Part 16

Of the _last_ of these stages the English of the year 1849 affords the most typical specimen that can be found in the present _early_ date of language--_early_, considering that we are looking for a sample of its latest forms.

Of the second of these stages we must take two languages as the samples.

1. _The Greek._--Here we have the inflexional character in its most perfect form; _i. e._, the existence, as separate words, of those sounds and syllables that form inflexions is at its maximum of concealment; _i. e._, their amalgamation with the primary word (the essence of inflexion) is most perfect.

2. _The Circassian, Coptic, or Turkish._--In one of these (it is difficult to say which) the existence as separate words of those sounds and syllables which form inflexions, is at its _minimum_ of concealment; _i. e._, their amalgamation with the primary word (the essence of inflexion) being most imperfect.

This classification is, necessarily, liable to an element of confusion common to all classifications where the evidence is not exactly of the sort required by the nature of the question. The nature of the question here dealt with requires the evidence of the historical kind, _i. e._, direct testimony. The only evidence, however, we can get at is indirect and inferential. This engenders the following difficulty. The newest language of (say) the languages of the secondary formation may be nearer in chronology, to the oldest language of the third, than to the first formed language of its own class. Indeed, unless we assume the suspension of all change for long epochs, and that those coincide with the periods at which certain languages are given off from their parent stocks, such _must_ be the case.

Now, although this is a difficulty, it is no greater difficulty than the geologists must put up with. With them also there are the phenomena of transition, and such phenomena engender unavoidable complications. They do so, however, without overthrowing the principles of their classification.

The position of a language in respect to its stage of development is one thing,--the position in respect to its allied tongues another.

Two languages may be in the same stage (and, _as such_, agree), yet be very distant from each other in respect to affiliation or affinity. Stage for stage the French is more closely connected with the English, than the English with the Mœso-Gothic. In the way of affiliation, the converse is the case.

Languages are allied (or, what is the same thing, bear evidence of their alliance), according to the number of forms that they have in common; since (subject to one exception) these common forms must have been taken from the common mother-tongue.

Two languages separated from the common mother-tongue, subsequent to the evolution of (_say_) a form for the dative case, are more allied than two languages similarly separated anterior to such an evolution.

_Subject to one exception._ This means, that it is possible that two languages may appear under certain circumstances more allied than they really are, and _vice versâ_.

They may appear more allied than they really are, when, after separating from the common mother-tongue during the ante-inflexional stage, they develop their inflexions on the same principle, although _independently_. This case is more possible than proved.

They may appear less allied than they really are, when, although separated from the common mother-tongue after the evolution of a considerable amount of inflexion, each taking with it those inflexions, the one may retain them, whilst the other loses them _in toto_. This case also is more possible than proved.

Each of these cases involves a complex question in philology:--the one the phenomena connected with the _rate of change_; the other the _uniformity of independent processes_.

These questions are likely to affect future researches more than they have affected the researches hitherto established. Another question has affected the researches hitherto established more than it is likely to affect future ones. This is the question as to the _fundamental unity, or non-unity of language_. Upon this the present writer has expressed an opinion elsewhere. At present he suggests that the more the general unity of the human language is admitted, the clearer will be the way for those who work at the details of the different affiliations. As long as it is an open question, whether one class of languages be _wholly_ unconnected with others, _any_ connection engenders an inclination to arrange it under the group previously recognised. I believe that this determined the position of the Celtic in the Indo-European group. I have great doubts whether if _some_ affinity had been recognised from the beginning, it would even have stood where it now does. The question, when Dr. Prichard undertook his investigations, was not so much whether the Celtic was in the exact ratio to any or all of the then recognised European languages in which they were to each other, but whether it was in any relation at all. This being proved, it fell into the class at once.

The present writer believes that the Celtic tongues were separated from their mother-tongue at a comparatively early period of the second stage; _i. e._, when but few inflexions had been evolved; whilst the Classic, Gothic, Lithuano-Slavonic (Sarmatian), and Indo-Persian (Iranian) were separated at comparatively late periods of the same stage, _i. e._, when many inflexions had been evolved.

Hence he believes that, in order to admit the Celtic, the meaning of the term Indo-European was extended.

