  one, 
kamo,  "whither?"  tamo  "thitJier,''  inamo,  "to  »omewhere 
else,**  onamo,  "to  that  quarter."  and  similar  forms,  must  bo 
assigned  to  the  feminine  gender.  Tamo,  tbcrerore,  would 
[O.  Ed  p.  J[IX!.]  correspond  to  tbe  Sanskrit  MtAjrosi  while 
tyem,  which  is  identical  with  the  masculine  and  nrtitcr, 
belongs  to  the  (wmponnd  base  ar  fyn  (p.  199  G.  ed.).  This 
list  derivatiod  appears  parlicutarly  supported  by  the  con- 
sideration, tliat,  ill  all  probability,  the  adverbs  of  quantity  in 
ma  or  mi  (Dobr.  p.  430) contain  plural  case-lerminations.  and 
those  iu  mi  the  instrumental ;  those  in  ma  an  uuusu:d  and 
more  full  form  of  the  dative  tcrminatioD,  in  which  tlie  old 
a  of  the  bhyas  above  mentioned  is  retained,  by  which  it 
becomes  similar  to  the  dual-lt^rminntion  given  at  §.  273.  It 
appears  to  me,  however,  inadmissible  to  look  for  a  real 
dual  inOexion  in  the  adverbs  under  discussion.  Examples 
■w :  icolvma  or  tolpmi,  "  how  much  ?"  tolyma  or  iolymt,* 
"Bo  muchr  All  these  mlvcrbs.  however,  have  the  syl- 
labic ^y  (from /i)  iu  the  middle;  ami  this,  in  my  opinion, 
expresses  the  secondary  idea  of  multitude,  and  Js  an  ab- 
breviation of  the  snfEx  liko,  nominative  masculine //it,  e.g. 
kolik.  "  fjuantus,"  of  which  more  hcrejifter.  From  this 
KOLIKO  come,  I  imagine,  the  adverbs  kolyma  and  kolumi, 
as,  in  Sanskrit,  the  plural  instrumental  9%i^  mnAis.  expresses 


■  Sec  Koplur'a  Glosauy  lo  the  Ghtgclita 


Dohrowiiy  gircs  merely 


PHONOTTNa. 


579 


the  adverb  "slowly,"  bnt  tlocs  not  occur  in  its  own  pro- 
per significntion,  i.p,  *■  throngh  the  bIow."  There  are 
also  aUvcrbs  of  quantity  in  Sclavonic  which  end  in  Ivi 
without  tho  cascvtprminations  mn  or  mi;  thus  XWu,  "how 
much?"  tofy.  "ao  much."  With  theso  are  alao  probably 
connected  tlie  ndverbs  of  time  in  Iw,  which  prefix  to  the 
pronoun  the  preposition  do  or  of,  e.g.  do-k(^yf,  "  bow  long?* 
ot-iof^e,  "  80  lonR." 

41-t.  By  the  suflix  fH  Ci  is  forineil,  in  Sanskrit,  «fii  kali. 
"how  much?"  from  Jen;  ifttt  tali,  "  so  much,"  from  (n;  and 
the  relative  nftr  yoti.  "as  much.'"  from  ya.  The  first  two 
expressions  are  easily  recognised  In  the  Latin  ifuot  and  to'. 
which,  like  the  pursonal  terminations  of  [O.  Ed.  p,  iS97.J 
verbs,  liave  lost  the  final  i.  The  fnlt  form  is  preservetl,  how- 
ever, in  compounds  with  rf*m,  di';  dinntis;  thus, foff-rfctw (not 
from  ht-itidrm),  qiioti-die,  quaH-dinnus.  The  length  of  the  t 
of  y«ott-rff(",  and  of  its  derivative  guoH-dhnus.  is  inorganic, 
and  [lerlmps  occasioned  by  qaoti  appearing,  by  a  niisap- 
prchension,  as  an  ablative.  But  to  returti  to  the  Sanskrit 
koti,  lati,  yiiti,  these  expressions,  in  a  certain  measure, 
prepare  the  way  for  the  indeclinable  cojfnato  forms  in 
Latin,  as  in  the  nominative  and  accusative  they  have  no 
cnsc'termination,  but  n  aiiigulur  neuter  form,  white  iu  the 
other  tjwca  they  exhibit  the  regular  pluml  inflexions.  In 
this  respect  they  ogrec  witli  the  numerals  from  ."i — 10, 
which  have  become  quite  indeclinable  in  Greek  and  T>atin 
likewise,  as  is  quotum-,  in  the  latter  language,  also  (§.313.). 
In  Zend,  kati  frequently  occurs  after  the  masculine  rela- 
tive plural,  and  witli  a  rcgulnr  plural  termination,  viz. 
^i^JUi^Atj  j\ij^ifiii  kiitnyih  whirh  signifies  ijuicanipre. 

Mb.  Nearly  all  pronouns  are  combined  in  Sanskrit  with 
the  adjectives  WS  dris,  T^  drim.  T^drik^ka,  which  spring 
from  the  root  drii.  "to  see,"  and  signify  "appearing.*' 
"  like" ;  but,  as  they  do  not  nccur  eillicr  isolated  or  in  combi- 
nation, have  completely  assumed  the  character  of  derivative 


980 


PRONOUNS. 


Buffixes.  Tlie  final  v-oweU  of  the  pronominal  baaet,  and  of 
the  cotn^MUiid  pliirni  tlienies  nxrrut  and  yughnia,  are  length- 
ejied  before  thetn,  probnbly  to  make  up  for  the  loss  of  a  T 
sound  of  the  neuter  of  pponouns  of  tlie  tliird  person  and  of 
the  flblativc  of  thu  Oral  aud  second  person  singular  and  plu- 
ral (coiup.  §.  "IW.}:  hence,  td-Jria  (uoininative  tUdrik},  or 
M-driaa,  or  td-driksha.  "to  this  like."  "  sucli.''  -  talin,"  for 
tad-flrii,  &e.;  ki-drii.  kt-dri»n,  ki-drikaha.  "tfaalis'*f  for 
[G.  Ed.  p.  5!)8.]  htt-dri»,  Hic  ;  yri'dri's,  yC'drisa,  t/A-drikska. 
"  qualia,"  (rfifttive);  m&-drii,  m/k-drixa,  md-drikjha,  "to  me 
like,"  "my  equal";  atmddtii,  &<:■.  "to  us  like";  ifuxhmadris, 
&f..  "  to  you  like."  From  thcdeinoustnitive  base  j,  or  rather 
from  tlic  neuter  U,  vrhich  is  uot  uacd  uiicum pounded,  comes 
idtiiti,  8«;.,  "tati*":  from  the  subjective  demonstrative 
base  sa  eomes  sndr'is,  &e..  vhii-b,  according  to  its  origin. 
s)f>iiiSeR  "  rescnihliiig  tbiit,''  "appearjuj;  like  tliis,"  but  is 
used  to  express  in  general  what  ia  "  similar."  But  the  rea- 
son tliat  there  is  no  form  xAdrii,  according  to  the  analogy 
oi  tiidrii,  &e.,  ia  clearly  this^tliat  this  form  springs  from 
the  real  base  an,  and  a  neuter  mt  was  not  used.  It  Is  not 
therefore,  n-quisite  to  assume,  viitli  the  Indian  grammarians, 
that  sadrii  is  an  abbreviatiou  of  tama-drh'.  though,  perhaps. 
from  Mifui  a  form  «ftrn«-(/Ws' might  proceed,  ns  from  sa  Uiu 
form  aadris.  Tlie  European  cognate  Iftrgnagcs  have,  in 
remarkable  agreement  with  one  another,  exchanged  the  old 
(i  for  ^  in  these  combiuatiotia  ;  independently,  however,  of  each 
other,  and  simply  because  the  intercliaiige  bctwecu  d  and  I  or 
r  is  much  used,*  and  weakened  sounds  in  forms  encumbered 


•  8m!  ^.  IT.fWherr,  nmong*!  atli«ni,  tlie  Gothic  Ink  ia  coRipar«d  with 
ill*  SnDBkrlt  dflia.  If  ihe  Ouiliic  ■■xinrnion  also  mcnns  *"  fl«li,"  It  may 
be  obecrved  here,  tlint  a  word  wliicb.  in  Sonakrii,  nieiitw  wHi|jly  "fle«h," 
qqionutOM  High  Gennnn  m  n  terra  for  tlicboJy;  wliilcio  LiUiuonisn 
ud  Sdnoiuc  tb«  "fltuli"  hu  bcccme  "IjIooiJ."    Id  form  Ihe  mareM 

approach 


PRONOCS3. 


S8l 


by  uoinpositkta  are  mrulily  introluced.     In  this  way  •Xixot 
has  bo(H>ine  so  £ir  estriin^;«tl  from  the  verb  iipxiii.  that  we 
should  hnvo  finUcd  to  perceive  thcnr  common  ori^n  without 
the  nieAns  of  comparisoQ  aSbrdcd   by  tho  co<>iiatc  Sanskrit. 
Vfc  must  here  a»i\iti  notice  a  similar  fate      [G.  VA.  [i.  flJKP.] 
which  has  befallen  the  old  d  of  the  number  "Ten"  in  several 
Asiatic  anil  Etiropcun-Sanskrit  languages  at  the  end  of  com- 
pounds (p.  lltj).     And  in  the  preceding  case  we  meet  witii 
a  concurrent  phenomenon  in  the  East;  for  in  Prakrit,  iu  the 
compound  under  diseussion,  we  frequently  find  r — which, 
acconling  to  §.  20.,  is  often  the  precursor  of  /—instead  of 
the  Sanskrit  rf;  e.ff.  KXfkM  Idrim,  together  with  Klf^W  tAdina, 
for  nrni  tddriin.*      The    Doric  rdXiKOt  closely    resembles 
ttirixa.    The  i  of  botli  languages,  however,  spring,  not  from 
lh»  Siinskrit  r^  for  this  is  an  abbreviation  of  »r,f  the  a  of 
which,  in  Prakrit  and  Grei^k,  haa  been  weakened  to  i,  while  the 
r  is  dislodged  entirely.     While  \!ko^  is  based  on  the  Sanskrit 
ni  drisd,  nominative  masculine  dr'iaos,   the    pure  radical 
"ra  drvt,  nominative  masculine,  feminine,  and  mnitcr  drik. 
is  also  represented  in  Greek,  via.  by  ^Vf  and  o^ijKi^.     The 
Prakrit  k4rim  resembles    the   interrogative  inj^iKo^  very 
closely;  but  it  must  not  be  overlooked,  tliat  tiie  Prakrit  6  is 


^ipnuiob  to  tha  ^naVjXikrav^a-m,  "flatli,'  ia  the  DlhuAtiian  Jkviuj/u.s, 
ScUvoiiic  krovy,  "blooiJ";  nost  comw  tte  Old  High  Uornuut  bium 
UREWAt  nominfllivo  hrlo,  "  body,"  whieb  preserves  the  origtiul  form 
more  traly  Ihnn  ihe  Gr«k  Kpiai  und  Latin  caro, 

*  In  my  fmt  ilW'uttion  fin  thiH  niibji'cl.  I  vim  nnaoqiiBiDtod  with  the 
reMinlUnrf  ni  the  Priikrit  ta  iu  ^i^fnnio  BiimpoMi  Isttguagos  (««•  lufla- 
I  of  Protioutw  OH  the  FiirniHtioii  of  WortU,  pp,  8  and  37).  Since  ihi™ 
\.  Sobmidt,  also  (Do  Pron.  Gr.  ct  Lat.  p.  72),  hu  ihewa  ihu  DKntcroenl 
«f  the  SAtwkrit  foHDAdons  in  ilnia-g  with  tho  Onfek,  Gothic,  (uid  Lntiii, 
iti  XUox,  leik-M,  and  li-».  Bui  he  overloolis,  in  the  SoiisikTit  rnrmii,  the  lan^ 
Towclof  tbe  pronominal  him;  on  which  ia  liMwd  tlie  Orcok  17.  luorc  iin- 
11II7  il,  and  Latin  a,  wh«nc«  it  ui  not  requiutc  to  iii»k«  the  ndTcrln  nt 
tg,  *j,  the  biuii*  of  the  anid  furnuitiona. 
t  §.  1.  and  VocalUiuuM,  lUiii.  I. 


582 


PEONOONS. 


a  corruption  of  i*"  while  niiJuKtrt  stands  for  itoX/ieoc,  and  is 
Iniscd,  not  on  tbe  Sauskrit  k-idTian'M,  but  on  a  Mtirim'*  to  be 

[O.  Ed.  p.  iSOO.}  expectMl  from  tbc  base  Jea,  and  which  pro- 
bably origiiuilly  existed,  to  which,  also,  tbe  dothic  hxMeiiit 
bcIou(>s. 

416.  In  the  hv&kika  (theme  livfieika)  just  meDtioaed,  with 
wliicb  the  German  wttcher,  "whicli"  is  connected,  as  also  in 
hvihrnh  {%.  A09.).  the  (Sothic  baa  retained  the  vowel  length, 
which  ts  tbousaudfi  of  years  old,  with  this  dillercuoe  only,  tbat<l 
is  replaced  by  9,  a  circumstaner  of  rare  occurrence  ($,  69.). 
There  is  uo  deaiouatrative  thiU-'iks  corresponding  to  hviltrila, 
but  instead  of  it  avaleika,  German  aolcher,  "  sucb,"  like  avatiiud* 
for  lIuHauds  (§.  409.);  but  the  Anglo  Saxon  and  Old  Northern 
employ  tliylic.  thilikr.  corresponding  to  the  Greek  ti^'icoc 
and  Sanskrit /A/fiia-*  (Grimm  III.  4u.).  The  Gothic  U-ila. 
"similar."  however,  oct-iirs  also  in  combinations  other  than 
the  ancient  pronominal  onea ;  never,  however,  by  itself,  but 
instead  of  it  ia  used  ija-leika,  our  gleicli,  from  ge-lekh,  which 
may  be  luoktnl  upon  us  the  coutinuatiiin  of  the  Sanslifit 
tadriiti-t  mentioned  above :  for  as  the  inseparable  preposi- 
tion VI  aa,  W  tarn,  has,  in  Gothic,  become  ga  (Grimm  11. 
1018.],  so  may  also  tiie  pronominal  base,  from  which  those 
prepositions  have  spnmg,  be  expected  as  prefix  in  the  form  of 
ga.  In  naaleihi.^  German  iihulich,  "  like,"  iimi,  in  my  opinion. 
stands,  in  like  manner,  as  a  pronoun,  not  as  a  preposition,  and 
answers  to  tbe  Sanskrit- Li thuaniim  demunstrative  base  ana 
($.372.)-.  auti-leih  therefore  sif^nifies  "to  this  like."  tu  the 
other  compouutls,  also,  of  this  kind,  with  the  exception  of 
manleitti  (theme -/«lmn),  "likeness,"  literally  "man-rewm- 
blinff,'  the  first  member  of  the  word  corresponds  monj  or 
leas  to  a  pronominal  idea.  These  compounds  are  anihartriiei, 
"variety."  which  prc-supposca  an  adjective  anikarleila,  as 


•  Hocftr  De  Pniltrita  DuUecta,  p.  29. 
t  To  be  dcducrd  f  mm  tltu  otlrub  anaUikd. 


I'RO  NOONS. 


583 


connected  in  sense  witli  tlie  Sanskrit  anyA-driia-s,  "  to  another 
like,"  "of  a  different  kind,"  whence  o/yn/eitt,  deducing  it  from 
o/ya/eiJMs,  cr^p»tfS.  is  the  countertypu  in  form :  lO,Ed.p.60I.] 
tamnleikA.  'o-ov,  which  prc-8iippo3ca  an  adjtxtivc  *inwi/ciA(n)-*« 
"  to  the  same  like."  analogous  to  the  Greek  ofupu^  and  Lslin 
similis:*  tbrnihikt,  "equal."  like  the  simple  f6n(n)>a;  acoonl- 
inj{  to  its  origin,  the  former  signifies  "  seeming;  equal ": 
fjiiaaalc'th,  "  various."  I  cannot  avoid  expressing  here  the 
conjecture  that  tJie  Gothic  prefix  mista,  German  mi»«,  may  be 
of  pronominal  origin,  and  connected  with  tlie  Lithuauiou  baae 
ffiSSrf,  nominative  iclua-i,  "all."  and  tbereforc  atso  with 
the  Sanskrit  f^nj  risKvi,  hy  the  very  common  exchange  of 
V  for  m  (§.  fiS.}.  According  to  the  explanation  given  above 
(^.392.)  of  ft^  vmva,  this  word,  through  the  signification 
of  the  preposition  ft|  ui,  would  be  very  well  adapted  to  ex- 
preea  the  idea  of  variety.  And  tho  Gothic  mism  (the  bare 
ttiemc)  might  originally  have  signified  ulius,  and  still  be  identi- 
cal with  the  Sanskrit- Lithuanian  term  for  "all";  at  least  its  in- 
lltieBce  in  composition  is  similar  to  the  German  aber.  which  is 
akin  to  the  Soufikrit  apara,  "oliun"  (8ee§.  350.),  in  compounds 
like  Abenvilx,  "  deliriam,"  Aberglaube,  "  superstition."'  The 
Gennaa  Misaclhnt.  tlierefore.  GotUic  mhsad&ls,  "misdeed," 
would  hc^  Aher-Thiit,  "n  deed  different  from  the  right";  and 
Mhxgttnxt.  "  ilUwili."  would  be  //Act-j/hmV,  "'  wrong-will";  and 
tl»e  missoleih  given  above  would  originally  signify  "  to  other 
like."  This  conjecture  is  powerfully  supported,  and  con- 
Grmed  almost  beyond  doubt,  by  the  adverb  missi\  which 
springs  from  the  theme  MISS  J  (compare  p.  384),  which 
signifies  "  oncanotlier":  ydleilh  isvis  mmft,     {O.  Ed.  p.Wi.'] 


*  The  Bi'miilc  ranta  (tlicnie  aaman)  mcaiu  "  the  kuidf,"  and  corresponds 
to  the  Soiukrit  tama-t,  *'*<]Oft],'*  "  uniiliir,"  iui<]  Greek  Sftn-t,  tho  thcoie 
bdiig  tiuigtlM^Dpil  hy  nn  n.  To  this  hend,  hlau,  muut  he  rrfcrred  tumi 
(tlicme  mjnm),  "any  one,"  wfiich  hiu  intnxliirud  a  u  oa  Recount  of  th^ 
liquid,  bat  to  make  up  for  thia  btia  dropped  the  n. 


584 


PHO  NOUNS. 


a<nta<ra<Tdc  «AA^\ouf  (i  Cor.  xvi.  «u).  Tho  original  meaning 
'•  all "  is  still  perceptible  in  thia,  as  missrf,  in  one  word,  ex- 
pressea  "  the  one  and  the  other."  In  Germau,  the  Ikfi,  which 
is  based  on  tlio  Gotliic  leikx'  and  which  in  wflcher  anil  sMtcr 
has  dropped  the  /,  and  iti  fjlclch  gives,  act-ording  to  rule,  «  as 
answering  to  the  old  i,  ia  ntueli  more  extensively  diffused,  and 
has  eompletelyaisnmed  the  chiimcler  of  n  deriviitivo  suflix  m 
words  like  j'ilirlich,  "  yearly,"  joiftBwr/wfc,  "lamentable "yriiri- 
lich,  "fortunate."  tchm^zlick,  "painfu!,"  &c.f  The  occur- 
rence of  the  simple  vrord  in  Northern,  Anglo-Saxon,  and 
Buglish.may  be  explained  by  its  being  formed  by  abbreriating 
tbe  Gothic  galeiks,  our  rjle'ich,  by  remo^nng  the  entire  prefix. 

417.  An  objection  against  tlie  identity  of  the  Gothic  suffix 
itihi  and  Greek  Tuxo;  could  liatxlly  bo  raised  from  the  non> 
mutation  of  sound  in  the  middle  tenuis,  t  refer  the  reader. 
on  this  head,  to  §.  B9.,  for  example  to  the  connection  of  the 
Gothic  dipa  and  Old  Uigb  German  inaucpia  with  tUu  Sau- 
skrit  SKvipinii,  Latin  sopio,  and  Greek  vWvod  in  spite  of  tlio 
retention  of  the  old  ttmuis.  The  long  i  (in  Golliic  writteu 
ei)  ID  tli«  Germanic  formation,  answering  to  the  short  i  lo 
the  Greek  haxo^,  and  Prakrit  rim  or  dim,  will  still  less  be 
aground  for  reje4;ting  the  identity  of  tbe  siifiix  under  di»- 
cUBiiOD  in  tbe  three  languages;  for  as  the  original  form  ia 
durka  (see  p.  598  G.  ed.),  the  rejection  of  the  r  may  well 
have  been  compensated  by  lengthening  tbe  preceding  vowel; 
and  the  Gennanie,  tiicreforc,  in  this  respect,  approaches  the 
original  form  one  d^ree  closer  than  the  toguate  Hellenic 
and  Prakrit  idiom. 

[Gr.  Ed.  p.  603.]  4 18.  The  Old  Sclavonic  exliibits  our  suffix 
exactly  in  the  same  form  us  the  Gnxk,  in  the  masculine  and 
neuter /r'^-u,  nominative  masculine  lik  (according  to  §,  2a7.). 
neuter /(Ao;  hence  totii,  toliko,  "taiis"  "tale"  or  "tan/us," 
"  (oij^wm."^ Greek  T»)\r(cof,  tij^jWi',  and  Prakfit,  tAr'i^f.  /drin/ii. 

*  Rcfptrding  Uikt,  tux,  loo,  p.  1442.  G.  til. 

t  Si'«  itivOMlligh  GcTiuBQcetiipoundBOf  tliis  kioditiGraff  II.  100. 


PRONOUNS. 


589 


Sanskrit  tiiJriins,  tAdriitim :  tiJik,  kaliko,  "qunlia"  "  qutiU," 
"  t/untifiis,"  "  qiinnium?  "s=Greek  inf\iKog,  irij\iK«v,  Prakrit 
itiritd,  k^ruai,  Sanskrit  kitiriao*,  ktdrixam :  wlil;  ydiko,  rcla- 
tivcsGrcck  ij^/xof,  ijKiKov,  Prakrit  y^mrf,  yArhnn,  Sanskrit 
ywirisin,  t/dJrisam.  With  respect  to  \he  relative  expression, 
it  is  imjortant  to  remark,  tlint,  in  this  derivntive,  the  bAso 
«<•  (euphonic  for ««,)  which  cominonly  8igni6es  "he "(§.889.), 
hru  preserved  the  original  relative  signification  without  thii 
elsewliere  necessary  eoolitic  ithe.  Dobrowaky,  however 
(p.  344),  in  assuming  ik  alono  in  thia  derivative  as  suffix 
"  hiferposilo  tumen  f."  appears  not  to  have  noticeJ  the  sur- 
prising similarity  of  the  Greek  forms  in  Xi»t*r,  otlierwise  he 
would  have  assigned  to  the  /  a  more  important  share  in  the 
work  of  derivation.  But  the  Sclavonic  forms  differ  from  those 
of  the  cognate  languages  in  this,  that  tliey  do  not  lengthen 
the  final  vowel  of  llie  primitive  pronoun,  or  replace  o  by  a ; 
for,  aewrding  to  4.  255.  a.,  the  Sckvonie  o  corrcs|Jond3  to  the 
Sanskrit  short  a,  and  n  to  the  long  A.  We  should  therefore 
look  for  tnfik  as  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  hhirisn-s,  and 
Priikrit  Uirini.  It  cannot,  however,  be  matter  of  surprise, 
that,  in  the  course  of  thousands  of  years,  vrliidi  separate  the 
Sclavonic  from  identity  with  its  cognate  idioms,  a  weakening 
of  the  vowel  should  have  taken  place  in  the  preceding  ease  ; 
as  shortenings,  weaki!nin<;s.  and  abrasions  of  sounds,  are  the 
most  common  alterations  which  time  introduces  into  the 
original  fonn  of  a  language.  There  are,  however,  in  Scla- 
vonic, other  formations  of  cognate  meaning,  in  which  the 
base  syllable  has  retained  the  old  weight  of  the  vowels,  wliite 
the  suffix  has  been  abbreviated  by  drop-  CO- KJ- ?■  ^04.] 
ping  the  svttable  li,  and  appears   in  combination  with  the 

k affix  of  the  definite  declension:  hence  tnki/l,   •' tulh,"  knkyt. 
"yua/M?"  yf%(,  "ywuTut"  (relative).*    The  simple  ncuturs, 


•  Dolnowiky  {p.  313)  Incorrectly  rcgsHs  oA:  M  dMivaUrr,  au»o  in 

q  g  Nspect 


6S6 


PRONOUNS. 


that  is.  those  divested  of  the  de6nitc  prcQx  lako.  kaleo,  occv 
as  adverbs,  the  former  with  the  signirication  "30."  the  latter 
with  that  of  *'  how  ?"    By  the  rcjectioo  of  the  Byllflble  /i.  taJeyi 
nnd  its  corrclntives.  in  respect  to  their  Inst  element,  become 
identical  with  the  interrogative  hyl,  "quit?"  which  is  lilce- 
wieoderhncd  dc&nitcly;  aud  tliorc-forc  vrc  cannot  entirely 
set  aside  the  objection,  that  /ri/'^t"  is  a  coiupound  of  the  ile- 
monstrativc  witli  thu  iiitcri-ogative.     Tlie  cx]>lanatioo,  bow- 
ever,  given  above  is  to  lie  preferred,  beuiuse  by  it  the  a  of  the 
first  member  of  the  compound,  ns  also  tJio  signiOcniion  of 
the   whole,  is  shewn    to  liavc  a  very  ancient  foundation ; 
while  by  the  second  mode  we  should  not  be  uble  to  see  why 
tokyi,  wiffjl,  koktf},  should  oot  be  used,  or tkyi*  ikiji;  and  why 
the  mere  appending  of  the  interrogative  to  tlie  pronoun 
preceding  should  have  t}te  same  effect  as  the  suffix  under  dis- 
cussion hiis  in  the  cognate  loiiguages. 

-119.  But  if  tlie  Old  Sclavonic  correlatiTea  (ahji,  kaJeyi, 
Vakgi,  arc  abbreviations  of  tnlihji,  &«.,  then  Uic  analogous 
and  aHiiii-signiGcnnt  Lithuanian  forms  ti^kx,  "tnlis."  icoks, 
"  tjvalia"  (theme  tukin,  kok'm,  see  §.4  LI.),  must  also  be  viewed 
in  this  light,  and  tlic  ikgrccuieut  of  the  former  with  the 
[G.  Ed.  p.  60A.]  tock'm  (Grimm.  Ilf.  49.),  which  exists  in 
Old  Swedish,  togetlier  with  Mik  and  iolkin,  would  conse- 
quently not  be  fortuitous.  The  Latin  suRix  Vi  in  laiis, 
qualia,  trijudlU.f  exhibits  a  contrary  abbreviation,  since  it 
has  retained  the  initial  part  of  the  original  adjective  of 


itspcct  t«  the  primitive  pronoon  he  proceeds  from  (he  abbreviated  nominn- 
tm  nA«ralia«  (',  /^,  J,  sad,  in  ^oeral,  is  in  the  dork  itRanliuK  ths  Ibenie 
of  th«  luce  words,  and  tlie  bScioricnl  rvlntion  of  tkc  » to  a,  developed  in 
$.  36C.  a.,  ihroDgli  the  SaiuVrit,  na  nJoo  its  Irnglh. 

■  Ac(«idi&g  1«  thir analogy  oikt4,cfitv,  §.  400. 

t  MfttaUt  b,  pntiably,  wiifa  nig&rd  to  \\i  last  denent,  w  far  Identical 
with  gitafia,  as  tcfuiu  is  moat  probably  connected  witb  iliv  Hantkrit 
nit,  f^"-'  "  mitt,"  omI  th«  Istler  is,  iu  tta  final  sjrUablo,  itlcDtical  with 
thu  intmrcf^TH  bsae  H  (^  308. ). 

; 


I 

4 


PBONOUNS. 


587 


similaritr,  as  also  the  long  vowel  of  the  proaominal  base,  but 
has  lost  the  last  syllable,  or  the  guttural  only,  of  irrr* 
tAdrik,  irt^  ki'drik  (§.  415..  p.  597  G.  cd.).  ^'U'C-c,  ofj^iK-^. 
Tile  identity  of  tbc  formation  lies  beyond  all  doubt,  and  Voss 
has  alrendy  shewn  that  lulh  is  identical  with  Ta\/'Kor>  To  the 
constant  oecurrence  of  a  long  a  in  these  ancient  forms  may 
be  asfrribed  the  fact,  tliat,  in  more  tnodem  formationa  of  this 
sort,  particularly  bclonginfj  to  the  Latin,  an  u  is  inserted 
before  the  suffijc,  or  added  to  the  primitive  base,  in  case 
it  termiuates  with  a  consonant ;  hence,  regMis*  legaiia, 
cimjughlh,  kiemalis,  camalh.  augural'a,  &c.  Oti  the  other 
hand,  in  bases  with  a  short  final  vowel  this  is  merely 
lengthened,  and  the  u  (")  of  the  second  declension  is 
changed  into  a  long  t  instead  of  the  short  r,  which  is  else- 
where introduced  before  suffixes ;  hence,  cUi-tis,  hosti- 
lis,  juvenhlig,  from  ctvi,  hasti,  jiireni  ;f  and  so.  also,  viri4ls 
from  viru,  pueri'lh  from  puera,  ttrH-iu  from  scrvij,  &c. : 
ani-liii,  also,  from  the  organic  u  of  the  fourth  declension, 
whieh  is  no  less  subject  to  he  weakened  to  i.  as  ie  proved  by 
the  dative-ablatives  in  i-hai.  Here,  perltaps,  may  be  classed, 
abo,  thongh  with  a  short  r,  words  in  ti-tit  [O.  Ed.  p.  609.] 
or  $i-lis,  which  spring  either  from  lost  abstracts  in  fi'-s.  «-9,t 
or  passive  participles,  the  u  of  which  must  he  weakened 
before  the  new  suffix  to  i;  thus,  ficti-l'a.  missi-lii.  eitlier 
from  the  obsolete  abstracts  fidi-t,  miin-f — whence  the 
secondary  forma _;fc(fo,  mistio^r  from  _^ctuii  (weakened  from 
/actus,  §.6.).  mhttis.  So,  also.  »imi-iia,  with  short  i,  from 
the  loat  primitive  simu-a  =  Sanskrit  anma-a,  "  similar," 
Gothic  sama  (theme  aamnn),  and  Greek  e/io-j  ;  and  humi-ii». 


*  ij  to  fomu  UIm  rf^dlis  wo  «bo  $,  D4S.  conelnaion. 

f  Froio  iho  primitive  base  jtiwnesSanikrii  juMn,  CMnes  _;i«iCTinfi«; 
gtnttUt  come*  from  a  hasc  gent*  (compare  l,itliu*nian  jenfii,  "  kiiumaa  "), 
tlie  i  of  whjd),  and  WQaequetidy  the  (  «l*o,  ar«  wpprcMed  In  the  nonl- 
iiAtiTe  gmt. 

\  CompKJt:  IibfluenceorPronounaon  the  Forroation  of  Words,  p,%l. 

Qg2 


588 


PEONOOKS. 


from  humu-a.  The  a  of  the  £rat  dcclonsioD,  which  is  ori- 
gioally  long  ($.  US.),  has  prcstTveil  its  teiigth  before  this 
suflix ;  hence,  vitalh,  bealiulis,  amphoTulis,  As  thu  u  of  the 
secoml  decleusion,  according  to  its  derivation,  reprcacnta 
a  short  n  ($.  116.),  und,  in  tlie  fuminine,  passes  into  n,  it  is  not 
fixtfiiordinary  that,  in  this  class  of  words  also,  ndjootives 
Id  a-lU  occur,  instead  of  i-iit,  as  fata-lis,  inferna-lh,  libera-lh. 
So,  also,  naurfu-lia,  from  eaurie-a.  where  it  ia  to  be  observed 
that  the  i  of  the  fifth  decleiisiou  8pniig;8  from  a  (§§.  121.  and 
137.):  on  the  other  liaod.  in  fide-lh.  the  e  is  retained. 
Fnme-Ucua  stands  alone,  and  is  remarkable^,  as  it  lias  pre- 
served oar  suffix  entire,  and  its  hcus  corresponds  exactly  to 
the  Greek  \fVof.  If.  as  I  readily  asgume  with  JVL  {Schmidt 
(1.  c.  p.  73),  fetic-a,  also,  should  be  classed  here,  aa  analogooa 
to  v-^f>  if^h^t*  s^l  I  <l^  "Ot  look  for  its  primitive  element 
in  the  root/c,  from  which  coma  /e-tus,  fe-lura.  fe-mina,  Sic, 
but  in  a  lost  substnntive  base,  which  is.  in  Sanskrit,  *n\ 
hhAj,  and  signifies  "  forHine,"f  Felix,  therefore,  would  have 
[<J.  EtI.  p.  607.]  lust  a  guttuml,  ns  ful-mm  for  fulg-nten, 
lu'-men  for  luc-men ;  and  in  respect  to  its  last  element;  and 
the  BignificatioD  of  ita  first  member,  it  would  agree  excel- 
leutty  with  our  glitck-licb,  "  fortunate."  Here  it  is  to  be 
observed,  that  tlie  aulTix  under  discussion  dues  not  form, 
in  the  cc^iate  languages,  any  primitive  words  direct  from 
the  roots,  but  only  derivatives  or  compounds.  Contrary, 
tltorcfore,  to  my  former  conjeeture,  I  can  no  longer  class 
words  like  ngilit,  froijilh,  tlodlis,  iu  respect  to  tlicir  suffix, 
with  words  like  the  abovemcutioned,  civilht,  ur'ilh,  terviUa, 
In  tbc  former,  the  /  is,  perhaps,  primitive,  and  not,  as  in 
tlie  latter,  a  comiption  old.  In  this  case,  a  sufBx  la  or 
iia,    in    Sanskrit,    presents    itself  for    comparison,    as    in 


*  Bolwitlilongililte  the  Gothic  &U«<$.  417.). 
t  Uomiiaf*  BwuMtfl-WJj,  "having  bod  fortuue,"  "nnfortoulo,' 
oognats  bMga  it  raont  usod. 


The 


PEOKOUNS. 


089 


an-ila-St  "  wind,"  from  on.  "  to  blow,"  to  which  we  shall 
return  when  treating  of  the  formation  of  words.  I  am 
unnble  to  cite,  in  Zutid,  an  adjective  in  combination  with 
pronuminal  bases,  corresponding  to  the  Sanskrit  driJ, 
driia,  or  drikskn ;  but  I  iiiid,  V.  S.  p.  30.  the  expression 
iiiJ»^M^<^»it»w  hvaredaresa,  "like  the  sun";  and  by  it  tlie 
opinion  given  above  ia  confirmed,  that  tlie  ri  of  tlic  Sanskrit 
forms  is  an  abbreviation  of  or. 

PRONOMINAL  ADTESDS. 
■130.  Locative  adverbs  are  formed,  in  Sanskrit,  by  the 
tuffix  (to,  which  is  attached  dlrcclJy  to  the  true  theme; 
hence,  a^rOt  "  here,"  ta-lra,  "  there,"  amu-tra,  "  yonder," 
ku-^ra,  "  where  ?"  ya-lra,  "  where  "  (relative).  Thia  tra, 
which  is.  in  Zeud,  according  to  §.47.,  m7(^  thra  {ilhra, 
"here;"  avathrot  "there,"  yatkra.  "where"),  ia  probably  a 
contraction  of  the  comparative  suffix  tnm.  and.  with  rtrgard 
to  its  termination,  perhaps  an  instniniental  (see  p.  3S 1 ).  The 
Latin  pronominal  adverbs  ci-tra  and  ul'tro,  [G-  E^-  p-  fiOS.} 
therefore,  are  of  the  same  class,  excluding  the  difference  of 
the  cosc-furuia.  and  also  the  Gothic  abUtivu  adverbs  in 
thrii,  mentioned  at  p.  384 ;  compare,  Ikn-lhni.  "  thence," 
with  m  ta-tra.  "  thern"  ;  hmlkriJ,  "  whence?"  with  »T  kiUra, 
"  where  ?"  and  fl/vfly/irO  "  aliunde,"  vntii  w^vmtnyatra,  "alibU"' 
Locative  pronominal  adverbs  are  also  formed  In  Zeud  by 
the  suSix  Mi^^dha  (see  p.  386.  &c.).  which,  in  Sanskrit,  is 
abbreviated  to  hiu  hut  is  found  only  in  i-hn,  "  here,"  and  sa-ha, 
"  with "  (VBdic  sa-dka).  In  Greek,  as  has  been  already  r^ 
marked,  the  suffLx.  9a  of  evSa,  ivravda,  corresjwnds ;•  and  pro- 
bably, also,  jfo  in  itavTaj(6-dev,  See,  us  well  iis  ire  (p.  389),  which 
expresses  direction  to  a  place,  unless  the  latter  lias  been 

k*  Pngc  387.  With  rcaptct  lo  tho  coDJcctare  ihcro  wcprvaed  irgardio); 
aponlble  theniiiticid«Ditity  bctwren  Jv&n,  ttfijitHiA,  ami  TT'^".  wFtf  to 
L 


690 


I'HONOUNS. 


abbreviated  from  ^  tra,  by  rejoctiog  the  r  and  weakeuing 
the  t  to  t.      In  Gotliic,  the  aiiffix  tk  or  d  most  certainly 

corresponds,  in  fonns  like  hva-Ui  or  hva-<f,  "  whither," 
ati/a-lh,  oXA«r€,  yaiti-tl  (tor  yointi'd).  eKeioe.  The  conjunction 
itfi,  "but,"  "if."  "for,"  ia  completely  ideatica!  v»iili  mi^ 
idha,  tx  »Aa.'  The  e  of  c-is  and  ui-e  in  Latin  boa  been 
already  comjiorcd  with  ft  (§,  395.,  p.  572  G.  cd.  Note). 

421.  lu  Sanskrit,  adverbs  are  formed  by  tlie  suffix  ini 
taa,  not  ouly  from  pronominal  bases,  bat  also  From  aubstiin- 
lives  and  adjectives,  expressing  removal  from  a  place,  and 
[G  Ed.  p.  609.]  frequently  Bubstitutwl  for  llm  ablative. 
The  suQix  las,  as  haa  been  before  remarked  (p.  471,  Note  '),  is 
connected  also  in  foroi  with  the  ablative  character,  and  ap- 
pears oiily  a  prolongation  of  it,  or  it  may  be  that  the  ablative 
hi  au  abbreviation  of  it  In  Latin,  the  suJEx  (iw  corres|X)nds  re- 
{^utarly;  compare  cceliTVS  with  mvari/aT^S.  "from  heaven." 
The  -syllable  (ar  of  ig'ttur,  may  also  be  related  to  it.  the  t 
being  exchanged  for  r.  The  preceding  tgi  would  then,  as 
has  been  eUewhcre  remarked  {Demonstrative  Bases,  p.  8), 
admit  of  compariaon  with  ^  (An.  "  here";  to  which,  with 
regard  to  the  y,  it  bears  the  same  relation  that  ego  does 
to  Wfn  aham.  lifUm,  therefore,  would  origlnrdly  signify 
"hencjc,"  or  "from  lliis"  (ground).  In  Sanskrit  tliere  is 
a  modification  of  the  suSix  under  discussion,  formed  by 
changing  the  tenuis  to  the  sonant  aspirate  in  fTRI  a-tUtas, 
""  bene-ati)."  and  on  this  ia  based  the  Greek  Bw  and  Sela- 
vooic  di  (see  pp.  3T9,  380).t     Compare, 


"  Pp.dB0,3ft9.  ThoSoDskrit  «(/An>qQirM  theGre«k  tf  i  bat.aocoid. 
ingto  lti«  nilcs  far  Uiu  permntatioii  of«oaii(Is.thcOoltuc  t/oom'sponda 
to  the  Greek  6:  nttlic  end  of  AWArd,  how^rdr,  M  i»  [inferred  to  d  0.01.) 

t  I  w-isli  to  limit  what  liubceDHiiilat^  ■200  Item,  intbbparlicalar,  tfa&t 
ibMg^  ono&fi}  sad  ounUii  urc  rompouods  of  tutti,  the  u  otonadf/t  and  nU^ 
hu  bent  lioveJopod  from  the  »  of  iiti>  Inmr  0.\'0,  TO,  {iK-cbvly  u  th«  d 
at6d£i,  or  yidi,  and  urfye  (for  f/^^)  rroiii  fO.    I  therefore  cooaider  llu! 

tortaa 


J 


PBONOUNS. 


S91 


ku4aM,*         Tt6-9sy, 
t/t-taa,  r6-Bev, 

yatatt  S-6ev, 


OLD  acUTomc 


The  Latin  offeps  for  comparison  uitrf*-,  fop  [G.  Ed.  p.6IO.] 
cundff  {ali-eund^)  and  inde,  the  rf^of  whicli  I  have  scarcely  any 
doubt  it  ccunected  with  the  Siinskrit  suffix  laa  or  dims,  the 
Greek  Bev,  and  Sclavonic  di,  Vndf  has,  in  addition,  rcvviTcd 
a  nasnt,  whicli  is  uot  to  be  cxpliuiied  by  transposition  from  the 
Greek  56V.  Bs  the  blending  of  nasnt  Rounds,  which  are  <;overut*d 
liy  tli«  organ  of  the  consonant  following,  is  very  common. 
Remark  the  fre(]nently.mentioncd  relation  ofambo,  «;u^u,  to 
the  Sanskrit  ThI  ubhAu.  and  Sclavonic  nbn.  Aliunde,  au- 
swcring  to  the  Sanskrit  anyatm,  "  elsewhere,"  need  not  be 
reg;an]nJ  as  a  oompound  of  uade;  but  it  is  probable  that  the 
u  of  aiiu-nde  belongs  to  the  theme  of  alius,  and  corrcspoudst 
therefore,  to  the  Indian  a  of  anifa-lus.  So.  also,  ali-bi  and 
fdiu-bi  are  scarcely  compounds  of  ib'i  and  iibi,  but  combina- 
tions of  the  dative  termination  hi,  which  is  contained  in  ti-hi^ 
ai^i,  i-bi,  and  u-b'i,  with  the  base  ALIV,  either  suppressing 
the  final  vowel — whence  ali'b'i — or  retaining  it  as  in  aUu-bi, 
Whether,  liowevcr,  a  nasal  lias  been  inserted  in  iudt,  depends 
upon  whether  it  springs  from  the  base  i — whence  is,  ibi, 
&c. — or  from  (ii=Sanskril  ana  (J.  373.)  The  very  isolated 
pri'position  de,  in  Latin,  is.  perhaps,  an  abbreviation  of  iheSaa* 
okrit  wwt^  adhat, "  below,"  and  therefore,  in  origin,  identical 
with  the  a»]ui-40uant  suffix  of  indt,  undd  and  aliuntie,  A 
form  h'Mide  or  ku-ndc,  Uti-nde  or  isttt-ndc,   and  itlunde  or 

kttt»iide,  might  also  be  expected.     But  instead  of  these  wo 
fan 
nat 
; 


totmst&dti,  "  iheace,"  ani  kadCi,  "vficnw?"  wliicli  occor  only  In  comW- 
natkin  wlili  tha  pra^ioeitioQ  ot,  a«  eimpU. 

Frnro  th«  wealiened  base  ihi  (^.389.),  tot  kal<ii,  to  Ije  expected  from 
KAjOa  wlitcti  uetMH'J  tlie  Greek  inSAf,  iron)  «otf(f, anil  ^dnvaaicAii*/^ 


592 


PRONOCNS. 


tind  hinc,  iftine,  iUhic,  regardiDg  which  it  is  unkuowu  irlipDce 
comes  tJieir  meaning  of  removnl  from  a  plncp.  tintesa  tJie 
syllabic  de,  as  exponent  of  this  diroction,  has  been  removed 
from  them,  and  the  enclitic  c  has  assumed  its  place,  ^bich 
would  surprise  us  least  id  kinc     Hinc  may,  perhaps,  be  aa 

[O.  Ed.  p.  euj  abbreviiition  of  kindc,  as  the  neuter  hoc  is 
of  hodr  (§.  39j..p.  572  G.  ed.).  The  locative  adverbs  Aic.  ifUc. 
ivtie*  I  regard  as  datives,  of  wliicli  the  ehftraeier,  according 
to  §.  200.,  has  been  taken  from  the  Sunskiit  locative ;  and 
wbicbt  in  ruri,  al»o  has  retained  tlie  originn]  meaning.  IttU 
and  illk  an*,  for  the  use  of  langunffe,  suiTieiently  distinguished 
by  the  ap^icnded  encEitic  c  from  the  rornis  u(i  and  ilU,  which 
are  used  for  tlie  dative  relation ;  nlule  for  hie  a  distinction 
from  the  projier  dative  niUHt  be  very  differently  sought  in 
the  dropping  tJie  euphonic  u  ^from  v).f  Hie,  therefore,  is, 
in  tliis  res^M-ct,  distinguished  from  huk,  as  tlie  nominative 
hkt  for  which  huic  might  be  expected,  from  qVu 

423.  Adverbs  of  time  are  formed  in  Sanskrit  by  the  suffix 
^rfil.  heiiec  tr(fM.  *' when?"  (a</rf,  "  then ";  yatlA.  "when" 
"  at  which  time 'V'tut/d,  "once";  mirfd,  "always":  the  latter 
springB  from  the  euei^tie  demonstrative  base  f^i  (§.345.), 
whenc-e  also  iuiTi--a, '•  every  "  (§.381.).  Perhaps  the  Greek 
re  is,  ID  an  anomalous  manner,  connected  with  this  c/d.  by  a 
permutation  of  souitd,  which  lias  become  a  principle  in  Ger* 
manic,  aiuce  nearly  all  old  mcdials.  aa  far  as  they  Iiavc  not 
experienced  a  second  modification  in  High  German,  become 
teDues.  In  Sclavonic  the  auDix  yi/u  corres]x>nd9,  nhieh  I 
think  must  be  divided  inlo  g-da,  since  I  regard  it  as  a  deri- 
vative of  tlie  inlerrti^tive  base,  which  has  ceased  to  be  nsed 
atone,  and  whidi  may  have  signified  "  when  ^'  or  "  once  on  a 
time";  and  the  guttural  tenuis  has  been  weakened  to  a  medial, 
on  account  of  tho  d  following,  according  to  the  analogy  of 
gdye,  "  where  P"  (§.  293.  Rem.).     This  yda.  nnconscious  of  its 

•  Viik  p.  IS27  O.  ed.  Nats  t. 
t  8Mp.64l>aod^$.«M.JUU. 


J 


PRONOUNS. 


593 


(lerivatioD,  is  combined  with  the  iaterrogatiTe  itself;  henoe 
kogda,  "  when  ?"  aiid  /ujrfo,  "  then."  But  lu  MSS.  is  found  for 
inogda,  "  at  another  Unn.-,"  also  the  eitaple  [O.  El  p.  612.] 
i7ir/i7,  as  a  more  exact  countcrtypt;  uf  the  Satisltrit  anya-diit 
but  with  the  »  of  tlie  baae  ISO  suppresau),  which  is  retained 
in  inmjda  and  simiE»r  forms,  to  avoid  tlie  great  accumulation 
of  consonants.  Together  willi  yeytJn.  are,  the  simple  ijftia 
also  occtirs,  but  with  a  change  of  signifieation,  viz.  as  nn 
iDterr<^tivc  particle  (Dobr.  p.  432).  In  Lithuanian  the 
simple  suQix  appears  both  in  tlie  uuweakencd  interrogative 
baac,  and  in  other  pronouns  and  words,  the  nature  of  wliit-h 
bordvr.s  on  tliat  of  pronouns,  and  which,  in  Sanskrit,  arc 
declined  likn  pronouns.  Thus,  niekutiti,  "never."  after  with- 
drawing the  negative  element,  corresponds  to  tlie  Saoskfit 
itadd,  "once";  haJa,  "when,"  and /uc/u.  •"then,"  arc  iden- 
tical with  the  S«nsk|-it  expressions  of  the  same  sound  and 
siguification;  witsadii  means  "always,"  and  anday  {(or anadei), 
"at  tiiat  time."  It  may  be  allowed  here  to  mention  two 
other  Lithuanian  adverbs  of  time,  which  are  not.  indeed,  con- 
nected with  tlie  sulTix  i/(I>  but  required  previous  mention  on 
other  oecounts ; — I  mean  dnbAr,  "  now,"  and  i-omet,  "  when  ?" 
In  the  first  part  of  da-hnr  I  believe  may  be  seen  a  weakened 
form  of  tlie  demonstrative  base  ^l ;  in  the  latter,  a  remoaat 
of  the  term  for  "  time,"  mentioned  at  p.  42j ;  viz.  VK  vAra. 
Iltnigali  h^T.  and  therefore  a  word  akin  to  the  syllable  -6er 
in  the  Latin  names  for  mouths.  As  regards,  however,  the 
final  portion  of  komet,  it  recalls,  on  account  nf  the  frequent 
interchange  of  v  and  m,  the  sufHx  vol  in  the  Sanskpit  adverbs 
of  time,  Mwi(,  "now,"  yrivut,  "at  wliich  time"  [§.  413.),  witb 
^^  which  wo  have  endeavoured  to  compare  the  Greek  r^noi, 

H  ijfioc.  We  return  to  the  sufGx  dti,  in  order  to  remark,  tlial, 
H  by  a  perversion  of  the  language,  it  is  so  regarded  as  though 
^M  the  adverbs  formed  with  it  were  substantives  or  adjectives 
H  capable  of  declension.  Thus  arise  the  forms  in  d<ii,  dait 
^L         and  doia;  the  two  first  with  feuiiuiuu  geni-      l*i.  Ed.p.018.] 


594 


PRONOUNS. 


live  )uid  dative  terminatloD.  tlie  last  with  the  masculine 
plaral  instrumental  tertniiintiun.  Heuue,  for  the  niekadii  meu- 
tioned  above,  we  fimi  also  ni«kadiU,  mek-adni,  and  nickndoix. 
For  dai  U  also  written  dny ;  Iicdcc  taday  as  well  as  tada  \  and 
the  form  tad  occurs  witli  <l  suppressed,  and  taddn,  iadday,  nitb 
d  doubled,  just  as  kad,  kaddu,  kadday,  for  kudii.  To  the 
latter,  nud  to  the  Saiislcrit  ^i^  hulA,  perhaps  the  Latiu 
tjuando  correspoads ;  so  that  a  nnsiil  would  liave  heen  inserted 
before  the  T  sound,  tu  above  in  unde  (p.  591).  The  cor- 
relative tando,  however,  is  wanting-.  The  following  table 
muy  Serve  as  a  general  view  of  the  points  of  comparison 
obtained ; 


uncttrT. 


OLOtCL- 


«RnK. 


LAtlil. 


kod^.  kadfi,  kogda, 

tad'}.  tadii.  toydti, 

yadii.  .  .  ^fegda, 

avtfodA,        .  .  inda. 


noTC  tjuando, 
t6t«  .  .  . 

ore  .  .  . 

oAAore         .  .  . 


423.  The  suffix  dA  is  combined  in  Sanskrit  with  n(m, 
which  appears  to  me  to  bo  an  accusative  form  of  a  femi- 
nine pronominal  base  nu  that  the  masculine  and  neuter  nu 
(§.369.)  might  easily  form  io  the  feminine,  «s  well  as  nd 
(sec  §.  172.).  Thus  arise  laddni'm,  "then,"  and  id&nim. 
"now."  As.  however,  the  simple  form  idA  has  hwome  ob- 
solete, the  Indian  granmiarians  assume  a  sufTtx  d^nim. 
As  re;^irds  the  oripu  of  the  time-defiuing  d<%  it  appears 
to  bo  an  abbreviation  of  fij^  (/in!,  "  by  day,"'  by  the  re- 
jection of  iv ;  as,  to  Latin. «,-  is  rejected  in  nolo  (from  nevolo). 
I  revo^iisc  a  different  kind  of  abbreviation  of  this  div/i 
in  WW  n-dyn,  "to-day."  "now."  where  the  b  only  of  dhyi 
is  removed,  and  the  Glial  'i  aliorteued.  while  the  i.  uceordiiij; 
to  a  universfil  phonetic  law,  is  changed  into  V. 

[0.  Ed.  p.  en.]  .12J.  There  is  nothing  similar  tn  the  cognate 
languages  to  the  Greek  correlatives  in  nVa — rrrjuVa,  Ttjvita, 
^fiKa — besides  the  Latin  t/unrc,  (junicum,  before  meutioned, 


J 


PBONQUNS. 


096 


(|x  505  G.  «(].),  unless   it  be   the  Sanskrit    adverb   v^nfl^ 
anuam,  "  eternal."  ■'  perpetual."     Biittmiuin  is  inclined  to  see 
in  iKit  an  accusative  termlDation  from  an  1^,  to  be  con- 
jcctured  from  the  Latin  vix,  vieei  (Lexil.  II.  p.  2•2^).     I  nssent 
to  this  cjcpUimtion  only  in  to  far  as  the  recognitioD  of  a  sub- 
stantive occosalive  in  the  concluding  part  of  these  fonu»tiona. 
I  do  not,  however,  divide  ttiji^iko,  &t\.  but  inj-viKa,  and  thus 
tnnke  them  genuine  compounds,  of  which  the  first  member 
does  not   contain  a  casiHli'rniiuatiou,  but  tJie  bare  tlieme. 
We  may  regard,  therefore,  mj,  717.  and  ^,  as  feminine  bases, 
or.  OS  above,  in  r^/iof,  r^fio^,  as    lengthened    forma   of  the 
masculine  and  neuter.*'     The  latter  would  be  more  agreeable 
to  the  original  principle  of  the  formation   of  compounds ; 
according  to  which,  pronouns  and  adjectives,  at  the  beginning 
of  CDm|H>und8,  express  no  distitiction  of  sex,  and  tliereforo 
never  appear  in  the  form  of  the  theme,  which  is  peeuliar  to 
the  fcmiDiDC,  but  in  that  which  is  common  to  the  masculine 
and  neuter,  in  which,  properly,  there  is  no  sex  expressed,  and 
from  which  ihe  feminine  theme  is  a  derivative.     In  the  pre- 
ceding ease,  however,  the  final  substtntive  is  really  feminine, 
if,  as  I  conjecture,  it  is  akin  to  the  Sanskrit  fff^  nii,  nomi- 
native  f^  nik,   "  night";   the   accusative  of  which,  m'^m, 
is  contained  in  the  nbovementioned  animm,  "eternal,"  lite- 
rally "  vrlthout  night."     It  is  certain  that  tho  Sanslq-it  occu* 
satire  nimm  could,  in  Greek,  take  no  other  form  than  riica. 
as  j^  /proceeds   from  w  k,  and,  in  Greek,  always  appears 
Mjc(§.21.).    The  Greek  base  vt/rr,  tlie  Latin    [G.  Ed.  p.Ola.] 
noef,and  the  Gotliic  naAfr  (nominative  nahtu).  are,  in  Sanskrit. 
represented  by  nakt.  of  which  only  the  accusative  naidam= 
noctein,vvKTa.  remains  in  use  as  an  lulverb  ("by  night"),  and 
in  the   inorganic    compound  '*nnT  nnktarx'cfuiTa,   "  night- 
wa]k«r."    We  might  therefore  derive  ttakiam,  also,  from  a 
theme  nakia.    If,  then.  In  Sanskrit,  ill  disadrantogeoas  com- 

«  See  $.808. 


596  PBONODNS. 

parison  with  its  cognate  languages,  only  an  obscure  remnant 
of  this  nakt  is  left  in  the  accusative  ju9t  mentioned,  the 
reverse  cannot  be  surprising,  that  the  Greek  should  have 
retained  of  nii,  nik,  which  is  most  probably  akin  to  nail,  only 
the  accusative  in  the  compounds  under  discussion.  As,  then, 
in  m^  tadA,  and  similar  formations,  if  the  explanation  of 
the  suffix  given  above  be  well  founded  (§.  423.),  there  is  only 
a  formal  expression  of  "day,''  and  yet  time  in  general  is 
understood  in  it ;  so,  according  to  the  view  here  proposed, 
in  njVHca,  "night"  wouM  be  selected  as  the  representative  of 
time  in  general,  or  of  a  particular  point  of  time,  which  might 
easily  take  place  through  the  dimming  of  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  the  concluding  element  So  the  Sanskrit  adya, 
"to-day,"  "on  this  day" — its  original  meaning  being  lost 
sight  of — is  not  unfrequently  used  in  the  sense  of  "  now," 
"  at  this  moment"  If  avrixa  is  based  on  the  same  principle 
of  formation  as  tjjviko,  &c.,  it  is  then  an  abbreviation  of 
aunj-vixa,  which  is  also  Buttmann's  conjecture,  since  he 
derives  it  from  t^v  avrijv  iko,  and  the  omission  of  the  tjv  would 
resemble  that  of  the  Latin  ev  in  twio,  for  nevolo,  and  that  of  iv 
in  the  Sanskrit  suffix  dd,  from  divA.  But  if  we  follow  C.  G. 
Schmidt  (Qusst  Gramm.  de  Prsep.  Gr.  p.  49)  in  taking  avriKa 
as  an  unabbreviated  form,  we  might  then,  by  the  same  analogy, 
derive  rtjvtKa  from  r^vor ;  which  we  would  not,  however,  do, 
as  there  is  no  form  w^voy,  whence  we  might  derive  mfvtKa, 
nor  iji-oj,  whence  iJv/ko. 

425.  Adverbs  of  kind  and  manner  are  formed  in  San- 
[G.  Ed.  p.  816.]  skrit  by  addition  of  the  suffixes  vi  thorn 
and  ^  Md.  The  former  occurs  only  in  w^jr  katkam,  "  how  ?" 
and  ^V^  it-tkam,  "  so,"  and  it  has  been  before  compared 
with  the  Latin  tern  in  i-tem  and  au-tem  (§.  378.).  To  Vid  the 
Latin  ta  answers  in  ita  and  aliuta,  which  latter  corresponds  to 
the  Sanskrit  waniT  ant/atkd,  "in  another  manner."  Besides 
these,  in  Sanskrit,  laikd,  "  so,"  yathd,  "  how"  (relative),  and 
KtrvatM,  "  in  every  way,"  are  formed  by  this  suffix.   A  suffix  ti. 


PBONODNS.  597 

of  the  same  sig;nificatioii,  forms  with  the  demonstratiTe  base 
t  the  adverb  Ui,*  "  so,''  the  only  analogous  form  to  which  is 
the  preposition  wfir  aiU  "  over,"  which  springs  from  the 
pronominal  base  v  a,  and  which  we  have  elsewhere  re- 
cognised in  the  Latin  at-avus.f  In  Latin,  uti,  "  as,"  and, 
with  the  i  abraded,  ut,  correspond  in  regard  to  the  suffix. 
The  t  of  ilidem  may  first  have  arisen  in  Latin  as  a  weakening 
of  ita,  in  Zend  mQj  itha,  occasioned  by  the  incambrance  of 
the  dem  (§.  6.)  The  suffixes  m^  tham  and  VI  thd  are  re- 
lated to  one  another  as  accusative  and  instrumental;  the 
latter  according  to  the  principle  of  the  Zend  language 
(§.  159.),  and  which,  contrary  to  a  conjecture  given  at §.  378., 
I  now  believe  must  be  taken  in  this  sense.  The  Zend, 
which  generally  shortens  the  long  A  at  the  end  of  poly- 
syllabic words,  uses  the  suffix  under  discussion  like  the 
Latin,  with  a  short  final  vowel;  hence  ai(3j  itha  like  ita. 
I  have  not  met  with  the  suffix  tham  in  2^nd,  for  jui^>« 
ktttha  is  used  for  1KV{^  katham,  and  for  ^^  iUham  the  ai^ 
itha  just  mentioned. 

*  Cf.  the  Zend  wit,  «thii«"  &oin  the  base  u.-  aa  to  the  Latin  utf,  see 
p.  1227  G.ed.  Notof- 
t  Berlin  Jabrb.,  Nor.  1830,  p.  702. 


596 


PRONOUNS. 


parison  with  its  cognate  languages,  only  an  obscure  remnant 
of  this  nnkt  is  left  in  the  accusative  just  mcDtiODcd.  the 
reverse  caiiuot  be  surprising,  that  the  Greek  should  have 
retained  of  nii,  nik.  vrhich  is  most  probably  akin  to  nakt.  only 
the  arciisBtive  in  the:  coni[]ound3  untler  discussion.  As,  thcu, 
ill  JP^  iadA,  and  similar  formations,  if  the  exphtnation  of 
the  suffix  given  above  be  well  founded  {%  423.),  there  is  only 
a  formal  expression  of  "day,"  and  yet  time  in  general  is 
UDdcrstood  in  it;  so.  occording  to  the  view-  here  proposed, 
in  TrfvutOL,  "night"  would  be  selected  as  the  representative  of 
time  in  generul,  or  ofa  particular  ]K)Iiit  of  time,  which  might 
easily  lake  place  through  tht?  dimuiitig  of  the  primary  nieiui- 
ing  of  tlie  concluding  element  So  the  Simskrit  adya, 
"to-day,"  "on  this  diiy" — its  original  meaning  being  lost 
sight  of— is  not  unfrcquently  used  in  the  sense  of  "now," 
"  at  tilts  moment."  If  avrUa  is  based  on  the  snme  principle 
of  formatiuu  as  njvr'ica.  &c»  it  is  then  an  abbreviattoa  of 
avjtj-viKa,  which  is  also  Buttmann's  conjecture,  since  he 
derives  it  from  njv  aOri}i'  iko,  and  theumission  of  the  r/v  would 
resemble  that  of  the  Latin  ev  in  noto,  for  nevoh,  and  that  of  iv 
in  the  Sanskrit  suflix  </tl,  from  dka.  But  if  we  follow  C  G. 
Schmidt  {Qiifcst,  Gramm,  dc  Prrcp.  Gr.  p.  4'J)  in  taking  avriKa 
ns  au  unabbreviated  form, we  might  then,  by  the  same  analogy. 
derive  ttju'ko  from  t^wjj;  which  we  would  not.  however,  da 
OS  there  is  no  form  injvfK.  whence  we  might  derive  TijviKa. 
Dor  j;vor.  whence  ffviKU. 

■125.  Advvrbs  of  kind  and  manner  are  formed  in  Sao- 
[O.  Ed.  p.  616.]  skjit  by  addition  of  the  suffixes  Wi_  tham 
and  wMd.  The  former  occurs  only  in  -mVR  katham,  "how?** 
and  JTVH^U-Ikam,  "so,"  and  it  hn.-*  been  before  compared 
with  the  Latin  feat  in  i-tem  and  au-tem  ($.  378.).  To  Uiii  the 
Liatin  ta  answers  in  Ua  and  aliutn,  which  latter  corresponds  to 
the  StDskrit  w^wnnyathO,  "in  another  manner,"'  Besides 
these,  in  Sanskrit,  iathd,  •■  so."  j^;MJ.  "  how"  (relative),  and 
mtn-ttthA. "  in  every  way,"  are  formed  by  this  suffix.   A  suffix  ti. 


PRONOUNS.  697 

of  the  same  signification,  forma  with  the  demonatrative  base 
i  the  adverb  Ui,*  "  so,"*  the  only  analogous  form  to  which  is 
the  preposition  vfiT  aO,  "  over,"  which  springs  from  the 
pronominal  base  v  a,  and  which  we  have  elsewhere  re- 
cognised in  the  Latin  at-avua.-f  In  Latin,  uti,  "  as,"  and, 
with  the  i  abraded,  u^  correspond  in  r^^rd  to  the  soffix. 
The  i  of  itidem  may  first  have  arisen  in  Latin  as  a  weakening 
of  ita,  in  Zend  ju^j  itha,  occasioned  by  the  incumbrance  of 
the  dem  (§.  6.)  The  suffixes  V{  tkam  and  ^  tkd  are  re- 
lated to  one  another  as  accusative  and  instrumental;  the 
latter  according  to  the  principle  of  the  Zend  language 
(§.15  8.),  and  which,  contrary  to  a  conjecture  given  at  §.  378., 
I  now  believe  must  be  taken  in  this  sense.  The  Zend, 
which  generally  shortens  the  long  A  at  the  end  of  poly- 
syllabic words,  uses  the  suffix  under  discussion  like  the 
Latin,  with  a  short  final  vowel;  hence  juoj  kha  like  ita. 
I  have  not  met  with  the  suffix  tham  in  Zend,  for  aiCs'm 
kutha  is  used  for  vtpf^  katkam,  and  for  ^|n)^  ittham  the  m6j 
itha  just  mentioned. 

*  Cf.  the  Zend  uitt,  "  liau,"  bom  the  baae  « .-  as  to  Uu  latin  vtt,  gee 
p.  1227  G.  ed.  Note  t. 
t  Berlin  Jahrb,,  Nor.  1880,  p.  703. 


(     598     ) 


THE  VERa 

[G.  E(l.p.6l7-]  436.  The  SaQskrit  lias  two  forms  for  the 
active,  of  wliich  the  one  is  uppointcil  for  the  transitive  and 
outward ly-opemting  (tiroction,  and  is  eiillcd  by  the  Indian 
grammarians  paraxmdi'pnttam,  equivalpnt  to  "  stranger- 
form";*  the  other,  which  is  called  (l/in(ini*pfj(/am,  i.e.  "self- 
fopm,'"'t-  serves,  when  it  stands  in  its  primitive  significa- 
tion, for  rcflexi\*e  or  intransitive  purposes,  or  shews  that  the 
action  is  to  the  advantage  of  the  subject  or  stands  in  some 
Dear  relation  thereto.  For  instaiicc,  dd,  "  togive,'' in  tlie 
tUmanfyadnm.  in  conjunction  with  tlie  pri'iKisition  A,  has  the 
force  of  "to  take,"  i.e.  "to  give  oneat'lf":  the  causative 
duriayAmi.  "to  make  to  see,"  "to  shew,"  acquires,  through 
the  terminations  of  the  atmandpadam,  the  signification  "to 
shew  oneself";  «^  "to  lie"  {^H^—Ktlrat^  dt,  "to  sit*' 
{'UiS=t}<rTai,  p.  lis),  mud,  "  to  be  pleased,"  "  to  please  oneself.'" 
mcA, "  to  shine,"  "  to  please,"  "  to  please  oneself,"  are  only  08«1 
in  the  Atman^podtim  :  yAth,  "to  rctpiire,"  "  to  ask."  has  botli 
forms,  but  the  reflexive  prevails,  as  we  most  generally  require 
or  pray  for  our  own  advantage.  In  general,  however,  the  Inn- 
[G.  Ed.p.tJlS.)  guage.  asitatprcsentcxists.disposesof  both 
forms,  in  rather  an  arbitrary  mimner.  But  few  verbs  have 
retained  the  two ;  and  where  tliia  happens,  the  primitive  inten- 
tion of  both  seldom  shews  itselfdistinctly.  Of  the  cognate  lan- 
guages, only  the  Zend,  the  Greek,  and  the  Gothic  have  retained 
this  primitive  reflexive  form ;  for  that  the  Gothic  passive  is 


•  ^^panamdi  is  the  dsilrc  t>fpam,  "  the  other," 

1  VniTT  Atnuin,  "•oul."  of  which  ihe  d»tire,  ditnanf,  used  abovt,  in 

the  oblltiuo  C4RS  ofli-n  filb  ihn  ylntv  of  a  pronoun  of  th«  tliird  petwin, 

gcQcrally  irhh  a  rvfli-iirc  aifmi&calion  (ne  Glownry). 


PRONOONS. 


tm 


identical  in  construction  with  the  Indo-Greeb  middle  hot 
been  alrendy  $liewn  in  my  ConjugatioQ-systcm.*  Grimm  has 
since  dircctRd  attention  to  two  expressions  which  hare  re- 
mained unnoticed  in  former  Grammnn,  and  which  are  of  the 
greiitest  importance,  as  having  preserved  the  old  middle 
form  in  a  middle  9igtii6cation  also.  Ulfilas,  namely,  twice 
(Matt  zxvii.  42.  and  Mark  xv.  32.)  translates  Kara^arta  by 
" iiMeigadau,"  and  once  (Matt.  XxWi.  43.)  pwrifffi**  by  "/au»- 
yadau."  Lately,  alao.  v.  Gabclcntz  and  Lobe,  in  their  valu- 
able edition  of  Ulfilas  (pp.  187  and  3S5),  have  justly  assignni 
to  tlie  middle  the  following  forms,  all  but  one  lately  brought 
to  light,  by  Castiglione's  edition  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles: 
vfkunaandn,  yvdaavreu  (John  atiii.  35.) ; /aiflnrfn,  "vifuperont" 
(Rom,  ix.  19.);  yavosvacta  undivxinein.  evStKTTjreu  a^J>9ap!av 
(1  Cor.  XV.  61.};  vaurkjfada,  ipyaZ'STm  (3  Cor.  iv.  17.};  usUu- 
hada,  Karep-^at^era*  {2  Cor.  vii,  10.);  and  llwjrmdnn.  yajirjaa- 
Tuxrai'  (1  Cor.  vii.  9.).  Grimm,  in  the  first  L-ditton  of  his 
Grammar  (p.  444),  gives  the  forms  aixteigadau  and  husmdau, 
justly,  I  doubt  not,  as  iniper.itivcs,  but  considera  them  as 
erroneous  transfcTcncca  of  the  Greek  expressions  into  the 
passive  fonn.  What,  however,  could  induce  Ulfilas  to  trans- 
late the  middle  pvc&dBw,  not  to  mention  the  active  Kara^ojiA, 
by  a  passive,  when  he  lind  so  many  other  opportunities  for 
exchanging  Greek  middles  for  passives?  In  the  second 
edition  (1. 8^5.)  Grimm  aska,  "Have  we  here  \0.  Ed.  p.  OIB.] 
the  III.  subjunctive  of  a  Gothie  middle?"  Were  they,  how- 
ever, subjunctives  middle,  they  must  then  have  retained  the 
cliamcteriatic  t  of  this  mood,  and,  in  this  respect,  have  un- 
swcrcd  to  the  Indo-Greek  middle,  such  as  bharHa  (from 
bharaita).  ^cpoiro.  The  mi<ldleand  passive  could  not  he  dis- 
tinguislied  by  the  insertion  or  suppn-ssion  of  the  exponent 
of  the  subjunctive  relation.  1  explain,  therefore,  aisteigadau 
and  lausyadau.sa  well  as  the  lat«r  liugandaa  {yafitivStTuiffav), 


*  P.  ISS.    Compare  Voralbmua,  p. 70.  nn<l  Orimm  I.  lOTiO. 


600 


fRONOUNS. 


without  hesitation,  as  imperativefloF  t]ie  middle  voice;  for  as 
such  tliey  answer  excellently  well  to  the  Siinakrit  middle  im- 
perative8.asiA<ir-a-/dm,  "  let  him  bear  or  receive,"  hhnr-a-ntAm, 
"  let  tliem  bear  or  receive.'"  The  Gothic  att  has  the  same 
reliiUon  liere  to  Ihe  Simaltrit  dm.  as,  in  the  first  subjunctive 
person  nctivct  where,  for  instiinec,  iryau,  "ichtei,"  "1  may 
be."  answers  to  the  Sanskj-Jt  xydm.  The  old  ui  hns  been  resolved 
into II,  and  lias  formed  a  diphthong  with  the  preceding  a  (com- 
pare §.  255.  jO-  I"^  respect  to  form,  however,  ahte'ujndau, 
lau»yadau,  and  liugandnu,  are  at  the  sa.me  time  passive  ;  and 
Ulfilxu  would  probably  have  also  rendered  the  idea  "  let  him 
be  freed"  by  lau^undoH.  In  the  traitstation  of  the  Bible* 
however,  aii  occasion  for  the  use  of  the  pa«t>ive  imperatlTe 
rarely  occurs. 

427.  Wliile  the  Greek  at>d  Gothic  have  carried  over 
the  middle  form  into  the  passive,  so  tliat  the  passive  and 
middle,  with  the  exception  of  the  Greek  aoriat  iukI  future, 
are  perfectly  identical;  iu  tlie  Sanskrit  and  Zend  the  pas* 
sivc,  indeed,  exhibits  the  more  important  icmiinations  of 
the  middle,  through  which  tlie  symbolieiU  retro-ojieration 
of  tlie  action  on  tlie  subject  is  expressed,  but  a  practical 
distinction  occurs  iu  the  special  tenses  (^.  109\),  in  that  the 
syllable  ya — of  which  more  hereafter — is  appended  to  the 
root,  but  tlie  cliaracteristic  additions  and  other  pemitiaritics, 

[G.  Ed.  p.  020.]  by  which  the  dificrent  classes  are  distin- 
guished ill  the  two  active  forms,  are  resumed.  In  Greek, 
JciV-vy-Tot  is  as  well  passive  as  middle,  but  in  Sanskrit, 
fV«^  chi-nu-lf..  from  f%  eki,  "gather,"  is  only  middle,  and 
tlie  passive  is  cht-ya-ti :  iu  Greek,  Si'Sorai,  Tirrarat,  are  both 
passive  and  middle ;  in  Sanskrit  the  kindred  forma  ?T|  dal-tS. 
anomalous  for  dadd-li.  firmt  tiiJilha-U,  are  only  middle,  and 
their  passive  becomes  dt-yaU.  ifh^yai^*  In  that  the  San- 
skrit and  Zend  passive  is  formed  immediately  from  tlie  root, 

•  Some  of  Ihe  roots  In  d  weaken  th^t  vowtl  to  i  before  the  pttsuve 
clLUHctoriciic  j<i. 


TBRBS. 


601 


tlie  claas-charactcristics  being  removed,  it  answers  to  other 
derivative  verba,  the  crubuI.  deaidcrativL-,  aud  iiitcusive,  and 
wc,  in  treating  of  thcni,  shall  return  to  it.  The  middlf, 
however,  we  shall  treat  pnri  pasm  with  the  transitive  active 
form.  OS  it  is  diatiiiguislifd  from  tliis  latter,  in  uearly  every 
case,  only  by  tlie  extensioD  of  the  persounl  tenninntions. 

iSS.  The  moods  in  Sanskrit  are  five,  if  we  include  the 
indicative,  in  which,  in  fact,  no  modal  relations,  but  only 
those  of  time,  are  expressed.  Theahsence  of  modal  arcessary 
notions  is  its  characteristic.  The  other  moods  are,  the  po- 
tential, imperative,  precalive,*  and  eonditionnl.  Besides 
theie,  wc  find  in  the  Vedas  fragmeuta  of  a  mood,  which,  in 
the  principle  of  its  formation,  corresponds  to  the  Greek 
subjunctive,  and  by  the  grnmmariiina  is  called  tft.f  Tlio 
same  moods,  even  to  the  subjunctive,  or  ffl.  exist  in  Zeud, 
only  I  am  not  able  to  cite  the  couditioDal,  which  stands 
in  nearest  connection  with  the  future,  and  [G.  Eil.  p.  621.] 
which  in  Sanstrit,  also,  is  very  rare.  The  infinitive  and  par- 
ticiple belong  to  the  noun.  The  indicative  has  six  tenses, 
viz.  one  present,  three  preterites,  and  two  futures.  The  pre- 
terites, in  form,  correspond  to  the  Greek  imperfect,  aorist,  and 
perfect.  With  tJieir  use,  however,  the  language,  in  its  present 
condition,  deals  very  capriciously;  for  which  reason,  in  my 
Sanskrit  Grammar,  I  have  named  them  only  with  reference 
to  their  form :  the  first,  single-formed  augmented  preterite ; 
the  second,  multiform  augmented  preterite;  and  tha  third, 
reduplicated  preterite.  Both  futures  are  likewise  indis- 
lingiUshable  in  their  use,  and  I  name  them  according  to 
their  composition:  the  one,   which  answers   to  the  Oreck 


*  B«ti«dieUve,  Aucordtng  to  ui. 

t  'The  Indian  graiDinftrintu  nsmt?  the  tciun  snil  raoml*  aflBr  vowels, 
whlcb,  ta  designate  ihc  priacipal  Umaca,  arc  inserted  between  M  I  nail 
Z  t,  anA,  to  deaignate  the  tecondHry,  Iwiween  K  /  sod  V  n.  Thoa 
the  DameM  run,  lut,  lif,  liU,  Irlt,  lit,  lot ;  Ian,  llii,  tun,  t^in.  See  Cole - 
brookc's  GrammAT,  pp.  1S3.  ISl. 

R  R 


602 


VERBS. 


and  Lithuanian  future,  and  is  inoit  used,  the  nuxitinry 
Tuture;  tbe  other,  the  participial  future,  as  its  first  cl»- 
ment  is  a  participle  which  answers  to  the  Latin  in  tMrtn. 
Id  tlie  Zcrud  1  have  uot  yot  detected  this  tense,  but  all 
the]  other  Snntkrtt  tenses  I  have,  and  have  given  proofs  of 
this  iu  the  reviews  mentioned  in  the  preface  (p.  xii.  last  line 
hut  two.).  The  mouda  ranging  srter  the  indicative  have,  in 
Sanskrit  and  Zend,  only  one  tensL-  each  ;  yet  the  potential  and 
prcoative  have,  iu  fact,  stich  a  relation  to  each  other,  as, 
in  Greek,  tbe  present  and  second  oorist  of  tlie  optative ;  and 
Paniui  embraces  both  of  these  modal  forms  under  the  name 
Hn.  The  same  relation  of  wishing  and  praying,  which  is  spe- 
cially rei^resented  by  the  precativr.  may  also  be  expressed 
by  tho  potential,  wliich  is  in  far  more  general  use.  In  the 
Vedas  traces  are  apparent  of  a  further  elaboration  of  the 
moods  into  various  tenses,  and  it  may  hcDcc  be  inferred,  that 
what  the  European  languages,  in  their  devolopemcnt  of  the 
moods,  have  in  excess  over  the  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  dates,  at 
[0.  £«l.  p.  02-j.']  least  in  its  origin,  h'om  the  period  of  the 
unity  of  the  language. 

4-39.  The  numbers  of  the  verb  ore  three  in  most  of  the 
languages  here  treated  of.  The  LAtin  verb  bos.  like  its 
noun,  lost  tlie  dual ;  but  the  GerniEinic  has  preserved  the 
verbal  dual  in  its  oldest  dialect,  the  Gothic,  in  preference 
to  that  of  the  noun;  the  Old  Sclavouic  retains  it  in  both; 
and  so  hns  the  Lithuanian  to  tlie  present  day.  The  Pali 
and  Pr&krit,  otherwise  so  near  to  the  Sanskrit,  have,  like 
the  X^tin,  parted  with  botli  the  dual  and  the  middle 
of  the  active  forms.  In  oppoaition  to  the  Semitic,  there 
in  no  distinction  of  gender  in  the  personal  signs  of  the 
Sanskrit  family ;  which  is  not  surprising,  as  the  two  first 
persons,  even  in  their  simple  condition,  are  without  the 
distinction,  while  the  Semitic  dispenses  with  it  only  in  the 
first  person,  ns  well  simple  as  in  the  verb,  but,  in  the 
second    and    third,    in    both    conditions    distinguishes    tbe 


VBKBS. 


603 


r^initiine  rrooi  iIil>  masctiliue.  Tliti  OM  Sutavonic  lias,  in  the* 
duaJ,  gtiined  a  femtniDc  in  an  inorganic  fjasbiou,  and  by 
a  ilh'crgcncc  from  the  priiunry  tyjK,*  of  its  class,  as  well  in 
its  simiilc  pronoun  of  the  Srst  pcreon,  as  in  tlm  tbroe  persons 
of  the  verb.  As,  namely,  va,  "  we  two,"  lias  the  termination  of 
a  roasculirte  subslimlivo  dual,  to  which  the  ffiniiiitie  io  "fe  yp 
corresponds  (^.273.);  so,  by  the  power  of  nnalogy,  out  uf 
that  vx  va  has  been  developed  a  fcoaiuiue  Bb  vvf,  and,  in 
accordance  with  this,  in  the  verb  aleo;  for  iustnnve,  kcba 
yetvot  "  vro  two  are"  (niHsciiline).  Ktttb  ufsvye  (feminine), 
answering  to  the  Siinskf  it  «uwj  (abbreviated  from  qsmyis),  and 
tlie  LitUuaiiiuii  vsva.  In  the  sjuiie  manner,  in  the  second 
and  third  duiil  pt'rsons,  'n^hich,  in  the  masculine,  are  botli 
yesla,  answering  to  tlie  Sanskrit  (a)sHias,  (n)atns,  anil  the 
Greek  Htrrov,  cotoc,  a  Feminine  ye*lj/r  KETt  lias  been  formed ; 
for  as,  in  virtue  of  the  law  by  which  the  terminating  aibilant 
of  the  Suiiskj-it  form  is  necessarily  rejected  [O,  Ed.  p.  623.] 
(see  §.256.  A),  tile  verbal  dual  ending  became  identical  witli  that 
oftlio  uiaseuliue  noun,  and  as,  moreover,  the  termination  ta  has 
precisely  the  same  sound  with  the  iiidcpcndcnt  ta,  "these 
two"  (uien),  the  way  was  thus  opened  to  the  formation  of 
a  feminine  personal  termination  T'b  fy<;  whicli  is  also  iden- 
tical with  tlic  independent  /y*-,  "liiesc  two"  (women).  The&o 
feminine  verbiU  terminations  are  in  any  case  worthy  of 
observation,  ns  they  rest  ou  the  feeling  of  tbc  grammaticnl 
identity  of  the  verb  with  the  noun,  and  shew  that  the  spirit 
of  the  Jangnoge  was  ^^tally  imbued  with  the  principle  of 
close  eouuectioi))  which  bad  of  old  existed  lictwecn  tiic  simple 
pronouns  and  those  joined  with  the  verbal  bases. 

•I3U.  With  respect  to  the  personal  signs,  the  tenses  and 
moods  fall  most  evidently,  in  Sanskrit.  Zend,  and  Gret.'k.  into 
two  classes.  The  one  is  fuller,  the  otlier  more  contracteil 
in  its  terminations.  To  tlie  first  class  belong  those  tenses 
which,  in  Greek,  w*e  are  accustomed  tu  call  the  priiieipul, 
oamcly.  tlic   present,    future,   and  perfect  or   reduplicated 

rrS 


604 


VERBS. 


preterite,  whose  terminationB,  however,  have  undergone 
serious  matilntions  in  the  three  sistt^r  languitges.  which  c1«arly 
have  their  foundation  in  the  inciimbrnncc  of  the  conimenee- 
ment  by  the  reduplication -syllable.  To  the  second  class 
belong  the  augmented  preterites,  and,  in  Sanakfit  and  Zend, 
all  iJie  moods  not  indicative,  with  the  exception  of  the 
present  of  the  fH  or  subjuuL-tive,  anil  of  those  temiinationa  of 
the  imjwrative  which  are  peculiar  to  this  luood,  and  are  rather 
full  than  contracted,  tn  Greek,  the  Bubjunctive  has  the  fuller 
torminatiout,  but  the  optative,  which  answers  to  the  Sanskrit 
potential,  has,  like  its  Asiatic  prototype,  the  contraetcd.    The 

[G.  Ed.  p.  fl34.]  termination  fxt  of  rvirroifu  is.  as  we  Iiave 
elsewhere  observed,*  inorganic,  as  appears  from  a  comparison 
with  the  TVJTToi'fitjv  which  has  sprung  from  the  original  form 
Tvmoiv  and  the  conjugation  in  /«  (SiSoirtv). 

'i:)l.  In  Latin,  tills  double  form  of  the  personal  termi- 
nationsi  although  in  an  inverted  relaticnit  makes  itself 
observable  in  this,  that  where  the  fuller  form  mi  stood,  the 
termination,  excepting  in  the  cases  of  sum  and  hnjiinm,  has 
vanished  altogether.  Ou  the  other  Imnd,  tlie  original 
final  m  has  everywhere  maintained  itself.  Hence,  amc, 
amab</;  but  amabam,  cram,  .lim,  amrm,  as,  in  Sanskrit. 
a-bhavam  and  ihtam,  "  1  was,"  tyAm.  "  1  may  be,"  himayfijnm, 
*']  may  love."  In  the  other  persons  an  uniformity  of 
terminations  has  crept  in  by  the  abrasion  of  the  t  of  ttie 
primary  forma;  iJiiw,  tegis^i),  legit{i),  (etfunt^t),  as  &(/««, 
hgfit,  Ugfinf. 

432,  In  the  Gothic,  the  aboriginal  separation  into  the 
full  and  mutilated  terminations  makes  itstrlf  principally 
conspicuous  in  tliat  the  terminations  ti  and  nti  of  the 
primary  forms  have  retained  the  T  sound,  because  it  was 
protected  by  a  following  vowel,  but  have  lost  tlie  J ;,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  concluding  i  of  the  secondary  forms, 


*  BerUn  Johrb.  Feb.  1327.  p.  279,  or  V'ocalwniu,  f.  i-L 


VKBfiS. 


605 


as  in  tlie  Greek,  has  vanished :  heneo,  for  example. 
biiir-i-tk,  bair-a-nd,  answering  to  *TTfil  bltar-a-t't,  HTf^  t/har~ 
a-nti  (^ip-o-vri),  but  bair-aU  like  ijtipot,  answeiing  to  Mtl^ 
bhar-f-l  (from  bhoTait)  fer-a-t.  In  the  first  pt-rson  singular, 
the  full  terminatiuu  mi  (with  the  exception  of  im,  "  1  ani") 
has,  in  remnrlcable  nccordance  with  the  Latin,  rjuite  dis- 
appeared; on  the  other  hand,  tlie  concluding  m  of  the  secon- 
dary forms  has  not,  indeed,  as  in  the  Lutin,  been  retained 
uDaltcruU.  but  yet  htis  kept  its  pltuit;  in  the  resolved  form  of  u 
(compare  §.420.  p.  619.  G.ed.):  thus  hair-a.  answering  to 
iHITftt  hhar-A-mi,  but  baiT-a-u  (from  batrnm  [O.  EJ.  p.  025.] 
far  bniraim),''  answering  to  H^qq  hhar-t'ij-am,  fer-a-m.  In 
tlic  seeoud  ]>erson  stngulnr,  as  in  the  Latin,  an  identity  be- 
tween the  primnry  and  secondary  forms  has  introduced 
itself,  since  the  first  have  lost  the  concluding  t,  and  the  latter 
have  not  brought  one  from  tlic  Asiatic  scat  of  their  class; 
hence  !juir-i-8.  answering  to  mfe  bltar-asi,  and  a-lso  iair- 
ai-»  to  »^  bhnr-i-s,  feT'A-s,  ^ep-oi-j. 

433.  In  tlio  Old  Sclavonic,  the  secondary  forms  liave, 
in  the  singular,  been  compelled  entirely  to  abandon  the 
personal  consonant  (see  §.  255.  ^).  on  account  of  its  being 
final;  hence,  in  the  imperative,  whiuh  is  identical  with 
the  Sanskrit  potential,  the  Greek  optative,  and  Ruinan- 
German  subjunctive,  the  second  person  singular  ends  with 
the  modnl-vowel  i.  and,  in  the  preterite,  answering  to  the 
Sauskj'it-Groek  aorist,  the  second  and  third  persona  have 
the  same  sound,  because  the  concluding  s,  tike  t,  was  iie- 
cc85nrily  dropped.  Compare,  in  the  preteriti:  iterjitive,  the 
ierminalioQUiE.syif.mc.  a/ip.  with  the  Sanskptv/^  iiV.  Wtn  sH. 
On  the  other  baud,  the  primnry  forms  give  the  expresaiun 
of  the  second  person  singular  with  wonderful  accuracy,  iis 
toil,  shi,  or  ctt,  at;  and  out  of  the  fn  li  of  the  third  we  have 
T,  and.  in  the  plural  at  from  anli.  Wc  now  proceed  to  a 
closer  consideration  of  the  personal  signs. 


*  CorajtArg  VikaIwdius,  p,  ■SOil. 


eoG 


VKBBS. 


FIRST  PEEftON. 

434.  Tlie  character  of  tin-  first  [lersou  i».  in  the  singular  as 
well  H8  plural,  in  its  original  sliape.  m  ;  but  in  llie  dual  t)i«  lan- 
gungfs,  which  [>os8cs8  a  first  duni  |KT$on  in  the  tmmitive 

LG.  Ed.  p.  026.]    active  fbrtu.  have  softened  the  m  to  v,  as  wc 

have  also  found  vini  pe/yam '*we,"forinin  mflytimiin  the  plural 
of  the  simple  pronoun,  and  similar  pJicnomena  in  several  cog- 
nate languages  (§.  33 1 .).  The  ful  I  characteristic  of  the  first  jwr- 
son  aijigular  is,  in  the  primary  form  of  the  transitive  active, 
mi,  and  spreads  itscET,  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  over  all  verbs 
without  exception:  inGreelt,  however — peculiarities  of  dialect 
excepted — it  extends  only  over  audi  as  answer  to  tlie  second 
chief  Sanskrit  c-onjugation.  which  embracfs  the  classes  two, 
three,  five,  seven,  eight,  and  nine  (§,  109'.),bul  altogcthcrcom- 
priwfi  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  verbs  (about  200).  The 
other  Greek  verbs  have  (jaite  suppressed  the  personid  ter- 
mination, and  their  u  (omega),  like  the  Lntin  o  of  all  conju- 
gHlions,  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  d,  wliicli,  in  forms  Vike  bddh' 
•d-mi.  "  I  know,"/u</-fl-nii,  ■'  I  wound."  "  I  slay."  belongs  nei- 
ther to  the  root  nor  the  personal  terminatioa,  but  is  the 
character  of  the  ct»5s,  which,  when  it  eonsiats  of  a  short  ir, 
ur  of  syllables  ended  by  a,  lengthens  that  letter  before  m  and 
V  followed  by  a  vowel:  hence.  biklh-A-mi.  biiJh-d-vaa,  hodK-&- 
imtis,  in  contrast  to  bi^dh-a-ji,  bAdh-fi-ti;  h6ilh-a-lhi!tt,  Mdh-n- 
tas;  ttAih-a-iho,  bMli-a-vU.  The  Greek  lias  no  participation 
in  this  lengthening,  and  makes  repn-o-ficv  answer  to  the 
Sanskrit  tarit-A-mas.  It  is  possible,  liowever,  that,  in  the 
singular,  repTt-ta-fu  may  have  once  stood,  answering  to  tarp- 
d-mj;  and  if  so,  wc  might  conjecture  that  this  u  may  liave 
been  shortened  in  the  jilural  and  dual  (niiildlc)  by  th<; 
influence  of  the  increased  weight  of  the  terminations,  of 
which  more  hereafter;  thus,  also,  in  the  medio-paasiv& 
Tlie  to-be-presupposed  tcjdjt-w-/*!  lias,  in  fiiet,  the  s;mie  re- 
lation to Tc'pir^./i€v,  and  ripn-o-ftiit,  that  9('3u-/t(  has  to  Hio-ftev 
and  iii-o-fiai.     If,  however,  we  prefer,  which  I  should  not,  to 


FIBST  TERSON. 


607 


nssumc  Wfiir-o-fu  as  the  primitive  form,  the  length  of  repiru 
must  then  becoiisitleredasa  compensotioti  for  the  loss  of  the 
temiinatiou.  In  any  cnse  the  midJle-pns-  £Q.  Ed.  ji.  627.] 
sive  /icu,  whivh  spivndg  iWelf  over  all  classes  of  vorbs,  prores 
tliQt  tliey  all  have  had  a  fit  in  tlie  active;  for  /.tcci  hns  epruug 
form  /u,  at  mu,  rai,  vrai,  from  vi,  rt,  vrti  and  without  the 
prcaeDce  either  of  a  Tipinnfii  or  a  jepvofu  wc  could  have  no 
TepTOjiaf.  With  regard  to  the  all- prevalent  uotucrvation  of 
the  character  of  the  6rsl  person  Id  tlie  mid(l[e-|>assives,  the 
Greek  maintains  a  conspicuous  advantage  over  its  Asiatic 
cognates,  which,  in  the  singular  of  Ute  middle,  oa  well  in  the 
primary  as  in  the  secondary  forujs,  have  suffered  the  m  1» 
vanish  without  k-avin-^  a  trace.  If  Tepnta  be,  as  it  were. 
amended  from  the  Sanskrit  form  turyA-mi,  the  mutilated 
Sanskfit  favm  tar ^4*  may  be,  in  like  manner,  traced  back 
from  the  Greek  repn-o-ftou  to  its  original  form  larp-il-mf,  or 
tarp-a-mi. 

435.  We  Gnd,  in  what  has  been  said  above,  a  very  re- 
markable cunGrmation  of  the  waxitu,  that  the  varions 
■  members  of  the  great  family  «f  language  now  nnder  discns- 
sion  mast  of  necessity  mutually  illustrate  and  explnio  each 
other,  since  not  even  the  most  perfect  among  them  have  been 
lianded  down  to  us  uncorrupted  in  every  part  of  their 
rich  organism.  For  while  the  ending  ficu  is  still  extant 
in  all  its  splendor  in  the  Modern-Greek  passive,  tlic  cor- 
responding Saniskrit  form  lay  in  ruins  at  that  period  when 
the  oldest  exislinjf  sample  of  Indian  literature,  the  Vcdas. 
were  composed,  the  antiquuled  language  of  which  has  con- 
veyed 10  us  8o  many  other  remnants  of  the  primicvnl  typo  of 
the  family.  On  the  other  hand,  Homer,  iu  all  the  over- 
wlielniiDg  variety  of  his  present  and  future  forms,  was  com- 
pelled to  forego  the  tcrminaiing  fu,  which  was  the  mother  of 
hia  iiai,  which  is  the  only  existing  termination  in  the  Sanskflt, 

•  Such  would  b«  tbc  form  of  tarpdmi  in  die  tniildlc  voice,  lo  wlticti, 
huvrcTcr,  it  Is  not  used. 


606 


VBBBS. 


and  wbtch  to  this  day  the  LitJiuaniun  utters  in  the  following 
verbs. 


UT0UAK1A1I. 

m  ftrmr,     I  am, 
-Wm/.Mgo,-    ^^ 
^  dimi,  "  I  give." 
^^.  dfmi.  "  I  lay." 


MSSS^IT. 


=f»mT, 


^.1 


f'nw. 


oimx. 

Cfifii',  tifu. 

tirrrjfu. 


=3  fiailA  m  i, 
^(ladh^mi, 

=Qdmi  . .  ■  ■ 
=ni-»ktdAmi,  "  I  sit  dowu"  •  • . . 
=rjadAmi,  "  I  say"  . . . . 
=  kalpa^dmi,  "  I  make,  I  prepare?"' 


'slowmi, "  I  stand." 
edmi,  "  I  eat," 
»fJmi."UiC 
g\4dau, "  I  sing." 
gmmf.  •'  I  hel[>,"' 
sfrgmi,  "  \  gliard"  .....  .... 

t&\tgmi,"\  preserve"       .•-• 

mifgmi,  "  I  aleej>"  •  • . . 

Uehni,  "  I  leave,"         =rfiAdini.  "  I  Porsake?"t  •  • . . 

436.  Wc  must  take  into  account  llmt  in  all  these  verbs 
the  termiuatiou  ^,  as  in  tJie  Sanskpt  second  class  (^  109*.  a) 
and  in  the  verbs  which  correspond  to  il,  such  as  ^rfp',  ti/it.  is 
combined  directly  with  the  root.  The  Old  St-Iavonio  alao 
has  preserved,  in  some  verbs  of  this  kind,  which  we  would 
nauie  the  Archaic  conjugation,  the  termination  mi,  not. 
indeed,  in  its  origiiiul  purity,  but  under  the  shape  of  my. 
Before  this  my,  however,  as  also  in  tlie  first  person  plural 
Wfore  -my.  and  before  the  sibilant  of  the  second  person 
singular,  a  radical  d  is  suppressed,  wliidi  d,  befuru  tcruii- 

[G.  Ed.  p.  630.]  nations  beginning  with  t,  in  analogy  with 
the  Zend  and  Greek  ($,  lOS.  p,  102.  G.  ed.).  passes  into  a  % 
Compare : 


•  fo^puydnu,  on wliicli lIm  Outhic  rwsihalp,  "lo  help"  (present Ai^'A, 
\>ntcnte haip),i»  probolily  biucd,  ii.  In  tJl  likolihMxl,  skin  to  th«  root  kar 
(hi"),  •'  to  niak*." 

t  Cooipan  p.  441. 

t  r^t'aloas  tvrma  ta.  exn^ilion,  in  Hut,  in  tlic  >rcoii4  and  third  pcT«on 

iloni 


«f^  aami. 

f^^ftr  viflavti. 
?<;iOl  r/ncfdmi. 
^ftf  dadfiti. 
Vfv  admi. 
H^f^  adanii. 


"eo- 
TI»e 


OU)  KLITOKIC 

HCUb  yesmy,  "  I  am," 
RfeMb  vyemy,  "  I  kuow," 
BtA*Tb  vytdwiiy,  "  they  know," 
AAMb  Jamy,    "I  give,"* 
AAAttTb  dadyaty.   "  they  give," 
a  Mb  j/fltni/,  "  E  eat." 
raA*Tb  yndnUj,   "  they  ent," 

Tbua  also  the  eoiupound  ciiftsib  im-wniy  for  m-vdniy, 
medo."  "  inaBrfuco,'*f  and  HMAMb  imamw,  "I  have." 
Kraiuish  deserves  special  attcution  in  respect  of  the  first 
person  singulur,  as,  without  exce|)tjon,  it  has  preserved  the 
persouid  m,  although  with  entire  reiiuncintiou  of  the  i; 
for  instance,  drhm,  "  I  labor":  so,  in  Poliah,  Id  the  first 
conjugation,  as  Bandtke  bos  it.  czytam,  "I  read."  In  Old 
Sclavonic,  however,  we  find  everywhere  in  the  couimoD 
conjugation  S\  un,  and  we  have  already  remarked  tliat  we 
recognise,  in  the  latter  part  of  this  diphthong,  the  melting 
of  this  personal  sign  m  into  a  sliort  u  sound,  whieh,  with 
the  preceding  conjugation- vowel,  has  resolved  iUelf  into  un,  as 
in  Greek  Tuirrowri  from  twtttoiti  (§.  SIi^.^.).  \ti.  Ed.  p.  530.] 
Id  the  same  light  ia  to  be  regnrdfd  the  Lithuanian  u  in 
Mielcke's  Brat  and  second  coujugation ;  compare  suJhi, 
"I  turn,"  and  penii,  "I  feed."  with  the  plural  svk-a-mi, 
fien-a-m^.  On  the  other  hand,  in  verbs  like  laitau,  "  I  hold," 
Vft^X-nii,  "  1  seek."'  myliu,  "  I  love."  the  u  only  belongs  to  the 
personal  sign.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  Old  High  Gerinan  u 
iu  Grimm's  strong  and  first  weak  conjugation:  in  these,  u  is 
a  weakening  of  the  Gotliic  a  (Vocolismus.  p.  227.  91),  and  this 


dual  it  intern  an  «  u  ft  GontiM4ing  vawel ;  henen,  j/ad-t^it  ia  eoalnwt  lo 
da*-ta,  vyeX'ta.     ^v  Knintar's  GIhkoIiih,  ]>.  0.1. 

*  Isptncrnllj  iim<3  wiUi  n  fuluiv  aiciiilivAUon. 

•i  Tlu^  SwrtaVrit  prrpoatUon  Mam,  GrctoJc  m-v,  1ms,  in  SclAVonic,  usually 
Iiwt  tho  nwial,  ^ut  hna  prcKrvvd  it  in  ihe  iilmve  ioalnDcoi. 


GIO 


TBnns. 


is  itsdr  a  shortenitig  of  the  Sanskrit  A,  sihI  k>  far  corre- 
sponds to  the  Greek  w  nnd  Latin  p  (see  §.434.).  Com- 
pare the  GoUiic  ftu/r-n-*.  Old  Higli  Geniiiiri  bir-u-  {pirn),  with 
HTlftt  hhnr-H-mi,  ^tp-w-Cfiil.  //r-w.  Tlic  only  verb  which,  in 
Gothic  has  preacrvcd  a  reiniiaiit  of  llie  tcrininatiou  /ai,  ia 
im,  "  I  am,"  =  irftil  annr.  &c.  hi  High  German,  however, 
tbe  remains  of  this  old  tt^nuitmtion  are  more  numerous: 
in  the  Germnn  bin  it  has  to  this  day  rescued  itself  from  totjil 
suppression.  The  OIU  High  Gcrmau  form  ia  bim,  or  pirn,  a 
contraction  of  the  Sanskrit  hhacAmi,  the  i*  of  which  reappears 
ID  the  shape  ofrin  the  plural  birttmH.  Besides  tlicse,  tho 
personal  sign  in  Otd  High  German  fastens  on  some  oilier 
isolated  verbs,  as  on  tjAm,  "I  go,"  =innfil  jwydmi,  ^i^fftt, 
(p.  Ill);  illim,"  Istanii"  ^filW\f^  t'lihthAmi,  ZemI  j^AU^ejojw 
hhlAmi,    Greek,    Jirrtj/ii  (p.  Ill);    tumn,    "I  do,"  =^S!in8krit 

QVrfn  dtidhimi,  "  I  place,"  Greek  liStjfiu  f^Tyifl  v't-dadhAmi, 
"I  make";  and,  further,  on  those  cloAScs  of  verbs  whidi  ex- 
hibit tlie  Sanskrit  form  aya  in  the  shape  of  ^  or  «f  (Grimm's 
second  and  third  conjugations  of  the  weak  form,  see  §.  109",  6.). 
Heneo  habihn  (Gothic  haha),  (Iamn^>m,  and  phlunsim,  are 
more  pcrfeet  tlum  the  corre«[K>nding  Latin  forms  hobto. 
damno,  planlo.  Yet  it  is  ooly  the  oldest  roonnmciita  which 
eNhihit  the  m  termination :  the  more  modem  substitute  n. 

(0,  Eil.p.  IWI.]  437.  In  thesccondiiry  forms  the  expression 
of  the  first  person  singular,  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend,  is  termi- 
nated by  m  without  nvowel ;  and  (his  mutilate<l  ending,  which 
has  maintained  itself  in  Latin  in  preference  to  the  fuller  mi 
({.  431.),  has  been  forced  in  Greek,  by  a  universal  law 
of  sound,  to  become  v ;  just  as  we  have  Been,  in  tlie  Old 
High  German,  the  final  m  of  the  moat  ntH-ient  authorities 
corrupted  into  a.  Compare  trepii-o-v  witli  atnTp-n-m, 
^itiot-v  and  eSw-i*  with  adnd'i-m  and  uf/d-m;  and  further. 
iiio-i^v  and  $o-i7iv  with  datt-tjAta  and  dS-yHm.  In  the  Grst 
Greek  aorist  the  [icrsoual  sign  bos  vanished;  hence,  cfti^a 
contrasted  with  vfi^'^v  adilttham.     The  older  c^cifav,  from 


viRST  rsnsoN. 


611 


a  still  older  form  e^ci^o/u,  con  be  trac«d,  however,  out  of 
tbe  resulting  miJJIo  form  iiu^ait-ijv.  With  respect  to  tlie 
Gothic  u  for  m.  we  refer  the  reader  to  §.-l32. 

"  Rf mark. — We  liavf,  nbove,  divided  atiirp-a'pi  after  the 
fasliion  of  tlie  Greek  ETcpn-o-v,  but  bavo  further  to  observe, 
that,  nccordiiig  to  tlie  Indian  grammarians,  the  full  termina- 
tion of  tlic  first  person  singular  of  the  secondary  form  is  not 
a  simple  rn,  but  am:  accordingly,  otar^mm  would  stHitd  for 
oitirpAm  from  alarp-a-nm.  and  "we  should  have  t<>  assume  an 
elision  of  the  intermediate  syllable  a.  In  fact,  we  find  tbo 
termination  am  in  places  where  the  a  cannot,  as  in  atnrp-a-m, 
ojwi-ya-m,  adaT.i-ny/i'm,  be  assigned  to  the  class  chamctcr 
(5- I09M.2.  5.);  for  wc  form,  for  instance,  out  of  /,  "go," 
dif-am,  not  Ai-m,  "  I  went";  from  brU,  "  speak,"  abrav-um 
or  abruv-am,  not  ahrA-m,  "  I  spoke";  and  from  the  s^llobles 
nu  and  u,  which,  in  the  special  tenses,  are  apjiemled  to  the 
rtiots  of  the  fifth  and  eighth  class  (§.  109".  4.),  spring,  not 
nd-m,  <J-m,  as  wc  might  expect  from  the  present  n6-mi, 
fj-mf,  but  navam,  avam;  and  thus,  for  instance,  wo  find 
WHIO V\  axfjiiiavnttt,  plumi  VW^  tutlnnuma,  answering  to 
iirr6pv0i',  ttrropvufteu.  As,  however,  the  second  person  in  San- 
skrit has  a  simple  j,  thetliird  a  simple  I,  for  ita  sign,  and,  for  in* 
stance,  axtri~nA-»,  tisfri-fiA4,  answer  to  the  Gr.  itnift-vv-i,  i-<n6p- 
-^^(t);  fromthcnco.as  well  as  from  the  fact  that  the  Orcek  also, 
in  the  first  person,  has  a  simple  v.  wc  may  deduce  tliat  the  a  of 
asirinamm  is  inorganic,  and  im[>orted  from  tlie  first  conjuga- 
tion, justas.in  Greek,  wc  fittd  for  e<rr6pvv-v  [O.  Ed.  p.  0.')2.] 
also  iaropvu'O-v ;  and  so,  in  tbe  third  person,  together 
with  eo-ropvO  also  coTopi'V-e,  to  which  a  Set-nakjit  asiriiuiv-a't 
would  correspond.  The  verbs  which  unite  the  [lorsonal  ter- 
minations immediately  with  roots  ending  in  consonants  may 
have  particularly  fuvoiirrd  the  introduction  of  an  a  into  the 
first  person;  thns,  for  instance,  to  the  present  I'^rfm/,  "I  know." 
no  av&im  could  follow;  the  personal  character  must  have 
vsniahed  entirely— na  in  the  second  and  third  person,  where. 


612 


VBBBS, 


instead  otai-H-t,  avfit^,  hy  $.  94.  ar4t  (for  mffti)  is  used' — or 
else  the  aid  of  an  intermediate  vowel  must  have  bevu  sought, 
as  the  nominitl  bases  temiin&ticgin  a  consonant  aild  am  instead 
of  simple  in  in  the  accusative,  from  whence  this  termioation  has 
passed  also  over  to  monosyllabic  bases  tt-rniinatiiig  n-ith  a 
vowel ;  so  that  ndtwim  for  iidum,  and  bfiruv-am  torbhfAm  have 
tlie  same  relatlou  to  tht!  Greek  vav~v,  6<(>p6-¥,  that  we  have  seen 
atfriwiwrn  {for  aalrinUm)  hear  to  wTopvu-v.  In  any  east!,  how- 
ever, tlie  a  has  acquired  a  firm  ustahtishmeutin  thehrst  person 
singular  of  the  secondarj- forms;  and  it  would  bo  beat  perhaps, 
practically  as  well  as  thcoruticullyt  to  lay  down  the  rule, 
that  where  a  or  <1  does  not  precede  the  terminating  m  as  the 
property  eitlier  of  a  class,  a  mood,  or  a  root,  tiiat  letter  is  in- 
Irodiioed :  hence  we  6nd  (darp-a-m,  " plQenbam,"  adaifd-m, 
"doAffliB,"  atjd'tn,  "ibam"  (from  tlio  rwit  yti),  <iyi/-n<l-m, 
"tlgaham,"  {<;1.9.  see  §.  1U9'.  5.),  dudyd-m,  "Jem";  but  also 
tutri-nav-ttm,  "  sternrliam,"  for  osiri-nA-m;  and  tarp-i/i/-am. 
" placem* {^.  43.),  hrltirpfm  ;  lUlHiif-if-am,  "alem"  (or thhth^m. 
which  last  would  accord  more  closely  with  ihhtlth,  "xteg"; 
tifhfkfl,  '"gM";  livhth^ma.  "gtfmm";  thhthHa,  "amiM." 

438.  In  the  Gothic,  as  we  have  before  rcmarlted  (J.  432.), 
the  m  of  the  secondary  forms  has  resolved  itself  into  u. 
This  termination,  however,  lias  entirely  vanislicd  from  tlio 
Old  High  German,  with  the  exception  of  a  solitary  exam- 
pie,  which  has  preserved  the  original  m  in  preference  to 
the  Gothic  u;  namely,  iirm-m,  "disam,^  in  Kero.  In  tlio 
Lithuanian,  both  the  mutilated  m  and  the  fuller  ending  mi 
haw  been  corrupted  into  u,  and  therefun:  just  as  Inilnu,  "  I 
hold."  is  related  to  the  to-br-pn»up]>oscd  Itiil-am  from  lail-ami, 

[Q.  Ed.  p.  633.}  80  is  btnma  to  the  Sanskrit  a-bttnvnm, 
"  I  was."     With  respect  to  tlie  Sclavonic,  t  may  refer  the 


*  In  the  avcond  jxnon  the  form  aeft  dw  hoiJs  gocxi  wiUi  the  nwllcftl 
MfMnnuu  fltipprc«Kd  and  th«  tcmiution  r«iaiaei],  na  in  the  Latin  iwnii- 
nstives,  likp^-<  Iotptd-4. 


riHST  PBRSON. 


613 


reader  to  what  has  been  said  ^nerally  {§.  433.)  od  the  ain> 
galar  secondary  terminntions,  and  to  ivbat  will  follow  here- 
after  on  tlie  preterite  in  particular. 

439.  With  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  termination  of  the 
first  person.  I  consider  mt  to  be  a  weakened  fornt  of  the 
syllable  ma  (compare  p.  lo2).  whidi,  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend, 
Ilea  at  the  foundation  of  the  oblique  cases  of  the  simple  pro- 
noun OS  theme.  In  the  nord  tlaJiUni,  mi  has  the  same 
relation  to  the  ma  in  which  it  Originates,  as  thu  Latin  i  bears 
in  compounds  like  Ju6(C/A'(-rniu)t  to  the  true  radical  form 
CAN.  The  sefoudarj*  form  rests  on  a  furllier  weakening 
of  mt  to  m,  whieh,  though  it  he  of  most  remote  anticjuity. 
as  would  appear  from  ils  striking  accordance  with  the  sister 
languafjes  of  Europe,  still  does  not  belong  to  those  times 
wlieu  the  organization  of  the  language  was  yet  dourishing 
in  lUl  its  parts,  and  in  full  vigour.  I  do  not.  at  least, 
believe,  that  in  the  youth  of  our  family  of  languages  tliere 
was  aln'»dy  a  double  series  of  personal  terminations ;  but 
I  entcptaJu  the  conjecture,  that,  in  the  course  of  time,  tho 
terminations  underwent  a  polishing  process  in  (hose 
places  where  ftn  accession  to  tlie  anterior  part  (in  tJie 
augment-preterites),  or  an  insertion  into  the  interior  (in 
the  potenlUl  or  optative),  hnd  given  greater  occasion  for 
sueh  a  process.'  Tlie  gradual  prevalence  of  the  mutilated 
terminations  is  illustrated  by  the  fact,  that,  in  Latin,  all 
the  plurals  still  end  in  man,  in  Greek  in  fiev  {^i),  while  in 
Sanskrit  the  corresponding  form  m^^  mas  only  remains  in 
the  primary  forms,  and  even  in  these  ahcws  itself  not 
unfrequently  in  the  mutilated  form  ma,  [0.  Ed.  p.  834.J 
which,  in  the  secondary  terminations,  has  become  the  rule: 
hence  we  have,  indeed,  (iirp-d-7na.v,  .wrj>-(I-*/i«j(,and  occasionally 
(orf^-d-ffio,  sanp-A-ma,  corresponding  to  re/sw-o-fjej,  »erp- 
-i-mru,  (§.109*.  1.);  but  constantly  afcrp-d-iwo,  asarp-A-ma, 
answering    to    erepir-o-^ei,    aerjtebamm ;    constfintly  ds-ma. 


Compare  VocnUsmatv  nem.  IS. 


I 


instead  ofaiH-t.  av4l-l,  by  §.  94.  avft  (for  atx*(/)  is  used" — or 
else  tlic  aid  of  an  iDtcrmcdiatc  vovrel  uitu't  hnvc  been  sought, 
as  the  nominal  boaes  terminating  in  a  consonant  add  a/Ti  instead 
orsimple  m  in  the  accusative,  from  whence  tliis  termination  has 
pfissed  also  over  to  monosyllabic  bases  terminating  with  a 
Towel ;  80  that  vdv-am  for  n/ium,  and  hhrnv-am  for  Itliriim  have 
tlie  Mine  relation  to  the  Greek  vav'V,  6^pv-y,  tJiat  wc  have  seen 
nxfrjirov-am  (for  asirindm)  bear  to  earofivv-v.  In  any  case,  liow> 
ever.the  a  has  acquired  a  firm  establishment  in  the  6r8t  jserson 
singuhir  of  theseeondar}'  forma  ;  and  it  would  be  best  perhnpa, 
practically  as  well  as  tbeoretieidly,  to  Iny  down  the  rule, 
that  where  a  or  d  does  not  precede  the  tcrmitiatinf;  m  as  Uic 
property  either  of  a  class,  a  mood,  or  a  root,  that  letter  is  in- 
troduced :  hence  we  find  o/arp-a-m,  " plitcabam."  odaM-m. 
"dabam,"  ayA-m,  "ibam"  (from  the  root  y/I),  nyu-nd-m. 
"iiynhnm"  (cl. 9.  see  4- 109*.  5.).  dadyd-m,  -dem";  but  also 
atitri-naV'am,  "  stertifliatn,"  for  aalri-Hii-m;  and  tarp-fy-am, 
"plaetm"  (f  43-).  for  tarpem ;  tUhtU-yam,  "  stem"  for  lishth?m, 
which  last  would  accord  more  closely  with  ttihlhh,  "  ttet"" ; 
tiahthH.  -atel";  thhlhfma,  "stnnus";  thhtli^Oi,  " stUiaT 

439.  In  tlie  Gothic,  as  we  have  before  remarked  (§.  432.), 
the  m  of  the  secondary'  forms  has  resolved  itself  into  u. 
TTiis  termination,  however,  has  ejitirely  vanished  from  the 
Old  High  German,  with  the  exception  of  a  solitary  exam- 
ple; which  has  preserved  the  original  m  in  pn-fercDce  to 
the  Gothic  u;  namely,  limcm.  "dUcnm"  in  Kero.  In  the 
Lithuanian,  both  the  mutilated  m  and  tlie  fuller  ending  mi 
bave  been  corrupted  into  »,  and  tliereruru  Just  as  laik-au,  "  I 
bold,"  is  related  to  the  to-bc-prcsupi>oftcd  iaitcam  from  lailcami, 

[O.  Ed.  p.  633.]  so  is  butcaa  to  the  Sanskrit  a-hlun-nm. 
"i  HU."     With  respect  to  the  Sclavonic,  I  may  refer  tho 


*  In  ihe  arc«nd  porann  tin*  form  avf-t 
aMonant  tuftprcnpd  aiul  the  (cri 
onttTo,  Vkrpc-t  tarpcJ-t. 


6U 


VCBBS, 


iuiswcring  to  ^(a)~fi£i,  erAntu*.  dady&-taa  to  iiioit}~fxti.  ami 
U*htiiA-ma  to  st^iuui.  To  (mus,  however,  to  the  exjilanation 
oftlie  termiiiaiiun  mat,  we  iniglit  assuinv  tli»t  it  shoiiM  be 
divided  into  m-a»  ;  tlutt  tlie  m  sliouKl  stand  as  theme,  Liut  t)ie 
ov  as  a  plural  nooiiuntive  t4.-rmiuatioii ;  for  mna  ends  like 
q^^  ptuiof.  fi^i  like  iro^Gf,  and  tbc  personal  endings  always 
express  n  mmiiiiativc  relatiun.  It  is,  bowcver.  also  pnasiMe 
that  the  s  nf  mta  reata  on  the  snmc  principle  &s  the  >  uF  the 
Zeiid  Mi^i^  yas,  "  rou,**  for  yiismS,  and  tlie  «  »f  the  San- 
skrit nat,  uis,  and  Latin  hm,  wa.*  Then  -^npt  ad-nuu 
would  sigiiify  "  I  and  they  cat,''  as  \rc  have  st^cn  that  v«) 
{frmi  wus  cnusidert:^  a  copulative  coiupouud  in  the  ncnbe 
«f  "  1  end  tliey  "  CS.  333.).t  In  this  view  the  Vedic  termi- 
nation mo^r.  on  which  rests  tlie  Zend  mahi — for  inatince, 
^H^  dadmftai,  juiju^^^^aj^  dailemalii,  "  we  give" — wonid 
[G.  E^  p,  635.]  ftjipeur  to  be  a  Dtutilntiou  and  weakeuing 
of  the  appended  pronoun  tma,  or  the  i  of  matt  would  be  a  mu- 
tilation of  5  {  =  a+i)i&.ndm'iai  (formo-vi'J  wouUJlhusjoin  itself 
to  the  Vedic  plural  nominative  fi-wn^  for  mmmf.  The  inde- 
pendent asmi  would  have  lost  the  finil.  and  the  terminntion 
masi  the  second  m.  If.  however,  the  first  supposition  be  Ibc 
true  one,  the  i  of  m/ioi  might  be  eomparcd  with  tlie  Gret-k 
dosoDstFative  /.  onuttiag  the  difiercocc  of  quantity. 


•Sea^$.336.33fl.S37 

t  Ai  to  tbe  cxpT««iioii  "  we"  otbCT  coDipatuons  an  roon>  niiuKlly  Attri- 
buted to  the  /  Otnn  Itm  pcrwn  or  pt-nonB  ai1<In:ssci],  to  wliom,  in  fact, 
tbiuj;^  &r«  D»tuii1y  rcc«aiite<l  in  wliich  thoy  tbcrosclvos  liav«  but  at 
share  |  and  as,  moreover,  for  the  iik>K  "  wo  two,"  in  iis  simple  iiae,  a  ipe- 
cial  forrn  in  provided,  which  perbftpa  exlslci]  before  other  AvtiU ;  it  m^idb 
toiQoUldehli^clylhjit  Fotl'a  ooiiji.<clur*  (Deil.  Jkhrb,  MmcIi  IB33,p.3a6) 
is  eorrsd,  that  tlie  syllable  mat  of  ihe  first  peraon  ]i]urul  proprrly  cx- 
ftetaa  "I  and  tliou";  end  thjit  ilicrvfure  the  pronoun  of  ihewcond  person 
Is  exiirvMcd  by  the  »,  in  the  nine  fprtn  ia  which  it  apjmrs  ia  the 
■ingalsr  of  the  vtrb,  which  in  nny  cue  wo  lire  obliged  first  (odoivc  from 
Ibe  X  of  twam,  while,  by  Uie  exphuutioii  alforr,  the  »  is  given  m  exiMing 
originally. 


TIRRT  PEESON.  G15 

410.  The  Old  Uiijli  Gorman  exhibits  the  first  person 
plural  in  the  very  full  anJ  jierfect  sliape  mh,  as  well  in 
the  primary  as  in  the  sccHiiJary  forms — i,  c.  in  the  iudicn* 
tive  and  subjunctivct — while  the  Gotliie  has  in  the  one 
merely  m,  in  the  other  ma.  In  the  Lithuanian  we  6nd 
everywliere  m6 ;  in  the  Caniiolan  mo,  for  instance,  deUimo, 
"  we  labor";  but  the  Old  Sclavonic  has  a  naked  vi  or  mn 
— the  latter,  however,  only  in  a  few  verba,  whielihaTf,  in  the 
singular,  the  more  full  terminatiou  my  (p.  609);  for  instance, 
iftMbi  ya-my,  "we  eatf^^^wv  ad-mat;  BlMbi  vve-my, 
"  we  know,"  =  f^wa  vict-mna.  Tliis  Sclnvontc  i>i  y  for 
i  or  o,  which,  necording  to§.  3&&.  o.,  we  might  expect  in 
answer  to  the  Saoskfit  «  o,  is,  I  believe,  produced  by  the 
GUphonic  influcDce  of  the  original  s  which  concludes  the 
form  (compare  §.  271.).  It  is  more  difBcult  to  aw-ount 
for  Uie  long  e  in  Old  High  Gcniinn,  unless  Graff  (I.  21.)  he 
right  in  his  conjecture,  that  the  termination  mis  may  rest 
upon  that  peculiar  to  the  Vedas,  mm'i.  We  should  tlieo  have  to 
assume  either  that  the  i  which  had  been  dropped  from  the 
termination  had  been  replaced  by  the  lengthening  of  the 
antecedent  vowel  (tlius  mis  for  mdt.  as  in  Gothie  i  =in  4 
§.  €9.).  or  that  the  t  had  fallen  back  into  the  preceding 
syllable;  for  out  of  ai  we  have,  in  Old  High  German,  as  in 
Sanskrit,  9.  In  Gothic,  we  may  be  surprised  that  the  more 
mutilated  termination  m  should  answer  to  the  fuller  Sanskfit 
termination  m?^  mwi.  while  the  shorter  ma  [G.  Eip.  (Wfi.] 
of  the  secoiKlary  forms  has  remained  unaltered;  thus 
bair-a-m,  "/trrimus,""  contrasted  witli  wrwi^  bftar-d-maa  and 
fcair-ai-mo,  "fitramia,"  answering  to  »^  hhar-i-ma.  Pro- 
bably the  di|>hthoug  ni,  nud.  in  the  preterite  sultjimctive,  the 
long  i' (written  ff,  na  in  ber-f^i-ma),  was  found  bL'ttcrflblo  toboar 
the  weight  of  the  personal  termination,  after  the  same  prin- 
ciple by  which  the  rcduptieation-syltable  of  the  preterite^ 
in  tlie  Gothic,  has  only  maintained  itself  in  the  roots  with 
long  syllables,  but  has  perished  in  the  short    We  must  con- 


5 


616 


VBRBS. 


aider  lluit  ihe  Sanskril,  in  the  redu|>lii'ated  preterite  has,  in 
like  manner,  it  mu,  not  i|B  mcu  ;  but  the  Gothic,  in  this 
place,  does  not  tliare  ihe  terniinntiori  ma  with  the  Sanskrit, 
but — as  I  believe,  oa  account  of  tJic  shortness  of  the  ante- 
CLtlcnt  vowe) — has  a  simple  m;  henec.  for  ioatance,  bund-a-m, 
"  we  bouiiti,"  answering  to  vvf^ni  bdbandh-i'tna. 

■141.  In  the  dual,  the  Sanskrit  luis  iyjh  in  the  primary 
forms,  aiid  va  in  tlie  secondary',  in  analogy  u-itli  thu  plum) 
mas,  ma.  The  difTereiice  botvecn  the  dual  und  the  plum) 
is.  however,  so  far  an  accidents.]  one,  in  tliat,  as  we  liave 
before  observed  (§.-134.}.  tl'c  duaJ  v  is  a  corruption  of  m. 
Tliis  diffrrence  is,  nevertheless,  of  remote  antiquity,  uud 
existed  before  the  iodividuatizatton  of  the  German.  Ltthu- 
anian,  and  Sclnronie,  which  nil  participate  in  this  peculiar  dual 
form.  The  Lithuanian  universally  has  wa,  th^  Old  Sclavonii^ 
together  with  ba  va,  an  inorganic  feminine  Bt  vye  {%.  439) : 
but  the  Gothic  has  thrco  forms,  and  the  most  perfect  in  the 
subjunctive,  where,  for  instance,  bair-ai-va  has  the  same 
relation  to  »n5  bfiar-4-ea,  as,  in  the  plural  hair-ai~ma  to 
>i^  bhar-^'tntt-  The  reason  why  the  dual  ending,  in  this 
position,  has  maintained  itself  most  completely,  plainly 
lies,  as  in  the  case  of  the  plural,  in  the  antecedent 
diphthong,  wttich  has  felt  itself  atrung  cnon<;li  to  hear  the 
syllable  la.     [q  the  indicative  present,  however,  the  long  d 

[G.  Ed.  p.  oar.]  which,  in  the  Saiakrit  bhar-H-vas.  pre- 
cedes tlie  [lersonnl  termination,  luis,  in  the  Gothic,  shortened 
itself,  in  all  probability,  ns,  in  the  pliiral,  bair-<i-m,  and,  in  the 
Greek.  ^p-o-fMi,  contrasted  with  blmr-d-miu:  then.  Itow- 
ever,  V  has  permitted  itself  to  be  extinguished,  and  out  of 
baira{v)as,  by  a  union  of  both  the  vowels,  bairdu  has  been 
generated,  as  d.  in  Gothic,  is  the  long  form  of  a  {§.  69.) ;  and 
heoep,  in  the  nominative  plural  masculine  of  the  a  bases, 
in  like  manner  A  is  produced  out  of  n  +  as,  so  that,  for 
instajice,  vuirds,  "  men,"  answers  to  tlie  Sanakpit  virAr, 
"  heroes "  (out  vi  vira-at).     In  the  indicative  preterite  wc 


FIltflT  PERSON. 


617 


cannot  rxpcct  to  meet  with  ds,  as  thia  tense  has  Tor  its 
connecting  vowel  not  a  bat  u;  uor  can  we  expect  to  meet 
with  U'va,  since  va,  like  the  plural  ma,  ciin  be  borne  only 
by  diphthongs  or  long  vowels.  The  next  iu  turn  is  u-v, 
AS  analogous  to  the  plural  ii-m.  At  Uie  end  of  a  word, 
however,  v  ia  subject,  where  preceded  by  s  short  vowel, 
to  be  changed  into  u.  Hence,  for  instance,  thru,  "  ser- 
t'KHi,"  (for  ttiiv).  from  the  base  THIVA;  and  thus,  also. 
from  u-v,  first  ii-m,  atid  ticxt  long  il,  may  have  been  gene- 
rated, by  the  union  of  the  two  short  vowels  into  one 
long.  I  therefore  hold  the  «  o(  maga,  "  wo  two  can,"  siyu, 
"  we  two  are,"  the  only  evidenee  for  the  form  under  dis- 
cussion.* to  be  long,  and  write  majji,  sij/il,  as  «.-outrai.-tioDa 
of  mnffu-v.  xiyu-u.  from  mng-u-v,  siy-it-v.  Should,  however, 
the  «  of  this  termination  bft  neither  long  nor  the  modern 
shortening  of  an  originally  long  u,  it  would  then  be  identical 
with  that  which  stands  as  &  connecting  vowel  in  mafj-u^s, 
maff-tt-m,  or  it  would  be  cxplainiible  as  nrniju  Trom  mngvat 
Kiyu  trom  liyvit.  Independently,  however,  of  the  phonetic 
impossibility  of  the  last-meutioned  form,  LG.  Ed.  p. 638.] 
the  imtncdiftte  annexation  of  the  personal  ending  to  the 
root  is  incredible,  because  the  first  dual  person  would  thus 
prrstrnt  a  contrast  scarecly  to  be  j»stifit;d  to  tlii;  acuonil,  and 
to  (ill  those  of  the  pluml,  as  well  as  to  the  most  ancient 
practice  of  this  tense.  Iu  Zend  I  know  no  example  of  the 
first  person  duid. 

44S.  Of  the  middle  teririnalions  f  shall  treat  particularly 
hereafter.  The  following  is  a  summary  view  of  the  points 
of  comparison  we  Iiave  obtained  for  the  first  person  of  the 
transitive  active  form. 


*  Ai  njifjT  U  throDghoot  ittSveted  m  a  protrritc,  uid  also  the  veib  snb- 
HiantivD  ia  both  plDrali,  Grtmm  has,  ciTtiiioly  wnili  justice,  ileilucol  tlie 
foTiD  of  the  &nt  dual  pcmon  of  nil  the  proicritca  froni  tlic  fvrt^ing  in- 
stAn«M. 

■  • 


^^ 


•Udmh, 


Aoirant, 


stowiioa,  tteiva, 
dudawa,''  dadevom 

....     wifwa.* 
iwxAm''    .... 

dudame,^  damy.'* 


txAimix,    viffam,       wexamf,  vtiom. 


tiam. 

dtuhdvmy.^* 


itTTairtiifr^tSmiit,  .... 

diiijliijilma,  j)iAotr)jj*c,  lihrtua,         ....  .  . 

baraima,       ^ipotittt^ferdmas,     bairaima}*    .  , 

vasaSma^       t;(oifitt,    vthAmtu,    vlgcitna^*      ....      v«igem,' 

vaadmaf        ri^n/ut,    wAiiHrmut,  ....        ttwiARe"'   .... 

'  Srt^aW.^.  <  &««$.80.  *  If  V(,  for /"{ixoc,  U  related 

to  7x»f  tli^iL  fx'^  0^  BMads  for  f <x"f  ^^  belongs  to  raA/tinf  and  veho. 
The  siKnirtcniuiin,  aUo,  of  moretnent  in  ibe  cotii[>ouiiilii  aWj^u,  fti*x<B, 
«'»^«)  &«.,  is  pUioIy  perceivable ;  tlirn  th«  Suukrit  root  vah  ngnifiee, 

*  The  forme  marktd  with  *  Wking  to  Ibe  Old  High  Uemuin,  Uie  aii- 
markvd  forms  to  ths  Gotbie. 


FIRST  PKHSON.  619 

■1*0  "to  bear,"  from  whidi  ve  easily  arrive  at  Uia  iilea  of  "hav- 
ing." In  Greek,  howevBi,  It  soema  that,  in  thie  verb,  two  TOota 
of  dblinut  ong'ai  have  itit«rmix<»l  theinnuKca,  namvly,  *tIX  =  ^  vaft,  imA 
XXE  (SXH)i=W  fah,  "tolxflr,"  with  transpflfiition  of  tlu'  radiool  vowf  I, 
••in  gi^ifta,  OS  related  to  BAA.  If,  however,  (;(iu and  axti'vu  helanf^  to 
one  root,  the  finl  intuL  tJicn  suuid  for  ffixai,  wlili  tlie  loss  of  the  a. 
Wo  must  not,  however,  conuiler  the  spiritui  ospcrof  <'{»,  and  ofnmi- 
Inr  forms,  m  a  suhstitatc  for  the  •?,  as  it  m  very  Mniuriiu-toril}'  rxpInuiMl  hy 
§,  104.  *  In  p.'213  of  my  Glonary  I  liave  made  ttie  Saiukrit  vak 

comepani  tn  the  Gothic  vdj^^n,  "lowtinn)oUao"j  [U.  Ed.  p.  640.] 
bnt  tliis  vagva  htXita^y  lilio  ihc  I.ithiuuiian  t^-6-yu,  to  itio  cAiiul 
ivMtijNJmJ  ($.109*.G.):  the  primitive  ofniff^a  has  wctikenod  in  lh4>  pre- 
KUt  the  radical  vowvl  lo  i  (p,106),  and  only  appears  in  conni-ciion  with 
the  prepoiit«  ffa  {ga-vi-ga,  ga-cag).  In  tUo  Licliuoninn,  the  a  of  uwioyH, 
"I  ride,"  rPBls  on  the  loii^  A  of  the  ^nsVrit  vAhayami ;  the  e  of 
ictzii   nn    the  shari  a   of  vahdmL  '  TUongh,  at  the  bt-^innliig  of 

tliu  Vcnilithul^OliiliAuacii'BedUiun,  p.1|)  iheSatiadaidhyiinmhi^av^toiiia 
Suwli^t  root  dhd,  "to  place  "—which,  if  not  by  itself,  at  leiut  in  coo- 
juocljon  with  1^  rf,  has  th<  meaning  "lonmke,"  "  lo  create  "—still  wb 
deduce  thus  mncti  from  daUtfisiaiim,  that  it  ta  also  derivable  fciim  dA, 
"  tvKi**"=  uiilM8th«yha8i'Xvrvie«diioa£>pii«tiugptiMeroatho  antcccticnt 
d!,inwhich  case  we  idiould  nect«urily  have  d-iidi/iinm.  On  the  roola 
jUA  dd=^ dii,  " to  gi Yv,"  and  juy  rfii  =  V|  rf/uJ,  " lo  place,"  compare 
Humours  pn-gnant  NoU?  '217  to  the  Y«^a«  (p,  .l.'iB),  and  Fr.  Winducli. 
tmaa's  excellent  critique  en  iho  same  work  in  the  Jvna  Literu-.  Xvit. 
July  lSa4.  p.  143.  *  See  ^.  430.  '  Or,  without  re <In plication, 

r/rlrirri,  nit  thti  niiAlogue  uftho  singular  rfumf,  together  with  whif^ti,  also,  a 
rcduplieoted  form  dudu,  liat  wnntioK  tlie  mi  termlcintifln,  is  extant. 
*  Se»$.411.  *  8«e$.2S5.«.  loSee  MitJcke,  p.lOO.  IB. 

"  Veda  dudeot,  see  ^.431).  *'  See  §.  440.  »  Enphonlc  for 

dadfimy.Me.  Doltrowsky,  pp.  »0  and  G80.  >*Sce  $$.440,441. 

8EC0N*D  PERSON. 
443.  Tlie  Sanskrit  proiiomiual  base  turn  or  twi  ($.326.) 
has,  in  its  connection  with  verbal  themes,  split  itself 
into  various  forms,  tJie  (  either  remaining  unaitcred.  or 
being  moJiiied  to  th  or  dA,  or — as  in  Greek  av  lias  de- 
generated into  $ — the  »  being  either  maintained  or  removed, 
^e  li  remaining  unaltered,  or  being  vreakeocd  to  i,  or  alto- 
getlier  tlisplacc-iL      The  complete  pronominal    form   shews 

as  S 


620 


VKRBS, 


itself  in  the  middle  voic«,  as  this  afiVcts  weightier  ter- 
nitnations,  and  tliert-fore  has  guarded  more  cnrefully 
against  the  tnutilntinn  of  the  pronoun,  upon  the  same 
principle  as  that  in  whiob,  in  Sanskrit,  the  verbal  forms 
which  take  Guua  admit  uo  irregular  uiutilatiom  of  the  roots. 
[0.  Ed.  11.641.]  For  it  is  nutunil  that  ii  form  which  loves 
strengthening'  should  at  Iwist.  under  cirt-'umBUiiR-es  which 
prevent  that  process,  repudiate  the  contrary  extreme  of  muti- 
lation. Hence  we  say,  for  ciample,  asmi,  "  I  am,"  with  the 
root  undiminished,  because  the  latter  would  receive  Guna  in 
the  singular,  if  (i  would  admit  of  Guim;*  hut  wc  say.  iu  the 
dual  atctin,  in  the  pluntl  muiK.  in  the  potential  si/Am.  because 
the  two  plural  numbers  and  the  entire  poti-ntial  refuse  all 
Giinn  intrrcment,  and  hence,  oeensionnlly,  admit  of  radical 
inutitatioD.  After  ttic  same  principle,  the  pronoun  of  the 
secoDd  person  shews  ileelF  Id  its  most  complete  sliapc  in  tlic 


*  Upon  Guna  and  Viiddhi  wc  $^.20.39.  I  niity  here  append,  in  Justi- 
fiosdonof  $.39.,wbat  I  liar*  slRady  indicated  ia  m;  Vocalinniis  (p.  ix), 
tbailluihinfrerKtli  Ihercuoo  wh^aU  JncftpablvofOuDS.uIlboaghitinny 
bewiPpoQiidtd  tulo  Ivng  i  with  na  natrtxicru  a,  in  the  EUpposiiioD  thnt 
GunaaodVHiIdlii  would  be  identical  in  llic  cUd  ofa— fira^i  «,  u  wvU 
ud+a,  give  d— but  in  thl*,  Uut  a.  iitt  the  weighiieat  vowel,  in  must  of  tha 
cnscB  iQ  which  i  niid  u  rrmrc  Guna,  ia  auflicl.  iit  of  ilwJI^  and  licncc  re- 
cviv<«  no  incren>(Dt,  scconliof;  (o  llie  samo  principlv  by  which  die  long 
vowola  i  and  il  in  most  plaic«»  remain  tinulivrcd  wh«rc  ui  a  precedea 
ioTH  (Giom.  Crh.  J.  44*.).  It  is  moreover,  only  sn  opinion  of  the  gram* 
BwriSDi^  tbat  ahw  no  Gano:  th«  foci  ie,  thnl  a  ia.  iLo  Guna,  aa  in  the  Vrtd- 
dbi  dtgTM,  btcome* 4l,  but  on  account  of  its  weight  M-Idotn  usnthia  capa- 
bllity.  When,  bowcTcri  this  bappcm^  i  and  u  fmr  tho  moat  jiart,  in  the 
Miae part orfnmmar,  tiavconly  Uuoai  for  iiwtiuicc,  bilA&ia,  "ho clave," 
from  bhid,  together  with ^jxtmo,  "  he  went,"  (romgam.  It  ia,  buwvrer, 
natural,  tliat  where  bo  great  an  increment  in  nquind  Mthat  i  and  u  be- 
come, noi  S,  6  (=tt  +  i,  o  +  u),  but  Ai,  du,  ui  nich  a  case  a  should  c^cert 
the  only  power  of  elevation  of  whieb  it  ia  capable ;  hence,  for  tnstaocc,  wo 
faav*  mliiara,  '*detcendant  of  Maau,"  from  manu,  aa  iiiva  from  Jinr, 
■nd  MMmiiya  from  kun. 


SECOND  PSRi^ON.  621 

middle  voice,  nnmely,  in  tJie  [tlural,  wltere  the  primary 
forms  end  in  <lhtri.  nnd  the  secondjir;  in  c/Au-'im.  und,  Id 
the  imperative  tiogiilar,  where  the  termination  noa  has 
indeed  allovrtMl  tlie  T  sound  to  vAuisli  iuto  «,  but  has  yet 
preserved  the  v  of  tw»m,  "  ihou."  As  we  [<J-  VA.  p.  042,] 
shall  have  hereafter  to  cohsider  tlie  luidille  forms  iti  par- 
ticular, we  now  turn  to  tlie  transitive  activt;  rorm.  This  has 
nowhere  completely  prcservc-d  the  scnii-vowel  of  the  base 
ttta,  yet  I  believe  I  recognise  a  remnant  of  it  in  tlie  th.  which 
stands  in  tlie  primary  forms,  as  well  in  tlie  dual  ns  in  the 
plarni,  and,  in  the  reduplicated  preterite,  also  in  the  singular. 
On  the  other  band,  the  secondary  forms,  as  they  generally 
have  blunter  terminations,  so  also  they  have,  in  the  two 
plurals,  the  pure  tenuis;  hence,  for  instance,  lixlithi\-fa. 
Itrreutire.  opposed  to  lijhifin-thn.  ttrrare',  and,  in  tlic  dual, 
Ihfitliflinn,  Urrai'TToi',  op[)Osed  lo  tifhihulhut,  ttnaTov.  We  see 
from  this,  Ihal.  in  Sanskrit,  the  aspirates  are  heavier  than 
the  tenacs  or  the  medials;  for  they  arc  the  union  of  the 
full  tenuis  or  medial,  with  an  audible  h  ({.  IS.),  and 
thhthaiha.  must  then  be  pronounced  tUhf-hitt-tia;  and  I  think 
that  I  recognise  in  tlie  A  of  the  termination  the  dying 
breatli  of  the  v  of  tu-am.  "  thou." 

444.  The  above  examples  shew  that  the  full  termina- 
tion of  the  second  person,  in  the  dual  present,  is  Ihaa,  and, 
in  the  plural,  tha :  we  have,  however,  seen  tlie  duaJ,  in 
the  noua  arise  by  strengthening  of  the  pinni  termi- 
nations (^.  206.).  As,  however,  the  personal  termina- 
tions, btiiug  pronouii!),  stand  in  th»  closest  connection 
with  the  D0UD>  it  might  be  assumed  that  the  second  persoD 
plural  in  the  verb  was  onco  (has,  and  that  the  dual  termi- 
nation Uiih  hud  developed  itself  from  tUia;  but  that,  in  t)ie 
lapse  of  lime,  the  s  hud  escaped  from  tlu;  thai,  aud  tlic  long 
vowel  from  tJie  dual  Md*.  M'c  must  consider  that  even, 
in  the  Grst  person,  the  s  of  mua  has  but  a  prec-arious  tenure, 
as.  even  in  the  primary  forms,  we  often  meet  'ritb  ma.     If, 


^ 


iizi 


VBBBS. 


hon'CTer,  in  the  second  person  plur&Uthcoriginat  termination 
was  that,  the  Latin  tit  corresponds  well  to  it,  and  it  would 
confimi  Thiersch's  conjecture,  derived  from  the  hiatus,  thnt 

[G.  Ed.  p.  «43.]  in  Homer,  instead  of  Te  the  terniinntion 
Ttj  may  have  stood  as  analogous  to  fie;  (Third  Edition,  §.  163.). 
As  to  the  origin  of  the  s  of  the  terminatiou  thas,  it  is  withont 
doubt  identical  with  that  ofrnrra  in  the  first  person:  it  is 
tlius  eitlier  to  be  divided  as  Ih-as,  nnd  ax  is  to  be  explnincd  as 
a  plural  nominative  termination,  or  the  «  of  Ma-«  is  a  rem- 
nant of  the  appended  proiiuun  stau  (§.439.);  as  also,  in  an 
isolated  condition,  yu-^hmS,  "ye,"  is  found  with  a-im^, 
"wc"  (§.  332.).  If  the  latter  ftssumptiou  be  correct,  pos- 
sibly in  the  m  of  the  secondnry  dual  termination  iam 
we  may  recognise  the  second  consonant  of  xmn ;  so  that 
this  appended  pronoun  lias  suffered  a  twofold  mutilation, 
surrendering  at  one  time  its  m,  at  another  its  .v.  tn  this 
resp*?ct  we  may  recur  to  a  aimiJar  relation  in  the  Lithu- 
fiuian  dual  genitives  mamd,  i/ufnil,  opposed  to  the  plural 
locatives  muHua^,  yuxune  (§.  176.).  As.  however,  the  st^con- 
dary  forms,  by  rule,  are  tlednced  by  mutilation  from  the 
primary,  we  might  still — whether  the  first  or  tlie  second 
theory  be  the  true  one  of  the  termination  fhng — deduce  the 
duller  m  from  the  livelier  eoneludtng  a ;  as  aJso  in 
Greek,  in  the  "primary  forms,  wc  find  rov  from  ^w  than; 
us.  in  tlic  first  person,  juct-  from  man,  fia,  and,  in  thu 
Prakrit  fl(  hm  from  the  Sanskrit  iit\  bhis  (§.97.).  Thus. 
also,  may  the  dual  ease-terminntion  WTO  bUyAm  have  arisen 
from  the  plural  hhyax  orifjinalty  by  a  mere  lengthening 
of  the  vowel  (see  §.915.),  but  later  the  concluding  «  may 
have  been  corrupted  into  m. 

445.  While  tlie  Greek  already,  in  the  primary  forma,  lias 
corrupted  the  a  of  the  dual  ending  Ikaa  into  t^  tn  tlic  Gothic 
the  ancient  t  has  spread  itself  over  primary  and  secon- 
dary forms ;  and  we  are  able  to  deduce  from  this  a  now 
proof,  that  where,  in  Sansj^rit,  in  the  aeouiid  pervon  dual. 


SECOND  PBHSON. 


623 


a  naaa]  shews  itself,  this  did  uot  arise*  out  of  a  till  after  \hc  sc- 
poratiouoflanguitgcs.  The  a  which  preceded  [O.  Ed.  p.644.] 
the  X  has,  however,  escaped  from  the  Gothic  and,  in  fact, 
ID  pursuauce  ofnii  universal  law,  by  which  o  befon;  a  ter- 
minating a  of  polysj'liabic  words  is  either  entirely  extin- 
gutslied,  or  wenkened  to  t.  The  first  of  thcae  alternatives 
has  occorred ;  and  thus  ts  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  Uku,  as, 
in  the  nominative  singular  of  the  bases  in  a,  vulfs  corre- 
sponds to  the  Sanskrit  vrikat  and  Lithuanian  wilkas.  Com- 
pare hair-a-U  with  tn^vn  bhor-a-lhax,  ^cp-e-rov,  and  further, 
b^ir-fii-ls  with  ^tjt*^  bhar-i-t'im,  t^ip-oi-rov.  The  Sclavo- 
nic hfis  been  compelled,  according  to  §■  2^b.  I.,  to  give  up 
tho  6nal  consonant  of  the  termination  in  question ;  the 
Lithuanian  has  chosen  to  do  so:  both,  in  fact,  make  fa  cor- 
respond to  the  vn  thns  of  the  Sanftkpt  primary  forms,  as 
well  ns  to  the  711  ji^m  of  the  secuudury.  Compare  tlie 
Sclavonic  A*tTX  dm-ta  (see  §..I36.),  the  Lithuanian  d^aUa  or 
dttda-ta,  *'  ye  two  give,"  with  If^^  dai-thas,  HSc^ov ;  and 
AAKjlita  daihdi/-ta,'  "  let  you  two  give."  ifOTrni^  diid^d- 
-iam,  StSoiijTov.  and  Litliuouifto  dudo-ta,  "ye  twogave,"  with 
W^m  adat-litm,  iSiio-rov. 

440.  In  the  Zend.  I  know  no  example  of  the  second 
dual  person;  but  that  of  the  plum)  runs  agin  the  S-'inRkrit 
primary  forma  juG  (A«,+  and  iu  the  secondary  wp  tu.  The 
Greek,  Sclavonic,  and  Lithuanian  have  everywhere  re,  Ti,  te; 
the  Latin  has  in  the  im|:i:rative  alone  weakened  its  tii  to  te 


'^.^^S.  Nole'*.  Dobrowskjr  dues  not  eil«ftTiy  iluol:  itispUin,  how- 
over,  from  Uic  |)lurnl  datkd^tt,  tlut  Uw  dtui,  if  it  b«  used,  cannot  Kuad 
otberwin'  tliiin  as  jjivcii  Iu  iht:  text. 

t  In  the  Zend  wc  might  «xpUiIn  tti«  n»piriition,  nccordinf;  Ui  $.  47.,  u  a 
renaining  effect  of  llio  pnrlier  r :  ac,  howin'er,  in  Sntwhrit,  thenemi-vawet 
it  entirely  free  Jrom  this  inflncnco,  wc  prrfcr  for  both  laii£n<igi»  thccoti- 
ji-cturo  put  forvmrd  p.fVtSO.  cd.,  tliat  llicAuonlaiacd  In  the  M  is  thet«al 
iepr«aentftlivc  of  the  r. 


624 


VHRBS. 


(5-  iU.).    The  Gothic  has  everywhere  tfi,  witit  the  termi- 

nntiDg  vowel  rubbed  ofT:  this  M  is,  however,  in  my  opiDion, 
neither  to  be  ideutiGcd  with  the  SauKkr it-Zend  Ik  ol  the 
[G,  Ed.  p.  04fi.]  primary  forms,  nor  to  be  explained  by 
virtue  of  tlie  usual  law  of  displacement  by  which  ik  is  re- 
quirod  for  the  older  ( ;  but  very  probably  the  Golhie  per- 
sumil  tenninatioD,  before  the  6ual  vowel  was  abmded,  was 
da.  The  Gothic,  in  fact,  alfectB,  iu  grammatical  termina- 
tions, or  Bufiixcs  between  two  vowels,  a  d  for  the  urigiual  f, 
but  willingly  converts  this  d.  after  the  suppression  of  the 
eoacludidg  vowel,  into  (/(  (see  §.91.).  On  the  Gotliiet/just 
presupposed  rests  also  the  High  German  (  (§.  87.),  by  a  dis- 
plneement  whieh  has  thus  brought  ba4.-k  the  original  tenuis: 
heoce  we  God,  for  iiistaDc«>  Old  High  German,  wH'j-a-l, 
"yc  move,"  answering  to  the  Latin  teh-t-iia,  Greek  e^-e-re, 
(p.039  G.  ed.  Note'.),  Litlmaiiiau  wei-a-H;  Old  Seliivouic 
Bf^tTE  vf^-C'fe,  Sanskrit  ^f^  pah-a-Oia,  Zend  u(sM^*slf  vaz- 
-a-tha,  and  presupposing  in  Gothic  an  older  v'lijid  for  vigilh. 
4-1 7.  We  now  turn  to  the  singular.  The  primary  forms  have 
here,  in  Sanskrit,  the  termination  ftnai,  and  tlic  sccoud&ry 
only  ^  5.  Out  of  *i.  however,  under  certain  eonditions,  fre- 
quently comes  ihi  (§.  2 1 .),  wliieh  has  also  been  preserved  in 
tlie  Zend,  where,  aceording  to  §.  i3..  the  original  ti  is  ehaiiged 
to  hi  ;  03  M-M»»i  bacaJii  aud  jw>»  ahi,  "  thou  art,'"  answering 
to*nftri/i«c<Mr.  «%««  (for  a»-si)'  but  jj^^y^'jj  terenwitAi, 
"  thou  niakest,"  answering  to  mjtft  kmMi't,  as  kri,  aceording 
to  tlie  fifth  class  (J.  109".  A.),  would  form.  In  the  secondary 
forms,  aeeopding  to  §.58*..  the  concluding  sibilant,  witli  a 
preceding  ju  a,  has  become  ^  6,  and  with  jui  d,  ^  do,  but 
after  other  rowels  lias  remained  ;  hence  ^iA»yju*?jJA»j4/r«i- 
T&vayS,  **  thou  spttkt:dsl"{V.  S.  p. -H),  nuswering  to  Rimtfil^ 
yrdirivai/as:  but  MOifM^^  mraih*  "  thou  s|Mkedat,"  answering 

*  I  write  JK^Ufif  puTpraely,  and  render  &  hy  6,  bocsuse  t  now  fiail 
mysolf  campelltd  u  adopt  the  rcinarks  af  Bamouf,  fgaadcd  on  tlic  bmt 

aad 


SECOND  PSRSON. 


