Imágenes de páginas

§ 89. i, i, between the end of the root and the suffix, e.g. bōdh-i-tavya-, ✔budh (know); grah-i-tavya-, √grah (take). Examples of the shortened form of the sff. are found in Vedic ki-trya-, later kŕ-tya-, √kar (make); therefore we must probably assume -tyato have arisen from -trya-, also in forms in -tya-, which have no parallel Vēdic -tvya-, as e.g. in i-tya-, √i (go); stú-tya-, √stu (praise); bhr-tya-, bhar (bear), and the like. It is however strange to find such root-vowels unraised or weakened. Vedic kár-tva- (faciendus, as ntr. subst. kár-tva-m opus) is accordingly to be explained as formed from *kar-tv-ya-, stem kár-tu- (v. post.) by means of -ya-; here y has been lost, whilst v is retained. The function of this form distinctly points to this explanation.

Since -iya- is identical with -iya-,-the vowel being lengthened before y, as happens frequently (§ 15, 2, a),—and since -iyamay moreover stand for -ya- (§ 15, 2, b), we may confidently assume that the participia necessitatis in -aniya- correspond in their sf. to a fundamental form -an-ya- from *-ana-ya- (the loss of final a in -ana- before -ya- is regular, cf. § 14, 1, b), and therefore are formed by means of the same sf. -ya-, which we have already found used in this function, cf. bhrātr-īya- (brother's son, origly. 'fraternal') and pítr-ya- (paternal); parvat-īya- (hill-) from parvata- (hill), and ráth-ya- (waggon-) from rátha- (waggon); etc. The sf. -iya- is thus=-ya-. This sf. -îya-=-ya- is added to a nomen actionis in -ana- (as in -tav-ya-, -tv-ya-, it is to a similar one in -tu-; on nouns in -ana- v. post.), which, as aforesaid, regularly loses its final -a before -ya-. This sf. -aniya- also has the root-vowel almost always raised a step, e.g. stav-anīya-, √stu (praise); gay-aniya-, √ģi (conquer); dă-niya-=*dā-anīya-, √da (give); but kar-aniya-, √kar (make); pak-anīya-, √pak (cook), etc. Verb-stems in -aya- lose this whole sf. before -aniya-, e.g. kōr-aniya-, st. kōr-áya- (steal).

In the Vedic we find also sf. -én-ya- thus employed; herein we can hardly fail to recognize a variation of f.f. -an-ya-; ēn

has arisen from an probably through the influence of the fol- § 89. lowing y, e.g. uç-énya-, √vaç (wish); yet we find also vár-ēnya-, √var (choose) with accented root.

Greek. Here too. -ya- as a secondary sf. is very common, e.g. πáтρ-10- (paternal), πατρ-iá (f. race), from stem πаτéρ(father); owτnp-to- (saving), owтnp-ía (rescue), stem owτýρ(saviour); Téλeto- for *teλeo-yo- (§ 65, 2, c; complete), stem TÉλes- (ntr. sg. Téλos end); åλý¤eia, i.e. *åλn0eo-ya (truth), stem ἀληθέσ- (adj. true); θαυμάσιο- (wonderful) for *θαυματ-ιο (§ 68, 1, c), stem laûμaт- (ntr., n. sg. Oaûμa wonder); Síka-to(just), stem díka- (fem., n. sg. Síêŋ justice); πńxv-ɩ- (adj. elllong) from πxυ- (masc., n. sg. πĥxʊ-s cubit), etc. Here also, before sf.-to-=origl. -ya-, the stem-termination o=origl. a is lost, e.g. oйpáv-10- (heavenly), stem ovpavó- (masc., heaven); πотáμ-ιο- (river-), stem πоτаμó- (masc. river), etc. Here belong also the stems of participles and other consonantal stems used in fem. alone, like φέρουσα, i.e. *φεροντ-ψα; λελοιπυΐα, i.e. *λελοιπυσ-ψα, *-υτ-ψα; δότειρα, i.e. *δοτερ-ψα; μέλαινα=*μελαν-ya, etc.

The form exactly corresponding to the Sk. part. in -táv-ya- is in Gk. -τéo-, i.e. *-Te-Fyo-, e.g. So-Téo-, Sk. dā-tar-ya-, √do (give); ἰ-τέο-, vi (go); πλεκ-τέο-, ν πλεκ (twist); θρεπ-τέο-, Vτρεφ (rear) ; πεισ-τέο-, νπιθ, pres. πείθ-ω, aor. ἔ-πιθ-ον (persuade); etc. Perhaps we ought to place here the forms in -σia for -τια, e.g. εὐεργεσία from -τία, cf. εὐεργέτης ; ἀκαθαρσία, cf. ȧкálaρтo-s, etc.; this -Ta may in other cases have also been developed from origl. sf. -ti- (§ 98).