Regretting this (at the same time admitting that the Celtic tongue is more Indo-European than any thing else), he believes that it is too late to go back to the older and more restricted use of the term; and suggests (as the next best change), the propriety of considering the Indo-European class as divided into two divisions, the older containing the Celtic, the newer containing the Iranian, Classical, Sarmatian, and Gothic tongues. All further extensions of the term he believes to be prejudicial to future philology; believing also that all supposed additions to the Indo-European class _have_ (with the exception, perhaps, of the Armenian) involved such farther extension.

TRACES OF A BILINGUAL TOWN IN ENGLAND.

READ AT THE MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE 1853.

It is well-known that the termination _-by_ as the name of a village or town is a sign of Danish occupancy. At the present time it means _town_ in Scandinavia; and Christiania or Copenhagen is called _By_, or _Byen_, = _the town_, _capital_, or metropolis. The English form is _-ton_. When an Angle said New_ton_, a Dane said New_by_. The distribution of the forms in _-by_ has already commanded much attention; so that it is not the intention of the present writer to say much about it.

Along, however, with this form go others: _e. g._

The English _Ship_ becomes in Danish _Skip_ as in _Skipton_ ---- _Fish_ ---- _Fisk_ ---- _Fiskerton_ ---- _Worm_ ---- _Orm_ ---- _Ormsby_ ---- _Church_ ---- _Kirk_ ---- _Ormskirk_

&c. &c.

In like manner the Roman _castra_ becomes--

In English _chester_ or _cester_, in Danish _caster_ and _caistor_. Contrast the forms Tad_caster_, Lan_caster_ &c. with _Chester_, or Bi_cester_ and this difference becomes apparent.

Now the river Ouse in the parts about Wansford separates the counties of Huntingdon and Northampton--in the former of which no place ending in _-by_ is to be found, and all the _castra_ are _chester_; as Godman_chester_. In Northamptonshire, on the other hand, the Danish forms in _-by_ are common, and the _castra_ are _caistor_, or _caster_. All the Danish is on one side. Nothing is Danish on the other. The river has every appearance of having formed a frontier. On it lay the Roman station of Durobrivis--with, probably, _castra_ on each side. At any rate, there are, at the present moment, two villages wherein that term appears. On the Huntingdon side is the village of _Chester_ton (English). On the Northampton side is that of _Caistor_ (Danish).

ON THE ETHNOLOGICAL POSITION OF CERTAIN TRIBES ON THE GARROW HILLS.

READ AT THE

MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE HELD AT YORK 1844.

The affinities of the Garrow language, a language which Klaproth in his Asia Polyglotta leaves unplaced, are with the Tibetan.

The bearings of this will be found in the next notice.

NOTE (1859).

This was written before I had seen Brown's Tables--wherein the affinity is virtually, though not directly affirmed.

ON THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TIBETAN AND INDIAN FAMILIES IN RESPECT TO CONFORMATION.

BRITISH ASSOCIATION--BIRMINGHAM 1849.

The remarks of Mr. Hodgson on the Kooch, Bodo, and Dhimal, along with some of Dr. Bird's on the monosyllabic affinities of the Tamulian languages have an important bearing on this question. So have the accounts of the Chepang and Garo tribes. The phenomena are those of transition.

We have a practical instance of this in the doctrine laid down by Mr. Hodgson in his valuable monograph. In this, he makes the Bodo a Tamulian _i. e._ a member of the same family with the hill-tribes of India and the Dekhan; meaning thereby the aborigines of India, contrasted with the populations to which he ascribes the Sanskrit language and the Hindu physiognomy. In the Tamulian form there is "a somewhat lozenge contour, caused by the large cheek-bones"--"a broader flatter face"--"eyes less evenly crossing the face in their line of picture"--"beard deficient"--"with regard to the peculiar races of the latter" (_i. e._ the Tamulians) "it can only be safely said that the mountaineers exhibit the Mongolian type of mankind more distinctly than the lowlanders, and that they have, in general, a paler yellower hue than the latter, amongst whom there are some (individuals at least) who are nearly as black as negroes.--The Bodo are scarcely darker than the mountaineers above them--whom they resemble--only with all the physiognomical characteristics softened down.--The Kols have a similar cast of face."