625 


to  writl^  tibroa,  for  which  irreguUrly  wwiln  [0.  El  p.  64B.] 
abrut:£s  (Gram.  Crit,  §.  3;»2.).  Among  tlitr  Eiiropfiiu  cognate 
laiigungc-N.  the  Old  Scltivonictakea  decided  precedmicefor  the 
fidelity  and  coiisiateiicy  with  which  it  Ims  preserved  the  pri- 
niftry  ifrmination  ai  op  gh'i,  and  so  distributed  them  that  tlie 
first  lias  rcmaioed  iu  the  archaic  conjugatiou.  ($.43S.)  the 


Knid  «HmI  manoecrlpte  (Yu50ii,pp,lTii.lriii,),  that  ins  well  aij^sUuids 
for  the  Sanakril  ift;  ihe  former,  ij.howcTer.onlyfarlheinituUAiul  medial, 
■nd  alwoys  accompaniod  by  iho  now  G  una  o  ({.  38.)— thna  olwaya  Ijai 
for  an  initial  aiid  inediaHfr,—MKlUwt  latter,  ^,  onlyforttlcrininatinR  w^ 
aai  witlioiit  the  appendaga  cf  *» ;  m  nloo  bcforo  Hj  ^  at  the  tnJ  of  b  woid 
aoAja  iaiiucrU'iI.  As  h  uk-<1ui1  Ii^h-r,  ^ap|>ciin  aomctinneB  as  tlinrt-pro- 
eentativc  of  llioSnnaliril  W  it,  ami  \3  I hra  produced  liy  tlic  influcnco  either 
of  aiiBiiteccJeat  *' or  i  (4'ji^j>  wiiiyfi  for 'Binfni  MM(gfi*»,  p.27i),or  U 
rcpreacnW  In  tlio  tliplitlnmg  j^  tf»,  the  a  ekment  of  the  Sanskrit  v  S 
(^ai  +  ij.  A5.,bowcver,  ^  iti  ihc  purest  tflxta  n  spcdally  rcacrvod  for  a 
position  in  tho  leul  ayllabU,  ti  happens  that,  for  t!i«  moetpnrf,  it  i«iaccorJ' 
ing  to  its  oHgIn,  ih«  ulaiioa  of  (ho  >yllablo  w  tu,  a*  this  Icrmtniktiux 
*y1Ublc,  in  ^oiukrit,  bevomea  6  only  before  sonanta,  iu  Z«ud  alwnys 
<},£i8*.},  Vet  1  do  not  l>«ll«ri;  tbiit  it  tuu  bi-eti  the  Iiitcfllioauf  the  Zi-ud 
speech  or  writing  to  disliiiKuiah  the  {Siioa'V^  6,  i.e.  timi  wliicb  apiing;a 
from  V  <t  with  a  ioacrtcd  iKforv  it,  ftotn  tha,t  which  spriogB  from  ira  at, 
by  vocalization  of  ih«/ to  I'i  far  each  £  consists  of  a +  u,  anil  upon  tbe  value 
ftad  (he  pro Dti  Delation  (h«  question  wlidhor  tlie  u-  or  thi?  it-rlvmeut  wu 
iherefiret,  wlivtheran  ubasln-enprefixvtl  to  (lie  u, or  on  u  np|M'niled  ta  th« 
a,  can  have  no  influc»ce.  Tlicpoiution  iif  s  vowel  innwonl  mny,  huwever, 
well  have  an  i.iif]uon(.'e  an  Ila  valae ;  and  It  in  concuivntdi:  that  the  cod- 
clndinf;^,  k«pt  pure  firAm  llic Gonad,  appntred  more  imporiani  tbiin  tbat 
which,  at  the  beginning  or  middle  of  a  word,  hotl  a  prcAicrd.  If 
the  crude  forms  in  u,  in  Ztml  as  in  Sanskritj  had  Litina  in  tlic  vocativu 
(^.■20*1,),  thi>  concluding  Gnna-^  would  also,  a«  1  believe,  be  ly^rmenied 
in  Zeud  by  ^  and  ocfl  by  "w-W-  I  «»»,  boweror,  M  it  is,  diicover  no  reason 
why  a  conchidinK  «(V  in  Sanskrit,  produced  by  Gnna  out  of  u,  sliould  be 
rsprasanlcd  In  7^iiit  in  tbe  one  way  or  ihc  other. 


^^^V                [O.  Ed.  p.  647-]      latter  iu  all  the  Others.     I  subjoin  the  verbs 

^M                   oF  ttie  nrchaie  conjiigntion,  with  severnJ  examplt^  of  tlie  more 

^m                 common,  for  comparison  nitb  the  San&Icrit 

^H                                                out  MUVOMIC. 

juMiK(irr. 

H             KCH  1/fjt.  "  ar 

wfij  fwi. 

H                AAiu  tJasu    "dax.'* 

^?Tftl  c/«(/(lti. 

^m                acit  yu$i,    ''  (Wis," 

wfw  <i/s(. 

^B                  B^Cil  vi/esi,^    "  mnvisfi,** 

^fiw  v^lJii. 

^1               miuiif  pirsAt.  "blbin."' 

finftr  /)itio*i.* 

^H                 liEiUit  cAi^'fl/ii,    "  quiescJsi" 

?nt  3^a/(^. 

^M                  CMl>iccnii  smyeyexhi{iii/a),  "rittet,'' 

WW  smayaxf.^ 

^B                BtKutu  vifeynhU  "faa," 

^Tftl  uflvt 

^m               ^mAkiuii  ^nat/fthi,  "  nmristi," 

?TT?nf»I  >l»ifl-«i.' 

^B                 EoiiiuH  boi8hi(sva),  "times,'" 

fiplft  hibh^ahi. 

H                a'Kkiuii  {lijcJ/eahi,  "/acit.'" 

?Vlfi(I  dadbiisl- 

^M                di.uBitun  shiveshi,  "  vivis," 

•fl^r*!  jivnei. 

^M                  itAAEUiti  paflethi,  "  rud'ts.'" 

^rafa  j»'ii««. 

^M                  BE^€  III  11  re^fsAi.  "vf^his." 

(l^fic  miAaxt. 

^B                  { o II ui It  Bphh),   "  dormh*' 

«filfq  8)i'flpf«/ii. 

H                fS'iEOiii  rfcketkU  "dida," 

^^fa  vftehnsi. 

^B                  T^ACCUlll  iryatcstii(*ua),  " tremis. 

"  ^^iftr  ("jifrtsi. 

H                 fitACum  hi/fiieshi,  "nj^iyM," 

f^uifn  vidhyan. 

^1                  MEIEIUH  neseski,  "fers^ 

?niftl  n<i^'«L' 

^1                  ^ORSIUH  ^obeshi,  "voctts," 

^Tlftr  Airoi/fwi 

^H                  A>f'i""  dcreatii,  "crcoris." 

^^nftl  «/n«f}»(,  '7a«Tns.'*a 

^B                 u^ouiiiuiii  }?m*Ai*/it,  "/)r(vfTm," 

^1                 rAAMtmi  fjaJuhi,  "vituperaa" 

iHjftl  yadasi,    "  loifueria." 

■              ^CAbimiiuiii  iiyithishi,  "  audi^''' 

H              tt^Bfiiiimii  ^vcniaAii.  "ion^s," 
H                 •  nvAniiii)  jiudixln,  "jteUh, " 
H              ^  BAfiTtituii  tvirtwAi,  "verlU", 

^nrfd  sua  nam. 

in^in^  iniduyim- 

Y^fn  ivirtiji. 

H              ^EiTAnuiii  builiaiii,  "eipergfifads," 

TWifti  biidhayasL 

^m                 (Mii^luiiuu  sntu/ru/'ii  "nidar'u." 

■Mfi!  irti«At/»i. 

^B                           'Sn$.4M.              *  Compiinr  niiDO^'iv,  "bvcr,"            '  A  middle 

SECOND  PBBSON.  927 

(arm,  which  f*  replaooi)  in  fc^vonio  by  the  opptedcd  nSexire.  *  Ac- 
cording to  tli0  ninth  class  (.^.  lOd'.fi.),  Imi  wiih  irr«fnilar  supprM^on  of 
then  of  the  noxjuit,  which  in  the  tiecoiiil  dims  would  furm^iulfj,  to  which 
the  i^clavcnic  form  «i>pTDuchiM  mora   cloady.  '■  OM  "  to  place," 

obtains,  through  the  prepoaliion  ol,  lh«  nieairing  "to  inalcQ"  (comfiuv 
5 .  442,,  Note ").  PcrhRjiB,  bI»i,  tho  Carnioliui  dfUtm,  "  I  work,"  is  Iwied 
on  this  root,  w  that  it  would  stand  fiir  dedam  ($.  17.)i  reUtimn^  the  rediu 
plicAtion  which  is  pMuliar  to  the  t^anslcrit  and  GK!«k  verb,  u  atu  th« 
LlibDaDlaa  dedu  with  diml.  ■  OlMcrra  ilie  fuvnurite  interchange  he- 

twiivn  V  and  r  or  {  ($.30. and  f . 400,,  Notet):  on  Uiis  pcrbups  rc^ts 
the  relation  of  tho  insupantblc  prcposilJoii  «Aj  ra{ — which  in  scvctbI 
compounds  MiTn«ponds  iu  eenM  lo  the  I^t'in  ift*  (Dohr  p.422,  Sec)— to 
the  SoniVpL  i^fM  vahia,  "out,"  for  1  A  is  fr«(juenLl/ r^resented  by  the 
ScUvoaic  a  f ,  Main  Zeai  by  {■;«l^.  in  ^^jfii tiJuimi,  j( ju(M^ tusdrnf, 
BE^H  vefS.  The  SonsliHt  vahit,  however,  is  found  in  Sclavonic  In 
another  form  btaides  this,  viz.  with  the  v  hardened  to  6;  hence  kes 
bt{,  "  without ";  ill  rcrliid  coinblnationa  f>i  And  &irf  (Dubr.  p.  41!1,  tec.). 
'  I  hurc  no  doubt  of  the  identity  of  the  Sclnvanic  root  rm  and  the  San- 
skrit nf,  wbidi  hgrm  in  tlie  incnniiig  "to  bring";  aiid  in  many  pwmgM 
ui  Ike  Episode  of  the  Deluge  the  Sniukfitnl  may  br  vrry  wdl)  rrniU-n-d 
by  "  to  carry,"  WiUi  rrfvrcuoe  to  tlicBibilaot  wliicb  is&ddcdiaSclnvonic 
observe,  also,  ilie  relatioD  of  the  root  sfys,  **lo  hear,"  to  the  Sonslcrit  int 
and  Oreak  KAY.  ■  In  thp  infinitive  i'mti  nnd  prrterite  ilweA  thu 

Bclavoaic  form  of  the  root  TFScmbks  very  Strikingly  the  7.rni  J(»^JJUJ< 
ghay&mi^  a  complex  but  legitimate  modification  of  tbi>  Sanskrit  Kteeiytimi 
(^j.  49.67.)-  '  The  root  is  properly  dor.  according  to  the  (irainma- 

rians  W  dri,  &tid  qn  nrt  (euphonic  for  Nil)  the  cliaractcr  of  dia  ninth 
class  (^.  103*. fi.).    CompoTD  Vocalismiu,  p.  170.  >^  Remark  the 

Zend  form  .MtJOJie^p^n'iaU.     in  Ruiwian  *-/ji-oxWyiii«ilii**tO  cnrrj'," 
■*IiTvgubu'ly  foriruj^dffAi,  from  tlio  root  iru,  with  the  character  of  Iho 
fifth   eJan  (f  lOD'.  4.),  and   n   cnplioni'c   for  n      [Q.  £d.  p.  Old.] 
(comp.  Note'.).  '*  Tho  caoeal  form  of /vk/,  "to  go."     Tho  Svlavoiiic 

has  u  for  i,  ncoording  to  $.  233.  A.  The  Ijitiii  pella  appears  to  mo  to  be- 
long 10  this  root,  with  fxclioiiKe  of  J  for  /  (§.  17.),  to  which  a  following  y 
may  have  assimilated  itself— a*,  iu  CJretk,  nXXot  from  oA^ur— 04  a  rcm- 
luuit  of  tho  cauBil  dwractcr  WI  "yo  ( J  -  374.)- 

448.  The  Lithuanian  has,  id  common  with  the  Greek,  pre- 
»er\-ed  the  full  termination  «i  only  in  the  verb  subsi^intive, 
where  rs-ai  aiid  tlic  Uoiiv  k<r-vl  hold  out  a  aiaterly  hand  to 


628 


VKBBS. 


each  other.  In  otiicr  c-tisos  the  two  lAngimgies  appropriate 
the  syllable  in  qaeation  so  that  the  Lithuanian  retains  every- 
where the  i,  the  Greek,  in  occorclance  with  the  Latin  ruid 
Gotliic.  tlie  x.  Compare  tlie  Lithunninn  d&tT'i  with  the  San- 
skfit  (iadd-si,  Scrlat'onic  dd'si,  Greek  SiScit-j,  and  Latin  da-K. 
Just  as  dad-i  lias  Buppressed  its  radical  vowel  before  that  of 
the  termination,  so,  in  Micleltu's  first  and  second  conjugation, 
is  the  couni-cting  vovrcl  removed,  while  the  third  and  fourth 
form  a  dijihtliong  of  it  with  r.  as  iu  tlic  first  person  with  tliu 
u ;  hence  wez-i  for  weip-i,  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  vah-a-sf, 
Zend  vo2-a-hi.  Sclavonic  ve^-p'thi,  Latin  wft-is,  GotWc  vrff-i'S 
(J.  109\  1.).  Greek  ^-et-j,  and  its  own  plural  vpi-f-U,  as 
d&da~t«,  answering  to  dii<r-i;  lut  yr.\sh~a-i,  "thou  seukest," 
aoulogous  to  the  Drat  person  vexsk-a-u.  In  the  Greek,  liovr- 
cvcr.  the  t  of  the  second  person  Iu  the  conjugution  in  id  luia 
hardly  hcen  lost  entirely,  but  has  very  probably  retired  back 
into  tlie  preceding  syllable.  As,  for  instance,  yevireipa  out  of 
yeverepta  =SanskritjHni/ri;  ftehan-a  out  of/ie\awa  (§.liy.), 
fiei^ui;  j^eifXttv,  a/jctVuf,  for  fie^iuv,  &c.  {§.  SUO.p.-llS  G.  cd.); 
so  also  Tepw-ec-i  out  of  t«(?w-c-o"(  =San8ki-it  larp-a-s'u  Or 
are  we  to  assume,  that  in  Greek  the  i  has  exercised  an 
attractive  forec  similar  tu  that  in  Zend  (§.41.).  and  accord- 
ingly the  antecedent  syllable  has  assimilated  itself  by  the 
insertion  of  an  t,  au  tlmt  ripweii  is  to  be  explained  as  arising 

[0.  Ki.  p.  C50.]  from  an  older  form  repnetai  ?  1  think  not, 
because,  of  tlic  i-forms  extant  now  in  Greek,  no  oue  exhibits 
such  a  power  of  assimilation,  and.  for  iuataneOi  we  find 
■y^eo-ir.  ripei'i,  (liKavi,  not  yheict^,  ripcivi,  fiiham.  The 
power  wliid)  is  not  attached  to  tlie  living  i  is  hardly  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  dead, 

^•19.  The  Liihaaninn  cnrpies  over  the  i  of  the  primary 
forms  also  to  the  secondary,  at  laist  to  the  preterite,  or 
Iiaa  brought  it  back  by  an  inorganic  patli  to  this  place, 
which  it  must  have  originally  occupied:  so  that,  for  instance, 
&iiu--a-i  correaponds  to  the  Sartsk(-lt  a-6^tar-n-5.  "  tbou  wast." 


SECOND  PERSON. 


639 


On  the  oUrer  band,  in  the  Sclavonic  the  secondary  forms 
are  without  any  personal  aign  of  distinctioti.  since  the  final 
I  of  t)ie  coj^nate  languages  has  been  com|ielIcd  to  yield  to 
tile  universal  law  of  suppression  of  teruiinatiug  consonaulg 
(§.  2»5. /.).  Hence,  for  ingtanee,  the  imperatives  AAikAU 
daihdi.  "  give,"  BB^fe  rf^^*".  "drive,"  answering  to  the  San- 
skrit f/flf/ji*,  valu\  Zend  daidhj/ih  (J.  412.  Note',  and  $.  56'.), 
vazdix,  Greek  SiSoi'ijt,  6;^<wt,  Littln  t/^»,  tvhJs,  Guthie  vigau, 

450.  Tliere  reniaia  two  isolated  singular  terminations  of  tins 
second  person  to  be  nientioncdr  fv  dhi  and  n  tha.  Tlie  former 
is  found  in  Sanskrit  in  the  imperative  uf  the  seeond  prtueipiil 
conjugation,  which  answers  to  the  Greek  conjugation  in  fu; 
the  latteriu  the  rtduplicated  preterite  of  verbs  in  gonercil.  The 
temiiuatiou  dJii  lias,  however,  split  itself  into  two  forma;  inas- 
much as,  in  the  euuiniou  language,  consonants  alone  have 
the  power  to  bear  the  full  dhi.  but  after  vowels  all  that 
remains  of  the  dh  is  the  nspimtion ;  hence,  for  instance, 
bkAftf,  "shine,"  pd-hi,  "rule,"  in  contrast  to  ait-dM,  "cat," 
vid-dhi,  "  know,"  vay-dhi,  "  speak,"  yung-djti,  "  bind."  TtuU, 
however,  dhi  originally  had  universal  prevalence,  may  bo 
inferred  from  the  fact,  that  in  Greek  the  correspouding  dt 
spreads  itself  over  consonants  and  vowels,  since  we  find  not 
only  iff-di,  K^Kpa-j(dt,  avw^fii,  viiretffdi,  but  [O.  Ed.  p.  851.] 
also  <f>adi,  idi,  <nt[9i,  &c. :  furthermore  from  tliis,  that  in  San- 
skrit, also,  many  other  aspirates  have  so  far  undergone  mu- 
tilation, that  nothing  but  the  breathing  has  remained ; 
inasmuch  ils,  fur  instance,  tlie  root  dhA,  "to  hiy,"  forms  hUa 
in  the  participle  passive;  and  the  dative  termination  bliyctm 
ill  tlie  prouoniiiml  first  person,  alttiough  at  an  extremely 
remute  jteriod,  has  been  mutilated  to  hyum  (§. SIS.) :  finally 
from  this,  that  in  more  modem  dialects  also,  in  many  places, 
a  mere  h  is  found  where  the  Sanskrit  still  retains  the  full 
aspirated  consonant,  as  also  the  Latin  opposes  ita  humus  to 
tlic  Sanskrit  bhuml.  My  opbiou  hereon,  already  elsewhere 
establLshed.  that  whereas  it  has  formerly  been  assumed  that 
the  termination  hi,  as  the  original,  has,  after  consonants,  been 


630 


VEQBS. 


Strengthened  to  dhi,  tliia  assuniption  is  false,  and  conversely 
tliti  dfti  lias  been  shortened,  after  %-owub,  to  hi,  is  since 
tlien  confirmed  by  the  Vcdie  dialect,  which  I  had  not  yet 
consulted;  uiasmurh  as  iu  this  it  is  true  the  mutilated 
form  hi*  is  idretuty  extant,  but  the  older  lihi  liu  not 
retired  so  far  to  the  rear  as  not  to  be  permitted  to  con- 
nect itsoir  also  with  vowels.  Thus,  in  Rosen's  Speci- 
men of  the  Rig- Veda  (p.  6).  the  form  iru-dhi,  "  hear  tliou," 
answers  remarkably  to  the  Greek  k\u9u^  The  Zend  also 
gives  express  coufirmatiou  to  my  theory,  in  that  it  never, 
as  far  as  is  yet  known,  admits  of  the  form  hi,  or  its  probable 
substitute  x  n  {h.  57.).  but  proves  that  at  the  [leriod  of  its 
identity  with  the  Sanskpt  the  2*  sound  of  the  ending  tlhi 
had  as  yet  not  vietded.  In  Zend,  in  fact,  we  find,  wherever  the 
personal  termination  is  not  altogether  vanished,  either  dhi  or 
di;  for  instance,  ^(^f^a  iUtidhi,   "  pniise  thou,"   for    the 

[G.  E4p.CflS.]  Sanskrit  ^jff  ituhi  ;  Jfiji^/f^  keTenutdh'u 
"make  thoa,"  for  the  word,  deprived  of  its  personal  ter- 
mination, vn  krtnn ;  Jg„_j^  diiz-Jhi,  "give  thou,"  (for 
yi^dihi).  euplionic  for  dad^dhi,  inasmuch  as  T  sounds  be- 
f<H^  other  7"  sounds  pass  into  sibilants  (compare  ireneftr-dj. 
J.  lU^concl.):  to  soft  consonants,  however,  aa  Buruouf  has 
shewn,  the  soft  sibilantej  ;  and  &>  zh  alone  correspond.!  For 
Ji2_j«^  daxdhi  we  find,  also,  ^yua^  ddidi',  for  instance. 
Vend.  S.  p.  422 ;  but  I  do  not  recollect  to  have  met  otsewhero 
with  di  for  dhi. 

451.  How  much,  in  Sanskrit  the  complete  retention  of 
the  tArraination  f^  dhi  depends  on  the  preceding  portion  of 
the  word,  we  see  very  clearly  from  this,  that  the  character 
of  the  fifthclass  (nu,  §.  loi>*.  4.)  has  preserved  the  mutilated 
form  hi  only  in  cases  where  the  u  rests  against  two  autccc- 


•  Sc«  Own.  Orit.f  1(4.  and  Addeodii  U  ^.Slfi.p.SSI  0.«<!. 

t  Compatv  Rimcq')!  remark  on  IIiIk  ttnnlnnliiiti.  I.e.  |i. 22. — B.  The 
ratcatioD  of  ft|  nftcr  a  toktI  is  fouad  tlmo  !n  the  Ma)iii1')i''(miA  u  miivpl 
"pot  »wny."  "dbcmd."— W. 

I  TAfMLXXXVJ.  MidCXXI  iMMini. 


SBC'ONO  PEBSOK.  631 

dmt  coDsonants :  for  instance,  in  Apttuhi,  "obtain,"  irom/ip 
(compRre  ad-4piscoT).  Where,  liowover,  the  it  is  preceded 
only  bj  &  simple  conaoniuit.  it  is  become  incapable  of  bearing 
the  At  termiuation  ;  henco .  for  instnnce,  diimi.  "  collect,"  from 
the  root  c/ii.  lu  this  nmtilatcit  fortn  tlie  Sanskrit  ^'oes  aloog 
with  the  corresponding  verba]  claaa  iu  (^reek,  wliero  3eUvv, 
according'  to  nppcnrancc,  is  in  like  manner  without  personal 
terminiitioii.  The  coincidence  is.  however,  so  far  fortiii- 
tuous,  ns  tliat  entli  of  the  two  languages  lias  arrived  inde- 
pendently at  this  mutilated  form  subsequently  to  their 
•eparation.  Nor  is  the  Greek  J^/xvv  entirely  without  ter- 
mination, but,  as  [  conjecture,  the  t  of  tlie  ending  9i  lies  con- 
cealed in  the  u,  ns  also  in  the  optative  long  uoccurs  for  w ;  for 
instance,  Jaii'DTo  (ll.xxir.  665.)  from  Smvvno.  It  is  not  re- 
quisite, therefore,  to  derive  BeUvv  from  the  to  conjugation,  and 
to  consider  it  ns  a  ccntnicLion  from  ieUvve;  [<i.  Ed.  p.  603.] 
and  thus,  also,  to  deduce  ti'Ag/,  not  from  Tt$ec.  but  from  TriJcri, 
the  T  being  rejected,  as  rCnret  from  TUTreri,  followed  out 
from  Twrerai,  and  as  xepa  from  Kcpart ;  thus,  also,  iVtii 
(for  fcmj)  from  Tirra(8)i.  as  Aloi^o^^  from  Movuai,  ho^ta  from 
XAyu  (compare  oiKot).  If.  also,  di^air  be  the  eoatraction  of 
tiioe,  we  find  also  with  it,  in  Pindar,  the  dialectic  form 
iiSoi,  which  admit*  very  welt  a  derivation  from  9i9o($)i.* 

462.  As  the  7  u  of  the  fifth  class,  where  it  is  not  pre- 
ceded by  two  consonants,  has  lost  tlie  capacity  for  sup- 
porting the  ijersonal  termination  dhi  or  /( ;  thus,  also,  the  short 
a  of  the  Brsl  chief  conjugation,  both  in  Sanskrit  and  Zend, 
has  proved  too  weak  to  serve  as  a  support  to  dhi  or  hi, 
and  has  laid  thcna  aside,  as  would  appear,  from  tho  re- 
motest period,  as  the   corresponding  Greek   conjugation, 

•  The  rckdon  of  Uliai  to  AfnnL>  is  twciittalty  diflerent  from  lUia  which 
«xiats  bctweco  Tvnronj't,  rvnrowo,  luid  rvnrouat,  rCwn>v<ra ;  for  here,  as  in 
^'Xaif  for  lUXaty  ODl  of  ^ovf,  and  nnnlcgouK  cohgi,  tlic  «  rejuvsontg  a 
naaa],  which,  in  the  onlinuyliuignB^,  has  been  iiieil«<l  down  to  b,  but  &tao, 
in  TtStlf  for  n^iVr,  has  become  i.  Ua  tbo  other  hsud,  litav  and  iltm  do  not 
rest  on  different  modificntions  of  a  ivimL 


632 


TBBBS. 


namely,  Umt  iu  w,  nnd  the  Latiu  and  Germanic  conjuga- 
tions, collectively  dispense  witb  the  personal  ternii  nation. 
The  GLTmaniu  simple  (strong)  eonjugiition  also  surrenders 
the  connecting  vowel;  Iienee  fijr  Tor  vhjn,  Siinskfit  iyi/i-o, 
Zend  vaz-fi.  Latin  veh-&,  Gretk/^-e. 

463.  Wo  now  tarn  to  the  termination  ^  tka,  of  which 
it  h&a  already  been  rcmnriced,  tliut  it  is,  in  the  singiUar, 
peculiar  to  tlie  reduplicated  preterite.  In  the  Zend  I  kjiow 
no  certain  instance  of  tliis  termiuatloD ;  yet  I  doubt  not 
that  tliere,  also,  its  prevalence  is  pervading,  and  that  in 
a  {>a&sagu  of  the  Tzeshne  (V.S.  p.  3L  I),  in  uliicli  we  expect  a 
fuller  explanation  through  Ncriosengli'a  Simgkrit  translation, 
[G.  Ed.  p.  654.3  the  expression  M<^iii^^^)ii  fra-dadhdlka 
can  mean  noUiing  else  tlian  "tliou  gavcst,"  as  tlic  repre- 
sentative of  tJie  Sansltrit  jna-dudiUha,  (§.47.);  for  in  the 
seeond  person  plural,  .-ifter  the  analogy  of  the  Sanskrit  and 
the  Zend  first  person  tiadimoki  (§.  30.).  the  d  of  the  root  aifiht 
have  been  e.xtiugnished,  nnd  I  expect  here  wpja^j^  daa-ta 
for  MOMM^  dai-iha,  iusoinuch  as  in  the  root  jm^m  xtdt 
answering  to  tlic  Sanskrit  ruut  vn  sthd  (cuin^mrc  p.  lllX 
so  universally,  in  Zend,  tlie  Sanskrit  v  Ih  has  laid  aside 
its  aspiration  after  jj  S.'  Among  the  European  cognate 
langntiges  tlie  Gotbic-  comes  the  nearest  to  the  aboriginal 
gT>ammfitical  condition  of  our  family  of  Innguagcs,  in  so  far 
that,  in  its  simple  (strong)  preterite,  it  places  a  2  as  a  per- 
Boniil  sign,  without  exception,  opposite  to  the  Siniskrit  tha, 
wtiicfa  t  remains  exempt  from  suppression.  hecTiusc  it  is 
always  sustained  by  an  antecedent  consonant  (coD)pnre§.  91.): 
we  might  otherwise  expect  to  find  a  Gothic  th  answering  to 
thi>  Sanskrit  th,  yet  not  as  an  unaltered  continuation  of  the 
Sanskrit  sound,  but  because  ^  th  is  a  comparatively  younger 
letter  (compare  p.  621),  to  wliicli  the  Greek  t  corresponds, 


*  BarDoaf.inliisalileuillcciiotiafthc^aiipsofcatitoiuuiU  aacciuloed  to 
exist  ta  tho  Zend,  ha>  not  admitted  tlic  cmnbiDstion  C^jj  llh  (ftA),  but  only 
^it  (ft)  (Vend.  S.  p.cxxxvlU). 


SECOND  PERSON.  633 

and  10  this  Utt«r  tlic  Gothic  th.  If,  however,  tlic  Greek,  in 
its  terminntion  6a,  sppenrs  identical  with  the  Siuiakrit  ^  tAa, 
this  appcaraDcc  is  delusiri*.  for  in  an  ct,Tiiiologica}  point  oE 
view  6=^  (Ih  (§.  Ifi.).  While,  however,  this  rule  lioldt 
good  etscwIiiTC,  ill  the  L-nseiibuvt%  disgeiaTattid  hy  theaotc- 
tretlent  <r,  uo  the  same  principle  as  that  wliich,  in  tlie  inedio- 
pnssiw,  converts  every  t  of  ad  active  personal  termination, 
after  tho  pre-inscrtion  of  <r.  into  6.  As  to  tlio  origin  of  the  <j 
which  couatantly  precedes  the  ending  Ba  [G.  Ed.  p.  R&S.) 
I  have  now  no  hesitation,  contrary  to  an  earlier  opinion."  in 
referring  it  to  the  root  in  i7O'0a  and  ourda,  and  individin!>thein 
rjv-6a,  ota-Sa  (for  oiSSa).  The  former  answers  to  tlie  Sanskrit 
di-i-Mo,  for  whivh  we  may  exi>ect  (I*-//ia.  without  the  coii- 
necting  vowel,  which  has  ]>erbaps  remained  in  tlic  Vcda- 
dialcct.  If  this  treatment  and  comjuirison,  however,  be  sound, 
tlien  is  ijcr-fla  also  a  remnant  of  the  perfect,  to  wliicli.  too, 
the  first  person  rja  for  f'ija=S;iU8kril  Hsn,  belmigs,  and  the 
ending  9a  ttitis  stands  in  ^ada  in  its  true  place:  just  80,  also, 
in  o7<r-da.  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  v^t-tha  (for  v^d-tha), 
"thou  kuowest,"  Gothic  wix-l  for  mit-t  (§.  102.),  and  very 

probably  to  tlie  Zend  twi?i-/« (see  p.W).  The  root  f^  vid,  in 
Sanskrit,  has  the  [wculinrity,  demonstrated  by  compBrison  with 
the  cognate  languages  to  be  of  extreme  ontiquity.of  using  the 
terniinn-tions  of  the  reduplicated  preterite,  but  without  redu- 
plieiition,  witli  n  present  signification:  hence,  in  the  first 
person,  v4ila  (not  viMa),  answering  to  the  Greek  olSa  for 
folSa,  and  Gothic  voit.  In  ^Sciffda  or  ^i)<Tda,  I  recognise 
with  pott,  as  in  all  pluperfects,  a  ]K'ripbnistic  forniabon, 
and  consider,  therefore,  his  ti<j9et  or  >j<j6a  as  idcutical 
with  the  simple  ^<r6a.  ^etaBa  is,  as  to  form,  a  plus- 
i^uam  perfect:  ncverthelens,  to  the  Sanskrit  first  an^mentcd 
preterite  dyam,  Ayas.  ^Tov,  ^I'ec,  correspond.     In  Kiptjvda,  how- 


*  ADnnb  orOrieniiil  Liicrature,  p.  41. 
XT 


GU 


VERBS. 


ever,  and  in  dinlectic  forms  like  IdeXriaBat  ttie  b^rmination  6a 
appttara  to  nic  uneooscioiia  oT  its  primitive  destiimciou,  aad. 
habituated  by  /'fSo,  and  oltr-Sa  to  an  antcdcdcut  <r,  to  have 
Eallcti  back  upon  tlic  pcrwini]  sign  2;,  which  was  ready  to  its 
haud. 

454.  In  Latin,  tti  corresponds  to  the  Sanskrit  termi- 
nation Uin,  witli  n  wenkf-ning  of  tli«  a  to  i.  and  the  pre-iu- 
sei-tion   of  an  *,  which  bns  even    intruded    itstdf  into  the 

[G.  Ii4.  p.  OM.)  plural,  where  the  s  is  less  iippropriatc.  On 
which  ucvount  ]  consider  it  as  a  purely  eupltoiiic  affix. 
Compare,  for  example — 

UTTlf.  UXKIUT. 

tftnli-sti,  ilittlt'thn  or  ditdA-iha. 

sleti-sH,  taathf-Oia  or  iaa(hA-iha. 

momord-i-atf,  nuxmard-i-tho,  "  thou  cruBhedst" 

tuiud-i-di,  tutHd-i-tha,  "tliou  wouudcdst.'* 

pepcd-i-xli,  jHtpartJ-i'ttta. 

pojtavc'i-sli  paprachch-i-lhu*  "tliou  askedsu" 

The  Latin  has  preserved  the  ancient  condition  of  the  kn- 
guag:e  more  liutbrully  than  the  Greek  in  this  respect,  that 
it  has  not  allowed  the  termination  in  question  to  overstep 
the  liniita  of  the  pcrfecL  The  Litlmantnu  and  Sclavonic 
have  allowed  the  reduplicated  preterite,  and.  with  it,  the 
teroiinatiou,  eutin-Iy  to  perish. 

4&&,  We  give  here  n  general  sumiuary  of  ihe  points  of 
comparison  which  we  have  rstubtiahed  for  the  second  pcntou 
of  the  three  numbers  of  the  transitive  active  form. 


•  CcmfAtt  tlic  SdaTwic  prwifiUi,  "  prtcari  "  {§.  447.  T«bW.)  Tlio  61111- 
■kpl  Tool  prachdJi,  whose  li;rniinii(ingiu{iirnt«  in  tlin  caw  sliovr  (itma. 
CHt.  $.b8.)8tt.-)>«t  htdiiK  its  U^iiuio,  luu  spill  ilsrlfiuto  ihrw  toTin»  ta 
L*tia,  giriug  Dptlio;>iu  oac,  rthicaix  rogo,  jnter/v^  tho  riusuolhcr, 
vrlit)tic«jAj«n)(^.  u.),  aiul  muiiiiiig  l)Olh  ill /timor. 


SECOND  PBBSON. 


635 


SANGIfUT. 

an,> 

tifhlhati, 

daddti, 

hharati, 

vahati, 

{a)iffds, 

tishthSt,* 

dadydi, 

bharSt, 

vaMa, 

avoAat, 

viddfu, 

vaka, 

dtitha, 

vitiha, 

tutddilha, 

l>ibhiditha. 


SINGULAR. 

ISMD.  GREEK.  LATIN.  GEltH&N.* 

ahi,  itrtri,  e»,  it^ 

AiffaAi,  r<mjE,  *(«»,  "aids, 

dadhdhi,       iibas,  dai,  .... 

barahi,  tfiiptis,  feri,*  bairia 

vassahi,        (X"'>*  vrhia,        vigit, 

hffdo,  «V)'7*»  ''^i  aiifaia,* 

Mit6i»,  itrraitjtf  stSt,  .... 

daidiydOf     Moiifs,  dSa,  .... 

bharditf        (fttpoit,  ferda,        bainiU 

tx°"i  vAda,       vigaia, 


vasdia, 

vasd, 

axdi» 

daxdi,^^ 


t^X")  vehebat,     .... 

•i<r6i  

ta6,  

d(da>^i,       

....  kXCA,         

vaxOf  Jx*>  vehe,  vig 

dorJtUhaf"  ^aea,^*      

va6ita9^*      ohrffa,'*  vidiati,      vaiat 

....  ....  tutudiati,  ataUtauat'' 

....  ....  fidiati,      matmaiaf 


UTll.  ULD  BCUT. 

M«i,          ^ai. 
atom,^      atoiahi. 
dudi,"^       daai. 
p 

wfii,'        veieaki.      ^ 

TJ 

atoweki^    atai*         S 
diiki,''       doAdy*  -^ 

Kefxki,''    veil*" 
wtiei*       .... 


liahthathas,  kiatathdT-^ 
bkarathaa,    barathSt" 


vahathaay 
bharSlam, 
vaMlam, 
avahatam, 

tifkthatha, 

bharalfia^ 

vahatha, 

tiahthMa* 

dadydla, 

bharSla, 

vahSla, 

avahaia. 


vazathdt" 


hiatatha, 

baratha, 

vazatha, 

hiataita, 

daldhydta, 

baraita, 

vasaSta, 

vaxata. 


DUAL. 

<f>tptToy, 

iX"-oy, 

ifupotToy, 

PLURAL. 

laraTr,      aiatia, 
iftipert,    fertia,'^ 
«X*T»,        veftttU, 
ItrralijT*,  BlStii, 
&iSoir)Ttf    d£lU, 
^poiTt,  ferdtia., 
^X°"^j      vehdtia, 
>Jx*^i      vAebatii, 


bairata 
vigaia, 
bairaita 
vigaita. 


•atdt 

bairith^* 

vigitk,^' 


bairailh^ 
vigaithy^ 


alowUa,    ttotta. 

wezata,    ix^eta. 

wefxkita,  w{f/eta. 
wez6ta      .... 


wezati,  veiete.  'q 
atote&ctte,  aloUe.  m 
dukile,      dashdite.  ■ 

iD^zkite,  ve{^te.  ? 
wei6te      .... 


•  See  J.  4i2.,  Note  • 
T  T  2 


636  TBBB8. 

'  AbbreTial«d  from  ot-*i.  *  See  %.  446.  »  Corresponds,  wiih 

regard  to  the  immediate  connection  of  the  personal  terminAtion  with  the 
not,  to  ikt^  bibharthi  of  the  third  clasB  (§.  lOD*.  3.).  *  See 

j.  44'J.  Note*.  *  ThiifonniagrDUQded  onvi^uila  root;  a  isthensaal 
coDseotii^t  vowel  (p.  106),  And  ■  the  modal  expresaon.  More  of  this 
hereafter.  *  7%fhthdytU,  or,  with  the  d  suppressed,  Mithyds,  would  cor- 
rc^wnd  with  the  Greek  Itrraiiit:  but  the  root  athd  treats  its  radical  vowel 
Moordlng  to  the  analogy  of  the  a  of  tlie  first  and  sixth  class  (^.  109M.>, 
and  contracts  it,  therefore,  with  the  modal  character  i  or  t,  into  6,  as  in 
Idtia  ttit  out  of  ttait.    More  of  this  hereafter.  ^  The  Lithuanian 

imperative,  also,  like  the  Sclavonic,  rests  on  the  Sanskrit  poteutiaL  The 
i  is  thns  here  not  a  peiswal  bat  a  modal  expression,  but  is  generally  sup- 
pnased  in  the  second  person  singnlar;  and  Rubig  det-lares  the  form  with 
i  to  be  absolute.  ■  See  Dobr.  p.  630.  »  See  Dobr.  p.  539,  and 

the  further  remarks  oo  the  imperative  of  the  Arcliaic  conjogatlon. 
'"See$$.SK>.i:and4a8.  ■'Out  of  ad-dhi,  and  this  euphonic  for 

u-<fAt,  It'Bi  (Gram.  Crit.  $.100;);  so,  below,  di-ki  out  nf  dad-dhi. 
That,  however,  the  form  di-ia  has  been  precedt-d  by  an  earlier  dd-hi 
nr  dd-dhi,  may  be  inferred  from  the  Zend  form  ddi-di  (see  i.  450.),  the 
first  i  of  which  has  been  brought  in  by  the  retro-active  influence  of  the 
last  (^ 41.).  in  Sanskrit,  however,  I  no  longer,  as  I  once  did,  ascribe 
tn  the  t  of  tdhi,  ddAi,  an  aasjirulating  influence  on  the  antecedent  sj'llable, 
but  I  deduce  the  i  from  4  thns,  that  the  latter  element  of  a+a  has 
w««k«Md  itself  to  i.  I  shall  recor  to  this  hereafter,  whtn  I  come  to  the 
ledupUcatei  preterite.  ' '  As  ^fv  ^dU  has  ^mng  from  ad'dAi,  the 

letter  leads  us  to  e^qiect  a  Zad  form  jiifju  az-^,  by  the  same  law  wliich  has 
pnsralcdjjfAM  diUMfi  from  tlad-dL  "The  hare  supposed  .ybjt^ 

tixk-dij  fnm  rid-iS,  distinguishes  itself  from  MCMA  da:-di,  out  of  dad- 
<G,  throog^  the  influeiKe  of  tlie  antecedent  vowel ;  for  «b  =A  sndj  :  are,  as 
sonant  (si>ft)nbilants,  so  related  to  each  other  as,  in  Sanskrit,  n  «and  if  <A 
unong  the  said  (hard),  see  $.21.,  and  compare  Bumonrs  Ya^na.  p.  cxxi. 
■*See^UO..aiidabove,  Notes  X  and  ■>.  ''See  ;.450.  <«  Veda-farm, 
(,  ASn.  '*  I  hav»  bcre.  and  also  p.  C&4  G.  ed ,  given  a  shon  a  to  the  end- 
ing Ua,  although  the  liihc^nphed  Codex,  p.311,  ^naeaxs  frudadhdthd 
with  a  Vm^  J ;  bat  in  the  passage  cited  of  the  Imhne  there  are  many  other 
inaianwa  of  the  short  terminating  a  written  long :  for  which  reason  I  tan. 
DM  draw  fnHD  the  ionaJn»dadatlui  the  concloson  that  the  originally  shon 
pemoal-tcrrcinatioo  tin  has  lengthened  i  tat  If  in  Zend,  while  elsewhere,  con- 
vetscly,  the  loi^  final  d  of  polysTlUMc  wvirds  has  been  shortened :  cDm[«i« 
p.  906  Note  t .    As  to  what  coDccras  the  sn^^NMcd  fivm  doahitka  1  hare  clse~ 


THIRD  PERSON. 


637 


wtiiTfi  Already  dttJ  tlie  tlurd  penon  Attfjuu  ienha=tnmdM,  (},  jQ*.), 
nnil  exfiect  iKcordinglj  vlfH^rlatMa  U)  be  aaswertxl  by  AiGjo'^gui 
4tonAiVfl<i,  <•  Sefl  pp.  0!t2, 633.  » 8m  $.  103. «./,  ud  p. CM  G.  cd. 

»  Tho  Gollik  •natsitautaiiimaithawt  pennancntly  sabstitnted  ilie  Unns 
for  llivrnilicnl  vowel,  nii'l  Uiiu prcwrvecl  tbe  rcduplicatinu ;  iheirctmcIu'diD); 
t  Tot  it  sBticfies  UiD  law  of  aabfititution,  bat  ilit:  firat  t  of  ttaut  »  rcla'tntd 
411  ilfl  ori^iaal  footing  b^  ihc  prc-lnttrtiO'lt  of  tlie  CTtphanic  *  (i).  91.}. 
With  rc^rcl  to  tbti  m  of  mm'/,  nscorrntpundlng  Co  tbe  bit  of  Mir/,  look  to 
}j.02.ftnd  21fi.,  and  to  the  phcnomraon,  oftcoi  before  mentioned,  th a t 
MM  and  tiM  nmv  raut  Id  ujiu  and  the  same  Inngnnge  h(U  often  oplit  ilw^lf 
into  variniiR  fbmis  of  mriong  nn^iftcatiua ;  for  nhich  rMson  I  do  not  liiii* 
tale  to  conBid«r  as  well  bit,  "to  hiic"  (6o/u.  Aatf).  aa  maf*.  "  to  cot  off," 
with  ita  petrified  Gntia.  as  coTTCHiumding  to  tho  SansliTil  bMd,  "  to  split.*' 
'>Tlie  duni  icrmination  (d,  of  wliich  wu  liavo  evidence  for  the  third  person, 
laivee  acaicely  roam  for  doubt  that  th6  hKlongfi  la  thu  Mroud  person  of 
the  primary  forma.  "^  (,'omparc  f%»J^  b^hri-tha  of  tho  tblnl  cloats, 

(Will  Abovo  Note  »  »  Upon  th  fiw  d,  eee  §.  418. 

THIRD  PERSON. 

456  Thepronomuia!lMiseirfa(§,  313.)has,ftftep  theonftlogy 
of  tlic  first  anil  secuiid  peraou,  weakeDed  ita  vowel,  in  llii; 
singular  primary  forms,  to  t,  and  in  the  secondary  laid  it 
qaite  aside:  the  t,  however,  in  Snnskrit  and  Zend,  lias,  with 
the  exception  of  tlie  termination  lu  m  [G.  £d.  p.  (too.] 
nuwheru  sutTured  altemtioti,  while,  in  the  second  person,  we 
have  seen  the  t  of  (tea  di%-ide  itself  into  the  forms  I,  ih,  dh, 
nnd  t.  The  Greek,  on  the  other  hand,  has  left  the  t  of  the 
third  person  in  ordinnry  langtioge  unallt-rcd  only  in 
iari  ^  vfw  oirti.  j^mm  aiti,  but  clavwfaetv  substituted  a 
cr;  so  that,  fur  iusUtnce,  iiZtavt  more  resembles  the  Saiulrit 
second  person  daddxi  tlian  the  thin)  dadilti,  and  is  ooly 
difltinguislu'd  inorganically  from  its  own  second  )KTSun 
SiSui,  by  the  circumstance  that  tbe  latter  has  dropped  the  t, 
whieh  naturally  belonged  to  it.  That,  however,  originally 
Ti  prevailed  everj'wbere,  even  in  the  conjugation  in  u,  is 
proved  by  tlic  medio-jmssivc  termination  rat ;  for  as  Si'dorat  is 
founded  on  SiStart,  so  also  is  -rifnt^ai  on  T€pTr-€-Tt  =aSanskrit 
turfi-a-4i.      The  form    jipnei  lias,  however,    arisen    from  a 


G38 


VBRB9. 


rejectiou  oE  t,  as  alwve  (§.  451.))  ridet  from  TiQcri,  BtSw 
Stom  SI3o6i,  Kiptf.  trom  Kcparrti*  as  also,  in  Vr^kriX,  bhanai, 
"dicH,"  ia  used  togetLer  witli  hhnnridt.f  In  the  st^;oiKlary 
forms  the  Greek,  according  to  the  universal  law  of  suuiid, 
has  given  ap  the  concluding  T  sound,  and  goes  hand  in 
hand,  in  tliis  respect,  with  tlie  Prakfit  which,  with  excej>- 
tion  of  the  Anu9wam  (§.  10.),  lias  rcpudintC'd  nil  consoDunls 
at  tbu  end  of  words,  as  in  the  Gotliii't  §.-132.,  and  the 
Sclnvontc,  $.  256.  /. :  hence  cxot  answers  better  to  the 
Prakrit  form  vahf,  and  to  the  Gothie  viyni  and  Sclavonic 
Bijjii  ppji,  than  to  the  Sanskrit  vahit,  Zend  pj*(Aiij  ra?A7, 
ami  Lntin  veliut,  vehet. 
457.  While  the  concluding  Tsoundoftlie  secondary  forma  in 
[G,  Ed.  p.OGI.]  Sanskrit  And  Zund  has  sur\'ivcd  the  itijuriea 
of  time  in  but  one  other  langtiaj^,  the  Latin,  in  the  more  full 
temtinnCion  oT  the  primiiry  forms  (i  iilmost  everywliere  the 
i  alone  liaa  been  dropped,  but  the  7"  sound  has  been  preserved 
to  the  present  day  in  German  and  in  Russian.  Nor  has  the 
Old  Sclavonic  allowed  the  i  to  escape  entirely,  but  exhibits 
it  in  the  form  of  a  y.t     Compare 


out  icuroxic 
KtTb  ifea-ttf,   "est" 

BUCTb  Vve.i-tuS    "  tiitT 
AAtTb  t/uj-i7.§    "(hi" 


lAHsxBrr. 
wfisi  ns-ii. 
«f^  Qt-ii. 
'ifipf  vH-li. 


*  Pcrhups  oleat.  Ion, )«  not  OD  uiliquated  it&lir«  form  lor  olsy,  but  an 
s1>bl«vialion  of  oijrriA. 

f  Id  the  scooDil  iin|>pratlTc-|iennn,  Also,  (lie  Prakrit  i-xhililia  an  Inter- 
(4tlng  ftiMl«8/  lo  iW  tJrwk  n'A(r)s  fiiSuiflJi,  la  the  form  t/ianui,  "(/«" 
(UrwMi  E«i.  Lpm,  p.  07),  for  hbanafii,  from  bhanadhi. 

I  Accordini;  to  Dulirovrtky,  only  in  ilie  Arclmtc  conjasation ;  to  Kopi- 
Mr,  bIm  in  the  vnlinniy.  He  ratnarka,  namely  (OLtKi'Uw,  p,  02),  "  TeriUe 
ptnonm  Tb  fam  rioff.  ^lam  pltir.  vrteiu,  ul  km  hie,  per  I'b  itriMant. 
BKtfmilpv  Tb. '  (  .V  «u|>houk  fur  •<  (p. (WO 


TIIIBD  PERSON. 


639 


Tlie  Litliuanian  hiia,  in  tlio  ordinary  conjti^tion.  lost  the 
sign  of  the  third  person  in  the  tliri-'e  numbers ;  hence 
wVj-tt'  vorresponditig  to  the  Sclavonic  v^^-^-IV  nnd  SAnskfic 
t^h-ti~ti;  80,  too,  in  the  dual  nnd  plural.  Those  verbs 
only,  whifh,  in  the  first  jwrsoii,  h»vc  presen.'ed  the  tertni- 
DQtiou  mi  ($.435.]<  liave,  in  tlie  third  also,  pnrlially  pre- 
served the  full  li,  or  the  I,  and,  indeed,  at  the  same  time,  in 
direvtcoinbiuatlon  with  the  root ;  hence,  pvft.  "  he  is,"  d&s(i,or 
d&Ml'*  "  he  gives,"  M*  "  he  eaU"  yiexl'.*  "  he  siuffs."  tlfst'.' 
"he  plaecfl,"  miftfC,  "he  slcflps."  x&itgV,  "he  preser^-es," 
gtlbl\  "  he  helps,"  s^rgC.  "  be  protects,"  liclct\  "  he  lets." 
This  singular  t<;rmination  is  also  carried  over  to  the  dual  and 
pluml.  The  Gothic  hiis,  with  the  exception  of  m(,  where 
the  ancient  tenuis  li»s  maintnined  itself  under  the  protec- 
tion of  tlie  antecedent  s,  everywhere  (A  in  the  third  person 
of  the  primary  forms.  This  th.  however,  b  not  the  usual 
substitute  of  t,  but  stands,  ns  in  the  [O.  El  p.  662.3 
second  plural  person  (see  §.  MG.),  enphonienlly  forrf,  because 
Hi  suits  the  ending-  better  than  d  {|.  91.),  In  the  medio- 
passive.  on  the  other  hjind,  the  older  mrdinl  li»s  maintained 
itself  in  the  terininalionrfa.  which  also  agrees  with  the  Prakrit 
ending  rii.  On  these  medials  rests,  also,  th**  Old  High  Ger- 
man I,  by  a  diflplnceiuent  which  has  again  brought  back  the 
original  form.-|- 

459.  For  the  designation  of  plurality  a  tt,  which  has 
been  compared  before  with  the  nccusntive  plural  (§.  236.),  is 
inserted  before  the  pronominal  character.  After  this 7>,  the 
Gothic,  in  contmdistinction  from  the  singular,  has  main- 
tained the  older  medial,  since  tid  is  a  favourite  combination, 
Compare  aind  with  "sf^snntt,   .>co^^^  henti,   "auvt,"   and 


*  S  mplicinic  for  ■/,  in  sccordance  with  '/.  103.  and  wiiti  th«  Sclsvomo. 
i  III  ihii  MOBK  is  l0  be  corrected  what  we  have  remarked  on  this  head 
In  $.00. 


640 


TBRB9. 


(<x)tvTi.  The  Sauskrit  observes  before  the  same  n  the  same 
principle,  wliich  we  have  DOliccd  above  ($.437.  Rem.),  with 
respect  to  the  vowel-less  m  of  tbe  first  person  of  Uie  secondary 
forms.  It  prc-inscrts,  namely,  ao  a  when  tliat  letter  or  i\ 
does  not  already  precede  the  pluralizing  n  in  the  ctasa  or  radical 
syllable :  hence,  indeed,  tarp-a-nti.  like  Tepir-o-vTi,  tishfa-nti 
\ikvta-ra-vTi.bh{l-nti,  " tln?y shine,"  like0a-irr(';  but  cki'iiw-anti, 
"they  cotleft,"  not  cAi-nti-nfi  from  cki,-  y-anfi,  "tliey  go,"  not 
[G.Ed.p.6B3.]  i-nii*  frwm  i.  Thus  the  Greek  a-r.  out  of 
avTt  in  i&KvO-affi,  i-aai,  nOc-avt,  Siio-avi,  acquires  a  fair 
foundation;  for  it  is  scarcely  to  be  ndmittcd  tliat  so  striking 
a  coincidence  can  he  Hccidental.  Kor  even  if  the  forms 
TtdeavTt,  iiioairrt,  lavri.  ietKvvam,  are  not  maintained  in  any 
dialect,  yet  we  eauuot  doubt  that  the  length  of  the  a  in  riBeaai, 
Scc^  as  well  ns  in  Trra^rt  and  Ttm^pottri,  i»  o  compensation  for  a 
dropped  I',  and  that  <ti.  as  everywhere  in  the  tliird  person, 
stands  for  ti.  With  regard,  however,  to  the  iuterpolatett  a. 
ietKvCatn  and  latrt  coincide  the  most  closely  with  the  abori- 
ginn]  tj|ie  of  our  family  of  Ungiingo,  as  in  TiOtcurt  the  «, 
and  in  ii9ciet  the  o,  stand  for  the  Sanskrit  d  or  a;  for 
r46*}fu=dadMmi  and  iiiuiAi^dadimi,  These  two  Sanskrit 
words  must  originally  have  formed,  in  tlic  third  plural 
person,  dadhA-n-ti,  d'tdil-ntK  or,  wiih  a  shortened  a,  dudha-nii, 
dadit-nU;  and  to  this  is  related  tbe  Doric  riQivTi.  iiiavrt.  as 
itni  to  ^rftl  tanli.  Tho  forms  riQkaat,  hioaat,  however,  have 
followed  the  analogy  of  icttnuaat  and  taat,  inasmuch  ns  tliey 


*  The  Indi*n  gT»min«riuu  nwamo  evorywhuc  anli,  end,  in  the  ercoo- 
daryfbnniian,  u  Uio  full  teTminslion  of  i1i«  third  person  plnnd,  KtitlUy 
down,  ne  In  thefint  perainsinguliiroftlicKcoodiirxfuriDa,  asnruK',  Uutu 
«(the  cIbsb  eyllnMc  of  lli«  firet  vliicf  <;oiijuf;;iit)on  is  rcJNtct)  bcfurv  tlic  a  of 
Um  ^tn^ ;  lIiUB,  (orp'-anf i,  for  tarpdnti,  out  of  (iirp-a-unli.  The  cxignote 
lmgul^;e](,  howt-YM-,  do  Dot  favour  this  vitw;  fgr  if  tlw  Greek  o  oii^ip-ft-mi 
la  identical  wiOi  that  »f  ^p^fwr,  and  Ihe  t«>lluc  a  otbtur-a-nd  wiih  that 
of  tair-«-B»,  tlie  a  also  of  (lie  fiaoiknl  hharaali  must  I>«  nveivi^l  in  a  like 
wtumm  the  \tm%A  ti bkar-Amaa  toA  Hk  *\voti  it  blmr-a-Out. 


THIRD  PBBSON. 


C41 


have  treated  their  radical  vowel  as  tlioiigh  it  bad  not  sprung 
from  a.    Thus  the  lonicisms,  laTeMi,  caffi. 

459.  The  Saiiakrit  verba  of  the  tliinl  class  ($.  109'.  3.),  on 
account  of  the  htirthen  oc-trasionecl  by  tlic  reduplication. 
n-hich  tliey  liave  to  bear  ia  tlic  special  teiisps,  strive  after 
an  alleviation  of  the  weight  of  the  teraiiiiationa :  they 
therefore  give  up  the  n  of  the  third  person  plural. 
and  shorten  a  long  d  of  the  root,  whence  ?Tfit  doda-tit 
"  they  give."  ^iffir  dadha-ti.  "  tliey  place."  mrfil  Juha-ti, 
"they  leave."  There  is.  however,  do  room  to  doubt  tliat, 
ill  the  earlier  condition  of  the  lao^iage,  these  forms  were 
sounded  rladti-nti,  dadha-n(i,jaha-Ttli.  and  that  iii  this  respect 
the  Doricisms  SiSi-rrt,  riGi-vrt.  have  handed  down  more  faith- 
fully the  original  type.  The  Zend  also  [O.EU.p.6SI] 
protects,  in  reduphratcd  verbs,  tbu  nasal;  for  in  V. S„ 
p.  213,  WB  read  Vj^^-&i_$^  dndeni^,  "  they  give,"  perbapa 
erroneously  for  dad^nlL*  If,  however,  the  rending  be 
eorrevt.  it  is  a  middle  verb,  and  not  tlie  less  bears  witness 
to  a  transitive  dadinti-  Tlie  Sanskrit,  however,  in  the 
middle,  not  only  in  reduplicated  verbs,  but  iu  the  entire 
secoud  chief  conjugation,  wliich  corresponds  to  the  Greek 
iu  fUj  on  account  of  the  weight  of  the  personal  terminations, 
abandons  the  plural  nasal;  hence  ciiUnu-at^  (for  chi-mc-imlf^ 
contrasted  with  the  transitive  cAt-nw-onfi.  This  also  is 
evidimtly  a  disturbance  of  the  original  build  of  the  laitguagi*, 
which  dales  first  fmm  au  epoch  siibs>L>quL'nt  to  the  dis- 
persion of  tongues  i  for  the  Greek  moiataiua  in  the  uiedio- 
paasivc,  still  more  firtnly  than  in  the  activC)  the  nasal  as 


•  Tbat,  however,  the  suppression  oftho  nnsal  Jb  not  foreign  to   the 
&&d  is  shewn  in  th«  form  j^jjou-jcji  iejihaiti,  "  they  lcach,'=EAnbkrii 

^niriif  *'^'t'*  fri>m  the  nwtTpTH  »^i  Trliit!i,  jirobahly  on  Jicxouiit  df  the 
duabli'  Bibilnnl,  followa  th«  utmlogy  of  (hi;  redupliralcd  forms.  In  Zend, 
Um  bsmI  ($.66*0  plaoed  I>«rore  Dm  k  mSLj  h&vA  ferourcd  tbo  supprvs- 
noa  of  that  of  the  ttfriDiuation.     Upon  the  e  e  for  {  e  sec  Ilamouf '■ 

ys?w,p.4eo. 


642 


VERBS. 


an  expression  of  plurality',  and  not  only  opposes  ripn-o-vr'ai 
to  the  Sanskrit  tarji-ti-niS,    but  also  ilio-vrai,  •rSds-mai,  to 
the  Sanskrit  dndalf.  dadhat^.     Yet  tlie  Grt*ek  has,  through 
ftiiotlier  L-haancI,  found  a  means  of  lightening  the  cxct-ssive 
weight    of  tiie    middle   termination,   by  substituting    vrau 
where  mrtau  would  naturally  be  expected  ;  hence  oiixwvrat. 
not  ietKvv-avTai,  wliicU  latter  we  might  expect  from  ieiKvi^-aai 
(ottt  of  ZetKv\/-avTi).     The  Sanskrit  form  giri-nw-at^  and  the 
GiTcelc   9r6f>-vv-vyat    respectively    complete   one   another, 
since  the  one  has  preserved  the  a,  the  other  the  nnaal.     The 
extrusion  of  the  a  from  <rrop-vV'{a)v7ai  resembles  that  of 
the  t]  of  the  optatiw.  inasmuch  as,  on  account  of  the  in- 
creasing weight  of  the  jiersonal  termitmtioiis,  in  tho  medio- 
[G.  Ri].p.aa5.]    passive,   we  form  frnm  2ido/);>' not  Sidoi^jui}!', 
but  Stioifiriv.     The  lonicism   has,   hou-cvcr,   in  the    third 
person  pluml.  sacriSced  tho  v  to  the  a.  and  in  this  piir- 
ticular,  therefore,  harmooiiccs  most  strictly  with  the  Sanskrit : 
in  remarking   which,  wc  most  not  overlook  tliat  Ijoth,  in 
their  pesjHsctive  ways,  but  fi-om  the  same  motive,  Iiawe  g^ne* 
rated  their  af^,  arou,  out  of  anii,  ayrai ;  thus,  VTop'ifC-a{v)T<u, 
tof>;ethcr  with  <nop-yv'ia)irrai,  tlic  first  beinf;  Analogous  to 
the  Sanskrit  «/ri-nu'-o(i«)/e.     Wc  do  not,  therefore,  reijuire, 
contrary  to  what  has  been  remarked  at  p.  Zad.  to  assume  that 
the  a  of  nevaCaTai,  aud  similar  forms,  is  the  vocatisation 
of  the  V  of  ireirautfTai,   but   veitav-vrat  aud  ittwatz-^xTm   ar« 
divene  mutilations  of  the  lust  original  form  trcnau-aiTou. 

460.  *Tlie  Old  Sclavonic  hoa  dissolved  the  aaaiil  in 
Dubrowaky's  Grst  and  second  conjugation  into  a  short  n 
sound  (as  in  tlic  first  person  singular  the  m),  and  contracted 
this  again  with  the  antecedent  oonuecting  vowel,  which  else- 
where ap|>ear5  as  I,  but  here  is  to  be  taken  as  o.  to  tr ;  so  that 
usaifTb  v'-^tJ/yt  from  ivn/tiltf  has  a  surprising  resemblance 

t  Dnbfowrty  wriiw  ht^H^  reiAi,  tml  jiws,  lu  in  the  (ingiilar,  ihe  y 
only  in  tbc  Arcluiic  coiijag«iioD  (a-.-c  |>.  G>18.  No(«.  p. 


TIIIKD   CEBSOV. 


648 


to  the  Grci:k  ^ovirt  from  c-^ov<rt  for  c<(oyTi.  Tbc  Bohemian 
wezou  lias,  OD  the  other  hand,  preserved  the  old  oof  the 
Sjinskrit  vah-amii.  and  tlie  Golliic  vi<j'a-n<i,  which,  in  tlia 
Latin  tvA-u-n/,  by  the  influence  of  the  liquid,  has  beenme  u, 
io  contrast  to  th«  i"  of  the  other  persous  (t'c/i-i-s,  &c.).  The 
u  of  tUc  Bohemian  tvesau,  Iiowcver,  like  the  lost  constituent 
of  thediphthongtrof  Rt^gKTb  up^tl/i/.ia  of  nasiil  origin(§,  2bb.g.). 
In  the  Archaic  eoiiju<pilIon  the  Old  Sclavonic  has,  with  the 
excejition  of  ittb  suiv^vfRlsemd,  "  .vunt"  j(o^g*v  hf-nti, 
evTi,  nbandouod  entirely  the  nnsal  of  the  termination  and,  but, 
instead,  has  maintained  the  a  in  its  primary  shape,  yet 
with  the  pre-instTlioii  of  un  inorganic  1/  [O.  Ed.  p.  fiflS.] 
(5.  Sift'-);  otherwise  t/nrf/i/u.  for  which  wc  titHi  AAAATbdarf- 
yaty.  would  be  nearly  identical  with  tlie  Sanskrit  i^^fw  dndati  : 
as  reduplicated  verbs  have,  in  Sanskfit  also^  lust  the  na<ia] 
(^.-13*).).  BtA*'''''  ryptlyiity.  "  ihey  know,"  nccopils  less  with 
f^^viflantU  and  n^ATb  ^dt/aty,  "they  eat,"  with  ^|^ 
achntK  Tins  analogy  is  followed,  also,  by  those  verbs,  which 
conrapond  to  llie  Snnskri:  lenth  class  (§.  109*.  6.).  namely, 
Dobrowiky'n  third  conjugation,  as  E«A«Tb  fifW-ya-Zy,  "  they 
wEke^ss  Sanskrit  Vhrvf^  ykik-nyn-viH.  Here,  however,  as 
the  division  and  comparison  given  above  skew,  the  y  pre- 
ceding the  n  19  not  inorganic,  hut  belongs  with  the  a  to  the 
dinracter-syllablc  of  the  conjugation,  of  which  more  hereafter. 
461.  In  the  secondary  forms  the  vowel  has  beei]  dropped 
from  t)ie  [ilurni  terotinatiou  vli  or  antl.  as  from  the  singular  li, 
ti.  mf.  ami  with  this  in  Sanskrit,  after  the  Inw  had  esta- 
blished itself  so  destructive  to  many  termiuatioiis  which 
forbids  the  union  of  two  consonants  at  the  end  of  a  word 
(f,  9-1.),  the  personal  character*  wns  obliged  to  vanish,  which 
in  Greek,  where  even  a  simple  t  is  excluded  as  a  termination, 
had  been  already  withdrawn  from  the  singular.  If  thus 
BT€pjr-e  finds  itself  at  a  disadvantage  opjiosed  to  aturp-a-t — 
80,  in  eTepw-o-v.coQJiiareil  with  alarp-a-n {for  nlarp-n-jit) — tlie 
two  languages,  though  from  dilli^rent  motives,  stand  esseu* 
tiolly  on  a  similar  footing  of  degeneracy,    'H<r-av  oceunls 


644 


VERBS. 


still  better  with  ds-an.  and  nortsts  like  t:iet^atr  witlt  San- 
skrit tenses  like  the  equivalent  odihhait,  as  it  would  seem 
that  the  sibilant  of  tlie  verb  substantive  hns  protected  the  old 
ri  of  ihu  termination  an  from  degenerating  to  o ;  for  Uie  usual 
practice  of  the  language  wotild  liave  given  us  to  expect 
t^ffov  like  ^e^ov.  or  Tjacv  like  T€(nroi-€v.  The  Zend  goes 
along  with  the  ev  of  the  latter  in  forms  like  /ftv^ 
auhen,    "  tliey  were,"    and     jfiiw^iu  baniyhi,    "  tliey    may 

I^G.Ed.  p.0G7.]  hear" ^(})4poi€v.  We  see  from  this  tliat  llie 
Zend  also  cannot  support  the  weight  of  the  terminntion  nt, 
although  it  condescends  more  than  the  Sanskrit  to  conclud- 
ing sibilants  seijuent  on  r,  c,/,  and  »;  and  has  handed  dowu 
to  us  nominatives  such  ae  jh^^aj^au  Alar'X,  "  6re,"  Ms^iyT^ 
rfruci,  "a  demon."  jvA^'^^  ^f^fii  "body,"  jj«>^  iurofl^. 
"  bearing,"  From  the  Gothic  have  vanished  all  tlie  final  T 
sounds  nhtch  existed  in  the  period  previous  tu  the  German 
language  (see  §.  99 J.  Rem.  1,  p.  389  G.  ed.)-  Hence,  if  in  the 
present  indicative  bair-a-nd  duswcr  to  the  Sanskrit (Atir-an-fi 
and  Greek  ^ip-o-vri,  we  can  iieverlheless  look  for  no  f/airatnd 
or  buiraiand  in  the  subjunctive  answering  to  0cpofei'(T).  Zend 
barai/eit{t);  ami  we  find  instead  tni-rni-na.  as  would  seem  by 
transposition  out  of  hnimi-nn.  so  that  on  corresponds  to  tlie 
Greek  and  Zend  ei;  ^  out  of  «n."  In  tJie  medio-passive  tJie 
lost  Tsoundof  the  active  has  preserved  itself  as  in  the  Grc^fc, 
bccAuse  it  did  not  stand  at  the  end,  but  the  vowel  coming 
before,  and.  in  Gothic,  by  transposition,  after  the  n,  in  re- 
noved  on  account  of  the  increscence  of  the  ending;  hence. 
bairuindati.  as  in  Greek  ^potvro.  not  (/rtfoiVfro  (com  pare  p.642). 

462.  The  teruiinution  un  of  the  Gothic  preterite,  as  in 
hnihniUm,  "  they  were  named,"  may  be  compared  with  the 
Alexandrine  av  for  ai^i,  aai  {e'/VMKav,  eipijKa)-,  &v.)  with  the 
recollection  tliat  the  Sanskrit  also,  in  its  reduplicated  pre* 


*  Or  AoBUsrsaMtn^llltl,  u  in  Uitrnwutalive  singiUar  (^^.  149.},  &n  in> 
orgmic  a  hia  Wa  sppmlad  to  the  origiiiBlIy  tcnDiani  ing  naaal  ?  1'he  m  p- 
))o»itii>H  of  (kt!  ivjct,  bowever,  socOAb  bellor  with  tli«  i^riiulUve  gntutiaor. 


J 


THIRD  FBBSON. 


645 


ttrlte,  althoHgli  the  primary  endings  belong  to  it,  yet,  under 
the  pn-ssurc  of  tlie  redu[»!ieatiou  syllabic,  lias  been  unable  to 
maintain  the  original  aiiti  uncorruptt-d.  but  puts  us  in  its 
steail.  The  a  of  this  form  is  without  doubt  [G.  Ed-  p.  068.] 
a  weakening  of  the  original  tr  with  respect,  however,  to  the 
u,  it  may  remiuQ  undecided  whether  it  is  a  vocoliiation  of 
the  nnsul,  iiud  thus  the  latter  clement  of  the  Creek  ov  of 
TVJTTowTi,  or  a  wciikciiing  of  the  a  of  anli.  The  Soiialtrit  uses 
the  ending  ua  also  in  the  place  of  tm :  (irat,  in  tlie 
potential,  corresponding  to  the  Zend-Greek  en,  ev.  heuee 
»ft»TH^  bhari-y-us  (with  eu  phonic  y,  §.  43.)  =  ygj ja>^  baray-iti, 
^epoi-ec ;  Second,  in  the  first  augmented  prelerile  of  the  redu- 
pliiated  roota,  thus,  adudhui,  "  they  placed,"  adadus,  "they 
gave,**  ioz  udadhan  (com  p.  er/ficv),  adtidan  ;  from  which  itJa 
clear  that  vs,  since  u  is  lighter  than  a  (Vocaliamus, 
p. 227).  is  more  easily  borne  by  the  Inngimge  than  an; 
third,  in  the  same  tentjc,  but  at  iliscretioii  together  with 
tf-n,  iii  roots  of  the  second  class  in  6,  for  instance,  oyicr, 
or  aydn,  "they  went,"  from  yii;  fourth,  in  some  forma- 
tions of  the  multiform  preterite,  for  instaace,  v^TTW 
airAmhus,  "they  heard." 

463.  The  Old  Sclavonic  could  not,  according  to  §.255. 2., 
mnintain  unaltered  either  the  t  or  tho  n  of  the  secondary 
form  anl*  or  nt  :  it  sets  in  their  place  either  a.  simple  a  or  v ; 
which  last  is  to  bo  derived  from  on.  These  two  terminations 
are,  however,  so  dealt  with  by  the  practice  of  the  language, 
that  anpjiears  only  after  task,  a  only  after  x<  ^^  instance, 
atv*  heuech&  or  cbmA  bwsha.  "  tliey  were  "  (§.  25S.  wi.).  The 
secondary  form  of  the  Latin  has  been  handed  down  in  most 
perfect  condition,  and  has  everywhere  retained,  the  prono- 
miniil  i  after  the  nasal  which  expre&scs  pluriittty ;  thus  trohi 
outdoes  the  abovementioued  forms  vnen^  dmn,  ticav,  and 


*  or  th«  tcrmin«ti(in  ant  «nly  the  (  lue  b«ea  <ilrup|W'),  hat  Ibo  a  is  coa- 
I^Ded  in  the  precediDg  naulizH  vowel  (Ke  $.  783.  Uemsrk):  tunce  we 
liiwdd  rfiul  c»i  fi>r  a,  tth  far  e. 


I 


646  VKHUs. 

my^  anhfn  ;  and  feremt,  in  respect  of  the  personal  sigii, 
is  morr  |)crffcl  tlmu  the  Greek  (j)cpot-€v,  Zfud  «ii*)^wi 
baray-rn,  Gothic  bairai'mi,  and  Siin»krit  tf^in  hknrS-tf-us. 

461  Id  tlie  dual  of  tlie  Sanskrit  the  primary  /urm  is 
(i«,  and  the  sceoiidary  {Am :  to  the  former,  tov  coriTsponds  id 

{0.  Ed.  p.  660.]  Gn-'ek,f§.97.)— thiiSTf/>7r-c-Tov=(/ir|)-fi-/«»; 
— but  the  termination  lAm  has,  according  to  the  variety  of  the 
A  representation  [%.  A.)  divided  itself  iuto  the  forms  ttiv  aud 
TtDV,  of  which  the  former  is  tlie  prevalent  one,  the  hit:cr 
limited  to  tlie  imperative;  lience  irepiri-Tjfv,  Ttpr-ot'-n/i', 
answering  to  otarp-a-tAm,  tarp-^-itim ;  liaio^i-Triv  aoswering- 
to  adU'-ska-tdm;  but  TCfir-e-ruv  answering  to  tiirp'O-tAm. 
From  this  romarkivble  coim-idenco  with  the  Sanskrit,  it  is 
clear  that  the  dirt'crencc  in{jn;ek  bctwecUTOfoii  the  oncliand, 
and  -njv,  Tiaf,  ou  the  other,  has  a  foundation  in  remote  antiquity. 
and  was  uoi.  as  Buttmaun  eonjeetures  (Gr.  §.  S7.  Olra.  2.).  n 
later  formation  of  the  more  modern  prose,  alheit  in  four  places 
of  Hamer  {tliroe  of  which  arc  occasioned  by  the  metre)  toc  is 
found  for  ti^i-.  The  augment,  however,  cannot  be  consider*^ 
as  a  recent  formatiou  merely  beciiusc  it  is  often  suppressed  iii 
Homt-T,  since  it  is  common  to  the  Greek  and  ihcSanskj-it  lu 
Zend  the  primary  form  is  regular,  ^pi  M ;'  for  the  se- 
condary, however,  which  will  be  (^;o  tanm,  we  have  as 
yet  DO  instance.  The  Gotliie  has  lost  th^?  (hirtl  du.'d  person, 
but  the  Old  Sclavonic  bos  ta  tch  fcmiDinc  Tt  /yp,  as  well  for 

*  An  InataDU  k  iiiund  hispaaaafcooFlhc!  Ir.pii!ba(=  (V,  S.  )i.  48),  tlieminM 
ofwhicll  has  been  tnucli  luiatakcn  byAutjncLil: — AiM^^OAAt^  J9o»tOJI 

(vide  ^&H.]  Uiri$attM  [Hiili  ffoiriaamn,  "  1  prnino  l)ic  cliinilK  ni»l  (he  ruin, 
wlikb  stutaiu  tli,v  Iiuily  ontliu  hclgbta  of  the  moanluinB."  Accoiding  M 
Ani}actit,  "J'ufiiftJt  1IH1  priert  ii  tunnf^',  a  to  plaif,  iiuj''iuillt*  wut  aves 
donnr  un  ctTijfi  mr  le  tommrt  dea  tHOHtatfuei."  Vatsayatu  is  vitbcr  lliu 
ftnorvoTtiur,  withan  inwrlfd  a — ltiagrnrKiciijrri/>!=9aiukpt  ivutfAjKi/o* 
— ors  ilerirativv  fi^nn  tW  root  oivnttvn^l,  in  the  proMnt,  nooordiiif;  to  the 
toodl  drtMt;  in  •ilhi^r  CAia,  liuvrvvcr,  m  (l)inl  p«r«oD  duftl. 


THIBD  PEBSON. 


647 


the  primary  form  WW  iat  {tov)  as  for  the  [G.  Ed.  p.  fi70.] 
secondary  t(^  tdm,  ttjv,  tu»'  (compare  §.445.) ;  hence  m^ita 
veieta,  "they  two  ride,"  =qfmt  vahatas;  be^oCta  veiosia, 
"they  two  rode,"  =f(miiiiH^  atj^fctdm,  euphonic  for  avAkahiAm, 
p.  98;  3BiK*eTA  ivenyesta,  "they  two  sounded,"  =  ^MfifVli^ 
aswaninhtdm.  As  to  what  concerns  the  origin  of  the  last 
letters  s  and  m  in  the  personal  expressions  mf^  tas  and 
m^  i&m,  they  rest,  without  douht,  on  a  similar  principle  to 
those  of  the  second  person  ■^w  thas,  lf\  tarn ;  and  if  one  of 
the  explanations  given,  §.  444.  be  valid,  we  must  then  abandon 
the  conjecture  elsewhere  expressed,  that  m  of  Mm  sprang  in- 
deed originally  from  s,  but  first  through  the  previous  interven- 
tion of  a  «  (for  u),  after  the  analogy  of  WWTH^  AvAm,  "  we 
two."  igWT^  yuv&m,    "  ye  two  "  (§.  340.  Table,  Dual,  l). 

465.  The  following  comparative  table  presents  a  summary 
of  the  third  person  in  the  three  numbers : — 


SINGULAR. 

SANSKRIT. 

SEND. 

GKIBK.       LATIN.          OKRUAN.* 

UTH, 

OLD  SCLAV 

lUti, 

aitif 

«<m',          est,          itt. 

etli, 

yeaty. 

tithtati, 

hUlati, 

'<rran,       atat,          ^tt&t. 

ttow, 

ttoitu. 

daddli. 

dttdhditi,  blbaiTi^      dat,         .... 

duiti. 

daely. 

atti. 

.... 

....       est,          itith. 

6ei\ 

yaaiy. 

barati, 

baraiti. 

</»(P((t)i,'  fert,^       bairith, 

vahati. 

vaxaiti, 

?X*  (>■)')'    vehit,       viffith, 

loeza,'' 

vei/ety. 

{a)tydt. 

hyat. 

«(<r)iij,       net,         ei^ai* 

iuhthil,^ 

histdil. 

larairj,       ttet,          .... 

.  .  . 

itdi. 

dadyAl, 

daidht/dt,  biioit},       det,          .... 

.  .  . 

dashdy. 

bharSt, 

bardit. 

tpipot,      ferui,      bairai. 

.  .  . 

.  .  '  . 

avahat. 

vazat. 

tixt,          vehebat,  .... 

wext 

.... 

tuvsanli/' 

DUAL. 

•  ■  ■ 

{venpe. 

{a)»tat. 

it&V 

iirriii,          

.  .  . 

^etta. 

iiihthatai. 

hUtatS,'' 

Icrrarcn',      

« 

ibfita. 

baritdm, 

.... 

ff)€polT7]V, 

.  ■  . 

.... 

bkaratdm. 

.... 

<t»*p*Tay, 

.  .  . 

.... 

anodnU/Udm,  .... 

■  •  ■  ■ 

.  .  . 

{wi^oAi 

•  Seep.618,Note* 

•a 

3 


648 


veBBS. 


tanti, 

dadali*" 

Utaranti, 
vahanii. 


KKXn.  BBEU. 

liiflenti,     tirraim, 


UTIK.  CBRUAM.* 

»wn/,  unci, 

tlanl,  fttdnt. 

riant,  .... 


hurhiti,    tfiipai^i,  /emit,  lairand 

vaxcnti,     7xo»Tt,  vthanl,  vij/and, 

liiihthfytu,^'    fiUtfii/^H,  itrraTto,  Mtent  .... 

bhar^yiu,"      barmjhi,    tptimitv,  firaxt^  bairaijui"    . 

aii/iiTi,        ^aav,  tratU  .... 

....  irta'^av,      ....  ....  , 


dfOfl, 

atarpU/ius, 

ufteiitiuhiu, 

aJikthan, 


fktiicar. 


OLD  KLir. 

Hoycwty. 
diuli/aiitu. 


tvrpt/fihah.'* 

{i>fnf/e§h4tii. 

hktuhttft. 


'  Sm  5. 44R,  »  Answer*  to  fiwfS  Ifibharti,  ihird  claas,  p.  6^6,  ■. 

'  Without  jiPWonnl  nigu:  oeo -1.  4.17.  *  Scep.636,».  •  P.CaS,". 

•  rirei  person,  a3V)ani»}iam.  "  I  sounded."  "  See  §.  4(H.  •  Am 

in  the  anRuUf ;  see  $.  4^7.  *  &«e  $.  S25.  <;.  ■"  5m  $.  U9. 

II  See*).«».  "  96ep,6«.  '»  S»p.ti44.  "  rarpf/m 

meaiui  "  to  HGfTer,"  "  to  bear,"  »o  tlmt  the  origianJ  nigiiificaiioii  appean 
to  Ik  juvertvd :  coiupuru  tli«  Oulhic  tAaur&a>i,  "tOJiccd"  (VocaliBmiu, 
p.  1T<1).  Tlie  Suulcrit  root  larp  {trip}  tnranii,  ooc«rdtDf;  to  the  fifth  l-Ims 
{Ifipydmi),  "  U)  hv  conttDt,  satisliccl  "i  accordlntt  to  tltc  &nt  (^Uirpdntl), 
lenlb  (tarpasdmi),  andsUih  (^t^ipdmi),  "ton'JQicc,"''tocoatcail,"  kc 

MIDDLE  TEUUINATIONB. 

[G.Ed. p. 073]  -ISG.  The  middtc  tcruioatioos,  in  which 
tlic  pussive  pnrticipates,  distinguish  theiuac-lves  throughout 
from  thosu  of  tlia  Iransitivc-activc  by  u  greater  fulness 
of  form,  even  though  the  mode  of  formation  benotalnajrs 
tliu  s&uiL'.  Sanskrit,  Zend,  aud  Greek  a^-mrd  in  this. 
that  they  lenj^iou  a  concluding  i,  in  the  primapy  forms,  by 
UiQ  pru-iusurtiun  of  a:  heuce,  ^eu  from  fti,  cat  from  the  ui 
whicli  remaius  uncorruptod  only  in  eact  of  the  second  person 
(§.449.).  Tou  from  t(,  and.  in  the  plural,  vrai  from  vri.  The 
Sanskrit  and  Zend  makt?  tlieir  diphthong  ^  correspoud  to  the 
Grecic  ai;  niid  this  applies  to  the  rare  cases  in  which  the  i 
produced  by  A  +  i  is  represented  in  Greek  by  eu,  as  usually  the 
firvt  element  of  the  indo-Zend  diphthong  appears,  in  Greek, 


MIDDLE  TEEMIKATIONS. 


649 


in  the  shape  of  e  or  o  (sec  Vocaliatnus.  p.  1 06).  The  weightier 
nod  original  a  avema,  however,  in  the  tcrmioatioiis  of  Uic 
middle  %-oice  here  spoken  of  (cf.  §.  ■173.).  where  expressive 
fulness  of  form  is  of  most  importnnce  to  the  Imiguage,  to 
have  boon  jmrpost'ly  gunrdetl.  The  Gothic  has  lost  tJie  i 
clement  of  the  diphthong  ui;  hence,  iQ  tlic  third  person,  da 
for  diri;  in  the  second,  za  (euphonic  for  sw,  §.  86,6.)  for  mi,- 
«ud  in  the  third  person  plural,  ndn  for  ndai.  The  first  person 
singular  and  the  first  and  second  of  the  plural  liaTc  perished, 
nnd  are  irplaeed  by  the  third,  as  our  German  itind,  which, 
pertaining  only  to  the  third  iH-TSod  plural,  has  peiictraled  into 
the  first.  The  a  which  precedes  the  personal  termination,  us 
in'/m(/-fl-?o,  "  vocaris,"  kait'O-da,  "  vocatvr,"  as  opposed  to  the 
»  of  haitis,  "  vocas,"  haitith,  "  vocat,"  formerly  appeared  mys- 
terious, but  has  since,  to  my  mind,  fully  ex-  [0.  Ed.  p.  G73.] 
plained  itself,  by  the  assumption  that  all  Gotlae  verbs  of  the 
strong  form  cori-espond  to  the  Siinskrit  first  or  fourth  claas 
(p.  10b),  and  that  the  t  of  haitit,  haUith,  is  a  weakening  of  an 
older  a,  conformable  to  rule,  and  the  result  of  a  retro-active 
induenec  of  the  terminating  s  and  Ih  (§.  47.).  The  roedio- 
passive,  however,  found  no  occnsion  for  a  ne<.*e8s.iry  avoid- 
ance of  the  older  a  sound,  and  it  therefore  continues,  in  this 
particul.ir,  in  the  most  beautiful  harmony  iritli  the  Asiatic 
sister  idioms. 

167,  The  Sanskrit  and  Zend  liave  lost  in  the  first  person 
singular,  as  welt  of  the  primary  as  the  secondary  forms,  ttic 
pronominal  consonant,  and  with  (t,  in  the  first  chief  conjuga- 
tion, the  a  of  the  class-ay  liable  (see  §.  135.) ;  heuce  <(1^ 
biidM,  "  I  know,"  for  hidh-i't-mf  or  biidh-a-mfi,  in  case  the 
weightier  personal  ending  lias  impeded  the  lengthening  of 
the  class-vowel  menti«ied  in  |.  4^.    Compare — 

tiHSKipr.  iKtin.  oiumt.  nornK?. 

W^  hhai'4,  |O^A>U  bair-4^  tpip'O-fiat  .... 

»nSl  hhur-a-st,    HjU'w/^  bar-a-h$,  {^ep-e-ceu).  ^epfj,  bair-a-sa, 

»WTt  bhnr-a-tf.,     tcpjA>/wj  fcflr-oi-i^,'  ^p-e-rai,  bair-a-d", 

»R^ iAar-a-nfc',  Mp^JAi^  Ifar-ai-nt^,  ^p-9-rt<u,  bair-a-nda. 

V  o 


$50 


VERBS. 


•  See  $.41.  '  In  the  pniu'ive  the  fhlrf  pemm  plaral  often  occnn 

«s  M^J)^JJOiJA«fJJH(ii«jMJi«rt  "nnstiintur,"  (Venil.  ^.  p.  13(1),  wltli^for 
a,  thraugh  ihciiifliiciicoufthcprecrOingv ('.42.).  l'«r  the  middle  I  hoTc 
no  iDstftiicc  (tf  tliii  pcraon  :  wc  might,  however,  at  tho  utmost  h«  indonht 
u-huthcr  Wc  should  tuc  bar^nli  arter  tli«  xnnlngy  of  lli«  tninailtvR  barfntt, 
or  baraintf,  Tloth  nrc  posnililf  odmissiMo.  but  harnintl  apjii^nrn  In  Tne  the 
Bofcft,  4U  inlhttiictivc  triuuitiv«, also,  oi'nd'iBfxUfit  ns  wnll  »f.i")ti,  csiw- 
cinlly   nftL-r   ti,  where    ftiH  wouht,  [»>rhH|is,    not    be    allowuil :    hpncp, 

(O.  Jid.  p.  674).  jp^JJO»ii^*twHi/i,  "  thej-  live,"  ^=Sim8krit  ■t')^r*il 
jlDunti-  jfD^jA»>A)|  ttavainCt,  "ihey  arc,"  =»nf5ir /iA«i««i/i,  Wcfmd, 
nim,  wiihoDt  v  |ircccilinf;,  j/nsamii:^i/ajanti  in  n  ])ivvin(,-«  died  from  (he 
ToahtcT-Vcflht  by  Bomouf  (Yu^nA,  Nut«,p.7')'  ^'  •lioulJ  we  ht-re 
read  jra»atjir/,&8yuri»9]u'i;i4illy  used  iii  clii^midillc. 

46S.  tn  the  sccDudnry  foriiis  tlie  terminating  diphthong 
in  Snoskrit  and  Zend  wenkeiis  itself  in  the  snme  mnnner 
as  ill  Gothic  already  in  the  primary  ;  the  i  clement,  namely, 
vanieihes,  but  the  a  rooiaininf;  appears,  iu  Greek,  as  o; 
hence,  c^ep-e-ro,  opjiosed  to  wnn  abhnva-ta  jupju^wj 
bar-a-ta;  in  the  plural,  e^t'p-o-vTO.  tu  VH^qr  nhhfir-a-nia, 
uifiMM/ux  har-a-vta.  The  Sansk!-it-2^M(l  furins  liavo  a 
striking  likeuMS  to  the  Gothic  bnir^-dn.  Ixiir-n-nda,  given 
above.  Yet  I  am  not  lience  disposed,  as  formerly,*  to  adjust 
the  Gothic  primary  to  the  Sunskrit  secondary  forma,  and  to 
make  the  compitrison  between  bair-a-da,  bair-a-n<h,  (inatonci 
ofbhar-a-lf.  Mnr-fl-nf«',)and  ah!utr-u-(a.  nb/mr-a-jilti.  The  ter- 
mination an,  in  the  Gothic  subjunctive,  is  piizzhng  ;  wbfire. 
for  instance,  bair-ai-duu  is  opposed  to  the  Saiiskfit  hhar-i-ta, 
Zend  bitr-aS-la,  Greek  ^ip-oi-ro ;  and  thus,  in  the  plural, 
bair-ai-ndau  anstvers  to^ep-oi-i'To;f  and.  in  the  second  per- 


H 


■  Conjtigiilion  Syatom,  p.  13 1 . 

1  In  Zend  Um  active  barniy-in  would  lend  na  to  cijicct  a  iniddlo 
Jor-a^nta  (compara  J.4CI.).  The  ^naWrit,  departing  from  the  cifirrUn- 
gni^es,  hM  the  tenninatiOD  nm,  thua  bAar-4-ran,  whiuhaccnis  to  mc  a  oin. 
&]atumotbhar-K-ranla.  Theroot  ti,  "to  sleep,"  "to  lip,"  inBcrts  anoma- 
loufily  such  an  r,  as  htm)  precede  iHe  proper  penonnl  ending,  in  the  third 
pcrnvn  of  all  tpf^iol  Mnca  ($.  100^.),  BuppreaHUK,  howerer,  in  the  preoent 

inpe- 


MIDDLE  TBRMINATI0N8. 


G51 


80D  tingnlar,  bair~ai-z<iu  to  ^p-«t'{<ro).  [O.  Ed.  p.67£.1 
It  is  uot  probable  tliat  this  au  has  arisen  out  of  a  by  the  in- 
organic additiou  of  a  b.  as  (h«  corruptions  of  a  Inngu.igc 
usually  procend  rather  by  a  wearing  off  itinii  an  extending 
process.  I  tliink.tberefore,  thnt  thu  teriuiiiation  au  of  the  im- 
perative, where  it  lias  already  attaioed  a  legal  foundalion 
(p.  597),  bns  insinoated  itself  into  Uic  subjunctive  ;  tliat  thus 
the  speakers,  seduced  by  the  aniUogy  of  Arj(r-fl-</ni/,  /wtr-«- 
Ttdaa.  have  used  bfiir-ai-dau,  hiur^ai-tidau,  also  in  ttie  suhjuiic- 
tive ;  and  that  thence  the  au  has  made  its  way  into  the  second 
pcrsou  fiirifTuliir,  thus  Imh-ai-sau  for  bnir-ai-To,  This  ought 
not  to  surprise,  as  the  medio- passive  iu  the  Gothic  lias  already 
got  into  confusion  in  this  respect,  that  tlie  Grst  pt-rson,  and. 
in  the  plural,  the  second  also,  has  been  entirely  displaced 
by  the  third. 

469.  In  the  second  person  singular  of  the  seeondary  forms 
tho  Sanshfit  divei^s  from  the  principle  of  tJie  third  and 
first  Just  aa  ia  stands  opposite.'  to  the  primnry  It  and  the 
secondary  t  of  tlie  transitive  active,  so  wc  shoulil  expect  aiIbs 
a  counterpart  to  s/i  and  ».  In  its  place,  bonevert  we  find  tUAa; 
thus,  for  instance.  ahhAJh-a-thds,  "  thou  kiiewest,"  bhddlff- 
-thAf.  "thou  niayest  know."  That,  however,  originally 
there  was  a  form  aa  co-existent  with  tliig  f/^h  is  indicated, 
not  only  by  the  Greek,  in  which  iSii<Mro.  SiSot'To.  accord 
exactly  with  eSiio-TO,  Ji'Jw-ro,  but  also  by  the  Zend,  wliich 
exhibits  jutv  ho  in  places  where,  in  Sanscrit  v  sa  would  be 
to  be  expected,  the  w  h  being  a  regular  correspondent  to  ^  * 
(§.  5a),  and  Mtp  »ha  after  such  vowels  as,  in  S;iDsk]-it,  require 


■mponlive  nnA  tint  augmenl^  prcltTite,  ncvoHin^  («  ^  4$9.,  the  rwsal  «f 
flumlltyi  UcuMi  i4-ra{»)tii  =  Ki1vrtui  potontial  ing-Uran,  itnpcMtivc 
a^-ra(R)fiini,  pratrrile  cu^ni(n)/a  =  7K«iPT<i.  We  sliall  hentnIU-r  n^^og- 
niKBDoli  nnrin  tJio  mijdlv  ortlter('iiu{>lic8tc<lfr4;tcrIlG.  Aaio  iut>rigiii, 
howDvpr,  I  cnnJNture  it  to  bo  llic  radieol  coiiaonant  uf  the  r«Tl>  subainn- 
liro,  wiilmn  anoniflloDs  exclmnjii'of  »forr  (i-oaip.  j- 22.).  w  ihAt,  for  in- 
Stance,  dad-i-nut,  {aT  dadAmsiin,  would  nin  pamllcl  wUli  dieOrt-cknctivo 
itiitir^tno',  towhkh  would  peHAinainc<lio|tiiMivc  AiAoi'igvu^Tn  or  Si^Vqito. 

V  V  3 


652 


VEHBS. 


the  conversion  of  ilie  s  into  tit  (p.  20 ).    Tlie  termination  ka  hnfl. 

[0.  Ed,  p.  6760  at-conling  to  §.  56'.,  an  n  prefixed,  and  tlius  it 
occurs  in  the  i^ssive  form  noticed  in  my  first  Zr;nd  ntt(-mpt 
(Berlin  Jnlirb.  Mfiroli  1S31,  p.  374),  an<)  still  hitherto  unique. 
tiiazayitnhn,  "  thou  wast  born"  (Vend. S,  p. -12).  Ainjuetil 
irflDsIates  the  passage,  which  cannot  admit  two  interpre- 
tations, A)w>9ArdiAtjAijj>  ^^^  to»v  hi  turn  usnzayanhu,  "to  biin 
thou  wa8tborn,"by  " lu'nniiae\tanfii.i cel^/recommevinisr ta\Ci 
thus  conceals  the  true  grammatical  value  of  tliis  rcmnrknblo 
expression,  which  wag  perhaps  no  longer  intelligible  even  to 
Anquctit's  Pars!  instructors.  I  have  since  been  unable  to  find 
a  second  instance  of  this  form ;  hut  Burnouf  (Ya^na,  Notes, 
p.  33)  has  brought  to  li;;ht  o  middle  aorist  form  of  no  less 
importance,  namely,  A>t^>^?j??>wrtfrwfiAiMAa,  "tliougrewestv* 
to  which  we  shall  recur  hereafter.  At  present  wo  are  con- 
cerned only  with  the  substaotialion  of  the  t<.-rminntion  xha.  the 
»h  of  which  is  nsed  under  the  eaphoniciTifluenceof  a  preceding  u. 

470.  We  return  tn  the  Sanskrit  termination /M*.  This  sLinds 
in  obvious  connection  with  the  active  termination  tha,  dis- 
cussed {.453.,  which  probably  had,  in  itsorio^in,  a  still  farther 
extension  in  tlie  singular,  and  from  nhick  the  furm  tkS.-a 
nroac,  by  elongation  of  the  vowel  find  tlic  addition  of  s ;  which 
t,  as  elsewhere  noticed  (Gram.  Crit.  ^  301.  c/.),  probably 
stands  also  to  di^ignate  the  second  person.  If  this  be  so, 
then  ciilicr  the  first  or  the  second  personal-expression  would 
designate  the  person,  which  sustiuns  tite  operation  of  tbo 
action  or  its  advantage,  which  in  all  middle  forms  is 
forthcoming  at  least  in  spirit  if  not  in  form.  Thus  in 
mJat'th&s.  "tlioo  gaveat  to  thee"  (tookest),  cither  "thou" 
is  designated  by  tA,  and  "  to  tliei:"  by  s,  or  tlie  converse. 

[G.  Ed.  p.  C77.1  If  this  be  so,  and  if  in  the  Greek  first  pensou 
th«  r  of  the  termination  fiijv  (Doric  ^oi")  be  organic,  j.e.  not  a 
Inter  nugatory  nddition,  hut  intentional,  and  n  legacy  of  the 
primcvnl  period  of  our  race  of  liinguages,  then  ISiSifiijv  also 
signifies  "  I  gave  to  me,"  wliellicr  it  be  that  fiij  (fia)  or.  as 
8eems  la  me  more  prubable,  the  v  expresses  the  subjective 


MIDDLB  TRRMINATIOMS. 


653 


relation:  iu  titliur  cft**.  Iiowcvlt,  fifj-v  (/icr-v)  stands,  even 
witti  ri'spec-t  to  the  length  of  the  vowel,  in  perfect  analogy 
to  the  Sanskrit  UiA-n.     To  thia  we  must  ndd,  as  an  anatot^y 
for  the  ttiird  pi-rson,  the  termination  iriff  fd-t  of  the  Vf;il»- 
dmicct,  where  the  ezpresaioii  of  tlie  third  person  stands  dou- 
bled.     I  therefore  liold  this  remarkable  termination  for  a 
middle  one,  although  Piinini  (VII.  I.  3l>.)  gives  it  as  a  sub* 
stitute  for  the  transitive  imperative  terminations  tu  and  Ai* 
which  occur  iu  bcnediL-tiona;    for  instance,  bkovtiu  jicaltU, 
"i&ivy  your  honour  live  I"  (rcsjicctful  for  "maycst  thou  livcl"). 
It  is  true  the  root  jw  (and  perhaps  many  others  with  the 
einJini*  tat),  ia  not  used  in  the  ordinary    lan^juaj^e  in   the 
middle  voice,  but  thin  termination  niiiy  be  a  reinnnnt  of  a  pc- 
rtod  in  which  all  verbs  had  still  a  middle  voice.     Thenilddle 
is,  moreover,  ia  its  place  iu  blcs$in(^s,  in  which  some  good 
or  advantage  is  always  invoked  for  some  one.     Finally,  tAl, 
in  a  formal  respect,  ia  much  nearer  to  the  usual  middle 
imperative  termination  Mm  timn  the  tnnisitivc  t«;  yet  I  do  not 
believe  that /d/  has  arisen  out  of  Mm,  but      f"^.  Ed.  ji.  07«.] 
rather  th:it  the  converse  has   taken   [ilace,  [u-rhaps  by  tlie 
intcrveutiou  of  an  iutermediate  M«  (comiiarc  §.  41 1.}.    How- 
ever t]iis  mny  be,  the  termination  01,  which  Ituruour's  acute- 
ness  has  detected  also  in  Zt-nd,t  is  of  importance,  because  it 
affords  an  ancient  foundation  for  the  Oscau  imperative  in 
ttid,X  preserved  to  ns  in  the  table  of  Bantia,  as  licilu-d  for 


*  rusailjJy  cJie  repivsoittiUion  of  ihe  terminatian  hi  by  lAt  may  be  so  ua- 
dtrstn<Kl,i>aibat  iusentt'nLvalikv  khao^njivuUU,  "  AfiiyroniT  honour  live!" 
tlic  pcr*>n  Bitdreowd  I>  always  meant.  Ex(ini[>Ii:(  arc  nut  ntl4i]c«<t  in  which 
ttivfl'Ctiial  secnndpsnon  isex]iri«iwil  hy  faf.  ^liotiM  kuuIi  (<xisl,  wl- ilIiouIiI 
bo  oblignd  here  to  bring  hitck  ttio  two  ( to  itiu  Iimc  tmi  at  die  Kcaud  pvr- 
WD,  wbiU  io  the  l4i  of  the  tliiri  p«w>n  both  belong  14  iko  ilcinaiutralivo 
bDseM(J.SI3.}.  Cf.jf.Tltf.  p.tUa,Nate. 

t  Only  ill  Olio  Jasuuce  *>t  value,  (wau(C}U^>><>  ut-varstdt.  (Tafoa, 
p.  600,  Nolf). 

t  OinpwUteablittiie  inuf/,  anowniuj;  Io  thv  SjuiakriuZcod  iai!/,  d^, 
and  the  Old  Lutui  ia  i>-if. 


G34 


VKHBS. 


licela.  estu-d  for  eato,  eoTw.*  To  tUc  Grwk  imperative  termi- 
nation T«  u  middle  origin  tins  been  alniady  elaewhure  ascritusi; 
for  in  the  ]>lur:Ll,  repTt-o-vrtav  accords  perfectly  with  the  Sim- 
skrit  middle  lurp-n'TtUlin,  and  is  related  to  it  as  Ttp-K-i-Tutv  to 
the  purely  aetive  dual  tarp-a-iilm.  Should,  howevtr,  repiT-o- 
-t-Twi'  be  identicnJ  with  tlie  transitive  fur/i-n-nfu, this  would  be  a 
solitary  inatanccin  the  whole  fjraaimar  of  the  Greek  Impiago, 
offal  oorre8|K)Ocling  ton  Sanskrit  II.  with,  niorcovcr.an  inorganic 
iicccssioQ  of  a  uaaal.  We  should  be  more  inclined  in  Ttpncrm 
— if  we  comparo  it  to  the  middle  iarp-a-tAm — to  admit 
\.\w  abrasion  of  a  nasal  sound,  ii8  in  £$ei^a,  opposed  to  tflfijiifv 
adlkxham.  1  now,  however,  prefer  to  identify  Tc/«reTw  with 
the  Vedic  word  iarpnttU,  for  the  abandonment  of  the  t  was 
compulsory,    that    of   tlie    nasal    on    aoeidental    caprice. 

[G.  Rl.  i».  679,]  The  relation  of  rcpTt-l-Tta  to  turp-a-UU 
would  be  similar  to  that  uf  tidtoio,  cSoi,  tu  wJaffdl.  iidAt.  If. 
however,  rcp-xhw  be  identical  with  tarpuliU  and  Oscan  forms 
like  ficitud,  egtuti,  the  view  vrc  have  mentioned  above,  that 
the  Veda-ending  lit  belongs  property  to  tlie  middle,  aotjuircs 
a  new  support;  for  if  rc^Trat-ruv  is  based  oti  turpfinldm,  nnd 
is  therefore  of  middle  origin,  then  its  singular  counterpart, 
alia,  call  belong  to  no  other  verbal  genusi  and  will  prove 
a  similar  origin  for  that  of  its  Astatic  prototype  lorpaliit. 

471.  TliefirstpersonsinHuluroflhc  secondary  forms  ought, 
in  Saoakrit,  after  tlie  analogy  of  the  tliird  in  Ai,  to  be  ma, 
so  that  hharlina  would  be  the  counterpart   of  tlie  Greek 


*  It  deserve!  remiu-k.  ibat  Dr.  Kului,  iii  lUs  Uiel/-|iiil>Us]ied  work, 
"CouJDgaiir>ia;it,  llngcie  Sam,  ratlouc  lialiilu"  (p.2t),  <ftn.),  liuit nscrltH.-d 
Ut  till*  Obuui  form,  v^iihwst  nwvgubiui;  lu*  Vudio  analogue,  n  posaivc 
origin.  The  Oaoon  a/TMhi  «  eonduding  d  fur  /,  but  lins  nininthin<«l  tlw 
uM  IVDuis  oihIct  the  protection  ofa  prtctrdiogs;  heiice  ih«  Bulijunetire 
fumu  »nch  im  fiut,  o^^aati  \o /nid  (see  O.  Miiller'a  Etiuslcur,  p.37). 
Compare,  in  ihia  puticnliir,  tho  OaUiic  Mf  (p.(MtlG.c<J.)  with  bairith, 
baireda. 


J 


MIDDLE  TEBMINATIONS. 


655 


^epatfiav  {-fitjv).  TliisForin,  if  not  tbco!tI«at,  must  liuvi:  been 
of  toDg  standing  in  SaiiskriL  Id  the  present  condition, 
however,  of  llie  langung»?,  this  tn,  as  everywliere  in  the 
singular  of  the  mi(l<lle,  hiis  given  way,  iumI  for  /t/uiri'(m)a  we 
find  bftarf-y-a,  with  euphonic  y«  which  is  tDscrtcd  befot%  ail 
personal  tcnninaCloDs  beginning  with  vowele,  in  botli  aclivo 
forms  of  the  pol«ntiHl  (com[iare  5.'13.).  In  the  focma 
burthened  witli  an  augment,  the  turiuiiiation  41,  already  uiucb 
mutilated,  has  exjierienced  a  further  weakening  by  the  trans- 
ition of  n  into  i ;  hence,  e.  g.,  mtri-av-i,  "  aiemfbam,"  for  aslri- 
-wti,  and  tliia  from  aatrinu-ma,  or  a  still  older  aalri-nu- 
pUim,  which  would  corrtispond  to  the  Doric  itrrop-vv-niv. 

473.  Wc  rRtum  to  the  priniary  forms,  in  order  to 
remark,  ttiat.  in  Sanskfii,  not  merely  those  forms  end  in  6 
wliieli.  in  tlie  transitive  aetive.  end  in  i,  and  above  liave 
been  cla&svd  opposite  the  Greek  middle  forms  in  at ;  but  ulso 
tliosc  whicli,  ill  the  transitive  ootive,  ex-  [G.  Kd.  p.usu.J 
bibit  tio  f,  and,  iu  the  Uruck  middle,  no  at.  The  collc-ctive 
primary  forms  run — 


eiNOULAR. 

tVAU 

riAJiui,. 

{m}i=fieu. 

vahi, 

fnnh^^tij^a. 

»i=vai, 

6lhi. 

ilhtci. 

lf,^Tau 

m. 

atS  or  atf=yTcu,  artu  {$.  4&9.) 

The  Zend  fulluws,  aa  fiir  as  evidence  exists,  the  analogy 
of  the  Sanskrit,  yet  the  first  person  plural  Is  not 
^M(  miizS,  03  would  bo  expected  from  i|%  mahf,  but 
(Oai-Mf  ma'ulhi  (§.41.);'  from  which  it  is  clear,  that  the 
Sanskrit  mnhf-  is  li  mutilation  of  *ni  mmlhi  (&.  23.).  as,  before 
I  studied  Zend.  I  had  alri:tuiy  inferred  from  the  Greek  ntda. 
The  Greek  fieOa,  however.  Ima  on  its  side  lost  the  termina- 
ting (.  and  thus  ranks  with  the  Gothic  forma,  mentioned  %.  467. 
In  thtf  secondary  forms,  11^  maM  weakens  itself  by  the  loss 


*  Meidi,  hIk),  «veu»  witli  U*e  Bii|iifikiiuii  dropped. 


656 


VBBBS. 


of  the  iiiitiiil  element  of  tlie  diphthong  f  lo  mnhi;  od  lUo 
other  hand  it  i-xtcnda  itself,  in  h  manner  which  argae*  a 
propensity  to  the  greatest  fulness  of  foroi,  iu  the  firtt 
person  imperative  to  wn^  limaluli;  ami  analogous  to  tliis 
the  dual  exhibits  together  witli  ^vih^  tlie  forms  vahi  and 
AvehAi.  The  Zoncl  retains,  also,  in  tlie  set'oodarj'  forms, 
the  full  termination  mwdhi ;  at  least  there  is  evidence  of  this 
last  in  the  potential  (Wisyjugjiiiisj^j  biiidhySimaidJtf,  "  we 
may  see,"  (Vend.  S.,  p.  45)  repeatedly. 

473.  Though,  in  Sanskrit,  all  the  middle  tcrniioationsof  the 
primary  forms  end  in  t*.  I  am  not  of  opinion,  therefure, 
thiit  all  these  fi  rest  on  the  same  priniriple.  As  to  those  to 
which,  in  the  transitive  active,  i,  and,  in  the  Greek  middle^ 

[G.  E<I.  p.  Gfll.]  ai,  corresponds,  I  am  much  inclin<^  to 
assume  ihe  dropping  of  a  pronominal  consonant  between  tlie 
two  elements  of  the  diphtliong,*  and,  indeed,  to  derive  (my, 
fiai,  from  m«mi;  s^,  aai,  from  mm;  UI,  rot,  from  tati;  as  wo 
have  before  seen  7wrrc<  spring  from  tCtttcti,  and,  in  the 
PriUcfit,  bhiwai  from  bbanadi;  and  as,  also,  in  the  Grrrk,  the 
middle  -rvwreaai  has  been  still  further  shortened  into  iwrfj. 
and,  in  Saiiakrit.  m^  into  f.  In  this  ^.  therefore,  the  expres- 
sion of  the  first  person  is  contained  in  a  twofold  m.'muer. 
once  in  a  for  ma,  and  then  iu  t  for  mi;  and  thus,  also,  the 
reduplieutod  preterite  in  the  third  person  exliibits  i  opposite 
the  Greek  rai  for  tot*,  and  the  \'cda-dialcct  gives  us. 
even  in  the  present  for  Bt^l^^KetTcu  of  the  ordinary  lan- 
guage, the  form  a'ay-^  (euphonic  for  ib?-('),  aud  oilier  simi- 
lar mutilations  of  the  terminations  of  the  middle  voice,  as  aduh, 
"they  milked."  for  aduh^in;  dah/lm,  "let  him  milk."  fop 
duff-flAAm,  and  this  last  euphonic  for  Juh-l^m  (Panini  VII. 
L  41.)  If  wc  now  refer  im)e  =  fiai,  «?=<roi,  aud  (t'ssrew,  to 
tlie  probably  pre-existing  forms  mumi.  inir,  tali,  perluips. 


Sa,  also,  Knlui  iu  his  Tnct  ([i,  35),  iiKtUiatU'4  at  p.  C64. 


i 


MIDDLE  TERMINATIONS. 


657 


ntao.  mJriti.  wlft.  Mfi*  the  question  arlaes  which  or  the  twn 
pronouns  cx|>resseil  the  subJL'cttvL'.  nnd  which  the  objective 
rtflatioii.  Do  rf/i/.««(.v)i,  S('Jo-(ra(<i)j  signify  "give  to  thee 
tliuu,"  OP  "  give  thou  to  thee"?  If  we  assume  the  former,  we 
obtnin  the  same  order  as  in  BtSoaSCf  SiS<xr6oy,  &c.,  of  vrhich 
more  hcrenfter;  and  the  remarkable  case  \rouUI  occur,  tliat, 
after  ilia  supprL-ssiou  of  the  si^ctitid  pronomiunl  con^onHiit, 
the  first,  which,  with  its  vowel,  expressed  the  pronoun 
Btniiding  in  ttie  relation  of  ttie  oblique  case,  has  obtained  the 
Apjieiirancc  of  designating  th«  subjective,  [O.  Kd.  p.  6S2.J 
or  of  Ijclonging  to  the  proper  peraonal  termination  ;  for,  in 
SiSo-fi<ji(ti)i.  the  foeling  of  the  lau^uti^c  would  better  dispense 
with  tlie  exprcssioii  of  tlic  "to  me"  or  "jno"  (accusative) 
thitn  with  thtit  of  "  L"  Whichever  of  the  two  explanations 
be  true,  it  is  thought  wc  find  in  SiSo-ficu  the  same  /i  as 
ill  SiSu-iii.  That  this  should  so  Appear  is,  however,  no 
proof  of  the  real  stnte  of  tljo  matter;  for  if — which  niueh  re- 
scDibles  the  cose  in  (]iieation,  and  lias  often  occurred  in  the 
history  of  language — reduplicated  forms  uiidcrifo  interior 
inutilution,  by  extrusion  of  the  consonant  of  the  second 
syllable,  the  6rst  syllable  then  acquires  tlu:  appcarani-c  of 
belonging  to  the  root  itself.  No  one  misses,  from  the  point 
of  sight  of  our  current  language,  from  preterites  like  hUH 
the  initial  consooant  of  the  root:  every  odo  holda  the  A  of 
hirlt  OS  identical  with  that  of  hailci  and  yet,  as  Grimm,  with 
much  auutenuss.  was  the  Srst  to  discover  ((.  103.  101.),  tlie 
sytlahic  /li  of  hirft  hoa  f^iucd  tJiia  place  by  reduplication. 
The  Old  High  German  form  is  hiuU  hi(fi)nlt,  and  the  Gothic 
haiholil.  whose  second,  and  thus  radical  A,  has  escapi-J  from 
tlie  younger  dialects.  I  now  hold,  contrary  to  my  earlier 
opinion,  ^c  initial  consonants  of  S.-in8krit  forms  like 
Upima,  "  wc  expiated,"  for  rcdaplicatirc,  and  I  assume  on 
extrtiaiou    of  tlie    baae    letter    t    of   laiayima,    producing 


*  Caiupuo  $.  470.  tMt,  td-t,  itS-r. 


658 


VBRDS. 


Uipbna  =  taapima,  aail  Iieuce,  by  weakeiiiilg  the  d 
(=«-)-a)  to  4  (^a-^-i),  tipima.  In  the  Sclavonic  dam^, 
"  I  give,"  also,  anit  in  tiie  Lithuftnmn  tlim}.  the  first  syllablii 
Ims  nriacD  by  reJiipliaitiuii,  iitid  the  radical  syllable  baa 
entirely  vanished.     More  oF  this  hereafter. 

474.  Let  us  oovf  turn  to  thuae  midillc  terminAtioas  ia  f,  to 
whicli.  in  Greek,  no  at  forresjKMicIs,  and  we  believe  that  we 
rtMxtgtiifie  in  the  plural  r//iit-^  a  proiiuuiiiml  nuiuinative  form 
in  the  sense  of  $.  2^^*. ;  thus  dfiivS  out  of  tihtm-i,  fmni  the  bast; 
dlitoa  fur  /fca,  Tlie  dual  teruiiiialiona  (iW.^.  mf,  correspond, 
on  the  other  hand,  with  neutral  dual  foroos;  sueh,  for 
[G.  Ed.  p.  083.1  iustance,  as  (<!.  "  tJiese  two."  lu  lliu  se- 
condary  forms,  dhientn,  distributed  into  dku-atn,  may,  ia 
re»;ar{l  of  i«  tcraiiiiatton.  be  i-onipnrcd  with  yil-yum,  "you," 
ray.am.  '•  we ;"  but  the  iluul  expressions  Allidm,  lU^m.  are  re- 
lated, »ith  respect  to  tlieir  lerniinfitions,  to  dhwnm,  as,  accord- 
ing to  §.206.,  (1«  (out  of  4j,)  is  to  as,  and  answer  to  dvdm,  "we 
two."  ytttyim.  "yc  two."  For  the  rest,  ^i^  n-tfi^,  wii^  tM, 
■WTO1»(^  dthiUn,  wnrm  dtdm.  ap|)ear  to  me  nmulations  of 
MlM,  Iktr.  (see  Kiilin,  I.  c,  p.  31) ;  just  as  we  have  found  above 
in  the  VMa-diuleet.  in  the  third  |)erson  singular  imperative 
dm  for  Mm  (p.  681  G.  ud.).  The  syllables  {i)M,  {t)i,  which 
ex[)nF$3  the  pronoun  standing  in  the  objective  cnse-re lotion, 
are  represented  in  Greek  by  ttic  <t  iu  SiSo'<T-$oi',  SiSo-<T-9i]*', 
citio-<r-8ov,  e9iiS-iT-di)¥,  wliti-h  tr,  accordiug  to  §.90.,  explains 
itself  very  satisfactorily  as  out  of  t;  the  following  ft  how- 
ever, has  likewise  proceeded  from  t  through  the  influenee  of 
this  a;6  with  u  preceding  aspirate,  ore,  beluga  very  favourite 
unioiL  If  we  contrast  SlSo-tr-Bou,  &c.,  with  tho  Sanskrit 
doif-ilfiJil-tM,  wc  perceive  tbat  the  two  languages,  in  dealing 
with  the  abori^nal  form,  so  divide  themselves,  tliut  the  one 
bus  preserved  only  tlie  consonant,  the  other  only  tlie  vowel,  of 
the  pronominal  expression  standing  in  the  oblique  ease-re- 
lalioo.  In  the  second  person  plural  tlie  Sanskrit  has  dropped 
the  vowel  aa  well  as  the  eunsouuniul-elemeut  of  tbe  inter- 


MIDDLE  TERMINATIONS. 


659 


mediary  pronoun ;  but  I  believe  timt  dhwf,  dkwam,  in  tlie 
condition  of  the  langua^  immediately  anterior,  were  d-dhwi, 
d-iUiwam ;  ^haibhar-a-d-dhwiialthar-u-d-dhxcam^^^p-e-iT-Bt 
iipip-€'4r-8e ;  for  7' sounds  are  casilif  suppressed  btfort:  tw 
ai\d  dhui :  lient-e  we  find  in  the  gerund  for  dnI'tirA,  "  afur 
giving,"  Mjf-^Mrfl,  "aTter  cleaving,"  more  commonly  (iti-iwrf, 
bhi-fwA ;  and  in  the  second  noriat  form  the  second  jiersoii 
plural  of  the  middle  cxliibita  both  'ul-dhicam  [G.  Ed.  p.  664.] 
(out  oi is-dhuiim)iinA  i-dhumn:  finally,  before  the  termination 
dhl  of  tlic  second  [jersoii  imperative  singular,  a  radical  t 
is  convertetl  into  d:  tliis  d  may.  bowev4*r,  also  be  SM{>- 
prcsscd;  lience  sti-dki,  ns  well  as  s(id-dlii,  -  reign  thou,"  for 
i(tia-dhi.  The  root «»,  "  to  be,**  forma  merely  f-dhi*  for  ad-dht, 
oat  of  <u-dhi.  As,  then,  this  4-dhi  U  related  to  Uic  Greek 
Tu-ft,  so  ia  bharadhtvf  for  bhttrtiddhivi  to  ^c/xo-ft;,  only  that 
ill  the  lattiT  place  tlie  Greek.  6  represents,  nut  the  Sanskrit 
dh  (§.  1 6.),  but  the  Greek  t.  through  the  influence  of  the 
preceding  a.  Hence  arises,  in  the  iiupera'tii'e  also.  iptpeoOia^ 
as  a  middle  arter-growth.  For  after  tfteperu,  a  middle  itself 
by  origin  (p.  676  G.cd.).  had  been  applied  in  practice  witJi 
a  purely  actiTe  signification,  the  necessi^  arose  of  forming 
^ni  it  a  new  medio-pussive  on  the  old  principle.  Even  the 
infinitives  in  eOcu}  appear  to  me,  by  a  misdlrectetl  feeling, 
to  have  proceeded  out  of  tliis  principle;  for  after  tlie  true 
sign ilicat ion  of  tJie  c  under  dificussiou  was  extinguished,  thu 
Rpirit  of  tlie  lttugu:ij(e  funiid  it  adapted,  everywhere  by  its 
insertion  before  a  t,  and  the  couver^ioa  of  the  latter  into  Q,  to 
call  forth  a  niedio-pa&sivc  signtiicalion.  If,  however,  we 
disrobe  the  form  iiio<T$at  of  its  c.  and  bring  back  the  6  to  r.  wc 
arrive  at  StSorai,  which  admits  of  comparison  willi  tlie  Scla- 
vonic-Lithuanian  infinitive  in  ii,  just  as  this  last  has  it^lf 
b«eo  traced    back   elsewhere    to  abstract  sabstaoiives  in 


•  A>  I  Utink.  ttniiivduitaly  from  A^i,  with  a  wi-altuoing  of  die  dia4, 
1  buiKe$.bb8.  p.I28;iG.cd. 


660 


VERBS. 


Sanaltfit  with  a  similar  termination  in  it.  Tlie  Veda-dialect 
also  supplies  us  with  infinitives  in  s^  dhy&u  as  dative  femi- 
nine abstracts  in  fit  dhi,  in  which  I  can  only  recognise  a 
transpoaition  of  the  ordinary  suffix  fir  ti  (Gram.  Crit  §.  640. 
Obs.  3.). 

[0.  T.S..  p.  680.]  475.  If  we  cast  a  glance  back  over  the  at- 
tL'mpta  we  have  made  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  terminations 
of  tlie  m  iddle  voicie,  the  tlwory,  t  hat  they  depend  on  the  donbi  ing 
of  each  personal  designation  as  itoccurs,  will  be  found  lo  rest 
principally  on  the  fact,  thnX,  in  the  Greek  c^cpopjjv,  the  San- 
skrit abfiarttt'h,  and  Vcdic  hhondAf,  one  and  the  same  per- 
sonal expres6ion  is  maiiifestly  doubled,  as  also  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  it  is  most  natural  so  to  express  ideas  tike  "  [  give  to 
me,"  "  I  rejoice  me,"  that  the  "  I,"  as  well  as  the  *'  to  me,"*  or 
"  me" — the  subjeclive  aswellasthe  objective  case-relation — 
should  find  a  formul  representative  in  one  and  tho  samo 
pivnomiuAl  base.  Apart,  howet  cr,  from  (.tptp^jir/v,  forms  like 
^tpeare^  and  the  to-bc-supjioscd  Sanskrit  fiftunidilhu^  for  thu 
existing  bharaiihu;^,  would  admit  yet  another  ex|>ositiont 
namely,  tltat  tliu  Greek  a  docs  not  stand  euphonicnlly  for  r. 
but  on  its  own  acuount,  and  ns  Uie  base-consonant  of  the 
rcfli-xivc  (^.3-11.);  wliich,  although  belonging  to  the  third 
person,  yet  willingly  uodertakcs  Uk  fuuctlous  of  both  the 
otliera.  fn  Sanskrit,  the  a  of  tho  reflexive  hiise  before  tlic 
personal  terminations  J/iu'^  imddliwam,  by  the  universal  laws 
of  sound,  would  either  bipcome  d  or  be  dropped;  and  so  far  in 
tliis  way.  also,  the  Greek  <pcpe<j6e,  itpipeeQe,  wuuU)  go  along 
with  a  Sanskrit  bhara:d)dkuj^,  abfiara{d)dhuiam  i  for  the  abo^'e 
presupposed  forms,  such  as  bkaraihdiy,  answering  to  ^l|Oe- 
o-^OK,  we  should  liavo  to  assume  bfioTiisfUkl,  out  of  bhurnaia\0i6. 
Were  this  assumption  well  founded,  as  prolxibly  n  similar  prin- 
ciple would  have  prevailed  inail  tlie  productions  of  the  middle 
voice,  the  terminations  (ni)^,  (/,  {lai,  rai,  would  have  to  be  ex- 
plained, Dot  as  from  marnt,  toii,  but  from  nuuU  t<ui,  or  matwi, 

*  InflncDcc  of  Pronnuiis  on  the  Forautlon  of  tV'urds. 


MIDDLE  TERMINATIONS.  6G1 

tasttif.  The  aecond  person  would  remain  sasi,  bnt  the  second  j 
would  pertain,  not  to  the  second  person,  but  to  the  reflexive,  and 
we  should  then  refer,  also,  the  i  of  abkarathAs  to  the  re- 
flexive, and  necessarily  snfier  the  firfv  of  [G.  Ed.  p.  686.] 
i^epofitjv  to  stand  totally  isolated,  without  sympathy  with  an 
old  principle. 

476.  With  respect  to  the  Latin,  it  was  in  the  "Annals 
of  Oriental  Literature"  (London,  1820,  p.  62),  that  it  was  first 
observed  that  the  passive  r  might  owe  its  origin  to  the 
reflexive.  I  am  now  the  more  decided  in  giving  a  pre- 
ference to  this  hypothesis  over  that  which  resorts  to  the 
verb  substantive,  as  I  have  since  recognised  in  the  Lithu- 
anian and  Sclavonic,  which  I  had  not  tlien  drawn  within 
the  circle  of  my  inquiries  into  comparative  language, 
a  similar,  and,  in  truth,  universally-recognised  procedure; 
not,  however,  necessarily  that  aboriginal  one  which,  in 
the  remotest  xra  of  the  formation  of  the  language,  must 
have  governed  those  middle  forms  which  are  common  to 
the  Greek  and  Asiatic  sisterhood;  but  I  rather  assume 
a  gradual  inroad  of  the  reflexive  of  the  third  {wrson  into 
the  second  and  first,  as  a  substitute  for  some  older  and 
more  decided  expression  of  each  person,  on  whom  the  action 
works  retro-actively.  The  Old  Sclavonic  appends  the 
accusative  of  the  reflexive  to  the  transitive  verb,  in  order 
to  give  it  a  reflexive  or  passive  signification ;  for  instance, 
'1T8  cMH,  "lego,"  becomes  chfUsifi,  "legor"'';  and  thus  in 
the  second  and  third  person  <iTEuitiCA  chleshisya,  qTETbCA 
cheiysyn,  plural  qTEsit*  chtemsya,  &c.  (Dobrowsky,  p.  544, 
Kopitars  Glag.  p.  64,  xvii.)  In  the  Bohemian,  se  is  not 
so  much  as  graphically  connected  with  the  verb,  and 
may  stand  as  well  before  aa  after  it,  but  is  used  by  pre- 
ference for  the  expression  of  the  passive  only  in  the  third 
person  (Dobr.  Bohm.  Leht^.  p.  182),  which  may  also  be 
the  case  with  the  Old  Sclavonic.  In  tlie  Lithuanian  such 
verbal   expressions  have  merely  a  reflexive  signification. 


662  VERBS. 

[G.  Ed.  p.  687.]  but  bear  more  the  appearance  of  a  gram- 
matical unity,  and  therefore  more  r^emble  the  Latin  pas- 
sive, because  it  is  not  a  positive  case  of  the  reflexive 
pronoun,  whose  accusative  is  anweii  (p.  477),*  but  only  its 
initial  consonant,  which  is  appended  to  the  verb,  either 
immediately,  or  with  an  e  prefixed.  The  latter  occurs  in 
the  persona  which  end  in  *  or  e,  the  latter  of  whicli,  before 
the  appended  en,  becomes  *.  Compare,  in  this  respect,  the 
Old  Latin  amari-er  from  amarcer,  with  forms  like  umdinnati-es, 
"  ye  name  you,"  for  uxtdinnaJe^s.  The  dual  terminations  u-a 
and  ta  convert  tlieir  a  into  o,  and  a  simple  u  of  the  first  per- 
son becomes  v.  I  annex  here  the  present  of  wadinnus, 
"  I  name  myBelf,"^  opposite  the  simple  transitive. 

SINGULAR. 

1.  u-adinnu,  wadinnus. 

2.  wadinni,  toaditmieit. 

3.  wadinna,  wadinnGs. 

DUAL. 

1.  toadinnnwn,      wadtJinawo-t. 

2.  wndinnatfi,        vmdimialos. 

3.  like  sing.  like  sing. 

PLURAL, 

[G.Ed. p. 688.]     I.  wadinname,      wadinnamies. 

2.  wadinnale,         wadinnnfiei, 

3.  like  sing.  like  sing. 


*  It  would  appear,  that,  toother  with  this  tawen,  or,  in  the  dative,  to- 
gether with  »av>,  a  kindred  form  ti  co-existed,  as,  in  Old  Sclavonic,  n  with 
tebtft,  andfram  this  m  it  isplmn  that  the  suffix  of  the  verba  reflex iva  pro- 
ceoded ;  and  in  the  third  person,  instead  of  a  simple  s  the  full  si  may 
stand ;  for  instance,  tcadinnas  or  wadinvoM,  "lie  namL's  hiinsclf."  AVith 
verbs,  also,  begnnning  with  at,  ap,  and  some  other  pre  positions,  or  the  ne- 
gation ne,  the  reflexive  is  interposed  in  ilie  shape  of  «t,  but  may  aleo  be 
appended  to  the  end ;  for  instance,  tsailaikaut  {a-ii-laikau-t),  "  I  sustain 
me." 

t  Compare Sansli lit  cad,  "toipeak." 


MIDDLK  TBRMIHATIONS. 


6«3 


477.  To  these  forinatioits  tlic  LattD  passive  is  striVingly 
similar,  only  that  licre  the  coniposition  is  alrmd}'  ob- 
Bcured.  as  the  sense  of  inHfipendpnce  of  the  rc6cxtve 
pronoun  is  not  h<?re  mmtitnimxl  ity  its  nwliiUly.  as  in  the 
Ltthuaninn,  where,  uiiil(>r  th»  above-t-ited  i-onclitions,  it  is 
placed  before  the  verb.  By  the  fnvoariti"  interchangp, 
also,  between  «  nnO  r.  a  scission  has  occurred  between  the 
passive  suffix  and  the  simple  rffleiivf.  In  the  iKTamis 
ending  with  consonants,  a  connecting  vowe!  was  necessary 
towards  tlie  adjunction  of  the  r,  ftn<l  u  stands  as  such  in 
amnlur,  amanlur.  as  it  S4%Di8  to  me  through  the  inilnence  or 
tbi"  liquids.  Tlie  iiii|»erative-Forra8  nm/ilo-r  ami  amimlo-r 
required  no  auxiliary  vowel,  lu  anuimur  the  s  of  amarima 
has  given  nay  before  tlic  reflexive,  which  is  not  surprising, 
as  tlie  t  dors  not  belong  to  the  personnl  drsignatiun,  and, 
in  Sanskrit,  is  given  up  also  in  the  simple  verb,  in  the 
secondary  forms,  and  occasionally  even  in  the  primary. 
Id  ofN^r,  on  the  other  liand,  the  personal  character  is  itself 
sacrificed  to  the  sufiix,  for  amfmr  whs  not  possible,  and 
amtmuT  was  foreatalled  for  the  plural  (instend  of  amemusr). 
In  amariM,  amerit,  &c..  there  is  eitlier  a  transposition  of 
omoirtrt  or  the  personal  cliaracter  a  hns  been  unuble  to  with* 
stand  the  inclination  to  bccnmc  r  when  placed  between  two 
vowels  (§.  ■i2.);  and  tlie  reflexive  has  protected  its  origin.il  s. 
(just  as  the  comparative  suflix  io  the  neuter  exhibits  iu» 
opposed  to  jor  (§.  998.).)  and  hence  i  here  forms  the  conjunc- 
tive vowet  of  the  «,  not  ti,  which  is  used  to  conjoin  r.* 
In  the  singular  imperutive-pcrson  amn-re,     [G.  Ed.  p.  Oft).] 


•Tl»t  thei^ifafiMiruboli>iig»l(>tliconf[iiMlt<Tininatiun«i,AS  Pott  wm. 
jecturc*  (Etytn.  Faneb,  p.  I3u),  I  cnnnat  Rdmil,  bcciiow  t  liulU  lliii  kind  of 
panivc  formAtiAa  far  younger  lliiin  thc'  prriotl  when  the  i  of  Ih*  Mttie 
oxpfMROit  in  I^tin  was  ttill  exmnl,  as  il  h«  ntra  vnnUhnl  in  Gr«ek 
wttliout  n  Ince,  except  in  iviri.  In  dio  Bocoailary  forms,  hawcvcr,  Il  hnd 
diM>ppean<l  txCorc  the  iii'lividiultiAlion  of  th« limgDafEM  hen  Minparcd, 
anil  yet  wo  find  amaiarig,  amtri*. 


664  VERBS. 

the  reflexive,  in  advantageous  contrast  with  the  other  pas- 
sive forms,  has  protected  its  vowel ;  and  if  vre  commute 
this  re  into  se,  we  obtain  the  perfect  accusative  of  the  simple 
pronoun.  We  have  already  attended  to  the  old  infinitive 
form  amari-er,  produced  by  transposition  for  amure-re 
(p.  662).  If  we  prefer,  however,  which  I  do  not,  to  exempt 
the  imperative  amare  from  the  universal  principle  of  the 
Latin  passive,  we  might  recognise  in  it  a  remnant  of  tlie 
Hellenic-Sanskrit  and  Zend  structure,  and  compare  re  as 
a  personal  termination  to  <ro,  ^  stca,  »&  ha,  of  which  more 
hereafter. 

478.  That  the  second  person  plural  amamini  steps  out  of 
all  analogy  with  the  other  passive  persons  is  easy  to 
observe,  and  notliing  but  the  circumstance,  that  the  earlier 
procedure  of  grammar  did  not  trouble  itself  at  all  with  the 
foundation  of  lingual  phenomena,  and  that  the  relationship 
between  the  Greek  and  Latin  was  not  systematically  and 
scientifically  traced  out,  can  account  for  the  ffict,  that  tlie 
form  amamini  had  so  long  found  its  place  in  the  paradigms, 
without  raising  the  question  how  and  whence  it  came  there. 
I  belie^'e  I  was  the  first  to  bring  this  under  discussion  in  my 
Conjugation  System  (Frankf.  a.  M.  1816.  p.  105,  ff.);  and  I 
repeat  with  confidence  the  explanation  there  given,  namely, 
that  amamini  is  a  passive  participle  in  the  masculine  nomi- 

QG.  Ed.  p. 690.]  native  plural;  thus  amamini  for  amamini 
ettis,  as,  in  Greek,  Terv/ifiivoi  elai.  The  Latin  suffix  is 
minu'S,  and  corresponds  to  the  Greek  fievos  and  Sinskrit 
mdn-a».  From  the  fact,  however,  that  these  particijiles 
in  Latin  are  thrust  aside  in  ordinary  practice,  mini  has, 
in  the  second  person  plural — where  it  has  continued  as  if 
petrified,  as  far  as  the  practice  of  the  language  is  con- 
cerned— assumed  the  character  of  a  verbal  temiinntiou, 
and  has  thus  also,  having  lost  the  consciousness  of  its  no- 
minal nature,  renounced  its  distinction  of  gender,  and  its 
appendage  egiis.     If  we  found  amaminte  for  the   feminine 


MIDDLE  TERMINATIONS. 


B69 


and  amamina  for  the  neuter,  we  should  be  spared  the 
trouble  of  seeking  an  explanation  for  amaminK  innsmach 
'  as  it  would  partly  bu  alTDrdcd  by  the  language  itself.  It 
may  be  suitable  here  to  briii^  to  remembrance  h  similar 
procedure  in  Sanskrit:  tliia  coiploya  ddl^  (from  the  base 
ddtdr,  §.  Hi.),  properly  daiurut,  in  the  sen»e  of  dtduruaest, 
without  reference  to  gender,  and.  thert-fore,  also  for  datura 
and  dnliirntn  est-,  altbciugh  this  furm  of  word,  which  is  also 
a  represeututive  of  the  Ltttin  iiomen  aj^cntis  in  Utr,  hns 
a  feminine  in  Iri  at  its  eommand  {see  tr{-e,  j.  It9.)i  and 
the  giveress  ia  no  more  called  dtUd  than  the  giver  in 
Lntin  dator.  In  the  plural,  also,  dMAras,  used  as  u  sub- 
atautive,  stands  for  "  the  givers."  and  in  the  ctmnieter  of 
a  verba!  person,  "they  will  ^ivc;"  this  iu  all  genders; 
likewise  in  the  dual.  dfU&r&u.  The  procedure  of  the 
Sanskrit  is  thus  still  more  remarkable  than  that  of  the 
Latin,  because  its  tJd/d,  dAlArAu,  dAldrdt,  has  maintained 
itself  in  the  ordinary  nominal  usage  of  the  language.  It  is 
tlierefore  due  merely  to  the  circumstanee,  that  the  lau- 
guage,  in  its  condition  as  handed  down  to  us,  could  no  longer 
deal  ad  libituvz  with  tUo  forms  in  the  sense  of  future  parti- 
ciples, that  ddtd,  diUiirAa,  ddUlrAa,  where  they  signify  dabif, 
dabutit,  have  lost  all  consciousness  of  their  adjectival  nature, 
oud  their  capacity  for  distinction  of  gender,  [Q.  Ed.  i>.  esi.] 
and  liave  assumed  altogether  the  character  of  ordinary  per- 
sonal terminalious.  To  return,  however,  to  the  Latin  amii- 
mini:  the  Reviewer  of  my  Conjugation  System,  in  tlie  "Jena 
Literntunteituug"  (if  I  mistake  not,  Grotefeod),  supports 
the  explanation  given  by  tlio  forms  alumnus,  vfrtumntu, 
which  evidently  belong  to  these  participial  formationa,  but 
have  lost  the  ».  This,  however,  has  been  preserved  in  ttr- 
minuH,  if,  as  Lisch,  and  beyond  dispute  correctly,  lays  down, 
n-e  consider  it  as  expressing  "  tliat  which  is  overstepped," 
and  identify  its  root  with  the  Sanskrit /ar  {tri).'     Fe-mitui 

*  Vocalitiaus,  p.  174. 
X  .\ 


666 


TftRBS. 


(as  giving  birtb,  and  therefore  middle),  which  is  likewise 
instanced  \>y  Lisch.  I  hnd  hefore  recogniBed  as  a  formation 
belonging  to  the  same  category;  the  root  is/e,  from  which 
a\so/etut./e(ura.  and  fecundus.  Gptnini,  moreover,  aa  "the 
born  together,"  (from  the  root  gen)  may  be  considered  as  aii 
abbrev-iation  of  gcnmhii  or  fjenimmi. 

479.    How    stands    the    case  now    with   the   imperatirc 
amdmintir  ?     Arc  wc  to  conaider  its  r  as  idcntieid  witli  that 
of  amar,  awwj/or.  amnntor?     I  think    not;  for  it  was   not 
necessurj'  to  express  here  the  passive  or  reflexive  meaning 
by  an  aitjiendcd  pronoun,  as  the  medio- passive  participial 
sufiix  vtaa  fully  suQicient  for  this  purpose.     Our  best  course, 
then,  is  to  sei-k  in  amaminor  for  a  plural  cose- termination 
as  in  amnmini;  and  this  is  afforded  us,  as  [  have  observed 
in  my  Conjngation  System  (p.  106).  by  the  Engubiaii  Tables, 
where,  for  instance,  we  find  suh-itor  for  the  Latin  mbaeti, 
icrehUvr   for   teriptL*     The    singulars,    however,    of  tUe 
second  masculine  declension  in  the  Umbriaji  end  ino:  we 
[G.  Ed,  p.  fiM.]      find    orto   for   orlux.    xtihato    for   suhat^us. 
Now  it  is  remarkable  that,  in  accordance  with  tliese  sin- 
gular forms  in  o,  tJiere  are  «xtaiit  also,  in  Latin,  singular 
imperatives  in  mino,  namely,  /amino  in  Festus,   and  />nr> 
/omtno  in  Coto  do  R.  R,    To  these  forma,  before  described, 
wc  canadd/rutniino,  which  Struve  (Lat.  Decl.  and  Conj.  p.  143) 
cites  from  au  inscription    in  Gruter.    "  is  eum  a^ntm  nn 
hahtio  iwi  yVuiinino."   where  the   form  in  question  plainly 
belon|;s  to  the  third  person,  by  which  it  still  more  con- 
clusively proclaims  itself  to  be  a  participle,  in  which  cha- 
racter it  may  with  equal  right  be  applied  to  one  as  to  the 
other  person. 

"  Remark.— (irafc,    in    his    work,    'The   Sanskrit    verb 
compared   with   the  Greek  and   Latin   from   tlie  point  of 


•  Th«  tcrmiiutian  OTBCcoids  perfectly  nitb  tbc  Sontkrit  iE«(a^a«)iin(l 
Oothicfl*(f.C27.);  while  the  l^alin  i  lus  ob(rudc4  iUelf  fwm  the  pro- 
iioitiinal  deciotalon  (^338.), 


I 


MIDDLE  TBllMINATIONS.  667 

view  of  Clfissical  Philology."  remarks,  p.  I  go,  that  ho  omrc 
constdcrcd,  ns  I  do,  the  form  in  mini  ta  a  jinrtiuiple  similar 
in  kind  to  tlie  Greek  in  pitviK,  btit  now  conaidcra  it,  with  con- 
fidence;, as  a  n-maant  of  an  old  aimlogy  of  the  Oreek 
infinitive  in  tfievat,  whicli,  Imving  been  originally  passive, 
had  first  hccu  applied  to  the  imperotive  in  Latin,  and 
thence  had  been  further  diffused.  How  neur  the  im]Mnn- 
tive  and  iiiBuitive  come  tt^cthur.  ond  how  their  forms 
are  interchanged,  Griife  thinka  ho  has  shewn,  I.  c.  p,  59  U"., 
where,  namely,  the  Greek  sewud  person  in  ov  (ivt/mv)  is  de- 
duced from  tlie  Siuiskrit  6rst  person  singular  in  ^ni;  but 
where  the  remark  follows,  that  in  any  ense,  thstlt/lni  ("let  roe 
stand ')  is  manifestly  and  strikingly  like  the  inlinitirc 
lOTai'ou,  and  much  more,  if  ye  consider  that  ai  in  Sanskrit 
is  merely  the  diphtliong  nearest  to  i  (in  Greek,  however. 
the  rarest,  see  Vocalism.  p.  ISs),  Wc  have,  however,  to  re- 
member, timt.  in  irrravm.  the  a  belongs  to  the  root,  and  that, 
therefore,  for  a  parallel  with  tlie  Sanskrit  iniijeratiw,  if 
such  ho  admitted,  only  vai  can  be  compared  to  /int.  Griife 
goes  on:  'It  would  be  easy  to  iuingine  that  tlic  6rat  person 
plural  ttm  tithtJiAma  had  its  counterpart  in  the  other 
iolinitive  form  ierrd/iCf,  property  Unifit,"  i.e.  sMr».  Finally. 
it  may  not  be  left  unobserved,  that  the  Gret-k  (.O.  Ktl.  ji.893.] 
and  Sanskrit  imperative  in  A,  ti^i,  is  again  the  furm  of 
the  infinitive  in  the  Sclavonic  dialect«,t  and  that  ctiatoin 
ndmita  the  fretjncnt  use  of  the  infinitive  for  the  imperative 
in  Greek.'  I  could  hardly  have  expected  that  the  personal 
terminations  of  the  Sanskrit  tmixTitivc  could  lead  to  so  many 
and  various  comparisons.  It  appears,  however,  to  me  ill 
suited  to  the  spirit  ofeliissieai  philotogj-.  without  necessity 
to  attribute  to  the  Gtvek  that  it  has  borrowed  inter  alia  its 


*  I  consider  Uic  v  Tcry  caicntinl,  juat  liccaoM   1  tlnduou  imv  ood  ^tmu 
from  tli«  middle  pArticipLhl  imfTix  f^vnf. 
t  I  exptftin  dieir  tl  as  idenlicBl  with  Uio  abitract  sal«lanlive  wITix 

ftr«. 

X  x9 


663 


VERBS. 


accoud  [lersou  imperatire  in  ov  from  auy  Suuiskrit  first 
person.  1  find  it  still  less  coiigenial  to  tlie  spirit  of  a  more 
universal  eomjinrntivc  philology,  tliat  Grhfe.  who  bus  before 
ovcrlooketl  many  laws  of  souncl  iiicontrovertihly  t'stablished, 
should,  in  liis  oomparisons,  lend  too  willing  an  ear  to  nicro 
similitudes  of  soucd  ;  for  instance,  where  (p.  39.)  he  etploins 
tlic  root  ^  cftrir.  'to  go,"  liy  the  [leripbrssis  ('/limr-AHrren'), 
■  to  mow  SLTiipiu;^  along  on  tlii'  ground,"  and  where  (p.  32. 
Note)  he  com]mrc.>5  gp?  hp,  '  tospi'ak,"  with  lapptm,  "to  botch,* 
'  to  spt-ak  Jiapt-'rfectly,"  and  Kairtctii.  I  was  not  aware  tlint  a 
German  sch  anywhcro  corresponded  to  a  Sanskrit  cA,  1>ut 
1  knew  timt  it  did  so  to/  (or  i<],  in  obacrvance  of  tlic  law  of 
permutation  of  sounds  (§.  87.).  and  of  the  favourite  practice 
of  exchange  between  gutturals  and  labials.  Remark  but  tlie 
relation  of  chnttt'Srua  10  the  Gotliie^j/i->>r  and  German  vier,  as 
also  that  of  panCJJan  to/uitF,  and  the  idcnttlioation  of  the  San- 
akrilcftor,  'go,'  and  Gotbic/arv'i  (preterite /(Jr),  "to go,'  'to 
wander,'  German  fahrcn,  will  be  satisfactorily  proved.  If, 
however,  wc  are  to  admit  that  anv  infinitive  has  arisen  out 
of  any  imperative  [)ersun,  it  would  be  the  least  far-fetched  sup- 
position, which  derived  the  Sanskrit  infinitive  and  the  Latin 
supine  in  turn  from  the  third  person  imperativo  ij  tu,  by 
the  addition  of  m;  for  instance,  t/hiUum.  'to  shine,'  from 
bhfUii,  'let  him  shine';  pahim,  'to  rule,'  from piUu.  'let  him 
rale.'  In  kartnm,  'to  make,'  from  Jmrdfu,  'let  him  uaak«,* 
the  class  vowel  only  would  be  thrust  aside.  As,  however, 
Grafe  (I.  c.  p.  5h)  has  found  a  jest  in  what  I  have  elsewhere 
said,  and  mean  to  repeat,  of  the  first  person  imperative, 
I  must  take  care  that  he  docs  not  take  for  earnest  what 
I  mean  as  a  jest.  \Vc  do  not,  in  truth,  go  so  far  in  deriving 
btiAtum  from  bhdlu  as  in  deducing  tcravai  from  fVrvrtV  'ifA- 
ihAni  (Zend  hutdat).  'let  me  stand*;  but  I  ean  find  no  other 
relationship  between  bhi-tu  and  bh(i-tum  tlian  this,  that  in 
the  infinitive,  as  an  aUtmet  substantive,  the  action  is  per- 
fiociified  through  a  form  which  comes  near  the  cxprcasion  of 


i 


INFLUENCE  OF  THK  PERSONAL  TERMINATIONS    669 

the  third  person  in  tlie  imjiemtive.  I  ppcog-  [O.  Ed.  p,  Cftl.] 
uisc  in  tlic  suffix  iu,  as  niso  in  that  of  ti,  (of  another  class  oT 
abstracts,  with  wtiidi  the  Sclavonic  and  Lithuanian  infijiitive  is 
coniiticti'd) .  dilTcrfnt  f^railaticiis  ofoiic  and  the  Siiiiic  pronoun 
of  the  tliird  jicraon — as  in  the  inttrrogntive  wcfind  the  fdruts 
ka.  In,  Jtu, — and  ao  far  a  relntionship  between  the  Qomiual 
uhisses  in  question  and  the  terminations  It  luiil  tu  of  hkiHL  '  he 
shines,*  and  bJiAtu, '  let  him  idiiiie.*  The  coincidence  is  thus 
in  any  case  not  quite  so  fortuitous  as  lliat  between  Irri-rcu 
and  Ihhfliini. '  let  me  stand.'  Whosoever  derives  the  former 
from  the  Inttcr  cannot  esi-a{>c  from  bringing  into  this  family 
the  Gothie  iitfiiiitives  in  an,  eapec'iaWy  as  the  a  of  stan(l-an 
does  not,  like  that  of  hra-vai,  belong  to  the  rout.  Histori- 
cally, however,  as  I  doubt  not,  the  German  inGiiitive  belongs 
to  the  class  of  the  Sanskrit  abstracts  in  atw,  as  bamlfi-ana, 
'  tlie  binding  "^Gothic  bind-iitt." 

INPLUBKCB  OF  THE  WEIGHT  OP  THE  PERSONAl,  TERMINATIONS. 

480.  The  weight  of  the  personal  tcrminntions  cxerciseJi, 
in  Sanskrit  and  Greek,  and,  as  far  aa  we  have  evidence, 
atso  in  /end,  an  inBiience  on  the  antc-ccdeiit  radical  or  class 
syllable,  obvious  and  comprehensive,  though  till  lately  quite 
overlooked.*  Before  Hj^ht  terminations  extensions  are  fre- 
quent, which,  before  the  heavier,  are  withdrawn;  so  tliat  in 
many  anomalous  verbs  the  entire  body  of  tlie  root  can  only 
be  maintained  before  the  li^fht  terminations,  but,  before  the 
heavy,  mutilnttnn  occurs.  For  instance,  the  root  wh  us, 
*■  to  be,"  retains  its  a  only  before  the  light  terminations,  but 
rejects  it  before  the  heavy,  as  it  it  liad  been  overgrown  by 
tlie  augment;  hence,  indeed,  axmi.  "  I  am."  but  sman,  "  we 
are";  stha,  "ye  are,"  aanli,  "they  are."     L^.  Ed.  p.  605.] 


•  L  WHS  iiret  lc«l  to  tlu  ftlnervatioQ  of  tlila  Lutcn-stJiig  plienaaivnoii  tn 
my  invutigatioii  into  tho  origin  of  iheQcrmauAbhuit  (Berlin  Jahib.  Vth. 
lt)27,  p.  3^  oihI  Vocalismuf;  p.  13. 


670 


V2BBS. 


Wc  see,  liowever,  tluit  this  nmtiUition  hnd  not  yet  estublisUed 
ttacIF  at  the  period  of  the  unity  of  the  longuage;  for  the 
Greek  protects,  in  the  verb  substantivr,  the  nuliciil  vowel 
oorrupteci  to  e.  even  heforu  the  heavier  termiaitious.  and 
opposes  eo'^fft  emS,  e<rr6v,  einov,  to  the  Siinskrit  xiniis,  atkn, 
athaa.  Has.  Tlie  Ljtbu&uian  and  Scluvoiiic,  al&u,  t^-stify  to 
the  comiMiratively  n^oent  lo8«  of  the  Sanskrit  a  before  the 
weightier  teruiiiiiitiuim.     Cuiupiire 


SINGULAR. 

StMStRIT. 

OKEBE. 

LI  111. 

KixviMtm. 

Vf^  < la-Ill  i. 

'A 

ei-mi. 

lECMbyft-mv. 

wftr  a.i-i.f 

ktr-ai. 

ex'gi, 

K([i  ye-^i. 

Wfip  nu-ll. 

ecr-Ti, 

ea-ti, 

Dt)AL. 

KCTb  Wfi-tu. 

•  •  • 

es-wa, 

KCRA  yea-va. 

W^  n-that. 

ir-Toy, 

ts-ta, 

KtTi  i/f»-fa. 

W^^  s-tas. 

liT-Toy, 

like  the 

PLURAL. 

Siug. 

KCTA  T/cs-ta. 

WR  *-ina» 

«r-ju^. 

en-me. 

KCMM  t/fs-mVi 

m  x-thn. 

^-T^, 

ex'ie. 

lECTE  yn'lt. 

Fftr  i-an  f  i. 

((r)-etT/, 

like  the 

Sinf». 

CVTb  j-uii/y. 

