P 575 .S7 1857a Copy 1 7? Jyf ^j/^^ ^j^r^ ^ J . ? P 575 .B7 1857a Copy 1 A REVIEW OF SOME POINTS IX BOPP'S COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR. BY LEONARD TAFEL, PH. D., PHILADELPHIA, AND PROFESSOR RUDOLPH L TAFEL, ST. LOUIS. [From the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1861.] ANDOVER: PRINTED BY WARREN F. DRAPER, 18.6 1. THIS BOOK is the Property of PETER LESLEY, 18 63. '^^ Of the American Philosoptic^^ ^ y A REVIEW OF SOME POINTS IN BOPP'S COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR. BY LEONARD TAFEL, PH. D., PHILADELPHIA, AND PROFESSOR ' I RUDOLPH L TAFEL, ST. LOUIS. \ [From the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1861.] ANDO VE R : PRINTED BY WARREN F. DRAPER 1861 sn^ •ife >B. K. Buali-Br«wn May 1016 A REVIEW OF SOME POINTS IN BOPP'S COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR.^ BT LEONARD TAFEL, PH. D., PHILADELPHIA, AND PROFESSOR RUDOLPH L. TAFEL, ST. LOUIS.'' On reviewing the labors of the modern scholars in the prov- ince of language, we find that in Germany especially they have cultivated this field in almost all possible directions, and although they frequently seem to arrive at contradictory results, these results, nevertheless, are necessarily supple- mentary to each other, and advance the cause of philology as a whole. While the adherents of the old school confine their studies to the classical languages, and devote them- selves more to the cultivation of^sjjntax, the modern school, or that of comparative phiJolpg^j,;aft?)r starting many and sometimes absurd hypotheses;. have-'^t length arrived at a profound knowledge of the laws of analogy, which none of its followers could violate with impunity in his investiga- tions. Indeed, the growth of the various grammatical formations in the languages belonging to the Indo-Euro- pean stock has been so clearly traced out by this school, and is so well supported by facts, that it may be safely asserted that future investigations must rest upon them as their foundation. These investigations of comparative phi- lology, moreover, throw hght on many hitherto dark portions of history, proving from the common stock of w^ords and the cognate development of the forms of their languages 1 Comparative Grammar of the Sanscrit, Zend, Armenian, Greek, Latin, Litthuanian, Old Slavonian, Gothic, and German Lano:uages. By Franz Bojjp. Second Edition. Reviewed throughout. Berlin: 1857-60. ^ Our thanks are due to our learned friend. Professor Chas. Short, of Phila- delphia, for his valuable assistance in the preparation of this Article. that many detached nations of the present day belong to the same race, and were originally united. Indeed, compar- ative philology even points out the length of the period when they were thus united, and the time when they sep- arated, and it furnishes information as to the state of the mental culture of these aboriginal people and their mode o± living, and thus supplies the place of direct historical docu- ments. To Mr. Bopp is due the praise of having acted as a pio- neer in this new field of human science, but around him have gathered other congenial minds, and under his leader- ship they have fought bravely against all kinds of opposition in order to plant securely the standard of their new science. Mr. Bopp has been enabled to lay before the learned public a new edition of his Comparative Grammar, which, accord- ing to his own statement, has been entirely remodelled. A few weak positions have been abandoned, because they were untenable, and others taken in their place which are in ad- vance of the former. This new edition may be regarded as a very complete repertory of all investigations made by Mr. Bopp and others since the publication of his first edition. The learned author has subjected all theories put forth by others to a close scrutiny, and has either adopted or refuted them. Most of the positions taken by this great scholar are now established beyond any doubt, but he himself will acknowledge that there are some points still open to dis- cussion, and a few of these we propose to reconsider. Mr. Bopp's laws of sounds, as they are developed in the second edition, will probably not be disputed by any one. OA page 9 he opposes those Sanscrit Grammarians, who, according to a later pronunciation in India, admit the tran- sition of an original a as in sofa, into e as in bed, and into o as in not, as has been done in the earliest stages of the Greek language, and also in the Zend. But the fact thai the short vowels e and o did not exist in the Old Sanscrit, any more than in the oldest Germanic dialect of which we have knowledge, is proved by Mr. Bopp by the considera- tion "^'that, suppose even these sounds to have existed while the Sanscrit was a living language, they could only have been developed from a short a after Sanscrit writing had become fixed ; because in its alphabet, where the minutest shades of sound are noticed, the distinction between «, e, and 0, would certainly not have been neglected " (I. 9). The fact that the sound of e was developed from a 3.t a. later period, is also proved by the Semitic languages, and especially by the Arabic, in which, at the present day, the sound of a has been retained by the Bedouins, the Sons of the Desert, with whom the vowels were less subject to change ; while in the settled communities it has passed over into other sounds. The same thing we find in the Ethiopic, where the original Semitic a has frequently passed into the weaker sound of e, and the vowel i has always been changed into e. As regards the weight of the three fundamental vowels, a, w, if Mr. Bopp, to the best of our knowledge, was the first to point out the difference in gravity between these vowels, a subject which has also been discussed by us in our criticism on Mr. Corssen's work on Latin Pronuncia- tion.i Mr. Bopp starts with those Sanscrit verbs in which a long a is changed into i in places where other verbs undergo other changes, and where, for instance, yoondmi, jung-o, yooneemasy jungimus, and also emi, instead of the older aimi, elfiL^ I go, Plural, t/^ez^, may be compared. In the Gothic tongue, which in Mr. Bopp's grammar is the repre- sentative of the Germanic languages, this weakening of a into i, which is done to lighten the vowel, is most clearly seen in the verbs of Grimm's tenth, eleventh, and twelfth conjugations, where in the singular of the preterite, on account of its monosyllabic nature, a radical a has been preserved, while in the present tense, and all other forms dependent upon it, on account of the greater number of syllables, it has been weakened into i. Thus, at, I ate, bears the same relation to ita, I eat, as the Latin cano to cecini, ' Latin Pronunciation and the Latin Alphabet, by Dr. L. Tafel and Prop. R. L. Tafel. Mason & Brothers : New York. 18C0. 