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


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/ 


lo\^\ Ji. i^ 



or TOR 









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





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


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







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 



^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. 


• 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. 



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 



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- 



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 

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. 


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. 



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 



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). 



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. 



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*. 



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. 



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. 



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. 



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'^^}, 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. 



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. 




»:' 1 uvAb/if/dm, 


^ ' ^lariiiliy&nt 

- AvMiyUnt, . . uaiir^ 

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

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

\ vdm, odo, vrftSm/, 

C ( rfTOS^» 

^ t 1/vtvj/At, 

ccfTittf. i.iTii. OLD acur. 



Mg^, mttm dviem, naxia.'' 

... .... n«»*a.» 

ist/ws, yum dwiem, varniL.* 

ui/kara, mwniu diviryS, itoffu,* 


iffqvara, ^mu dwifj/a, rnyti.* 


. - 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 












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

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




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 



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. 


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, 

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, 




[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 


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. 


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 



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 


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. 



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. 


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. 



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 



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». 



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. 



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. 




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." 


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

The rest like the Masculine. 


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 


ta, to. 


tan ta" 

1 « > « 

ta, toy a. 


iai, tot. 

• > . . 


t6s, iot/o." 

toye,*^ tut. 



■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** 




Zmrf. G/-«*. 


(^</ stiof. 

Wm, M,' 

(ido, M), Tui, 



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


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

TW, .... 


The rest like the Masculioc. 


N.Ac. It: ilf). 

ra. /ie. 


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

D. TOO", torn? 


G. L. Inyfiv, .... 

G.Tiuv, G.iA, 


' VMIc form. soe$. 308. 

'}. 881. »5 21* 



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 





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. 



Btaukrit. Zend. Greek. Latin, 



Old Sclav. 

w «.^ ToAo;V M-r/,> 




. Wn, (tali).' ™'^. ia-TOS, 


fu«, fSs, 


1&U* (ttla), 




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


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

«fAdm," (tahhanm),^" t&p, is-TOWM,' 

' thixS,!^ 


(yecA," y 

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



tyecb.^'^ 6 


1— 1 

\c.Mni.M," W," Td," i,»-r^.i3 


. . , . 


The rest like the Masculine. 


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




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




mhU, (lUbii), 




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


' /om(«K' 


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

' Ihizo,'* 






> $$.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 




Btngtilar 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. 



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. 




" 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. 



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 



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 



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, 



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 



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. 


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. 



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 






SaiuMI. OtdH.a. 




tyf, dig. ' 




ty^n, die. 



r, demv, 

tyf-bhym, di^m. ■ 




lyf^Mm, dero. 


Nom. Ace. 



tydni, tyd\ diu. 



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. 






SarnkfU. Old B. G. 

SantkrU. OU H. G 


tyt\, a\\^, diu. 

tydi. dio. 


tyAm, d'ui. 

tyils, diu. 


it/atyAi, deru. 

tifdbhyas, diAm. 


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 «. 



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 



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, 



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. 


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. 



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. 



1^ Instrumental, 

■ Dative. 

H Genitive, 

H Locative, 



Lithaanian. Otd Selap. 
tzis. wy*. 


lUA. OidScfav. 

1, 'jrB, »zi.m. 



txei, *si^ 



szici, ael. 


sxiami, ssemi, 


. 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. 


Instrumental, sieia, 

Dntivpi wf'fTWi 

Genitive, »ziA. 

Locative, 'gxUte, 


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




'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, 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 



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, 



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. 



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

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. 




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. 



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 


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: — 




SaJukril. OiUhic. 




(w), i-». 




i-m' i-na. 




{i-skauVy i-mma. 




{i-skijay i-s, 




Nora. Ace. 

R' r /«. 



' 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. 



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 


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. 




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 



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. 



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. 


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 




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. 



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 

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.) 




Oiight we, then, to compftpp with it the QUI 


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 

[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 

* 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«. 





Sojukrit. Pdii. 

N. hha, aii, 

Ac itam, inam, tan, nan, 

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

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

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



(tdv, 6n&v, 

UasmA, nasmA, 

(or tamhd, namM, ) 

tasaa, nasaa, StSskdm, 

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



U, tii, 

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

like Instr. ^ 

tisan, nisan,* 

tint, nisu. 

tan, nan, 
tan, nan. 

Hdni, indni 

The rest like the maaculiae. 

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


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, 



Ud, nd, 

(or tdyA, ndyd. 

ifd, n&, 

(or idyd, ndyd. 

