RELLIQUIAE PHILOLOGICAE: 
 
 OR 
 
 ESSAYS IN COMPAEATIVE PHILOLOGY 
 
HonDon : C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 GLASGOW : 268, ARGYLE STREET. 
 
 LEIPZIG: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 NEW YORK: MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
RELLIQUIAE PHILOLOGICAE 
 
 OR 
 
 ESSAYS IN COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 HERBERT DUKINFIELD DARBISHIRE, M.A., 
 
 FELLOW OF ST JOHN's COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 R. S. CONWAY, M.A., 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, CARDIFF; 
 
 WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE BY 
 
 J. E. SANDYS, LiTT.D., 
 
 FELLOW AND TUTOR OF ST JOHN's COLLEGE, AND PUBLIC ORATOR 
 IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 1895 
 
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Biographical Notice by Dr Sandys 
 Editor's Preface 
 
 PAGE 
 
 vii 
 
 xiv 
 
 eude^ios, 
 
 Part I. Papers already published. 
 
 1. Original Essays and Notes : 
 
 (1) The Numasios Inscription 
 
 (2) On the text of Tac. Ann. i. 32 
 
 (3) Notes on the Spiritiis Asper with Addenda . 
 
 (4) Lat. omentum 
 
 (5) On the meaning and use of imbi^ios, eVtSe^m 
 
 ivbf^ia ......... 
 
 (6) On the Indo-European words for Fox and Wolf . 
 
 (7) On the form Karaa-^aa-ai, Herodas V. 39 
 
 (8) Some Latin etymologies (cdttcs, colo, iubar, numen^ scio) 
 
 2. Selections from Occasional Writings : 
 
 (1) From a notice of Wharton's Etyma Latina . 
 
 (2) Notice of Fennell's Indo-European Voioel-System 
 
 (3) Abnormal Derivations 
 
 (4) From a notice of Sweet's English Grammar . 
 
 (5) The Gottingen School of Comparative Philology 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 17 
 61 
 
 65 
 
 89 
 
 105 
 
 109 
 
 119 
 122 
 127 
 131 
 138 
 
 Part II. Unpublished Essays in the Theory of Philology 
 AND in Indo-European Phonology. 
 
 Opening chapters of a Primer of Philology (?) 
 Shorter fragments on kindred subjects : 
 a. First lecture of a popular course on Philology 
 ^. What is Correct Speech ? . . . . 
 y. The Cradle of the Aryans .... 
 Principles of Analysis, especially in Semasiology 
 The relation between Phonetics and Philology . 
 The Indo-European Phonological System . 
 The Sanskrit Liquids (completed in July, 1893) 
 Miscellanea Etymologica . . . 
 
 149 
 
 162 
 167 
 170 
 173 
 181 
 193 
 199 
 265 
 
 260778 
 
IN MEMORIAM 
 
 Herbert Dukinfield Darbishire, the son of Mr Herbert 
 Darbishire, was born at Belfast on the 13th of May, 1863. His 
 mother's maiden name was Bruce, and he came of a good stock, 
 both morally and intellectually. He received his early edu- 
 cation, for nearly seven years, at the Royal Academical Institu- 
 tion in his native town. He afterwards entered the Queen's 
 College, Belfast, where his career began in 1880 by his winning 
 the Sullivan Scholarship, and ended in 1883 with his attaining 
 a Senior Scholarship in Greek, Latin, and Ancient History. 
 In the same year he obtained a first class with honours in 
 Classics in the examination for the degree of B.A. in the Royal 
 University of Ireland. In October, 1884, he came into residence 
 at St John's College, Cambridge. He had already given good 
 proof of his proficiency in Classics at the examination for 
 Entrance Scholarships, but want of practice in Verse Com- 
 position prevented his attaining the place to which his general 
 merits might well have entitled him. To the same cause it 
 was due that, when he presented himself for the first part of 
 the Classical Tripos at the end of the second year, he was 
 placed in the second class, though in the first division of that 
 class. Two years afterwards, in 1888, he was in the first class 
 of the second part of the Classical Tripos, the subjects for 
 which he obtained that position being classical scholarship and 
 comparative philology. Meanwhile he had been elected to a 
 foundation scholarship. In January, 1889, he was promoted to a 
 McMahon law studentship, which he held for the full term of four 
 
Vlll IN MEMORIAM. 
 
 years. He read for the Bar in the chambers of Mr J. G. Butcher, 
 late Fellow of Trinity and afterwards M.P. for York. In 
 November, 1892, he was elected to a fellowship at St John's, 
 and was called to the Bar shortly after. 
 
 During his University course he had devoted much of his 
 time to the study of Greek philosophy, but it was as a com- 
 parative philologist that he showed the highest promise. Several 
 of his papers were published in the Transactions of the Cam- 
 bridge Philological Society. His " Notes on the Spiritus Asper 
 in Greek," together with some contributions to Greek lexico- 
 graphy (iircBe^co^;, eVSefto?, &c.), appeared in 1890; and his 
 paper on the Indo-European names for Fox and Wolf, in 1892. 
 To the Journal of Philology for 1888 he contributed an article 
 on the "Numasios Inscription," and to the Classical Review 
 (1892) a paper on "Abnormal Derivations," besides several 
 important reviews. He was also a frequent contributor to the 
 Athenceum. 
 
 In 1891, when the Readership of Comparative Philology 
 at Cambridge was vacated by the resignation of Dr Peile, 
 Mr Darbishire was urged to be a candidate for the office ; of 
 all the candidates, he was the youngest, but he was acknow- 
 ledged by competent authorities to be also one of the ablest. 
 He had already begun to make his mark as a philological 
 investigator and as a teacher. As a private tutor, during 
 several Long Vacations, he gave courses of lectures on the 
 Elements of Comparative Philology, which were highly valued 
 by those who had the privilege of attending them. In 1893 
 he arranged for coming into residence in the Long Vacation 
 with a view to giving another course of lectures on the same 
 subject. He had recently gone to Hunstanton for a change 
 of air, and during his absence had caught a chill which was 
 followed by an attack of pleurisy. He was, however, recovering 
 from this, when a sudden and unexpected haemorrhage from 
 the lungs took place, and he died in a few minutes. Dr Donald 
 MacAlister, Fellow of St John's College, who had attended 
 him in his illness, was alone with him at the time of his 
 decease. Tlie date of his death was Tuesday, July 18, 1893. 
 
 The first of many touching tributes to his ipemory came 
 
IN MEMORIAM. IX 
 
 from the Principal of Girton College, who wrote as follows 
 on hearing the announcement of his death : — 
 
 We have seldom had a lecturer who has inspired his pupils with greater 
 cidmii'ation for his methods and greater confidence in his knowledge ; and 
 even those who have known him for a short time only, feel that they have 
 sustained a great loss in his death. 
 