1* capio to accipio. The Sanscrit, he continues, proves in all those verbs where a comparison can be instituted, that in the above-named Gothic conjugations, in the singular of the preterite tense, the genuine radical vowel has been pre- served ; and among these verbs he mentions, at , J ate (also in the third person), sat, I sat; vas, I remained, I was; vrack, I pursued; ga-vag, I inoved; frah, I asked; gvam, I came; bar, I bare, bore; ga-tar, I tare, tore, I destroyed ; band, I bound; saying, in conclusion, that " henceforth, in historical grammar, the letter a of the above-named preter- ites, and of all other similar forms, can no longer be re- garded as a permutation of the vowel i of the present tense, for the sake of expressing the past, however, it may appear so far from a survey of the Germanic languages only, inasmuch as the reduplication, the proper means for expressing this relation of time, has either entirely vanished in these preterites, or else can no longer be distinguished, on account of contraction, as in etum, ive ate, setum, we satP We are pleased to see that Mr. Bopp, in taking this ground, has advanced considerably beyond the positions he took in the first edition, § 1 — 7, where he treats of the same subject. He now admits that the root of the preterite is more primitive, and that the present (as well as the imper- ative mood, as w^e shall presently see) has been shortened from it, and we are convinced that Mr. Bopp will finally admit that not only the primitive form, but also the primi- tive signification, of the verb was that of the preterite or aorist. It may, indeed, appear preposterous to enter into any discussions about the forms of language, when man first expressed his thoughts by words. But both the arguments of reason, and the vestiges of the earlier stages of the development of various languages, enable us to draw con- clusions, chiefly negative, but partly positive, as to some sounds which could not have been used in those aboriginal times, and also as to some grammatical forms which could not have been primitive ; while, on the other hand, aided by the history of language, we are enabled to specify those forms which are naost ancient, or at least are comparatively most ancient. As regards the origin of language, unless we suppose that language sprang forth from the head of the primitive man, ready furnished, as Minerva from the head of Jupiter, we must assume that language, like all other attainments of man, was made gradually ; and if we admit that the first man, in speaking, as well as in thinking, was instructed by Deity himself,^ we must farther grant that the Divine Being in this, as in all other cases, has followed his own pre-established order, to which he subjected himself in the process of his incarnation, the order, namely, of educational progress. If this be so, then the first man, when intending to express by words his feelings, intentions, and thoughts, was assisted or instructed by the Divine Being; but this assistance or instruction was conformed to man's first mental wants which were obviously very few and simple, and such, we hence infer, were the primitive forms of language.^ The original forms were successively developed and modified, until, at last, they attained to that fulness of growth and perfection which appeared necessary to the various tribes, races, or nations. We shall confine our remarks to the Arian or Indo-European family of languages, with occa- sional references to the Semitic tongues, which offer some striking analogies in what appear to us their primitive for- mations. After these languages had, as it were, reached their highest point of bodily growth, their mental growth began to prevail; and the more their intellectual strength increased, the less it was necessary to retain all those exter- nal minutiae of grammatical forms which were developed in the earlier stages of the language, since those using it understood others, and were likely to be understood by ' It is proved by incontrovertible evidence that new-born babes, when left to themselves, or exposed among beasts, do not learn to think or speak ; and when left among beasts utter only sounds in imitation of those of beasts. '■^ The demonstrative pronoun sin, for instance, in the older Hebrew, meant both he and she, and ny:, a youth of both sexes, a hoy or a girl. 8 I others, even when, in expressing their thoughts, they dis- pensed with these external grammatical inflections. There is, however, no necessary reason why all members of the same family of languages should have branched out to the same extent, and have produced the same amount of gram- matical forms. Just as in nature all trees of the same genus or species have not the same growth, nor do all the members of the same family of men attain the same stat- ure or the same bodily or mental perfection. Thus, of all the Arian tongues, the Greek and Latin only have generated a pluperfect (as the Syriac also among the Semitic idioms), the Latin only a future perfect in the active, and the Greek in the passive voice; so, likewise, there w^asa diversity in the number of cases, in the use of the dual and plural, etc. If this be so, we are not authorized to maintain, as is frequently done by Mr. Bopp and his school, that all these languages, in the ante-historical times, were provided with the same number of forms, but subsequently dropped them. Nevertheless, there are in the words and the forms of words many indications that the Arian, as well as the Semitic nations, originally constituted one people, and, in the ante- historical ages, spent a part of their youth together ; after which they separated, and each developed itself in its own way, until at last they attained the maximum of their growth. Of this primitive language some idioms have preserved one, and others another, heirloom, as it were ; but they all agree in this, that they retain more or less of the vestiges of that simple tense (the preterite or aorist), the priority of which it is a dictate of reason to acknowledge. For the first thing in order which a man would naturally express by speech was a phenomenon, or an act or fact com- pleted. That form by which this realization was expressed, and which seems to have been originally monosyllabic, as in German, we call the Aorist, or, as is done in the Semitic tongues (the Chaldee, Syriac, Samaritan, Hebrew, Ethiopic, Arabic), the Perfect tense, in contradistinction from the Imperfect tense, that is, the tense and mood of non-reality or 9 uncompletedness. This form, naturally demanded by reason as the original one, we find in the German, and, as we have seen above, in the Sanscrit ; it is likewise found (even with- out the suffix of the pronoun, as in the German in the strong form) in the Semitic idioms, this being the most sim- ple ; and we meet with it also, in the Slavonic, Lithuanian, and Greek, where the pronoun, in its oldest form, is ap- pended to the root. As regards Mr. Bopp's assertion that the proper means of expressing the past tense, the reduplication, had disappeared from the language, or had become disguised, we cannot agree with him. The reduplicated form could not have been the original one; because the simple form must first have existed before it could be reduplicated, and the first simple form, as we have seen above, expressed something which had taken place, and thus, at least by implication, had reference to the past. We hold. that the reduplication is a subsequent for- mation, which was introduced, after the aorist form, by its being employed also for the imperative mood, had appeared to be more vague ; and, moreover, reduplication does not seem to have ever been generally adopted. On page 144, Mr. Bopp assumes two contradictory pro- cesses in language, to explain the same thing. In a foot- note he observes that, according to Dobrowsky (pp. 39-41), the transition of gutturals to sibilants, through the retro-ac- ting influence of a following soft vowel, is very evident in the Slavonic languages. But, in the aorist-ending ')(U and ^(pmu, of the first person singular and plural, in da')(ii and da-^omu, he derives the guttural from an original sibilant, and starts the hypothesis, that the aspirate ^^ in the Slavonic languages, is of a comparatively later origin, and only took its rise after the Lettic languages had separated from the strictly Slavonic tongues. He says, also, that in the Lithua- nian language we find k in the place of an original sibilant, as (p. 143), Lith. jukka, black soup, Slav, jwxfi, compared with Sanscrit, ?