"Remark. — It  is  possible  that  the  suppression  of  the  radi- 
cal vowel  may  have  be^n  with  the  ttiird  person  plural, 
whose  termination  aiiU  is  also  the  heaviest  of  all,  ntid  it  may 
have  existed  in  this  position  even  before  the  migration  of 
language,  and  its  manifold  individualizations;  at  least  all 

[G.  Bd.  p.0«6.]  the  languages  under  comparisou  i>xhibit 
in  this  case  a  wonderful  harinnny  seareely  attributable  to 
chance :  and,  in  addition  to  tiicse,  the  Latin  sunf,  as  opposed 

*■  B^Bsalniitaiion  out  of  tV-^i,  lu,  1)«fore,  np^c,  S/i^rt,  ont  ofncrpfc, 
Caiuc,  XM'io  asni4,  ya^m/. 

f  Irr^ular  fvr  m-U,  on  whidi  nrc  based  tlm  GrccL  fuiJ  Liiliaunian  farmK 
Th«  SeUTonic,  how«f er,  has  Ukewiso  dfvi)[>vd  one  of  tlw  two  siUUau. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  PKBSONAL  TEKMINATIONS.     671 


to  n-fia,  as  well  as  the  Gothic  xnu/,  are  in  accordance.  On 
the  other  hoiid,  tlie  dropping  of  tlie  e  iu  sumvx  6rst  appeared 
on  Roman  gronn<l,  nnd,  in  the  singnkr  likewise,  sum  for 
etiim  is  quite  isolated.  After  the  falling;  away  of  the 
iniliaE  nnd  termiuatiup;  vowels  of  asmi  in  tlic  Latin,  tlie 
insertion  oF  an  auxiliary  vowel  became  necessary,  and 
the  influence  of  the  li(}uid5  prevailed  in  favour  of  u.  Thia 
u  remaiuL-d,  also,  iu  the  plural,  where  s-mus  was  possible, 
but  not  favoured,  as  the  Latin  luw  generally  gone  out  of 
its  way  to  avoid  the  imraediatc  connection  of  the  ending  mu* 
with  roots  tcrminiLtin<;  in  consonants;  whence  wu  have 
vol-ti-7iiui  o]>poseii  to  vtil-iis,  vul-l ;  fcT't-ntta  to  fer-tu.  fer-St 
ftt't  (Sanskrit  hibbri-ma^,  hibhr'i-lha,  bi-bhar-sfit,  bib!uir-U 
from  bhri  class  3);  eef-i-miu  opposed  to  et-tU,  Ss,  er-t  (San- 
skrit iiii-mrts,  ut-thii,  al-ni,  at-t'i).  To  Ute  Greek,  in  the  case 
of  the  third  person  plural,  evri,  if,  as  I  scarcely  doubt,  it 
stands  fur  v-evr!  (=Zeiid  h-cnii),  nothing  has  remained  hut 
the  termination,  as  in  tbo  Sanskrit,  in  the  second  person 
middle,  s^  for  fj(s)-s^.  The  Gothic  we  have  excluded  frooi  the 
above  comparison,  although  i-m,  i-s,  is-t,  are  based  upon 
luini,  a-ti,  as-ti ;  but,  in  the  pluml  numbers,  vfnJ  alone  is 
organic,  for  siy-u-m,  siy-u-fh  Dual  «y-«I(8ee  §.441.),  ti^u-ta, 
have  the  .terminations  of  the  preterite,  and  belong  to  & 
secondary  rootsiy,  whiib  proceeds  from  the  Sanskrit  jiotenlial 
tydm,  in  which  ii/  has  changed  itself  to  siy, 

481.  All  Sanskrit  roots  of  the  tliird  cljiss  iu  d  (§.  109\  3.) 
depend,  on  account  of  the  anterior  burthen  created  iu  tho 
redupljeation  syllable,  on  the  influence  of  the  weight  of  the 
personal  tcnnitiations,  so  that  they  retain  their  d  only  be- 
fore the  light,  hut  before  tlie  heavier  citlicr  altogether 
suppress  or  shorten  it.  or  ehange  the  length  of  tlic  a- 
aound  into  ttrnt  of  the  lighter  i ;  and  tliis  is  one  of  the 
evidences  from  which  I  deduce  the  maxim — very  important 
for  the  history  of  language — that  the  organism  of  the  lin- 
gual body  sustaioa  a  greater  weight  iu  Uic  a  ihon  iu  the  i 


672  VERBS. 


m 


souutle.  the  long  a  being  heavier  than  the  long;  i,  and  the  short 
a  heavier  thaii  tlie  short  t  (see  Vocottsinus,  Obscr.  13.  p.  214). 
Hi.  Ed,  p.  e07.]    The  roots  rfd.  -  to  give."  and  rf/«l,  "  to  place," 
BUppress  tht-ir  6  before  heavy  terminatioDs,  with  exi-t-'ptioii 
of  the  third  person  plural,  if,  as  I  prefur.  vre  muke  the  diwi- 
flioD   dnda-ti,   not   dad-ati    (compare  ^.  45S,};   for  the    ori- 
ginal form  was  certainly  dadd-nti,  whence  never  could  come 
dad-ati,  but  dcula-nli  well    enough,  aiid,  out  of  this,   with 
a  new  sacrifice  to  the  reduplication  syllable,  dada-ti.     The 
Grw-k  only  shortens  the  long  vowel  before  the  increasini; 
terminations,  and  makes  iiio,  nOe,  iirra,  out  of  didu,  ti9*j, 
iara.     tn  the  Ijitin,  Sclnvonic,  and  Lithuanian,  the  iiiflueuce 
of  the  weight  of  the  personal  ending  on  the  antecedent 
sylhiblc  has  utterly  vanished,  and  d/i  has  also  lost  the  original 
length  of  its  vowel   and    t)te   reduptieation    syllable.     The 
Lithuanian,  and  Sclavonic  have,    on  tlie  other  hand,  saved 
their  reduplicution,  but  Irnve  absolutely  suppressed  the  root- 
vowel,  wliifh  the  Siuiskrit  only  does  before  heavy  termi- 
nations.    As,  however,  the  d  also  vani&hea  before  cndinga 
which  commence  with  m  and  a — in  Lithuanian  also  with  ip — 
but  before  /  passes  into  i  (§.  457.).  the  reduplication  in  tiiese 
verbs  is  almost  totally  overlooked,  and  in  dumi.  aamij  damy, 
which  are  mutilations  of  dn-^'tai,  dn-tT-mu,  tlie  reduplication 
has,  by  tlirustiDg  out  ^the  most  essential  clemeut  of  the 
entire  form,  acquired  the  appearance  of  a  nidit-al  syllable. 
It  is.  howeviT,  certain,  that  in  d6mi,  dam^.  Uic  syllables  d«, 
da,  are  identical  witli  those  of  du-S'ti,  da-H'ttf,  for  dk-d-ti, 
da-tl-ly.  thus  merely  redupUcators.*     Compare— 


•  Wo  here  confinn  the  obeprvatioiM  of  J.  442..  Not«  ^.  Id  itidii,  ac- 
cofilinf;  to  the  osaal  oonjiif^tion,  dttd  has  constilatoililscirM  Toot,  and 
the  ii  cl dtid-a-Kia,  did-a-me,  has  thna  nalliin|{  more  in<!o  iviili  tlicrf  of 
tile  SaiukTit  daddmi,  ct  the  ■>,  ",  of  the  (irc«k  ji'Ju^i,  Ai'Se^r,  but  Wlonfp 
1(1  A  cUtt  witlk  the  aotieri-a-w^  ufts-a-mi- 


I 


INFLUBNCB  OF  TUB  PEBSONAL  TRRMINATIONS.    G73 


ddtdA-mi,  dadfitl-ml, 
(fWd-M.  dadhA'hi, 
dadA-ti,     dtidhdi-ti. 


dad-ieat,    .... 
dat-ih(u,  c/ua-M?' 
dat-iia,     das-tSr 


SIKOULAR. 

omen.  UTB.  OLD  «nur.  Mti». 

Stim-fu,    dh(d)-Tni,  da(i£)-my,  da, 

8i'J«)-S,      dfi(r/)-f,  da{d)-si,    da-s, 

Siou-Ti,    d&x-ti,  dus-fy.       dtil, 

DUAL. 

....       du(ir)-iBa,  dad-f-va     .  .  . 
iiSo'Tov,  dun-ta,      dai4a  .  ,  . 

SiSo~Tov,  likeSio^.das-ta  ... 


TLURAL. 
dad-mu.^,  dud-r-maiii,*  SiSo-fi€Sf  d&{d]-me,  da{d)-my,  dii-mtis, 
dat-tha,     diK-tui*  }i'3o-Te,     diis-U,       daa-te.        dit'th. 

dada-ti.     dadi^nli*        iiSo-vri,    like  Sing.  dad-Vaty,  dn-n!. 

In  tiui  Greek  tiie  influeiive  of  the  weight  of  the  penttiitil  tcr- 
iiiinntiona  over  the  nidical  syllable  has  penetrnted  furtlier 
tliAii  in  Suiiskrit,  in  this  resjiect.  thnt  even  the  iiormt  forms, 
Bet  frt;e  from  redupUcaliou,  c6f}v  aiid  e$ui',  have  shortened 
their  vowel  before  the  increasing  tvraiiuatioas,  while  eimjv 
(«rr«i').  iu  accordnnce  with  similar  Sanskrit  Borist-forms, 
allows  no  iiiflueiK-e  to  the  wi-jght  of  ihe  endings.  Iu  Sanskrit, 
^m  the  first  nugmented  preterite  adadA-m  comes  the  pliiriil 
adad-ma,  ».9,  in  Greek,  ^S/Jo-^ci' from  fJilSw-f;  but  from  adAm 
comes,  not  advia,  but  the  root  remains  un-  [G,  E«l.  p.  coo,] 
diminished.  It  may  be  convaiient  U>  give  here  iu  full  the 
two  nuguicuted  preterites,  which  are  distinguished  in  the  two 
liingungea  by  retaining  and  laying  aside  the  reduplication 
8yUabl& 


'  Although  the  Hucond  dual  person  in  Zvai  is  not  yet  ideniiflcd,  itn^T 
iii;verthele«i  be  dcdnced  with  tolprahle  ccit&inty  from  the  iliird  ptmta 
in  fi9,  which  in  exlaut(^.  dOd.),  for  which,  iatheMcond  ponon  of  tbu  pri- 
mary foriRSi  wc  may  exptut  tkv,  the  oapiratu  of  which,  huwrrtr,  luia  been 
foru-d  to  vanish  m  ^ffHito^  diiita  {see  ^,153.).  Upon  jj  »  for4(fwi> 
^.  lOi.  Condunnn.  *  ^.  10 j.  Concluci'ni.  >  j.OO. 

*  f  102.  Cttocliuioii,  liiid  $.  453.  *  ^.  469. 


674 

StTfnlll'AB. 

udfttlA'ttii  e8iS(a-v, 
adadA-s.  eJi'Jw-f. 
adadA-t.  eSUu-ir) 


DUAL.  I'LtTRAL. 

adatt-wa,     •  .  .  .  adad'tna,  eSiSo-fte^. 

(idfii-fam,  eSiSo-Ton.  adai-ta.     eSUo-Te, 

ueial-ldm,  iiiSo-Tt}v,  adad-\i*,*  eiti»-v. 


adA-m, 

adl-s, 

add-t. 


e3u-s, 
eiu-r. 


adtl'va.       ....  add-mit, 

tidil'tcmt,   tSo-Tov,        adA'ta, 
adH-itim,  eSo-Ttji',        nd-us* 


eJo-re, 
eio-v. 


482,  Tlie  Sanskrit  roots  A4  "  to  leave.-f  M.  "to  go,"  unci 
mA,  "  to  measure  "  (compare  fie-rpev,  fui^€Ofiai,  &e.) — the  two 
last  have  only  the  middle,  the  Bnst  only  tlie  pure  active 
form — wenken,  before  most  of  tlic  lienvy  ttrminatioiis,  tlieir 
d  to  £  auc}  tlic  t\To  last  substitute  also,  iu  tlicir  n-duplicntion 
syllable,  a  sliorl  i  for  sltortw;  for  instance.  J'jAi-iii«.t.  "we 
leave,"  opposed  to  jahA-mi,  "  I  leave  ";  mim^  (from  mimi-m^). 
"  I  measure,-'  mimi-mahS,  "  we  measure."  The  roots  Wl 
tthH,  "to  stand,"  and  "Ul ylirA.  "to  smell,"  foltuw  a  peculiar 
path,  inasmuch  as  a  vovvel-sliortciiing,  wliieh  probably  at  its 
origin,  as  in  the  Greek  mttSjuw,  icraixev.  only  obtained  brforc 
heavy  lermiuntions,  has  exti-iided  itstdf  lo  the  oilier  jiersoiis 
through  which  thu  radical  a,  thus  sliortcncd,  would  be  treated 

[G.  Ed.  p.  700.}  ju9t  like  the  unnidical  of  the  first  and  sixth 
class  (109*,  1.}.  H«ncc  the  Indian  granimariaus  reckon  these 
roots  as  uiiJer  the  first  class,  ultliougli  they  assume  a  redu- 
plication sylUblc,  which,  hnwever,  substitutes  an  i  fur  a,  as 
I  doubt  not,  on  the  ground  that  the  reduplication  syllable, 
which  is  seeking  generally  for  relief  from  weight,  and  tliere- 
forc,  as  a  rule,  converting  long  into  short  vowels,  mav  not 
combine  the  lieaviest  among  the  short  vowels,  with  tlic 
IcDgtIi   derived    from    positioo;    hence,   I'tshthdmi,   thfithasi. 


•See  J.  482. 

t  (Joinporc,  with  Poll,  xn-p",  "  widow,"  uallic  "abnniloncd"  or  "left." 
In  Siuukfit  vl-dKavd  it  '•  ilic  taaiil<4»." 


4 


INrLOBNCE  or  THE  PEBSOSAL  TERMINATIONS.    C75 

ihhthali,  &c.,  Zen(]  hiniAmu  hiatfisi,  kistati ;  jiifhriimi,  jiyUrwa, 
jif/hrali,  &c.  The  Greek  fallows  tliia  priociiitc  of  the  weak- 
ening of  Ihe  vowel,  tiiere  also,  where  there  is  not,  as  in  the 
cases  of  limfni,  Ki-^tjiii,  any  iuimedintc  rt^ason  for  it  by  the 
doubling  of  consoniints.  Ut^-n?^iJ.i  and  irifjarptjfii  are,  how- 
even  striking  aiiJ  pix-uliar  in  appendiug  a  nasal,  &  stranger 
to  the  root,  to  the  redii plicated  syllable.  Tlir-se  forms, 
however,  accord  with  tlie  Sanskrit  intensive  verbs,  wliich 
hjve  a  great  emphasis  in  the  repuiited  syllable,  and  henue 
cliangu  to  the  Guuu  letters  the  vowels  susceptible  of  Guiia, 
but  double  the  whole  root  in  roots  ending  with  nasals,  and, 
in  some  coses,  ulsu  represent  the  liijuids  r  and  I  by  tJie  uasiil 
liquids  which  accord  with  the  organ  of  the  chief  consonants 
of  tiie  root;  for  )U8tance,yoii«/Hrn,*  from  yum,  "  to  go";  cAon- 
chal  from  chal,  "to  totter";  cfuinchtir  (for  cfianchnr).  from 
char,  "  to  go."  In  this  sense,  then,  I  take  TtifiTtpri^u,  iri/iw^^^, 
for  vipirp/itu,  vi\ii>jjfu :  thus,  also,  ^anQaivw,  with  the  kin- 
dred form  ^afi^oKu  (compare  halbas). 

483.  As  the  roots  of  the  second  class  {%.  109'.  3.),  in 
Sanskfit,  do  Dot  load  themselves  with  rediiplicatioo.  so 
neither  do  they  subject  a  concluding  d  to  [G.  Ed.  p,  701.] 
the  inRnencc  of  the  weight  of  the  personal  terminations. 
The  Greek,  however,  has  here  also  again  permitted  a  wider 
range  to  that  influence,  inasmuch  as  <^y}iu  (tjiafu),  iu  this 
respect,  follows  the  analogy  of  "a-njtit.     Compare — 

SINGULAR.  DVAL.  rLt;iUL. 

bhA^ni,  ^d~tii,  bh'l'vaa,     ....  bliA-mus,  ^orfiii. 

frM-si,    ^^,  bhA-lhaii,    ^a-TOV,  bhd-tka,   tfta-re. 

bhd-ti,    tpaTi,  bhA-las,     <poL-r6v,  bfiAiili,    ^St-vrt. 

obkH-m,  i^'V,        obkA-va      ■  .  .  .  nbh/\-ma,  e^-^e{. 

abfiA-a,   e^-c,       (AhA-tam,  stpa-TOv,    abkA-ta,    6ff>d-re. 
vbliA-t,   e^a-{r),    abfiA-lAm,  e^ci-n;i',    abliA-n,     e^-v. 

*  Conipiufl  ivith  this  the  UnUtiu  ijaijga  {=:^gwn^u)y  '*  I  go,"  wluuv  tho 
chief  syllaljl«  haa  losi  the  vasal. 


676 


VERBS. 


This  Analogy  is  followed  in  SAiiskrlt,  among  other  roots,  by 
yi,  "to  go,"  on  wliici)  the  Grwk  Trjfu.  i>ropc:riy  "  to  moke 
to  go,"  rests,  to  wliicti  tb<r  syllable  of  re4lu[)Ut-atioii  has  lent 
n  cniisativt!  si^nifii-'ation,  as  to  the  Liitin  uisto  oppoHtMl  to  slo, 
while  the  Greek  TvDjfti  (ssdionj^i)  unites  the  primitive  with 
the  causative  signification.  While  in  7-<m}fu  the  spiritus 
aspen  ttsit  ao  often  does,  slunda  for  c,  in  T-rjfii  it  is  tlie  rt^prc- 
smtativc  of  tlie  lost  semi-vowel  y.  as,  anioug  other  words,  in 
oj  for  ire  y»,  "who"  (§.  3S2.);  thus  i-i;/ii  tor  yfy^fii:  on 
the  otiier  hand,  compare  the  future  ij-aa,  relieved  from  the 
rcdupticntion,  with  the  Sanskrit  yA-syAmi.  This  Ttjfti  still 
bends  to  the  weight  of  the  terminations;  thus  Te^ey.  le-re. 
opposed  to  yti-mas,  yA-iiau  To  thu  rout  ytl.  I  think,  with 
Pott  (Etym.  Forach.  p.  201),  we  must  refer  the  middle  of 
eifxt,  which  itsel  f  belongs  to  the  root  \i.  "logo,"  which 
in  Greek,  analogously  to  i'-fie;.  ahouUI  form  tfiai,  taai, 
Xrat,  answering  to  the  SAnskril  i-y^  (from  i~mi^),  i-*ht,  i-U, 
[G.  Ed.p.70i]  The  form  ie-fiai,  however,  is  to  Iw  derived 
from  yd.  by  a  vocaliKittion  of  tfie  semi-vowiil,  and  tliioniug 
of  the  d  to  e.  In  duly  considering,  then,  what  I  think  I  Iwve 
proved,  that  the  personal  terminations  exoreise  a  wider  in- 
Ruenve  on  the  preceding  syllable  in  Greek  thun  in  Siuiskrit, 
and  that,  for  example,  roots  ending  in  vowels  shorten  one 
originally  long  before  heavy  terminations,  the  verbs  ij/iai 
and  Ket-fiai  might  surprise  us.  since  in  these  the  heavy 
middle  terminations  linve  not  shortened  the  antecedent 
vowel.  Of  Kcifiai  we  shall  treat  hereafter ;  but  ^-juat  owes 
the  retention  of  tlie  length  of  its  vowel  to  the  cirenm- 
staoce  that  its  root  was  originally  terminated  by  a  con- 
sonant, and  I  have  already,  in  my  Glossary,  identific<[  it 
with  the  Simskj-it  da,  "to  sit,"  the  s  of  which  has  remained  in 
the  Greek  only  before  t;  hfnee  ^<F'Tat=wr^  di-tf,  5ff-To» 
WW  d«-/i.*      It    accords,    liowever,    with    the    system    of 

*  OathcothcrhiUKl,('-inT,  JccMoQg  to  the  root'K^  (<A-/'<i.\  Saa»krit 
•ad  Coonparo  Pott,  Ktym.  FothcIi.  p.  278,  uid   KQluttf,  p.Q42}.    Tho 

Bpiritiu 


i 


INFLUEMCS  OF  THE  FEBSONAL  TBKMtSATlONS.      G77 

eqnilibriam  thiit  KdBijfiat  ctinnot  benr  tlie  c  of  ^ct-to,  together 
with  the  burtlicu  of  tlic  augtuont;  bcace,  iudccd,  Kadfjtr^o; 
but  iKa&tj-TQ. 

484.  The  Sanskrit  root  ^rnr  i<is.  "  to  rnle,**  e^thibita  a 
peculiar  susceptibility  for  the  weight  of  the  jiersonftl  termi- 
nntions,  taitsmuch  as  its  long  li  remaioB  uiitllsturked  before 
tliose  henvy  temiiniitions  which  begjji  with  the  weakest  oon- 
Bonants  (ai'mt- vowels  nud  niisnls);  tlius  s/la~wos,  "  wc  two 
rule," id<-m(i5,  "we  rule;"  bat,  before  the  atronger  coiiao- 
nnnts  of  heavy  tcrminntions,  wtNikeiis  itself  to  the  sliortiicss 
of  the  lightest  towcI.  numelj-,  to  i.  whence,  for  instaiiee. 
nsk'tfin.  "  rn;ith,"  opposed  to  sds-st.  "  Tftjia,"  xAifti,  "  reifit." 
We  may  reeoguis<!  in  tliis  a  forerunner  of  \G.  Kil.  p.  703.] 
t]ic  Germnn  conjugatioii-forms,  such  as  hhnda,  b'mdam, 
.  bundura,  opposed  to  the  Dionosyllubic  stngulnr  preterite  bandt 
banjs't  )>•  lie  O,  cd. 

4!45.  The  roots  of  the  uiiiUi  class  ($.  109*.  5.)  are  so  far 
in  accordsnce  with  the  principle  of  the  roots  hd  and  mfit 
Dieutionetl  in  §.  isa.,  ja  timt  they  wcuken  to  t* tlic  <f  of  the 
class  syllable  mi,  in  the  same  plnces  in  which  those  roots 
experience  the  same  relief  in  their  radical  syllable.  The 
Gmck,  on  the  other  hand,  sliortcns  the  long  DoWc  a  (if)  to 
a.    Compare — 


SINGULAR. 

DUAL. 

h-t-nAiit',' 

itep'va-fitt 

kri-ni-Vfta 

k/i'-mUzJ. 

Tcip-va-i. 

kri-»i-tliiix, 

Ttfi'Vci'TOf. 

trr(-nA-li, 

ttip-va-Ti. 

kri'-ni'lat, 

nep-vd'Tov. 

ahri'vA-m, 

htcp-va-v. 

akri-Hi-vn 

nkrt-nA-a, 

cxep-i'a-r. 

fikri-nt-tam. 

htip-va-^ov. 

iikri-nA-t, 

Mp-va-^r). 

a/cri-iii-Miit. 

ewep-va-n}v. 

ipirltnBof  i^fMi  ia  iuorguiic,  ie.  not  from  a  in,  tot  inauncc,  in  Utttt 
oppoaed  to  Ti;  « cb,  unOa 


61B 


VERBS. 


rLURAL. 


krf-ni-lha, 
kri-rw-nti.^ 

ukr{-ni-mn, 

aht'-ni-ta, 

(tkri-na-n,^ 


•nep-va-re. 
(ire|e-y«-vT/.) 

enip-va-fiet. 

errtp-xa-T*. 

{enep-va-v.) 


'  vfNrrf^  krifidmi,  "  I  purcIiHse,"  lias  n  for  nin  tin.-  mii]<1l<t  «yUabl« 
tliriiusli  the  cupliotiic  influence  of  lUc  nntreeilent  r.  Ilie  rvlatiniuihlp  to 
thp  Orctlt  itiprriiii  rests  «n  tUc  favotirit*  cxcluuigc  betweun  guttarala  md 

[G.  EJ.  p.  701.]  Inhials,  thmuj;h  wliivhthoGrccli  vcrliluisjiMunivdan 
AppAivnt  relatiottBhtptoirtfiiicD,  "to nil  through"  (=^Siuakx\t pdraydmi), 
wlwrtf  tlw  ir  »8  iiriiuiiive,  ''  If  we  iaa\itil]ii3  diyiiioa  Jcri-n'-artt{,ajcri-ii'-an 
§.  458.),  We  must  assume  thM  the  middle  eylLnhle  suppresBoa  ita  vowel  be- 
foroall  tlioBe  lioavy  tenuinntions  n'ljfcli  thtrmaelrcH  ht-gia  with  h  viiwcl; 
thuJi.  «l*o.  in  the  middle,  kri-it'S  from  kri-Tii-ni^.  Pwr  ilitr  uprcinl  pur- 
poeCE  of  iMcekrit  Grammar  tbb  rtile  mnjr  linlJ  good;  but  in  comidoring 
the  hiBlorical  dcvelapemBiit  or  d«»/  ni  th«  langiia^fr,  I  am  riot*  inclined 
to  tile  belief  Uidt  t])e)>j]lHl)lcniilui9ali<)rtt;iiL-d  ii^lf  before n(<  and  n  (older 
nOuuti-'od  ofconrvrting  it>clf  into  tbi-  long  fnnii  of  the  lighter  i  sound,  in 
Otdw  to  avoid  combining  longtly  ii(  vowel  luid  ]K>«iti<in.  The  nilddle  dual- 
termtiutiona  dthf,  &lt,  Athilm,  atiim,  Hid  not  rviiuire  tli«  wcAkdiini;  of 
the  ^d  to  nf,  since  witJiout  this,  by  tbc  ordinary  rule  of  sound,  two  homo- 
goncmus  vowels  melt  into  one  Ion;;  one  ;  so  ihitt  nA*-Alhi  (^vi?«  a  li^iter 
fornitlion  Rf-f(fU^,  wbidi  laiur  wuiild  give  nji-ii(t',  while  from  u4-f-dl4 
comce  merely  uAu. 

486.  With  Sanskrit  verba  of  the  second  aud  third  class, 
with  a  radical  towcI  capable  ofGiina,"  the  influaicc  of 
tliK  vrcight  of  the  peraoiinl  teriuinatioiis  is  ahewii  in  this,  that 
Guna  talces  place  Wrore  the  lic^ht  (§.  26.).  but  before  the 
heavy  the  pure  radical    vowel  reappears.      The  siinie  law 


•  The  Smukrit  ronjugat ton-system  only  allowx  the  Ouna  lo  ghon  vowels 
lic-foiv  simple  can^nanu,  and  to  lunj;  M  the  rtul  of  roottt.  <)u  tbc  nilur 
hand,  Guua  never  tuk^e  place  in  tUo  middle  of  the  root»,  where  llicrc  is 
length  by  nature  and  [NMition. 


M 


INFLUBNCB  OF  THE  PEHSOSAL  TERMtNATIONS.    679 

tg  respected  by  tlie  Greek,  wliich,  however,  affords  no 
exnmple,  exeept  thnt  or  etfxi  (^.  36.),  of  a  verb  with  a  radicnl 
vowel  capable  of  Guna,  which,  in  the  specii).!  tentea 
($.  109*.).  t'onnrcts  the  personal  sign  directlv  with  tho 
root.     Compare^ 

StNOULAR.  DVAU  FLURAL. 

i-mt,    e(-/ii.         (-DOS,     .  .  .  i-meu.    t-fxei. 

i-shi,   C£-i.  i-lhas,   t'TOv.         i-tiia,      t-re. 

i-ti,     el-Ti.  i-tas,      itov,  y-anli.    I'aai  (from  i-avTi). 

That  the  middle  Tcjuai  belongs  to  another      [0.  Ed.  p.  705.] 
root  has  been  alreiuly  remarked  (p.  67  f>). 

437.  An  exception  to  the  law  of  gravity  is  found  tn  the 
root  xi.  class  2  (*'  to  lie."  "to  sleep,")  in  that,  although  only 
used  iu  the  middle,  despite  the  weight  of  the  middle  termi- 
nations, it  everywhere  exhibits  Guna;  in  which  respect  the 
Greek  «e7/iai  runs  exactly  parallel  to  the  Sanskrit:  hence 
Kei-vai=i4^k?,  K€t-TCu=a?-tf,  plural  Kei-fieda=M^makl^.  We 
might  niso  present  .V,  as  the  root  for  thr  Sanskrit  verb,  as 
the  pure  vowel  i'  nowhere  appears,  and  the  formation,  also, 
of  the  word  exhibits  no  expression,  which  would  make  a 
root  si  neceaaary,  rather  than  if,  unless,  perhaps,  we  should 
takciUa,  "cold,"  in  the  sense  of  "frozen,"  aiid  therefore 'Test- 
ing." "  motionless,"  and  hence  choose  t<i  derive  it  from  m.  The 
Old  Sclavonic  exhibits  the  old  diphthong  in  the  shape  pre- 
sented hy  the  Greek  Ko/n;.  Koiiid<i>.  in  nuKoh  pohti,  "re- 
quks,"  "  ffiz."  *  On  the  other  hand.  <ihio  chtyil,  "  quieKo,'' 
has  undergone  a  double  weakening;  first,  that  of  k  to  ^.ch, 
and  next,  the  thinning  out  of  the  diphthong  to  its  condudiug 
clement*  It  must  not  ho  overlooked  thnt  pokoi  is  not  tlie 
primitive  shape  of  the  base,  but  pu-koyu.  out  of  wliich,  in  the 
uiiinnected  nominative  and  accusative,  after  suppression  of 
the  final  vowel  of  the  base  (§.  257.),  ■po-kal  necessarily  came  ; 


•  Kopllftr'sGIngolitfcp.lW. 


680 


VCRBS. 


the  theme  pekam,  liowcver.  accorda  excellently  with  the 
Sanslcfit  6ayo;  as  adjective,  "lying."  "  sltTiitiig- ; "  as  gob- 
staiitive.  "  sU'cp." 

4S):i.  Tlic  roots  of  the  fifth  and  eighth  class  adtnit  the 
Gana  Form  of  the  7  u  of  the  class  syllable  un  or  u  before  the 
light  tt-Traiiintions.  nuil,  liefore  the  heavy,  reject  tlie  Gnoa- 
vowrl :  tlic!  Grtrek  obeys  the  sarae  principle,  only,  instead  of 
extending  v  into  ev.  it  lengthens  the  v,    ConiiMire — 


I 


SINGULA  R.. 


DUAL. 


xlri-ljO-Vll* 
(p  xtri-Jio-shi, 

W  nsfri-nt]V-am, 


OTop-vu-s. 
trrop-vii-^i. 

e<TT6p-i'v-v. 
£ffr6p-vv-i. 
€irT6p-vv~(r). 


irro/>-tfv-Tov, 


stri-fftt-vaa 

»tri-nu-ihtu, 

8(ri-nu-ltu, 

uxtrl-Jtu-va        .... 
asiri-nu-tnm,   earop-Yv-Tov. 
aniri-^n-tAm,   ktrrop-vC-Ttiv. 


PLUAAL. 

tAn-f}  K-m  a?.        aT0p-v2-/uef . 


stri-nu-tka, 
afri-nv-<mti. 


trrop-w-Te. 

(TTOp-VV-VTI. 

eTTop-vS-fief. 

tJTOp-VV-je. 

{Eirrop-vC-v.) 


astri-^u-ma, 

astri-nu-fa. 

rajtW-niwin, 

4R9.  The  Sanskrit  reduplicated  preterite  receives  Guna 
befon*  the  light  t*-rrainatioi!B,  and  restores  Uie  pure  root- 
vowel  again  before  the  heavy.  Herein  the  Gcrmaaie,  and 
most  evidently  in  the  Gothic,  stands  iu  closest  accordance 
with  the  Sanskrit^  inasmuch  as  all  verbs,  with  a  root-votvel 


*  The  gramotariana  oasumc  a  mol  R  «'n  tmil  another  m  '^>  lx>lh  of 
which  signify  *'  to  vtrew,"  on<l  have,  properljr,  ftir  llieir  radicid  njUable 
«jiir=Gr*clc  TVO\',  LkVuSTKH,  thraof  which  ia  subjci-t  to >u]>j>r«Mioa 
(Vocalismtis,  Obtul.  p.  1A7,  sad  on  the  root  ia  lucstiun,  miiecially,  Le. 


INFLOBNCE  OF  THE  PEESONAL  TERMINATIONS.    681 

susceptible  of  Gana  (t.  e.  with  i  or  u).  insert  before  this,  in 
t)ie  singular  of  the  simple  (strong)  preterite,  the  original 
Guna  vowel  a ;  but  before  the  increasing  terminations  of  the 
two  plural  numbers,  aa  also  in  the  entire  subjunctive,  which 
is  burthened  by  the  exponent  of  the  mood,  [G.  Ed.  p.  707.] 
and  is  already  in  the  singular  polysyllabic,  again  reject  the 
foreign  strengthening  vowel.     Compare — 


SANSKRIT. 

GOTHIC. 

SANSKRIT. 

GOTHIC. 

KOOT. 

BOOT. 

BOOT. 

BOOT. 

6/nU"  to  split" 

'  6tf,"tobite.''  6%,"  to  bend." 

'  bug, "  to  bend. 

SINODLAR. 

■INQDLAK. 

SINOULAB. 

SINODLAB. 

bibMda, 

bait. 

bvhh6ja. 

baug. 

bibhidiOia, 

baist. 

bubh(^iiha. 

baugt. 

bibkSda, 

bait. 

bubhSja, 

baug. 

SDAL. 

DDAL. 

DUAL. 

DUAL. 

bibhidivd, 

btia, 

bubhvjiva, 

bugA. 

bibkidathus, 

bituts. 

bvbhvjathus. 

bugvia. 

bibhidfUus, 

bubkvjatua 

FLUaAL. 

FLDRAL. 

PLURAL. 

PLUHAL. 

bibhidima. 

bitam. 

bubhujima, 

bugum. 

hibkida{lha). 

bitulh. 

hubhuja{tlm) 

bugvtk. 

bibhidus. 

bilun, 

bubhujus. 

bugun. 

490.  On  the  law  of  gravity  rests  also  the  phenomenon, 
that  those  Gothic  roots  ending  in  two  consonants,  which, 
without  protecting  the  reduplication,  have  preserved  a  radi- 
cal a  in  the  singrtlar  of  the  preterite,  weaken*  this  to  u 
before  the  heavy  plural  and  dual  terminations,  and  those  of 
the  whole  subjunctive  (Vocalismos,  Obs.  16.  p.  227).  The 
Sanskrit  exhibits  a  remarkable  counterpart  to  this  phenome^ 
non,  which  had  not  come  under  my  notice  in  my  earlier 
treatment  of  the  theory  of  gravity,  and  is  [G-  Ed.  p.  708.  f 
here  for  the  first  time  considered  from  this  point  of  view  ; — 


*  la  tho  GcriDAu  preterite,  the  wtskcninf;  of  the  rowel  is  produced  by 
lli«  polysyllabiciieau,  bcc  p.  70B,  G.  ed. 

y  Y 


682 


VEBBS. 


I  mean  the  root  kor,  "to  make,"  which — not  indeed  in  the 
reduplicated  preterite,  but  still  in  the  special  tenses  before  the  fl 
heavy  termiimtions,  and  in  the  whole  pottiDtia],  which  answen 
to  the  GotJiie  subjunctive — weakens  its  a  to  «,  and  onlv 
bi-foro  Ii};fat  terminations  retains  the  Iwavy  a  sound.  Meucc 
kojSmi,  "I  mukc,"  stauds  in  quite  th«  same  relation  to  kurtt- 
man  or  kurtmm,  "  we  make""  and  to  kllry^^m,  *'  I  may  make." 
as.  ill  Gotliic,  brinJ  to  bunduin,  and  buuilvtiu.  We  tx^mpare 
here  the  Gothic  preterite  btmd  with  the  Sanskrit  btibhandha. 
which  everywhere  leaves  its  vowel  unaltered,  aud  with 
karimi  DS  regards  the  change  of  vowel. 

SINGULAR.  DUAL. 

UNKfiT.        noTiiic,    ntNiSRiT.         uKOtm.  oorme.       ■anskki-t. 

biih'.intilia,       band,  knrtimr,  bubandhiva,    bmidH,     kiiruvut. 

bi\h  mdhUhn,  banst,  kor'taUi,  bnbnndhiitbus^bundidt,  kurtUhaa. 

biibandhn,       band,  karHtit  babnndUfdus,     ,  .  .  ktirutttx. 

PLttRAL. 

babandliimn,       btindum,  hurumas. 
bnhii7i.dfia{lba),  htmdtith,  kuruUm. 
babandhun.         bundun,    kuTwanti. 


FOTENTIAL. 

l&MIK^r.        OOTai€.  UNSK^IT.  OaTttK' 

kury4m,  bundyau,  kurifdvci,  bundeiva, 
kuryiia.  bundftu.  kuryUavi,  bundeUs, 
kiirytU,    bundi,       kuri/iHAm,    .... 

[G.  Ed  p. 709]  "  Remark  I.— Aa  all 
preterite,  follow  the  analogy  of  band,  have  a  liquid  for  their 
penultimato  consonant,  and  liquids  have  n  prvfurfnee  for  the 
vowet  u,  wc  may  attribute  to  them  here  an  influeGcc  on 
the  generation  of  tlie  u :  it  remains,  howorer,  not  the 
less  true,  that  the  conditions  umlcr  which,  in  the  fore- 
^ing  scbemc.  a  and  it  are  interclianged,  rest  only  on  the 


PLVI4I> 

<.iKiiK(itr.  flOTaic. 

kuryima,  bundeima. 

kuryiUa,  bandriflu 

kitryui.  bundeina. 

xTrbs  which,  in  the 


INPLfBNCB  OF  THE  PERSONAL  TBUMINATIOKS.  G&3 

laws  of  gntTitjr,  and  on  a  principle  sufHcicntly,  as  I  believe, 
dcmonatratcd  in  my  Vocalisnitis  (p.  227),  tliat  tlic  weight  of 
the  u  is  more  easily  supported  by  these  languages  tluui  lUat 
offl.  For  were  this  not  so,  it  were  difficult  to  Be*:  why 
the  old  a  was  protected  exactly  in  the  moaosyllabio  singular ; 
and  why  the  condition  of  monosyllnbicncss  is  so  enforced 
in  tlie  preservation  of  the  a,  thaU  in  Old  High  Gerinau, 
nhero  the  second  pernon  singular  is  designated  by  i  instead 
off,*  even  in  the  form  which  thus  becomes  UissylUblc,  lliu 
tighter  ti  should  afisuinc  the  plitce  of  tho  heavier  n ;  and  thus 
bundi  stand  in  contrast  to  band  of  the  first  and  third  person, 
and  to  the  (jothiv  fteeond  Ixin-il.  In  like  sense  a  certain 
share  in  the  generation  of  tlie  ti  may,  in  ttic  Sanskfit  form 
kur,  alternating  with  i-ar.  be  attributed  to  the  liquid,  while 
the  distribution  betweifn  tlie  a  and  u  forms  depends  on 
the  weight  of  the  terminations  alone.  Beyond  tlic  range, 
however,  of  ttie  special  tcuscs,  the  root  kar,  in  the  forms 
wliieh  seek  to  be  lightened,  dispenses  entirely  with  tlie  a, 
so  that  the  r  becomes  tlic  vowel  ri.  The  mutilated  form 
J:ri  thus  produced — as,  for  instance,  in  kri-ta,  'made,' 
«ppo8c<l  to  kar-tum,  '  to  make ' — is  contiidered  by  the 
grammarians  as  the  original,  and  this  holds  good  in  ana- 
lo£;ou8  cases; — a  view  whieh  I  have  endeavoured,  in  the 
first  Observation  of  my  Vocalisuiua.  to  demonatriite  ao  hin- 
torically  unsustainable.  In  sjiccial  Sanskrit  grammars,  how- 
ever. Uiis  system  may  be  outwardly  maintained  ;  and  kur  may 
Btill  pass  for  a  Guua  form  of  kri ;  as  also  wc  may  be  eum- 
pellcd  to  treat  the  a  of  the  Gothic  preterite  hand  as  the  Guna 
form  of  i  in  hinda,  and  so,  indeed,  wc  must,  if,  rcversiug 
the  real  historical  course  of  the  hingangc,  wc  recognise,  in 
the  singular  a  of  the  preterite,  a  firsl.  and.  in  the  plural  and 
subjunctive  ti  of  the  preterite,  a  second  Ablaut  of  the  i 
of  the  present  hindn." 


*  Vat  dis  origin  of  tlib  i  I  n&r  prdiauuorily  to  my  Vov&lismnti,  p.  93. 

Y  V  S 


TBBBS. 

"Remark  2. — It  mny  nppcnr  surprising  tliat  those  Gothic 
verbs  with  a  mdipal  a.  which,  in  the  preteriU".  have  preserved 
the  oW  rodii])Iication.  do  not  ef|U.illy  weakt-n  their  a  to  m 
before  the  henvy  terminations;  that,  for  instnnee,  haihatd. 

[O.  Ed.p.710.]      in  tlie  )>hiral,  Bhould  form,  not  ha'thutdmnt 
but  hit'ilholdum.  although  the  root  hiin  erjually  a  liquid  for 
its    penultimate ;    and    we    might  imagim;   that    the    bar- 
tlieniiig  of  the  root  by  reduplication  would  occasion  still 
more  siiscieptibilily    for   tho  weight  of  tlie   lerminiitions ; 
R8  we  have  seen,  in  Sanskrit,  that  the  reduplicating  roots  of 
the  thirtl  cliws  in  A  either  wenlscn  or  totally  remove  tliat 
vowel  before  tlie  heavy  terminationa  ({.481.),  but  Llie  non- 
rcilupl icHting  roots  of  the  second  class  experience  no  dimi* 
nutiot).      With    the    Gothie    reduplication   of  the   preterite 
we  find  a  jiecuHar  condition :    it  can  only  be  borne    by 
the  stfon^st  ratlical  structure,  and  has  hence  only    been 
perpetuated,    first,  by    verbs   with   a  long  or  diphthongal 
radii-al    vowel;    as  fmUitiit,    'I    was   namrd,'   present   Haifa; 
hhulnup,  'I  ran.'   present   hlaupa;  secondly,  by  roots  with 
the  heaviest  of  lh«  sliort  vowels  (a),  united  witli  lengtli  by« 
position;  for  instance,  raivithf.  'I  directed,"  present  tw/rftf.* 
Under   these  conditions,    it   was  a    necessity    of  the    lau- 
gaago  to  retain  tlie  root  after  the  reduplication  in  ail   its 
strength,  and  by  this  the  vreokcniiig  of  the  a  to  u  was 
provided  against"  . 

■191.     The    Greek    exhibits    the    Guna    modification    of   ' 
tho  I  in  two  forms,  in   that,  namely,  tho  original  pre-in- 
sertt^d  a  sound  is  reprwculed  either  by  c  or  o,  but  eu  never 
answers   to   tlic   Sanaltrit  4  in    roots  in  which  diphthongs 
are  exchanged  with  a  pure  (.f     Whcro)  however,  ei  and  oif 


•  Faifak.  rrom  iho  root/iA, "  to  mee,"  «nd  hai/ioA,  from  firJt, "  to  hang," 
■□ake  an  cxcepliuD,  hut  Appear,  oo  the  eridcnve  of  ragnolc  dialeda.  to 
imvt  L<«t  a  Diml. 
t  Vocaliaaiiu,  0)m.  2.  p.  103. 


rNFLUENCB  OF  THE  PKBSONAL  TERMINATIONS.      683 

logctlier  with  t,  are  exchnnged  wiUi  each  other  in  nne  nnd  the 
same  root,  there  »i,  as  the  h(->avier  of  the  two  (jtmaa,  takes  its 
place  in  the  perfect,  where  also  the  simple  o  is  Trequently 
oj>po8(t]  to  the  simple  e ;  ht-nco,  for  insttuicc-,  he\onra  opposed 
to  Jithriti,  e^^^of;  itivotBa  to  -JteiOia.  eittBov,  as  T^rpotfta  to 
Tpi^Mo.  Thus  01  answers  to  the  Gothic  Guoo  tlirough  a,  and 
£1  to  that  through  i  ({.  S7.) ;  and  vet6ui  and  nhroida  are 
related  to  each  other,  aa  heiln  (i.e.  hilit  [O.  Ed.  p.7ll.] 
from  biita,  p.  IOC)  to  b-iit  from  the  root  bit ;  then,  ulao,  Tpe<P<* 
to  rerpo^a,  as  I'lsn  to  {as  from  the  root  LAS  (p.  1  iC  G.  ed.)-  It 
appears,  thcrcfon-.  that  the  Grec-k  loo  bears  more  willingly  tho 
burthen  of  reduplicatiou  by  a  .itrongcr  than  a  weaker  root- 
syllable.  The  Busceptibility  towards  the  weight  of  termi- 
nations has,  however,  almoBt  entirely  vanislied  from  the 
Greek  perfccL  A  remnant  of  it  is  still  found  in  oiSa, 
opposed  to  the  Sanskrit  vAdu,  "  I  know"  and  the  Gothic 
vait  * — in  all  lliree  langunges  a  present  as  to  sense,  witli  the 
terminations  of  tJie  reduplicated  preterite.  Yet  tJie  Sanskrit 
verb,  iu  tins  signi6ealion.  disjienses  with  the  reduplication, 
and  so  does  tlic  Greek  ;  for  otSa  for  FoiSa  is  merely  the  Guiia 
of  the  root  {F)ii,    Compare — 


^  vftl-a, 

^  r^t-tfia, 

f^f^  vid-t-vOt 
f^^^^  vid-a-thus, 
f^npni  vid-a-tat, 

ftrfifH  vid-i-ma, 
ftf^v)  vid-a-(tha\ 


otff-$a  (see  $.  4&3). 
oti-e. 


vil'U-m, 

vit'U-rh, 


ftjB  vid'Uit  (see  §.'162.),    cit-u-n.     U-a-tri. 

•  Ib  thv  caw  of  tbi*  vwb  the  modem  G«rinftn  l«ngii<gv  has  prmavtd 
tfa«  opcTAlitMi«f  ifao  iiifliu-iiee  ofUie  tcrminstians ;  lii-oca,  w6wn,  wiMr/, 
Kitten,  ojiiHiMtl  to  u-iTiAii,  uvHj',  u-iTM/.'  while  cbowhcre  the  plunl  has 
cTcrywhi-K  Di»d«il«If  Cinal  ia  wwglil  toUieriugnUr. 


686 


VBBBS. 


"  Remark. — Tlie  SausVrit  root  vid  is  not  without  a  proper 
present — «rftl  ffdmi,  the  plural  of  whieli,  tnd-maa,  vil-tha, 
vid-anti,  might  Imvo  equally  given,  in  Greek,  iS-fzev,  ttr-re, 

[G.  Ed.  p.  718]  icT-a<Tt  (from  tJai-n,  p.  063 G. cd.) ;  as  alto 
out  of  the  duala  vH-thoa,  vil-las,  we  could  hardly  oht-iin  in 
Greek  any  tliiug  else  than  ?cr-Toi',  kt-tov.  Tlie  present  forius 
resemble  the  Greek  much  more  than  those  above  of  the  pre- 
t-erite,  Nevertheleas,  I  am  not  of  opinion  that  the  Greek 
phirnl  and  dual  termiuutious  eau  beloug  to  the  present  in 
their  origin,  for  tlie  intermediate  vowel  «,  whose  pcjectioo 
givea  to  I'Jftev  the  appenrnncc  of  n  present  (compare  ^ir-niv), 
is  no  essential  element  of  the  perfect,  and  is  wanting,  among 
other  instances.  In  eiic-Tov;  which,  moreover,  tlirough  the 
restoration  of  the  pure  radical  vowel,  bears  the  same  re- 
lation  to  EOiKe,  as  itnov  to  eiS«.  We  shall  recur  to  ttiis  sub- 
ject." 

■492.  After  what  wo  have  hitherto  remarked  on  the  laws  of 
grsTity,  it  becomes  scareely  necessary  to  quote  instances  to 
sliew  wliicli  are  the  litrht  termtuations,  and  which  the  heavv. 
It  is  self-evident  that  the  dual  and  plurnl  endings  have 
more  body  and  compass  than  the  singular  of  the  transitive 
active  form.and  that  in  the  middle  voice  the  weight  of  termi- 
nations communicates  itself  also  to  the  singular;  for  ^oi,  ecu. 
Tai.  are  obviously  richer  in  sound  thnn  fu,  a{j).  rt :  iu  Chu 
same  manner,  in  the  secondary  forms,  /xijv,  cro,  tc.  are  heavier 
than  V,  (T.  (t).  We  have,  however,  to  observe,  that  several 
terminations,  originally  heavy,  but  which  have,  in  the  course 
of  time,  become  abbrevialed,  have  nevertheless  left  behind 
them  the  eflect  of  their  former  state.  This  is  the  case  espe- 
cially in  the  Sanskrit,  in  which  the  middle  abihbr-i  (see  pr47 1 
U.  ed.)  is  much  weaker  in  its  termination  tlian  the  transitive 
nhibhar-am  ;  so  thai,  according  to  the  present  state  of  the 
language,  we  should  rather  ex[iect  abif}hr~am  answering  to 
nb'ibhnr-i  than  the  reverse.  The  second  person  plural  of  tlie 
transitive  reduplicate  preterite,  like  tlie  first  and  third  of  tlie 
Bingalar.  has  lost  the  true  pcreonal  sign,  oud  rctuiiied  only  the 


A 


DIVISION  OF  CONJOOATIOSS. 


687 


iiitormedutte  vowel.^  Nevertheless,  we  find  above  vida,  "ye 
know,"    over   ogainst    tlie   singular    vida,  "I  know," ''he 

knows,"  Id  the  second  person  plural  of  [O.  Ed- p.  7130 
tiw  jirimary  forms,  tfiu  is,  in  its  present  state,  heavier  thau 
the  suigulur  si,  as  n  is  liuuvier  tban  t,  ant)  the  Sanskrit  nspi- 
rates  arc  evident  combinations  of  an  A  with  the  full  tenues  or 
medinis  ($.  12.).  fii  Greek,  all  the  t^iiuinnttons  (if  we  uxee|)t, 
perhaps,  rhu  relation  of  tc  to  6a,  as  in  ttr-rc,  contrasted  with 
t>7<T-6a),  which  I  reckon  heavy,  linve  still,  in  their  actual  state, 
more  weight  than  those  which,  according  to  the  tlicory 
which  has  been  brougiit  forward,  bcloog  to  th«  light  class. 
Compare- — 


LIOBT  nnUIKATIOtlB. 


tnUVT  rHUIXATtONI. 


ni(,  /J.I.  vaa,  inaa,  ^,  vaM,  muM, 
si.  a{i).  ibns,  tha,  M  «J(A4  d/iiM 
ti,         Tt,     tu»,   nti,     tS,     AU,       ntfi. 


net.      fiou, 
TOV,  T«,  <r«*, 
rov.  vTi, 


aQov.  cOe. 
v9ov,    vrat. 


m{am),  v,      va,     ma,      a, »',"  vtiht,     mnhi,         fie^,       firjv,        fie6ov,  fitda. 
1,  f,       lam,  to,       t/iih,ill/i(im,dhuxim,     jov.Te.ao,         adov,    cder. 

t,  (t).  tim,  fi{an),  ta.  dtdm.  nta,  ialtj),     'njv(Tuiv),v,To.(rdijv    {cduv). 

VTO. 
DIVISION  OF  CONJUGATIOMS. 

4if3.  Sanskrit  verbs  admit  of  ao  easy  distribution  into 
two  conjugations ;  the  first — w  bicb,  if  not  the  oldest,  existed 
before  the  separation  of  iangunges,  and  is  almost  alone  re- 
preseiit*-d  in  the  Eurojiean  cognate  languages — comprehends 
the  great  majority  of  all  tlie  verbs,  viz.  ctasses  1.  4.  6.  10. 
(J.  109'.),  whieh.in  theB]Teciiil  tenses,  annex  to  the  root  either 
a  sioipte  a  (vl.  1.  and  C),  or  syllables  which  terminate  with  o* 
vii!;.  tfa  and  aya  (cL  4.  and  10.).  This  con-  [O.  Bd.ii.7W.] 
jugation  is  followed  also,  as  wilt  hereafter  apj>ear.  by  nearly 
all  derivative  verbs  and  by  all  denominatives.  In  Greek,  the 
cronjugatiou  iu  <>»  corresponds  to  it.  in  whiclu  of  course,  too 


G88 


VERBS. 


much  stress  must  not  be  laid  on  the  ^u  aDswering  to  the 
Sanskrit  mi,  fur  if  the  /u  is  restored  to  the  Wpirbt,  compared 
nbove  (§.  434.)  with  far/Ml-wit ;  and  if  lipicet^.  W/Miei.  are 
carried  Lack  to  theformsT«pTr-€-(r»,Tep7r-e-T(.  which,  iu all  pro- 
bability, once  existed;  still  this  verb,  and  all  of  similar 
stnictiirc,  renicun  sufficiently  distinguished  from  nil  cloBses 
of  the  80-caIIed  t*t  conjugation,  which  docs  not  contain  any 
v«rbs  that  insert  tietweei)  the  root  and  the  personal  tcrmioa- 
tioiis  on  e.  which  is  interchanged  with  o,  and  is  furei^  to  the 
root,  or  larger  syllables  terminating  with  \\te9c  vowels.  The 
second  Sanskrit  conjugation  separates,  like  llic  Greek,  into 
three  divisions.  it  comprehends  first,  tliuae  verbs  whieli 
append  the  personal  terminations  direct  to  the  root  (CI.  H.  3. 7.), 
as  ^mi^ei-fu;  da<fA'mi=SiSiafu ;  yannj-mi,  "jttnj/o,"  plural 
t/unj-mris.  '•junt/imtis.'"  (§.109'.  3.),  to  wliicli  there  is  no 
analogy  in  Gn^ck;  secondly,  verbs  with  nu  or  u,  in  Greek 
*v,  u.  as  the  intermediate  syllable;  thirdly,  those  irith  nd 
(weakened  to  ni*),  iu  Greek  va{pyi).  va  Jseepp.  119,  703G.ed.). 
All  tlieae  divisions  are.  in  Siinskrit  as  iu  Greek,  subjected  to 
the  inHucneu  of  tiiu  weight  of  the  }>ersoiial  terminations, 
while  the  first  conjugation  is  free  from  it.  Other  pecidiari- 
ties  will  be  presented  hereafter,  in  which  the  Sanskrit  and 
Greek  seeouit  conjugation  coineide  with  one  another,  and  ore 
distingiiished  from  the  first  conjugation. 

491.  The  Greek  first  conjugation  contains  a  greater  va- 
riety of  aubdivisiotis  tiiaii  tlie  Sanskrit,  which  consists  of 
only  four  classes.     This,  however,  has  no  influence  on  the 

CO.  Ed.  p.  715.]  intiection,  since  i^pit-o-nev'*  is  inflected 
just  like  Tvv-To-fitv.  SeiK'va-fMv.  i^'dvcfuv,  TMn^dvo-fiev. 
•ttpaa-ao-fiev,  iafx-a^o-fisv,  dS-tJ^o-^ev;  as  it  is  the  same,  with 
regard  to  the  conjugation,  whether  the  formation,  which  is 
added  to  the  root,  conaista  simply  of  one  e,  which,  before 
nasals,  is  replaced  by  o,  or  of  syllables  which  terminate  with 

"  1  Kivc  die  {ilunil,  nB  lliv  ATitircviatinn  ot  the  sin^mliu*  primuy  tcrmi* 
uatioD  midvn  tliv  clinroctcr  of  fomuitioa  iwt  cauly  jicrcx'ptiUt.-. 


I 


PIVISiON  OF  CONJUGATIONS. 


689 


tliis  vowel,  OS,  in  SaDskrit.  the  formations  a.  t/a,  tuad  atfa,  are 
iuflcvtcil  similnrty,  for  this  very  rcasoo,  that  they  all  end  in 
a.  It  appears  to  mt>.  however,  wrong  tu  separate,  in  Greek, 
the  consonants  from  their  vowels,  and,  e.j/.,  in  ruirro/iey  to 
add,  first  a  t  and  then  a  conjuuutive  vowel  o;  while,  aocord- 
iDg  to  tho  course  of  the  development  of  the  ]anguag;p,  the 
root  Tun,  iu  tlie  apL-cial  tviisea,  combines  with  the  syllalilc  re 
or  TO,  dffK  with  re  or  vo.  and  \a0  with  ave  orafo.  The  addi- 
tion of  a  bare  consonant,  or  of  a  sylUble  terminating  with  a 
consonant,  would  have  been  loo  cumbrous  for  tlie  conjuga- 
tion :  a  rvw-r-fiev  or  SaK-v-fxev  can  never  have  existed.  But 
if  we  ore  right  in  dividing  thus,  ieitc-vv-ftev,  and  do  not 
regard  tlie  tr  merely  as  the  clement  of  formation,  and  the  u 
as  tho  conjunctive  vowci,  there  is  no  reason  to  distribute 
Tuirrofiei'  according  to  a  different  principle^  What  tlic  syl- 
hible  TO  is  in  the  Utter  verb,  the  syHublu  w  is  in  the  former. 
For  this  reason  [  cannot  admit  tliat  mode  of  distinguishing 
the  conjugation  in  <a  from  tliat  in  fit,  which  consists  in 
terming  the  latter  "with  a  conjunctive  vowel";  as  Ihe  >« 
conjugation  also,  though  not  in  all  the  classes  of  wliiub  it 
consists,  has  syllables  of  conjunction,  if  they  arc  to  be  so 
called,  that  arc  inserted  in  BaK^ifwiiev.  iofi'va-nev,  between 
the  root  an<l  the  jiersonnt  termination. 

A9b.  ft  is  hardly  ix>ssiblo  to  state  any  tiling  satisfactory 
regarding  the  origin  of  these  syllables.  It  appears  to  mc 
moat  probable  that  the  majority  of  them  [n.  Ed.  p.  710.] 
are  pronouns,  through  which  tl>c  action  or  qualily,  which  is 
expressed  in  the  root  in  abttmcto.  becomes  someiliing  con- 
crete; ft  g.  the  expressloD  of  the  idea  "  to  love"  becomes  the 
expr^saiuii  of  the  jierson.  "  who  loves."  This  person,  how- 
ever, is  mure  closely  defined  by  the  jxTSonal  terniinatiuu, 
whether  it  he  "I,"  "thou,"  or  "he."  Proceeding  from 
tliis  point  of  view,  wc  may  regard  the  character  of  the 
Sanskrit  ninth  class  nd  (§.  Iu9*.  5.)  =  Greck  m,  vt},  vd,  as 
the  Ivugthciiiug  of  the  prunominol  base,  it  na,  (§.  3ti9.)  mid 


690 


VERBS. 


TtM^sGreek  w.  as  the  weakening' of  this  no,  as.  in  the  interro- 
gative, together  witli  kit  tlie  forms  ku  and  Iti  occur.     The 
H  of  the  eighth  class   is  easily  pcroeived  to  be  the  abbre- 
viation of  llif  syllablH  iiu,  which  aris<»  from  iho  eircumstance 
that  the  Few  roots  ofthia  class  themselves  terminate  with  n ; 
ihas  Itin-u-man  for  lan-nu-maa.      The  sole  exception   ia  kri, 
-  to  make."  wliich.  however,  as  may  be  deduced  froiu  the 
Zend    kere'Ha/i-mi,    lilcewiBe    had    n    origiiinlty    beforo    the 
nppendut]  u.      Froni  ^n  nil  it  aecius  thiit  dii  has  arisen  by 
trans[)ositioii,    whit.'h    is    furtlier   combiued  witJi    the    chn* 
racter  «  of  the  first  or  sixth  class,  and  belongs  to  Uie  first 
coujugation ;    but    it    occurs    only    in    the    second    person 
imjieratire  einguhir    of  the    transitive    active  form  of  the 
ninth  class,  in  which  the  first  conjugation  is  without  the 
[wrsoiial   ternuiiatioii;    hence,  fts-rlnfi.  "'eal,"  opposed  to  the 
first  person  os-nAni,    and  the  third  aa-nila.     This  aa-daa 
would   lend   us   to  expect  a  present  ai-Hni-mi,  ai-dna-»i, 
ai-dita-ii,  for  aa-nd-mi,   8x.     The  circumstance  that    the 
Vcda-^ialect  has  not  preserved  furius  of  thitt  kind  affords 
no  certainty   that  they    have    m-vcr   existed;    for  although 
several  other  ancient  forms  of  speech  have  been  preserved 
in  the  Veda-dialect,  still   it  is  very  far  from  liaviug    re- 
tained, in  their  perfect  state,  all  tliat  existed  at  the  period 
of  the  unity  of  language;  e.tf.  tlierc  are   no  middle  forms 
ia  mi  for  the  abbreviated  A     But  if  the   Sanskrit,    in    its 
CO.  Ed.  p.  7170     formations   lu  dnn,   actually  took  its  de- 
parture from  tl(e  second  person  imperative,  where  it  also 
remained,    the    Greek    hua    completed    the  formation  thus 
oommenced ;  for  I  liuve  scarce  any  doubt    that   forms  liko 
os'-dnu  aro    the    prototypes    of  the  Greek  "Z-ave,  SapB-atx, 
&c.      Both  languages  agree  in  their   conjugational  affixes 
almost  oa  exactly  as  possible;  for  a  Greek  a  refers  rather 
to  a  Sanskrit  long  A  than  to  a  short  one.   ax  «  a  is  more 
frequently  represented  by  c  or  o  than  by  a.     Besides,  the 
origiual    length    of  quantity    is   sUH    left    in    ix&vta.      Id 


4 


DIVISION  OK  CONJUGATIONS. 


691 


Lithuanian,  verbs  in  ejiu*  and  inu,  and  also  those  witli 
doubled  n,  tnnu.  belong  to  thU  class,  though  titey  retain 
the  nasal,  also,  in  the  future  and  iuCnitive,  which  verbs 
in  TIM,  of  which  hereafter,  do  not,  e.g.  gah'tmi,  "I  bring," 
ffad-tnH,  "I  destroy,"  future  yabensu,  gadinm  (§.  10.).  in- 
finitive gnbfnti,  gndinii, 

496.  I^  in  tiie  Siinslcrit  seventh  cluss  ($.  lon\  3.),  tliat 
form,  which  appi-ant  before  Uglit  terminations,  is  older 
than  that  which  occurs  before  heavy  oni-5,  e.g,  hhi-nn-d 
from  hhi-nad-mi,  "  I  cleare,"  older  than  hhi-n-d  from 
bhi-nd-mm,  "  we  cleave,"  then  it  might  be  assumed,  as  I 
am  much  inclined  to  do,  tliat  this  syllable  na  is  nothing 
else  tbnn  the  syllable  ti/i  of  tlie  ninth  class,  which  has 
been  tmn!fj)osed  into  the  interior  of  Uio  root,  and  abbre- 
viated ;  tlius,  bUiiuiJmi  for  blttdnclini,  as  bkid  would  form 
according  to  the  ninth  class.  In  Greek  verbs,  like 
\ci}i^iiv<j3,  fiavBavta.  both  forms  occur  together;  and  in  them 
the  nasal  of  derivation  has  a  accvnd  time  been  reflected 
into  the  ratdJIe  of  llio  root,  just  as.  in  Zend,  an  i  or  y 
imparts  to  the  preceding  syllable  also  an  *  (§.-Ii.).  It  has 
been  already  remarked  (§.  Itiif.  5.).  that  verbs,  like  SaK-vo- 
-ftev,  Tifi-ve'ttev,  by  weakening  the  syllable  of  derivation, 
i.e.  by  changing  the  organic  a  o(iafi-va~fi€v  for  the  inorganic 
e  or  o,  have  entered  into  the  w  conjugation.  [G.  Ed  p.  7l0.j 
To  this  place,  also,  must  be  assigned  the  Latbi  formation  tii 
(before  r:  ne)  of  tt^'ni-mtis,cer-ni-mua,  spifr~ni~mat,li-ni-mus, 
si-niTnti*.  Compare,  for  iuatauce,  slcr-ni-mwi  with  f^oflira 
sIri-Tii-mox ;  but  the  rt-aeiublnnce  must  not  be  rated  too  high, 
for  the  Latin  ni  is  not  a  shortened  form  of  the  Sanskrit  ui* 
(Siee  §.  485.).  but  a  weakened,  aa  /«/-(-inii»  for  Ug-ii-mu$, 
(§.  109*.  I.).  In  Old  Sclavonic,  verbs  in  Rtl.  nhhi,  correspond, 
which  reject  this  appende<l  syllable  in  tlie  preterite,  c.tf, 
rbisrtv  gyh-n^  "pfreo,"  second  person  gtfi-rtff'thi,  preterite 
yy-bvch  (Dobr.  p.  355.);  in  Lithuanian,  verbs  in  nu,  plural 

"Cf.  p.  906,  ^.7*3. 


692 


VERBS. 


na-mh  correspond,  which,  though  s|innng1y,  are  retaiuvd 
ill  roots  ill  nil  (Mioike,  p.  101,  25.);  e.ff.  g6u-nv,  "  I  avow," 
plural  j/du-nft-inc,  preterite  «/cn«iu.  future  yauau.   Corn} 


rtJJl  IMM.iV. 


8a.K'Vta,  yyb-n  u  -«,'  y6u-n  u,* 

Sajt-fei-y.  gyb-nt-shi,  fjAwn'-i, 

S(i»t-vc-{T)j,  f/yb-ne-iif,  g&u-na- 

gyb-ne^va.  prfw-na-wr. 

idK'V€-TOv,  (jyb-nf-fa,  ^u-na-la, 

iaK-ve^ov,  gyb'tif'ta,  g6u-na- 


sier-no- 

tter-ni-r, 

Hter-Ri-t. 


I A  MCE  KIT. 

ntri-^A-n, 
strt-nA-li. 

siri-y\i~va». 

»iri-ftt-fhaM. 

ttri-ni-toM. 


S&K-vo-ftev,   gyb-fip-^n,     g6u-na-me,  aler-ni-mua,  stri-tji'ma4. 
JaK-i-e-Tf,     yyh-ne-U,    ydu-na-tt,     iler'ni-iii,      ttri-iii-Unu 
i&K-va-vrtt    gijb-nd-t^.^  </&u-na-        rier-nu-ni,     ttri-^a-ntt, 

*  Hence  mt  cntirt'ty  legitirottlo  dirlaioo  is  imjionililei  since  llie  [mmoal 
t(nniiiiitii>B  hu  ljlic«-!idtt  n  ■harv  La  tliv  i  «f  ilcrivntion,  its  domI  being 
conininediniL:  <w>  f .  aSS.j;,  '  Si-*  p.  030  0.  wl. 

497.  Tile  affix  -re,  to  {rvti-Ti>.^tev,  Tuir-TC-re),  lipppnrs  pe- 
culiar to  Greek:  however,  except  in  ■neKTia,  tiktu,  it  occurs 

[G.  Ed.  p.  719.]      only  after  lahinla.      Its  r  in,  periiaps.   a 
corru|>tiu»  of  v,  as  elaewhere,  also,    we   have  seen  mutes 
prociKicl  from   tuiaals  of  correspcitiding  organ ;    f.ff.  /Sporos 
from  ^oTos;  io  Lithuanian  and  Sclavonic  (/ini^^i.  AisATb 
devynfy  (§.317.),  from  nnmjni,  nrvv/tty,  and  (vrhieh  comes 
tolenibly  near  to  the  case  in  question)  thp  Greek  suffix  ^ar. 
used  in  the  formation  of  words,  corresponds  to  a  formation 
in  n  in  the  kindred  languages ;  e.  g.  S-vofiar  answers  to  the 
Sanskrit  ndirioii.  Latin  nomm,  to  the  Gothic  nnmit,  nnmin-t, 
and  Sclavonic  hha  iniyn,  genitive  uheiii  Imfa-f  (§.  ?6d.].    In 
Sanskfit,  alsa  wr  must  remark  tliat  the  n  is  replaced  by 
the  tenuis  of  its  organ,  since,  for  instance,  from  han,  "to 
shy.'"  comes  the  causal    ghAt-nyA-m't   for   h'\n-nyA-ini.      If. 
then,   the  T  cX  Tuv-TQ-fier,  Kfrvn-n-ft£\;  &c.,  stands  in  this 
uuuincr  for  f,  then  these  verlM.  just  ua  those  in  vo-jtuv.  ve--n 


DIVISION  OF  CONJUGATIONS. 


693 


(f  )09\  5.)t  lead  back  to  the  Snitskrii  iiiutli  class.  But  if 
tlic  T  is  or^uiic,  which  ia  less  probable,  then,  according  to 
thu  [irtnciplc  laid  down  iu  §.  -i'Ji.,  the  s^Jlublc  re,  to,  leads  to 
tlic  prouuiniual  base  to  =SiLi]3krit  n  la  (§.  343.). 

49S,    tu    Lithuanian    there    are    some   verbs    which  re- 
semble Greek  verbs  like  Tvirrot  in  this  point,  that  they  insert 
between  the  root  iiiid  thi!  personal   termination    an    aSix 
beg-inning   with  t  and    terminatinj^   with  a  vowel,    though 
they  reject  it  afjain    in   the  preterite,  which  answers  to 
the  Greek   imperrcct,  and   in   which    otherwise  the  clasa 
syllahtcs   are    stilt   retained.      Thus  kl^x-tit    (euphonic  for  ■ 
kfyd-tu,  conipnre  §.  4s70,  plural  tli/s-tn-me.  preterite  l-b/d-au, 
future  tly-au,  as  epei'-c-ui  for  epti'd-o-tD ;  pliLvtu  (for  ftHd-iu), 
"I  swim"  (eonipare  p/w,  p.  ill)^  plut^I  ;?^il«-(rt-m/',  prcterito 
p!Ad-au ;  lAiT-lu,  "  I  am  petulant,"  plural  ia»x-la-mf,  prete- 
rite liitxau;  mir»z-lit,  "I  forget,""   plural      |G.  £4.  p.  720.] 
mirns-tii-tne,  preterite  mirsx-au;  ptyss^u,  "  I  tear  to  pieces,'" 
plural  plysz'ia-me,  preterite  plt/az-tttu     Sonic  verba  prefix  to 
the  I  a  non-rfidical  s  also,  for  which  the  way  is  |»erhap8  pre- 
pared by  eases  in  which  a  sibilant,  or  &  d  whicli  changes 
into  s,  is  already  in  the  root,  or  becaase  «<  is  in  general 
a  favourite  termination  {compare  §.  94.);  as,  rim-stu,  "l  am 
quiet"  (Sanskrit  vi-ram.  "to  rest"),  plur.U  rim-sla-me,  pre- 
terite rimm-du,  future  rtmsu. 

499.  I  believe  a  pronominal  origia  must  be  ascribed, 
also,  to  tliu  e.  o,  of  verbs  like  ripit-o-fief.  TepTr-e-re,  which  is 
usually  called  a  conjuuciivc  vowel ;  for  the  m  a,  which  au- 
a^ve^s  to  it  iu  Sanskrit,  is  deduciblc  from  a  pronuniinal 
base  more  easily  than  any  other  conjugatioual  affix*  and 
it  proceeds,  iu  (act,  froiu  the  base  froiu  wliieh  we  have 
above  seen  a-mnii.  "to  this."  a-smiit,  "from  this,"  u-st/a, 
"of  this,"  and  u-»jhjb,  "in  this,"  proceed.  For  a  mere 
conjunctive  vowel,  a,  as  the  heaviest  of  the  three  prinuiry 


•  Ci>nipafethuS(uukritfliniv(>wfiJ,  "  to  rauwuber,"  VMAliamos,  p.  IU, 


Cd4 


TBftBS. 


vowels,  appears  to  me  least  of  all  adapted ;  and  I  think 
that  the  origin  of  conjunctive  vowels,  which  are  insetted 
between  two  consonants  to  facilitate  pronunciation,  belong 
to  a  later  pc-riotl  ot  tlie  ]anguag:i;  tlmii  that  to  wbicb  the 
coincidences  of  the  Siinskrit  wjtli  its  European  cogn&te 
Innpinges  conduct  us  buck.  Tlte  v  a  in  question,  how- 
ever, c(]incides  with  the  Gothic  u  which  is  interchanged 
with  i,  with  tlie  Greek  r  inlerchriu^cable  with  o.  Old  Scla- 
vonic ■  f,  Lithuanian  a.  and  I^itin  i  (§.  109*.  1.);  e.g.  in  tlie 
second  person  duol,  Vf^HI  vah-a-thaa,  answering  to  the 
.  Gothic  vitj'it'ls.  Greek  vy^e-Tov,  Old  Sclavonic  ri^bta  ve^-e-ta, 
litbuamnn  weX'-n-ta ;  second  person  p\ \irnl  n^  txih-a-tha. 
answering  to  the  Greek  ej^-e-re.  Old  Sclavonic  m^ete 
ve^-e-lp,  Lithuanian  ttfer-fl-/?,  Latin  veh-i-tis,  Gotliie  viij-i-tk. 
The  case  is  different  with  tbe  lightest  of  the  primary 
vowels,  (,  with  which  we  shall  hereafter  become  acquainted 
in  considering  the  Sanskrit  auxiliary  future.  No  analogous 
vowel  can  be  assigned  to  tliis  i  in  the  kiudr«l  languagca, 
and  we  must  therefore  fix  its  origin  in  the  period  succeeding 
[O- Ed.  p.  721.]  the  division  of  languages.  In  Zend,  we 
see  some  conjunctive  vowels  arise,  as  it  were,  under  our 
eyes.  i.e.  vowels  which  etiler  between  two  oonsoiianta  that 
were  formerly  combined:  this  never  occurs,  however,  with 
an  a,  but  with  the  inorganic  {  ('  (§.  30.),  for  which  i  is 
sometimes  found ;  e.g.  ui-e-k'uitn,  "  stand  up."  in  which  an  f  ia 
inserted  between  the  preposition  and  the  verb,  which 
never  happens  in  Sanskrit. 

500.  Tlie  aSixes  of  the  fourth  and  tenth  classes,  «  ifa 
and  V(  (lijfi,  must,  t  believe,  be  regarded  as  auxiliary 
vcrljs:  n  yu  is.  at  the  same  time,  tlie  character  of  the 
passive,  and  we  shall  recur  to  it  in  treating  of  that  voice. 
In  Gothic,  we  have  already  found  a  representative  of  the 
Sanskrit  fourth  class  (§.  109'.  3.):  in  Latin,  verbs  in  ro,  of 
tlw  tliird  conjngntiim,  correspond  to  it.  These,  in  disad- 
vantngeoiia  cotnparison  with  the  Gothic,  have  permiltcd  tlic 


DIVISION  OF  CONJUGATIOKS. 


695 


vowct  or  the  syllable  ya  to  di&appcar  almost  everywhere ; 
e.g.  iu  all  the  casea  in  which  the  a  of  the  Grst  anil  sixtli 
class  has  been  wciikencti  to  i,  before  rto?;  hcnvc,  upec-h, 
apec-i'Unlt  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  p^a-yl\^mi,  pui-yn-nti. 
but  spec-i'S,  spec-t-t,  spec-i-mus,  spec-i'tis,  coutrastwl  with 
jMi-y/i-ai,  pni^-ii,  pax-yd-mtix,  pai-t/a-tha.  In  the  participle 
present,  the  a  of  the  syllable  ya  has  been  retained  under 
tlie  protection  of  two  consonants  i  hence,  syrc-ii^iJs,  upec-te- 
nlem,  nuswering  to  pti^ya-n,  pas-ya-ntitm.  Facto,  according 
to  ita  origin,  should  follow  the  fourth  conjugation,  as  it  ia 
based  ou  the  Sanskrit  causal  form,  bhth-mj^mi.  "I  mako 
to  be"  (?.  IS.):  on  aecomit,  however,  of  the  trifling  ilificrenCD 
in  form  between  -^dmt  and  •atfSmi,  it  cannot  surprise  ua 
that  the  said  Latin  verb  bos  deserted  its  original  class,  and 
migmlcti  to  ttiat  next  adjoining.  Thus,  vice  reri'h  cupio 
=lcup-t/Aini,  "  1  am  niigry,"  has  partly  changed  into  the 
fourth  conjugation,  which  corresponds  to  the  Sanskrit  laalh 
class,  and  to  which  belong  cnpici,  cupilntn,  [G.  Ed.  p. 722.3 
while  the  present  has  remained  in  the  class  to  which  this 
verb  originally  belongs.  In  Lithuanian,  verbs  iu  iu,  yu,  of 
Mielke's  first  conjugation  (p.  96.  &c.)  correspond ;  e.g.  liepyut 
"  I  order,"  which,  like  similar  verbs  with  a  labial  ter- 
mination to  tlie  root,  reject*  indeed  tht*  y  before  the  i  of 
the  second  [Tcrson,  but  otherwise  retains  the  class  syllable 
inviolate  tliroughout  the  whole  present.  In  Sclavonic. 
Dobrowsky's  first  conjugation  belongs  to  this  class,  wliicb, 
in  the  present,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  person  sin- 
gular, and  third  person  plural,  cshibits  tlie  syllable  n  ya 
in  the  form  of  K  ye,  but  only  after  vowels:  after  consonants, 
only  the  e  of  the  k  w  is  left,  as  in  otlier  parts,  also,  of  gram- 
mar «  c  is  very  frequently  the  remnant  of  tlie  s^'liable  K  y*. 
as  the  euphonic  product  of  yo  (5§.  255.  n.  and  258.),  In  the 
first  person  aingulur  and  third  person  plural,  we  find,  both 
after  vowels  and  coiisonanta,  wl,  yulu,  from  yn-m,  yo-viy, 
i%  S53.  jr.),    and.  in   the  gerund    (jHirticipial)    present  yii. 


696 


VERBS. 


fcQiininv  y&shcki.  Answering  to  the  Sanskrit  yan,  yattti. 
Examples  are :  pi-yii.  "I  drink,"*  second  person  pi-ve-ahi,"-\ 
third  person  p'-ye-fv ;  ^na-^A.  "1  know"  (Sausknc  ^rul,  "to 
know")  ^vo-yp-slii,  ^na-w-ty ;  or-yi,  "I  plough,"  or-e-thi, 
or-e-ty.    Compare — 


oui  ecUT. 


OOTVIC 


tATUr. 


^nc-yil.*  be^-tfn-" '  cap-to-' 
^na-ye-shi,  haf-vis,  cnp-i-*, 
^ik7-yc-/y,    haf'y'fth,    cap-i-t. 


lubh-t/rl-mi,^     liep-t/u, 

htbhryn-si,        licp-i, 

tubb-ya-ti.       liep-mt- 
rn 

^  lubh-yd-vaa.    liop-ya-wa,  ^na-ye-va,    haf-yi-»* 

^  /uhh-yn-thm,  liep'yn-tti,    ^na-yctn,     haf-ya-tn       

^  lubh-ya-ias,     liep~yn-        ^aaye-ia       

a 

tubh-yA-mas,    liep-ya-me,    ^na-ye-m,    haf-ya-m,    cap-l-mus* 
lubk-ya-tha,     Uep-ya-te,    ^na-w-tc,     ha/-t/i-tk,    cap~i-tis. 
lubh-yn-nli,     licp-yor'        ^n«-ytl-/y.'  hof-ya-ad.tnp-iu-nL 

'  **  I  derfro,"  compurc  luliet,  libet,  Gothic  liubi,  "  dear."  'See 

P.B99,  Nolc'.  '  The  Goihic  haf-^a,  Germaa  fitim,  "lonlm,"  h 

nulioilly  identical  with  the  Lntin  aipia,  tlii!  Inw  nf  traiupoaiticii]  being 
foll«w«d  C$.67.).  *  A  completely  I(gititiiAt«  dirigion  i*  impoMible  in 

thiiword  (wc  j.  2&&.  f.). 

501.  As  the  Lithuaninn  readily  nsainniates  the  semi-vowel 
jf  toaBtroiigt;r  cousouant  precotliug;  it  (compare  p.  369G.cd.), 
it  need  not  surprise  tis  IT  tliis  occusiuuiJIy  otxrurs  also  in  the 
clu9  of  verbs  under  discussion.  To  this  we  refer  verbs  in 
mmu  (according  to  Miclke.  p.  101,23.),  wlucli.  ia  llie  prete- 
rit^ again  reitoro  their  aeeoud  jn  to  tlie  u,  whence  it  arose. 


•  The  SAukfit  loot  pi  is  naed  only  in  the  middle,  but  b«long«,  in  Uko 
raonuiT,  10  the  lourih  cliuw ;  itviice,  jn-y^.  yi'i/tuS,  &c. 

t  Dk>brow.ik>'  « riles,  |>.02I,  tiUtlii,  f'Ulj/,  from  ihti  nut  l^  "  to  oat"; 
but  K«|>)l«r,  whom  I  follow,  giv<.«  bi^^tM,  be.  IT  the  fint  Kadiujt  were 
rorrvci,  it  mmi  be  Bssuincd  that  after  i  the  y  ofllic  oloss-B^lkblQ  woiilil 
be  dtopiwd  befxv  e. 


DIVISION  OF  CONJUOATIOSS. 


097 


but,  ill  the  futuru  and  inBnittvc,  according  Ui  the  old  princi- 
ple. Fiitircly  withdraw  the  class  ayllnble ;  as  hamu,  "  I  tak^" 
preterite  hnyau.  future  Unxu.  iuGtiitivc  imti.  Gemmu,  "I  am 
bora"  has,  in  thu  prettfrite,  togetltcr  with  fjimyau  idso  the 
assimilnted  form  ghnman.  The  root  g'tm  answers  to  the 
Sanskrit  ^n^^^air,  which,  in  the  sense  of  "to  be  born,"  is  like- 
wiso  iiK-ludcd  ill  the  fourth  class,  but  which  irregularly  8Ui>- 
prcsscs  the  n  before  the  chnracterii  ya,  and,  in  conipensatioii, 
lei)<^hcns  the  vowel.  As,  however,  jan.  "  nasci,"  is  used 
only  in  the  middle,  and  the  passive,  on  account  of  its  elm- 
raetur  ya,  is  icJeuticul  with  Uie  uiiddiu  of  the  fourtJi  class, 
nothing  prevents  ua  from  regarding  ^t^jAi/i.  "  n«*eor,"  aa 
passive,  and  thus  recognising  iu  the  LitbuoDinn  gtmmu 
a  remnant  of  tlie  Sansk  rit  passive,  only  {O.  Ed.  p.  724.J 
with  the  loss  of  the  middle  tcrminutiuns.  W'c  should  also 
remark  the  admirable  agreement  between  the  Lithuanian 
liippii,  "I  peel,"  "I  skin,"  which  is  based  on  aasimilation, 
and  the  Sanskrit /f/^-f/cI-mi,  from  the  root  tup.  "to  cleave." 
"to  destroy,"  "to  trouble."  Hence  the  transition  is  very 
close  to  Greek  verbs  willi  double  consooants,  in  tlie  special 
lenses ;  for  the  form  aWoi,  as  contrasted  willi  the  Gothie 
ALYA,  has  furnished  us  witli  the  first  proof,  tluit.  in  Greek, 
the  semi-vowel  y  still  exiiits  in  tlic  form  uf  a  rctroncting 
assimilation."  for  companttives  like  KfeiVa-wv,  eXao-o-ui'.  are 
traced  back  to  this  principle  ($.300.),  to  which,  also,  verba 
with  <r  or  \  duubled  iu  the  s|iecial  tenses  are  subjected; 
thus  }^i<r<joiK3u  from  hnuoneu,  fis  Kpfiafftav  from  Kpetrwav  or 
KpaTViiin  ^piaata  frouj  ^/jikvu,  as  ^At^ffwc  from  'fKvKy<i»v 
(^XuKiuv);  vTt^<7«i)  from  vru^yu,  iia  iracrtrwy  from  itayvdiv 
{Tta\tfjiv).  According  to  this  principle,  7  also  becomes  tr; 
e.g.  tavaia  from  Tayyuh  to  which  the  compamtivcs  do  not 
supply  any  analogy,  as  might  have  been  expected  in  /xeyiif. 
As,  however,  (nei^tav  is  used  for  pe^lvy  from  itcvyu*',  so  also 


•  Ocpioiuiniivu  Bms,  p.  20. 
z  z 


698 


VBBBS. 


in  the  C  of  some  verbs  the  rctroattivc  influfno)  of  aii  earlier 
y  miglit  be  conjectured  ;  thus  £0^  (with  &yi<K  =  Sanskrit 
X[m  yi^,  "  to  adoro,"  "  to  sacrifite,")  from  o^yu ;  ^pdC'^  from 
^paiyu ;  Xt^ta  From  liyti ;  ^fiil^u  with  fipaam*  from  ^paiw* 
or  j3p(xxuu. 

bO'2.  Moat  verbs  in  irffu  Arc  dcnomiimtivcs ;  and  it  ia  here 
important  to  remark,  that,  in  Sanskrit  also,  the  syllable  t|  yn 
forms  deuomjnalivea,  as  cliM'yil-mi.  "I  hesitate."  from  chira 
"alow";  siabrhUyil-mi.  "I  sound,"  from  inbd^.  "sound":  asA- 
yd-mj,  ■•  1  curse,"  from  am.  "  life";  namat-tfA'mi,  "  1  etdore," 

[G,  Ed.  p.  72fi.]  from  numas,  "  adoration,"  Tlias,  in  Greek. 
amongst  othirrs,  aifidrrtru  from  ai>*aTi/«  from 'AIMAT;  ko- 
pdact^  from  KopvOyta  from  ROPYO ;  TOpdaata  from  rapa-^w 
from  TAPAXII ;  wrepiKTffOfiai  from  Tmpvyuofiau  from  FITE- 
PYF;  Kffpuaatji  from  Ktjpvyyui  from  KHPYr.  The  numerous 
denominatives,  also,  in  a{u  and  ({^u  mi^ht  Uu  referred  to 
this  class,  the  semi-vowel  ii^  y  being  represented  by  C* 
The  question  is,  whether  the  a  and  i  of  forms  like  evinciflw, 
dfc/i^C*^  5(K(iC*^  i^VeXciCttf,  a-^opa^ia,  ■noKsfiltf^  66poi^u. 
a<f>piX*^,  belong  to  the  primitive  uoun,  or  to  tlie  verbal 
derivative-  It  must  be  considered  ao  important  arf^- 
ment  lii  favour  of  the  former  view,  that  a^ta,  in  that  kind  of 
denominative^  for  the  most  part  occurs  only  where  an  a  or  i; 
is  already  contained  in  the  base  noun,  but  ij  according  to  its 
origin  =A  (§.  -1.).  IF,  therefore,  SiKal^u  comes  from  Siiai  {9tKa\ 
then  the  final  vowel  of  the  base  word  has  only  been  -weakened 
in  tlic  most  natural  manner,  and  it  would  tliereforc  be  also  only 
a  weakening  of  tlie  vowel,  if  o.  springing  from  short  a,  should 
become  i  (§.  G.),  and  ctj.  ito?i€/i!-ljiii  should  stand  for  iroT^/io-^uf. 
And  it  need  not  surprise  us  if  >j  («)  were  at  times  weakened  a 
stage  furtlier  Uum  to  a,  viz.  to  i,  and,  e.y..  avAi'-CoM^'  ^^re 
derived  from  av\>7,  by  changing  the  17  into  1.     Bases  ending 


I 
4 


I 


« 


*  t^  $.  Mi.    Tnm  tliis  ialercluuigc  on  aflinity  of  the  (inxk  C'^,  C'*^, 
to  tlic  Stuubril  ^jrA<Mt)  *'  barky,"  may  bv  Aeiani ;  thus,  (to,  for  (cfti. 


DIVISION  OF  CONJUGATIONS, 


699 


witli  a  consonant  observe,  ifthia  opinion  bejustudoublc  course 
of  [iroovdure:  cither  the  final  coosonant  is  luppresaed,  or  an  i 
added  to  it  a»  a  conjunctive  vowel.  The  former  occurs  prtnci- 
pally  in n'ords  wluL-hhave  iU ready  bocome  accustomed,  (hrou^li 
till'  nominative  (accuaativc),  to  tlic  loss  of  tiicir  final  conso- 
nant; the  latter  prindpnlly  in  those  words  that  retain  their 
Biml  cnnsonaiit,  or  the  former  of  two  in  the  nominative;  honoe, 
j£<*M«C«  from  XEIMAT;  ivofidCui  from  'ONOMAT;  itaiXot 
from  DAIA  ;  dtrniXofiai,  from  'A2niA  ;  but  [«■  ^^  P-72a.] 
ai/ify^i'^u,  yaarp-i-^u,  ai')(€V'i'^ta,  axavr-i-^tii,  dytav-i-^fmi, 
aXoK-S-^ia.  I>cviations  from  the  prevailing  principle  are 
aitictT-i't^ut,ipfiaT-i-^a,7tapaSayfi<xT-t-C*AKV/iaT-i-C''h^T[cpnaT- 
-f-C(">,  wo8-('-Cu  ;  and.  on  the  other  Imnd,  fiatrri-Cf^,  ffoAjn'-fiij. 
trupi-^v,  for  natrrty-i'-Ca.  Sec  The  Z  of  words  like  Te7;^ot 
belongs,  indetxl.  as  has  been  I}efore  shewn  (§.  123.),  to  the 
base;  notwitlistaudiii}*.  no  derivations  exist  like  Teixcc-('-C** 
Biuce,  at  the  time  when  these  verba  originated,  it  was  already 
forgotten  tliat  the  S,  which  had  been  dislodged  from  the 
oblique  cases,  belonged  to  tJie  base. 

503.  If  we  start  from  the  view,  that  tlie  a  and  i  of  denomi- 
natives in  a^u  nnd  i^ta  belong  to  tlie  verbul  derivative,  tlien 
they  eorrespoiul  to  tiio  Sanskpit  tenth  class  (§.  109*.  &), 
which  likewise  forms  denominatives ;  and  tlius,  in  thesecond 
]>er80D  plural,  «Ce-Te  would  =  Swnsltrit  oya-tUa.  The  *  of 
ifw  would  consequently  be,  in  ■^r^^eM(C"t  not  the  weakening  of 
the  o  of  nOA  BMO,  and  in  yarrpi^u,  lioxapi^ct,  eCSiuiMvi^u>, 
and  otiicrs,  not  a  coiijuuctive  vowel,  but  the  weakened  form 
of  the  old  a  of  w^lftr  «i/<l-mi.  mvfv  at/tt'Si.  &c.;  but  tliu 
vowels  of  tile  nominal  bases  would  be  rejected,  as  in  San- 
ski-it,  in  which  lau-iju-if^e.  in  |)uIyKyllaUe  bases,  not  only  t\K: 
hual  vowels  are  withdrawn,  but  lni:il  eoiisuuaiils  also,  toge- 
ther with  tlie  vowel  preceding  thorn;  e.g.  prt'l-a-tfUmi  from 
priii,  "joy."  txirm-ayAmi  from  varman,  "armour."  We 
might  consider  in  tliis  tight  the  isoUttcd  word  dcKaCon^voi  in 
Grcfk,  and,  moreover,  forms  like  ico^fw.  aTwi^ui ;  tlius  pro- 


700 


VEBBS. 


pcrly.  ae<e(orr)-aCoj^€i'os,  affw((J)-('tw,  ivoju(«T)4C« :  on  the 
otWr  liauJ,  tlie  ni&Jority  of  bases  termioatiDg  with  a  conso- 
nnnt,  in  advantageous  contrast  with  the  Siiuskrit,  preserve 
tho  primarj'  word  unabbrcviiitcd,  or  onljr  bo  weakened,  as 
before  the  oblique  case-terminatioDs :  tliiis,  yao-Tp-i'^in  like 
ya<rTp-6s.  If  tills  sc-cond  view  of  the  matter  is,  as  E  am 
much  inclined  to  ttiinlc  it  is,  ttie  correct  one,  then  the  oppo- 
sition between  forms  like  cyffp'-aCM.  3(«'-aC«,  x«(f;-aC«.  ou 

[G.  Ed.  p.  7270  tbu  one  hand,  and  such  as  TtoAe^i'-i'CiD,  d<ppi'- 
-i'Cm.  dSt\ip'-lt<a,  o)j3'-(f  a»,"  v^'-ii^u],  on  tlie  oilier,  b  to  be  settled 
thus,  that  the  a  of  derivation  is  preserved  by  a  or  17  (=a)  of 
the  primitive  word,  in  ordur  that  the  bnscnnd  derivjitive  (iiirt 
may  not  experience  too  much  weakening.  Moreover,  in  buses 
in  o  too.  the  forms  in  <lCw,  and  without  1  prcceding.'arc  not 
rare,  though  they  are  kept  in  the  batk-ground  by  llie  over- 
whelming majority  of  those  in  t'Cw;  iis  mr-afw,  \t$-dCM. 
ep7-«Co^ai.  (ir-aCtt),  ■yv)it'-oiCu>-  koA-^JC".  SoKi[i'aC<i>,  irtHfi-dCv, 
HUfi-a^m,  mfK-i^ti*.  ffuiTKor-aftii,  (together  with  tricoT-ifw)  trw- 
-ofwyTol-afo/^aj.  Add  to  this,  the  form  in  i^w  is  not  en- 
tireCy  foreign  to  the  a  declension  (Kvpi^*^  from  \vpa);  and 
vlmt  is  of  more  importaoce,  both  d2>)  nod  iC<^  occur  be- 
yond the  nominal  formations,  as  joiirr-a^w  from  plirrw,  trrcv- 
-aCu'  from  trrevca.^  as  Saftai^<a  together  with  Safiain,  dyand^m 
with  dyairdia.  vpoKa\i'l^ui  with  koAeui,  aJT<^u  with  cu'reu, 
tlfli^id  with  udeui.  Such  forms  ari;  certainly  connected  with 
the  chnracttT  vn  mji  of  the  tenth  class. 

504.  To  this  cin&s  I  refer,  also,  verbs  iu  atd  and  ecD,t  whose 


•  Not  from  the  Danuoatlro  aijSqt,  bat  from  iho  bue  'AHA££  (compars 
p.3270.cd.). 
i  'Epv-vCa  from  ipirw  afp«ara  lo  have  bc«n  formrd  by  weakening  the  n 

tOv. 

[  Ofcourte  with  the  exception  »rihow  tho  «i>rn  of  which  is  radical. 
Dcaominaiives  ia  ou.  likevriae,  prolirtMj^  Iiclong  to  Una  claas.  though  ilw  o 
fani  th«  ii)r)>iauiuii;c  of  bvlviigiiig  lo  the  priauuvu  iiauu.     'Hiu  <ia«ation 

aplicars 


DIVISION  OF  CONJDOATIONS. 


701 


relation  to  tho  Snnskrit  nyn  must  be  tlits,  tlmt  (as  in  tha 
Latin  first  coDJugntioD  and  the  Gothic  second  weak  form), 
after  dropping  tlie  semi-vowel,  the  two  a  of  w  aya  Imve 
combined  into  a  corresponding  long  vowel  (a  or  ij).  This 
shews  itself  elscwliere  besides  iu  the  special  tenses,  e.y. 
in  ^i\-j;-fftj,  "ttetptJi'tfKa,  with  which  the  [G.  Ed.  p.  738,3 
/EoVk  present  tpiX-tj-fu  Bgrees;  whence,  by  adding  the  con- 
junctive vowel  of  the  u  tonJHgntion,  through  which  tlie  tj  is 
Abbreviated,  come  ^lAew,  ^iXeoney.  The  case  is  exactly 
similar  to  the  fonuatiou  of  rtdew,  for  ti'^i;^,  from  tlie 
root  OH.'  For  vixio*  we  should  expect  viK-d-/ii,  and  such 
forms  must  have  formerly  existed :  the  v(Vij-p,(-  however, 
which  has  been  transmitted  to  us,  like  vik-^u  for  viK-a-<ru, 
need  not  surprise  us,  as  t],  according  to  its  origin,  stands 
everywhere  for  a,  and  even  tho  Doric,  disposed  as  it  is  to 
adopt  the  a,  has  not  preserved  every  a  from  being  corrupted 
to  17.  The  Prakrit,  as  his  been  already  observed,  liaa,  for 
the  most  part,  contracted  the  cbanictcr  115^  into  i — by  sup- 
pressing tlie  final  a.  vocalizing  the  y  to  i.  and  combining 
it,  according  to  rule,  with  the  preeediug  a  to  ^f;— and  thus  it 


iippe&TB  ta  liave  one  imao  with  that,  wbelhor  tha  a  or  1  of  nfu,  i^<u,  brlong 
to  the  verlial  derivailTC  or  to  Uie  nominal  base. 

•  From  Uxo  poiat  of  view  of  ilic  Greek  it  might  appmr  doobtfol  whe- 
ther IffrijUt  riA}/u,  iUtusfU,  sliould  bo  roj^antpil  iw  Icngdiitned  fonna,  or 
tirrlfinv,  Tiery.tv,  diioiuv,  as  ahortencd  ones.  But  the  tiiatoTy  of  lan^Bge 
is  in  favor  of  lli«  Inttt^r  0|iiiiii>ii  (compare  $.481.). 

■f  I  formerly  thou^^ht  it  probabk*,  that  in  viKaai  tha  San^ltrit  prepositioa 
nl  migitl  ^o  cnncoHltnl,  ilien  ta  wuuld  lie  the  root,  nn-d  i»i|;'ht  tw  uMiniMireJ 
with  mrfil^a^-^'X'?  "  I  coiKiuer,"  inmji,  CI.  I.,  tlie  medinl  Iwlng  irrc* 
gnlariy  raiaod  to  a  tcntiu.  Hut  if,  ^hich  I  now  prervr,  w*  is  ivtpird«d  an 
the  Toiit,  nml  <iur=ai/iimi,  it  tho  diiM  cliunuler;  (hen  fuu4»  leuds  us  lo 
the  Sonikrit  caasai  tidi-apd-mi,  "toHnniliil&te,"  "to  thy."  The  rela* 
lioci  of  MK  to  mii  rcsemblos  tliat  of  krt-HS-mtu  W  kri-nd-mi,  in  Sniwkrit 
(}.  405.).  Tlion  tli«  cmiucring  would  tnko  its  name  fn>tn  the  niuiiUilatiun 
of  llic  foe  conkbin«d  \Tiih  it,  and  xinica  would  also  be  akin  to  mvc,  iKipifc. 

t  Comprmi  Vouallajnuti,  |i.  20*2. 


702 


VERBS. 


answers  to  the  Latin  second,  nnd  Gothic  third  oODJugAtioo 
of  the  weak  form  (p.  1 10,  poMim}.  Cut  in  Prakrit  the  y  of 
aya  may  niso be nlMndoncd,  aajan-aa-di  =SanslcrUy/in-aya-lt, 
[O.Kii.  i>.  Tifl.]  wbicli  serves  as  countertype  to  the  L^tin 
first  aud  Gothic  secoud  ncikit  conjugation  (witli  d  for  <i,  or- 
cording-  to  §.  69.),  nnd  to  Grcdc  verbs  with  the  derivative 
<7  or  a. 

fi05.  Th«  rcIntioD  of  the  Latin  i  of  the  fourth  conjuga- 
tioQ  to  tliu  Sanskrit  aya  is  to  be  viewed  thus,  that  the  finit  a  has 
been  weakened  to  i,  and  has  then  combined  with  the  y  dis- 
solved to  i,  which  follows,  into  /,  luid  tliia  £  before  a  vowel  fol- 
low ing-aound  ia  again  subjected  to  abbreviation.  The  6nala  of 
fni  eit/a  has  been  lost  op  preserved  under  the  same  circum- 
stances as  those  under  which  the  syllable  ^  ya  of  the  fourth 
class ;  p.  J.  io  cnpio  i  is  retained  or  lost  (compare  §.  MO,).  Thtu 
ttie  io,  ivnt,  of  audio,  nudiunt,  correspond  witli  the  Sanskrit 
fiyfi-ttH,  aya-nli;  r.y.  in  ckSr-tiyA-mr,  "  I  steal"  (compare 
fuTo,  accoi'din^  to  §.  H.),  ch6T-nya-^iii  the  iSa,  iAa,  otattdtit, 
midi&a,  with  the  Sanskrit  w^  nyi's  in  dtth-ay^,  "  thou 
nuiyest  stent";  on  the  other  liaiid,  the  it.  It,  ^ua.  His,  of 
audis,  avdit,  audtmus.aud^is,  answer  to  the  aifa-si,aya-ti,  ayA~ 
-mas,  nyaAha,  of  ch4r-<tya-si,  S:c.  [q  *Sclavomc,  Dobrowsky'a 
third  conjug^atiou  is  to  be  referred  to  this  place,  which, 
in  the  jircsent,  contrails  yil  (from  yo-m,  §.  25i'.  g.),  ya-fy, 
with  tlie  Sanskrit  ayii-mi,  at/a-nli,  and  Latin  to,  hi-ni.  but 
in  the  otiier  persons  has  preserved  only  the  semi-vowel  of 
the  Sanskfitri^u,  resolved  to^.  Exelusivoof  the  special  tenses, 
these  verba  separate  into  two  ciaases  (E  and  F,  according 
to  Dohrowsky),  since  llie  Sanskj-it  W^  oy.f  shews  itself 
cither  in  tlie  form  of  *  yp,  or  as  i.  Tho  former,  according 
to  §.  255.  r,  correspouds  exactly  with   the   Prakfit  sA  and 


•  Cr.  J.74I.  p.«a- 

t  TbsfinalaofwVayaniDainBonljr  in  tbc  special  teosM  ($.  I09.*0j 


* 

i 


^ 


DIVISION  OF  CONJUGATIONS.  ?0d 

theroforo  nith  the  Latin  ^of  the  secoiu)  conju^tion,  nnd  vith 
the  Gothic  ah  Old  High  German  f.  of  the  third  weak  con- 
ju^tion  (p.  lao,  pfisaim):  c.j.  bha*tii  vid-tfe-ti.  "to  «cc,"" 
ftDswcriiig  to  tiiu  Prakrit  v^d-^-lua  (lid-i-  1.0.  Bd.  p.  730.] 
-mi).  Latin  vkl-^-re.  Snnskrit  tnl-nif-i-tum  (vSd-ayd-mi),  Ou 
the  other  hand.  bM-i-tt,  "  to  waken,"  in  annlogy  witli  b^-i-xki, 
"  thou  wnkenest,"  &C. 

506.  la  Lithuanian  wc  rocogmw!  the  Sanski-it  tenth 
class,  and  tlierefore  tlio  Geniiiui  weak  conju^tion,  iti 
Mielke'flt  tecond  and  third  conjugation.  The  se«ond,  with 
regard  to  the  present,  distributes  ttaclf  into  two  classes,  of 
which  the  one.  and  the  more  numcroiis,  has  preserved 
only  one  a  of  the  character  opa — probably  the  latter, — and 
hence  appears  identical  with  the  first,  which  corresponds 
to  Uie  Sanskrit  first  or  sixth  eiass ;  e,  g.  tlrn-a-me,  "  we 
groan,"  s(e^n-n-f^,  "  ye  groan  "^Sanskrit  s/on-oyd-wos.J 
tUtn-ayn-thOy  as  wi-n-mA  vt£-a-ie=iKih-A-mas,  vah-a-tha. 
The  other,  and  less  numerous  class,  has,  like  Dobrowsky's 
third  cuiijngatiou,  au  i  iu  the  present,  as  a  reuinnnt  ufthe 
Siinskrit  it^i,  e.g.  mifl-i-me.  "  we  love."  In  tlic  preterite 
both  classes  have  tyo  throughout  the  dual  and  plural; 
thus,  e.  y.  second  person  pluroJ.  steti-fitfo-te.  myl-^^te,  nn- 
Bwering  to  the  Sanskrit  astnn-aya-ta.  The  singular  has, 
in  the  first  person,  ^>iu,  from  i^i-m  (^  139.);  souond 
person,  ^i  from  t^/n-ci;  third  person,  fifo,  without  an  ex- 
pression for  the  person.  Thus  wu  sec  here  the  class 
character  W  aya  retained  more  exactly  than  in  any  other 


*  la  Sckrooic  an4  Latin  th«  caiusl  la  question  has  th«  mvwiiog  "ta 
BBC."  uhicli  is  B  tnenns  of  making  to  know  of«  particalor  ktml,  m,  in 
SanakrU,  tha  ej-v,  as  U]q  organ  of  ^idinji;,  U  lermcil  ni-ira  uitl  nun-ana. 

t  Midko'a  4th  eonjofstioo,  too,  belongs  to  the  Swiaitrit  lOth  d,,  m* 
(.  GOS.  Not«. 

I  The  Sanskrit  verh  cxpRSMS  «  louder  gronntiig  than  the  Lithuanian, 
ruii]  signilieii "  to  thuuilt:r"i  contpsra  tourc  sn^t  Greek  ittiiw  in  the  wnss 
«f  the  roaring  of  the  waves  of  Um  sm. 


EafDfMsan  connate  Ungn^  Tht  t,*  uisweniig  to  the 
ma.  i*  [tffrhapv  prodaou)  br  the  re-^ctive  inflaeDce  of  the 
tf,  whik  in  Zerid.  that  temi-ToweL  bv  its  assimilatiTe  force. 
dian^Ai  into  /  the  folkuring  <i  soood ;  *.  j.  Jrfc-ay^m/.  ir6e- 
fly^-*Ai*r-}B-'/yi-<*,  "  I  apeak"  f^- make  to  hear")  8a^  There 
are  Mmie  verhut  in  LithuaniaD  which,  in  the  present  also, 
l<i.  Eit.p.7Zl.]  have  preserred  the  character  «i  aj^a  in 
tin!  mmt  ptrfect  foprm ;  e.g.  i-/yJ-A^,f  "  I  wander  about," 
plural  klyd-^n-m^,  preterite  singular  kli/d-fyou.  Verbs,  also, 
in  o»it,  hyn,  and  iya — plural  f/yn-me,  uun-mf,  tyn-me — fiir- 
iiikh  an  exact  counterpart  to  the  Sanskrit  tenth  class,  or  cau- 
sal form;  e.ff.  dum-<fyu,  "  I  think,"  plural  dum-oya-me,  pre- 
terite dum-trynti ;  tcnzityu,  "  I  drive,"  plaral  veai-hyn-me^ 
the  Sanskrit  causal  vflh-tiyi-man.  Verbs  in  iyu  are,  as  it 
appears,  all  denominatives;*  e.y.  ddicndii/u,  "l  bring  into 
order,"  from  d^iaddax,  "order."  Mielke's  third  conju- 
^ition,  like  the  preponderating  class  of  the  second  conju- 
gation, has,  in  tlie  present,  preserved  only  the  last  vowel 
of  the  character  vq  aya,  and  that  in  the  form  of  an  o, 
with  the  exception  of  the  first  and  second  person  singular, 
ill  which  the  old  n  remains.  Compare  penu,  "  I  nourish," 
of  the  second  conjugation-,  with  laikau  {laik-O'u),  "  I  stop," 
of  thu  third. 


*  Thu  LilhuoDiiin  grammarians  do  not  write  the  e  with  a  ciicoinflax, 
liut  witli  n  illfrvnnt  murk  to  denote  the  Icngtli  of  cjuAotity. 

t  [.ittiuitnUny  =  (;  and  thns  from  the  root  of  this  verb  cornea  the  sob- 
tttaulivd  kluid&Htu,  "falubrliever,"  with  Vriddhi  (j.2G.),  forLithaanian 
ai  ss.  Ai,  llut  i  lietng  alightly  pronouneed ;  su  baim/^, "  fear,"  answerinf^  to  the 
HuHNkfit  niotMf,  "  tofi'ar,"  whence  bhSma,  "fearful,"  and  hence  thederi- 
vnllvo  bhiiiniii.  'Hu)  dcrivalivo  suffix  &na,  in  klai'dHaa-i,  coirespoDda  to 
tltii  Kiuwkrit  iniildlo  |iArtii-iii]u]  suffix  lina  (compare  §.  256.  h.). 

t  Miflkn  refum  vvrbs  iu  )';/»,  o(/u,  Hffu,  and  it/u,  to  his  first  coujogation, 
wlui-ti  in  alltifivthtir  cum|K)Md  uf  very  hot«rogen«oaa  pnrts. 


BITISION  OF  CONJCOATIONS. 


^5 


iiinoi;r.«it. 

UITAL. 

^ien-il.     loik~rt-u. 

pen-O'VXi.      laH-o-KV, 

psn-)       bilk-a-i. 

pen-<i-ia,      loik-o-la. 

pen-n,     laik-o. 

pin-a,            laik-o 

PLiriur.. 
pm-n-^me,      laik-o-mn, 
pdn-a-te,       lait-o-te,  ./ 

}^n-a,  laik-o.  ^^.^ 

In  the  two  plural  numbers,  and  in  tlie  tliird  [O.  Ed.  p.  732.] 
[iirrson  singuliir  of  the  preterite,  luikttu  has  lost  Uie  syllable 
yit  of  tilt"  **y",  wliit-'li.  in  the  wcond  conjugation,  t-orre'SjtoiKls 
to  the  SiiQ8k|-it  (fyn.  oud,  in  the  first  and  second  pvrsnii 
ainjjular,  it  Iwis  lost  the  ^:  it  uses  um  Tor  A/wu,  nnd 
iri  for  fuel.  Hence  wo  See  clearly  enoujjh  that  this  con- 
jugation, though  more  corrupted,  Ukewise  belongs  to  the 
Sanskrit  ttnth  class.     Compare — 

pen-^m-i*j     laik-ia-u,  pfn-^o-wa.     taik-f-KO, 

pen-iH/e-i,      hlk-ie-i.  pen-hfo-Ut,        f.iik-f-tn. 

ften-ivn,        Utik-l,  pen-^o,  laik-*\ 

FLVSAL. 

pen-tvo-me,     t<iik-t-me, 
pen-tyo-iift      taikS-ie, 
ptn-fuo,  htik-i. 

It  has  been  already  observetl  with  regard  to  the  Sanskrit 
tenth  cbas,  that  its  characteristic  W  nya  is  not  restricted 
to  the  fli»cciHl  tL'uses  {%,  109".  6.).  but  that,  with  few  excep- 
tions, it  extends  to  all  the  other  forniations  of  tlie  root, 
only  laying  aside  the  final  a  of  a  if  a.  Thus,  in  Lithuanian, 
a  part  of  the  corresponding  ^<i,  iyo,  Sue,  is  transferred  to 
thti  gcueral  tenses  and  the  other  funnations  of  the  word. 
Of  hio,  the  '1  rcniaius;  of  iifo,  i;  and  of  oyn,  uua,  6:  the 
third  tx>njui;ation,  however,  usca  y  (=»)i"  '•!/•  future  pm- 
-i-m,  Ja-wad-i-ath  icid-6-su,  taik-y-tu. 


704 


VBRBS. 


BuropeaD  cognate  languagp-  The  P,*  aiawering'  to  tbo 
ma,  i»  perhaps  produc-ed  by  the  re-active  iiiBueoce  of  thu 
y,  while  in  Zend,  that  Bcmi-vowel,  by  its  asstmihitive  force, 
chuiges  jnto^tlic  following  a  sound;  e.tf.  irAv-^tyf-mi,  irdv- 
ay^lu,  iriio^it/ii'li,  "  I  speak  "  ("  make  to  hear  ")  &c.  There 
nre  aome  verbs  in  LithuaiiiAD  which,  in  the  present  also. 
fG.  E(J.  p.  731.]  have  preserved  the  chanurter  wi  ai/a  in 
the  most  perfect  form;  e.ij.  khjd~Pi/ti.\  •• !  wauder  about." 
ptiiral  k-lyd-^fi-me,  preterite  singular  k-li/d-fmu.  Verbs,  also, 
ill  ot/n,  iimi,  !ind  iya — plural  r>ya-me,  uvu-mr,  h/a-me — fur- 
nish an  exact  couutcrpiirt  to  the  Sanskrit  tenth  class,  or  cau- 
sal formi  P.I/.  <lum-'iyii.  "  I  think,"  plural  dutn-atfi-me,  pre- 
terite dum-iiunu ;  ivuzityu,  "  I  drive."  plural  wnd~vt/tt-me= 
the  Sanskrit  causal  viih-tiyii-moM.  Verbs  in  ii/u  are.  as  it 
appears,  all  denominatives  ;1  p.  j^,  dtiwndiyu.  "I  bring  into 
order,"  from  rfntrtft/'w,  "  order.""  Mielke's  third  conju- 
gation, lifco  the  preponderating  class  of  the  second  eoiiju- 
gation.  lias,  in  tlie  present,  preserved  only  the  last  vowel 
of  the  character  wn  uya,  and  that  in  the  form  of  on  o. 
with  the  exception  of  the  first  and  second  person  singular. 
in  which  tlie  old  a  remains.  Compare  pen^,  "  I  nouriab." 
of  the  second  coujugatio»,  with  laikau  (luik-a-u),  "X  stop," 
of  the  third* 


*  The  Liihiunliui  (^miiiAriiuw  da  tuA  writo  tliR  e  wttli  «  circumBnc, 
bat  witli  »  difl«rtTDt  mark  (o  denote  the  length  of  (jUAnliiy. 

f  r.it1miiniany  =  i;  and  tliiu&oiDtlio  root  of  cbis  verb  M)mi.-i  the  sab- 
Msntive  kiaid&na*,  "  falw  believer,"  with  Vri-idhl  ( •) .  2i!.),  for  LitljoanUn 
of =<U,  tlu  i  bein;; Bli^hily frotioanoed ;  sttbaimf,  "fear,"  luiBworing  t«  Uw 
Siuuikrtt  root  AAI,  "  tofcAr,"  wliciio!  hklma,  "  fearful."  aixl  heoce  the  d«ti- 
Tfttire  Miiiiiria.  The  dfriraiivo  enffix  iitui,  in  dttti-itritut-ii,  corre«puD*U  tv 
ihe  tMBskrit  middle  parlicipiul  suffix  4na  (cmaptet  $.  3I>5.  A.}. 

I  ilielke  rcfcn  rcrL<«  in  fi)H,  o^u,  Bt/u,  and  ii/u,  lo  liu  lint  (»ujaK>iliiui, 
wliich  ia  ellogotlici-  coinixMcd  of  very  hci«rofreneoQspnrt«. 


DIVISION  OP  CONJUGATIONS. 


TO5 


■ikovlab. 

DVAL. 

pen'&,     laik-u-u. 

peii-a-iw/,      laik-n-wa. 

p«n-i      Inik-a-i, 

prn-a-tut       Inik-o-tu. 

|Mn-fr,     laik-0. 

peii'ti,           laik'd 

PLCHAL. 

pMi-a-jnr,      taik-o-me, 

p^n-a-h,       faik-O'fe, 

pev-n,  liitk-o.  '•^— -' 

111  the  two  plural  numbers,  am!  in  tlie  third  [O,  Ed.  p. 733.] 
person  singular  of  tlie  prnterile, /rt(7fli/  hns  lost  tlie  syllublo 
wi  of  the  ("jfo,  wliicli,  in  the  second  conjugation,  tK>rresi)oniiig 
to  the  Sauskrit  aya,  ttiid,  io  the  first  und  second  [jcrBoii 
singular,  it  liaa  lost  the  f;  it  uses  inu  for  A/'^»,  unci 
iei  for  ^ei.  Hfnce  we  see  clear)/  enough  that  this  con- 
jugation, though  more  corrupted,  likewise  belongs  to  Ui© 
Sanskrit  t«ath  class.     Cnni|>are — 

st^ol;l'AH.  nuAt. 

■ptn-hfii-ii.     lnik-ia-\t,  ppn-fii^n~wa,      iaik-fi-wa. 


ppv-fyo'i, 
pfn-iva, 


laik-ie-i. 
laik-i. 


pcn-Pyo-ta, 


Uiik-^la, 


I'LL- HAL. 

pen-fly  i)-tne,    lark-$-mf, 
penSi/i^le,      /otk-^c, 
pm-4uo,  luik-^. 

It  has  been  already  observed  with  regard  to  the  Sanskfit 
tenEh  cl(i39.  that  its  charnctcriBtic  wi  mja  is  not  restricted 
to  the  special  lenses  (§.  !0D".  (i.).  hut  that,  with  few  excci>- 
tioiis.  it  extends  to  all  the  other  formations  of  the  root, 
only  lay  tug  aside  the  final  »  of  aya.  Thus,  io  Lithuanian, 
a  part  of  the  corresponding  f'f/n,  iyo.  &c.,  is  transferred  to 
tlie  general  tcnaca  and  the  other  formations  of  the  word. 
Of  ^0.  the  ^  remains:  of  *yo.  »;  and  of  ova,  uwi.  6:  fJie 
third  coujugation,  hoivever,  uses  y  (=i);  e-g.  future  j»efi- 
-4~9U,  da-wad-i'iu,  wai-6-iia,  laik-y-»u. 


-jno 


VKBBS. 


FORMATION  OF  THE  TENSES. 

[0.  Ed.  p.  733.]  PBE8B!fT. 

607.  The  Present  requires  no  formal  desi^atioo.  but 
U  sufficiently  pointed  out  by  tlii^.  tbat  no  other  relation 


TTu/oUombiff  Note  formed  the.  Prrfaet  to  the  Fourih  Fart  of  the  Gtrmtm 
EtStian,  and,  Muff  too  important  to  be  omltteit,  U  wrrleti  in  the  jnzmt 
fotmi,  wi  ordtT  ta  avoid  an  itUerrwptien  tfth*  tfxt. 

Tins  Part  cnRtninfi  a  aectinn  of  the  Comparative  G-rnmnnr,  tlM  taoa 
iniporlBQt  i"ur<!«maiitil  priiicijile*  of  which  were  published  twentjr- 
nixycareagn  in  my  Ccnjugatian  System  of  the  Sanskrit,  Gr«ek,  Laitn, 
PcTtioD,  nnd  Gcrtnun,  unii  hnvc,  ainco  tlien,  linen  almost  rmiTcntnUy  ac- 
1cn'>wli;i!tg<<'il  tu  juii.  No  otii?,  perhaps,  now  daabts  aoy  longor  rcgudinx 
the  original  iMcntity  of  dio  aliovi-mentiontil  Itmi^nf^  with  which,  in  the 
pKsentwork,  arosaaoeistcd  also  the  Lithoitniaii  ami  Si'Uronie;  while, 
Hince  the  apin>-nr«inic  of  tho  Tliiivl  I'drl,  I  hnw  Jevoied  a  A' stinct  Treatise 
to  the  Ccltit  Utigungc,*  anil  hare  CDdeBvoiurd,  in  A  Work  which  baa  re- 
cently itppeAred,  to  prove  nn  original  nUtiooship  between  the  MaUy-Piv 
lynesian  idionm,  also,  and  the  Sanskrit  stem.  But  even  so  early  n  in 
my  System  of  Canjn^tlon,  the  establishment  of  a  conn(!i;t!on  of  lonjcnaees 
won  iiut  so  mnch  a  jjiml  ubjuct  with  mc,  as  the  miHUU  of  pvut-trotiiifE 
into  the  awrrtsof  linj^ual  development,  since  lanc^nf^  which  were  origi- 
Tially  one,  hnl  daring  ihouaands  of  years  have  been  guided  liy  their  own 
individual  destiny,  inatually  clear  up  onJ  cotnplotc  one  another,  iaasinnch. 
as  OHO  in  this  place,  another  in  tbiLt,  hoa  prvecrved  the  oHgino)  oigantn- 
tion  in  n  inure  heoltby  and  sound  condittim.  A  pHncipiLl  rcimlt  of  th« 
imqalry  instituted  in  my  Conjugation  System  woo  the  foUowlag: — that 
many  gmmmatieal  fomu,  In  the  sysictn  of  canjngntion,  on  eirplnhMd  hj 
aniiliaiy  vcrlia,  which  are  siipimicd  to  Itavy  attached  tlienualvM  to 
tlicm.  and  which,  in  some  measure,  g{ro  to  ihc  Individual  lailf;Tl^fii 
a  peculiar  appwroocc,  and  seem  to  eoo&rm  the  idea,  lliat  new  gram- 
matlciil  fnrmii  were  developed,  in  the  Ulvr  pcrio'ls  of  the  historj 
i>f  Uiigunge^,  from   oenly-created  matter;  while,  on  clmcr  inspection, 


*In  ttuTTaniaellonsaribcFlill.  IIIaUriMlCLoriho  Andcmir  of  BtllM  IiMtrw 
the  jrmt  ln36.     The  iqMrita  Editioo  ot  mj  Truiiie  ii  out  orprini,  %nA  ■  no< 
•i[I  bcstntfk  offhcRtdfr.  inKnipUti  Uili  Co(n|Mnti<r«  UniniMr. 


i 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES. 


701 


of  lime,    past   or    future,    has    a    sonant    rvprracnbitive. 
Hence,  in  Sanskj-it  f^nd  its  cognalc  languages,  Uiere  occura, 


vt  find  nothing  in  their  pMMtrfao  but  wlmt  they  had  frotn  dio 
tint,  thouf^  At  titn»4  ll>  Appltattim  la  new,  Thoa  the  I^tin.inuim- 
portion  with  tlic  Oraok,  which  ia  to  cloocly  oUinl  to  it,  shcwa,  in  the 
fnraia  of  ita  tciuca  and  mooila  in  (•am,  fv,  vi,  rem,  an'l  rim,  an  uiK-ct  which 
in  coinploU'l/  sinuigr.  TIk-w;  innninntfons,  however,  na  haa  been  long 
sIhm  ahcwn,  arc  nothia;!;  ebe  than  the  primitive  mois  of  the  vtrb  "  la  be," 
GOmmoo  to  oU  the  members  of  the  ln<lo-Europ«nii  family  of  liui|tiiAK<^!'> 
and  of  wiiich  one  haa  for  iu  radionl  vonBonant  d  lal>ial,  the  otliar  a  dbiJant 
which  is  eaaily  convened  Into  r;  it  ia,  thoreftire,  not  (uqirrning,  tlmt  Utm 
prawniA  a  gnat  r«aeiiiblaiic«  to  tha  Eittulirit  nlihavam  nml  I.ithuaninn 
trnvai,  "I  waa"  {B09<i.Sii.);  while  forma  like  amaA(i,tbron(;h  their  fin&l 
portion,  auuid  in  nmarkDliU'  ngreement  vriih  ilie  Anglo-Saxon  lw>,  and 
CnrnioUii  bcrii,  "  [  eboU  hv"  (flco  §.W'i.,  &c,),  iinil  liordur  on  the  Irish 
dLatcet  of  tbo  Cel^c  in  this  respect,  that  h^e  alto  tho  Inbia!  root  of  **tO 
Iw'*  fgrm*  an  clementsry  part  of  verbs  iraplying  fuiuriiy  (ki^  ^.iSft.). 

In  the  Tiiitin  snbjiuiotivcH,  as  amem,  amia,  nod  futures,  as  Itgam,  ffgf*, 
I  havA  already,  thnngh  th^  miMliam  of  the  SflnslcTil,  p«rc«iv«it  nn  nnali^f^ 
with  the  Oreelc  optatives  nut]  Utrman  BubjuDcUveo.  aod  tli«igiiAted,  aa  ex- 
ponent of  the  relation  of  mood  or  time,  an  auxillitry  verb,  ivhtch  signifies 
"to  wish,"  "to  will,"  and  the  rotil  of  whi<h  is,ia  Sana kii i,  f,  which  hero, 
aa  in  Latin  and  Old  High  German,  ii  contracted  with  a  preceding  ti  to  d, 
but  in  (!rcek,  with  tho  u  which  b  cormptcd  to  □,  fonns  th«  c^ihtJiaiig  oi. 
Thug  we  miMl  with  the  Sanshnt  ftkarSn,  tho  Old  Hi^h  Oraman  bfrfr,  tho 
LaUii/erfji,  (ho  Gothic  fuiirai*.  thr  /^'nd  bar/ru,  and  tlic  Greek  ■^t'/>o<r,  as 
forma  rndtcally  and  iiiHcxionnUy  coimcclcti,  which  excite  real  surprtHc;  by 
tlio  wonderful  fidelity  with  wliich  the  original  type  haa  Iwen  prvswrred  in 
w>  many  langnngM  which  have  been,  from  timeinvnieniorinl,  dintinetfrom 
QUO  anoihcr.  On  tho  whole,  the  mood,  which,  in  $^^. 07^.713.,  1  haro 
largely  discaseed,  may  Ire  rcj|;ardi;d  aa  one  of  the  lualious  pvintt  of  llic  com- 
mon g^mraar  of  the  members  nf  the  Indo- European  Inngujifjes.  All  the 
idiomi  of  this  j^ionL  &mily  of  tiuiKiugca,  as  far  as  tJiey  nn;  collot^cd  Iu  tliis 
hoolt,  share  thcT«in  nnd«r  diSTcrvnt  wtinvg,  Id  Sclavonic,  Lithaauian,  Let- 
tish, and  Old  Praasian.  it  ia  tlm  iniperative  In  whicli  we  rc-discovor  tho 
mood  called,  in  Sonalqii  gnunmar,  tlic  poli-iitial  and  prvuilivu ;  and  it  ia 
tan*t  remorkntilo  how  cloocly  lite  Caroivlun,  u  spoken  at  Hm  di^,  ap- 
pruxiinates,  iu  this  point,  to  the  SonKkrit,  which  has  so  Umg  been  a  dead 


708 


VKBBS. 


in  the  present,  only  the  combination  of  the  personal  tennina- 
tions,  and,  indeed,  of  the  primary  ones,  with  the  root,  or. 


Inngungo.  In  order  to  set  (bi»  in  a  cicnr  poi  at  of  vie  w,  I  hare,  at  §.  7 1 1 . 
(last  csanip.lr),  contrasted  two  verls  of  cbe  eaaui  tiignilication  in  the  two 
laDgDogeA,  anil  in  ihetn  nritt^n  Uw  SoDskrit  dipIitEiong  S  from  ai  accord- 
ing to  iia  (;iyini>lQi'ical  value. 

Wlicre  (!i  fforwuces  exist  in  tlie  langnagea  hcrt  di»cti«»«i,  (Iwj  fW^entlj 
rt«l  on  aniri-rsiil  eii[fhoaic  lau's,  mad  theMfore  ccaso  to  bo  difFi-rcncf*. 
Thus,  in  tlio  panidipii  just  mentimieil,  tlie  CitmioliUi  hu  last,  in  the  tbres 
ytnoaa  HOgulnr  of  the  imperative,  ilw  perton&l  tormination,  nhile  the 
daal  and  plural  stand  in  th«  tn9St  perfect  uxarknce  witb  tlus  SamkriL 
TliB  alilircviatlon  in  the  Ringnlnr.  however,  ifjits  on  tlic  eupliooic  law 
which  luui  coiniwUcd  the  Scliivonii;  lHii)fUAKc«,  al  koat  in  polyqrUabie 
words,  to  drop  nil  original  Einal  civnsonante  (nco  L  *i&5.  /.).  Aoeording;  to 
Ihia  principle,  in  Cnroiolnn,  rfiy  (=-rf/fi),  llirio)  repeat^-J,  corn^Knula  lo 
tlie  l^tin  detn,  dit,  dtrt  (from  d<uJh,  dtm,  daii),  wliik-  in  tlic  pracnt  <Um  m 
won  full  than  do,  and  </J«fc  oe  full  im  -la;  boi-aa*n,  that  is  to  uv,  in  tlie 
present  ilio  pn»ttoininnl  consoniints  oHginall;  had  an  i  aner  thoin.* 

The  nerinan  laugtuif,-«s  lutve  renonuccd  the  associauon  of  ili«  roots  of 
tliD  verb  "to  bv."  They  are  wanting  iu  fotam  like  tht?  Soatlcrit  dd- 
ty'imi,  Gi«ek  Au-itw,  and  I.ithnanian  dk-su,  and  al«o  in  those  witJi  the 
labial  root  of  "lobe."  which  furnish  the  Latin  tfoAo,  and  Irish  futures  Uka 
meal/a-mar,  "we  will  deceive,"  and  Lubuiuiiun  sabjonctiroa  na  ■J&fuira- 
•bime,darenttu{aee'j.CS&.}.  German  is  wanting.  Inn,  inpr«terit«s  like  the 
Sanskrit  aiUk-ffiam,  Orwrlc  fSfn-oo.  and  Lathi  dic-ri  [tew  j.  555.) ;  to  which 
belont;  the  Sclavonic  tenac^s  like  da-t/i,  "  I  gavu,"  daehom,  "  wc  gavr,"  the 
gottural  of  which  w«  Lave  dtu-Ivcd  from  a  eibilant.f  On  the  otlicr  hand, 
the  German  Idioms,  by  annexing  an  aoxillarjr  verb  st^ifying  "to  do," 
bnvcgaincd  thoopp^nroncvof  ancwInflL-dun.  f  n  thifl  sense  I  have  already* 
in  roy  System  of  Conjnj;^tion,  taken  tho  Gothic  )>luittlB  like  tdX'i^Aium 
and  laabjuDctivea  at  takiilfxlyau  ("  1  would  da  wxV") ;  and  subseqaeutly, 
in  agiecmciit  with  J.  Grimin,  I  have  extended  the  auxiliary  verli  just 
mentioned  also  tu  the  aioKular  indicative  fikida,  and  onr  forma  like 
suohu.  [S«e  ^^.  G3I>.  Jcc]  I  think,  too,  I  have  discovered  the  same  auxiliary 
in  thu  ScloronJc  future  hiidA,   '•  I  will  be"  ("  I  do  be"),:  and  in  tbo 


I 


*  Ssnskrii  itaiimi.  dwtan.  JadtUi.  «n  wUdi  Uw  tkmioUD  dam  (for  d»dn).  44-dk, 
(fil.  u  iaari.  ics  p.  ti73. 
t  !iM  f  ■  US.  m..  tu. 


FOBMA.TION  OF  TBNSBS. 


709 


instead  of  the  root,  such  an   extcDsion  of  it,  ai,  id  t)ie 
sjiecial   tenses,  falls  to  tlie  class  of  conjugation,  to  which 


imfwrAtive  hidi  (properly  "do  bo");  moreoTer,  ia  Wt),  "  I  go" 
{"doga,"»ec  $.<r33.);  nnd  liiuill.v.  in  the  Gr«ek  pnteivc  ooriaU  ta  Aj* 
(see  j- 630.);  for  the  ntixiliiiry  verb  to  which  our  tftun  answers,  wbicli 
hM  l>orn  ,lrciil«(]  of  minutely  at  5.428.  &c.,  signifies,  both  in  S«naVril 
and  Zend,  "to  place,"  and  '"to  ihaVc";  and  the  Old  ir>nx.tM  dcda,  "I 
did,"  rcMmblcs  aui'iirtunf;]/  Ih*  Zond  reilDplicJilcd  proterite  eladAn  (see 
^.039.).  [t  is,  however.  rciiiJitLiiLle,  that  Ihoso  SnnskfirdnNK-Hcif  vitrlia, 
to  which,  OS  I  think,  I  liavc  [proved  onrwcok  conjugation  oa^wcr?,  (Jwaj-s 
paraplinuo  that  preterite  wiiich  is  tiM  fbundatioD  oTotir  CicniLon  touw 
(the  reduplicated  or  pcrfcirl),  cither  hy  lui  auxiliary  verli  signifying  "  ti> 
do,"  "to  male,"  or  liy  a  vrrh  «ubsl»ntirr.  Ilt-rf,  tliertfore,  aa  in  ao 
naoj  oilur  ihin^  the  apjiArMitly  pc«uUur  dirwrliun  whicli  tho  (IcrniAn 
languagm  have  taken,  n-ae  io  n  great  mcosaro  pointed  out  to  tlietn  by 
tlicir  old  Asiatic  iist<T, 

I  c«iuicit,  liowcvxif,  cxpreM  myself  wilh  nifficleitt  Btr*>nKth  in  ^nrdinjf 
Bgi^niii  tlio  misapprelMnsion  of  Eiippotin;;  llini  I  wiiiii  to  aceord  to  the 
Sotiiikril  anivcrsally  the  dislinction  of  having  prcKrved  iiHoriKinid  vhamc- 
ter :  I  have,  on  the  tontrary,  ollen  noticeil,  in  the  earlier  jiOrtioDa  of  thit 
vork,  and  also  in  my  System  of  C-anjn^alion,  and  in  tho  Anoali  of  (.>rim- 
tal  Lttttraiure  for  the  year  IS2Q,  that  the  Ssmkrit  hiu.  In  many  poinia, 
cxpcrifoccd  alteration!!  nhere  one  or  otliur  of  tho  Euro^H'on  tintcr  idionia 
haH  mnre  truly  tranamittcd  la  us  the  orii^iul  form.  Ttmn  it  it  undoubt- 
edly in  aieordaocc  wiih  a  true  letcntion  of  th>>  uriiftnal  rniidition  oftlu 
lanRuaKu  ttiat  Iho  Lilhuaiiinn  dititfaa,  "  (iod,"  and  all  similnr  furnia,  kcrp 
their  nominative  sign  >  bi-fore  all  followin)!;  initial  Uttcn.,  while  the  Sanskrit 
tUvas,  which  anawcn  lothcalMiven]eiilioiied<iirrn>(U,  lieuomet  eidiBrf/^viA, 
or  dUcA,  or  difmi,  uceordiiig  to  tlie  initial  »iund  which  follows,  or  n  piitisc ; 
(U)d  tbia  phenninenon  occur*  in  all  otlicr  f<nrm*  in  om,  ThR  modem  I.ithu- 
aiiiiui  ia,  moreover,  iiiorti  primilivo  and  perfect  than  the  Sanskrit  in  thig 
point  aidt},  that  in  tte  e»M,  "  tliDU  mi,"  It  luui,  in  oointooit  with  the  Porio 
•><ri,  preserved  tlic  nccesuuiry  donhlu*,  of  which  one  belongs  to  the  root,  tlio 
otherlo  the  penwiud  teniilnntion,  while  Uw^'anakril  (ui  baa  loat  oneialaa 
in  ihia  point,  Ihnt  tho  forma  rjme  "  we  an^"  ftlr,  "yc  •»;,"  in  couiinon 
with  thuGr«cJc<V^<V,  irtTt,liaverc(ahied  the  rndicnlvowfl,  which  luu been 
dfappEsI  in  tlin  Sjuinkrit  «nii)Aii(A(U  (scc^.  46>1.).  The  I Jiti n  enjnf  and  hu/, 
of  amobant,  &c.,  suriioBs  tile  Sanskrit  daatt  and  uAAanin,  "  they  wcTt,"  aa 
alao  the  Urcek  f^-Rv  uid  f^vop,  \>f  retaiaing  the  t.  wtueh  belooga  to  the 


7J0 


7BBBS. 


the  root  belongs  (§.  109*.  493,  &c.).    Compare,  for  the  first 
coDJugatiou  (§.  ■193.),  Uie  Sauskrit  mp^  talnlmi,  "  I  UriTe^" 


llilrd  p«noo ;  tmH/erau  and  tbc  Zcod  baran*  are  in  advaDM  of  the  Saa- 
■krit  iharoji  and  Greek  i^pw,  \>y  tbcir  kwinng  the  nominatiro  sign:  as 
also  the  LiUiaaolAa  imant  (lecinTr),  in  rommon  vith  tlic  Zmd  vtixana  aad 
LaUh  velienM,  put  tu  alunnti,  iu  thin  tf«peut,  Um  Sonalffit  nuAon.     It  is,  is 
bet,  icmfu-kftlitii  dmt  aercinl  luiiiruap-o,  nliicb  nrc  nUl  qioken,  reUiD 
lier«  And  tlvcrc  tiio  formi  of  llic  [irimUivc  wnvld  of  langiUgMt  wtuoh  octC' 
rd  of  llivir  oilier  sist«r<linTclci»t  ctmiuuidftof  jreanago.    Tbe  soperkirity 
of  tlio  Comiolon  dam  to  the  Latin  do  has  'been  mentioned  lM.-foiv ;  Ihji  all 
otb«r  Camiolan  veiLsIiave  tlieeiuuvBuiwriuril}'  uvcroU  other  Latin  rvrba, 
viih  the  «xcepUoD  of  ntm  and  iuqaam,  iia  oko  am  lh«  Girch  vbtIis;  m 
tlu)  ClUiiioljul,  lUid,  LU  coinmoD  with  il.  iho  Irish,  have  in  all  fomia  of  the 
present  prueerred  the  eliief  tlement  of  Uio  original  temiiiution  mJ.    It  lo, 
too,  a  phenoincnoa  In  lh«  history  of  langaagee,  which  ahoulil  be  q)«clal^ 
notic«d,  Uial  among  Uic  Indian  daughters  oftlie  Sanslint,  as  In  general 
among  iia  lirini;  Aaintic  aitd  Puljncniau  Klfttions,  niit  onu  InnfcnofEC  con, 
in  respect  «f  f^ninun&iical  SAU&krit  analogies,  auuporc  with  tho  more  per- 
fL<ct  idioms  of  our  quarter  of  tlit!  ^ahc.    Tho  Ffroaii  liwt.  imJatl.  rvtoliMMl 
tbc  old  personal  tcrmtDAiInna  wiilt  tolerahlc  accuracy,  but.  in  di«dTBa> 
lagf^nnt  coniporieon  witli  tlK-  Lilhuaiiian  nixl  Csmiulau,  baa  lout  iht:  dual, 
nticl  [ircscrvoil  Bcorocun^'  tliint;  of  ilio  aocii'St  manner  of  formntton  of  the 
tcDBCsand  moods;  und  the  old  case  tcnninadonit.  wliidi  rvmnin  alnioM 
entire  in  tlio  Litliuutiiiut,  and  «f  nhicU  Uiu  Clauicnl  oud  Ccnnoa  lao- 
fpiagcs  T«tain  a  grcjii  part,  the  Celtic  winonhat,  bar*  complcrtiJy  vanished 
h)  renioD,  only  that  its  plurals  in  An  ki-ar  tlio  same  rcaemblnnce  lo  tlic 
Sanskrit  plural  accQsailvcB,  thai  the  Si^ani^  ia  (W  and  lU  do  to  the  Latin ; 
and  also  tho  dcuIot  pluraU  in  hA^  as  1  1-iUi.vc  I  )uivl-  shewn,  stand  roo- 
necte<l  with  the  old  syst^a  of  di>clenslau  (st«  ^.  2-1 1.).    And  in  the  convcl 
reli-ntion  of  individual  notda  the   Pciaian  is  often  far  belUnd  tho  Ko- 
rnpoon  listers  of  the   i^nuakrit;  for  while  in  expressing   the  nnrober 
"  ihreu"  the  Eoropson  longungto,  aa  far  as  tlisjr  Iwlong  to  tlie  Sanskrit, 
have  all  prescrrcd  both  thi;  T  sound  (oa  t,  ih,  or  dj  and  aloo  tlio  r,  the 
Persian  tik  is  farther  rvmovod  fium  (ho  anciv&t  fumi  tluin  th«  TahitM 
taru  (euphonic  for  tni).    'f  he  I'nrsiitn  eiirJuir  or  duir,  *'  four,"  nlsii,  it  in- 
ferior ta  the  Lithuanian  irturi,    Hussion  chetyrt,  Gothic ^l^,  Welch 
pedurar,  ond  cvi-Ji  to  the  e-fairn  of  JJadaganOt, 
No  one  will  diipate  the  relation  of  the  BflngiU  to  tbc  Sannkrlt ;  but  it 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES. 


Ill 


"  I  carry,"  with  the  Tcrbs  which  correspond  to  it  in  the 
cognate  idioma.  (Regarding  ex^ft  and  the  Lithiianiao  tf^^^ 
see  §.  442.  Note  *  and  *.). 


hoi  compTctdy  iiLlcreil  the  gninimatioal  sjBtrni,  luii)  tlitis,  in  ihls  respect, 
f«eml>]ca  Uu.'  Simskrit  inftniulf  \cm  titan  tiio  Enajnril}'  of  Buropeon  Ion- 
^H^«B.  And  iM  trgnniK  iliu  litxicou,  too,  tlie  BengiUi  ruieiHttlea  the  fihovi;- 
mttntioiitd  language  tor  los  llian  its  Earopran  sisters,  in  nuch  wonb,  for 
Insuinro,  as  have  gonft  thmngh  tht^  procos;  of  ferine nuil ion  in  a  laogiing« 
wliic))  hus  a«wly  ariEun  from  tin  rnino  of  on  old  ono,  and  have  not  been 
iVKlrana  fTom  die  Sonalcrit  at  a  aiinparativi-ly  recent  poriixl.  wiilioul  tliv 
dlghteet  alteration,  ur  only  with  a  triOini;  modlfiL-atiao  in  tlitir  proituiicU 
ation.  We  will  inke  as  ad  exam|jle  the  worJ  .SWiwm/w,  "«i«t(T":  tlii* 
Gcmmu  word  rcscmblea  ttie  Saiutkfii  twai^ir'  (ta  tnoiv  ihnn  Iha  Bengali 
ichM  ,-t  Bru^er,  alao,  la  oaoro  Uko  the  Sauakrit  bhritar  ttioii  the  cflvnti- 
nato  DMipiii:  lihiii;  aud  7'(M!A/wi8  Infinlwly  closer  to  tlio  Sanskrit  ilttfiilar 
than  the  fiingiUCjAf-  TlietJtrman  words  t'lticritDii  jl/ufCrr  convspond 
far  Mter  totliQ  Soualcrit  pilar  {inm  pc/ar]  and  mdtar  tbaa  tlig  BcagllU 
hapartMlmlaBdnid.  T\ii!(icrmannumenlaA^,neM,and  twun,nnmon 
dmikr  to  tbe  Sanskrit  tri,  a^fdit  (from  ahlau),  tiavan,  tlum  the  DengAlf 
tm,  at,  nay.  And  while  e'teien  boi  n.'taiued  only  the  Ittliutl  of  (lio  pt  of  ilie 
S&Dslcrit  taplan  ;  the  Bengdlt  tdt  lina  only  the  T  aotinii,  anil  hna  i]r6|>]ii:d 
entirely  the  temiiiuitionun.  Ingviicmt  it  np|>i-iuit  tluit,  in  wt\mi  regions,  Inii- 
gwtgCB,  when  llicy  have  once  hnrsc  the  old  gnunmaliraLl  cliain,  liMieii  m 
their  doTvnfalt  with  a  far  ninr*  rapiil  et«p  tliriii  unilcr  oar  milJcr  Eiirii[i«an 
ran.  Butif  the  Bengili  nnil  othwr  new  riiilian  iUioniit  tinrc  ntally  laid 
oride  their  old  f^mmuialicol  drcas,  and  pnitly  put  oil  a  new  oiui,  and  in 
their  forma  of  words  exptricnced  mutiUtion  almost  ev«rywlicT«,  in  the 
beginniiiii:,  or  in  the  ini<ldl«,  or  ai  tlie  end,  no  <m«  tJOfiJ  olijwi  if  I  &t.a(-rt 
the  Bomc  of  ths  UoliV-^'vlyacnuu  languafcea,  and  refer  tlktm  to  ihc  t!en< 


■  Tlui^ini]  DDl  rwatfi,  lilho  ttnr  theme;  the  nointnnlii« is  nuaid.  ihcaMiniliTc 
Mwnlrim.  Thlt  word,  a*  Pcii  bUo  ronjrcture*.  hu  Iom.  aRer  Ihc  wrond  (.  i  /.  whkb 
hu  beeu  iTlaiiiFd  in  Ktvnl  l£iirO|Han  Ungudc*. 

t  The  initial  i  li  ri^jcitcd,  uid  the  trcand  tarrafuA  tn  h  Tbt  Honikfir  i>  it,  ie  ll«it- 
|Ali,  TCgaiarlf  pionaunvfil  B>  />,  tai  a  likv  v,  A<  cf^snl*  the  Iriminaliud  iii,  I  lonli 
afUt  llic  I  a*  Ml  iifttcf  potnl  eoaJunctlTC  v»*«1,  and  Ibc  n  u  ■  o>rrn{>il«n  ef  r,  u  in  ihn 
ntannal  fio,  "  ibim.'*  P(«pcrly  ipoakin^  6atM  pmB[ipa«i*aSaBikniMva*r4  (ban 
MM-«lrl). 

I  In  my  opiaiua.  i  fMliipUcMlpa  oTUu  IniUal  •; Ibtrit  pa. 


712 

VERBS. 
SIK6tn.AB. 

^ 

Ti 

uHiIirr. 

MHO. 

OBBtnL         UTIH. 

oemic. 

um. 

«>LD  WU*. 

•aA-<f-Rii>' 

vaswi-mt, 

f);-6U-',        t«W-', 

ti/-«-', 

iwi.i,« 

irej-M-w.* 

voA-o-dj 

voc-o-Ai, 

fj(-«i-»,*    t)eA-i-«,' 

tJijF-i-*!* 

l(W*->,* 

«*i-#-«*i 

vaJi-a-ti, 

vas-ai-tl. 

DUAL. 

eij-i-tt,' 

'  K>r^.a-*, 

i«;-»jy. 

valt^vat,* 

....        

vyf-5»t* 

toac-a-wa. 

.  vei-9-vtu 

v^A-e-thas, 

ra:-a-tM  f 

r;(-«-n.f,' 

vi^-o-fa, 

ttwr-d-fo. 

vei-^-ta. 

vtti^-latf 

vax-a-ti. 

7;f^-fl0»/ 

.... 

t 

vei~e~la. 

vah-d-nuu,''  vax-d-maFii,' 
vith-a-Oia,    vus-a-ffM, 
vah-a-nti,^"  vat-r^-nli. 


PLUBAI,. 
f;t-ri-fuc,  vcfi-i-Miua,'  vitf-a-m,   wed-^-ntt,  ivf-o-mr. 

r^-ci-vrj,    iwA-u-7if,      t'iij~a.7ui,       .   ,  .'       Pf^-u-ftiyJ* 


slcrit  family,  bocnnte  I  have  foaiul  in  them  a  per\'ading  mlBtiotisblp  in 
nurocrols  und  pronoaus,  anil,  iitonwver,  iti  n  considiiralile  numlier  of  otlutr 
Wimiiiun  words.* 

I'hilobi-y  would  ill  iiorform  iu  affiee  If  It  oceordAd  nn  original  Identity 
onl^  to  those  idiomB  in  which  the  niutnol  iioini»  of  rowmbloncc  nppcar 
vTcrytrhcro  paljtablo  oad  atrlkin^,  na,  for  tnatancr,  between  llic  San^rit 
ttadiimi,  th«  Gmck  iiSvfii,  LilliiKUkiiui  d&mi,  nnd  Old  Scluvouic  dmati. 
Most  EuroptNUi  Inngiisgi'S,  in  foot,  do  nut  nt'i'd  pnxvf  uf  ilwir  relsllonslilB 
to  llie  Siinsikrii ;  fur  tlicy  thcmsclvts  aliew  It  \iy  their  farinB.  whioh.  In 
piirt,   are   but    very  little    chonged.      But    that    whitb    nraxtncl    for 
])hll>ilogy  ui  ilo,  nnd  which  I  luve  endpavoured  to  the  ulmoit  of  my 
Ability  lo  L-fTcct,  whs  to  trocv,  nn  one  tmnd,  the  re-ni^inhlanccB  Into  lite  most 
retired  corner  of  llic  caiiBtructii]!]  of  liin^ui^:(),  «ntl,  on  llie  otiicr  luiiid,  as 
for  At  poMthlc,  tA  refer  (lie  (^rent'^r  or  less  discrcjiAncics  to  lain  Ihnnigh 
which  limy  bocanio  possible  or  nocca&nry.    It  ii,  Itowirrvi',  uf  it«<.dr  eviilcal, 
that  lliL-rc  may  vxhi  InDgiiogcs  which,  in  the  intcrrat  of  tbousaads  of 
yutn  in  whidi  thi^y  hurc  Imcn  acpantud  frotn  the  sources  vhriioe  lh«y 
arose,  havo,  inngrcnt  mcMarf.  &o  altered  the  famiB  of  worJs,  that  It  is  nu 
longer  practiciiblii  to  refer  thcin  ta  the  metiicr  dialect,  if  it  be  bLiU  cxutinx 
fUul  Icnowu.     Such  Innp^agefl  may  Im  rr^rd«d  as  indi>|Mfndeii[,  and  tlio 
people  who  speak  them  mny  be  coiiniderud  AutocUthonps.     lint  where,  iii 
two  languHRCs,  or  Cunllies  of  laQgungen,  resemblancea,  which  are  i^rfectly 


*  Srviiiy  I'mnphlirt "  I  hi  lliv  C<rD<»cliDn  of  Ih*  MaUf -PolfoniiD  Linfuogrt  utilhllwi 
lnilo-Bur«|ic)iii  -,  41  4U0  a\j  «WD  notice  of  the  mum  la  thv  Ana,  of  IJiL,  CiU.  (Maicb 
ISlI);  ouil  tuiii|Mtt  L. DicfcaUicb'i judiciuuJ  Ttvic*.  t  e.  M»j  184i 


fodmation  or  tgnabs. 


713 


'  Rceptcting  the  lengtbenin^  of  Uic  clun  vowel  [G.  Ed.  p.  7U0 
seaf.  4S1.  *  0'«nffVoin  uiei-d-m  for  uvv-u-n,  Hit  in  Old  SclBvonJe  BI:>V 
vei-il  from  Vfi-o-m:  sec  f>i.  25S.  jj.  and  *3n.  The  full  Lithuanian  termi- 
natinn  ia  wi,  and  lli»  Old  Si-Uivonic  mp  (f.  436.).  '  Sec  5.448.  •  In 
Latin  the  wcahcniny  nf  tlio  aol'tli«  iiti<Idlc  itylliiMe  to  i  pravula  neArly 
througlioat;  but,  in  Gothic,  oc^ura  only  before' and /A  finiil:  «;e  vj.  R?. 
100*.  1.  *  jr«-i,  for  vfs-a-i  from  lyis-a-n,  compare  m-«,  "thou 

nrL'':  Me  ^,  44B.,  where  vn  should  read  irei-ai,  wti-ate,  fiir  leez-ei.  teta-rte. 
The  Old  Pruraiiin  hiu  cvenirhere  retnincd  the  Mbihuit,  ntid  emidaysM 
or  m,  ftnd  ii,  as  the  p«;t»i>iial  lirmiination ;  lu  Jnito-t-sc,  "thou  bclicmt" 
{conpAra  Ssnultrit  dhruva.  "firm,"  " ccilnlii")^  da-w,  "tliuu  givcrt,"' 
vai(f{)'iti,  "llion  knowcot."  jfiir-ii-jai(fiir(7i'(o-a-»0t  "ihoalivcat,"=:S«w. 
fir-a-ni.  •  From  i-i^-a-va*,  bco  {.441.  *  From  tx-t-ras,  te«  J. Iff. 