 I quote the following from the Atheiueum for July 29 : — 
 
 He was one of the most promising, if not the most promising, of 
 British comparative philologists, and might have been expected to found a 
 new school. His papers published in the Transactions of the Cambridge 
 Philological Society and in the Classical Revieio display singular acumen 
 and originality, together with a thorough gi-asp of sound scientific method ; 
 his separately published * Notes on the Spiritus Asper in Greek' is quite a 
 model. Mr Darbishire was also an excellent classical scholar and critic. 
 His very attractive chai-acter %vas ennobled by the modest dignity and 
 cheerful courage with which he bore serious physical disadvantages entailed 
 by an accident during infancy. His intellectual power and brightness, 
 his rare charm of manner, his wit, and his genial mood, made him a 
 delightful companion and he was a prime fjivourite with children. 
 
 I append an extract from Dr Postgate's notice in the 
 Academy of the same date : — 
 
 (His dissertation entitled 'Notes on the Spiritus Asper ^) "was a very 
 remarkable performance ; especially noteworthy was the w^ay in which 
 it used hitherto unobserved coincidences in Greek and Armenian, (the 
 correspondence) of the spiritzcs lenis to Armenian g, and of the spiritics 
 asper to Armenian v, to distinguish two different w's in the parent language. 
 All his contributions to the Classical Review^ and other learned publi- 
 cations, showed the same acuteness of vision and freshness of treatment.... 
 
 " He was an excellent teacher ; and it was a matter of some regret 
 when he left us for the Bar, though there is no question that his acumen 
 and subtlety admirably qualified him for that profession. 
 
 " Jkir Darbishire, as all his friends can testify, was a man of a singularly 
 modest and amiable character. His loss makes us sadly feel, in the woixis 
 of Horace, 
 
 'neque candidiores 
 terra tulit, neque quis me sit devinctior alter'." 
 
 I add the tribute to his memory paid by Dr Peile, Master 
 of Christ's, who, in his valedictory address as Vice-Chancellor, 
 
X IN MEMORIAM. 
 
 spoke as follows in closing the record of the death-roll of the 
 University during the past academical year : — 
 
 Last, aged but thirty years, died Herbert Darbishire, Fellow of St John's, 
 in whom remarkable acumen and ripe judgment were combined with a 
 sweetness of nature which will long be remembered by those who knew 
 him well : — 
 
 6v ol 6eo\ (f)L\ov(riv dnoGvqcTKii veos. 
 
 Mr Darbishire won the affection and admiration of his 
 many friends by the singular beauty of his character, and also 
 by the unwavering courage and the perfect good temper with 
 which he struggled against physical weakness resulting from 
 an accident which befell him in early life. The brightness of 
 his intellect, as well as the dignity of his bearing, and the 
 charming and unaffected courtesy of his manner, will long be 
 remembered by all who knew him. As his College Tutor I 
 naturally saw much of him during his residence as an under- 
 graduate. In freshness and originality, as well as in cheerful 
 devotion to duty, he was one of the most interesting pupils 
 I have ever had. He was also one of a small number of 
 students who came from time to time to my house to read 
 standard German works connected with classical literature, 
 works such as Goethe's Iphigenie and Lessing's Laokoon. In 
 the group of classical students and others who were thus 
 drawn together by a common interest, his geniality, his per- 
 spicacity and his acumen were constantly apparent. 
 
 In the choice of his friends he was far from restricting him- 
 self to those who were interested in the same department of 
 study as himself. Of those who knew him best in his own 
 College, two at least were distinguished in Mathematics and 
 in Natural Sciences. One of them, Mr F. F. Blackman, * first 
 met him at the whist-table, where he was a keen and brilliant 
 player. Attracted to him by the sparkling yet kindly wit, 
 lodged in a frame that would have made a cynic of a weaker 
 mind, I discovered, as an intimate friend, the real beauty and 
 fineness of his character.' Another, Mr R. A. Sampson, notices 
 two points as chiefly characteristic of his intellectual ability. 
 The first was a singular ' ingenuity, that showed itself in his 
 
IN MEMORIAM. XI 
 
 work, his amusements, — chess, puzzles, and so forth, and con- 
 tinually in his conversation.' The second was his 'indepen- 
 dence ; so strong a feature as to make it very difficult for his 
 closest friends to do him any service.' One of his classical 
 friends, the Rev. A. L. Brown, of Trinity and of Selwyn, 
 writes : — ' I knew him at Cambridge, and away ; the brightest 
 spot in my memory of him is a visit paid a year ago in his 
 own home. ' I never knew him below his best. One thing 
 always struck me very forcibly about him ; and that was how 
 he absolutely triumphed over his physical infirmity; there 
 never seemed to me to be any signs of a struggle or even any 
 consciousness of its existence. And, moreover, his physical 
 courage was considerable. I have been long walks with him, 
 and I never knew him allow that he was tired, although in 
 going up hill his lungs clearly gave him trouble. For his 
 many-sided intellectual activity it was impossible to feel any- 
 thing less than reverence.' Another of his friends, Mr H. J. 
 Spenser, of St John's, thus sums up the impression left upon 
 him by eight years of unbroken intimacy : — " To an intellect 
 which was singularly keen and penetrating, he united a breadth 
 of mind and generosity of thought which were unbounded, and 
 an intuitive perception of and consideration for the feelings 
 of others, which won the hearts of all with whom he came 
 in contact. The lesson of his life has not been lost. A friend, 
 writing to his parents, assured them that 'his life, though 
 short, had not been lived in vain '." 
 
 A mural brass in the Ante-Chapel of St John's bears the 
 following inscription : — 
 
 IN MEMORY OF THE 
 
 GENEROUS NATURE AND 
 
 GREAT PHILOLOGICAL GIFTS OF 
 
 HERBERT DUKINFIELD DARBISHIRE 
 
 FELLOW OF THE COLLEGE 
 
 BORN AT BELFAST, 18TH MAY, 1863; 
 
 DIED IN COLLEGE, 18TH JULY, 1893. 
 
XU IN MEMORIAM. 
 
 After the funeral service in the College Chapel on July 20, 
 a hope was expressed on the part of friends from other Colleges 
 that it might prove possible to arrange for the publication of 
 Mr Darbishire's philological papers in a collective form. His 
 books and manuscripts were readily placed in my hands by 
 members of his family, and were carefully examined with the 
 aid of Mr R. A. Neil, Fellow of Pembroke, and Mr R. S. Conway, 
 Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, and now Professor of 
 Latin at Cardiff. Early in 1894 the Philological Society of 
 Cambridge granted ' a sum not exceeding £30 for the purpose 
 of printing and publishing the unpublished philological manu- 
 scripts of the late Mr H. D. Darbishire in a memorial volume, 
 it being understood that each member of the Society receive a 
 copy of the volume.' It also authorised ' the republication in 
 the same volume of the late Mr Darbishire's papers already 
 published by the Society.' A similar sum was obtained partly 
 by subscriptions contributed by some of his personal friends, 
 and partly by the sale, under his father's sanction, of such of 
 his books as had not been presented to the University Library 
 or to that of his own College. Naturally, there were only a few 
 that were not already comprised in the former ; but the latter 
 received as many as 160 accessions, about two-thirds of them 
 being on subjects connected with Comparative Philology, and 
 the remainder consisting of editions of Greek and Latin authors 
 and books of reference. All the volumes thus presented by his 
 father bear a special book-plate : — 
 
 E LIBRIS 
 
 HERBERTI DUKINFIELD DARBISHIRE 
 
 COLLEGII DIVI lOANNIS SOCII 
 
 QUI TRIGINTA NATUS ANNOS OBIIT A. S. MDCCCXCIII. 
 
