inscription on the tomb of Midas (above, p. 155). The appearance of AaFoxóƑoov on an old inscription known to Priscian (1. pp. 23, 265 Krehl), a comparison of λãós, vāós, &c. with λέws, vέws, &c., and the obvious fact that in Homer as must have beeu åƑos (Varron. p. 288), would lead us to conclude that лólews, Baoilέws, &c. are similarly related to an original πόλεος, βασιλέος, &c., and we actually find the genitives лóλnos, Baoilños. Then, again, the derivative adjective δημόσιος would induce us to conclude that the genitive δήμο-ιο was originally dŋuó-610 (Bopp, Vergl. Gramm. p. 294, note), the σ being dropt, as in didov compared with didogo,&c. (above, § 114); and thus τοῖο, λύκοιο would ultimately correspond in form as well as meaning with the Sanscrit tasya, vrikasya. We have therefore only two forms for the Greek genitive, one in -Fog or -Fo and the other in -6to, and these unite in the form 690-, Sanscrit sva. That o may represent ♬ appears as an undoubted fact, after the analysis to which the pronominal elements have been submitted. And if we compare dηuóolos with "dios, a possessive of the same kind, and remember that "dios bears the same relation to loos=l6Fos that medius does to uέoбos= μέotos, we shall see that the ablative vrĭkàt=vrikâtya=vrikasya, and that prîtyât=prîtyâs, so that the genitive and ablative are identical in Sanscrit as they are in Greek. 249 The genitive-ablative relation is also expressed by -ɛv in Greek. The connexion of this suffix with the Latin -tus, Sanscrit tas, thas, das, dhas, we have already pointed out; and it will easily be seen what relationship subsists between humanit-us and the proper adverb humaned (comp. bened, &c. in the Columna Rostrata), or between ovoαvód() and the genitive ovo̟avó(6). In point of fact, the terminations -ɛv and -610 are only different modifications of one and the same form. We often find that e-o-, e.g. in deós-otós. And while the vowel, which followed the palatal of which ɛ or 6 is the representative, has been lost in -ɛv, 610 has parted with its final nasal, which is so often seen to be removable. This observation points the way to an interesting and instructive analogy. We cannot doubt that adjectives in -tos=-6tos are formed from the genitive -10=-610, and we have seen (above, § 165), that these adjectives correspond in signification to the quasi-comparatives in -tav=-Lov-s. If, as there is every reason to believe, these latter are older, stronger, and more complete forms of the adjectives in -to-бto, it is a just inference that -lov=-610v=Fo-v was the fullest and most original form of the genitive case. 250 This view is confirmed by the Greek genitive plural, which is otherwise an inexplicable phenomenon. According to all reasonable expectations, the genitive plural ought to be derivable from the genitive or ablative singular by the addition of -g. In common Greek the genitive plural consistently ends in -wov, which is immediately attached to the crude or uninflected form; the circumflex however in the first declension points to an original form in -ά-wv, which is still found. But if 'Argeld-a-o='Arqud-a-olov, still more easily do we pass from 'Ατρειδ-ά-ων=Ατρειδ-ά-ον-ς to'Ατρειδ-α-σιον-ς. This result receives a further support from the analogy of the Latin and Sanscrit. Although in common Sanscrit nouns the genitive plural ends in -nâm or -âm only, the pronouns, which generally preserve the authentic forms longer than the nouns, give us -sâm or shâm, as in tê-shâm horum, tâ-sâm = harum. Now this fully accords with the Latin; for rum, which is the proper and genuine termination of the genitive plural, not only in the vowel declensions, but also in the others (Varro, L. L. vin. § 74; Cn. Gell. ap. Charis. 1. 40), must have been originally -sum, and this points to an older -som corresponding to the Sanscrit -sâm (Müller ad Varron. L. L. u. s. p. 192). It is not easy to arrive at any certain conclusion respecting the n which appears in many Sanscrit genitives; but when we find the more easily explicable form in the pronouns, it is reasonable to conclude that this nasal or nasal guttural is, like the Latin r, a corrupt representative of the original sy-, Persian hy-. The passage from the palatal y or j to a sound like the Hebrew Ayin is very conceivable. At all events, any thing is better than, with Bopp, to import a foreign difficulty into the Greek language, by supposing that Auxcov is a representative of Auxó-v-cov, the v being dropt as in uɛigo from usitova (Vergl. Gramm. p, 286, note). 251 (5) VOCATIVE. The vocative is either the crude-form of the noun, the vowel being generally represented by the lightest sound &, ě, or the same as the nominative. Thus in the first declension, tauía-s makes ταμία, κριτής, κριτά in the vocative. In the second declension, λόγος makes óyɛ. In the third declension the vocative Zoxoares implies the included xoáros of the true crude-form, and its relation to the nom. Σωκράτης is the same as that of the neuters εὔηθες, εὔδαιμον, &c. to their masc. and fem. εὐήθης, εὐδαίμων, &c. The nominative case corresponds to the third person of the verb; it presumes a subject spoken of. The vocative corresponds to the second person; it presumes a subject spoken to. We believe that the nominative was secondary to the vocative; the idea of a subject in its objectivity being suggested by conversation with another subjective reasoning being; and for this cause the sign of the nominative case is identical with the element of the second personal pronoun. In the second person of the imperative mood, where the person spoken to is most directly and impressively addressed, we find sometimes the crude-form of the verb as TúлTɛ, at other times the element