/M5'a-s (masc), ^i^s'awt (neut), lj3.t jus, juris ^ iromjusis; and in the Lithuanian imperative mood, ending in ki, and ki-te, in which, he says, he recognizes the aorist 10 of the potential mood (Gr. Optative) ; on this account he holds the letter k in Lith. dUki-te to be identical with the Slavonic ;\; in 6i?<2p^?/, I gave, da-^omu, we gave, and with the Sanscrit s in dd-si-dvdm, you 7night give. He, moreover, mentions incidentally, that formerly the preterite ending in XU (which is proved to have been originally %am) was sup- posed to be related to the ending -Ka of the Greek perfect, and refers to Grimm's Grammar I. p. 1059, and to Dobrow- sky's Grammar, I. 2, § 19, and 7, § 90. The latter scholar regards the letter % as a part of the personal ending, and we think his view is right, and shall endeavor to prove it else- where. If Mr. Bopp considers the letter k in diiki-te, to be identical with the Slavonic % in da^ih he ought still more to have regarded it as identical with the Greek k in the aorists eBcoKa, e^Tj/ca, rjKa, which we shall discuss below, than the k of the Greek perfect tense. We need not decide which of these three letters, /cjx^^ ^^^ oldest ; but if. Mr. Bopp (§ 23) maintains that the letter h in aham, is to be pronounced like a soft ^; if, moreover, u in ')(U stands for um or om, and this again stands in the place of am, as in the Lithuanian pres- ent, we should have to regard da-'^u or da[a]xti (instead of da')(am in the Slavonic aorist) as one of the oldest formations in the Arian languages ; and, so long as Mr. Bopp does not prove to us from an ante-Lettic or ante-Slavonic monument, that is, from a monument dating from the time when these two languages were not yet separated, that their common aorist sounded exclusively sam or as-am, and not %am, so long we shall consider ourselves authorized to maintain, that the Slavonic form is the more archaic, or the older, and that the Lithuanian sam or sau was either weakened from ')(am or x'^^i ^^'j ^^ ^^ more commonly supposed, was a com- position of the verbal root with the substantive verb asam. And, as regards the fact that in the Sanscrit language, which possesses the oldest written documents in the world, the verbs are only found with the ending sam, it does not hence follow that its forms also are always the oldest; nor are they generally regarded as such by the learned. We suppose, that many scholars are not altogether satis- 11 fied that our leaders in philology regard it as a settled mat- ter, that the personal pronoun of the first person singular in the nominative case is of a difierent root from that of the oblique cases. Mr. Bopp says (§ 326) : " All languages here treated agree in this remarkable particular, that the nomina- tive singular of the first person is of a different root from that of the oblique cases." The nominative in question sounds thus in these different languages : Sanscr. aham^ I\ Zend. asem\ Gr €700; Lat. ego\ Goth, ik] Lith. as' {ash)] Old Slav. asu\ Armen. es. The original form aka7n, the existence of which we shall prove, which is preserved in the Sanscr. axam (aham), and, as we have shown above, in the Old Slavonic suffixes, had the letter k or x assibilated even in the Vedo- Sanscrit plural asame, asme, in the place of a^pie^ (which latter form still survives in the Slavonic) ; in the Zend, asem ; in the Old Slavonic pronoun am for amm^ asom^ asam, from a^am ; in the Lithuanian as'- (ash) and the Armenian es^ where the vowel-sound of the second syllable was moreover dropped ; while the strong guttural remained in the Gothic ik ; Ang. Sax. ik^ Dutch ic, but was weakened into the middle in the Icelandic eg ; Swed. jag^ pronounced yag^ and, also, t/ah,J)a.n. jeg, pronounced yeg, also yeh, with eh as ey in they ; in the Latin and Greek it was also weak- ened into the middle, but, while they lost the final m or w, they still preserved the preceding vowel ; in the German, how- ever, the strong guttural became aspirated into ^y ^"^ i^ some of its dialects ^ was reduced to h. Mi\ Bopp's supposition, that in the Sanscrit the second syllable of the first person does not constitute an essential part of the pronoun, because there are some other pronouns terminating in this same syllable, we think ought not to be admitted. For, Jirsl, these endings are not found in a sin- gle one of these pronouns in any other language, and thus they are either simply accidental, or else they were formed by an imitation of the pronoun of the first person. Sec- ondly, the fact that the ending am is not merely an idle appendage, but an essential ingredient of this pronoun, is clearly proved by this consideration, that this last syllable 12 of the pronoun has been preserved in all the primitive for- mations of the verb, in the oldest languages of the Arian stock. If, now, this syllable forms an integral part of the root, that is, if it was regarded as belonging to the orig- inal root, and was used as a suffix in the formation of the first person of the verb, this very root, which became subse- quently somewhat changed wherever it was not used as a suffix, appears in its most original form in the Greek eya-oO, ifx-oL^ ijjL'i, in the adjective e/^-o?, for which we even find, in the dialects, the more original form ayit-o?, and even d/ju-e, instead of ifju-e. Compare Buttmann, Ausfuehrliche Gram- matik, § 72, pp. 291—293. By deriving the Vedic nominative plural asmS' from asame =^ asamoi or asamai, we no longer need the hypothetic form sma, which was called into requisition by Mr. Bopp as a Deus ex machina ; but we agree with him in this, that in the Greek plural afju/me^, the letter <7, by assimilation, passed over into />t, as in ifi/jLt from eV/it'; we also believe that in the Armenian form smes (for sames)^ there is still a trace left of the original s. 'Afih (Ace. ayite), on the other hand, which Mr. Buttmann, in the above paragraph, teaches to have been another form for rjijueh, we would trace back imme- diately to aham, where, after the initial a had been cast off, the letter s, a sign of the plural, was added by means of the connective e. H with the hard breathing in 37/^6??, which, according to the best of our knowledge, neither Mr. Bopp nor Mr. Buttmann has attempted to explain, is best accounted for in this manner, viz. the initial a was placed after the breathing letter, and aa, after coalescing into a, was weakened into tj. When this pronoun was subsequently used as a suffix, the letter A, as frequently happens, was lost, but, as we shall see, it was retained in the first aorist passive, where it aspirated the preceding demon- strative T. As regards the origin of the Sanscrit (and, consequently, of the Greek) augment as described by Mr. Bopp (I. 415 if. § 557), we confess that we did not expect to find this explanation retained in the second edition ; since it appears 13 to us too artificial, too far-fetched, and too illogical. Mr. Bopp maintains that the augment in the Sanscrit (and thus also in the Greek) arose from the alpha privativum. To this we object for the following grounds. First, we see no reason whatever why the alpha privativum should not have been retained, but changed into e, of which change of this prefix we do not find a single instance in Greek. Secondly, if, according to Mr. Bopp, the object of the alpha privativum was to deny that the predicating verb is found in the present tense, Mr. Vorlander in his Grundlinien einer organischen Wissenschaft der Seele, is perfectly right in objecting to this assumption of Mr. Bopp by saying that a simple negation of the present does not yet imply the past. Mr. Bopp in this, as in his whole doctrine of the verb, starts with the wrong idea that the present tense is the original form, and that the other tenses are derived from it. The simple a pn'on con- sideration that a tense which expresses an incomplete action, or an action in the process of being performed, and which in the Old Slavonic is absolutely employed to express the future, could not have been the original tense, ought to be sufficient to prove the fallacy of this assumption. Thirdly, the usually lengthened form of the present tense indicates a posteriori, that this form had a later and more gradual origin, while the form of the so-called second aorist, or of the strong preterites which have been discussed above, which form is the sajne as the simple one of the imperfect tense, e. g. in eXeyov, ecjyrjv (Buttmann, AusfUhrliche Gram- matik, § 109, Anmerk. 