 FILM DESIDERATISSIMI IN MEMORIAM 
 PATER ElUS DONO DEDIT. 
 
 The grant promised by the Cambridge Philological Society, 
 and the funds derived from other sources, appeared to warrant 
 
IN MEMORIAM. XI 11 
 
 an application being made to the Syndics of the University- 
 Press with a view to their publication of the proposed memorial 
 volume. To this application the Syndics readily acceded in 
 June 1894, and, since that date, they have liberally undertaken 
 all the additional expenses of printing and publication beyond 
 those originally contemplated. The thanks of all who are 
 interested in perpetuating the memory of the author of this 
 volume are due primarily to the Syndics for their liberality as 
 publishers; also to Messrs Macmillan and Mr Nutt for their 
 kind permission to reprint certain contributions to the Journal 
 of Philology and the Classical Revieiv respectively; and especi- 
 ally to Professor Conway for the care and skill, as well as the 
 loyal devotion, with which he has discharged his duties as 
 editor. 
 
 J. E. SANDYS. 
 
 Cambridge, June, 1895. 
 
EDITOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 FEW tasks could be at once more mournful or more interest- 
 ing than to edit such writings as those left behind by my 
 friend Mr H. D. Darbishire. I gladly acceded to the request of 
 the Cambridge Philological Society to put together in a memo- 
 rial volume the Essays which he had published since 1888, with 
 the scarcely less numerous papers which remained in various 
 stages of completion at his death. This is hardly the place for 
 words of private grief; but I cannot refrain from expressing 
 my sense of the loss which learning has suffered in the 
 premature curtailment of Mr Darbishire's work. His keen 
 intellect and brilliant powers of exposition, well known to all 
 who knew him, will be manifest to the readers of even this 
 brief volume ; but those who have followed the rather tortuous 
 development of Comparative Philology in recent years will 
 realise even more profoundly how rare a contribution to know- 
 ledge it was in his power to make. I should like, in particular, 
 to direct attention to the Essays in the Theory of Philology 
 (pp. 149 — 198), which, short as they are, appear to me to place 
 some of the fundamental principles of the Science in a clearer 
 light and on a stronger basis than has been done by any other 
 writer. 
 
 In selecting the studies here presented from the printed 
 and unprinted matter at my disposal, as well as in settling their 
 final form in points of detail, I have been guided simply by the 
 principle of publishing no more and no less than what, judging 
 from a long and fairly intimate knowledge of Mr Darbishire's 
 methods of work, I believed he would himself have wished to 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XV 
 
 appear in book form. In Part I all that was needed was to 
 add references to connected points in the Essays of Part II, and 
 to discard the less important parts of various reviews* ; but in 
 dealing with the papers in manuscript there was more room 
 for mistake, because of Mr Darbishire's characteristic habit of 
 writing down in full new ideas, and even of completing con- 
 nected paragraphs, as they occurred to him at the moment. 
 Here I have used my own judgment as carefully as I could, 
 preferring always to err on the safe side, that of suppression. 
 Within the body of the text there are none but the slightest 
 alterations of wording, for Mr Darbishire's first written draft 
 was as lucid as most men's first proof. Such additions as 
 seemed necessary in editing are everywhere enclosed in heavy 
 square brackets (except the title-pages to the different sections, 
 for which I am alone responsible); all footnotes and parentheses, 
 not thus distinguished, are the author's. 
 
 The preservation of the papers and the inception of this 
 volume are due in the first instance to the care of Dr Sandys. 
 I have also to acknowledge valuable help from two friends 
 and former pupils. Mr F. W. Thomas, M.A., Fellow of Trinity, 
 and now Classical Master at King Edward's School, Birmingham, 
 most kindly offered to read through the Essay on the Sanskrit 
 Liquids, and add any necessary references, so that the text of 
 this paper has the additional security not only of his wide 
 Oriental scholarship but of his special interest in all questions 
 relating to the Indo-European liquids and sonants, though it 
 will of course be understood that neither he nor I desire to 
 pledge ourselves to the details of Mr Darbishire's fascinating 
 theory. Miss Eleanor Purdie, Marion Kennedy Student of 
 Newnham College, Cambridge, verified all the references in 
 
 1 The following are altogether omitted : 
 
 Notice of Strong's Translation of PauVs * Principien,' Class. Rev. 1891, p. 387. 
 
 Scrupuli (notes on I.-Eu. negatives), ibid. p. 485, and p. 194 in the following 
 volume. 
 
 Review of Fliigel's German Dictionary, Athenaeum, Jan. 14, 1893, and * about 
 thirty odd columns of brief notes on school books or contributions to philology.' 
 (Ed. Athenffium, writing Oct. 2, 1894, for whose kind help my best thanks are 
 due.) 
 
xvi editor's preface. 
 
 the Essays in the Theory of Philology, supplied others that 
 were wanting, and gave me considerable help in editing the 
 manuscript of the last two papers in this section which we 
 found in great confusion. 
 
 The thanks of reader and editor alike are due to the libe- 
 rality of the Syndics of the University Press in extending the 
 limits originally planned for the volume; to Dr Sandys and 
 Mr R. A. Neil for their kind help in reading the proofs ; and to 
 the unfailing care of the press reader. 
 
 R S. CONWAY. 
 
 Cardiff, June^ 1895. 
 
PART I. PAPERS ALREADY PUBLISHED. 
 
 1. Original Essays and Notes. 
 
 2. Selections from Occasional Writings. 
 
 D. P. 
 
1. Original Essays and Notes already published. 
 
 (1) The Numasios Inscription (1888). 
 
 (2) On the text of Tac. Ann. i. 32 (1889). 
 
 (3) Notes on the Spiritus Asper (1889) with Addenda 
 
 (1890). 
 
 (4) Lat. oinentum (1890). 
 
 (5) On the meaning and use of iirihe^Lo^i, iiriBe^ia: ivBe^io^, 
 
 evhe^ia (1890). 
 
 (6) On the Indo-European words for Fox and Wolf (1892). 
 
 (7) On the form Karaa^coaai Herodas V. 39 (1892). 
 
 (8) Some Latin etymologies (alius, colo, iubar, numen, scio) 
 
 (1893). 
 
 1—2 
 
(1) THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION 
 (published in the Jov/rnal of Philology xvi (1888) p. 196). 
 
THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 
 
 Towards the end of last year a tomb was opened at 
 Praeneste by Helbig and Diimmler, in which was discovered a 
 gold fibula bearing a very interesting inscription — the interest 
 due to the form being considerably increased by its being 
 supposed to date from before 509 B.C., which makes it much 
 older than any other Latin inscription. 
 