of the second personal pronoun more strongly expressed, as in xv-9; for the other persons of this mood a stronger form is invariably adopted. The vocative lúxɛ stands related to the imperative τúлTε just as the nominative λύκο-s does to the indicative τύπτεις for τύπτε-σι. The accentuation of the vocative in the third declension, when the crude-form is terminated by a consonant, and the nominative properly had its last syllable long by position or absorption, presents some phenomena, which are very instructive when properly examined and analyzed. The technical writers on accentuation are contented with saying (Göttling, Elements of Accentuation, § 26, p. 53, Engl. Tr.) that "no vocative of the third declension is oxytone, if it be really distinguished from the nominative by a peculiar form, because, being the oldest form of the nominative, it follows the oldest Æolic accentuation, which recognises no oxytone. Those only in us and vs remain υς oxytone." To the comparative philologer this rule is simply an evasion of the difficulty, coupled with a misrepresentation of the facts. That the vocative is not in any sense a form of the nominative, and that the Æolic tendency to draw back the accent has nothing to do with the difference between the intonation of the vocative and that of the nominative, may be inferred from the following circumstances. We do not find that the accent is drawn back, even when the last syllable becomes short, in those cases in which the crude-form was originally terminated by two consonants. Thus a participle like naudɛvav was παιδεύον in the vocative, not παίδευον *, because the crude-form was лaidεvovτ, just as the third person plural of the imperfect was accentuated ¿lέyov, ¿qάoav, &c. (Ahrens, de dial. Dor. pp. 28 sqq.) on account of the original termination in vt. Again, although barytone compounds regularly draw back their accent in the vocative—as 'Ayάueuνον, Δημόσθενες from’Αγαμέμνων, Δημοσθένης—this does not apply to compounds in-powv and -two, because the secondary crude-form does not revert to the original form of the included word, but retains enough of the modified syllable to affect the intonation; hence we have ẞaguβαρύφρον, καρτερόφρον from βαρύφρων, καρτερόφρων, not βάρυφρεν, xαotέoo❤oɛv, that form being lost in the composition; and similarly, προπάτορ, αὐτοκράτορ from προπάτωρ, αὐτοκράτωρ, not πρόπατερ, *G. Curtius, who as usual follows us, adds that we have inάozov not vnαozov (Sprachvergleichung, p. 16). He does not seem to be aware that this is owing to the parathetic composition. avτóngaτeo, because the primitive form has yielded to the formative process. Exceptional instances in the accentuation of the vocative seem to belong to words, in which the accent was affected by a peculiar urgency or familiarity of the invocation. Thus we have the precative exclamations, "Απολλον, Πόσειδον, σῶτερ, nom. Απόλλων. Ποσειδῶν, σωτήρ; the naval cry to the steersman, κυβερνᾶτερ, nom. κυβερνητήρ; the address of near relatives, as πάτερ, ἄνερ, θύγατερ, διερ, εἴνατερ, nom. πατήρ, ἀνήρ, θυγάτηρ, δαήρ, εἰνάτης. With this change of accent we may compare the exclamation, andɛs, “indeed!” from ἀληθής*. *This drawing back of the accent is observable in Sanscrit also, where it is similarly explicable (Bopp, Vergl. Accentuationssystem, p. 20). CHAPTER III. THE PRONOMINAL TERMINATIONS OF THE UNINFLECTED FORMS. 252 Derivation-suffixes of pronominal origin. Their classification and meaning. 253 (1) Forms with the first element only. 254 (2) Forms with the second element only. 255 (3) Forms with the third element only. 256 (1a) Terminations compounded of the first and other elements. 257 (2a) Terminations compounded of the second and other elements. Nouns in -ús, s. 258. Nouns in -ov-vη, -i-vos, &c. 'Ahn&ivós. 259 Nouns in -ins, intns, &c. 260 Collective nouns in -wov. 261 (3a) Reduplications of the third element. 262 (2b) Second element us 8 or 9. Patronymics, comparatives, and participles. 263 Adverbs in -dnv, &c. 264 Adverbs in -t, &c. 265 Connexion of these forms. 266 (36) Third element as λ- or -. Identity of these forms. 267 Also of the forms 7-los, t-gos- &c. 268 Reasons for believing that the forms 2- and - are derived from -va, both from their use as pronominal syllables; 269 and from their employment as verbal roots: 270 especially in expressing the ideas of progressive time and recurrence. 252 THE root of a noun or verb, which properly speaking never exceeds a single syllable, may, as we have said before, be considered as the independent variable; the noun or verb is a function of this variable, and contains, besides the root, in the former instance, a set of case-endings, in the latter a set of person-endings, both of pronominal origin. But between these case- and person-endings we find, frequently in the verb, and generally in the noun, a derivation-suffix. Having discussed the case-endings of the noun, we proceed to the consideration of these derivation-suffixes, which determine the class the noun belongs to, and declare the particular modification of meaning with which it is used. Of the prefixes, which express the relation in space that the noun is supposed to bear to the other words in the sentence, we have spoken under the head of the prepositions. We do not intend here to mention those compound words which contain two or more distinct verbal or nominal roots. We shall confine ourselves to those suffixes which are of pronominal origin, and which may therefore be considered as the constants of the function; compound words are, as it were, functions of two or more variables. In these pronominal suffixes we observe all the peculiarities which we have noted in the pronominal elements separately GG |