This is the evidence of a competent observer to the fact of the Bodo &c. being, more or less, what is called Mongol; all the more valuable because he had not, then, recognized their language as monosyllabic. Meanwhile he never separates them from the Kols &c. but always connects the two. In other words, he gives us so much evidence to the fact of the Kols &c. being, more or less, Mongol also. But the Kols are the aborigines of India; whilst the Bodo are Tibetan.

NOTE (1859).

Recent researches have a tendency to make the Kols less Tamul and more Tibetan than they were held to be in 1849.

ON THE AFFINITIES OF THE LANGUAGES OF CAUCASUS WITH THE MONOSYLLABIC LANGUAGES.

READ AT THE

MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION AT CAMBRIDGE 1845.

Taking the samples of the Georgian, Lesgian, Mizhdzhedzhi, and Circassian classes as we find them in the Asia Polyglotta and comparing them with the specimens of the monosyllabic languages in the same work, in Brown's Tables, and in Leyden's paper on the Indo-Chinese Languages, we find the following coincidences.[7]

[Footnote 7: In the Asiatic Transactions of Bengal and the Asiatic Researches.--Figure 1. denotes the Caucasian, Figure 2. monosyllabic forms of speech. This list was first _published_ in 1850, in my Varieties of Man--_pp_ 123-128.]

_English_, sky 1. Circassian, _whapeh_, _wuafe_ 2. Aka, _aupa_ Khamti, _fa_

_English_, sky 1. Absné, _kaukh_ Altekesek, _hak_ 2. Akush, _kaka_ Burmese, _kydukkhe_

_English_, sky 1. Tshetshentsh, _tulak_ 2. Koreng, _talo_ Khoibu, _thullung_

_English_, sun 1. Georgian, _mse_ Mingrelian, _bsha_ Suanic, _mizh_ 2. Kuan-chua, _zhi_ Sianlo, _suu_

_English_, fire 1. Absné, _mza_ Circassian, _mafa_ 2. Khamti, _fai_ Siam, _fai_ Aka, _umma_ Aber, _eme_ Burmese, _mi_ Karyen, _me_ Manipur, _mai_ Songphu, _mai_ Kapwi, &c., _mai_

_English_, day 1. Tshetshentsh, _dini_ Ingúsh, _den_ Kasikumuk, _kini_ 2. Koreng, _nin_ Jili, _tana_ Singpho, _sini_

_English_, day 1. Andi, _thyal_ 2. Garo, _salo_

_English_, moon 1. Georgian, _twai_ = _month_ Suanic, _twai_ 2. Moitay, _ta_

_English_, star 1. Kasikumuk, _zuka_ 2. Garo, _asake_ Jili, _sakan_ Singpho, _sagan_

_English_, hill 1. Kasikumuk, _suntu_ 2. Chinese, _shan_

_English_, earth 1. Absné, _tshullah_ Altekesek, _tzula_ 2. Kapwi, _talai_ Khoibu, _thalai_

_English_, earth 1. Andi, _zkhur_ 2. Mishimi, _tari_

_English_, earth 1. Dido, _tshedo_ 2. Koreng, _kadi_

_English_, snow 1. Lesgian, _asu_ Circassian, _uas_ Abassian, _asse_ 2. Chinese, _siwe_

_English_, salt 1. Lesgian [8](3), _zam_ 2. Chinese, _yan_

_English_, salt 1. Kabutsh, _tshea_ Dido, _zio_ Kasikumuk, _psu_ Akush, _dze_ 2. Tibetan, _tsha_

_English_, dust 1. Tshetshentsh, _tshen_ 2. Chinese, _tshin_

_English_, sand 1. Avar, _tshimig_ 2. Tibetan, _bydzoma_

_English_, sand 1. Circassian, _pshakhoh_ 2. Chinese, _sha_

_English_, leaf 1. Tshetshentsh, _ga_ Ingush, _ga_ 2. Chinese, _ye_

_English_, tree 1. Mizjeji, _che_ Circassian, _dzeg_ 2. Chinese, _shu_

_English_, stone 1. Andi, _hinzo_ 2. Siamese, _hin_

_English_, sea 1. Georgian, _sgwa_ 2. Chinese, _shuy_ = _water_ Tibet, _çi_ = _do_ Môn, _zhe_ = _do_ Ava, _te_ = _do_