 An abstract of the paper which Diimmler read before the 
 'archaologisches Institut in Rom' appeared in the Wochenschr. 
 fur Mass. Phil of Jan. 26th, 1887 (No. 4, col. 121). The 
 inscription is briefly noticed in Wolfflin's Archiv fur Lat. Lex. 
 1887, Pt. I p. 143. More important than these however is a 
 paper by Biicheler in the Rheinisches Museum (Vol. XLII p. 317), 
 and it is the latter which forms the immediate occasion of the 
 present article. 
 
 The inscription as given by Biicheler runs : 
 
 lol^AV\AV\A:<1^>1A'g^:3B^:<l3W\:5ol\AA\AA 
 manios • med • vhe • vhaked • numasioi 
 
 After the second vh were visible traces of an upright line, 
 apparently a mistake corrected. 
 
 In discussing such an inscription the three heads to be taken 
 up are, palaeography, phonology, and morphology, inasmuch as 
 the matter is unimportant. 
 
 1. Palaeography. 
 
 a. The direction of the writing is retrograde. Hitherto 
 the canon had been (e.g. Hubner, Miillers Handbuch, Vol. i* 
 p. 496) that this order was only used in devotiones when the 
 meaning was to be intentionally obscured. 
 
 b. The form of the letters. 
 
THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 7 
 
 If any one will compare the characters used here with those 
 on the Dvenos inscr., which stands next in antiquity, he 
 cannot fail to be struck by the differences they present, par- 
 ticularly in the signs for d, h, o and s. Again, a glance at 
 the Greek inscriptions on western soil, either directly in Roehl 
 (507 — 550) or by means of the tabulated results in Kirchhoff 
 or Hinrichs (Handb. 1. c. p. 416), will suffice to show that the 
 similarity of their alphabets to this is very marked indeed and 
 becomes more so in the Italian examples, so much so that we 
 are fairly justified in describing this as a Greek alphabet, 
 borrowed but not naturalised. The importance of this result 
 will appear below. 
 
 c. The words are divided by double points instead of a 
 single one as common later. In * vhevhaked ' the first syllable is 
 divided from the rest by ] . This seems merely to bear out the 
 evidence for the hysterogene nature of the form. Biicheler s 
 parallel im • perator, with tribarakat • tins^ (Cipp. Ahell.\ 
 medicat • inom (Tab. Bant.) and KaTaXeiirov \ ra^ [I. G. A. 321), 
 are only additional evidence that the constant element of the 
 word was kept mentally distinct from the variable terminations 
 and prefixes. 
 
 2. Phonology. 
 
 a. The combination ' vh \ 
 
 This is the transliteration which Bucheler suggests, meaning 
 presumably Latin v, not German or English. In this I follow 
 him, but justify the transliteration on very different grounds. 
 
 His view is, in brief, that this collocation represents a stage 
 in the process by which the voiced aspirates dh, bh, gh passed 
 in Latin into /. Now a principle of the utmost importance for 
 directing the science of language is this : that no phonological 
 change is to be considered as fully established until each step 
 has been shown to be natural on phonetic grounds^. It is the 
 recognition of this which forms one of the merits of the modern 
 school ; it is this which decides the superiority of ' sonant 
 
 1 Bartholomae {Bezz. Beitr. xii 82) ^ [A fuller consideration of this point 
 denies that this has any phonetic value. will be found in the paper on Phonetics 
 
 2 This has also been explained as and Philology in Part II. C.J 
 a mistake. 
 
8 THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 
 
 nasals' over 'nasal insertion' as an explanation of the same 
 set of phenomena. 
 
 This canon Blicheler violates when he speaks of dh, bh and gh 
 taking a parasitic v between the sonant and the aspirate, and 
 when he goes on to say that from the dvh, &c. thus resulting, either 
 d, &c. fell off, leaving vh (of which this is an instance) which 
 passed into /, or dv, &c. fell off, leaving h only. Even allowing 
 the possibility of a parasitic v after a velar guttural, which is 
 phonetically explicable, the combination would be ghv and not 
 gvh, while for the palatal, dental, and labial series such a 
 hypothesis is entirely unjustifiable. 
 
 It may be urged that as long as a phonetic explanation of 
 the change of the sonant aspirates to /, &c. is wanting, the 
 insertion of hypothetical stages is permissible. It will therefore 
 be scarcely out of place, if I attempt here an explanation of 
 the change on phonetic lines. 
 
 A sonant aspirate contains in itself two antagonistic ele- 
 ments. While the vocal chords are stretched the current from 
 the lungs is more or less impeded and softened. On the other 
 hand the expulsion of a strong breath tends to force the chords 
 apart and leave the passage free. Hence a sonant aspirate is 
 an unstable combination and practically unknown in Europe 
 except in the Irish pronunciation of English. 
 
 When this unstable sound is modified it must be done in 
 one of two main directions, (1) in favour of the sonant, or (2) in 
 favour of the aspiration. The latter again has two subdivisions, 
 (a) the sonant may become its corresponding surd, (6) the 
 aspiration may prevail entirely and produce a sound which 
 may be called h if we remember that h is wholly indeterminate. 
 The only other modification worth mentioning is that adopted 
 by Teutonic in which the concession to the aspirate is made, 
 not in the larynx, but in the mouth, resulting in j, 3, ^, w^ 
 respectively. Of these methods (2 a) is best exemplified by 
 ancient Greek. Latin adopted (1) in the middle of a word 
 where a strong breath is in any case difficult. Hence the rule 
 
 1 The value of these signs is that seem to have been employed in Latin 
 given by Sievers, Phonetik, p. 127. unless the v in nivU is an attempt to 
 This method of reduction does not represent 5. 
 
THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 9 
 
 for Latin that gh, dh and hh medial pass into g, d and b 
 respectively. On the other hand, at the beginning of a word 
 the lungs are full and a strong expiration is easy; here then 
 (2 b) is the method adopted. But the indeterminate h resulting 
 therefrom, although indeterminate in writing, is by no means 
 so in speech, its value being fixed by the following considera- 
 tions\ If the sound which it replaces was^A the only tendency 
 to contact will be at the back of the mouth. Hence the breath 
 will have a slight guttural character and will be accurately 
 represented by L On the other hand if the sound replaced 
 was dh or bh, the tendency to contact is at the front of the 
 mouth, the lips are approached and a bilabial sound is formed 
 which bears most resemblance tof. Hence we may formulate 
 the rule that gh initial, in Latin, passes to h^, but bh and dh 
 become/ Further, the /which comes from bh will be purely 
 a bilabial sound, and a very slight severance of the lips would 
 render it indistinguishable from h, whereas the /from dh would 
 naturally be more labiodental in character and so be stable. 
 The table given by Stolz, § 58 {Handb. ii^ p. 177), should there- 
 fore be modified as follows for initial sounds : 
 
 Indo-Eur. 
 
 gh 
 
 dh 
 
 bh 
 
 Lat. 
 
 h 
 
 f 
 
 f 
 h 
 
 If this account of the process is reasonable, the necessity for 
 assuming a parasitic v falls to the ground, while a direct argu- 
 ment against Biicheler's view is supplied by the rule that dh 
 medial passes into d. The sequence he seems to assume is 
 I. Eur. *dhedhe, Latin *dvhedvhe, then *vhevhcL, but T. Eur. 
 *dhUhe would give Latin */ecZe (Osth. Perf. p. 207). 
 
