Part 7

Ef frá tilsyndar- punkti hleyptu _ser_ planetur fram, ok _mættust_ miklum gny ó midjum himni. B. 6.

Similar to this are the phrases _vi se os igjen_, we see us (each other) again, in Danish, and _wir sehen uns wieder_, in German. Examples from the M. H. G. are given in the D. G. iv. The Turkish sign of the reciprocal verb is identical with the demonstrative pronoun, _i. e._ [Turkish: şin]. This may possibly indicate a connection between the two forms.

Other points upon the subject in hand may be collected from the Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 13. 82; iv. 454. Here the adverbial character of the M. H. G. _einander_ for _einandern_, the omission of _ein_, as in _anander_ for _an einander_, and the omission (real or supposed) of _ander_ in "_wider ein_ = _wider einander_," are measures of the laxity of language caused by the peculiarity of the combination in question. At present it is sufficient to repeat the statement, that for one group of languages at least there is satisfactory proof of certain deponents having originally been reciprocal, and of certain reciprocal expressions having originally been reflective.

ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE IDEAS OF ASSOCIATION AND PLURALITY AS AN INFLUENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF INFLECTION.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY. MARCH 9, 1849.

It is well-known that by referring to that part of the Deutsche Grammatik which explains those participial forms which (like _y-cleped_ in English, and like _ge-sprochen_ and the participles in general in German) begin with _ge_ or _y_, the following doctrines respecting this same prefix may be collected:--

1. That it has certainly grown out of the fuller forms _ka_ or _ga_.

2. That it has, probably, grown out of a still fuller form _kam_ or _gam_.

3. That this fuller form is the Gothic equivalent of the Latin _cum_ = _with_.

Such are the views respecting the _form_ of the word in question. Respecting its _meaning_, the following points seem to be made out:--

1. That when prefixed to nouns (as is, not rarely, the case), it carries with it the idea of _association_ or _collection_:--M. G. _sinþs_ = _a journey_, _ga-sinþa_ = _a companion_; O. M. G. _perc_ = _hill_; _ki-pirki_ = (_ge-birge_) _a range of hills_.

2. That it has also a _frequentative_ power. Things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association:--M. H. G. _ge-rassel_ = _rustling_; _ge-rumpel_ = _crumpling_.

3. That it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality:--

A.-S. Eng. A.S. Latin. feax _hair_, _ge_-feax _comatus_. heorte _heart_, _ge_-heort _cordatus_.

This is because every object is associated with the object that possesses it--_a sea with waves_ = _a wavy sea_.

The present writer has little doubt that the Tumali grammar of Dr. Tutshek supplies a similar (and at the same time a very intelligible) application of a particle equivalent to the Latin _cum_.

He believes that the Tumali word = _with_ is what would commonly be called the sign of the plural number of the personal pronouns; just as _me-cum_ and _te-cum_ would become equivalents to _nos_ and _vos_, if the first syllables were nominative instead of oblique, and if the preposition denoted indefinite conjunction. In such a case

_mecum_ would mean _I conjointly_ = _we_, _tecum_ would mean _thou conjointly_ = _ye_.

Such is the illustration of the possible power of a possible combination. The reasons for thinking it to have a reality in one language at least lie in the following forms:--

1. The Tumali word for _with_ is _da_.

2. The Tumali words for _I_, _thou_, and _he_ respectively are _ngi_, _ngo_, _ngu_.

3. The Tumali words for _we_, _ye_, _they_ are _ngin-de_, _ngon-da_, _ngen-da_ respectively.

4. The Tumali substantives have no such plural. With them it is formed on a totally different principle.

5. The Tumali adjectives have no plural at all.

6. The Tumali numerals (even those which express more than unity and are, therefore, _naturally_ plural) _have_ a plural. When, however, it occurs, it is formed on the same principle as that of the plurals of the substantive.

7. The word _da_ = _with_ is, in Tumali, of a more varied application than any other particle; and that both as a _pre_-position and a _post_-position:--_daura_ = _soon_ (_da_ = _in_, _aura_ = _neighbourhood_); _datom_ = _in_ (_with_) _front_ (_face_); _d-ondul_ = _roundabout_ (_ondul_ = _circle_); _dale_ = _near_ (_le_ = _side_), &c.