3), as every one may see from his own reading, bears all the traces of originality, inasmuch as in its formation, as we shall soon show, the pronouns are immediately appended to the simple root. If, now, this tense, expressing the past, was the older form, and if the idea of the past was inherent in it from the first, it is utterly impossible for the augment to express the negation of the present tense, which tense arose much later; but the origin of the augment belongs to a later period in language, and, although Mr. Buttmann did not keep pace with the modern school of linguistics, yet, by his more refined sense for lan- 2 14 guage, he was led to see the real state of things, and he described the augment as a wearing off of the [more] origi- nal reduplication. His own words are : " From this circumstance alone, that both augments [the augment proper and the reduplication] belong exclusively to the preterites, we may presume that they are of the same origin. Without entering into any psychological disquisi- tions on the subject, we can well conceive how the old lan- guage would make use of the reduplication in order to express something past. Since the greater part of the changes, brought about in language in a mechanical way, consist in blunting and wearing off a form, and since, es- pecially, we meet in other instances with a wearing off of the first letters in Greek words (see § 26, Anmerk. II., 6a')(p^ for /Aoo-;^09; OTTa^o^^ r/yavov, for K6TTa^o<;, rrjyavov] rjixl, rjv, rj^ for (j^rj/jbL, (prjv, <^ri ; alyjrrjpo^i, Xacyjrrjpo^i ; et/Soj, A,e//3a) ; ala, for ryala; la for /^ta, etc.), it is perfectly an alagous to assume that the reduplicated syllable containing an e was reduced to a mere e, and that the desire of drawing distinctions, availing itself of this feature, employed it particularly in the narrative style. This assumption, moreover, is fully proved (1) by the existing reduplication of the verb in some cases passing over into a mere e, and (2) by the second aorist instead of having its regular augment being still found in the Epic with the reduplication of the perfect, as in ireifKr^yov^ XeKa^ea^ai^ etc." We are not at all satisfied with the manner in which Mr. Bopp (§ 568, II. 445, ff*.) endeavors to explain the archaic forms eBcoKa, e^rjKct,, rJKa. After he seems to have come very near the truth, by bringing these forms into connection with the Old Slovenic da^u and the other analogous formations in this ancient idiom, and with the Lithuanian imperative mood in duk, give, dukite, give ye, he suddenly turns off again, and says : " We can do no better than to regard ehcoKU as a degen- erate form of eScoaa; whether the letter s at one leap [sic!] became k, or k associated itself with the sibilant of the sub- stantive Verb, as in the imperfect form eaKov, eo-«e, in the 15 Old Lat. future escit^ and in the imperfect tenses and aorists, ending in -eaKov^ -eaKOjjLrjv^ -aafcov, -ao-KOfirfv, as hiveveaice^ fcaX- ieaKov, KoXea-KeTO^ eXaaKe^ Baa-d(TK€TO, where we cannot help noticing the addition of the substantive verb, which, more- over, has been doubled in aa-aKov, aa-crfcofxriv. In eBcoKa, e^TfKa, rjKa, however, provided they sounded originally eScocrKa etc., the euphonic addition to a simply remained, and thus an original eBouaa first became eScoaKa^ and finally, eBtoKa. Perhaps the letter k was originally placed before cr in eBoya-a, as in ^vv from crvv= Sanscr. sam, so that eScoKa would have to be regarded as a reduced form of eSco^a ; even as the form xwn must have preceded the Latin cum, in case this is rela- ted to ^vv, crvv, samP § 569. " The Lithuanian, also, presents a form related to the Greek and Sanscrit [and Old Slavonic?] aorist, in which as it seems to me, ic takes the place of an original s ; I mean the imperative mood, in which I recognize that Sanscrit mood, which agrees with the Greek optative of the aorist, and by which k in duk, gi'Ve, dukite, give ye = Sanscr. dasid^- VCtMy you may give, (Precat. mid.), becomes related to the tc in the Greek eSw/ca (§ 92, p. 144.) " In our remarks above we have declared ourselves against this generation of k from 5, which Mr. Bopp endeavors to vindicate in the above extract. His explanation appears very arbitrary, and, at the very outset, conflicts with a cir- cumstance which seems to have been disregarded by all who have embraced Mr. Bopp's view without further exam- ination. The point is this, that these three aorists are inva- riably found with the augment, which, as is well known, is usually not placed with the suffix gk. This suffix, although dating back to an early period, arose, nevertheless, on Pelas- gic ground, after the members of the Arian stock had sepa- rated ; for it only exists in the Greek and Latin Languages. Besides the older form eBroKa, we, in fact, also find Boctkov, but without any augment or reduplication whatever, accord- ing to the general rule ; even the poets, according to Butt- man n (§ 94. Anmerk. 2), employed the augment offered them by analogy, only in a very few cases, and only where it 16 seemed imperatively demanded hy the metre. According to our opinion, these three verbal forms, together with the Lithu- anian imperative mood, are rather remnants of the compara- tively oldest formation of the verbs,^ with the more recent addition of the augment. "EBcoku, 'i^rjKa and rJKa are evi- dently instead of eScoKa/ju, e^ijKa/jL and rj/ca/ju, in which the letter /i,, as in all other aorists, first became nasalized, that is, was pronounced more or less indistinctly, until, finally, it was entirely suppressed, both in speaking and writing. The forms ScoKa, ^rJKa, ^/ca are instead of Sw/ca/x, '^rJKa/j,, rj/cajju, and these, again, are contracted from So-aKUfju, ^i-aKa/jL, e-atcafju^ so that we obtain from them the suffix akam^ which corres- ponds exactly to the Sanscrit aham^ i. e., a')(am (with a weak ;)^), and to the Old Slovenic^ a'yam. We believe that this particular formation, in the primitive times, as in the Old Slovenic, was confined to the first person singular and plural, and that, at a later period only, after the independent pro- noun of the first person, where it was not suffixed, had gradually become changed, and a knowledge of its significa- tion, where the pronoun was suffixed, had thus become lost, t^he letters k and a of the first person, as in the Lithuanian and the Greek, were also extended to the other persons, and the final consonant only was used to indicate the other per- sons. The same thing, also, w^e notice in the Sans- crit, in regard to the vowel a before the final consonant ; thus, we find d's-am^ ds4s, as -it, and likewise, d's-am, as -as, ds'-at, etc. The fact, that the guttural of the pronoun, where it was not suffixed afterw^ards, with some of the members of the Arian family became a sibilant, and that the vowel a of the last syllable was obscured and became o (u) or e, as in the Zend, azem, Old Sloven. asu[m], Gr. agdm, agdm, wydv, d'yov, iyov, egon, Lat. egom, ego, does not pre- clude the possibility that the various members of this family had originally common forms for the several pronouns, of 1 To which, perhaps, is to be added e5i7S-o/{a besides iSriSc&s. 2 Mr. Bopp calls this language the Old Slavonic, but Mr. Miklosich (preface, p. vii.) calls it the Old Slovenic, because it is merely a part of the Old Slavonic, (compare Vergleichende Laut lehre der slavischen Sprachen, vonFr. Miklosich). 