_English_, river 1. Anzukh, _or kyare_ Avar, _hor_, _khor_ 2. Champhung, _urai_

_English_, river 1. Abassian, _aji_ 2. Tibetan, _tshavo_

_English_, river 1. Altekesek, _sedu_ Absné, _dzedu_ 2. Songphu, _duidai_

_English_, water 1. Kasikumuk, _sin_ Akush, _shen_ Kubitsh, _tzun_, _sin_ 2. Singpho, _ntsin_ Jili, _mchin_ Manipur, _ising_

_English_, water 1. Absné, _dzeh_ 2. Songphu, _dui_ Kapwi, _tui_ Tankhul, _tu_

_English_, water 1. Mizjeji, _chi_ 2. Garo, _chi_

_English_, rain 1. Andi, _za_ Ingush, _du_ Abassian, _kua_ 2. Chinese, _yu_

_English_, summer 1. Tushi, _chko_ Mizjeji, _achke_ 2. Chinese, _chia_

_English_, winter 1. Anzukh, _tlin_ Andi, _klinu_ Kasikumuk, _kintul_ Akush, _chani_ Absné, _gene_ 2. Tibetan, _r gun_ Chinese, _tung_

_English_, cow 1. Circassian, _bsa_ 2. Tibetan, _r shu_

_English_, dog 1. Avar, _choi_ Andi, _choi_ Dido, _gwai_ Kubitsh, _koy_ Circassian, _khhah_ 2. Chinese, _keu_ Tibetan, _kyi_

_English_, horse 1. Lesgian, _tshu_ Circassian, _tshe_, _shu_ 2. Tibetan, _r dda_

_English_, bird 1. Avar, _hedo_ 2. Tankhul, _ata_

_English_, bird 1. Andi, _purtie_ 2. Abor, _pettang_ Aka, _pútah_

_English_, fish 1. Avar, _tshua_ Circassian, _bbzheh_ 2. Khamti, _pa_ Siamese, _pla_ Aka, _ngay_ Abor, _engo_ Burmese, _nga_ Karyen, _nga_ Singpho, _nga_ Songphu, _kha_ Mishimi, _ta_ Maram, _khai_ Luhuppa, _khai_ Tankhul, _khi_ Anam, _khi_

_English_, flesh 1. Kabutsh, _kho_ Abassian, _zheh_ 2. Chinese, _shou_ Tibetan, _zhsha_

_English_, egg 1. Tshetshentsh, _khua_ 2. Khamti, _khai_ Siamese, _khai_

_English_, egg 1. Kabutsh, _tshemuza_ 2. Mishimi, _mtiumaie_

_English_, egg 1. Akush, _dukhi_ 2. Garo, _to`ka_

_English_, son 1. Mizjeji, _ua_, _woe_ 2. Tibetan, _bu_

_English_, hair 1. Kasikumuk, _tshara_ 2. Jili, _kara_ Singpho, _kara_

_English_, hair 1. Avar, _sab_ Anzukh, _sab_ Tshari, _sab_ 2. Burmese, _shaben_ Manipur, _sam_ Songpho (6), _sam_

_English_, hair 1. Tshetshentsh, _kazeresh_ 2. Karyen, _khosu_ Tankhul, _kosen_

_English_, head 1. Georgian, _tawi_ Lazic, _ti_ Suanic, _tchum_ 2. Chinese, _teu_, _seu_ Anam, _tu ḋ u_ Ava, _kang_ (5)

_English_, head 1. Andi, _mier_, _maœr_ 2. Assam, _mur_

_English_, head 1. Absné, _kah_, _aka_ Altekesek, _zeka_ 2. Karen, _kho_ Manipur, _kok_ Taukhul, _akao_

_English_, mouth 1. Lesgian, _kall_ 2. Chinese, _keu_ Anamese, _kau_ Tibetan, _ka_

_English_, mouth 1. Tushi, _bak_ 2. Teina, _pak_

_English_, mouth 1. Georgian, _piri_ Mingrelian, _pidehi_ Suanic, _pil_ 2. Ava, _parat_ (4)

