roots is applied in the particular instance. When the case-ending alone is removed, the remaining part of the word is called its crude-form, whether it has another pronominal affix or not. In most nouns the crude or uninflected form must be still farther denuded before we can arrive at the root or skeleton of the word. Accordingly, in the following analysis of the noun, we have first considered the case-endings or absolute terminations of the noun, and have then examined those pronominal insertions before the case-ending, which may be considered as the terminations, not of the noun, but of its crude-form. The young student will thus more clearly discern by what successive steps he must proceed in dissecting any given noun in order to arrive at a definite conception of its meaning, so far as the signification has remained unaffected by the arbitrary or capricious applications to which we have adverted. CHAPTER II. THE CASE-ENDINGS OF THE NOUN. 227 Definition and arrangement of cases. 228 Formation of the feminine noun. Criticism of Bopp's opinion. 229 Reasons for the assumption of the feminine gender in certain nouns. 230 Dual number. 231 Sanscrit case-system. 232 Latin and Greek Declensions. 233 (a) Latin case-forms. 234 (b) Greek case-forms. 235 Origin and mutual relations of the cases. 236 Detailed examination of the cases: (1) Accusative. The dental n its original affix. 237 Neuter nouns have no nominative. 238 Distinction of the accusatives and locatives in n. 239 Accusatives plural of masculine and feminine nouns. 240 Origin of neuter plurals in a. 241 Dual forms. 242 (2) Nominative. The sibilant s its proper suffix, but often absorbed or dropt. 243 Explanation of the nominative sign. 244 Nominative plural formed by a reduplication of this affix. 245 (3) Implementive or Instrumental. b. Dative. c. Locative. Sanscrit forms. 246 Greek Dative includes these cases. 247 (4) a. Ablative. Its form in Sanscrit and Latin nouns and in Greek adverbs. 248 (4) b. Genitive. Only a longer form of the ablative. 249 Identity of the terminations - and -610-v. 250 The genitive plural formed from the genitive singular. 251 (5) Vocative. A mere crude-form. Its accentuation. 227 WHEN HEN we say that a noun is the name of a thing, we mean that it is a word by which we express our conception of some object; now the conception of a natural object is the recollection of the most prominent quality or attribute which we have perceived in it; the name, therefore, points out or refers to this quality or attribute. We have shown in the last chapter that the part of a noun which conveys its meaning to our ear, and which is called its stem or root, never appears by itself in those languages which have inflexions; even the crude or uninflected form is never found alone, except when it stands as the vocative case. To the crude-form, in all other instances, is affixed a termination, which constitutes it a word, and gives it the signification of a noun; for the same root, with a different termination, and perhaps slightly modified, might be a verb. These endings, which make the crude-form into a noun, and which we call the case-endings, it is now our business to discuss separately and in detail. The designation "case," casus, i. e. "falling," is derived from the Latin version of the Greek Tog. Now this word is used by Aristotle to signify not only a case of the noun, but inflexion either of a noun or a verb, and indeed any word-form, whether declinable, as a comparative -Tapos, or indeclinable, as an adverb in -og. Nay more: not merely forms of words, but even forms of sentences, are, in any ing to his phraseology, roбas λóyov; see Aristot. (?) Poet. 20, 10; and for the aτбis lóуov, compare Topic. VI. 10, 1: ËTɩ & τῶν ὁμοίων τοῦ ὀνόματος πτώσεων αἱ ἅμοια τοῦ λόγου πτώσεις ἐφαρμόττουσιν, οἷον εἰ ὠφέλιμον τὰ ποιητικὸν ὑγιείας καὶ ὠφέ λιμον τὸ πεποιηκός υγίειαν, where we have a change in the sentence introduced by a change of tense. In this wider sense of the word лog, it seems to approximate in meaning to the word Tuα, and to signify the accidental state or condition of an object presented to the senses. Hence the old logicians, according to Plutarch, used πτώσις as a synonym for ὄνομα, namely, as signifying whatever was the subject of a predication; Quæst. Platon. 1009 c, p. 108 Wyttenb.: Touto dè (sc. the лoτos Lóyos, formerly called noótaóis or "proposition," and afterwards ἀξίωμα or “enunciation”) ἐξ ὀνόματος καὶ ῥήματος συνέστηκεν (above, § 124), ὧν τὸ μὲν πτῶσιν διαλεκτικοί, τὸ δὲ κατηγόρημα καλοῦσιν. In this sense we call that part of grammar which refers to the forms of individual words by the name of "accidence" (accidentia), which seems to point to the Greek σύμπτωσις. Supposing then that πτῶσις originally designated any change of form to which the individual word was liable, it is easy to understand the transition by which the Stoics limited its use to the declensions of the noun. For ovoua, in its logical sense, was equivalent to лτбs: accordingly, when ὄνομα was merely “the noun,” πτώσεις would designate merely the inflexions of the noun. But along with this limited application the Stoics introduced a different explanation of the term. The Peripatetics understood by it merely the corpus mortuum of an individual word, the "voua, before it was vivified by its connexion with the nua, and became a part of the λóyos. But the Stoics considered the nominative as