8. Prepositions, which there is every reason to believe are already compounded with _da_, allow even a second _da_, to precede the word which they govern:--_daber deling_ = _over the earth_ (_ber_ = _earth_).

9. The ideas _with me_, _with thee_, _with him_, are expressed by _ngi-dan_, _ngo-dan_, and _ngu-dan_ respectively; but the ideas of _with us_, _with you_, _with them_ are _not_ expressed by _nginde-dan_, _ngonda-dan_, _ngenda-dan_; but by peculiar words--_tinem_ = _with us_; _toman_ = _with you_; _tenan_ = _with them_.

On the other hand, the following fact is, as far as it goes, against this view, a fact upon which others may lay more stress than the present writer. "_Da_ admits of a very varied application. Respecting its form the following should be observed: (_a._) That _a_ may be elided when it happens to stand as a preposition before words which begin with a vowel: for instance, _ardgen_, 'the valley'; _dardgen_, 'in the valley'; _ondul_, 'the circle'; _dondul_, 'round about in the circle'. (_b._) It changes its _a_ into _ê_, _e_, _i_, _o_, _u_, according to the vowel of the syllable before which the _da_ is placed, or even without any regard to it. Instances of this are found in _diring_, _dorong_, &c.; further instances are, _doromko_, 'into the hut' (_rom_); _dètum_ or _dotum_, 'in the grave.' (_c._) As a postposition it appends an _n_: _adgdan_, 'on the head'; _aneredan_, 'on the day.'" Taking the third of these rules literally, the plural pronouns should end in _dan_ rather than in _da_ and _de_.

It is considered that over and above the light that this particular formation (if real) may throw upon the various methods by which an inflection like that of the plural number may be evolved, and more especially upon the important but neglected phænomena of the so-called _inclusive_ and _exclusive_ plurals, many other points of general grammar may be illustrated.

ON THE WORD _CUJUM_.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, MARCH 9, 1849.

The writer wishes to make the word _cujum_, as found in a well-known quotation from the third eclogue of Virgil,--

Dic mihi Damæta _cujum_ pecus?

the basis of some remarks which are meant to be suggestions rather than doctrines.

In the second edition of a work upon the English language, he devoted an additional chapter to the consideration of the grammatical position of the words _mine_ and _thine_, respecting which he then considered (and still considers) himself correct in assuming that the current doctrine concerning them was, that they were, in origin, genitive or possessive cases, and that they were adjectives only in a secondary sense. Now whatever was then written upon this subject was written with the view of recording an opinion in favour of exactly the opposite doctrine, viz. that they were originally adjectives, but that afterwards they took the appearance of oblique cases. Hence for words like _mine_ and _thine_ there are two views:--

1. That they were originally _cases_, and _adjectives_ only in a secondary manner.

2. That they were originally _adjectives_, and _cases_ only in a secondary manner.

In which predicament is the word _cujum_? If in the first, it supplies a remarkable instance of an unequivocally adjectival form, as tested by an inflection in the way of gender, having grown out of a case. If in the second, it shows how truly the converse may take place, since it cannot be doubted that whatever in this respect can be predicated of _cujus_ can be predicated of _ejus_ and _hujus_ as well.

Assuming this last position, it follows that if _cujus_ be originally a case, we have a proof how thoroughly it may _take_ a gender; whereas if it be originally an adjective, _ejus_ and _hujus_ (for by a previous assumption they are in the same category) are samples of the extent to which words like it may _lose_ one.

Now the termination _-us_ is the termination of an adjective, and is _not_ the termination of a genitive case; a fact that fixes the _onus probandi_ with those who insist upon the genitival character of the words in question. But as it is not likely that every one lays so much value upon this argument as is laid by the present writer, it is necessary to refer to two facts taken from the Greek:--

1. That the class of words itself is not a class which (as is often the case) naturally leads us to expect a variation from the usual inflections. The forms οὗ, οἷ, ἕ, and ὅς, οὗ, ὧ, are perfectly usual.