_English_, mouth 1. Kubitsh, _mole_ 2. Khoibu, _mur_ Maring, _mur_

_English_, mouth 1. Andi, _kol_, _tkol_ Lesgian (3), _kaal_ 2. Manipur, _chil_

_English_, eye 1. Andi, _puni_ 2. Chinese, _yan_

_English_, ear 1. Avar, _een_, _ain_, _en_ Anzukh, _in_ Tshari, _een_, _ein_ Andi, _kanka_, _andika_ 2. Burmese, _na_ Karen, _naku_ Singpho, _na_ Songphu, _anhukon_ Kapwi, _kana_ Koreng, _kon_ Maram, _inkon_ Champhung, _khunu_ Luhuppa, _khana_ Tankhul, _akhana_ Koibu, _khana_

_English_, tooth 1. Lesgian (3), _sibi_ Avar, _zavi_ Circassian, _dzeh_ 2. Tibetan, _so_ Chinese, _tshi_

_English_, tongue 1. Circassian, _bbse_ Absné, _ibs_ 2. Tibetan, _rdzhe_ Chinese, _shi_

_English_, foot 1. Kasikumuk, _dzhan_ 2. Khamti, _tin_

_English_, foot 1. Mizjeji (3), _kog_, _koeg_ 2. Manipur, _khong_ Tankhul, _akho_

_English_, foot 1. Andi, _tsheka_ Kubitsh, _tag_ Jili, _takkhyai_ 2. Garo, _jachok_

_English_, foot 1. Georgian, _pechi_ 2. Maplu, _pokâ_ = _leg_

_English_, finger 1. Mingrelian, _kiti_ Moitay, _khoit_ = _hand_ 2. Play, _kozu_ = _do_

_English_, hand 1. Georgian, _chéli_ Lazic, _ieh_ Mingrelian, _ché_ Suanic, _shi_ 2. Chinese, _sheu_

_English_, hand 1. Andi, _katshu_ Kabutsh, _koda_ 2. Khoibu, _khut_ Manipur, _khut_

_English_, blood 1. Absné, _tsha_, _sha_ Tshetshentsh, _zi_ Ingús, _zi_ 2. Singpho, _sai_ Songpho, _zyai_ Kapwi, _the_ Maram, _azyi_ Champhung, _azi_ Luhuppa, _ashi_ Tankhul, _asu_

_English_, blood 1. Dido, _é_ 2. Manipur, _i_ Koibu, _hi_ Maring, _hi_

_English_, blood 1. Tshetshentsh, _yioh_ Circassian, _tlih_ 2. Chinese, _chine_

_English_, skin 1. Circassian, _ffeh_ 2. Chinese, _pi_

_English_, skin 1. Dido, _bik_ 2. Tibetan, _shbagsbba_

_English_, bone 1. Tshetshentsh, _dyackt_ Ingúsh, _tekhh_ Akúsh, _likka_ Tshari, _rekka_ 2. Khamti, _nuk_ Siamese, _kraduk_

_English_, great 1. Georgian, _didi_ Mingrelian, _didi_ 2. Canton, _ta_ Kuan-chua, _ta_, _da_ Tonkin, _drai_ Cochin-chinese, _dai_ Tibet, _çe_ Ava, _kyi_ (5) Play, _du_ Teina, _to_

_English_, bad 1. Mingrelian, _moglach_ Suanic, _choya_ 2. Chinese, _go gok_ Môn, _kah_ Ava, _makaung_ (4) ---- _gye_ (2)

_English_, warm 1. Ingush, _tau_ 2. Tibetan, _dzho_

_English_, blue 1. Mizjeji (3), _siene_ 2. Chinese, _zing_ Tibetan, _swongbba_

_English_, yellow 1. Circassian, _khozh_ 2. Abassian, _kha_ Chinese, _chuang_

_English_, green 1. Avar, _ursheria_ Anzukh, _ordjin_ Ingush, _send_ 2. Tibetan, _shjanggu_

_English_, below 1. Georgian, _kwewrt_, _kwerno_ 2. Ava, _haukma_ Yo, _auk_ Passuko, _hoko_ Kolaun, _akoa_

_English_, one 1. Lesgian, _zo_ Akush, _za_ Andi, _sew_ Dido, _zis_ Kasikumuk, _zabá_ Mizjeji, _tza_ Abassian, _seka_ 2. Tibetan, _dzig_

_English_, three 1. Georgian, _sami_ Lazic, _jum_ Mingrelian, _sami_ Suanic, _semi_ 2. Canton Chinese, _sam_ Kuanchua, _san_ Tonkin, _tam_ Tibetan, _sum_ Môn, _sum_ Ava, _thaum_ Siam, _sum_

