We must bestow a little consideration upon some very important words indicating relations of time into which this root kv (under certain regular varieties of form) enters with the demonstrative signification. The Sanscrit word for "yesterday" is hyas, the Greek xes, the Latin her-i from hes-i (hes-ternus, Sanscrit hyas-tanas), and the Gothic gis-tra. All these words manifestly contain the same element kv-, represented by hy- in the Sanscrit word, by z- in Greek, by the common aspirate in Latin, and the guttural in Gothic. A comparison of χθών, χθαμαλός, χαμαί, and humus, shows that χθ is occasionally represented by y or h only. We do not believe that the syllable as is, as Bopp suggests (Vergl. Gramm. p. 568), a mutilation of divas. In a word of such common use, an adjective pronoun signifying nearness might be used without any substantive, just as bruma (=brevima) is used for "the shortest day" without any addition of dies. The same root also enters into the Sanscrit word çvas (=kvas), Latin cras csas; these words imply nearness as well as hes-, &c., but as the nearness is predicated with a prospective and not a retrospective reference, a different form of the same root has been adopted. The word peren-die, "on another day" (para, "another," Sanscrit), should also signify "tomorrow," but all-powerful custom has assigned to it the meaning "on the day-after-tomorrow." The word vesper, έóлέo̟α, “evening," is made up of the pronoun ves(=hes=chthes =gis=hyas), and the pronominal adjective para, pera, which we have seen in peren-die, only here para is used in the sense of "late" or "after," as in parâhna, "the afternoon," "the latter part of the day" (from para, "after," and ahan, "a day"); the initial pronoun, retaining its signification of nearness, is applied by another change in the association to a part of the present day, and vesperus means "this day late" or "after this day." These transitions by association are all so many facts; the reason for them, though easily explained, are most easily felt; and it is better to investigate these curious timeadjectives by the application of such a simple principle, than by the hypothesis of almost impossible mutilations, as Bopp does. The word quéoa itself, the second part of which (uɛo-) is evidently the element of uέgos, may be connected with the Sanscrit root dyâ=jâ (compare nao, jecur, yak-rit, &c.): so that -uέo-a will signify "the light," "the part of the twenty-four hours during which the sun shines." Or rather, to go farther back, it may be the preposition dia, dya-ja, which appears in ἥμισυ=διάμεσος, and which we have no hesitation in recognising in the adjective ἥμερος, the regular antithesis to ἄγριος. Thus, too, we must compare ἡγεμών, ἡγεῖσθαι, with διάγω, δίοπος (sch. Pers. 44), &c.; for the preposition did seems particularly applicable to the functions of a leader or guide. We consider uɛoos as originally predicable of a country through which there was a road or passage, a country divided by a road (diάuegos), just as apoios was properly applied to a rude open country with nothing but άyooi. The Grammarians distinguish between ayotos and άyoɛios, and confine the local meaning to the latter (Bachmann, Anecd. п. p. 375, 29: ἄγριος καὶ ἀγρεῖος, ποιητικόν, διαφέρει ἄγριος ὁ ὠμός· ἀγρεῖος dì ô iv tập ảyoã); but this does not affect the etymology of the older form. And the primitive meaning of the correlative word uɛoos is shown by the following passages: Eschylus, Eumenid. 12-14: πέμπουσι δ' αὐτὸν καὶ σεβίζουσιν μέγα Plato, Legg. p. 761 Α: ὁδῶν τε ἐπιμελουμένους, ὅπως ὡς ἡμερώταται ἕκασται γίγνωνται; Philostr. vit. Soph. p. 552: ὤνησε δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ Ιταλία Κανύσιον ἡμερώσας ὕδατι μάλα τούτου δεόμενον: compare Pindar, Isthm. II. 75 (v. 97): καὶ βαθυκρήμνου πολιᾶς ἁλὸς ἐξευρὼν θέναρ, which refers to the passage of Hercules through the straits; and for the etymology, compare "Hлaoos with its epithet diaлovбios (Pindar: Nem. IV. 51), on the principle pointed out by Lobeck (ad Soph. Aj 254, p. 193). The effect of such road-making on civilization appears clearly enough from what Aristotle says of the