17 which forms that of the first person was particularly retained, as a suffix to the oldest form of the verb, that is the aorist. It cannot be decided with certainty, whether the original guttural of the first person was a smooth, middle, or aspi- rate, since we find all three represented ; but by reasons of analogy we assume that the hardest sound is the oldest, which is also proved by the Gothic, the oldest Germanic idiom of which any traces have been left us. The suffix akam. as we have shown above, was originally used entire, but in this primitive state w^e find it only in the Greek, in the three above-named forms of the aorist, and in the Old Slavonic, in that particular tense which, for other reasons, we have designated as the primitive one. The original form a'^am^ in this primitive tense, gradually assumed several forms, all of which, however, may be traced back again to this same original form : thus, from a')(am we get ci')(Oin^ ayum^ axunij a^u, o^u^, eyu^ iyii^ as in Old Slovenic dayu^ I gave., from da-a^u or d^-ayu. ; sus-ayu, I sucked, ber-un, I gather, Aor. (ber-a)(if) bra^u; derun, I split, Aor. (der-axun) draxun, s^enuri, I drive Aor. gna^xu, I drove. In the aorist of those verbs which correspond to the 10th Sanscrit conjugation, the pronoun is suffixed to the original root, as is done in those verbs where n, t, or d, is inserted, e. g. in riid-as-un, I lament, Aor. rud-a')(U for ruda')(um; giib-n-un, I perish, Aor. gilb-O'xii (o'xum). The same is the case in other verbs, where other letters have been inserted before the pronoun, as in gorjun I burn, Aor. gor-e')(u; orjun, I plough, Aor. or-ayu \orayum\, Lat. ara-o, Gr. apoco] ; plujufi, I make to flow, Aor. plio-ayu ; dejun, I do, Aor. dejayu. When the pronoun is preceded by a nasal sound, its initial a is dropped, as in vinun, I wind, Aor. vinuu'xu ; but in the iterative form vinjayu there is no nasal sound; penjun, I span, Aor. penx^, I spanned. In one Slavonic dialect, the Lusatian, the final m or n, together with the preceding vowel, is entirely dropped, and the aorist ends with the guttural of the pronoun, or the guttural passes over into a sibilant, or is dropped altogether, as day, I gave, stay, I stood ; bey^ bjey, I was ; nose^j I bore, iterative form noshay ; vovam, I cry, vovay, I cried; piy, I drank, from piju, 2* 18 I drink. In the plural, however, the original mis restored, as da^, da^Me ; sta^, sta^me ; be^^ be'^me ; tru, Lat. tero, i^j^X^ trjexme, trivimus. As in the Semitic^ languages, so also in the Indo-Euro- pean, the suffixing of the dissyllabic pronoun became incon- venient, and they had, therefore, recourse to various means in order to facilitate this process. Thus, aham seems to have been changed into liaam^ Jidm^ hem^ r)fi^ {r)v) ; by dropping the guttural A, was obtained aam^ dm^ rj/uLy rjv ; by shortening dm, the syllables dm, ofj,, om ; and the final m, in the Greek language, was first nasalized, and imperfectly pronounced, and, at last, totally dropped. In the first stage of contrac- tion or shortening, we find hdm, hem, rjfjb, where the final m afterwards was preserved only in cases where it was sup- ported by a following vowel. This form of the pronoun, when suffixed to the demonstrative r of the Greek verbal adjective, aspirated the dental smooth, and this the preceding guttural or labial smooths and middles, while it assibilated the preceding dental, as in tvtt-, tutt-t-o?, irvTr-r-afM, or ij/x, iTvcl)^7)/jL, iTV(j:>^d /ji, €TV(j>^r}fi-e<; or €v, irv(f)'^djuL-6<; ; hence the in- finitive mood TV(j)^rj/ui'6v, Tvcj)^r)ff)iJi-ev-aL Afterwards, how- ever, the letter //,, when final, according to the laws of Greek phonology, was changed into v; hence we have the future TV(p^7][v-€]aoibuaL A second stage of the weakening of the pronominal suffix consisted in the dropping of the aspirate, so that the long syllable dm or em, dfju or rjfi was appended immediately to the original unincreased verbal root, which, in this case, taken in its intransitive meaning, assumed the function of the passive voice, as x^P' (X^^P)^ ^X^PV^^ ^ '^^^ in ^a state of x^P'^i JoVi rejoicing, i-yyp-afjb, ijTJp-av ; crreXX-, ia-TaX-rjv, (TTaX'r}[v6]G-oijLac, aTakrjcrofjbai.', pv-{p6), ippvrjv, Iftoived, I was in a state of flowing ; TfXrjry, — eTrXijyrjv. In a third stage of contraction or weakening, which was entered upon at an early period, the syllable dm was shortened in various 1 E. g. in Vi2|?-i?., e-k'tol, I w II kill, s is shortened of "iat^, ani, I; in Vbjj-a, 7ii-k'tol, we shall kill, 5 ni stands for '^ihi; in tjV^i^j katal-ta, thou hast killed, masc, ta, thou, is contracted from at-ta; in PiVt:j;, thou hast killed, fern. t\ thou, fem., is instead of at-at. 19 ways. While the letter /t in this tense, in the Lithuanian language, passes over into the vowel m, which is related to the labial letters through v^ but in the plural reappears ; in the Greek it is at first nasalized, afterwards pronounced indistinctly, and at last entirely dropped. This particular form of the aorist we still find in etnTa for etTra//-, rjveyKa for ijveyKafju (from which are derived elTrd/jLijv, '^veyKafirjv), and perhaps in eireaa for eirera. In the popular language this particular form of the aorist (which we prefer to call the strong aorist, because.it is certainly not formed by a compo- sition with the substantive verb) seems to have generally prevailed, and from this it seems afterwards to have intruded into the written language, as elBa, elXa, eka^a^ (conf. Butt- mann, AusfUhrl. Grammat, §. 114, p. 278, 279). Instead of being dropped, the letter yLt, however, usually changing into v^ and av is contracted with the preceding vowel into one syl- lable with a long vowel, which, in some verbs, is shortened again in the plural ; unless we prefer to regard the v^ the last letter of the syllable, as the suffix, representing the personal pronoun as, {SiSpaaK, ^P^j) ehpaav^ eSpdv, ehoajju, eSoav, eBcov] e^eafi^ e^eav, e^rjv ; h'a/Ji, erjv, rjv ; earaav. earrjv ; eSvafjb, eSvav, eBvv ] €r)v of (prjfjLL, and also i^oa, ave^oa of fiodo), dvafiodco and yeiv of el/jbt more fre- quently used in the sense of the aorist, than of the imperfect tense. The so-called second perfect was certainly nothing else originally than another form of the strong or old aorist, and at one time was employed in the place of the aorist, and at another or later time in that of the perfect tense. According to our opinion, the act of fixing the different shades in the meaning of the past tenses supposes a state of mental majority, which can only exist in the manhood, and not in the childhood, of a nation ; but it is not by any means necessary that each people should have reached the culminating point of mental