_English_, four 1. Abassian, _pshi ba_ 2. Tibetan, _bshi_ Chinese, _szu_

_English_, five 1. Georgian, _chuthi_ Lazic, _chut_ Mingrelian, _chuthi_ Suanic, _wochu'si_ 2. Ava, _yadu_

_English_, six 1. Tshetshentsh, _yatsh_ Ingush, _yatsh_ Tushi, _itsh_ 2. Tibetan, _dzhug_

_English_, nine 1. Circassian, _bgu_ 2. Tibetan, _rgu_ Chinese, _kieu_

_English_, ten 1. Circassian, _pshe_ Abassian, _zheba_ 2. Tibetan, _bdzhu_ Chinese, _shi_

[Footnote 8: This means in three dialects.]

ADDENDA (1859).

The limited amount of the _data_ must be borne in mind. As has been stated, no vocabularies beyond those of the four works enumerated were used. Had the comparison been more extended, the evidence of the Tibetan affinities of the languages under notice would have been stronger. That this would have been the case has since been proved.

In 1849, just before the publication of my Varieties of Man, I found from my friend Mr. Norris that, upon _grammatical_ grounds, he had come to the same conclusion. A reference to the, then, recently published contributions of Rosen satisfied me that this was the case. The following is an abstract of his exposition of the structure of (1) the Iron, and (2) the Circassian.

(1)

IRON.

The Declension of Substantives is as follows;

_Singular._ _Plural._ _Nom._ fid (_father_) fid-t`-a _Gen._ fid-i fid-t`-i _Dat._ fid-én fid-t`-am _Abl._ fid-éi fid-t`-éi

_Nom._ moi (_husband_) moi-t`-a _Gen._ moi-i moi-t`-i _Dat._ moi-én moi-t`-am _Abl._ moi-éi moi-t`-éi.

The Comparative Degree is formed by the addition of _-dar_; as _chorz_ = _good_, _chorz-dar_ = _better_.

The pronouns of the two first persons are as follows;

1. _Az_ = _I_. Defective in the oblique cases. _Man_ or ma, defective.

2. _Di_ = _Thou_. Defective in the nominative singular.

_Sing._ _Plural._ _Nom._ -- mach _Gen._ man-i mach-i _Dat._ man-an mach-én _Accus._ man mach _Abl._ man-éi mach-éi.

_Nom._ di si-mach _Gen._ daw-i[9] si-mach-i _Dat._ daw-on si-mach-én _Accus._ daw si-mach _Abl._ daw-éi si-mach-éi.

[Footnote 9: _Or_ dachi.]

The signs of the persons of the verbs are _-in_, _-is_, _-i_; _-am_ _-ut`_, _-inc`_; _e. g._

qus-_in_ = aud-_io_ qus-_am_ = aud-_imus_ qus-_is_ = aud-_is_ qus-_ut`_ = aud-_itis_ qus-_i_ = aud-_it_ qus-_inc`_ = aud-_iunt_.

The addition of the sound of _t_ _helps_ to form the Irôn preterite. I say _helps_, because if we compare the form _s_-_ko_-t-_on_ = _I made_, with the root _kan_, or the form _fé_-_qus_-t-_on_ = _I heard_, with the root _qus_, we see, at once, that the addition of _t_ is only a _part_ of an inflection.

Beyond this, the tenses become complicated; and that because they are evidently formed by the agglutination of separate words; the so-called imperfect being undoubtedly formed by affixing the preterite form of the word _to make_. The perfect and future seem to be similarly formed, dele from the auxiliary = _be_; as may be collected from the following paradigms.

1.

_Plural--Present_, st-am, st-ut, i-st-i = _sumus_, _estis_, _sunt_. _Singular--Preterite_, u-t-an, u-t-as, u-d-i = _fui_, _fuisti_, _fuit_. _Singular--Future_, u-gín-an, u-gín-as, u-gén-i = _ero_, _eris_, _erit_. _Imperative_ fau = _esto_.

2.

_Root_, k`an = _make_. _Preterite_, = s-k`o-t-on,[10] s-k`o-t-ai, s-k`o-t-a = _feci_, _fecisti_, _fecit_.

[Footnote 10: Or fa-ko-t-on, &c.]

3.

_Root_, kus = _hear_.