I!  Ia  au^^plied  by  tb«  Bingnlor.  >  FasdmaAi  is  founded  on  the  VMa- 

fonii  vtiMnuui,  see  <?.  409.  "*  Set  §.  458.  "  From  dm-o-n/v, 

see  j. 3^0. 


cvid(!at,  or  may  he  FMOgniscd  through  tlic  known  laws  by  which  coituii> 
tions  nriw?,  crowd  together  iDto  the  narrow  and  confined  epnco  of  p«riicuh)r 
classes  of  words,  ns  is  the  cose  in  the  .MnUv-Polyncitan  tauguAgBS  in 
relation  to  tlic  lndo-F>iiro]ienn,  in  the  niiiiiiTiilKiui<!  i>T'>iwantt;  and  whcrr, 
moreover,  wc  find,  in  nil  BphiTcs  vf  iilciws  words  which  rtscmblc  one 
another  in  the  <lfgreo  Ihal  the  Madngnscar  taJtai,  "frietidc,"  do»»  the 
Saiulmt  takhiii;  (he  .Mfuhigtisc,  mieu,  *'  cloud,"  the  Sanskrit  mfiijha  ;  the 
New  Ztahiiid  nfkau,  "tree,"  the  PriVrit  niAAAu ;  iht;  Ntiw  Zealand  pdlou, 
"win^c,"  the  Saoskrit  pakaha  ;  thu  Tapdia  paa,  "fopt,"  tho  Sanskrit 
pAda;  th«  Tnliitian  ray,  "night,"  the  PraVric  rai;  the  Tongian  aA», 
"day,"  tln.-SiwwkTit"'!'';  the Tonnian  t'(£A«,  "ship,"  th«  Sanskrit  ji^iJtYrX-n; 
the  Tonginn ./ciiiu,  "to  sail  ia  usliip,"  the  Sanskrit />/ai'n,  "ship";  the 
Tongian/ti/liiJ,  "to  wiwh,"  t!ie  Saimbrit/j/u  (rfp/uj;  thn  Tonf^ian  Aatn^, 
"wis]),"  the  Sanskrit  kima^  the  Malay  ptifcA  nn<l  M&clBgasc.  ^f«f, 
"while,"  tho  Sanskrit ;»"(«,  "  pure";*— lher«,  ccriaiiily,  wo  havcfrroiind 
for  being  convinciHl  of  a  historical  conneoiion  bolw«cn  the  twft  fan)ill«s 
of  longnoges. 

If  it  wcra  desired,  in  settling  t1ia  rt-lation  of  laiiguDges,  {n  start  from 
■  Qefptivs  point  of  view,  and  to  dccUra  snch  bingungcs,  or  grotips  of  Inn- 
gnogn^  not  rvlated,  which,  wliun  compared  with  on?  another,  presiint  n 


hm  of  eapliOD]!.  of  ntiicb  more  U  to  be  dtiind  is  nif  rampblct  on  tbc  MaliJ-ratyiici>«n 
Iiipgaaga.  p.  A  anil  Item.  13. 

3  A 


7U  VBRBS. 

509.  In  the  SaoskHt  Brst  conjugntiou  the  verb 
firfrfirfijA/Mmi,  "I  stand,"  deserves  particatnr  notice.  Tt 
proceeds  from  the  root  afhd,  nnd  belongs  properly  to  the 
third  class,  wliicli  receives  rcduplicatifra  (§.  109'.  3.);  but 
ia  distin^iishud  from  it  by  this  aaomalous  character,  that 
it   sliorttina   its   rnilical    A  in    the  sjieL-ial   Umses.*  and  nlso 


*  Whewnpon,  aalanilly,  in  tho  fint  ftnoa,  this  sbort«ncd  am,iK~ 
rardii^  to  §.  431.,  Bgnii)  lenglhMiMl. 


laifB  Domber  of  wordM  And  firms,  wMdi  ippwr  to  l»  pcealiar,  then 
m  man  not  only  doUch  tlic  MAlar-PoljiuaiM)  langugn  &oin  tiie 
Soiukril  att.-m,  but  alw>  Kp^rAto  them  from  one  imoth^— ih«  Mada- 
gAM-Ar  luiJ  SoulU'Sea  lanfnages  from  the  acbiowledged  aninlty  w]tJi 
the  Tagnlin,  KTiJa/,  nai  Javanese,  ffhich  hu  btira  aa  method  kail  jr 
and  ekiirullj  dcmonitruli.'J  kj'  W,  von  UumboUt ;  nnil  ia  like  niAniicr 
divide  the  Lntln  rmm  l)i«  Greek  and  Smuikiit  j  und  llit;  Grt«k,  G'^rmnn, 
SdttroDtc,  Leltiatif  lithnnnUn,  Cdtic,  innit  1>o  Allowed  to  be  so  tnapj 
Indepoadcnt,  DuconncdcJ  polootnlcs  of  iho  lingual  wodJ ;  and  the  coia- 
«ideaoM,  which  tlio  nuiny  mcmbern  of  tho  lndo-KDrap«iui  linganl  chain 
inotaAlljr  olTcr,  mnil  be  declared  to  have  origiiiiili,-d  cuunlly  or  hy  nibae- 
()ncat  comniixturc. 

I  iMtieve,  however,  ihat  tba  apparent  TerhAl  Tc«cml>lann«  »f  kindred 
idioms,  pxelusivn  of  ttif  influrooM  of  sirangv  lan^agea,  ariae  f>ithi>r 
from  ihini  thnteach  lorliriilDal  mrnibcr,  or  eoeh  more  oonfinrd  circk  of  a 
great  st»m  of  lanjjnaff ««,  has,  from  the  period  of  ideality,  preserved  wnria 
and  rnrma  wliich  liavc  licm  lost  by  tho  olhcra ;  or  from  ihb,  that  where, 
tn  a  word,  l>>>tli  fiirrn  and  BigDiilcAtion  luivc  uiiilcrKOiie  coiimderable 
ttllpmtioB,  A  sure  agrMownt  «-ith  the  siiler  vrorda  of  tho  kindred  Laa- 
gnagea  is  no  longer  poaiihlD.  That,  howevsr,  tlio  lif^iilinitiaD,  as 
wall  as  Iho  fbrnit  alten  in  the  course  ciftime,  wo  lesin  even  from  the 
comparison  of  the  ii«w  G«raiaa  with  th«  mrlicr  condiiione  of  our  mother- 
langni^.  Why  should  not  far  moK  nonoidornhU  chati^  in  idM  hav« 
arisen  In  the  far  Immer  period  nf  lin)s  which  divides  the  Eoropean  Ian* 
fpiflg««  from  the  Sanskrit?  I  believe  that  oicry  genuine  nulical  word, 
whether  German,  Gnwk,  or  ftomnn.  proeced*  fmm  Ihi!  oriftinal  matrix 
nlihoueh  tlic  thn«i)s  by  which  it  is  relrsMd  arv  foniid  by  cs  at  timas  cut 
off  or  iuvisible.    for  instanco,  in  Uio  so-called  alrong  conjngalion  of  ihe 


FOBHATION  OP  TENSES. 


ns 


in  the  syllable  of  reduplicAtion,  vlicre  a  short  a  should 
stnnd,  it  weakens  this,  the  gravest  of  the  vowels,  to  chnt 
which  is  tJie  lightest,  i;  heuce,  e.g.,  in  tlie  secoud  nml  thinl 
persou  singular,  lixtitha-si.  Ihhlho'lt,  for  intthA-si,  tndlt'i-li, 
as  might  I)e  expected  according  to  the  analogy  of  dailii-si. 
dadA-ti.  As  the  shortened  »  of  yf/id  is  tre3.ted  in  the  coitju- 
gatioQ  exactly  like  tlie  class  vowel  of  tlie  first  conjugation, 
this  verb,  tliererore,  and  ijhrA,  "to  smell,"  which  follows 
its  analog-,  ia  included  by  the  native  grammnriaiia  in  tbe 


Grrmnn  one  wouH  expect  n&lhing  «xelo»ivtly  Ocrmnn,  bat  «nly  wluil 
has  b«5eti  Laiid«l  down  aiid  trnMmitteJ  fnxn  th«  ]>riinitiw  noonje.  We 
Bre  able,  howertr,  ti>  coniiei-t  with  ceriainiy  but  very  1'bw  roots  of  the 
Mroiii;  verbs  with  the  Indian,  While,  e.if.,  the  Sonilcrit,  Zoad,  Greek, 
Loiii),  Lithuanian,  I^^iiUh,  luid  Sdnvunic,  agne  la  the  iilt-e  of  "giving" 
la  ■  root,  of  which  tiro  ori):iiuil  foniit  prtiMrvcci  in  the  dtuukrit  mul  Zend, 
la  dd,  tlie  G«nnsa  gnh  throwa  u«  into  perplexity  m  ttfftvA*  it*  Mmpariion 
with  ils  sisters.  But  if  wo  would  sasame  that  iJub  verb  originatly 
^KoIJlnl  "to  lake."  and  has  received  the  cauwil  lueanin);  ('*to  make  to 
take,"  i.e.  "  lo  ftive"),  as  the  Emukril  Ih'ilfuimi,  mid  Zviid  hitt^mi, 
Greolc  umj^t,  ha*  arTiv4.>d,  from  tlie  incmiirg  of  "alBD'linjt,"  At  ihnt  of 
"taking":  wo  luigbt  ihtn  trace  i,iii  to  the  Veda yraift,  and  awniitif  llwt 
llic  r  has  hna  lost,  although  tliis  root  luu  reuiutuod  iu  Gcnaim  ulao,  in  a 
truer  form  nnd  meftning,  only  that  the  n  has  been  weakened  to  i  (Golhle 
grtipa,  i/raip,  yrifiitm). 

I  luive  altuied  ibe  plan  proposed  in  the  Picfooe  to  the  Firrt  Port 
(p.  svli.),af  devotinga  jb-'jinrate  work  lo  the  furfnationcf  words  and  com- 
parison of  th«m,  and  to  rcft-r  tbilticr  ako  tlie  [>anid])lc!i,  eoujuiii;tiuiu, 
nod  prcpoaitiona,  S-tr  this  rcoHon,  lliat  I  intend  lo  lT«Ot  in  the  picaent  work, 
with  all  poeubld  conciMoaM,  tlie  cnrnporaUve  doctrine  of  the  forniattan  of 
wDrda.and  will  also  dlscan  the  coincidenow  of  tlie  various  members  of  iha 
Indft-EaropcAQ  stem  of  laogangta,  which  appear  ia  the  conjunclioua  and 
pr«po9itioQS,  For  ihi*  dtject  a  Fifth  Nurelier  will  be  requiaile.  Tlie 
pre-ufnt.  Kciirth  Number  will  coDctadc  the  funimti'ii  of  the  teniK's  and 
mooda;  botaliitleroiniHiwIolwaddcd  rrgordinf^ the nioinl  which iscallcd 
1^  ia  tlie  Zend  and  VMa-dialseta,  na  also  tlie  itnixjmlivf,  whiiOi,  for  lh« 
mt,  La  discingnisbcd  only  by  iis  peraoml  terminations,  which  Iiave  l^een 
■Iraftdy  dlacuiBed  in  the  Third  Port. 

a  A  2 


716 


TB&DS. 


firdt  class;  so  that,  according  to  tlieni,  we  should  have  to 
divide  lixhlk-a-si,  li'^hth-n-ti,  and  rc<;nrd  thkth  as  a  substitute 
for  sthn.  1  consider  the  doable  weakening,  which  the  roots 
idkA  and  glirA  undergo  tu  the  sellable  of  repetition  and  of 

[G.  £d.p.73.'i.]     the    hme,  to   be  caused  by  tite   two  com- 
bined consonants,  which  produce  in  the  syllable  of  repetitiou  a 
length  by  position ;  for  whiu-h  reason,  in  order  that  the  whole 
should  not  appear  too  unwieldy,  Uie  vowel  weight  of  the  syl- 
lable of  reduplication  is  Irssened,  and  the  length  of  the  base 
syllable  is  sliortened.      The  Zend  hiiiahi,  "tliou  standest," 
histttii,   "he  sUmds,"  &.c.   follow    the  same    principle;    and 
it  is  important  to  remark,  tliat  the  Latin  sisfh.  tittit,  »u- 
timai.  nietitia,  on  account  of  the   root   being  incanibered 
with    the    syllable    of  reduplication,   have  weakened    the 
radical    d  of  xtA-re  to    i,  and    apparently  introduced    the 
verb     into     the     third     conjugation.       I    say    apparently, 
because  the  essence  of  the  third  conjugation  consists    in 
this,  that  an  i,  whit-h    is  not  radical,  is  inserted  betwe«l 
the  root  and  the  personal  termination ;  but  the  i  of  Miati-s, 
Six:,,  like   the   n  of  the  Sanskrit   ti;/ilii-ai,   belongs  to     the 
root    The  Greek  itmj-iu  has  so  far  maintained  itself  upon 
an  older  footing,  that  it  has  not  given  to  the  syllable  of 
reduplication,  or  to   its  consonantal   combination,  au    in- 
fluence on    the    long  vowel  of  the    radical    syllable,   but 
admits  of  the  shortening  of  this  vowel  only  through  the 
iiiflutrace    of   the     weight    of    the    personal    trrminntiniis ; 
thus,  before  the  grave  terminations  of  tlie  plural  numbers, 
and    of  the  entire   middle,   accordiug   to   the    analc^    of 
Siiufit,  &c.  (see  S.  480.).      With    respect  to    the    Icind    of 
reduplication  which  occurs  in   the   Sanskrit  liahiMmi,  and 
of  which  more  hereafter.  I  must   notice    preliminarily  the 
Latin  lr»H$.  which  is  the  reverse  caac  of  tieti.  if,  as  [  be- 
lieve, fn/u  is  to  be  rc^rdcd  as  one  who  stands  for  any 
thing. 

dOD.  The  Sanskrit,  and  all  its  cognate  dialects^  have  two 


4 


4 

4 


FORUATtON  OF  TENSES. 


117 


roots  for  the  verb  salistftntive,  of  vrhich  the  one.  whic;h  is. 
in  Sanskrit,  if  bhu,  in  Zend,  ^j  bu,  belongs  to  the  first  con- 
jugation, and,  indeed,  to  tlie  Qrst  class,  and  assumes,  therefore, 
ill  the  Special  tenses,  a  cliiss-vowcl  »,  and  [G.  Ed.  p.73G.] 
augments  Uie  nidical  rowel  by  Guna;  while  tlie  other,  viz. 
W^^as,  fulls  to  the  second  conjugation,  anil,  in  faet,  to  the 
second  elass.  Thfse  two  roots,  in  all  tlie  Iiido-Eurojieiin 
languages,  except  in  the  Greek,  where  *V  has  entirely  lost 
the  signifieiition  "  to  Tje,"  are  so  fer  mutuaJIy  complete, 
that  bha.  bH,  have  remained  perfect  in  the  Sanskrit  and 
Zend  (us  far  us  the  latter  can  he  quoted);  but  (m,  on  the 
contrary,  in  its  isolated  condition,  is  used  only  in  tlie 
special  tenses.  In  Lithuanian,  the  root  which  answers 
to  tts  Is  only  used  in  tlm  present  iudieative,  and  iu  the 
participle  present;  just  as  in  the  Sclavonic,  ^vhere  the 
present  of  the  gerund  is,  according  to  its  origin,  identical 
with  the  participle  present.  The  Gotliie  forms  from  aa, 
the  o  of  nhich  it  weakens  to  *,  its  whole  present  indica- 
tive and  subjutictive.  onty  that  there  is  attaehed  to  it  a 
further  apparent  root  Siy,  wliich,  however,  in  like  manner, 
proceeds  from  vir^tu.  The  root  bhu,  in  Gothic,  does  not 
refer  at  oil  to  the  idea  of  "  to  be " ;  but  from  it  proceeds, 
I  have  no  doubt,  the  cauaa.1  verb  btiuu,  "  1  build"  (second 
person  bnuau),  which  [  derive,  like  the  Latin  fncio,  from 
mvvr^  ihiivotjAnii.  "  I  make  to  be"  (§.  I'J.).  The  High 
Germau  has  also  prcservtrd  remains  of  the  root  bhU  in 
the  sense  of  "  to  be":  heuce  proceed,  in  the  Old  High 
German,  the  first  and  second  person  of  the  singular  and 
plural,  while  the  third  persons  Uf  and  sint  (wliith  latter 
form  is  now,  in  the  shape  ofainrf,  erroneously  transferrrd 
to  the  first  person)  answer  to  wfe  o»ti.  wPit  sttvtl.  Fur- 
ther, from  WW  ua  proceeds  also  the  subjunctive  */ 
Saiwkfit  Vfn  xij&m,  "  I  may  be"),  and  the  infinitive  sin. 
Moreover,  also,  the  Sanskrit  root  vua,  "  to  dwell,"  lias 
raised  itself,  in  Genuau,  to  the  dimity  of  the  verb  sub- 


na 


VERBS. 


stantive.  since,  indeed,  in  Gotliic,  the  present  ri$a  {viMk~ 
cned  from  t»fl««,  see  J.  109*.  l.)  signifies  only  "  to  remain  ; "  but 
tlie  preterite  ws,  and  its  aubjiini-live  r^sijnu  (Germnn  fr«r. 
u-arr).  tbe  infinitive  vi.win.  aiid  Uic  i>iirticiple  prvsenl  timndw, 
[G.  Ed.  p.  7!fl.']      replace  Uie  forms  wbich  have  bcou,  from 
aneicDt  lime,  lost  by  the  roots  expretoing  the  idea  "  to  be.' 
It  may  Ik;  propi'r  to  mention  here,  that  in  Sunskrit,  tlie  root 
slltd,  "  to  stand,"  occasionally  ret-cives  the  abstract  meiming 
"  to  be.**  and  so,  bs  it  were,  bas  served  as  an  example  to 
the  Roman  languages,  whicb.   for  their  verb  Bubstautivf, 
employ,  bcsidta  the    Latin    roots.  ES  nnd  FU,   also   .STA. 
As.  too,  "to  sit."  occurs  in  Siins.krit.  in  tlie  sense  of  the  verb 
substantive;  e.g.  Nal.  16.  30.  innnivT  jv\"   ^  t/aUtstiUuiKji) 
iL-d"  xtlt,   "  like  senseless  are  they;"     Hitop.  44. 11.  'WIHT" 
HTwntinf^  8«ril*fP^  fixt&m    mAnasatuihtat/i  sukrUinim,   "let  it 
be  (your  good  behaviour)  to   gratify   the  spirit  of  the  vir- 
tuous;" Urv,  92.  3.  wigtnH    wren^   WW^    AyushmAn   AHSm 
at/am.  "  long-lived  may  this  man  be."     It  is  not  improbable 
that  the  verb  substantive  is  only  an  abbreviation  of  the  root 
da,  and  tliat  generally  the  abstract  notion  of  ■'  being"  is  in 
no  languflgo  the  original  idea  of  any  verb  whatever.    The 
abbreviation  of  ils  to  ag,  and  from  that  to  a  simple  «,  before 
heavy   terminations  (see  §.  480),  ia  explained,  however,  iii 
the  verb  substJintive,  very  easily;  as  tlie  consequeneu  of  its 
being  worn  out  by  Uie  extremely  frequent  use  made  of  it. 
am)  from  tlie  ueeessily  for  a  v^rb,  whieh  is  so  much  em- 
ployed, and  tinivcrsaUy  introduced,  obtaining  a  light  and 
fucilo  build.     Frequent  use  may,  however,   have  u  double 
influence  on  tlie  form    of  a  verb; — iu   the    first    place,    to 
wear  it   out  and   simplify    it  aa   much   as  possible;  and. 
secondly,  to   maintain    in    constant    recolleetiou  its  primi- 
tive forma  of  inBexiou,  by  calling  them    perpetually  into 
remembrance,    and    thus    secure    them    from    destruction. 
Botli  these  results  are  seen  in    the  verb   substantive     for 
in  Latin,  aum,  togctlicr  witli  hiquum,   arc   the  only  verbs, 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES. 


719 


wtiich  have  preserved  tlic  old  personal  sign  in  the  present; 
in  tbe  Gotliic  and  Knglish  of  the  present  dsy,  im  trndam 
are  the  ooly  forms  oFUiis  kind;  and  in  our  New  Gcrnian, 
bhi  (from  bim)  and  sind  arc  the  sole  forma  [<1.  liJ.  p.  !380 
which  have  preserv«!  the  character  of  tlic  first  jjcraou  sin- 
gular and  third  pt- rson  plural. 

31(t.  As  the  Sanskrit  root  bhu  belongs  to  the  first  conju- 
galioD,  n-c  sbftll  next  examine  its  conjugution  iu  the 
present.  As  belonging  to  tbe  first  cla*$,  it  requires  Guua 
and  tlie  insertion  of  the  doss  vowel  a  bctwrcn  the  root 
and  tlic  [lersonul  termination  ($.  100*.  1.)  This  insertion 
of  the  a  ocuisions  the  bh^  (^iltau).  for  euphonic  reasous, 
to  become  bkav,  iu  which  form  the  root  appears  in  all  tJie 
]KTSoiis  of  the  special  tenses.  By  this  hlrat\  in  Zend  bav, 
tlie  Old  High  German  hir  (or  pir),  in  the  plural  bir-wmfif. 
bir-u-t,  obtains  very  satisfactory  explanation,  since,  as 
remarked  at  |.  20.,  aod  as  ha«  since  been  confirmed,  ia 
the  case  before  us,  by  Graff  (11.  325.).  tlie  semi-vowels  ore 
often  interclumgcd ;  and,  for  example^  v  readily  becomes 
r  or/.*  The  u  of  6ir-u-ni^»,  hir-u-i,  is  a  wealtemug  of  the 
old  a  (Vocalismus,  p.  2:27. 16.);  and  the  j  of  the  radical 
syllable  friV  rests  on  the  weakening  of  that  vowul,  which 
occurs  very  often  elsewhere  {§.  6.).  The  sinsuiar  should, 
according  to  tlie  aualcgy  of  Uic  plural,  be  birum,  bints, 
birut,  but  has  rejected  tlie  second  syllable;  so  tliat  Aim 
has  nearly  tlie  same  relation  to  the  Sanskrit  I>/i<nv}inf,  tliat, 
in  Latin,  mal«  has  to  the  marolo,  which  was  to  Iiave  been 
looked  for.  The  obsolete  subjtuictivc-forms  /uum,  fuat, 
fual,  fuant.  presupjioae  an  indicative  fuo,  fats,  f\iH,  &c„ 
which  lias  ccrtjiinly  at  one  time  existed,  and,  in  essentials, 
has  the  same  relation  to  the  Sunskrit  bhavAmi,  bhtivati, 
bhavnli,  tliat  vfho,  t»}aa,  whit,  have  to  vahdmi,  vtJittsi,  vakati. 


'  8m^  aUD.  ^.■im.  Note  ti  aaJ  J.-U7.  Note'. 


7ao 


TEBBS. 


The  obsolete  form /wiv"  of  the  perfect,  which  is  fonnd  wit 
the  common /iji,  leads  us  from  /uo  to  fuvo,  iu  as  far  as  the 
syllable  vX  offuvi  is  not  declared  (to  which  I  assent)   ideu- 

CO.Kd.p.739.]  tical  withtlicviofamaw.bilt  its  v  regarded 
as  devcloiitd  from  «,  jaat  as,  in  the  Sanskrit  rcdui)Ucat^>d 
^rBleriumi^  txihhavfi,  iu  the  aorist  W>gl>^^  abhuvam,  and 
in  the  Lithuanian  preterite  baw»u. 

The  full  conjugation  of  the  present  of  the  root  andcr 
diacusaion,  i»  Sanskrit,  Zend,  Old  High  German,  and  Greek, 
is  as  follows : — 

S I  HO  V  LAB. 

HAMtlKKlT.  SEND.  OLD  Dlrtll  nMUAn.         CftBBK. 

bkac-d-mi,  hm'-'l-mi.  bi-m,  ^v-o>-' 

bhav-a-ii,  bav-n-hi,  bis,*  (pv-et-s. 

Ihav-ii-lf,  bav-iii-ti,  ...  -  ^u-s-^t)*. 


DUAL. 

bhav-A-via  

bhiiv-ii-lhas,        bav-a-tM? 
bhao^-las,         bav-a4d. 


tfiu-e~Tov. 


PLURAL. 

thav-A-ma»,       bov-d-mahi,         bir-u-mis,       ^v~Q-ftcs. 
bkav-a-lka,        bav-Q'tha,  bir-u-t,  tpV'C'TV. 

bhav'O-nti,         b<iv~ai-nli,  •  •  •  t  ^v-o-m. 

61 U  I  hold  it  to  be  unnecessary  to  furllicr  annex  an  ox- 
ample  of  the  secoud  conjugation  (tliat  hi  fii  in  Greek),  forseve- 
[G.  Ed.p.7«.]    ral  examples  have  been  given  a]  ready,  in  thu 


•  Also  Uti. 

\  I'Lc  forms  biritii.  irirtnt,  bimt,  nud  iint,  which  occur  in  Notlcer  la 
the  second  pcnon  plnr&l,  1  oonuder  as  iiiargiuiio  intnidcn  from  the  tbird 
penou,  where  birint  nnuli]  ntbiwer  ailininhly  to  bhavanti.  The  fonn 
binl  convapvnils  hi  tt«  abbreviation  to  thu  aiugnlar  (Hm,  hi*.  Wjtli  n- 
gard  to  tlic  wolAiion  of  the  ftsmn,  BuUce  the  (jonoBii  mil  of  the  first 
pcnon. 


KORM&TION  OF  TB\SES. 


721 


PLURAL. 

UMCpiT. 

EESD. 

ocmnc 

v-miu. 

h-mahi. 

afV-u-m. 

t-iha. 

»-ttia, 

siy-u-th. 

3-a-nli, 

h-e-nti. 

3-i-nd. 

paragraplw,  which  treat  of  the  influence  of  the  gravity  of 
l)ei-3oaa]  tcnninatioiis  on  the  preceding  radical  or  clasa 
syllable,  lo  which  we  hrrc  refer  the  reader  [§.  lS(f.).  We 
will  only  adduce  from  tlie  CJothic  the  verb  aulstantive  (aa 
it  is  the  only  unc  which  belongs  to  this  CHnjugHtioti).  and 
contrast  Its  present  with  the  Snnskj-it  and  Zend  (coinparo 
p.695ti.od.):— 

SIXaULAR. 
SA.N11IK1T.       zKSD.        ooruii;. 
tix-ini,      ah-mi.      i-m. 
a-si,         a-ki,         i-s. 
<ta-li,        ua'-t't,        i'%1. 

■'Remark  1, — It  la  evident  that  the  plural  forms  »iv-ii-in, 
*jj/-u-(A,  if  strictly  taken,  do  not  belong  to  this  place  aa 
the  personal  terniinatjons  are  nut  conjoined  direct  with  the 
root;  but  by  means  of  a  u,  which  might  be  expected, 
also,  in  the  second  dual  person,  srj/-u-/»,  if  it  oeeurred.  and 
in  vbioh  respect  these  forms  follow  the  a.nn]ogy  of  the 
preterite.  The  first  dual  person  which  actually  occurs  is 
s(yi3.*  As  regards  the  syllable  aiy.  on  which,  as  root,  all 
these  forma,  as  well  aa  the  subjunctive  aiy-ou,  siy-n'm,  &c., 
ore  baaed,  I  do  not  think,  that,  according  to  its  origin,  it 
is  to  be  distinguished  from  hn  [of  which  tlie  radical  v  has 
be«ii  lust)  and  siiij.  To  sittd  answers  sfy,  in  so  far  as  it 
likewise  has  lost  the  radical  vowel,  and  commences  with 
the  sibilant,  which  in  Zend,  according  to  §.  53..  has 
become  h,  Witli  regard  to  the  ti/,  which  is  added,  I  think 
tliat  xiy  stands  conm-ctcd  with  the  Sanski'lt  poteulial  sydm, 
so  that  to  the  semi-vowel  there  has  been  furtlier  pre- 
fixed its  corresponding  vowel  i;  for  tlic  Gotliic,  as  it  ap- 
pears, does  not  admit  of  a  v  after  an  initinl  consonant; 
hence  siuau  for  ivuu=vm*f^«t/<lin,  according  to  the  principle 


■   K«gnrding  tlic  di^rivnliou  of  Ibis  form  fniD  iri^-u-Mt,  BQiI  tbo  ground 
of  my  giving  th«  long  u,  mw  $.  441 . 


7^^ 


VERBS. 


by  which,  from  the  numeral  base  thri,  "  three,"  comes  tlie 
geoitivi:  IhriuS  for  tfiryS  (§.310,).  If,  therefore,  in  Uie 
form  sty,  ywyivrly  only  thr  «  is  nidical,  and  the  iy  rxpressta 

[G.  Ed.i>.741.]  a  inood-relation,  still  the  language,  in  iis 
present  stale,  is  no  louger  conscious  of  this,  and  erroi»eousIy 
treating  the  whole  nix/  as  root,  adds  to  it,  in  tlie  subjuuetive. 
the  class  vowel  n  (§.  lOtf*.  1.),  (witli  which  a  new  t  is  united 
as  the  representative  of  the  mood-niLution,)  and.  io  the  iu- 
dicativr,  the  vowel  u.  which  othtTwiac,  in  tlie  preterite, 
regularly  enters  between  tlie  root  aud  the  personal  tcrimna- 
tion." 

"  Remark  2. — That  iu  the  Roman  languages,  also,  the 
weight  of  tlie  periional  terminations  exerts  an  influence  on 
the  preceding  radical  sylhiblc ;  and  that  e.  g.,  in  French,  tlio 
relation  of  Ivnom  to  liens  rests  on  the  same  principle  on  wliicb, 
io  Gievk,  timt  of  StBofiev  to  BiSufAi  does,  has  been  alreftdy 
elsewhere  remarked.*  The  third  person  plural,  in  re- 
spect to  the  form  of  the  radical  vowel,  ranks  with  the  sin- 
gular, since  it,  like  th<-'  latter,  has  a  lighter  termination  than 
the  first  and  second  person  plural,  and  indeed,  as  pronounced 
in  French,  none  at  all ;  hence  tunwul.  contrasted  with  tenons, 
tcnes.  Diez.  however,  differing  from  my  view  of  the  Ro- 
wan terminating  sound  {/Ihluul},  has.  in  his  Grammar  of  the 
Roman  languages  (I.  p.  168).  based  the  vowel  diflereuee  be- 
tweea  tient  and  tenoru  on  the  difiereuce  of  tlie  accent  whieb 
exists,  in  Latin,  between  t^npo  and  tf^hnia.  Bat  it  is  uat< 
to  be  overlooked,  that,  in  the  third  conjugation  also^' 
although  ipt^rc  and  ijuarimut  have  the  aaoie  accent, 
still,  in  Spanish,  </uerimcs  is  used,  opposed  to  ijutero,  and* 
in  French,  (ta/ucroru,  opposed  to  ncquirrs,  as  has  bceu 
ulready  remarked  by  Fuehs,  in  his  very  valuable  pamphlet, 
"Contributions  to  the   Examination  of  the   Roman  Lan- 


*  Berlb  Ami.,  Fob.  te^,p.361.     ^'ocalulnn8,  p.  Kt. 


t^A 


FORMATION  OK  TENSBS. 


723 


gu»ge«."  p.  18.  It  may  be,  tbnt  tiie  i  of  the  Frvoch  sail, 
i5  ideittk-al  witli  tlie  f  of  the  Latiu  stip'tQ;  but,  ercn  theu, 
tlie  dialodgcmi'iit  of  this  t  ia  surutis  rests  on  the  8»nie  law 
as  that  whicli  disludj^rd.  iti  Unarut.  the  i  itrefixed  in  Urns; 
as,  f.tf..  in  Sanskrit,  the  root  vox  rejects,  iu  tlic  aame 
places,  its  radical  a.  wliere  regular  verbs  of  the  same  elnss 
lay  aside  thi>  Gutia  vowel  whiuh  is  iutroducud  into  the 
root  befoi-c  light  terminations ;  thus,  vpni^  u^mas,  "  we 
nill,"  opposed  to  wf^  v<umi,  "  I  will,''  as,  iu  French,  savona 
to  ttiit"  ' 

"  Remark  3. — I  caniiol  ascribe  to  tlie  Gnna  in  tlte  conjuga- 
tioD  of  Uio  Sanskrit  mid  its  i.'o<^uate  Iiuiguages  a  •rrnmmutieal 
meuiiing,  but  explain  it  as  proceeding  sim-  [G.  Bd.  p.  743.^ 
|)ly  from  n  disposition  to  fulness  of  form,  which  occasions 
the  sti'ciigthcmuf;  of  the  lighter  vowels  taudu.hy.  as  it  were, 
taking  them  iiudcr  the  nrm  by  prefixing  an  n.  while  the  a 
itself.  OS  it  is  the  heaviest  vowel,  doea  uot  require  extra- 
neous liclp-  If  it  were  desired,  with  Pott  (RtynL  Inq.  I.  60.), 
to  find,  in  theGuua  of  tlie  present  and  iiniM-Tfect,  an  expres- 
sion of  the  continuance  of  an  action,  we  should  be  plnced  in 
the  same  difliculty  with  him,  by  the  circumstaQce  that  the 
Guiia  is  not  restricted  to  these  two  tenses,  but,  in  verbs  with 
the  lighter  base-vowels  i  and  »,  accompuuies  tlie  rout  tliraugb 
uearly  all  tlie  tenses  and  moods,  not  ouly  iu  Sanskpit,  but  also 
iu  its  European  cognate  hmguages,  in  as  far  as  tliese  have  Id 
general  preserved  thiskindof  di)]hthongization;  as  the  Greek 
AcfVoi  and  tf^evyu  cannot  any  more  be  divested  of  the  e  token 
into  tlie  roots  AlU,  ^Vr,  ouly  that  tbe  e  in  T^oma  is  re- 
placed by  oi*  and  that  tlie  aorists  c\(noi',  c^cyoi',  exhibit 
the  pure  root  which  1  cannot  attribute  to  the  significatiua  of 
this  aorist  (as  the  second  aorist  baa  die  same  meaning  as  the 
first,  but  the  latter  firmly  retains  the  Gima,  if  it  is  eaiiecially 
the  property  of  tlie  verb),  bat  to  the  circumstance  that  tlifl 


■j  Kuid  o,  nov«ra,  arc,  wiUi  tJt«  vowel  stJuraprvMnlativMOf  tJlftSdn- 
skfit  Oiuia  voivela,9eoVocalkinu9,p[i.7,  lt)3,puiln>. 


f24 


TBBBS. 


second  oorist  U  for  the  most  part  prone  to  n-tain  the  original 
torm  of  lite  root,  and  hence  at  one  time  exhibits  a  lighter  vo- 
cfilistation  than  the  oilier  leHSt?!!.  at  another,  a  heavier  cue;  as 
eTiootTTov  compared  with  crpc^a  and  cr^eiroi'.  lu  this  dispo- 
ntion,  thcrcfoR",  of  tlic  second  aorisl  to  retain  the  true  slate 
of  the  root,  the  diffcnince  between  forma  like  tXiwoi-.  eiftuyoy, 
eTvj(pv.  and  the  imperfects  of  the  correspondiDgTerbs,  cannot 
be  sought  in  the  circumstauce.  that  the  action  in  theaortst  is 
Dot  represented  as  one  of  duration ;  and  that,  on  tlie  con- 
trary, in  the  imperfect  and  present  the  continaanee  is  sym- 
bolically represented  hy  the  Guoa.  On  the  whole,  I  do  not 
Uiiiik  that  tho  language  feels  a  necessity  to  express  formally 
the  continuance  of  an  action,  because  it  is  seir-evidcut  that 
every  action  and  every  sort  of  repose  requires  time,  and  that 
it  is  nut  tlie  business  of  a  moment,  if  I  say  tliat  any  one  eats 
or  drinks,  sleeps  or  sits,  or  that  he  ate  or  dnuik,  slept  or  sat. 
at  the  time  that  this  or  that  atrtion  occurred  regarding  vrhtcfa 
I  alErm  the  past  time.  1  cannot,  therefore,  assume,  with 
Pott,  that  the  circumstance  that  the  class-characteristics  oc- 
[Q.  Bd.  p.  743.]  cur  only  in  ttie  special  tenses  (l  t.  in  tJie 
present  and  imperfect  indicative,  and  in  the  moods  thereto 
belonging),  is  to  be  thence  explained,  that  here  acontinunnc-e 
is  to  be  expressed.  Why  should  the  Sanskrit  have  invented 
nine  different  forma  as  symbols  of  continuance,  and,  among 
its  tea  classes  of  conjugations  {see§,  I09*.),  exhibit  one.  also, 
which  is  devoid  of  nil  fun^ign  addition?  I  believe,  ratlier. 
that  tlie  class  aflixes  originally  extended  over  all  tenses,  but 
subsetjuoutly.  yet  still  before  the  separation  of  languages,  were 
dislodged  from  certitin  tenses,  tlie  build  of  which  induced 
their  being  laid  aside.  This  inducement  occurred  in  the 
aorist  (the  6rst,  which  is  most  frequently  used)  aud  future, 
owing  to  the  annexation  of  the  verb  substauti%*e ;  where- 
fore, ddtyAmi  and  dwro)  were  used  for  dadiisyAmi  and 
diSutrm;  and  in  the  perfei-t.  uwlnj^  to  the  rednplicotion  cha- 
racterising tliis  tense,  witenee,  in  Greek,  the  form  ii- 
itiyfiou  must  have  gained  the  pivferencc  over  tlic  Sedcita/vtiat 


FOBMATIOK  OF  TBKSES. 


725 


wliich  may  have  existed.  Observe  that,  in  Sanskrit,  tlie 
ioading  the  root,  by  reduplicalioa.  in  llie  tensca  int-titionecl, 
has  occasioned,  even  in  the  second  pereon  iilura!  active, 
the  lofls  of  the  personal  sign  ;  so  thnt  If^  Jadri^a  corre- 
sponds to  the  Greek  JeJopK-o-rc." 

512.  For  the  description  of  the  present  middle,  which,  in 
the  Greek,  appejirs  also  as  t)ic  passive,  and  in  Gothic  as 
passive  alone,  it  is  stifticitnt  to  refer  back  to  the  distjuisitiuu 
on  the  middle  tenniimtious  given  at  §.  466.  &e.  It  might, 
however,  uol  be  superfluous  onee  more  to  contrast  here,  as  an 
exiunplc  of  the  6rst  conjugation,  the  Sanskrit  bfiar^  (for 
W«(r-(i.-m^  with  the  corresponding  forms  of  the  eop-nate  lan- 
guages; and,  for  the  second  conjti/^ation,  to  annex  theforuisof 
the  Sanskrit  tan-w-t  (from  tein'U-mi\  from  (an.  CI.  S.,  *'lo 
extend,"  see  ^.  109*.  4.),  and  Greek  rivvfiat. 


SINfiULAR. 

(BND. 


oonuc 


bhar~e  {from  bhar-^-mf),  bnir-i,* 
bhtiT-ast\  boT-a-M, 

bhar~n-t<\ 


<p£p-0'fiai,       . . . .' 
(^r>-e-(7tu},  bair-a-za.* 
^p-€--rai,     bair-<t-da.* 


biiT-til-lfi' 

DUAL.  -^ 

bhnT-4-vahf,                         ....               fp€p-6-/j.e6ov,    ....        ' 
bhrir-i^lhf*                               ....                fpip-e-e9ov*     .... 
bhar-ftM,*  ^p-e^Sov,'    ^ 

PLUBAI*.  Cj 

bhaT-d-maJtA,''  bar-S-mnidht,  ^cp-o-^efia,     .  .  .  .' 

bhnr-a-dhict*  fxtt-n-dhttff  ?*  ^ip-t-aSe*      .  .  .  .* 

bhar-a-ni^y  hwriii-nt^.        fpep-o-v-rai,   bair-n-nda.* 

'  See  $$.<ft7. 473.  '  Regarding  the  at  of  tlw  root,  Bcoj.jl.;  and 

as  l«  (ho  Gothic  fti  oibaintsa.  Ice.,  seo  $.83.  ^  Tlif):  ii  replaced 

by  tha  thiiil  pitson.  *  The  terminations,  sa,  da,  nda,  arc  abtir^- 

vintiont  ot  :cd,  (bit,  ndai,  se«  j.iGQ.  Observe,  ia  bair-a-za,  liair^-^a, 
thitt  tliQ  coDJuDClivo  rowel  Sb  pnwerved  ilk  iU  orif^uial  form  (wo  $.466. 
caaduBitMi).  *  Bhtirt.tM  siui  hltariti,  tttaa  bhar-a'dlhi,  bhar-a-4tif 

wlience  bharAlhl,  bharSii,,  would  be  regulnr ;  but  !n  tliU  [ibcc,  (bn»ushi>ut 
the  whole  first  conjagntion,  the  <j  hu  been  wcaJcracil  to  i  (=ii  .(■  I),  or 


Jm 


726  VERBS. 

the  d  of  the  tenninatioa  has  become  t  or  !,  sod  been  melted  down  with 
the  class  vowel  a  to  ^.  Regarding  the  terminations  dthi,  dt§,  as  conjec- 
tural abbreviations  of  tdtM,  tdlS,  or  idihi,  mti,  see  §§.  474.  475.  *  See 
jf.  474.  475.  '  From  bhar-a-madhe,  see  {.  47"3.  To  the  Zend  termina- 
tion maidhi  the  Irish  termination  maoid  remarkably  corresponds ;  e.g.  in 
dagh-a-maoid,  "we  bam"  ^Sanskrit  dah-d-maM,  from  dah-d-madJte. 
*  Probably  from  bhar-a-ddhwi,  see  §§.  474.  476.  *  The  termination 

dhusi  may  be  deduced  with  tolerable  certainty  from  the  secondary  form 
dhwem ;  see  Bnmonf  B  Ya9na,  Notes,  p.  ixiTiii, 

SIKOUT.AR. 
SANSKRIT.  CRBEK. 

tan-w-i  (from  tan-u-m^),  rdv-v-fiat. 

ian-Ur-iA,  Tav-v-rat. 

f-r  DUAL. 

5;  ian-u-vaM,  rav-xj-nedov. 

^  lan-w-6,fM,  -rav-v-irdav. 

w  lan-VD-At(,  rav-v-vSov. 

O  PLURAL. 

I I 

tan-u-mahS  from  tan-u-joadhS,      rav-v-fieda, 
tan-u-dhwS,  rav-v-irBe. 

tan-iv-ali  from  tan-w-anti*  tolv-v-vtou. 

"  Remark. —  In  Zend,  we  expect,  if  tan  is  here  employed, 
according  to  the  same  class  of  conjugation,  for  the  second 
and  third  person  singular,  and  first  and  second  person 
plural,  the  forms  tan-&t-sh4  (see  §§.  41.  52.),  tan-&i-fS 
(according  to  the  kere-nHi-t^,  '  he  makes,'  which  actually 
occurs),  tan-u-maidM,  tan-u-dkicS.  The  third  person 
plural  might  be  tan-w-ail4,  or  tan-w-ain(S,  according  as  the 
nasal  is  rejected  or  not ;  for  that  the  Zend,  also,  admits 
of  the  rejection  of  the  nasal  in  places  where  this  is  the 
case  in  Sanskrit,  ia  proved  by  the  forms  jpjM'tyj^M 
senhaiti,  'they  teach,'    middle    ^pjAiu'^fos  senhaili,    corre- 


•  See  J}.  458. 459.    See  an  example  of  the  active  of  the  corresponding 
cloaa  of  conjngation,  or  one  nearly  akin  to  it,  at  p.  706  G.  ed. 


FORMATrON  OF  TBNSBS. 


727 


Bpcindingto  the  Snuskrit  ^nw^  mUuH.  "^TffiHAjaUi  {Barnouf, 
Yn^iia,  !>.  480).  lit  the  Sumkrit,  aIbo,  we  sometimes  Glut 
the  nasal  rcluint-cl  In  the  middli;  of  the  second  conjugation. 
f.y..  tichhtu:iiiitti  for  the  more  fommon  nrhinwnin.  Iti  the  finit 
{HTSOD  singular,  thi'  form  Um^uyA,  withenplionicy.is  formed, 
in  Zend,  as  appears  from  §.  43. 

THE  PRKTERITE. 

&I3.  Thu  Sanskrit  trns  for  the  exproRsion  of  pnst  time  the 
forms  of  the  Greek  imperfect,  aorist.  and  perfect,  without, 
however,  like  the  Greek,  connecting  with  these  different 
forms  degrees  of  meaning.  Tlicy  are,  to  Sanskrit,  all,  witli- 
out  distinction,  used  in  tlie  sense  of  the  [G.  Ed.  p.  740.] 
Grrrk  norist  or  imj>crrect;  but  the  reduplicated  preterite, 
which  correspoiida  in  form  to  tlie  Greek  iwrfect.  most  fre- 
quently represents  the  aorist.  The  Sanskrit  is  entirely 
deficient  in  n  tense  exclusively  intentletl  to  express  the  com- 
pletion of  on  action :  none  of  the  three  forms  mentioned  is 
iiscd  chiefly  for  this  ohjeet;  and  I  do  not  remember  that  I 
have  any wliere  found  the  reduplicated  preterite  as  represen- 
tative of  the  perfect.  When  the  completion  of  an  action  is 
to  bo  expressed,  we  most  commonly  find  the  active  expres- 
sion changed  into  a  passive  one;  and,  in  fjict.  so  that  a  par- 
ticiple which,  in  form  and  signiBcation.  corresponds  to  the 
Latin  in  Jtu,  is  combined  with  tlie  present  of  the  verb  sub- 
stJtntivc,  or  the  latter  is  to  be  supplied,  aa  in  general  tlie  verb 
substantive,  in  Sanskrit,  is  omitted  almost  erorywhcre, 
where  it  can  possibly  be  done.  Some  examples  may  appear 
not  improperly  annexed  here.  I  n  the  episode  of  the  Saritrt* 
it  should  be  said  V.  1 9.  "  So  far  as  was  to  go,  iiast  thou  gone," 
where  the  laat  worda  ore  expressed  by  yulan  twai/d  igatan 


»  I  h«T«  publWiol  it  in  a  collcclioo  ofcplsodett  entitlwl  "  Biluwiiin," 
Sic,  in  tho  original  i«xi.  anJ  ia  the  Gemuui  intntlutioD  nnder  tho  title 
"Stindilai."  (Berlin,  F.  Dilmnder.) 


728 


VBRBS. 


euphonic  tor  fffitam),  "gone  by  tliee":  in  tlie  Nalas  XIL99., 
for  "  Hiist  thou  seen  Nala"?  we  read  in  the  orjj^inal  kachdiU 
drlahUit  ttvny&  Nnt6,  i.e.  "anvintitite  Salua"f  in  RAlid&- 
sa*8  Urve^  (cd.  Lcnz,  p.  66)  "  Hast  tliou  stolen  her  step"?  is 
euEpressed  by  yntir  myU  UcuyA  hriiA  ("  tlic  way  of  her  taken 
by  thee  "),  It  hni>j»enB,  too.  not  inifpeqiiently,  that  Uie  com- 
pletion of  ail  aL-tioii  is  dcnutet)  ui  9Ut-h  h  nmnncT  tliat  he  nho 
[O.  Eip.7-i7.]  has  [lerformed  nn  action  is  designated  ns 
the  imsseasor  of  what  Iins  been  done  ;  since  r.  g,  T9nT^  Wf^ 
vIdavAn  aamt,  literally  "d'lelo  pra^diiut  sum"  signifies  "die- 
turn  habeo,"  "  I  have  said."  Thus  in  Urvasi  (I.e.  p. 73)  the 
question,  "  Host  Uiou  seen  my  beloved'?  is  rxprcsicd  by  npi 
dri^htnMn  aai  mnmn  pTtijAm,  i.  e.  "  art  thou  having  seen 
m.  b."?*  The  modern  mode,  tlierefore,  of  expreawng  llie 
completion  of  an  action  was,  in  a  measure,  prepared  by  the 
Sanskrit;  for  t)ie  siiflix  wn(  (in  the  strong  tmses  iwn/)  forms 
posscsaivcs;  and  I  consider  it  fiU|>crfluous  to  assume,  with 
the  Indian  grammarians,  n  primitive  sufHx  tavat  for  active 
perfiTt  participles.  It  admits  of  no  doubt  whatever,  that 
■JW^  uHavai  "  huviiig  siud,"  has  arisen  from  uWn  "  said,"  in 
the  same  way  as  irmT  dhnnavnt,  "  having  riches,"  "  rich," 
proceeds    from    dhanu,    "  richeB."t      The    form    in    tnvaf, 


•  The  fourth  act  of  Urvasi  affords  very  frcquonl  occasion  fur  the  use 
of  th«  perfect,  M  the  K'vag  Purarnvas  «n  All  tides  dir«ct«  llie  (IQCHIoq 
whether  nny  one  Iini  eoen  his  beloved  '.  This  qu<>Bllun,  iioweTer,  is  never 
put  by  uit'it^  nil  Biiinuunti^  or  rven  a  icdujiUcalcd  jimcrilc,  but  always  by 
tbe  pnsBiv(<  paniciple,  or  the  forinatian  in  i>al  <ll^^jved  from  it.  So,  aW, 
in  Nalna,  wli«n  DamAyAuti  mV%  if  nny  ono  lias  §ecQ  her  spousa? 

t  Tlie  Ijitin  dleit  maylw  rcgardtcl  aa  identical  with  dhanavat,  die  TaiA- 
dlc  ey  lift  Mo  lifting  dffipprd  and  c<im{irnMit«d  fi>r  by  ImgUicnio;  the  pi«> 
ct.'diog  Towel.  A  Riiiilliir  rKJnlinii  of  n  syliaMe  baa  again  occomd  tn 
ditior,  ditiaMinttt,  jnst  u  in  umIu.  from  tnavolo,  frnm  HMjrinvlo.  Pott,  on 
thoc^nlrary,  dividr*  ihni,  div-Jt,  nni  diiw  brings  "lUe  rich"  totlielndua 
"  ItpaTen."  dir,  to  whicli  »Ii>o  Varro's  dt- rivaLion  of  dhms  in  ■  r«rtaio 
drgrw  Bllnd(-^  lis  t/ircNr  tLnd  i/iw*  arc  akin  ta  tlit;  Saiulni  i/^-a,  "Ood"; 
nnd  lli«  imur,  like  dir,  "  bMvcn,''  firings  from  die,  "to  ahiac." 


FORMATION  OF   TKNSBS. 


^29 


although  apparently  created  exprossly  for  the  perfect,  occurs 
sometimea,  also,  aa  expressing  an  action  in  trausttiou.  Ou 
the  other  hand,  iu  neuter  verbs  the  Suu-  [G  Ed-  p.  74C.] 
akrit  ))iU  the  ailvantajjc  of  being  able  to  use  the  participles 
in  In,  which  are  properly  passive,  with  active,  and,  inileed. 
with  a  perfeet  meaning;  and  this  power  is  very  often  em- 
ployed, while  the  passive  signification  in  the  said  participle 
of  verbs  neuter  ia  limited,  as  in  the  obovo  example,  to  the 
ainffiiiar  neuter  in  the  impersonal  conetructions.  As  e»- 
auipte  of  the  actire  perfeet  meaning,  the  fullowing  may 
serve,  Nalus  XIL  13.:  kwu  nu  nljun  gatii  '«  (euphonic  for 
galiu  o.«),  "  (fuone,  ret  !  jiTiifectus  es?" 

51A.  The  Sau&krit  is  entirely  devoid  of  a  form  for  tlie 
plusquam  perfect,  and  it  employs,  when  that  tense  nii^ht 
be  expepted,  either  a  gerund  expressive  of  the  relation. 
"  after"  •^which,  where  allusion  is  made  to  a  future  rime, 
stands,  also,  for  tltc  future  absolute  t  —  or  the  locative 
nljsolute,  in  sentences  like  aptikrAnfi  nui?.  rAjan  damaynnti 
, . .  .  nhvdhynin,  "after  Nnlas  had  departed,  O  king!  {pro- 
feclo  Salu)  Damnyaiiti  awoke." 

516.  But  if  it  is  asked,  whether  the  Sanskrit  has,  from  the 
oldest  antiquity,  employed  its  three  past  tenses  without  syn- 
taetieal  diatiuction,  and  uselessly  exjiended  its  formative 
power  in  producing  them  ;  or  whetlier  tlie  usage  of  the  lan- 
guage has.  in  the  course  of  time,  dioppt-d  the  finer  degree* 
of  signification,  by  which  tliey  might,  as  in  Greek,  have  been 
originally  distinguished  ;  I  think  I  must  decide  for  the  latter 
opinion:  for  as  the  forms  of  language  gradually  wear  out 
and  become  abraded,  so,  olso,  ore  meanings  [G,  Ed.  p.  749.] 
subjceted  to  corruption   and  mutilation.       Thus,  the  San- 


■  Nol.  XE.  30. ;  Skmndam&nan  taitirulyA  javhiA  'bhitatdra,  "Jlenlem 
pestqiwrn  imdivrral  {'nfier  hcnrtng  the  weeping')  mm  veUxilale  iicAvmf." 

tN(d.X.  22. :    Iratfiam  luiltfhird  tifiavifhgati,'*boyt    will  elic  feci  in 
Bpirit,  uflornhc  hoi  Iwen  ai>ttk<3u.-d  (after  awaking)?' 

311 


730  VERBS. 

skrit  has  fln  immense  nombor  of  verbs,  which  ngaify 
go,"  ttic  employment  of  which  must  have  been  originally 
distinguislied  by  the  dilTcrencc  in  the  kind  of  motion  which 
eeub  was  intended  to  exjn-ess,  and  which  arc  still,  in  pnrt,  so 
distinguishi-d,  I  have  alreiidy  noticed  elsewhere,  that  the 
Sanskrit  aftrp'imi,  *'  t  go,"  must  have  had  the  same  meaning 
as  xerpo  and  epirw,  because  the  [ndiaos.  like  tlio  Romans. 
name  the  snake  from  this  verb  {s5n^^  sarjtu-s  "  iterpeta'").' 
If,  then,  the  nicer  Bigni6eations  of  each  one  of  the  three 
forms  by  which,  in  Sanskrit,  the  past  ia  cxprcssnd.gradaatly. 
through  ilie  misuse  of  language,  became  one,  so  tliat  eju-h 
merely  expressed  time  past,  1  nm  of  opinion,  that  it  was  ort- 
f^nally  the  function  of  the  reduplicated  preterite,  like  its 
cognate  form  in  Greek,  to  express  on  action  completed. 
The  syllable  of  reduplication  only  implies  an  intensity  of  the 
idea,  and  gives  the  root  an  empliaais,  which  is  regarded  by 
the  spirit  of  the  language  as  the  type  of  that  which  is  done. 
completed,  in  contradistioL-tiou  to  tliat  wliich  is  conceived 
to  be  in  being,  and  which  has  not  yet  ar^i^*ed  at  an  end. 
Botti  iu  sound  and  in  mrnning  the  perfect  is  connccttxl  with 
[O.  Rl.  p.  7*).]  the  Sanskrit  intensive,  which  likewise  has 
a  reduplication,  that  here,  for  greater  empliasis.  further  re- 
ceives a  vowel  augment  by  Guna.  Accorriing  to  significa- 
tion, the  Sanskrit  intensive  is,  ns  it  were,  a  superlative 
of  the  verbal  idea;  for,  e.g.  dtdipya-m&na  means  "very 
shining.*    In  respect  of  form,  this  intensive  is  important 


*  I  Mi«v«  I  may  indmJe  here  iho  German  rout  «/»>,  ili/  (tehld/ca) ; 
Old  High  Gennan  WI/m,  tle^^  tl^ttmit;  En^ltth  •'  I  tlip,"  W«  ihooM 
rxpt'cl  in  Gothic  tkipa,  sMp,  alipum.  preMrviog  tli«  old  umnia^asin  aJ^M 
=  iwapimi,  "  I  slM-p,"  The  form  *Up  is  fnundfil  (imitmnspoiiliflnof  Mtp 
to  trap.  Tli.r  tniirition  of  r  into  /.and  the  wukcuiiiKoftlica  to  1.00111101 
■urprtie  as.  Cimiidertng  the  very  dsiiaI  nxrhiin^  of  wmi-vowela  wiihooe 
Bootliur,  Mid  the  l>y  no  nuiinii  unumial  phcnoinennR,  that  h  rocn  '■  divided 
into  Bevcral,  by  diffvr^nt  corruptions  of  form,  wo  mny  include  her*,  too. 
lh«  root  Jtn/i,  ««<(<  (kAikt/cti)  ;  Miitdle  Hif[b  fief  mm  ttei/^,  rwtt^,  iie^m  ■ 


FORMATION  OF  TKNSES. 


T31 


for  comparison  ^itli  the  European  coj^natv  liui^nges,  be- 
cause the  moods  which  spring  from  its  present  indicatirc 
atiord,  as  it  were,  Uic  prototype  of  the  impt-rntivo  and 
the  optative  of  the  Greek  perfect,  and  oi  the  German  sul>- 
juuctive  of  tliu  preterite;  compare  preliminarily  Mban- 
dhtfim,  "I  much  wish  lo  bind,"  with  the  Gothic  bundynu 
(from  haibundyau),  "  I  miglit  bind,"  and  the  imperattvt  vuimi- 
dhi  (from  vach,  "to  speak"),  with  tfie  Greek  K€Kpax9i,  which 
IB  connected  nitli  it  io  formation,  though  not  radically.  The 
first  augmented  i>rctentc  of  this  intensive  comes,  in  respect 
to  form,  verj'  close  to  tlie  Greek  phisquam  perfect;  compare 
atiitiipnm,  plural  u/ilfu/mm,  with  cmiKpeif,  crerv'peifiev.  As 
every  completed  action  is  also  past,  the  transition  of  the 
vocal  symbol  of  completion  to  that  of  the  post  is  very 
COSY,  and  the  gradual  withdrawal  of  ttie  primary  mean- 
ing  is  not  surprising,  as  we  must,  in  German  also,  pa- 
raphrase the  completion  of  an  action  in  a  maimer  already 
pointed  out  by  the  Sanskg-it,  while  our  simple  preterite,  which 
is  akin  to  the  Greek  perfect,  and  which,  in  Gothic  also,  in  a 
certain  number  of  verbs,  has  preserved  the  reduplication, 
corresponds  in  meaning  to  the  Greek  imperfect  and  aorist 

516.  As  regards  the  two  augmented  preterites,  which 
appear,  in  Greek,  as  imperfect  and  aorist,  there  is  no  occa- 
sion, in  tho  form  by  which  tbey  are  distinguished  from  one 
another,  to  assume  a  primitive  intention  in  the  language  to 
apply  them  to  different  objects,  unless  such  [G.  Ed.[».7fil.] 
ooriats  aa— in  Gr^ek,  eAiitffv,  c'^toi',  contrasted  with  e\etnoy, 
cSlStM,  in  Sanskrit,  alipam,*  a<lSm,  opposed  to  alimpam, 
fidad^m — are  considered  original,  and,  in  Uieir  brevity  and 
succinctness,  contrasted    with    the  cumbersomeacss  of  the 


•  ThaSauikFltrMt/fp  is  sot  SMBwetcdwiih  thoGrrck.MII,  bat  means 
"lo  nncw,"andto  it  b^loc^  th« Greek  Xf*of,  ikil^.  BatoAfumMaiuIs 
NO  for  in  ilie  samo  Tvlatioii  to  atimpam  that  « A4vu«>  does  to  fXiuro*',  ibat  it 
tuw  iliveftt«il  iisvlf  of  tlic  iiiocrtcd  iwuJ,  M  ikinor  hu of  ihe tiuna  vowcL 

3a!i 


732 


TKBBS. 


imperfect,  a  hint  be  fouitd,  Uiat  tlirou^li  tlicm  the  Itingiinge 
ia  desirous  of  expressing  such  nctions  or  cunditions  of  Uu* 
past,  aa  appcnr  to  ua  momentary,  from  their  ranking,  mhcn 
recounted,  with  other  eventa,  or  for  other  rcAsons.     It  might 
then  bt;  said  that  the  language  unburthens  itself  in  the  norist 
of  theGnnaandotlier  ei;tsseli:irscteriatie8.ouly  bwause,  iu  the 
press  of  the  circumstances  to  be  announced,  it  has  no  time  to 
utter  them;  juat  aa,  in  Sanskrit,  in  the  second  person  sin- 
gular imperative,  the  lighter  verbal  form  is  employed,  on 
nrcotint  of  the  haato  with  whifh  th^-  command  ia  expressed, 
and.  e.'j.,  vld-ilhi.  "  know,"  yimfj'dhi,  "  bind,"  stand  opposed  to 
the  first  person  vidAni.  •'Ictme  know."  yunnjAni,  "let  me 
bind."     But  the  kind  of  aurlst  just  mentioned  ia.  botb   in 
Sanskrit  and  in  Greek,  proportionnbly  mrer,  and  the  witli- 
drawin^  of  the  class  characteristics  extends,  iu  both  lau- 
guRgea,  uot  to  the  aoriat  alone,  and  in   bolli  tliis  tease 
appears,  for  the  most  part,  in  a  form  more  full  in  sound  than 
the   imperfect      Comp-ire,   in    Sanskrit,   (ulihlutm  =£j€i^a 
witli  the  imperfect  adi^kom,  which  bears  tlw  oompletu  form 
of  the  aurist  above  mentioned.     In  the  sibilant  of  the  first 
aoriBt,  however,  I  cannot  recognise  that  clement  of  sound, 
[O.  C(I.  p.7fi2.]      which  might  have  given  to  tills  toitsc  its 
peculiar  meaning;  for  this  sibilant,  ns  will  be  shewn  here- 
after, belongs  to  the  verb  suljstantive.  which  might  be  ex- 
pected in  oil  tenses,  and  actually  occurs  in  several,  that,  in 
their  signififation,  present  no  point  of  coincidence-     But  if, 
notwithstanding,  in  Sanskrit,  or  at  the  time  oftlic  identity 
of  the  Sanskrit  with  its  cognate  languAgts,  a  diOercDoe  of 
meaning  existed  between  the  two  augmented  preterites,  wc 
are  compelled  to  adopt  the  opinion,  that  the  language  began 
very  early  to  employ,  for  dilTerent  ends,  two  forms  wlticb.  at 
the  ]ieriod  of  formation,  had  the  same  signification,  and  to 
attach  finer  degrees  oF  meaning  to  trifling,  immnti'rinl  diiTe- 
rcnces  of  form.     It  is  requisite  to  observe  here,  thut,  iu  the 
history  of  languages,  tlic  caso  not  unfrequenlly  occurs,  that 


f 
■ 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES. 


733 


one  nnd  tbe  same  form  is,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  split  into 
several,  nnd  tlicii  tht  difFcrent  fornis  are  applied  by  the  spirit 
of  Uk;  Inngiiagc  to  different  ends.  Tliiu,  in  Sanskrit,  diUA. 
from  the  base  (//IMr  (§.  111.),  menns  both  "the  giver"  and 
"lie  about  to  give";  but,  in  Latin,  this  one  form,  bearing 
two  different  nieftoiugs,  hna  been  parted  into  two;  of  which 
the  one,  which  is  modern  in  furnt,  nnd  lias  arisen  from  the  oEd 
by  tJio  addition  of  an  u  (r/nMrtu),  lina  assumed  to  itself  ulujie 
the  task  of  n-prcsenting  a  future  participle;  while  the  other, 
whieli  has  i'etnaiu«d  more  true  tu  the  original  type,  appears, 
like  tlie  kindred  Greek  Son^p,  only  ns  a  noun  of  ageney. 


TUE  IMPEKPBCT.  ' 

M7.  We  proceed  to  a  more  particular  [0.  Eil.  p.763.] 
(lescrijition  of  the  clifitrent  kinds  of  expression  for  past  time, 
anil  consider  next  th«  tense,  which  I  eall  in  Sanskrit,  ai-eurd- 
ing  to  its  form,  the  inonoform  augmented  preterite,  in  con- 
tradistinction to  that  which  corresponds  in  foru)  to  the  Greek 
ooriat,  nnd  which  I  term  the  multifunu  prcteritt;,  since  lu  it 
seven  dlSerent  foruiatious  may  be  perceived,  of  which  four 
correspond,  more  or  less,  to  the  Greek  first  aorist,  and  three 
to  t)ie  second.  Here,  for  the  sake  of  brevity  and  uniformity, 
the  appellations  imjwrfcct  and  oorist  may  be  retained  for  the 
Sanskrit  also,  altliough  both  tenses  may  in  Sanskrit,  with 
equal  propriety,  be  named  imperfect  and  aorist,  since  they 
botli  in  common,  and  together  with  the  reduplicated  prete- 
rite, represent  at  one  time  the  aorist,  at  auother  the  imper- 
fect. That,  which  answers  in  form  to  the  Greek  imjierfect, 
receives,  like  the  aorist,  the  prcGx  of  an  a  to  express  the  |>ast; 
the  class  characteristics  arc  retained,  and  the  personal  termi- 
nations are  tbe  more  obtuse  or  secondary  (§.  430.),  probably 
on  account  of  the  root  being  loaded  wilh  tlie  augment.  This 
exponent  of  the  post,  which  is  easily  recngnised  in  the  Greek  e, 
DUiy  bear  the  name  of  augment  in  Sanskrit  also.  Thus,  in  tlie 
first  conjugation,  we  may  eomp-nre  itUrrp-a-m,  "  I  delighteiJ," 


734 


TBBD8. 


with  CTCpirev;  in  the  second,  nd»dA-m.  "  \  gave."  with 
ediJav;  «*W-fMrMim  (see  $.  437.  Rem.).  "I  strewed,"  with 
&rTop'W-v  ;  and  akrt-nA'm.  "  [  bought."  with  iiiif>-vS-v.  As 
the  conjugation  of  t)ie  imperfect  ol  the  three  litst-inention«d 
verbs  has  been  nlready  given  (§§.  ISI.  4S$.  -1B9.),  where  the 
wcij;ht  of  tbe  pergonal  termiuations  is  considered,  I  aluUI 
only  nnnex  here  thccomjilete  one  otatarp-a-m  and  erefoir-o-f. 

1-1  SIMOULAR.  UUAL. 

&■  atnrp-n-m.*     erepit'O-v,         Qf«r/)-d-to  

3  <t(«rp-«-y.        erejOir-e-f,         atarp-a-lam,     cr^nr-c-TOK 
■J  alarp-u-l,         er£p«-6(T),'t     ahirp-a-Mm,     ^e/nr-€-T7w, 

BUISILMT.  «UXKB. 

aiarp-ii-ma,      iTCpw-o-fUv. 
atarp-n-ta,        erepir-e-re. 
ataTp-a-n,-\       trepv-o-vA 

"Rpinarl. — In  the  Vedn  diale«t  the  /.  whieh.  nceordii^ 
to  ^.461 .,  has  been  lost  io  niarpitn  for  alarpant,  has  been  re- 
tained under  tbe  protection  of  an  »,  which  begins  the  following 
word;  thus.  In  the  Rig- Veda  (Rosen,  p. 99),  Tnft"«  ^fwi^ 
ufnfVtT  iihhi"m  (tviimimnt  mvabishiim.  "  iflum  colfhnrd /nusle 
iit/yredienternS*  Accordiug  to  tbe  simie  principle,  in  the 
accusative  plural,  instead  of  the  li*.  to  be  expected  in  ac- 
cordance with  §§.  '23r,.  i39.,  of  which,  according  to  a  uni- 
VRrsnl  taw  of  ftound,  only  n  ha«  remained,  we  find  In  the 
Vfida  dialect  n(,  in  case  the  word  following  begins  wiUi ;» / 
t.g.  'wan^  w  ini  ^^  ogmAnt  tea  tatra  ehAfJaya,  "  nm  bene  tin 
diuije"  (Rosen.  1.  c.  p.  la).  I  do  not  hesitate  to  consider 
the  t  of  axmAfit  as  the  euphonic  mutation  of  an  s.  as  also, 
under  other  circumslnnees,  one  m  before  another  »,  in  onler 
to  iiiaktf  itself  more  perceptible  in  pronunciation,  bocomc« 


•  8(x;  f  437.  Rvw. 


t  Scc§.Ul. 


FORMATION  OP  TENSES. 


735 


I;  as  «.(/.  from  vaa,  "  tod  well ,"  comefi  the  future  vtl-stfdmi 
nnd  the  aorist  avdi-smn.  The  original  accusative  termina- 
tion in  ns  ajtp«'Ara  in  the  Vedus  niso  as  nr,  and  indeed  iu  htacs 
in  /  and  u.  in  case  the  weird  rullowiui;  begins  with  a  vuwul 
or  y.  in,  in  general,  a  final  »,  after  vowels  other  than  a,  A 
bw-omca  r  before  all  wnaut  letters.  Examples  of  plural 
accusatives  in  nr  (for  n  must  become  Anuawara  before  r,  as 
before  s)artf  fiirft  wv^ri\w*JyiriArachuchyfivi'taTia."nuhtiiejci- 
tate'''  (I.  c.  p.  72);  »»s^  wth  ^^  ^  ^^T  wif^  TB  i  ftm  Ueam 
uipti  vat^T  iha  Tudrhi  dtlHi/thi  u(u  t  yn/J,  "luAynh!  lit- 
BHM  hie,  Rudraa  atfve  jIdUlt  JUion  sacru  oof/" "  (I.  c.  p.  83). 
Bases  in  a  have  tost  tbe  r  in  the  accusative  plural.  The 
circumstance,  however,  tlutt  they  replace  the  n  of  the  com- 
n]on  accusative  terminations  with  Aouswara  (ri),  as  in  ^^ 
nnlrUn,  WTfi![iqi /Idjiyd/i,  just  mentioned,  appears  to  me  to 
evince  that  they  likewise  terminated  origi-  [O.  Ed.  p.73&] 
nally  in  lir :  the  r  has  been  dropped,  but  its  etfevt — tlie  change 
of  n  into  « — has  remained.  At  Imsl  it  is  not  the  practice  in  tbe 
Rig  Veda,  particularly  after  a  longtl,  to  rcplacca  filial  ii  with 
Anuswara;  for  we  read.  1.  c.§.  210.,  fVlP^  tidiDdw  "  skilful," 
not  f^viditSk,  although  a  v  follows,  before  which,  aeeord- 
uig  to  Pauiiii,  as  before  y,  r,  and  vowels,  in  tlie  Veda  dialect, 
tlie  terniiimtion  An  should  be  pe|ilaccd  by  ih'i  (compare  Ruscu, 
p.  IV.  8.) ;  a  rule  which  is  probably  ttikeu  too  universally, 
uiid  sliould  properly  be  limited  to  the  accusative  plural 
(the  principal  i-ase  where  dn  occurs),  where  tlie  Zciid  also 
employs  an  ri,  mid  not  n  {%.  239.)'  Tlie  accusative  termi- 
nation nr  for  nv  is,  however,  explained  in  a  manner  but 
little  sntisfactory.  by  Rosea  in  his  very  valuable  edition 
of  a  part  of  the  Rig-Veda,  p.XXXIX,  i.;  and  the  (  men- 
tioned above  is  considered  by  tbe  Indian  gramoiarians  aa 
an  euphonic  msertion  (Smaller  Sanskrit  Grammar.  §§.BS'. 
S2'.  Rem.).  If.  however,  an  initial  .i.  from  a  disposition 
towiu'ds  a  t  preceding,  luis  such  iuUacnu'c  as  to  annex  tliat 
letter,  it  up^man  to  me  far  more  natural  for  it  to  have  had 


73G 


VBBBS. 


the  power  to  preaen*c  ft  /,  which  actualiy  exists  in  the  pri- 
mitive grammar,  or  to  change  an  s  into  that  letter. 

519.  The  Zend,  as  found  in  the  Zeiid  Avesta.  nppcars  to 
hnve  almost  entirely  given  up  tlie  au^^ent.  at  least  with  the 
exception  of  the  aorist  mentioned  in  §.  469.,  and  which  is  re- 
markable in  more  than  one  respect,  A»^>^?y^  ururudhusha.' 
"  thou  didst  grow,"  and  the  form  mentioni-d  by  Biiruouf.  >o*« 
At,   "he  was,"  raMiv^^   dunhdt.    "if  he   wcre";f    I   have 

[O.  Ed.  p.  7aO-]  founti  no  iiislaiices,  whieh  can  be  relied 
upon,  of  its  retention,  unless,  perlinps,  yjjjA»ciM(i>Ai«p(it/ioy?ii.t 
"  tlit-'y  wi?nt"  (Vend.  S.  p.  Kt.  I.  4.),  must  pass  »s  such; 
and  «'(!  are  not  to  reiid,  as  might  be  conjectured,  ill  place 
of  it  f^iMQM'iJu  Apalhayht.  and  the  initial  rowel  is  the 
preposition  d,  which,  pcrha|>9,  is  contained  in  sonic  other 
forms  also,  which  might  he  exiiEiiined  by  the  augment. 
Thus,  perhapH.  in  the  first  I'lrgard  of  the  Vemlidad,  the 
frequently-recurring  forms  ^cj»f?fittrfl3AUji_/Td(Aii.weK«M  (or 
/fdthvxtrcifim),  "  I  made,"  "I  formed."  and  (»A»p^f  ^*a»i4/M- 
kcrvntaU  "he  made,"  may  ho  dislributeJ  into /ru  and  athwe- 
resem  and  akireitlal.  I,  however,  now  think  it  more  probiible 
that  their  first  aylluble  is  compounded  of  the  prepositions /ra 


•  The  inilial  u  appears  lo  Iwvo  hccn  fonncd  from  a  liy  ihoa«miLi- 
tiog  tiifluciic*  of  tilt-  li  (>f  the  accoiid  syUxljlc.  I  shall  reuur  tv  this  aonst 
he  rearer. 

t  lloromir  (Ya^na.  p. 434)  proposca  lo  rrnil  jijkU  d»  For  j^ijudg,  Bnl 
Ihiaform,  ntw,  hiu  poniotliltig  unconiTnoii,  (ince  the  V^dicvnt  (t<  (of 
whi&li  kvrtnrtcr)  wnuM  Iciul  na  to  expect,  m  Zirud,  lio,  a»  n  fniAl  Sao^ni 
^  »,  withnpti-ccilmgii,t>('giiWlybccani<«(?»'j  but  WW  ok  bcwiuea*  (aw) 
$.M>.).  Wiihnat  the  antrment  wc  (iiid,  in  llie  /(miJ  Avrata,  bddi  l)iv  resJ- 
ing  iiM  OM  find  m^m  a*,  proyidvd  tliia  rortn  uctunlly  lujnnjpi  to  the  verb 
■utmt'iiititt'. 

[  TliDs  wc  ahoald  road  Inatciul  nt  sc^QioidM  apnlhnwn;  compiuv  iho 
Swuhrit  apanthayan,  "  tlitj  went,"  with  an  inwrtcd  tuual.  'Eirtirtcw 
concflpMils  in  nr«k.  But  should  w«  read  lipat/uit/'T  fur  ut>athat/in  tlie 
loug  A  wouhl  uol  Ixj  lliu  Bagmetit,  bni  the  iin-poiitioii  A. 


■ 


S 
S 


FOBMATIOS  or  TEMSKS.  737 

and  A.  The  combinalion  of  these  two  prepositioiia  ia  very 
gviierally  used  in  the  Zend  ;  as,  juA^ju^ja  fnVliii/ti. 
"vnlue"  (VemJ.  S,  p.  I9-l),  M»>^»(ny  y^fjuiii  frdmann 
huvvtmhit,  "jpi-aise  ini?"  (V(?rid  S.  p.  39),  wlwrc  tlie  prepo- 
sitions are  sepnrated  from   the   verb.*    n3   in   the  possngo 

/^i>H3^>  JU^»7}  AuM  yw^OAto)  ^^^Al{;  AUdi  [G.  H<I.  p.  7C7.] 
frA  vatftipufiinti/rd  UTiarmirnffJi'iu.  "flr^'s  imlfnt  nrhnTn  crfs- 
Cfinfi  (Veud  S.  p.  2jt).  and  in  uwi^^y^jM  aj^jjaij  .wOA 
frA  xasta  innijanuhu,  "  waah  tho  handa"  (I.  c.  p.  467). 
A  form  wliich,  if  tlio  lithographed  codex  of  the  Vend 
S.  U  correct,  might  api»cftr  best  adapted  to  testify  to 
the  existence  of  the  nngmeut  in  Zend,  is  aio>^jjju(aijj> 
uhnxaijnnhti,  "  tliou  wast  bum,"  a  vrord  which  is  rumarkabic  in 
other  respects  also  (sec  §.409.).  Hitt  as  long  as  the  corrcct- 
uegg  of  the  readiug  is  not  confirmed  by  other  MSS.,  or  gene- 
ntlly  a.H  long  »s  tlie  augment  is  not  more  fully  established 
in  Zend,  I  am  disposed  to  consider  the  vowct  which  sLinds 
between  the  preposition  ami  the  root  oa  «im ply  a  means  of 
conjunction:  uiid  for  a  I  should  preftr  reading  /  or ff.  just 
as  in  vi-i-histn,  "stand  up"  (Vend.  S.  p.  lift),  ni-i-lmUiUi. 
"stand  ye  up"  (I. c,  p.  459),  ni-*-hixfaili,  "he  stands  op." 


•  The  compotieon  «f  other  MSS.  nititt  ilM^ido  whether  th«  occuutivo 
4if  tJiL-  prunoun  is  riglitly  coDJoinod  with  this.  Anquetil  renders  ttiis  tiii- 
pcrntive  wilh  ihe  woni  follnwiiiif,  H!>9(|3gAtio  kfiariUci,  "on  occnuiitof 
tliu  mllng,  of  tlis  DOurishinK,"  etnui^'ly  ooough  hy  '^quimeToaitgeea 
m'inrnqiumt  itvec  ardefir,  aa  he  nlao  (rnnslnti's  the  follnwln^  word^ 
jQ^ypJJ  ji,'OA>9'i!«AH[3jJ  (m^  J»J«M  (Jiiiri  (  =  ^rfM  «/'/")  vianm 
iliuiatahii  {kaiimairat)  eCuid/tl,  "extol  ans  in  priusc,"  hy  "flni  m'  inlrtme 
kamllematt  to.  yriire.  The  fonu  humnxn/ia  is  tho  iiupcralive  middle, 
whnv,  ns  vfUii  occun,  the  chuacMi  of  the  tnx  class  is  added  la  tlwt  nf 
die  fifdi. 

f  Palann,  "iwtmf,"  and  ucryahn,  "fmrant,"  with  which  th«  Gnxic 
RiTupat  lUid  onr  FiMiw  biuI  vtiM/isen  am  to  he  cniiiparud,  an)  iinpi>riVcts  of 
tlio  HubjuiLclivc  niood,  v>hkh,  with  diii<  Uhbg,  idways  comliiiies  a  prcseni 
sigDlficutivi), 


738 


TSRBS. 


But  a  also  occnrii  in  ttiia  verbi  inserted  ns  a  conjuncttTe 
vowel  btftweea  the  [^reposition  and  the  root;  for.  p.  4^6, 
I.  IS.,  wt*  reoA  ui-a-hhlaUi,  "  stand  ^'e  up."  I  would  tbere- 
fore,  if  the  reading  iii-a-za-ynnhn,  "  tliou  wast  bom,"  ahonld 
yirove  itself  from  the  majority  of  MSS.  to  be  gemiine,  prefer, 
nevertheless,  regarding  the  u  as  a  conjuuctivc  voirel,  rather 
than  aa  the  nuj^tnent. 

&19.  The  following  exam|>Ie8  may  throw  suflieient  light 
on  the  coujiigatioo,  for  the  first  class,  of  the  Zend  imper- 
fect ftctive,  which  aduiits  of  tolerably  eopioils  citation: 
i^^fiip  tixbar-r-m,  "I  brought  forwnvd"  (Vend.  S.  p.  493) ; 
i^M^M<iiiiiMM /rAthtmrrs-e-m  or /rAlhceni-<^m.  "I  created" 

r(i.  Ed.  |i.  738]  (I.e.  117.  &c.):  ^ioux}OM^)il /MdaS'.afim. 
"I  shewed,"  from  frAftafiayf-m  =Snnslc!-it  m^VV^  p^^'^'^'^ 
-nya-m,  "I  caused  to  shew"  (see  1.43.);  /rada4i-ai/6,  "thou 
shewedat"  (1.  c.  p.  IsM);  \»/i\y  kvr^itvd,  "thou  didst  make";* 
iwjujjt'cs)  perit-a-t,  "  he  nskedr  =  vmsir  aprichchh-a-t  (I.  c, 
j).  123);  fwAiwAu  fr'ii'-o-^.  "lie  was,"  =^w^  a/ilniv-a-t.(pA2if); 
tfiMiiu^Jiis-a-t.  "he  came,"  =wran^  agaehdih-a-t,  "he 
went;"  AigAuu-^ji  j^jjajs)  p"Ui  4/i»h-A-mfit  "we  s[K)ke"-t" 
(pp.  493,  41»4,  repeatedly)  =  HN3)V(H  prutijaaaiiadma  ;  jf*y^ 
anlwn,  "  they  were"  (p.  103  erroneously  mphin)  =^mnt  Awin. 
]  am  not  able  to  quote  the  scrcond  person  plural,  but  there  can 
be  no  uncertainty  regarding  its  form,  and  from  usihhtalu, 
**8taud  ye  up."  we  may  infer,  also,  iiiihistala.  "ye  stood 
up,"  since,  in  Sanskrit  aa  in  Greek,  the  imperative  in  the 
•rcond  person  plural  is  only  distinguiBliud  from  the  im- 
perfect by  the  omission  of  the  augment.  Elxamples  of 
the  second  conjugation  are.  f  ^£^  diufhan-m.  "  I  placod," 
"I  made"    (Vend.  S.  -p.  lu)  =  v?}rm^  ndutlliA-m.    iri'Btj'Vi 


*  For  taSrinait:  thm  i«,  tliRl  w  lo  sajr,  u  nflea  bappooa,  the  chHroclcr 
of  itir  first  clam ntld ail  to  tlioclnss  Flutnic([>r,  which  was  already  pmcnt; 
H  llinugli,  in  Greek,  iii!x-yti-t-i  were  niid  fur  ii*U-tiO-s. 

t  AiKioclit  reiideni  thn,  "Je  vtrn*  de  vatu  jiurler." 


FOHMATlOS  ON  TENSBS. 


7S9 


^J-At^t  mraSm*  *' I  spoke"  Cp-  12-1);  ^iJfAtlf  mrtiH-it^  "  thou 
siwkcst"  (p.  Ms),  r^iwj??  oira(Jf.f  "  he  spoke,"  ot-curs  very 
often;  wiwy^fj  krre-nnG-t.  "he  made"  (p.  135).  In  the 
fihirat  I  coiijf^cture  tlitt  forins  amrti-mn,  uinrfl-f(i=SEiiiskrit 
abru-ma,  abru-ta;  and  kere-mi-ma.  ia'rp-m%'ta,  I  ike  such  Greek 
furuis  ns  ^<rT(>|i>-i'ti-/iC»',  cirrop-w-rc  =  Sun-  [G.  Ed.  p.T&».] 
kvit  aniri-nu-ma,  wtlri-nv-ta.  The  third  person  plurfl!  docs 
not  iidmit  of  bv'mg  traced  witli  the  same  certainly. 

520.  With  respect  to  the  use  of  the  iuij«-rfcct  it  dt-servi-a 
lo  be  reniarktfd,  that,  in  ZemI,  thiii  tense  is  very  fref|itently 
emplnyed  as  the  subjiinettve  of  the  present,  and  titat  tJie 
reduplicated  preterite  alse  occnsionally  occurs  in  the  same 
sense.  In  siich  cases,  the  past  npjjeara  to  be  regarded  from  its 
negative  side  as  denying  the  netual  present,  and  to  be  thus 
adapted  to  denote  the  siibjtinetive.  which  a  likewise  devoid 
ofreiiTity.  Here  we  nuist  class  thephenomenon.  that,  in  Zf ncl. 
t!ie  subjunctive,  even  whert?  it  is  actuftlly  rornmlly  ex- 
pressed, far  more  frequently  expresses  the  present  by  the 
imperfect  thim  by  the  present;  and  that,  in  Sitnskrit.  the 
tonditioiml  is  fumislit^  with  the  augment;  and  that,  also, 
in  Gentian  and  Latin,  thi*  cuuditional  relation  is  expressed 
by  past  tenses.  Examples  of  the  Zend  imperfect  indica- 
tive with  the  sense  of  the  present  subjiincttre  are,  ai^J« 
(f^'&f^^  /rachti  Ivrevtat  "  ihcv  may  cut  to  piece8,"  =  S3n- 
skrit  W^fflP^  nlfnnUiit  (Vend,  S  p.  233)  ;  /fWjA'  At^A>/  *»v  a»»^ 
AU^  Ai^^Au)  livii  vA  nam  anhen  jMadta  cd,  "  tlierr  ntay  be 
either  two  persons  or  five";  auajuasju  waiv^  -U^*^  !f^* 


*  TEiia  form  is  based  on  the  SnnsUrIt  atiravam,tor  which  abmraia:  thv 
('untrnctioninZciKHBnmilartathaCofTnVH  tfat'air\  "orT/anrji,"  ui  f  jvjv^j 
yadiH.     negnrding  th«  oxdioiii^i'  of  Ia  vUU  m  in  mraAm  ttet:  ^.  Kl. 

t  TIieBO  tn-ft  |>enu>iis  pre-tufLpuM?,  in  Sanskrit,  nbn'i-i,  abr&-t,  for  nbicb, 
with  irregular inBanioa  ofa  coa^Wie\ivKtmn\i,alirav-'\-a,dbrav-l-t,an 


^40 


TSRB8. 


aahft( AthravJi,  *'ifitisa  priest";'  funtnJW-w^^'^^wS*'  J$'"-C. 
1/fsi  uahal  ToXhaSMo,  "  if  it  is  a  wjirrior  (1  it,,  slander  in  a  car)  ■"; 

TiiVt*^"^9  MAtvyjAi  •K'''>C»  y^-'  "?'■"(  vAstryA.  "if  it  is  a 
eultivatop";  mh^u  t^av^^  -|i^"C»  y^^  anUatiyA,  if  it  is  a 
dog"     (I.  C.p.53(»,l«l);      9«*J      AJ/JJA^iiAUjJAtf      ^fjJwt     •IS^.C 

[G.  Ed.  p.  7Gri.]  ^•^Hm^^m'' yisi  voi^n  mazdaynsna  sanm 
raddhayaiim,}  "  if  the  worshippers  of  OrmiiKd  wish  to  cul- 
tivate the  earth  (omke  to  grow)"  (p.  I9fi).  It  is  clear,  that 
ID  moat  of  the  examples  thu  eonjuuciion  yt'si  has  introducetl 
the  impcrf»:t  in  the  senae  of  n  subjunctive  prrsenl.  for  this  con- 
junction lovcfi  to  use  a  mood  which  is  not  indicative,  whether 
it  be  tlic  ]M>t<.*ntiaI,  the  subjunctive,  or,  as  in  the  passages 
quoted,  the  imperfect  of  tlie  indicative,  as  the  reprcseiiiativQ 
of  the  subjunctive  present.  However,  the  indicative  present 
oft^n  occurs  after  yhi  (Venil.  S.  pp.  26:J.  &c.  y^si  pnili- 
J'lifi'ili);  where,  however,  the  re(hiplicatctl  preterite  stands 
beside  ihis  conditionnt  particle,  there  it  is  clear  tliat  the 
past  is  regarded,  as  in  the  imperfect,  as  the  Rvmbol  of 
non-actuality,  and  invested  with  a  modal  application.  Thus 
we  read  in  the  second  Fargard  of  the  Vcndidad   (ed.  Ols- 

hausen.  p.  1S>),  |Oj»^^(?  i^Af  -w?**^  •4*5  '^'''■C  y^  ^"^ 
jflma  ntUi  viv/vf    "  if  thou,  Yima !    obeyest   me  not ";    and 

iit  the  sixth  Fargard,  am>m^^^  ■'S'^^C^  V*'-'  '"^"'J''  "  if  he 
can."  or  "if  tJiey  can."  "if  it  is  possible"— according  to 
AiKjuetit,  "  a  en  ie  peut";  Vend.  S.  p.  12.  Mnib  JJ"*,^ 
MMo/oMi*^  yizi  IktcA  didtaian,  "  if  he  hates  thee."  according 
to  Ancjuetil  "  ri  I'/iommi'  tv»us  irriff.' 

521.  If  we  now  turn  to  the  European  cognate  languages. 
it  is  n^markable  that  the  Lithuanian,  Sclavonic,  and  German, 
which  appear,  as  it  were,  as  three  children  bom  at  one  birtli 


*  RrganliD?  tlio  lerminstion  ataifJtaf  more  Will  !h>  iaIJ  liercafter. 
f  lliti*  I  ntfi  tot  6  WA Ay.^ -u/ Toiilhyan w,  for  wliiub,  j>.  178,  occnn, 
wiUi  two  oUier  faulu,  t^^^M^M^ roMayin. 


J 


FORMATION  OP  TENSES. 


741 


in  the  great  family  of  lang;ua»es,  which  ocvuptea  our  atten- 
tion, (Itverge  from  ova  aiioUicr  in  respect  to  the  past,  and 
hiivc  ao  divided  Uic  store  of  Sanskrit- Zend  pst  forms,  that 
thatof  the  imperfect  lias  fnlEeo  to  the  lot  of  [G.  Ed.  p.  701.] 
the  Lithuanian,  iind  ttie  Seliivoniu  hna  tnkmi  the  aorisl,  and, 
in  fact,  the  first  onrist,  while  the  German  has  received  the 
form  of  the  Greek  perfect.  The  augment,  however,  has 
been  dropped  by  the  LittiuaniRU  oud  SelavoniL-.  luid  the 
Gotliic  lias  retaiued  the  rcdu]jlLcation  only  in  n  sniiill  niimher 
of  verbs,  while  in  German  it  lies  concealed  in  forms  like 
hiess,  liif,  fiel,  of  wliieh  hereafter. 

52si.  As  the  imperfect  now  engages  our  attention,  wc 
must,  for  the  present,  leave  the  Sclavonic  and  German 
unnoticed,  and  first  bestow  our  notice  on  that  Lithuanian 
preterite,  which  is  called,  by  Rutiig.  the  perfect.  It 
miglit.  with  eiju«l  propriety,  he  termed  imp^Tfeet*  or 
aoriat,  as  it,  nt  the  snme  time-,  simultaneously  represents 
these  two  tenses;  and  its  use  as  a  perfect  is  properly  a 
misuse;  as.  also,  in  the  Lettish,  which  is  so  nearly  ulUed. 
this  tense  is  nctuiilly  called  the  imperfect,  and  the  perfi^t 
ig  denoted  by  a  participle  ^lerfect.  with  tlie  present  of 
the  verb  substantive;  e.g.  ea  sinnnyii,  "I  did  know,"  *?« 
fsfnu  sinn(iyi.i,  "  1  have  known  (been  having  known)."  That 
the  Lillmnninn  preterite  in  form  answer*  to  the  imperfect, 
and  not  to  the  second  aorist,  is  e]car  fi-om  this,  that  it 
retains  the  class  cliui-acteristics  given  up  by  the  aorist; 
for  buwaii.  ■' I  was."  or  "have  been,"  luiswera  to  the 
Sanskrit  VkTvn  abliavam  and  Greek  t^vav.  and,  in  the 
plural,  bum-o-me,  to  the  Zend  har-^l-ma,  Sansknt  iihli»jv-ii~ma, 
Greek  4<pC-c-tJi€v,  not  to  the  aorist  %M^  ithln'i-mn,  eiftv-fiev; 
ntthough,  if  necessary,  tlie  firHt  pei-aun  singular  butow^ 
might  be  compared  with  w^w  ubhilvam,  to  which,  oo 
account  of  the  u  of  the  first  syllabic,  it  appears  to  npproacli 


*  Cr.$.7IW.K«u. 


742 


VEBBS. 


more  clost^Iy  thnu  to  t)ic  imperfect  ahhatom.  1  believe, 
however,  that  the  Lithuanian  u  of  buwna,  is  a  weakenin;^ 
of  a;  and  I  n'co^isc  in  tfait  forna  one  of  the  fairest  nnd 
QO.  Ed.  p.  7^12.]  truest  transmissions  from  tlic  mythic  uge 
of  our  history  of  languages ;  for  which  rcAaon  it  mny  be 
pro|)er  to  annex  the  full  ponjug^ition  of  tliia  tense  of  tlie  verb 
substantive,  and  to  contrast  with  it  the  corres{x)nding  forms 
of  tlie  cognate  tauguuges,  to  which  I  also  add  the  Latiu  bttm, 
aa  I  consider  forms  like  ainabam,  dtKcbam,  Sic,  as  com- 
pounded, and  tiicir  bnm  to  be  identical  with  the  Sanskrit 
abkavam,  to  which  it  has  just  the  relation  whieh  ma/o  lias 
tomnv(do,  at  that  the  Old  High  German  Arm.  "I  am."  has 
to  its  plural  bimmSs,  froni  bivumfir  (see  J.  20.). 

SINGULAR. 


■AK9KRIT-                      tSXn. 

urn. 

t.*Ti)r. 

OKSKK. 

ohhav-a-tn,     A'ldm  from  bav-^m 

?  buw-a-A,* 

-bii-m^ 

^^tr-«-v. 

til/h(iv-a-t,       htiv-H* 

buie-ft-i 

-frfJ-J. 

e^ti-e-f. 

abhav-a-f,        btw-a-t. 

htac-o, 

-ba~t. 

e^^^<-(T). 

DUAL. 

ab}iav-(i-vo,      .... 

buu^o-wa 

•  •  I 

fe  •   • 

nbhav-a-tam,  h-ii:-a-lcm9 

b/itv-o-in. 

•  ■  , 

r^e-Tor. 

nfrfenr-a-Mni,  btiv-a-laiim9 

tike  Sing. 

e^y-e-nji'. 

PLURAL. 

abhav-&-tnn.  bm>-A-mft, 

bdtv-0-me. 

-6ti-mu«,c^y-o-jic»'. 

tibhav-a-Vin,  bav-a-Ut, 

biiwo-tt'. 

-hti-tli. 

i^vS'Te. 

nhliav-a-v 

like  Sing. 

•ba-nt. 

e<pv-ov. 

■  Fmmlmu>a-m:  k«^. 438. 

*  8m  ^.536. 

'  Aivtu-cAo, 

"ertuque." 

583.  For  the  regular  verb,  compare,  fiirthcr,  kirtttu,  "I 
struck,"  "I  cut"  (kirtnu  sjentm,  "I  mowed,"  literally.  "Ictit 
hay"),  with  t!ie  Sanskrit  W^*w  oAnn/om.  "  I  cleft,'  Zend 


*  The  root  u M(,  properljr  Aarf , ani  Wong»  to  tliosc  roow  of  (1m  •■xili 
chuB  wliicb,  in  tbe  special  IcnaeK,  n;ceivi>  a  iu»1.    To   th«  uma  clan 


FOBMATION  OF  TBNSRS.  Vi 

(3^«i^^^4    Icertniht,   end   Greek    eKtipov,   [G.  Ed.  p.  7G3.] 
wliich  lias  lofit  the  t  of  tbc  root, 


SIHGULAB. 

LTTHVAHUN.  Atxn. 

kirt-a-u  (s<!e  §.  438.),  e«et^-#-i'. 
Air(-a-i  (see  §.  4J9.),  c«p|)-e-f. 

DUAL. 


eKe(/>-£-(T). 


exeip-c-Tqi'. 

CKeifS-c-fiev. 

CKeip-c-Te. 
CKeip-o-v. 


ttjituar.  EEMD. 

a*/(ni-a-m.  *er?ttt-e-)n, 

akrint-a-K.  kprent-6, 

ahijit-a-ff  kh-ent'O-t, 

akrint-A-va,      

akrint-a'tam,  kfrhit-a-t^m  ?    Xcirl-o-ta, 
aUcfitU-a-l&m,  kerlent-a'tanitt?\ikc  Sing. 

PLVRAL. 
oArfni-d-oid,  i"-mit-4-ina,       kirl-o-me, 
alyint-a-la,     krrcnl'a-ta,         kirt-tytr, 
akrint-a-n,     ttfPnl-e-n,         like  Sing. 

621.  Many  Lithuanian  verbs,  wliicli  follow,  in  tlie  present, 
the  analogy  of  theSanskritoftlie  first  c'laas,  [G.  Ed.  p.  784.] 
change,  in  the  preterite,  into  the  tenth,  and,  in  fact,  so  that 
they  terminate  in  the  first  person  singular,  in  in-u  (=Snn- 
skrit  aijn-m).  but,  in  the  other  persons,  instead  of  («  employ 
an  ^,  which  unites  with  t  of  the  second  person  sin^lar  to  eL 

hehnffi  aIhq,  ainans  others,  Up,  "  to  bcemear.*  whence  UfiijtAmi,  i^mpatn 
(SMM1<1  [Kirist  niipam'),  with  which  the  I.iiliuantnti  litnpu,  "  1  putc  on" 
(prMerito /i;)/)au.  fatara /'}"«,  infinittve /f^fi),  ap^irnre  lo  he  ooii]i«ct«d. 
Pott  Bcut4-1y  conaiiarca  the  amliic  lalM  m  that  la  woulrj  be  an  oba«an,'d 
prtpMltion  grown  op  with  tlii;  jn"t.  The  present  of  kirta\t  itt  ktrtU,  on<l 
then  «T»  several  verbs  iii  Lithiiaiiinn  whicJi  conirAst  nn  e  in  the  frcMul 
with  the  Jof  ihc  prcteriu',  rmarv.  Anil  inflnitire.  Tliiti  r  eitlittr  sprin|^ 
dliTct  inva  the  original  a  iif  ibc  root  Atvi— «s,  aoiohi;  othcn,  tiic  |>ermn- 
ftwjt  e  aidfffa,  "\  burD,"'^San6LTit  daAdmi—ar  tlie  original  a  hu  first 
twc-Ji  weakened  lo  (,  and  this  h^  been  corrujilcd.  in  tli«  prttcnt.  to  r;  ao 
thftt  kertH  would  have  uciu-ljr  the  annie  relation  to  tbc  preterite  kirtau, 
fbtare  kir-ru  (for  kirt-tu),  and  infinitive  kir»'li  (from  kirl-ti),  na,  in  Old 
High  German, the  flanX  le/uimit,  "we  rend."  to  th«  Gothic  (rfam, and 
Ila  uwii  iJngtiLur  tUu. 


744 


vRitns. 


Tliis  oiidlogy  is  followed,  by  weimu,  - 1  led,"  trkittu, 
followed,"  whence  wpzei.  selcn;  wri?,  sehr;  u*ihi-n.  xekZwa\ 
ve^fvfn,  aptrta;  wprcnt*',  sel-emc;  «!p^/c,  spjW/<p.  OlwcTve  the 
aiiiilog'y  witJi  Mielke's  tliird  conjugntion  (see  $.  i06-),  nnd 
compare  the  preterite  lai/cinu,  5.  506. 

525.  In  the  LithuaiuAn  teiue  ^^-hich  is  called  tlic  hnbitual 
imperfecti  we   find   tlnwati  ;  as  suk-cUiwau,  "I  flm   wont  to 
turu,"  which  is   etisily    recognised   as    an    appeiulci!    auxi- 
liary verb.     It  answers  tolerably  well   to   dnwmu   (^\»m 
dS-mi),  •■  J  gave,  liave    given,"   from    which    it   19    distin- 
guished only  in  this  point,  that  it  19  inflected  like  Imwiri 
and  khtnu,  wliile  the  simpW  Jauyau,  dntcei,  (fau^,  ttawvit^i 
&c..  Follows  the  conjugation    of  ifeiirtu,  selciftu,  which    haa 
just  (§.  5124.)  been  preaentcd.  with  tliis  single  triOiiig  |x>iul 
of  dilTurence,  that,  in  tlie  first  person  sinj^uliir,  insteitd  of  i, 
it  employs  a  y\  thus,  dowyau  for  dawinu.     As  in  Sanskrit, 
together  witli  d&,  ••  to  give,"  on  which  is  based  the   Uthu- 
aninn  dfirni,  n  root  vi  dhd,  "  to  place  "  (with  the  preposition 
fti'i.  "to  make")  occurs,  which  is  similarly   represented 
in  Lithuanian,  and  is    written    in    the    present    d^mi  ("I 
place  "^I    so   might   also    the   auxiliary  verb  which  is  coti- 
taiiied  in  sult-dattviu,  be  ascribed  to  this  root,  although  tlie 
simple   preterite   of  d^mi   (from   rf<]Mt=Sanskrit  dadltdmi, 
Greek  Ti9i}fii),  ia  not  daipyau,  or  dawiou,  but  di^u.    But 
according  to  its  origin,  dt-mi  has  the  same  claim  as  d&ml 
upon  the  vowel  41,  and  tlic  addition  of  an  iuorganie  w  in 
the  preterite,  and  the  app<?nding  of  the  nuxiliary  verb  in 
snk-dawuu  might  proceed  from  a  [leriod  when  dtimi,  "  Igivo," 
and  detni,  "  1  place,"  agreed  as  ennetly  in  their  conjugation 
[G.  Ed.  p.  705.]     as   the   corrcepoiiding    old   Indian  forms 
dadAmi  and  dtuiMml,    which  arc  distinguislied   from    one 
another  only  by  the  aspirate,  wliich  ia  abandoucd  by  the 
Lithuanian.      As  dadhiJmi,  through  the  preposition  vi.  ob- 
tains the  meaning  "to  make,"  and,  in    Zend,  the   simple 
verb  also  signifies  "  to  make,"  cfemi  n-uuld,  in  this  sense,  be 


FORMATION  OF  TSKSBS.  745 

more  proper  as  an  ituxilmry  verb  to  enter  into  c-ombinntion 
with  other  verbs ;  and  then  stit-dlatpau,  "  I  was  wont  to 
turn,**  wonid,  in  its  final  portion,  coincide  witli  that  of  the 
Gotliic  sHlc-i-dft,  "  I  soiiijlit,"  laJIci-fiMum,  "  we  sought," 
which  Inst  I  have  already,  in  my  System  of  Conjugation, 
explained  in  the  sense  of  *'  we  did  seek."  and  compared 
wfith  d^x,  "  deed."  [  shall  return  hereafter  to  the  Gottiic 
.t<Ii--i-f/«,  nM:'i~<{Mum.  It  may,  however,  be  liere  further 
remurkcd,  that,  exclusive  of  the  Sanskfit,  the  Lithuaninn 
dawau  of  »ttk~dawau  iaif>ht  also  be  contmstod  with  the 
Gothic  Mwy/,  "  I  do"  (with  whit-h  theGernian/Aun  is  no  way 
connected);  but  then  tlie  Lithuaniiui  auxihary  verb  would 
belong  rather  to  the  root  of  "  to  give."  than  to  that  of  "  to 
place,"  "  to  make  " ;  for  the  Gothic  require*  /c nt«  .  for  primi- 
tive medials,  but  not  for  such  as  the  Lithuaoiar^  which  poa- 
sesaes  uo  aapiratcs.  L-ontnuts  with  llie  Sanskrit  aspirated 
mcdials,  which,  in  Gothic.  ftp|icar  likewise  a»  lUrdials. 
But  if  the  Gotliic  tauyn,  "  I  do,"  proceeds  from  the  San- 
skrit root,  <V(1,  "  to  give."  it  then  furiiUhes  the  only  ex- 
ample I  know  of,  wliere  the  Gothic  nu  corresponds  with  n 
Sanskrit  S;  but  in  Sanskrit  itself,  da  for  a  is  found  in  the 
first  and  third  person  singular  of  the  reduplicated  pre- 
terite, where  r.  (j.  ^  dndhu,  "  I  "  or  "  he  gave,"  is  used  for 
f/odd  (from  dadk\Mi).  The  relation,  however,  of /nit  to  dH 
(and  this  appears  to  me  better)  might  be  thus  reganlcd, 
tluit  the  A  has  been  weakened  to  «,  and  an  unradical  u  pre- 
fixed to  the  latter  letter;  for  Jthal  which  [O.  Fdp.76e.] 
takes  place  regularly  before  h  and  r  (see  %.  92.)  may  also  for 
once  have  occurred  without  such  an  occasioo. 

S2fi.  The  idea  tliat  tlie  Latin  imperfects  in  bam.  as  also 
the  futures  in  \w.  contain  the  verb  substantive,  and.  in  fact. 
tlie  rout,  from  which  arise  Jul,  fore,  and  the  obsolete  sub- 
junctive/nam,  has  been  expressed  for  the  first  time  in  my 
System  of  Conjugation.  If  it  is  in  genend  admitted,  that 
grammatical   forms  may  possibly   arise    through  composi- 

3c 


746 


VBBBS. 


tioii.  then  ctTtainly  nutliiiig  U  more  natural  than,   in 
conjugation  of  attributive  verbs,  to  expect  the  JntroductioD 
of  the  verb  substantive,  io  order  to  express  the  copula,  or 
the  conjunction  of  the  subject  which  ia  expressed   by   the 
personal  sign  with  the  predicate  which  is  repre»ented   by 
the  root.     While  the  Sanskrit  and  Greek,  in    that    past 
tense  which  we  term  aoriatt  conjoin  the  other  root  of  the 
verb  aubsbin live,  \h.   AS.   KS,  with  the  ftttrilutive  tx>ots. 
the  Lalin  betakes  ilself.  so  e^rly  as  the  imperfect,  to  the 
root  FCJ;   and  I  was  glad  to  find,  what  I  via  not  aware 
of  on  my  6rst  iitteinpt  nt  explaining'  the  forms  io  bam  and 
bo,  that  this  root  also  plays  an  important  |>art  iu  i^ram- 
mar  in  another  Iciiidrcd  branch  of  language,  viz.  in  Ccltia 
and  exhibits  to  us,  iu  the  frish  dialect  of  the  Uaclic  forms 
likv  meal-/fi-m,  or  menl-fn-mur.   or  menl-/a-moid,   "we   will 
deceive,"    mfal-fai-dhe,    or    meat-fu-har.   "ye  will    deireive," 
meal-fai-d,   "they    will    deceive,"    meal-/a-tlk    me,    *' I  will 
deceive,"  (literally,  •' there   will    deceive    I"),    meal-fai-r, 
"  tliou  wilt  deceive,"  mrid'/ni-dli,  "he  will  deceive."     Tho 
abl>revinted  form/dm  of  the  first  jtcrstiQ  plural,  as  it  is  want- 
ing ill  the  plural  afiix.  answers  remarkably  to  tlie  Latin  bnm, 
while  Uie  full  form  fn-mar  (r  for  *)  comes  very  near  the 
plural  Ita'tHits.     The  circumstanee,  that  the  Latin  6001  has  a 
[O.  Ed.  p.  7B7,]     past  meaning,  while  that  of  the  Irish /um 
is  future,  need  not  hinder  us  from  considering  the  two  forma, 
in  respect  to  thrirorlgin.  as  identical,  cspeciully  as  ^iri,  since 
it  has  lost  the  augment,  bciu's  in  itself  no  formal  expres- 
sion of  the  past,    nor  /utn  nny  formal  sign  of  the   future. 
The  Irish  form   should  be   projwrly  written  ^m  or  iioin, 
for  by  itself  ifrtri  mr  signifies  "1  will  be"  (properlv,  "there 
will  be   I  "J,  b'lodh-maod,  "we    will    be,"    where    the   cha- 
racter of  the  third  person  singular  has  grown  up  with  the 
root,  while  the  conditional  expression  ma  bhiam,  'it  I  shall 
be,"  is  free  from  this   incumbrance.     In  these  forms,  the 
eijiouent  of  the  future  relation  is  the  f,  with  which,  there- 


I 


FORMATIOH  OF  TBN883. 


747 


fore,  the  I^tio  i  of  ama-hiit.  nma-hU,  Sx.,  and  Ui.it  of  erh. 
cril,  &c„  is  to  be  comimrcd.  Tdis  characteristii:  i  is,  how- 
ever, dislodged  in  composition,  in  order  to  lessen  tlie  weight 
of  the  whole  form,  aad  at  the  same  time  the  6  is  wetikcnod 
to  /;  so  that,  while  in  Lntin,  neeording  to  the  form  of  the 
isotated  fui,  fore,  fuam,  m  the  compound  formations,  fant,/o, 
might  be  expected,  but  in  the  Irish  bam,  the  rrlation  Is 
exactly  reversed.  The  reason  is.  liowcvcr,  in  the  Konian  lan- 
guage, also  an  euphonic  one;  for  it  has  been  before  remarked 
(§.  18.),  tliat  t)ie  Latin,  in  the  interior  (/n/im/)  of  a  word,  pre- 
fers tlie  labial  medial  to  the  aspirate;  so  that,  while  the  San- 
skrit Wi,  in  the  corresponding  Latin  forms.oIways  appears  as/ 
in  the  initial  sound,  in  the  interior  {Inlaul),  b  is  almost  as 
constantly  found :  hence,  ti-hi  for  jap^  tu-ttkyam  ;  oti-bm, 
for  ^rfwTR  uvi-hhyaa  ,•  nmlo  for  Greek  Aji^  Sanskrit  ^ 
iibhAii;  nuhrs  for  ?r*n^  nubhns,  vet^oq;  rabies  from  ^  rabh, 
whence  ITTW  tariraAt//ia,  "enraged,"  "furious";  lubd  for 
yaffil  hJ/kyrtti.  "he  wishes";  ruinr  for  epuBpoi,  with  which 
it  has  been  already  rightly  compared  by  Voss,  the  labial 
being  exchanged  for  a  labial,  and  tlie  c  dropped,  which  tetter 
evinces  itself,  from  tlie  kindred  languages,  [O.  Ed.  p.  7C8,] 
to  be  an  inorganic  prefix.  The  Sanskrit  ftirnislies  for  com- 
parison rndhira,  "blood,"  and,  with  respect  to  the  root,  also 
rdkUn  for  rMhita,  "red."  In  rufut.  on  the  contrnry,  the 
aspirate  has  remained;  and  if  tliia  had  also  been  the  case 
in  the  auxiliary  verb  under  discussion,  perhaps  then,  in 
the  final  portion  of  nmti-fam,  nmn-fo,  derivatives  From  the 
root,  whence  proceed  faU  /lutm.  fore,  fio.  fucio,  &c..  would 
have  been  recognised  without  the  aid  of  ttie  light  thrown 
upon  the  subject  by  the  kindred  languages.  From  the 
Gaelic  dialccta  I  wjU  here  further  cite  the  form  ho,  "he 
was."  whieli  wants  only  the  personal  sign  to  be  the  same  na 
the  Latin  bat,  and.  like  the  latter,  ranks  under  tlie  Sanskrit- 
Zend  imperfect  abhawit,  buvut.  The  Gaelic  ha  is,  however, 
defiuieut   in  the  other  persons ;    and    in   order   to  say  *'  I 

3ca 


748 


VEKUS. 


vrns,"  for  which,  in  Irish,  hann  might  be  expected,  ba  wai 
is  used,  i.e.  "it  was  I." 

537.  The  leogth  of  the  class-vowel  id  the  Latin  third 
conjugation  is  surprising,  e.g.  in  fcy-i-bam,  for  the  third  con- 
jugation, is  bfiscd,  OS  has  been  remarked  (|.  IDS'.  1.)  ou  the 
Siuiskrit  Crst  or  sixth  class,  the  short  a  of  which  it  haa 
corrupted  to  t,  be/ora  r  to  #.  Ag.  B«?uary  believes  tliia 
Icng-th  intist  be  exjthiinod  by  the  concretion  of  tlie  clnss- 
vowcl  with  tilt'  augment.*  U  would,  in  fact,  bo  very  well, 
if,  in  tliis  manner,  the  augment  could  be  attributed  to  the 
LHtiii  ns  the  expression  of  the  p.i8t.  I  cannot,  however,  so 
decidedly  ussent  to   tliis  opinion,  us  I  have  before  doocf 

\Q,  Gd.  p.  7tiO0  partieutarly  as  the  Zend  also,  to  which 
I  then  appealed,  as  having  occasionally  preserved  the  aug- 
ment only  under  the  protection  of  preceding  prepositions, 
has  since  appeared  to  me  in  a  difTcrent  light  ($.  b\H.). 
Ttierc  arc.  it  cannot  be  denied,  in  the  lun^n^cs,  inorganic 
or  inflcxive  lengthenings  or  diphthongiKations  of  vowels, 
originally  short ;  as,  in  Sanskrit,  the  cliias-vowe!  just  under 
discussion  is  lengthened  before  m  and  v,  if  a  vowel  follona 
next  (v<Lh-A-mu  vak-A-vas,  vah-d-m(tn) ;  and  as  the  Gothic 
does  not  admit  a  simple  i  and  u  before  r  and  h,  but 
preBxi-9  to  them,  in  this  position,  im  a.  The  Latin 
lengthens  the  short  final  vowel  (which  corresponds  to 
the  Sanskrit  a.  and  Greek  o)  of  the  hnse-words  of  the 
second  declension  before  the  tcrminntion  rum  of  the  genitive 
plural  {(uf6-Tum),  Just  as  before  bua  in  amhi\-buH,  da^u»{ 
and  it  might  be  said  that  tJie  auxiliary  verb  bam  also 
felt  tlie  necessity  of  being  supported  by  a  long  vowel,  and 


*  System  of  Laila  boddiIs,  p.^.  It  belnf;  there  Btiit«I  ihit  i]i« 
OofauidBaOB  of  Uie  Lntin  6am  with  the  Sanskril  ahfutvata  tuil  ixrt  aay«t 
btoD  BotiMd,  I  muat  rctunrlc  tlmt  thia  bad  boca  do&c  in  my  Conjugntwn^l 
SyetPTti,  p.  \fi. 

t  Iterlln  Jahrb.,  Jsnuiwy  1698.  p  13. 


POKMATION  OF   TENSES. 


749 


that,  therefore,   l^-e-bam,   not  le^-e-bam,  or  ieg-i-bam,  in 
employed. 

529.    In  the  fourth  conjugation,  tiic  S  ot  audi?biim  corre- 
sponds to  the  BnnI  n  of  the  Sanskrit  diameter  ot  the  tenth 
doM.  atfa,  which  a  has  been  dropped  in  the  Latin  present, 
with  tlie  exception  of  the  first  peraon  sin^uhir  aud  Uiir«l 
person  plural;  but  in  the  subjunctive  and   in  the  future, 
xvhicb,  according  to  its  origin,  is  likewise  to  be  rcg'ardt.-d  as 
a  subjunctive  [nudiam,  uudida,  autiiSii),  has  keen  retained  in 
concretion  with  the  modal  exponent  (see  $.  505.).     As  the 
Latin  I!  frequently  coincides  with  the  Sanskrit  diphthong^. 
(=^H-f;),  and,  e.g.,  thv  fuUire  tund^s,  lurni^mus,  timdMis,  eor- 
responds  to  the  Sanskrit  potential   iudf*.  tudfyia,  tudiia 
(from  tudirii,  &c.),  ao  might  also  the  f  oi  tund-C-lfam,  aud-ii- 
-ham,  be  divided  into  the  cluments  a-^-i:   thus  titnd^bam 
luigbt  be  explainetl  from  (undiiiham,   where  the  a  would  be 
ttie  class-vowel,  which,  in  the  [)re8eDt,  as  remiirked  above 
(§.  109'.  L),   has  been  weakened  to  t,-  so    [G-.  Ed.  p.  7"0lJ 
that  tund-i-a,    tand-i-t,    answer     to  the  Sanskrit   tud-t?-si, 
tud-a-tu     The  i  contuiucd  io  the  (!  of  tundS-bam  would  then 
be  regarded  as  the  conjunctive  vowel  furuiiiting  the  auxiliary 
verb;  thus,  lundfbam  would  be  to  be  divided  into  tiinda-i-biim. 
This   view  of  the    majter    mij;ht  appear   the   mor«  siilis- 
factory,  as  tho  Sanskrit  also   much  favors  the  praclice  of 
uniting-  the  verb   substantive  in  certain   tenses  with   the 
principal  verb,  by  means  of  an  f,  and.  indeed,  not  only  in 
roots  ending  in  a  uonsonant,  where  the  i  mi^^ht  be  regarded 
as  a  means  of  facilitating  the  conjunction  of  opposite  sounds, 
but  also  in  roots  which  lerntlnate  iu  a  vowel,  and  have  no 
need  at  all  of  any  such  means;  r.tj.  dhnv-i->ihiji\mi,  "I  will 
move"    (also  dliti-ihyitni),  and    adliiiv-i-slurm,    "I  moved"; 
tliou^U  adMa-xham  would  not  be  inconvenient  to  pronounce, 
529.  In  (iivor  of  the  opinion  that  the  augment  is  con- 
tained  in   the  ^  of  autiifbam.  the  obsolete   futon-a  of  the 
fourth  conjugation  in  ilto  might  be  adduced  (expedibo,  Bcibo, 


y«o 


VERBS. 


aperibo,  and  others  iii  Pliiutus),  and  tlie  wiint  of  a  preceding 
4  in  these  forms  might  be  explained  by  the  urcumstance. 
that  the  ruttiru  has  no  augment.  But  iiu|>erfect9  in  ^bam 
also  oc-cur.  and  tlieiice  it  is  clear,  that  both  the  i"  of  -ibv, 
and  that  of  -fham.  should  be  regarded  as  a  cgntmction  of 
t4  and  tliat  the  ditfercnce  between  the  future  and  imper- 
fect is  only  in  this,  that  in  the  latter  the  full  form  (i^)  hov 
prevailed,  but  in  the  former  has  been  utterly  lost. 
tbo  cominoa  dialect  !bam,  %l>o,  from  eo,  answer  to  thi 
obsolete  imperfects  and  futures,  only  that  here  the  i'  u 
radical.  From  the  third  person  plural  eaid  (for  iunt),  and 
from  the  subjunetive  vam  (for  iam),  one  would  cxjiect  au 
imperfect  Hbum. 

[(J.  Ed,  p.  ?7l.]     &ao.    Lot  us  now  consider  the  temporal 
au^jmeiit,  ia  which  the  Sanskrit  agrees  with  the  Greek,  juat 
as  it  does  in  the  syllabic  aogmcut.     It  is  au  universal  prin- 
ciple in  Sanskrit,  that  when  two  vowds  come  together  they 
melt  into  oue.      Wheu.  therefore,  the  augment  stands  before 
n  root  bc^nning  with  a,  from  the  two  short  a  a  luag  d  is 
formed,  as  in  Greek,  from  e,  by  prefixing  the  augment  for 
the  most  part,  an  17  is  formed.     In  this  manner,  from  the 
root  of  the  verb  substantive  VB  aa,  BS.  arise  vm  dx,  M£, 
whence,  iu  tlie  clearest  aecordanee.  the  third  person  plural 
W*5(_  d«aii.    ?(roi';    the   second   WW  dm/n,   ^<rre;    the  first 
vnn  (trmu.  ificf,  the  latter  for  ^crjiei',  as  might  be  expected 
from  the  present  iufiiv.     In  the  dual, /'otok  iJittjji',  answer 
admirably  to  WTWif^  tU-tam.  VreiTK  dv-Mm.      The  first  jier- 
son   singular  is.   in  Sanskrit,  titam,    for   which,  io    Gredi. 
^aav  might  be  expected,  to  which  we  are  also  directed  by 
tlie  tliird  person  plural,   which  geuerally  is  the  same  as  tbo 
first  person  singular  (where,  however,  v  stands  for  vt).    The 
form  ^¥  has  passed  over  a  whole  syllable,  and  is  exceeded  hy 
tlie  Latin  cram  (from  etam,  sec  §.  22.)  in  tnie  preservation 
of  the  original  form,  ua  in  general  the  \jMin  has,  in  the 
verb  subslantivv.  nowhere  permitted  itself  to  be  robbed  of 


tvr- 

ha«^ 


FOBMATIOK  OF  TENSES. 


751 


tlie  radical  coiiaoiiaiit,  with  the  exception  of  tbe  second 
person  present,  but,  acconling  to  its  u»ual  inctuiatioti,  fans 
WFnkcnrd  the  original  s  bctweeu  two  vowels  to  r.  It  is 
highly  probable*  that  i-ram  wus  originally  ^mm  with  the 
augraent  The  abandonment  of  th<.?  augtnvnt  rests,  there- 
fore, simply  on  the  shortcaing  of  the  initial  vowel. 

S3l.  In  the  seooiitl  and  tJiird  person  singiilnr  the  Sanscrit  in- 
troduces between  tlic  root  and  the  peraoniil  si<;n  vand  t  anl'ns 
the  conjunctive  vowel ;  licncc<ljw,  dxi?.  Without  thisauxiliary 
vowel  these  two  persons  would  necessarily  have  lost  their  cha- 
racteristic, as  two  conHuiiai3ts  are  not  admissible  at  tlie  end  of 
a  word,  as  also  in  the  Veda-diiileet,  in  the  {G.  EJ.  p.  772] 
third  person,  there  really  exists  a  form  wn^  d«,  witli  which 
the  Doric  ??  agrees  very  well.  But  the  Doric  ^y,  also,  might, 
Trilli  Kiihner  (p.  234),  be  deduced  from  ?t,  »o  that  f  would  be 
the  chamcter  of  the  third  ixtsoii,  the  original  t  of  wliiL-h,  as 
it  cannot  stand  at  the  end  of  n  word,  would  have  been  changed 
into  the  cognate  ;,  which  is  admissible  for  tlie  termination. 
According  to  this  principle,  I  have  detUieed  neuters  like 
Tcru^t.  Ttpay,  from  Tervi^r,  xtpar,  as  flrpos  from  irpOTi'^ 
Sanskrit  prali  (see  §.  1 52.  conel.).  If  tji  has  arisen  in  a  similar 
manner  from  JJt.  this  form  would  be  tlie  more  remaikable, 
because  it  would  then  be  a  solitary  example  of  tlie  retention 
of  th(3  sign  of  the  third  person  in  secondary  forms.  lie  this 
how  it  may,  still  the  form  ^t  is  important  for  this  rcKison,  as 
it  explains  t(i  us  the*  common  form  ?jv,  the  external  identity  of 
which  witli  the  ^v  of  the  first  person  must  appear  surprisiug;. 
Ill  this  person  ijv  stands  for  tjpi  (middle  ^fvju);  but  in 
the  third,  Jfv  has  tJie  same  relation  to  tlie  Doric  ^  tliat 
TWirroju*!"  has  to  Twroixtc.  or  that,  in  the  dual,  rifmercv, 
tcpnerov,  have  to  the  Sanskrit  tarpalhas,  turixilot  (J  97.); 
nod  [  doubt  not,  also,  tlint  the  v  of  ^v,  "be  was,"  Is  a 
corruption  of  s. 

"Remark.— In  Sanskrit  it  is  a  rule,  that  roots  in  s,  when 


VS2 


■VERBS. 


they  belong,  like  as,  to  n  cIusb  of  conjugntion  which,  in 
special  tenses,  interposes  no  middle  syllable  between  the  root 
and  personal  tcrminatiou,  change  the  radical  s  in  the  third 
person  into  t;  and  at  will  iu  tbe  second  person  also,  where, 
nevertheless,  the  placing  an  s  and  its  euphonic  permutations 
is  prevalent(9eemy  smnller  Sanskrit  Grammar.  §.291.):  thus 
^T\  i6s,  "  to  govcrD,"  forms,  \a  the  third  person,  solely 
fisAl,-  in  the  second  aids  (vfTT:  asdli).  or  likewise  aadt.  As 
regards  the  third  person  aUl,  I  believe  that  it  is  better 
cnusitltT  its  /  us  the  character  of  the  tliird  person  than  as 
permutation  of  the  radical  .v.  For  why  else  should  the 
have  been  retained  priDcipally  iu  the  third  person,  while 
the  second  person  prefers  the  Torui  nsds'/  At  the  period 
nhen  the  Suuskrit,  like  its  sister  langunges.  still  admitted 
two  consonants  at  the  end  of  a  word,  the  tliird  person  will 

[G.  £d.  p.  773.]  have  been  asth-t,  and  the  second  adM-n,  as 
a  before  another  «  freely  passes  into  i  (see  §.  51".  Rem.};  in 
the  present  state  of  the  language,  however,  the  last  letter  but 
one  o{aiAii4  has  been  lost,  and  asAl-s  has,  at  n-ill,  either  in 
like  manner  dropped  the  last  but  one,  which  it  has  generally 
done — hence,  os'«((Os— or  the  last,  hence  n«iJ/(«).*' 

532.  With  ^r^^^Asi-st.  "thou  wast."  'WI^  rlW-t,  "he 
was."  the  forms  Asm.  dsnf.  may  aUo  have  existed,  as  several 
other  verbs  of  the  SHtnc  class,  ia  the  persons  tncntinncd,  Hssuine 
at  will  u  or  t' OS  eonjunetive  vowel ;  as  aroili\,  ariidii,  "thou 
didst  weep/'  "  he  did  weep";  or  arAdait,  nrddat,  from  rud  (the 
Old  High  Gorman  riu.:!/,  "I  weep,"  pre-supposcs  the  Gothic 
riiiia,  Latin  rut/o).  1  believe  that  tlle  forms  in  as.  al,  arc  the 
elder,  and  tliut  tliu  forms  in  i^),  il",  have  found  their  way  from 
the  aorist(third  formation),  vrhcrc  the  \tm^f of  ab6dhu.ahidhii, 
is  to  be  explained  as  a  couipeusation  for  the  sibilant  which  had 
been  dropped,  which,  in  the  other  persons,  is  united  with  the 
root  by  a  short  i  (alMh-i-^ham,  abfidh-i-Hhu"a,  tbAdh-i-yhma). 
The  prc-suppo&«d  forms  dnu,  &»aU  arc  vonfiroied  by  the  Zend, 


I 


J 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES. 


793 


bIso,  where,  in  the  third  person,  the  form  i»a>u'^  anAof " 
occurs,  with  suppression  of  the  augment  [O.  E<l.  p.  774.3 
(orfierwise  it  would  be  duuhni)  and  the  insertion  of  a  nasal. 
Odc-ording  to  §.  &0*.  I  am  Qoi  abit!  to  i^uote  the  second  pcr< 
son,  but  it  admits  of  no  doubt  thnt  it  is  nnhH  (with  eka,  "  and," 
anhai-cfui).  The  origimdity  of  the  conjunctive  vowel  a  is 
coiifirmed  also  by  the  Latin,  wliich  ueverllielcss  lengthens 
the  vime  inorganically  (but  again,  through  the  influence  ofa 
final  m  and  t,  shortens  it),  and  which  extends  that  lelt«r. 
also,  to  tlioiie  persons  in  which  the  Sanskrit  and  Greek, 
and  probably,  also,  tlie  Zend,  although  wanting  in  the 
examples  which  could  be  desired,  unite  the  tcruiiiiatioiis 
to  the  root  direct.    Compare — 


vV 


SINGULAR. 

/Liit  (Zetld  anhat,  iis,  t  Vedic  da),  i;;,  ijv, 

DUAL. 

A*wa  .... 

djfam,  Jjrrotf 

iittAm,  ^Ttjif 


nam. 

erAt. 

crat. 


*■  I  ouuwti  wiOt  Buruouf  (Yn^tiA,  Nolto,  p.  CXIV.},  explain  tliia 
oiiliat-,  ntitl  iie  plural  anh^n,  ns  n  atilijiinctive  (/>^)  or  a«  nn  ftoriat ;  for  n 
Lfi^  alwaj-B  reijiiircA  n  lung  i-uiijunctivv  vow],  and,  jii  tho  third  pcraon 
|ilLir;it,  aitn  for  ifn.  And  Bimtonf  nctDslly  uilroduccs  Bs  Lit  ihtt  fiimi 
atftJidi  (Yofna,  p.CXVUI.],  ivtucit  is  >iir>Prior  \oanhat\a  XhtX  itixrlaJna 
tbo  augmfitit.  But  it  need  not  surprise  vs,,  rrum  wimt  luu  \ieva  n-mnrki''! 
in^.fi*J<>.,  duiC  aifhitt  and  aWiivi  occur  vrittitk  niKjuni-iiie  ni^uificntioa. 
Aad  BurDuafgivc*  hi  tliv  f«Tm  nipdraifanta,  nn.-ntiviii.'d  in  ^  J30.  Rem,, 
a  aubjunciivv  ni«iuuiig,  without  ri'ieogniuDg  in  it  n  fririiiol  nibjonctiri?. 
TliB  diffKn-riM  ofllif  Zfiiil  avhat  frotii  tlit;  :?niulcrit  rfnr,  with  rv^nllothe 
conjniiutivi:  vowel,  Bhould  (urprlxi  qs  tliclcw,  lu  tliv  ifcml  not  anfrc^utniJy 
diflbr*  from  tbo  Sansb^t  in  more  imporlant  poinU,  as  in  the  prcacrration 
ofthfl  nominative  iign  in  bases  ending  wiih  a  c«nwDnnl  {i/k,  druci,  me 


754 


VERBS. 


Atma. 
data, 


PI.URAL. 
flRKES. 


UTtX. 

erim 


us. 


er&lM. 
eraut. 


"  Remark. — The  aiialoa^  with  bam,  but,  may  Iwve  occa- 
sioned tli«  lengthening  inorganicaJlyof  the  conjunctive  vowel 
in  Latin,  where;  the  length  of  qunntity  appctira  ns  an  uncon- 
scious result  of  contraction,  since,  as  has  been  shewn  above 

(G.  Ed.  p.  775.]     (sol*  §.  52fi).  6am.  Ms,  &f..  correspond    to 
the  Sanskrit  ti-bfifivim,  a-hhnvos.    After  dropping  the  r,  the 
two  short  vowels  coalesced  and  rndted  down  into  n  long*  one* 
in  a  similar  maimer  to  that  in  which,  in  the  Lntin  first  con- 
jtig^Uion.  the  Sanskrit  character  aya  (of  the  tenth  class),  after 
rejecting  the  y  has  become  A  (§.  504.);  and  beuw,  amAs,  amA- 
tia,   correspond   to    the   Sauiirit  Mmat/asi,   "thou   lovest," 
kiimnynlhri,  "ye  love."     The   iicct'Ssiiy  of  Btljiistiiig  wiUi  Uio 
utmost  nicety  the  forms  cram,  fMi,  Sec,  to  those  in  bn7ii,  M#, 
and  of  placing  tliroiighont  a  lonf^  ^,  where  the  final  conso- 
nant does  not  extort  its  shortening  influencei  must  appear  so 
much  the  greater,  us  in  tlie  ftiture,  alsn,  cr? s.  cnV,  <^im«s,  erithi. 
atiuid  in  the  fullest  agreement  with  fti.v,  lilt,  btmus,  bilh;  and 
for  the  practical  use  of  tlie  langu.tge  the  difference  of  the  two 
tenses  rests  on  the  difference  of  the  vowel  preceding  the  per- 
sonal termination.     A  contrast  so  strong  as  tliat  between  tlie 
Jcugth  of  the  gravest  and  tlio  shorliicss  of  the  lightest  vowel 
could  ilicrefore  be  found  here  only  through  the  fulk'st  rea- 
sons for  wishing  its  appearance.     Tliat  the  i  of  the  future  ia 
not  simply  a  conjunctive  vowel,  but  an  actual  expression  of 
the  future,  ajid  that  it  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  ya  of  -yuri, 
-yali,  &c  i  or,  reversing  the  cose,  that  the  d  of  the  imperfect 
is  simply  a  vowel  of  conjunction,  and  has  uotJaug  to  do  with 
the  expression  of  the  nOation  uf  time,  this  can  be  felt  do 
longer  from  tlie  particular  point  of  view  of  the  Lntin. 

533.  In    roots    which    begin    with    i,  I  h,  A   or  ri.  the 
Sanskrit  augment  does    not   follow    the   common  rules  of 


FORMATION  OF  TKNSES. 


755 


souud,  acconJing  to  which  a  witli  t  or  f  is  contracted  into 
^[=a-\-i),  ojtd  with  «  or  il  to  6  (=a+u),  and  with  r» 
Cfroni  or)  becomes  t;r,  but  id*  is  eraployeil  for  ^h  for^du, 
^  A;  and  ^n^  At  for  Vf,  ar:  ao  from  ichh.  "  to  wish"  (as 
substitute  of  lyi),  comes  Akhham,  "\  wished";  from  ufrjA. 
"to  sprinkle,"  c-oines  Aiik^ham,  "I  sprinkled."  It  can- 
not bo  ascertnined  with  certainty  what  thv  ruasou  for  this 
deviation  from  tho  common  path  is.  Perhaps  the  iiigher 
augmeiit  of  the  vowel  is  to  ha  ascribed  to  the  iui))ortuiic«  of 
the  augment  for  thi;  modification  of  the  relation  of  time,  and 
to  the  endeavor  to  miikc  the  augmeut  more  perceptible  to 
the  ear,  in  roots  begiimiiig  witli  a  vowtl,  thmi  it  would 
bo  if  it  were  contracted  with  i,t,  to  fi,  or  with  u,  il,  to  A, 
thereby  giving  up  its  jndi%-iduality.  [G.  Ed.  p.  77G,] 
Perhaps,  too,  the  preponderating  example  of  tlie  roots  of 
the  first  class,  which  require  Guua  before  aiuiple  radical 
consonants,  has  operated  upon  the  roots  vrhich  possess 
no  Guiia,  so  that  <!khham  and  <iut.-ithtim  would  be*  to  be 
regatxled  us  rugular  eoutraetious  of  a-^cbhnm,  a-Qkxham, 
nithongh,  owing  to  ichh  belonging  to  the  sixth  clnss,  and  the 
vowel  of  the  uk^h  class  beiog  long  by  position,  no  other  Guna 
is  admitted  by  titcm. 

iM.  lu  roots  which  begin  witlm.  tlie  augment  and  redupli- 
cation produce,  in  Siniakril.  aoeSect  exactly  tlie  same  as  if  to 
tlie  root  v^  as  ("to  be**)  a  was  prefixed  as  tho  augment  or 
the  syllable  of  rcdiipIicAtioo;  so  in  both  cases  from  a-us  only  S» 

•  As  i  c«iifii«t«  tif  a  Vi,  nnil  A  ofa^u,  so  the  fir§t  eleiaiini  ofUiciw 
dij'blhongannturall}'  meludovn  villi  aprcce Jingo  tu  it,  oiiil  the  prci'laci 
ut  the  whole  is  Si,  tiu,  la  roole  which  be|pn  with  ri,  wo  might  ngaid 
the  fcirui  4lr,  which  arises  thnmgh  iJie  BUgaivnt,  at  iimoi-iiliiig  ori^nally 
not  from  ff,  but  froia  lh«  orl^nal  ar,  of  nhk-h  ti  in  wn  abbrcvimion,  aa, 
nlAcr.  [h«  r^upUehtioasylLabU oibiUiarmi hns  bMO  duvclopcd  Doi Itum  iAri, 
U'liich  ttie  graiiimnrliinii  lunumu  jia  the  mat,  but  from  Dio  pmp(>r  root  bhar 
(see  VijcalismnB,  p.  15ft,  iie,),  by  vrcHki-ninc  tin;  a  to  i,  white  in  tlis  redu- 
pliuited  iiTvtcritv  this  wcald-ning  vooeo,  aod  babhara  or  bakhdra  iiiroiw  "  1 
W«." 


756 


VBRBS. 


can  arise,  and  um  is  (he  first  and  third  iwrson  of  the  perfect. 
Id  roots,  however,  which  bc^n  with  ■  or  u  the  operations  oT 
the  augment  and  of  reduplication  are  different;  for  hh,  "to 
wish,"  and  utb,  "to  tiuro"  (Latin  uru),  form,  through  the  auj;- 
meiit,  liitih,*  Au»h,  and,  by  reduplication,  ixk.  uah,  as  the  re^- 
lar  contraction  oti-hh,  u-u*h.  In  the  persons  of  the  suigular, 
however,  which  talie  Gunii,  the  i  and  u  of  the  reduplicalinn- 
syllable  pass  into  ty  and  uv  before  tlie  vowel  of  the  root,  wliicli 
[G.  Ed,  p. 777.]  is  extended  by  Guiia;  lience,  ty-^iA<7,  "I 
wished,"  uv-dtka,  "  I  burned,"  eorresimnding  to  the  phiral 
iskimn,  ^shima,  without  Guna. 

533,  In  roots  beginning  with  a  vowel  the  tenses  which 
have  the  augment  or  reduplication  are  pitwed,  by  the  Greek, 
exactly  on  the  same  footinu;.  The  reduplinition.  however, 
cannot  be  so  much  disregarded,  as  to  be  overlooked  where  it 
is  OS  evidently  present  as  in  the  just-mentioned  (f.  53-1.) 
Sanskrit  iuhinvt,  H^hima  {=i-ifhima,  u-u*hmo).  When  from 
an  orieiually  short  i  and  v  a  longT  and  v  arise,  as  in  ixe- 
TOfov,  iKcToiKa,  i0pi^oy,  v^piaii.ai,  I  regard  this,  ns  I  have 
already  done  claewherc.t  as  the  efFect  oF  the  rt-dupliention. 


*  KmvAdiifhiaJiain;  iho  inipurfcclin  fnnncd  from  tlio  subatitutc  ieAA. 

t  Aiuiat«i>fOTieninlLitenUui'«(Ivondni»,  I8'.*0,  p,  41).  When,  tbcrclbrv, 
Kvtig<T(Cril.  Gruniii.  ^.PO.)ni»ki«t)ie  lentporBl nug^inait  voasist  to  tlue, 
tlut  the  vowel  of  the  r^b  ia  douliUd,  tlibcorruspoiids  in  reganl  lo  iiurn<ar, 
\'fip\(,t)r,  i/jiijiifffuii,  iB^rui',o>>iAT(«o,whli  tlieopiiiIonex])resM!d,l,C|by  me; 
but  M.  Krug«r'»  cxplnnntion  of  liic  oiattw  Kann  to  mc  too  gvaenl, 
ill  LliU,  accardinf;  lo  II,  verb*  bcgimiing  witU  a  vowa-I  ix-ver  liiul  nn  aug- 
ment ;  and  iliat  tlmrvrvrr,  while  \Xw  ?nu»li  rii  rfwn,  "  ihty  wcrr,"  is  <»in- 
pauiiil«]  of  a-<uafl,  i.  t.  of  ttt  suf^ment  niid  ihf  rooi.  tlie  Greok  ^c 
WDDid  indeed  have  been  melted  down  from  i-*anv,  but  tbo  firat  <  wouM  not 
only  be  to  tbe  ruol  a  foreign  elcnieiK  ixdileii tally  agiveiii;;  with  it*  initisl 
■oyiidt  I'ut  \Xm  rvpctitioit  or  ivilu^limlion  of  llie  rAitical  vowi'l.  TIku 
{<Hu-,  in  «p)to  of  iu  Hunt  agreement  with  tbeSAiulrritdMn,  would  nat  b*vft 
lobengSTde<1  naontofttumou  rerparknblo  traniiniMioiiii  trom  tlie  ]>ri- 
rolllve  period  uf  the  languflgCt  hut  tlie  o^n^emcni  would  be  mainly  forMjN 
toiu^  m&iim  wftuldcoatAtD  Ihososmcnt,  ^am;  however,  a  »yll(tblv  of  reJu- 

pUcation 


FORMATION  OF  TBNSBS. 


757 


and  look  upon  the  long  vow«1  as  proceeding  from  the  n^pcti- 
tion  of  the  short  ooc,  as,  in  the  Sanskrit  I'Miiin,  ^nhimtt. 
For  why  ahoiild  no  7  or  y  arise  out  of  e  +  *  [G.  Ed.  p.  778.] 
or  V.  when  this  contraction  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  besides 
when  er  is  so  fnvoiiriten  diplithong  in  Greek,  that  even  £-|-e, 
nlthou^^h  of  rare  octurrent-w  in  the  augment,  is  ratlier  eon- 
tfActed  to  c(  thnn  to  t^,  nnd  the  diphthong  «■  niso  accord*  well 
HiCh  that  Irin^ungc?  As  to  o  becoming  at  in  the  au^^mciitcd 
tenses,  one  uii^ht,  if  re<iuiped.  reeogiiise  therein  the  aug- 
mciit.  since  e  and  o  arc  originally  ono,  and  botli  arc  cor- 
ruptions from  a.  Nevertheless,  I  prefer  seeing  in  iivo{ia^cv 
the  reduplication,  mther  than  the  niignient,  since  we  else- 
where find  e  +  o  always  contracted  to  of,  not  to  w,  althotigb, 
ii)  dialects,  the  u  occurs  as  a  contpcnsiition  for  ov  {Doric 
rw  v6fi.Ut  Tuc  voykoi), 

53fi.  The  middle,  the  imperfect  of  which  is  diatingaislicd 
from  the  regular  active  only  by  the  personal  terminations, 
described  in  §§.  4RS.  &c.,  ej^liihils  only  in  the  third  person 
singular  and  phiral  a  rescmbliinee  between  the  Sanskrit,  Zend, 
and  Greek,  wlUch  strikes  the  eye  at  the  first  glantc :  compare 
iip£p-€-TO.  e^ip-o-vTo,  with  the  Sanskrit  ubfiur-a-la,  abliar-'i- 
-n(fi,  and  the  Zend  Itar-a-ta,  bar-a-nia.  In  the  second  person 
singular,  forms  like  eSeiV-i-u-iTo  answer  very  well  to  the  Zend, 
like  hu-wi-nhu,  "thou  didst  praise"  (§.  169.);  while  in  the  first 
conjugation  the  agreement  of  the  Greek  and  Zend  is  some- 
wliat  disturbed,  in  that  the  Zend,  Recording  to  a  universiU 
law  of  sound,  has  changed  the  original  termination  ta  after 
a  prcL-cditi^  n  tu  /m  (see  ^.  .'>6'.),  and  attached  to  it  a  nanHl 
sound  (fi),  but  the  Greek  has  contracted  c-<ro  to  ov;  thus, 
etpepov  from  iipep-€-(Jo.  answering  to  the  Zend  bar-ftn-ha,  for 
which,  in  Sanskrit,  a-bAar-u-Mdv  (see  §.  41)9.).     In  the  6rst 


pUcatuiti.  I  should  carlAinly,  however,  iirefi-T  rvcnfn>i-''ii>f[, '»  <dl  (ircrk 
v«t1m  IwgiDnitii;  with  a  vowttt,  t)i«  red □  plication  alone  rather  than  Urn 
nugiiicnt  nlunn;  and  from  the  Greek  point  of  riev,  wilbont  rt-fen>nco  to 
the  Saoshrit,  thl»  viev  would  appear  mxirc  comet. 


758 


VERBS. 


person  singular  v^abharfi  froni  nftftar-o-i  for  abhar-a-tM', 
{9eQ%.\l\,),  appears  very  disndvantageously  compared  witfaj 
e^cff-v-ittfv.  In  the  Brst  person  plural,  e(p€p-o-iif.$a  nnswcrs, 
ill  rcsjicL-t  to  tlie  personal  terniinatinn,  better  to  tlie  ZeoA 
haT'A-vxniiJhi  tlmn  to  the  SansVrit  nhharih-maht,  tbe  rndiDgl 

[G.  Ed.  p.  770.]  of  which,  mahi,  is  clearly  ahbreviated  fronil 
mndhi  [«ee  §-  4"9.).  In  the  sci-oiid  person  plural,  i-tf^ef-c-trffe" 
forrcBiKHida  to  the  Sanskrit  obhar-a-dfm-^'m,*  and  Zend  htir' 
-n-(lhirfm:'  in  the  dual,  for  the  Greek  iipcp-e-irdov,  e^»c^-e-< 
~ad>iv  (from  iupcp-t-Trov,  i^p-t-mjv,  (sec  $. -17-1.),  stind,  in 
Saus\ir\t,u{>hfirflhAm.ahbuT^liim,  from  a6^n r-«->W/i'(fii,  nbhartt- 
-d-Mm  (according  to  the  third  class  ahibhr-iUhdm,  abihhr' 
-*Mdm).  and  this,  aceortling  to  the  conjecture  exprnssed  above, 
(J,  4H.)«  f"^™  fibhar-a-thfUhfim,  abhar-a-tStAm. 

"Remark. —  I  can  (iiiotu  in  Zend  only  iho  thini  person 
sin^lrir  aud  plural,  the  latter  instanced  in  nip<irayanOi, 
which  occurs  in  the  Vend.  S.  p.  434  in  the  sense  ofa  sub- 
junctive presenlf  [nipiiTayaula  Apem.  *  trnnsf/rediantur' 
ntiu(im')  which,  according  to  what  has  heen  rcmnriced  at 
§.  J20.,  need  not  surprise  us.  The  tliird  person  flin^lar 
can  be  copiously  cited.  I  will  here  notice  only  the  fre- 
quently recurrint^  M^iSihu  adi-ta.  'he  spolte.'  ju^«xij^Joua) 
finili-a6da,  *he  answered,*  the  a  of  which  I  do  not  regard 
as  the  augment,  as  in  general  the  augment  has  almost  db- 
nppcarod  in  Zend  (see  §.  ft  IS.),  hut  as  the  phonetic  prefix 
mentioned  in  I-  ?9.  But  how  is  the  remaining  Acta  re- 
luted  to  the  Sanskrit  r*  The  root  nw  oacft  is  not  used  in 
the  middle;  but  if  it  were,  it  would.  Lo  tlic  third  person 


•  From  tf^p-1-TTt,  ahhar-a-ddhfcam,  bhar-a-dHku^mJ  (lee  $.4*4. 

t  CompKn)  Itnnwuf,  Yn^ndjp.SIS.  In  Sanskrit  tho  Terb  pdnrydMi, 
mid.  jMtrojF^,  corrMpotids,  nhidi  I  do  tint  il«riirt!  with  iJie  Imliiui  gnnt- 
inarians  from  the  root  ii  pr'i^  "  tn  fnUil,'*  1iut  regnnl  il«  iIic  ildimiii  lutive 
otpAra,  "th«  further nfuin";  this  pSra,  hoirev«r,  Is  Wt  dmred  IJoro 
para,  "  the  Mlier." 


^ 


POBMATIOS  OP  TBNSES. 


759 


singular  of  the  iaiperfcct,  form  avukla.  without  the 
augment  vakla;  and  hence,  by  cltanging  fo  to  a  +  H  (for 
u  +  v).  tlic  Zend  ai;x]Ju»  ^a  might  be  de<luL>ed,  with  the 
regular  contraction  of  the  «  +  u  to  !>.•  As,  in  Sanskrit,  the 
root  mc/i,  in  many  irregular  forms,  has  laid  aside  a,  nad  vo- 
calized the  k  to  ii.t  we  might,  uUo,  for  rt-i-n(Wo,    [G.  EJ,  p.  780.] 


•  On  ihe  viilne  of  ly  as  long  d  wc  f .  ■147-  Nole. 

|-  As  rrgardstnyiaplanBlionof  ilie  Mwhitti  takoa  OicpIiiCH  (ifru  in  the 
rofit  vac/i,  Bind  mnny  oiliere.  In  certain  funtit)  <luv«iil  of  Ounn,  Privfcnor 
Hofcr  (Conlributiorw  to  Etj-molt^y,  ]>,  38-1),  Hwh  it  rcmnrknHc  llist  w« 
*o  ol^cn  ovorlonk  ulutt  ih  juNt  ul  Iwiid,  and  tlitnlct  thai  in  t)i>o  case  under 
JiscunioD  lliu  II  U  not  to  be  dniuccd  fioiD  tlio  ti  at  voy  bnt  that  tVom  vu 
rti  bu  been  formed  ;  and  ofthi*,  oficr  rrjcctiDg  tlac  i',  oa\y  tbe  u  hu  re- 
mninpd.  In  this,  hoMc^vi^r,  M.  HUht  Has,  on  liis  part,  ovrrlnokcd,  that 
the  iluiifAlion  of  u  frnm  vu  cannot  be  sr]iarntcd  from  the  {ibenotnrtiK 
wliii'h  niD  imralliJ  thereto,  accoidiiiK  to  which  i  proceeds  from  y/t  nut]  ri 
from  fw.  It  ta  impoHaible  t»  doducc  grihifall,  "capitiir,"  for  grafiyatf, 
ill  *iii:h  n  muiiier  m  to  ilerive  rri  from  rri,  as  f.-u  frotn  ivi,  an<)  tliu»  pre- 
nipposc  for  grikyali  a  grrihyatf,  luid  hmcr  drop  the  r.  Bui  what  U 
more  natural  than  that  tbo  ««mi-vowcl8  sliould  at  tints  leject  tlic  rowul 
whlth  aetorapBolM  them,  aalhey  themselves  ean  liecomi*  a  vow^lT  If 
not  the  nlution  ciftli*  Old  High  German  tr,  "  yt,"  to  t)i«  Gothic  yix 
foBoded  on  this?  and  evvn  tliat  of  the  Oothtc  gcnitirc  i-nsira  t«  the  to* 
-1>e-4'Xpf0l«d  ^u-svaraf  Or  fnuat  from  t/v*  be  naxt  formed^,  and 
hence  ir  by  rejecting  the  |i  F  Can  it  l>v  tlmt  tin-  (iotlitc  nominative  tAiiu, 
"  llie  BiTvivnt,"  hns  ariKU  from  the  theme  Ihn'a,  not,  wliich  it  ihc  TKoditai 
iray  of  deriving  it,  by  the  p  twcoming  u  aDrr  Iho  a  has  )>cwd  rejected, 
but  by  formiDg  fVom  tkira  flmt  tliiva,  and  then,  by  dropping  tha  v, 
in  the  nominative  thiut,  ai»1  in  llio  ncciisativv  t/i^ul  T  folly  nvknow- 
lodge  M.  Ufifer't  valu«lilci  lultour^  with  regard  la  th«  Prnkrii,  bat  boli«v« 
thai.  In  Ube  uuw  beforv  ub,  Iu)  litwKuirenid  liimw-lf  to  hu  mivlfd  by  Ibisin- 
(ereaiingnnd  Instmctivo  dialect.  It  a  trac  ilial  ihc  Piftkrit  u  mora  &»• 
<|a«titly  founded  ob  forms  older  than  tliOM  vhich  coone  before  us  in  cinwic 
Sanifcril.  1  hare  shewn  this,  among  other  plnctiB,  in  the  I mtrn menial 
plural  tf- 220.),  where,  howeycr,  n»  unual,  the  I'ralni,  in  spite  of  banng 
an  older  fvrui  belbre  it,  liw  m-vcithelee«  1>««b  guilty  of  admilungi  at  the 
same  time,  n  Mroog  corni)iiliHL  Thio  is  the  cnae  wllh  the  Prfikflt 
tvrJiehatii,  "dicilur."    1  willingly  concede  to  M.  Hufer,  that  tliii  form  U 

baaed 


760 


VERBS. 


suppose  a  form  a-ulin  (without  the  euphonic  contractioo), 
and  tient-e,  iu  Zend,  deduce,  according  to  the  common  oon- 
[G.  Ed.  p.  781]    traction,  the  forra  Ma,  to  which  /Jcta  theo, 
according  to  §.  28.,  nn  a  would  be  further  prefixed  ;  »o  that 
ill  M^^ifM  nSda  an  augment  would  in  reality  lie  concealed, 
without  being   contained   in  the   initial    a.      Tliis    apcciat 
case  is  here,  [loweveri  of  no  great  iiuportanoe  to  us ;    but 
this  nione  is  so,  that  u6cla,  iu  its  termination,  is  idc-ntical 
with  the  Snnskrit,  and  comes  very  nenr  the  Greek   to  of 
eifiep-e-Te,  eJc/k-vw-to.     To  the  latter  answers  tlie  often  re- 
curring hii-nu-la,  '  he  praised'  (compare  Greek  C-fn-oi),  with 
an  inorgiinic  lengthening  of  tlie  u.     From  the  latter  luay. 
with  certainty,   be  derived    the    abovc-metitioDed    secxuid 
person     /lu-iiu-s/m,     after     the     analogy     of    the     aorist 
urdTuJhiisim   (see  J.  409.).     Iu    the   first   person   plural    I 
have  contnisted  the  form  bat'O-mnldM,  which  is  not  dis- 
tinguishable from  the  ]ire8ent,  with  the  Greek  e-iftc/^-ofieSa ; 
for  it  is  clear,  from  the  obovcnientiQncd  (§.472.)  potcntiul 
WE^^J'^-iiQ**^  liuidhyiiimuidlii,   tliat  tlie  secondary  fonus 
are  not  distinguished,  in  the  first  person  plural,  from  the 
primary  ones:  after  dropping  tlie  augment,  therefore,  no 
dilference  from  the  ])resent  can  exist.      The  form  hnr-a- 
-dhvxin  of  tlie  second  person  plural  follows  from  the  im- 
perative quoted  by  Burnouf  (Ya^jia,  Notes,  p.  XXXVfU.), 
as  5firf(»jU>iA|5  :royat/Au;5m,     'live  ye,'    and    the   precative 
^gaO^ftffAAA'g  dayaiihwem,  '  may  ye  give,""* 


Ixueil  on  some  other  older  one  iluui  llie  prtrMnt  Snnskrit  uchyati,  hnt  I  do 
not  thence  dcdm-t'  a  nicAyttfi?,  hnt  iiier<?]y  nitfif/aif.fbT  wbich  the  PrAkrit 
if  not  at  all  rtqnirvd,  Tbc  PriLkrit,  like  many  other  litn^ungea,  hso,  in 
very  mftny  placp*,  n-cnkmcij  nn  originni  «  In  u  (wo  p.  3C;!  Note*):  why, 
then,  shoold  il  not  Imrc  orcBsionnlly  done  bo  nfier  tlic  r,  wliirb  is  lio>aa> 
gvnccus  to  the  H,  ai  tho  ZcnJ,  iwcordiii;;  to  Hurnintrit  coiijit-clDrc,  Itos 
Mtnctimes,  thrangh  Oio  uiflu?iic«  of  a  t>,  chiuigcd  a  foUawiRga  ta£l 

•  In  oiy  opinion,  this  form  (of  which  mon  hvicoftcr}  must  b*  tuVen 
fbt  &  t^'^cuive,  out  fur  oa  iinpcmtivc. 