Herculean way, and of the protection afforded to those who travelled upon it (neдi davμcoíov άxovóμátov, c. 85, p. 837 Bekker)*. We consider dies, dyâ, &c. of pronominal origin, like the particle dn, which generally refers to time. 151 From the facts here stated, we are entitled to conclude, with regard to the pronouns in general, that they were all originally demonstrative; that there are three primitive pronouns; that the second of these, which indicates nearness to the here, gave birth under the form Fa to the reflexive pronoun and the relative, which are identical with it; and that different modifications of this same second personal pronoun were subsequently used to express all relations of nearness, till at last in modern Italian a word formed from the same root came to be used to express the here itself, that is, the first personal pronoun. * We have treated this important subject at greater length in the Varronianus, pp. 268–271. On the connexion in meaning between άygós (which contains the same root as ἀγών, ἀγορά) and χορός, χῶρος, see below, § 229. 152 The adjectives formed from pronouns constitute an interesting subject immediately connected with that which we have been discussing. In regard to the possessives formed from the personal pronouns, it appears singular that, while those from the second and third person are regularly formed from the genitive case, the possessive of the first pronoun, uós, though it contains the adscititious & which we have noticed as an occasional prefix to the objective cases of the pronoun itself, omits the & in the second syllable: there is, however, reason to believe that Homer used the form uos from uéo, like the Latin meus from mei, which is quite regular, and uós is only a corruption of an original ἐμεός, from ἐμέο for ἐμεῖο (§ 134). The Sanscrit possessives are madiya, "mine," tvadiya, "thine," tadiya, "his." The first syllable of the two former is identical with mat, tvat, the ablatives of the pronouns. The only ablative of the third person which is in use is tasmât, but it is very likely that a shorter form, analogous to the ablatives of the other two pronouns, was once in existence; at all events, constant use would easily generate such an abbreviation in the compound. It will be shown in a future chapter that dia or tia is the full or original form of the ablative affix, from which, of course, these possessives are derived. This termination is also found in the Greek adjectives of quality olos (ô-los), noios (no-los), toños (to-los), the d or 8 having dropt out, just as the s has been absorbed in the cognate genitives in -oto, in which we should expect -60 on the analogy of the Sanscrit genitive ending -sya; compare ἐδίδοσο, ἐδίδου, δίδοισο, διδοῖο (Bopp, Vergl. Gramm. p. 220). Indeed, as we shall show hereafter, -dios and -6tos are by-forms of the genitive or ablative case. The d is preserved in "dios from the pronoun. This termination in Greek is properly and regularly used to denote derivation, kind, or quality: we might, if we liked, consider the Sanscrit affix as compounded of the demonstrative and relative, and signifying "that which;" but it is better to refer this form to the genitive or ablative ending. The Greek pronominal adjectives signifying quantity are ő-бos, лó-бos, tó-dos, &c. We have elsewhere pointed out that the termination -605 signifies "a collection" or "aggregate," even when found as a part of nouns, and it obviously bears the same sense in these pronominal words. But how did it get that sense? It cannot be doubted that "-6og has the same termination. Now it is well known that this word was originally pronounced lovos, and even FioFos, as appears from the necessities of the metre in Homer, and from the gloss yioyov, loov in Hesychius. The labial was, however, dropt in the course of time, and loog appears in all the later poets with the first syllable short, so that this is no reason for denying its connexion with ő-60s, &c. in point of termination. As -60s and Tóбos are synonyms, both signifying "so great," i. e. "equal," an examination of the common part in these words will lead to a proper interpretation of the affix 