(i^bhi, ndbhi, 

(or tdhi, ndhi. 

like the Instr. 

tdaan, tdsdnan, 

' 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 

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



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. 




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'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 



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& 



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 



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. «». 



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. 



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'). 



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, 



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." 



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 



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- 


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^ 


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.) 


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. 



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 & 



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. 

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

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

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



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 



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. 



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. 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.), 



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 



{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. 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 



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.- 



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. 



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,^.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 




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 

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. 



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. 



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. 



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. 



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 



(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. 




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. 



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. 



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. 



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- 



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." 



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 


* 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. 



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 



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 . 



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. 


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. 



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 



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- 



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 



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. 



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 



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. 



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. 




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; 


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



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. 



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.). 



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 



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. 



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 



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. 



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]. 



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 



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> " 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. 



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). 



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 



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 



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 



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 




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. 



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 

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. 



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. 



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. 



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 



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. ). 






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. 




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. 




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. 

■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 



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! 





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 

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*/^ 



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. 




(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.] 



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 ; 





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, 




(|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. 


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. 


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. 



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. 


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 ) 


[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). 



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 well as the lat«r liugandaa {yafitivStTuiffav), 

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



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 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. 



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 



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 



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 




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 



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 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. 




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 



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 

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. 



and wbtch to this day the LitJiuaniun utters in the following 


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






Cfifii', tifu. 


=3 fiailA m i, 

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

'slowmi, " I stand." 
edmi, " I eat," 
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 


«f^ aami. 

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



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. 



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. 


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); 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, 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. 



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. 



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. 


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. 



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. 


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 


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- 




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 



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- 

■ • 




stowiioa, tteiva, 
dudawa,'' dadevom 

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

dudame,^ damy.'* 

txAimix, viffam, wexamf, vtiom. 



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. 


■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. 

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 



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. 


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, 




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. 



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. 



(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 




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. 


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 


(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 



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." 



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 



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. 



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 



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). 


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. 



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 

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 — 


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. 























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, 





t^X") vehebat, .... 




.... kXCA, 

vaxOf Jx*> vehe, vig 

dorJtUhaf" ^aea,^* 

va6ita9^* ohrffa,'* vidiati, vaiat 

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

.... .... fidiati, matmaiaf 


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

wfii,' veieaki. ^ 


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

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

liahthathas, kiatathdT-^ 
bkarathaa, barathSt" 
























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






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 
i naia nwa 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~ 



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. 


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 



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" 

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 



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. 



(<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 
\{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. 



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 '■ 




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. 



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 



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. 




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. 


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. 



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 : — 









«<m', est, itt. 





'<rran, atat, ^tt&t. 




dttdhditi, blbaiTi^ dat, .... 





.... est, itith. 





</»(P((t)i,' fert,^ bairith, 



?X* (>■)')' vehit, viffith, 





«(<r)iij, net, ei^ai* 



larairj, ttet, .... 

. . . 



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

. . . 




tpipot, ferui, bairai. 

. . . 

. . ' . 



tixt, vehebat, .... 





• ■ ■ 





. . . 










. ■ . 





. . . 


anodnU/Udm, .... 

■ • ■ ■ 

. . . 


• Seep.618,Note* 









liiflenti, tirraim, 


»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, .... .... , 






OLD KLir. 





' 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 


[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, 



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, 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 



• 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- 


■ 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 




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 



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 



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. 



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, 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, 




^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 — 












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. 



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. 




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. 



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," '• 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- 



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 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; 



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. 


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. 


1. u-adinnu, wadinnus. 

2. wadinni, toaditmieit. 

3. wadinna, wadinnGs. 


1. toadinnnwn, wadtJinawo-t. 

2. wndinnatfi, vmdimialos. 

3. like sing. like sing. 


[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 

t Compare Sansli lit cad, "toipeak." 



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 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 

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 



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 .\ 



(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.), 



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 


X x9 



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 



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." 


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. 



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 




LI 111. 


Vf^ < la-Ill i. 




wftr a.i-i.f 



K([i ye-^i. 

Wfip nu-ll. 




KCTb Wfi-tu. 

• • • 


KCRA yea-va. 

W^ n-that. 



KtTi i/f»-fa. 

W^^ s-tas. 


like the 



KCTA T/cs-ta. 

WR *-ina» 



KCMM t/fs-mVi 

m x-thn. 



lECTE yn'lt. 

Fftr i-an f i. 


like the 


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. 


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. 