cultivation in every direction. So the Latin remained behind the Greek in the development of the verb, inasmuch as it has no separate forms for the aorist and the perfect tense, and although it has one more case in the declension of the nouns than the latter, it still expresses coming' from and being' in a place by the same form ; as venit Carthagine ; vixit Carthagine. It is, there- fore, not at all improbable that the Sanscrit should have remained behind both these languages, and should never have arrived at the same degree of logical precision ; especi- ally since it is an established fact that it has never succeeded in developing the pluperfect tense. Mr. Bopp says further, (§ 516, p. 389) : " It may be said that language, in the aorist, rids itself of the giina and 3* 30 other characteristics of class for this reason only, because, in its anxiety to report facts, it has no time to pronounce them ; as in the Sanscrit, in the second person of the im- perative mood, on account of the hurry in which a com- mand is given, the lighter verbal form is employed, and we thus find in the second person vid-d'i, know thou, yoongdl, unite thou, while in the third person we have vet'-tu, let him know, yoondktu, let him unite. This species of aorist, which has just been mentioned, is, however, comparatively rare both in Sanscrit and in Greek, and the giving up of the characteristics of class in both languages is not confined to the aorist ; besides, more letters are usually found in the aorist than in the imperfect tense ; compare, for instance, ddicsam^ ehet^a with the imperfect i^n^e, ddis' am, which is exactly like the above-mentioned aorist. The sibilant of the first aorist, also, cannot be regarded, in my view, as that particular element of sound to which this tense owes its peculiar signification, since this letter occurs likewise in several other forms, the meaning of which is in no wise connected with that of the aorist." As regards the first statement of Mr. Bopp, to which he himself does not seem to attach much weight, he cannot expect us to agree with him, since there is certainly no necessity at all why people, in their anxiety to report a fact, should not have had the time, or should not have taken the time, to pronounce a long vowel or a diphthong instead of a short vowel. With respect to the length or shortness of the original roots this is a subject which, at the present day, can no longer be decided with any certainty. However, this much it seems to us may be established beyond any doubt : that the roots were^ originally monosyllabic ; therefore, any form which consists of more than one syllable may be at once put down as a later formation. Thus, on comparing ddadam or ihlhwv with dddm or eh(ov, the latter would naturally have to be regarded as the older form ; so that there is no reason why we should suppose with Mr. Bopp (p. 389), that, in the formation of the second aorist, the guna and other char- acteristics of class were dropped, if they had not even 31 existed at that time. As regards the fact that in Sanscrit db'aram^ and in Greek eXejov, together with adadam and £7/7- vwaKov and ekd/jL^avov are designated as imperfect tenses, this only proves the arbitrary mode of proceeding of the grammarians, since it is very plain that the two former words belong to an earlier stage of development of the language, while the longer forms were produced subse- quently. In those cases where the monosyllabic root had a long vowel or a diphthong, we find it quite natural that the long vowel of the original root, when another syllable was prefixed to it (for instance, when the first two letters of the root were reduplicated), should have been weakened and shortened, since in this case it was deprived of the accent. This weakening, however, did not always take place, but sometimes the accent was simply shifted to the prefix, as may be seen from the following examples, where we regard the so-called second perfects as originally identical with the strong (second) aorist: as, X^J^e (the original form then), XeXrf^e, XeXa^e, eXa^e, Xa^e. On the other hand the follow- ing forms were used simultaneously: rjpapov, dpdpa^ dprjpa, (l)6vy€, 7ri(f)€Dy6, Tret^irye, iipvye, which forms were subsequently employed to express various shades of the past.^ Com- pare also the Doric Xa/c-eo), Ionic XrjK-eco, the Attic sibilated Xd(TKco, XeXcLKa for XeXaKUfju, aorist eXaKov. The long syllable occurs even in the aorist, e. g. in TreTrXrjyov {eirXyyov, TrXrjyov), A similar weakening of the vowels, as is well known, has taken place in the Latin, where a passed over into e and ^, e. g. cap-, cap-it, con'cip-it, con'cep-tum, which subsequently became con-cep turn, fall-it, fe fell-it; the cause of this weak- ening was that the accent was first placed on the prefix, and afterwards settled down upon the root. Mr. Bopp first advanced in his Conjugation system the 1 In the forms eSrjS-o/ca and 01773-0x0 for ayf}y-oxa, which are found together with 45r}dcas and ^7070;/, we recognize remnants of the same original suffix, which we have found in eSwKa {e56-aKa), e^Ka (e^e-aKra), ^Ka (e-aKa), viz. d/fo, dfca/x ; in the above words this suffix passed over into oKa/x, as in the Old Sla- vonic, instead of the later form €70^14, iyou, iyd^, must be regarded as the first weakening of a, and e as the second. 32 idea, which he repeats in the present work, § 526 — 528, pp. 404 — 406, and which seems to us perfectly correct, that the Latin, in addition to the root as (es), which was employed also by other members of the Arian family in the formation of their tenses, also made use of the Sanscrit verb bhu, (f)v, fUy wherein it was followed by the Irish dialect of the Gaelic idiom ; as, mealfa-m, meal-fa- (which we would rather divide thus : meal-f-am, for meal-fi-am), or mealfa-maid, or mealfa-maoid, ive shall deceive, meal-faidhe, you will deceive, meal-faid, they vnll deceive, meal-fai-r, thou wilt deceive, meal- fai-dh, he will deceive. The circumstance that the Latin bam expresses the past, but the Irish fam the future, Mr. Bopp continues, ought not to prevent our regarding these two forms as identical in their origin. We are troubled much less by this circumstance than Mr. Bopp himself, since we regard not merely the letter m, but also am as the suffix of the first person singular and plural. The proper form of the Irish suffix ought to he fiam or biam, since in its isolated position biad\me signifies / shall be (literally it ivill be me), biadmaoid, ive shall be, where the character of the third per- son singular has amalgamated with the root. The ex- ponent of the future relation in these forms, Mr. Bopp goes on to say, is the vowel i, with which may be compared the Latin i in amabis, amabit, and also in eris, erit, etc. We object to this view, for we think that the future relation is expressed by the root bhu, v,fu itself, which not only signi- fies the state of having' become, TrecfyvKevat, or of being, but also the act of becoming, fio, ua). This idea of becoming is contained both in the imperfect tense and in the future ; for the very name of the imperfect tense implies that it de- scribes an imperfect action, or one w^hich is in progress, or is becoming, that is, one which is not yet completed when another action takes place. The idea of the past, however, which is not contained in that of becoming, was furnished to the imperfect tense by the predicate of the primary clause, and in case the imperfect tense was employed in the primary clause itself, this idea could be supplied to it from the context, as is done with the present