 I believe the explanation of this orthography to be given at 
 once by the nature of the alphabet, which was shown above to 
 be Greek. That being so we have here to deal with a translitera- 
 tion. But in a Greek alphabet of this date, no sign for / existed 
 and the engraver would find some difficulty in representing the 
 sound. The nearest equivalent would obviously be a breathed 
 
 1 [Cf. p. 21 inf. C] borrowed. Osthoff,M.U.4.99. Brgm. 
 
 2 Cases of '/' are to be regarded as Grundriss, § 389. 
 
10 THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 
 
 digamma and as such I regard this combination. To mark that 
 a sound is to be breathed, h is used as a diacritic by the Greeks 
 themselves, e.g. p = breathed p (Brgm. 1. c. § 266) and ^h as here 
 (I. G. A. 131). This breathed F would differ very slightly from 
 bilabial / and its regularly passing into h in Greek (Brgm. 
 1. c. § 166) supports what was advanced above on the second 
 change of /from hh^. That no distinction was made in writing, 
 between / bilabial and / labiodental, is not to be wondered at. 
 Of course when the alphabet had been naturalized and v was 
 the equivalent for F, a double sign for / was cumbrous and 
 unnecessary', and Bucheler, with great probability, suggests 
 that while Latin retained F, the Umbro-Samnite alphabet sim- 
 plified in the other direction and B (modified in Umbrian into 
 for h) was retained both in Oscan and Umbrian as 8 for/ 
 
 The vocalism of fefaked depends too closely on the mor- 
 phology to be discussed here. 
 
 h. The proper name Numasius. 
 
 The difficulties presented by this word are not inconsider- 
 able. In classical Latin we have the two forms Numisius and 
 Numerius. Is this connected with either of them or with both ? 
 
 Of course it is possible to call in the aid of that deus ex 
 machina, the anaptyctic vowel. It is also possible with Bii- 
 cheler to regard -asius, -isius, -esiiis as unimportant variations of 
 suffix. Perhaps however a more legitimate explanation may be 
 found. 
 
 Roman proper names are formed from a comparatively small 
 number of simple roots. These may or may not have a meaning 
 that we can trace — more frequently the latter is the case, for 
 the very fact of a word becoming a proper name implies that it 
 ceases to be used with a connotation. To these simple roots are 
 added a great variety of suffixes both primary and secondary. 
 
 * This confusion of bilabial / with omitted the diacritic after the second 
 
 h is also illustrated by CIL 1. 1501, for F, and only perceived it after beginning 
 
 Jordan's explanation [Krit. Beitr. p. the |<. Thereupon he turned the A 
 
 50 sqq.) is hardly plausible. into g and erased the upright line 
 
 2 An interesting confirmation of this ^^.^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^ This 
 
 is yielded by a close inspection of ^^^^^ ^j^^^. ^^^ ^ ^^^ ^^i^ ^^ be 
 
 the inscription. If Bucheler's copy is ^,,,,,^^ ^^t cumbrous, 
 accurate, the engraver had actually 
 
THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 11 
 
 An example of a root with traceable meaning is 'manus' *a 
 good man', from which come Manius Maniliiis ManeiuSy &c.; of 
 an obscure root is Titles, forming Titius Titinius Titidius Titu- 
 rius, &c. One such old root-name was Numa — probably the 
 oldest masculine a-stem in the language — which may be con- 
 nected with v6/jlo<;. With the suffix -so (see Pauli, AUit. Stud. 
 I 53) this gives Numdso- secondary Numdsio-, with which the 
 later Audasio- Equasio- and the like cannot be compared on 
 account of the doubtful quantity of their -a-. 
 
 The chief forms of the names are 
 
 A. Latin. 
 
 1. Numasius. 
 
 2. Numsius Momms. V. I. Diall. p. 252. Corss. Etr. 
 
 II 14. 
 
 3. Numpsius Momms. 1. c. p. 197. CIL i 1211. 
 
 4. Numisius classical and frequent. 
 
 5. Numaiirius Numiirius CIL IV 2313. 
 
 6. Numerius classical. 
 
 B. Oscan. 
 
 1. l^LV/jL(rBtT)i,<; Zv. 160. 
 
 2. niumsis Zv. 57. 
 
 3. niumerio Zv. 24 (late and Latinizing). 
 
 C. Etruscan. 
 Numsi Corss. 1. c. 
 
 The antiquity of this inscription (as well as the regularity of 
 the formation itself) would lead us to assume Numasius as 
 the original for all these forms. In Oscan and Etruscan the 
 short vowel was syncopated as usual, and in this form, if we 
 may trust A. 2 and 3, the name was borrowed by Latin. 
 Another of the names derived from Numa was Numitor, in 
 which i is regular, being in an unaccented syllable before a 
 dental (Stolz\ § 23, no. 4). It is then not surprising if Nu- 
 masius and Numsius give way to Numisius. The name in this 
 form is found in classical times, and, with other names in -sius, 
 has been much discussed, Jordan (Krit. Beitr. p. 104 foil.) con- 
 cUdes that the tradition which makes Roman names in -rius 
 
12 THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 
 
 rest upon older forms in -sius is unfounded, and that all names 
 in -sius are to be considered as borrowed. The prevailing view 
 however is, that the tradition is correct, but that names in -sius, 
 in classical times, are to be explained as Jordan does. I scarcely 
 think enough allowance is made for the natural stability of 
 spelling in the case of proper names (cf. Le Maistre in modern 
 French), which moreover are specially subject to family caprice, 
 tradition and even politics, as in the case of Glodius. It is not 
 to be wondered at then that a certain family should retain 
 Numisius although for the most part the rule of rhotacism pro- 
 duced Numirius, The subsequent change of i to e before r is 
 regular (Brgm. Grds. § 33. 1). 
 
 Except for the explanation of the other forms, however, there 
 is no need to insert any stages between Numasius and Nu- 
 merius, for Numarius would of necessity receive e from numerus — 
 Quintus Sextus, &c. and Quinctius Sextius, &c. giving the pro- 
 portion both for praenomen and for nomen. See also Varro ap. 
 Non. 352. 29 qui celeriter erant nati fere Numerios praenomi- 
 nabant 
 
 Numisius gives in all probability the suffix -isiics which 
 forms names in -mus (e.g. Paplrius from Papius^), to analogy 
 with which may be due Numiirius in A. 5. In the case of 
 Apisius and the like, the quantity of the i depends on whether 
 they are formed from Apus or Apius (Appius). 
 