FOBMATION  OP  TENSES.  761 

ORlOtN  OF  THE  AUGMENT. 

537. 1  hold  the  augment  to  be  idcutlcal  in  its  origin  mih 
the  a  privative,  and  regard  it,  therefore,  as  the  cxprcsaion 
of  the  negation  of  the  present.  This  opiuion,  which  has 
been  already  brought  forward  in  the  "Annals  of  Oriental 
Literature,"  has,  since  thon,  been  supported  by  Ag.  Benary" 
and  Hartuiig  {Greek  Particles,  II.  1 10.),  but  opposed  by 
Lassen.  As.  liowever,  Professor  Lassen  will  allow  of  no  ex- 
planation wliatever  of  gramtnutical  forms  by  annexation,  and 
bestows  no  credit  on  the  verb  substantive,  clearly  as  it  mani- 
fests itself  in  Sanskrit  iu  many  tenses  of  [O.  Ed.  p,  782.3 
attributive  vprba,  treating  it  like  the  old  *'  everywhere"  and 
*'  nowhere,"  I  am  not  surprised  that  he  sees,  in  the  explana- 
tion of  the  augment  just  given,  the  culminating  point  of  tlie 
agglutination  system,  and  is  astonished  that  the  first  ances- 
tors of  the  human  race,  instead  of  saying  "  I  saw."  should  be 
supposed  to  have  said  "I  see  not."  This,  however,  they  did 
not  do,  since,  by  the  negative  particle,  they  did  not  wish  to 
remove  the  action  itself,  but  only  the  present  time  of  the 
same.  The  Sanskrit,  iu  genera],  uses  its  negative  particles  in 
certain  compounds  in  a  way  which,  at  the  first  glance  and 
without  knowing  tlie  true  object  of  the  language,  appears 
very  extraordinary.  Thus,  uflamti-ii.  "  the  highest."  does  not 
lose  its  signification  by  having  the  negative  particle  a  pre- 
fixed to  it  (wliich,  as  in  Greek  before  vowels,  receives  the 
addition  of  a  nasal}:  an-allamits  is  not  "  tlie  not  highest,** 
or  "  the  low,"  but  in  like  manner  "  the  highest,"  nay, 
even  emphatically  *'  tJie  highest,"  or  "  the  highest  of  all." 
And  yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  in  antiHama-s,  the  par- 
ticle un,  has  really  its  negative  force,  but  onuHtima-s  is  a 
possesave  compound,  and  as.  c.  y.,  uhah-s  (from  a  and  halo), 
"  not  having  strength,"  means,  therefore,"  weak;"  so  anutla- 
ma-i    signifies    properly    "qui    (dtiasimum    non    habet"  and 


• 


•  BerLiu  iakrh.,  July  163^  pp.  36,  kc. 
3n 


F 


762  ORIGIN  OF  THE   ACOMENT. 

hence.  "  tjuo  ru>mo  allior  etl"    It  might  Wexjiectcd.  that  every 
superlative  or  comparative  would  be  used  similarly,  that,  e.  (/., 
apunyotama-s  or  <iputiyat(ira-ii  would  signify"  tlie  purest"; 
hut  the  language  makes  no  further  use  of  this  capability ;  tt 
docs  not  a  second  time  rejieat  this  jest,  if  we  would  so  call 
it;  at  least  I  am  unacquainted  with  any  otlier  examples  of 
this  kind.     But  what  comes   much  nearer  tliis  use  of  the 
[G.  Ed.  p.  783,]      DugntL'iit,    as    a    negative    particle,    than 
the  just  cited  an  of  anuttama,   is   this,   that  lika,  "  one,"  by 
the    prcEuEing   negative   particles,  just    as   little  receive* 
the  meaning  "  not  one"  (ouiei's),  "  none,"  as  ijftl  vtd'mt,  "  I 
know,"  through  the  a  of  a-vid-am,  gets   that  of  "  t  know 
□ot."     By  the  negative  power  of  the  augment,  vfdmi  loaea 
only  a  portion  of  its  meaning,  a  secondary  idea,  that  of  pre- 
sent time,  and  thus  t^ka-s,  "  one,"  by  the  prefix  an  or  na 
{anika,  ndika),  does  not  lose  its  existence  or  its  personality 
(for  Ska  is  properly  a  pronoun,  see  f.  3U8.),  uor  even  tbo 
idea  of  unity,  inasmuch  as  in  G,  7,  A,  &c.,  the  idea  of  "one  " 
is  also  contained,    but   only    the    limitation  to  unity,  as  it 
were  the  st-vondary  idea.  "  simply."     It  would  not  be  sur- 
prising  if  anSka  and  toiiha  expressed,  in    the  dual,  "  two,'' 
or,  in  the  plural,    *■  tliree,"  or   any  other    higher   number, 
or  also  "  a  few,"  "some")  but  itsiguihcs,  such  is  the  docisiou 
-  [G.  Ed.  p.  784.]     of  the   use  of  language,  "  many."  •      It 
cannot,  therefore,  he  matter  of  ustouishment,  thut  avidam, 
throogli  its  negative  a,  receives  tlie  signification  "'  I  knew." 


•  When  VoriiiniliT,  in  his  T/*Atisc,  wliicli  I  have  jusl  bmii,  entidcd 
**  Bteia  of  &a  arganii:  Mc(juruiitanc«  uiih  tlia  humnit  wnl,"  p.  317,  says, 
**NegBdoii  of  present  is  not  yet  pan  time,'  he  is  in  the  tight;  Imt  it  may 
he  nid  witli  rquiU  right,  "negation  of  one  is  not  3-'M  plomllty  "  (il  might, 
in  bet,  Iwttro-ness,  thrw-ncss,  or  nothing),  «nd  yet  Llio  idea  "lUdBj."  » 
clearly  csprcsacd  liy  tlie  nvj(AiioQ  of  tiiuty,  or  ttiuttAtJoD  to  unit; ;  nod  in 
AafraiM  of  the  Uttj^ua^  it  may  be  Hni<l,  tluiC  tkougti  tho  u«^tiuu  of  pre- 
sent lime  is  not  ym  past  lim«,  and  iluil  of  unity  not  plnntlity,  itill  tbepom 
Id  RsUy  a  ntgation  oflbo  pr«»rnt,  plnrnlity  a  uegnliou,  an  ovtrh-aping  oF 
ntuiy ;  and  henoo  both  idcaa  arc  adftplcd  to  be  cxprvesed  with  tho  aid  of 

nrgatiT* 


I 


FORMATION  OF  TBNSES,  763 

and  not  that  or  "I  sliat)  know."  For*]  the  rest,  the 
post,  which  is  irrevocably  lost,  forms  n  far  more  decided 
contraat  to  the  present,  th»n  the  future  does,  to  which  we 
Approach  ia  the  very  same  proirortion  as  we  dfjMirt  further 
from  tlie  pasl  And  iu  (orta,  tuo,  the  future  is  ofteii  no  way 
distinguished  from  the  present. 

53S.  From  the  circumstanee  that  the  proper  u  privative, 
which  clearly  manifests  a  negative  force,  assamea,  both  in 
Sanskfit  and  Creek,  an  euphanio  n  before  &  vowel  initial- 
souod.  while  tiw.  a  of  the  augment,  in  both  languages,  is  coa* 
densed  with  the  following  vowel  (J.  530.),  we  ciinnot  infer  a 
different  origin  for  the  two  purtivles.  Observe,  that  e.tj. 
twAdu,  "  sweet,"  as  feminine,  forma,  in  the  instrumental, 
au'6dw-A,  while  in  the  masculine  and  neuter  it  avoids  the 
hiatus,  not  by  changing  u  into  w,  but  by  the  insertion  of  an 
euphonic  n  (compare  §.  US.).  And  the  augment  and  tJio 
common  a  privative  arc  distinguished  in  [G.  VA,  p.7U.3  , 
the  same  way,  since  tliey  both  apply  diOerent  means  to  avoid 


n«(^ti7«  |HwticlM.  Viee  v4riJL,  in  oeruun  cases  nas^oD  eui  bIm  b«  ex- 
pressed by  a  phrase  for  the  puai : 

'*  Btaen,  Btten, 
Scid's  gcxctsm  !" 

where  ^fwtaen  means  the  sxtav  as  "now  no  more."  Langunge  never  cx- 
prcasM  any  tiling  p^rfoclly,  bat  ovtryvrhcrc  vuly  l>ruig)i  forwnri  the  most 
conapiniion*  |Hiint,  or  i)ist  wliich  appears  en.  To  diacoTer  this  potDl  is 
the  businras  of  elymology.  A  "toodi-liflveT"  Is  nm  yet  an  "eli'phaiit," 
■  *'hair-hnvcr"do<anotfu!lyexpn;69B"hi>i)'';  nmi  yet  the  ^nnskrit calls 
the  elephant  dantin,  the  lion  klUn.  If,  thnn,  a  tooth,  dan^a,  is  derived 
froiin  <u/,  "toeat"  (dnippliig  ttivu),  or  from  «/«>»,  "to  bitu"  (dmppinjt 
the  Hibilaui),  WQ  inayaKaiii  say,  "an  mteror  bitcT  in  not  cxclusirvly  a 
tooth  (it  mi^lit  also  be  a  dog  Ar  a  moQth);''  and  t}iiis  tlio  luajpinj^-r  re- 
volves tii  HcirrlrtofincoTnp!cl«cxprw«ion*,  Mi'l  ilenotmlliirgsimpprrivtly, 
by  any  one  qaality  whatever,  which  is  itself  impi^rfccdy  potntcil  out.  I( 
it,  however,  certain,  that  the  luost  prtKOiioenl  quality  of  the  past  in  what 
mny  be  toroieil  the  "non-present,"  by  whieh  the  former  is  deiutieil  more 
cOfTPcdy  (liau  Uwalepluuit  is«xprea>wl  by  "  touth-havwr." 

3l}  2 


764  OUIOIN  OV  THB  ADGMBNT. 

the  hiatus.  The  division  may  have  arisen  at  a  period  wbeit, 
though  early  (so  early,  in  fact,  as  vrhen  Greek  and  Saoskril 
w(.Tu  one),  tlie  augment  was  no  longer  conscious  of  its 
negative  power,  and  was  no  more  than  the  exponent  of 
past  time;  but  the  reason  why?  was  forgotten,  as,  in 
general,  tJie  portions  of  words  which  express  gnunmatit.'al 
reUtioDS  tlieo  first  become  grammatical  forms,  when  the 
reason  of  their  becouiing  so  is  uo  longer  felt,  auJ,  r.  ff.,  tlic  «. 
which  expresses  the  nominntivc,  would  ptiss  as  the  expoueut 
of  a  certain  case  relation  only  when  the  perception  of  iti. 
idt-ntity  with  the  pronominal  base  sti  was  extinguialied. 

539.  From  tilt'  Latin  privative  prefix  in.  and  our  Ger- 
man un,  I  should  not  infer — even  if,  as  is  highly  probable^ 
tliey  are  connected  with  the  a  privative — that  the  nasal 
originally  belonged  to  the  word ;  for  here  three  witnesscl 
— three  languages  in  fact — which,  in  most  resjieets,  exceed 
the  Latin  and  German  in  the  true  preservation  of  their 
original  stai^,  speak  in  favour  of  the  common  opinion, 
that  the  nasal,  iii  the  negative  particle  under  discu&aion,  ia 
Siuiskfit.  Ztmd,  and  Greek,  ia  not  a  radical.  It  cannot, 
however,  surprise  us,  if  a  sound,  which  is  very  often  intro- 
duced for  the  sake  of  euphony,  lias  remHincd  fixed  ju  one  or 
more  of  the  cognate  diatevts,  since  the  language  has.  by 
degrees,  become  so  accustomed  to  it  that  it  could  no  lon^r 
dispense  with  it.  We  may  observe,  moreover,  as  regards  the 
German  languages,  the  great  disposition  of  these  languages, 
even  witliout  cuphouic  occasion,  to  introduce  an  inorganic  n, 
when^by  so  many  words  have  been  transplanted  from 
the  vowel  declension  into  one  terminating  with  o  consonant, 

[G.  EU.  p. 780]  viz.  iuto  that  in  r.  or,  as  Grimm  terins  it, 
into  tlie  weak  declension;  and  i-.j..  the  Sanskrit  tidhavd, 
"  widow,"  Latin  vidua,  Sclavonic  vJova  (at  ouce  theme 
and  nominative),  is  In  Gothic,  in  tlie  tJicme.  viduv6tt 
(genitive  viduvin-s),  whence  is  formed,  in  the  nominative, 
according  to  %.  140.,  by  rejecting  the  n.v'ultwA.     If  un  was. 


FORMATION  OP  TENSES.  765 

in  Sanskrit,  the  original  form  of  tiie  prefix  under  discus- 
sion, its  n  would  stilt  be  dropped,  not  only  before  conso- 
nants, but  also  before  vowria;  for  it  is  a  ^neral  rule  in 
Sanskrit,  tlitit  words  in  n  drop  this  sound  at  the  beginning 
of  compounds;  hence,  Ttljnn.  "kin*;,"  fiinns,  witb  pulra, 
rAja-putro,  "  king's  son,"  «nd,  with  indra,  "  prince."  rtl- 
jindra,  "prince  of  kings,"  since  the  a  ofrrfjan,  after  tirop- 
ping  the  «,  is  contracted  with  a  following  i  X,o  i  (=o  +  (). 
The  insejmrable  prcKxea,  however,  in  respect  to  the  laws 
of  sound,  follow  the  same  principles  as  the  words  which 
occur  also  in  an  isolated  state.  If  an,  therefore,  were  the 
originiil  form  of  the  nbove  oegntive  pnrticle,  and  of  the 
anginent  identical  with  it,  then  the  two  would  have  become 
separated  in  the  course  of  time,  for  this  reason,  that  tlic 
latter,  following  strictly  tlie  nntversal  fundamental  lavr. 
would  have  rejected  its  ji  before  vowels  as  before  conso- 
nants; the  Former  only  Iwforc  consonants.  "^   - 

540.  In  §.371.  we  liave  deduced  the  Sanskrit  negative 
particles  a  and  na  from  the  demonstrntive  bases  of  the  same 
sound,  since  the  latter,  when  taken  in  the  sense  of  "  that,"  are 
very  well  adapted  for  denoting  the  absence  of  a  thing  or  qua- 
lity or  the  removing  it  ton  distance.  If  on  were  the  original 
form  of  the  a  privative  and  of  llie  augment,  then  the  deraon> 
stnitivo  base  «iT  ana,  whence  the  Lithuanian  anas  or  an-t, 
and  tile  Sclavonic  on,  "  that,"  would  aid  in  ita  explanation. 
The  identity  of  the  augment  with  the  privative  a  might,  how- 
ever, be  also  explained,  which,  indeed,  in  essentials  would  be 
the  same,  by  assuming  that  the  language,  [G.  E<l.  p.  7&70 
in  prefixing  an  a  to  the  verbsi  did  not  intend  the  a  n^ative, 
nor  to  deny  the  presence  of  the  action,  but.  under  the  a. 
meant  the  actual  pronoun  in  the  sense  of  "that,"  and  thereby 
wished  to  transfer  the  action  to  the  other  side,  to  the  distant 
time  already  part;  and  that  it  therefore  only  once  motyj 
repeated  tEic  same  course  of  ideas  as  it  followed  in  the 
creation  of  negative  expressions.     According  to  tJiis  explu- 


760  ORIQIN  OF  THE  AUGMENT. 

nslion,  the  augment  and  i1il>  a  privative  would  rntbor  stiiiid 
in  a  fntternal  notation  than  in  that  oFoHspring  and  progenitor. 
The  way  to  both  would  lead  directly  from  the  pronoun,  while 
!□  the  first  method  of  eiplsnation  we  arrive,  from  the  remote 
demons  trativi'.  first  to  the  negation,  and  thence  lo  the  expres- 
sion of  past  tJiuB,  as  contrary  lo  present  According  to  the 
last  exposition,  the  designation  of  the  past  through  the  aog- 
ment  would  bo  in  principle  idcntitsal  with  that  in  which, 

through  the  isolated  particle  m  smti,  the  present  receives 
a  post  aigaiScation.  I  hold,  that  is  to  say,  this  tma  tor 
a  pronoun  of  the  third  person,  which  occurs  declined  only 
in  certain  coses  in  cooipositiou  with  other  pronouns  of  the 
third  person  (§§.  165.  &c,),  and  in  the  plural  of  the  two  first 
[wrsoiia,  where  asm?  means  (iu  the  V^a-dialect)  properly 
"  i  aa<?  •ho"  ("  tliis,  that  woman"),  jru-xAm*?.  "  thou  and  she" 
(§•^^3.).*  As  on  expression  of  past  time,  aiwi,  which  also 
oftti,  oc.™*;^  without  a  perceptible  mcujiiiig.  must  be  taken 
in  the  sense  of  "that  peraoii,"  "that  side."  "tJiere,"  as 
W.  von  Humboldt  regards  the  Tagiilisli  and,  Tongian  ex- 
pression fur  past  time  nrt,  which  I  have  compared  with 
[Q.  Ed,  p.  VOB.]  the  Sanskrit  demonstrative  base  na,  and 
thus  indirectly  with  the  negative  particle  fwi,-t  where  I  will 
further  remnrk  that  1  have  endeavoured  to  carry  back  the 
expreseioii  for  the  ftiture  also,  in  Tongian  niid  Madngas- 
eariai),  to  demonstrative  bases;  viz.  tho  Tongian  te  to  the 
Sanskrit  bo-ie  IT  fn  (which  the  languages  of  New  Zealand  and 
Tahiti  use  in  the  form  U  as  article),  and  the  Mudagascnr 
ho  to  the  base  Ji  sa  {§.  34  5.},  which  appears  in  the  Tongian 
he,  as  in  the  Greek  o.  as  the  article.^ 

•  To  tliu  derivation  aitma,  given  at  ii.4&4,  NolsT,  it  may  be  further 
Bd<lcd,  tbnt  it  may  also  br  idcniiiicJ  whh  the  pratiominBl  base  tira  (aee 
$.34l).t:Ulicr  by  cooaidcrin^ its  ni  ns  a  hnrdvncj  farm  ofr.'  (conip.  p.  114], 
OT  0iM  vtrtA  tho  V  of  nod  a  wenkraing  of  the  m  of  tma. 

t  Ste  my  Treatitw  "  Oa  itie  ConnectioD  of  the  Malay- Poly ncdan  I«n- 
Kuugunilh  tlic  Inilo-Eumpcau,"  pp.  100,  ^c 

I  L.  e  pp.  101, 104.  I 


VORMATION  OF  TENSKS.  7S7 

541.  No  one  would  consider  the  circumstanee  that,  in 
Greelc.  the  auj^meiit  apf>ear&  iu  tlie  form  e,  bnt  the  ne- 
gative particle  in  the  form  a,  which  is  identical  vrith.  tho 
Sanskrit,  as  a  valid  objct-tioa  ngoiost  the  ori}»inBl  identity 
of  relationship  of  llic  two  partidctij  for  it  is  fxtrcnicly 
coauuon  iu  Greek  for  one  and  the  same  a  to  niaiiitaiii  itself 
in  one  place,  and  be  corrupted  in  another  to  « ;  as  Tcrv^a 
T£Tvtp€  both  lead  to  the  Ssnxskrittutii/u],  which  stands  both 
in  the  Gi-st  and  iu  the  tliird  pt-rion,  as  the  true  jiersonal 
terminution  has  been  lost,  and  only  the  conjunctive  vowel 
bus  retuuinc-d ;  wliich  in  Greek,  except  iu  tlie  third  person 
singular,  appears  everywhere  else  as  a.  it  is,  however,  cer- 
tain, that,  from  the  |)oint  of  view  of  the  Greek,  we  should 
hardly  have  supposed  the  auguicut  antl  tlic  a  privative  to  be 
related,  as  the  spiritual  points  of  contaet  of  the  two  prelixes 
lie  much  too  concealed.  Battrannn  dfrivea  the  augment 
from  the  reduplication,  so  that  ervmov  would  be  an  abbrevi- 
ation of  TETimrov.  To  tliia,  however,  the  SanAkrit  opposes 
the  most  forcible  objection,  iu  that  it  contrasts  with  the  im- 
perfect ervJTTOv  its  atdjmm,  but  with  the  [U.  Ed.  p.  78tf.] 
really  reduptiented  rerv^a  its  UttApa.  The  Sanskrit  aug- 
mented tenses  have  not  the  smallest  connection  with  tlie  re- 
duplicated perfect,  which,  in  the  rc|jcatcd  syllftblc,  always 
receivcB  the  radical  vowel  (shorteiicdt  if  long),  while  tlic  aug- 
ment pays  no  regard  to  the  root,  and  always  uses  a.  If  r  were 
tbe  vowet  of  the  augment,  theu  in  the  want  of  u  more  satb- 
factory  explanation,  we  might  recognise  in  it  a  syllable  of 
reduplication,  because  the  syllables  of  reduplication  have  a 
tendency  to  weakening,  to  a  lighteniiif*  of  their  weight;  and  t, 
as  tbe  lightest  vowel,  ia  adapted  to  supply  the  place  of  the 
heaviesta,  and  docs,  also,  actually  represent  this,  as  well  as  its 
long  vowel,  in  the  reduplication-syllabic  of  dcsidcrativcs,*  and, 


n 


i 


•Hence  pif>&»,  "to  wish  to  Jrink,"   for  pap&4  or  pdpA»,  from  jiA; 
pijM(ifh,  *' lo  vi^  to  cWaitf"  &}T  jiapathb,  fntni pal ;  no,  aita,  hitharmi, 

"  I  carry," 


I 


763  ORIGIN  oe  ran  avombkt. 

ID  a  certain  cose,  supplies  the  place  of  the  vowel  u  too,  wiiicti 
is  of  middling  weiglit,  vis.  where,  in  tlie  second  aoriat  in 
verbs  beginning  witli  a  vowel,  the  wltole  root  is  twice  giveo: 
e  g.  wffHHH  Auninam  for  ^1^^  Aunuiutm,  from  un,  "  to  di- 
Diinisii."  1  c»]ii)oi,  liowever,  see  the  ElLghtest  probability  in 
Pott's  opinion  (Etym.  Forseh.  II.  73.),  that  the  a  of  the  aug- 
meot  may  be  regarded  as  a  vowel  absolutely,  find  as  tlie  re- 
presentative of  all  vowels,  aud  tlius  as  n  varic^~  of  tlie  redu- 
plication. This  explanation  would  be  highly  suitable  for 
siieh  verbs  as  have  weakened  a  radical  o  to  u  or  i,  and  of 
whicli  it  might  be  said,  that  their  augment  descends  from  the 
time  when  their  radioal  vowel  was  not  as  yet  u  or  i,  but  a. 
But  if,  at  all  hazards,  the  Sanskrit  augment  should  be  consi- 
[Q.  £d.  p.  700.]  dered  to  lie  the  reduplication,  I  should  pre- 
fer saying  that  a  radical  t,  t',  u.  d  has  received  Guna  in  the  syl- 
lable of  rejietitioii:,  but  theGuna  vowel  alone  has  remained ;  and 
ihM  avf dam  for  4 uidajn{=aivaidiim).  and  this  from  rvhiAlani  ; 
abCJham  for  Shddhom  {^aubuudhain), and  this  from  bdb/idham, 
"  Remark. ^According  to  a  conjecture  expressed  by  Htifcr 
(Contributions,  p.  389),  the  augment  would  be  a  prt^jiositiou 
expressing-  '  with,'  and  so  far  identical  with  our  ys  of  parti- 
ciples like  ijfsatjt,  gemacht,  as  tlie  German  preposition,  which, 
ill  Gotliie,  sounds  gn,  aud  signifies  '  witli,'  is,  according  to 
Grimm's  hypothesis,  connected  with  the  Sanskrit  Tl  «n,  «^ 
tarn  (Greek  avv,  Latin  cum).  Of  the  two  forms  H  xa,  m  iom, 
the  latter  €M:curs  only  in  combination  with  verbs,  the  former 
only  with  substantives.*  In  order,  ihfrefore,  to  arrive  from 
sam  to  the  augment  a,  we  must  assume  that,  from  tlie  earliest 


"I  cnrry,"  for  fuMtirmi,  from    bhar  (Mri) ;   ti^h'/idmi,  "I  natul,"  for 
liiadmi,  eeo^.  £08.;  in  Greek,  8iia/u  for  So^^t  (Sonftkrit  doiLimi);  and 

*  'I'hta  wcim  ta  re(|uire  TjuiiliftcAliun  Sunt  is  foand  constantly  ia 
dunbination  with  •abiunlivM,  o*  in  4^mX.  itf^V,  WRT,  io.  In 
Krnio  caacB  the  form  nuty  ba  conridcred  ai  d>-rivL-d  tltroDfth  n  eniBfemtA 
rvrif,  but  aol  in  alltulD  the  LuHence  of  tiunanJu,-^TaiuUti>T. 


POKMATIOK  OF  TBNSES.  769 

period,  that  of  the  identity  of  the  Sanskrit  and  Greek,  tlio 
said  preposition,  where  used  to  express  past  time,  laid  aside  its 
initial  and  termiiiating  sound,  like  its  bo<ly,  aud  only  pre> 
SLTVcd  tlie  soul,  that  is,  the  vowel;  while,  in  tlie  common 
com biofit ions  with  verbs,  the  s  nnd  m  oFsom  hnve  lived  u  long 
na  the  language  itself;  and  while,  in  German,  vre  make  uo 
formal  distinc-ttOD  botwe«o  the  ijc  which,  mt-rul;  by  an  error, 
attuelies  itself  to  our  passive  piirticles.  and  that  which  accom- 
piinie<(  the  whole  verb  and  its  derivatives,  as  in  yebiiren,  Ge- 
hurt,  yenieanLif,  GenusH.  If,  for  the  explanation  of  the  aug- 
ment, BO  trifling  a  similarity  of  form  is  satisfactory,  lu  that 
between  a  and  som,  then  other  inseparable  prepositions  pre- 
sent themselves  which  Imvc  equal  or  greater  claim  1o  be 
identified  with  the  expression  of  past  time;  for  instance. 
^W  tipa.  '  from,*  '  away,'  and  ww  ava,  '  from,'  '  down.' 
'off';  wfw  all,  'over'  (atikrom,  'to  go  over,'  also  'to 
pass,'  '  to  elapse,'  used  of  time).  We  might  also  refer  to 
the  particle  jn  gma,  mcotioned  above,  xvhich  gives  past 
meaning  to  the  present,  and  nssunie  the  rejCL-tion  of  its 
double  consonant  It  is  certain,  however,  that  that  expla- 
nation is  most  to  the  purpose,  by  which  tlie  past  prefix  has 
suffered  either  no  toss  at  all,  or,  if  an  is  assumed  to  be  the 
original  form  of  the  negative  panicle,  only  such  as,  accord- 
ing to  whfit  has  been  remarked  above  (§.  53!).),  takes  place 
regularly  at  the  beginmng  of  compounds.  It  is  also  certain 
that  the  past  stands  much  nearer  to  tlie  idea  of  negation  than 
to  that  of  combination,  particularly  as  the  [C.  Ed.  p.  791.] 
augmented  preterites  in  Greek  stand  so  far  in  contrast  to 
tlie  perfect,  as  their  original  destination  u,  to  point  to  past 
time,  and  not  to  express  the  completion  of  an  action.  We 
will  not  here  decide  how  far,  in  Gothic  aud  Old  High  Ger- 
man, an  especial  preference  for  the  use  of  tlie  particle  t/a.  ge, 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  preterite ;  but  J.  Grimm,  who  was  the 
first  to  refer  this  circumstance  to  the  language  (11.  843.  844.), 
adds  to  the  examples  given  this  remark :     '  A  aumber  of 


I 


770 


THE  AOBI8T. 


passages  in  Gotfaic,  Old  High  German,  and  Middle  Higb 
Gennan,  will  exhibit  it  (the  preposition  under  discussion]  as 
well  before  the  present  as  wanting  bcrorc  Uie  preterite,  even 
where  thr  action  might  lie  taken  as  perfect    I  maintain  only 
a  remarkable  predilection  of  the  particle  for  i)ie  preterite, 
and  for  the  rest  I  believe  that,  for  the  oldest  state  of  the 
language,  as  in  New  High  German,  the  tff  became  inde- 
|>endent  of  temporal  differences.     It  had  tlien  still  its  more 
subtle  meaning;;,  ffhicb  could  not  be  separated  from  any  tense.' 
Tliis  observation  says  little  in  favour  of  Hbfer's  opioioo, 
according  to  which,  so  early  as  the  period  of  Ungual  identity, 
we  should  recognise  in  the  expression  of  the  \yasl  the  pre[K>- 
sition  tarn,  wliieh  is  hyjiuthetieally  akin  to  our  preposiliou  ye. 
Here  we  have  to  remark,  also,  tliat  though,  in  Gothic  and  Old 
High  German,  a  predominant  inclination  for  the  use  of  the 
preposition  ga,  tfi;  must  be  ascribed  to  tJie  preterite,  it  ao%'er 
possessed  per  sc  the  power  of  expressing  past  time  iiloue; 
for  ID  gavasida,   '  he  dressed,'  gavaiididun,  '  tticy  dressed ' 
(did  dress),    the    relation    of  time    is    expressed    in     the 
appended  auxiliary  verb,  and  the  preposition  gtj,  if  not  here. 
OS  I  think  it  is.  entirely  without  meaning,  and  a  mcclianlcaJ 
accompaniment  or  prop  of  the  root,  which,  through  constant 
use,    has   become   inseparable,   can   only   at  most  give   an 
emplusis  to  the  idea  of  the  verb.     At  all  events,  in  yavasidn 
the  stgniBeation  which  the  preposition  originally  had,  aud 
which,  however,  in  verbal  combinations  appears  but  seldom 
(as  in  g/i-*jvimon,   "to  come  together"),  can  no  longer  be 
thought  of." 

THE      A0K1ST. 

543.  The  second  Sanskrit  aug^meuted-preterite,  which,  on 
account  of  its  seven  difTerent  formntions,  I  term  the  multi- 
form, corrcs|>onds  in  form  to  the  Greek  aorist,  in  such  wise, 
tluit  four  fomuitions  coincide  more  or  less  exactly  with  tlie 
[O.  FA.  p.  702.^  first  aorist,  and  three  witli  the  second.  The 
forms  which  coincide  with  tlie  first  aorist  all  add  tto  tlie  root. 


I 


FORMATION  OP  TENSES.  771 

«iitlicT(iiroctly,  or  by  mcana  of  a  conjunctive  vowel  i.  [recog- 
nise in  this  *,  wtiii'h,  unrler  certain  i-onditions.  becomes  «  ah 
(see  f  21.  and  Sanskrit  Grammar,  {.  10 1*.),  tlio  verb  substantive. 
with  the  itniicrfrct  of  whicli  the  first  formation  agrees  quite 
exactly,  only  tliat  ihe  d  of  Asam.  &e.,  is  lost,  and  in  the  third 
person  plural  the  termination  tis  stands  for  an,  thus  sua  for 
Aian,  The  loss  of  the  A  need  not  surprise  us,  for  in  it  the  aag- 
uieut  is  contained,  which,  iu  the  compcand  tense  under  dis- 
cussion, la  prefixed  to  the  root  of  the  principal  verb:  the 
short  a  which  rcniAias  after  stripping  olT  the  augment  might 
be  dropped  on  account  of  the  iucumbrance  caused  by  com- 
position, so  much  the  easier,  as  in  the  present.  iiJso.  in  its 
isolated  state  liefore  tlie  heavy  terminations  of  the  <tuiiJ  mid 
plural,  it  is  suppressed  (see  p.  695  G.ed.)*  Thus  the  9ma  of 
ak)hdip-sma,  "we  did  cast,''  is  distinguished  from  sinat, 
"  we  are,"  only  by  tlie  weakeiwd  termination  of  the  secon- 
dary forms  belonging  to  the  uoriat  In  tlie  third  person 
plural.  u£  stands  for  an,  because  us  passes  f<:)r  a  lighter  ter- 
mination thiiu  on  ;  and  hence,  in  the  imperfect  also,  in  the 
roots  encumbered  with  reduplication,  it  rcfjularly  takes  the 
place  of  an  ;  hence,  abibhr-tia,  "  tliey  bore,"  for  al>ihhr-<in  ; 
and/aceonlbig  to  the  same  principle,  nktih'iip-ntii  tor  aknh&ip- 
■saii,  on  account  of  the  encumbering  of  the  root  of  the  verb 
substantive  by  the  preceding  attributive  root, 

543.  Before  the  personal  terminations  beginning  with  t,  th, 
and  dh,  roots  which  end  with  a  consonant  other  than  n, 
reject  the  s  of  the  verb  substantive  in  order  to  avoid  the  harsh 
eombination  of  three  consonants  ;  hence,  aluthAip-ta,  "  ye  did 
coat,"  ioT  akthAip-da^  as  in  Greek,  from  a  similar  euplionic 
reason,  the  roots  terminating  with  a  consonant  abbreviate,  in 
the  perfect  passive,  the  terminations  aBov,  [G.  Ed.  p.7»3.] 
aBe,  to  9ov.  6c ;  -rhutpGe,  T&rox&e,  for  jhviptrBe,  Terd^fle :  and 
in  Sanskrit,  from  a  similar  reason,  the  root  sthA,  "  to  stnod." 
loses  its  sibilant,  if  it  woukl  come  directly  iu  contact  vritlt 
tlic  prefix  ut;  hence  ut-lhita,  "Up-stood,"  for  tit-sUiita. 


F 


in 


THE  AOHIST. 


51 1.  For  a  view  of  tlie  middle  voice,  we  here  give  tUe 
iiDiJerfect  middle  of  the  verb  substantive,  wliich  is  »caroeIy 
to  be  found  in  iaoktcd  use — 


MNOVI.AR.  DVAL. 

Until,  (isdMm, 


iismahi. 

iiddhwam  OT  Adhtvam. 

lUala. 


545.  As  an  example  of  tliu  aorist  formation  under  dis- 
cussion, ve  select,  for  roots  terminating  with  a  vowel* 
1^  n^  "  to  lead":  &nd,  for  roots  euding  with  a  consonaut. 
ttf^^iship.  "to  cast."  The  radical  vowel  receives,  in  the 
former,  iu  tlie  attivc,  Vridtlhi;  in  tlie  middle,  only  Guna, 
on  account  of  the  personal  termiiiations  being,  on  tlie  arc- 
rage,  heavier;  in  the  latter,  in  the  active,  in  like  manner, 
Vriddhi;  in  tlie  middle,  no  increase  at  all. 


ACTIVE. 
■iNRitun.  n(i*L.  n.uui.. 

anAi»ii<im,<d-xhAipmtn,  avAinhuv.      atxMipswa,  anii^hma.       akahAipama. 

an&i^hia,    iik»Ji(lips&f,    umih/ilam,     ak'sfiAiptam,  uTiiiiJihla,        nk»Mipta} 

onAuhif,    chkiiipsil,    an^ishfdm,    aksMiptilm,^  anrfisAtw,       aJfthdipsus. 

UIDHLE. 

aniifhi^      akthipti,        anfi-jfiwnfii,    alishfpftti'ahi,    anhhmahi,     ahahipamahi. 
aniaMtda,  ak^hlpthAa,^  unhhUhAm,  ukiih\piiAtMm,ani'I<ihwQ,m^ak»h'^{uvam.^ 
atU-ihta,     uk»Jnpla}      anhlidtilm,    uJc»liip»<Him,  anS^liala,*      akifiipmia.* 

[Q.  Ed.  p.  TIMO     '  nrgAjdine  tb-?  \om  of  tlie  »,  flee  f  643.  *  SM  for 

t,  SM  $.  21.  '  Or  an&ihtcam,  also  an^hwam,  far  *  before  the  dh  of 

thepenonftl  Mirminntioiu  (litlicrfimukit  inio  t/,  or  is  r(-jec-(cd  ;  tuid  f»r  i/ftuviiN, 
ia  this  and  itio  third  fiinnnliciti,  (fhujam  also  may  be  u»*d,  probably  from 
the  eatlier  dJioant,  for  thdwattt.  *  Kigoxdiag  the  Ions  of  tti«  n, 

whioh  WloDga  to  tbi^  persanftl  termination,  ac«^.4&0. 

546.  The  simUaritj'  of  the  middle  u/cshipsi  to  I^atin  per- 
fects   lilcc    xcripti   u    very    surprising;    for    only^the  ang- 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES.  773 

ment  is  wanting  to  complete  a  perfect  countcrtypc  of  the 
Sanskrit  form.  The  third  person  scripsU  answers  better 
to  the  active  form  ahsfiAipxit,  which,  witliout  Vridc3hi, 
would  sonnA  akithipsU :  the  Latin  wtit  [wc-sif)  answers  to 
the  Sanskrit  wqiqlt^  twak-atdf.  of  the  same  import;  and 
asain,  veii  corresponds  to  the  middle  avaJcshi.  The  two 
languages  have,  from  a  rt-gard  to  euphony,  changed  their 
A  before  the  s  of  the  verb  subatanlivc  into  the  guttural 
teniiia,  and  ft  requires,  in  Sanskrit,  w  sh  for  w  a  (see  p.  2l). 
The  comparison  of  vexi  with  avat^hi  may  appear  the 
better  subatautiated.  as  the  second  person  also  vfxiati  may- 
be traced  baek  to  a  middle  termiaation;  viz.  to  th'ia  of 
aJcship-thAs  {for  ahkipsthAft);  so  that  the  final  x  nouM  have 
been  dropped,  and  ill  have  been  weakened  to  •.  1  noir 
prefer  this  explanation  to  that  according  to  which  I  have 
formerly  identified  the  termiaation  tti  witli  the  Sanskfit 
perfect  termination  tka;  and  in  general  I  consider  the 
Latin  perfect,  which,  according  to  its  meaning,  might  just 
as  well  have  been  called  aorist,  entirely  iiidependeut  of 
the  Greek  and  Sanskrit  perfect,  in  order  that,  in  all  ita 
forms,  I  may  refer  it  to  the  aorist  In  this  no  great 
obstacles  stand  in  our  way;  for  while  perfects  in  m,  at 
the  first  glance,  shew  thcmsiulves  to  be  aorists,  although  not 
BO  readily  by  comparison  with  the  Greek  as  with  the 
Sanskrit,  evea  cucurri,  momonli,  cfc'mi,  and  simiJar  forms, 
in  spite  of  their  reduplication,  do  uot  oppugn  the  theory 
of  the  aorist  formation,  and  very  well  Cf*- Ed.  p.  795.] 
admit  of  buiiig  placed  beside  forma  like  achAchuTam.  middle 
nchikchmi  (from  aeht^huTo'i),  from  ehur,  "  to  steal,"  and 
Greek  forms,  as  hve^paSav,  encipvav,  of  which  more  here- 
after. They  would,  therefore,  like  the  imperfect  aiid  the 
aorists,  as  aartjm,  vexi,  manaf,  have  merely  lost  the  aug- 
ment, and  have  thus  been  associated  with  the  Sanskfit  and 
Greek  jx;rfect. 

547.  Perfects  like  icAbt,  vidi.  I^ffl,  /^</i.  f'idi.  exclusive  of 
tlie  loDgtliening  of  their  vowel,   might  be  compared   willi 


774  THB  AOniST. 

Sanskrit    aorists    like    vf^im  alipam,    middle  atij>t   (from 
aUpai),  &nd  Greek  as  tXtTrav.    On  account  of  the  leoglh- 
euing    of  the    vowel,    lioweTer.    tliis  coni|mrisou    appcan 
iDOctmissiblc ;    and    1  believe   that,    in    tlictr    origin,     thev 
agree  with  forms  like  icripsi,  vexi.  or  with  such  as  mcurri, 
tutudi.      lu   iho  Erst  uase,  Uie  lengtlieuing  of  the   vowd 
must  pnss  us  campemntinti  fnr  the  «  of  the  veri>  eulMtaii- 
ttve,   which   lias  hceii  dropped,  on  the  same  principle  na 
that  nil  which  diviii  from  div'uhi.   on  account  of  thtJ  loaa 
of  the  d,  lias  lengthened  its  short  radical  vowel,  or  bs  in 
Greek,  forms  like  fiiXa.^.  ivras,  dcdcvut.  iiiox/i,  iiov^,  ri&it^, 
in  compensation  for  the  loss  of  a  consonant,  have  received 
an  indemnitication  in  tlic  preceding  vowel.      Still  closer 
lies  the  comparison   vrith  aoriats  like  i^rivot  ^tjfuxt   eu^ 
^pdva.   iarciKa,   cftciva.       It  is   certain    that    the   li<|Diils. 
also,  most,  in  ttie  oorist,  have  originully  admitted  the  com- 
bination with  (T,  and  tliat  forms  like  tpavna  (as  in  SaosiiPil; 
nnuiiivi.  in  Latin,  mansi).  e-i/rceAera.  errcXcra,  have  existed,  and 
that  in  these  aorists  the  length  of  the  vowel  is  in  conse- 
quence of  tlie  Biipprci-ssioi]  of  the  u.     But  if  I^tin  perfects 
like  ligi,  fAgi,  according  tu  their  origin,  should  fall  to  tim 
Sanskrit    seventh  uorist   formation    ((icAilcAuriiwi.    mia'tlnm, 
or  itsix^m  from  xif),  they  then  contain  a  concealed  mluplU 
vation,  as,  ac-cordtng  to  Grimm,  do  oar  preterites,  ns  hif/». 
Old  High  German  hiaz  (=Gothic  haihait),  aud  ligi,  rcdM, 
f&ffi,  fAtli,  would  coDBcquently  be  contractions  from  lr~rgi, 
[O,  Ed.  p.  TiW.]      aca-tibi,  /u-ugi,  fv-odi,  for  Iclegi,  soaatbi.  &o„ 
with  suppression  of  tbc  consonant  of  the  second  ayllable. 
by  which  that  of  the  first  loses  the  appearance  of  a  cou- 
sonant  afTixml   by  rcdupliciitioii,  aa  is  the  case  in  tlie  Greek 
yivcuai  from   yiyvonai  (for  •^i-ytv-o-ficu),  where,  after    rc- 
movit^  the  7  of  tbc  base  syllable,  the  syllable  -^v  receives 
tiie  appearance  of  a  radical  ayUablc,  while  in  fact  only  the  ¥ 
represents  the  root.* 


*  A.  B«nary,  Also  {Syst«>ai  of  RaaU)    Sotmda,    pp.  4l,fc«.J,   »|>la]n« 

fcrins 


a 


4 


I 


FORMATION  OK  TENSES.  775 

648.  I  must  deeiderlly  pronounce  forms  like  c^i,  JHffU 
pci,  to  be  reduplicated,  and  1  liavc  already  done  this,  when 
I  further  recognised  in  them  true  perfects.*  As  perfects, 
they  would  be  analogous  to  Sanskrit  forms  like  iH^ 
tipima.  "  we  atoned."  of  which  hereafter.  As  aorists. 
they  have  v^^  ntriium  "  I  was  ruined,"  for  their  proto- 
type, whifh  I  deduce  from  nrtfiniiim,  by  droppinf;^  the  n  of 
tlie  second  syllable;  and  I  rvfer  it  to  tbc  seventh  aorJst 
formation,  wliilc  the  Indian  grsiumnriana  regard  it  as  an 
anomaly  of  the  sixth.  Therefore,  like  w^?I*(  aviMim  from 
ona(n](-vVm.  I  regard  c^jn  as  a  eoutraeliou  of  aicipf,  as  tlie 
Latin  ^  as  a  coll iq nidation  of  a  +  i  frequently  imsweni  to  the 
Sanskrit  <?;  e.g.  in  ISvir,  corresponding  to  the  Sanskrit  tUvar 
(dSitri),  With  regard  to  the  sceond  syllable  of  the  pre-snp- 
posed  forma  like  aicipi,  fajici.  we  may  com-  [G-lid.p.7&7.J 
pare  such  perfects  as  cectni,  M'tyl,  wliiuli  in  like  inaniJer.  on 
account  of  the  root  being  loaded  with  the  reduplication, 
have  weakened  the  radical  a  toi.  The  forms  v^pi.  jic'i.  Sic, 
must,  however,  have  arisen  at  a  period  when  the  law  had 
not  as  yet  been  prescribed  to  the  syllables  of  r(>dupIication 
of  replacing  the  heaviest  vowel  a  by  e,  bat  when  as  yet 
the  weakening  of  the  radical  vowel  in  the  syllable  of  the  base 
was  suUiciunt.  But  if  the  previous  existence  of  forma 
like  cacipi,  /njici,  is  not  admitted,  and  ceclpi,  ffjici,  are 
made    to    precede    the    present  v^i,  fh:'u    we    must   then 


fbrma  IikeJ%!H,/nrf!J,  Grom  rednplkatinu.  but  aMumrt  xXm  (Iroppin}!  of  the 
syllatilo  orrtHlufilicAtiim  ftnd  ili«  Icn^bcnln^  of  Uic  railJOHj  sjUabla  in 
compenaatian  for  its  loai,  aSjainst  which  1  have  nqirrsaeil  my  ii|iininn  in 
the  Bi^tlin  Jnhrb.  (Jhd.  isas,  p.  lU);  ginee  dm  i;x|>lan»tion.  aniike  ilia 
te-aatiFDefTi-cl  of  oMipiim^ou,  Uy  campeiLmtioaia  the  prcccdio);  sylla- 
bi*, haa  no  other  luinlof^oni  cnai?  lo  cormbaralc  !t. 

•  In  my  Rtivivw-  uf  Buijary's  SyUeiu  of  Ruraaii  Sounds  (Berlin  •FahrTi. 
1.  c.  p.  10).  ?ince  ihcn.  Poll,  oLw,  in  lib  Review  of  the  same  bwk  (in  ilia 
null.  Jikhi4>.)  ho*  not4ced  this  onu,  but  <1mUiv<1  htmael^  wlthoot  Bufii. 
ci«ni  grauDilB  in  iny  opinion,  agsinst  my  view  or  the  muller. 


r 


776  tHE  A0BI8T. 

deduce  n&pi  from  c'/^ipi.  fhi  from  /eici.  in  sach  wise  that  the 
first  vowel  absorbs  the  second,  iind  thereby  becomes  long. 
just  as  I  have  already,  tn  my  System  of  Conjiigntion,  de- 
duced subjunctives  like /(^yli,  Uydmus,  froia  hgais,  Icgaimus, 
The  form  Sfji  has  this  advantage  over  oUier  perfects  of  the 
bind,  that  it  has  not  lost  a  consonant  btftwceo  tlic  two  ele- 
ments of  wliioli  its  ^  is  compofied,  i.  e,  between  the  syllnble  of 
repetition  and  that  of  tlio  base:  it  is  tlio  eontrncljon  o(a-iyi 
or  e-tgi,  and  therefore,  togetlier  with  4di,  4mi,  if  the  latter 
are  likewise  regarded  as  reduplicated  forms  (from  t-edi, 
e-emi),  deserves  particular  notice.  As  we  ascribe  au  aoristic 
origin  to  the  Latin  perfects,  we  might  also  aee  in  (yi,  id'u 
tmi,  a  remnant  of  the  augment. 

549.  I  return  to  the  second  person  singutar  in  sli.  If  in 
H,  of  sfrphti,  VffxinJi,  eucurrisH,  c('/)isfi,  we  recognise  the  San- 
skrit middle  terminatioii  Ihda.  and  in  tlie  whole  an  aoriat, 
then  aprpmti  docs  not  answer  so  exactly  to  akshipikAn  for 
akMpd/is  as  to  the  fourth  aorist  formation,  which,  indeed, 
is  not  used  in  the  middle,  and  in  roots  enifing  with  a  conso- 
nant, not  in  the  active  also,  but  which  originally  can  srarcely 

[G.  Ed.  p.70B.]  have  hud  ao  confined  a  use  aa  in  the  pre- 
sent state  of  the  language;  and,  together  with  the  active 
oj/Asiaham  (from  j/d,  "  to  go  "),  we  might  expect  the  previous 
existence  of  a  middle,  whence  the  second  person  would  be 
ayd'sixhttuU,  in  which  forms  like  serp-siiti  are,  as  it  were. 
rcflc{!t<>d.  The  SMnskrit  tn  urip  (from  tarp),  would,  ac- 
cording to  this  formation,  if  it  were  used  in  the  middle,  pro- 
duce asrip-ahhthiis.  Wc  may  notice,  also,  with  regard  to 
the  s  which  precedes  the  t  in  the  forms  srrpxUU,  eerpsitlU, 
which,  in  ^.454.,  has  been  explained  as  an  euphonic  addi- 
tion, that  the  Sanskrit  precative,  which  in  the  middle  like- 
wise unites  tlie  v  of  the  verb  substantive  with  the  root 
(either  directly,  or  through  a  conjunctive  vowel  i),  pre- 
fixes another  s.  which  is,  perhaps,  merely  euphonic,  to  the 
personal    tcrminationa    beginning    with    I   or  Ih,  which  s. 


4 


FORMATION  OF  TBNSKS.  77? 

through  tlie  iaflueiipe  of  the  proccding-  f,  becomes  ah.  Tlic 
secoiitl  person  singular  of  the  root  arip,  if  it  were  usod  ia 
tlie  middle,  would  be  sripttshihAs,  to  which  the  Latin 
terpi'iHti  approaches  closely,  where,  however,  it  is  to  be 
observed,  that  the  ■  of  the  Latin  M~rp-s-i-rti  ia  only  a  con- 
junctive vowel,  while  ihe  i  of  fJ^rtVT^^  »ripsiahthaa  expresses 
the  relntioD  of  mood.  The  third  person  tingtilar  is 
aripatahta,  the  second  and  third  jierson  diml,  nrlp^uj/lttMin, 
sripsiy/Ut/lm;  but  the  second  sibilant  docs  not  extend 
ferther;  t.g.  the  first  person  plural  is  no  more  tripiUh- 
mahi,  than,  in  Latin,  terpxlnnuit  but  sppnmtth'i,  like  xerp- 
Wrarm  Yet  tfie  Sanskp*  readily  admits  iho  comlnnation 
xhm;  Tor  it  uses,  according  to  the  third  aorist  formation, 
obMhtshma.  "we  knew."  xaiAtWe,  aMdhixhrnnhi. 

550.  In  supjiort  of  the  opinion,  that,  in  the  sceond 
person  singular  of  the  Latin  aorists,  which  are  colled 
perfects,  a  middle  termination  is  contained,  which,  however, 
has  lost  sight  of  this  ori^n,  and  passes  oa  a  common 
active,  I  will  call  attc^ntiun  to  the  fiict.  that  even  in  Greek, 
in  spite  of  its  possessing  a  perfect  middle  [O.  Ed.  p.  799,] 
voice,  on  original  miildle  form  has.  in  a  particular  case, 
taken  its  position  in  the  active  voice;  for,  in  the  third 
person  plnrnl  imperative,  reptrovritiv  corresiwinds  almost  as 
exactly  OS  possible  to  the  Sanskrit  middle  tarpanlAm.  lu 
langi)n|^i-a  in  which  the  middle,  as  a  voice,  is  wanting,  indi- 
vidiml  forma)  rcnmanta  of  titat  voice  can  hnvc  been  only 
maintained,  where  they  Gil  up  tlte  place  of  any  hiatus,  which 
has  arisen  in  the  active,  or  stand  beside  an  active  termi- 
nation, which  has  been  likewise  retained,  bearing  tlie  same 
meaning  as  It  does,  and  being,  as  it  were,  a  variation  of 
it;  OS  in  Iriah,  in  tlie  first  person  plural,  together  with  the 
form  i»f?r  (=Sanskrit  tiki*.  Latin  mus,  Greek  p£%),  a  maold 
exists,  which  at  will  assumes  its  place,  and  wltich  I  have 
already  elsewhere  fx}mpBred    with    the  Zend   mtitilhi,   and 

3K 


*,:  ■   ---T.    -        .iT        "-J- 


••       .— ~  -       -  ^Jfc         —I         B^ 


f,   ^A  i  '  ^.  _     lit  ■  ■   ifcit  wi  vinriiir^   &    se  ^   u  "at  ir?- 

MtfS*    **«">     'f^    ■■"■      .t.l'^UUjp*       Util.     V.iT^'aer     ▼Til     "Sst     KS*^ 

»-/,«**f,/A   '/ *   n'>.<V..^     •:i«U!ft  -^u*  fc^'^.na  zts-sai  v^iaui  ae 

^f-f|/f.t'f|       'Id'-  •l'i/.i(rc»t  ly^  »7t/>    -r'ic   •iT^ .   vunuL. 
ihtttihfi  Ui  ^^ti^  t'ftUiHium,  it  jt  w^r^  qjihI  u  ibe 
/|(H-i.  //«/'/'  tlifilli/it,     Wf.  titiiy  UffUet,  wiao,  «i 
ilti.  ■   «iiif'ti  \itiffi\v%  Um  /  in  the  formic 
-'Itlfli,  Irr  i  I'll,,  tiiM  Inm»  fflpUa 
Midi,  flml  HihNmm 


< 


778 


THB  AORIST. 


Greek  fieda.  for  which  Uie  Sauskpt  gives  mahf,  a*  an  abbre- 
viation, otmadhi  (§.  472.). 

fi9t.  As  regnrds  the  I.-itiii  firnt  ])enon  singular  in  ti, 
in  spite  of  the  atrikin^  roseniblnuce  of  forms  like  rcxi.  mantl. 
to  the  Sanskrit  like  avalcjlii,  ammsi,  the  eoineideoce  may 
so  far  be  said  to  be  accidental,  as  their  i  may  be  explained 
to  be  a  weiikuning  of  a,  so  that  the  tertntiiation  si  of 
Lutin  perfects  would  correspond  to  the  Greek  era  of  cAimtoi 
bTvn~ca.  I  am  rcntly  of  opinion,  that  the  I>atin  Forma 
in  ti  do  not  correspouil  to  the  Sanskrit  first  aorist  rortiiatioii, 
but,  at  k-ast  for  the  majority  of  iK^rauiis,  to  the  stH.'Oiid, 
whieh,  like  the  Greek  lirst  aorist,  inserts  an  a  between 
the  H  of  the  verb  substatitis'c  and  the  personal  tertuinations. 
This  a  is  treated  nearly  as,  in  Uie  special  tenses,  the  a  of 
first  and  sixth  classes  (see  §.  109'.  1.),  viz.  lengthened,  in. 
tlie  Grst  person  dual  and  plural,  before  ta  and  ma.  As. 
then,  the  a  ctvah'a-ai.  vnh'n-ti,  vah-a-tha,  appears  in  tfaa 
Latin  vpft-i-t.  veh-i-^i,  veh-i-t'ta,  as  i.  in  like  manner  the  A  of 
vah-A-mus  appears  as  i  in  veh-i-mufi;  so  that  wc  soon  arrive 
at  the  conjectwre  that  tlic  »  of  Jtf-iti-.vf(,  tiic-»i-l.  dic-si-mus, 
dic-ai-titU.  ia  a  weakening  of  a,  mid  tliat  therefore  ai  cor- 

[G,Ed.p.B00.]  responds  to  the  Greek  aa,  the  Sanskrit  »o.  *rf 
(euphonic  situ,  Khi'i) ;  thus,  dic'si-tnuii=e5etK-<Ta'iiei',  adii-MhA- 
~ma:  dic-ai-9tis=^eSeU'<Ta-Te,  adik-sha'ta.  Tlie  CODDection, 
tlierefore.  between  vec-siA  and  the  Sanskrit  atHi-shi-t  would 
not  bo  so  close,  as  I  before  SBsiimed,  ami  for  tnAt:-»hi-t  wo 
should  liHve  to  imngine  a  form  of  the  second  formatioo — thus 
cvak-sfia-t — in  order  to  compare  with  it  vec-sH,  aa  dic-sx-t 
actually  aoswers  to  adik-slia-t  (Greek  e9eiK-<j-e  from  kS&ic- 
~ca-T,  compare  cSciW-tra-To).  In  the  second  person,  die- 
-li-sii  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  middle  adik-sha-thiit.  "thou 
ahewedst,"  if  the  «.  wliich  precedes  the  t,  is  only  of  a  euphonic 
nature,  and  introduced  by  the  iDclinatiou  of  the  I  to  a 
preceding  s. 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES.  779 

5i2.  But  even  if  tbc  Latin  perfect  forma  in  «  are 
allotted  to  the  Sanskrit  seL-oud  and  Greek  first  tiortst  forma- 
tion, still  it  remains  most  IJghly  probable  that  tlie  6r&t 
person  siugular  belongs  to  tbe  iniddlu  voice;  fortlie  vowel  a 
of  tlie  aorist  fornintion  under  diiioussion  is  rejeutoj  in  San- 
skrit before  the  termination  i  of  the  first  person  middle;  and 
while,  aceording  to  the  analogy  of  ihe  impprfet-t,  adik^iM 
{=Qdik-*ha-i)  mip;ht  be  expected,  instend  of  it  is  found  'idik- 
•ghi  in  moat  exact  accordance  with  tlie  Latin  dic-si.  From 
tlic  active  form  atlikiiham  it  19  a  difficult  step  to  the  Latin 
dixi;  for  although,  in  Grcclc.  a  final  m  is  sometimes  entirely 
!ost,  and,  for  example,  *3*j|a  corresponds  to  the  Sanskrit  adik- 
ahum,  and,  in  the  aeeu&ative  siugular  of  bases  endinf^  with  a 
consonant,  « answers  to  the  Sauakritwm  {ti^a,  pudam,yfdem)\ 
yet,  in  Latin,  the  final  m  of  the  Sanskrit  has,  in  similar  cose*, 
always  been  retained;  for  example,  in  tiie  first  person  tltc 
blunt  termination  of  the  secondary  forms  has  been,  without 
exception,  maintained,  in  preference  to  the  more  full  m\  of 
the  primarj' furms;  tJius,  dicibnm,  ditfiin.  dicerem,  dizerim : 
and  90  it  is  highly  prohjible  that,  in  the  perfect  also,  dhim 
*woutd  bn  said,  if  the  first  person  was  based  on  the  Sanskpt 
aetivc  adiksliam,  and  not  on  the  middle.  [G.  Ed.  p.  uoi.] 
It  is  certain  tliut.  at  tliu  period  of  tbo  unity  of  language, 
the  abbreviated  form  mlikM  could  not  ua  yet  Itavc  existed, 
but  for  it,  perhaps,  adikahama  or  adiitiham^m  (=e5e»Ja>ii7f. 
see  1.471.).  But  even  tliese  formsconduct  us  more  readily 
tlifuj  adiksham  to  tlie  Latin  dizi."  since  thu  first  person  sin- 
guUir  in  Latin  has  lost  its  termination  exactly  whera  another 
vowel  stood  after  the  m. 

5&3.  In  the  third  person  plum!,  the  I^tin  diifnini  ap- 
parently corresponds  to  tlie  Sanskrit  and  Greek  o(/iA-*A(in, 
cJafav.  It  scarcely  admits  of  any  doubt,  that  the  r  has  pro- 
ceeded from  X  (aa  is  common  between  two  vowels),  and 
that.  tJicrefore,  in  dic-»trmit  for  dic-»itunl  (aa  ertnii,  em,  for 


•  Of.p.lJJ?C.ed.N<itet. 
3  K  2 


780 


THE  AORIST. 


e.inm.  mo),  tiie  auxilary  verb  is  twice  contnincd,  or  ia 
reduiilicatnJ,  whether  this  form  belongs  to  the  Sanskrit 
fourth  formiition,  where  e.  g.  a-yA-si^hvs  lias  proceeded  from 
a-yl-sishiml,  or.  as  is  more  prohnble,  the  third  person.  6rst  on 
Romnii  ground,  nml  after  the  nim  and  origin  of  the  s  of  die-xi 
had  been  forgotten,  felt  the  necessity  for  being  clearly 
invested  with  the  verb  suijstniitive.  This  distinctness,  how- 
CTer,  subspquently  betaniu  indistinct.  As  regards  this  au- 
[wriority  of  the  third  (person  plural  to  the  other  persons,  it  ia 
iu  Hccordaiice  with  tlie  phenomenon,  ih&t,  in  Greek,  eride- 
-aa-ir,  e$£-fra-v,  are  used,  but  not  eriBe-fTa-fzev,  i-ridi-fra-Tei 
not  €64-aa-iiO',  iSe-e-a-re.  Tlio  short  tt'rmiiifition  not  form- 
ing- a  syllable  may  have  favored  the  anQexation  of  the  aux- 
iliary verb  :  this  reason,  however,  did  not  exist  in  the  middle- 
passive;  heufe,  Iriffe-vTo.  not  eriBe-ira-irTo.  The  Prakfit 
re/^ularly  annexes,  ii]  llie  6rst  person  plural  of  ilie  present 
and  imperative,  the  verb  substantive,  without  extending  it  to 
the  second  and  third  jwrson,  ns,  n?'^  gachchhamUa  (mAo 
fmm  w  «Jim)  "  wc  go." 

[G.  £4.  p.  802,]    551.  To  return  to  the  Latin  daSruvl,   wc 
might,  instead  of  it,  expect  da^runt.  with  short  e,  as  t  bt-forc. 
r  is  rctulily  replaced  by  c :  the  long  e,  however,  is  just  aa 


*  See  p.lIO.^.lOO*.  (Ij);  aaicoiap.Lniatn  Fnttifjitiona  Liitff.  PrAcr., 
pp.  199,  335;  E$iai  $ur  fe  iWI,  p.  Itll ;  llfifcr /X- i'mrr.  2>W., p.  184. 
Aa  PmfeBwr  Luaen  lutt,  in  this  flwx,  rocognisod  the  verb  subauntire, 
ftud  been  Ukc  Ant  to  remarlE  it.  aldiou^h  U  Is  in  lilce  raaunftr  r«pr«wnlcd 
Mily  by  a  single  Iclttr,  i[  is^liflicult  to  coiircive  why  he  prt-fen  to  i«cc^ 
Dim  in  the*,  whith,  in  MTcrAl  Siuukrit,  (Jreet,  and  Lutiii  tenaea,  extends 
to  nil  ilic  perrons  ofllic  thrco  nuinbcK,  rnthrr  ilieotd  "everywhere  and 
DawhcTc"  Uian  tho  verb  euLstanlivi!  (hid.  Bihlioth.  III.  p. 78).  Such 
Mntrndictton  mnst  appear  to  me  more  flntlering  than  to  h«ar  that  the 
nrb  aubaiontirc  wiia  §o  pxlpHliIe  iu  llie  plucvw  iiifiitiuiied,  i«peciaUy  in 
Sanikrii,  iltui  It  cuulJ  not  cacajro  even  tlic  most  ah ort -sighted  c^-c.  I  mnU 
eertainly  coniidcr  it  honorahli?  to  mo  to  hnvft  [X'.rmvcJ  ao  long  ago  M 
the  year  l&ld  that  which  astoniahen  Prurtaeor  Ijuimii  in  IWO.  whoM 
amtvncai  liaa  bcca  to  abaodanlly  icatiiitit  in  oihor  dcp>arlmcol8  oTSmu- 
alirit  phllulogy. 


FORMATrON  OF  TENSES. 


781 


tnrpming  as  that  of  t{ic-t-bam  for  dic-i-biim;  anil  it  may  be 
added  tu  wlukt  was  remarked  iu  %.  527.,  that  the  t  of  teg^-bam 
and  tliat  otlfg^unt  pt^>bnbly  rest  on  the  same  principle!, 
tliat  ill  botli   forma   the   originally  eliort  vowel  has   beeu 
leugtJiL'iicd,    that  the    whole    might  gain   mure   power,   to 
bear  the  appended  auxiliary  verb.      From,  this  priuei|i]c 
may  also    be  explained  the  Vriddbi    increase    of  ^i^tga 
ek^hAijimm,  whieh  do(«  not  pn^veut  the  assumption,  that 
ou   ticcuutit  of  tlie   preponderating-  weight  of  the   middle 
termmntions,  this  vowel  increase  has  been  witlidrawn,  in 
order  Dot  to  moke  the  whole  too  unwieldy.     Itemnrk  the 
ease  olrnuly  mcntioncdi    that  the   im|)crative   termination 
fit  dhi   1ms  preserved    its  full   form   only  under  the   pro- 
tection of  8  preceding-  cousonaul;  and  in  the  Gothic  pre- 
turite  all   verbs   which    have  a  long  vowel  or  diphthong 
in  the  root,  and  a  part  of  those  with  a  before  a  doubled 
eousonant,  on  account  of  this  jwwerful  build  can  bear  the  syl- 
lable of  reduplication.  But  if  only  powerful    [G.  Ed.  p.  80S.] 
forms  can  bear  certain  burthens,  it  ui-cJ  not  surprise  us. 
if  tlic  language,  in  order  to  extend  to  its  vocables  tlic  re- 
quisite capacity,    introduces  a  lengthening    of  vowels,   or 
diphtboDgizattons,    which  have   this  obji-ci  alone.      It  is 
probable  that,  in  Sanskrit,  a  middle  aUo,  with  di  for  *,  cor- 
responded to  the  above-mentioned  (i;t-.*h(l(ps(?m  (§.  511.),  and 
the  abbreviation  may  have  commenced,  through  the  re- 
acting influence  of  the  |>ersonal  terminations  of  the  middle, 
which  were  heavy  at  tlie  time  when  no  abbreviation  existed 
— at  a  period  wlien  the  language  was  no  longer  conscious 
that   the  great   vowel    fulness  of  ukxhAiptnm    was   caused 
precisely  iu  order  to  nfibi-d  a  more  |>owerfuI  supjxirt  for 
the  burthen  of  tlie  auxiliary  verb. 

m.  The  furmatiou  of  the  aorist  under  discussion,  in 
spite  of  its  wide  diffiistnn  in  Greek  and  Latin,  is.  iu  San- 
skrit, of  but  very  limited  use,  and  \wa  been  retained  only 
in   roots    iu  i,   xh,  and   h,    without,    however,    necessarily 


?82 


THE  AOBIST. 


Jjelonging  to  tliose  letters,  or  extending  to  nil  roots  witJi 
these  tcTiiiinatioiiB.  as  before  g  they  all  pass  into  t.  On 
account  of  the  i,  accorclinf^  to  §.21..  the  t  of  the  aiixilinry 
verb  U  changed  intosA,-  and  tlius  kth  oi  tidiMnm,  miUcnbi. 
"I  shewed,"  corresponds  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  »  {^ttu) 
of  tJerfa,  dix'f*  1  annex  a  general  view  of  the  complete 
conjugation  of  the  two  active  forms — 


BINOULAR. 

I 

SANSKRIT. 

HREEK. 

t-ATnc.  ■ 

unm. 

KTDDL*. 

icnrc. 

UIDOU. 

1 

nd}]c-aUn-m. 

adifc-shi, 

eieiK-tra. 

cJp/K-ffd-^IJf. 

dic~»i. 

miik-thn-s. 

ndUi-*fin-thA», 

^SciK-ra-^, 

eSeiK-trta, 

die-n-gli. 

ndilt-^m-t. 

adik-fhn-ta. 

DVA1. 

e3eiV-(T«-T*, 

dic-n-f, 

i 

adilr'fbd-vfi. 

adil'-ithA-vaht. 

•          4         1          « 

€^€IK-<Td-ueBl 

...  •■ 

^  udik-shn-tnm,  ndik-shA-lhAm! 
^  adik-^ha-tdm,  adit-ihd-tdm,* 

a 

adii:-xh/i-mn,    ndit-ffiA-mnhi. 


eS'ei'w-irii-Ti;!',  e9ef  K-trei-c^r 
n.nui,. 


rtic-^-rmu. 

adifc-*ha-tit,     ud'ik-*hii'dhn\im,    eSe!x'(ra-Tt,   fSeiK'tra-ade.      f/ton-sfrt. 
adik~;ha-n.     odik-fhii'nUi,  cieiK-<ra-v.     eieiK-ca-vro,      die~ti~runt.\ 

•  From  odMr-ifia-drtdm.  ^  Prom  aiHk-tha-Atdni. 


556.  As  the  Snnekfit,  in  its  periphrastic  formntion  of 
the  reduplicated  preterite,  of  which  we  will  speak  more  in 
iletail  liereofter.  to^ctliur  with  X-ri,  "to  make,"  applies  tbc 
two  roots  of  "  to  be,"  since  e.y.  ch'>myAm-AAa,  like  ch6raytim- 
hnbhUvn,  signi6e8  "I"  and  "he  stole;"  so  the  l^tin.  also, 
for  its  aorist  ]wrfrcta,  lias  called  in  the  aid  both  of  £.V 
and  FU.  From  Ft/  I  have  already,  in  my  S}-stetn  of 
Conjugation,  derived  the  syllable  et,  ui,  of  oma't,%  otK^-rt, 
and  mon-ui.    I  think,  however,  I  have  been  wrong  in  com- 


I 


*  The  ctnineclion  of  dteo  wlili  dtfkrvfu  Is  nnacVnowlcd^ A :  mnark  tlw 
motto  o-f  (rxprMiUin  difU  fvuta. 


FOfiM\TION  OF  TENSES. 


783 


pnring  the  i'  and  u  of  ri,  ui,  with  the  /  olfui.  It  appear* 
lirttcr,  iiiatcarl  nrngtrcting  the  u  of/ui,  to  assuDie  that  the 
/  has  beei)  dropped  ;  just  hs  the  d  ot  <Iao  has  been  lost  in 
viyinii,  his.  hi  (At-p-.v),  or  hs.  in  Tonglan,  no  corrr»]>oii(ls  to 
the  New  Zcalund  diia,  "two"  (sSanakrit  dwa). 

557.  The  u  ot{f)ui,  accortiiiig  to  the  prevailing  principle, 
hu  been  clmnged  between  two  vowels  into  v,  but  with  a  con- 
sonant preceding  it  is  retained;  hence  HmuvU  auiiivi,  con- 
trnsted  with  moaui.  /'uf  Found  occasion  Tut  [G.  E<1.  |i.60A.l 
nbbrevtatioD  in  the  incumbrance  of  the  preceding  prineipiil 
verb,  flcfonling  to  thp  sftme  principle  ns  that  by  which  tlie 
first  syllitble  of  the  Lntin  decern,  tlrc'im  (urn/mm,  duodecim), 
hns  escaped  tho  French  voutmetions  like  doun,  trtiee,  or  aa 
the  <■/  of  tho  number  "  ten,"  in  several  Asiatic  and  European- 
Sanskrit  dialects,  is  weakened  to  t  or  I.* 

55S.  The  most  uonvindng  iiroof  that  in  amavi,  audtvi, 
mnnui.  the  verb  substantive  is  contained,  is  furnished  by 
jmtui ;  for  this  form  Iwlongs  to  a  x'lrb,  throughout  which  the 
eombiiialion  with  the  verb  sulretaritive  prevails.  The  t4->ns«s 
from  ES,  which  are  in  use,  select  this  root;  thus,  pi^s-xum 
(from  pot-fum).  pti-firam.  pot-trn,  pos-tim,  pos-tem ;  but  the 
perfect  mast  betake  itself  to  FU,fuii  Xwnoc  pol-td,  for  pot- 
fill,  wliich  would  be  inadmissible.  P»f-fui  might  have  been 
expected,  bat  the  language  preferred  abandoning  one  of  the 
irreeoncilcable  cnnsoniuits  ;  and  il  would  be  difficult  for  anir 
one.  on  account  of  the  loss  of  t\wf.  to  declare  the  form  pottii, 
contrary  to  the  annbgj-  of  all  the  other  tenses,  to  be  simple. 
But  if  fXit-ui  is  compounded,  then  the  application  of  this  un- 
inistakcabie  hint  of  the  language,  with  regard  to  tnon-txi,  oma- 
v},  nndi-v't,  iif-vi.  si-vi.  wd-vi,  is  apparent  of  itself.  Wc  may 
observe,  that  thlsvi.  also,  just  as  bam  and  rant  {legi-ham,  letft- 


*  P.  447-  G.  «d.,  tte.  To  lUe  suive  cUuii  bclonj;  the  MaL  atvl  Jnvan. 
ia*  and  Maldirian  f/u  of  foruis  like  dSta-h-loM  (M«l,).  n>-lat  (Jav.),  ro-lot 
(M*ldW.)."lwclvc."' 


784 


THB  AORIST. 


rant,  tcriptl-runt).  fwla  the  necessity  of  being  supported  Ny 
n  long  vowel;  and  heuce,  in  place  of  the  short  vowel  of  ji>rB. 
tfVum,  »Ino,  »itum,  «n^t«o,  motum,  exhibits  a  long  one  (com- 
pare §§.&a7.  554.) 

559.  In  order  tbat  tbc  perfects  in  ut,  v{,  may,  from  their 
origin,  appear  aa  aorista,  wo  must  carry  back  tho  aimple/iii 

[0.  EJ.  p. 600.]  itself  to  an  aorist,  and  this  is  easily  done. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  obser^'e  the  close  conncctiou  butweeu 
/uit  and  tlie  Sanskrit  and  Greek  aorist  a-hhut,  e^(t).  Onar- 
count  of  its  personal  sijpi  UfttU  answers  less  to  babh^vn,  W^ukc. 
if  the  losaoftlie  syllable  of  reduplication  is  admitted  as  readily 
as  that  of  the  augment  I  shall  return  hereafter  to  this  subject. 

560.  TItc  third  Sauskfit  aortat  fornjatioo  ia  distinguished 
from  the  second  in  this,  that  the  auxiliary  verb  is  counectcd 
with  the  root  of  the  attributive  verb  by  means  of  a  conjunc- 
tive vowel  i.    Through  the  influence  of  this  i  the  a  is  changed 
into  «/(,  but  is.  at  the  same  time,  preseri-ed  from  suppression 
in  tliosc  cases  where  tijc  first  formation,  to  avoid  the  aecu- 
molatioD  of  three  consonants,  drops  the  sibilant  (see  §.  643.). 
VfliilCt  c,  g.,  kshij},  in  tlie  second  person  plural,  ezJii  bits  oit- 
^hmpta  for  akiMipata,  from  badk,  "  to  know,"  comes,  in  the 
same  person  tibudii-i->thta.      On  the  other  hand,  in  the  thinl 
formation  in  the  second  and  tliird  person  singular  active.  iJie 
sibilant  is  lost,  and  the  conjunctive  vowel  Is  leugtheoed  in 
compcusatiou,  as  it  appears  to  me,  for  this  lose;  hence,  abiidh- 
-i'S,  "  thou  knewest,"  a6iUlh-i-t,  "  he  knew,"  in  contrast  witli 
abiidk-i-aham,  and  all  the  otlier  persons.     I  believe  I  per- 
ceive the  ground  of  tliia  isolation  in  tliis,  thfit  as  the  second 
and  third  person  sinfjniar  have  a  simple  s  and  t  for  their  ter- 
minations, the  retention  of  the  sibilant  would  occasion  the 
forms  tiUUihili/h  (euphonic  for  oboiUii^k-s),  abiiiltiishti  wltence. 
according  to  a  univer-sal  law  of  sound  (see  §.  94.),  the  last 
consonant  would  have  to  be  rejected.     lu  the  case  before  us, 
however,  the  language  preferred,  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity, 
rather  to  give  up  the  uuKiliary  verb  tluin  the  personal  sigu, 


FORMATION  OF  TRNSES. 


788 


al  though,  iu  the  imperfect,  the  vase  frequently  occurs  tlmt  the 
second  and  third  person  aiii^-ir  are  of  the  same  sound,  be- 
cause they  hare  lost  tlieir  distinguishini^  mark;  hcDce, 
obibhar,  avat,  sigiiify  hoth  "  ihou  didstcarry."  [G.  Ed.  p,  807.] 
•'  Ihou  didst  Bptafc,"  and  **  he  did  carry,"  **  he  did  apeak";  in 
the  first  ease  for  uhibkar-sh,  avak-fh  («  (tfter  r  aud  k  becomes 
ah),  it)  tlic  st^cond  for  ahihhar-t,  avti/c-l.  I  annex  the  full 
formation  of  abdilh-i'tham  and  its  middle,  with  the  remark. 
tliat  tlie  radical  vowel  in  roots  endiug  with  a  conaonaut 
rt!<ceives  Ouna  in  the  two  active  forms;  while  roots  ending 
with  a  vowel,  as  in  the  first  formation,  hnv^?,  in  the  active, 
Vriddhi,  in  the  middle,  Gunai  e.y.  andviaham,  anuvij/ii, 
from  un,  "  to  praise." 

ACTIVE. 
llnaULJlll.  SCAL.  rLDHAU 

abodk-i-aham,       abiidlfi-ahwa,  abSdh-i-ihma. 

abudJt-i-a,  eh&dh-i-shtam,  abuJk-i-shia. 

abCdh-i-t,  ahiidh-i-ahlAm,  ahddh-i-idtwi. 


HtDDt.G. 
iiMdh'i-shi,  ahAdh-i-Hhtixihi, 

ubCdh-i-idilhAs,      abddh'i-sMlhAm, 
abSdh'i-fbtn,  nbiidh-i-jftAtdm, 

>  Accord ing  to  the  Ikw  of  soniul  for  abMUtfhiifam.  *  fk-garding  Uio 

rejection  of  n,  we  $.  459.,  and  cotnpKre  lutuc  farms  like  7r(iriii/uT<u. 


abiidh-i-thmahi. 

ahJldb-i-ddhwam.' 

ahiidh'i-»hata} 


561,  The  contrast  of  abAdhii,  ub6dh&.  with  abtidh'ukam 
and  all  otlier  forms  combined  with  the  verb  substantive,  is 
very  remarkably  iii  accordance  with  the  pheDOmciion,  that 
tlie  Old  Sclavonic  preterite,  in  which  we  have  recojjnised 
the  [udo-Greek  aorist  (sec  §.  :i&5.  tn.)>  has  likewise,  in  the 
second  uikI  third  perauii  singular,  dropped  the  verb  substan- 
tive, hut  retained  it  in  all  the  otiicr  persons.  But  From  forms 
like  W^nrN  (ibadht'a,  wiWh(  nbiidlii'l,  the  final  consonant 
also,  in  Sckvouic.  must  be  dropped,  because  the  Sclavonic 
generally,  according  to  the  conjecture  expressed  in  ^  SS5.  A, 


786 


THE  A0B18T. 


[G.  Ed.  p.  806.;]  tifts  lost  all  tlie  original  BdaI  conftonanto; 
lience  bvaii  biidi.  "  thou  tlidat  wake,"  nnswera  to  «wtlA^ 
nMh-i-s.  "llioti  didst  know."  or  "dWst  awnkc."  gvah  b^i. 
"  he  did  awake,"  1o  wiftiAw  ahikUiil.  "  lie  (lid  know."  "  he  did 
awnke";  and  on  the  otlit-r  liaiid,  siTAiiCTi  buJ-i-nte,  "ye.  did 
awake."  to  wwrN?  uhddk'i-ihta,  "ye  did  know,""  "ye  did 
nwake,"  1  annex  tlie  whole  for  compnriton,  in  which, 
liowever,  the  remarks  of  tlio  following  paragrnplis  are  not 
to  bo  overlooked. 


SINODLAR. 

DtFAL. 

stimtRfT. 

oLn  «CTftV. 

MN«K)ITT.                      Dt.n  »CIXV. 

nhAdh-i-nhnm,     hA^-'ich^ 

ubMh-i-xhuo,    h&d'i-chovn\ 

tibUcIfi-i-s. 

ftd^-i-'. 

ah6dh-i-shUim,  bAti-i-sta. 

nhm-U, 

hM-i-\ 

ftbiidh-i-shUim.   Ittifl-i~sta. 

PLL-RAL. 

(INIKRrT- 

Di.n  nn.ATOKir. 

iiMdh-'i-shmtt. 

hHil'i-vhwn*. 

vbMh-i-;hta, . 

b&d-i-xte.                              ' 

abSdfi-i-ihu9, 

h^-i-9jian. 

1 

8ea^.i66.m. 

*6i»§§.i6!i.m.MS. 

&63.  Tltn  prcccdinj*  compnrison  ftimislies  one  of  the 
fairest  parallels  whith  can  be  ftiiywiiere  drawn  butvreen 
the  Snnskrit  and  its  Gurojiean  sister  idioms.  Tlic  Bg:ree- 
ment  of  the  two  iHrgtin^cs,  liowcvrr.  if  wc  [jo  hiick  to  their 
original  forms,  is  not  (juitc  bo  perfect  as  might  be  at  firEt 
glanee  believed.  Tlio  i  of  the  Sclavorie  (iiifl-i-ch  is,  for 
instance,  in  its  derivation,  dilTtrent  from  the  i  of  the  Sanskrit 
nbfiJb-i-\ham ;  for  bdi-i-ti,  "  lo  wake,"  does  not  correspond 
to  the  Sanskrit  primitive  vrrbs.  whence  ahMh-i-nham  pro- 
eerds,   but  to    the   causal    b&dUatjAmi,    "  ]    make  to   know. 

[G.  Ed.  p.  600.]  bring  to  consciousness,  waktt^':  Oil  which 
aocount  we  have  above  compared  (§.  4t7.  p.  fi4S  G.  ed.)  the 
secoiwl  person  present  b^-i-jh-i,  with  Mtih-ayn-ai,  and  in 
§.  &0&.  idcntiliod  the  vaiMle  i  of  bAd-i-fi  with  the  oliaractcr 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES. 


787 


aya  of  tile  San9k|-it  tenth  class,  with  wliich  the  cAtisal  forms 
agree.  In  spite  of  this,  the  circumstatic-e  that  1h«  Sclavonic 
verbs  in  general  retain  tlivir  v]mn  syllubleB  in  the  tenae 
undor  discussion,  produc^ea,  in  llio  prctt-rite.  n  remarlinble 
similiirtty  between  such  verbs  ns  hnve  i  ns  the  cJerivntion- 
vowet  and  the  Sanskrit  third  formation  of  the  aorist,  although, 
ill  fsct,  the  St'lnvonic  preterite  belongs  to  tlie  lirst  Siinskrtt 
norist  formation.  Coropiire  \Ax  ^"•'^fi'  "  I  gnvc,"  aActe, 
dri-stf,  "  ye  gave,"  with  Sanskrit  forms  likr  anAl-Hlimn,  nmii- 
•^hta:  ^dA,  "to  give."  follows  the  fourth  formation,  but 
would  form  tiildmm.  tiMtin.  oecordingto  the  first. 

5C3.  In  the  first  person  dual  and  plural  the  Old  Selavonic 
inserta  between  the  auxiliary  verb  and  the  personal  character 
on  o,  as  a  conjunctive  vowel,  so  that  in  this  respect  da-ch-o-va, 
da-r.h-o-m,  agree  more  with  the  Sunakrit  second  and  Greek 
first  aorist  formation  {ttd'tkxh-A-vn.  adik»h~i\'ma,  fiu^-a-^iev) 
than  with  wnAixhu-a.  cndithma;  but  the  o  is  not  an  old  heredi- 
tary possession  brought  from  the  Haet,  but  a  subsequent  in- 
sertion to  avoid  the  combination  cfiv,  chm.  The  Servinn,  also, 
which  has  in  its  preterites  (in  the  imperfect  and  in  the  so- 
called  simple  preterite)  left  the  sibilant  of  the  verb  substan- 
tive (where  it  has  not  been  entirely  dropped)  iu  its  original 
form,  has  kept  free  from  the  conjunctive  vowel ;  as,  ie/ratmo. 
"  we  played."  For  the  most  part,  the  aorist,  in  Old  Scla- 
vonic, is  comipted  by  the  gutturnlization  oftlie  sibilant  in 
the  first  person  of  the  three  numbers.  The  relation  to 
the  Sanskrit  in  this  manner  becomes  similar  to  tliat  of  the 
plural  locative  in  rh  to  the  Sanskrit  in  su  or  fhu.  oa  in 
tf(/efff-eA  =  f^^^Tn  rif/Aatv3-sn,  "  in  the  widows";  nnorba-eh 
=  W^re«ir(fM-sw,"in  tbednugliters-in-l.iw";  [G.Ed  p.BlO.] 
also  similar  to  thiit  of  the  proiiouiiriul  plural  genitives  in  th 
to  the  Sanskrit  in  aAm  or  ffidrn,  so  timt  TR^  iye'<^,  has  the 
same  relation  to  ir^ti-fftu,  in  respect  of  its  mutation  and 
ahhreviation.  as  b&fhi-ch  has  to  (iA»WA-(-\ftain. 

564.  In  the  third  person  plural,  in  Old  Sclavonic,  instead 


i 


1 


788  TBB  AOEIST. 

of  ahn.  c/Hl  also  is  use<i,  but  only  in  tlic  cnsc  where  the  pne- 
ceding  vowel  ia  an  n  or  It  ye,  and  tlien  both  aha  and  eft  tl  (re- 
garding d  from  on  ace  ^  463.)  uix*  used  at  plena u re ;  e.g. 
MAojiraA  mit^riKha.  or  iHA^A^^s  ma^nch&.  "  tlxcy  anointed"; 
Bli;^tf  byechi  or  RtiuA  b^eslm,  "  they  were."* 

565.  In  the  seuond  and  third  person  singnlRf,  aceordin;;  to 
Dobrowskv,  instead  of  the  forms  without  tt-TiuiuHtion,  endin>; 
with  the  class  or  root-\owel.  tliose  in  uiE  she  also  occur. 
He  gives,  indeed,  in  his  first  conjugation  (p.  bH)  froui  t/ltigo- 
Ittch.  ■■  I  spoke,"  gUttjolu  aa  second  and  third  person;  but  from 
niA^A;^  mti^uch,  "  I  anointed,"'  he  gives  HA3ARIE  ma^ashe  as 
sec-ond  and  third  person,  for  which,  in  both  i)er»oii8,  we  fijid 
in  Kopitar  masa  vm^n.     From  tho  sjitfcial  point  of  view  oF 
the  Sclavonic  we  might  easily  fiincy  wc  saw  tlie  personal 
sign  in  the  mc  tht-  of  sia^aoie  mo^nthe,  "  thou  didst  anoint," 
compared  with    the    present    NAikemti    maacfie^hi,    "thou 
anoiutesti"  with  the  slight  sUerntion  of  s/it  to  sA^;  and  then 
assume  an  iucrguoic  transfer  from  the  second  to  the  third  per- 
[G.  Ed.  p.  811.]     son.  as  our  German  aind  has  made  its  vsny, 
from  its  proper  place,  into  the  first  person,  or,  ns  inOld  and  An- 
glo~Suxon,  the  termination  of  the  second  [terson  plural  has  been 
imparted  both  to  the  first  and  third,  and  in  the  Gothic  passive 
the  third  person  plurul  has  replaced  both  tho  second  and  first. 
But  if,  in  the  Old  Sclavonic  preterite,  we  hnvc  recognised  the 
Sanskrit  aoristand  the  euphonic  law.  which  has  destroyed  all 
original  final  consonants  ($.  255.  L),  we  easily  perceive  that 
the  she  of  MA^Auie  ma^aahp,   "  thou  didst  auoiut,"  stands  fur 
#A«,  andthatof  MA^AniE  nwi^a«A«, "  he  anointed,"  forshel;  and 

—  ™^ 

"  The  difforanoe  of  writing  the  tbtrd  penoD  i>luml  IwtwaeB  Ktipit&r 
anil  Dubrotrsky  lind  tacapod  mc  in  $  ,  463.  oqiI  405. ;  tho  fnnner  (Ulago- 
litti,  p[>.  CI,  lU)  vrrit«»  U1-*  silt/a,  Uic  lutU:r,  whom  1  luvo  followoil,  OU  | 
a^a.  ThoDgfa  KopiUr,  as  1  doubt  nof,  is  riglit.  still  tlie  forta  a&a,  if  it 
never  orcn  occare,  or  very  nrely,  la  »  fiir  the  tldtr,  as  lie  ji  of  thija  a  \o 
bo  coaaiUcTcd  no  iaorgutic  frvitx,  oi  ut  mauy  odiur  funus  (tea  ^.StMi.H.). 


FORUATION  OF  TBNSB8. 


789 


that  this  xft^(»).  tAcCO.  of  tlie  second  and  third  person  rests  on 
the  Sans,  wj,  sA,  of  the  above-Dieationed  alshAipsu,  uhliiiipsiU 
(§.  54&).  I  do  Dot  say  ou  ahas,  that,  of  ndik-a.ha»,  adik-.jhal 
=cictKraau  cietK-ve.,  (p.  782);  for  nlthou^h  tlie  termination 
of  MA^Amf  ma^a-tfic  is  nearly  identical  with  lljat  of  CSetK-ve. 
still  the accoiid  person  plurul  MA3A(TB?nn^a.fff  (notiuA^AuiETe 
ma^aa/icte)  tenchea  lis  that  the  Sclavouie  aori^t  formation  be- 
long to  the  Sanskrit  6r8t.  not  to  tlie  second  (^Grcek  first). 
566.  I  believe,  too.  that  forms  like  the  nbove-mentioned 
b^di,  "  thou  didst  wake."  "  he  did  walce."  originally  had  ano- 
ther syllable  she  after  it;  tlms  bitli  from  btldhhe ;  nese, 
"tliou  didat  bear,"  "he  bore,"  from  iwnvshe;  os  in  Servian 
all  imperfects  in  the  second  and  third  jierson  sing;iilar  aetimlly 
terminate  in  ahc.  Dut  in  the  siud  dialect  the  Saiiskfit 
aoriat  has  split  into  two  tenses,  ofwliich  one  is  called  in 
Wuk'a  Grammar  (translated  by  J.  Grimm)  "  imiTcrfect."  the 
other  "simple  preterite.**  The  former  carries  the  sibilant 
of  the  verb  substantive,  in  the  form  of  ui  th  or  e^,  ihrougfa 
all  the  persons,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  persoD  singular 
and  third  plural;  tlic  latter  has  entirely  lost  it  in  the  sin- 
gular, but  exliibits  it  in  the  plural  also,  in  the  third  person. 
I  annex  for  comparison  tlie  two  tenses  of  DrpSn  )gram, 
"  I  play."  in  full. 


IMFERFECr. 


siurLE  r&zTEnrTE. ' 


?!/rS.» 
Igraahe, 


igriumo, 

igraxte. 

"igruu. 


HMO. 

hjra, 
hjT?i, 


igratmo, 

\gTasie. 

igrathe. 


2 


&67.    The   Bohemian    has  a  remnant    of  the    preterite 


*  The  sign  ^  (KVUTS,  Kconl'mg  to  Wuk,  Ja  Ry]labloa  "in  which  the 
tone  lemtiDBtn  roundly.'  tt'insrk  that  in  iho  fini  person  nngnlsr  and 
FH-i^oiiJ  (jtraon.  plural  ibc  simple  i^rei*iil«  Is  dirtingoished  from  the  imper- 
frct  simply  by  the  ibsenco  of  ttiie  accrnu 


790 


THS  AOmST. 


correspoiiding;  to  tlte  Sanakrit  aorist,  in  tlie  tense  dcsi^- 
niitctl  by  Dobrowsky  ns  the  imperfect  of  the  optiitivc,  in 
which  ()i/vli,  which  is  ilistiti^ishcd  from  the  Old  Sclnvouic 
K*^  hyech.  "  I  was,"  only  by  a  difFereut  form  of  the 
radiL-al  vowel,  in  conibiiintton  with  the  |iast  participle  byi, 
(thus  bi/!-bjfch)  cxprfBaea  the  idea,  '■  I  were,"  or  '•  would 
be-"  If  the  participle  pri?ti>ritQ  follow  a  second  time  thU^H 
hyl'btjch,  this  forms  the  ijhi|)erfect  ofthi*  mood,  and  hyfbtjer^* 
hyl  signifies  "  if  I  had  k-eii,"  or  "  I  would  have  been."  Cvm- 
pnre  the  conjngntion  of  i^/-£jrrA  (feminine  Ajr/u-Aj/cA.  neuter 
byto-bych).  or  rather  that  of  bych  alone,  with  that  of  the 
Old  Sclavonic  Bt;|j  hyech,  "  I  was." 


BOHEMIAN. 
■IK  a.  PLUBAI,. 

byi^h,     bythom, 
hy».       btittfi, 
by,       by. 


OLD  SCLAVONIC. 

hwch,     byechom, 

buf,         huntf- 

hyp,       bvetiha  {ftyethpa). 


'•  Ri-miirk. — The    second    p*i-8on    singular    hya    has 
advautage    over    (In;    Old    Sclavonic   bye    of  retaining    the 
sibilant  of  the  auxiliary  verb,   while  in  the  third   person 

[G.Ed.  p.Bls.]  phiral,  Btui*  bi/eslm.  ho«.  in  this  respect, 
tliQ  advantage  over  by.  From  the  Buhctntaii,  as  uur  point 
of  view,  the  s  of  byn  can  only  mnrk  a  personal  tcrminatiuii, 
particularly  as  «  in  Bohemian  actually  expresses  tlie  second 
person.  According  to  that,  howfver.  which  was  previuualy 
remarked  reg;arding  the  xke  which  occurs  in  Servian,  nnd 
occasion  ally,  also,  in  Old  Sclavouip,  in  the  second  :uid  third 
person  singuhir.  it  can  admit  of  no  doubt  that  the  »  of  by> 
is  identical  with  thiit  of  the  second  person  plural  byatr, 
and  that  it  has  preserved  iho  first,  and  not  the  second 
sibilant  of  the  Snuskfil  singular  persona,  like  aksht\ip%i»^ 
nnAitht'a,  p.  703  G.  ed.  Tl(e  root  ii^A/iu,  'to  he.'  according 
to  the  lirst  aorist  formation,  would,  in  th«  second  person 


FORMATION  OF  TBNSBS. 


791 


singtihr.  form  abhiiuaht*.  and,  without  VriiUlhi.  nbhAtib,  the 
mi(Id)«  part  of  which  is  coutainud  iu  ibe  Boheminti  bifi" 

569.    The  Old  Sclavoniu  dac/i,  "  f  gnve,"  and  aualogoa* 
formMioiis,  reiiiiiul  us,  tliroiigli  their  guttunil,  whiuh  tiikea 
the  place  of  a  sibilant,  uf  the  (xrvL>k  aorists  cSwko,  cdtiKa, 
^Ka.     That  wlucli.  in  Old  Sclavoaic,  lias  become  u  rule  in  the 
first  person  of  tlic  thrrc  numbers,  viz.  the  gulturali/ntioD 
of  an  originnl  s,    may   have  occasionally   taken    place  iu 
Creek,  but  carried  throuj^hout  all   the  pei'soiis.      No  con- 
jecture lies  closer  at  baud,  than  that  of  ref^urclin^  ^Suita  as  a 
corruption  of  cJi^ffa.  whether  it  he  that  the  it  \ins  with  ono 
step  passed  into  k,  or  that  a  k  has  placed  itself  beside  tlie 
sibilant  of  the  verb  eubatantlve,  as  in  the  imperfect  cvfrov, 
eoKe,  in  the  old  Latin  future  eacit,  and  in  the  imperfecte  and 
aorists  in  Ivkov,  itrKOfitjv,  doKOv,  auKOfitjv,  as  Jivnjtiixf,  koXI- 
eoKov,  KaJ\J:aKf.To.  tKaoKe.  SatraffKeTo.  in  which  the  accession 
of  the  verb  substantive  is  not  to  be  overlooked,  which  tliero- 
foit!  is  doubly  contained  in  the  forms  in  <ra-o*roi',  aa-a-KOfoiv. 
But  in  eioiKa,  eQ>iKa,  >iKa,  it  beio^  presu])p09cd  that  th«y 
were  formerly  cSoxtko,  &c.,  only  the  euphonic  uccompmii- 
mcnt  of  the  (T  would  have  remained,  and  thus  an  original 
tSia/ra  would  have  next   become  eSwiTKa  and  then  iSuKa. 
Perhaps,  also,  a  k  may  have  originally  beeu  prefixed  to  the 
ff  of  the  to- be -presupposed  ^BiMra,  as  iu  ^Cv  from  o-w^Sah- 
sk  ri  t  sam,  "with";  so  tliat  tlios  cJwca  would  be  an  abbre- 
viation of  eSiii^a,  as  perhaps  a  form  rum    [G.Ei).p.8U.]| 
preceded  the  Latin  rum  if  it  is  akin  to  ^vv,  truv,  «w  iam. 

&69.  The  Lithuanian  also  presents  a  form  which  is 
alciu  to  the  Greek  and  Sanskrit  aorist,  in  which,  as  it 
appears  to  me.  k  assumes  the  place  of  an  original  »;  I 
mean  the  imperative,  in  which  [  recognise  that  Sanskrit 
mood  which  agrees  with  the  Greek  optative  norist,  and 
through  which,  therefore,  the  k  of  dttk,  "give,"  dukite, 
"give  yc"  (Sauskiit  r/diyu/Aiw/m,  "may  ye  give,"  precative 
middle),  is  connected  with  the  k  of  the  Greek  eSuuca,    Bui 


792 


THE  AOIUST. 


if,  then,  the  K  of  €$uKa,  edtjKo,  ^Kot,  tuu  cither,  as  I  prefer 
to  assume,  directly,  or  tlirough  t)ic  medium  of  ax  or  f. 
procevdcJ  from  (t,*  then  there  is  no  difficulty  in  deducing 
nlao  tbti  K  of  perfects  like  StStaxa  from  o*.  and  titerefore  from 
the  verb  substantive,  althougiL  [he  Sanskrit  in  this  setae 
refrains  from  combining  with  Uie  mot  ag.  Hal  fuiid«- 
mcntdlly  all  tenses  hnve  aa  equal  cinim  to  this  root,  to 
express  the  copula,  and  if,  in  Greek,  imperfects  like 
kStSuv.  and  aorists  like  tSiay,  in  the  third  person  plural. 
combine  with  tlie  verb  aiibstantivc.  vrliile  tlie  Snosicrit 
forms  ndiftAm,  nilAin,  renuiin  simple;  and  if.  further,  the 
Greek  dLnlectieiilly  combines  the  imperfwt  ecKov  witli  the 
imperfects  of  attributive  verbs,  and  the  Latin  here  iiae* 
its  bam,  while  the  Sanskrit  imperfecta  nowhere  reoeivo 
the  verb  subatanlive,  it  cannot  surprise  us  if  the  Greek 
restores  that  in  the  perfect  nhic-h  tlic  Sauskiit  has  neglected. 
TUe  incumbrance  of  (ho  root,  which  occurs  in  the  perfect 
through  reduplication,  is  not  favorable  to  tlie  reception 
of  the  verb  substantive;  and  the  Greek  also  admits  the 
addition  of  the  k  only  there  where  the  least  ditDculty 
existe,  viz.  after  towcIs  and  tlic  lightest  couaononts,  the 
[O.  Ed.  p.  815.]  liquids ;  Urns,  5e3u.xa,  indeed.  ire^tXi/fca. 
iijtdapKa,  t-ffTcA«a,  xt^oyKa,  but  not  TCTiniita,  vinKeiCKa:  but. 
in  order  to  avoid  the  Liirsliness  of  this  combiuutiou,  the  tc  of 
die  auxiliary  verb  is  changed  to  /i,  as  it  were  in  the  spirit  of 
the  German  law  for  tlie  mutation  of  sound,t  and  tliis.  with 
tJie  preceding  tenuis  or  medial,  is  vJiaugcd  to  an  aspiratc; 


•  Regarding  the  nvene  cose,  tho  Hunsition  of  gattnrali  into  v,  aae 
$.501. 

t  Sm  $.  S7.  In  tlK  MalAy-P«lynaii*n  knf^agcs,  slso,  niuUt»ou»  of 
tennes  into  aipimics  occur ;  for  Mnmpir,  h  for  k  and  /  for  p.  In  Uw 
langnage  of  MiutniiaHcnT,  nl»D,  It  for  f,  as  iaGcrrann  z  hmuul  of  the  a^- 
ntegff;  w/ufW,  "whit«,"corrvepoDdtD(;totboMiiIay/;ijfiAMi4  S«iiskrit 
pdlo,  "(itiK/'oftliu  uunemconlng.  Sm  iny  TrcntiM  on  tha  ContMotioB 
of  ilio  UbIb/-  PtilyDciiiut  Lmgiwgcs  wiili  the  ludo-European,  Rerauk  13. 


I'OKMATION  OF  TKNSBS. 


793 


tlius.  Tenifia  for  t€tuw'«  from  lerw-na,  w^irAc^a  for  Ticir\c»£'a 
from  viii\€KKa.  On  tlie  otlier  hand,  io  T-sounds  tho  lan- 
guage luu)  preferred  dropping  lht'8c  eutircly  before  k,  sivd 
leaving' tile  K  in  its  full  right  uiul  [wssession;  thus,  e^vKa, 
ireweixa.  for  i^f/eviKa,  veitttBKa.  The  piissive,  od  nccotint  of 
its  lieav^r  termLuaUons.  is  less  favorable  to  the  reception  of 
tlic  auxiliary  verb.  And  us,  togirther  witli  i^'iifivav,  t.^ofrav, 
no  forms  iii^oeavTo,  iZoaavro,  exist,  so  to  the  active  perfects 
in  Ka  no  passi^'es  in  Ka^at  (or  aafiai,  with  tlie  original  sound 
preserved)  eorrespond.  It  might,  however,  be  assumed,  that 
the  (T,  which  has  remained  in  forms  like  TCTe\c<r/^«i,  ctnas- 
l*tti,  tjnicttai,  ebpecisHly  after  abort  vowels,  somctituca  also 
after  lung  ones  (^xouirjuai),  is  Doteuphunic,  but  belongs  to  the 
verb  substantive;  for  it  is  assuredly  treated  precisely  like 
the  tr  which  takes  tlie  plaeeof  a  radical  7*-aound  (t^i/cr-juat. 
Treite/ff-^a*)  and  is  only  dropped  before  auother  a  {nhtn- 
•trai,  i]Kov-c-cu).  In  verbs  in  i^,  the  v  and  tr  eonteud  to  a  cer- 
tain degree  for  the  honor  of  being  retained:  tti^avrfitu 
would  be  an  iuipossibitity  in  the  present  sttite  of  the  lan- 
gUHgi;,  but  TTe^a-fT/iai  has  obtained  eurrcney  in  prcferenee  to 
■niipaii-iiai  (as  e^fipa^fivu  and  others);  wliile  in  the  third 
person  tc^v-to*  baa  carried  off  the  vietory  from  vetf>a-<TTa.t. 
perhaps  under  tho  protection  of  wc<^av-<r«(,  [G,  Ed.  p.  sis.] 
whidi  necessarily  gutned  the  pfcfurence  over  ni^a-iKrou, 
a  form  repugnant  to  all  custom,  and  over  utipa-aai,  in  which 
the  k  would  have  hern  unnecessarily  abandoned.  The  eir* 
cumstance  that  verbs  of  this  kind  exiubit  the  <t  also  iu  the 
formation  of  words,  before  suflixe^  which  begin  witli  /x  or  t 
[Te\ie9iia,  tiKoorrii),  is  ao  argument  ngalost  tlie  opinion  that 
the  V  in  the  perfect  ))a8sivc  has  more  than  a  euphonic  foun- 
dation; for  withontderiviDgsucb  words  from  the  perfect  pas- 
sive, still  the  custom  of  writing  cfi.  in,  which  have  good 
foundation  in  the  perfect  passive,  may  have  exerted  an  influ- 
ence on  such  forms,  in  which  the  a  before  /j  and  r  can  only 
appear  as  an  idle  or  euphonic  accompnnitneut. 


794 


TUB  AOBIBT, 


570.  Tlmt  aorist  furmation,  to  which,  in  vay  Sanskrit 
graminnrt  I  have  assigned  titc  fuurtit  place  is  of  les*  inH 
portance  for  comparison  witli  Ilie  Europmn  cognntc  lanH 
guAges.  but  deserves  notice  oii  this  account,  tliat  it  maJcea 
the  verb  nubstnnttve  so  brond  thnt  it  cnnnot  be  overlooked  j 
for  in  forms  like  nyA-xUftnm,  "  1  went,*  it  receive*  the  wordj 
in  its  broadest  extent,  ant]  exhibits  its  mdical  consooaiita  ioj 
a  double  form;  ojid  so  in  the  otlier  [lersons.  with  the  cxcep-J 
tion  of  the  second  and  third  singular,  in  which  we  have' 
ayti-vu,  oyAsii.  for  ay(^ik-s.  oyiUhht.  on  the  same  ground  oit< 
whieh,  in  the  third  furuintion,  nbddhia,  oMdhil,  are  used,  cooi'. 
pletely  piissing  over  the  auxiliary  verb  (see  §.  360.),  TJkAi 
full  conjugation  of  nytUkham  is  as  follows : — 


SlKOt'LAa. 

ay&sixham, 

ayi\-sis, 

ayA-sit, 


VVAL. 

(tyii-sishtavu 
aifd-nshlAm, 


PLt-IUL. 

ayd-ti^ita. 


[fi.  EJ.  p.817.']    571.  This  aorist  formation  is  not  used  i? 
the  middle,  or  has  fallen    into  disuse;  probably  because  the  , 
broml  form  of  the  auxiliary  verb  fteeorded  just  oe  little  with  ' 
the  heavier  middle  terminntioiis,  as  in  Greek  the  syllable 
(TO  of  eJ/5o-To-i',  eSc-aa-v,  with  the  passive  iilio-yro,  tSo-vro. 
The  active  also,  in  Sanskj'it,  avoids  this  formation  in  roots 
nhii'h   are  encumbered    with  n  final   consonant,    with    the  | 
exception  of  three  roots  in  m:    ram.  "  to  play."  ntwii,  "to  | 
ben<l,"  ymn.  "  to  restrain."     As.  however,  m  before  ji  miut  I 
pass    into  tho    very    weak    nasal    soupil   of  Anuswara    {»), 
which,   in  eomparisoD    with   other  consonants,   is  almost 
nothing',   the   forms,    therefore,    ttrnn-iii-ihiim,    anaH-shkam, 
ayan-sijham,  come,  in  respect  to  the  weight  of  the  root,  vcry 
Dear  to  forms  like  nytUufiom. 

*■  Remark. — If  it  is  asked,  in  what  way  the  language 
has  arrived  nl  the  form  tishnm,  two  modes  of  deriving  it 
present  tlivmsclvea.     Either,  as  I  have  before  assamed,  «j  ' 


FORMATION  OF  TENSBS. 


79S 


is  a  aytliiblo  of  redu[tlication,  and  xhtim  (properly  snm,  the 
i  of  which,  through  the  influence  of  a  preceding  i,  beconica 
»li}  the  principrJ  syllable;  or  sr-xham  was  originally  «o«njn; 
ihfitun,  »trsw't  or  sd.swi;  mid  itishma,  nl^m'^  or  sitsma,  &c.; 
ami  these  forms  have  been  so  developed  from  the  second 
aorist  formation,  corrcspaiiiling  to  the  Greek  first 
(see§.  &6&.);  thiit  to  the  verb  substantive,  which  already 
existed  accompaiiifd  by  rf.  tliv  same  attiiched  itself  a  second 
time.  prec(.-din^  the  personal  terminations  (probably  at  a 
time  when  the  auxiliary  verb  was  no  longer  recognised  as 
such);  just  as  in  Latin  third  pentons  plura).  like  Hfrpserunt 
from  sfrps^snnf.  From  «/lro,  s/lmn  {ii<I'li:^Mi-ir,  ndikxfjilma.  eiei- 
if a^ci'),  would  conscfincntly  nest  be  formed  *A\Wfi,3ii^mri;  from 
aritam,  »<t!a  {ad'd-aji'ilam,  aclihthuln,  iSet^arov,  eid^ctre),  would 
come  .imfrtm.  sasUi.  But  8ubset|UcntIy,  after  the  d  and  «  of  the 
first  syllable  hnd,  in  order  to  lighten  tlie  weight,  become  f,  the 
following  a  necessarily  became  ;/j  ;  thus,  dual  xhhvti,  shhritm, 
shhliirn,  from  adutva,  sontnm,  softtdm;  and,  in  the  first  and 
second  person  plural,  shhma,  shkta,  from  sclsmi,  smku  The 
root  5im^  i(U.  *  to  rule.'  in  some  persona  Bifordsu*  an  excel- 
lent prototype  or  counterpart  of  this  proc<'fl8  of  corruption.  It 
■weakens,  viz.  before  the  heavy  personal  terminations  begin- 
ning with  mutes  (not,  however,  before  tlie  weak  v  and  i»)  its 
A  Xo  i,  and  coiisenuemly  must  also  cliange  [O.  Ed.  p.  818.] 
its  final  n  into  sA,  nnil  a  following  f,  ik,  into  I,  ih  \  and 
exhibits,  therefore,  ia  the  dual,  aiafiiam,  iis/iihCm,  instead 
oiJ'hf'im  /tlsMi-d,  in  the  plural,  shhthn  for  hUdn.  In  tJic 
third  person  plural  the  appended  auxiliary  verb  under  dis- 
cussion exhibits  the  teruiination  us  for  on;  tlius,  aijAiii*hu^ 
for  ayA-inhan,  as  might  be  expected  according  to  the 
analogy  oiadikahav.  eSet^av.  The  replacing  of  the  termiiia- 
nation  us  by  nn  is  easily  oxplaioed  by  considering  that  u.« 
passes  OS  a  lighter  termiuatioD  than  im  ($.  462.),  and  lliat, 
on  HccDunt  of  the  doubting  of  the  auxiliary  verb,  occasion 
arises  for  lightening  the  word  in  every  other  maimer  possible. 

3  I  2 


^96 


THE  AOHIST. 


Tlic  TX)Ot  liAi,  too,  nliivh  is  so  Hnble  to  be  wcnkenetl.  : 
ill  tlie  tliird  person  plural  of  tbe  imperfect,  the  tcmiinntioR 
1M  for  fin ;  thus  aiAt-ua,  correspnixlin^  to  the  second 
person  mhh-la.  If,  then,  as  I  scarce  doubt,  ilic  norisi 
Torm  in  siwham,  Sec,  lias  arisen  in  this  nny,  that  the! 
auxiliary  verb  has  been  re-nttflched  to  itsolf.  being  first 
8imp)y  combined  with  the  root;  then  this  form  in  principle 
correspondB  with  the  Ionic  norist-foruis  like  c\do-ao'«e  (For^ 
ij\ai7€  from  !}\aaixT).  iairaaKerro  for  eSatraro,  The  dropping^ 
of  the  augment  in  these  norists  mid  similar  imperfects  iij 
clenrly  oocnsioned  by  the  new  harthen  which  has  been! 
attached;  and  we  mi<;ht  therefore,  in  Ijitin  nl«o,  nscriba 
the  dislodgcment  of  tlic  aujfincnt  to  the  drciirostanee  {or 
find  it  promoted  thereby),  that  alt  im)>erfeets  and  perfects! 
(aorists)  of  nttrihiitivo  verbs,  Recording  to  what  haa  hceri, 
before  remark«I,  are  or  were  encumbered  with  an  aiix-^ 
ihiiry  vprh  (ham,  si,  jti.iii).  or  asyllable  of  rcdiiplicilion.  either 
visible  or  concealed  by  subsecjuent  contrnction  (cweurri,  c^/).: 
In  the  isolated  and  unsupported  tram  for  fTam  =  W:^n  /iaam, 
the  augment  nas  laid  aside  by  the  simple  ubbreviatiun  of] 
the  vowel." 

573.  lu  Zend,  those   aorist    forms  which  uuite  tbe  verb^ 
substantive  with  the  mot.  are  of  rare  use.  butarenoicntirelv 
wanting.     The  only  instance  which  I  can  cite  is,  hovrevtr. 
the  form  AipdJju^  mnnstn.    "he  spoke"  {Vend.  S.  p.  132),  a; 
middle  of  the  first  formation,  corresponding  to  the  Sanslnitl 
^gJsm    amaniUi.    "  he  thought,"    from   the  root  wi«n,  nhioh, 
in  Zend,  has    assumed    the    meaning    "  to  s|)eak,"  aud  has 
also  produced  the  substantive   W'V^f  maM}tra,  "  speech." 
Tlie  frequently -occurring  *>fpM*i^  daita,  "  he  gave,"  is  boti  j 
us  might  be  imagined,  an  norist,  but  is  based  as  imiwrfcct 

(G.  Ed.  p.  eio.]  on  the  Sanskrit  «^  uiiatta  (from  adod-Ui 
for  adatt/l-la=ei!JfoTo),  since,  according  to  {.  103.  (end),  tite 
first  I  must  be  ehiinged  into  i. 

573.  Wc  now  pass  on  lo  those  formations  of  Uie  San- 


KOBMATION  OV  TBNSKS. 


797 


skrit  aorist.  nhich  are  knowu  in  Gruek  under  llie  uauie 
of  the  second.  To  tliis  clnss  belong,  lux'orditig  to  the 
iiiTiuiijfQient  of  my  Surjslipit  fjraininnr,  llio  fittli.  sixtli.  untl 
suveiitiL  formalioas.  The  fifth  annexes  the  iJCi-sonal  tttrmi- 
tiatioaa  direct  to  thu  root,  and  h  dUtiiig'uished  from  tlie 
itu}>errcct  ouly  by  thu  removal  uf  vltias  charaetcristics ; 
thus  as,  in  Grcelc,  eiuv  is  distinguished  from  Eiiiinv;  so, 
in  Siinsk^it,  adiim  is  diBtin<{uiHhe(]  from  mind'hn  (see  p.  61-1); 
nud  ill  Zend,  where,  too,  this  kind  of  aorist  furmatioti  is  in 
Jikc  manner  fouml.  ^-m^  dmhn  from  5»t(t«j  d'tdUanm  (re- 
garding dh  fori/,  sec  §.  39.).  To  ihe  Greek  i^jrtiv,  torj^r, 
tOTfj,  vni^  ustiiiim,  WWra  axifitin,  W^VTW  nxtfiAl.  correspond, 
in  opiKJsition  to  tlie  reduplicated,  but,  in  tlie  nidical  vowel, 
irregularly  shortened  iiti^hihnm,  alinfiilias,  utis/Uhut  (see  §.  508.). 
Tlie  relation  of  the  Greek  eOrjv  to  eri'ftji'  corresponds  to  that 
of  tidluirt  to  mlitdhtim  (trom<l/ui),  "  to  lay,"  "to  place.*"  The 
(treek  t^tii-v,  c^ii-f,  «^t)-(T),  have  the  same  relation  to 
^tpu-o-v.  e^i^-e-?,  etpu-f,  that  the  Sanskrit  abhth^-nm,  "  I  waa" 
(not  aiftti-m.  see  §.  137.  Rem.),  ab/id-v,  itMu-l.  have  to 
(ibfiav-a-m,  nbhav-a-t,  ubkava-t,  since  Md,  as  belongiuj;  to 
the  first  elms,  assumes,  in  the  special  tenses,  an  a,  but  with- 
draws it  in  the  aorist,  as  the  Greek  dues  its  o.  e. 

lil\.    The   Latin  fni,   nliicli.  like  al!   pt-rfeets,  according 
to  what  I  have   before  remarked  (see  §^.  'jXQ.  &c.),  I  re- 
gard as  originally  an  norist,  diverges  rn)ni  the  correspond- 
ing form  of  tlie  Sanskrit  and  Greek,  by  the  assumption  of 
a  conjunctive  vowel  »,  and  thus  corresponds  to  the  sixth 
formation;  Iicnce /u-(-«H*  for  ahhi-a,  e-^w-r,    {|0.  Ed.  p.  820.] 
or  rather  for  the  Sanskrit   middle  form   fi-bh^-{hAi\   for 
although   ttie    fifth    formation  is    not    used  in  the   middle, 
and  no  ad/i-la,  tts-ihii-tn,  adhii-ta.  eorrespoud  to  the  Greek 
tio-To,  e/rra-Tc  eSt-ro,  still  it  may  be  presumed  that  they 
were  origically  in  use.    In  the  third  person, /u<H,  stands  for 


•  llwpi'ciiiig  tlw  ( td'/ii-t-Wi.  fu-i-UU,  bm  ^  M& 


'KtS 


THE  AOB18T. 


abhu-t,  e^u;  ill  the  plural, /u-i-mit-t  for  oi/i  J-m«i,  etpvfte* ',  /u- 
-i-Mtia  for  abhii-ta.  e<pu^t.  If  this  aorisfc  formation  were  em- 
ployed in  Saitfikrit  iu  the  nitddle  also,  the  first  person 
singular  would  bt'  niAiii>-i,*  .and,  without  eiijiiiouic  per- 
matation  of  sound,  abhi-i.  To  the  former  tlie  obsolete 
fuvi  corresponds;  to  the  latter, /u-i.  I  do  not,  howe%'er. 
place  any  weight  on  this  surprising  accordance;  for 
although  /(It  is  ba^ed  ou  a  middle  form  (the  ni  of  ahhitvm 
would  probably  have  been  retained,  see  §.  43L),  still  it  ia 
oertain  that,  in  Sanskrit,  the  termination  of  tlie  first 
person  singular  middle,  before  the  division  of  languages, 
had  not  yet  fallen  into  tlio  abbreviated  condition  in  which 
we  now  see  it;  and,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  pre- 
supposed third  penon,  abfiA-ta,  in  place  of  ab^tir-r,  o&AiJ-nio, 
(from  abhiljimm  or  -miim,  see  §.  552.),  must  have  existed. 
I  do  not,  tlierefon',  rcjjard  the  i  of /u-i  as  identical  with 
the  Sanskrit  i  of  llie  pre-supposed  abhOvi.  but  as  identical 
with  the  conjunctive  vowel  i  nlfu-i-s(u  fu-i-t,  &c.  Conae- 
Huenlly.  tlie  form /«-(. just  like  present  forms,  e.^.r^h-a  ssraJi- 
•d'mi.  is  entirely  deficient  in  n  personal  termiontioo. 

575.  The  sixth  Sanskrit  aorist  formation  is  distinguished 
from  the  fifth  simply  by  this,  tliat  the  personal  terminations 

Qti.  Ivd.  p.  821.]  are  united  with  the  root  by  a  conjuuctive 
vowel  a,  and  this  a  is  treated  iu  conjugation  exactly  like 
the  class  vowel  of  the  first  and  sixth  class  (§.  109*.  I.).  This 
aorist.  therefore,  is  distiuKuislied  from  the  im|ierfect  of  the 
lirstclass  simply  by  tlie  withdrawul  of  the  Guua;  e.g.  tJie im- 
perfect of  rwA,  "to  injure."  class  I,  is  ari^h-a-m  (=ara*;Aam), 
and  the  aorist  arith-n-m.  Wc  have,  therefore,  here  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Greek  eXeiir-o-v  to  the  aorist  i\iV'0-v,  which  is 


*  The  cummnii  nilv  would  rrtjuire  iihhuvi  (itriili  n  tlinrt  u),  but  Utfi  haa 
tlihiiropcri}',  that  befon-  vowets  it  bctomea /^Ailii ;  hoaM-jin  liie  first  jier- 
sousiugulor,  o^A^rHtm,  and  in  the  third  plural  ui-AAv-nn ;  in  Ihoilntiuiil 
thir<|  person  ungnlar  of  (lie  reduplicatnl  prvlcritc  bobh&va  standi  inrfpi. 
larl>  for  imUtdi^-a. 


FOBMATION  OK  TBNSB:^. 


79!) 


witliout  Guua.  From  buM,  "  to  Iciiow."  tlaas  1,  comca  the 
imperfect  abi!dh-a-m  {=ttbaudh-a-m),  and  thv  norist  ahuM-a-m, 
just  as,  in  Greek,  from  <tTr,  cl>cvy-o-v  opposed  to€it>vy-«-v- 

576.  In  tlte  Sanskrit  eixtli  claas,  which  has  a  as  ita  class- 
vowcl  in  coiniuon  with  Uie  Bist.  but  dura  not  admit  of  Guna 
in  the  special  tenses,  which  would  have  to  be  withdrawn  in 
the  aorist,  the  formntiou  ituder  disuussiuu  ia  |)08Bihle  only  in 
a.  sitialt  iiEimbLT  of  Jrrt'guSar  vt-rba,  which,  in  tUp  bjh^l'ihI 
tenses  (see  §.  1»9'.  1.)  insert  a  nasal,  and  again  reject  it  in 
tlte  aorist,  as  generally  in  the  common  tenses.  Thus  Up, 
which  has  been  repeatedly  uienlioned,  "to  aniear"  (eouiiwre 
oAc/^u),  forms,  in  the  impcrrcct,  alimpnm.  and  in  the  aoriat 
alipttm.  Another  form  of  this  kind  is  alupitm.  "  I  did  cut 
off."  in  coutradisliiictiuu  to  aiumpam  (compare  the  Latin 
Tumpv,  riipi,  Titpiiim).  The  same  is  the  relation  of  Greek 
ttoriats  like^'AaiGoc  (Sansk)-it  lubh. "  to  obtain"),  bx»Sov,  e^a9o^'. 
to  their  imperfects  c.\ifi0avov,  cjfivSavov,  ^vivBavov,  only 
tlmt  these,  besides  the  iiiserti'd  nasal,  have  also  another  ex- 
ternal addition,  whieli  is  likewise  rejected,  as.  iu  Sanskfit. 
the  fifth  and  ninth  einsses  reject  their  intermediare  sj'llabid 
nu.  nd.  As  to  the  imperfect  amk-nnv-am  and  the  aorist  aiak- 
-a-m,  which,  in  Sanskrit,  come  from  iiik.  "to  be  able,"  class 
five,  these  two  forms  stand  in  a  relation  to  one  another  similar 
to  that  in  which  the  Greek  [wssive  aorists  Hiu-^rfv.  lm'y*}v, 
evaytjv.  stand  to  tlieir  imperfect  8cti\-«9  [ti.  £d.  p.633.] 
el^eCyvvv.  tfiiyvw,  hi^vvv;  and  as  for  the  imperfect  <^-/iV- 
-rtd'tn,  and  the  aoriBt  ntlii-a-m,  whiel)  come  from  A-/fif,  class 
□ine,  this  corresponds  exactly  to  the  relation  of  the  Gtvek 
eSaft-vtj-v  to  tSafi-o-v,  From  ntriii,  "  to  sweat,"  class  four, 
come  tlte  imperfect  affw-iJ-j/a-m.  and  the  aorist  asu-id-a-m  .• 
here  the  relation  is  similar  to  the  correspondence  of  an 
Hoiist  t'^a\-o-v,  in  Greek,  to  the  imjjurfect  e^a7<J^p,  it  being 
pre-suppuscd  that  the  f*eminatioii  of/3aMw*  is  the  conse- 


*  If  w  Btsnnae  in  poKXtt  the  luutAtiau  ot  ou  originiU  Icnub  to  ils 


800 


THR  AORtST. 


qucnce  of  an  nesimitntion  (see  {.  &0I.),  anj  tiiat  therefore 
0i\\(a  has  arisen  from  0a\yta.  as  oiAAoc  from  a\ifOi. 

&77.  Ill  roots  which  i^iid  with  vowels  this  soriat  forma- 
tion is,  in  Siinskrit,  little  usi^d,  atiA  n-licru  it  occurs  the 
radical  vowel  is  rejected  before  the  rowel  of  conjunction, 
with  the  exception  of  ^  n  and  ^fl.  of  whicli  the  former 
becomes  ar,  the  latter  iV:  e.g.  asar-n-m,  itjir-n-m,  from 
■n  sri  (originally  sfir),  "to  go,"  ^jp  (pro^jerly  _/in^V). 
"  to  grow  old,"  (i«M'-«i.7»j.  from  swi,  "  to  grow."  Roots  in 
u  and  tl  do  not  ocfur  in  this  aorist  formation ;  otherwise 
from  bhu.  "  to  be,"  if  it  followed  this  formation,  and  in 
like  manlier  rejected  its  vowel,  would  cotnc  ahham,  nhhat, 
tib/tat.  which  would  approach  the  Latin  bum  of  ama-bfim 
very  closely ;  or.  if  tlie  d  were  not  rejected,  but.  according 
to  §.  5T4,.  changed  into  ilv.  or.  according  to  the  geitemi 
law  ofsoiiml,  into  uv,  then,  in  respect  to  the  coujnnctive 
vowel,  in  the  third  person  singular  the  Latin /u-i-^,  and,  in 

[O.  Ed.  p.  e93.]  the  first  |>erson  plural, /a-Z-nm-r.  would 
have  thu  same  relation  to  ubhuva-t,  ubhuv-A-ma,  or  ahhUv- 
-a-l,  nftAili.'-d-nifi.  that,  as  above  (§,  A07.),  veU-i-t,  neA-i-ouM, 
have  to  vaA-a-ii,  i^ah-'i-mas, 

579.  In  Zend  it  is  hardly  possible  to  distinguish  every- 
where willi  certaiaty  the  aorist  formation  under  discua- 
■ioD  from  the  imperfect,  at  least  not  in  examples  of  the 
kind  like  the  frctjuently-occurring  zniwl,  "  he  ntruck." 
This  form  may  be  regarded  as  nn  iiorist,  because  the  root 
^w  Artn,  to  which  the  Zend  jaw  zov  (for  which  also  /**ii.J"B) 
corresponds,  belongs  to  the  second  class ;  and  therefore,  in 
the  second  and  third  person  singular,  the  imperfect  forms 


nudiol,  u,  vieet*ra&,  in  nve^^ui/A,  "to know,"  a  tcnnkstsniliinpUca 
of 8 medial,  then  ^biXXu  would  Im rcferabti:  Ui  tliu  Sanskrit  rooxpad,  whence 
paxij/(,  "  I  go"  (inidfllc),  ossumlng  a  cstuiai  mcntiin^,  Ae  reganU  tha 
wcnkeuiiiK  of  iho  d  to  /,  HAA  aaswrs,  in  this  rrsjipct,  to  the  Vrikntpat.  The 
tame  naj'  b«  Mid  of  iraXXw,  where  the  initial  Kniad  presents  tio  dtflicultjr. 


VORMATION  OF  TBNSES. 


SOI 


iihtin  for  ahans,  ahani,  according  to  §.  94.  Iti  Zend,  also, 
tliis  root  prevnils  chiefly  in  the  second  class.  We  Gad  in 
the  Vend.  S.  p.  158.  &c.  repeatedly  jninVt,  "he  beats,"  Also 
zuliilfi  (p.  I.')7.  perhaps  crrtmcously  for  znenli,  or  it  is  a 
middle);  but  nt  p.  177  wc  find  j(pjx\fu^tivniti,  according 
to  th(.>  first  class,  and  tliereforc  iwAtJAif  zannt  niso  may  ba 
allotted  to  the  first  class,  and  regarded  as  the  imperfect. 
Ont  although  jxaitut  should  be  explained  as  belonging  to 
the  class  to  vrhich  this  verb  is  principally  referable,  it 
may  he  still  rcgartlcd  as  the  imperftict,  and,  in  fact,  as 
following  the  analogj-  of  the  Sanskrit  WTVupi  ortkUit.  "he 
wept,"  and  the  Zend  MAtu*^  unhai,  "he  was"  (see §,532,). 
579.  The  Sauski-it  sev«at)i  aorist  formation  is  dlnio- 
guished  from  the  sixth  by  n  syllable  of  reduplicntion  pre- 
ceding the  root,  and  thcreforo  answers  to  the  Grt'ck 
aoi'ists,  as  Litc^t-ov,  ctE^paSov,  mcicAxto,  aiid  such  as  havo 
dropjied  the  ougnicnt,  as  riruKov,  itl'ntQov.  Wc  have  already 
fuidnced  above  (^.  M6)  Latin  perfects  lite  cuairri,  tutudi. 
decinr,  and  reaiarked,  tluit  such  us  vi}pi,/ri^>jr,/^i,  ami  pro- 
bably also  sach  as  /*V/j,  /<Jt/),  scAbi,  vidi,  f&gi,  (if  iu  the 
latter  the  length  of  the  vowel  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
com|>cn3ation  for  an  ,t.  which  has  been  dropped  after  the 
Gual  conaonuut  of  the  root.)  contain  a  coticculcd  reduplication 
(seeH-M^-^*^)-  The  Sanskrit  apaptam.  C0-Ed.p.834j 
"I  f«ir(*)._for  apapatam.  from  pat,  "to  fall,"  corresixinds 
exactly  to  the  above- nientionwl  Greek  vnfipvov  iu  its  entire 
structure,  atid  therefore,  also,  in  the  rejection  of  the  radical 
vowel.  While  the  Greek  reduplicates  tliis  root  iu  the  present 
oitd  imperfect,  and  witlidraws  lliu  reduplication  in  the  aorist. 
so  that  the  Doric  effcrov  (commonly  entaov)  has  the  same 
relation  to  eniirrov  that  iitav,  edt)v,  Htmjv,  have  to  e.^liuv, 
eri6r}v,  umjv,  the  Sanskrit,  with  this  verb,  adopts  the  rcrcrso 
method,  and   opposes  to  the   imperfect  apalam  &n  aorist 


•  !^  my  Jcaict  Sonakfil  UraiaDur,$.ll99-,  fWmark, 


S02 


TRBAOBIST. 


apnptnm.  The  Grwk  impcrrcct.  tlifn-forc.  eviimv,  corre- 
sponds most  surprisingly  witii  this  Korist  apnptam.  and  the 
Greek  aurist  eTtfrrov  wiUl  the  Sanskrit  iui|>(rrr(.>i;t  njmtam. 

M^o.  In  Siinskrit  all  verbs  uf  the  Ufntli  class  fotlow  this 
sevcDth  aomt  formnlion,  and,  wbtcli  is  the  same  thing, 
all  causal  forms,  for  these  an;  in  their  formation  identicul 
with  the  tenth  cluss.  And  here  the  rhythmical  law  ia  valid, 
that  cither  tlie  syllable  of  reduplication,  or  tlie  base> syllable, 
must  be  long,  whetlier  by  natural  length  of  the  vowel  or 
by  position,  as  in  apaptam.  Goth  kinds  are  often  at  will 
admissible  in  one  and  the  same  root,  hut  in  most  cases  tbe 
u»e  of  language  has  exclusively  decided  for  one  or  the 
other  kind,  and,  in  fact,  roost  frequently  for  the  length  of 
the  syllable  of  reduplieation;  e.g.  from  tft!,  **  to  make," 
conies  aimlatn  or  aiisilam;  from  chur,  "to  steal,"  comes 
achtichiiram. 

581.  Besides  the  verbs  of  the  tenth  class  and  causal 
forms,  Hs  the  above-mrntiotied  apaptain,  anil  sonic  otiicrs 
to  he  f^iveu  in  tlie  following  puragraphs,  only  four  other 
roots  ending  with  a  vowel  belong  to  this  class,  viz.  »ri,  "  to 

[G.Ed,  p.B'i5.J  go,"  xtei,  "to  grow,"  "to  go,'"*  dru,  "to 
run,"  srii,  "to  hear,"  anu,  "to  flow,"!  whence  tUiiriyam, 
aiiswii/am,  aJudruvjin,  ulusruvam,  asumutam. 

582,  I  have  already  remarked  (§.  A4S.)  that  an^xam, 
"  I  went  to  ruin,"  from  nar,  in  my  opinion  contains  a 
concealed  syLbible  of  reduplication,  and  luis  arisen  from 
ananiatm  (for  nnnnai-a-m')  by  rejection  of  the  second  n ; 
and.  moreover,  that  Latin  perfects  like  c^i  rest  on  the 
same    principle.      In    "BT^Hk  nv^cliani,  also,  "  1    spoke,'*    I 


*  TliciH'  two  roolx  mny  Ih'  ori  |;iiinlly  lt]cnljcsl,iia  K-mivowelB  antti^iy 
iaterch&Dged  (Me  j.  20.),  sail  di«  Latin  tret'io  may  be  rererred  in  oan  or 
kbo  other. 

"t  Thia  ti  coiuiecltd  with  ir«,  "  to  flow,"  by  ilic  HfRaily  of  the  liqaitla  ; 
ttimpftic  tho  Gruk  muj  wv-os^oi ;  pi**,  pni-vtyuii. 


KOKMATION  OF  TBNSKS. 


803 


recognise  a  redu[jUcntiou,  Uiough  it  appears  that  the  6  is 
only  an  alteration  oF  the  a  of  the  root.  The  root  vaeh 
has,  however,  a  teiidcnc-y  to  suppress  its  radical  vowel  and 
vocalize  its  t>:  hence,  iu  the  participle  passive,  iikla,  and 
in  the  plural  of  the  reduplicated  prrtcrite  tlcA-i-mn.  from 
H-uchima.  If.  then,  it  is  assumed  tlint  in  the  oorist  forma- 
tion under  discassion  the  root  rack  has  been  contracted  to 
uch,  then  vikh  may  very  satisfactorily  be  deduced  from 
va'uck  for  vavach.  The  syllabic  of  reduplication,  there* 
fore,  has  in  this  form,  with  regard  to  gravity,  carried  off" 
tilt!  superiority  over  ihe  base-sytlabk-,  tis  in  forms  lilceaL-Ail- 
ehuram,  "  I  stolo."  Whether  the  Zeiid  {j^i>i»Aj^  tia6ckem, 
"  1  spoke,"  the  tliird  person  of  which,  vft^tchat,  occurs  ^-ery 
frequently,  is  identical  with  the  Sanskrit  avwham,  and 
therefore,  in  like  manner,  reduplicated,  cannot  bo  decided 
with  certainly,  for  this  reason,  that,  us  Buruouf  has  ahewu, 
the  Zend  has  a  tendency  to  chnngi:  an  a,  through  tlic 
inflaonco  of  a  preceding  v,  into  J*  ii,  and  thus  to  make 
it  more  homogeneous  to  the  nature  of  the  v,  but,  accord- 
ing to  §.  S9..  an  a  is  prefixed  the  i  (3.  A  present  middle, 
also,  »^(j^A>(^  va^chi,  occurs  in  Zend  ",  and  a  potential  (op- 
tative) T^j^'^ol/jwt  tWc/i^i?(Vcnd.  S.p.  163),  [«■  E<1.  p-  S2B.] 
wliieh  might,  however,  also  bo  rcgiirded  as  aorist  of  the  po- 
tentiiil. 

5S3.  Id  arimflham.  also.  "I  injured,"    "I  slew,"  from  die 
root  rndh.  I  tliink  I  discover  a  reduplication,-)-  assuming  an 


•  Vend.S.p.83:  tat  vacJi£  vaSrAS, '' iim  sptuxh  I  fsptak."  Orshoald 
vaitAi  bo  cniuidcrMi  n  rc(Iuplicftt<!il  prclcriln  I  IliacrrtAin  thnt  Ani|n«lil 
is  wrung  In  regarding  it  as  the  imperativp,  und  CmiiBlaiiiig  tho  passBge  by 
*'  prvnantrx  him  aite  jmroU. " 

1  Tlii«  root  m«y  be  akin  lo  va4k,  "  to  leaf,'*  "  to  stay  "  (mo  ^.  SO.),  lo 
which  A.  liMiBTy  lisfl  rrfrm'il  thi*  Ijttin  liiedo,  which,  therMoK.  «'nn)'J  Iw 
nlao  c<iDnect«d  \Tith  ra^/A,  ntid  standi  ncflrpr  ta  the  Uitcr,  as  r  and  I  an 
•ilmo^t  iiliiiilicul. 


804  TUB  AOKIST. 

rxchange  of  tlic  lic|uiils;  tliMi,  uTrindlifim  (or  arnrdfiam,  frotu 
uraTtidham-,  aa  apajjium  fi'oiii  oji/tpalnm.  With  res'*'^  **>  t'*c 
exchange  of  tlie  r  for  n.  it  may  hv  jirtiper  to  advert  t"  tlic 
Toitgiail  nimfi,  "five."  in  a|>|)osttion  to  runti.  limtt,  of  tlie  disi- 
k-cts  near  akin.  Obsnrve,  niso,  tliat  in  the  intensive  forms 
^^c5  chanvhiil  and  ^^  i:}mv.chur*  tlic  nasal  oftlic  syllabic: 
of  reduplication  is  thu  lepreaentativu  of  tliK  /  and  r  of  Uic 
root,  just  as  of  the  ^  of  the  Greek  TtlimKti^t,  -ninTtp^iu,  where, 
therefore,  ft  for  A  stands  in  the  reverse  relation  of  tlie  Latin 
flare  for  the  Sanskrit  WT  dhmii.^ 

534.  In  verlj*  which  begin  with  a  vowel  the  whole  root  is, 
in  Sanskrit,  in  this  aorist  formation,  twice  employed,  and  tlic 
first  time,  indeed,  uniting  the  radical  vowel  with  that  of  the 
augment,  according  to  the  principle  of  {.  530,  in  accordance. 
tlierefore,  with  the  Greek  aorista  witli  Attic  reduplication,  as 
yjyayav,  iifopov.  The  Sanskrit,  however,  recjuires,  in  the 
aoeond  anuexntion  of  the  root,  the  lightest  vowel  of  all,  i, 

[O.  Ei.  p,  827.]  as  the  representative  of  all  tJic  rest.  Not 
only,  tlierefore,  arc  i"  and  the  diphthon;;  e  (u  + 1)  ahorteni-d  to 
i,  and,  e.  y.,  from  Mtiy  (causal  from  id.  "  to  praise '")  AiiJlidum 
formed,  but  a  and  A  also  are  weakened  to  J,  aft«r  the 
principle  of  Latin  forms  like  Utiyi,  ctmlimjif,  where  tlic 
encumbrance  of  the  root  by  tlie  syllable  of  redtiplicatioa 
or  tlie  preceding  preposition  is  the  occasion  of  the  vowel 
being  weakened.  Hence,  in  Sanakfit,  from  «_bii/  (causal 
of  fit,  "  to  go,")  couicrs  llie  aorist  tUiUtm,  and  from  Apay 
(caiisnl  of  iip,  "  to  obtain.")  Apijxim,  with  which  llw. 
Lalin  adtpheor  far  nditphcor  may    be   compared,  and   the 


*  From  ckai,  rJttu-;  nc  my  lomer  Sanskrit  (iranimnr.  ^}. SOO. M>7* 
t  Pott  (Eiym.  Forach.  II.COO.)  property-  <Itriv«i  ilic  Ixiti.  dMndurit, 
"liomct,"  from  dur-i,  'Mostick";  ii  1ia«,  therefore,  iu  ihercpnlcilsyUii- 
1>I«  ItkciTiu  BD  «]cchAii^  of  liqai4« :  tliDN,  nlso,  tlie  G  rock  bi>ip«»  is  t«  be 
derh'ed  from  RipApoi;  and  uekiavo  ifivt  and  tlic  Sanskrit  druma,  '*  Uti?,'' 
(coiiipiirv  Pott,  11.2^0- 


PORHATION  OF  TBNSES. 


B05 


Greek  retlupli rated  Torms  iTiT6iWu,  ivitujfu,  ^ntTcvia.  for 
araTciWui,  qvoviji^i.  itsotrreuia  (compiirc  PotI,  II.  GSO.).  And 
7  w,  also,  and  mi.  and  tlie  diphthongs  in  which  u  is  oon- 
tninc-d,  are  chauf;cd  into  i;  h«iiue  AuniJidnm  from  tindiiy 
(cans,  of  wm/,  "  to  mnke  wpt,"  compart!  Latin  unfiit), 
Aunmnm  from  ^n,  class  ten,  "  to  abate."  It  waa  first  from 
these  fornintions,  and  the  aonlogous  forms  of  desiderntivea, 
that  I  perceived  that  the  weight  of  tlie  u  i»  borne  less 
readily  by  the  language  than  that  of  the  i;  for  otherwise 
it  would  not  be  replnoed  by  i  in  syllables,  where  the  whole 
attention  of  the  languago  is  directed  to  make  tliem  as 
light  as  possible.  But  in  the  whole  of  Sanskrit  Grammar 
no  other  case  exists  where  u,  to  lighten  the  syllabic  weight, 
bccomrs  i :  for  while  in  roots  beginaing  with  a  consonant 
de»ideratives  in  the  syllable  of  reduplication  weaken  n 
radie.il  a  to  i  (<■.  jr.  pipnti>/h  from  pnf,  "  to  cleave").  «  remains 
unaltered  {ijuyvh,  from  ymlh,  "to  fight,"),  which  servtB 
ns  a  proof  tliat  u  is  lighter  than  a,  because,  were  it  hea- 
vier than  a,  it  would  liavc  a  better  right  to  bo  changed 
into  i. 

bH!).  In  roots  which  end  with  two  consonants,  of  which  tlie 
first  is  a  licjuid,  this  is  rejected,  in  order  the  more  to  relieve 
the  weight  lu  the  base  syllable,  but  it  ia  retained  in  the  syl- 
lable of  repetition;  hone*;  above  (§.  631.),  [U.  I-y.  |..82«.] 
riiinJhl'im  for  fJundundam;  80.  also,  drjijum  for  drjarjmii,  from 
nrj.  class  ten,  "to  earn."  According  tu  this  principle,  in  Latin 
also,  piinr/o,  if  cnctimhcrcd  by  reduplication,  loses  its  nasal; 
iim».piij)uyi,  not  pupumji.  Tlie  loss  of  the  nns.nl  in  Mj^/i.  txUtitii, 
surprises  us  less,  because  ta  these  verbs  it  in  general  belongs 
less  strictly  to  tlie  root,  and  is  dropped  also  in  tlic  supine 
and  analogous  formations.  But  if.  in  Sanskrit,  tlic  first  of 
two  final  consonants  is  a  mutci  and  tlic  second  a  sibilant,  then 
the  syllable  of  repetition  receives  only  the  firat  of  the  two 
eonsoaanis,  and  the  base  syllable  roLiins  them  both;  as  from 
ik<thmj  (causal   of  ik»h,   "to  see"),    comes  Aich'tkthnm,   for 


806 


THB  AORIST. 


Aikihham  or  Aihhihham.*  TUis  principle  is  followed  by 
the  Greek  &\a\Kov,  for  whicli,  according  to  the  [irinciple  of 
the  nbove-montioned  iinndidam,  aKKanov.  or,  witli  the  irng- 
menC,  ^Xkukov  would  be  titled. 

586.  In  the  few  verbal  bases  whicli,  exclusive  of  the  cau- 
sative affix  ny,  contain  more  than  one  syllabic  the  Sanskrit 
receives,  in  the  syllable  of  rcpelitioii.  only  as  much  as  can  l>e 
contained  in  one  syllubli?;  ns  from  avtidhtr,  class  ten.  "to 
despise"! eom'-'Sdi-niwiMiVrtm.  The  CJreek  follows  tlie  same 
principle  in  forms  like  a^-^^i(^«,  ay-i'/ycpKa,  6p-u>pv)(a. 

587,  Tile  Zend  supplies  us  with  an  excellent  aorist-form 
of  the  seventh  formation,  whicli  hns  been  already  several 
times  mcntionct).  and  which  was  first  brought  to  lij»ht  by 
Burnouf,  viz.  aih^^^*^'*  Hrunidtiiha,  "thou  didst  grow"  (see 
§.  'liiO.),  from  the  root  nidfi.  "to  grow,"  which,  in  the  Sanskrit 
^  Titk,  liM  preserved  of  the  dU  only  the  aapimtion.     With 

[G.  Ed.  p.  iHtf]  tijspcct  to  the  IcngtJi  of  the  syilnble  of  re- 
duplication this  form  answers  to  thoee  in  Sanskrit  like 
achuchuram  (see  §.  MO.).  Tlie  initial  «  of  Atcuy^^j^A  mtu- 
Tttdusfm  is  rpgiirded  nbove  (§.  .'>1H.)  as  the  representative  of 
the  a  of  the  nngment,  through  the  assimilating  influence  of 
the  6  of  the  followint;  syllable.  But  it  now  appears  to  me  more 
correct  to  recognise,  in  the  jnilinl  vowel  of  the  form  spoken  of, 
only  the  original  accompaniment  of  the  augment,  which  has 
been  dropped,  and  that,  therefore,  from  nrAruiIkntfia.  by  the 
r«tro-active  influence  of  the  fl  ofthe  second  .lyllnble,  next  orose 
aururttdJiu^hn,  as,  in  §.  16.,!  have  endeavored  to  derive  ajwAjou* 
haun-a  from  tlic  Sanskrit  n'lrva,  through  the  euphonic  influence 
ofthe  i>;  and  as  tlie  base  worddJAnman.  "priest"  in  the  weak 
cases,  in  which  the  final  svUable  van  is  contracted  to  an.  adds. 


*  (iut(anl«  in  the  lyllablca  of  rcpetiti«n  arc  lUways  rtplniwd  hj  pn. 
latsK 

'f  I  explaia  aim  m  the  prcpa«iti«ii  n-hidi  has  f^ttvm  up  with  the  hur. 
imdrognrt  Ihet^rminalion  asaktn  to  dhydi,  "  to ihink,"  dhlra,'*  u^'* 


yOHMATION  OF  TRN8BS. 


8«7 


through  the  influence  of  tlie  »  of  this  aylUble,  a  «  to  the  pre- 
ceding a.  ihvia  at haurun'  from  which,  by  dislodginjf  the  a,  ia 
fornieii  the  more  common  athitruriff  as  for  [O.  Ed.p.B30.] 
tlip  Snnakrh  tarutm.  "yoiiug."  we  find  in  Zend  boUi  latirutia 
and  furittia.  The  h  of  the  penultimate  of  iiriirHflh-ti'sha  eor- 
respoiids  to  tbti  conjanctive  vowel  a  of  Sanskrit  forma  like 
ncfiiifhur-a-»,  acht'ickaT-a-thAa,  nml  mny  have  proceeded  from  <i 
by  an  anaimilating  inBucncc  of  Uic  h  of  tlic  pnx-cdinf;  syl- 
lable. If  the  older  a  had  heen  retained,  we  should  then  fiod 
(according  to  §.  i6*.).  uT^rudhanha. 

THE  PERFECT. 
58S.    It  has  b««n  nlrendy  rt-ninrked,  thnt  that  Sanskrit 
preterite  which  agrees  in  form  with  the  Greek  perfect  is. 
according  to  its  signification,  not  a  perfect,  hut  is  most  fre- 
quently  used   in    tlie  sense  of  tiie   Greek   aorist   (§.  iia). 


•  I  find  the  initW  4  of  the  etnog  casen  ibbreviat«d  in  the  f-KJimplcn  I 
Imvc  lii-fiiK  roe  of  Ihe  weak  caxa.  The  strong  uuu-}  rliongw  tlip  proper 
themo  dlharvan  to  Athravan ;  htncc  Uic  ncimiiiAtirc  athrava  (Vend.  fl. 
p.Cfi).  Without  trnnsponlion,  iin  ?,  ttt  some  otlirr  noxilisry  vowd,  mort 
hftvc  hecn  inserted  between  tlia  r  nni]  r,  brcnnso  r  can  neither  stYinil  nt  ttio 
rnil,  n(ir  til  CHmbuuttion  with  u  consonanl. 

t  Thua  VwriiJ,  S.  p.  r^,  ihd  fi«n\\.\ve  •ithurun6,  arA.  p.  23-i  t»viw,  tlio 
dntive  tiihunmi :  un  the  other  hand,  p.  SA,  1. 13.  the  necuanlivv  [>]nnU 
fifAiJururuirU'-cAu.  The  viow  I  now  take  ol'lho  ptienommon  under  dis- 
cuMioii  diffirrt  frvin  iliul  in  {'.  40.  in  ihiis  that  I  Ihcrc  rcprcsmteii  lliiu  u  of 
tlio  wcond  syllable  afathvrvn  as  precMdinff  directly  from  llio  a  of  the 
original  form,  in  consequence  of  an  fiasimiUtifm,  wtiili'  !  now  rrgnril  itoa 
n  remnant  of  au.  and  look  upon  the  a  no  loniccr  nn  n  prHixed  vowel,  hut 
withe  oTi^n&lnnp,  by  the  side  of  which  a  ti  him  be«n  pinccd  through  tbo 
intlutnconf  the  u  of  th«  fulbwinHsvlInhle  ;  RNfriijiiriitly  happens  with  an 
i,  throDg'h  the  iiiflurmw  of  a  folluwiiij;  t  or^  fstic  5.41.)  I  fully  ugne 
in  this  point  with  the  opinion  txpreawd  by  Hnmouf  in  his  review  oftlic 
First  I'lirt  Dflhia  1)onk(Joumal  des  i^vans.  1833,  In  ihe  ■cpnmta imprra- 
a[on,p.  8),  where,  ab»,  the  Zend  aurvaf,  "horse," is  In  thia  way  compared 
with  the  Sanskrit  aman. 