Latin. -ya- as secondary suffix, e.g. in patr-io- (adj. patrius), fem. subst. patr-ia, from pater-, praetor-io- from praetor-, victor-ia from victor-, scient-ia from scient- (sciens), rēg-io- from reg- (rex); audac-ia from audac- (audax); princip-iofrom princip (princeps), nefar-io- from nefas, sacerdot-io- from sacerdot-, etc. Here also the origl. final a of stem is lost before -ya-, e.g. domin-io- (dominium) from domino (dominus), somn-i

§ 89. (somnium) from somno- (somnus), colleg-io- (collegium) from collega, etc.

Note 1.-Adjs. in -tīuo-, as nā-tiuo-, ac-tiuo-, have been compared to Sk. -tavya-, though they do not coincide in function. From -tavya- is said to have arisen -tairya-, by insertion of i (from y following) into the preceding syllable, thence -taiva-, -teivo-, -tiuo-. However there is no very strong reason for identifying Lat. -tiuo- with Sk. -tavya-, a comparison which is moreover phonetically very doubtful. It is possible that they are new formations in Latin, from stem nāto-, acto-, etc.; cf. noc-iuo- beside nocuo-, and mortuo- for the form *mor-to-, which we should have expected.

Note 2.-In Latin the participium necessitatis ends in -endo-, earlier -undo-, e.g. dic-endo-, dic-undo-, etc. In the former part of this sf., en, un, hence earlier on, we may probably recognize the an of the Sk. an-iya-: the -do- is prob. the sf. -do- so common in Latin, e.g. cali-do-, uali-do-, timi-do-, etc., beside calēre, ualere, timère, etc.; in uiri-di- beside uirere, -di- appears. This -do- probably is derived from the same verb-root da (Lat. dare, which has, however, apparently become confounded with origl. √dha 'facere'), which we see in cré-do, con-do, etc. Cf. formations like ira-c-un-do-, rubi-c-un-do-, uere-c-un-do-, fa-c-un-do-, in which the relation of necessity is not found,—a relation which is not really essential to forms in -un-do-, -en-do-, -n-do- (Corssen, Krit. Beitr. 120 sqq., and Krit. Nachtr. p. 133 sqq.); -bu-n-doin fur-i-bu-n-do, treme-bu-n-do-, must be treated as a part. necess. of origl. bhu, Lat. fu. Accordingly we recognize in -do-, the latter part of this sf., a new formation in Latin. We can scarcely assume that the f.f. -an-ya- (v. supr.) has in an exceptional way in the first place become *-an-dya- by insertion of d before y, as not unfrequently happens in the languages, e.g. middle-Lat. madius for earlier maius, Gk. (vyóv, i.e. *Syuyov, Sk. and f.f. yugám; from which form *-an-dya- the loss of y would then have to be assumed in the same way as perhaps in minus for *minius, -bus sf. of dat. abl. pl. for *-bius (v. post. declension), so that e.g. coqu-en-do- (coquendus) would stand for *coquen-dyo-, *coquen-yo-, f.f. kakan-ya-Sk. pakaniya- (G. Curt. Gk. Etym.? 590 sqq.). However, as regards Lat., interchange of d and is not capable of proof; on the contrary, this language shows a tendency towards accumulation of suffixes and suffixative composition with verb-roots, as e.g. -cro- (laua-cru-m, sepul-cru-m), √kar (make); -bo- (acer-bu-s, mor-bu-s, super-bu-s) for *bhro


from bhu (be); here probably we must reckon -bili- (sta-bili-s, § 89. fle-bili-s, comprehensi-bili-s, flexi-bili-s) and -bulo- (sta-bulu-m, fa-bula), further formations of this -bo- (these forms are otherwise explained by others); -bro-, -bra- (candela-bru-m, light-bearer; in this example probably no one will deny the derivation of -brofrom bhar (bear); uerte-bra, late-bra), from bhar (bear); -gno- (mali-gnu-s), vgan (beget); -ig- (rem-ig-, n. sg. remex), Vag (drive, do).