2. That the adjectives ὃς = ἑὸς,[1] κοῖος = ποῖος, and ὁῖος, are not only real forms, but forms of a common kind. Hence, if we consider the termination _-jus_ as a case-ending, we have a phænomenon in Latin for which we miss a Greek equivalent; whilst on the other hand, if we do not consider it as adjectival, we have the Greek forms ὁῖος, κοῖος = ποῖος and ὃς = ἑὸς, without any Latin ones. I do not say that this argument is, when taken alone, of any great weight. In doubtful cases, however, it is of value. In the present case it enables us to get rid of an inexplicable genitival form, at the expense of a slight deflection from the usual power of an adjective. And here it should be remembered that many of the arguments in favour of a case becoming an adjective are (to a certain extent) in favour of an adjective becoming a case--_to a certain extent_ and _to a certain extent_ only, because a change in one direction by no means necessarily implies a change in the reverse one, although it is something in favour of its probability.

[Footnote 1: hora for wora, κοῖος = _cujus_; ὁῖος = _hujus_; ἑὸς = _ejus_ (1859).]

Probably _unius_, _ullius_, _illius_, and _alterius_, are equally, as respects their origin, adjectival forms with _ejus_, _cujus_, and _hujus_.

Now it must not be concealed that one of the arguments which apply to words like _mine_ and _thine_ being adjectives rather than genitives, does not apply to words like _ejus_, _cujus_, and _hujus_. The reason is as follows; and it is exhibited in nearly the same words which have been used in the work already mentioned.--The idea of partition is one of the ideas expressed by the genitive case. The necessity for expressing this idea is an element in the necessity for evolving a genitive case. With personal pronouns of the singular number the idea of partition is of less frequent occurrence than with most other words, since a personal pronoun of the _singular_ number is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like _some of them_, _one of you_, _many of us_, _any of them_, _few of us_, &c., have no analogues in the singular number, such as _one of me_, _a few of thee_, &c. The partitive words that can combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few, viz. _half_, _quarter_, _part_, &c.; and they can all combine equally with plurals--_half of us_, _a quarter of them_, _a portion of us_. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language. This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the so-called _singular_ genitives, like _mine_ and _thine_, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural genitives _ou-r_, _you-r_, _the-ir_. The two ideas are not in the same predicament.

Again, the convenience of expressing the difference between _suus_ and _ejus_, is, to a certain extent, a reason for the evolution of a genitive case to words like _is_; but it is a reason to a certain extent only, and that extent a small one, since an equally convenient method of expressing the difference is to be found in the fact of there being two roots for the pronouns in question, the root from which we get _ea_, _id_, _eum_, _ejus_, &c., and the root from which we get _sui_, _sibi_, _suus_, &c.

Here the paper should end, for here ends the particular suggestion supplied by the word in question. Two questions however present themselves too forcibly to be wholly passed over:--

I. The great extent to which those who look in Latin for the same inflections that occur in Greek, must look for them under new names. That two tenses in Greek (the aorist like ἔ-τυπ-σα, and the perfect like τέ-τυφ-α) must be looked for in the so-called _double_ form of a _single_ tense in Latin (_vic-si_, _mo-mordi_) is one of the oldest facts of this sort. That the Greek participle in -μενος (τυπτόμενος) must be sought for in the passive persons in _-mini_ is a newer notice.

II. The fact that the character of the deflection that takes place between case and adjective is not _single_ but _double_. It goes both ways. The change from case to adjective is one process in philology; the change from adjective to case another; and both should be recognized. This is mentioned for the sake of stating, that except in a few details, there is nothing in the present remarks that is meant to be at variance with the facts and arguments of five papers already laid before this Society, viz. those of Mr. Garnett on the Formation of Words from Inflected Cases, and on the Analysis of the Verb.

The papers alluded to really deal with two series of facts:--(A.) _Deflection with identity of form._--In this the inflection is still considered an inflection, but is dealt with as one different from what it really is, _i. e._ as a nominative instead of an oblique one. Some years back the structure of the Finlandic suggested to the present writer:--

1. A series of changes in meaning whereby such a term as _with waves_ might equal _wavy_.

2. The existence of a class of words of which _sestertium_ was the type, where an oblique case, _with a convertible termination_, becomes a nominative.

3. The possible evolution of forms like _fluctuba_, _fluctubum_ = _fluctuosa_, _fluctuosum_, from forms like _fluctubus_.