itself in a clause 33 introduced by the conjunction dum, when concomitant to the predicate in a past tense. The application of the word becoming' m the formation of these two tenses is very ap- propriate, as all existence is a continual becoming, or a con- tinual repetition of the same act. In the Latin, also, we find the ending esco^ which signifies to become, employed in the formation of the future ; as superescit for supererit, in Ennius. According to our view, ero did not originally have an exclusive signification of the future, as little as the Greek eero/juai, eSofiac, Tr/o/^at, but it is an original form of the present tense, esom, so?n, sum^ where the letter m was at first pro- nounced indistinctly, and at last was dropped entirely, while 5, between two vowels, became r. The fact that the future, which originally was expressed by the present tense, gave rise to the idea of becoming-, or coming into a state of existence, is proved by the later German, where the future ich werde gehen means literally I am becoming to go, or, I am coming into a state of going. This idea of be- coming, in German, was even transferred to the present and imperfect tenses of the passive voice, where ich luercle, or ich wurde gelehrt signifies / am becoming, or I ivas becoming taught ; ich bin, ich war gelehrt worden, I have become, I had become tavght. Mr. Bopp (§ 527) justly regards as strange the long e in ebam of the third and fourth conjugations, leg-ebam and i-ebam, and together with Ag. Benary he explained it form- erly (in the Berliner Jahrbucher for 1838, p. 13) as an amal- gamation of the class-vowel with the augment. Without entirely abandoning his former view, he seems now more inclined to the opinion that the only purpose for which the class-vowel was lengthened in these forms was to enable it to bear the burden of the suffixed substantive verb, and thus to give more strength to the theme of the principal verb. We do not think that the assumption of an augment in order to explain the long e of the imperfect tense can at all be justified, since there is not a single instance on record where the reduplication in Latin was weakened into an augment; we very readily admit, however, that the imper- 34 feet and future tenses of the third and fourth conjugations, in their formation, may have conformed in an inorganic manner with these tenses in the second conjugation. In the third conjugation this is chiefly limited to the imperfect tense, but in the fourth conjugation we often meet with the ending 60, instead of am; as scibo^ aperibor^ instead of sciam, aperiar. The vowel i, in the fourth conjugation, was originally long; for, like a, in the first conjugation (and sometimes even e in the second), it arose from the diph- thong ay^ which signifies a making. This suffix ay was not only contracted into a long a [a in father) in the first conju- gation, and into a long e (ey in tliey) in the second conjuga- tion, but, through the mediation of the diphthong el (ei in height)^ into which ai or ay had been obscured, it likewise passed over into a long % {i in machine). This long z, when followed by a vowel, became short, as in audio., but when followed by a consonant, it preserved its long character, as in scibo., where the ending bo was appended immediately to the stem or suffix i, and also in a few imperfect tenses, as in vestibam.) largibar, for vestiebam, largiebar, unless we prefer to regard scibo as a contraction of sclebo, and vestibam of ves- tlebam; in the majority of cases, however, in the formation of the imperfect tense of the fourth conjugation the analogy of the third conjugation was followed where the vowel e in ebam had been lengthened in an inorganic manner, by anal- ogy with the imperfect tense of the second conjugation. For those who are not satisfied with this explanation, we have still a third one to offer of our own. The long e be- fore bam is neither an augment which coalesced with the final vowel of the stem into a long e", nor is it an inorganic imitation of the second conjugation, but it arose from the diphthong el^ the vowel I of which had been developed from s before the labial b (as before the labial m in elfxl) ; so that the diphthong el takes the place of the substantive verb es, to be., or being. Amabam, consequently, arose in the following manner : am-ay-es-bam, a7nd-esbam., amd-esbafu, amd-eibam, amd-ebam, amdbam, and, when translated hter- ally, it signifies : bam, 1 was becoming; es, one being; ay., 35 makings am, love: mone-esham., mone-eiham, mone-ebam, monebam, I was becoming" one being reminding; leg-esbam, leg-eibain, leg-ebam, I was becoming one who was reading; audi-ebam, I was becoming one who was hearing; ama-esbo, ama-eibo, ama-ebo, amdbo, I am becoming one being loving. The letter s in other places also passed over into i (cf. our work on Latin Pronunciation, p. 80), as in the Greek, be- fore the labial fi, el/jbi, elfjuev for eV/xt, icr/jbiv. The combina- tion of two auxiliaries, as in es-bam, we also find in the third person plural of the perfect tenses ending in si, as clau[d]-s-erunt, where s is universally admitted to be the substantive verb, and erunt for esunt is a surviving form of the original present tense; and, in case Mr. Bopp is right, which we do not think, fuvi inste-a.d of fufu-vi,fufui,fiivi,fui, is 3, compound of itself as a verb, and itself as a suffix. No doubt the suffix of the perfect subjunctive is also a double composition of the substantive verb, scrip-s-erim for scrip-s- esim, or scrip-si-rim or sim, just as ausim is instead of auds- sim. We do not hesitate to regard the future bo as having descended from bom, bam, and thus consider it as originally identical with the suffix of the imperfect tense. It is our opinion that the formation of the imperfect tense is older than that of the future, since the function of the future tense was originally also performed by the present tense, and on account of the close connection between these two tenses, the ending am of the future tense was changed into om, o, as in the present tense, both of which followed in this particular the later form egom, ego. Mr. Bopp (§§556—558, pp. 485—437), tracing the perfect ending vi (ui) to the substantive verb /wo, can indeed sup- port his theory by the formation of the imperfect and future tenses, which is admitted by us ; still, by so doing he merely establishes the possibility of such a formation, but nothing more. Several objections have been raised against this theory. First of all it has been justly observed by the opponents of this view that, whether we derive the suffix v or u from the letters / or w of the root fuo, (pvco, this verb cannot be pretended to express an accomplished fact or 36 state; moreover, in the above two tenses, though they are compounded of the Sanscrit bhu or Latin fuo^ this verb rather expresses becoming than being. The oldest form of this perfect tense, also, is not/m, hwifuvi^ and thus it ap- pears provided with the very same suffix which Mr. Bopp endeavors to explain by means of itself. We are, therefore, compelled by these considerations to endeavor to find an- other explanation of this form. In eight members of the Arian family there are more or less traces of a form of the perfect tense, which, with the help of Mr. Bopp, we shall endeavor to examine more closely. In the Sanscrit there is still preserved in the parti- ciple of the reduplicated perfect tense a certain suffix which expresses a being endowed or furnished with something. This suffix appears in three degrees as regards strength, vans^ vat, us^ {= oosh), and of us' or