VI. Stems with suffix -va-.

Stems with sf. -va- are found in every Indo-Europ. language; in Lat. and Sclavonic, amongst others, it is a favourite suffix. Stems in -van- are akin to these, and are seen especially in Sk. The sf. -vant- we treat hereafter separately.

Indo-European original language. Certainly demonstrable is ak-va- (masc. horse), vak (run; cf. āk-u- quick).

Sanskrit. áç-va- (masc. horse), √aç (cf. ãç-ú- quick); é-va(masc. going), √i (go); pád-va- (masc. way, waggon), √pad (go); pak-vá- (adj. cooked), √pak (cook); ūrdh-vá- (directed upwards, raised), i.e. *ardhva- (§ 7, 2), √ardh (grow), etc.

-van- is akin, e.g. pád-van- (masc. way), cf. pád-va-; mád-van(intoxicating), √mad (become intoxicated); ŕk-van- (praising), beside ŕk-vant and rk-vá-, √ark (praise), etc.

Greek. On account of the loss of v in Gk. the sff. in question are hard to recognize. Clearly we may place here e.g. ππо- (horse) for *ik-Fo-Lat. equo-, origl. ak-va-, etc. ; πoλλó(many, collateral form to woλú-) from *πoλ-Fo-, f.f. par-va-, √par (fill); in some other cases the root cannot be further traced, as e.g. Xai-Fó-=Lat. lae-uo- (left); öλo-, Iôn. ovλo(whole), f.f. *óx-Fo-Lat. sollo- from *sol-vo-, Sk. sár-va-, etc.

The sf. -van- is seen in al-Fóv- (alóv lifetime, time), a lengthening from a presupposed ai-van- (cf. Lat. ae-uo-, Goth. ai-va-, Sk. é-va-), √i (go); perhaps also πéπ-ov- (n. sg. masc. Téπwν ripe) stands for *TETT-Fov-, cf. Sk. pak-vá-, √πeπ, origl. kak (cook).

Latin. The sf. origl. -va- is common; besides eq-uo- (horse)

§ 90.

§ 90. =origl. ak-va-; ard-uo- (steep)=Zend eredh-wa-, Sk. ùrdh-vá- ; ae-uo- (ntr. lifetime, age)=Sk. é-va- (masc. going), occur many other formations like noc-uo- (hurtful), noc (noc-ēre hurt); uac-uo- (empty), Vuac (cf. uacare be empty); per-spic-uo- (perspicuous), spec (specere see); de-cid-uo- (falling off), √cad (cadere fall); re-sid-uo- (remaining), √sed (sedere sit); ar-uo(ploughed, ar-uo-m ploughed field), √ar (arāre plough); al-uo(fem. belly), √al (alere nourish), etc.

Here belong also formations in -iuo-, like noci-uo- (hurtful); uaci-uo- (empty), capti-uo- (captive), etc., which are formed as if there were parallel forms *noci-re, *uacī-re, *captī-re.

The suffix -vant-, forming a past part. act., whose original existence is proved by the correspondence of the Aryan, Greek, and Sclavonic, is probably compounded of -va- and -nt-=-ant(§ 101). With -vant- may be compared the origl. sf. -yant-, which also probably consists of -ya- and -ant- (v. post. ‘Comparative'), and sf. -mant- (§ 91), which is similarly formed from -ma- and -ant-, so that we have a scale -ant-, -yant-, -vant-, -mant-, to which -an-, -yan-, -van-, -man-, and -a-, -ya-, -va-, -maare parallel.

The function of this -vant- is (like that of -mant-) that of expressing the 'having' the possession of something. The perf. part. and the perf. itself are in many languages expressed by means of possessive elements (e.g. Finnish, Magyar, the Cassia language, etc.), as is indeed the case also in the periphrasis by means of the auxil. verb 'have.' A form vi-vid-vant-, lit. 'having knowing or knowledge,' is not originally different, in point of suffix, from arkta-vant- 'bear-having.'

The sf. -vant-, which, as forming participles, is a primary sf., occurs also as a secondary suffix, e.g. Sanskrit áçva-vant- (provided with horses; n. sg. masc. áçva-vān, acc. sg. áçva-vant-am, gen. sg. áçva-vat-as, n. pl. masc. -vant-as, etc.), fem. áçva-vati, i.e. -vat-yā (cf. § 15, c), with loss of n, as in similar cases; vásu-vant- (furnished with riches); virá-vant- (possessed of

« AnteriorContinuar »