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- 



ddtdA-mi, dadfitl-ml, 
(fWd-M. dadhA'hi, 
dadA-ti, dtidhdi-ti. 

dad-ieat, .... 
dat-ih(u, c/ua-M?' 
dat-iia, das-tSr 


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, 


.... du(ir)-iBa, dad-f-va . . . 
iiSo'Tov, dun-ta, dai4a . , . 

SiSo~Tov, likeSio^.das-ta ... 

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 

' 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. 



udfttlA'ttii e8iS(a-v, 
adadA-s. eJi'Jw-f. 
adadA-t. eSUu-ir) 


adatt-wa, • . . . adad'tna, eSiSo-fte^. 

(idfii-fam, eSiSo-Ton. adai-ta. eSUo-Te, 

ueial-ldm, iiiSo-Tt}v, adad-\i*,* eiti»-v. 





adtl'va. .... add-mit, 

tidil'tcmt, tSo-Tov, adA'ta, 
adH-itim, eSo-Ttji', nd-us* 


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»." 



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 — 


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. 



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 




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 — 

























ipirltnBof i^fMi ia iuorguiic, ie. not from a in, tot inauncc, in Utttt 
oppoaed to Ti; « cb, unOa 












' 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. 



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^ 


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. 



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 — 




(p xtri-Jio-shi, 

W nsfri-nt]V-am, 







uxtrl-Jtu-va .... 
asiri-nu-tnm, earop-Yv-Tov. 
aniri-^n-tAm, ktrrop-vC-Ttiv. 


tAn-f} K-m a?. aT0p-v2-/uef . 










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. 


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 — 









6/nU" to split" 

' 6tf,"tobite.'' 6%," to bend." 

' bug, " to bend. 















































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 



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. 


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. 


babandliimn, btindum, hurumas. 
bnhii7i.dfia{lba), htmdtith, kuruUm. 
babandhun. bundun, kuTwanti. 


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 


<.iKiiK(itr. flOTaic. 

kuryima, bundeima. 

kuryiUa, bandriflu 

kitryui. bundeina. 

xTrbs which, in the 


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 


"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. 


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). 



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. 



" 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- 

■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 




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- — 



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,, adov, cder. 

t, (t). tim, fi{an), ta. dtdm. nta, ialtj), 'njv(Tuiv),v,To.(rdijv {cduv). 


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'.), 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 



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.-. 




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 



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; 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 




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,, 
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. 



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- 









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 



(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, 



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 



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. 



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. 



^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- 

^ 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 


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., 
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. 



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 



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 




* 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. 



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 
-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- 



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 
i 'Epv-vCa from ipirw afp«ara lo have bc«n formrd by weakening the n 


[ 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 




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,, 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. 



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 





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. 





^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 

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-*\ 


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. 



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; 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«. 





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 


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. 






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. 




[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. 




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 



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, 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 


* 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. 



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 



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 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 



" 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 

I In my opiaiua. i fMliipUcMlpa oTUu IniUal •; Ibtrit pa. 










«>LD WU*. 



f);-6U-', t«W-', 






fj(-«i-»,* t)eA-i-«,' 








' K>r^.a-*, 






. vei-9-vtu 


ra:-a-tM f 











vah-d-nuu,'' vax-d-maFii,' 
vith-a-Oia, vus-a-ffM, 
vah-a-nti,^" vat-r^-nli. 

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. 


' 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 


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 



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 



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 

dOD. The Sanskrit, and all its cognate dialects^ have two 






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- 



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 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. wi gtnH 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, 



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'. 



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 : — 


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)*. 



bhiiv-ii-lhas, bav-a-tM? 
bhao^-las, bav-a4d. 



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 
















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 

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 . 



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- 

" 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. 




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, 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>. 



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 



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. 




bhar~e {from bhar-^-mf), bnir-i,* 
bhtiT-ast\ boT-a-M, 


<p£p-0'fiai, . . . .' 
(^r>-e-(7tu}, bair-a-za.* 
^p-€--rai, bair-<t-da.* 


DUAL. -^ 

bhnT-4-vahf, .... fp€p-6-/j.e6ov, .... ' 
bhrir-i^lhf* .... fpip-e-e9ov* .... 
bhar-ftM,* ^p-e^Sov,' ^ 


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 


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, 


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. 


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. 



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, formed, 
in Zend, as appears from §. 43. 


&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.) 



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." 



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)?' 


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 ■ 



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 




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 




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. 


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," 



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. 


&■ 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, 


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. 



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 



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 

[ 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. 




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 



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." 



^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 



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. 




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. 