609 


THE  A0B18T. 


Our  CJcrman  iinpnrnphr.iai^d  preteriti?,  wIuL-h,  in  its  origin. 
coiucides  with  tlic  Greek  piTfect  and  Saiukrit  reduplicated 
{iretcritCt  bus  likewise  reaounced  the  perfect  meanlDg, 
but  in  Gothic  represents  both  the  Gretrk  imperfctt  and 
till?  aorisl,  as  well  as  tKe  [wrfett,  and.  in  tlie  earliest  Old 
High  Geriuuu  authorities,  bL'sidi's  these  tenses,  the  plu- 
perfect. Id  the  ninth,  and,  »s  Grimm  remarks,  perhaps 
so  enrly  as  the  eighth  century,  begin  the  uircunilocutory 
forms  uf  the  perfect  by  the  passive  participle  with  the 
auxiliary  verb  bnixn,  and,  in  neuter  verbs,  with  tlie  verb 
substantive,  in  wldch  respect  we  must  advert  to  the  practice 
of  the  Sanskrit  language,  in  cxpressioua  like  gnio  '»mi  (for 
ytlat  usmi],  "  icA  bin  geyanrftn,"  "  I  am  having  gone " 
(sec  §.  613.):  as  also  to  tlie  circumstance,  that,  in  the  forms 
in  imi  tavat  (tavant).  the  idea  of  possession  is  contaiaed, 
nnil  th;it  vltniAir  atmi,  "dvii,"  properly  means.  "I  am  gifted 
with  hftviiig  said"  (therefore  "having  said")  (see  §.513.). 
[G.  Ed.  p.  831,]  The  Old  High  German  usci  beside  the 
verb  correspondiug  to  our  hahen,  also  eigttn,  which  has  the 
sanio  imimrl.  for  its  paraphrase  of  the  perfect;  in  the* 
indU-ative.  only  in  the  plural;  but,  in  the  subjunctive,  in 
the  singuliir  also  (see  Grimm.  [V.  UO). 

689.  As  regards  the  formation  of  the  Gorman  unpara- 
phrascd  preterite,  tlio  Gothic  has,  in  the  strong  conjuga- 
tion, under  certain  circumstances,  regularly  preserved  tliu 
TiHluplication.  which,  from  the  earliest  period,  bel(H^  to 
tliia  tense;  viz.  first,  in  all  verbs  (their  number  is,  it  must 
be  allowed,  but  small)  which  hnve  a  long  vowel  iu  tlie 
root  (not,  perhaps,  merely  in  consequence  of  a  GuQa  in 
the  present,  and  the  forms  tliereto  belonging);  secondly, 
in  those  verbs  which  exhibit  unchanged,  in  tlie  present, 
nil  a  long  by  position ;  as,  from  the  roots  «Wy>,  *'  to  sleep," 
ti?.  "to  blow"  (Sanskrit  wl),  Imit,  "to  be  called."  nu/r,  "  to( 
increase,"  fttd,  "to  fold"  (present /nWn),  the  first  nnd] 
third    person    singuhir   are    mish^,   vahv,  haiiiaii,  ai 


FORMATION  OP  TENSES.  809 

/ui/aUh  (for/aifaid,  see  5.  93*.)  The  form  aatxlfp  (regarding 
a  for  3,  see  §.  S6.  (5.))  stands  so  far  isolated,  as  all  other 
verbs,  which  exhibit  An  i  in  the  presenti  replace  this 
in  tlie  preterite  by  A.  They  are  the  following:  (fka. 
"  I  loach."  t<iit4l;  ■•  1  touched  " ;  tjriUi.  "  I  weep  "  (Sanskrit 
krand,  "to  wocp"),  gaiyriit,  "I  wept";  IHn,  "I  leave," 
lail6t  "I  left";^/,'a,  "I  lament"  (Latin  planijn),  fn\fiAk, 
"I  lamented";  r^du,  "\  advise,"  rniTiith,  "I  advised." 
This  change  of  tht-  vowel  cannot  surprise  as.  as  e  and  A 
are  the  common  representatives  of  the  original  long  A 
(see  %.  69.),  us,  iu  Greek,  e  and  o  are  tiic  usual  representa- 
tives of  tlie  short  a  :  talU'ik.  therefore,  has  the  same  relation 
to  Uka,  that,  ill  Greek,  rirrpoi^a  hns  to  rpli^ia,  AfA»iira  to 
\cr'iru,  vivwQa  to  iKi9ui  or,  more  strictly,  that  eppuya  has 
to  p'fywui ;  for  in  Greek,  too,  ij  and  m  are  representatives  of 
the  long  a.  I  helieve  tliat  the  reason  of  this  excliauge  of 
vowels  in  both  languages  is  to  be  fomwl  in  [G.  V.A.  p.  S32.] 
this,  that  the  quality  of  0  is  heavier  than  that  of  E,  and  that 
the  tcusu  under  discussion,  on  account  of  its  being  enmm- 
bered  tvitli  reduplication,  feels  a  necessity  to  appear  iicavier 
in  its  rout  than  the  unencumbered  present;  as  also,  in 
Gothic,  the  redupUcatiou  lias  in  geuerul  maintained  ilscif 
Only  in  roots  of  strong  build.* 

5tfO.  yahaya,  "  I  grow  "  (Zend  AWjSy  uca,  "  to  grow  "), 
from  the  root  vahs.  with  the  cliaraeter  of  tlie  Sanskrit 
fourth  class  (see  %.  109*.  'i.),  and  standa,  "  I  stand,"  are  tiie 
only  verbs  which,  notwithstanding  that  tliey  exhibit  in 
Uie  present  an  u  loug  by  position,  have  ucvertbcless  per- 
mitted the  reduplication  to  disup[»car.  They  form,  in  the 
first  and  third  person  singular  preterite  v6fts,  sttith.  The 
dropping  of  the  class  syllabh*  va  of  vahsyn  is  regular,  as 
this  sylhible  belongs  only  tu  Uie  special  tenses  (S4>e  §.  109*.}. 

*  I  hta^by  retnct  tb*  eonjtctan  I  formerly  made  that  th«  □  which 
follows  the  rooi  of  the  Greek  pcifoctB  exercises  an  tnfl  tuact  in  dutnging 
th«  (  of  th«  root  { VocaliamiiA,  p.  U>}. 

30 


810 


TB£  PBRVECT. 


la  this  respect,  thererore,  rnka  lifts  tlie  stunc  rtUtioa  t» 
vabna,  tliat,  in  Snnakrit,  nnvA'w  liaa  to  nasyAmi.  "  1  go  to 
ruin " :  aiid  Itie  A  of  viilia  and  sfV/i  corresjxtiuls  a»  ibe 
regular  long  vowwl  of  tlie  n  (see  §.  69,)  to  the  Sanskrit  d  rf 
forms  like  pawiii.  White  the  Old  Higli  Oerman  cod- 
trasts  with  its  present  stanfa  a  preterite  ttttonl  (aer 
4.  I09^  1.  p.  1L9)  sfiJ/A,  which  has  abaadoned  Uie  inorganic 
nRsrtI  of  atnndn,  presents,  moreover,  the  irregularity  tAsl 
the  ih,  which,  according  to  §.  93V  has  oAsutned  the  pboe 
of  the  d.  is  preserved  also  in  the  terminations  which  are 
aHnexed ;  thus,  6r.st  (Jerson  plural,  ntbiMhum  for  MMdtttn,  a 
the  analogy  o{  bauth,  budum,  from  the  root  6ucf,  would  Itftid 
ua  to  expect. 

&91.  The  difficulty  thnt,  in  Gothic,  there  are  two  Tcrbs 
[fl.  E<1,  p.  nsa,]  witli  a  radiiTBl  a  in  the  pi-esent,  which,  in 
spite  nf  their  I(?iiglh  by  position,  have  nevertheless  lost  ihe 
reduplication  of  tlie  preterite,  is  again,  in  a  certiiiu  degrep. 
obviated  by  the  existence  of  two  pretorites,  wliich  have  pre- 
Berved  the  reduplii-ation  without  their  vowels  beinfj  long 
natURilly  or  by  jiosUion;  viz.  kaihah,  "  I  hanged." /iri/ii A,  "I 
»ei2ed  "  (present  haha.faha).  But  if  it  is  considered  that 
these  verbs,  in  the  other  Germnn  diateets,  have  really  length 
by  position,  and  probably  originally  hnd  it  in  Gothic  aIso» 
the  violation  of  the  proposition  expressed  above,  that  the 
reduplication  is  borne  in  Gothic  only  by  roots  with  long 
syllables,  appenra,  through  tliis  consideration,  less  im- 
portant.* 


*  In  OldHijfbGcraiauthrprttcrilc  u,  hiany,  Jiang (hiane.fiane},  which 
would  \v&A  ns  10  expect  A  jtrcst-nt  haniju.fawm^  for  whkti,  however,  occur 
ktiftti,/iiAa,  iD&mtive  MJuin,JtiJiaii.  (iratt');iVfHOiily  to  tb«  funnn-along 
a,  to  t1io  Inltcr  »  nliDii  dhc  ;  but  Oie  i|uot(-i  examples  oouBrm  oho  lbs 
ten^h  of  tht-'  furruor,  not  by  circutnfli.-x  or  doubling  of  ihc  a.  It  ia highly 
probaUe,  howovi-r,  tliRl  tlie  tame  ijuniitity  l>elongK  to  bolh  ri'rba:  Utna 
tliay  are  either  hahan  oaA/tihan,  nr  Adiimi  taul  fS/ian.  Ab  ili«y  hav*  no 
preunu-,  if  tho  length  of  thn  a  it  not  pn)vc<I,  it  cflrmot  be  decided  btan  the 

poini 


FORMATION  OF   T£NSES,  811 

692,  J.  Grimm  first  acutely  remarked,  that  tlie  oilier 
German  iliitlcct^,  in  those  classes  of  verbs  which  in  Gothic 
ciciirly  rxliibit  tlie  reduplication,  continue  it  in  like  mnnoer, 
although  scarcely  jwrceptibly.  The  syllablenof  reiluplication 
I  use  the  appearance  of  ii  sylliible  ofredupli'  [G.  Ed.  p.  834,] 
cation,  when  the  following  syllable  is  cither  tjiute  passed 
over,  or  only  loses  its  coiisonaat,  anil  unites  its  vowel  with 
tlint  of  the  syllable  of  reduplivatioii.  Thu  former  is  tlie  caec 
ill  some  Siinskrit  dcsiitcrativc  fomia,  as  lipx,  pit*  (Lesser 
Sanskrit  Grauimar,  §.  -ISu.).  for  whicli,  according  to  rule,  we 
should  have  Ulapt,  pipatt;*  wherefore  it  appears  to  me 
far  more  proper  to  assume  the  suppression  of  tlie  second 
syllable,  than  that  of  reduplicatiou,  together  with  the 
cbniigc  of  a  into  i,  for  which  iio  reason  at  all  could  exist, 
because  ilia  Form  would  have  been  nlrcndy  sufficiently 
weakened  by  the  suppression  of  the  syllable  of  reduplicn- 
tiou.  A  simple  cou!ton:i]it  is  suppressed  iu  the  Greek 
yivofiat  from  yi-yvofiai,  which  is,  however,  itself  an  abbrevi- 
ation of  yiyivofim:  moreover,  in  the  Sau&krit  aorist 
ari^^nm  (^annfiam)  from  anoiiunm,  aiid.  in  the  Latin 
perfects  analogous  with  It,  aa  cipi  (see  §.  j-lS,) :  finally,  iu 
llie  Old  High  German  preterites,  as  hiaJt  (our  A(>//)  from 
hiluiU,  for  which,  in  Gothic,  hmhnld. 

593.  It  must.  ptTliajJS,  be  regarded  as  n  dialectic  peculia- 
rity in  Gothic,  that  the  syUiible  of  reduplication  hits  always 
at.     It  was  the  custom,  perhaps,  at  the  time  when  all  Ger- 

poU)t  of  vXbWoi  die  Olil  IligJi  Oemmii,  wliotlior  thoy  arc  to  l>«  sllottvil  to 
(■  rim rii'x  fourth  ckaa  (with  long  « in  tin- prcwiit).  or  to  lh»  wv*!!!)!  (with 
Hhort  a  ill  the  prewiit).  The  Aliitdk-  Iligli  GiTniBn  hiht,  t^e,  heelitti, 
vahcti,  protoritc  hit,  vie  (l«r  hirh,  vM],  qtesk  is  favour  of  th«  fbtuth 
clnaa,  to  whicli  they  are  aarribed  by  Grimm  bIso,  ivUo  writes  Mhu,  fiibu. 
InOiilhic,  ihc^ii,  instead  ofthv  Kxi*i.m^ haka.fahay  w  itlicitiM  ex|>cct  AMa, 
fiha,  &9  iUi>a,  iita,  Kiiawcring;  to  the  Old  Higii  Gtrnmn  »laftt,  Uhu. 

■  I  cnniildcr,  idio,  dhikih,  "  in  Uindlv,'  whicti  i<  hi^ld  to  be  A  primhiv* 
root,  u  fl  dMideralira  of  this  kind,  aad  I  derive  it  from  rff(f/Aa)ft*A  from 
daft  "to  barn." 


^ 


r 


812  THE  PBBFECT. 

man  launtiugus  were  still  one,  tiiat  the  heavit'st  vowel,  a,  was 
weakened  in  the  syllable  of  repetition  to  the  lightest,  ;, 
u  is  the  cnse  in  Snnskrit  in  the  syllable  of  repetition  of 
cleaiderativt-s,  where,  e.ij.,  from  dafi.  "to  burp,"  comes  di- 
dhakah,  not  dadhakth;  and  as  in  Latin  retlu plicated  forras 
like  cecfni,  the  a  in  the  syllable  of  repetition  becomes  e,  and 
ID  the  base  i,  while  a  radical  o  and  u  in  both  places  remain 
tinchanged  (momordi,  tuiudi).  For  the  diphthong  at,  e.g.,  of 
MAIT.  "to  be  called,"  i  would  be,  in  the  syllable  ofrrpc- 
[G.  Bd.  p.835.^  tition.  quite  as  much  in  ita  place;  for,  iu 
Snoskpt,  only  the  last  element  of  the  diphthong  v^  (  =  q  + iX 
and  of  diphthongs  generally  enters  the  syllable  of  retlupHua- 
tion;  wherefore,  i". </.,  the  reduplicated  preterite  oi  k^t  {^kail}, 
"  to  invite,"  is  cAik^la  (first  and  third  person  sjn;;^lar).  If  an 
infriogeDient  of  tbe  law  for  the  tnutation  of  sounds,  by  pre- 
serving the  old  tenuis  in  the  final  sound  (asiu  s!fpa  =  vrfVfk 
gu-apiiiii,  "I  sleep'),  he  assumed,  it  might  be  said  that  the 
Gothic  HAIT  would  correspond  to  this  SaiiHkrit  kfi,  and 
therefore  kaihait  (for  hihait)  to  the  above-mentioned  f^l^ 
chik&a.  But  though  au  also  is,  in  Gothic  syllables  of  redu- 
plication, rcprcscnti-d  by  ai,  aa  ai-auk,  "  I  increased,"  while, 
iu  Sanakfit,  6  (=a  -f  u)  becomes  u,  as,  pirjtriitha,  from  prvlh, 
"to  aiiliafy;'*  still  the  i  of  tliis  «i  may  be  regarded  as  a 
weakening  of  u.  as  we  have  seen  above,  in  Sanskrit,  the  re- 
duplicated aorist  Atindidam  for  dundudam  proceed  from 
T«^  line/  (I.  5S4.).  We  might  also  regard  the  i  of  ai~auk 
u  a  weakening  ofthe<i  of  the  base-syllable,  which,  how- 
ever, appears  to  me  less  probable,  as  in  diphthongs  the 
second  element  always  has  the  etymological  preponde- 
rance, and  the  first  is  a  mere  phonetic  prefix ;  on  which 
account  I  prefer  recognising  in  the  syllable  of  repetition 
of  tile  Latin  cecidi,  of  cado  (— caWu),  the  second  element 
oftlie  diphthong  ts,  ratlier  than  tbe  fir^t,  although  a  in 
tlie  I^atin  syllables  of  repetition  is  regularly  rcjdat'cd  by  e. 
Be  this,   however,  as  it  may,  1  consider    this  as  certain. 


I 


FOBMATION  OF  TENSES.  8l3 

that  tUe  ai  in  Gothic  syllables  of  reduplication  wns  fop- 
merly  a  simple  b,  and  timt  this  ai  is  A  dialectic  peculiarity 
limited  lo  the  Gothic,  like  that  wliicli,  nc€ordin<f  to  §.  62., 
the  Gothic  eraploys  instead  of  a  simple  i  before  h  and  r; 
which  latter,  in  the  other  dialects  also,  is  nlone  repre- 
sented. We  mist),  therefore,  in  the  Old  High  Germnn 
fiiriH  for  Gothic  bnitmld  (From  hihntii),  only  the  A  of  the 
second  syllable ;  and  in  the  OM  Nortliern  i<>i,  "  I "  or  "Ije 
increaaed."  nothing  is  waatinj;  of  the  Gothic  [U.  Ed.  p.  830.] 
ni-axik.  as  for  as  the  latter  is  an  inorganic  extension  oti-auk; 
but  ail  hiis,  according  to  the  Sunskrit  principle,  been  con- 
tracted to  (J.  while  in  the  p.'»rticip!e  passive  nuk'mn  it  has 
remdined  open,  and  in  tlie  present,  by  ii  doubled  Umlaut' 
become  ^ i/. 

b9i.  The  Old  Nortliero  reduplicated  preterites  of  verbs 
with  a  nidieol  a  (Grimm's  first  conjugation)  npj>eiir  to  me  to 
stand  upon  a  different  footing  from  the  Gothic  like  hni-fiald, 
in  so  far  as  the  latter  have  wcnkeiied  the  a  in  the  syllable  of 
repetition  to  i,  and  have  prefixed  to  it  an  a,  while  the  formep 
[the  Old  Northern),  quite  in  aceordnncc  with  the  Sauakrit 
principle,  have  left  the  a  of  the  ayllahic  of  reduplication  un- 
altered and  without  addition,  but,  on  the  other  hand  (tike  the 
I>atin  perfects  tftiyi.  ccc'tni),  have  weakened  the  a  of  the  baae 
lo  i.  and.  in  agreement  with  the  Sanskrit  law  of  sound,  have 
contracted  tlie  latter  with  the  a  of  the  syllable  of  repetitiou 
to  (?.  In  this  way  only,  in  my  opinion,  can  we  explain  it, 
that  as.  in  Old  Northern,  from  the  root  HALD,  "  to  hold," 
(whence  the  present  is,  by  the  Umlaut,  held,  and  the  participle 
passive  haUiim),  comes  the  preterite  /Ml  (the  tenuis  for  the 
medial  fit  the  end  of  the  word,  as  in  Middle  High  German, 
see  5. »:»".),  plural  MUlum;  therefore  kHl  from  htUntl  for 
hahalt,  z&  tlie  reverse  ease  of  the  Old  High  German  hi~aU 
from  hihatt  for  haiiaii.    So  also  in  roots  with  a  long  &,  for 


1 


*  Hy  ihc  Vmlaul  the  a  becomes  J  ^c,  nnO  tbo  v,  i^istjf — TraiutiUor. 


«I4 


to  *•  OUB^ 


.mmmt  %m^.  «^  bum  GMJT,  im 

Che  Mwpv^M  thrOU 
CO,  Ul rOT]     -I  fdl.*>«  -I  UL-frw/^: 

»>.  Verfca  «Udt,  is  GoOic.  hire  cfe< 
rafical  TO«eL  1*7  wde,  id  Oy  E%b  Grran.  n  tke  Imb- 
jjfcMl,  tiw  h«  ckMMlt  of  the  nid  dipfctkmg,  maA  retain 
snff  tiM  fint.  nther  Boaltered,  or  eottapCed  to  r, 
iadwA  htppcM  is  om«  of  tbe  received  antbonties; 
10  tkm  Gottk  preterite  iMbn/.  -I  wm  eaJkd.'  is  Otfrid  him* 
(far  Attn  from  Wtaiz),  ta  tfae  oCfaer  HtbofitKa  iiwMtd  bjr 
OnC  kirz.  eomtpaaiA;  which  Utter,  in  ropect  to  in  r, 
•BMren  brCter  to  the  prMnit  Amm  ( =  Gothic  heita\  where. 
htrntrrrr,  the  v  is  not  yd  to  be  regarded  am  out  eoand  ( =/). 
at  io  our  New  GerxDan  hitm.  Of  the  Gothic  diphthooff  m, 
we  ind,  aceorttflf  m  atttliorities  rai-jr.  ettfacr  the  first  or 
dw  iec«Ml  etcoMUt  prarrrcd,  and  the  former.  iDdeed. 
rithrr  nnallered  or  changed  to  t.  and  also  the  Utter  either 
DDcltanged  or  corrupted  to  o  (tee  $.77.);  «.^.  from  Uaupa 
eumoK,  in  Gottiic,  the  preterite  haiklaup  (tee  J.  598.).  for 
wLicti,  lu  OIiI  Uif(h  German,  vrc  6nd  in  Graff  the  forms 
lifi/rrrom  lilaffar  ht'iMlau/j,  lief,  liaf,  I'wf. 

WO.  In  Sarukfit  the  sjiJabtc  of  reduplication  olwaya 
fau  the  nulical  vowrl,  only  shortened ,  if  long ;  and.  as  baa 
been   already  remarked,   of  diplithongs   only  the   last  ele- 


*  PmKDt,  with  llw  Vmtaat^  grat,  &£r*,  pMliciple  pnanre  jFrilrnut, 
bUMmn.  With  r«*pc«t  t«  the  Rjection  of*  dooUt  nrMirniiil  in  the  n- 
dnpltcttUi)  [•rvicritc,  oOTn|»ra  the  reltlicoof  IhaOUHt^Cieniiati  nor, 
"liwr,'far(iolhic>Us4r. 


KOHMATIUN  OF  TKNSliS.  8l9 

ment  (aQO§.593};  hence,  bibaadh,^  from /kwc/Zi.  "to  bind"; 
bobfid^,  from  i/hdt,  "to  shine";  bibhid.  from  bltld,  "to 
cleave";  d'uh'p.  from  f/i/*,  "to  shine";  liitud.  from  /u(i,  "to 
beat,  push";  ;i«;(tir,  from  pAr,  "to  fill."  If  for  tlic  vowel 
r*  the  syllable  of  red ti plication  receives  an  a.  this  proL-eeds 
from  the  primitive  form  or;  e.g.  mnmnrda,  [G.  Ed.  p.  83S.] 
"  I  and  he  crnslic(l,"t  comes  not  froui  turid,  but  from  murd, 
wJiich  in  tliu  duaj  and  plurnl  is  contracted  to  mrld;  hence 
first  person  plural  mrimridimn.  Roota  whieli  be^n  with 
vowels  we  hnve  iilrvady  cliifcuued  (see  ?r.  i3 1.) ;  only  tliis  may 
be  here  farther  mentioned,  that  roots  which  bpgin  with  n 
and  end  witli  two  cousuimuts  proceed  in  a  very  peculiar 
and  remarkable  way,  since  tliey  first  contrnut  the  vowel  of 
D^pctition  with  tlmt  of  the  root  to  a  long  a,  then  add  an 
euphonic  n.  and  then  annex  the  wliole  root  a  secoud  time,  so 
that  thus  the  radical  vowel  occurs  three  times;  as,  i'n-unj 
from  on-n-anj,  from  anj,  "  to  anoint"  (Latin  un<fo). 

r)97.  The  Greek  piiys  no  regard,  in  its  syllables  of  redn- 
plicutioii  in  roots  beginning  witli  a  vowel,  to  the  vowel  of 
the  base,  but  always  replaces  it  by  e,  which  the  Latiii  docs 
in  its  perfects  (which  ai-u  reduplicated  and  carried  back  to 
the  Sanskrit  seventh  aorist  formation),  only  in  llie  case,  in 
which  the  root  exhibits  the  heaviest  of  all  vowels,  viz.  a. 
which  appears  too  lieavy  for  the  syllable  of  reduplication, 
as,  in  Sanskrit,  it  is  found  inadoiissible  in  the  syllables  of  re- 
duplication of  dcsideratives,  and  ta  replaced  by  tlie  lightest 
Toweli  i.  Thus  iu  Greek  the  perfect  reTa<l>ci  corresponds 
to  the  Snnskrit  fafitpa  or  (aUipa,  "  I  burned,"  just  as  rcn/^a 
to  the  Sanskpt  tutdpa  (pi.  tutupima=nerv^aitev)  "  1   beat, 


*  I  give  die  lli«iiie  witltouiony  itKreoiud  terminatum  whaicver. 

t  Cyiaptfc  di«  Latin  mamortli,  aliliouftl)  diis  is  linacil  »u  tlic  tt<iri»t  of 
thottath  fiiruisiioa,  where  amamardam,  oiiddk  atnamartii,  might  hare 
bwn  uxpccifd. 


816 


THE  fEBFKCT. 


wouoded,  sikvr"  Tre^(A>rKa"  to  the  Saitskrit  p'tpraya  or  pi- 
pr/iija,  from  pri,  "  to  rejoice,  to  love"  (compare  the  Gothic 
[G.  Ed.  p.  839.]  /rhf'l  "  I  love").  Ic  is  certain,  that  origi- 
iiutly  the  Greek,  also,  must,  in  the  syllable  of  reduplication, 
have  bad  rcgiirtl  to  the  radical  vowel ;  thnt.  however,  io  the 
course  of  time,  all  vowels  iu  this  place  were  weakened  to  e, 
as  is  the  case  in  New  German  iu  tho  Boal  syllables  of  poly- 
syllabic worJa;  ns,e.ff.,  wv  coniTOSl  bindc,  saibr,  fjabm.  vrith 
the  Gothic  hitufo,  mlM,  gahiim,  aiid  (i'dile,  GUdtm,  with  the 
Go^\uc ynsteh.  <faiitim.  A  similar  weakness  or  vitiation  to 
that  which  has  overtaken  our  liDul  Evllabtes  might  easily 
have  befallen  a  Greek  initial  syllable  not  belouging  to  the 
base  itself. 

5&8.  As  regards  the  laws  to  which  the  consonants  in 
the  syllables  of  reduplication  arc  subjected,  tlic  Sanskrit 
replaces  the  gutturals  by  corresponding  palatals,  and,  in 
agreement  with  the  Greek,  the  aspirated  cousonatits  by 
coiTesponding  non-aspirates;  f.g.  cKalciU,  from  hU,  "to 
give  light *";f  jdjim,  from  yim,"  to  go";  dadM,  from  t/Ad. 
"to  set,  lay";  as.  iu  Greek,  Tcftj,  from  the  corresponding 
root  Oil.  Of  two  consonants  combined  iu  the  initial  soand 
ill  Sanskrit,  the  first  is  usually  repeated  ;  hence  ehakrand, 
from  krond,  "to  weep";  chikvhip.  from  kMp,  "to  cast" 
The  Gothic  follows  the  same  principle,  if  the  second  of  the 
combined  consonants  is  a  liquid;  hence  ffuiyrdt,  "I  wept," 
corresponds  to  the  Sanskrit  word  uf  the  same  import,  cfta- 
knindn ;  and  saizUp  (see  %.  8G.(a.)).  "  I  slept,"  to  ihe  S&n- 
skritauf/myipf-t     We  wight  hence  infer  that  the  preterite 


"  I{<prding  tbe  origin  of  (h«A;sn<l  thoa9]>irAteflfTfrv^,sM$.66d.&c 
t  1  refer  tlie  Uotttic  haJ^':,  "lorcli"  i(:  a  soflpn«d  «,  soc  $.60.  (5.))  la 
this  root. 

\  The  root  map  \»  irrtfiiAax  in  thi>,  tti&t  it  is  coatractcd  before  Um 
licmvy  Urminalionii  ioto  rup  (#liup) ;  and  on  thisi  fcrm  is  fonodnl  the  wji- 
Inblc  <W  reiluplicatioD,  ihf uugh  the  u  of  which  iliv  «  fiillawing  becomes  tk. 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES.  817 

which  nowliere  occurs,  of  hlaitpa  is  haihlnup,  not  hfaihlaup, 
But  if,  in  Gothic,  the  second  of  the  cotDbined  consonnnU  ia 
a  mute,  thia  finds  its  way  into  the  syllabic  [G.  EJ.  p.S-JO.] 
of  rcttupUc-ation  al&o;  hence  sl-niaimUh,  "[  separated/'  the 
third  peraun  plurul  uC  which, xjtnJsvtarVAin.occursiu  Lukeix.  33: 
hence  might  be  deduced,  nliio.  stiiffaut,  from  STAUT. 
The  other  German  dialects  have,  uurestrictcdly,  left  two 
combined  consonants  together  in  the  syllable  of  repetition ; 
hence,  iu  Old  High  Gcrmun,  al'mf,  "I  slept,"  sp'viU,  "I 
cleft,"  from  slixUtf,  sphpnll;  unless  in  the  second  syltnble 
one  of  the  two  consonants  would  bu  rejected,  ns  iu  die  Latin 
!tpnp<mdi,  afeti.  for  spmpimiU.  slesli.  But  the  Gotliic  altai' 
s/caiih  spetilts  ngninst  the  latter. 

aas.  It  remains  to  be  remnrked.  with  respect  to  the 
Sanskrit  syllables  of  reduplication,  that  if  a  root  begins 
with  a  sibilant  before  a  mute,  the  syllable  of  repetition, 
according  to  the  gcncrul  law,  docs  not  contain  the  first 
consonant  but  the  second,  respect  being  had  to  the  rules 
of  sound  before  mentioned;  f.f/.  from  sllnl  comes  taalbdu, 
"I,  he  stood;"  from  apris  (sfparsj;  pasprtrsa,  "I  or  lie 
touched."  in  opposition  to  the  Latin  steti,  tpapomti.  The 
Zend,  closely  as  it  is  allied  to  the  Sanskrit,  does  not 
recognise  tliis  rule,  I  cnunot.  iudced,  quote  the  perfect 
of  -ui^cK,)  stA,  nor  any  other  perfect  of  routs  witli  an  initial 
sibilant  before  a  mute,  but  ns  sHiA  in  Sanskfit  has  a  syl- 
lable of  reduplication  in  the  special  tenses  also,  and  forms, 

in  tlie  present,  tiihtliAmi,  we  see,  from  the  Zend  jfljM^enJJW* 
hialtimi,  that  the  law  of  reduplication  uudi^r  discussion,  at 
the  time  of  the  identity  of  the  Zend  with  the  Sanskpt. 
was  not  yet  in  force,  or  at  least  not  in  its  full  extent. 
Of  the  Latiu  it  deser\'es  further  to  be  remarked,  that  iu  its 
sisla,  which  is  properly  the  counteqjart  of  the  Sanskrit 
thbrltiimi,  Gr.  Trrijui,  and  Zeud  /ualimi  (see  §.  508.),  it  fcHows 
the  general  law  for  syllables  of  reduplication,  while  analo- 
gously witli  sieli  a  present  stila  might  Imve  been  expected. 


I 


818  THB  PERFECT. 

[O.  Ed.  p.sil.]  600.  With  respect  to  tho  Greek,  as  soon 
vre  T«ogDiae  in  the  ■'  of  "irrtjfn,  09  in  the  Zend  &$  of  hialAmi, 
a  syllnble  of  redHplication,  to  wbicb  wc  arc  compelled,  by 
its  iiiuilogy  witli  SiSuifti,  Tt'dij^ii,  0i0i]fii,  &c.,  and  by  the  cir* 
cumstancc  thiit  a  ia  tlie  iaitiat  aouiiit  is  cnsily  vreakeued  to 
tbe  rough  breathing,  we  must  allow,  thnt  in  the  perfec-t 
emjKa,  also,  the  rou^'h  broatliing  stands  Tor  a.  and  that, 
Ihcrcforf,  we  have  in  this  form  a  more  perfect  syllable  of 
reduplication  than  is  usuntly  the  case  in  roots  which  bavo  in 
the  initial  sound  a  heavier  consonaQt  combination  than  that 
of  a  mute  before  a  litguid.  We  eaiinot  place  i'tmjita  on  the 
same  footing  with  etfiapTar,  whieh  we  would  suffer  to  rest  on 
itself;  for  the  latter  lias  just  as  much  right  to  the  rougli 
btv>athin|>  as  the  Latin  xUto  to  its  *.-  and  when  Buttman  says 
{Gr.  §.  83.  Rem.  6.)>  "The  often-oucurricg  di>GrTa\Ka  (pre- 
supixising  ?irra\Ka)  in  the  Milesian  inscription  giveu  by 
Chislinll,  p.  67,  furnishes  a  proof  that  the  rough  breathing 
iuatead  of  the  redupUeation  of  the  perfect  weut  further  in 
the  old  dialects  timit  tlie  two  eases  to  be  met  with  in  the 
current  language  (eVrtjua.  e"/*«f>Ta()."  it  is  important  to  ob- 
serrc,  that  hero,  also,  tlie  i-oot  begins  with  tr,  which  has  been 
presented  ia  the  syllable  of  re|)elitiuu  as  tlie  rough  breathing. 
Ill  etrr^Ka  this  pheuoniencin  liajt  been  preserved  iu  the  lan- 
guage as  commonly  nsed,  because,  in  luy  opinion,  tlie  analogy 
of  the  present  and  imperr^et  has  protected  the  breathing 
which  belongs  to  the  reduplication  of  the  perfect. 

&U  1.  Moreover,  if,  iu  other  cousumintal  combinations  than 
tbat  of  u  tuute  before  a  liquid,  the  syllable  of  rcpetitiou  lias 
usually  dropped  the  consonant  to  be  repeated,  tliis  clearly  hap- 
pened because  a  greater  weight  of  sound  in  the  base  syllable 
rendered  n  lightening  of  the  syllable  of  re]»etitioi)  desirable; 
hence.e.g.  e\(fo^Ka,  eif>8opa,  frcat  Tte-il/aKKa,  -nirpBopa.  Iu  these 
and  similar  forms  the  coincidence  of  tlie  initial  syllable  with 
[G.  Ed.  p. 043.]  the  augment  is  only  easual;  and  if  in  tbe  e 
a  remnant  of  a  syllable  of  rctlu plication  is  recognised,  we  are 


4 


FORMATION  OV  TBNSKS.  819 

not  thereby  fOinp«IIed  to  explain  the  e  i>f  ci^oMoi*,  Kt^deipov 
also,  ns  the  syllable  oF  redupliunlion.  sincu  in  the  imporrect  aud 
aoriat  (and  tlits  appears  Troiu  the  San'-krit)  a  simple  vowel, 
indf  |>endcnt  of  the  root,  lias  just  na  much  a  primitive  riiuiidii- 
tiou.  as  in  the  perfect.  In  roots  beginning  with  a  consonant,  a 
syllable  beginning  n-ith  the  radit-al  consonant  or  its  represen- 
tative hna.  ftcnnnot,  however,  be  denied,  that  in  some  cases, 
through  an  error  in  the  use  of  language,  the  example  of  tho 
augmented  preterites  bos  opeiMtcd  on  the  i>tirfi.*ct.  It  may 
be.  tint  the  e  of  ^aya,  coupi}Ka,  is  just  as  much  the  augment 
Wi  that  of  cof a.*  lowpow:  but  it  also  admits  of  biHiig  re- 
garded in  the  j>crfect  as  the  r>.'dti plication,  since  c  uuil  o  are 
originally  identical  with  a,  and  have  proceeded  from  it  by 
eorrtiption  (see  {.  3.);  and  since  both  a  and  o  easily  beeome 
e  OS,  e.g.,  the  final  e  ofLjcifc  (^^ififfln  adikshat,  flee  p.  803, 
G.  ed.)  is.  according  to  its  origin,  identical  with  the  a  of 
tSei^a,  eiet^a-i,  &c.,  and  the  e  of  vocatives,  like  Xi^tce  (  =  ^ 
vrihi),  is  only  a  weakening  of  the  o  concluding  the  bascvword. 
and  corrupted  from  tlie  older  a  (see  §.204.). 

602.  To  pass  over,  then,  to  the  alterations,  to  which  the 
radical  yowol  in  tlic  Sanskrit  reduplicated  preterite  is  sub- 
jected, we  will  consider  first  the  roots  with  «.  This  is 
lengthened  before  a  simple  consonant  in  the  third  person 
singular  active,  and  ut  pleasure,  also,  iu  tlie  Grst;  hence, 
from  char,  "to  go,"  to  which  the  Gothic  root  F.4il,  "  to  wan- 
der," corresponds,  come  ehnflu'tm  or  chachara,  "  I  went," 
chadiAra,  "he  went.  This  analogy  is  [G.  Ed.  p. 843.] 
followed  by  those  Gotliio  verbs  which  have  preserved  a 
radical  a  before  simple  consonants  in  the  present,  but  re- 
place it  iu  the  preterite  with  A;  as  fara,  tlio  preterite  of 
which, /tlr.  iu  respect  to  its  vowel,  corresponds  as  exactly  as 
possible  to  the  Sanskrit  ciiAr  of  chachAra,  for  d  is,  in  Gothic, 


■  Th«  iljgamms  belmijpng  to  Uii*  verb,  wlikli  rp«lii  nn  the  Saniikrit  M 
of  Mfliy,  *'  to  bF9&k,"  leaila  na  to  tncja-ci  an  aoriot,  ifti^a,  nnd  In  ilie  mtMt 
ancient  time  a  p^rTecl  R^tyn  for  th«  Sanskrit  bdAanja. 


F 


820  THE  PERFECT. 

the  regular  representative  of  the  long  6,  and  takes  the  place 
of  the  short  a,  where  tlie  latter  is  to  be  lengthened,  as.  vicf 
rtvsA.  a.  in  case  of  abbreviation,  becomes  a;  ou  which  account 
feminine  bases  iu  d  (=Smiskrit  d)  ejctiibit  in  the  uiiinfleeted 
nominative  an  a,  since  long  vowels  nt  the  end  of  n.  word  are 
tlie  easiest  aubjecled  to  abbreviation  (sec  §.  137.).  The  rela- 
tion, therefore,  of //r  to/nr«  is  based  originally  not  on  an 
alteration  of  quality,  but  only  on  tliat  of  quantity ;  and  the 
vowel  difference  has  here  just  as  little  influence  in  the  de- 
signation of  the  relntinn  of  time.  as.  in  the  noun,  on  that  of 
the  case-relation.  As,  however,  in  f*h  the  true  expression 
of  past  time.  viz.  the  reduplication,  has  disappeared,  aud/th 
atanils  for/ut/Jr,  tlie  function  iierformed  by  the  difTcrence  of 
the  vowel  of  the  root,  in  common  with  that  of  the  penional 
terminations  {or  of  the  absence  of  terminations,  as  in/«r  as 
first  and  third  person  siJigular),  is.  for  the  practical  use  of 
language,  the  designation  of  lime.  Thus,  in  our  German  sub- 
junctive preterite  in  the  plural,  the  Umlaut  is  the  only  sign  by 
which  we  recognise  tlio  relation  of  mood,  and  which,  there- 
fore, is  to  be  held  as  the  exponent  of  the  modal  relation,  since 
tlie  true  expression  of  the  same,  viz.  the  vowel  e  (e.g.oftvfirefi, 
tciirel].  which  was  formerly  an  i"  [Old  Hif^Ii  German  wAr!mf.i, 
uvlri'l),  and,  as  such,  has  produced  the  Umhttl  by  its  assi- 
milative power,  is  no  longer,  in  its  corrupted  form,  distiii- 
guislmble  from  the  tcrmimition  of  tlie  indicative. 

[G.  Ed.p.&44.]  C03.  Tlip  Gothic  Air  is  distinguished  from 
the  Sanskrit  chi}r  of  cfutchAra  by  this,  that  it  retains  its  long 
vowel  through  all  (lersong  and  numbers,  while  in  Sanskrit  U 
is  neeessary  only  in  the  third  person  singular,  and  is  found  or 
not,  at  will,  in  the  ftrst  person  singular.  To  the  Gothic,  how- 
ever, the  Greek  second  perfect  corresponds  in  the  case  where 
a  radical  a  is  leugtheiicd  to  d,  or  its  reprraentative.  tj.  The 
relation  of  itp«Cw  (eKpAytM-)  to  K^Kpaya.  of  6dhXta  {9a\ij)  to 
Te6t)\a,  corresponds  exactly  to  the  relation  of  the  Sanskrit  cho- 
Tiimi  and  Gothic /um  to  ch<Kh6rfi,fAr.  Id  Greek  verbs  which 
have  changed  a  radical  a,  in  the  present,  to  e.  the  clmtigc  of 


yOBMATION  OP  TENSBS.  '     821 

this  €  into  the  heavier  o  is  substitute  for  the  lengtbeniiig- 
(aee  J.  689.). 

fi04.  In  roots  wiiich  eud  with  two  consonants  the  length- 
ening or  the  a  io  A  is,  in  Sftnnkrit.  quite  omitted,  and  so,  in 
Gothic,  that  of  a  to  d;  as.  in  Smiskpt,  tiuimiinthn.  '*  I  or  lie 
shook."  mamanthima,  "we  shock,"  from  moiiM;  so,  in  Go- 
thie,  tJoiwi/rf,  "  I  or  he  ruled,"  roh'aWum,  "we  ruled,"  from 
vafd.  Tliose  Gothic  verbs  whicli  weaken,  in  the  present,  a 
radical  a  before  a  double  consonant  to  i  (see  p.  lltt  G.  fd.). 
replace  the  same  in  the  plural  numbers  of  the  preterite,  and 
in  the  whole  subjunctive  preterite,  by  u  ;  hence,  BAND,  "  to 
bind"  (from  wliich  the  present  bhidu),  forms  in  the  singular 
of  tlie  preterite  fiuml.  bajis-l  (see  $.  lOS.),  band,  answering  tn 
the  Siinskrit  bahandha,  babandk-i-tha,  babatidha:  in  the  se- 
cond person  dual,  however,  bund-ii-lt  for  Sanskrit  bnbanJa- 
-Iktu;  and  in  the  plural,  bund-u-m,  bund-u-t,  bund-u-n,  for 
Sanskrit  bubandli-i-mn,  babandh-a-{thri').  btibundh-us.  'the 
subjunctive  is  buvJyau,  &c.  The  Old  High  Geriimn,  which 
has  for  its  termination  in  the  second  person  singular  in- 
stead of  the  Gothic  t  au  i,  which,  in  my  opinion,  eorresponds  to 
the  Sanskrit  conjunctive  vowel  i,  exhibits,  before  this  i,  also 
the  alteration  of  thco  to  u  ;  hence,  in  the  first  and  third  per- 
son singular  h/mt  corresponding  to  theSiujaknt  bubandbti  and 
Gutliic  bund;  but  in  the  second  person  [Q.  Ed.  p.  845.] 
hunUi.  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  bnbandh~i'tha  and  Gothic 
bans-t.  Hence  we  perceive  that  the  change  of  the  a  into  n 
depends  on  the  extent  of  the  word,  since  only  the  monosyltabie 
forms  liave  preserved  the  origiaol  a.  We  perceive  further, 
that  the  weight  of  tlie  u  appears  to  the  German  idioms  lighter 
than  that  of  the  fl,  otherwise  the  »  would  not  relieve  then 
in  the  same  way  as  we  saw  above  fti  and  an  replaced  by  i 
in  tlie  polysyllabic  Tortus,  or  before  heavy  terminations  (see 
p.  707G.  ed.);  and  as,  In  Latin,  the  a  oF  calco  and  aaUutt, 
uuder  the  encumbrance  of  a  preceding  preposition,  is  repre- 
sented by  a  (cencii/co,  inaitlxvu). 


1 


822     *  TUB  PKBFBCT. 

60i.  Where,  in  Gothic,  a.  radical  a  is  weakened  before 
simple  eoDSoniuits.  in  the  present,  to  i,  bnt  retained  in  the 
aiagtUar  of  Uie  preterite,  we  find  ioBteod  of  it,  in  both  the 
plural  numbers  and  in  the  whole  subjunctivi;  preterite,  in  all 
the  polysyllabic  post  forms,  therefore,  on  r,  and  for  that  in  thft 
Old  and  Middle  High  German  an  A,  which  here,  however, 
occurs  as  soon  as  iu  tlie  second  person  singular  iudiL'ativc. 
because  it  is  polysyllabic ;  in  Middle  Uigh  German,  liow- 
ever,  it  is  ehanged  to  o*.  The  present  of  the  rorrt  LAS.  "  to 
read  "  is,  in  Gothie,  rati,  in  Old  High  German  li»y,  in  Middle 
Hi<^b  German  Use;  llie  preterite  iu  Gothic  is  las,  las-t,  to*, 
lAritm,  Ihut  lituH  ;  subjunctive  Ihyau,  &e. ;  in  Old  Uig^ 
German  Ian,  twii,  Ini,  Ijistnnfx,  Mjii/.  /dtrirt ;  subjunctive  liiri, 
8cc  :  in  Middle  Hi";))  German  bis,  Ittse,  tat,  Mwn.  UUtt,  M-ien  ; 
subjunctive  (tFsf.  This  phenomenon  stands  in  contradiction 
to  all  other  stron^j  verbs,  because  here  tlie  polysyllabic  forms 
have  a  heavier  vowel  tlian  the  monosyllabic;  but  the  reverse 
nutunilly  appears  everywhere  else.  Even  in  the  Sanskrit 
we  find  this  apparent  contradiction  to  the  tawof  gravity,  aitd 
the  surpriaiiig.  atthougb.  perhaps,  aeeidenlal.  coincidence 
with  the  Gothie,  that  in  both  languages  in  similar  placev — 

[Cr.  Ed.  p.  84C.1  vix.  before  the  heavy  tcnniuations  of  the 
dual  and  plural— a  radical  a  is  changed  into  e,  in  both  lan- 
guages only  in  roots  which  temuiiatc  in  a  sinipiL-  consonant ; 
to  winch  is  further  added,  in  Sanskrit,  the  limitation,  that  tlie 
initial  consonant,  also,  must  as  a  rule  hv  simple,  and  cannot 
be  1'  or  the  like,  which,  in  the  syllable  of  repetition,  aouording 
to  §.  599.,  experiences  a  change.  The  syllable  of  repetition, 
however,  la  suppressed  in  the  cases  in  which  theo  i5chang(.<d 
into  i.  This  is  the  practical  view  of  the  rule,  which  nx- shall 
■ubsequently  endeavour  to  elucidate  theoretically.  Let  the 
root  tan,  "  to  exteud,"  servo  as  example. 


r 


1 

1 
POBHATIOH  OF  TBNSES.                        8^3 

ACTIVE. 

BiNauui. 

BUiL.                                                    PLVKaI. 

itAna  or  tatana, 

liRtva  fur  lafnnivn.          Unimii  for  fo'fririmn. 

idtjitba, 

r  i?n''tha  for  tulaniUia 

v^naf/iw«  for  talanatbus,  tfna  for  (tt?ana. 

tiAnn, 

(^nu^Ks  for/afana^us,      Miujt  for  fufuntu. 

MIDDLE. 

';it'  for  iniaTit, 

IfnJviih^  for  tulaniviikS,  l^.nimahi  for  tutanimiJii, 

hiiiihf  for  kitaniyhfi. 

(InAlhl  for  (alanAlhl.       i?iuiUnc&  for  talamdhtee. 

'(«?  for  iutanf. 

(^ndW  for  ia(ii?i(lW,           iAiii-t!  for  tiUaniT^. 

It  appears,  tlierefore,  from  IhU  paradigm,  tliat  the  form  (^u 
used  for  taUin,  thoiii^h  far  tiie  most  vommon,  ib  adopted 
only  bi'fore  heavy  tomiinntions,  or  in  such  persons  as,  in 
their  full  form.  wouM  appear  to  consist  of  four  syllables;  for 
alttioiigli,  ill  the  second  pirrsoii  plural,  tSmi  stands  for  iatona, 
and  ill  the  third  person  plural,  Ifiiias  for  Intunus.  still  ui  io  tliis 
place  is  an  abbreviation  of  anti  (compare  §.  462.),  and  a  is 
clearly  only  the  remuant  of  on  original  termination  afha: 
the  a  ot  ifina,  for  i^n-n-iha,  corresponds  [G.  Ed.p,8«.] 
merely  to  tlic  conjunctive  vonel  of  the  Greek  Tcrv^a-rc  and 
of  the  Gothic  vaivuld~u-ih,  fAr-a-th,  Ua-u-lh.*    Tlie  reason  of 


*  I  liavr  alrvnily.  In  my  SjRlem  of  Cotijirfvation,  and  In  t]i«  AimitUof 
OrivntAl  Literature  (Lciidou,  16:M],  (.■allu'l  Atteuticti  lu  tliv  fnct,  tliot  the 
SiLiiskril  luttipa  in  Itio  trcond  person  plural  Is  an  nhbraTiatcd  forni,niKt  in 
Ihe  foriDET  parts  of  iliii  1iook  the  fact  has  oTtta  iicma  nihulcd  to.  tlial  llie 
Sannlcrit,  in  particular  caacs,  appears  in  diaBdrontngTous  coDtrc&i  wilh  Irn 
European  sister  idioms.  It  ha«  thcnfo'r*  tur|>ri»d  mt>  tiiat  I'mfi  wor  H  &jcr. 
In  Ilia  TrtaUw  "  Contributions,"  ic,  p.  40.  Iiaa  mode  n  gpnoral  an  naae>r- 
lion,  tlinl  nccnt  invt^mitpnota  have  not  l>een  desirous  "  of  keeping  per- 
fectly freo  from  the  unfortnaat^  error  of  believing  in  the  iniSKinuy  inriff- 
labiliiy  and  pristine  fidtliiy  and  pvrff^ionof  ilie  Sanskrit."  For  my  part 
1  liAvc  never  conct^d  to  die  Sanikrit  Buch  priniiM  fidelity;  and  it  hna 
always  ftivi-n  me  pKoiarv  to  aoticatfae  caess  ia  whicli  lh«  Euniptan  lislcr 
langnagesflEiTiiaatit,  tuthe  Lithunniaa  do««  at  tliie  day,  in  cveiywhcrc 


F 


824 


THE  PKBPBCT. 


the  Abbreviation  ia  clcnrly  apparent  in  tli«  aRcond  person 
sin^Iar;  for  if  here  the  termination  fAa  is  joined  directly  to 
the  root,  the  full  red ii plication  remains;  but  if  the  number  of 
syllahleB  is  increased  by  a  twiijunctive  vowel,  then  Wn  is  used 
for  tofan;  thus  t^nifhn  (from  Ui(anUlm)  nnswerjiig  to  tataniha. 
1  rccofjnisc,  as  has  bconnlready  observed  (see  §.  548.).  iu  forms 
like;  fill  a  concealed  reduplication;  thus  tin  from  tattn  (as  In 
Latin  cecini  for  cacan'i),  and  tliia  from  taion,  whence,  by  re- 
jecting tlie  second  f,  Mn  (for  la-an)  may  have  been  formed, and 
BO,  in  earlier  times,  have  been  used  for  ifn;  and  [  think  that 
the  Golhie  6,  in  furnis  like  Iham,  is  uot  found  there  becnusc  the 
Sanskrit,  in  niinlogous  forms,  bus  an  ^,  but  for  this  reason,  that 
the  Sanskrit  (  was  formerly  an  <1.  but  tlie  Ootliic  i  represents 
the  A  (§.  69.}.  The  Old  High  German  has  preserved  tlie  ori- 
ginal sound,  and  exhibits  lAxum^s  (from  Itdnmimfx).  which,  in 
contrast  with  the  Gothic  Ihiimfs.  appears  like  a  Doric  form 
[G.  Ed.  p.  848-3  contrasted  with  an  Ionic  one,*  While,  in 
the  second  person  singular,  the  Gotliic  las-Uon  accoam  of  its 
monosyllabic  nature,  is  based  on  Sanskrit  forms  Mke  latanthat 
the  Old  High  German  hisi  answers  to  the  contracted  form  tt- 
nUha.  It  must  be  assumed  that  the  Gothic  las,  laat,  was  for- 
merly lailug.  lailn-Ht;  and  tlieu,  too,  the  plural  l&tum  stood  in 
the  proper  relation  to  latliu  {lalaa),  i.i».  in  the  relation  of 
tlie  weaker  to  the  stronger  radical  form.  We  give,  for  a 
complete  general  view  of  the  analogies  existing  between 
the  Sanskrit  and  the  German   in   the  ease  before  D8,  the 


i 

I 


CTpTMaing  Ui«  idea  "who?''  \>y  ktu,  whtU  the  SAnslirJt  Jtiu,  McoHingto 
fixed  laws  of  »auDd,  hecomea  nt  one  time  kali,  at  anolher  It^,  at  anotlicr 
Jbd,  iind  appMira  m  iti  arj^ttud  r^rni  only  before  I  ta\A  Ih. 

*  It<.-gsrOiiig  llic  Latin  forma  like  r^i,  bcc  $.  MS,  It  m&y  be  here 
farther  runarkcd,  tbiti  Ajc.  Bcuiiry,iilso  (Doctrine  of  LatinSoaoda,  p.27fi, 
&c.),  traces  back  the  Irftlin  pt-rfcct  iti  all  ita  fonnnlions  lo  the  SaDskrit 
BoriBl. 


FORMATION  OF  TRNSBS. 


825 


redapHcatcd  preterite  of  W^  sad,  "  to  sit."  "  to  place  one- 
self," fornapouiiirig  to  the  Gothic  sat  aiid  Old  High 
Qermon  sax,  "  I  sate,"  connected  with  it  in  form  and 
sense. 


SEXOULAR. 

UNULKIT. 

OQTIIIO. 

OLOMtaH  nutuH. 

las&d'Q  or 

maad-a, 

(aai)sai. 

{si)xaz. 

suxat-tha  ovsSd-i-tha, 

(.«j)sfl«-(. 

adj-i- 

ans'id-a. 

DUAL. 

(#i)aru. 

afd-i-va. 

sftu  ?  (see 

§.  441.) 

■  .  1 

stkl-a-th  us. 

iit-tt-tM 

.  •  • 

s^d-a-tU4 

PLURAL. 

r 

iid-i-ma. 

^H-u-m, 

sAs-tt-m^M. 

%id-a-, 

sJt-u-th, 

sAx-u-t 

i&i-us, 

tH-u-n, 

t/ke-tt-n. 

••  Remark  I.— That  in  the  example  here  CO.  Ed.  p.  MO.;} 
given.  OS  generally  in  Grimm's  tenth,  eleventh,  and  twelftli 
eoujugations,  the  a  of  the  preterite  is  the  real  radical  vowel — 
that  iu  tlie  prvseot  it  is  weakened  to  i.  and  that  the  i  of  the 
present  has  not,  vice  vtrsA,  been  strengthened  in  the  preterite 
to  a — I  infer,  not  only  because  tlie  Suiiskrit,  where  it  admits 
of  coDiparJaon,  everywhere  exliibits  a  us  the  uiiinistjikcablc 
radical  rowel,  but  especially  from  the  circunistauce  that 
the  Gothic  causal  verb,  where  any  sucli  corresponds  to  the 
primitive  verb,  everywhere  use*  the  a  in  tlie  present 
even,  while  the  primitive  verb  has  it  merely  in  the  prete- 
rite; for  instant-e,  from  SAT,  "to  sit,"  comes  the  causal 
mtya,"l  set"=Sau8lc|:it  tSdaydmi,  If  it  w«re  merely  the 
objeetofthe  tang^aage  to  gain  in  the  causal  a  vowel  con- 
nected with  the  primitive  verb,  but  strengtlicnrd.  then  if 

3  H 


S3G 


THE  PERFECT. 


SIT  vrrre  tbc  root,  from  it  would  perhaps  have  proceeded 
aeitya  l_=silya)  or  milva ;  and  la  reality  tbe  verbs,  to  which 
I  ascribe  t  as  tUe  radicul  vowrl,  exhibit,  iu  the  vausat.  at.  as 
those  with  a  radiciilMetuploythe  diphthong  ait;  in  exnt-tagree- 
muot  with  the  Sanskrit,  wh«ru  Jond  h  receiveGunn  in  the  causal 
i.  r.  prefix  o.  Thus  in  Gothic,  from  ur'RIS, '  to  stand  up,* 
(tjr-Tmn,  ur-raia,  ttr-riaum)  comes  vr-ratsua,  'I  raise  Up'; 
from  DRVS,  'to  fall  '  idriuxfi,  dmut,  Hrnsnm).  ga'drautyiu 
'I  plunge';  ns,  iu  Sanskrit,  frotn  vid  and  bvdb.  '  to  know  * 
vfJayAmi  (=vnHJnydini),  MdhaifAmi  {=baudiiayAmi),  '  I 
mak*'  to  know.*  The  cirt-umstance,  that  Sanskrit  verbs 
with  a  radical  a  correspond  to  the  Gothic  lal,  •  I  sate,'  banJ, 
'  i  bound,'  would  not  alone  ftirniah  any  snOicient  ground 
for  assuming  that  the  said  and  anaioj;oiis  Gothic  verbs 
exhibit  the  root  in  the  singular  of  the  pret*rritc ;  for  it 
might  certainly  l>e  allowed  that  binda  proceeds  from  the 
Sanskrit  bandh,  aita  from  sad,  and  that  an  original  a 
has  here  been  cormpted  to  i;  but  it  might  still  be  main- 
tiiiued  that  the  rr  of  the  preterite  irfiifj,  nn/,  is  not  a  trans* 
minaiuu  fruia  tlic  period  of  identity  with  the  Sanskrit, 
but  that  it  Itas  been  newly  developed  from  tbe  i  of  the 
present,  because  tlie  change  of  sound  of  i  to  a  is  the 
symbol  of  past  time.  I  object  to  this  view,  however,  first, 
becattse  not  only  does  ani  answer  to  msada  or  nisdda,  but 
also  the  plural  zfttim  from  Mum,  Old  High  German  ti\samca, 
to  Mima  from  sti/iimu  {M{n)udiriui)t  and  it  is  impossible  to  con* 
sider  this  double  and  surprising  coincidence  as  fortuitous : 
secondly,  because,  as  has  been  above  remarked,  the  e:iusnls 
too  reeogtiise  the  a  of  the  verbs  under  diseuasiou  as  a  radi- 
cal vowel ;  thirdly,  because  substantives  also,  like  the  German 
Band,  S<d^,  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  ex]>re8- 
aion  of  past  time,  or  any  other  temporal  relation,  conform 
tG.  ^  p.  BfiO.}  to  tbe  vowel  of  the  preterite;  fourthly, 
because  geuemlly,  in  the  whole  Indo-Europi-an  family  of 
lai^ioages,  no  case  occurs  of  grammatical  relations  being. 


FOHMATION  OF  TBNSBS. 


827 


expressed  by  the  change  or  the  radical  vowel;  fifthly, 
because  the  reduplication,  whicfi  is  the  real  expression  of 
the  pRst,  is  still  clenrly  retuiiied  ia  Gothic,  in  the  verbs 
mentioned  above,  and  is  therefore  adoqimie  ground  for 
assuming  that  sat  is  an  abbreviation  of  nGisal,  but  that 
upturn  for  sAlum  ie  a  contraction  of  sf i(ii)«i-t am," 

"Remark  2. — The  Sanskrit  roots  which  begin  with  a 
ccmsonnnt  which  must  be  repl.aired  by  another  cognate 
one,  refrain  from  the  contraL-tion  described  above;  for  if 
the  g  of  the  base  syllable  of  jagnm  dropped  out.  and  the 
two  a  were  melted  down  to  i',  then  j/m  would  assume  an 
appearance  too  much  estranp-d  frnm  the  root ;  and  thta 
is  certainly  the  reason  why  the  contraction  i:<i  avoided.  It 
is  omitted,  also,  in  roots  whitrh  begin  with  two  consonants, 
and,  indeed,  for  the  same  reason;  for  if,  e.g.,  the  tt  of  the 
second  syllable  of  insfnn  was  dropped,  the  contraated  form 
would  be  tin,  in  which  the  root  slan  would  no  longer  be 
recognised.  There  are.  Iiowever,  a  few  exceptions  from 
the  rcstrietiou  specified  ;  as,  bfibfinj  from  Muij,  '  to  pay 
homage,'  is  always  contracted  to  i>»(^  bh^,  as  far  us  is  yet 
known,  though  ^  &t.f/  might  be  expected ;  but  the  aspi- 
ration of  the  bose-conaonaiit,  which  has  been  dropped,  has 
been  carried  back  to  the  syllable  of  repetition,  according 
to  the  jirineiple  of  the  above-mentioned  fSm  tlbikxk  for 
liidfintsh,  from  dah.  '  to  burn '  (see  §.  393.).  It  is  more 
difficult  to  account  for  tlie  fact  of  some  roots,  which  begin 
with  two  consonants  having  jiermittcd  themselves  to  be 
contracted,  and  having  retained  both  consonants  in  the 
syllable  of  rei>etitiou,  since,  e-jy..  to  the  reduplicated  perfect- 
theme  tatruM  a  contracted  form  trf.^  corresponds,  while 
from  talras,  by  rejecting  the  (r  of  the  second  sjfllable. 
should  come  Ua.  Either,  then,  in  (rrfj  the  r,  which  is  sup- 
pressed in  the  full  reduplicated  form  {tatraa  for  iratrat),  is 
again  restored,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  requirement 
thut  the  form  of  the  root  be  not  too  much  disfigured,  or 

3tiS 


F 


818  THE  PERFECT. 

[G.  za.  p.84IO  600.  With  respect  to  the  Greek,  as  soon  as 
we  recognise  in  the  i  of  "uTrjfu.  as  in  tiie  Zend  M  of  MiatAmi, 
a  syllaliic  of  reduplication,  to  wbich  wc  arc  compelled,  by 
ilA  aniilo^  with  SiSuitti.  ridrjfu,  /3ij8)i>u,  Sw.,  and  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  a  in  the  initial  sound  ia  cnsily  weakened  to 
tbe  rough  breathing,  we  must  alloir.  that  in  the  perfect 
cTTtjKa,  also,  the  rouffh  breathinf;  flianils  for  «■.  and  that. 
thercforr,  wc  liave  in  this  form  a  more  perfect  syllable  of 
reduplication  than  is  usually  the  cnse  in  roots  which  have  in 
the  iniiinl  sound  a  heavier  eonsouant  combination  ^aa  that 
of  !i  mule  before  a  lifjuid.  We  cannot  place  t(m}Ka  on  the 
same  footing  with  ctnaprai,  which  we  would  suffer  to  rest  on 
itself;  for  the  latter  has  just  us  much  right  to  the  rough 
breathing  as  the  Latin  nisto  to  its  »:  and  when  Buttmon  says 
(Gr.  §.  S3,  Rem.  6.),  "The  ofteu-ocuurriug  a^m-oX^a  (pre- 
supposing STTaXfca)  in  the  Miiirsian  inscription  given  by 
Chisbull,  p.  67,  famishes  a  proof  that  the  rough  breathing 
instead  of  tlie  reduplieation  of  the  perfect  went  further  in 
the  old  dialects  than  the  two  cases  to  be  met  with  in  the 
current  language  (ea-njna,  el'juapTOti)."  it  is  important  to  ob- 
serve, that  here,  also,  the  root  bt^ius  vritbtr.  vrliich  liOft  been 
preserved  in  the  syllable  of  repetition  iia  the  rough  breathing. 
In  £ffT7]Ka  tills  phenomenon  has  been  jireserved  in  the  lan- 
guage as  eommojtly  used,  because,  iu  my  opinion,  the  analog;}' 
of  the  present  and  imperfeet  has  protected  the  breathing 
which  belongs  to  the  reilup Mention  of  the  perfect 

601.  Moreover,  if,  iu  otlier  consunantnl  combinations  than 
tliat  of  a  mute  hf:fore  a  liquid,  tbe  syllable  of  repetition  has 
usuAlly  dropped  the  consonant  to  be  repeated,  this  clearly  hap- 
pened because  a  greater  weight  of  sound  in  the  base  syllable 
rendered  n  lightening  of  the  syllabCe  of  n'|«.'iilion  desiniblc  ; 
hence,  e.g.  e^aXxa,  t'pdcfm,  from  ire^oAKa,  iii<f>$opa.  In  the«e 
au(]  similar  forms  the  coincidence  of  the  initial  syllable  with 

[G.  Ed.  p.  Qt2.]      the  augment  is  only  casual ;  and  if  in  the  e 
a  rcmuant  of  a  syllable  of  reduplication  is  recognised,  we  are 


I 
I 


K0HMATION  OF  T8NSES. 


829 


rally  at  a  time,  when  the  syllnWe  of  rupfftition  was  mill 
fmibful  to  the  radic-al  syllable  as  regiirtls  the  vowel.  The 
cortroction  ofiHilysylliLbic  forms  into  monosyllabic,  by  re- 
jecting the  consonant  of  the  setond  syllable,  or  tJie  consonant 
to;5cther  with  its  vowtl  (ns  above  in  ^'p.T  for  W^'/w,  §.  5!>2.), 
is  so  natural,  that  dilTcrent  [niigiingi:!i  may  easily  chance  to 
coincide  in  this  point;  but  such  an  omisaion  might  tnost 
yasily  occur  in  ivdu|)lifated  forms,  because  [G.  ICd.  p.  865.] 
the  expression  of  the  same  syllabic  twice  running  might 
he  fatiguing,  and  therefore  there  would  be  a  direct  occa- 
sion for  the  suppression  oFlho  second  Byllable  or  its  con- 
sdiiaiit.  In  verbs  with  a  nidical  a  the  occasiou  is  the  more 
urgent,  because  «  is  the  heaviest  vowel,  and  hence  there 
is  the  more  reason  to  seek  for  n  diminution  in  weight. 
Latin  forms  like  cedn't,  ieiigi  (com[]Bred  with  such  as 
tutadi,  momorrfi),  comply  with  the  rcijuircment  to  he  weak- 
ened by  reducing;  the  n  tii  t  in  tht:  [basc-ay liable,  and 
to  «  in  the  syllable  of  repetition,  while  perfects  (aorists) 
like  c^pi,  /fci,  in  their  process  of  diminishing  the  weight, 
coincide  with  the  Sanskrit  sfJimn  and  Gothic  uHnm,  which 
docs  not  prevent  the  assumption  that  each  of  the  three 
languages  has  arrtvc^l  at  the  contracted  form  in  its  own 
way,  as  the  Persian  tm  and  English  am  (  =  nn).  "I  aiu*" 
n|)]iroach  so  closely,  because  they  both,  but  tjuite  inde- 
pendently of  pjich  other,  have  abbreviated  the  primitive 
form  (untf  tn  the  same  way,  while  in  the  third  person 
the  Persian  and  Latin  M  coincide,  through  a  similar  cor- 
ruption of  the  old  form  nsti;  or  as  tlie  Old  High  German 
^tir,  vhr,  stand  in  the  aanic  relation  to  the  GoUue  Jidc^r  that 
tlie  Latin  i/uot  of  tjuar-ttu  does  to  the  to-bc-presuppnsed 
qwitiioT-tui.  In  conclusion.  [  shall  furtlier  observe  that  tJic 
Gotliie  man,  "  I  mean,"  thongli.  acconlinjj  to  form,  a  pre- 
terite, and  based  on  the  Sanskrit  mamuna  or  ttuxmAna,*  sUII 


*Tbc  root  num, '*to  Ihiok,"  ii  imlec^),  rn  the  |ireM«t  cfinditioii  uf  tJ» 
UflfEuage,  uxsl  ocly  in  Ibc  niiiiillc  (ihin  mini,  "  I,  he  tb<>U|tlil  ").  which, 

liunrcrrr. 


I. -I  J". 


830 


TOE   PERFBCT. 


in  the  plural  forms  not  minum,  after  the  auftloKJ"  of  mfnima, 
but  triuittiitR,  which  lends  »s  to  conjecture  au  older  maimunum 
for  mtinmn II tn.  as  buniliim  for  hnilmndmn.  Itolumihrn.     Sinii- 

[O.  Etl.  p.  ssa.}  lai'Iy.  sl-ulnm,  "  we  should,"  uot  xk^iam  (sin- 
gular «fr«r).  From  mnff,  •'  I  can,"  comes  maijum,  without  vreak- 
cjiing  the  a  to  «.  In  rcs|)cct  to  tlvia  ond  similar  verba  it  may, 
however,  be  obaerved,  that  in  tlic  Sanskrit  viiJa,  "  \  kpow," 
and  Greek  oT5a  (=Gothic  vaU,  see  p.  7 1 1  G.  cd.),  the  redu- 
plication is  lost,  and  perluips.  also,  all  Gertnau  \crba.  which 
assuL-iute  the  sense  or  the  |ircsent  with  the  terminations  of 
the  pretf^ritc,  have  never  had  redupHt-atioix,  on  which  account 
there  would  be  no  reason  to  expect  a  mfnum  fov  m&num  troai 
mutnmtwn. 

607.  Verbs  with  a  radical  i  or  it  before  a  simple  Gunl  conso- 
nant have  Guna,  in  Sanskrit,  before  the  light  terminations  of 
the  reduplicated  preterite,  and,  therefore,  only  in  the  singular 
of  the  active.  TIusGunais  the  insertion  of  ana  before  the  ra- 
dical vowel,  juataa  in  Gothic  (Grimm's  eighth  ami  ninth  con- 
jugations). As,  however,  with  the  exception  of  the  few  verbs 
which  belong  to  the  Sanskrit  fourth  class  (see  §.  109V  2.),  all 
Btpong  verbs  belong  only  to  the  Sanskrit  first  class,  which,  in 
the  special  tenses,  has  Guna  pervading  it;  so  also,  in  the  Ger- 
mnn  verbs  with  a  radical  i  and  u,  Guna  must  be  looked  for  iu 
the  present  and  the  moods  dependent  thereon.  The  Guna 
vowel  a  has,  however,  in  the  present,  been  weakeufil  to  (,and 
is  only  retained  us  n  in  the  monosylhtbic  preterite  singular. 
While,  tlierefore,  thcSanskrit  roaXbmlh,  cl.  1,  "toknow."  forms, 
in  tlie  present,  fiudMrni.  pi.  budh^mau  {=bjiudhAmi,  baudhii- 
m«j).  and,  in  llie  reduplicated  preterite,  biibiUiho  {^^^bubnutthu), 
plural  hubufthnna,  the  corrosp'Onding  Gothic  root  MUJ)  (••  lo 
offer,"  "  to  order,"*)   forma,    iu   the  present,  btuda*    plural 


I 


howcvrr,  don  not  prevent  llie  aasuinption  that  origioalljr  ita  ncUv*  al^ 
hat  exielfd. 

•  Graff,  who  hiw  in  general  (nppnrteii  «iih  his  ns^at  my  theory  of  i 
GurmAii  Ablaut  (chanjtr  of  flaoaJ),  wLidi  I  firsi  aiiljinilttid  in  my  Rct-i^w , 

(•riming 


roilUATlOS  OF  TKX8B3. 


83 1 


biuUam,anii  in  tliu  prctrrite  haiiih  (spc  {.  93'.)i  plur»l  hudum. 
In  verba  with  a  radical  i  tlie  Gnua  rowel  [0.  Ed.  p.  eM.] 
i  is  metlcd  down  in  German  with  the  radical  vowel  to  a  long 
i',  whifli.  in  Gothie,  is  written  t>i ;"  hvnuc  the  Gothic  root 
filT,  "to  bite,"  forms, iu  ihe  p^t'9en^  beit<t{  =  liita.  Old  High 
German  bisu).  ami  in  the  singular  of  the  preterite  iffi/.  plural 
ffUuiit,  ai)swi;riii<^  to  the  Sanskrit  bihhlda  (from  bihhnkla),  "  I 
aiid  he  cleft."  bihhulima,  "  we  clefl."  In  the  present  fti? 
hitid,  if  it  belonged  to  the  first  class,  would  form  byihimi.  to 
which  the  Gothic  bfUo  (from  biila)  hns  the  snniti  ralntion  an 
nbnve  biiid/r  to  hMhAmi.  The  relation  of  the  Gothic  br-iin 
from  biilii  to  the  Sanskrit  bhiddini  from  bkimhhui,  is  like  that 
of  the  plurftl  nominative /M(Jff(-.'*  (from  the  base  FADI)  to  tlie 
Hanakftt  piUatf-as  from  pnlt,  "  lord."  only  that  in  pfi(fli/-ojr  the 
^,  =  (;+(.  is  resolved  into  at/  on  account  of  the  following  vowel. 
608.  We  give  here,  once  more,  the  Gothic  buil,  "IbiC 
and  bavt),  "  I  bowed,"  over  against  the  corresponding  San- 
skrit forms,  but  so  that,  varying  from  §.  4Sd.  and  our  usnnl 
method,  we  express  the  S:uiflki'it  diphthongs  ?  i  nud  ^  6, 
according  to  their  etymological  value,  by  at  and  an,  la  order 


(irimmeGermonGratniiwir,  diffuiBtnUiiiipoint  rromiliBviewalKHTctiiken, 
llint  livdueanotrDcngniK'  in  the  i of  htudu  and  in  i\te  dr^l  t  of  lieila  (=i>ita, 
fn>ni  biiia)  tlie  wtAki;ning  of  tlii;  Sanskpt  Quiio  vowel «,  but  eadenroun  ill 
1hr«c  different  wuj's  to  ^iii  frHRi  tlio  nidiciil  i  And  u,  in  llie  jirM^nt  f 
(wriilPnWin  fioiliic)  anit  iu  (Olit  Iltgh  nvrnum  ThnaurnB  I.  pp.-2l,i2), 
of  vrliich  uimlm,  hiiwcrcr,  noiu:  is  ao  dmit  and  conciM  &h  that,  accmrtliiip; 
tn  which  t)i«  I  tX bitidu  n  the  trenkpiilnj^of  tliea  <if  th^  %iiim\T\tbauilhiimi 
<ccintrHct<xl,  biiiih^ii),  ta  whicli  biudu  has  ihv  Min«  ri-ktii)ii  tluit  th«  Old 
High  Cimnsn  dative  statin,  "  to  the  vm,"  liaa  to  iIm  (iotliic  kuiuiu  nnd 
Sunglnit  niinnv-t,  from  the  biwe  lumt,  the  fiiia!  u  of  nhich  rwcivcH  Gunn 
in  [lie  dative  sirgiilnr  and  nntiiiiintive  {diiraL  In  iliv  fiiriiirr  plm-e  iho 
Gothic  liaaretalnnl  thr  old  liDnaa;  anA  it  is  not  till  svrcml  ccntDrics 
lairr  that  we  firet  ee«  thU  in  OM  Hifih  tiennsn  weftlttncvj  to  t  .■  tn  lh« 
latter  place  (in  the  nominnlive  plnrsl)  the  Oothii;  even  luut  adiulited  tbo 
wi-itliMibi;  to  I,  hut  changed  it  lo  [/:  heaoe«un^ii-«forSiin»krii«dnBoa«. 
*  See  ').'0.,  uid  Vocolisinw,  p. 2-24,  Reninrk  13. 


k 


8^2 


THE  PBBFSCT. 


to  moke  the  really  astonishing  agreement  of  the  tn'o  Inn- 
[G.  Ed.  p.  865.]  giiages  mor«  iip|)areiit.  We  also  annex 
the  Old  High  German,  which  replaces  the  Gothic  diphthong  ni 
by  rr,  and  <iu  by  ou  (berorc  T  sounds,  s  and  h  by  6).  In  the 
Old  High  German  it  is  cfipeuially  important  to  remark,  iltat  it 
replaces  by  the  pure  vowel  of  the  root  the  dipbthonj^  in  the  bo 
cond  person  singular,  on  account  of  the  dissyllabic  form,  whit-h 
here  correspoiuls  to  the  Gotlilc  monosyllabic  one,  og  a  clear 
proof  that  the  vowel  u|)po8ition  between  singular  anil  plural 
depend*  on  the  extent  of  the  word  or  the  weight  of  the  ter- 
minations, as  we  have  already  perceived  by  the  opposition 
between  a  m  monosyllabic  And  the  lighter  u  lo  polysylliibic 
forms  (fxmi.  bunti,  buntttmis,  see  {.  604.). 


Gotftie. 


Sanakrit.  Golhic.        O.  B.  Germ.      Sanskrit. 

BOOT. 

Witrf,  bit.  biz,  bhuj, 

"toapUt."  "to  bite."    "id."         "to  bend." 

SINGULAR. 
Irlhhind-a.  bail,  beh.  hubhauj-a, 

Iribinj'td-i-tha,       bfiis't,  bix'i.  buhhauj-i-tha, 

hibhaid-a.  bait,  beiz.  bubhavj-a, 

DUAL. 
bU'liid-i-va,  bit-ii,  ,  ,  ,  ,        fmbknj-l-va, 

bibhid-a'thus,      bit-u-U,  ....        babhuj'a-tht.t, 

bibhid-a-tua,  ....  ....        hnbhuj-a-dis 

PLURAL. 
hihhid-'i-mn,  Int-n-m,        biz-utafia.  hubhnj-i-ma. 

bihkid-a-,  int-U'th.        biz-u-t       huhlmj'a-. 

hibh'id-us,  bit-u-n,        biz-u-n.      buhhuj-ut, 

'See  $.103.  'SmJ.  441. 

[O.  Ed.  p.  83fl]  (i09.  The  Greek  second  perfeets  like 
TciTioiBa,  ^e?lo(7ra,  eoiKo,  vcipevya.  in  respect  to  their  Gunft 
answer  to  the  Sanskrit  just  discussed,  b'tbhaida  {bibb&ia), 
hahliauja   {bubhSja),  and  Gothic  bait,  bnug.      The  circum- 


O.H.G«m. 


bnvif, 

haug-U 

bat^, 

hvff-H 

buy-a-U 


buffti-m.    bujf-u~ 
bttg-u-th.     huff-u-t 
biig-H-n,     buff-u-n. 


FORMATION  OF  TENSER. 


833 


jtanue,  however,  that  thu  Greek  retoiiu  the  Giinn  in  the 
dual  and  plural,  and  uses  Dot  veviOanev,  Tt€<l>Ciy<xn€v.  bat 
veitoiSaiiev,  iteil/cvyafiev,  raises  n  suspicion  against  tlie  ortgt- 
niUity  of  the  principle  followed  by  the  Sanskrit  luid  Gcrtniin. 
We  will  thfrcforc  It-ave  it  undecided  whether  the  Greuk  has 
extended  inorgnnicilly  to  the  plural  nunibcrs  the  Guna, 
which  was  created  only  for  tlie  singular,  or  whether  the 
vowel  strengthening  of  the  reduplicated  preterite  were  origi- 
nally inti-ndfd  for  the  three  numbers  of  the  active;  and  the 
coincidence  of  the  Sanskrit  and  German  in  this  point  be  only 
accidental,  that  tliey  have,  in  the  tense  under  disciission. 
aceordeil  to  the  weight  of  the  terminations,  or  extent  of  the 
word,  an  influence  in  shortening  the  bose-sy liable.  This  in- 
fluence is  so  DQlural,  iimt  it  need  not  surprise  us  if  two 
languages,  in  the  course  of  time,  had  admitted  it  inde- 
pendently of  each  other,  and  then,  in  the  upcmtion  of  this 
influence,  coincided;  as, on  one  side,  the Gotliic /j(/ifrii,&«</i(m, 
answering  to  bait,  buuy,  and,  on  the  other  side,  the  Sanskrit 
hibhUiimn,  bubhiijimn,  answering  to  bihhmtiti,  bybhauja.  The 
German  obbiiiis  a  separate  individuality  in  that  the  Old 
Migli  German,  in  the  second  person  singular,  employs  hUi, 
bagi,  and  not  behi,  bov//i,  on  account  of  their  being  dissyl- 
labic; while  the  Sanskrit,  in  spite  of  their  being  of  three 
syllables,  uses  bibfiiiidiiliu,  hubhnujilhn.  It  is  certain  that  the 
Sanskrit,  in  its  present  stAte,  has  given  to  tlie  weight  of  the 
personal  terminations  a  far  greater  influence  thau  could  have 
existed  at  the  period  of  the  unity  of  langunge ;  and  that,  e.tf., 
the  Greek  SeiopKajtcv,  with  reference  to  tlic  singulur  SiSopKcu 
stands  nearer  to  the  primitive  condition  of  the  language  than 
the  Sanskrit  thdriiima.  which  has  abbreviated  the  syllable  nr 
of  the  singular  riniinritt  tori.  Observe.  QG.  Ed.  p.  ft^iT.] 
also,  what  has  been  remarked  above  regarding  the  retention 
of  the  Gothic  A  and  Greek  a  or  >;  in  the  dual  and  plural,  while 
the  Sanskrit  exhibits  the  lengthening  of  a  radical  u  to  d  only 
in  the  first  and  third  persons  singular  (§.  6t>3.), 


831 


THE  PBRPBCT. 


redf 


610.  As  to  tliR  pRrsonal  trrminittions  orthe  rpdupHca' 

preterite,  tliej  deserve  especial  (.onsider&tiun,  sini'e  they 
not  aiiawer  exactly  to  the  prtiiini'y  endings,  nor  ti>  the  secon 
dary.   The  gromitt  of  their  varying  from  the  primnry  termi- 
nations, to  which  they  moat  incMite  (in  Greek  more  dearly 
thai)  in  Sanskrit),  lies  paljMibly  in  the  root  beiug  incuiuhe 
witli  the  syllable  of  reduplication,  whieb  in  various  places  hu 
produced  an  abbreviation  or  entire  extinction  of  the  personal 
termination s.     The  first  and  third  person  singular  hnve  tlie 
same  sound  in  Sanskrit,  and  terminate  with  the  vowel,  which 
should  properly  be  only  the  bearer  of  the  personal  termi- 
nation.    The  Gothic  lins  lost  even  this  vowel;  henec.  above, 
briut/.  bait,  answering  to  hubhauja  {hitbMJn),  hihhatda  {hibliMa). 
TheGreeii,  however,  has,  in  the  third  person,  corrupted  thi^H 
old  a  to  c.  just  fls  in  the  iiorist,  where  we  saw  tSei^r  answer      ' 
to  the  Sanskj-it  miilc^huf.     In  the  same  way,  in  the  perfect, 
TCTi/^,  JedopKe,  ftcnnswerto  the  ^fnakrii I utii/ia  {=tu(aupa\ 
dadana;  while  in  the  first  person,  r^Tfi^o,  SeSapKu,  stand  oa^| 
the  •tame   footinfj  with  tlic   Saiinknt  tuliijin,  ditdnrm  (^from 
ifmiarkii).     As  three    languages,  the  Sanskrit,  Greek,  nud 
Gothic,  nnd  n  fourth,  the  Zend  (where  dadaria  appears  in 
the  Form  mmc^mw^  dadania),  a»rec  with  one  another  in  thit^j^H 
that  in  the  first  and  third  person  of  the  t*-ime  under  discus-  ^i 
sion  tliey  have  lost  the  personal  designation,  it  might  be 
inferred  that  this  loss  occurred  as  early  as  the  period  of  the 
unity  of  language.     But  tliis  inferenee  is  not  necessary;  for 
in  the  incumbraneeof  the  root  by  the  syllable  of  reduplication 
there  lies  so  natural  an  occasion  for  weakening  the  teruii- 
[G.  Et).  p.  BCJ8.]    nation,  that  the  different  cognate  tan|^iag;e« 
might  nL-tl  have  fullowed  this  impulse  independently  of  envh^| 
other.    And  the  three  languages  (the  Zend,  whose  longaojourn^^ 
with  the  Sanskrit  is  evident,  may  rcmiiiu  unnoticed)  do  not 
stand  quite  on  the  same  footing  with  respect  totlie  disturbing 
influence  which  they  have  permitted  to  the  syllable  of  redu- 
plication ;  the  Sanskrit  has  yielded  more  to  this  intluencc 


FORMATIOK  OV  TENSES. 


1=t35 


iia  Greek  and  German  sisters;  and  our  forms  like  il,r  biaset, 
"ye  bit,"  fkr  hngel,  "ye  bent,"  are  more  perfect  in  their 
termination  at  tliis  day  tlian  what  wc  can  draw  from  the 
Sanskpt,  to  coinpnre  with  tliem,  from  tSie  oldest  period  of 
its  titeramre.  The  Sanskrit  reduplicated  pn-tiTit*-  has.  for 
instance.  loiSt  t)ie  teriuinatioii  of  the  second  person  plural 
from  the  oldest  time ;  and  this  person  is  therefore  eithereom- 
plctely  the  same  with  the  first  and  third  person  singular,  or 
distinjjHtslied  from  it  ouly  by  the  removal  of  tKe  Gunn,  or 
by  an  abbreviation  in  tlic  intoriar  of  the  root  from  wliich  the 
siagutar  has  remaiDed  free;  t^.g.  tlie  Grst  and  third  {lerson  sin- 
gular and  second  person  plural  at brnnd.  "to  weep,"  are  cha- 
h-andti:  in  the  two  former  plnt-es  the  Gothic  50 jyrcl/ corre- 
sponds to  it,  and,  indeed,  shews  to  disadvantage  through  its 
loss  of  the  Gual  vowel:  iu  the  !»ecoud  person  plural,  however, 
gaitjriil-a-th  aiirpftsses  the  Stmakrit  chnkTand-n,  which  has 
evidently  been  preceded  by  a  form  chnkrami-a-Om  or  cha- 
Irrnnd-ti'bi.  To  TeTvif>-a-Te,  ieiopK-a-re,  in  Greek,  tnlnp-a, 
dttdrii'U,  for  tutup-n-thn,  iladrii-n-tha,  correspond  in  Sanskrit 
CI  I.  The  Sanskrit  reduplicated  preterite  stands  in  disad- 
vantageous comtmrison  with  the  Greek  perfect  in  this  jroint 
also,  that  iu  thi?  middle  and  passive  it  bos  not  only,  like  the  pre- 
sent, lost  the  m  of  the  first  |M-rson.  but  also  the  t  of  the  third ; 
thus,  tulii}}^  stands  for  ttitup-m^  and  fiitup-it\  and  in  the  former 
case  is  surpassed  by  Tervfi-futt,  in  the  tatter  by  rcTt/irrai,  as 
respects  thucorrect  preservation  of  the  ter-  [G.  Ed.  p.  869.) 
ruination.  From  jlrv^'nai.  Tervn-jm,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  active  was  formerly  Tt^{ma^lt,Tt:^\^ttxTl,ov^^:r^l'patu,^e■tv<^ 
-a-Ti,  and  in  Sanskrit  MAp-n-mi  (or  ivtAp-A-mi.  sec  J.  434.X 
tuHip-a-ti,  The  conjunctive  vowel  is  suppressed  in  Greek  be- 
fore the  weightier  terminations  of  the  middle  jmssive.  aeeord- 
ing  to  the  principle  by  which  tlie  »;  of  the  optative,  and  the 
corresponding  A  of  the  Sanskrit  jjotential.  is  dropped  in  the 
ntiddlcuud,  e.fj„SiBoift£9atdtitliinnhi.  correspond  to  the  active 
iiSorijuev,  (hdi/Aiaa,      The  Sanskrit,  in  the  middle  and  the 


836 


THK  PBRyBCT. 


pnsbivc.  which  in  this  tense  is  fully  iilenlical  with  tlie  middle. 
prefixes  to  the  personal  terminntions  bi'ginninp  witli  a  coii- 
sonnnt  For  tike  oiost  part  n  c-onjunctive  vowel  j  (see  §.  605. 
p.  S4G  G.iNl.);  Iieuce  lutfiji-i-ih^  answering  to  the  Greek 
T€Tuw-<ro(.  Yet  in  Qte  Vcilu-ilialect  the  form  lutiip-s4  might 
be  expected,  as  this  dinlect  often  snppresse!  the  coujunctive 
Towcl  of  the  common  language,  and,  if.g.,  it)  the  Rig  Veda 
(XXXII.  4.).  from  rid,  cliiss  6.  "to  fiud,"  the  form  vivil-t^ 
"ihou  didat  find,"  occurs  for  the  common  fJivrf-i-sW. 

612.  Tlic  third  person  |)]ural  of  the  middle  passive  exhibits 
in  Sanskrit  the  terrainntion  r^,  which,  in  the  common  lan- 
gUJigy,  is  nhvays  jireceded  by  the  eonjinictive  vowel  i,  wbich. 
however,  may  be  witlidrawn  in  the  Vi-dfi-dmlect,  where, 
e,g.,  dadrU^i,  *'  they  were  seen,"  occurs  for  dadruirf  (Wg 
Vfida,  XXIV.  10.)'  It  is  hanily  [Kisaiblc  to  give  a  sntisfactory 
explanation  of  this  temiinalion.  I  have  elsewhere  (Lesser 
Sanskrit  Grnmmar.  §,  373.  Rem.  4.)  remarked,  thut  its  r  is 
pcrlmpB  a  corruption  of  an  original  s,  which  otherwise,  in 
Sauakrit,  occurs  only  in  the  terminating  aound,  and  regu- 
larly, indeed,  before  sonant  letters,  in  cose  u  vowel  oLlicr  than 
n  or  ^  precedes  the  ».  This  being  the  case,  this  r  would  belong 
to  the  verb  substantive ;  and  we  should  remark,  that  in  Greek. 
also,  this  verb,  in  certiin  tenses,  is  fouiid  only  in  the  third 

[G.  Ed.p.OfiO.]  [>ersnn  pluml,  while  the  rest  are  simple 
(ISiSoirar,  eSoffav).  The  Sanskrit  intended  probably,  ia  the 
case  before  us — if  the  r  really  stands  for  a —  by  this  change  to 
lighten  the  sound,  as  occurs  in  the  Old  High  German,  where, 
in  atl  roots  in  h  and  at,  and  in  part  of  tlie  roots  in  ng,  tlie 
radicat  sibilant  in  the  preterite  is  retained  only  in  tlie  niono- 
syllubic  Forms,  but  in  the  polysyllabic  is  weakened  to  r ; 
hence,  from  RIS.  "to  fall"  (Sanskrit  fiArf/rit),  r*M,  rirf,  r«», 
Tirumes,  &c. ;  from  L  US,  "  to  lose."  W«,  luri  (see  §.  SOS.),  tat, 
lurvmis.  &G.;  from  teas,  "1  was.**  "he  was,"  comes  the 
second  person  trdri,  the  plural  ic/irumh.  Sec. 

Oi:i.    With    the  T    of  the    Sanskrit    terminntioD    rS    is 


FOHMATtON  OF  TENSES. 


837 


clearly  oonnpcted  that  of  tlie  terminntiDu  rnti  of  the  third 
person  [ilural,  middle,  of  ttie  poCentiat  and  preoattve,  where 
rdTiiio  my  o])iuion,  is  an  abbreviation  of  ran/d  ;  and  also  the  r, 
whicli  the  root  *i^  "to  lie"  (Grixk  (ceiftar).  inserts,  in  the 
third  pcraoa  plumi  of  all  specinl  tenses  {^^It  "  tiiey-  lif," 
oPrrz/a  "  thoy  lay,"  iiraUm.  "  let  them  lie").  Tlie  root  vid. 
"  to  know,"  class  2,  in  coinbinntiun  with  the  preposition  »tim. 
ndniits  at  will  the  addition  of  such  an  r  in  the  present,  im- 
perfect, luut  iin|>LTati\'e ;  hence,  sanvidral^  or  saimiiait, 
•'  they  know  "  (Panini  VII.  I.  7.).  The  Veda-dialcct  gives  to 
the  addition  of  this  eni>;matical  r,  iu  the  middle  and  passive, 
aalill  nider  extension  (Panini  Vlf.  1.9.],  and  exhibits  uduhra, 
"  tliey  uiilked."  for  aduhraia.  instead  of  the  coramon  aduhota. 
ReninrVablo,  also,  are  the  forms  w^  udri'sran  and  wtnji 
atrigran,'  fK>m  xr^rr^  fidriiranln,  WW^TJT  [G.  Ed. p.  861.] 
turigranlti,  for  udninidu,  anrijntdo.  The  Anuswara  of  this 
Vctlic  termination  rnir.  which  may  have  been  formerly  rmw 
(with  s  frooa  /,  compare  p.  754  G.  rd.},  passca  into  m  before 
vowels  :  hence,  Rig  Veda  tX.  4.,  ^r^^n?^  ^  it  Ittt:  tisrigram 
Indra    ff    i/rr'tH    "  ''Jftii'i    smu/.    Indru !    titii    /lywiiii" ;     L  3, 

W^pW^^  WW  «lir^  f^  rpnft  inrt  trg  adriiram  atya  k&av4  li 
rnimatfii  jan&a  anu  "  conitpiciuntur  rjut  coUualranleM  radu 
hUtrr  Uominex''^ 

614.  Tlie  conjunctive  vowel  i,  which  the  middle  uses  in 


"  Tbe  rnrmer  to  on  oorist  of  the  sixth  forniAtbn,  fWim  die  ronl  drii, 
wliith  isiiiit  uitnl  iiitlic  Rjx-cinl  Uimt*;  bur  arriyTaii,  in  wliich  llio  tpten- 
tionof  t]ic  originnl  gaUunil  insCcndof  the  paUtid  of  llic  rommnn  lon^UA^ 
is  io  be  noticed,  Aots  ttnt,  in  my  n]iini4n,  ndmit  of  being  explained  as  ah 
norist,  ai  Wcsti-f jjajird  makes  It,  but  a|i|)enn  to  me  to  be  ta  imperfwl ;  u 
thr  rootn  iif  [he  bixiIb  cliuw,  when  iticr  tlu  Dot  inaert  m  nnaa]  in  the  apcciol 
tcn«c8,  srn  tucnpAblc  of  tbc  uxth  AOiisI  forniAtlon,  beoMiie  they  woold  D<i( 
be  distinct ishnlila  I'rom  tlii<  imperlrct.  Vihy  sfaoulcl  not  thp  impc^rfvct,  at 
wull  ns  ihL'  Aorial,  be  cajtiilik-  of  replacing  the  termtnation  nnta  liy  rtin  T 

t  Comimre  Wt-BliTKnard,  Ilodtcn,  p.  200.  Bown  Ukcs  a^fiiraH  «c- 
liroty,  and,  in  tho  tirsi  pAAM^,  nuriffrcm,  lat  the  lirst  {lereon  Bingnlarnc- 
live,  whicEi.  howBr«r,  will  not  da.  I^lcritn  with  a  |>reaeDL  elgniJiGation 
are  very  commaain  Uu:  V^na. 


838 


THE  PERFECT. 


almost  all  persons,  may  formerly  Itavc  been  ana;  Rnd  it 
is  still  moi-e  jirobitbli:  tliut  tlic  active  everywliere  had,  as 
iti  Greek,  an  o  as  conjunctive  vowel;  thiit  therefore  tlie 
form  tutup-i-tna  was  preceded  by  a  form  latap-a~mn 
(or  toUiji-ii-mtt.  see  §.  434.),  us  analogous  to  tlie  Greek 
TeTvip-a-fiEv ; — iiji  opinion  which  is  also  corroborated  by  the 
Gothic  u-rn,  na  in  yaiyroi-u-m,  "wc  wept,"  which  leads  us 
to  expect  a  Sanskrit  chtihranii-a-ma  or  A-mu  (or  cimin-anti-i- 
mic,  since  the  Gothiu  u  very  often  occurs  as  the  weakening 
of  an  original  a,  but  not  ni  (he  increase  of  an*  ori- 
ginal J. 

615.  In  the  second  and  third  person  dual  tlie  SanskfU 
has  firmly  retained  tlie  old  conjunctive  vo«el  a;  but  the 
aof  the  primnry  terminations  tlias,  iaji,  has  been  weakened 
to  «,  prolwbly  on  atxount  of  the  root  being  encumbered  by 
the  syllable  of  rerliiplication  :  lienee,  lulup-n-tlws,  triiup-a-fus, 
corresponi)  to  the  Greek  tctw^-o-toi',  TeTV(p-a-Teir  from  -toj, 
TOf,  see  §.  9*7,) ;  and  chokrnnd-a-ihus,  "ye  two  wept"  to  Iho 

[G.  EJ.  i».8(J2.]  Gotiiic  5rw<;r<J/-«-f.i  of  tliesarae import.  The 
V  a  of  thfsc  dual  forms  is  never  suppressed,  and  hence  is 
regardtd  liy  j^animarians  as  belonging;  to  the  termination 
itself,  while  the  terminations  va  and  ma  of  the  first  person 
dual  ami  plural  oeca«ioimMy  oeeur,  also  in  direct  combination 
with  the  root ;  as  from  Htdh,  "  to  stop,"  come  both  sishidkiva, 
wihidiiima,  and  shhidhunt,  s'nkidkma.  Thus  we  find  in  Greek, 
also,  the  a  ocx-asionally  suppressed  before  the  heavier  ter- 
minations of  the  dual  and  plural.  To  this  class  belong,  be- 
sides, iffjucf  for  oi'da^ev  (see  §.  491.  p.  Ill  G.ed,),  &>tyitc\', 
ctKTov,  avuy^ek',  iihuev.  But  on  these  fonns  ito  special 
relntionship  is  to  be  based,  but  only  a  coincidence  of  prin- 
ciple; for  tu  the  o))eration  of  the  law  of  gravity  it  lA  so 
natural  that  two  languages  should,  independently  of  one 
another,  free  themselves  before  heavy  terminations  of  an 
auxiliary  vowel,  not  indispensable  for  the  idea  to  be  convoyed, 
tliat  it  is  quite  unneeesaary  to  nssumc  here  an  old  trans- 
mission. 


roBMATION  OF  TENSES, 


839 


616.  With  r^nrd  to  the  tcrmiuation  -v  Iht  of  the  second 
})erson  singular,  we  refer  to  §. -t53.  It  may  be  here  odtli- 
tionftlly  remarktil,  that  if  the  Oreefc  7f<t-8a — which  ia  there 
referred  to  wtflW  Ai-i-lka,  for  which  would  staiul,  without 
the  vowel  of  conjunction,  ds'tha—ia  not  u  rcuiuant  of  tho 
perfect,  but  actually  belongs  to  the  imperrcct,  the  SaDskrit 
miilille  impEtrfect  wivrm  dulb^a  would  admit  of  comparisou 
with  it  But  I  pruft'P  rcfepriu;^  this  ^<r8a  to  the  perfect,  and 
plnuing  it  on  the  snme  footing  with  oi<T-8a,  whic^h,  vitli  re- 
spect to  its  tcrnk illation,  correspouds  so  well  with  %ra  vftt-llm 
nnd  the  Gothic  vais-K  The  Old  High  Gcrmiui  also,  which, 
in  its  strong  prcteritt^,  has  preserved  only  the  eoiijuuclive 
vowel  of  the  Stuittkrit  i-thti.  and  hence  opposes  to  the  San- 
skrit buhhriuj-i-thn  (bubiuij-i-tha)  and  Gothic  bnurj't,  "thou 
didtit  bow,"  the  furoi  buy-i,  has  iu  preterites,  which,  liko 
the  Sanskrit  viJn,  Greek  otiai.  and  Gothic  vait,  have  present 
aigiiificutiou,  retained  the  old  I  in  direct  corabiiiatioii  with  the 
root;  as,  vxis-t  {ouphouic  for  tceis-i)  corresponds  to  the 
Gothic  vriia-t.  Greek  otO'Ba,  nnd  Sanskrit  v4t-tha  (vn'U'tbn). 
We  nitiBt  likewise  chiss  liere  muas-i,  "thou  must,"  iiiJi-t, 
"tliou  art  tit,"*  mnh-U  "thou  canst,"  letU-i,  " thou  shouldst," 
an-t-t,  "thou  art  inclined,"  "dost  not  grudge"  (with  cuplwuio 
V,  9ee$.  9j.:  the  form  cannot  be  cited,  but  is  indubitable), 
chan-s-f.  "tlioH  caiist,*'  "  thou  kiiowtrst,"  fjtlan-t,  "  tliou 
venturest,"!  darf-t.  "thou  requirest" 

617.  It  deserves  further  to  be  remarked  with  respect  to 
the  OoUiie,  tiiut  the  roots  terminntitig  with  a  vowul  pre6x  ait 
X  to  the  t  of  the  second  person :  at  least  the  second  person 


'  Does  not  occur,  but  can  b«iwrrly  <l»<luoed  from  tlio  lliird  person  fotik 
luiil  ib«  prottrilc  l&h-ta. 

t  The  «ia  noi,  as  I  form<-rly  lumomvd,  onphonio  ().  04.),  hnt  licirm;:* 
to  the  root,  whicb,  bi-rvni  v(iwv1k,  nwimilAm  its  »  to  ttic  prvoriling  r  (rs 
Gxcck^(iji;jat,  Aiji'/iiw)  Tfjccttd  nhcn  in  llto  terminating  sounii,  bin  prctwrrcd 
before  t :  hcncf,  in  tb?  finl  And  (liird  jwncn  sinfroUr  fft-tar,  third  i>enoii 
plnnO  j/r-tumtn,  gt'tnrren.  In  Ssiutkrit  dhar^h  (dhrith),  "to  vnmire,"in 
Lilliuauian,f/ryii-(<,"ideiiV'co''"»P™"J;  coiwp.  l'«u,  I.2iO,Graff,V.<41. 


840 


TBS   l>BHFRCT. 


of  saisti,  "  I  sowed,"  is  wi«f-j/,  (Luke  xix.  21.):  from  which 
we  may  also  infer  vah'^-tt,  froQi  Uie  root  I'O,  "to  blow" 
(Samkrit  v<i),  and  la'd'i-sf,  from  LO.  "to  langb."  As  to  tlic 
relation  of  the  ai  of  llie  present  (i-oia,  la'ui,  «uto)  to  the  A  of 
the  preterite  and  of  the  root,  it  resembles  tbut  of  binda. 
-*I  biod,"  to  BJMD;  i.e.  as  the  a  of  this  and  similar  roots 
baa  weakened  itself  in  the  present  to  i,  the  same  has  be<-ti 
done  by  tUa  latter  luUf  of  the  ii=A,  or  u  +  u.  In  the  same 
way.  in  Sanskrit,  a  long  d  is  sometimes  wcakeuctl  to  6=ial; 
e.g.  in  the  vocative  of  the  feuiiuine  bases  in  d  (sec  §•  20*.). 
But  to  return  to  the  Gothic  root  SO,  I  am  not  inclined  to 
infer  from  the  third  person  present  aait/'i-th,  which  aetuallv 
occurs  (Mark  iv.  II.),  a  first  person  nnii/a.  but  hellerc,  that 
only  before  i  a  y  is  added  to  the  diphthong  ai,  and  that  the 

[G.  Ed.  p.  iSfi*.]  tliird  person  singular  aud  seeoud  person 
plural  of  vaia  and  laia  also  must  be  vaivith,  Utiyith,  and  the 
seeoiid  person  singular  vahf'n,  luruta.  But  if  the  root  SO  had. 
Id  the  first  person  singular,  formed  tait^a,  tlien  the  tliird 
person  plural  would  certainly  have  been  sniunnd,  the  infi> 
uitive  sah/nn.  and  the  present  jwrticiple  smyands;  on  the 
otlier  hand,  at  Mattli.*  iv.  20.  occurs  taumd,  "they  sow"; 
1.  c.  4,  a,  sainndx,  "  the  sower,"  and  aainn,  "  to  sow," 

619.  The  Sanskrit  roots  in  A  (the  aiinIog\'  of  which  is  fol- 
lowed by  those  also  with  a  final  dtphthoiii;,  which  arc,  for 
the  most  part  dealt  with  in  the  general  tenses  as  if  they 
ended  with  fl)  employ  in  the  first  and  third  persons  An  for  A 
or  (I,  for  the  A  of  the  root  should  be  melted  down  with  the  a 
of  the  termination  to  A.  or  be  dropped  as  before  the  other 
terminations  beginning  with  u  vowel.  Instead  of  this,  how- 
ever, flu  is  used;  f.(f.  5^  dndAu,  "I  gave."  "be  gave,"  from 
dA;  it^tatth&tt,  "  I  stood."  "he  stood,"  from  gfbA.  If  Au 
was  found  only  in  tlie  first  person,  I  should  not  hesitate 


•  So  ia  the  Gcmuut ;  bat  u  there  are  oat  SSR  rersea  in  the  4th 
Malili.,  the  rrfercnco  is  probsbl;  to  cliap.  vi.  :iti.,  and  tli«  next  i 
kUouIiI  be  Mark  iv,  3. 


FOSMATION  OV  TENSBS. 


841 


recognising  in  the  u  the  vocal izntiuii  of  tlic  pcrsonnl  clinracter 
m,  Ba  ill  tlic  Gothic  ai^nii,  "  I  mny  be,"  anawerin^  lo  tlic- 
Sniislci-it  WIJI  itj/tiw.  and  in  Lithuanian  forms  in  au(§.  438.). 
This  view  of  tlie  uiJiller,  however,  RppearK  less  siitisfactiipy, 
if  we  are  compelled  to  nssiime  thiit  the  terniinntion  rt«,  nfiiT 
its  meaning  had  been  for^tten,  and  the  lan^a^e  had  lost 
slj^lit  or  its  derivation,  had  found  its  way  iuorgauically  into 
tlic  tliird  [lersoii,  though  such  t:hiin>;c5  of  pcTson  arc  not 
unheard  of  in  the  history  of  language ;  as,  in  the  Gothic 
jmssive,  where  the  first  and  third  persons  have  likewise  the 
saiuo  term i nation,  hut  reversed  through  the  tnuisjmsition  of 
tJie  endinjjf  of  the  third  person  to  the  first,  and,  in  the  plural, 
also  into  the  second  (§. -Ititi.).  But  if  the  termination  Au  of 
(tadiiu,  "Jfiiii,  dedil,"  stnmU  with  the  aimc  right  in  the  third 
person  that  it  dues  in  the  Grat.  and  no  personal  ending  is 
couttiitii'd  ill  it.  then  the  u  of  the  diplulionj;  t!u  may  Ix;  re- 
garded as  the  weakening  of  the  common  [G.  Ed.  p.  865.3 
termination,  or  conjunctive  vowel  a;  so  that  the  u,  accord- 
ing to  ttie  principle  of  Vriddhi.  would  have  united  with 
the  preceding  d  into  rlu  (sec  {.29.];  while  in  the  ordinary 
contractions  on  d  is  shortened  before  its  conibinntioii  with 
>i  or  i  to  a,  and  then,  with  u,  becomes  A=ait,  and  with  i, 

619.  The  SnnsVrit  verbs  of  the  tenth  class,  and  all  deri- 
vative verbs,  pcriphrastically  express  the  reduplicated  pre- 
terite by  one  of  the  auxiliary  verbs — kri  "  to  make,"  im 
and 'jAd.  "  to  be" — the  reduplicated  preterites  of  which  are 
referable  to  the  accusative  of  lui  aintrac-t  substantive  in 
(},  which  is  not  used  in  the  other  cases,  before  which  the 
ehamcter  rfy  of  the  tenth  class  and  ofthecjiusal  forms  is 
retained;  *•.  J.  cAfJcfiiy'lite/ioWrvi  (enplmnie  for  ch'in/Am-ch-), 
"he  made  stculingr  or  chSratfiimttifi,or  eti^rayimbabhiivat* 
"  he  was  to  stenl."      The  opioion   expressed   in  the  6rst 

•The  itKA  hhti  iTrrgnlnil;  cuntnina  in   the  syllable  oFrapetiliAn  nn 
n  int>t«ii<l  if  the  alwrl«u>d  r«i(3lcal    vawd,  oinili  in  ihc  (ml  nrcl  tliirl 

3  I  I'creoii 


842 


THE  PERFBCT. 


edition  of  my  Sanskpt  Onunmnr.  thnt  the  form 
must  be  reganled  as  the  accusative  of  an  abstroct  sob* 
stontive,  I  hiive  aiiiue  found  is  supported  fay  the  Zeud,  wfanv 
tlic  corresponding  form  occhp»  ns  nn  infiiiitive  in  the  af- 
CTiaalivc  relntion,  as  1  have  already  shewn  by  citing  Uk 
followins  lucid  passnge  (Vend.  S.  p.  196,)  :  ^^ai^  ■JS^-C, 
5«>>iAi^\i/  ^vK  M)03Mi^*JAe»^  yi-zi  vaitn  mnzdaifaJmn  ioaim 
•rnAilfmyunm.'  "  [fthe  worshippers  of  Mnzda  wisli  to  m^ 
\G.  FA.  p.  wifi.]  the  earth  graw  (cultivate)."  The  Sio- 
skrit,  instend  of  hi,  "  to  make."  oceaaioiialiy  uses  another 
verb  of  similar  import,  to  paraphraae  the  reduplicated  pre- 
terite. Tims  we  refid  in  tlic  Mjiliabliarat  (I.  I S09.)  :  <1|MI%< 
^mrn  kmAW:  vapush/umdHhum  vurtiij(\m  praehak raiwrf. 
"  tliey  solicited  Vapushtaina;""  literally,  "  they  made  soli- 
citation on  ncTouiit  of  Viipiishtjinifi,"  or  "they  went  to  ■ 
st>licititinn  ;"  ior  prtt-ftram  means,  properly,  "to  go;"  but 
verbs  of  motion  frequently  take  the  place  of  those  of  nuik- 
ing,  since  the  coniplelioa  of  an  action  is  reprcscDted  u 
lite  going  to  it. 


pcTatJii  atngaknliftCruna  or  VriJdhi  augment,  aod  clianj^M  irrcgnlsTlf  Us 
&  licforc  vciwcla  into  uv  imltatl  of  ut;. 

"  TliUK  I  rcfld  fnr  the  I.  e.  oceumnff  rafidhiinhm,  for  w]t!cli,  p.  S90^ 
roidhof/fn  ocetin:  th»twnfiiriTi«giiiili'il  ran  'm  rostnrin^ t)i<>  rij^lit  ivadii^ 
which  hna  since  Urn  confirm e il  hy  Buraniif,l)ycmn]>aringM33.  Anqtw- 
til  tranaUtcs  thiia,  •*lor*^utlmMaz<ifift7ianM  itnlmt  ertukerdr^  niinniMi 
pedant  ttaulma-  il'uiit  tfrir;"  in  ncciiriliuici;  nitli  which  I  bcforu  N^iluRd 
the  cx\>TVtsionr<n><l/ui]/tiiim'by  "  jirrforitrf."  It  i»,  Iiowerer,  probabljrilM 
counal  form  of  raoilfi,  "  tji  pjow"  (compnrc  BiiriKHiro  Ya^iu,  NoteSi 
p.  xxxr.),  whldi  is  bawd  on  the  Snnskrit  ru,A  frnm  rwih  (we  6. 23.),  jtnJ 
with  wliich  the  <iothic  LVD,  ''to  grow,"  lautlis.  lauJit,  '*  man  "  (ow 
J^ttte),  Ucoimtcted.  It  ia  possible  that  ihis  cjiusaI  rorin  nuty  Iww  as- 
>D  mil  J,  in  Zend,  tlM  meaning  "lo  burf,"  at  one  of  Uie  means  of  growttt. 
Thit),  howet-ur,  U  uriiut  mDchimport&iicu  tuuahi-re:  it  suffices  (o  Ioiaw 
wliAl  is  vrry  imp'OrtAnt,  ihAt  ritAdhoynnm  .iti[>f>ll«s  the  pliK-«  of  na  {ofini- 
live,  liHiAti  n(^L>ii<Attv«  icrmiDaiiDn,  sod  mnlirTiia  my  oxptanatioii  of  the 
Siui^rit  ftimi  niick'r  ilim:iiiMioii. 


FORMATION  OK  TBNSBS. 


843 


030.  It  19  very  important  to  olMerre,  that  it  is  tho 
verbs  of  tlie  tenth  clnss.  eansnl  forras,  and  other  derivative 
wrbs,  which  pflrticulnrly  employ  this  periphraalic  fortua- 
tiuii  vf  tlie  redupliL-atcrcl  preterite,  aud  do  not  oduiit  the 
simple  runnntioii;  for  hereby  tlm  way  is.  in  a  ninnncri 
pre|)nred  for  the  German  idioms,  which,  without  excep- 
tion, paraphrase  their  preterite  by  an  auxiliary  verb 
signifying  "to  Jo,"  prceisely  in  that  conjugation  in  which 
wt!  hnve  reeiignised  the  Siinskrit  tenth  cltiss  in  three 
difieri'Dt  forms  (see  §§.  10»'.  6. 304.).  I  have  asserted  this, 
aa  regards  the  Gothic,  already  in  my  System  of  Conjuga- 
tion (p[i.  151,  &(■.),  where  I  have  shewn,  in  plurals  like 
ii6kiii4dum,  "  we  aouglii,"  (did  seek),  and  in  tlie  suhjunc- 
tive  in  the  singnlar  also  {xfi/cidfdyau.  "  I  would  do  seek ") 
an  auxiliary  verb  signifying  "to  do."  and  [G.  Ed.  p.««7.} 
a  word  related  to  dt^fhs,  "the  act,"*  (tlicme  d^Ji).  Since 
then,  Grimm,  with  whom  1  fully  coincide,  has  extended 
th<i  existence  of  the  auxiliary  verb  also  to  the  singular 
xiikidet,  and  therefore  to  the  other  dialects;  for  if  in  nikitla 
the  verb  "to  do"  is  contained,  it  is  self-evident  that  it 
exists  also  in  our  sttchfe.  I  had  before  derived  the  lin- 
guiar  ftkida  from  the  passive  participle  sokUhn  (theme 
H'}ku/a).  But  since  1  now  recognise  tho  verb  (Man) 
"to  do"  also  iu  siikida,  "I  souglit."  I  believe — in  which  I 
dtlTer  from  Grimm — that  we  must,  in  respect  to  their 
origin,  fully  separate  from  one  another  the  pa.isiTe  parci- 
eiplc  and  the  indicative  preterite,!  great  as  the  agirement 
of  the  two  forms  is,  which,  in  Gothic,  amounts  to  complete 
identity;  for  ^e  theme  ot  lU-ifht,  "the  sought."  Is  tM/da 
[see  §.  1 3.'i.),  thus  fully  the  same  as  it^kitla.  "I  sought" 
and   aalMda.   the   theme  of  salbdlfis,  "the  nnoiutcd,"  is  in 


*  It  is  prcMnrH  nnly  in  ini*ta-dilh»^  "  iiii«di«i],"  but  is Mjmologi colly 
iilenttcfll  with  ttie  rirminn  That,  OM  High  Oomuui  t/it,  OM  Sitxon  Md, 
f  Campsre  my  VoMJinmait,  pp.SI,  Jee. 

31  S 


844 


TOB  PERFECT. 


fortn  identical  nitlt  nalbdda,  "  I  anointed."  This  circmn- 
atnnt-'r.  ioo,  was  likely  to  mislead,  tliat  participles  in  da 
(noniiiintive  thx)  occur  only  iu  verljs  which  form  tJ»rir 
preterites  in  Jo.  while  in  stpong  verbs  tlic  pnssiva  parti- 
ciple tt-Tiii'rcmttfs  in  nn  (nominative  ni),  and.  f.ff.,  httg-a-nt. 
"bent"  fthprne  hug-a-na),  copposponda  to  the  Sanskrit 
hhitg-nri-i.  Ill  Snnslcrit,  however,  passive  participles  in  im 
arc  comparatively  rare,  and  the  vast  mnjority  of  verbs  form 
them  by  the  sufTix  fa.*  on  which  tJic  Latin  (t/-«.  Gre«k  to; 

\G.  Ed.  p.  668.^  (itTVeiCTOt,  ttoittoi),  Lith.  ta-s  (xut-ia-a, 
"  liirm-d").  are  Ijil-jccI.  Tliin  suffix  has.  however,  nothing  in 
t<ummon  with  the  verb /'i«»,  "to  do,"  under  discussion;  and 
thereroro,  also,  the  Gothic  suffix  da  of  SOK-I-DA,  tAkHJu, 
can  hav*e  notliinj^  to  do  with  the  da  oF  tdlnda,  "  I  soughL" 
]>rovi(led  that  tliia  da  sij^nifits  *' I  did,"  just  as  <IMutn  in 
stikitlMum  melius  "we  did."  and  d^iba,  "the  deed." 

«2I.  The  JHst-mentioned  tU-tb»,\  to  which  the  Old 
Saxon  Md  and  Old  High  German  tAt  corrospond,  is,  in 
the  theme,  liMi.  the  i  of  which  is  sappresscd  in  the  nomi- 
iiativR  (see  §.  I3i.) :  the  ^nitivc  is  iMai-x,  the  accusative 
plural  tlMuva.  The  finnl  syllable  of  tlic  Imse  dA/i  corre> 
sponds  to  the  Sanskrit  anfUx  it,  wtiich  forms  nhstract  sub- 
st.nntive8,  and,  in  Gothic,  occurs  under  the  form  trf"  It, 
tlii,  ovdi,  according  to  the  measure  of  tlie  letter  preceding 


*  Cainpnrc.'  ti/ak-la'ii,  "  fonakni,"  Art  ta-i,  *'  mnile,"  bH'ta-M,  *■  beans." 
I  ri-iunrli,  rn  ptunant,  tlint  tlic  Latin  la-tut  might  become  mnnccU-d  wi 
britai,  from  bhartat,  in  tlio  luiii''  wny  im  IntuM,  "linwiJ,"  with  prilfim- 
irXuTtt :  thus,  ilu'  Ubud  Iwiiig  IobI,  r  Iwiiiffi  (■rcIianip'J  witli  /,  and  at  tru»-         1 
jioticd  ioUti^ra,  m,  in  Gnxk,  iiypanoy  I'or  liapnor.  ^fl 

i  I  write  (lie  nnn-orcurring  nominnlive  dfllii,  not  flM»,  sine*  el  atim  ^V 
vowpIs,  lipforp  H  final  «,  Hnd  at  tlic  cnil  of  nunlo,  gfnenilly  Ixteomts  M  ,*       1 
hrnce,  also,  tAkilkt,  "muKhi."  fnxn  thi;  htae  nAkitLt^  ivnd  mannnaitka, 
*'  wpil J,"  lilvmlly  " luimtm-JWiiii,"  from ihf  Imuo *<-<*■  ftnd  the  root  *ii,  "  w 
Mw"  {tttia,  taM,  Me  (^. <n7.)-     -V(/i  liuilieBame  reliUiiiu  to»A,  {iir(^«td         ' 
t"  its  mil'rjd  vowt-l,  lUai  <i^ka,  "  I  touch,"  hox  to  iho  |in:tcrito  Iait6k. 


FOBMATION  OP  TENSES, 


845 


it  (sec  §.  91.)-  There  remains,  therefore,  tii\  in  Old  Saxon 
dA,  in  Old  High  German  M.  as  the  root,  and  tliis  regularly 
eorrespootla  to  the  Samkrit-Zi'ntl  \n  dhi\,  j»y  dA,  "  to  sot," 
"to  niaku"  (see  p.  Wi);  Trom  wbic-h  uii^lil  bi'  expected  nn 
abstract  substantive  wftnt  dh&ti-s,  ^vsj^jm^  (ld-U-«,  which 
would  answer  to  the  Greek  6i<ni  (from  fltT«).  It  is  a.  (jues- 
tioii,  then,  vrlifthcr,  in  the  (iotiiic  d^dum  of  si'ifcid^tlum,  the 
firat  syllable  ia  fiilty  ideiitieal  wiili  that  of  DE-DI.  "the 
deed".^  1  think  it  ia  not;  and  consider  deihim,  and  th« 
subjunctive  d^yau.  pluml  dMehna.  as  redai>licntec!  forms; 
so  that  tliiis  the  seeond  syllable  of  d^dtitn,  dfidyau.  would 
be  to  be  compared  with  the  first  of  J>EdI.  "deed."  The 
ddcidMum.  "we  did,"  df-d^au,  "\  would  [O.  Kd,  |..8ao.] 
dOi"  etmstdcrcil  as  the  syllable  of  rt-duplicatioii,  is  dis- 
tiiifiitshcd  from  the  uomnioii  r<?duiflii;att?d  [irftfritca  like 
tiut-ij<}-iim,  "  wo  blew,"  sai-sii'ttm,  "  we  sowed,"  tiiU6kum, 
"  we  touched,"  by  its  0  for  ai.  It  may  be,  then,  (hat  this  f, 
whit-h  has  proceeded  from  ai,  is  the  contraetion  of  a+i  to 
a  mixed  sound,  ac^-ording  to  the  Sanskrit  principle  (sec  ^.  2.) ; 
or  tlmt,  according  to  an  older  principle  of  rt;ilu plication, 
the  j!  of  di-dum.jti^t  like  that  of  DED!,  "  deed," represents 
the  original  long  A  of  the  Sanskrit  root  dhA  (see  §.  tt'J.),  whieli 
is  retained  unchanged  in  the  Old  Hi;{li  German  (<((,  and 
Old  Saxon  did.  In  the  last  syllable  of  di-iium,  di-d^au,  we 
miss  the  radical  vowel:  according  to  the  analogy  of  twt~ 
vA-um,  sai-ati'tim,  we  should  expect  dMdum.  The  abhrt- 
viation  may  be  a  coiisequence  of  the  inctiuibranee  owing 
10  com))08ition  with  the  principal  verb:  however,  it  oeeura 
in  Siinnkrit,  even  in  the  simple  word;  since,  in  the  rcdapli- 
eitted  preterite,  da-dh-i-jna,  "we  did  set,"  da-tth-itv,  "they 
did  set,"  are  correctly  used  for  d'l'dhd-i-ma,  dodliA-u»  (see 
p.  8-16  G.  od.).  Even  in  the  present,  the  root  dhtl,  wbteb, 
as  a  verb  of  the  tiiird  class,  has  reduplication  in  the  special 
tenses  also,  with  dii.  class  3,  "  to  giie,"  irregularly  reject  the 
nidieal  vowel  bcfuiv  the  heavy  terminations  of  the  dual  and 


S46  fHE  FEBFECT. 

plural ;  thus,  dadh-mas  for  dadhA-mas ;  just  bo,  in  the 
whole  potential  mood,  where  dadh-ydm  (for  dadhA^yAm), 
"ponam,"  answers  remarkably  to  the  Gothic  dSd-i/au  (from 
tdkidSd'ifau,  "  [  would  do,"  for  d&dd-yau, 

Q-22.  The  singular  of  s6kUl6dum,  sdkidMuth,  sdkidSdun,  is 
tdkida.   adkidis,   s6kida,    with    the  loss    of  the    syllable    of 
reduplication.      Yet  dia  is  perhaps  an  abbreviation  of  dist, 
as,  in  the    preterite,  /,  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  ^  tha,  is 
properly  the  character  of  the  second  person  {see  §.  453.). 
before  which  a  radical  T-sound  passes,  according  to  §.  102.> 
into  s;  as,  baii-t,  bans-t,  for  bait-t,  band-t.      So,  also,  d^ 
[G.  Ell,  p.  870.]      might  have  proceeded  from  dh-t,  and  this 
from  did-4.      In  the  simple  state,  the  auxiliary  verb  under 
discussion  is  wanting  in  Grothic ;  at  least,  it  does  not  occur  in 
Ulfilas;  but  in  Old  Saxon  dA-m,  dA-a,  dd-t  (or  dd-d),  cor- 
respond   admirably    to    the    Sanskrit    dndh&-mU    dadhAsi, 
dadhA-li,  with  6  for  a,  according  to  the  Gothic  principle  (see 
§.69.),  and  with  the  suppression  of  the  syllable  of  redupli- 
cation, which,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  the  Sanskrit 
verb,  according  to  the  principle  of  the  third  class,  exhibits, 
like  the  Greek  rldtuju,  in  the  present  also.     The  preterite  in 
Old  Saxon,  as  in  all  the  other  German  dialects,  has  pre- 
served the  reduplication,  and  is,  deda.  ded4-s,  deda,    plural 
detlun,  also  d&dun,     properly  the  third  person,  which,    in 
the  Old  Saxon  preterite,  as  in  the  Gotliic  passive  {%.  466.), 
represents    both    the    first  and  second    person.       In    this 
ded-u-n  or  ddd-u-n,  therefore,  the  radical  vowel,  as  in  the 
Gothic  sdkidSdun  (for  adkididH-u-n),  is  dropped  before  tlie 
conjunctive    vowel.      The  e  of  deda,  &c.,  has  arisen  from 
I,  which  has  been  actually  retained  in  Anglo-Saxon.     Here 
the  preterite  under  discussion  has  dide,  didest,  dtde,  plural 
didon,  in   the  three  persons.      These  forms,  therefore,  in 
respect  to  their  reduplication  syllable,  answer  to  the  pre- 


*  See  Sulinuillcr'B  GloBsarium  SaxouicDm,  p.  25. 


POBM&TION  OF   TBN'SER. 


8i7 


teritcs  with  concealed  reduplication,  as  Old  High  Grcrmnn 

hi-alt  for  kihatl  (see  §.  Sfrz).  The  Old  Saxon  dUdun.  whith 
ofcura  in  the  plural,  together  with  tl'^itun,  hs  nlso  in  the  se- 
cond person  singular  flAdi  is  found  together  with  df'tlfi-s  (see 
Si'hmcllcr's  Gloss.),  is  inorgnnie,  nnd  follows  the  analogy  of 
Grimm's  tenth  and  eleventh  coujugattons ;  i  «.  it  is  produced 
in  the  feeling,  aa  if  tJad  were  the  root  mid  first  and  third 
person  of  the  sin^lnr  preterite,  and  the  present  were  clidu. 
Thus,  also,  in  the  subjunctive,  wiih  d'^di  tlie  form  cWt/i  exists. 
In  Old  High  German,  also,  the  forniB  which  have  a  long  A 
in  the  conjugations  named,  employ  this  L^.  Ii<l.  p-S?!.) 
letter  in  the  auxiliary  verb  under  di^eussion,  and.  indeed, 
without  a  dissentient  authority,*  without,  however,  in  a  single 
one,  the  first  and  third  person  singultr  being  (at,  as  might 
have  been  expected  from  the  second  person  M/i  (.lilte  gdxi 
answering  to  sax,  see  the  second  table  in  §.  eOa.).  I  annex 
the  prt'lerite  in  full,  accordui^  to  Grimm;  it'tn,  f&t'u  f^la; 
tAtumff,  lAtut,  t^un ;  subjunctive  tAii.  lAlt's,  Wt;  W'lme*. 
(Ati'l.  lAlln.  The  present  is  ttin-m.  lun-s,  tuo-l.  ttio-mh,  imH, 
tuii-nt;  which,  in  its  way.  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  da-dhimi, 
just  as  well  as  the  Old  Saxon  di-m.  &c, ;  sinee  mo,  in  Old  High 
German,  is  the  most  common  representative  of  the  Gotbio 
and  Old  Siixon  (%  and  therefore  of  the  Sanskrit  A ;  as,  in 
fuor,  answering  to  the  Gothic/or  and  Sanskrit  cluir,  from 
cfiacMra.  "l  went,''  "he  went."  The  Middle  High  Ger- 
man is,  in  the  present,  /uo-n.  iHo-sUttii^f ;  ttio-ti,luo-t.tuO'tit; 
in  the  preterite,  tetf,  ta^e,  ti't&:\  plural,  tdlett.  titel,  Idlen: 
subjunctive  taie,  &c.  Our  German  thai,  tliHIe,  follow  ex- 
actly tite  analogy  of  forms  like  tral,  iriiie,  tat,  lUtf  (Grimm's 
tenth  conjugation)*  and  would  lead   us  to  expect  a  present 


*  See  Or^t  V.  3&7..  when^  boiraitef  maarlc  that  yiaj  few  ratlumtiM 

iislia^iuiih  graphically  iholoqga  fima  Uie  Aort. 

t  Alio  l?l  nod  fete,  llie  Intter  inorgnnif,  aiwl  imiriliefinit  elindnotbem 
[Jiwluced  from  t,  bul,  by  I'mlaul,  fromo.    ikcGrinitn,  I.  p.  060. 


1^ 


B48 


THE  FKRFBCT. 


ifiete  tromtliite;  the  recollection  of  a  reduplication  which  is 
eoiitiunc-d  in  tliut  is  completely  destroyed,  but  just  as  much 
so  the  ptiBsibility  of  connection  with  the  weak  preterites  like 
suchlfi,  lo  which  recourse  muht  be  hud,  if  we  wish  to  reject 
the  opinion  lirsl  given  hy  Grimm  (I.  (i.  10  w),  but  not  firmly 
held  by  him,  that  the  Old  Saxon  dcda,  Augio-SaxoQ  dith. 
Old  High  Germnn  i€<a,  Middle  High  Gcrmaii  tele,  rest  on 
rcduplicntion."      The  passive  participle  yi-ld-nfr,  tje-fha~ntT, 

[O,  EiJ.  p.  672. ]  answers  to  tlie  S:mskrit  like  n/rl-nn. 
"witherpd,"  from  niMi  (mlA),  or  eUi-na,  "gitV  (properly 
"timt  given"),  from  dA.  of  which  the  common  poTticiple  is 
iliiUa  (from  dud&la),  the  reduplication  being  irn-guJarly  re- 
tained. The  Sanskrit  tenth  class  u|p~ccs  with  the  Germiin 
weak  conjiig!ition  (the  prototype  of  which  it  is)  in  this 
point,  that  it  never  forms  its  passive  participSes  in  na,  hut 
always  in  In;  on  which  is  bused  the  Gothic  da  oi  SOKID^, 
nominative  mnHcnline  s6kHhs,  "sought** 

623.  To  return  to  the  Gothic  sdkidti,  "  I  soQght,"  "  did 
Beek."  nftcr  ackaowk-ilgiiig  in  the  ya  of  s6fcjja,  "  I  seek,*" 
the  charncter  of  the  Sanskfit  tenth  cIilss  w^  aya,  and  in 
lAkhtla.  "  I  did  seek.*'  a  copy  of  the  Sanskiit  e/i^raydn- 
-chukHra  (or  cUohara),  "\  did  steal,"  we  now  consider  the 
i  of  siihida  as  tlw  contraction  of  the  syllable  w,  in  which  we 
agree  with  Grimm.  The  i  of  sUkida.  therefore,  represents  the 
Sijnskrit  ayAm  of  chSruyAn-ckakAru  (l^  n  euphonic  for  t»). 
"[  did  stent";  or.  in  order  to  select  kindred  verbs,  the  ! 
of  the  Gothic  *ali  of  aaii-da,  "I  did  place,"  corrcBponda  to 


I 


*  Th*  aabstoQtive  di-thi  (tlieino  di-di),  M't,  cannot  alanU  in  our  vajr, 
since  its  formBlioii  bna  nought  1u  ia  with  llie  reduplication,  nor  wiUi  th* 
weak  ci>iijii{>aii(iu ;  liul  hum  dri,  id,  ilto  tlie  rnut.  Mid  dl.  (i,  the  derivatioa* 
■ullix  meiitioneii  in  y.DI.  Nor  cnn  llii-  pttrticipI«yi-M-iifr,W-W-i»rfr,yr. 
iha-ntr,  in<Iuc«  ui  In  look  f'>T  pniuive  fuiriicipleR  In  the  wcaIc  conjagittiotu 
likepf-wi/M'fdnprinnlrsi!  oi  t]i-*iilfioifr,  ije-aalhtir,  liccauw)  we  mak«  thi» 
pariiciplc  juilepcDdcnt  of  tlic  auxiliary  vcrbMun  (comporD  Vocalismas, 
M7). 


FORMATION  OP  TENSBS. 


649 


the  Siinskrit  nt/iim  ('or  rather,  ouly  its  y)  of  tdrfayAn-chakAra, 
"I  mndetoHt";  thp  Gothic  ihani  of  thani-da,  "I  exU'uded," 
corresponds  to  the  Siinakrit  (ilitni/Ain  of  MnaijAn-chakdra,  "1 
did  mnkc  to  extend";  the  Gothic  vaai,  of  vnat-dn,  "I  did 
clotlu',"  corresponds  to  the  Saiiakrit  vAsaijAm  of  vtUayAn' 
-rhatcAra,  "I did  eiiuae  to  be  clothed"  {vizaydmi,  "I  cause 
to  tilotlie,"  as  causal  of  va$,  "  to  clothe").  It  might  be  con- 
jccturetl  that  the  first  member  of  the  Gothic  [«}.  Kil.  p.  B73.] 
compounds  undcrdiscussiou  originatly,  in  tike  manner,  carried 
aa  accusative-tcrmiDation,  just  as  to  idea  it  is  an  accusative. 
As,  that  is  to  8ay»  in  the  present  state  of  the  lani^un^,  Gothic 
substantives  liave  entirely  lost  thu  accusative  sign,  it  would 
not  surprise  us  to  find  it  wanting  in  these  compounds  also. 
At  an  ear!ier  period  of  the  language,  antin-tla,  thfinin-ila, 
frtMin-c/fl,  may  havR  corresponded  to  the  Sanskrit  stUlai/dm', 
tdniijfAin',  vhni/dm-,  the  m  of  which  before  the  cH  of  the  aux- 
iliary verb  must  become  ir  n.  The  selection  of  another  aux- 
iliary verb  in  German,  but  which  has  the  same  meaning, 
cannot  surprise  us,  as  th«  Sanskrit  also,  occasioually,  as  has 
been  already  shewn,  employs  another  verb  for  the  idea  of 
"doint^"  (see  p.  866G.  ed.),  or  ttses  in  its  place  the  verb 
substantive  as  or  iA4 

624.  Grimm's  second  conjut^tion  of  the  weak  form,  of 
vrhich  milliti  is  ^iven  ns  exauiple,  lias,  as  has  already  been  ob- 
Served,  cast  out,  like  the  Latin  firat  conjugation,  the  semi- 
vowel  which  holds  the  middle  pliicc  in  the  Sanskrit  a>/a  uf  the 
tenth  class,  and  the  two  short  «  then  touching  one  another 
coalesce,  inGothic,  into  $=  o  -f  n,  as,  in  Latin,  into  6.  Ucucc, 
in  the  preterite,  Gothic  forms  like  sa/h^-da,  "1  did  anoint,"' 
correspond  to  the  Sanakiit  like  cbiirnyAa-chnhAra,  "  I  did 
stenl";  as  litif/ti.  from  taiijd-Ja,  "  I  did  lick."  answers  to  the 
Sanskrit  l^ha^dm  (  =  tii/iayrfm)  from  UhayAn-chakAra.  "  I  did 
cause  to  lick."  It  must  not  be  forgolteii  that  the  Sanskrit 
tenth  class  is  at  the  same  time  the  form  of  causiil  verbs, 
which  admit  of  b«>ing  formed  from  all  roots;  hencv,  also^  io 


850  THE  PERFECT. 

Grimm's  third  class  of  the  weak  conjugation  (which  has  pre- 
served the  two  first  tetters  of  the  Gothic  aya  in  the  form  of 
at,  in  accordance  with  the  Latin  i  of  the  second  conjugation, 
[G.  Ed.  p.  874.3  and  the  analogous  Prakrit  forma*),  the 
Gothic  preterites  munai-da,  "  I  thought,"  6anai-da,  "  I  built," 
ga-yukai-du,  "I  subjected  to  the  yoke,"  correspond  to  the 
Sanskrit  causal  preterites  m&nayAn-chnkAra,  "  I  did  make  to 
think,"  bhAmydn-chakdra,  "  I  did  make  to  be^"  "  I  produced, 

created."t 
625.    In  Sauskrit,  besides  the  tenth  class  and  derivative 

verbs,  there  are  verbs  which  paraphrase  the  reduplicate 
preterite  by  forming  directly  from  the  root  an  abstract  sub- 
stantive in  S,  and  combining  with  its  accusative  one  of  the 
above-mentioned  auxiliary  verbs.  All  roots,  for  instance,  do 
this,  which  begin  with  vowels  which  are  long  either  natu- 
rally or  by  position,  with  the  exception  of  an  &  )ong  by  po- 
sition, and  the  root  dp,  "to  obtain,"  as  iddn-chakdra,  "  I  did 
rule,"  from  is, "  to  rule."  Compare  with  this  the  Gothic  brah-ta, 
"  1  brought,"  answering  to  the  strong  present  brigga  (6rtnya}. 
Compare,  moreover,  the  paraphrased  preterites,  to  which, 
instead  of  the  present,  a  simple  preterite  with  present  mean- 
ing corresponds  (see  §.  616.),  and  which,  in  the  preterite,  just 
like  brak-ta,  combine  the  auxiliary  verb  ikun  direct  with  the 
root,  in  which  junction  its  T  sound  is  governed  by  the  final 
consonants  of  the  principal  verb ;  and  in  Gothic  appears  at  one 
time  as  t,  at  another  as  th,  at  another  as  d  {compare  §.91.), 
and  after  the  *  of  VIT,  "to  know,"  as  s  (see  §.  102.):  hence, 
mdji-ta,  "I  must,"  (preterite)  (mot,  "1  must,"  (present));  mun- 
tha,  "  I  meant "  (man,  "  I  mean") ;  gkul-da,  "  I  should"  (jtkah 
"  I  should,"  (present)) ;  vis-sa,  for  via-ta,  "  I  knew  "  {vail,  **  I 


•Seep,  no. 

t  The  Gothic  verb,  also,  is,  according  to  its  meaning,  a  CAtisal  from  a 
lost  primitive,  which,  in  Old  High  German,  in  tlic  first  person  pr^iacnt,  ia 
btm,  sec  §.  610. 


rOKMATIO.N  OF  TBNSBS. 


851 


know."  sec  $.491).  A  few  weak  verbs,  atao,  with  tiw  deri- 
vative ya,  suppress  its  rc--prcaentalive  t,  tind  Annex  the  aiixiti- 
Ary  verb  direct  to  the  root.  They  are.  io  [0-  £d.  p.  076.] 
Gotbie.  but  four.  viz.  Ihdi-in,  "  I  thought"  (preaent,//i«//jtya); 
bonh-Ja,  "  I  bought"  (with  au  for  m,  accorcliog  to  §.  88,  pre- 
sent bngva) ',  vaurh-ta,  "  I  made  "  (|)resent  vourkyn) ;  tliuJt-la 
"  it  ap|)eared  "  {thuijk,  "  it  appears  "J.  Tiie  Old  High  Ger- 
man, however,  usu&lly  suppresses  the  derivative  t  after  a 
long  radieal  syllable,  and  witii  the  cauac  disappears  also  Uie 
eflVel,  vh.  the  Umlaut  produced  by  the  i  (see  §.  73.),  in  as  far 
OS  the  ori*piial  vowel  is  an  a :  hencL>,  n«7i-/«,* '■  I  named"; 
wan-ta,t  "  I  turned  ";  iSr-ta,  "  I  taught";  answering  to  tJie 
Gothic  namai-da,  vrmdi-cUi,  luisi-da.  These,  and  similar  verbs, 
have  also,  in  the  present  and  tlie  forms  dej)endiiig  on  it,  lost 
the  u  or  r  of  the  derivative  «o,t  but  have  prescrvu-d  the  Ura^ 
latit,  whence  it  is  elear.  that  the  y  or  »  must  liave  here 
adhered  aiueli  longer  than  in  the  preterite  {itennv,  wenda,  lim% 
626.  Tile  passive  participle  in  Gothic,  with  respect  to  the 
suppreesion  or  retention  of  the  derivative  i,  and  with  regard 
to  tiie  euphonic  chan^  of  the  final  consonant  of  the  root» 
always  keepjt  equal  pace  with  the  preterite  active.  We  may 
therefore  infer  from  the  Gothic  fiA-Zo.  ■■  I  feared."  a  participial 
base  of  a  similnr  sound,  iih-ta,  "feared,"  nominative  ahta, 
though  this  participle  cannot  be  cited  aa     [G.  Ed.  p.87C.3 


■  For  nann-ta,  tn  j.  102. 

1  Fiir  uwid-l^t,  seflS.  IW.  I  oonBidcr  tliia  verb  as  identical  with  ths 
Siuiskrit  vitrt  {vrit),  "  to  go,"  "  to  Its  "  (with  the  prepo*itioB  nt,  "  tote- 
tuni"),  nini  tlio  Ijtiin  verlo,  with  KEohonge  of  the  Hiiuids  r  nm!  n.  This 
doM  ncl  prvTent  l]i»  German  irrrtten  bciii);  referred  Io  the  root  varl,  as  It 
often  happcDa  that  a  root  suporalrs  into  difrvreat  fomu  with  ilifltiucl  nieiui- 
ings. 

I  As  th«  Old  High  Gvrtoan  does  not  distinguiih  (lie  ^  from  I  It  cannot 
bo  known  whviiicr  the  nerlu,  rurtai/iJ*,  which  TOireepowJ  to  the  Qodiio 
wfi»yn, "  I  anve,"  wa/pani,  *' we«vc,"  ihoalil  li«  [ironounced  fiprj/u,  »*r- 
t/rtmSf  (ir  ttrritt,  rutrjiunff,  though  M  the  oldest  piriod  ^  wat  cerlaiuly 
tlic  ]ironuuciutioii. 


852 


THE  PERFECT. 


occiiTrinj;.  To^Rther  witli  vaurh-ta,  "  I  made."  from  tmirkxfa. 
a  pnrticiple  vaurht»,  "  mnde"  (theme  vQurhla),  Mnrk  xiv.  59, 
exists;  and  vilh  fra-banh-la,  "I  sold,"  from /rfib'itff/a  is 
found  fra-bnvhh,  "aold."  John  xii.  5.  From  such  eujihouiv 
coincidences,  however,  we  canoot  deduce  aii  liisturical  de- 
scent of  the  passive  jiarticiple  from  the  preterite  active, 
or  vice  WT»A  ;  just  ns  little  ns  it  could  be  said,  that,  in  Latin, 
the  participle*  in  tux  and  tiirus,  and  the  nouns  of  agency  in  tor, 
really  proceed  from  the  supine,  because  from  doctum,  mnnitum. 
may  bo  inferred  tloctui,  monitus,  dodurus,  monittrru*,  doctor, 
moniloT.  It  is  natural  that  suffixes,  which  begin  with  one 
nnd  the  same  letter,  even  if  they  have  nothing  in  comin<Hi 
in  their  origin,  should  still,  iii  external  analogy,  approscli 
one  another,  and  combine  simibirly  witli  the  root.  lu  Ger- 
man, indeed,  the  auxiliary  verb  t/iun,  and  tlie  suffix  of  the 
passive  participle,  if  we  reciir  to  their  origin,  liave  diSereut 
initial  sounds,  as  the  former  rests  on  the  Sanskrit  m  dhA, 
the  latter  ou  the  suffix  7  ta  :  but  inasmuch  as  the  latter. 
in  Gothic,  instead  of  becoming;  Oia,  according  to  the  law  for 
the  ]jermutjition  of  sounds,  has,  with  the  preceding  derivative 
vowel,  assumed  the  form  di,  it  is  placed  OD  the  same  footing 
with  the  auxiliary  verb,  which*  re^jularly  commences  with  d, 
and  is  const-quently  subject  to  the  same  fate.  The  same  ia 
the  case  with  the  suflix  of  abstract  substantives,  which  is.  in 
Sanskrit  ti,  but  in  Gothic,  after  vowels,  di,  aud  after  conso- 
nants, aecot'din>^  to  their  nature,  either  ti,  thi,  or  di;  and  thus 
may  also,  from  the  preterite  tnah-in,  "  I  could,"  be  di'duccd  a 
substjintive  mah-t»  (theme  moA-(i),  "might,"  without  th« 
latter  proceeding  from  the  former. 

[().  Ell  \\  077.]  627.  We  iimsi  therefore  reject  the  opinion, 
that,  in  the  Gothic jkUi'i/h.  "  I  sought."  and-vfUiVA.-!  (theme  »(fiL-i- 
rfa),  "  the  soug^ht,"  a^kida  (theme  a6kid6),  "  the  sought"  (fern.) 


4 


4 


'  Tbo  Sauekirii  dh  Ifuls  us  to  ex|iuit  dio  Gnuk  0  oiiil  Gotluc  </. 


FOHMATION  OF  TENSKS. 


853 


stnnil  to  one  nnotlicr  in  the  ri:)ntion  of  deacotit;  nnd  [  still 
prrsist  in  my  nssprtioTi,  alrcndy  made  in  my  System  of  Coii- 
jngatinn,  niid  in  my  R«%iL'w  of  Grimm's  GcrmaH  Grammiir 
(Vocattsmiis.  |>.  72),  tlint,  In  Persian,  preterites  like  hiir-dam, 
"  I  hcirp,"  bas-lfim,  "  1  hoiiiul,"  pum-i-tlnm,  "  I  askeil,"  are 
derived  from  tlicir  corrcspondinjif  [mrticiplcs,  which  have 
both  A  passive  nm)  an  active  si^niCcution.  While,  in  San- 
skrit, hri-ta  (uoniinativu  miisciiline  hrila.i)  has  merely  a 
[lassivo  meaning,  and  only  neuter  \'crbs  tisc  tlic  forms  in 
in  with  nn  active  signification,*  in  Persian,  bur-dah  means 
both  "  borne  "*  and,  aelivuly,  "  hiiving  borne  " ;  and  the  perfect 
is  expressed  in  Persian  by  usin^  the  verb  substimtive  with 
the  participle  jtist  mentioned;  thus  burdfih  am,f  "I  have 
borne,"  or,  literally,  "  I  am  having  borne,"  I  consider,  how- 
ever, the  anrist  Imrdfim  as  a  cnntnietioti  of  bwrdah  am, 
wliit'li  need  not  surprise  us,  as  the  Persian  very  generally 
eombinea  its  verb  snbKtnntive  with  both  substantives  aiid 
adjeetives;  e.y.  mordum,  "\  am  n  man,"  huztirtjam,  "I  am 
great."  In  the  third  person  singular  hurd,  or  hardah,  stamla 
without  tliu  addition  of  the  auxiliary  verb,  as,  in  Sauskfi^ 
iik(irfii,"lalurus,"  is  used  in  the  sense  oS  luluraa.  a,  um,  est; 
while  the  first  and  second  [lersonsof  tlie  three  numbers  com- 
bine the  shij^ulur  nominative  masi^ulinc  wiili  the  verb  aub- 
attmtive,  hhnrlAxtni.  "  I  shall  mrry,"  &c.  If  we  do  not  ehoose 
to  rceognise  the  verb  substantive  in  the  Persian  aorist  biirdum, 
because  in  the  present,  with  the  exception  of  the  third  person 
axl,  it  is  so  much  compressed  that  it  is  nowise  distiu^ished 
from  the  terminations  of  other  vcrhs.J  [G.  EA.  p.  878.] 
we  must  conclude  that  the  simple  annexation  of  the  personal 


•  CuulI^.  aiUu'f,  "^iivit"i  8oMii/a-»,  "the having  tvapn  '*  (maacaUoo). 

i  In  til*)  original,  fjprdefi  em,  but  according  to  tho  English  sj.'stcto  these 
vowels  vronlci  bo  given  hs  hLoyv. 

1  Cuirpsrv  am,  "I  ato,"  t,  "thou  art,"  fm,  "vrvarv,"  td,  "yoare," 
anj,  "tbeysrp,"  wiih  barom  ("  lhvitt"),hari,barim,hartiI,baraHil.  To 
4iK{f  Gorre^DUds  tli«  Doriu  *Wi'  (i>r  «f*Ti ;  to  am  tiic  Englitti  atu  (amw). 


854 


THE  PBttFBCT. 


term  in  ft  tio  IIS  to  the  participle,  which  is  robbed  of  its  end- 
ing ah  fopmg  ihe  tense  under  discussion.  This,  howpver.  h 
Dot  my  opinion ;  nnd  it  seenia  to  me  far'inope  nstural  to  ex- 
plain btird'-am  AS  Htcmlly  meaning  "  hnving  borne  am  I," 
tlian  to  raise  burd  to  tlie  rank  of  ei  secondary  verbiU  root,  and, 
as  suL-h,  to  invest  it  with  the  personal  terminations,  as  they 
apju-ar  in  the  present. 

62**.  The  Si'lfivonic  languages,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Old  Sclaroiiiu  nnd  Servian  (sue  §§.  361,  Siv,),  present,  in  tfic 
formation  or  paraphrasing;  of  the  preterite,  a  remartable 
coincidence  with  the  Persian.  The  participle,  whivh,  in  Per- 
sian, terminates  in  dah  or  fah,  an<]  in  Sanskrit,  in  the  maacul  inc 
and  neuter  theitic,  in  la.m  the  feminLnp,  in  M,  ends,  in  Old* 
Sclavonic,  in  the  m.isciiline-neuter  base,  in  !o.  in  the  feminine, 
in  hr;  nnd  I  consider  the  /  of  this  participial  sutlix  as  a  wenk- 
eningoft/,-  as,  in  Latin, /nirj/'nT, /i»tvr,  from  dncryma,  elevir 
(see  §.  1*7.),  and.  iti  Lithuanian.  Uka,  "ten."  at  the  end  of  com- 
pounds, fnr  diktt  (see  §.  S19.  Rem.  p.  44!>  G.  ed.).  An<l  I  am 
hence  of  opinion,  that,  both  with  reference  tn  their  root  and 
th«r  formarton.  btfl,  byh.  bylo,  "having  been"  (masculine, 
feminine,  and  neuter),  may  be  compared  with  the  Sanskrit 
words  of  the  same  import,  bfiHta-s,  Wt3/4,  bhlla-m,  and  Persian 
hudnh.  In  Polish,  li^f  means  "  he  was,''  hi/fii,  "  she  waa," 
byht,  "it  was,"  b^ii.  Iji/fy.  "they  were,""  without  the  addi- 
tion of  an  nuxitiary  verb,  or  a  personal  termination:    and 

[G,  K<).  p.  8*fl.]  as  in  general  the  forms  in  /,  f/t,  to,  ti,  iy, 
do  not  occur  at  all  as  proper  partieipFus,  but  only  represent 
the  preterite  indieativf,  they  have  assumed  the  complete 
character  of  personal  tcrminntions.f  They  resemble,  there- 
fore, only  with  the  advantage  of  tlie  distinction  offender 
like  nouas,  the  Latin  amttmUn,  amabimini.  in  which  words  the 


•  The  ina«cDlini>  form  bj/fi  bclcngs  only  to  the  mn«ulinp  i>rTi»nn» :  to  all 
oiliweiilMinntiv<4  of  tliK  llirwt-  ^aili-r>  llic  feminine  form  O^f!/  tK-loDgs. 