indicated by a perpendicular line, from which the other cases fell away or declined at different angles. Hence the nominative was called the πτῶσις ὀρθή οι εὐθεῖα, i. e. casus rectus, and the others the пτáбas пháɣa, i. e. casus obliqui (see Diog. Laert. Vita Zenonis, VII. 65). That this, however, was not the original meaning of лãos, is sufficiently shown by the objection of Georgius Choroboscus (ad Theodos. pp. 9, 35 Gaisford): dňov ὅτι ἡ εὐθεῖα οὐκ ἐστὶ πτῶσις κυρίως· εἰ γὰρ ἦν κυρίως πτῶσις ἐν παραθέσει εἶχεν εἶναι μετὰ τῶν προθεσέων. How Chrysippus, in his book περὶ τῶν πέντε πτώσεων, would have dealt with this difficulty, we have no means of knowing: but in all probability the original and secondary meanings of the term were somewhat blended and confused. It is clear that Choroboscus did not understand the terms ỏový and ɛvvɛîα as opposed to the term hayía, for he says (u. s. pp. 10, 26): dεi yiváózεiv őtɩ ý μὲν ὀρθὴ ὀνομαστικὴ λέγεται καὶ εὐθεῖα· καὶ ὀρθὴ καὶ εὐθεῖα λέγεται, ἐπειδὴ ὀρθῶς σημαίνει τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πράγματοςὀνομαστικὴ ἐπειδὴ δι' αὐτῆς τὰς ὀνομασίας ποιούμεθα. We have before adduced reasons for the opinion, that the accusative or objective case is the primitive form of the pronouns; the same, we believe, holds with regard to the nouns: for if the primary expression of self is objective, much more so must be that of any object in the external world. The primary noun is the object of speech, and the correlative expression for the subject is necessarily a subsequent abstraction. In syntax -that is, according to the logical arrangement-there are only three forms of the objective case, expressed by the Latin adverbs unde, ubi, quo, and corresponding to the Greek genitive, dative, and accusative, as the cases of motion from, rest at, and motion to, respectively. Our present object, however, is not the syntactical explanation, but the etymological origin of the forms. In analyzing the cases, therefore, we shall consider the accusative or general objective case first; the others we shall discuss, as nearly as possible, in the order in which they are placed in Sanscrit, which has the fewest prepositions, and therefore the most complete case-system of any of the languages with which we are immediately concerned. In Sanscrit there are three genders, masculine, feminine, and *On the subject of the dispute between the Peripatetics and Stoics respecting the applicability of лroσis as a designation of the nominative, the reader may consult Ammonius, p. 104 Brandis. And for the designations by which the cases were known to the Greeks, from whom we have borrowed them, see Choroboscus, l. c. There is a paper on the yevin лτшбiç bу Schömann in Höfer's Zeitschrift, 1. 1, pp. 79 sqq. In Finnish there are fourteen cases besides the nominative, namely, seven simple and seven composite cases (Pott, Etym. Forsch. zw. Aufl. p. 6); but it is clear that this diffusive enumeration is due rather to a confusion than to a scientific distinction of forms and significations. neuter; three numbers, singular, dual, and plural; and eight cases, nominative, accusative, implementive or instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive or possessive, locative, and vocative. 228 Of the feminine and neuter genders, as distinguished from the masculine, Bopp says rather quaintly (Vergl. Gramm. p. 135): "In Sanscrit the feminine, as well in the stem as in the case-endings, loves a luxuriant fulness of form, and where it is distinguished in the stem or in the ending from the other genders, it is marked by broader, more sounding vowels. The neuter, on the contrary, loves the utmost brevity, but is distinguished from the masculine, not in the stem, but only in the most prominent cases, in the nominative and in its perfect opposite, the accusative, also in the vocative, where this is the same as the nominative." The fact is, that in order to mark more strongly the relative and collective nature of things conceived as feminine or maternal, the merely subjective s of the nominative masculine is generally expanded by a broad vocal utterance into a form which reproduces the collective value of the same element ($152); whereas the neuter, which has no nominative, appears only in the objective case, which is most liable to mutilation. This explains the circumstance that, in masculine and neuter nouns, the vowel which terminates the crude-form, and to which the case-ending is attached, is generally and properly short; while in feminine nouns, the vowel is long. There are exceptions to this rule, more frequently however in Greek than in Sanscrit. Thus, instead of the o which stands for the Sanscrit masculine à in λóy-o-s, &c., we have a long a or ŋ in лaidoToiẞ-n-s, &c., and in the numerous class of nouns ending in -779. In our opinion the here, as elsewhere, includes the lost y, which is used to form derivative verbs, and which seems by no means out of place in words expressing an action, as the nouns in -ηs and -της invariably do: and thus παιδοτρίβης, εὐεργέτης are equivalent to παιδοτρίβ-ψας, εὐεργέτας, just as the corresponding verbs would be παιδοτριβέω (παιδοτρίβω), εὐεργετέω (εvegyέty∞). That we have here the second pronominal element under the form tt-, appears more clearly, and throughout the cases, in the feminine forms of nouns in -τns; compare προδότης, προδό-τις (-τιδ-ς); ἱκέτης, ἱκέτις (-τιδ-ς) &c. In nouns |