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.). 


■AK9KRIT- tSXn. 




ohhav-a-tn, A'ldm from bav-^m 

? buw-a-A,* 



til/h(iv-a-t, htiv-H* 




abhav-a-f, btw-a-t. 





ab}iav-(i-vo, .... 


• • I 

fe • • 

nbhav-a-tam, h-ii:-a-lcm9 


• ■ , 


nfrfenr-a-Mni, btiv-a-laiim9 

tike Sing. 



abhav-&-tnn. bm>-A-mft, 



tibhav-a-Vin, bav-a-Ut, 





like Sing. 



■ Fmmlmu>a-m: k«^. 438. 

* 8m ^.536. 

' Aivtu-cAo, 


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 


(3^«i^^^4 Icertniht, end Greek eKtipov, [G. Ed. p. 7G3.] 
wliich lias lofit the t of tbc root, 



kirt-a-u (s<!e §. 438.), e«et^-#-i'. 
Air(-a-i (see §. 4J9.), c«p|)-e-f. 






ttjituar. EEMD. 

a*/(ni-a-m. *er?ttt-e-)n, 

akrint-a-K. kprent-6, 

ahijit-a-ff kh-ent'O-t, 


akrint-a'tam, kfrhit-a-t^m ? Xcirl-o-ta, 
aUcfitU-a-l&m, kerlent-a'tanitt?\ikc Sing. 

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. 



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 


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- 




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- 




fore, the I^tio i of ama-hiit. nma-hU, Sx., and 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 




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. 



that, therefore, l^-e-bam, not le^-e-bam, or ieg-i-bam, in 

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; 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, 



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 





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 



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, 





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 — 



/Liit (Zetld anhat, iis, t Vedic da), i;;, ijv, 


A*wa .... 

djfam, Jjrrotf 

iittAm, ^Ttjif 




*■ 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 









" 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 



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 



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^, 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- 




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. 



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." 




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 




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. 



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. 



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 




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 
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 


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. 


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- 


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 


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, 



•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," 


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. 


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 




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." 


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. 



«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. 




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 — 


Until, (isdMm, 


iiddhwam OT Adhtvam. 


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. 

■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. 


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- 


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« 






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. 


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. 



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 


*,: ■ ---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 




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. 


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 



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. 



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 



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 — 





t-ATnc. ■ 
























• 4 1 « 


... •■ 

^ udik-shn-tnm, ndik-shA-lhAm! 
^ adik-^ha-tdm, adit-ihd-tdm,* 


adii:-xh/i-mn, ndit-ffiA-mnhi. 

eS'ei'w-irii-Ti;!', e9ef K-trei-c^r 


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- 


* The ctnineclion of dteo wlili dtfkrvfu Is nnacVnowlcd^ A : mnark tlw 
motto o-f (rxprMiUin difU fvuta. 



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 



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, 



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." 

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. 

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. 




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, 


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. 




oLn «CTftV. 

MN«K)ITT. Dt.n »CIXV. 

nhAdh-i-nhnm, hA^-'ich^ 

ubMh-i-xhuo, h&d'i-chovn\ 



ah6dh-i-shUim, bAti-i-sta. 



ftbiidh-i-shUim. Ittifl-i~sta. 



Di.n nn.ATOKir. 



vbMh-i-;hta, . 

b&d-i-xte. ' 






&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 



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 




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.). 



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. 


siurLE r&zTEnrTE. ' 











&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 



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." 

■IK a. PLUBAI,. 

byi^h, bythom, 
hy». btittfi, 
by, by. 


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 



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 



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 

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. 



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. 



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 : — 









[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 ' 



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 



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- 



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& 



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. 



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 



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. 



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, 



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 

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. 



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- 

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. 


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- 



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 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 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 



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. 

'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^'* 



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. 

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. 


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 


/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 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>}. 




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, (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- 

* 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 



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." 




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. 



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 


* Hy ihc Vmlaul the a becomes J ^c, nnO tbo v, i^istjf — TraiutiUor. 


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« ckMMl t of the nid dipfctkmg, maA retain 
snff tiM fint. nther Boaltered, or eottapCed to r, 
i a dwA 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, 


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. 



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. 


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. 



[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 



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. 



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 


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). 



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. 







itAna or tatana, 

liRtva fur lafnnivn. Unimii for fo'fririmn. 


r i?n''tha for tulaniUia 

v^naf/iw« for talanatbus, tfna for (tt?ana. 


(^nu^Ks for/afana^us, Miujt for fufuntu. 