^  Aaino  nntice  is  taken  in  Grnminare,  that,  According  to  the  gmdct 
allii*l«d  to,  they  arc  the  naminAtjro  of  a  former  pnrtioipla. 


I 


POHMATION  OP  TENSES. 


855 


lan^agt;  is  no  longer  conscious  tliat  they  are  masculine  plural 
iiouiinati  vcs,  (sce§.>1TS.).  Still  more  do  the  above  Polish  forms 
resi'iuble  the-  |)erson8  of  the  SMitskrit  participial  future,  which 
employs  for  nil  genders  the  tnnscnline  nominntives  of  tJie 
three  numbers  of  a  |«irtieiple  c-orroaponding  to  the  Latin  in 
iurat;  so  that  bknvU'l,  "/uluruit,"  stands  instead  otfularu*, 
n,  um,  cff,  and  iiAariWrfw.  "futiiTt,'"  itiati-ad  of/uluTU  a.  a,  xunU 
Hut  ftj/i  "he  was,"  corresponds  most  cxiictly  to  the  Persian 
word  of  the  same  meaning,  bad  or  iuil'ifi,  "  having  been," 
iu  the  sense  of  '"he  was."  In  the  first  person  siiiffular  mas- 
culine, by  tern  (fc^-^m)  answers  admirably  to  the  Persian  btielam, 
which  I  render  in  Sanskrit  by  bhtllii  'timi  (euphonic  for 
bhiilas  afoni)  i.e.  "the  man  having  been  am*  1."  In  the 
feminine  iind  neuter,  the  Polisli  bytam  (bytfirm)  corresponds 
to  the  Sanskrit  blitlfd  'smK  "the  woman  ha^i[lg  been  am 
I,"  and  iu  the  neuler,  byium,  {bt/fa-m)  to  the  Sanskrit  bhutofn 
amni,  "the  thing  having  been  am  I,"  In  the  second  per- 
son, in  the  three  genders,  the  Polish  bytes  (byt-ei)  eorre- 
sponds  to  the  Sutiskrit  masculine  bliutii-'ni  {for  blidfuif  njii); 
bi/fiis  {bylii-y),  to  the  Sanskm  feminine  hhula^gi;  Ay/«i(&yfo«i) 
to  the  Sanskrit  neuter  bh&tnm  an.  In  the  pluml,  the  mas- 
culine byti-smy,  and  feminine  bytyimy,*  [G.  E^.  p.  MO.] 
correspond  to  the  Sanskrit  feminiue  nod  masculine  bhCian 
xman;  and  so.  in  the  second  person,  byiyi  cif,  bj/fys  cie,^  to 
iJie  Simskrit  bhilils  sthn. 

"Remark  I.— I  have  no  doubt  that  the  syllable  em  of 
the  Polish  hi;-i>in.  and  the  simple  m  of  tlie  feminine  hyiii-m 
and  neuter  byU-m,  belong  to  the  verb  stibstantiTc,  vrhicli, 
therefore,  in  bytn-m,  bytt-jn,  and  so  in  the  feminine  and 
neuter  second    jierson   byta-a.    byto-s,   has   left  merely   its 

•  Settp.BG4,  Noie*. 

fTbo  Polish  civ  like  oar  7,  stulbu  (he  Hinievtyniolc^cAl  vnHtmttti 
for  inBlsnc^,  in  the  second  [<craoii  pluru)  llio  ((-TtitiiDition  eitr  utrres^ada 
to  theOlU  SUvouic  te  te ;  uid,  in  tho  Inliaitlw,  the  tcrmijiiiiiun  0  to 
(111'  Old  SdAvonJc  I'll  0. 


856 


THK  PKRFBCT. 


personal  termination,  just  ns  in  the  Germnn  contractions,  jm. 
xum,  am,  beim,  from  in  dem,  &c.,  thb  article  is  rvprcseoted 
only  by  its  case- term iunti on.  In  the  first  and  secomi  jH^rson 
plurat.  Imwever,  the  nulical  i-onsoiinnt  has  reDiniiK.-t) ;  sn 
that  sviy,  («»•,  are  but  little  ili(Tercnt  from  the  Sanakj-it 
tmas,  atha,  and  Latin  mmua  (for  smut).  But  if  ^t/,  aeie, 
be  eonipnrptl  witli  the  form  exhibited  hy  the  Polish  verb 
substoDtive  in  its  isolated  state,  some  scruple  might,  |kt- 
baps.  iirisu  in  assenting  to  the  opinion,  tliat  the  present  of 
the  verb  substantive  is  contained  in  by^rm.  'I  (a  man)  wns.* 
In/ti-nmy.  'we  (men)  were,'  or  in  czi/taf-fm.  '  I  read.'  czi/lati- 
smy,  'we  rend';  for  'I  nm '  is  wsUm,  nnd  'we  nre.'  wt- 
(ei  my.  It  would,  in  fact,  be  a  violent  timiilntion,  if  we 
assumed  that  btji-cm,  bi/K-'smy,  have  proceeded  from  byt- 
yesletn,  hyi-ijcsln  my,  1  do  not,  however,  believe  this  to 
be  the  cnse,  but  mnintain  tlint  wslrvi.  '  1  am,'  yrttesmy, 
'wo  are.'  yetfek.  'thou  art.'  and  yettri  ch,  'ye  are.*  have 
been  developed  from  the  tliirti  person  singular  wsl.  For 
this  yrst*  answers  to  its  nearest  eognntes.  the  Old 
Sclavonic  yrshj,  Russian  esly,  Bohemian  yint  (y=y).  Car- 
iiiolian  yr  (where  the  tl  lias  brcn  lost),  as,  to  the  old 
sister  languages,  the  Sanskrit  asH,  Greek  ear/.  Lithuanian 
eJiii,  and  Latin  est.  But  wjl^m,  yesletmy,  &c.,  do  not 
flilinit  of  an  organic  couipariiton  with  the  corresponding 
forms  of  the  languages  more  or  less  nearly  conncctetl. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  lost  portion  of  ycv/fi  my,  '  we  are,' 
answers  exactly  to  the  Russian  esmy;  and  it  must  be 
assumed,  that  the  concluding  part  of  ynl-^m.  '  I  am.'  h»s 
lost  aa  t  before  the  m,  Just  as  the  m  of  hyi-tm,  'the 
haviii(T  been  nm  V  El  eaiinot  be  siirprisiii<^  that  the 
8U{i«rftuoi)s  yeat  is  uut  conjointly  introduced  in  the  com- 
pound with  the  participle.  At  the  period  of  the  origin  of 
tliis  periplirastie  preterite  it  did  not,  perhaps,  exist  in  tlio 


KvKnrdinjt  Uic  iniiiul  y,  vet  v.2-'i5.  n. 


FOBMATION  OF  TENSBS. 


857 


isoktod  present,  ur  the  langniige  may  still  [Q.  E<1  p-  8S1.] 
Iiave  been  conscious  of  tlie  meaning  of  ilie  vexl  of  wt-Mn,  and 
that  the  whole  properly  expressed, '  it  is  1,' '  c'tat  moi.'  Tliiw, 
in  IrUh-Guelif,  w  me  '  I  am,' according;  to  O'Reilly,  properly 
means  'it  is  I.'  and  ha  mr  or  budh  me  is  literally  '  it  was 
I'ifiad/i.  'he  wiis,'  =  San9lcrlt  abh^  see  §.  A?3.,  ba,  'he 
waa'  =  nhhavat,  ^.522);  aud  in  tbe  future,  in  my  opinion, 
tlie  eliantcter  of  the  third  person  regularly  enttTS  into  the 
first  person,  nud,  in  the  verb  substautivp,  niny  also  grow 
up  with  tlic  theme  in  such  a  manner  that  tlio  terminntions 
of  the  otiier  persons  may  attach  ihemsplves  to  it.*  More- 
over, the  Irish /ui^im,  •  I  am.'/iii/ir,  "  thou  art,' /»(/,' lie  is," 
fuUmid,  'we  are,'  &c.,  deserve  especird  remark.  Here,  in 
my  opinion,  the  third  person  lina  again  beeome  a  tlietne  for 
the  others ;  but  the  /  of  fuil,  '  he  is."  appears  to  me  to  be 
a  weakening  of  an  original  d,  lilie  that  of  the  Polish  hyi, '  bo 
was':  the  djflereiicc  of  the  two  forms  is.  liowever,  that  the  i 
of  the  Irish  form  is  a  personnl  termination,  and  that  of  the 
Polish  a  participial  sulKx ;  aiid  therefore  btjt-em  signifies, 
uot  'it  was  I,'  as  fuilim,  'it  is  I,'  but  clearly  'the  person 
having  been  am  L'  But  from  the  procedure  of  the  Irish 
language  this  (Ejection  arises,  tliat  the  Persian  blid,  '  be 
was,'  just  like  the  previously-mentioned  Irish  hudh,  oiifjht 
be  identified  with  the  Sauskpt  aorist  alhiU;  and  it  might 
be  assumed  that  this  third  person  has  been  raised  into 
a  tiieme  for  the  rest,  and  has  thus  produced  h&dtim,  •  I 
was,*  fttJrfi''thou  waat.'  &c.,  like  the  Irish /iitVim.  *l  am," 
fuilir,  'thou  art.'  But  this  view  of  the  matter  is  op- 
posed by  tbo  circumstance,  that  togeUier  with  b{td  the 
full  participial  form  biklidi  also  exists,  which  serves, 
as  a  guide  to  the  understauding  of  the  former  form.  If 
it  were  wished  to  regard  the  d  of  ftarrf,  '  Iw  bore,"  as  the 


•  Biad  M  AchA  "■  1  (haU  W,"  Uad^r  or  biidfdr,  "  tbov  wilt  be,"  Am/A, 
"hc!  will  bo";  btim  or  MM-nttr or beidh-mid or  buuth-niuid,  "waehall 
be.''     Sveoiy  Tnatiw  "  Oa  the  CelliL-  Ltuiguagos,"  pp.  44, 411. 

3k 


858 


THE  PEKFKCT. 


sign  of  tlto  person,  the  nliole  would  be  to  be  referred  to 
the  Sanskrit  imperfect  abhnraU  But  in  very  mftDj  ctM 
objections  arise  to  the  refcrriog  of  the  Persiau  aorist  to  thf 
Sanskrit  impcrfeL-t,  or  &rst  auf^nicntrd  preterite,  sinre  tlie 
latter  has  always  a  common  theme  niUi  the  pn-scnt.  «hilt; 
e.  g.,  the  Persian  kunad,  '  he  makes/  whic-li  is  based  on  Uw 
Vtklit!  kritiiUi  (from  kftrtuiti,  ivith  loss  of  Uic  r),  doM  ool 
answer  to  tlic  tkcnio  of  kard,  '  \\c  made.'  Ou  the  other 
hand,  this  kard,  like  the  participle  hirJah,  admits  xaj 
[O.  Ed.  !>.  8S-2.]  easily  of  being  compared  with  krita-x  (from 
Isaria-*),  '  mnde.'  Just  so  bnxt,  biiatali,  '  lie  buutid.*  batlali. 
'bound,'  and  '  liaviiig  bound,*  does  not  answer  tu  thepreseai 
handad, '  hu  binds,'  but  to  the  Zend  passive  participle  baila. 
'bound';  for  which  the  Sanskrit  is  bnddha,  euphonic  for 
badh-Ui,  tlic  dh  of  wlilch,  iu  Zend  and  Fersian,  has  be- 
come s  (see  §.  Ifl?.)*" 

"  Remark  2. — In  Persian  there  exists,  toother  witb  on, 
•I  am.' a  verb /iflrfrttnof  the  same  siguifiaition,  which  exhi- 
bits a  surprising  rcaemblani-o  to  the  Polish  vestan,  na  the  third 
person  iI,<uJ>  hast  does  to  the  Persian  i/eil.'  If  it  wen 
wished  to  assume  that  the  third  person  kl,*...*  hast  is  akin 
to  Om)^  ast,  and  has  arisen  from  it  by  prefixing  an  h,  »t 
the  y  of  the  j^olish  vest  and  Old  Sclavonic  j/pxfv.  is  onlv 
an  inorganic  addition  (sue  {.  '2b^.  n.).  t  should  then  derive 
the  Persian  hasinm,  haatf,  &c.,  also,  just  as  tlie  Polish  ytatem, 
t/estei,  from  tin?  third  person.  With  regard  tu  the  prefixed  L 
wc  may  consider  as  another  instance  the  term  used  for  the 
number  'Eight.*  ktvifd,  contrasted  with  the  forms  bcgiunins 


*  ProfeMor  Bopp  virUr»  Anf.ond  A<r««B,  mid  thii»  renders  the  tvteta- 
blance  between  the  Pontiuii  nml  I'olUtt  wunLtmoraatriking.  ^o,abur«,ba 
vtriia  Avrrf, anil  ereatuvrl;  but  it  is  incorrect  to «xpreM  tb«  short  vow«] 4  ' 
by  f,  Knd  to  represent '  1>y  e  in  mill  uiorv  tnJcfoiisibli'.  It  is  ime  ihju  an 
■fisctedpronunciittunof  ilic  J  i*  crt^cpingin,  nnd  A-onfinpaTticalArMoften 
proDounced  km],  n»ijtiliffe,ia  English,  1:1  iKimctiinr*  prouotmcM  oAittof 
but  thia  practice  is  niiiHinctioni-d  hy  audioritjr,  and  lo  groond  oiymoloKias] 
affinities  opon  it  woaldiic  ^rrontXMis.^ — TYim'Attor. 


FORMATION  OF  TBNSBS. 


859 


with  a  ^'ovol  in  the  kindred  Inngim^os.  It  appears  to  me, 
however,  better  to  compare  haslam  vritli  tW  Zend  hhttHmu 
'  1  iitHnil*  (from  shlAmi);  aa,  so  trarlv  as  the  Sanskrit,  iht; 
root  of  *  to  stand '  frequently  supplies  the  plnce  of  the  verb 
substHiitivp,  tin  nlso  in  the  Roman  languages  it  aids  in  com- 
pleting the  conjugation  of  the  old  verb.    Compare,  therefore. 


QWEKX. 

ZBXD, 

PKIUUN, 

Xara^u* 

hh!A  m  i. 

hit<iiain- 

IffTOI. 

hi^tahi. 

husfi. 

TarSm, 

hittaili. 

hnnf. 

tTtoftev, 

hUt^mulii, 

/laxtim. 

tarare, 

hhtalha. 

hoMid. 

\<rr&vTi, 

bhfenii. 

haslnnrl. 

ObBerve.  that  the  third  person  singiil-Jt  Aarf  is  devoid  of 
the  personni  sign;  otherwise  we  should  have  in  its  place 
htutad,  according  to  the  analogy  of  bnrad,  '  he  bear?,'  purtat, 
'he  asks,'  dihnd,  'he  gives/f  and  others.  With  respect  to 
the  suppression  of  the  ptTsonal  terminations.  [O.  Ed.  p.  883.] 
the  form  fiani  resembles  the  German  wird.  hull,  for  wirdft, 
hafhl.  Pott's  opinion — who.  in  tlie  derivation  oftlie  rorms 
under  discusaion,  has  likewise  referred  to  the  root  of  <to 
»tand'  (Ktym.  Forsch.  I.  27-1.),  but  prefers  recognising  in 
the  /  of  tlie  Polish  ycjrfrMi,  as  of  the  Persian  haatam.  the  (  of 
the  passive  participle — is  opposed  by  the  consideration,  that 
neither  in  Sanskrit  has  the  root  as,  nor  in  any  other  cognate 
language  has  tlie  kindred  root,  produced  or  contained  the 


•  SflDiikiit  tiAlkdmi.  we  ^.  COB. 

t  The  h  otjifiain,  *'  I  giTc,"  njiiM-aTS  to  me  s  tfinnnntof  tlic  Zcnil  as- 
{umlnd  *ih  of  dtiJhAmi  (  ;.  3U.)  ;  as  I  have  tlrtoAy  troct^d  liuuk  rlaewhcnt 
i]i«  fi  ofmhddan,  "I«  place"  (pmcnt  lu'Aam),  to  the  ^nshrit d A  of  iJiA, 
Bitil  recogniwd  in  the  syllable  »i  an  ohacarci  |>nriMai[Jon  (the  Sousltrlt 
nt,  "down,"  Vienna  Ann.  18^8,  II.  ii.y.  ZiH).  Tlio  fonn  difiam  n- 
•eniblrs  tlii  Old  Sctavonlc  iliimjr  for  tfa-Jmy  (^.  4^6.)  wid  our  pretcHtM 
like  AJ</>,  hiflt  {},  S9i.)  herrin,  thnt  tho  irdiiiilirnie  a^lUblo  hu  puntd 
the  irniblaiira  of  ibc  pvindpal  lyllnble. 

3xS 


k 


p 


860  THE  PERPKCT. 

participle  mentioned.  There  i».  in  Sonsfcrit,  no  pimid|d( 
aata-$,  but  for  it  bhUta-g;  in  Persian  no  aitfah,  bat  bidak;  m 
Sclavonic  no  ytitl.  but  fry/;  in  Lithuanian  no  eala-x,  itt 
no  fatus.  in  tiothtc  no  ijIm.  Uenve  tticrc  ia  every  rcaacn  I 
zisauuiing,  tliat  if  tlicrc  ever  existed  A  |inrtieiple  of 
oth«r  Toot  of  '  to  be,"  nnalognus  to  wv  bhuta^  '  been.*  ii 
must  liave  b«en  lo6t  at  so  c^riy  a  pt^riod,  that  it  couU 
not  imve  rendered  nny  service  to  the  Polish  and  Per- 
aian  in  the  rormntioii  or  a  preterite  and  present  of  tiu 
indicntivc." 

029.  The  Bohemian,  in  its  preterites,  places  the  pn-K' 
of  the  auxiliary  verb  after  the  past  piirticiple.  and  ^^'  •■ 
rated  from  it;  the  Cariiiolan  prefixes  it;  and  the  Russian 
leaves  it  entirely  out,  and  diittinguishes  the  persons  bv  the 
pronouna,  which  are  placed  before  the  participle.  *'I  was,' 
in  Bohemian,  is.  accordinff  to  the  diSereuwi  of  genders, 
byi  sem,  htjln  sem,  byto  sem;  in  Cuniiolan  aim  b'tlt  aim  bitit. 
aim  bilo;  in  Russian,  ya  bil,  un  byh,  ya  biflo.  But  the 
present  of  the  Carniolaii  verb  Aubstautive  is  very  rv>nuirk' 
able,  on  account  of  tlie  almost  (lerfeet  identity  of  the  three 
persons  of  the  dual,  and  of  the  two  lirst  of  the  plural,  with 
the  Sanskrit;  where,  aecordin^:  to  a  general  law  uf  soand. 
the  forms  sxtas,  "we  two  are,"  aiaa,  "yc  two  art;,"  reject 
their  final  t  before  vowels  (short  a  excepted),  and    hereby 

[O.  Ed.  p.  664.]  coincide  euliruly  with  the  Carniolan.  ia 
which  vun  signifies  "we  two  are,"  sin,  "they  two  are."  Id 
Siiuakrit  tusa  ihn,  means  "we  two  are  here,"  ttn  iha,  "thev  two 
nre  here."  In  the  plural,  the  Carniolan  amo  miawers  to 
the  S.inskrit  unt  Tmns  (bi'^fore  vowels  tma),  ait  to  ^^  atha,  to 
to  wfjff  m7>ii  h  is.  however,  to  be  observed,  that  both 
lacguages  have,  independently  of  eiitli  other,  lost  the 
initial  vowel,  which  belongs  to  the  root,  whteh  has  tv<- 
maiucd  in  the  Old  Si;lavonic  with  the  prefix  of  a  w,  ex- 
cepting in  the  third  person  plural  (see  §.  iBO.). 

630.  If  tbuGeroian  auxiliary  verbMun is couti'Osted.as above 
(f.  62 1.),  with  the  Sauskfit  root  dhd,  "  to  place."  "  to  make," 


FOHMATION  OF  TENSES. 


861 


thea  preterites  like  the  Gothic  a6kida  and  brurniftu  suektt 
appear,  in  respec:t  to  their  composition,  like  cognate  forms 
to   tlic   Greek    passive  norists  and  futures;    as,    eriK^-Stiv, 
Tv^-6i}ttopiai.  ill  which  I  recoguise  the  aorist  and  the  future 
miiltllc  of  Ti'9^^i  =  SaDskrit  dmlhAmi.'     The  concluding  por- 
tion of  Tvif>-dij.Tut^-Sa't}v,7V<f>-6^aoii.au,  ia  completely  identi«Ht 
with  the  simple  du,  0eir]v,  d^vofiai,  ineunjuj^attoii;  and  eru^p- 
9t}v  is  distinguished  from  tQijv  by  this  only,  aud,  ludeed,  ad- 
vantageously, that  it  gives  the  heavit^  personal  terminations 
of  tlie  dual  and  plural  no  power  of  shortening;  the  vowel  of 
the  root,  as  is  the  ease  with  the  S-inskiit  wn^  iulhAm=^Br]v, 
even  in  its  simple  state;  aiuee,  in  this  lungtiage,  ailhi-mn  an- 
swers to  the  Greek  eSe-fjev  fop  i6>j[iev,  as  the  Greek  eg-njv, 
aleo,  doea  not  admit  of  the  length  of  ita  root  being  shortened 
ill  the  dual  or  plural.     Thus  tlie  imperative  riMp-Bvjri,  also,  is 
distinguished  from  6ii  by  preserving  thu  length  of  the  root, 
as  also  by  its  more  full  personal  termino-      [G.  Ed.  p.  88a.] 
tion.       From  llie  future  Tu^di/tro^xai  an   aorist  eTv<pd^fx>}i' 
should  be  looked  for;  or,  vice  eerv^,  the  future  should  have 
been  contented  with  active  tcrmiuations,  as  well  as  the  aorist. 
Perhaps  originally  erv'fidijv  and    rw^-B^ia  simuitiineously 
existed,  and  thus  also  krv^-BT^-fjijv  (or  krv^Btfajv)  and  tu^- 
dipoti-ou,  as  periphrastic  active  and  passive  teuses.     In  the 
present  state  of  the  language,  however,  the  norist  tins  lost 
the  passive  form,  and  the  future  the  active;  and  when  tlie 
sylliibli?  fit;  was  no  longer  reeogiiiscd  as  an  auxiliary  verb,  it 
received  the  meaning  of  a  passive  character  ;  Just  as  the  Ger- 
man langua^fl  no  longer  perceives  an  aaxiliary  verb  in  tlie  te 
of  MUfhie,  but  only  an  expression  for  the  past ;  or  as  we  bave 
ceased  to  recognise  in  the  te  ot heute  the  word  Tay.  "day." 
and  in  Aeu  (Old  High  German  hiu)  a  demonstrative,  but  re- 
gard the  whole  as  n  simple  adverb  formed  to  express  "  tlio 
present  day."  »  i  :tj 


•  CompAn  Ann.  of  Lit.  <;:rit.  la-i?.  IVb,,  pp.  29is  kv. ;    Voodisaiis, 
pp.  J>3,  kc. ;  and  i'ott'a  Eiyiu.  Foncrh. !.  187. 


862 


THE  PEBFBCT. 


63t.  An  to  tliu  form  of  the  Gret:k  seeoud  aorist  and  future 
nnssive,  I  consider  ervntfv  nnd  n/rijcro/iat  as  abbrcvintions  of 
eru^^iiu,  Tvtjtd/j'jofiai.  The  loss  of  the  6  resembles,  there- 
fore, thnt  of  the  a  in  the  active  aorists  of  verbs  vritli  Itqtutls 
(§.  647.) :  it  iiced  not,  however,  aiirpriiie  hs,  thnt,  na  the  ^  of 
hCi^drjv,  from  refjard  to  the  &  following',  assumes  the  place 
of  the  radical  ir.  after  this  0  is  dropju'd  the  original  sound  ftgaia 
makes  its  nppearaDce,  and  therefore  CTv^qi',  Tv^^o^cut  arenot 
used.  The  case  is  similar  to  that  of  our  vowel  R'iick-Umlaut 
(i-eBtored  derivative  souodj.  since  we  use  the  form  Krajt  as  cor- 
responding to  the  Middle  High  German  ^nitive  and  dative 
Krepe,  bc«ni8c,  after  the  dissolution  of  the  vowel  which  had 
generated  the  Umlnut,  the  original  vowel  recars.  while  we,  in 
the  plural,  say  Kriijle,  like  the  Middle  High  German  kre/if. 
Various  objfxrtions  oppose  tlieopinion  thattheverb  substantive 
t^O.  VA.  i>.  88ft.]  is oontnined  i n  eT[jTr»;i',  mufhasihe  appended 
iiuxiliary  verb  agrees  in  its  conjugation  with  that  of  ^v.  Bnt 
tlie  double  expression  of  past  time  inctvjrfjf.onccinthc  prin- 
cipal %'erb  and  once  in  the  auxiliary,  if  the  verb  substtiiitive 
be  contained  in  it.  c«nnot  fail  of  surprising  us ;  trhile  tlie 
Sanskrit,  in  combining  its  Aaam.  "  I  was,"  with  attributive 
verbs,  withdraws  the  atigment,  and,  with  it,  also  the  radical 
vowel  «  of  the  auxiliai-y  verb  (§.  512.).  The  augment  in  the 
future  rvntjCoyiat,  dnd  in  the  imperative  rvvijSi,  must  appear 
still  more  objeetionablc  Why  not  Tviritrofiai,  rvmadi,  or.  per- 
ha]i8.  the  c  being  dislodged,  Tuff(9f,  and,  iu  the  third  person, 
TtnrevTiit  onuTTenii?  Tlie  terui! nation  eif  in  the  participle 
Timeif  has  no  hold  whatever  in  the  conjugation  of  tlie  verb 
substantive. 

639.  The  Latin  ventla,  if  we  do  not  refer  the  auxiliary 
verb  contained  in  it  to  rfo=5('3wMi,  ^^ifii  tleuMjiti  but  to 
ri$t}fii,  ^vrfk (/(uiA/lm j,  must  be  regarded  as  a  cognate  form 
to  the  German  formations  like  sAkida,  m^k-idMum,  "  I  sought," 
'■  we  sought,"  and  the  Greek  like  e-rvipdrfv,  Tvtfid^iTonai.  The 
Sanskrit  ti'i,  '•  to  give,"  and  dh^,  "  to  place,"  are  distiDgtiiabed 
only  by  the  aspii-ation  of  the  latter ,-  and  in  Zend  these  verb* 


FORMATION  OF  TENSES, 


863 


scarce  to  be  distinguished  Bt  all  from  one  another,  because 
d,  ficoording  to  §.  39^  in  the  inner  sound  {itilaut)  frequently 
become  dh,  while  dh  iwelf  lays  aside  the  asiJiration  in  the  ini- 
tial sound  (  Anlaui).  In  Lntin,  also,  ^  di  and  m  dli/i  might 
cusily  lie  combined  in  ouc  form,  since  that  langungc  generally 
presents  its  d  as  answering  to  the  Snnskpt  dh  and  Greek  0. 
especially  in  the  inner  sound,  as  &  to  the  Sanskrit  bh."  But 
tlic  circumstance  that  the  root  VT  dhd,  @U,  has  not  r«* 
mained,  in  Latin,  in  its  simple  fumi,  docs  not  prevent  us 
from  recognising  it  in  the  compounds  credo,  perdo,  abdu, 
cendo,  und  rendo,  just  as  in  pesitundo.  pes-  [_ii.  iid,  p.  687.] 
jrumf/o-t  The  form  vmumdo  answers,  iti  respect  to  the  tKx:u- 
satirc  form  of  the  primary  word,  to  SanKkrit  compounds 
like  iiiln-cfial-.ira  (§§.  fil9.  625.)- 

633.  Iti  order  to  traee  out  in  its  full  extent  the  influcnvo 
that  tlie  Siuiskrit  root  dkd  has  obtained  in  the  European  coj^- 
tiato  languages  in  the  formation  of  grumuiatical  forms,  [must 
further  remark,  that  1  believe  1  may  refer  to  this  place  also 
the  last  portion  of  the  future  and  imperative  of  the  Sclavonic 
verb  snbstiuitive.  In  Old  Scliivoiiic  biitltl  metun  "  I  will  be," 
literally,  as  it  appears  to  me,  "  1  do  be,"  The  lirst  portion 
of  this  compound  answers  very  well  to  the  Sanskrit  root 
bkii,  and  is  identical  with  titc  Zend  ^j  bii.  As,  however, 
the  Selavonic  il  regularly  answers  to  tJic  Sanskrit  diphthong 
«t  d  (  =  a -hit,,  see  i.2ib./.\    so  must  we  in   the  Sdavonie 


•  ^.10.,  anil  coinpaiv  maOum  wilh  tJie  Sonakrlt  madki/a-m,  mediluri 
■wi  th  viiMiu,  "  unH*r»|«nding,"_;fiiii  with  trtlSm. 

+  A.  W.  Yoa  Schtegel  hna  been  the  firsi  to  recognise  ia  Latin  the  8m. 
slirit  irat,  "iHilivf,"  uiil  litis  founil  iii  creth  a  niuiLar  camponud  to  Uisi 
cf  iho  Sanskrit  imd-dadhdmi,  which  ttigniti-s  llie  wxao  (li(er»Ily  "  I  jJjiC* 
fMlh  "),  uiihout,  however,'  identiiyinij  ilin  LjUin  vxpressign,  in  re^rJ  to 
ilB  conuluding  portioa  aUo,  with  the  Sanskrit  compountl  (Blutgarad'OIta, 
{),  IW}.  Credo  tuifthi  i.-enainly  aXau  mean  "  1  give  faith,"  but  it  in  more 
twtaral  lo  pUoo  this  verb  Koch  in  itt  second  trni  in  its  first  portion  on  tlio 
samt-  fcjoiitig  with  its  Indian  proioiypf,  as  I  Iiilvc  already  done  in  tbs 
Virana  Anu.  (I(t28,  B.  42,  p.  '2&n\  where  I  hare  also  c<rui]Mrcd  iho  do 
oSaUlo  unJ  <WM(/«  witk  the  Sanskrit  rout  rlM. 


864 


THE  I'EEFECT. 


bA  recognise  the  Sanskrit  Guna-form  hhH.  Aod  »j  bhu  it- 
scir  receives  Guna  in  the  futurr.  and  exiiibita  liere,  Iti  com- 
binntion  witli  tlie  other  root  of"  to  be."  the  form  bhnv-i-Khifiimi, 
of  wliich  we  shall  treat  hereftfter.  The  second  portion  of  the 
OM  Sclavonic  cbas  fiiJ-fW  (fmm  l»i-<io-m,  see  §.S3&.  jy.)  cor- 
responds in  its  conjugation  exnctly  to  the  present  fr$il,-*  thus 
second  person  bU'dcnhr,  tliird,  bUdflv;  only  the  f  and  o  of 
BEsEUlU  ve^-e-.ihi,  BEaETb  vc^-r-ty,  BEaoU  ur-^-om,  &C.,  is  the 
clasa-vowel,  or  vowel  of  conjunction,  while  that  of  de~Mhi, 

[(!'.  ¥A.  p.  6ti8.]  df-hj.  dij-m,  is  the  abbrevintion  of  the  A  of 
the  Sanskrit  root  dhA  ;  for  e  and  o  are  the  usual  reprmenta- 
tivcs,  in  Old  Sclavonic,  of  the  Sanskrit  short  a  (nee  §.  Sia.  a.). 
Wc  must  here  recall  attention  to  the  Sanskrit  root  ithd,  the 
A  of  wliich.  after  bt-ing  irregularly  ehortened.  is  treated  as 
though  it  were  the  conjunetive  vowel  of  the  Grst  class 
(§,  608.).  Hence,  also,  in  the  imperative  the  Old  Sclavonic 
*  ye  of  EVA^n  h^-il^t-m,  "let  us  be"  ("let  us  do  be'T- 
Etf  AtiTE  bH-dye-te,  "  be  ye,"  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  ^  of  ti»hlJi4- 
-ina,  "  we  may  stand,"  lishlM-fa,  "yc  may  stand"  (§.  255.  e.). 

634.  There  is,  in  Old  Sclavonic  and  Rnssiiui,  also  a  verb 
wliich  occurs  in  an  isolated  state,  wliich  signifies  "to do," 
"to  make."  and  which  is  distinguished  from  that  which  is 
contained  in  Atl-t/d  only  by  theeireuai^tancu  Umt  it  exhibits 
A'B  dye  instead  of  AM  df  as  root,  wliich  does  not  prevent  mo 
from  dt-clariug  it  to  be  origtiiHlly  identical  with  it  Ita  pre- 
sent is  AtiK)  r/yrud.-f-  and  it  is  rightly  compared  by  Kopicar 
with  our  fhun  and  the  English  do.  From  it  comes  the  neuter 
substantive  dyrlu.  "  deed."  as  "  thing  done."  which,  iu  its  for- 
mation, answers  to  the  imrtieiples  mentioned  above  ({.  69S.X 
and  haa,  in  ndvantngcous  contrast  with  them,  preserved  the 


See  $.  607.  whctv,  however.  In  ilia  Snt  pcreoD  plural,  we  ahould  read 
m^-O-m  inatend  of  vel-o-tne. 

t  Analugou*  with  fjw-(;d,  "Imw";  u,  \n  GMh\c  tii-th*,  "d«>d,"«oJ 
tt-tA*,  "Mcd."  iT9i  on  a  Ulce  funniilidn,  «oi]  roau  which  tciminAie  nmi- 


FORMATION  OF  TBNSES. 


86; 


origiiml  passive  meaning,  wliile  tbcy  have  erroneously  been 
assigiit^  to  the  active  voice. 

635.  To  hiiriii,  "  I  slinll  be,"  the  Old  Sclavonw  Wj!.  "  I  go" 
wliicli  is  also  placed  by  Dobroweky  (p.  3oo)  in  the  same 
class  vrith  bddti.  ia  analogous.     IJH  thererore  means,  HCe- 
nl\y,  "  I  do  go,"  ani]  springs  from  the  widely-diFuacd  rout  i 
(infinitive  /-(/).   whence,  in  Gotliic.  the  anomalous  preterite 
i-dilm,  "I  went,"   plural   i-dJuiihm.  "we      [«.  Ed.  p.  889.] 
went."    I  believe  that  these  forois  have  proceeded  from  i-da, 
i-dMitm.  simply  by  doubting  tlic  d  and  annexing- a  v;  and 
I  take  them,  therefore,  in  thr  sense  of"  I  did  ^o,"  "  we  did 
go";  and  compare  with  them  the  Sc:lavoaic  i-*l&  as  present. 
The  d  of  xhfd&.    however,    which  is   used  in  completing 
the  conjugation  of  irfil,  I  consider  as  belonging  to  the  root, 
and   look  upon  the  whole  as  akin  to  the  Sfinskrit  ^  gad, 
"  to  go,"  1o  which  belonjf  also  chodili,  and  the  Greek  oZot. 
The    forms    wA'tii(iAs    o-duvschd^,    "I    do  on,"    "I    dress," 
Tta-dymliHlixiffi,    "  I     hope,"    ia-dueschd^,    "  anyarw,    ontu 
impono,"    which    Dobrowsky,  I.  c  likewise  compares    with 
hil-dH,  remarking  that  they  stand  for  odwyti.  &c.,  I  con- 
sider as  reduplicate   forms   of  the  root  dj/e,  "to  moke," 
jncationed    above;    for  d  gladly,    and    under   certain  cir- 
cumstances, rcj^ularly  assumes  the  preUx  of  M  sch,  for  which 
reason    dnschdy.   "give,"  and    yaichdy,    "eat"    (for  dady, 
yndy),  correspond  to  the  Sanskrit  dadyA,i.    "thou   maycst 
give,"  adtfAs.  "thou  mayest  eat"  (see  Kopitars  Glogotitn, 
pp.  A3  and  63).     The  eonjeeturp,  however,  tliat  n-dymmhdi^ 
na-dytnehd^  ^n-dyfsfhdii,  are  reduplicate  forms,  is  strongly 
Gtipported    by  the   circumstance    that    the    correspond  in  < 
Sctnskrit  and  Greek  verbs  also  {dodkiimi,  rlBrfpu)  are  rcdu< 
plicated  in  the  special   tenses,  like  dudiimi,  SiSuttu;  and  to 
the  two  last  forms  a  red tt plicate  verb  corresponds  in  Scla- 
vonic likewise  (see  §.  i:!6.). 

636.  The  Lettish  possesses  some  verbs  wbicli  atv  com- 
bined, throughout  thetr  whole  conjugation,  with  the  auxiliary 
verb  under  discussion.     Of  this  class  is  dim-deh-t,  "  to  ring*" 


rib 


866 


THB  I'KRFECT. 


(deht=<U-i),  together  with  dim-l,  id.  iwu-dM-/,  "to  mew." 
with  nau-fi  id.  Id  bai-dtk-U  *'  to  make  afraid,"  wjtb  ti-f, 
"to  fear"  (Sansltnt  v/f  Hhf). /ihtmtlth-t.  "to  disturb."  i.e.  "to 
make  moiirnrul,"  witli  /xkum-f,  "to  be  mournful."  the  meati- 
ing  of  tlie  auxiliary  verb  makes  itself  clearly  perceptible,  and 

[O.  Ed.  p.  800.]  replaces  the  causal  formatioD.  In  other 
case*  the  appended  d^h-t  may  be  rendered  by  than,  "  to  do." 
thus  dim-deUi,  "to  do  ring"  (oomparc  Pott,  1. 187).  Rcgnrd- 
ing  the  Litliuanian  imperfect  of  habitude,  in  which  we  have 
recognised  the  aanic  auxiliary  verb,  see  §.  525. 

631.  Tt  deserves  to  be  noticed,  tliat.  iii  Zeiitl  also,  the 
verb  under  discussion  of  "placing."  "making,"  "dfiiii^f." 
occurs  na  an  appended  auxilLiry  verb.  Thtu.  ,u)^d;A)^ 
y<tS,ik-di.  "to  purify."  literally  "to  do  purify,"  from  which 
the  present  middle  ^ffiM)^6M^A>i>»j^ya(ith'dathrn/f,  "they 
do  purify"  (reganlin^  the  extt^uded  form  dafh,  see  p.  112), 
the  precative  middle  ASf)j<^jA5^d9u*Ai,)j  j?jah>  pah-i  yaith' 
•daiihilit,  "they  may  purify"  {Vend.  S.  p.  2B6),  imperative 
j^jiuOAytteiAi^  y<t&ah-d(\ihAnu  "let  mc  do  purify"  (I.e. 
p.  500).  The  form  d<Vili  of  ya&ith-<tAUi,  "  the  puriGcit- 
tion"  (l.c.  pp.  300,  301).  corresponds,  in  radical  and  deri> 
vativc  snfRx.  to  the  above-meutioned  Gothic  dt^tks  (theme 
dMi).  For  the  fretjuent  expressiou  /pu'SAf  ff^ii^'i^^'Mj^ 
yn'hh-dnyann  ntlhen,  "  tliey  n.re  purified,"  we  ought  pcrbajw 
to  read  y<tihkdoyanm  mhtn,  in  which  case  the  former 
might  be  regarded  as  tliu  locative  of  yadsfuJi,  so  tliat  tb« 
wliole  would  signify    "tlicy  are  in  purification."*      But  if 

•  I  formerly  thought,  that  ia  this  And  similar  exprewoiiu  the  toot  dO, 
"t«  give,"  was  contained  (Cr&mrn.  Crit  p.  332),  which  mtghl  very  xnU 
formally  be  the  ctae,  aa  U  also  numouf  s  opinion,  who,  howrevor,  uaenta^ 
at  Yfl^na,  p.  306,  Rtitn.'Jl?,  to  Fr.  WindlKhmann's  i^xplanaiiao,  who  wm 
the  firel  10  rccDgn'iao  Id  this  and  siniil.tr  ciimiiouiids  the  Sanstrii  root  dJut 
iDitoad  of  dd.  To  tht!  mimrk  mmlc  by  Durnuuf  (1.  ■;.  Note  E.  p.  ij.j,  that 
tli«  iaitinl  Mruwl  il/i  iit  Zend  ia  not  ]j<.-ttiiiii»ill«,  it  may  be  oddvd,  thai  tn 
tha  Bitdilli!  nln),  afltrr  a  coiuiMiiint,  J  U  iK'ceiiurily  used  for  thd  original 
dk:  h^ncft  tlx;  SantliTit  impArntivn  i«rininai i<iin  dfti,  which  in  ZcdiI,  after 
vowels,  it|i|icBrd  a*  dhi,  is,  oftirr  a  consoiianl,  di  i  thiu  dae-di,  "  girt',"  op. 
poied  to  triiidhi,  "  licAr,"  Mrrirtiii-dfii.  "  uiitkc." 


FUltUATION  OP  TfiNSBS. 


867 


the  reading  j(«i)jArfnyiiiin  is  correct,  then  it    [O.  Ed.  p.  891,] 
may  be  takvn  aa  the  accusatU'o  plural  in  the  sense  of  pnrifi- 
catoa  i  so  that  the  verb  BubRtantive  would  bo  construed  as  in 
Arabic  witli  the  accusiitivc, 

639.  We  return  to  the  reduplicated  proteritc,  in  order  to 
consider  its  formation  in  Zend.  ExampIeB  have  been  given 
in  $4  &20..  wluch.  in  their  principle  of  furmation.  correspond, 
for  the  most  part,  with  the  Sanskrit.  Thus,  wjm>;oai>>^j4 
dulca^ya  aiifiwers  to  tho  Saukrtt  ilidu4^ha,  "  he  liatcd,"  with 
the  prefix  of  an  a  before  the  Guna  vonet  ?,  according  to 
§.  Sd.  The  forms  ^M^»^lf  vMi^  and  mum^^^  iiUatn 
ahcw  that  tho  Zciul.  in  departure  from  the  Sanskrit, 
admits  long  vowels  in  the  syllable  of  repetition.  i'(vti-4. 
from  the  root  vti,  ••  to  obey."  is  the  second  person  singular 
middle,  and  wants  the  pi^rsona)  sign ;  thuii,  ^  for  the 
Sanskrit  ,»^,  and  Greek  cau.  Here,  fnom  want  of  adequate 
examples,  ve  mo&t  leave  it  undecided  whether  this  sup- 
prcasion,  which  makt-s  the  second  person  tlie  same  as  the 
first  and  third,  takes  place  merely  after  sibilants,  or  prin- 
cipally after  consonants.  The  form  m»ai^^^  t^iva,  "he 
could,"  from  the  rof>t  fav*  should  be,  according  to  the 
Snnskfit  principle,  taiSva,  aa  a  radien)  a,  in  the  third  jierson 
singular,  is  necessarily  lengthened;  but  the  Zend  form  above 
has  trausferrcd  the  long  quantity  to  the  syllable  of  redupli- 
cation, and,  as  it  appears,  through  the  ioflaenoe  of  the  v  of 
die  root,  Ims  replaced  the  a  sound  by  C.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  root  vaeh.  "to  speak."  which,  in  Sanskrit,  in  the  syl- 
lable of  ruptilition  suppresses  llie  a,  and  vocalixos  the  u  to  u 
(uvacha  or  uvAcha),  in  Zcud  regularly  forms  vavacha,  which. 
Vend.  S.  p.  83.,  occurs  as  the  first  jjcrsoo,  and  is  rendered 
by  AnqaetiL  "/ai  pnnonce."      That  the  Zend  docs  not  par- 


*  CkimpAre  jwi»jup  •*5''>C»  S^-'  '"""'"if  "iftht^y  tw,"  Vend.S. 
pp.  309 and  352,  na  tliinl  |icmn  plural  of  die  impcrfca  sobjunctirviotlie 
SCUM  of  the  pretcnt. 


868 


TUB  PBEFBCT. 


tidpate  in  lengtheiiiDg  the  a,  whidi,  in  Sanskrit,  berore  aim- 
[Q.  £<L  p,  BOZ.]  pie  coDSODaota  coters  at  «ill  into  tite  first 
person  singular,  and  of  necessity  into  tlie  third  person,  is 
proved  also  liy  llie  form  u-u^ui^w^  latatu.  "  he  formed* 
(»ee  Burnouf,  Yn^na.  p.  H>4,\  the  root  of  which  is  referred  by 
Bumouf,  and  with  justice,  to  the  Sanskrit  n  taksh,  oikI 
as  it  appears  to  nic,  fitly  compared  with  tho  Greek  rdcr^w. 

639.  The  passage  of  tbe  Veod.  S.  (p.  3),  wbivb  Ijos  fur- 
nished us  with  tJjc  form  um^m^m^  t'daia,  (in  Ihu  litho- 
graphed Codex  erroneously  taian).  supplies  us  also  with  two 
otlier  ri'diiplioato  preterites,  which  li.ive.  too,  {and  this  de- 
serves notice,)  a  perfL-ct  meaning,  nliUe  tlie  eorrespondiog 
Sanskrit  tense  refuses   the  function  of  a  perfect  ($.  S13.}, 

We  read  I.e.  («iJ>^>;o  s'-CL.  ■w-*\>*C9-»P  V-C^  *'^S^J  Vf  V.C» 
jf(]  n'3  tiailhu  ijii  tfitata  yd  (ulhrvy^.  "  who  has  mode  us, 
who  has  formed  (us),  who  Iwa  sustained  (»s)."  The  form 
AiQ^  dadha,  which  Ncriosengh  renders  by  ^  tiadav. 
"dedif"  instead  of d^dh&u*  is,  in  my  opioion,  of  special 
importtinue,  on  account  of  the  rcmnrkiible  manner  in  n-hicb 
it  coiiitidcs  in  root  aud  formation  witJi  the  nlH»vc-nien- 
tioned  (§.  622.)  Old  Saion  rft*/a.  - 1  did,"  "  hedid."  Tius  Zend 
f^r/An  stands  for  dadhA  from  dndhA-a  (§.6 IS.),  tl>e  long  6 
liarii)^  been  shortened,  ns  eouiuionly  happens  at  the  end 
of  polysyllabic  words  (V  1 37.).  It  does  not  admit  of  doubt 
tliat  the  first  person  is  likewise  ditdha;  as  we  have  seen 
from  the  alM>ve-mcntione<I  u^uvtul}  vavocha.  "  I  itpokc,"  thai 
in  Zend,  as  in  SHnskrh  and  Geroian.  it  is  tlie  same  ns  Uiu 
third  person,  i.e.  it  has  no  more  a  jtentoiuil  termination  tbiin 
tlie  latter.  In  the  secuud  person  I  conjecture  the  form 
dodMfho  ($.  4&3.). 


•Thetoot  4M,  "to  give,"  might  likcwiw  f^nn  (AmUa  {$.  39. ) ;  bat  in 
tlM  puHga  above,  u  c«r«r;'wbare  wlicr«  montton  is  nsde  of  ercMtia(, 
uiaLiDg.  il  i*  cimr  we  mtiM  niMlcntfUid  i>i»  rerb  eorreqwodiqg  lo  tb« 
awiekriti|T(A<l,"toplocc"(witliK,  "lo  iiiaW). 


FOBUATION  OF  TENSKS. 


869 


r640.  I  nm  unnbte  to  quote  the  Tend  pfrfect  [O.  Ed.  p.  s&X'] 
active  ia  the  dual  and  plural,  unless  the  form  jta^^^^gui 
t.'  AonhinVi,  which  fans  been  alreftdy  meutioiied  elsewlmru,*  is 
I  tin;  plural  of  Aoaha,  "fuiU"  which  litttcr  rt-gulnrly  corre- 
■  spondN  to  the  Snniikrit  cbn  {§§.  56*.  and  56'.),  nud  occurs  in  the 
I  following  passiige  of  the  Vend.  S.  (p.  4()):  («aiiAt  wj^j 
..  i^^^7jjip  VJyf  Mw^fMt  nSU  a6lem  Amha  nSit  gharhnha, 
,  "there  wiis  neither  cold  nor  heat"  We  find  the  form 
Aonhrnii  1.  c.  p.  45.  where  fire  the  words    ^j^roM^  i^^ifMw 

j^^MJvSijis  M^^f^MM^  hofimd  laMiit  ylU  ktJtnj/4  vad-6 
/niMunh'i  dur/irn/i  ipdrni  maklimcba  bacmiti.  "Horn  assigns 
to  tliose.  whoever  recite  the  Nasks.  excellence  and 
graudeur.''f  Perhnpt,  loo,  (ionhenti,  if  it  really  is  a 
perfect,  is  morn  correctly  traualated  by  "have  been"; 
but  we  cannot  be  surprised  at  its  liaving  a  present 
meaning  also,  as  a  rad  present  is  not  intended,  accord- 
ing to  what  has  been  remarked  in  {.  &20.  We  must  not 
attach  too  great  freight  to  the  cin-umstance  thut  iu 
Neriosengh'a  Sunskrit  translntion  the  form  ^onhenli  is  ren- 
dered by  fyrtgfTT  nis/iiJaitii,  "  sedt:nl";t  for  Neriosengb 
interchanges  with  one  another  the  roots  >(jr],  "to  give,"  and 
dd,  "to  set,  piiice,  uiake,"  which  belongs  to  [O.  £(l.p.t)frl.] 
the    Sanskrit  diul;   and    why   should    he    not  Imve    fallen 


•  Ann.  of  Lit  CtII.  Sec.  IB31.  p.  8lfl. 

t  AniiuetU,  who  selilon)  renders  «1)  the  forma  in  a  wni«ncc  acoonJing 
(o  llii>ir  rcnl  gmmieAtioal  vfllae,  here  matiH  the  Ihird  pereon  pinml  the 
Becand  uflho  impnrntlve,  nTid  i^hAUf^i  iht  iia§ertton  iulo  a  roqunst,  bjr 
transluliiig  diua ;  "  O  Hatn,  acconiea  Fexcelience  et  Ut  grttndeur  A  txtui  gta 
Hi  dnnt  ia  maium  Ic*  A'a/f#.' ' 

J  Sm  BurnonCi  valiwble  llevi«w  of  tlie  Firet  Part  of  Oiia  BmIt, 
itoumnl  An  Siivniia^  1633,  bi  the  separoie  imprt-wioD,  p.  *7.  There  u  ha 
errar  in  il,  liwwevcr,  in  Ilia  (vtuark,  that  I  kAre  rvpmcntc^  the  form 
iimhhiii  M  iha  impcrfpct  of  the  rerb  nibiuuilive.  I  meant  lh«  redupli- 
cate preterite  or  perfect. 


870 


TItR   PERFECT. 


into  a  fliniilar  error  with  the  dufwly-npiirosi mating  roots  wv 
a«,  "  to  be."  and  wth  d«,  "  to  ait,"  which  both  exist  in  Zend. 
partic-itlarly  ns  the  form  Honhl-nti,  taken  as  the  perfect,  standi, 
perhnps.  tjiiite  isolated  in  the  remains  of  Zeud  literature  vshivh 
have  been  preserved  to  us,  but,  lis  the  present,  }uu  iiaiii<>- 
rou8  anatogoiia  forms!'  Bat  if  Sonhettti  really  belongs  to 
the  root  vw  Ax,  "to  sit,"  still  wc  cannot,  in  my  opiuion. 
tnke  it,  with  Nerio8t;ii;;h,  in  this  sense,  hut  as  a  representative 
ofthe  verb  substantive,  which,  as  has  been  shewn  ($.309.  p.  737 
G.  ed.).  in  Sanskfit,  also,  occasionally  sopplies  the  place  of 
the  verb  substantive.  Two  of  tin.-  Paris  MSS.  give,  as  hns 
been  retnirked  by  Bitrnouf,  for  Aonh«nii  the  middle  form 
mp^gB-^giu  Aottficnti;  aud  if  this  is  the  correct  reading, 
it  speaks  iu  favor  of  the  root  of  "to  sit":  for  this,  like 
tile  kindrrd  Greek  verb  (r}{(r)'iiat.  rja-rat),  is  used  only  in 
the  middk>.  But  if  AanfiUnll  is  the  right  reading,  and  be- 
longs, as  perfect,  to  the  verb  substantive,  it  is.  iu  respect  to 
its  termination,  more  ancient  than  tlie  Sanskrit  dnu 
(§.162.). 

6-11.  In  the  middle  we  lind  as  the  third  person  plural  of 
the  verb  sul»tautive  the  form  c/jutK^ctu  doahare  (Vend.  S. 
p.  392),  witli  which,  in  regard  to  termination,  the  form 
^M(3j^fh  in'rilhaTf;  "they  are  deiid,"  agrees  (Vend.  S.  p.  ITS): 
If  the  reading  of  the  two  mutually  corroborative  forma  is 
correct,  wc  then  have  the  termiTiiiLioa  nre  for  tlie  San- 
skfit  fi^;  and  it  would  be  a  eirrumstanre  of  much  impor- 
tanec  that  the  Zend  should  have  lufl  the  old  eonjiinctive 
vowel  a  in  its  original  form,  in  a  position  where,  in  San- 
skfit, it  has  been  weakened  to  i.  Ttie  liual  (  of  the  Sanskrit 
termination  is  suppressed  in  Zand;  but  ns  r  cannot  staod 
(§. -tl.)  at  tho  end  of  a  word,  the  addition  of  an  r  became 
necessary,  as  in  vocatives  like  g'^w^Auj  J/l/ora  "creator," 

[G.  Ed.  p. ao-vj  answering  to  ihe  Satiskiit  unrr  iUtdlar. 
If  the  e  of  the  forms  f^tcjpu  Aonliarr,  f^w<jj7j?j  ir{. 
riUiarr,  were  an  error   in    writing,  for  whieh   6  ought   to 


FOBUATION  OF  TKNSBS, 


8-1 


sttiiiJ,  then  an  i  would  necessarily  stauci  beside  the  a  of  the 
preceding  syllable  (§.  41.J.  But  as  this  U  not  tlie  case  we  find 
some  evidence  of  tlie  correctness  of  Uic  final  ^,  nt  least  for  tlic 
fart,  that  this  form  nmong  others  is  adiainsihlc ;  for  beside 
the  jA>wtj^  dt/nhure  which  has  beeu  nieiitioui-'d,  we  find, 
in  another  jjussagu  of  the  Veud.  S.  (p.  4S>),  the  form  j^j*tWifM 
(ianhairi,  in  whivh  the  finni  i,  nccorilirig  to  §.  41.,  luis  intro- 
duced an  i  also  in  the  syllable  preceding;.  The  form 
liotilitiiri,  for  vtbicli.  perhaps,  one  or  two  MSS.  tnny  read 
Aouhairf,  assures  us,  however,  in  like  manner,  of  tlie  pro- 
position, which  is  of  most  im}>ortance,  \iz.  that  the  con- 
junctive vowel  is  properly  an  a,  and  not,  us  in  Siinskpt. 
Bi)  i. 

642,  The  form  g^Wj?^^  iririihari  is  remarkable,  also, 
with  regard  to  its  syllable  of  retluplication:  it  springs 
fi"OBi  the  root  (wo  iritli,*  from  which  n  verb  of  the  fourth 
class  frct}ucnt1y  occurs ;  in  "  iriritlh'  therefore,  ir  is  tho 
syllable  of  reduplication,  after  which  the  short  initial  i  has 
bet^n  len^hened,  in  order,  as  it  were,  to  gain  strength  for 
bearing  the  reduplication  (couipare  the  Gothic  iu  §.  ^99.).  lu 
iri'rillMTi,  however,  the  countcrtype  of  the  Greek  forms  willi 
Attic  rcduplicatiou  is  easily  recognised.  We  must  not,  how- 
ever, seek  for  tlie  reason  of  this  lengtliening  of  the  vowel  of 
the  second  sytlablu  of  forms  like  cA^\t6a,  kfirj^CKa.  hpuftxrj^a, 
in  the  temporal  auj^meut.  which  I  also  avoid  [,ti.  Ed.  p.  890.] 
doing.  For  thougli,  by  concretion  with  the  augment,  an  e 
becomes  17,  and  an  «  becomes  t^,  this  gives  no  reason  for  sup- 
posing the  augment  to  exist  e%'erywhere  vrhure  an  initial 


•  Probsbljr  a  Mcondsrf  root,  with  the  affix  tk,  as  in  dalh  for  dA 
(bc«  p.  112).  Irith,  ihvreforc,  might  tUiid  fur  miri/Jt,  the  iailial  m 
tMvinn  })«en  Inet,  snd  miffht  ht  coiinwited  with  tli*  Sanskrit  root  mri  (war), 
whi^nce,  as  tlunrnufliuthewnlo  hi>  rrrr]iienll):-nicnlioned  Deview  (p.  37), 
^n9AHlt(-^  the  forni  merrac/i,  "(a  kill,' with  iu)0lti«r  slfix.  Die  noun  of 
agency  (»f  which  is  fotuxi  iQ  lh»  plonl,  mtr^dri,  ••  ibt  mufdeftn." 


S72 


THE   rEBFEC'T. 


vowel  of  a  verb  is  lengthened.  I  content  aiysclf,  in  foms 
like  iht/Kvda,  witli  the  rtniujilication ;  and  in  the  vowc^l  follow* 
iiig  I  find  only  a  phonetic  lengthening  for  tbc  sake  of  the 
rhythm,  or  to  support  tlie  weight  of  the  syllable  of  pedopll- 
caitioii ;  aa  in  the  Zenrf.  hirHft,  or  as  (to  lit-vp  to  Greek)  in 
d^wTori  d7W7ev{,  a^wy^.  in  which  tlie  u,  a>  is  commonly 
the  case,  is  only  the  representative  of  the  long  a  (J.  AX 
nnd  where  there  is  no  ground  for  searching  for  the  aug- 
tuenl.  On  the  whole  it  would  be  unuulural  thnt  tbc  aug- 
ment, being'  an  element  foreia;n  to  tlic  root,  should  in 
pose  itself  in  the  middle  of  the  word  between  tlie  syllable 
reduplication  nnd  the  proper  root;  luid  unless  a  necessi 
rxiats,  one  miut  not  attribute  sucb  a  pUenomcnoa  to  a 
laoguuge. 

613.  \n  a  piissftge  of  the  Izesline  (Vend.  S.  p.  6. 
which  I  understand  too  little  to  ground  on  il.  with  coi 
dencc,  any  inference,  while  I  am  without  tlie  li^t  which 
might  perhnps  b«  thrown  on  it  by  Neriosen^'s  Sanskrit 
translation.  I  find  the  expressions  ^(oj^ai^ju^  ^^^)jm( 
vtdiny^  mamanU^.  ft  does  not,  however,  admit  of  any 
doubt  that  main^  is  tlie  noniioiitive  dual  of  the  base 
maini/tr,  "spirit"  (see  §.  210.);  and  hence,  even  without 
understanding^  the  whole  meaning  of  tlie  pasange  alluded 
io,  it  appears  to  mc  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  that 
mnmanili  is  the  third  person  dual  of  the  perfect.  Perhaps 
we  ought  to  read  muman^it?.  so  that.  tlir«u<;li  the  influence 
of  the  final  i,  the  Sanskrit  termination  Atfl  would  have 
become  dif^.  But  if  the  reading  muvumUf  Is  corrcet,  and 
the  form  is  really  a  perfect,  an  original  d  would  have  been 
weakened  to  i.  The  wlmte  form  would,  however,  in  my  opi 
mon,be  ofgroat  importance,  because  it  might  furnish  groa 
for  the  infcreiiec.  that  the  contraction  of  the  reduplicatio 

[0.  Hd.  p.  807.]  in  Sanskrit  forms  like  mfnAti  (rrotu  mamt- 
nAU  for  mamnntW).  did  not  exist  before  the  Zend  becaoia 
separate  from  the  Sanskrit  (com^mre  $.  GOfi.). 


tm 

on^^ 


FORMATION  OK  TENSES.  873 


TUE  PLUPEBFECT. 

644.  It  luu  been  already  remarked  (§.  9U.)>  that  the 
Siinskpt  posscsaus  no  ptu|)i:rfei;t.  and  the  substitute  ic 
usca  for  it  Hhs  been  noticed.  The  Zend.  also,  is  un- 
doubtedly deficient  in  thu  tense.  In  tlic  Zend  Aveatu, 
however,  no  oocnsion  occurs  for  makinf;  use  of  it.  or  sup- 
plyinf**  its  pliice  in  another  iMiy.  The  Lntin  pIupE-rfecl  i» 
easily  perceived  to  be  u  form  comjiounded  of  tlic  perfect 
base  %vith  the  imperfect  of  the  verb  substaative.  The 
only  point  wliiuh  can  admit  of  doubt  is.  whether  the  whole 
rrum  is  to  be  considered  as  t-xisling  in  fuernm.  amiiveravi. 
lis  I  have  done  in  my  System  of  Conjugation  (p.  93),  so 
that  the  perfect  base,  to  which  tlie  t  of  fuU  faistt,  &<!., 
bL'Ion^.  would  have  lost  its  vowei;  or  whetliur  vre  should 
assume  the  loss  of  tlie  e  of  fr<im,  and  therefore  divide  thus, 
fue-ram,  fimeivc-rnm.  Now,  contniry  to  my  former  opinion, 
I  believe  the  latter  to  be  the  case,  and  I  deduce  /ueram 
from  fui-ram.  througli  the  frequently-mentioned  tendency 
of  the  i  to  be  corrupted  before  r  to  ^.  whence,  e.i/..  the  con- 
junctive vowel  i  of  the  third  conjugation  appears  in  the 
second  person  of  the  passive,  as  also  in  the  imperfect  sub- 
junctive and  in  the  iuGnitive.  as  c  (Irye-ri/i  opposed  to  let/- 
i-tuT,  U(f-i-mitT).  For  this  reason  ftte-ram  also  ia  opposed 
to  tlie  subjunctive  fui'sacm,  in  which,  aa  r  does  not  follow 
the  i,  that  letter  remains  in  ila  original  form.  It  would 
&eem  much  more  difficult  to  discover  a  renson  w\\y  fu-pssem 
should  liave  become  fu-ittem,  than  why  fui-ram  should 
become  fue-ram.  In  genend.  in  Latin,  there  exists,  with- 
out rcfcrcni-e  to  a  following  r.  many  an  c  which  hits  arisen 
from  an  older  i-  I  am  not  acquainted,  [ti,  E>I.  p.  aOfl.] 
however,  with  any  i  used  for  an  older  ?.  as  in  general  llie  e  in 
an  inorganic  and  comparatively  more  recent  vowel,  but  the  r 
is  as  old  as  the  language  itself:  for  thouji^h  i  as  well  as  u 
has   very   frequently  arisen   from  tlie  wcakcQinf;    of  tJie 

3  L 


THE  PLUPERFECT. 

moat  weighty  vowel  a,  atUt  nu  e|>och  of  the  buigiug«  m 
Iju  iiriagiiied  wlifu  there  existed  no  vowel  but  «.  ICtiHi- 
ever,  tin.'  nuxili-iry  verb  in  ftu-ram, /itl-tsem,  liafl  lost  is 
vowel,  it  shurL<u  in  this  ri>!i|iect  the  siitue  fnt«  ns  the  Siuisknl 
aam  and  Greek  9a  contained  in  the  uorist.  Where  llie 
verb  substantive  cutcrs  into  composition  with  altribBti»t 
verbs,  sufficient  traaon  exiala  Tor  its  uiutilatiou. 

61^.  As  the  Greek  plu^ierrcct  is  Foruird  from  the  bue 
of  the  perfect,  ns  the  iinperfcc-t  is  from  that  of  the  pnacoi, 
by  prefixing  the  sugmc-nt,  by  which  the  completion  of  the 
ni.'ttoii  is  transferred  to  piist  liuio,  we  &}iould  cxpcvt  io  it 
the  terminations  OK,  cs,  e.  &c.;  thus,  eriru^v,  nbtch  wottld 
come  very  ueur  the  Sanak|-it  imperfect  of  the  iutcnaive— 
nliit<ip(im.  But  wiiciiee  is  tlie  tenninntion  ctv  of  tTcrv^ei*? 
Laodvoigt  and  Pott  rw.'ognisG  in  it  the  imperfect  of  the 
verb  subBlautive,  so  that  irerC^etv  would  stand  for  erervpifr. 
There  would,  therefore,  be  a  pleunasm  in  this  form,  as  crervf 
nlrc&dy  of  itself  combines  the  idea  of  the  impcrfeet  witb 
that  of  the  perfocL  If,  thuu,  the  verb  substantive  be  lidded,  it 
must  servo  merely  as  the  copula,  uud  not  itself  express  a  r»> 
lation  of  time,  nnd  it  therefore  Inys  aside  the  aii|pnent,  as  the 
Sanskrit  Asnm  m  aorists  like  vkuhSip-xnia.  But  it  beti^ 
premised  timt  the  verb  subsbiativo  is  contained  tu  crerv^iY. 
it  is  not  requisite  to  derive  its  a  from  the  ij  of  ^i*.  Advert  to 
the  analogy  of  eiv  with  ei'/ii',  which  latter  would  become  clr,  if 
its  primary  personal  termination  were  replaced  by  the  mote 
obtuse  secondary  one.     It  may  be  said  tliat  the  radical  tr  is 

[G.  Ed.  |i.8iilP.]  contained  in  the  j  of  ei</if.  which  sibiluut 
h;iving  first  become,  by  assimilatioa  fi  {Doric  emit),  has  Uien, 
as  often  happens  to  t-  (as  ndciV  for  ttOevi).  been  vocalized  to  i. 
The  analog  of  etfii  is  followed  in  the  compound  form  (if 
ertTu^iv  is  really  compounded  as  has  been  stated)  by  the 
duul  and  plural  j  thus.  ereT^^ei/xcf  fur  the  more  cumbrous 
creru^ff^i'.  Here  let  ttie  lonit-  form  eifietr  for  ivfiev  be 
noticed.     In  the  third  person  plural  iT€-w^>&Tav  (iaorgauic 


FORMATION  OF  TKNSES  873 

irerv^iffav)  the  composition  with  the  tiuxiliary  verb  is  evi- 
dent ;  but  this  person  cannot  be  adduced  as  evidence  for  tlie 
compoftitioQ  of  the  other  peraoua,  aiuce  in  general  a  kiiiij  of 
privili-gL-  is  accordtxl  to  the  third  i^rson  plural  iictivc  in  re- 
spect to  the  npiiendiiig  of  the  verb  nuhstnnti  ve.  which  niso 
extends  to  the  iaijierfect  and  norUt  of  the  conjugation  in  fu 
{iilSo-tra-v,  sSo-ca-v,  opposed  to  (:iii<i-fi.ev,  iio-fici')  i  and  in 
like  manner  in  the  Latin  perfects  (/uerunt  from  /uraun/). 
But  if  the  syllable  ei  of  crerti^-ef-i'  is  identical  with  the  et  of 
e'i-iii,  still  I  nm  not  shaken  by  this  in  my  opinion  that  the  k 
of  \t\vjca  and  the  aspiration  of  Trn/^a  belong  to  the  conso- 
nant of  the  auxiliary  root,  and  tliat  the  k  is  an  intension  of 
tlie  0*,  the  afipinitioii  a  weakening  of  the  k  (§.  .Sf>0.);  thnt, 
therefore,  in  c\e\CK€n;  herC^iv,  the  verb  substantive  is  twice 
contained,  as  is  the  cose  in  Sanskrit  forms  like  uyUifham 
(§.  570.].  I  believe,  however,  that  at  the  time  when  tlie 
Forms  i\tkuK-ct-y,  cT€Tv^ci~r,  developed  thcmsclvca  from  the 
to-bc-prcsupposcd  forms  irervtpov,  iJ-vihvKov,  the  rcmcm- 
bmncB  of  the  origin  of  the  k  and  of  the  aapiraliou  had  been 
long  lost,  and  that  tliese  forms  were  generated  by  the  neces- 
sity for  restoring  the  missing  verb  substantive,'  just  as  in 
Old  Saxon  the  form  nind-tm.  "  they  ore,"*  [G.  Ed.  p.800.J 
may  first  have  arisen,  when,  in  tlie  more  simple  and  likewise 
employable  xind.  the  expression  of  the  relation  of  time  nod 
person  was  no  lungc-r  pcreeivablu ;  and  hence  another  per> 
Bonni  termination,  and,  in  fnct,  that  of  the  preterite,  was  an- 
nexed-l  The  Greek  medio-passive  luia  admitted  neitlier  the 
first  nor  the  second  annexation  of  the  verb  substantive:  from 
i\e\v-Kei'V  wc  might  expect  c\eAw-ic€(Vijv,  but  iKe-\0-ti*}v  has 


■  At  Ihc  Btms  lime  iriih  inorganic  (raiwfvr  U>  tlie  first  ami  s«canil  |}er- 
soil,  wir  tiiuf,  ikrteid. 

f  With  ihc  [)r«t«rite  <win«id«  ilso  tho  Gothic  forni)  of  rveont  orif^D, 
jiu-u-in,  "wo  mn,"  riyn-tb,  "year*":  ad4  t-inJ,  "iheyuro"  (fiwn 
t-ani).  ia  nlunc  a  tnuuinisiiaii  from  tti*:  |>erio(l  of  the  oaily  of  UngiijiK«. 

3  l2 


876 


THB  7UTDBB, 


ariaen  directly  from  tlie  reduplicate  root,  by  prefixing  ttie 
luigmcnt.  ftnd  descends  Troju  a  period  wheu  the  active  vraa  not 

as  yet  iM7\VKeiv,  but  probiibly  i\^vv. 

THE  FUTURE. 

6-lG.  The  Sanskrit  haa  two  tenses  to  express  the  future. 
of  which  one,  which  is  more  rarely  employed,  consists  of 
the  fombiiiation  of  a  future  participle  with  the  present  of 
the  verb  substantive,  the  root  as;  in  such  a  manntT,  how- 
ever, that  (and  this  hna  leeu  already  noticed  as  remarkable) 
tlie  masculine  nominative  of  the  titree  Dumbers  of  the 
participle  lias  assHoied  the  complete  nature  of  a  third 
person  of  a  verb,  aud  this  jipt  se  without  annexation  of  the 
verb  subBtonlive,  and  witlmut  regurd  to  tlie  gender  of  the 
subject;  e.g,  ^nn  ddtH.  "dnturux,"  is  used  in  the  sense  of 
"  he,  she.  vr  it  will  give,"  ant!  so.  too,  (ftjnr^  (/dfdrai, 
"  ({■aturi"  in  the  sense  of  "they  will  give."  Observe  here 
what  has  been  said  above  of  tlio  Latin  nmamini  instcAd  of 
iimamini, -a, -a,  eiitis  (f>179.);  and  remark  also  the  tliird 
person  of  the  Polish  and  Persisn  preterite  {§.628.)-  In 
the  other  persons  the  Sanskrit  combines  the  maaculinc 
[G.  £d.  p.  DOl.]  nominative  singular  of  Uie  participle 
mentioned  with  thi^  said  person  of  the  present  of  the  auxi- 
liary  verb;  thus,  diUAxi  (from  thUAtixi)  =^ilijfuTus,  daluia, 
(fiiiuTU7ii  tat.  I  annex  the  full  conjugation  of  the  two  aetivo 
forms  of  the  adduced  example,  with  the  remark,  that  in  Uie 
third  [jerson  no  diH'erenec  caii  exist  between  the  oetive  aud 
middle,  since  the  participle  which  is  employed  makes  no 
distiiictioii  between  the  two  forms. 


sinauLAR. 

ACTITl.  NtDnLE, 

dAt&mii.    dA('\M. 
tlimni.       fMfii^. 


DO  At. 
ACnVK.  MIDDLB. 

dAtAwwas,  dAlAnMthfi. 
dAtAiAhm.  dAVixAiM, 
flAiArAu.        dAlAfAH. 


tUKMATION  OF  TBNSHS. 


877 


PLURAL. 

ACnvB.  MJDPLB. 

fitUtismas,       tlAWimahL 
ddtdittha,        flAMdkwS. 
diUAras,         ddldran. 

"  Remark.— It  is  very  surprising,  tlwfe  although  the 
tompound  nature  of  this  tcnso  ia  ao  distinctly  evident, 
none  of  the  gramnaariauB,  my  predecessors,  have  remarked 
it:  niiU  the  first  mecitioD  of  it  that  has  been  made  was  in 
my  System  of  Conj ligation,  where  it  wns  noticed,  without 
meettug  with  any  opposition  from  c)ic  strongest  opponents 
of  th«  90-called  System  of  Agglutination.  As  regards  the 
first  persoa  singular  middle,  it  ntiut  bo  remarked,  that  the 
mot  as,  in  ttiis  |>crson,  changes  its  a  into  h,  nltliou^^h  in 
Sanskrit  tliis  exchange  is  to  be  met  with  nowhere  else,  but  it 
occurs  frequently  in  Prakrit,  and  before  m  and  n  regularly 
bikes  place  iu  the  (Intaul)  middle  of  a  word,  where  mti,  »h, 
are  commonly  used  by  transposition  for  hm,  hn  ;  hence,  wnfii 
or  rnlti  (restiDg  on  a  preceding  vowel)  "I  am"  (see  Lassen, 
p.  367,  &c.,  Hiifer.  p.  77).  As  the  Sanskrit  A  (^£/A  not  ch) 
is  usually  represented  in  Greek  by  j^,  sometimes  also  by  7. 
aud  even  by  k,'  iu  dAlAiii,  therefore,  may  be  fouud  a  cou- 
firmatton  of  the  opinion  expressed  in  $.  56{>.,  that  the  k  of 
forma  Uka  cStJica.  de'dwKO,  belongs  to  the  verb  substantive 
as  a  thickening  of  a  a" 

Gil.   Ill  the  third  person  singular,  also,  the  verb  sub- 
stantive sometimes  occurs  combined  with  the  [mrticiple,  as 
vaktAstl,  -he  will  speak,"  for  vakiiU]  on     CO.  Ed.  p.  Ota.] 
the  other  hnnd,  we  oceasionally  6ncl.  in  the  otlier  persons 
also,  the  verb  substauttvc  omitted,  and  tlie  jierson  expresoed 


*  Compnre  Iy<a,  ftiyat,  k!)p,  mplSia,  with  oAara,  maAat,  h^id,  hrittai/a, 
f  3e»  my  coUoelion  uF  ihr  F.pisoili-H  vf  lliv  M«IiA-Bh&rAln  (Umupaili, 
111.2.),  paUiah«d  aodec  thetitl«of '-l><tuviuin.' 


878 


THB  FUTURE. 


by  a  sepiirate  )iroi)ouii,*  oa  is  done  in  Russiau  In  the  pre- 
terite (fitx  §.  62!).).  Sometimes  the  participle  is  sejiarated 
from  the  aiuiliiiry  verb  bL-loiiging  to  it  by  ouo  or  more 
words ;  as,  hirtd  tad  wimi  i^,  "facfnrus  hoc  /turn  tibi " 
(Maliu-Bh.).  1  do  uot,  however,  think  that  saoh  departures 
From  the  usual  practice  of  the  Inn^;iiagc  could  occur  where 
the  subject  vna  not  a  maaculine  singular;  at  least  it  is 
probable,  if  k-nrld  referred  to  a  reniiaine.  that  karlrx  would 
be  used  iDstcnd  of  it.  Except  in  these  constructions,  liow- 
ever,  forumtioiw  iu  U\r  (iu  the  weak  cast's  tri,  §.  l-ll.)  very 
seldom  occur  as  future  participles  it  but  tlieir  usual  function 
is  that  iif  u  noun  it-;cnt,  like  the  eorrcspoudiiig  forma  in 
Greek  and  I^atin  in  ti/js,  Top,  Ur;  as.  Jor^p.  dator,  didAr-hu 
answer  to  the  Srinskrit  rfd/Ar  (ijut  dAlri,  nominatife  t/ijjd. 
§.  I-l-).).  The  Latin,  however,  ns  h:is  been  already  observed 
(5-  516,  p.  75S  G.  ed.),  formed  from  the  shorter  form  in  ftVa 
longer  one  in  lAru,  nnd  has  atloth'd  to  this  exclusively  the  fuDc- 
tioiisof  the  future  participle.  In  Zend, the  formations  in  iAr,  in 
my  opinion,  occur  only  as  nouns  of  agency ;  as.  dAHW.  ••  crea- 
tor." (=  Sanskrit  dhAlAr)  nominative  m^jm^  dAtn  (see  §.  Ml. 
p.  169  G.  cd,).  accusative  f  ^jlu(oju^  ddMrim,  vocativu  f?A*c»jM^ 
diitnrf  {\.  M.).  To  tliis  elasB  Ix-Inng  in  Sclavonic  the  forma- 
[U.  Ed.  p.  t>03.)  tion&  in  (eh  (theme  ttflyv,  ^.3a9.),  the  r 
being  exchanged  for  /.  and  the  syllable  w  added:  as. 
(iy^riy.  "/actor"  corresponds  to  the  just-mentioniMl  Zend 
thUflr  and  Sanskrit  dfiAOlr  (compare  J.fiS^.).  This  dyetvty 
however,  docs  not  occur  in  its  simple  form,  hut  only  in 
combination  with  the  preposition  .*,  and  with  dohro,  "good," 
it-dueVy.  "conditor,"  dobro-dyelel^,  "benefactor."     For  other 


4 


*  Couiiinrc  l.t.  p  114,31.  31,  bkaiAtd  'ntas  tvsam  for  hhmttAty  antaSt 
"tlion  wilt  Ira  iIk-  eml  " 

t  An  example  occurs  in  lh«  Ko^lia-VnnM,  Vl.  £'i,  Ed.  SUnxIc-r,  itf{jg«ii 
biJi) ....  eifiitffaffAd  aiyavaiik&r  bItmUrl,  "  rygtm  ilium  pratfriit  ajfai 
uxar/ulum." 


TOSMATION  OF  TENSES. 


879 


examples  in  ?f/y,  see  §.  259.'  From  the  Gothic  we  may 
here  adduce  the  word  fttiii-irebi  (ttietnc  bUt-iTua),  which  ia 
quite  isolated  in  its  formation,  find  is  connected  with  bfAt, 
"  to  honor."  the  /  of  which,  accordinj^  to  %.  103.,  ba^  passed 
into  n  before  the  i  of  the  suffix.  With  respect  to  Uie 
Sanskrit  siillix  Mr  ((ri),  it  remains  to  be  remarked,  tliat  ID 
vowels  ciipablc  of  Gunn  it  requires  Guna,  and  that  it  Is  not 
always  united  with  the  root  dirert.  but  frequently  by  a 
conjunctive  vowe!  i ;  in  the  latter  respect,  Jan-hU\,  jutt-i- 
Uirnm,  correspond  to  the  Latin  gen-i-tor,  gtu-i-Mfem^  while 
pnkt'i,  pnl-trirum,  answer  to  c*cfvr,  coctitrem. 

S\3.  In  my  Sauskfit  Grammar  I  term  the  future  tense 
just  considered,  and  which  is  peculiar  to  the  Sanskrit,  the 
participial  future,  in  accordance  with  its  formation,  to  di»- 
tinguisb  it  from  that  which  belongs  to  the  Sansbfit,  in 
common  with  the  Zend,  Greek,  Lithuanian,  and  Latin, 
and  which  I  call  the  auxiliary  future,  because,  in  its  cha- 
racter ^  ^ya,  I  recognise  the  obsolete  future  of  the  root 
ni,  "to  be."  1  imagine,  therefore,  thiit  in  dA-xi/ntr,  "  \k 
will  giTe,*  only  the  syllabic  yo  expresses  the  future,  but 
that  the  s  is  the  root  of  the  verh  "  to  be,"  with  loss  of  its 
vowel,  which  is  not  surprising,  as,  even  when  nncomjwuTidGd, 
the  a  of  the  root  as  is  frequently  tost  (§.180.),  The  final 
part  of  c/(l-.ii/f}m(  resembles  very  closely  the  potential  ayihn, 
"  I  may  bci"  which  actually  exista  in  isolated  use.  Com- 
pare— 


*  SVilh  rcgarti  to  the  foTmntions  in  uryi  nienlioDctl at  {.259.,  it  is  rv- 
qaialtc  to  «Wrro,  that  the  preceding  t  ilocs  not  belong  to  the  buITix  under 
iliKtwion,  bat  to  ihe  iirlniftry  wonl :  ^laiary,  **  goldaniiUi"  (in  Ronim, 
alsn,  ^nlolary),  ooin(4  from  (oloto,  "  goM,"  and  hralniy,  "  [Mirltir,"  rroni 
brata,  *•  doof."  Mytary,  "toU-giitherw,"  iiruUied  in  iu  ]irin)urjr  wort, 
which  (1'vs  not  uppMr  to  wear,  with  th«<  (fflrmxn  Mauih  :  compare  the 
ti<>tiueni«t(trci>(theiiMmtfto^),''toU-KKthcKr,''>n^,''J>f(iuM,""loll.'' 


860 


THE  rUTDRB. 


st3totn.AlL 


DCAL. 


Ofdmi.       aydfiL 
tyati.         tyia. 
fyofi,         rydt. 


MtfAva*.        tj/Aea. 
wyatkoM,       nfdlam. 
n/alat,  syAi^m, 


runui. 

wyAmas,     tyAat. 
aifntha.       m/tta. 
tyantL       tyiu. 


fr49.  We  ace  that  the  principal  difference  of  the  fotnt 
here  compared  is.  that  the  potential  has  a  long  A  perradiB^ 
i^  bat  the  future  a  short  a,  which,  accordiog  to  the  priih 
cipleofthe  class-svllabltis  of  the  first  coujagation  ((.134.). 
i«  lengtheoed  before  m  and  v  of  the  first  person.  And 
besides  this,  the  fatun:  has  the  full  primary  termination, 
but  the  potential  has  the  more  obtuse  secondary  ending!, 
with  that  of  us  in  Uie  third  person  plural,  which  ocean 
occasionally  also  in  the  imperfect 

650.  The  Latin  has  this  great  superiori^  orer  the 
Sanskrit,  that  its  ero.  prh.  &c..  lias  been  prtnerved  in 
isolnted  use,  and  in  fiict  retaining  the  mitial  vovrcl  of  the 
root,  in  wlijch  respect  erit,  eriU  &c  (from  e^iis,  eait,  {.  sa.). 
is  as  advantageously  distloguisbed  from  atfwri,  tj/ati,  ai 
ex-iis  from  stha,  or  as.  in  Greek,  hrfii^  from  tmoM.  eario 
from  tlfias.  stas  (f  -180.) 

fi&l.  The  (  of  erit,  erit,  &c.,  I  liare  already,  in  mv  System 
of  Conjugation,  represented  (p.  9  i )  as  a  contnietion  of  the 

[G.  EJ,  p.  005.]  true  future  character  yi;  and  I  have  since 
been  supported  in  this  opinion  by  the  Prnknt,  where,  for  the 
Sanskrit  »yu  or  tyd,  we  occasionally  find  Ai,-  for  instanee^ 
in  the  first  person,  fiimt  fur  ay^imif  and  iu  tho  second 
person  hist  for  xyani  (Latin  crix).  Some  ex&niplca  hare 
been  already  given  above  (p.  401  Note),"  It  may  be 
further  reiunrked,  that  the  Sanskrit,  also,  sometimea  ubbrv- 
vintcs  the  syllable  t/a.  aa  also  vn  and  ra,  by  suppressing 
the  vowel   and    cliauging    the    semi-vowel    into   its    vone- 


•  CompftM  Uof^  "  Do  I'riikr.  Did."  p.  100. 


FORMATION  OF   TENSES. 


881 


spending  vowvl  (sec  p.  780  G.  vd.) ;  aod  moreover  (which, 
iu  the  case  before  us,  b  still  more  important  to  observe  with 
rcgnrd  to  the  formal  connection  of  the  fulnre  and  potea- 
tia)],  the  syllable  yA  of  tliv  mood  just  meDlioned  is  uon- 
tnicttit)  in  the  middle  to  i,  by  which  aytU,  "  be  may  be," 
bocomes,  in  the  middle,  s&a. 

C5S.  The  Lithuaniau  has  likewise  contracted  tlie  fiitare 
character  yn  to  i  in  the  persons  most  correctly  preserved ; 
thus  tlie  sime,  s'tle,  of  du'si-me.  liu-si-te  (dobimus,  (Libitis), 
correspond  to  the  latin  (Tj-mtw,  eri-lis,  and  the  whole  word 
to  the  Sanskfit  iliUsy/l-mus,  tii\-sya-tha  i  and  in  the  dual 
Jfi-m-ica,  dii-ai-ta,  corrcs|K>nd  to  tfic  Sanskrit  dA-syA'Vai, 
dA-tya-thoM.  But  iu  its  simple  state  si  has  been  no  more 
retained  in  Lithuaaian  tlian  xya  has  iu  Sanskrit,  but  the  verb 
substantive,  in  the  future,  in  tlic  two  cognate  idioms,  eom- 
binL-s  tlie  two  roots  of "  to  be"  with  one  another:  hence, 
in  Lithuanian,  b^-si-tea,  tt^si-la,  biif-si-me,  bi-si-te,  answering 
to  the  Sanskrit  bfmv-i-^byA-vnt,  bhax'i'^hyn-thaa,  bhav~i-shyA- 
-mm,  bkav-i-aht/a-tha,  which  arc  ftirnialicd  with  Guna  and 
u  conjuuctire  vowel  i,  <^mparc,  in  regard  to  the  com- 
bination of  the  two  roots  of  "  to  be,"  the  Latin /ueriin/,  for 
which  a  simple  fm-nt  might  be  expected;  or  (which  is  here 
more  in  point)  the  future  perfect,  fuera,  [G.  Ed.  p.  tfOfl.] 
which  I  distribute,  not  intoyii-ffro,  but  into/iie-ro  foryui-ro 
(compare  §.  644.). 

653.  In  the  8in<;ular.  the  Lithuanian  has  almost  entirely 
lost  the  future  character/,  and  only  the  s  of  the  auxiliary 
verb  has  romaincHl ;  at  least,  I  belierc  tliat  in  the  second 
person  d^-ni,  "  thou  wilt  give."  tlic  personal  termination, 
which,  in  the  second  person  singular,  terminates  iu  all 
tenses  in  »,  has  more  claim  to  the  i  tliun  the  expression 
of  the  future  has.  Iu  the  tliird  person,  dU-s  stands  for  all 
numbers  ($.457.);  and  to  the  form  b(i-s  of  the  verb  aub- 
stantire  the  won)  hhai.  in  Irish,  of  the  same  signification, 
remurkabtv  correHponds.   hut  wluch  is  ijuite  isolated  (see 


888 


THE  FUTURE. 


O'Rcilly'fl  Lex.,  s.v.  bhat).  The  Sanskrit  bhav-i-9hyaU  mi 
7jCIvI  bH-tytili,  however,  foriu  tlie  uiedium  bctweea  Uk 
Lilhuaitiiin  bilt  aiid  Irish  hhux, 

6jJ.  I  f*ganl  tlie  u  in  tlic  first  prrson  singular  of 
rorma  like  du-su,  "  1  will  give,"  as  in  all  first  [lersom  sii^ 
gulur,  Hs  the  vocalization  of  tite  personal  cliaracter  m  (see 
§§.  -126.  438.):  in  the  l^atin  &ro,  however,  for  which  rrin  oofjbl 
to  stmidt  the  second  clement  of  the  Suuskrjt  t/d  of  xyJhia 
luis  been  preserved  in  preference  to  the  first,-  aud  in  tbii 
respect  prn  liaa  the  same  relation  to  syAmi  that  rvho,  uban 
nit^ntioned,  li.ta  to  vuMmi  (§.  733.).  The  siiuie  is  the  coe 
with  tilt!  third  person  plural,  in  which  erunt  for  eriunl  eor- 
n-spDnds  to  the  Saaskrit  tyanti  from  asyanti,  aod  in  nsftiii 
to  its  u  for  a  answers  to  vekunl^irtiianlL 

655.  To  the  Latin  to,  erant,  from  rao,  eaunt,  correspouL 
exclusive  of  their  middle  termintLtionH.  the  Greek  taofuu, 
effovrai,  the  active  of  which  is  loet.  aa  far  as  ita  simple  uie. 
''EaovTol  from  ea-lovrai  nnswers  to  the  Sanskrit  syantf  (or 
astj'iniiy  and  in  the  singular  ^cerai  to  the  Saaskrit  -wf^ 
i^sijatai)  from  nxi/nb^.  The  form  earcu  is  originally  notUog 
else  tlmn  the  middle  of  earl;  and  eire'Tat  also  appears,  fron 
the  iJoint  of  view  of  the  Greek,  like  a  present,  with  the  ooih 

[O.  Ell.  p.  807.]  junctive  vowel  of  the  conjuf^ation  in  u  (\ht- 
-e-rai).  The  epie  fnrms  with  double  a  {((nrof^eu,  6\ca\ru)  cob 
scarcely  have  been  formed  from  a  consideration  of  metre,  hot 
have  been  used  in  the  construction  of  verse  only  because  thev 
nerc  nlready  in  existence,  and  had  a  grammntioil  daini  to  that 
existence.  I  derive  (aaofxai,  ihiavfa,  by  nssimilution,  from 
etryojuoi,  iXttryw.*  aa/ieoxros  from  fmrt/oi  for  fieSvog  (Sanskrit 
miuihyn.  Latin  medium),  and  as  aWo;  from  a\yo%=iaiitu, 
Prakrit  <r»na,  Sanskj-it  anj/a.    The  Prakrit  regularly 

*  The  Doric  funa  tovovfuu  from  iairtoiuu.  for  ianio^m  conacquc 
tfonttulu  tho  clisrocter  of  the  futnr«  doubled  (^.6AC.);  which  cAiuiot 
■nrprbiiig,  OS,  vihon  tl)i-«>^  wurdx  weiv  [irmluccit,  tberartua  of  the  <loplJM- 
tion  of  thv  a  was  no  longer  pi-rcuTol  b>  Uic  laaguagc. 


yOBMATIOK  OF  TENSES. 


883 


niiCates,  as  lias  been  already  reoinrked  ($,  300,  p.  4  U  G.  ed.), 
tlic  weaktT  consonant  to  the  stronj^er.  whctlicr  iliis  prcccde« 
or  follows  it;  and  according  to  this  principle  it  prodnces  aliw 
futuros  in  ssati,*  gmsi,  uridt,  &c. ;  e.f/.  karinsatii,  answering  to 
the  Sanskrit  karitfiyoti.  "  he  will  oiaki- ."  Forms  of  tliis  kind, 
whith  are  the  couutc-rtypea  of  the  Greek  Zavoftat,  are  in  far 
more  frcqacnt  use  than  those  above  mentioned  in  himu 

656.  In  compoaitioi)  the  Greek  loses  the  radical  vowel  of 
the  auxiliary  verb ;  hence,  hut-ata,  Sio-aofiev,  Je/ic-ffu,  Selic 
-trofiev,  as  in  Sniiskrit  tIti-nfAmi,  dd-ti/Amas,  dfk-shyAmi  (§.  81.)_ 
dik-»h\/iimnx,  only  with  the  loss  of  the  y,  tor  which  i  tutgfat 
be  expected,  aod  wliieh.  too,  it  is  very  remarkable,  has  re- 
inaiued  iu  some  Doi*ie  forms,  which  Keen  compares  at  Greg. 
Cor.  p.  2.10.  They  arc  tiv.  following :  irpafio^xcv,  jfapifio/itfa. 
ijvvBiai[ni\a^iOfie&a.  ^oaStjtTiu).  ■jrpoAe^ili'/u.t  To  this  class  be- 
long the  comuion  Doric  futures  iu  ou,  [0.  FA.  p.  nOB.] 
9oif fi€v,  from  (few,  trioftev,  for  ffi'w,  triojiBv,  since  the  »  has  been 
first  corrupted  to  e,  and  then  contracted  with  the  following 
vowfl,  as  in  tlie  declension  of  Ikiscs  in  t,  as  iroXcij  proceeded 
from  TtcSAeec.  irdXeoi.  and  these  from  iro?Ue(,  jioAwj  ;  as  to  tlie 
Old  High  German  genitives  like  biibje-s  {fmikea)  the  (iothic 
like  bafyi-s  corrcsjxind,  or  as,  iu  the  feminine  J  bases,  the 
Old  Htj;h  German  form  krefii  pr«^dofl  tlie  Middlu  Hi;>h 
German  f>;etiitiveB  and  datives  like  kreffe.  In  the  genitive 
plural  we  have,  in  Old  Elijah  German  even,  aocordiog  to  the 
difference  of  authorities,  together  with  krc/tio,  which  must 
originally  have  been  kreffxjo.  tlic  form  hefleo.  and,  sup- 
pressing thee  or  i.  ierrflo  (^clirf/lu).  These  genitives,  there- 
fore, in  tlietr  gradual  process  of  corruption,  uuinvide  exactly 
with  that  of  the  Greek  future;  for  from  tfo  we  arrive  first  at 


*Tke  finl  |i«nmii,  in  this  formution,  luttt  the  ■  of  the  lenninstion, 
which  the  forrriN  in  himi  have  reuine<i. 

t  I  ngrm  widi  i'oit  (l-ii.  llS)io  thinking  fiiioSijalu  niul  vpoXti^itt 
Hlioiil^i  bo  written  fur  iini]$i]a\i^  iTfMjXti^im :  as  the  farm  in  u  has  ari!>cn 
hn\  by  cvaltaclioR  from  «•»  for  tw^  the  •  would  bo  twice  reprcseDted  in  <«• 


fig! 


TBB  rtlTDftB. 


io,  thence  at  eo.  aitd  in  the  farthest  cormplion  at  o :  jotC  » 
froDi  tb«  SAR&krit  future  in  tytimi.  tyAmni.  in  Gre^  mx  fini 
we  come  ti0  9iw.oIott<t;  thence  to  <re'(^  tr^o^r,  which  we  iBMt 
suppose  to  have  cxUte«l  before  <rw,  0-ov>i«>-:  finallr  to  ttr 
common  fiitare  forms  like  SCy^ta,  doK-o-w,  in  which  the  semi' 
Towe!  of  the  Sanskrit  dA-xyAmi,  dJt-thifAmi,  baa  entirely  di>- 
nppeared.  [n  the  Greek  second  fubire,  however,  the  aeeood 
clement  of  the  Sanskrit  «yo  has  been  retained  in  prefcreOK 
to  the  sibilant ;  and  as  the  liqttidt  hare  expelled  the  «-  of  the 
first  oorist,  and  CttuTm  is  said  for  e<rrc\ir«.  so  also  orcAw 
comes  from  ctcXem  for  trreXlut,  and  this  from  an^jrm,  me- 
cording  to  the  analogy  of  the  aboTe-meutioood 
irpoKitwam. 

657.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  Sanskrit  fiitare-charaefer 
ya  should  have  originally  occurred  only  in  the  root  as  of  the 
[O.  Ed.  p.  IXX).]  verb  substantive  i  but  1  have  scarce  any 
doubt  tluit,  at  a  very  early  epoch,  extending  back  beymid  the 
period  of  the  sepamtion  of  languages,  tbc  attributive  verts 
likewise  might  form  thi-ir  future  by  annexing  directly  ih^ 
sylliible  ya ;  that  tlierefore  forms  like  dA-i/ati  have  existed  be- 
fore or  contemporaneously  with  mch  as  dA-tyaii  =  ftl^ini, 
"bcwillgivc."  In  the  present  state  of  the  language,  bowercr. 
tfao  attributive  verbs  always  reijuire  the  verb  substantive  io 
order  to  denote  the  future,  as  the  Sclavonic  lai^uages  also 
apply  the  uewly-constracted  future  of  the  verb  substantive 
(5.633.)  to  fianipbrase  the  future  of  the  attributive  verbs, 
without,  however  (the  Servian  language  excepted),  fomiii^ 
with  it  a  coni|Kiund.  The  Cnmiolan  and  Polish  employ 
with  the  future  of  the  auxiliary  verb  that  participle  in  t,ta,lo, 
which  we  have  seen  above  used  to  expnss  tlie  post 
($.  «29.  &c.):  the  Russian,  however,  and  Bohemian,  aiKl 
sometime.'i,  also,  the  Old  Svlnvonic,  use  tlie  infinitive. 
Thus,  iu  Caraiolan  wo  6nd,  in  the  various  genders,  Mm.* 


*  Ths  nwn  complele  form  of  i>in  Is  bbdem,  "  I  do  be,"  afl*r  tfco 

oaalofQr 


FORMATION  OF  TKNSR8. 


883 


igrai,  b&m  igr/Ja,  h6m  igr&lo,  "  I  will  play."  literally.  '*  I  will 
be  he  tliat  plays."  "she  timt  plays."  "it  that  plays."  lo 
Polisli,  h^d^.*  czfjtni,  c^ytafa,  c^iftaft>,  means  "I  will  rend." 
("  I  will  be  rending");  in  Ruasian,  6yAy  [G.  Ed.p.fll0.] 
ABtiranib  fcilrfd  dvigniy,  "  1  vUl  move ,"  literally.  *"  I  will  be 
moviog";  so,  in  Bohemiau.  budtt  kraati  (from  kradli),"! 
will  steal."  Till;  Serviiin.  however,  luts  tliis  ndvaotage  over 
the  other  Sclavonic  dialects,  that  it  does  not  require  a  peri- 
phrasis of  the  future  by  the  verb  aubatautive,  but  combines 
the  auxiliary  verb  signifyiag  "  to  do  "  with  the  Uiemes  of  the 
attributive  verbs,  just  as  with  that  of  th4>  verb  substantive  : 
thus,  igrad^u  means  "  I  will  phiy."  aa  bldyu  does  "  [ 
will  be." 

6i6.  Several  St-lavouic  Ianguftg:e8  may  or  must,  under  cer- 
tain circunistanoes,  express  the  future  by  a  prepositiou  pre- 
fixed to  the  present,  which  sifjiiifies  "•after."  and  is  pro- 
nounced po.  We  refer  the  reader  to  Dobrowsky's  Bohemiau 
Instructions.  p|).  t60,&c.,  respecting  the  ditTcroncB  in  sigui- 
fication  of  the  Bohemian  futures  wliich  are  expressed  with 
po.  from  those  which  are  conveyed  by  a  periphrasis,  where 
both  together  are  used,  aa  jjo-hradu  and  badu  krimfi.  In 
Caruiolan  there  .ire  not  more  tliaii  ten  verbs  wltich  ex- 
press the  future  by  prefixiiig  po ,-  os  pn-risfma,  "  I  will  say."f 


onslogT  of  the  Old  Sdanmle  bA-M  (f  633.).  The  conlraction  of  Aitf/inn 
to^i/mivLikc  tluil  olglida^  "beibold"  {gliilam,  "I  bdiuld"),  in  glc^ 
(see  Kopiiar'eCr.  Gr.  \i.ZZi).  The  uotitnicU-d  form  hmn  rcitciiiIitcB  I'or- 
toitously,  bot  in  a  nrprising  degree,  dii:  PfAkrit  prcx'Ut  homi,  "  1  am," 
aDBbbramlioa  oTMAnt,  and  contnctioD  ofth«  Sandirit  iAxrvJiiti.  In 
th«  Iciodtvl  Un^ag«'a,  however,  a  histarical  ftuH  lies  for  tiM  most  fart  M 
the  iHjttuiiiof  t'uriuituus  eoinciOcDcra,  which,  in  the  caac  bcfWoiU,  COUiMi 
ill  tliio,  tliat  binn  tuiil  huiai,  like  our  bill.  Old  Uigh  Gsimaa  hint,  haru  the 
aatne  root  nnd  the  sitmc  pi'rsaoal  tCTmination, 

'  TMf=l>fndi'h,  froHi  liendtm,  J.iiS.jr. 

t  Compara  ihu  Old  Svlarfriiic  reki,  r^iAeM,  and  SwukTit  tach  (w 
^648G  cd.Not**.) 


886 


THS  FCT13BK. 


The  rest  oil  expresa  movement,  as  pobeftkim,  "  1  will  fly," 
pou^tdim.  "  I  will  ride  "  (Kopitnr,  p.  332).  The  Old  Sclavomc 
employs  other  prepositions  besides  po,  in  order  to  give  a 
future  meaning  to  the  prc-sciiL  After  ;m  tiie  most  in  user  ore 
«y  (i3).  "  by"  ""^  ^'*'3  ('*^0'  "  upward*";  as  A-vidit-,  "  vidrbU" 
H-houd-iiyn,  '•  timeho"  (Sanskpitb/ti  "  to  fear,"  bhnya^  "fear"), 
vo^-rmtA,  "ertscam"  (Dobr.  p.  377), 

65y.  The  pcriphrftsis  by  bida,  "I  will  be,"  is  raiv  i<i  O 
Schivonic:  on  tlic  other  luindi  ifnam,  "  I  have."  rru<|UCDtIy  oc- 
cars  in  the  translation  nf  the  Gospels  »s  a  future  auxiliar]F{ 

[0.1ul.|i.911.]  verb  in  combination  with  the  infintlive  ;  »s 
imvHi  imaxhi,  "  fmbebis"  ("  tlicm  hiist  to  have"");  priiti  imuty 
»yn,  "  vmiet  fdiu9" ;  ne  imntif  byli,  "noitm/;  ne  imoty  piti, 
"  non  bibet"  (Dobrowsky,  p.  37t»).  Observe  the  eoineidettce 
of  idea  vrith  the  Roman  liuiguages,  the  future  of  whieh,  tltou^ 
it  hns  completely  the  chiiriictt^r  of  u  simple  inflexion  romit 
is  nothing  else  than  the  combinfttion  of  the  infinitive  with 
the  present  of  the  auxiliary  verb  "  lo  have."  This  would 
perhaps  have  been  vfith  difficulty  discovered,  or  not  at  all, 
on  Qceount  of  tlie  contraction  which  the  auxiliary  verb  ex- 
perieneus  in  tbc  plural,  but  for  the  clear  indication  of  it  we 
reecivf  from  the  iaiigunge  of  Provence,  whii-h  at  times  ae- 
puralca  the  auxiliary  verb  from  the  iufmilive  by  a  |)ronouitt 
as.  Jur  vas  nai,  "jpvouaen  donn'mi";  tttr  voa  oi,  "jV  votit 
c/irai";  dir  vot  em,  "  now*  vous  dironv";  g'llat  m'elx,  *  vom  me 
j^tf^ts."  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Old  Sclavonic  oecaaiunally 
paraphrases  the  future  of  the  verb  "  to  have"  itself  by  •■  to 
hove."  which  tlie  llomnn  laiigufiges  are  always  compelled  to 
do,  beniiuse  they  possess  no  other  means  of  expressing  the 
future :  thus  llie  French  tu  nuran  (from  nroiTos)  corresponds 
to  the  aljove-nientionwi  Sclavonic  imyai't  imaski. 

660.  The  Gothic,  also,  sometimes  paraphrases  tlw  future 
by  the  auxiliary  verb  "  to  have  ";  thus.  2  Cor.  xj.  12.  et$uynt 
haha  for  wot^ffw;  John  xii.  26.  tiwin  hnbaith  for  c<rTO(  (aetj 
Urimni,  IV.  93.).     The  German  languages  have,  tliut 


KOEMATIOS  OF  TENSES. 


887 


Bfty,  like  their  St-Iavonic  cooiiate  idioms,  from  thecnrlii-'statiti- 
(piity  lost  tbeir  primitive  rutun;  inflexion,  wliicti  the  Litliun- 
tiiaounJ  Lettish  shai-utu  this  day  with  the  SiiiiskritatidGrcc-k. 
As,  however,  the  Sniiskrit  futun:  si/ilmt  is  nlmnst  identical 
with  the  potential  xijAm,  "I  may  be,'^  and  tlie  riitiire  character 
n  t/a  spritin^s  from  the  snme  source  with  the  poteotial  ^yrl, 
it  (leaerves  iiotiee  thnt  Ulfilas  frer|iieiit]y  expresses  l]ie  Greek 
fnturc  by  the  (iothic  subjunctive  present,  whit-h  is  in  form 
ideutical  with  the  Sanskrit  potential  and  [C  Rd.  p.  912.] 
Greek  optativu.  Exiimplcs  arc,  Mark  ix,  19,  siyau  nnd  ihuhiu 
for  eaofiai  and  dve^opat;  Mark  ix.  35,  fimi  for  Kcrrat :  x.  7, 
bileithni  for  KaTa\etif/ei ;  x.  8,  simtnn  for  ^aovrai.  In  the 
rt'vei-se  caao  the  Persian  uses  the  only  ancient  future  that  it 
has  preserved,  viz,  -i.\j  MiAam  (=San9knt  Wiamfijdmi) 
also  intlio  sense  of  the  present  subjunctive.  The  attributive 
Verba  in  Persian,  to  denote  the  future,  prefix  to  tlie  present  a 
particle  beginning  with  6,  which,  vritli  regard  to  its  voweli  is 
guided  by  that  of  (he  initial  syllable  of  the  verb;  so  that  for  ii 
[ilh'imma)  the  preGx  also  contains  an  u,  but  for  other  vowels 
an  i,-*  ta bi-baram,  "1  will  earrj',"  Ai-Adjom,  "I  will  phiy,"  but 
bu'purnam,  "  I  will  ask."  These  futures  stand  in  an  ext«rnal 
aniilosy  witli  tlioae  of  the  Sclavonic  liuiguagca,  which  are 
formed  from  the  present  by  prefixing  tlie  prrjtosition  po 
(55-  658.  &e.).  We  must,  however,  leave  it  undccidcil  whether 
the  PeraisD  preGx  of  tlie  future,  which  may  also  precede  the 
imperative,  is  identical  with  the  inseparable  preposition  hi, 
or  whether,  ns  apiienrs  U»  me  far  more  probable,  it  is  con- 
nected with  jjU  liAi/ad,  "oporteU"  and  lins,  Lhereforc.  nii 
ideal  relationship  witii  the  periphrasis  of  the  future,  whicli 
is  formed  by    the  auxiliary   verb   sullen,  aud    which    still 


"  A'curw,  innjifrlyi.whioli.liowpriT.likc/ti/fia.  i.e.  orlgiH&la,  iauaually 
pronoanccd  e. —  Wilbrrgnrd  loihUremnTkof  I'mfi'seorUiip^f  a,scir  m^'  now 
p.8A^  ThvinK>oflheTow«li//jammn,  with  the  prvp.  A>  isatlMBtdoobtfal: 
8i'eLuiii!*k-a'8PeraiAaGr«iniliar,Vot.2.{i. 3^)^.  liowivcr, iviih  imperatives 
lliB  Hni  vowel  of  wbioli  iaJhammu,  U  iiutj  be  aiui'ueiUt.—TraMtixlor. 


888 


THE  FUTDBE. 


remains  iq  9c%'cml  older  and  more  recent  Grerman  dialeoM 
(Grimm  IV.  179.  &c.).  IE  this  is  tbe  case,  it  tony  be  ben 
further  remarked,  that,  ui  Zotid,  the  imperative  is  oon* 
siouully  used  in  the  scnso  of  the  future.     Thus  we  reodii 

h^  urvAncm  vahisthn  aMm  ftahAnitjfnf.  "  whose  soul  I  wiJ 

[G.  Ell.  p.  913.]    make  to  go  to  the  Ijest  world."      Alli)t)eti 

trauslatea,    "j«  ferai  alUr  tibrement  son  ante   aux  dememtt 

6S1.  Wc  return  to  the  Gothic,  in  order  to  remark  that  it 
employs  most  <-ommon!y  the  present  indicative  instead  a( 
the  future,  in  which  it  js  deCcient,  as  is  the  cose  also  in  OH 
High  Germnti  very  frequently.  Tire  periphrasis,  boweiw. 
b^ns  gradunlly  by  sollen  and  tmlltn,  tJic  latter  only  in  lb 
first  person :  that  by  means  oftverden  is  petjultar  to  tbe  Nn 
German;  in  a  CL-rtain  degree,  however,  the  Gothic  pares tb 
way  for  it,  as  in  tUb  language  wairtlut  sometimes  occurs  il 
the  sense  of  the  future  of  the  verb  substantive.  Grina 
(rV.  177.  17S.)  quotes  tlie  following  passiiges  :  Matt.  viiL  11 
Luke  i.  I't.  9  Cor.  xi.  15 ,  where  c^rai  is  rendered  bv  vairi^. 
'  moreover,  2  Cor.  vi.  IQ.  where  vahtha,  vnirihand,  answer  K 
ttie  Greek  e<Tofiai,  taovrai.  In  fact,  wrrden,  "  to  become,'*  ii 
tlie  moat  natural  and  surest  expression  of  future  beine,  s^ 
far  better  adapted  lo  represent  it  than  the  nuxiliar>*  vertl 
wallpfi,  "to  will,"  and  soilen,  "to  owe";  for  he  who  is  bccomiie 
will  certainly  arrive  nt  being,  and  is  one  who  will  l>e  herr- 
ofter;  the  willing  and  the  owing,  howuver,  may  be  iucanablt 
or  be  prevented  from  doing  what  he  would  or  ou"ht.       Tie 

•  lAbrtmenl  la  dculy  the  trAnslalion  of  ihc  preposition  ooaMined  ii 
/ra-hdrai/Snfi.  naAnquetil  aUo,  in  tlie  page  pnwoding,  runAern /rmvak^ 
(ihusi  nmi  tt  for  fmeuotim)  hy  "je  ptirU  claireititnt ;"  whils  in  bod 
cxprraaons,  (uid  cii|in:iall>  very  ofttn  in  Zeni,  bb  [o  Snualcrit  th«  Ptno- 
•itiQiis  have  no  pcrcfptiMif  mcnning,  whioli  ftdmils  of  traiudatjoii,  tbMci 
llic  ItKlinu  ^chollaata  tilwi,  in  ihc  jit-nvtinoti  of  verba  vompouiMjgJ  wM 
pri'jiMiLtlftns,  lAy  toomucti  suvwor  iliR piv|MMitioiiK.  W«  wtU  (km  ha» 
afUTuFtbe  niiddlo  iiu[>rnitivv  term  inn  tion  in  ni.  As  causal  forai  Ik 
verb  under  dlacumiDii corrMpunilx  le  tLw  Sniukrit  pra'tArayami, 


FORHATION  OP  TBNSBS. 


S89 


willing  person  may  also  alter  liis  will,  and  henoe  not  do  irhat 
he  iritcDcted.  The  Old  NortKcm  langriAge.  [O.iy.  p.  flU.J 
in  pftraphraaing  tJic  future,  uses  the  anomalous  miin,  "  t 
thipk,"  which  employs  Ihe  preterite  form  aa  tin;  present; 
f.tf.  munt  vera,  "em,"  mrin  tlilim,  " rtimpftur."  l-omn  munu, 
"venient."'  To  this  head  belongs  tliecireuiuitniice,  that  occa- 
siunnlly  tlic  Gothic  weak  verb  mun/in  represents,  not,  inileeil. 
the  proper  future,  but  Uic  Greek  construction  with  >(eMw, 
for  which,  however,  A«6/in  is  also  applied  (GriiD[U,lV.93. 179,); 
thus  John  xiv.  22,  munnh  t/<ihttirhtwin,  "  jiiAAett  ett'Pavi^etv." 
Ulfilns,  however,  could  scarcely  have  luingini^i  that  his  tmtnnn 
and  the  Grtwk  /ceM«  are  rudicalty  akiii,  whiL-li  is  the  wise  if 
I  mistake  not  I  believe  tliat  fiCXKui  stimds  in  the  same  re- 
lation to  the  Sanskrit  mnmj^  (only  thai  the  tatter  is  n  middle 
verb),  "I  think,**  "I  mean,"  as  a^Xor  docs  to  «ny«-,?,  "the 
other"  (§.665.).  The  circumstance  tliat  we  have  the  San- 
skrit root)  in  Greek  also,  in  a  truer  form,  aud  one  whicli 
retains  the  original  n  (c.y.  fiivo^=inrtnai),  docs  not  prevent 
the  assumption  that  besides  this  the  favorite  exchange  of 
liquids  takes  place,  and  eonsequently  ftiXKu  might  beuoma 
estranged  from  the  forms  with  i-. 

6C3.  Latin  futures  like  amnbtt,  dcceho.  Imve  already,  in  my 
System  of (>)nj ligation,  as  compniinda  with  the  root/u  (the/ 
of  which  in  the  interior  of  a  word  becomes  h,  see  §.  18.),  and 
ho,  bit.  bii,  ScCr  been  compared  with  tlie  Anglo-Saxon  ^i>, 
"I  will  he,"  hyg.  "thoii  wilt  be."  byilh,  "he  will  be."  Bo, 
a  sister  form  of  tbc  bam  of  ttmabnm,  docebavt,  discussed  before 
($$,  626,  &c,)t  answers  in  fX>iijugation  exactly  to  ero;  bo.  there- 
fare,  .stands  for  hio,  hunt  for  hiunl,  and  the  i  of  bit,  bit,  b'tmvs. 
bills,  is  a  contraction  of  t)ie  Sanskrit  future  cliaracter  i/a 
(§.651.).  Fn>m  tike  root  Mtl.  in  Sanskrit,  would  come  the 
forms  bhii//\mi.  bt'Ai/fiai,  bhuifafi,  &c.,  or  with  Gunn,  iMyltni, 
bhdif'isi.  8v;.,  if  the  said  root  were  not  combined  in  the  future 
with  the  root  n-t,  but  annexed  the  sylliible  ya  direct  (before 

3h 


890 


THE  FDTVHR. 


.ions  by 


[O.  Ei  p.  ftlfr.]  fTi  aod  I',  yA),  To  this  would  correspond  in 
Latin,  in  its  isolated  state,  /i^o,fuig,/ttit,  iu  wlui;bi  honcTcri 
fuit  would  be  disiingnishcd  from  the  perfect  (aorist) /iu7  in 
this,  thn.t  the  t  iii  tlic  latter  form  is  notlnng  but  a  conjuni-tivc 
vovrel  and  the  weakeuing  of  au  origiua)  a.  but  in  the  future 
the  contraction  of  va  ntid  expression  of  the  relntion  of  time. 
In  bo,  bht,  bit,  the  u  of  the  root/u  is  passed  over,  as  in  /<^  fih 
fit,  wliich  is  properly  tlic  piuaivc  of /u.  at>d  corretsponds  to  tlie 
Sanskrit  passive  bhii-yf,  btiu-ya-xt,  bhd-ya-t^,  only  with  active 
terminations  like  the  Pr&kril,  which  preserves  the  charac- 
teristic syllable  yu  of  the  Sanskrit  passive  (of  which  we  wil\ 
speak  hereafter),  hui  has  replaced  the  middle  temiioations  by 
active  one*. 

663.  The  question  may  be  raised,  whether  the  Lati 
really  bused  on  a  presupposed  Sanskrit  6/ir)^i1niii  or  Mi 
and  thus,  whether  tliis  rorni  existed  at  the  time  of  the  divi- 
sioD  of  languages,  and  if  alone,  or,  together  with  that,  com- 
pounded with  the  other  root  of  "to  be,"  oa  which  the  Zend 
bdaifimi,  the  Greek  ^v-ata,  tlic  Litbuauiau  bu-su,  and  the  Irish 
hhus,  "ertf,"  mentioned  aborc,  are  founded;  or  wbetlicr  the 
Lutiu  bo  likewLie,  at  an  earlier  period,  was  couibiard  with  the 
other  auxiliary  verb;  whether,  therefore,  in  an  isolated  state. 
a/aro  from  an  earlier/uio,  for/Msio,  existed,  like  the  Greek 
^-cru  from  ^v-u/w?  This  question  cannot  be  decided  wi 
certainty ;  but  the  latter,  according  to  which  am< 
amabii,  &c..  would  appear  as  eoutruetiuiis  of  amaburo,  ama- 
biirjs,  appears  to  mc  the  more  probable,  {larticularly  as  the 
forms,  which  are  incumbered  by  the  eom{K»itioD,  have  most 
cause  to  be  weakened.  It  may  be  observed,  tliat,  even  with- 
out any  external  occasion  for  being  weakened,  the  Old 
High  German,  in  the  very  same  root,  eontmsts  vrith  iia 
plural  birunif-a,  "  we  are"  (=Sanskril  bhtivAmaa,  %■  SO.),  a  ain- 
guliir  hUn  for  /;truin.  The  Carniolan  exhibits,  as  we  haw 
teen  (§.(i!>7.),  together  with  fcrit/em,  "1  will  be"  ("do  be"). 


reek^i 


F0BMA7I0N  OP  TENSES. 


891 


responding  to  the  Sclavonic  cognate  idioms.    [O.  TA.  p.  9lflO 
8  contract^  form  b6m,  to  which  the  Latin  bo  at-videntally 
ap]>i*uaL'liL's   very  ctosely,  though  with  a  ilitTePcnt  kind  of 
coutniction.    The  Anglo-Saxon  beo,  mentioned  above  (also 
tc<fm),  "l  will  be,"  is  properly  not  a  formal  future,  but  a 
present,  answering  to  Uie  German  bin.  Old  High.  German 
bim,  and  to  tlie  Sanskrit  bfiaiuimi.  which  is  principally  used 
with  a  future  meaning,  while  eom  =  'ismi,   Golliio  iffi,  re- 
mains devoted  to  Uio  present.     It  might,  also,  be  disputed 
whether  the  Latin  bo  of  amcbo  is  nctunlty  a  foture.  for  then 
it  would  be  necessary  to  identify  tlie  i  of  bh,  bil,  &c,  with 
the  conjunctive  vowel  a  of  the  Sanskrit  bhav-a-si,  bhtw-n-ii, 
and  to  place  it  on  tlic  same  fooling  with  the  i  of  vth-i-a, 
veh-i-i^iNih~n-s!,  vak'tt'ti  (see  |.  507.).     Remark  the  obsolete 
subjunctive yuam ,  which  presupjwses  a  present  indicatirtf/tui, 
fith  (§.  510.).     However,  that  opinion  appeurs  to   be  most 
probably  tlie  trae  one,  that  bo,  bh,  rest  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple of  formation  with  erv,  eria.  and  that,  therefore,  there 
is  a  reason  wity  amaho,  moneho,  have  a  future  and  not  a 
present  signification.      It  appears  certoiu.  that  the  third 
and    fourth  conjugations,  did   all   fonn    their  futures  ori- 
ginally in  bo  (compare  §.  529.)  i    futures  in   am,   however, 
are,  according  to  tlicir  origin,  of  the  subjunetii'o  mood,* 
and  we  shall  return  to  thorn  hereafter.     We  have  already 
(§.  526.)  noticed  tlie  remarkable  coineideuce  which  exists 
between  the  Latin  and  the  Irisli,  in  tlie  circumstoucc  that 
the  latter  combines  oil  attributive  verbs  in  the  future  with 
the  labial  root  of  tlie  verb  snbstantive.     The  Irish,  however, 
is  superior  to  the  Latin  iu  tliis,  that,  in  the  simple  state 
of  the  verb  substantive,  it  forms  the  future  not  from  the 
root,  which  is,  iu  Sanskrit,  as,  but  from  that     QG.  Ed.  p.  017.] 
which  has  the  labial  initial  sound  (see  §.  326,  p,  767  G.ed.), 


•  Compare  Systom  of  CwJngBlion,  p.  M. 
3  M  2 


892 


THB  FiJTtJBR. 


664.  It  remains  to  be  remarked  witlt  reganl  to  Ik 
Sanskrit  future,  that  the  syllable  «y/i.  which  prooeedi 
from  tlie  verb  Bubstaotive.  is  combined  with  tlie  root 
cither  directly  or  by  ineaos  of  a  conjunctive  vovel  i 
after  the  manner  of  the  tliird  aoriat  formation  (5-  560,),  m 
that  the  a,  throu^^h  tlie  ioQuetice  of  this  i.  a^^n  becomo 
;A;  as  iu  taifi-sfiyAmt,  "  eilendam,"  Iladlcnl  vowels,  capable 
ofGnna.  receive  it;*  hence,  dil>-^hythnt^SetK-<Titi  from  Jii. 
■'to  shew";  Mk-shyi\ini=\iBtK-au}  from  lilt,  "to  lick";  t/A- 
shydmi  ={euK-aia  from  yuj.  "to  combine"  (§.  19.);  Mar-f- 
thy/imi  from  bliii,  "  to  be."  The  Greek  has  Gtina  only 
where  tbe  preset]!,  also,  has  a  Guns  vowel,  as  in  tfae 
examples  adduced ;  it  contrast*,  however.  ?<v-iTta,  ^C-<nA 
pnT-ar(i>,  with  the  Sanskrit  lav-i-iihyiimi  from  lil,  "  to  cut  offi* 
bfiav-i-ithi/dmi  from  bbH.  "to  be."  ktMp-xyAm't  from  hhip. 
"to  throw."  The  Zend,  alsa  in  respect  to  tlie  Giuia,doei 
not  agree  exaclly  with  tlie  Sanskrit;  hoiice,  f.g.,  bUtytm 
"  ero"  (§.  6ii j,),  both  in  not  employing  the  Guna.  and  also 
in  the  direct  annexation  of  the  auxiliary  verh^  currosnoDib 
more  to  the  Greek  tfartria  and  Lithuaninn  bu-an  than  to  the 
Sanskrit  hhav-i-tkydmi.  We  subjoin  the  full  conjugation  uf 
this  future,  and  apjieud  to  it  the  Latin  facso,  wliieh  u  very 
isolated,  and  which  agrees  with  t^v-tna,  (tj-vrt,  not  only  io 
the  formation,  but  is  also  mdically  akin  to  it  (§.  19.), 

[G.  Ed.  p.  018.]  SINOULAR. 

■utn^TT.  m(D.t           u-ra. 

bhav-i-^hyAmi,  bH-syfmi,'     bu-m, 

bhav-i'^hyasi,  bH-syfhi,*      bU-si,* 

bhav-i-ihyati.  lu-ayfUi,''      bus. 


tiTlM,  OKBKC. 

fae-fii,  <pv~iTe4f, 
fac-sif,  tf)ii-<ret. 


*  Where  Ounii  U  prescribed  ia  Sooahnt  CiTamniwn  are  to  nodcntand 
that  in  tlio  miiiille  of  roots  only  nhoH  voweU  rcccire  Guna  before  ki 
coiufiniantH,  but  At  the  end  of  raau  Inng  toitcIs  aJm. 

t  Zend  forma  of  the  Ist  jx-r.  sing,  like  the  Iheoreiically.fomed 
vc  DutquotaUe;  cf.  $.731.  IteiuiirL 


^ 

FOKMATLON  OF  TENSES.                             893                        ■ 

k 

^^H 

^^>        ■ANAKIUT. 

mta.                        UTS.                       LkTtH.              «ftUK.                            ^^^1 

bhav-i-sfiydva$. 

bha^l-ahyalhas. 

b&-!iynthd  ?    bii-aita,           ....        »ftv-aeTov.             ^^^M 

bhav-i'shijntat, 

b&-syrtt3,         like  Sing.      ....        ^v-trerov.             ^^H 

^^H 

6  A/(  t  V I -,j  Ay  4  inas. 

bH-xyiimahi,  bd-nime.        fae-aimux,  tftv-ao/ieir.               ^^^M 

bhav-i-ihifaiha. 

bd-xyatha,      ha-xUe,         fac-sit'n.     tpC-oere.                 ^^^M 

hbav-  -^kyaniU 

bi-sytmii,       like  iSitig.   fuc-aiinl,     ^v^ovri.                ^^^| 

'  (.44.            I 

Prom  t^vaim,  §.  6S6.            '  Tlic  i  k  tiio  penoool  ter-               ^^H 

mloallOD  1  «oo  $.416.                                                                                                ^^^| 

On  account  of  the  perfect  agi'eemeot  between  ^mifVi  dd-             ^^H 

mjAmi,  idau,  and  the  LithuiiniaQ  duitu  {du<\-su),  thu  future,              ^^H 

also,  may  be  lierc  fully  couj'ugflled,  and  tlie  Latia  dabo  sub-              ^^H 

joined,  aa  it  agrees  with  the  Lithuanian  i  and  SansJcrit  ya,                   H 

though  not  in 

the  niixilinry  verb,  still  in   respect  to  the                    H 

future  cbaructeriscic  i  uf  dabis.  &c                                                           ^^| 

ACTITB.              ^^                                                ^^M 

■iMacuH.                                                                 ^^H 

SoMJcrU. 

Qreek.            LUhuanhin.        Latin.                                   ^^H 

dd-tydmi. 

Suk-9<a,            diisu,                da-bo,                                  ^^^M 

di-8y<ui, 

}(^<re)f,          dh-ai,               da-bia,                                 ^^^H 

dA-si/ati, 

SciMret,          d&-»,               da-bil.                               ^^^| 

OVtL.                                                                                     ^^^H 

dA-tydviu, 

dd-iyatkas. 

3o-reToi',      dit'tita              ....               ^              ^^H 

dUsyalaa, 

Sut-oerov,      like  Sing.          ....               -^              ^^H 

PLDUL.                                                                      2t                    ^^^1 

da-fyAmaa, 

8u-aofi(v,      db-iitne,         da-bimus.                         ^^^| 

dA-syatha, 

dw-crcTC,       dti-»Uf,          da-bUU.                         ^^H 

dtl-ayanti, 

Su-^otrrt,      like  Sing.      da^bunt.                         ^^^| 

I! 


f.cutir-c  :^-!-«.  i<Bamrt. 

:-'-t_n:..f.  it*i— rifE  .         Zri—t-f-'^iii. 

•A—,  f.r-.  i.*.-rf-i_  ii-riik^.  Aii-rsra: 


^^U  T::e  Zacti  f^nr?  &£rees.  ia  tssectials.  «ith  the 
i'tr.z.  iS  "--i  ia--?  i^raiicj  Mez  &«£  ihe  relation  of  bui 
Vi ':'- zrit'-.'.'ir,--  Shll  ^^lis  exizupje  sbevs  that  the  Z< 
m-pK:  K'  t^e  Gnz^  asti  u::n>f3ctk)0  of  a  ocKijuactive 
i.  d«a  Eo:  everywhere  keep  pace  with  the  Sanskrit,  a 
the  fTue  before  tis  resembles  more  c'.osely  the  Greek 
and  Liiho^cias  &!iri  thin  Mf^mOl  i^riiAyd'ni.  I  c 
however,  acdace  (he  form  '.u-tyhn't  e^en  from  the 
Avesta,  but  from  the  freijaently-occarring  participle 
ynnt^m,  "the  about  to  be"  .Vend.  S.  pi.59>  we  mav, 
as  mocb  certainty,  infer  bu<i,'mi,  batyfhi,  &c.,  than  w 
ia  Greek,  tvofuu  from  itroftevot.  and,  in  Sanskrit,  6AarM 
[G.  £d.p.920,j  from  bhavixhyan.  The  form  in  ^n 
ilti,  ia  apparent  from  ^.4-2.;  for  the  y  invariably  exei 
assimilating  influence  upon  the  d  or  o,  which  precede 
terminations  mi,  hi,  ti,  through  which  those  vowels  b 
4.  That,  however,  the  y  of  the  future  makes  no  eio 
to  this  rule  is  proved,  if  proof  be  required,  amons 
proofs,   by  that  of  j^jFo:ty»iSijJf  t-ocsyeiti  (Vend.  S. 


•  Cf.  j.731.  Remark. 


FORMATION  OF  TENSBS. 


895 


**  be  will  suy,'"  *  answering  to  the  Sanskrit  vakiihj/ali  From 
tack,  [n  the  dual  and  plural,  the  y  abstains  Troiu  its  assimi- 
lating influence,  and,  in  the  third  person  plural,  as  generally 
before  n,  it  proteols  the  a  following  ftvm  being  weakened  to 
^i,  Ai  occurs  clsetvliere. 

€66.  The  third  person  dual  would  give  the  y^*3yiM*v^Mif 
vacsnt/af^l,  mentioned  at  §.  464.  p.  646,  Note  if  it  corresponded 
lo  the  Sanskrit  m^nnr  vuJishyatax,  from  vah,  "  to  carrj'," 
"  to  bear."  1  now.  however,  prefer  regarding  it  as  the  causal 
of  the  Sanskrit  root  vnkiik,  " ateumidarc"  which  may  [lerhaps 
also  signify  "to  grow"  and  to  which  llie  Gothic  root 
VAHS  regularly  answers;  whence,  vaktva,  "  I  grow,"  v'lfn, 
*■  I  grew,"  with  k  for  k,  according  to  a  general  law  for  the 
cliaugo  of  sounds.  The  Zend  uciyimi.  "  I  grow,"  appears " 
to  be  a  contraction  of  racxi/fimi  (conipftre  p.  7H0  G.  ed.).  as, 
in  Saaskfit.  sueh  contraetioos  occur  only  in  forms  devoid  of 
Guna;  aud,  e.g.,  from  rack,  "to  speak,"  the  gerund,  indeed, 
is  ukftt^,  but  the  iofinitive,  wliieh  requires  Guna,  is  not 
i/k-litm.  but  vfdlum.  As,  tlicn,  in  the  causal  verb  the 
vowels  capable  of  Guna  receive  it.  it  need  not  surprise 
us  if,  ill  Zend,  the  root  vacf,  as  a  verb  of  the  fourth  class, 
to  which  Guna  does  not  belong,  were  contracted  to  usr. 
but,  in  the  causal,  retained  the  full  furm  vac»,  as,  in  Son- 
sk]-Ll,  the  root  vyodJt  of  the  fourth  class  forms,  in  the 
present,    vidhydmi    for    vyadhyimi,    but,    in    the    causal, 

ryUJfiuyiuii. 

6S7.  That  the  Zend,  also,  occasionally  t^.  Ed.  p. dSl.] 
uses  the  conjunctive  vowel  i  in  its  future  is  proved  by  tlie 
form  j^.^uii.*vJsju^  dnitiiaynnti.  "they  will  disturb,"  from 
the  root  duh,  whieh  corri'sjxtndH  lo  the  Sanskrit  diimbh,  "lo 
deceive,"  and  in  the  preceding  nnd  several  other  forms,  which 
occur  ia  the  Vend.  S.,  has.  tlirough  the  iuBuence  of  the  i  of 


AnqneiU  (p.  199),  **vok\tt^pu<Ut  mainUvtant.' 


896 


TBB  FUTUBB. 


the  following  syllable,  rei'etvetl  an  i  in  the  root  (§.  4  I,),  It  is 
translated  by  An()Retil  in  various  paunges  by  ajfligcr  uut 
il/^aser.  Tlic  future  furm  uieotioncd  cNx-urs  in  the  V.  S.,  p.  21 5, 
jp^juJij*'Jjjj<5  guj(^  Jv-C^  Jf^'  vAo  d»iibixyanti^ ^'  nhick 
will  disturb  jou  bolk"  Anquetil  rentiers  ttiis  strangelf 
enough  *'  fotMi  deaz,  affi'ujez  ceux  i/ui  m*  timnent  data  top- 
pression."  In  niiother  passage  (p.  223)  we  find  the  third 
person  plural  of  the  fiitwre  middle  of  the  eame  verb,  vi«- 
daHfiayantS,  which  Anquetil  likewise  regards  as  tho  second 
person  iiupc;rativc,  and  renders  by  bleatex. 

669.  In  the  Zend  future  forms  littlicrto  considered,  tlie 
cibilnnt  of  the  verb  »ubstanlive  ap|wars  in  the  form  of  a 
M)  r,  becanse  it  follows  letters  whii^h,  in  Sanskrit,  according 
to  %  21.,  require  the  change  of  the  a  into  jh,  for  whieh,  in 
Zend,  ^  sor  xp  sA  is  regularly  written.  After  such  letters, 
however,  na,  in  Sanskrit,  leave  the  a  uualtered,  aii  A  must  be 
expected  in  the  Zend  future,  according  to  §.  53.,  instead  of 
the  sibilant;  and  tins  we  find,  also,  in  the  passive  participle 
zaiihyamann,  "the  man  about  to  be  born"  (Vend.  S.,  p>.  SS), 
from  which  we  may  safely  infer  an  indicative  ximhyi, 
"I  shall   bo   bom."      Anquettl,  indeed,  renders    the  voids 

tananvtcha  zanfiyamuHonniivit-lia.  "  and  of  the  persons  bom  and 
[G.  E*l.p.022.]  about  to  be  boru."t  by  "fc?  Aommes  ytii 
naissent  et  mgendrevt,"  according  to  which  -u/JU^A^t^tywir 
zanhtjaiu'ina  nia»t  be  considered  as  a  middle  present  par^ 
ticiple;  but  it  is  impossible  that  the  root  js'tin,  =  Sanskrit 
HWyVm.  can  arrive  at  an  b  without  thereby  expressing  the 
future.  At  most  we  might  be  in  doubt,  whether  kunht/aman^ 
should  be  regarded  as  of  the  middle  or  of  the  passive  voice, 
as  these  voices  in  the  general  tenses,  as  also  in  the  special 


•  I  believe  it  u  to  Ix!  written  thus,  iuatnd  pf  —it. 
t  Compare  Baraoar's  Ya^no,  Note  O.,  p.71. 


FORMATION  OF  TBNSBS. 


897 


tenses  of  the  fourtti  class,  are  uot  distinguished  from  eocb 
other.  The  Itidiuii  gramnmrians  taVcjAi/f.  "  I  am  born,"  as 
a  middle,  so  that  yn  passes  as  tlie  ehjtrnL-tt'riatio  of  tbe  fourth 
class  (sec  §.  log*.  9.);  but  as  the  passive,  ulso,  in  the  speciAl 
tenses,  annexes  the  sjlhibic  yn  and  may  reject  tliu  n  in  the 
root^n,  by  which  the  o.  is  lengthened,  so  there  is  nothint;  to 
prevent  us  from  regariliiig  the  verb  jAyf,  also,  as  a  formal 
pnssive  on  account  of  its  passive  meaning.  Thus  I  consider 
tile  Zend  partieiplu  saatiynmann  as  pnssive. 

669.  From  tlie  roots  drf,  "to  give,"  and  dd,  "to  place," 
the  future  form  dAonhyhni  might,  according  to  §.  56  ■.,  be  ex- 
pected :  as.  iion'ever,  in  Zend,  khy  also  sometimes  ocelli's  as 
the  representative  of  the  SanskrWsy  (see  p.  280).  we  must  be 
prcpart^  for  a  form  Mkhy^mi;  and  the  [0.  EAp.023.] 
passive  participle  of  this  we  God  in  Vend.  S.,  p.  99,  where,  in 
like  niaiuier,  the  passive  past  partiiHple,  uS'd'Unnanm,  "  ot 
those  held  up,"  precedes  the  genitive  plural  of  the  future  par- 
ticiple uzd'Uhynmnnitaitm  (^Sanskrit  udtlliAnyamthtfln&m), 
"  of  those  about  to  be  held  np,"*  as  above  we  have  seen  «iWa- 
Tiaiim-cha  and  ztmhyamnnfinarim-cha  close  together.  As  we 
have,  therefore,  the  sibilant  of  the  verb  snbstoniive  here 
bcforu  us  in  the  sliape  of  a  guttural,  we  will  again  draw 
attention  to  what  has  been  said  above  of  the  probable  origin 
of  the  K  of  eJwxa.  Si$un(a,  from  <r  (§§.  569.  &e.).  Afl  the 
Zend  root  dd,  "  to  place,"  "  to  lay,"  "  to  maltc^f  corresponds 
to  the  Greek  rtSrifu,  consequently  tlic  d^kh  of  the  d&khyam- 
ruinanm,  which  has  been  mentioned,  would  be  identical  with 
the  Greek  5)j»e  of  tdyfxa.  rcA/xa. 

670.  As  respects,  however,  the  origin  of  tlie  expoueut  of 


'  Wiih  a  porhftps  «rroiwAiiii  reJNiiAti  of  the  a  of  th«  pariioipial  mlHz. 
An()n(.HirH  (nuiBlatinn,  aIk,  "^viijaat  tov/ourt  lenir  tkci*,"  ia  vTidoice 
Uint  tills  inny  be  n^^dtd  oa  cxprceung  ihv  fnluiv.  Cf.  Btmiuuf  L  c 
Note  Q,  p. 86. 

t  Tho  coTTCflpooding  ScntlirU  (&d  neaoi  also  "  to  hold." 


II 


li 


898  THE  FDTDRB. 


the  future,  yn,  with  which  that  of  the  potential  and  precat; 

yii  is  to  be  ranked,  I  am  still  of  the  opinion  already  expres 

in  my  System  of  Conjugation,  that  these  syllables   proct 

from  the  root  ^  ii  "  to  wish."     Consequently  the  Greek  oj 

tive,  which  is  founded  on  the  Sanskfit  potential  and  pre 

tive,  would,  according  to  its  signification,  have  ita  name  fi 

the  same  verb  to  which  it  owes  its  forma)  origin.     If  the  c 

junctive  vowel  of  the  first  and  sixth  class  be  added  to  the  i 

\  i,  it  would  make  ya,  according  to  the  same  phonetic  pi 

ciple  by  which  the  root  i,  "  to  go,"  forms,  in  the  third  per 

plural,  yanti.     From  this  ynnti,  therefore,  the  terminatioi 

[G.  Ed.  p.  924.]      dA-8~yanti,  "  they  will  give,"  cannot  be 

tinguished.     It  cannot  be  denied,  too,  that  the  root  t, 

go,"  to  which  Wiiliner  (Origin  of  Lingual  Forma,  §5.  46. 

bas  betaken  himself  in  explaining  the  future,  is,  in  respec 

form,  just  as  suitable  as  i.      But  the  meaning  "  to  wish," 

will,''  is  certainly  more  adapted  to  express  the  future  and 

optative  than  that  of  "  to  go."    This  is  also  confirmed  by 

use  of  language,  as    several   idioms,   quite    independem 

one  another,   have  simply,  through  internal  imjnilae,  cc 

to  the  decision  of  expressing  the  future  by   "  to  will."     1 

certain  that  tlie  Modern  Greek  and  Old  High  German  (§.  61 

nay,  even  the  various  German  dialects,  have,  in  this  r«sf 

borrowed  nothing  from  one  another  nor  imitated  each  ot 

The  Old  Sclavonic,   also,  sometime  employs  an  auxili 

verb,  signifying  "to  will,"  to  express  the  future.     It  is 

I  however,  to  be  overlooked,  tliat   the   examples  which 

browsky  (p.  380.)  adduces  from  the  translation  of  the  B 

are  all  preceded   by   /leAXu  in  the  Greek  text;    for  vl 

reiison.  unless  other  instances  occur  where  this  is  not 

case,  we  must  conjecture  that  the  wish  of  keepitig  as  c]os« 

possible  to  tlie  Greek  text  must  have  suggested  to  the  S 

vouie    translator    his   %oyt(    ckoshckA;   thus    Luke  xxi 

ifffffla  choiyat  sh/a  byti,  orav  fiiK?ifj  ravra  yiveo-dat ;  Matt  xi 

chofyui  priili,  o  fieJ^uv  epxecQai.     Respecting  the  conject 


FOBUMION  OF  TENSES. 


699 


relotioDsUip  of  tiic  Greek  ft&Onn  witli   the  ladUn   manyi, 
"1  think."  sec  p.  911  G.cd. 

671.  The  Sniiskrit  sometimes  uses  its  desiderative  form  to 
deuota  the  future,  as  in  tbu  efiiscxlL'  of  tho  Draupadi  mu~ 
m^T^h-u,  "  wishing  tn  die,"  occurs  in  the  sense  of  "about  to 
die;"  And.  coovcrscly,  in  different  languages,  tlie  cxpressioa 
of  the  future  is  occasionally  used  to  denote  tliat  of  "to  will:" 
nnd  tiie  I^tin  forms  its  desideratives  from     [0.  Eil.|i.02S.] 
the  future  participle  iti  (druy.  abbreviating  tlie  ti.and  adding 
the  characteristic  of  tiic  fourth  coiijugatiiaD.  the  f  of  which, 
liowever,  bos  nothing  to  do  with  the  Sanskrit  futnro  suffix 
ya,  but,  as  Img  heen  shewn,  is  founded  on  the  ohamt-N'ristiu 
of  tlie  tenth  class  wja,  which  is  frequently  used  in  Sanskrit 
to  form  ilenomioatives.     The  Grevk  forms  deaiderativea 
from  the  future   in  fftu^  or  perhaps  from  the  older  form  in 
cibi;  so  that  in  forms  like  ■napaitofreiu,  ye\a<r€iiji,  the  r  would 
be  strengthened  only  by  a  Ounising  e.     These  desideratives. 
however,  and  the  future,  may  be  regarded  as  cognate  forms, 
so  that  both,  independently  of  each  other,  but  by  a  similar 
formation,  would  have  proceeded  from   the  vorbal  theme, 
as  Uiere  are  in  Sanskrit  also  desideratives,  which  have  the 
form  of  the  future  but  have  not  proceeded  from  it.  but. 
following  its  analogy,  have  sprung  from  a  nominal  base; 
t.tf.  vrhJia-st/dmi,  "to  desire  the  bull,*"  madkttf-wiyAmi,  "to 
ask  for  honey."     In  the  latter  example  the  a  of  the  root  of 
the  verb  substantive  is  perhaps  contained.      But  usually  in 
denominative  desideratives  the    verb   substantive  te   quite 
omitted,  or  baa  become  obsolete,  and  tlicy  only  contain  tlic 
syllable  ya,  Le.  the  auxiliary  verb  "  to  wish."  which  is  chu- 
ractcristic  of  the  future;  e.  g.  patt-yAmi,  "  I  wish  for  a  spouse," 
from  pati,  "spouBK^."     It  is  not  improbable  that  the  desi- 
deratives which  luive  been  formed  from  primitive  roots  by 
the  addition  of  a  sibilant,  and  which  are  furnished  with  a 
syllabic  of  reduplication,  bad  originally  a  y  after  the  sibilant, 
and  therefore,  likewise,  tlie  root  of  "to  wish"  alluded  to; 


900       POTENTIAL,   OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJCNCTITB. 


tlios,  e.<f.  pipfi-aimi,  "I  wish  to  drink,"  Troni  pifta-fyAm. 
freeing  with  pd-ayAmi,  "  I  will  drink."  If  this  is  the  cay. 
then  pipdaSmi  has  the  saoao  relation  to  the  preauppcMed 
pip(Ut/Amt  that  the  Greek  8u-*rM,  from  StMtt'ta,  has  to  theSu- 
QG.  VA.  p.  020.]  skrit  dAsyAmL  Tlie  root  being  borUieotrf 
with  tlie  rediijjUcalion  nitj{ht.  perhaps,  produce  a  weaLm- 
ing  in  the  final  portion  of  the  word,  aimilar  to  tlmt  tbroa«k 
rrUicli  the  reduplicated  verbs  in  the  third  person  pluroj  htre 
lost  the  naaat  belonging  lo  tills  person;  and,  e.y.,  InUnli, 
"they  carry.''  is  said  for  bibhranti  (^459.).  We  shall  nor 
bereattor  to  the  desiderativcs. 

FORMATION  OF  THE  MOODS. 
POTEMTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SVUJUNCTIVe. 

672.  Thy  Sttoflkrit  potentisl,  whicli.  with  seveml  pctniliaritia 
of  use,  comhincsin  itseir  the  meanings  of  the  Greek  sabj^Il^ 
tive  and  optative,  but  in  form  adheres  to  the  latter,  is.  in  tial 
coiiju^tion  which  correspouds  to  the  Greek  in  fu,  formed  bj 
the  syllablejiil.  which  is  prefixed  to  the  personal  terminsiioBS 
The  class  peculiarities  are  retaiued;  e.</.v'uly/im  "  sciam.'' from 
viJ,  ebss  Z;  bibkriyam  "feram^  from  bhri,  class  3;  sirinuyim, 
"atemam,"  from  stri,  class  5;  ttyAm  for  am/Am,  '^gim,"  from  st, 
class  9.     Wc  easily  recognise  the  modal  exponent  yd  in  ths 
Greek  ii),  in   which   the  semi<vowcl   luu    become   a   vowH 
according  to  the  Gre^k  system  of  sounds  i  the  /.  howerar, 
always  forms  a  diphthong  with  the  preceding'  radical  rowet 
as  there  are  no  present  forms  like  cSfu  (Sanskrit  ntlrni,  Lithu- 
anian fdmi),  and  therefore  no  optatives,  too,  like  eittfv,  whieh 
would  resemble  the  Sanskrit  a^yAm.    Bu  t  SiSoifjv  correspoDdf 
tolerably  well  to  the  Sonskril  dmty^m,  eapeciolly  if  its  radical 
vowel  is  restored,  which,  through  a  particular  irregularity,  it 
has  lost     According  to  rule,  dadAyAm  would  correspond  lo 
tlie  Greek  itioirtv;  hut  tlie  root  dA,  under  the  retro-acUve  in- 

CG.  Ed.  p.sn.]      fluenctf  of  the  heavy  personal  termiuatiotia 
and  of  the  modal  cluiracterUlic  under  discussion,  suppreuea 


FORMATION  OP  HOODS.  901 

its  radical  rD^<rcl  Qccoriling  to  tlio  B&ine  principle  by  which  the 
Greek  verb  sliortcns its <i> ;  tlius dadt/Am  =3i Jof'(/v,  sa tladmos^ 
StioiJ.€v  (see  p.  698G.ed.).  The  Sauskpt  root  as,  "to  be." 
toaefl,  by  a  special  anomaly  (which  is,  nevertheless,  foiindetl 
on  tbfi  law  of  gravity,  which  acts  with  such  nstoiitshiitg  eon- 
wqueiices  (§.4S0.))>  •'•  initial  a  in  those  places  vvhere  d4 
drops  iu  final  vowel ;  hence  syAm,  "I  may  be."  anstvering  to 
the  Greek  en/v,  which  I  (Ictlucc  Trom  evttjr,  because  <r  between 
two  vowels  verv'  easily  admits  of  being  dislodged,  but  the 
root  E£  (irmly  protects  its  vowel ;  bonce,  also,  in  the  present 
indicative,  eafiiv,  itrri,  are  more  full  tlutn  the  Sanskrit 
cognate  forms  gmas,  "  we  are."  giha,  "  ye  are." 

673.  The  agreement  of  tlie  Greek  and  Sanskrit  is  verv 
remarkable  in  this  |>oiDt,  tliat  both  languages  have,  in  the 
middle,  entirely  lost  the  long  vowel  ot  the  niodal  exponent 
j/^i.  irj\  hence,  dfSoTro.  Si8o!tif.da.  for  itSotrjTo,  StSoit'jfieQa.  as 
in  Sanskrit  dadiia,  dadinwhi,  for  dndyAlii.  dndyiUnahi.  The 
cause  clearly  lies  iu  the  weightier  pttrsonal  terminations  of 
the  middle;  but  I  would  not  miuntain,  that  the  wound  in- 
flicted by  them,  in  both  langiingcs,  in  one  and  the  same  place, 
OQ  the  preceding  modal  caiftonent,  dates  so  early  aa  the 
period  when  Greek  and  Sanskrit  were  still  one.  Tlic  prin- 
eiple  of  the  form-weakentng,  retro-active  influcnec  of  the 
weight  of  the  personal  terminations  must,  however,  have 
existed  at  that  time ;  and  several  cireumstnnees  in  our  Euro- 
pean circle  of  languages  point  to  this,  that  at  the  time  of  tbo 
identity  of  the  languages,  which  are  now  separated,  several 
convulsions  took  place  in  tlu;  orgnniKntion  of  each  family  of 
langiingrs.  In  the  preceding  ease,  however,  the  Greek 
^i^orTo  by  its  accent  shews  itself  to  be  a  compnratively  re- 
cent coutracliou ;  for  if  the  nyectjon  of  tlw  [O.  E*l.  p.  928.] 
i|  was  primitive,  and  had  taken  place  before  the  sepamtion 
of  languages,  itioito  would  be  accented  like  ^.e^ro.  The 
Greek  filK!W8  itself,  too,  in  the  suppression  of  the  tj,  indepen- 
dent of  the  Sanskrit,  in  this,  that  it  admits  this  vowel  in  tlic 
two  plural  numbers  oftlie  active,  Bud  for  3i9oi'i7jx«i' employs  also 


t 


1 


902       POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJCNCTIVB. 


ttiotftev,  while  ttie  Sansk  rit  logetlier  with  dadyA  ma  baa  not  ■ 
form  dadima.  but  both  in  this  and  in  all  verbs  of  the  wcxM 
conjugation  the  ni<M)al  syllable  yA  is  left  unwoakcncd  in  bolk 
the  plural  numbers  of  the  active  voice,  &lthou;;b  in  other  le- 
Bpecta  these  two  numbers  follow  the  aaalogy  of  the  miiUlA 
u  their  terminatioua  are  heavier  than  those  of  the  singinlir. 
674.  The  Latin  subjunctive  coincides   in    form  with  tbt 
Greek  optative  and  Sanskrit  potential.      Its  agreement  wiii 
tlie  former  might  have  been   perceived,  without   the  iotm 
Tcntion  of  tlit^  Sanskrit,  from  sifii,  v^Um,  edim,  and  duim,  tte 
modal  i  oF  which  coincides  with  the  Greek  t  oF^iSoiijr.    Bvt 
tlieso  Latin  forms  resemble  the  Sanskrit  still    more  rJose^ 
than  the  Greek ;  for  instDoee,  edim  nnswera   admiraUT  to 
the  Sanskfit  iniyAm.  tlie  yA  of  which,  in   the  middle,  ifi^ 
vivTC  used  in  that  voice,  must  be  contracted   to  1^  so  tktt, 
ndi-mohi  would  correspond  to  the  Latin  edimiut.       That . 
for  sim,  anawcra  to  xyAm,  and  timus  still  more  exactly  toi 
middlu  stm^thi.     The  obsolete  form  siem,  arcs,  aref,  corres|)0Bt'1 
ing  to  the  Sanskrit  njiim,  sy<h,  xyM,  ia  so  far  a  granit 
jewel,    that   the    full   modal   characteristic     vt   i/d. 
It},  is  contained  in  it,  and   it  may  thenoe  be   inferred,  U■4^ 
edim,  also.  Sec,  was  preceded  by  an  older  rdifm,  edit$,  «W«j 
adyAm,  adyds,  adyHt,  and  vdim,  duim,  &c.,   by   a   more  M  < 
veliem,  dt^em  (from  dajem).      The  more   weighty   tcmdo*- 
tions  of  the  plural  liare.  by  their  retro-active  shortening  In- 
[O.  Ed.  p.DJfl.]      fluence,  effected  the  suppression   of  lbs  • 
before  them   earlier   than    before  tlie  more  light  temdnfr 
tions  of  the   singular.       It    may,    however,    be    roMOoaWy 
aasumed,  that  the  forms  tifmus,  ti^tit,  iienl=si//lma,  tyiia, 
syus  (from  xytlnf).  have  existed   in  some  other   more  early 
epoch   of  the    language;    and  to  them,  aimtui,  &c..   haa  the 
same  relation  that,  in  Greek,  the  abbreviatcil    HiSoSftev  bM 

to  j(3of>fJU«V. 