 One name seems to have followed step by step the develope- 
 ment of Numerius. This is Valerius, which has Vala, also an 
 a-stem, as base. That Numerius set the analogy, is certain 
 from its superior antiquity, as shown by its twofold use. If the 
 above considerations have any weight we must correct the 
 statement of Festus (p. 23 Mull.) that the older form of Valerius 
 was Valesius. It should be Valisius after Numisius, which 
 would become Valerius as above. The existence of a suflSx 
 -^sius is questionable, for, in the examples quotable from the 
 Corpus, both the quantity of the -e-, and its forming part of the 
 suffix, are doubtful. 
 
 * Jordan 1. c. seems to make Nu- does to Papius, which is impossible 
 misius stand to Nummius as Papesius from the difference of quantity. 
 
THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 13 
 
 3. Morphology. 
 
 a. The character of the language. 
 
 This I have assumed to be Latin, on the authority of Bu- 
 cheler, whose argument is that it lies between Latin and Oscan 
 and is shown not to belong to the latter by the presence of 
 med for which, to j udge by the analogy of siom = Latin se, Oscan 
 would have * miom.' 
 
 b. ' med.' 
 
 This accusative with the * ablative ' ending -d shows that the 
 confusion we find in Plautus is as old fat least] as Latin of the 
 sixth century B.C. 
 
 c. 'fefaked* 
 
 That this cannot represent an original reduplicated form of 
 the root dhe- was shown above, by the consideration that 
 *dhedhe would in Latin become *fede, while the interpunctua- 
 tion points to the same conclusion. From the cognate forms 
 the following may be suggested as a possible history : \/d}ie 
 Perf 1st sg. *dhedhe-a = *dhedhe (Sanskrit dadha-u, Greek 
 reOrj-Ka); as in Greek, this was probably strengthened by the 
 deictic particle -ke or -ka (the later -ce) either as an inde- 
 pendent developement or inherited by each from the common 
 stock \ The case for Greek is stated in Osthoff, Perf. p. 326 f 
 As in Greek also the k spread into the other tense systems, 
 as the aorist dhek = Otj/c''^ whence the classical perfect fec-i, and 
 present dhak- with the short vowel originally in plural only, 
 but extended into the singular. This may be considered as pre- 
 dialectic, for it is found in Oscan fe-fac-ust fe-fac-id (with 
 hysterogene reduplication as \\qiq) fakurent, &c., in Umbrian, in 
 classical Latin as in facio, and in this form. Biicheler thinks 
 that the erased line points to a form feficit analogous to tetigit 
 which the engraver was going to write but changed his mind. 
 Perhaps the erasure is better explained as above. (Note 2, 
 p. 10.) 
 
 The ending -ed, its character, and the quantity of the e, 
 
 1 P hardly think Mr Darbishire re- (p. 209 f.). C] 
 tained this view after the appearance ^ This equation is Bartholomae's 
 
 of Per Persson's Wurzelerweiterung (K. Z. xxvii. 255). 
 
14 THE NUMASIOS INSCRIPTION. 
 
 have been fully discussed by Osthoff (Per/! pp. 205 — 232) whose 
 conclusion is that this " 3. sing, auf -ed " is to be regarded as 
 an " alte ur- und gemein-italische Neubildung zu der 3. plur." 
 This therefore brings nothing new to bear upon his result. 
 
 d. Numasioi. 
 
 The chief direct testimony to the use of this dative in -oi in 
 old Latin, corresponding to the Greek -&), had hitherto been 
 that of Marius Victorinus (G. L. 17. 20), and it had been consi- 
 dered doubtful by some, e.g. Jordan, Krit Beitr. p. 241. 
 
 The collateral evidence however, the analogy of Greek, and 
 of Oscan forms like N'dvlanili, was very strong at least for its 
 existence in Italy. This insc. however proves it to have lasted 
 into Latin. 
 
 The general results of the discovery may be summed up as 
 follows. It supplies a step in the history of alphabets, as it 
 shows the process of borrowing from Greek in actual operation 
 and as yet incomplete. It throws the separation of dialects in 
 Italy to a very early date, as Latin is not only separated, but is 
 considerably advanced towards its classical stage — of course this 
 is assuming the accuracy of the ascribed date. It gives evidence 
 of the existence of a single-name epoch and shows that that 
 name might be a patronymic, thus explaining the existence of 
 such among praenomina. Its bearing on other inscriptions is 
 naturally unimportant from both its brevity and its antiquity, 
 but it has a slight connection with the interpretation of the 
 * Dvenos.* Pauli (Altit Stud, i 1 ff.) makes two assumptions 
 — that the retrograde order was not primarily due to desire of 
 secrecy, but was a relic of an older custom, — and that the dative 
 masculine in Latin ended in -oi. These are no longer assump- 
 tions but are actually in evidence, and to this extent the dis- 
 covery supports his view. 
 
(2) ON" THE TEXT OF TACITUS, ANNALS I. 32 
 {Rheinisches Museum 44 (1889) p. 319). 
 
ZU TACITUS, ANNALEN I. 32. 
 
 NiEMAND meines Wissens hat bisher diese merkwlirdige 
 Stelle angetastet. Die allgemeine Lesart : repente lymphati 
 destrictis gladiis in centuriones invadunt : ea vetustissima niili- 
 tarihus odiis materies et saeviendi principium. prosti-atos ver- 
 herihus mulcant, sexageni singula s, ut numerum centurionum 
 adaequarent turn convulsos laniatosque... ist schwerlich richtig. 
 Dass je sechzig Manner die einzelnen Centurionen durchprii- 
 gelten, entbehrt aller Wahrscheinlichkeit. Alle zusammen 
 ware ja unmoglich : nach einander sieht ftir meuterische 
 Soldaten allzii langweilig aus. Dass diese in der Strafe die Anzahl 
 der Centurionen gelten liessen, ist verstehbar und selbst natUr- 
 lich, nicht aber jene Art der Geltung. Die Verbesserung liegt 
 nahe. Man denke nur, wie leicht von singulos ein s wegfiel 
 und lese sexagenis. Die Zahl der Hiebe gleicht der der 
 Centurionen : sie geniigt freilich laniatos zu rechtfertigen. 
 
(3) NOTES ON THE SPIRTTUS ASPER 
 WITH ADDENDA 
 
 (published in 1889 in the Cambridge Philological Transactions 
 Vol. Ill p. 77 and in 1890 ib. p. 119). 
 
 D. P. 
 
LIST OF WORKS CITED IN 'NOTES ON THE 
 SPIRITUS ASPER.' 
 
 A. Periodical Publications. 
 
 A. J. P. = American Journal of Philology, ed. Gildersleeve. Baltimore, 
 
 1880—. 
 
 B. B. = Beitrage zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, herausg. von 
 
 Ad. Bezzenberger. Gottingen, 1877 — . 
 Curt. iS^?^. = Studien zur griech. und latein. Grammatik, herausg. von 
 
 G. Curtius (und K. Brugmann). Leipzig, 1868 — 78. 10 vols. 
 K. Z, = Zeitschrift fiir vergl. Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der 
 
 indogerm. Sprachen, herausg. (begrlindet) von A. Kulm. Berlin, 
 
 1852—. 
 M4m. Soc. Zm^. = M^moires de la Soci^t^ de Linguistique. Paris, 1868 — . 
 P. «& B. B. = Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 
 
 herausg. von H. Paul und W. Braune. Halle, 1874 — . 
 Z. D. M. G. = Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. 
 