oosh, which is the weakest of all, is formed the feminine us'i (= ooshee). The shortest form oosh, according to Mr. Bopp (§ 788) is found in a single instance in the Gothic tongue/mberusjos, the parents; in all other instances this form of the participle has been lost in this language (we should like to compare with this form the expression ol yeivd/Luevot in Herodotus, instead of ol yovet^). lo the Old Prussian, also, some forms are found which appear connected with this original perfect form (cf. Bopp, § 787) ; as murrawuns, having murmured, klantiwuns, having cursed. The vowel u in wuns, just as in the ordinary form uns, and also the vowels o and a in ons and ans, which latter vowel, when after a consonant, is equivalent to e in the Lithuanian ens, have become, according to Mr. Bopp, weakened of a, which was originally d. This participle is generally used in the Old Prussian as a circumlocution of the perfect indicative ; as, asmai murrawuns bhe klantiwuns, ye have murmured and cursed. The future, also, which is wanting in the Old Prussian, is always expressed by the auxiliary to become, and the participle of the perfect tense ; as, madliti, tyt ivirstai ious immusis (where the vowel u of the plural form usis is organic, and identical with the Sanscrit u of that stem which is used in the weakest cases, and also 37 ill the feminine us^ it is also identical with the letter u in the corresponding Lithuanian forms), laukiti iyt wirstai ions aupallusis^ pray^ then you ivill take (literally, then you become having taken), seek, then you ivillfind (stnci\y, having found). The weakest form of the Sanscrit suffix of the participle likewise appears in the Lithuanian in the oblique cases of the masculine, yet with the inorganic addition of ia. The nominative case, siikens, as regards its termination, is based upon the strong Sanscrit theme vdhs; the letter s in sukens remains in the nominative and vocative cases, while in the Sanscrit, in both these cases, the sign of the nominative case, as well as the final consonant, is dropped, for it does not tolerate two consonants at the end of a word ; as rurud- van for rurudvdns, in the vocative case rftrudvah. In the Zend, according to Mr. Bopp, § 787, the letter s of the nom- inative case is changed into o, as dad^vdo, having created, vid- vdo, knoiving (elSm). In the weakened cases, as well as before the feminine character i, like the Sanscrit suffix it is contracted into us'. With the form vat, of which, in the Sanscrit, are formed the middle cases of the perfect participle, as has been cor- rectly stated by Mr. Bopp, § 789, the Greek or is connected, in which the primitive accentuation has been preserved, but the digamma given up, which, as a general thing, is rejected in the middle of words, especially in the suffix evr, which corresponds to the Sanscrit vant of the strong cases. As, therefore, a^nrekoevr compares with the Sanscrit forms, such as d'ana-vant, endowed ivith riches, so also reTV(^(F)oT com- pares wuth tetupvat (we would rather say TervirFor), with which latter form, moreover, agrees the neuter form rervcjio^ in the nominative, accusative, and vocative cases. The feminine form in via, which is a mutilated form of vaia (oo-la, ocr[7/] a), corresponds with the Sanscrit tutupu'sH. We here add that in the Sanscrit the simple (strong) aorists, or imperfect tenses in the participle, were represented by the reduplicating aorist or the perfect tense, while in the Greek they went further, and employed the suffix vans in two forms, — vdns (vd's), and vd'n, in both of which the suffixed 38 syllable received the accent, and the form vans was after- wards employed to express the strict idea of the perfect tense, and the other form van to express the aorist. This last form was applied both in the case of the reduplicating and the non-reduplicating aorists. Between these two forms of vans^ employed in the Greek, there is still another differ- ence. Although the stronger form vcinls (vas = w^) is made use of in the nominative singular of the masculine gender in those forms of the aorist which were afterwards used in the sense of the perfect tense, yet in all the oblique cases, and also in the nominative singular of the neuter gender, the weaker form vat (ot) is employed with the accent upon the suffix, while in the strong or second aorists the stronger form vant (vont) is preferred throughout in all cases of the masculine and neuter gender, with the accent also upon the suffix. These two forms, however, again agree in this, that both, in the feminine gender, give a preference to a shorter form, as in 7r67rot^[ /-]«?, 7re7rot^[Fiy][c7]Za, 7re7rot^[F]69, and ireTrt^l F]a)v [Sanscrit van], 7re'7rL^[F]ovo-a [Sanscrit fem. d.si' or oosee], 7r€7rL^[F]6v [Sanscrit van], Xa^[f](ovj Xa/3[F]ovaa, \afi[F]6v. The same derivation is very justly attributed by Mr. Bopp to the ending of the participle in the Slavonic perfect, where, indeed, according to him, the tense cor- responding to the Sanscrit and Greek perfect tenses (and to the Germanic preterite), has been lost in the indicative mood, as has been the case in the Lettic languages, but where, even as in the Lettic idioms, the form of the participle has been preserved, which had been generated from the perfect tense, before these languages had separated from the other members of the Arian stock. The root of ,this suffix in the nominative and vocative cases of the three numbers of the masculine and neuter genders, and also in the accusative case of the dual, is vets' or us', the letter 5' of which, according to a law in this language, is suppressed in those cases of the singular number which do not receive any additions (compare Bopp, § 790, p. 156, and Prof. M. Rapp's Verbalorganism on the Old Slavonic, Bk. III., p. 99, ff ). The original vav of this ending, in the Slavonic as 39 well as in other members of the Arian family (see Bopp, § 822), passed also partly over into the liquid I; for, in addi- tion to this original participle of the active voice, there exists another participle in the Slavonic language, lu^ la, lo, which, with the auxiliaries, forms compound preterite tenses, and which, in the later northern tongues, replaces the entire preterite. But we cannot agree with Messrs. Bopp and Rapp,i who derive this I from an original d or t, instead of from the letter t?, which lies much nearer; and we wonder that Mr. Bopp, who very properly derives the Latin suffix lent in words such as corpulento, opulent-, vinolento, somno- lento, violento, temulento, instead of corpuvento, opuvent-, temuvento, from the Sanscrit vant, vas, vat, does not recog- nize it in this shortened form of the Slavonic perfect tense, where / in the place of v is evidently a later change of let- ters, which also occurs in the Georgian language, and where the accent is on the suffix, just as in the Sanscrit and the Greek. As regards the v, or digamma, it has disappeared from the Greek written language like the consonantal ^, and is found only in inscriptions and the writings of grammari- ans, yet in a great number of verbal forms, where it has not passed over into any other sound, its former existence may be inferred with sufficient certainty, so that there no longer remains any doubt as to the function of v in the formation of the perfect tense. We refer the reader to the examples furnished by Dr. Buttmann (§ 97, Obs. 10, and in other places), as, ^e^aprjco^;, K€Ka^TjQ)<;, /ce/cyiMyco?, «e^ap?;609, TreTrrijcof;, T6TL7)(o^, T6TXrjco<;, ire^vacTi, wecpvvla, yeydaa-t, yeydare, BeBdaac, fie/jbdaa-c, etc., instead of ^e^aprj F(a<;, KeKacprj Fa)<^, 7re