67>.  The  German,  in  which  the  subjunctive  ia  likewise 
based  on  the  Sanskrit  potential  and  Greek  optative,  formi 
the  preterite  of  this  mood  according  to  the   principle  of 


FORMATION  Or  MOODS. 


903 


the  Siinskrit  second  conjugiition  of  tlie  second,  thin),  and 
screnlh  cl&sa,  aad  of  the  Greek  conjugation  in  fu,  i.  e.  by 
attaching  the  modal  element  to  the  root  direct;  and,  in 
fact,  ill  Gothie.  the  tirat  jierson  in  ynu  rcsemblea  ver^ 
strikiuj^ly  tlu;  Sanalcrit  yrim,  onl^  that  the  d  has  been 
shorteoed,  and  the  m  Tocalisied  to  u  (§.  432.).  Compare, 
after  removing  what  betongs  to  the  relation  of  time,  ^Iv'iu, 
"1  ate,"'"  wiili  the  Siinskfit  <idydm,  "I  may  cat"  In  the 
otlier  persons,  the  Gothic  follows  the  aoalogy  of  the  San- 
skrit and  Greek  middle;  i.«.  iu  suppressing  the  a  of  ya. 
while  the  y.  aa  in  Souskrit,  becomes  loiif;  f.  for  which,  in 
Gothic,  fi  is  written;  hence,  il-ti-ma.  Old  High  German 
Axinth,  res«mbles  the  Sanskrit  ad-i-mahi  and  Latin  td-i- 
-inua;  H-ei-lh,  Otd  High  German  dzt),  the  Sanskrit  ad-i- 
-d/twam,  and  Latin  td-i-th;  in  the  second  person  singialftr, 
fl-ei'x  [it-i-ii)  is  almost  identical  with  the  Latia  ed-i-a.  la  the 
third  person,  however,  the  personal  sign  has  been  lost  (§.  43S.X 
and  in  consequence  of  tliis  loss  the  long  i  [G,  Ed.  p.  930.] 
sound,  which  comes  to  stand  at  the  end  is  sliortened ;  thus  Mi 
answering  to  tlic  Sanskrit  adtta  and  Latin  edit 

61$.  It  Bcnrcely  reqaires  to  be  remarked,  that  I  do  not 
understand  the  resemblance  between  the  Gothic  H-ti-ma  and 
Sanskrit  aJ-i-mufti,  as  though  the  Gothic  siihjunclive  pre- 
terite, with  exception  of  ttie  first  person  singular,  was  really 
referable  to  the  Sanskrit  middle;  the  contraction  of  ua  to 
ffi^i  is  rather  a  pure  Gothicism.  n-faich  was  probably  pre- 
ceded by  a  weakening  of  yn  to  yi,  according  to  the  principle 
by  which  nominal  bases  lO  ya  exhibit  in  the  nominative 


*  Itit,  "  I  mt,"  ftom  ibe  root  a/,  ia  •»  for  lli«  mtst  remarkKlle  ytth  o( 
IIrcIiiMj  b«auisu  Hum,  "  waste"  (fur  dtitm  from  tt-atum.  Old  High  Ger- 
Diah  (isumi^j),  contiiina  ii  nrdu plication  widiotit  hitvin^  cs|)crieiifT<1  kbbns 
viatioD  like  titumaa^  tninilarfomuCp.M?  Gtd.).  TKc  OIJ  High  Ger- 
man dxHtnit  comvpondi  nlmost «  oznctly  as  poadltli;  lo  lh«  Sansltrtl  to- 
dupllcRled  Ad-i'tna  bom  a-adima. 


I 


904        rOTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

singular  vi-n  for  j/a-s.  in  case  this  syllable  is  precetled  tji 
onlv  one  syllable,  and,  indrcd.  u  short  one.  But  if  a  To«(t 
long  by  nature  or  by  position,  or  more  thnn  one  syllaUe 
prt-eedes.  the  syllublf  o«  is  uot  only  wcakene<l  to  yt.  bal  il 
contractetl  to  long  l'  (t^t).  und  at  tlis  end  of  a  word  to  short  i] 
lieucc,  ant/eta  "end,"  for  andy'ii  from  nndyait,  aceosatitq 
nnd't  for  ant/yn.  Before  a  Bnal  nasal  or  n»  tlte  syllable  jN 
remains  in  its  original  state;  licnce,  in  tlie  dative  iilunC 
andytj-m.  accusative  andya'nt.  On  the  same  phonetic  Isw  i| 
based  the  phenomrnon  tliat  the  u  of  the  first  person  ungahlf 
of  our  modal-furm,  which  has  arisen  from  m.  has  preserrg^ 
the  syllable  v"  in  its  complete  form;  and  hence,  4loau  from 
flynittt  "1  Ate,"  may  be  compared  with  the  dative  phu^ 
amlyam;  fieh.  "thou  atest."  with  tlw  nominative  aiid  grnitirt 
singiiliir  antteis;  and  the  third  person  singular  Hi.  whic 
minaCes  with  short  i,  witli  the  Bwrusative  andi. 

677.  In  Old  Scliivonic  there  are  some  remnins  of  llie  i 
conjugation  in  fii,  or  the  Sanskrit  second  eonjogntion.  Tboa 
have  prcsened  the  personal  termination  in  the  first  pensi 
singular  of  the  present,  and  in  the  imperative  fwhich  I  Wi«« 
I  must  it)  its  formation  identify  with  thr  Sanskrit-Zend  potcDr 
tial,  the  Latin-Gcrmnn  snhjunciive.  and  Greek  optative)  amies 

[0.  Ed,  p,  &3I.]  the  exponent  of  the  modnl  relation  dtrvfl^ 
to  the  root.  The  modal  rlmraeteristie,  however,  has  preserrei 
only  the  Bemi-vowel  of  the  Sanskrit  yA,  and  as  in  the  second 
person  singular  the  .1  of  ^It.  since  from  the  oldrat  period  it  had 
stood  at  the  end,  must,  according  to  a  universal  law  uf  aoun^l 
disappear,  so  aAiXb  ynsclnlv  (euphonic  for  yady).  *•  eat,"  eci^ 
responds  to  the  Sanskrit  adyiU,  "thou  mayesleat."  and  Latin 
edt*\  BfeifeA<>  ryftchfly  (fon-j/^rfu),  "know."  to  the  Sanskrit 
viHyfini  Qttd  MTiiXb  datchdy  (dadt/),  "give,'*  to  tlic  Greek 
SiSoitK,  and  still  more  Co  the  Sanskrit  dadyAt.  since.  like  iL: 
it  has  lost  tlie  radioil  vowel  The  Sclavonic  forms  whicti. 
have  been  cited  pass  also  as  third  persons;  fur  nm  ^a^.| 


FORMATION  OF  MOODS. 


903 


im^  yii  cannot  be  distinguished  in  ScIavoDic,  Inx-ausc  the 
rule  for  tlic  uxtirjiatiou  of  final  coiisonants  h.<is  sitnred  tiie  t 
as  tittle  as  tbe  *,  while  the  Greek  mtmits  tlic  2  at  tlic  end, 
there  also,  nhuru,  in  the  linguul  ojMieh  prceedin;;  that  of  the 
Greek,  it  stood  n$  the  lust  jiilliirof  llie  word;  and  thus  iiJoi'ijr 
can  be  iliatinguished  Troui  diSoA;.  which  is  deprived  of  the 
fiersonnl  sign. 

67S.  In  the  first  person  plural.  QikAbUbi  yaithdymy, 
B£:kAi>Hbi  vycsckdymy,  f^i.A\.xb-»bt  daschdymij,  answer  to 
VSmtl  adyAma%  eiHoms,  flQim^  vhlt/Amtm,  CVT>n^  dadyAmat, 
StSoiiAO',  duimus;  and  in  tlie  at^eond,  rA:fiAi<Ti  yawchdyte, 
B'fcJkj.bTS  vimelidylf,  AAiHAtiTt  daschdutf,  to  vimt  ady/Uo, 
editis,  fwvni  vidyAt-i,  '^KXW  Aulydla.  JtStwrt,  duitis.  The  ae- 
oonil  person  plural  represents,  in  tlie  Old  Slavonic  iiujxsra- 
tivtf,  also  the  third  jwrson;  a  misuse  wliit^h  may  have  been 
favored  l>y  the  fact,  that  in  the  sin^lar  the  third  person  ia 
itot  distinguislicil  from  tite  second,  from  reasons  connected 
with  tlm  law  of  sounds;  and  in  the  dual,  also,  the  terminations 
fh  lam,  JTP^  tdm.  For  whieh  the  Greek  uses  toi'.  ttjc,  Imvo 
both  become  l^i ;  for  though  the  Slavonie  n  generally  repre- 
sent* the  long  Sanskrit  4,  still  it  sometimrs  stands  for  the 
short  a  lUso ;  and  thercforo  ta  has  as  good  a  foundation  in  the 
second  person  dual  as  iu  tlie  third ;  but  [O.  E<1.  p.  D32.] 
tUrougli  tiie  etsewliere  wry  (^nimon  corruption  of  rt  to  r 
tbe  dual  second  person  lias  become  like  tliat  of  the  plunU. 
Moreover,  ihc  second  |>er3on  b  most  used  iu  the  imperative, 
and  this  m.iy  have  been  an  additional  t-ause  wliy.  in  the  plural, 
tho  third  person  has  been  entirely  removed  from  lingual  exis- 
tence, which  is  therefore  l«ss  surprising  than  tlint,  iu  Old  and 
Anglo-SiLXOu,  the  second  person  plural  should  represent  the 
other  two  in  the  preseot  indicative  also.  But  if.  in  the  Uld 
Sclavonic  imjieralive.  the  genuine  third  person  plural  had  nf- 
mained  In  use,  it  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  the  same  as  tlio 
second  nnd  third  of  the  singular;  for  the  fiual  consonantal 
sounds  of  tbe  Greek-Zend  si',  'ifin,  or  en,  and  Latin  nt,  would 

3h 


006        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SCBJUNCTITB. 

have  given  way,  and  as  the  vowel  of  Uie  modal  expresaion 
yd  haa,  in  general,  disappeared,  only  dflacWy  could  have  €»r- 
responded  to  the  Zend  daidhyaiin,  Greek  itJtoieVf  and  Old 
Latin  du'mt.  This  apparent  identity  with  two  persons  of  the 
singular  might  have  accorded  leas  with  the  language  than 
the  actual  exchange  for  one  of  the  same  number. 

679.  I  refer,  also,  the  Lithuanian  imperative,  in  its  orlgia, 
to  the  department  of  the  mood  here  discussed ;  for  in  all 
verbs,  without  exception,  the  vowel  i  is  its  characteristic, 
which  admits  of  no  other  comparison  than  with  the  Scla- 
vonic V,  just  mentioned,  the  Greek  i  of  all  optatives,  the 
Latin  i  of  sim,  edtm,  velm,  dtiim,  and  the  Sanskrit-Zend 
yA,  or  t  The  Lithuanian  imperative,  however,  gains  a 
peculiar  appearance,  and  one  which  estranges  it  from  the 
corresponding  mood  of  the  cognate  languages,  in  that  it 
conceals  the  true  exponent  of  the  modal  relation  after  a  k, 
which  is  always  prefixed  to  the  i;  only  if  the  root  itself 
ends  with  k,  for  two  Ar's  only  one  is  used.  As  in  the  second 
person  singular,  in  which  the  t  ought  to  conclude  the  form, 

^G.  Ed.  p.  033.]  this  final  vowel  is  generally  suppr^sed, 
but  the  k  is  extended  to  all  persons  of  the  imperative,  widi 
the  exception  of  the  third,  of  which  hereafter,  we  may  be 
easily  tempted  to  regard  tliis  k  as  the  true  imperatin! 
sufiix,  and  thus  quite  disengage  the  Lithuanian  in  this 
mood  from  its  otherwise  close  union  with  the  other 
cognate  languages,  From  tlie  root  bu,  "  to  be,"  proceed,  e.g., 
the  forms ii'iAv",  or  6(U-,  "  be  thou,"  bukile.  "be  ye,"  btikimt, 
"let  \is  he,"  bukiwa,  "let  us  two  he,"  bukila,  "ye  two  be." 
So  duki,  or  duk,  "give  thou,"  dukite,  "give  ye,"  &c.  Id 
most  cases  it  happens  tliat  the  k  appears  between  two 
vowels:  for,  in  the  preceding  examples,  the  root,  and  in 
Mielke's  three  last  conjugations,  the  class  syllable,  corre- 
sponding to  the  Sanskrit  aija  (§.  500.),  end  with  a  vowel: 
and  as  the  verb  auk-it,  "  I  turn,"  given  as  example  of  the 
first   conjugation,   ou   account  of  tlie  k,  which    terminata 


I 


FORMATION  OF  M00D9. 


907 


the  root,  abstains  from  the  aSx  under  diBCUssioD.  Mielke'a 
Grammar,  therefore,  is  utterly  deficient  in  an  instiince 
exhibiting  the  combinntion  of  the  Jt  of  t!ie  imperative  witli 
a  consonant.  But  Ruhig  gives,  from  hiiptlttii,  "I  praise," 
the  imperative  taupsink'  {tuvjixinki),  nnd.  ticcording  to 
Mielke'a  rule,  given  at  p.  78,  we  must  expect  from  infini- 
tives likeTd«-(;,  ** to  find"  (euphonic  for  rarf-(i),  imperatives 
like  rfix-lc',  or  rti»-ki,  since  a  A-  should  take  the  pUico  of  the 
infinitive  sufiix. 

680.  As  resiwcts  the  origin  of  tlw  k,  which  is  peculiar 
to  the  Lithuanian  imperative,  it  is  probably,  as  has  been 
alrt-ady  observed,  a  corruption  of  the  »  of  the  verb  sub- 
stantive, and  coRs<.K[uently  dui-i.  "give  thou,"  is  doubly 
related  to  the  Old  Sclavonic  dach,  "I  gave,"  and  to  the 
Greek  cBuko,  StStaxa  (see  {{.  b6S.  b69.),  ns  also  to  the  Zend 
j^jvyiMMtfi  d&khySm'u  "  I  will  give,"  (  =  Sanskpt  tlisyUmi), 
which  f  am  luiablt;  to  f|Uotc,  but  which  I  [O.  Ed.  p.  »34.] 
believe  I  may  safeiydcdutrc  from  the  above-mentioned  partici- 
ple of  tlie  root  dd,  "  to  lay,"  which  has  the  same  sound  with  dd, 
"to  give"  (see  5.  669.),  The  same  relation  that  the  Zend 
future  dAkfnj4mi  lias  to  the  Sanskrit  dAtyAmi  is  held,  as 
respects  the  employing  a  guttural  instead  of  an  original 
sibilant,  by  the  Lithuanian  duk't  to  the  Sanskrit  precattve 
middle  c/<!ti'jfu.  In  the  dual,  tlio  Litliuanian  dtU-ttcvi  answers 
to  tlic Sanskrit  c/fWruAr.  and,  in  the  plural,  f/uitmr to  t/djfmoAi. 
The  Sanskrit  precativc  is,  however,  in  fact,  nothing  else  than 
a  modification  of  the  potential,  and  has.  in  essentials,  the 
same  relation  to  it  that  the  Greek  aorist  optative  luis  to 
tlio  present  optative;  i.e.  the  class  dillcrences  are  removed. 
Compare  d^tjAt,  d^ifdt,  for  ddyiU,  rfdytW  ;•  Zend  d^i^Ao,  dAijAt, 
witli  dofV.  Soi'i;.      [u  all  the  other  poraous,  the  Sanskrit  odds 


*  A  ndicid  d,  is  laoel  rMis,  pawM  iato  t,  Ihrovi^b  ih«  MsiiDilatiiig  tn- 
fli]«iic«,  as  it  spitean,  of  the  y  foUowtag;  but  not  in  Zend. 

3n  2 


908        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  ASD  SCBJUNCTIVR. 

an  1,  i,e.  the  verb  substantive,  to  the  modal  exponent  jrL  anJ 
thus  df^Atam  rcacmblestho  Greek  third  person  plural  ioiifFta. 
This  dissimilar  introduction  of  the  verb  substantive  mi^ 
be  r<?';nnl^d  as  a  phennmenan,  which  first  made  its  appeif 
RTicc  after  the  separation  of  the  lungnnges ;  for  whU 
reason  the  Zeiid.  though  tt  continaed  with  tbe  Saulnil 
much  lon^r  thim  tliL-  Ruro|>ean  cog^nate  idioms,  dors  not 
shaif-  in  it,  and  in  t}ie  plural  contrasts  ai9-u*^j->u4  diii/ima. 
AffOAt^^ju^  (Idijatn.  ffi^ii^^  lUiyann,*  with  the  Gre^k  ioajpa. 
ioivfre,  ioitv,  and  Sanskrit  lifijArtmn,  d^yAxta,  dfiyUxoM. 
the  first  person  singular  I  find  (^^  dyunm  (prob 
erroneously  for  </%««nj)  in  a  passnge  nlready  cited  wit^i 
different  object  (sec  p.  377),  a  form  in  good  onologr 
the  Greek  Soi'iji/.  for  which  in  Sanskrit  dfyA.vim. 
6ftl.  In  the  middle,  the  Snnskrit,  in  the  precnti* 
CO.  Ed.  p.S35.]  mils  to  the  verb  substantive  the  fui 
denoting  the  modal  relation,  ernctly  as.  in  the  futore  of  ib^ 
two  active  forms,  the  relation  of  time.  As,  thcrefom  it] 
d^-syt'imi,  "d'lbo,"  the  tost  portion  is  the  future  of  the  verlii 
slHntive,  BO  in  tH^'si-yn,^  "I  may  give,"  its  precative  ori 
tentiai  aorist  is  contained,  and  the  Lithuanian  dn-H, 
tliou  "  (without  any  persorinj  lemiinationl.  is  rightly  nnslogoM 
to  dAxi,  the  sibilant  being  hardened  to  /.%  which  Alone  Ah- 
tinguishes  the  imperative  from  the  future.  Cumpsn 
du-k'Oe,  "g'ivo  ye,"  witli  dh-ntf,  "ye  will  pjve."  In 
however,  of  tlie  great  ogreement  between  t/u-ki  and 
it  is  stilt  rcfjuisitc  to  assume  tliat  the  Lithuanian  hu 
brought  with  it  from  its  Asiatic  place  of  origin  tJie  pit- 
ceding  form  of  its  imperative,  and  that  dti-kt-l^,  "eiven* 
is  the  trnnsmission  of  the  Sanskrit  il/i-st-dfiwam,  -detix"  will 
the  substitutioii  only  of  an  netive  ]»ersonal  tonnioatioo  for 
a  middle  one ;  but  the  very  naianil  accession   of  the  xeA 

•  Compare  Burnonf '«  Ya^-na,  Not*  8,  pp.  CL.  01,11. 

t  The  y  is  «  euplionic  tnsenion,  and  «,  for  nm,  th«  tertninuJaii. 


FORMATtON  OF  HOODS. 


IKW 


sttbstiktitive  may  be  udmittutl  in  both  [aiiguagi:a  iDdcpcn- 
dently  of  one  anotlicr.  Tlie  firm  adiiereiicc  to  llie  uocieiit 
modjtl  charai-ter,  ibu  original  yd  of  which  has  been  cort- 
tmcted  iu  tlie  Sanskrit  initttlle  prucative  luiil  potential,  to 
i,  in  th»  Lithuaiiiim  inijienLlive  to  r.  has,  in  the  preceding 
OAse,  effected  a  surprisiag  siatilarity  in  the  languages, 
which  h&vo  bcea  from  time  ioiiuenaorial  distinct,  and  »ub- 
jtxt  to  their  own  separate  dtntiuy.  The  conjecture,  how- 
ever, that  the  k  of  tlie  Lithuanian  imperative  has  arisen 
from  J,  b  supported  by  the  Old  Prussian,  which  is  most 
■ntiiuat<>ly  coiinectett  with  tlie  Lithnanian,  aud  whicli  fur- 
nishes us  with  au  optative  or  suhjuiietivc.  iu  wlueh  a  is 
contrasted  with  the  Lithuanian  k;  at  least,  I  have  no 
doubt  that  forms  like  da-tc,  "  he  may  give."*  <jalb-te,  "  he 
may  help,"  bou-HC,  "he  may  be,"  bowari,  "they  may  be," 
/um-ir,  "he  may  be  silent^  (Sanskrit  t^.  Hd.  p,  030.] 
iA-ikmm,  "still."  "  silent"),  are  to  be  looked  upon  as  cognate 
forms  of  tlie  Lithuaniau  imperative  and  Sanskrit  precutive; 
and  thus  da-ne  (without  a  personal  termination,  like  the 
Greek  Soi^)  may  be  voutrasted  with  tlie  Sanskj-it  diX-ai-ahta, 
"  he  may  give." 

6S2.  In  support  of  my  assertion  that  the  Lithuanian 
imperative  is  based  on  ihn  Siinxkfit  precative,  uot  on  tlw 
potential,  which  answers  to  the  Greek  optative  pruseul,  may 
be  speeuilly  adduced  the  circumstaueu  that,  iu  the  latter 
c;ise,  in  those  verbs  wliich  eorri'spond  to  the  Sanskrit  first 
clau.  it  would  necessarily  retain  the  vowel  inserted  between 
Uie  root  and  the  )HT3onal  teruiinntioo.  E.<j.  the  inserted  a 
of icei-H-m*.  "we  ride."  wez-O'tr,  "ye  ride,"  would  not  be 
losl,  but  most  probably  we  should  have  in  their  place  trei- 
-ai-m«,  tptx-ai-le,  which  would  be  analogous  to  the  Gothic 
vig-ai-ma,  vig-td-th,  to  the  Greek    e^-ix-pc*-.  ^c-w-tc,  and 


*  S««  Vater'H  Latig<ingv  of  ili«  Old  Prtiasiuts,  |^.  IM4  and  1U7. 


910        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

Sanskrit  vah-^-ma,  vak-4-ta  (from  vaktufoa,  vakaUa),      But 
according  to  the  view  juat  developed,  vx/z-ki-me,  wefz-larie, 
are  founded,  not  on  vah-4-ma,  vah-i-ta,  but  on  vah-ahS-mahi, 
vak-xht-dhwam,  apart  from  the  middle  tenninatioiia.     The 
Lettish,  however,  in  its  imperatives,  has  retained,  of  the  two 
modifications  of  the  Sanskrit  mood  under  discussioo,  the 
first,  or  the  potential,  corresponding  to  the  Greek  optative 
present;  and,  in  the  second  person  plural,  always  uses  ai 
or  ee  in  the  place  of  the  indicative  a ;   and   thus  darrait, 
"do  ye"  {faciatis),  corresponds,  in  its  relation  to  darrat,  "ye 
do,"*  admirably  to  the  Gothic  subjunctives    like   tu~ai-4t, 
[G.Ed.  p.D97.]      "ye  two  may  read."  as  contrasted  with  the 
indicative  lis-a-ta.     I  give  tlie  dual,  as  this  Haa   the  ad- 
vantage of  having,  in  the  indicative,  retained  the  old  a  in 
its  original  form;  while  in  the  plural  lisith,  as  in  general 
before  a  final  ih,  that  letter  has  become  i.     The  two  twia 
sisters,    therefore,  the  Lithuanian    and   Lettish,   complete 
one  another's  deficiencies  in  the  imperative  admirably,  since 
tlie  one  supplies  us  with  the  Sanskrit  potential,  and  the 
other  with  its  aorist  form,  or  the  precative,  and,  in  fact, 
furnishes  us  with  the  same  method  of  formation  (which  is 
the  more  important)  tliat  is  to  be  assigned    peculiarly  to 
the   middle,   and   does   not  occur  elsewhere  in    any  other 
European  cognate  idiom;    while,  as  has    been    aaid.  the 


*  ThoQgfa  the  form  in  ait  or  eel  occars  in  the  indicative  also,  stUl  hen 
that  in  of  is  the  prevailing  and  general  one :  in  the  imperative,  howem, 
that  in  etf  or  ai'  is  the  only  one,  and  therefore  characteristic  of  the  nMoi 
The  true  pronunciation  of  the  Lettish  diphthong  ee  is  Iiard  to  be  peionnd 
from  the  description  given  by  Rosenlierger,  p.  0:  it  is  sufficient,  howerv, 
for  our  purpose  here,  that  this  diphthong  is  etymologically  only  a  oomp- 
tion  of  ui,  and,  libe  this,  correaponds  to  the  Sanskrit  ^(==a^n.  h  ii 
deewi,  "  God,"  =^^  dem-s,  from  fi^  die, "  toohme  " ;  eef, "  hegoa." 
=?fir  tli,  from  ^  i ;  ainee-t,  "  to  Ltagh,"  in  the  root  auawera  to  the  Sid- 
nbrit  eoti,  whence  by  Guna,  through  insiTtion  of  an  a,  smg. 


FORMATION  OF  MOODS. 


im 


active  process  of  formation  is  reflected  in  tbc  Greek  se- 
cond aorict  optative,  where,  in  the  third  persoa  plund, 
Sot^aav  is  coiitnuttvd  witU  the  Sanskrit  iJ^y'Iirus  for  ilAtjiUant. 
Biid  ioleit  with  the  Zend  f^iiM^  di'iyahn. 

683.  The  second  person  singular  of  the  Lettish  imperutive 
is  olffjiys  identical  with  the  corresponding' person  of  theindi- 
cative,  and  here  requires  no  further  discussion;  and  thtisi 
that  which  in  Litliuaninn  is  adduced  as  the  thii-d  person 
imperative,  is  nothing  else  tlian  the  tliird  person  of  the 
indicative  present,  which  receiv«  its  modid  function,  cor- 
rcspondinfj  more  with  the  subjunctive  than  the  imperative, 
by  the  preGx  of  the  conjunction  If.  There  are,  however,  some 
ao-calEed  nnomitlous  verbs,  which  have  a  form  differing 
from  the  indicative,  nnd  this  is  in  reality  an  unmistalteRbIc 
brotlier  of  the  Sanskrit  potential  of  the  s<'cond  conjugation, 
or  of  Oie  Greek  optiitive  present  of  the  conjugation  in 
lu.  The  personal  character  has  (as  usually  \G.  EJ-  p-  93a] 
happens  io  all  tenses  of  the  indicative)  been  dropped ; 
and  thus  te  corresponds  to  the  Greek  o;,  Latin  id  from 
Kitt,  antl  the  Sanskrit-Zend  yrl/.  yAi.  For  example,  esxie 
corresponds  to  tlie  Greek  ttr)  (from  etrt'i/).  to  the  Latin  siet. 
and  Sanskrit  syU.  hut  exceeds  the  Latin  and  Sanskrit  in 
preserving  the  radical  vowel  (aa  in  eamf,  contrasted  with 
9-maa,  aum\t^),  and  the  Greek  ett),  in  retaining  tlie  consonant 
of  the  root,  which  is,  however,  doubled,  as  oocun  in 
Lettish,  also,  in  stiveral  persons  of  the  indicative;  r.g,  va 
eauam,  "  we  are."  esmt,  "  ye  are." 

684.  Tlie  Lithuanian  tiudye,  "let  him  |2ive."  answers 
to  the  Greek  iiSelf,  Sanskrit  dnifyiit,  and  Zend  daidhyAt. 
The  agreement  with  the  two  last  forms,  however,  is  the 
greater,  us  the  radical  vowel  is  lost  in  the  base  itself; 
thus  di^U  for  diduye,  as  in  Sanskrit  dn'dyHt  for  dadAyAt, 
and  in  Zend  duidhyU  for  dadh&yf\U  The  relation  ofdidir 
to  the  other  unredupUcatcd  persons  of  the  iuijx--nitive, 
ns  cfttiki,  dukime,   &e.>    is    exactly    that  i^  llie  potential  iu 


912         POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

Sanskrit  and  Zend  to  the  precative,  and  in  Greek  that  of  the 
present  optative  to  the  aoriflt  of  that  mood ;  tiius.  as 
f(m\  d&dyat  is  related  to  ^^mt^  tJfi-yit  (tor  dAydt,  middle 
dd-sishta),  or  aa  in  Zend  mjui^jq,^  daidhydt  to  imjuA^au^ 
ddyil,  and  in  Greek  SiSoi>]  to  ioirj,  so  is  d^die^  "let  him 
give,"  to  duki,  "give."  In  this  lies  a  new,  and,  in  ^t, 
very  strong  proof,  that  the  Lithuanian  imperative  in  the 
third  person  of  anomalous  verbs  belongs  to  the  potential 
or  optative  present,  but  in  the  other  persons  to  the  preca- 
tive or  optative  aorist ;  and  that  the  it  of  duki  ia  identical 
with  the  K  of  eSwKci  and  the  s  of  ddsiya.  It  is  proper  here 
to  recall  attention  to  the  division  of  the  Sanskrit  tenses  And 
[G.  Ed.  p.  839.]  moods  into  special  and  general.  The  lat- 
ter, to  which  belongs  the  precative,  as,  in  Greek,  the  aorist, 
have  the  class-sign  removed,  which,  in  dad&mi,  SUtafu,  and 
the  Lithuanian  dudu,  consists  in  the  reduplication:  this. 
therefore,  is  wanting  in  d^&sam,  dA-siya,  Soltfv,  dSki,  accord- 
ing to  the  same  principle  by  which  the  verb  under  discuadon 
forms,  in  the  three  languages,  the  future  dd-aydm,  80-mt, 
du-su.  The  Lithuanian  root  6u,  "to  be"  (=Sanskrit  bM), 
in  consonance  with  this  principle,  forms,  in  the  plural  of 
the  future,  bu-si-me,  and  in  that  of  the  imperative  bu-ki-me ; 
with  which  latter  we  would  compare  the  corresponding 
Sanskrit  precative  form  bkav-i-shi-mahi .'  on  the  other 
hand,  butm-u,  "  I  was,"  belongs  to  the  special  theme 
abhavam  (§.  582).  With  regard  however,  to  Mielke's 
second,  third,  and  fourth  conjugations  preserving  the  class 
character  in  the.  imperative,  this  proceeds  fi-om  their  be- 
longing to  the  Sanskrit  tenth  class,  which  extends  its  ay 
also  to  the  general  tenses ;  and,  e.  g.,  from  wr  chur,  "  to 
steal,"  the  precative  middle  ia  ^^tfW^  cMr-~a^-^^, 
plural  chdr-ayi-sliimahL  The  i  of  ayi  is  a  couianctive 
vowel,  which  in  other  classes,  also  frequently  enters  be* 
tweeii  the  attributive  root  and  the  verb  substantive.  After 
rejecting  this  conjunctive  vowel,  ny  would  be  of  nwejBty 


POBMATION  OF  HOODS. 


913 


contracted  to  t,  and  then  eUr-i-ahimki,  ch^r-^-ahimaiti, 
would  be  identical  with  Litliuaman  forms  like  petfZ'kiu'a, 
"let  u»  two  iioorisli."  pcn-c-Jcimc,  "let  us  nourisli."  as 
regards  the  clasa-sy liable*. 

68i.  Tlic  LithaHnian  offers,  bi-side  the  imperative,  anotlier 
mood,  whicli  ire  must  bring  into  comparison  with  the 
Sanskrit  precative; — [  mv&a  the  subjunctive,  which  has 
only  ikQ  imperfect  to  exhibit,  wbii-U  we  append  in  full 
from  the  root  dti,  "  to  give,"  with  the  addition  of  the 
corresponding  form  of  the  Lettish,  nhich  is  requisite  iu 
this  place,  iu  order  to  understand  the  Litbuauiau. 

CO.  Ed.  p.  940.  J 
PLUKAL.  DUAL. 

irmu«N.  Lrmw.  urn  cum. 

fl&tumbime,  meh$  duhtum.      dulumbitea. 

ilufutabite,   yiiht  dohtut.        Jitittimbittu- 

lomyiwV  dohiu.  d&tu. 


SINGULAR. 

iTTii(T«ii.       LtmH. 
d&cliiau.    f»  dnhtu. 
dutiimbfi,  tu  dohlu. 
rfflfM. 


im'hscA'  doHiL  dtdtt. 


*  Fvmiiiiuc  lotn^wA 


The  third  person  singular,  which,  as  is  universally  the 
case  in  Litliuftnian  and  Lettish,  represents,  at  the  snmo 
time,  the  plural,  aiid,  in  Lithiuininn,  also  the  dual,  would, 
eousidered  of  itself,  lead  us  to  the  Smiskrit  iiu)K.Tative,  in 
which  dadMu,  "let  him  give,"  is  identical  in  termination 
with  dttfu,  dohtu;  and  the  phenomenoD,  that  the  Lettish 
dohtii  also  pa&aes  as  seuood  and  first  person,  might  be 
regardetl  as  the  consequence  of  an  erroneous  use  of  lan- 
guage; like  tliat.  by  wliicb,  in  Old  and  Anglo-Saxon,  the 
second  person  plural  of  the  present,  and  the  lliird  of  the 
preterite,  have  made  their  way  into  the  other  persons  also. 
Still  I  rcgunl  the  tu  under  dUctission,  not  as  a  personal  ter- 
mination, but  as  identical  with  the  turn  of  the  other 
liersons,  and  I  consider  dutn  on  abbreviation  of  dulumbt, 
particularly  ns,  in  the  first  person  plural,  datum  may  be 
used  fur  dulumhiine  (Mtelke,  p.  1-13,  b),  ui  wliieb  cuse  the  m 


&14       POTENTIAL,  OriATITB,  AND   SDBJDNCTIVB- 

is  to  be  r^anled  as  the  character  of  the  first  |Mmoa,  ani 
[G.  Ed.  p.  Ml.]  is  Dot  to  be  confounded  with  tlmt  vhid 
precedes  tlic  f>  in  the  full  form  diifumbime.  I  dedttee  Ail 
from  tlie  Lettuib,  wliidi  lias  everywhere  dislod^d  the  ■ji 
labte  bi,  togalhar  with  the  m  precediiig^,  but  which  combtM 
the  tu,  wliich  remains  in  the  plural  with  the  pcrsooal  ajk 
but  ill  the  sini^utar,  as  this  number  has  in  general  loBt  6t 
couflottitiits  of  the  bTin  illations,  leaves  it  witliout  auv  adifi- 
tioD ;  thus,  ea,  tu,  winsch  dohtu.  A  cloar  intimation  is  tiNi 
gireo  Qs,  tliat  also  in  the  Litlmaninn  first  person  siogBbr 
the  form  duchiuu,  and  such  as  resemble  it.  must  be  regirU 
OS  strongly  niiililuted;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  t/AcAin 
has  arisen  from  dutumbmu.  by  suppressing  the  umh.  Tin 
the  /  came  into  direct  contaot  with  several  combioed 
vowels,  and  therefore  was  Dueessarily  changed  into  A. 
according  to  a  universal  law  of  soand.  The  abbreriatiM 
of  d\tiumb\nit  to  (/fic/itdu  (for  dktiaa)  is  not  greater  than 
that  before  luentioued  oi  dHiv[mhi)me  to  d&tiim  for  dtUiHv. 
Ill  both  en»es  three  letters  have  been  omitted;  in  tbe 
first,  tnb,  with  tbe  preceding  vowel;  in  the  aecond,  with  ttie 
vowel  following. 

69fi.  The  Lithuanian  subjiiiK-tive  is  very  important  to  me, 
as  I  recognise  io  the  syllable  bi  the  true  expuucut  of  dw 
modal  rulutioD^  and  Lq  this  a  more  than  casual  coinetdence 
with  the  expression  of  the  Latin  future  of  the  first  aod 
second  conjugation,  which  is  in  form  completely  the  same. 
Compare  da-bimmt  with  dutum-bimf,  da-bUii  with  dutum-bHf, 
da-hia  with  dulum-bet,  from  duium-bi-U  da-bo  for  dabio,  with 
the  dlUum-biau  presupposed  above,  and  dubil  with  the  c/uJiim- 
-bi  abbruvintcfl  to  d&tu,  hkewisc  only  supposed.  Tbe 
idcntificatiou,  however,  of  a  Latin  future  form  with  tbe 
subjunctive  of  a  cognate  language  will  surprise  tu  the 
l««s,  as  the  Latin  itself,  wiibiu  ite  own  lingual  province, 
pliices  tlie  future  and  subjunctive  on  the  same  footing  in 
CG.  Ed.  p.  1MS.J     this  point,   that  futures  tike   iA^t.  IryH, 


FOBMATION  OF  MOODS. 


913 


Ififffmiis.  h'if^is,  coincide  in  form  with  the  subjunctives  of 
the  first  coujjgatiou. 

6S7.  TliB  j  of  the  Lithiinniftn  hi  corresponds,  there  is 
scarce  any  doubt,  to  the  Suds  krit- Zend  modal  chnntctcr  yA, 
which,  in  combination  with  bh^  "  to  bot"  forms,  in  the  third 
]>crson  of  t]ic  prccativc,  mrv  bhityiit,  ibauA^  buydt.  The 
IJthimntiui  Ims  dropped  the  u  of  its  rout  b».  whether  on 
account  of  its  appt>aring  in  ii  comjiound,  or  because  the  m 
stood  before  a  vowel,  while  everywhere  else  it  appeared 
before  conamuuits:  the  syllable  yd,  however,  is  retained 
pretty  perfectly  in  the  first  person  &ing;ular  iu  iau,  and  in  the 
other  persons,  on  the  coiitrnry,  it  is  contnwtcd  to  i.  Com- 
pare Aiou  (from  friuin,  sec  §.  43S.)  with  tlic  Zend  f^}>j 
butfaiim  (from  buiftim},  Qlid  bimf,  bUe,  from  hay«ime,  buyttte, 
with  Ai(.juAJij  buydma,  M^jSMii^i  bityata.  As  regards  the 
first  part  of  the  Lithuanian  compound  datum-bei,  liu;.,  we 
easily  recognise  in  it  the  Sanskrit  infinitive  and  the  accusa- 
tive of  the  Latin  supine — ^Tini  (M/um,  datum.  In  its  isniatvd 
state  the  Lithuuninn  supine  ends  in  tu,  but  the  lost  sign  of 
tlie  accusative  baa  in  tlie  compound  been  preserved  in  its 
origina)  form  under  the  protection  of  the  auxiliary  verb  fol- 
lowiuf^,  aud  princi pally  of  the  labial  initial  sound  answering 
to  m,  while  everywhere  else,  in  Lithuanian,  tlie  accusative 
»t  has  become  n  ($.  UU.)- 

688.  The  Sanskrit  first  conjugation  suppresses  the  d  of  tlie 
potential  character  yA  both  in  the  active  and  in  the  middle* 


•  This  luppraaioa  vrooU  U>  favored  l>y  the  faciUiy  wiih  which  they 
v«culu:vd  X»  i,  becamis  a  diphthong  witli  a  preceding  it.  'Ilio  prioiv 
iuducuDicnt  tor  it,  however,  wu  ibv  vH'ort  lo  lighu-n  tlic  looilal  clumcnt 
ill  combuMtiiin  wlch  a  verbnl  thciue,  which,  witbout  tUat,  was  of  two,  or. 
in  dicicnth  chus,  ofthrwHjIUVk-s;  thus,  W-(/Am,  "ihou  niftyc»t  kixw," 
for  ti&dh-a-y&i ;  bdmay^s,  "  tltou  naAjcsi  lovi-,"  (or  kdm-aj/nifd*.  In  the 
second  coigugniioD  tbe  combinniion  ot'llio  main]  tyllatilf  yd  viih  radlul 
il  (thin  ant  aa  looU  in  shon  a)  mxan  only  in  moiiiMylUliio  verbal 
tbvuii:-!  -,  t,  g.  tJni  -ytJM.     Rwts  i>f  ibe  third  ctOM,  bowovvr,  aa  ihcy  become 

polyiylUbic 


DIG       POTKNTIAL,  OPTATIVK,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

[G.  Ed-  p.  913.]  and  the  y  vot-alized  to  t  is  conlrac-ied,  witi 
tlte  preceding  ci  of  tho  class  syllable,  to  t ;  e.^.  HTH  6JW&. 
*•  tlioii  niaycst  bear,"  for  bhtn-a-ydi,  as,  iu  Greek,  ^/notiiot 
^cpolrji  (ifitfi-o-irn).  I  ain  not,  liowevcr,  of  opiuiou.  thai  At 
diphthong,  which  is  expressed,  !□  Sauskrit  by  w,  aod  is  do* 
spoken  as<<.  had  in  the  earliest  time,  beforo  the  separatioft «( 
langufiges,  n  pronuncintion  in  n-Jiioh  neither  a  nor  t  frl^pe^ 
coptibic;  bill  it  is  moat  probable  that  tlie  two  elements  wtn 
beard  in  combinaiion,  and  spoken  as  at,  which  ai  mav  hiH 
been  distinguished  from  the  Vriddlii  diphtliong  ^Oi  bythi^ 
that  the  wimi!  brciidlh  was  not  given  to  the  pronuucialjafiof 
tile  Q  sound  thnl  it  has  in  ^!i.  The  same  uiuxt  have  been  tW 
c;ise  with  the  6:  it  was  pranounced  like  ati,  oud  its  Vriddlu 
(§.  29.),  like  rfw.       For  to  keep  to  the  ?#,  if  this  diphtboti^ 

[G.  Ed.  p.  fru.]  was  from  the  early  period  of  the  laoguagf 
taken  as  r,  then  the  i  sound,  which  bad  become  utterly  ex- 
tinct as  a  whole,  would  scnrcely,  after  the  sc-paratjou  of  lan- 
guages, have  again  been  restored  to  life  in  single  niemben 
and  thus  tlte  whole  make  its  ap|ienraneu  in  Greek,  at 
time  as  ai,  at  another  us  ei  or  oi  (see  VoL-ali&mus,  j>u,  )  90. 1 
in  Zend  at  one  itme  as  ^  (or  ai,  §.  28.).  at  auutber  as  dii/ 

polj-syllabicby  irJupUcation,  liglileii  tlie  mols  by  snpp rearing  the  4» 

dad-yAm  fw  daddr^dm,  jattyiim  (nr  jaht-yttm  (campaiv  (.MS.)    Tk 

ntath  cUm  wwkcnn  tia  clcvv  a^lUblc  rid  to  aC,  im  Wore  bMry  pcfsoMl 

tenniuaitions  (fJiW.);    ihu»,  j/u-nS-ydm  (ot  yv-nJ-j/^tn ,-  and  thrntm 

tbo  combinniinn  oftlic  Fiill  mwlid  expaneutj/<f  vtidi  the  bettviesi  kiodrf 

vowil  is,  Inpolysyllflbic  thcmi-s,  eiitrruly  nvniJci).     The n«tB  which  «aB«s 

MM  or  u  ilo  not  nufti^r  any  wealienitig  ^lth<T  in  [lie  bnac  or  iu   Ji*  modal 

character,  for  the  d  ati/d  cannot  litre  !w  loii.  since  the  f  eannoi  brcoroe  ■ 

diphthcog  with  the  u  prtceding :  tho  w  of  the  dan  «yll«blc,  how»rer  b 

Dul  neceMarily  wwiketit'd,  linos  m  i*  itwtf  one   of  Ehv  lighter  vowdi* 

hence,  *.*;.,  dp-nu-gilm,  -  I  umy  oittain."     To  tJii«  would  conv^mtid,  la 

Greek,  forinii  like  fl«u!M-i^»,  which,  howL>ver,  aa  tt  i^pc«B,««  avoided 

on  McoantoFilioJifficnhy  of  pronouncing  llicm,  and  carried  inUi  the* 

conjngation;  wliilo  the  n>maiii>  nf  forms,  which  hiiT«  rvmained  irtic  to 

thdrowaconjuKAtion,  hnvo«iiipn-m»d  the  i,Rnd,inconipciisatioD   l«Offtll> 

t-Doil  the  V I  thus  iwidtuifiifitiif  for  intitiianiljiiir. 


rORMATION  OF  MOODS. 


917 


in  Litlnianinn  in  one  place  as  ai,  in  another  aa  f;  in  Lettish 
now  lu  at,  now  ns  (*  or  w  (see  §-  688..  Not*?);  in  Latin  somc- 
tiinrs  as  ne,  aa  Die  next  descent  from  ai,  snnirtimi's  aa  ^^  But 
if  before  the  sepamtion  of  languages  tbe  <li[>htliong  atill  hod 
its  rtglit  [ironunciation.  (hen  e»cb  piirticular  individunt  of  the 
family  of  Innguitges  which  arose  lifter  the  sepnratioo  may 
have  either  always  or  occjisiounlly  preserved  in  its  full  value 
the  ai  which  had  been  brought  with  it  from  the  land  of  its 
origin ;  or  invariably  or  ocL-asioonlly  contraeti-d  it  tu  i;  and 
as  it  is  nnlurnl  to  derive  i  from  ai,  many  of  tbe  cognate  Ian- 
guagos  coincide  in  this  process  of  rarlting  down.  While, 
however,  the  Saaskfit,  according  to  the  pmniinciation  which 
has  licen  received  by  us,  causes  the  diphthong  ni.  when  in  a 
position  before  consoiiurits,  to  be  invariably  taken  as  !,  tfao 
Greek  exhibits  the  opimsile  extreme,  and  disjilays  to  us  the 
Sanskfit  diphthong  us  ai.a,  or  or,  and,  in  fact,  in  the  preceding 
case,  as  ot,  siuee  the  class  vowel,  which,  in  the  indicative, 
appears  as  o  only  before  nasals,  in  combination  with  tbe 
modal  exjwiient  t  invariably  assumes  the  o  <)uality.  The  i;, 
however,  of  the  full  modal  exponent  07,  as  in  Sanskrit  the  d, 
is  suppressed  ;  thus  rcpv-ot-^,  ripit-oi-ir),  answering  to  Irtrp- 
-tf-«.  larp-f-lt  Tepn-ot-TOv,  Tcpn-o!--niv,  to  tarpS-litm.  tarp-4-lAm; 
7(pir-<>i~Hfv,  repji-oi-re,  to  tnrp-^mn.  inrp-f-in, 

689.  It  Iifls  been  already  remarked  (§.  430.)  that  the  first 
person  singular  in  (m/*(  is  an  inorganic  form,  and  that  ri/imi- 
fiJjv  points  to  an  active  form  Twrroiv.  When  I  first  advanced 
this  conjecture  1  was  not  aware  that  the  .  [G.  Ed.  p.  945.] 
form  arrived  At  by  theory  has  been  actually  trananiittod  to 
us.  though  but  in  the  single  case  of  tfiz^iv.  Resides  this, 
Matthitc  ($.  191).  2.)  i»vposes  to  read  aftaprotv  instead  of 
afjaprav  in  Snidas.  Wc  will  leave  it  undecided  here, 
flfhether  tbe  forms  citjv,  oi't}^.  &c..  which  occur  in  contracted 
verbs,  have  preserved  the  original  form,  and  are  thns  more 
genuine  tlian  those  in  Sanskrit  like  (drp-^-s  for /«rp-n-^d*, 
or  whether,  as  is  more  probable,  tlicy  arc  carried  bnck  by 


POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SDBJUNCTITB. 

the  analoify  of  the  ^t  conjugation.  Th«  San^rit  int«rpo«ea 
a  eu|)bonic  y  betweeo  the  diphthong  <?,  and,  in  the  second 
conjugation,  between  tlie  i'  shorteDLti  from  yd.  and  the  per- 
sonal termiiiattons  commencing  with  a  vowel  (§.  4;i.)  ;  hence; 
taryf-y-<tm,  nnsweritig  to  the  Greek  ripiroifu  for  T4piroir. 
Regarding  the  tcrminattoa  am  for  simple  fn,  which  vroaM 
mnke  the  euphonic  ^  superfluous,  and  attest  a  form  tarpfn 
for  tarp^ijiim,  see  §.  -137.,  Remark, 

690,  The  Latin,  in  its  subjuuctivea  of  the  first  conjiigntioo. 
exIiibitB,  like  tho  Sanskrit  in  the  form  of  ^,  the  dipbthoiiK 
which  has  arisen  from  the  class  syllable  and  the  modal  vowd 
i;  but  in  tlie  first  and  tbinl  person  siiiii^ulnr.  throng-h  tlie  in- 
fluence of  the  Bnal  m  and  t,  this  is  shortened;  thus,  nmrm, 
ami^l,  in  opposition  to  amh,  nm^ut,  nmMi*.     The  kindred 
formation  of  these  words  with  the  Greek,  like  repvoifu,  re/nr- 
oit,  Tt-pnatfiev.  rip-nant,   would   [H.-rhapa  never  be  discovcredl 
without  the  medium  of  the  Sunskrit.     But  \tnmfs,amfil,  amt-  \ 
mus,  fimHia.  be  lompared  n  ith  tlie  Sanskrit  forma  of  tlie  samsl 
meaning,  kAma\/^»,  kAmnyfl,  kiimutj^ma.  k&mnyHa,  it  must  be 
assumed  that  the  last  a  of  the  class  character  ^(ra  at/a  (  whence 
we  have  deducwl  the  Latin  vj  {=«  +  (])  of  om(I-rc  {%.  loy\  fi.Jt 
by  the  dblod^mcut  of  the  y),  has  combined  with  the  modal 
t,   while  in  the  d  of  umdi,  am^mnn,  amtUis,  ihc  two  a  of 
[G.Ed.  p.  046.]      kAm-<i(tf)a-^.    /cAm-o(t/yi-mua,    Mtn~aiy)n- 
-tha,  are  united.     The  f.  therefore,  of  om^,  &:c.,  corresponds 
to  the   G  reek   oi   in   forms   like    Tipaot^,    <^\iot^,    Sf}\o^^ 
(§.  109*.  6.),  aud  the  preceding  sliort  vowel    is  jioascd  over. 
In  tlio  obsolete  forms  wrterit.  temyeriai-  (Strove,   p.  14ff}, 
the  first  part,  also,  of  the  diphthong  6  (=  a  +  i)  baa  been  lust, 
and  only  tlie  pure  modal  clement  has  been  left.     They  may 
have  arisen  from  the  consciousness  that  an  t  was  bound  up 
ill  the  B  of  verbetet,  tempcrent.  or  they  may  hitve  followed  the 
principle  ofuV,  wtit,  rdit  (§.  674.).     On  ttic  other  hand,  do 
rfally  belongs  to  tlie  Sanskrit  second  conjugation,  ami  to  tbc 
Urcek  in  fu,  aud  therefore  duim,  perdaim,  are  regular  foraia 


FORUATION'  OF  MOODS. 


919 


thu  i  ofwhicl]  (!orn?8|>oiKls  to  tJie  Sanskrit  y  ot  dnd-y&m  and 
to  thu  Oreok  i  of  itioiiiv.  The  weakeniiif;  of  llie  a  to  m  in 
duim  rests,  perhaps,  on  tlie  circumstance,  that  ui  U  u  morv 
favorite  (-onibinntiun  than  oil. 

lid  I.  In  montAs,  moneAmua,  Sic,  i»  contained  the  whole  of 
the  Saiiskpt  causitl  theme  mAn-ntja,  "to  make  tothiuk"  (see 
p.  ISl  G.  ed.},  only  tliat  tlie  property  long  6  (from  a  -f  t  =  Sun- 
skrit  ny)  is,  on  acroiint  of  its  pnailion,  sliortened  before  a 
vowel,  the  i  of  tbc  modal  expression  hus  disappeared,  and,  in 
compensation,  the  preceding  vowel  is  Icngtheaed,  according 
to  the  principle  of  Grt^k  optatives  with  v  for  vt,  Aa.  there- 
fore, tiriJcfitkD/iijv  stauds  for  nnJcuci-wi/u;*'.  taivvvo.  mj^vxTTo 
fur  ScuftriTO,  -iTTYVUTO,  SO  flioTiedf  fur  monenals.  On  tht^othof 
hand,  tlie  case  it  the  same  with  carird  (Struve,  p.  14$),  for 
corf«Jn(  from  careuirtf,  as  wiih  the  before-ueuttoned  verberH, 
UmperinU 

692.  The  same  rdation  that  monnlx  has  to  mmm  is  held  by 
(luJifU,  from  audiau,  to  audi*  (§$.  190*.  6..  bOb,},  Thu  future, 
however,  which  in  the  third  and  fourth  conjugation  is.  in 
fact,  nothing  else  than  a  suhjuuctive.  as  vras  first  rumtu-ked 
in  my  System  of  Conjugation  (p.  98.  with  wliich  Struve 
agrees,  pp.  145,  H6),  has  preserved  the  modid  element,  and 
has  been  contracted  with  the  «  of  the  tlaas  [c;.  Ed.  p.iM7.] 
character  to  <?.  with  thu  exception  of  tiie  first  person  singular, 
in  which  fegem,  audum,  should  stand  fur  Ugnm,  audiam.  In 
the  older  language  duxm,  fnckm,  arc  actually  transmitted  to 
US  by  Quintihan,  as  forms  used  by  Cato  Censor  (compare 
Slruvu.  p.  U7J;  and  thus,  in  the  fourth  cunjugation,  forma 
like  audiem  may  well  have  existed.  As,  however,  in  the 
proper  subjunctive  the  last  element  of  the  diphthting  ai  has 
cost  itsetr  upon  the  a,  and  lengthened  Uiat  letter,  but  in  tbc 
future  lus  been  contracted  with  the  a  to  ^,  two  forms  have 
arisen  from  that  which  was  originally  one,  of  which  each  has 
received  for  representation  a  portion  of  that  mciming.  which 
properly  belongs  to  the  two  b^gether;  as,  in  the  history  of 
language,  similar  eases  have  often  arisen,  and,  e.fj.,daturi 


920       POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

and  datdrea  {I  give  the  plural  intentionally)  both  conduct  as 
to  the  Sanskrit  ddldrtu,  which  unites  the  meaning  of  the  two 
Latin  forms  in  itself.  The  use  of  the  subjunctive  in  the  sense 
of  a  future  reminds  us  of  the  periphrasis  for  the  future  by 
means  of  auxiliary  verbs  which  siguify  "  to  be  requisite,"  or 
"  to  win,"  as  also  of  tiie  occasional  use  of  the  Zend  ixnperative 
in  the  sense  of  the  future  (see  §.  680.p.  912  G.ed.).  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  the  expression  of  the  future,  from  the  most 
ancieut  period,  has  bordered  with  surprising  closeness  on  the 
relation  denoted  by  the  Latin  subjunctive,  since  the  two  are 
distinguished  in  Sanskrit,  only  by  the  quantity  of  the  vowel 
— 1/a  in  tlie  future,  and  i/&  in  tlie  potential. 

693.  The  future  and  subjunctive  of  the  Latin  third  conjuga- 
tion may  perhaps  require  a  little  further  consideration,  though 
what  is  most  important  to  be  observed  respecting  them  is 
already  deducible  from  what  has  been  remarked  regarding 
the  second  and  fourth  conjugations.  Future  forms  likevrAei, 
vehimua,  have  already  appeared  in  my  System  of  Conju<^- 
tion  as  akin  to  the  Sanskrit  potentials  like  vahig,  vah4tna,ajii 

[G.  Ed.  p.  048.]  Latin  subjunctives  as  amh.  am4mus.  But  in 
the  first  conjugation  the  6  was  firmly  planted ;  for  even  if  in  its 
&  a  contraction  of  the  Sanskrit  ai/n  of  the  tenth  class  were  not 
recognised,  still  the  d  is  clear  to  every  one's  eyes,  and  also 
the  possibility  of  melting  it  down  with  the  i  of  the  subjunc- 
tive expression  which  follows  to  i.  But  the  4  of  vekit. 
vehimus  appeared  incomprehensible,  or  as  a  traDStnissioa 
from  the  third  conjugation  to  the  first,  as  loug  as  the  i  of 
veh-i-s,  veh-i^mus,  passed  as  the  original  form  of  the  class 
vowel  of  the  third  conjugation.  Through  the  observation, 
liowever,  made  above  (p.  104),  according  to  which  the  inter- 
mediate vowel  of  the  third  conjugation  is  only  a  secondarvi 
weakened  from  a,  forms  like  vehfy,  veh^mus.  must  now  appear 
in  a  totally  different  light.  Their  S  contains  the  primitive  a. 
wliich  has  become  weakened  in  the  indicative,  as  it  ocean 
elsewhere  also,  that  a  word  in  composition  has  maiotained 


FORMATION  OF  MOODS, 


931 


itaelf  in  n  furin  more  close  to  its  originni  state  than  when  iso- 
lated and  unprotected,*  Before  the  forma  vek-a-s,  veh-<i-mnt, 
had  become  corrupted  to  vek-i-s,  veh-i-mua,  ii]  tlie  iodicative, 
veh-^-s,  veh-t^-mus.  Iind  arisen  from  tlieoi,  and,  in  (he  aub- 
juiictivv,  ttk'U,  reliAmux;  and  tlie  corru|)tian  of  tlie  class; 
vovel  of  the  indicative  could  have  had  no  influence  over  thnt 
which  was  melted  down  with  tlie  modal  charactor.f 

694.  The  Latin  tliird  coujugaliou  leads  us  to  the  Gothic,  in 
vrliich  all  the  twelve  classes  of  Grimm's  strong  conju^tioo 
coincide  with  the  Latiu  third  (§.  lo*l\  1,).  [n.Ed.  p.IH9.I 
The  Gothic  has,  however,  this  advantage  over  the  Lntiu, 
that  it  has  not  admitted  tlie  eorniption  of  the  old  a  of  the  ia- 
dicntive  throughout,  but  only  berorc  a  Gnal  a  aad  M;  otbor- 
viso  it  bus  retained  the  a.  >Vc  must,  thererore,  carefully^ 
avoid  deriving  the  forms  bairais,  "ferta,"  bairai,  "feratt" 
bniraltfi,  "fmith"  from  the  intlicativc  6(JtrM.  buirUft,  bahUh, 
hy  tlie  insertion  of  an  n,  which  would  imply  a  priuciple  of 
fontiation  quite  unknown  iti  the  Indo^Ruropeaa  Eumily  of 
longiiages;  but  the  said  subjunctive  forms  must  be  regarded 
as  the  creations  of  a  period  in  which  tlicir  indicative  pro- 
totypes were  still  bairta,  bairath,  to  which  also  ihu  passive 
fbrtns  bair-a-za,  bair-C'da,  as  regards  the  intermediatu 
vowel,  refer  us  (^.  466.).  In  the  sccoud  person  of  the  dual 
and  the  6rst  of  the  plural  bair-ai-ts.  btti-ai-mn,  have  the 
same  relation  to  the  indicative  bair-a-tg,  bair-u-m,  that,  in 
Sanskrit,  bhar-i-tatn,  blior-4-mn  (from  bhar-oi'tam,  bhar^i- 
-ma),  iuive  to  bhar-n-lhas,  bhar-d-mtia;  in  the  tliird  person 


*  TIma  tlie  gnttural  of  tko  Lxtin/uf io  lias  1>eoa  ratninol  in  the  French 
moffnifujTti;  while  'mfaU,faUoM,  it  has  been  corraptcd  lo  *,i>r,  accurtllns 
to  llic  j>ronuutiatiiia,  koa  bwD  IwttulJrely  mfais, 

t  I  have  br-flight  forward  thii  ilie>>ry  for  the  firat  time  in  the  Borl. 
JatiTb.,  Jsii.  lu.'^j,  pp.07.:a4{h<hi  Vocjiluiinns,  p. SOO),  to  whidi  A.  lle:iary 
DBMnu  (Docuioc  ofllonuui  Sounds,  pp. '^, 26),  wbn,  luiwever,  derlvra 
tJio utodAt  vowoW from  i,  "lAgo."    (C<iaip<iref.G?0.) 

3o 


922        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SDBJDNCTIVE. 

plural  ftair-ai-na  (tranapoaed  from  bair-ai-aa),  "ferantr  ha* 
the  same  relation  to  iair-a-nrf.  "feruut,"  that  the  Zend 
juiM^aj  bar-ay'hi  has  to  bar-tt-nti,  and  the  Greek  tpep-ot-ev 
to  ^p-o~vTt.  In  tlie  first  person  dual  the  relation  of  bair- 
-ai-va  to  bair-ds,  from  bair-a-vai  (§.  44 1.),  rests  on  the  same 
principle  on  which,  in  Sanskrit,  that  of  bkar-4-va  to  &Aar- 
-d-vas  is  founded.*  In  the  first  person  singular  6atrau,  "  I 
may  bear,"  the  modal  vowel  i  is  wanting,  but  the  u  is  the 
vocalization  of  the  personal  character  m;  bairau,  therefore 
(from  bairaim),  has  the  same  relation  to  bairau,  bairai,  &&, 
that,  in  Latin,  the  future  feram  (for/erem)  has  to  /eria,  fent, 

[G.  Ed.  p.  950.]  from  feraii,  /eroi/.t  The  Old  High  Ger- 
man exhibits  the  Gothic  diphthong  at  {=i,  see  {.  78.X  also, 
graphically  in  the  form  i,  but  shortens  it  at  the  end  of  a 
word ;  hence,  bere  (for  berS),  "feram,"  "ferat,"  has  the  same 
relation  to  berSs  ( =  Sanskrit  bbar&t),  "ferat,"  bertmig,  "fera- 
mua"  that,  in  Latin,  amem,  amet,  bear  to  amis,  amSmua. 

695.  The  Old  Prussian,  a  dialect  which  resembles  the 
Lithuanian  very  closely,  employs  imperatives  like  immms, 
"  take  thou,"  immaiti.  "  take  ye,"  which  stand  in  a  clearer 
relation  to  their  indicative  forms  imm-a-se,  imm-a-ti,  than, 
in  Gothic  ntm-ai-s,  "ntmas,"  nim-ai-th,  "sumatu,"  to  ntm- 
-i~s,  nim-i-tb.  Compare,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Lettish 
imperatives  like  darrait,  "do  ye,"  contrasted  with  darrat, 
"  ye  do "  (J.  682.).  Dais.  "  give  thou,"  daiti,  "  give  ye  "  (io 
Old  Prussian),  contrasted  with  date,   "thou  girest,"    dati. 


*  Rcepectingthe  length  ofded,  see  $.134. 

i  With  r^ard  to  the  snppreasioD  of  the  i  of  bairau,  compare,  in  Gothk. 
Grimm's  third  class  of  the  weak  conjugation,  in  which  the  •  of  the  con- 
jngatiooal  character  at  (^Sanskrit  Vl  "^  Latin  6)  is  every  when  lost, 
wliere  a  final  nasal,  or  one  standing  before  a  consonant,  follows  or  oaeht 
to  follow ;  thus,  first  person  singular,  haba  for  hohcu.  Old  High  German 
habSm  ;  plural,  habam  for  koAaim,  Old  High  German  hab6tn4a  •  third  per- 
son plural,  haband  for  habaind.  Old  High  German  hahini  ;  in  opooii- 
tiontoAabau,  habaith,  &c. 


FOKMATION  OF  MOODS. 


9^3 


"  y^  R'^^'"  furuisb,  aa  it  were,  a  commentary  on  the  relation 
of  the  Ijitin  dfs,  d^iU,  to  dns,  datis,  as  the  conibinatioD  of 
a-\-i.  which  is  not  perceived  in  the  Latin  ^,  is  evident  in 
theOtd  Prussian.  More  usually,  however,  the  Old  Prus- 
sian exliibits,  ill  the  indicative,  an  «  or  i  oa  the  conjancUvc 
Towcl,  and  in  the  imperative  the  diphthong  ei ;  e.g.  deri-is, "  see 
tbou"=)epico/r,  ideiti  "*  «se( '"  •  =  eJoiTC,  ed&is.  WtK  adyAta. 
The  two  moods,  however,  do  not  everywhere  agree,  since, 
t.ff.,  tickinnaiti,  "make  ye"  (Katcch,  p,  &4),  does  not  answer 
to  lickinnimai,  "  we  make  "  (L  e.  p.  6),  but  leads  us  to  expect 
instead  of  it  Ikkinmtmai.  Ttie  simple  r,  also,  or,  in  its  place, 
y,  13  found  in  Old  Prussian  imperatives,  as.  mylh,  "  love 
tbou."  enilhlt.  "  regnrd  thou." 

696.  The  Old  Sclavonic  has  retained  only  [Q.Ed.  p-OSIJ 
the  last  element  of  tlio  original  diphtlion}*  at  in  the  second 
and  third  person  singular  in  its  imperative  in  the  regular 
conjugation,  which,  as  baa  been  before  shewn,  corresponds 
partly  to  the  Sanskrit  first  class  with  o  annexed  ($.499.), 
partly  to  the  fourth  in  n  ija  C§-  50o),  partly  to  the  tenth  in 
V^  at/a  (§.  bob.) ;  as,  nt^n  w^i,  "  ride,"  and  "  let  him 
ride,"  corresponds  to  the  Sanskfit  v<thh,  voMi  (§.  43^.),  Latin 
vthAi,  vefiet,  and  vek&s,  vehatt  Gothic  viyuis,  vigai,  Greek 
exoi^-  ^c-  If  ^^(=  ^°^'  '"'^  pluruJi  liowevcn  where  the 
diphthong  is  protected  by  the  foltowiug  personal  termination. 
£  ve  (from  ^  with  v  prefixed,  $.2AS.  n.)  corresponds  to  the 
Indo-Roman  4,  Gothic  at,  and  Greek  oi;  thus,  BE3%Mbi 
vr^ye'ni/^=^fi^  vahimn,  veMmun,  vehdmvt,  vvjaimit,  e-jfatfiev; 
BEatTE  rf^j/rtft  =  ^^  vahHa,  vfhilis,  vehAiis,  vigaith,  c)f«Te; 
dual  BE3*TA  ue^w*«=^%1''f,«"'''Aflm.  I^Ttni^  vah/tAm.  exoirev, 
c^oi'tijv,  vigaiu, 

697.  Among    the  other    Sclavonic   languages,    the  Car- 
niolan  e3))ecinlly  deserves,  with  respect  to  the  mood  under 


•  Iii,  "lie  ckU,"  euphonic  far  idt,  oamvpondA  to  the  LnlEn  ul. 
t  Tkia  npreacuta  the  thiid  pcnon  also,  t«e  ^.  4?0. 
3  o  fi 


924       POTENTIAL,  Ol'TATlTB,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

discussion,  a  closer  consideration,  as  its  imperative  iu  those 
verbs  which  have  a  as  the  class  syllable  is  distinguished  from 
the  present  indicative  by  the  placing  a  y  (=0  beside  the 
a;  so  that  thus  ay  is  o[i[X)sed  to  tlic  Saiikrit  ^=a  +  «  of  the 
potential,  to  the  Gothic  m  of  the  subjunctive,  and  to  the  Latin 
(  of  the  subjunctive  and  future.  The  singular,  which,  in 
Camiolan  also,  io  advantageous  contrast  with  the  other  Scla- 
vonic dialects,  has  a  first  person,  ends  in  the  three  persons 
in  ay,  since  the  pronominal  consonants,  which,  from  the 
most  ancient  period,  have  stood  at  the  end  of  words,  must 
give  place  according  to  the  rule  for  the  extirpation  of  final 
consonants,  which  extends  to  all  the  Sclavonic  idioms 
[G.Ed.  p.  052.]  (§.255./.);  hence,  del-aj/,  "let  me  work," 
"  work  thou,"  "  let  him  work,"  for  del-ay-m,  del-ay-t, 
dM-av-t,  opposed  to  the  indicative  tlel-it-m  (from  del-a-mt). 
de'l'a-sh  (from  del-a-ahi),  del-a  (from  del-a-ti),  and,  in  accord- 
ance with  Gothic  forms  like  bnir-ai~8,  bair-ai,  Sanskrit  like 
bkarSs,  hharit,  Latin  like  amem-,  am6.%  amet,  vehSa,  vehel 
Greek  like  <pepoiiit,  iftepoti,  ipepoi.  In  the  dual  del~ay-wa 
answers  to  the  indicative  del-a-wa,  io  the  most  perfect 
accordance  with  the  Gothic  ha'traroa  and  Sanskrit  bharit-a ; 
in  the  second  person  dual,  det-oy-fa  has  the  same  relation 
to  the  indicative  del-a-ta,  that,  in  Gothic,  buir-ai-ls,  "feratia," 
has  to  hair'<i-ia  "fertis  \"  and,  in  the  plural,  del-av-mo  is  to 
dil-a-mo  as,  in  Gotliic,  ba'ir-al-ma  to  bair-a-m,  or,  in  Gireek, 
*p€p-oi-fiev  to  i}>ep-oi-Te;  in  the  second  person,  del-tiy~te  bears 
the  same  relation  to  del-a-te  that,  in  Gotliic,  hnir-ni~th  has 
to  that  which  we  must  presuppose  as  the  original  form  of 
the  indicative  bair-a-ih,  whence  tlie  corruption  bair^i-ik : 
hence  the  Old  High  German  her~i-l  (from  ber~ni-t),  con- 
trasted with  its  indicative  ber-n-f,  is  better  compared. 
Tiie  third  jwrson  dual  and  plural  is  wanting  in  the  Car- 
niolan  imperative,  and  is  expressed  by  a  periphrasis  of  the 
indicative  with  the  conjuiictioo  nay;  thus,  nay  delalu, 
wiy  de/ayo. 


i 


FORMATION  OF  MOODii. 


325 


69B.  ThcaualogT,  however,  of  the  Carntolan  forms  like 
dei-ay-mo,  "  let  us  nork,"  n-itli  the  Gotliic  like  bair-at-ma 
and  Sanskrit  like  hhnr-^ma,  must  not  be  ao  far  exteuded  ai 
to  ittpntify  the  vowel  of  derivation  of  verbs  like  del-n-t» 
with  the  conjunctive  vowel  of  the  Sanskrit  6rst  and  sixth 
cliisa,  and  with  that  of  the  Gothic  stroug  verba.  I  rather 
Bee  in  ihil-atn,  as  in  tlie  Polisl;  first  conjugation  {czyt-a-m, 
"I  read."  r2y(-n_y,  "read  thou,"  ciift-oi/'mif,  "  let  us  read,") 
tile  Sanskrit  tenth  eltiss,*  ttie  ehanu-ler  of  which,  nya,  lias 
sejinrnted  into  various  forma  in  the  Scla-  [O.  Ed.  p.  963.] 
vonie  idioms  na  in  Latin  and  the  German  weak  eonjuga- 
tien.  The  Cnrniulan  de-d-m  and  Polish  cz^l-a-m  are 
brought  much  nearer  to  the  Sanskrit  like  chini-nifA-mi, 
"  I  think."  through  the  Russian  sister  forms:  4.%AaKi  dyi- 
tinj^.  <iMniHin  cliil/iwl  (from  (tf/f't-tit/o-m.  ekit'/ivo-m ;  see 
§.  255.  g.).  In  the  third  person  plural  the  CnniiolaQ 
defdvo  and  Polish  czylnyn  approach  nearer  to  the  Sanskrit 
chint-ayn-nti :  ou  the  other  baud  the  Qimiolan  yed6,  "the/ 
eat,"  corresponds  to  the  Sanskrit  adanti,  from  the  root  ad. 


•  I  new,  al»n,  nftrr  Dobrowsliy's  firit  Coiijnf^tion  in  Old  Sclaroak^ 
(cflittnrj'  to  ^.600.%  ftl  Icnil  pTinci|>Ally,  to  lli«  SonRkrit  tenth  cIiim; 
go  tlint  I  uminc  tlin  Mipprenaion  of  tha  fimt  a  or  ihe  rlinractcr  VQ, 
avi>tiii>D  Grttnin'ii  iint  conJa|pitian  of  Llio  wmk  form,  whioh,  by  tills 
toM,  hMbcMnedtnilar  to  iIm  Soiulcrii  fonrth  clAMfsco  }.  100*.  0).  The 
Old  SclavoDtc,  bovrvTflf,  liu  also  Dot  nnfrvtiaeatl;  rplained  ibe  lirst  a  of 
Hw  cVtrntwUKX  aya ;  m}a  pada^tt,  "1  ioQ,"  ehitat^ik,  "  I  rusd  "  ( Dcilir.  fi22.). 
In  Mutic  rooiB  catlinK  with  a  vowtj  the  y  iimj  be  a  tupbunic  nddilioa,  nml 
{Hfl^l,  "  r  Iriion  "  (SftTiiltril^'w/J,  *'foknow"),/»^i',  "  I  drink"  (Snnstrit 
fiA,  "  \n  AtmV),  may  W long  ih^hher  to  the  Suukrit  foanh  nor  lo  tho 
tfnilLclMs,  but  (o  the  first,  with  tli«  infcrtkniora  y  between  the  root  nnd 
the  oonjuncliw  vuwcl  (coiii[iAni  j.43.).  I  tnko  ibis  npjtortnnitjr  to  n- 
mnrk  further,  ihal  in  $-606.  Mielke's  fonrtb  cot^ajpuion  in  liihnamaa 
hfl»  remninptl  \ty  mietAko  uunoticod.  It  iuclttdea  bul  vury  few  vrui'ds,  I>ul 
Wongs,  ill  like  manner,  to  ilic  Srtn«brit  tcikih  cliuo.  nnd  «xhi)^ttB  iheclift- 
rneior  of  tUnt  rlnwi,  nyn,  citvtl;  in  its  prclorilB*.  m  tfttk^att  (jiAfr^ifya-u). 
In  itie  prramt,  togrtlwr  vrilb  ^»zkuM  is  found,  nlvo,  the  form  jwncjk^^. 


926        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SDBJDNCTIVB. 

the  d  of  which  in  Carniolan  is  retained  anchanged  only  in 
the  third  person  plural,  but  before  t  has  been  changed  to  m, 
and  elsewhere  is  dropped :  thus  yes-te,  "  ye  eat,"  as  in  Latin 
€t-tii,  for  the  Sanskrit  at'tha;  ws-fa,"je  two  eat,"  "they 
two  eat,"  for  VT<n^  at-thaa,  W^  at-taa.  In  the  impera- 
tive, yey  for  i/«/y  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  ady&m,  adytla, 
adyAt;  dual  yeyva,  yeyta=ady/iva,  adt/dtam;  plaral  if  A/mo, 
y^le,  for  adyStma,  adydta. 

699.  The  Zend  appears  to  us,  in  its  potential  of  the  first 
conjugation,  to  use  the  expression,  in  a  half  Greek  half  Indo- 
Roman  dress,  since  it  exhibits  the  primitive  diphthong  oi 
at  one  time  in  the  shape  of  di,  at  another  in  that  of  i 

[G.  Ed.  p.  8B4.]     (§.  33.),  to  which  latter,  however,  accord- 
ing to  §.  28.,  another  a  is  prefixed.       Thus  Mxt^7^u  ba- 
rdia    agrees    admirably   with   ^pots,    and    mj^^    barttit 
with  ij)€pot{T) :  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  middle  voice  the 
third  person  Ajpn  m?^  baraSta  agrees  better  with   the  San- 
skrit bharila,  and,  after  withdrawing  the  middle  a,  with  the 
L&tinferet,  than  with  ^ipoiro.     The  first  and  second  per* 
sons  plural  active  in  the  first  conjugation  I  am  unable  to 
quote,   but   I   have   no  doubt  that   here    again     ai9;das7ju 
bartdma,  u^joM^Mi    bara&a,    run   parallel  to  the    Sanskrit 
bharima,  bharUa,   and    Latin  ferSmui,  ferUis,   and    that  we 
should  not  look  here  for  the   more  Greek   form    bardima, 
bardila.     For  I  imagine  I  have  found  that  in   selecting 
between  6i  and  at  the  Zend  is  guided  by  what  follows  the 
diphthong,  according  as  it  is  a  final  consonant,   or   one 
accompanied  by  a  vowel.      How  much  the  selection   falls 
upon  di,  in  the  former  position,  to  the  rejection   of  aS,  is 
seen  from  this,  that  bases  in  i  in  the  genitive  and  ablative 
regularly  exhibit  the  forms  6u  and  6it,  answering-   to   the 
Sanskrit  i-i*      Through  this,  therefore,  we  may   explain 

"  Itomark,  also,  the  frequently-occurrinjf  mj^iinoU,    "not," <i„n 

Itiituet.  '      ' 


rOBMXTlON  OF  M0UD3. 


927 


till!  miarvlHtioii  in  form  between  the  middle  jujowjo^ 
barafUt  and  the  active  Irnrdil,  lq  tlie  third  person  singular 
or  tbe  potential.  But  vrheu  we  find  iu  the  first  prraoa 
plurnl  midille  the  form  tw^AjC.w<AJ,<^jj  ItiidJti/iUmnitiht 
"ciiipumujr"  =  Sanskrit  wuprf?  budhyhnnh't,  "  uuimtis"  here 
"^e  exceedingly  broad  term  iiui lion,  which  in  the  litlio- 
graphcd  Codex  is  even  si.'paratod  froni  the  preceding;  part 
of  the  word  Ity  a  point,  may  have  the  eifect  of  a  distinct 
word;  aud  thus  it  may  be  observed,  that  in  the  finfti  sound, 
also,  tho  diphthong  ■!*  is  admissible,  and  in  [G.  Ed.  p.9ik&.] 
this  position  is  especially  favored  by  a  preceding  y-  hence 
Jy-C^  .vJ».  "which"  (S'()=qy,  j^iijjjjWjf  maidhy6i,  "in 
medio"  (§.  196,)=  mimorffty^;  biltalHO  j^f  mdi,  "tome."  j^p 
Mi  and  ^yS^ thwA'i.  "to  thee,"  j^w  fc^i,  "  to  him."  with 
m5  mA  |0(&  (^.  ^lAii  thiri.  jvw  ft^.  I  would,  therefore, 
uot  deducu  from  hiiulliyiimaiJIti  forms  like  bitrdimaidM, 
still  less  an  active  bnrAima;  for  in  both  forma  the  j/,  which 
favors  tbe  6i,  is  deficient,  and  in  the  latter,  also,  the 
breadth  of  lermination  giving^  the  appearance  of  a  sepa- 
rate wi>rd,  for  which  rcnaon,  in  the  third  |>cn(on  8ing;iilar, 
not  bdidlii/iilla  but  b&idhya&tn  answers  to  the  btiidhtfiimaidlii 
which  h;is  been  mentioned  (Vend.S.  p.  45). 

700.  In  the  third  |>erson  plural  the  old  a  of  the  ori- 
ginal diphthong;  ai  has  h4^'>fn  retained  unaltered,  but  the  i 
has,  on  account  of  the  following  vowel  of  the  termination, 
[uisaeil  into  its  corresponding  semivowel  y,-  and  thus, 
lciiM?^ii  bariti/rn  answers  to  the  Greek  tftepoitv;  and  thus; 
for  llie  one  oi  of  the  Gnfek  optative  in  Zend,  we  have. 
nccording  to  the  quality  of  the  termination  following,  three 
forms,  viz.  tU,  a&,  and  ay.  Fretjueiitty.  however,  as  the  third 
person  plural  in  the  mood  under  discussion  of  the  first 
nrtive  form  can   be  qaoted,  the    first   person  siii^ilar  is. 


•  Vend.S..  i>.*S.  twice t  oacfjWrotiroualj./MiKftiAnwuVA^;  sodotiK. 


L 


928        rOTEKTUl.,  OPTATIVE,  AND  saBJONCTIVB. 


n 


on  the  contrary,  of  extremely  rare  occurrcnf>r,  tbcx^fi  ■ 
ouglit  properly  to  be  our  point  of  starting.  It  aw 
excite  our  curiosity  to  learn  wl)flh<>r  it  rtneuibles  raatelbt 
^poiv  ivlticli  is  to  be  presupiwoed  in  Greek,  aod  whid 
$.699.  we  bavo  found  supported  by  rp&potv,  or  rather  Lus 
forms  like  arMm,  or  Sanskrit  as  bhari~ff-nm  ($.  43.).  !a 
in  the  third  person  plural  bartiyrn  answers  to  the  SuMkpi 
hhari-ff-^Hs  (from  bbtirfi-tf-anl),  so  in  the  firtit  person  sinfuW 
tmra-y-vm  might  be  expecti-d  for  bhuj^yam.  As,  howcnr. 
in  Zend,  Hay  precedes  the  termination  em,  the  cf  i«  r^oluf; 
suppressed,  after  which  the  eemivowd  becomes  a  nrmi. 
[G,  Ed.  p.&liG.3  BO  might  baraiia*  or  li<tr6im  be  ontkr 
pated:  neither  of  these  forms,  however,  occurs,  bat  oat 
with  t!ie  personal  elmractt-r  suppressed,  and  otherwise  nr- 
res|}ondii)t>  to  the  soc-oud  person  ^tht^Au  barSis,  uud  to  tlv 
third  Mj^*^  hartilt,  if  tUc  j\i^f  nhniii,  which  twice  oc- 
curs Vend.  S,.  p.  8&9.  is  tlie  correct  r4;adii)g; ;  and  llim 
C«>£  -'v^E/  ^t!*?  kanm  nmidt  zanm  (which  AnquetU  tnnf- 
iatea  "  i/uclle  ierre  invo<fnerai-Je")  really  means  Ulerallf 
(as  in  a1I  probability  it  docs)  "t/uafem  invorem  f^rramfi 
After  this  follows  j^jvUm  A'^^f  au^>)  hdJirri  nrmtU  aylA 
&e.,  awording  to  AiKpiclil  •' tfwtte  priht  chaitii rai-jr,"  |i«f- 
Imps  lltcnilly  "whither  shall  I  go  dtK^u  ay4ni  ^nrft 
ayAni),  that  I  may  adore?"  We  luuk  witli  eagerness  for 
the  light  which  may  be  ibniwii  on  this  pas$ag;c  by  the  aidol 
Nerioseugli's  Safiskg-it  transkition.  Among  the  other  BS- 
teiitials  uf  the  first  coujiigntion  which  oix-ur  in  the  Vend.  8. 
we  may  here  furtlier  mention  the  frequctitly-occurrine 
upit'X^it,  "lie  may  beat,"  from  the  root  j»in  =  Suuskpt  n 


*  Aiiuirdinj; mtlidMuJagj'flf  tw^iri, "  we^"  forthe  Saaskfit  vtt^am-im 
ttflcr  rt-jccCioK  then  pn'Ci'<IinK  iliv  m  tlir  [tncedinici^  muitt  tto  ndicrf 
•lowm  lo  /,  Mill.  Mvurdiitg  U>  ^.'^8,  hh  a  muitt  li«  pri^fixcU  to  tltc  ^. 

t  ('omjum  witb  nhnii  tlid  Sanskrit  nanuu^  "  luluratun,* '  from  tlit-  mot 
itnin. 


POBUATION  OP  MOODS. 


939 


fiiin,  which,  ofter  n-jecting  the  n  of  tlic  pivcfJing  radical 
vowel,  is  treated  as  though  it  were  the  annexed  vowel  of 
the  first  class;  io  which  respect  may  bo  observed  what  haa 
been  beforo  reiiiar!c».'d  regarding  the  Samlci-it  root  wt 
ir/M  (§.  60S.).  And  wjewAYE^^^''"  ttcrhKi&a,  "  he  may 
strew"  (Vend,  S.  p.  577)  deserves  apccial  notice,  aiuce  iu 
tins  word  the  elnsa  syllnhle  nd  (iiintli  class),  artcr  abbre- 
viating the  rl,  follows  the  analogy  of  the  short  a  of  the 
Tour  classes  of  the  first  ronjugntion;  and  tlms.  in  this 
respect,  jo(0»«^f^fpj)  Sterena&a,  after  with-  (G.  Kd.  p.967.] 
rimwing  the  middlt!  final  a,  becomes  similar  to  tite  Latin 
future  awmrf  (4.  4!»6.). 

701.  [n  the  second  conjugation  the  Zend  answers  in  ibi 
potential  tolerably  well  to  the  Snnskrit.  with  th*;  exception 
of  the  tbinl  j)crson  plural,  in  whicli  the  termination  ua, 
mentioned  in  §.462.,  does  not  occur;  and  also  in  tlie  middle 
the  somewhat  enigmatical  termination  ran  (§.  6ia)  is  repre- 
sented by  a  form  which  corresponds  better  to  the  general 
principle  for  the  designation  of  the  person,  regarding 
which  we  shall  treat  hereafter.  In  the  first  person  sin- 
gular oF  the  active,  according  to  §.  6).,  yanm  corresponds  to 
the  Sanskf it  ydm  and  Greek  itjv ;  p.  y.  the  dnidktjanm, 
"I  may  place,  make,"  already  mentioned  above  (§.442.  5.) 
corresponds  to  the  Sanskrit  ^iqni  tiadhydm  and  Greek 
TiOF.itjv,  In  tl]c  second  [wrson,  according  to  §.  &6*..  guij^  yAo 
is  found  for  ure  yAs,  (>k1  f-g-  ^ii>\x>ii  fra-mruyAo 
"rficfu"  =  inraT»(  jTrn-bruyU  (Vend.  S.  p.  45l);  and  in  the 
third,  mjuii  yd/ =  itra  yi\t,  it^r),  «.g.  i^M^yf^"^^^  lefrrnuydl, 
"fiuiai "  (Vend.  S.  p.  «?)  =  ^f^^  krinuyl^  of  tlie  Veda 
dialect  (|i.  1S6  G.  ed.).  I  am  unable  to  quote  the  plural  in 
the  proper  potential,  though  I  can  do  so  in  the  precativc, 
whicli  has  completely  the  same  signiGcation,  and  whidl 
occurs  far  more  frequently  in  Zend  tlinn  in  Sanskrit,  and 
is  distinguished  from  the  polenti'il  only  by  the  removal  of 
tlie  class  charat-teriatics,  -lO  tliat  tlie  foroi  of  ttie  potential 


930        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

may  be  safely  inferred  trom  the  precative.  In  the  first 
person  plural  ydma  stands  for  the  Sanskrit  ydsma  and 
Greek  itjfiev,  e.g.  ju^jui^^  buydma*  =  Sanskrit  bhui/Aima 
(Vend.  S.  p.  1)12);  and  hence  I  deduce  the  potential  daidh- 
ydma  from  the  above-mentioned  da'vihyakm.  In  the  second 
person,  yata  (with  the  vowel  of  the  modal  character 
shortened)  stands  for  the  Sanskrit  y&xta  and  Greek  itp-e; 
[G.  Ed.  p,958.]  e.g.  m^^m^^  buyata,  "  sitia,'"f  =annH 
bhiiyAsta;  Mf^HiU^  d6yata  "det'ui''"^  =  ^m^  di-y6sta,  ioirfre. 
Hence  I  deduce,  in  the  potential,  the  form  daidbyata=Saa- 
skrit  dadhyfita,  Greek  iiBoltjre.  Here  the  shortening  of  the 
syllable  yd  is  remarkable  in  comparison  with  the  length 
of  quantity  preserved  before  the  termination  ma  of  the  first 
person;  and  as  this  contrast  can  hardly  he  fortoitcHis,  we 
must  perhaps  assume  that  the  termination  ta,  on  account  of 
the  mute  with  which  it  begins,  is  sustained  with  more 
difficulty  by  the  language  than  the  termination  ma,  which 
begins  with  one  of  the  lightest  consonants;  and  hence 
occasion  has  arisen  for  weakening  the  preceding  syllable, 
in  the  sense  of  §.  480. 

70'i.  In  thethird  person  plural  the  combination  of  the  modal 
syllable  yA  with  the  personal  termination  en,  originally  on, 
produces  the  form  yann  for  y6.n,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the 
first  person  singular  in  yanm  for  y&m.  Before  the  final  nasal 
therefore,  the  latter  half  of  the  long  d^a+o  has  been  weak- 
ened to  the  nasal  sound  of  the  Sanskrit  Anuswara.  We 
may  take  as  an  example  /•^ii<^_^f  nidithynnn,  "  they  should 
lay  down"  (Vend.  S.  pp.  2U3,  204),  for  which  I  should  have 
anticipated   nidaithyann,  as,   in  the   third  person    singular 

*  The  root  b&  diortenB  its  vowal  in  the  precative,  compare  BuraoaTi 
Ya^na,  NoteS.,p.lS'i. 

t   Vend.  8.,  pi>.  llfi,  457,  459,  and,  according  to  Burnoura  Yacna, 
Note  S.,  p.  153,  in  the  still  unedited  part,  p.  556. 

I  According  to  Burnouf,  I.e.,  in  tlie  still  unedited  part  of  the  Vend.  S 
pp.  642,  543,  540. 


i 


/ 


FOBMATION  OF  MOOPS. 


931 


of  the  middle,  u^fQMs^i  j^jah)  fMiti  ni-Jaithfta,  "he  may 
lay  down"  (Vend.  S.  p.  282. 11.  2.  7. 12, 17).  is  found  from 
the  root  dalh,  from  dA  extended  by  the  afiU  of  a  tk  (see 
p.  119),  whicli,  through  the  influence  of  the  y  followinjf.  has 
received  the  h(Hx  of  an  i,  which  in  nt-dilhyfinn  nbove  has 
remained  alone.  Prom  the  root  (24,  "to  ^vc^  we  should 
antici|)ate  /wf^j-w^  ddifar'm,  or  perhaps,  [G.  Ed.  p.  uooj 
with  the  radicnl  vowel  shortt^ned.  dni/aim.  which  conies  very 
near  to  the  Greek  9otev,  while  the  Sanskrit  dt'i/iUux  (from 
d^yAsnni)  agrees  more  with  Solrjtrav.  Tlie  Snuskrit  anuoxcs, 
as  Iw3  been  already  remarked,  in  its  precativc  the  verb  sub- 
j  stantivc  to  tlic  root  with  the  exception  of  the  second  and 
'  third  p<^rson  singular  of  the  active,  in  which  properly //I'j/djir, 
I  d^i/wil,  would  be  required,  which,  in  the  present  stnte  of  tlie 
I  lugiuge,  aLTordinj*  to  a  strict  law  of  sound  {%.  94.)'  is  iiD- 
r  possible,  and  the  lanfvun^e  has  therefore  preferred  rather  to 
drop  the  auxiliary  verb  than  the  personal  character;  thua, 
dfyAs,  dii/tU,  answerinf;  to  the  Zend  dAt/Ao,  dAyAi.  U  is,  how- 
ever, very  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  Zend  abatitins  entirely 
from  employing  the  verb  substantive,  and  thus  sides  com- 
pletely with  the  Greek,  only  that  the  latter  agrees  in  iolr^aav 
with  the  Sanskrit,  and  in  ^aicv  with  the  Zend. 

703.  In  the  middle  voice,  also,  the  Zend  precativc  abstains 
from  annexing  the  verb  auhstautivc;  and  on  the  contrary, 
according  to  the  principle  which  the  Sanskrit  follows  in  the 
potential  (4.  673.^  contracts  tlie  syllable  yA  to  i,  and  in  the 
plum],  at  least  in  the  thin)  person,  to  short  i.  While,  there- 
fore, the  Sanskrit  and  Lithuanian  make  common  cAuse 
through  forms  like  dA-^-dhwam,  d^-ki-te  ("delis."  "date"), 
the  previously- mentioned  Zend  form  pniti-nirhiihita  ranks 
vritlt  the  Greek  daro,  since  in  both  a  simple  t  sound  is  com- 
bined with  the  root.     I  view  the  form  ya^Hh-dailhUa,*  which 


•  TliD  lut  portion  of  iliit  vcri)  ts  ndlcftDy  ideoliud  with  the  jiiHt-tDCO- 


932  POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

often  occurs  in  the  Kghtb  Fai^ard,  as  of  more  importance: 
it  is  everywhere  regarded  by  Auquetil  as  singular,  and  we 
should  be  the  more  easily  led  to  suppose  him  in  the  right,  rs 
the  Sanskrit  gives  us  no  direct  information  regarding  tliis 
{G.  Ed.  p.  060. 3    form ;  and,  in  fact,  it  has  more  the  appear- 
ance of  a  singular  than  a  plural,  and  if  once  recognised  as  a 
precative,  would  rather  lead  us  to  the  Greek  6eiTo  than  to 
6e7vTo.     The  Sanskrit  supplies  us  with  no  direct  information 
regarding    the  form  m^mjm^^vimj^   yadshdaithUa ;   for, 
according  to  the  theory  of  Sanskrit,  we  must  have  expected 
hiran  (from  siran),  instead  of  the  termination  itha,  and  kigta 
for  the  abo%-e-mentioued  singular  Sa.    But  as  the  Zend  pre- 
cative, in  the  active,  renounces  the  verb  substantive,  we  may 
be  prepared  for  the  like  in  the  middle;  and  as,  in  the  third 
person  singular  in  the  potential,  Qa  is  formed  from  yAt, 
a  similar  Qa  in  the  precative  cannot  surprise  us.      It  is  clear, 
however,  tliat  daithita  is  a  precative,  and  not  a  potential,* 
since  the  root  dath,  which  is  extended  from  dd,  in  its  eoDJu> 
gationfollows  the  Grst  class,  and  not  the  second,  and  therefore, 
in  the  potential,  forms  daihaUa,  and  noidaUhita.     The  third 
person  plural,  t/uiV/it/c,  however,  answers  neither  to  the  San- 
skrit potentials  middle  like  dadhiran,  tiBbTi/to,  nor  to  the  pre- 
cntives  like  dhdsiran,  deivro;  but  perhaps  to  the  universal 
principle  of  formation  of  the  third  person  plural  middle,  and, 
in  particular,  to  tliat  form  which,  according  to  §,  459.,  rejects 
the  «  belonging  to  the  plural.       Thus,  m^j<3jm^  daithUa. 
"tliey  should  lay,"  answers  to  the  Sanskrit  forma  like  dadli- 
afa,  "they  lay,"  and  Ionic  like  SiSoarai,  Ttdiarau     As  this 
rejection  of  the  n  in  the  Sanskrit  middle  special   tenses  lisa 
become  the  rule  of  the  whole  class  of  the  second  conjugation, 
and  tlie  precative  agrees  with  the  potential  of  the  second 


•  I  retain  the  terms  derived  from  the  Sanakrit,  though  it  is  ansuilablf 
to  distinguish  varioua  forma  of  one  and  the  Bame  mood,  as  if  they  were  if 


different  niiiods. 


FORMATION-  OF  MOODS. 


933 


class,  we  are  the  less  surprised  at  finding  tJie  Zend  dailhila 
deficient  in  the  n.  Tliis  dnithUa,  however.  [G.  Ed.  i).S4ll.] 
Appears  to  me  to  be  a  t-on traction  of  daifh-yntn,  since  the 
modiil  flemcDt,  wtueh  we  have  seen  above  ($.  702.),  lu  tlio 
singular  dnithifa,  in  the  form  of  an  i^  must  iu  the  [ilural  be- 
come y  before  the  termiiiation  uto,  which  tiw  Soiiakrit  rcijuires 
in  tlie  secondary  forms:  frum  yata,  however,  by  casting  out 
the  17,  would  easily  be  fornieii  ila  (compare  p.  780  Q.  ed.). 
But  if  the  termiimtiun  of  tliv  third  pursoti  plural  had  always 
been  Ut,  we  should  be  unable  to  perceive  any  reason  why 
the  modal  vowel  should  be  lou^  in  the  singular  and  short 
in  the  plural  before  the  same  termination. 

"  Hemark. —  It  remains  furtlier  to  be  shewn  that  the  word 
xi^y^jM^^hxij^^nljsh-dftitliH",  which  lias  hitherto  appeared 
isolated,  but  which  occurs  [H^rhapa  &cven  timea  in  tlic  Eighth 
Fargartl  of  the  Vciididad,  is  (iu  ej>ite  of  AnquctU's  or  liia 
Pars)  teacher's  opinion  that  tt  is  a  singular)  actually  a 
plural.       We    read    in  V.  S,  pp.  206,  &c.,  jm^^  au^  maij 

Au(j  v^f^M  Aip^^f  J  AiWJJ  JMMMf  JMjC^  JgWJJU  ywiiixyOjirjU,^ 
¥^>OtP  /»iiJU^  ffiX-MI  Mllf  M^yKiijajW^  (ttWAietUfJ^J  Al^JWs) 
Aiffij;OAi  JJW.C.,  a)»;OjC^  m»m^  f^i*'  f^ii»^i>Mj^  ^kU^fJuC 

Ajpjdj^ntoi'A*,^    J^tt)      Cjl/Aip      (^»»'     WAIAU     <^^^M.10£''g4 

j-ffiiM4iAiK>*ij^  A>UA»>A]  j^.vAtg)  u^MK^M  jufM(j);ojj(  ■*v>?n 
tilt  fd  narii  ynrUhdayann  anken  ■  ■  .  yrl  atuii  {naivH?)  ava 
hvrtta  sAn<\  v\X  para-irulnhi  mn^hyfM  vA  Aal  mruAt  ahurA 
mttsdAn  ynAxhdaxfiin  aijf^n  .  ,  .  kava  (frtvi?)  yfvn  yizi  afrha 
na»us  ^iicitf/tnictn  siln'I  vH  kcreft-k'hanS  vajf6  vA  l^rifz-kharH 
dat  hvtmm  UniQm  pniri-yaSshdaiifiita  yeu»  muigmaua  apiiclta 
pmti  tn'dtk'i  t/avslidayann.  According  to  Anquctil  (11. 
p.  3.16),  "  L'hommc  sur  Ic  quel  on  a  porle  quelque  chose  du 
cadavre  d'un  chicn  ou  de  cclui  d*un  hoaime.  est  il  pur? 
Oroiuzd  repondil,  11  est  pur;  comment?  Lorsque  (le  morl) 
a  kte  regarde  par  le  chien  qui  mange  les  corps,  ou  par  I'oiseau 


934         rOTBNTtAL,  OtTATlVB,   AND   SUBJUNCTIVE, 

qui  mange  tes  corps.  II  se  ta-vero  ensuttc  le  coqatwd 
Turine  dc  tHieuf,  avcc  fie  L'eati,  et  il  »era  pur."  So  auk 
certaio,  that  iDcntion  is  here  niude,  not  of  one  man,  tm 
Hi.E(\p.^2.]  several  {id  tutra  \/ii.  "those  men.  nlia'i 
{.  231.).  and  tliat  i/adsh-dm/imn  anbrn  BJgnifitfa.  not  "bei 
be  pure,"  but  '•  they  are  puri6ed,"  or  "  they  beeome  parifiat' 
Hence,  it  is  self-evKlent  livit  ya6»hdrnifiit^,  also,  tuiut  ti 
plural.  I  trauslate  hterally.  "Uow  do  these  men  Ikcook^i 
purifii-<i  who  lire  touched  by  the  carcnst; -f-  either  ofadn 
dog  or  of  a  mao  ?  To  this  Oruuzd  stiid.  They  becomr 
rified  where,  or  how  (by  what  means?"  tto  that  yfm  •■ 
»t4nd  for  y(l-p4  =  San«Icrit  tin  m  y^a  v6)?  "Vt* 
WK9SC  touches  (;•'),  of  a  body-devouriiig  dog  or  oFa  hi^ 
devouring  bird,  then  they  (those  meu)  alioaid  fdt 
their  bodies  with  cow  uriue  and  with  water :    ao  (cn^ 


*  It  nuiy  ben  be  a<ldc<I  to  what  has  bcca  irixittrkrtl  in  §.687.n^ 
iog  the  Mcprcesion  ya6shdai/ai'n  that  it  mi^ht  lUaO   tio  Uie  lUH^ 
ptnTHl  of  tlto  prttcaiivn,  ilic  il  uf  the  root  dd.  *'  lo  make,"  bttU^ 
■III)  the  NualoRjr  of  bugaioL,  "titey  tuny  \tc"  botng  fuUowed  (aN^X 
Bnil  BuraouTs  Y&fva,  Nolo  8.,  ji.  16S).    The  placing  tc^vther  «(tn  «b 
in  l]i«  thinl  jwrnDti  plonil  would  coawquently  rest  on  a  iijiiilai  lii  ilf 
lUrilj,  and  ya6thda!/ahn  a^Ai'ii,  ■'  thry  ax«  pDrified,"  would  lluial;  ^ 
nify  "  tliey  Kv  (that)  lliey  purify."    The  paariva  aignificatioa  vojlif 
expmwnt  hy  n  pnripliHuib,  Lnwhlch  the  verbsnbstantivt!  would  b« 
with  tli«  active  vxprcnino  of  the  ntiributive  verli  lu  tlii>  ptwc-ativci    T«  Mi 
opinion  I  give  the  preference  above  that  iJelivnvjui  0.  0,77.  ;  mni  1 
the  Tvadcr,  that,  in  Arabic,  the  imperfect  ii rzpreMrd  by  »  LJiinuJii^ia 
In  whidt  th«  preterite  of  tbo  verb  sabstgntivn  is  prefixed  to  the 
of  llie   attributivD  vu-li,   witlwut   Uio  iatorvciiLian  of  a  coojtmctiaa 

e.g.  ■^■■y  ^tS  kiiui yojlisuj  " he  sate,"  properly  *' be  waa,  b»  ^' 

for  "  he  was,  tliat  lie  aita."    At  the  rail  of  tb«  poMage  qaoted 

j^ai^JoijjJjCL.  !f^'f"lit!/an»  (to  which  (he  prepowtion  f«ili=S^ 
skrit  jirati,  belonf^)  iti  imliiipiiiably  the  precative. 

t  I  will  not  afrirDi  ttutt  ava-lfrela  (ttota  bh-ela^  "bonm,*  to 
nation viih  tbe  pn-pesilionat'd)  h«rcsignifii-«  "touched";  but  hiUuM 
faar«  not  diacorcced  any  moia  vuiiabia  iDcaniiig  for  the  wbolc 


rOBMATION  OF  HOODS. 


93rt 


1 


must   they   purify   tliem."      At  p.  268,  L.  9,  &c..    we  r«nl 

mj^i    y^AU     AJpjOjAJiltbA'AJ^    J^JM!^      C^M*?       ?«*»«■      l^fiMMi 
Aipj^^f/fJ    AlpJUJAI^tb4>JU^^  (yiAlfD    9-»>»»>'        [ti.  E«l.|l.  lKi3.J 

4al  ArtJitm  ffrntlm  pniri-yiithiiaithila  rfptJ  (?)  ndii  mnfittnana 
sasta  W*  jmCir^  froinAdkayen  Aat  yfit  M  xAita  wJi*  frainAla 
iai  viipnnin  /ivaitm  /uniiin  niftiAafidoUfatn  h&ren&Ua,  i.«, 
"Tlien  ttiey  should  purify  their  bodies  with  wat«-,  not 
with  uriue :  they  sliuulit  first  purify  their  hands,  for  if 
tbeir  bauds  are  not  purified,  then  they  nuike  impure  their 
whole  boilii-s."  Here  it  is  plain,  from  the  p4il|Hib]e  plumi 
frahu\dh<itfh>,  that  ymhhdtiithiia  also  can  be  nothing  but 
n  plurni,  AtpjGjM^tbiiJU^>u  ayailshdaith'da  is  iikewise  the 
third  person  plurut  of  tJu;  prtrcativc  in  combination  with 
the  negative  particle  a.  But  as  nborr,  in  a  peculiar 
voiistruetiou  {yuiSshdayann  nnU?a,  see  p.  934,  Note*)  we 
law  the  passive  periplirastically  tsxprewed  by  an  active 
term  in  combiantion  with  tbe  verb  substantive,  so  in 
jupj<^»c/e4  Ai5>jGjAyd»i>jJ3jA>  ayu^shdu'Uhit'i  Ice^ivn^iia  we 
see  tlie  active  expressed  by  me-nns  of  the  auxiliary  verb 
"to  make."  Ai/adahdailhila  keren6Ua,  "they  make  im- 
pure, they  make"  (projicrty  contamine-nt  fnciant)  abould 
signify  nothing  else  than  "  they  make  impure,"  and  is  tbe 
opjMiaitc  to  the  above-mentioned  passive  tfwhhdayahn  anhen 
where  onhen  (^WIW^  Asan.  "they  were,")  has  a  modal 
function,  and  supplies  tlie  place  of  the  potential  (see  §.  bid.). 
The  present  henti  would  scarcely  be  admissible  here. 
though  wo  could  exchange  onhen  for  the  present  indica- 
tive.     In   ai/aSshduilhilit  kerenaita  botb  verba  are  in   the 


•  FromlhiiA/,  "ml,"  wc  wc ibat  the  Zm<l  nflexivr,  like  the kindird 
latin,  G«nuan,  Utbiuniaii,  and  ScUvooJc,  noitce  with  th«  fonn  of  the 
ftlDfpiliiF  the  tnfiBotngs  of  the  plaial  iivmlwn^ 


936        rOTBNTIAL,  OPTATIVE,   AND  SUBJCNCTIVt. 


same  moodi  as  the  precattve  unci   potcutiul  hare  tlu 
ruliition  to  one  another,  tliat,  in    Greek,    the  aorisl  and  a 
jireseiit  optative  have.     As  regards   tlie  forru  tcni»&u,  ■ 
should  perhaps,  if  the  remUng  is  correct,  consid(;r  tlie  it\ 
tlie  GunaoE  the  cliiss-syllnbte;  then  tlie  rvmaiuing 'Uku 
rest  oa  the  same  principle  as  the  terminatiou  of  ywhiijgilit 
We  might,  however,  explnic  krrcntJUa   also  in  thia  nv, 
the  u  of  Uic  clusS'S^'Uublc:  nu  is  replaced  by  a.  aod  the 
in  this  way  brought  into  the  llrst  i--onjugnlioa  :  but  1 
probaliility  in  tliis  view  of  ihe  matter ;  for  then  the 
occurring-  harayen,  "  they  may  carry,"  tiiuat,  in  the 

[^G.  PA.  p.  %J.3  bar-iit'i,  which,  aa  Ion;;  as  such  hnatd 
not  traced  back  with  certtiinty,  I  do  not  believe,  as  liM 
rather  conjecture  barayanta.  Id  res|}ect  to  syntax.  tiicM^ 
the  precativc  and  [KitL-ntial  in  llie  passage  in  questioailt 
be  noticed  iaacnnilitioniil  conclusion  ;  wlule,  nccordingHfc 
method  of  other  lan<{Uage«,  the  indicative  n-ould  be  looU 
for.  With  regard  to  syntax  1  will  here  furtlier  mes^ 
tliat  in  another  passage  of  the  Vcndidad  (in  Olshaaiefli  pi 
the  potential  fullows  t/f<llti,  "  if."  in  the  sense  of  the  pttipofa 
of  the  subjunctive — i/Mfd  ndii  daidlitfanm,  "If  I  had  M 
made :"  on  the  other  Land,  the  present  after  jffizi  is  jimn^f 
expressed  by  the  inootl  ladli'd  Let,  which  corresponds  W^ 
Greek  subjunctive.  It  need  not  surprise  ua  that  cacbiidb- 
dual  language,  iu  the  syntactical  application  of  its  mood^ 
follows  its  own  course  iu  certain  poiuts:  the  gratumUici) 
identity  of  forms  in  tlie  diJTerent  languages  is  not,  bowerd. 
desiroyed  by  such  synlactical  discrepancy. 

704.  Id  a  atill  uaedited  portion  of  tiic  Zcnd-Avtak 
occura  the  form  (^ii%mjja»^  dayndlnrem,  "  ye  niay  giwi" 
which  Buniouf  (YHc;nu,  Note  D.  p.  38),  as  it  appean 
regards  aa  iin  impemtive,  and  renders  by  doimez.  In 
order,  hgwevep,  to  regard  d»yadhwem  as  the  imporativri 
we  must  he  able  to  prove  that  the  root  dA,  in  Zend,  is 
inflifctcd  according  to  the  fourth  ctiiss.  of  which  I  entei 


FOBMATION  OF  MOODS. 


937 


doubta  Hook  upon  ^^nH^^iu^  (fnyadhwrm  as  the  a«x)iiit 
panoo  ptuml  of  the  prei-iUive  tiiiitdlt^,  mid,  m  such,  tlic-re 
ia  nothing  surprising  io  it  (after  our  having  alreiuly  Been 
tluit  the  Zend  preuative,  in  both  active  rornifl,  abstains  frotu 
aonoxing  the  verb  substantive),  except  Hint  the  modal 
cltaracter  t/d  is  not  contra<;t«d.  aa  in  tlie  tliird  person  sin- 
gular middle,  OJid  ia  uti  persons  in  tlie  Siinskrit,  to  i,  but 
has  merirly  shortened  its  i1,  as  in  the  corivs  pond  inn;  [wrson 
of  the  active,  to  ivhich  Burnouf  lina  sliewu  the  forui  di\ynla 
lj«lonf*8.  TTje  middle  dttyadltvii-m  has  shoi^ned  the  vowel 
of  tlie  root,  on  account,  na  it  nppears,  of  tlie  greater  weight 
of  the  tcrntnation;  and  in  this  respect,  therefore,  r/«-yo- 
-rlkmm  hiis  tlie  same  relation  to  d'i-yu-la,  that,  in  Greek, 
Sliojiai  baa  to  5!S(afjj. 

70i.  In  the  Sanskrit  and  Zend  potential  [O.  Ed,p.flfla.] 
there  is  no  distiiiL-lion  of  tonst-'s,  except  that,  us  has  bt>ea  be- 
fore observfd,  the  precative  stands  in  the  same  rplation  to  it 
that,  in  Greek,  the  optative  of  the  s<rcond  Aorist  has  to 
that  of  the  present.  D^-y/U,  etS-tfUt,  for  dA-yAs,  dA-i/Al  have 
the  same  relation  to  aeltlt,  udAt,  that,  in  Greek,  Joojt.  do/ij 
(fur  Sdiit)^.  3'toi'f;),  Imve  to  cJuc,  eSu.  For  preeatives  like 
buillnjiU,  hudhyiU,  \\wre  arc  not'orrespouding  indicative  forms, 
as  the  fifth  formation  of  the  Snnskfit  norisl  is  limited  to 
roots  termioatinjj  with  a  vowel  (sec  §.  S73.):  it  may,  how- 
over,  origiiiiilly  hiive  ot:currfd  also  iu  roots  etitling  with  a 
consonant;  so  that  there  would  have  existed  multiForni  pre- 
terites like  abudh-am,  <ibhut  (for  abJiiit-s).  aitUul  (for  ahhut-t), 
(thadhmfi,  &&,  to  ivhieh  belong  preoitives  like  budh-ydmm, 
VMic  forms  like  vidf^yam,  " an'uim"  tnhSi/nm,  " prnnim," 
ynmiyam,  "earn,"  vCcftimtt,  "  dieamus"  (Piiniai.  Ill,  1.86.)^ 
do  not  need  to  be  regarded  as  potentials  of  the  6rst  elass, 
to  which  tlic  roots  of  these  forms  do  not  belong-;  but  they 
are,  as  it  were,  the  prototypes  of  Greek  aorists  of  the 
optative  mood,  like  -rxnoini,  and  mast  be  regarded  u 
derivatives   of  the   aorists  of  the  sixth  forinatiou  {avidam, 

3  P 


938        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

amkam,  ayamam,  avdcham),  the  conjunctive  vowel  of  whiuh 
has  combined  with  the  modal  vowel  t;ju9t  as  the  Greek 
o  ot-rvKoifu  has  united  the  conjunctive  vowel  of  erwr-o-v 
(which  is  ioterchanged  in  the  indicative  with  e)  with  the 
modal  vowel.  In  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  opinion 
may  be  particularly  adduced  the  above-mentioned  vd- 
cMma,  "  dkamui" :  for  there  is  no  root  v6cb,  which,  if  it 
existed,  conld  be  assigned  to  the  first  class,  from 'which 
might  be  formed  vdcMma,  according  to  the  analogy  of 
tarpima,  Tepiiotfiev ;  there  is.  indeed,  an  aorist  avUcbam, 
which  we  have  explained  above  as  a  reduplicate  form  from 
a-va-ucham  (for  a-vavacham), 

[G.  Ed.  p.  966.]  706.  In  the  Veda  dialect  also  traces  exist 
of  modal  forms,  which  exhibit  the  structure  of  the  Greek 
optative  of  the  first  aorist.  As  example,  tarushSma  is  ad- 
duced, according  to  sense  =  T^  tariraa,  "  trantgrediamur"' 
(Panini,  III.  1.  85.),  but,  according  to  form,  a  derivative  from 
an  indicative  aorist  like  adik-»bam,  eSa^a  ({.  555.),  only  not 
with  the  direct  adjunction  of  the  auxiliary  verb,  but  with  the 
insertion  of  a  conjunctive  vowel  u.  But  this  ir^^  taru- 
thima  can  hardly  be  an  isolated  attempt  of  the  language 
at  a  modal  formation,  which  now  appears  to  us  ahDormal ; 
hut  it  is  probable,  rather,  that,  in  an  earlier  state  of  the 
language,  which  has  in  this  point  been  transmitted  to  us 
more  correctly  by  the  Greek,  these  forms  extended  to  all 
aorists  of  the  second  formation  (§,  551.).  We  may  suppose, 
therefore,  that,  in  an  earlier  period  of  the  language,  a 
precative  of  adiksham  existed,  viz.  dik-ikfi/am,  plural,  dik- 
'aMma  =  Sei^atfu,S£t^aifx£v,  in  which  the  modal  element  ud, 
contracted  to  i,  became  a  diphthong  with  the  preceding 
vowel,  in  the  same  manner  as  above  in  bhar-i-y-am.,  bhar-4-ma, 
^p-oi-fit,  tpep-ot-fiev. 

707.  In  Latin,  the  imperfects  of  the  subjunctive  admit 
of  comparison  with  the  principle  of  formation  of  Gr«ek 
aorists  like  Sei^aifiev,  and   Sanskrit  like  tlie    presupposed 


VOBMATION  OP  MOODS, 


939 


TJiKj/KJ^mo,  ami  tlie  Vectit*  tnru^ht'mn.  In  fact,  »(n-r^Aiua  is 
'iurpriBiTigly  similur  lo  ttiu  Grepk  trr^aaifxev,  in  so  far  »a  its 
'  T,  like  that  of  frnm,  is  a  cnrtniiition  of  x,  niid  its  f,  like  that  of 
■om^mui,  /«^^j7iu«,  a  contraction  or«r.  At.  however.  s<a-&ant 
I  b  anew  c«m|xunM).  I  cannot  Imt  rcrojjnise  in  its  siiljjiinc- 
i  tivi*.  ftlso.  only  ii  nt-w  fonuntion  :  and  iu  this  rt'spfct  1  iidhiT« 
to  tlie  opinion,  which  I  have  alreatly  expressed  in  my  Sys- 
tem of  Coiij ligation  (p.  99),  A  subjunctive  sta-brm  from  ntn- 
biiim  would  be  in  conformity  with  the  indicative  nta-hnm,  nnd 
$tft-ntm  from  xlo-eT'iin  would  be  (inftlo^ous  ai  an  indicftttve  to 
tta-rrm.  Tlic  Un^uaffc.  however,  divides  [,Q.  Ed.  p.  037.] 
the  two  roots  of /«  he  rX  its  disposnl  between  the  iiidlcatife 
and  Bulijunctive.  iind  thus  brinf»9  atn-ham  and  stn-rem  into 
a  certain  degree  of  fnlse  rehttion,  where  it  apix-nrs  ns  if 
the  r  of  slartm  hfld  a  ahnnt  in  tlie  expression  of  the  modal 
elation,  which  is  nevertheless  confined  solely  to  tho  i 
antnincd  in  the  diphthong  K  It  will  be  rcndily  ad- 
littcd  that  pnssem  (from  polntm)  contains  the  combicatioii 
of  the  verb  substantive  with  put,  just  ns  much  as  pofstna 
and  pol-errim.  \iat  if  pos-arm  is  n  new  and  genuine  Ijitin 
formalion.the  e.fiem,  "  I  would  eat,"  which  is  analogous  to  it, 
from  ed-atm,  is  so  abo;  and  wtlli  this  agrees,  too,  thu 
obsolete  fae-sem,  vrhii-li.  in  form  at  least,  is  an  iuiperrcct, 
as  fnc's'tm  is  a  present;  for  if  these  forms  had  arisen  from 
the  jMrrfei^t /"pci,  they  would  he  ft'irm,  frjim.  While  then. 
after  eonsonnnts,  the  old  t  is  either  retained  or  nsHiniilated 
to  a  preceding  r  or  /  {fn--rem,  tW-/rtn),  between  two  vowela 
it  has  passed  intor;  and  this  is  uiunily  the  case,  as  the 
imperfect  preserves  the  clasa-sylliiblc ;  tinis,  ley-r-rrm,  die- 
'fi-rem  {from  Itg-i-rtm,  (tic-i  rem,  sec  ^.  544.).  But  if  the 
imperfect  subjunctive  were,  in  its  origin,  connected  with 
the  Greek  optative  aorist,  iben  for  rfjc-e-rem  we  should 
anticipate  dixem  =  iei^aifti.  Tlie  forms  f»-$tm  (*'  I  won  Id  eat ") 
and/rr-ren»  are  established  by  the  circumstance  that  Uicso 
verba,  as  is  shewn  by  their  affinity  witli  the  Sanskrit,  dis- 

31-2 


940        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

tinctly  belong  to  the  conjugation  without  the  conjunctive 
vowel ;  so  that  es-sem  answers  to  i-a,  es-f,  e*-i«=SaiJskrit 
alsi,  at-ti,  at-tha ;  fer-rem  to  fer-a,  fer-t,  fer-tis^Saotkrit 
hibhar~ahi,  bibhar-tU  bibhri-tha.  Hence  we  see  that  it  is  in 
no  way  admissible  to  derive  fer-rem  from  fer-e^em,  by 
rejecting  an  «.     We  should  rather  be  compelled  to  explain 

[G.  Ed.  p.  968.]  fer-e-rem,  if  this  form  existed,  by  including 
it  in  the  principal  conjugation  with  the  conjunctive  vowel,  as 
from  eS'Xem  has  been  developed  ed-e-rem, 

708.  But  how   stands   it  with  es-tem,   "I  would   be,"  for 
which    we    should    have   conjectured   erem,   corresponding 
with  the  indicative   eram?     But   eram   stands   for   esam= 
Sanskrit  &tum  (§.  63-2.) ;  and  from  tins  primitive  form  e*am 
has  arisen  the  form  espm  (from  esha),   through  the  com- 
mixture  of  the  modal   i,  which  is  contracted  with  a  to  ^, 
according  to  the  same  principle  by  which  amem  has    been 
formed   from   the  theme   ama.      Were  esem  once    formed 
from  eaam,   then,    in    the   course   of  time,    the    indicative 
parent  form  may  have  followed   its    disposition  to  change 
the  a,   on    aci-ount    of   its    position    between    two    vowels, 
into  r,    without    there    being    hence    a  necessity    that    the 
derivative    form   esem,    also,  should    follow    tliis    impulse; 
for  it  is  not  a  general  rule  in  Latin  that  every  s  between  two 
vowels  must  be  changed  into  r.     Through  the  firm  reten- 
tion, therefore,  by  the  subjunctive,  of  the  old,  and   subse- 
quently doubled  sibilant  eram  and  e»em,  esaem,  stand  in  the 
same  opposition  as,  conversely,  in  Old  High  German,  waa, 
"  I  was,"  does  to  wdri,  "  I  would  be,"  in  which  the   weak- 
ening of  the  9  to  r  has  its  foundation  in  the    increase  of 
syllables  (see  §.  612.  p.  860  G.  ed.)      The   doubling    of  the 
a  in  essem  I  believe    may    be   explained  according    to  the 
same  principle  by  which,  in  Greek,  in  the  epic  language, 
the  weakest  consonants  (the  liquids   and  a) — occasionallv 
and   under  certain  circumstances,  p — are,  in  the    common 
dialect,  regularly  doubled.    The  Souskj-it  doubles  a  final  n 


roRMATlON  OF  NOODS. 


941 


after  a   sliort   vowel,    in   case   the  word    following;  Ix^iiis 
%<rith  n  voweF.     If,  llion,  wliifh  I  bi-lieve  to  be  the  caso,  the 
'''doubling  of  til e  «  in  the  Lntiii  FX.H-tn,  nnd  in  tlic  inliuitive 
•^'esite,  is  likewise  purely  of  a  cit|>honic  nRtuir,  it  mny  be 
"=ooiuparL*d  cajx-cinlly  with  Greek  norists  lil(eeTc^(^<^ffa.^incc  the 
*ff«r  of  these  tenses  likewise  bflonjf  to  the    tO-  Ed-  p.flfls.] 
iTerb  eubstJinttv-e:    obsprvp,  also,  the  Lithuiiniiin   exsh,   "if 
ihe  be"    (J.HSa.)-       Rcgnpding    c(j<ronai,    ace    §.  S55.       But 
I  should  tlie  double  sin  easem  bnvcitsfnundiitton  in  ctymol(t«y, 
which  I  do  not  believe,  th('U  it  must  be  assumt^d.  thnt  when 
I  the  enftn,  vrhicti  nrciae  from  estim,  had  (irmly  tttt^ielied  itself  to 
attributive  verbs  in  the  abbreviated  furui  of  spui,  or.  more 
generally,   rem,   nnd   in    this   position    wns  no   longer    re- 
cognised for  what  it  really  is,  so  ilmt  the  whole  *(•,  ri*.  was 
oon«i<!ered  as  the  modal  exponent,  then  the  raolea  eombinml 
with  itself;  according  to  which,  ea-wm  would  properly  menn 
"  1  would  be  be,"  in  annlogy  with  n-tem,  "  1  would  eat,"  and 
pos'sem,  "  1  would  be  able."     And  the  nnnlogy  of  ft-wm,  "  I 
vroutd  ent"   and  po»wm.  "  I  would  be  nbW  rs  nlso  tlmt  of 
f^rrtm  niid  vtilem,  might  have  so   far  operated  on  etsrm,  "  I 
would  be,"  that,  nceording  to  their  exniii|jle,  without  the  lan- 
giinge^  furniahiug  any  piirtieulur  reason  for  it,  the  eonaonant 
preccdii)*;  the  e  wiu  doubled.     Uc  this  as  it  may,  »sir>w,  and 
the  etnri  preceding  it,  renmin  in  so  far  a  new  formation, 
as  in   the  Sanitknt   no   mood   whatever   proeecds  front   the 
imjterfect   any  more   than    in    Greek.      The    Latin    sub- 
junctive, therefore,  of  the   imiwrfeet  meets  with  its  nearest 
point  of  compnrison  only  in  the  Greek  optative  norist; 
since  esem   {tram)  is  produced  from  e«am,  jast  aa  Tv^aifu 
from  €Ty^ifa. 

709.  No  trace  of  the  production  of  moods  can  be  shewn 
to  attach  to  tlie  Sanskpt  redupUunte  preterite  or  perfeeL* 


•  1  do  nol  sgtw  with  Wratrrgaard  in  regarding  Vvdic  fomw   lJk« 

tairi/j/dt 


942        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

[O.  Ed.  p.  970.]    As,  however,  the  potential  of  the  second  and 
sixth  aorist  formation  in  the  Veda-dialect  is,  as  it  were  in  its 
moment  of  extinction,  still  to  be  met  with  in  its  remnants  as 
tarmhima,  gamiyam,  vdcMyam  (§.  705.).  it  might  be  assumed 
that  the  extirpation  of  the  moods,  which  have  arisen  from 
the  reduplicate  preterite,  only  made  its  appearance  some* 
what  earlier,  or  that  tlie  relics  of  them,  which  have   re- 
mained   to  the   period    when    the  Vedas  were    composed, 
may  be  lost  to  us,  together  with  the  memorials  in  which 
they  occurred.      But    if  there  existed   a  potential   of  the 
perfect,  it  is  a  question  whether  the  conjunctive  vowel  a 
(see  §.  614.)   was  retained    before    the    modal  element    or 
not  ?     In  the  former  case,  forms  like  tu-tvp^'om,  tutupi-f, 
tutupi-t,  would  have  arisen,  to  wliich  would  correspond  the 
Greek  rervipoifu  (from  Tervtftotv,  see  §.  689.),  rervi^t^.  re-rt/^ 
(whence  mi^ht  be  expected,  also,  rervipatfu,  &c.) :  in  the  latter 
case,  forms  tike  iutnjryUm  would  have  existed,  as  prototypes 
of  the  Gothic  subjunctives  of  the  preterite  like  haiJiaifyait, 
"I  might  be  called,"  or  with  the  loss  of  reduplication,  as 
buniiyau,  "  I  might  bind,"  which  would  lead  us  to  expect 
Greek    forms   like  rerv^t'rjv,  which   must   afterwards   have 
been  introduced  into  the  u  conjugation.     The  close  coinci- 
dence of  the  Greek  and  German  makes  the  origin  of  such 
modal   forms   in  the   time  of  the  unity  of  Iang;uage    very 


Mtn^ydf  as  poteniinls  of  the  perfect,  bnt  of  the  intensive  (comp.  ^.615.), 
which,  in  the  V^-dialtct,  preeenta  several  deviaUona  from  the  classical 
language,  and  in  roolB  with  middle  ri  (from  or)  exhibits  in  the  syllable 
of  repetition  a,  more  frequently  d,  and  also,  in  conformity  with  tlic  com- 
mon dialect,  ar.    Thus  vderidfidti  (Rig  V.  33.  l-)»  ^^  ^^!  «*'  *•»«  iuten- 
dve,  and  vdvridhastta  (Rig  V. 31. 18.)  its  impemtlve  middle.  Wcatergaard 
also  refere  the  participle  present  middle  tdtrifhdita^  '•  tbitating"  (.Utg  V. 
31.  7.)  to  the  intensive,  though  it  might  be  aacV\VA\o  ^-^^^  V»=»fe«t  xvith 
the  same  justice  aa  sasrijy^  aT.4tdtridfc„^«. 


FOKMATION  OF  MOODS.  943 

probable;  the  Gothic  forms,  alao,  like  Iiaihaitvau,  are  too 
clasaical  in  tlieir  appearance  to  allow  of  our  ascribing  to 
them  a  comparatively  recent  origin.  But  ir,  nevertlieless, 
they  are  specially  German,  and  the  Greek,  [G.  Ed.  p,  0710  ' 
confcHsedly  rare,  like  rerv^oifu,  are  specially  Greek,  then  the 
two  sister  languages  have,  in  fortuitous  coincidence,  only 
accorded  a  wider  extension  to  a  principle  of  modal  production, 
which  already  existed  in  tlie  period  of  their  unity  with  the 
Sanskrit  and  Zend. 

710.  Latin  perfect  subjunctives  like  omnre-rim,  from 
ama-vi-sim.  are  undoubtedly  new  productions,  viit.  the 
combination  of  the  base  of  the  perfect  with  tim,  "  I  nmy 
be,"  the  «  of  which,  in  its  position  between  two  vowels, 
has  been  corrupted  to  r;  and,  on  account  of  this  r,  the  t  of 
amavi,  amnvl-sfi,  has  been  corrupted  to  e  (compare  p.  967 
G.  ed.).  We  might  also,  if  necessitated,  divide  thus,  amao- 
-erim,*  as  sim  stands  for  esim,  like  sum  for  evum.  But  in  com  ■ 
position  there  was  still  more  reason  to  witlidraw  the  e  of 
esim,  tlian  in  the  uneompounded  state  ;  and  tlie  corruption  of 
tlie  t  to  e  before  an  r  is  too  much  in  rule  not  to  admit  of  it 
here. 

711.  We  here  give  a  general  view  of  the  points  of 
comparison,  which  have  been  obtained  in  treating  of  the 
Sanskrit  and  Zend  potential  and  prccative,  and  of  the, 
moods  corresponding  to  them  of  the  European  sister 
Ungunges. 

SINGULAR. 

flANKKIT.  IEItl>.  CKEEK.         LJLTIS.  UTB.  OLD  SCLAV. 

dadyAin,^  dnidht/aiim,*  StSotiv,     dnim* 

dadi/ds,  d^iid/ii/ilu,      SiSoltj^,     diiis dnsihdy.* 

dadytlt,  d'lidliydl,        SiSoit],  duit,       d&d'te^     dtischdy.* 

dadiOi*  dmdita^        hloiro       


*  See  in  my  S^'Uem  of  CnnjugaliOD,  p.  100. 


944        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 


[G.Ed.  p.  072.] 

SANSKRIT.  ZEND. 


DUAL. 

ORBBK.  LATIN. 


UTB.       OtD  ICLAV. 


dndy  'to, 

dadyritam, 

dady&tAm, 


StSoirjTov, 
SiSot^-njv, 


daachdyva. 
datchdyta. 
datchdyta. 


PLURAL. 


dadyAma,  dtidkyAma,  StSattjfiev,  duimus,  ....  daschdvmy, 

dadydla,  daidhyata*  $iiotr}T€,    duttis,     ....  daschdyte. 

dadyui*  daidhyann)" iiSotev,      duint,      ....  like  2d  p." 

dadiran,"  drndlta"       StSotvro      


1  For  daddydm,  ace  $.673 
*  §.  677.  s  §.  OM. 


»  f.  442.  Note  n,  and  §.  701.  ■  §.  674. 
« I  g7ve  only  the  third  person  BinguUr  and 
plurftl  of  the  middle,  and  for  the  rest  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  doctrine 
of  middle  terminations,  ^.  466.  Jcc.,  and  to  the  conjagation  of  adtya. 
'j.703.  '$.701.  »j.46-2.  "<"  f ,  702.  "§.6781 

"J.  013.  "5.703. 


SINGULAR 

UNSKRIT.               SANSKRIT.                            LATIN. 

GOTHIC. 

0.  D.  □. 

OLD  SCLAT- 

adyAm,  act     adiya,  mid.'         edin^ 

Slyau,' 

Azi 

•     •     •     • 

odyAi,  act.      adithAs,  mid.       edii. 

iUis, 

Azts, 

ytinchdy.* 

adydt,  act.      adita,  mid.          edit. 

kU 

dzi. 

yaschdy. 

DUAL. 

adyAva,  act.    adivaki,  mid.        .  .  . 

iteiva. 

a     *    ■ 

yaschdycfu 

adyiltam,  act.  adiyUhdm,  raid.   .  .  . 

Heits, 

.     .    . 

yaschdyUt. 

adydldm,  act.  adiydtdm,  mid.     ,  ,  . 

... 

■        •        • 

yaschdyta. 

PLURAL. 

adyAma,  act  adtmahi,  mid.      edimus,  6teima,  AzimSs,  yaschdymy. 
adydla,act.     adidhitxim,  mid.  edilh,     ite'ith,    Azit,       ynjtchdyte. 
adyus,  act      adiran,  mid.        edint,     iteina,  Azin,      like  2d  p. 

'  The  middle  of  luf  is  not  nscd  in  the  present  state  of  the  langaage, 
which,  howcrer,  does  not  prevent  ua  from  annexing  it  here  on  accoont  of 
the  theory.  "  §.  674.  »  §§.  075. 676.  *  §.  077. 


POHMATION  OF  MOODS. 


945 


SINOULAR, 

D 

UAL. 

1    ■ 

n 

flANSKRIT.           ZBKD. 

OBEU:. 

SAnUHlT. 

ORKKK. 

& 

d^yAxam^    ddyanm,' 

ioiTfV. 

diyAsaa 

.... 

tit 

dhfAs*        dfly&o. 

Solrj^. 

diyAatam, 

ioilJTOV. 

dAf^t,'         d&y&t. 

iotij. 

dhf&st&m. 

iot^T1]V. 

\—i 

PLURAL. 
UmKQIT.  BUND.  OKKEX. 

d^dstna,     dAyAma,     ioitjfiev. 
dSydsta,       ddyala,*      ialtjTe. 
diy&3U3,      diyann,     Soiev,  Sottjirav. 

'  For  ddydsam,  see  p.  934  O.  pd. 

'  I  believe  I  am  tight  in  giTlog  this  form  instead  of  the  i^nni  men- 
tioned at  p.  934  G.  ed. 
'§.703.,  conclnflion. 


SINOULAR. 

DUAL. 

UNSIRIT.                LITH. 

UHaiKIT. 

Lrm. 

d&ai-y-a, 

dAsd-vahi, 

d&ki-uja.^ 

ddsi-shthAs,'    d&ki. 

ddsl-y-Oathdm,' 

d5ki-ta. 

ddsi-sluka,' 

dAsS-y-dstdm^ 

•  .  ■ 

PLURAL. 

SAKBEflT. 

LTTR. 

d&si-mahi. 

d&ki-mp. 

dAat-dhwam, 

d&ki'te. 

- 

dA^-ran, 

>   «    ■ 

<  See  $$.  C79. 660. 

» J.  649.  p.  798  G.ed. 

946        POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

[G.  Kd.  p.  974.1  SINGULAR. 

UNU^.         tufD.  oRKBi.  UTIN.  ooTBtc.  o.n.  a. 

hhari-y-am,^  bardi,^  (ipepot-v,f    feram*         baira-u*         here.* 

bharSs,  bar6i-»^       Akpot-s,     \  ,    .  '        \  bairai-s,         h'^i-s. 

iferd-s,       J 

bhari-t,  bardi-t,         Aepot-^r),  j  V  ^ '        ]  bairai,  bpre,* 

(fera-t,       ) 

hhari-ta,        bami-ta,      ipepoi-ro,       bairai-daa*    .... 

DUAL. 

bharS-^a,         bairai-va,        .... 

bhari-tam,       ipipoi-Tov bairai-ts,         .... 

bharS-tdm i^epoi-Trfv,     .... 

PLURAL. 

bhart-ma,      barai-ma*    <bepot~u£v,  )  ,    ,        '  i  bairai-ma,      b'er^-mit, 

[  fera-mus, ) 

bhari-ta,        baraS-ta,*     Aepot-re,    )  „    ^      '     >  bairai-th,        beri-t, 

\ferd-lts.     ) 

bkari-v-us,     baray-en,      Aepm-ev,    \  f  bairai-na,       ber4-ji, 

(fera-nt,     ) 

bbari-Tan,     baray-antafipipoi-vro,     bairai'ndau^ .... 


POEMATION  OF  M00C8. 


947 


unaiaiT.  zbmd. 

vahi-y-am^  vazdi,* 

vahS'i,         vazdi-s,^ 


vahi-t. 

vax3i-t. 

vahi-ta. 

vazafi-ta. 

vahi-va. 

vakS-tam, 

•  .  •  . 

vahi-idin. 

•  •  ■  • 

SINGULAR. 

[G. 

Ed.  p.  975.3 

ORBXK.                UTIN. 

oont. 

OLD  KLAT. 

(exoi-v^y     vekam* 

viga-u  * 

.... 

(  vi(/ai-s, 

ve(i:' 

y                ( vehe-l, 
^'"-         \velu.-t. 

j  «'g"'h 

ve^i:' 

exp'-fo 

vigaUdau, 

t 

DUAL. 

....              .... 

vhjai-va. 

vf^ye-va. 

e)(ot-TOV,      .... 

vigai'ts. 

velye-ta. 

ej(oi~-n}v 



ve^ye-ta. 

PLURAL. 

vahi-ma,  vaisaS-ma,*     ej(pi~ixev,  ]     ,  ^        *  [  vhjai-ma,      ve^ye-m." 

,  .  .      »       1  (veM-tit,    )     ,     .    ,  5 

vahe-ta,  vazae-ta,        e^coi-re,    }  Ivigat-lh,        ve^ye-te. 

vahi-y-us,  vazay-en,       ^oi-ev,      vehe-nt,       vigai-na,       like  2d  p. 

vahi-ran,  vazay-anta?  Ej(pi-irro vigain-dau*   .... 


'  5  J.  688.  080. 
003.  ($.G94. 
•{.708.  '"$.000. 


'§.700.  »§.  689.  '55.691.  602. 

•  }.  09».  conclorioD.        I  §.  600.        •  J.  498. 


"  }.  896. 


aiNflULAR. 

tAKSKUT.  t^TTN. 

thhlhe-g-am,    tte-m, 
Ihhlhe-s,  siS-s. 

liahthi-t,  tie-i. 


FLVRAL. 

UNSKHIT.  UTTN. 

thhtM-ma,     st^-mu$. 
thhty-ta,      stfl'lis. 
thklhS-y~us.  $te-nt. 


948      POTENTIAL,  OPTATIVE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 


[O.  Ed.  p.  070.] 

SINOtlLAR. 

ramtrt. 
Saiuhil.            CanOabm. 

BatukrU,                Camiolan. 

tmayi-mi,^ 
amaya-$i. 

amiya-ak, 
mAya^t)t 

amayai-y'tan? 

amayai'i, 

wtaayav-t, 

DUAL. 

smiyay-{my 

amiyay-{a), 

tmeyayAf). 

smayA-wu, 
wmnya-thtu, 
maya~ta$. 

amiya-va, 
ameya-ta, 
ameya-ta. 

amayai-va, 

amayai-tmn, 

tmayai-iAm 

PLURAL. 

amiyay-va. 
an^yay-ta. 

4 

amay6-ma», 

Mmaya-iha, 

tmayorntU 

ameya~mo, 

anitya-iet 

amlyay-o,* 

amayai-ma, 

amayai-ta, 

amaytu-y-us 

am?yay-mo. 

imkyay-te. 

t 

'  The  lotiv*  of nn^  "tolaa^"  whicb,  t^'  Onna,  fbrmB  fm^,  and  hence 
-frith  a  th«  oIiM  voml,  tfiH^a,  la  not  noed  in  the  preeeot  state  of  the  Ion- 
gnaga,  and  atandi  hen  valj  on  aeoonnt  of  the  snrpiising  resemblance  be. 
twaen  mMjNlmf  and  the  Carnitdan  word  of  the  same  meaninf;,  mt^m 
(■ee,  howerer,  N.  *),  aa  also  between  the  potentiat  tmayiyam  and  the  Car- 
iddan  imperatiTe  jm^o^n),  ka. 

>  1  here  ezpraK  the  Sanskrit  dtpbthoi^  4,  aooording  to  its  etymological 
Talne^  hj  af,  in  order  to  exhibit  the  more  deorlj  the  remarkable  antdi^ 
of  the  Sanskrit  potential  to  the  Camiolan  imperatiTe  (see  $.  097.). 

1  lite  diphthong  id  is  expreaed  in  Camiolui  by  ay.  Regarding  the 
loH  of  the  personal  tenninationa  and  tlie  similaiity  of  the  three  persona 
idngnlar  which  proceeds  from  it,  see  $.  697. 

*  Is  ezpieased  by  a  periphrans  formed  of  the  present  Indicative  with 
the  particle  nay. 

*  Bearding  the  f  preceding  the  termination  o  see  $.  69S. ;  bnt  if  the  y 
<tf  mnt^foy'V  is  oonoeoted  with  qro,  the  characteristio  of  the  Sanskrit  tenth 
oliBB,  as  is  naoally  ttte  oaae  in  Terba  in  am,  then  flnjy-am  is  properly  based, 
not  on  tmagAitd  of  the  first  class,  hot  on  uuAi/ayd-ad  of  the  tenth ;  sccoid- 
log  to  which  mi,  also,  is  inflected  (also  in  the  middle  only),  and  gm^a-yo 

[0.  Ed.  p.  977.]  is  therefore=(»t<JfayanK.  But  if  this  is  really  the 
case,  as  1  believe  it  is,  then  for  oar  present  object— viz.  in  order  to  place  in 
a  dear  light  the  anal<^  of  the  Camiolan  impenttive  to  the  Sanskrit  poten- 


I 


FORMATION  OF  TKNSES. 


949 


tlalinaverli  nf  Itindredrooi,  it  would  1m!  titflter  tAconttMLwSlh  ttieCami- 
olau  trnejiata  tlio  worvl  amaydnti,  wliicli  is  more  niwilar  to  it  ttuui  terndga- 
jf&mi,  tlinngh  thd  sflinity  of  the  kdcT  is  groftt«T.  For  the  rent,  the  Cor- 
nioUn  in  tiin  third  person  plural  present  extonds  ihu  lor  ml  ii  At  ion  ^v,  by 
on  abuM,  even  lu  verki  to  wlinK  ilio  v  liiMa  not  properly  belong;  e.g> 
moRC  v«rtiii  iif  Kopitivr'tf  third  osamplo*  curri.'s|ii>nd  (u  Uoiirowsky'a  third 
conJugAtian  in  UM  Sclavonic,  anil  tborofon)  lo  th«  SAnslirit  lint  clun. 
The  tJiinI  pinion  plnrnl,  thorefore,  ahoujd  doi  bo  <;rf«rj/o  but  grUo^^Saa- 
■krit  ffrar-a-nti ;  and,  in  Ctct,  maoy  varln  of  ihi*  clou  may,  in  the  tliird 
ptirson  plurjil,  ompllo)' d  iiiBieml  aCet/o  (  Kopitar,  p. 337);  mni/so,  "  iliey 
carry  "  (fur  ni*e^o  or  nrrfyo)  -  Old  Sclavonic  iif*&ty  from  net-o-nty  (•« 
$,SS$,  f/.)  Theiyurrormslike  7rE«rfr'7m.'ty  alaoWrefpirded  (uinenplionle 
Inwrtiun  m  (ivnid  n.  hiniui,  iw,  in  the  Smiskrit.  bJiari-yam,  "  I  may  carry  " 
(v\.  689,);  but  vv«n  will)  ibiH  rxplnnHtioii,  which  I  prrl'cr,  ifrijimja,  "they 
bite,"  remains  an  tngrgnnic  Torin,  bIhcq  llicntbo  cutiju native  vowel  uftlic 
SAnal-rii  6m  clft*s  remiins  eontAinod  in  it  doubled,  t>nveaae,as  inffrU-f- 
tt,  "yobiu,"=7ra*-a-rft(i.  and  next  as  »,  ivbieh,  tnCumiolftn,  npppare  M 
thnifriininaiiimof  ihe  iliirdptntim  i'liir«l.  liiit  migtitpriipprly  only  loke  the 
•uppnrter  of  the  dmppH  t«rminuti«n,  and  which  corTm)»oiidi  lo  the  Greek 
0  ofXiy-n-iTi,  whilo  the  eot ifri»-*-te c6\r\eiAe»  with  iho  Greek  t  of  X»y-*-w. 
In  buth  Unj^DA^a  the  nasitl  of  the  t«rininalion,  relained  or  dropped,  ex- 
urtai  ail  iiiQuciivonik  tli«  culoriiif;  uf  the  cviijuui^tivn  vowt-l  (si-e  y.  3^,^^.), 
We  must  furl lier  notice  here  tboCamioUn  verb  lium,  "I  giv*,"  since  it ia 
oleBF  that  iu  the  tlilrd  penuin  plural  ftd^o  (or  dai/ii)  tlie  ^  ia  a  euphonic 
insertion,  which  ia  drappt^il  in  the  more  genuine  rfar/i)  (=5anakril  dattatt 
for  dwianti,  '^they  give''),  aince,  in  ihi*  word,  tliv  d  prcveuta  the  meet- 
ing nf  the  a  and  o,  and  ttiue  th«  Inaertian  nf  a  foreign  letlijr  Is  rendered  un- 
nei-uMnry.  lu  diu-lc,  "ye  sSvc,"  i/iM-fo,  "  yo  two  (cive,"  "  ihey  two 
givt-,"  ivQ  Imvi;  f<friua  fxiictly  cvJnciditig  with  tlio  Siitisbiit  dat-tha,  dat- 
thru,  dai-tat[».t  }.4:}6.}.  With  the  form  daa-te,"  yt^vt,"  xitAy  bo  com- 
pared, in  Zctid.  the  form  dui-ta,  whieh  {lerlmpK  ilw*  not  uucur,  but  may  be 
ULfi-ly  c-oiijcclurcd  to  hnvo  existed  (arc  §.  102.) 

712.    It  u'lnaiiia  to  be  remarked,  witli      (O.  Ed,  p.  {ITS.] 
respeut  tu  the  Gothic   sulijuiicUve,    that  thcisu  wtmk  verbs 
whicK    bave  contracted    the   Stmskrit  dnas   character  aya 


•  Orfwm, "  I  bile,"  ia  perhnpa  akin  to  the  Sanakritfrmf,  to  "devour"; 
iben{oTV3rtt-<-ni,ijrU-e-tlk,  s^gitu-A  mi,gras-n-ti 


K 


950  POTENTIAL,  OFTATITE,  AND  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

to  tJfsa  +  a)  (see  5- 109*.  6.).  are  incapable  of  formally  de- 
noting the  modal  relation,  since  i  in  Gothic  does  not  com- 
bine with  an  6  preceding  it,  but  where  6i,  would  occur,  the  t 
is  swallowed  up  by  the  6,-  hence  friyiis  means  both  amas  and 
ames,  and,  in  the  latter  case,  stands  for  friyd'a"*  so  in  the 
plural  friydtk  means  both  amoi'a  and  ametvi.  In  the  third 
person  singular /rw^,  "amet"  {ior friy6iUi)  is  only  inoi^ni- 
cally  distinguished  tromfriySth,  "amnt"  since  the  subjunctive, 
according  to  §.432.,  has  lost  the  personal  character.  The 
Old  High  German  subjunctives  like  aalb&e,  mlMh,  mlbdSmes, 
are  inorganic,  since  the  i  of  salbdSs,  &c,  (which  is  shortened 
in  the  Auslaut,  terminating  sound),  is  a  contraction  of  ai 
(see  §.  78.),  of  which  the  a-  must  belong  to  the  class  character. 
But  in  the  6,  therefore,  which  is  equivalent  to  a  +  o,  the 
whole  of  the  primitive  form  ^n  aya  is  contained,  except 
that  the  semi-vowel  is  rejected :  there  does  not,  therefore, 
remain  any  other  a,  which  might,  had  it  existed,  have 
been  contracted  with  the  modal-vowel  i  to  L  Hence 
we  must  assume  that  the  ^  has  found  its  way  into  this 
class  of  verbs  only  through  a  mal-introduction  from  those 
verba  where  it  has  a  legitimate  ground  for  entering,  at 
a  time  when  the  language  was  no  longer  conscious  that  the 
Inst  half  of  the  ^=><zt  belongs  to  tlie  modal  designation,  but 
[Q.  Ed.  p.  979.]  the  former  half  to  the  derivation.  Such  is 
the  case,  for  example,  with  forms  like  kab^h,  "Aofteos," 
hahiimSs,  "habeamus,"  in  which  the  first  6  contains  the  two 
first  elements  of  the  class-syllable  ^Rt  aya  (which  arc 
alone  represented   in   the  indicative  hab-i-m,  hnb-i-s,   see 


*  lam  Dot  of  opiniun  that  in  the  indicAUve,  also,  we  should  derive  m/M( 
from  talbSit,  and,  in  the  first  person,  talbd  from  talbSa;  for  as  in  vig-a', 
vlff-i-t,  viff'i-tk  (see  j.  £07.,  Table),  the  a  and  i  belong,  not  to  the  personal 
sign,  bnt  to  the  derirative  or  clasB-syllable,  so  in  salb-6-',  tallf-ds,  »aib6-lk, 
the  6  only  repreBenls  the  a  of  the  strong  conj  ugatiun,  ^liich  is  interchanged 
with »;  the  personal  tcrmintitionB,  liowerer,  are  as  complete  as  in  the 
strong  conjugation. 


FOBUATION  OP  MOODS. 


951 


191  C  ed.);  but  tlic  »econd  ^  contain*  the  Iwt  n  in  con- 
traction with  the  modal  vowel  i;  so  that,  thcrpfore,  in  var- 
Mon^i'i  the  scxroiicl  i  coiuciiles  vritli  the  Saiiiikrit  H  of  mAnny^ 
aiitl  the  Latin  A  of  manedt  (from  monfah,  sec  $.  691.),  and 
the  first  ft  with  the  Latin  e  and  Sanskrit  ittf.  which  we  have 
seen  above  (p.  1 2 1  G,  ed.)  also,  in  the  Prakrit  mdn^/ni,  con- 
tracted to  ^.    The  Gothic  do^a  not  admit  the  diphthong  ai 
twice  together  uninterruptedly ;    liencp,    habais,   "  fitibeAt,'' 
starda     in    iHsiidvantn^enus    L*ontrHHt    with    the    Old    Hivji 
<jeriuan  hdL^s,  and  is  uotdistino;ni8hable  from  its  indicative. 
713.    The    V^a-dialect     poeseases    a    mood     wbtoh     is 
wanting  in  the  clnsaic  Sjinskrit.  and   which  occurs  in  tite 
Vedaa  even   only  in  a  few  scanty  remnants;  it  is  called, 
liy  the  Indian  Grammarians,  L^l,  and  is  n;>litly  idenUfied 
by  LasHcnnriih  the  Greek  subjunctive.     For  as  \ey-ui-fiev, 
1     XeY-ij-re,  \^-«-/ia»,  hiy-rj^rai,  \^-y-<jiJ-i'Ta(.  are  distinguished 
from  ilie  corivspouding  indicative  forms  Aey-a-^cw,  Tu'-y-e-re. 
|.      \SY-o-fiai,    Xcy-c-rai,  f<ty-e-vTi,  only  by  the   lengthening  of 
I    the  vowel  of  the  eloss-syllabJc,  so,  in    the   Veda-dialect, 
fut-A-ii,  "  cudal"   is   in    like   manner  distinguished    from 
"     ptil-a-li.  "  eadU  ";    grihyil-nttU.  "  cfipluatur,"  from  fjrik'yii-ntt, 
" etifiuntur";  Qn\y  tliat   in  the  tatter  form  the    temlem-y   of 
the  mood  under  discussion   to  tlic  utmost  possible  fnhicss 
of  form  is  mAnifeateil  in  this  also,  that  the  6tial  diphthun;^ 
§  (=ni)    is  augmeuU'd    to  Ai,  in  agreement  with  tlie  first 
persuD  iuiperative,  nhivh  iu    general  accords   more  with 
the  mood  Lit  than  witli  tlic  other  persons  of  the  impera- 
tive,  since  the  person  of  the  iuipenitive  which  corresponds 
to  the  first    [wrsou  plural  middle  bili/irhnu/if,  "  we  carry." 
is  bih/iarAmahiiL 

7M.  In  Greek,  neither  the  subjunctive  ror    [0.  M.  p.  960.] 
any  other  uiood  is  derived  from  the  imperfect,  but  in  Vedic 
Sanskrit  the  mood  JtSl  comes  from  it;  its  also  in  Zend,  which 
I     uaea   this  mood  very  commonly,    and,   indeed,    principally 
I     in    the  imperfect    tense,    bat    with    the    meaning   of  the