 Leipzig, 1846 — . 
 
 B. Other Works. 
 
 Brgm. Gr. G'ram. = Griechische Grammatik, von K. Brugmann, in Iw. 
 
 Miiller's Handb. der klass. Altertums-Wissenschaft, Bd. ii. 1'* 
 
 Auflage S. 1—126. Nordlingen, 1885. 
 Brgm. 6'r<3?s. = Grundriss der vergl. Grammatik der indogerm. Sprachen, 
 
 von K. Brugmann. Bd. i. Strassburg, 1886. 
 Brgm. M. U. = Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der 
 
 indogerm. Sprachen, von H. Osthoff u. K. Brugmann. Leipzig, 
 
 1878—81. 4 Theile. 
 Cauer2 = Delectus Inscriptionum Graecarum. P. Cauer. Ed. 2. Leipzig, 
 
 1883. 
 Christ, Qriech. Zaw^?. =QrundzUge der griech. Lautlehre von Wilhelm 
 
 Christ. Leipzig, 1859. 
 Coll. = Sammlung der griech. Dialekt-Inschriften, herausg. von H. Collitz. 
 
 Gottingen, 1883—4. 
 
AUTHORITIES FOR 'NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER.' 19 
 
 Curt. Grundz.5=GrundzUge der griechischen Etymologie, von G. Curtius. 
 
 Fiinfte Auflage. Leipzig, 1879. 
 Czermak, Ges. Schriften = Gesammelte Sehrifteny von Joh. Nep. Czermak. 
 
 3 vols. Leipzig, 1879. 
 Fick3 = Vergleichendes Worterbuch der indogerm. Sprachen von August 
 
 Fick. Dritte Auflage. Gottingen, 1874—6. 
 Fick* = id. Vierte Auflage ib. 1890—. 
 Fick 77^5= Die Homerische Ilias u. s. w. von August Fick. Gottingen, 
 
 1886. 
 Grassm. = Worterbuch zum Kig-Yeda, von H. Grassmann. Leipzig, 1873. 
 Hesych. ed. M. Schmidt = Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon post loannem 
 
 Albertum, recensuit Moritz Schmidt. Jena, 1858 — 68. 5 vols. 
 Hlibschm. Arm. >S'^wci?. = Armenische Studien, von H. Hlibschmann I. 1. 
 
 Leipzig, 1883. 
 Hlibschm. Idg. Vocalsi/stem =1)0,3 indogermanische Vocalsystem, von H. 
 
 Hlibschmann. Leipzig, 1885. 
 Hlibschm. Umschr. = Die Umschreibung der Iranischen Sprachen und des 
 
 Armenischen, von H. Hlibschmann. Leipzig, 1882. 
 Kluge, Etym. Wort. = Etymologisches Worterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 
 
 von Fr. Kluge. 4^ verbesserte Auflage. Strassbm*g, 1889. 
 Kn6s = 0. V. Knos: De digammo Homeric© quaestiones I. 11. (Upsala 
 
 Universitets Arsskrift). Upsala, 1872 — 3. 
 L. & S.^=A Greek-English Lexicon, by Henry George Liddell and Robert 
 
 Scott. 7th ed. Oxford, 1883. 
 G. Meyer, Gr. (rram.^ = Griechische Grammatik, von Gustav Meyer. Zweite 
 
 Auflage. Leipzig, 1886. 
 L. Meyer =Vergl. Grammatik der Griechischen und Lateinischen Sprachen, 
 
 von Leo Meyer. Berlin, 1882 — 4. 
 Osth. Perf. — Zur Geschichte des Perfects im Indogermanischen mit 
 
 besonderer Rilcksicht auf Griechisch und Lateinisch, von Hermann 
 
 Osthoff". Strassburg & London, 1884. 
 Passow^=Handw6rterbuch der griechischen Sprache begrlindet von Fr. 
 
 Passow. Fiinfte Auflage. Leipzig, 1841 — 57. 4 Theile. 
 Rivola=Dictionarium Armeno-Latinum, Fr. Rivola. Paris, 1633. 
 Roberts, Introduction = An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy by E. S. 
 
 Roberts. Part I. Cambridge, 1887. 
 L G. A. = Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae praeter Atticas in Attica 
 
 repertas, edidit Hermannus Roehl. Berlin, 1882. 
 Sweet = A handbook of Phonetics by Henry Sweet. Oxford, 1877. 
 Wheeler, Gr. Nominalacc. = Der Griechische Nominalaccent, von Benj. 
 
 I. Wheeler. Strassburg, 1885. 
 
 2—2 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 § 1. The sound which we are accustomed in English to 
 denote by the letter h (initial) occupies the singular position 
 of being to all appearances the independent development of 
 each Indo-European language in which it is found. From this 
 it naturally follows that one ought not to expect to find it 
 phonetically identical in all, and accordingly the first duty of 
 any one who touches upon it is to state what he believes to be 
 its nature in the particular language under discussion. 
 
 The evidence on which rests the conclusion that the original I. Eu. 
 language did not possess any distinction of vowel opening, or that if 
 so it was subsequently obscured, is that in Vedic all words with 
 initial h come, as may be seen at once from Grassmann, from older 
 ghj while in Greek the spiritus asper appears to come almost uni- 
 versally from a similar change affecting other sounds. The exceptions 
 for Greek (if any) will appear in the course of this paper, but are 
 not at all events sufficient to warrant any assumption of original h. 
 
 Sweet (Handb. of Phonetics § 195) makes our English 
 aspiration the 'gradual' beginning with the glide stressed. 
 It therefore follows that its exact phonetic value depends on 
 the vowel which comes after it. Quite different is the German 
 h, which has more claim to independence. According to 
 Czermak* the common characteristic of all true A-sounds is 
 that they are Reibungsgerdusche, produced by a narrowing of 
 the channel traversed by the breath-current. The English 
 h, also, appears to me to have this character in many cases, 
 
 1 Oet. Schri/ten i. p. 756. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 21 
 
 which may account for the disagreement between Sweet and 
 Ellis\ What we know of the origin to be assigned to the 
 A-sounds in Greek and Latin (and probably in Sanskrit) points 
 to the supposition that these also were of this description. 
 
 It is obvious that the ' narrowing ' {Enge) of the channel, 
 above mentioned, may take place at any point between the 
 larynx and the lips, and just as we have (1) Explosives, (2) 
 Fricatives, so we can have (3) Aspirations, guttural, palatal, 
 dental, labial, and so on accordingly, the extremes being 
 German h and English (northern) wh, which is strangely con- 
 sidered a double sound by some phonetists. In other words 
 we have for every point the following table : — 
 
 Condition. Result. 
 