Mr. Garnett has multiplied cases of this kind; his illustrations from the Basque being pre-eminently typical, _i. e._ like the form _sestertium_. If the modern vehicle called an _omnibus_ had been invented in ancient Rome, if it had had the same name as it has now, and if its plural form had been _omnibi_, it would also have been a typical instance.

Words of the hypothetical form _fluctuba_, _fluctubum_, have not been discovered. They would have existed if the word just quoted had been (if used in ancient Rome at all) used as an adjective, _omnibus currus_, _omniba esseda_, _omnibum plaustrum_.

(B.) _Deflection with superaddition._--Here the inflection is dealt with as if it were not inflectional but radical. This is the case with ἴφιος. Words like _it-_, as proved by the genitive _i-t-s_, and the so-called _petrified_ (_versteinerte_) nominative cases of the German grammarians, are of this class.

ON THE AORISTS IN -KA.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, MARCH 11, 1853.

A well-known rule in the Eton Greek Grammar may serve to introduce the subject of the present remarks:--"Quinque sunt aoristi primi qui futuri primi characteristicam non assumunt: ἔθηκα _posui_, ἔδωκα _dedi_, ἥκα _misi_, εἴπα _dixi_, ἥνεγκα _tuli_." The absolute accuracy of this sentence is no part of our considerations: it has merely been quoted for the sake of illustration.

What is the import of this abnormal κ? or, changing the expression, what is the explanation of the aorist in -κα? Is it certain that it _is_ an aorist? or, granting this, is it certain that its relations to the future are exceptional?

The present writer was at one time inclined to the doubts implied by the first of these alternatives, and gave some reasons[2] for making the form a _perfect_ rather than an aorist. He finds, however, that this is only shifting the difficulty. How do _perfects_ come to end in -κα? The typical and unequivocal perfects are formed by a reduplication at the beginning, and a modification of the final radical consonant at the end of words, τύπ(τ)ω, τέ-τυφ-α; and this is the origin of the χ in λέλεχα, &c., which represents the γ of the root. Hence, even if we allow ourselves to put the κ in ἔθηκα in the same category with the κ in ὀμώμοκα, &c., we are as far as ever from the true origin of the form.

[Footnote 2: English Language, p. 489.]

In this same category, however, the two words--and the classes they represent--_can_ be placed, notwithstanding some small difficulties of detail. At any rate, it is easier to refer ὀμώμοκα and ἔθηκα to the same tense than it is to do so with ὀμώμοκα and τέτυφα.

The next step is to be sought in Bopp's Comparative Grammar. Here we find the following extract:--"The old Slavonic _dakh_ 'I gave,' and analogous formations remind us, through their guttural, which _takes the place of a sibilant_, of the Greek aorists ἔθηκα, ἔδωκα, ἧκα. That which in the old Slavonic has become a rule in the first person of the three numbers, viz. the _gutturalization of an original s_, may have occasionally taken place in the Greek, but carried throughout all numbers. No conjecture lies closer at hand than that of regarding ἔδωκα _as a corruption of_ ἔδωσα," &c.... "The Lithuanian also presents a form which is akin to the Greek and Sanscrit aorist, in which, as it appears to me, _k assumes the place of an original s_." (vol. ii. p. 791, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation.) The italics indicate the words that most demand attention.

The old Slavonic inflection alluded to is as follows:--

SINGULAR. DUAL. PLURAL. 1. Nes-_och_ Nes-_ochowa_ Nes-_ochom_. 2. Nes-_e_ Nes-_osta_ Nes-_oste_. 3. Nes-_e_ Nes-_osta_ Nes-_osza_.

Now it is clear that the doctrine to which these extracts commit the author is that of the secondary or derivative character of the form of κ and the primary or fundamental character of the forms in σ. The former is deduced from the latter. And this is the doctrine which the present writer would reverse. He would just reverse it, agreeing with the distinguished scholar whom he quotes in the identification of the Greek form with the Slavonic. So much more common is the change from _k_, _g_ and the allied sounds, to _s_, _z_, &c., than that from _s_, _z_, &c. to _k_, _g_, that the _à priori_ probabilities are strongly against Bopp's view. Again, the languages that preeminently encourage the change are the Slavonic; yet it is just in these languages that the form in _k_ is assumed to be secondary. For _s_ to become _h_, and for _h_ to become _k_ (or _g_), is no improbable change: still, as compared with the transition from _k_ to _s_, it is exceedingly rare.