';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 




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 



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 



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 




OLOMtaH nutuH. 

las&d'Q or 




suxat-tha ovsSd-i-tha, 







sftu ? (see 

§. 441.) 

■ . 1 

stkl-a-th us. 


. • • 













•• 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 



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. 



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 




[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 




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, 


I. -I J". 



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 

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 


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 , 


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. 




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.). 


Sanakrit. Golhic. O. B. Germ. Sanskrit. 


Witrf, bit. biz, bhuj, 

"toapUt." "to bite." "id." "to bend." 

Irlhhind-a. bail, beh. hubhauj-a, 

Iribinj'td-i-tha, bfiis't, bix'i. buhhauj-i-tha, 

hibhaid-a. bait, beiz. bubhavj-a, 

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 

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- 







buffti-m. bujf-u~ 
bttg-u-th. huff-u-t 
biig-H-n, buff-u-n. 



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,, 
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.), 




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 



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,„SiBoift£9atdtitliinnhi. correspond to the active 
iiSorijuev, (hdi/Aiaa, The Sanskrit, in the middle and the 



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 



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. 



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- 



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. 



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. 



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 



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 r a iwrf . 
" 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. 



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 



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. 



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 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 


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. 



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. 




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 


* 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, 



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 


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, 

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. 



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- 

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. 



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.) 



' Tbo Sauekirii dh Ifuls us to ex|iuit dio Gnuk oiiil Gotluc </. 



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). 



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. 




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 to 
(111' Old SdAvonJc I'll 0. 



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. 



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. 




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. 



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. 





hh!A m i. 

















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. 





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 

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' above 
(f. 62 1.), with the Sauskfit root dhd, " to place." " to make," 



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^, 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. 



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 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 

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* 



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. 



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- 



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*" 




(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 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 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." 



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. 



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). 



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 fy rt gfT T 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. 



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 

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 



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." 



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 

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.). 





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 


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 


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 



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. 


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. 



dAt&mii. dA('\M. 
tlimni. fMfii^. 

DO At. 

dAtAwwas, dAlAnMthfi. 
dAtAiAhm. dAVixAiM, 
flAiArAu. dAlAfAH. 





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.' 



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 


* 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 



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 





Ofdmi. aydfiL 
tyati. tyia. 
fyofi, rydt. 

MtfAva*. tj/Aea. 
wyatkoM, nfdlam. 
n/alat, syAi^m, 


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. 



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 



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. 



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 <«• 


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 

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 




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**.) 



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 



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. 



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, 



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; 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 




.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"). 




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 



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 





^^> ■ANAKIUT. 

mta. UTS. LkTtH. «ftUK. ^^^1 



b&-!iynthd ? bii-aita, .... »ftv-aeTov. ^^^M 


b&-syrtt3, like Sing. .... ^v-trerov. ^^H 


6 A/( t V I -,j Ay 4 inas. 

bH-xyiimahi, bd-nime. fae-aimux, tftv-ao/ieir. ^^^M 


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 


Qreek. LUhuanhin. Latin. ^^H 


Suk-9<a, diisu, da-bo, ^^^M 


}(^<re)f, dh-ai, da-bia, ^^^H 


SciMret, d&-», da-bil. ^^^| 

OVtL. ^^^H 



3o-reToi', dit'tita .... ^ ^^H 


Sut-oerov, like Sing. .... -^ ^^H 

PLDUL. 2t ^^^1 


8u-aofi(v, db-iitne, da-bimus. ^^^| 


dw-crcTC, dti-»Uf, da-bUU. ^^H 


Su-^otrrt, like Sing. da^bunt. ^^^| 


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. 



** 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, 


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.' 



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. 



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." 




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 



relotioDsUip of tiic Greek ft&Onn witli the ladUn manyi, 
"1 think." sec p. 911 

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; 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; 


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. 


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.] fluenctf of the heavy personal termiuatiotia 
and of the modal cluiracterUlic under discussion, suppreuea 


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 




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 



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. 



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^.| 



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 



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 




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 


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 a p peif 
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. 



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. 


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. 



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 


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 n wej Bty 



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 

irmu«N. Lrmw. urn cum. 

fl&tumbime, meh$ duhtum. dulumbitea. 

ilufutabite, yiiht dohtut. Jitittimbittu- 

lomyiwV dohiu. d&tu. 


iTTii(T«ii. LtmH. 
d&cliiau. f» dnhtu. 
dutiimbfi, tu dohlu. 

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 


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, 



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 



[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. 



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 


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 sim