60s-Fos=ogós. This word implies "all that belongs to the person near us," a meaning which includes in it the idea of a collection or aggregation; and this is just what we want. The Greek termination -λίκος or -λιξ, (ἧλιξ, ὁμήλιξ) runs through most of the sister-languages. Thus we have in Gothic svaleiks, hvê-leiks, Anglo-Saxon thy-lic, German ühn-lich, so-lcher (so-like, such) and in English like. In Latin many very common adjectives are formed with the termination -lis: e. g. a-qua-lis (from æ-quus, Sanscrit ê-kas, "that which"), rega-lis, viri-lis, missi-lis, humi-lis, simi-lis, fame-licus, &c. The word fe-lix contains the full form of this termination; the first part of the word is connected, as Bopp suggests (Vergleich. Grammatik, p. 606) with the Sanscrit bhaj, not, as others have supposed, with fe-tus, fe-tura, fe-mina, &c. It is related to fau-stus, fav-or, &c., and the Greek φάρος (ὑπο-φαν-σις). It might be written φαῦλιξ in Greek characters*, like pav-los, “light," "blown about by every breeze" (FάFo, Fav-onius); and signifies literally "light-like," i. e. "brilliant," "splendid." *We are aware that the surname of Claudius Felix is written lig in Josephus, xx. 6; Act. Apostol. XXIV.; Suidas s. v. Klavdios. This is not, however, an etymological transcription, but only an attempt, like the an ayɛ (hoc age) of Plutarch, to represent the sound of the Latin word. On the connexion of "light" and "air," see Book IV. ch. 5. The Latin adjective dives conveys the same idea as felix: see Journ. of Philol. 11. p. 354. And perhaps we may also compare be-atus with pantós. CHAPTER II. THE NUMERALS. 153 Why numerals have lost their original signification. 154 Connexion of the first numeral with the first personal pronoun. 155 Similar affinities of the second numeral and second pronoun. 156 Origin and explanation of dɛis and dɛiva. 157 The third numeral and its use as a comparative affix. 158 The fourth numeral compounded of the first and third. 159 Why the first four numerals are declined in Greek, and the others undeclined: eight the dual of four. 160 The sixth and seventh numerals how related. 161 The fifth, ninth, and tenth numerals are to be referred to a decimal system of computation. 162 Views of Lepsius on this subject, and on the higher numbers. 163 Vague expressions for large numbers. 164 Ordinals, and their connexion with comparatives and superlatives. 165 General comparison expressed by the affix -tov. 166 Comparative words, such as utov, μέ-σos, allos. 167 Superlatives in -16-tos derived from adverbs in -15. 153 SINCE INCE it is the tendency of inflected languages to become more and more abstract, as they develop themselves syntactically by means of writing, and, by striving after generalization, to lose the immediately perceivable meaning of their individual words, we might expect that this tendency would soonest be realized in the numerals*. The use of numerals at all is an abstraction, and one of the highest kind; it is stripping things of all their sensible properties and considering them as merely relations of number, as members of a series, as perfectly general relations of place. Hence it is, that the short *There have been many important treatises on the subject of the numerals. The most valuable are those by Lepsius (Ueber d. Ursprung u. d. Verwandtschaft der Zahlwörter in der indogermanischen, semitischen u. d. koptischen Sprache, Zwei Sprachvergl. Abh. Berlin, 1836) and by Pott (Die quinare u. vigesimale Zählmethode bei Völkern aller Welttheile, nebst ausführl. Bemerkungen über die Zahlwörter Indogerm. Stammes u. einem Anh. über Fingernamen, Halle, 1847). The second of these treatises is to a certain extent controversially opposed to the former; and though we are indebted to Dr. Lepsius for many interesting details in the present chapter, we think his leading principles (pp. 92 sqq.) untenable, and we have here followed up the views respecting the classification of the pronominal elements, which we have set forth in the preceding chapter. We have made the Hebrew numerals the subject of a special investigation in a tract entitled Maskil le Sopher, London, 1848, pp. 41 sqq. |