As few writers are better aware of the phænomena connected with the direction of letter-changes than the philologist before us, it may be worth while to ask, why he has ignored them in the present instances. He has probably done so because the Sanscrit forms were in _s_; the habit of considering whatever is the more Sanscrit of two forms to be the older being well-nigh universal. Nevertheless, the difference between a language which is old because it is represented by old samples of its literature, and a language which is old because it contains primary forms, is manifest upon a very little reflection. The positive argument, however, in favour of the _k_ being the older form, lies in the well-known phænomenon connected with the vowels _e_ and _i_, as opposed to _a_, _o_, and _u_. All the world over, _e_ and _i_ have a tendency to convert a _k_ or _g_, when it precedes them, into _s_, _z_, _sh_, _zh_, _ksh_, _gzh_, _tsh_, and _dzh_, or some similar sibilant. Hence, as often as a sign of tense consisting of _k_, is followed by a sign of person beginning with _e_ or _i_, an _s_ has chance of being evolved. In this case such a form as ἐφίλησα, ἐφίλησας, ἐφίλησε, may have originally run ἐφίληκα, ἐφίληκας, ἐφίληκε. The modified form in σ afterwards extends itself to the other persons and numbers. Such is the illustration of the hypothesis. An objection against it lies in the fact of the person which ends in a small vowel, being only one out of seven. On the other hand, however the third person singular is used more than all the others put together. With this influence of the small vowel other causes may have cooperated. Thus, when the root ended in κ or γ, the combination κ _radical_, and κ _inflexional_ would be awkward. It would give us such words as ἔλεκ-κα, &c.; words like τέτυπ-κα, ἔγραπ-κα, being but little better, at least in a language like the Greek.

The suggestions that now follow lead into a wide field of inquiry; and they may be considered, either on their merits as part of a separate question, or as part of the proof of the present doctrine. In this latter respect they are not altogether essential, _i. e._ they are more confirmatory if admitted than derogatory if denied. What if the future be derived from the aorist, instead of the aorist from the future? In this case we should increase what may be called our _dynamics_, by increasing the points of contact between a _k_ and a small vowel; this being the influence that determines the evolution of an _s_. All the persons of the future, except the first, have ε for one (at least) of these vowels--

τύψ-σ-ω, τύψ-σ-εις, τύψ-σ-ει, τύψ-ε-τον, &c.

The moods are equally efficient in the supply of small vowels.

The doctrine, then, now stands that _k_ is the older form, but that, through the influence of third persons singular, future forms, and conjunctive forms, so many _s_-es became developed, as to supersede it except in a few instances. The Latin language favours this view. There, the old future like _cap-s-o_, and the preterites like _vixi_ (_vic-si_) exhibit a small vowel in _all_ their persons, _e. g._ _vic-s-i_, _vic-s-isti_, _vic-s-it_, &c. Still the doctrine respecting this influence of the small vowel in the way of the developement of sibilants out of gutturals is defective until we find a real instance of the change assumed. As if, for the very purpose of illustrating the occasional value of obscure dialects, the interesting language of the Serbs of Lusatia and Cotbus supplies one. Here the form of the preterite is as follows; the Serb of Illyria and the Lithuanic being placed in juxtaposition and contrast with the Serb of Lusatia. Where a small vowel follows the characteristic of the tense the sound is that of _sz_; in other cases it is that of _ch_ (_kh_)

LUSATIAN. ILLYRIAN. LITHUANIC. LETTISH. Sing. 1. nos_zach_ _do_neso, donije nesziau nessu. 2. nosz_esze_ _do_nese, donije nesziei nessi. 3. nosz_esze_ _do_nese, donije nesziei nesse. Dual 1. nosz_achwe_ nesziewa 2. nosz_estaj_ neszieta 3. nosz_estaj_ neszie Plur. 1. nosz_achmy_ _do_nesosmo, donijesmo neszieme nessam. 2. nosz_eśće_ _do_nesoste, donijeste nesziete nessat. 3. nosz_achu_ _do_nesosze, donijesze neszie nesse.

IV.

METRICA.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CAESURA IN THE GREEK SENARIUS.

FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JUNE 23, 1843.