 Total contact. Explosive. 
 
 Close approximation. Fricative. 
 
 Narrowing. Aspiration. 
 
 No resistance Deaspiration. 
 
 Thus when the initial group crF in Greek passes first into 
 F'^ and then into the spirit us asper, there is a fair probability 
 that with the loss of the cr the F becomes breathed' and then 
 passes into the labial /i-sound. Similarly we may assume that 
 the spiritus asper from a is dental, and that from i palatal in 
 character. These remarks it may be observed apply also to 
 the history of the Latin aspiration : we may assume a labial 
 character for the h from hh, a guttural character for the h from 
 gh. So also for Sanskrit. 
 
 To explain why the languages mentioned did not dis- 
 tinguish between these sounds, it must be noted that their 
 audible value differs very slightly. That is to say, the speaker 
 may be consciously forming a labial ^-sound without the 
 hearer's being able to distinguish it from the sound he himself 
 forms at the back of the mouth. Of course the reminder is 
 hardly necessary that speech is learnt by the ear alone. Con- 
 
 ^ Sweet, Handh. p. 65, note a. ten /*- just as fffM- became fifx written 
 
 2 or fh as in I. G. A. 131. fi (or fxh as in I. G. A. 344). [See 
 
 3 More correctly af- by mutual as- further Excursus I. p. 54 inf. C.J 
 similation became /"/"- which is writ- 
 
22 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS AS PER. 
 
 sequently there is no need to suppose that, say at 400 B.C., 
 any Greek made, or was conscious of, a distinction between 
 the aspirations of 09 and of tJSu?. That the sound tended to 
 become less and less definite in character is shown (1) by its 
 misplacement, (2) by its gradual disappearance. 
 
 The object of this paper is to investigate whether its ety- 
 mological value is — subject to the usual limitations — exact and 
 definite, or the exceptions to the rules too numerous for it to 
 have any weight in confirming or rejecting a derivation. 
 
 § 2. The easiest way to disclose the exceptions is to begin 
 by giving the usual rules with the most certain examples of 
 each. 
 
 I. Original s- becomes ' in Greek\ 
 Examples : — 
 
 aliia Germ. Seim \/ si Fick, Vol. I. 799, more probable than 
 Skt. asan Christ, Lautl. p. 139. 
 
 aLficov Skt. sev- L. Meyer, p. 89. 
 
 aWo/jLat = I. Eu. sjio Lat. salio. 
 
 a\9, a\a<i Lat. sal. — aX? may equally well be from Vsuel, Lat. 
 salum. 
 
 apira^ &c. Lat. sarpo, which is more directly parallel than 
 rapio (see infra). Here probably belong apire^a ' a thorn- 
 hedge ' and dpireBovrj ' sl noose '. 
 
 eSo9 (e^ofiac, Ihpvco &c.) \/sed. 
 
 eh (0- ofjLo-) Vsem. 
 
 eA,09 Skt. saras, 
 
 €^(o Vsegh. 
 
 €09 = L Eu. seuos. 
 
 CTTOfMat \/seq. 
 
 €7rTa=I. Eu. septm (septm, Wheeler Nominalacc. p. 19, less 
 probable). 
 
 epiia V ser * link' or 'connect'*. Latin sero sertum opfxo^ epfirjveiK; 
 &c. To this sense are easily traceable the different mean- 
 
 1 Brgm. Grds. § 664. L. Meyer p. 693, Wackernagel K. Z. 
 
 * Perhaps identical with fj ser= 25, 267 who refer it to Sdrameyd- and 
 
 'move' and bo connect opfxi^ &c. 'Ep- so to «ara- = ^pwj (L. Meyer p. 694). 
 firjt perhaps 'the connecter' but cf. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 23 
 
 ings of ep^a, including that in II. 4. 117, where ep^^ 
 
 oSvvdcov is not the ' foundation ' of pangs (so Liddell and 
 
 Scott), but the ' link ' which brings them. 
 epTTco Lat. serpo. repo seems to stand to serpo in the same 
 
 relation as rapio to sarpo. 
 evhco Lat. sudum. Fick, Vol. ii. p. 259. Highly improbable. 
 rjiJLL- Skt. sdmi- Lat. semi-. 
 
 I- acc. Iv, instr. Iva. Vedic sim which cannot be referred to sa-. 
 irjfjLi, = I. Eu. si-se-mi. 
 
 tyLta? V Si more probable than vi- (vimen &c.). 
 ia-T7}fjLL=^I. Eu. si-stha-mi. 
 o 17 = SOS sd with its cognates. 
 0S09 Skt. sddd-. 
 o\o<; Skt. sarvas, Lat. sollus. 
 vl6<; = Vsu. 
 
 vpa^ Lat. sorex perhaps Vsuer. 
 V9 Lat. siis. 
 v\rj Ij3it. silva \/ snel. 
 virvo^ Skt. svapna-, Lat. somnus Vsuep. 
 
 II. Original i- becomes ' in Greeks 
 
 Examples : — 
 
 a^Ofjuai', ayco<;, ajvo'i cf. Skt. yaj. 
 
 rjirap = Skt. yakrt. 
 
 o<i = Skt. yas, and cognates eo)? (= ydvaf) (»-9 &c. 
 
 vfiet^; compare Skt. yusma-. 
 
 v(T/iiLV7] Vi^idh. 
 
 Spa Gothic jer. 
 
 III. Original su- becomes ' in G^eek^ 
 
 Examples : — 
 
 dSv^ dvBdvco &c. Latin suavis ^suad. 
 
 € Skt. sva-. 
 
 €Kvp6<; Skt. gvdgura-. 
 
 1 Brgm. Grds. § 129. ^ Brgm. Grds. § 564, cf. p. 149. 
 
 2 Not directly paralleL 
 
24 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 ef = sueks. 
 
 ^\fc09 Skt. surya- Vsuer. 
 
 ihpm Skt. svid'. 
 
 IV. Original si- becomes ' in Greeks 
 
 v^rjv vfivo^ V sia'^u Skt. syuman-. I make aSpo?= sin d-r 6- 
 (Ved. syand- 'flow'), cf. Hdt. 4. 31, Arist. Prohl. 28. 1, p. 949' 5. 
 
 V. Original u- becomes v- in Greeks 
 
 Except in dialectal forms, as Lesbian, v is not found in Gk. 
 In many words the aspiration is etymologically justified by one 
 of the above rules, but in many others the aspiration can be 
 proved hysterogene, e.g. v^ayp cf. unda weak form of Vya'^d-, 
 vTrep vTTo Skt, upari upa, varepo^ Skt. uUara-, virap cf Skt. 
 vapus- (L. Meyer, p. 945). 
 
 The only explanation offered of this phenomenon will be 
 found in Brugmann's Grundriss I. § 48, and is as follows : — 
 that U' developed a parasitic i- which passed into the spiritus 
 asper in accordance with our 2nd rule. The proximity of iu- 
 and ii is vouched for by the English pronunciation of u as in use 
 (which is generally supposed to have originated in an attempt 
 to pronounce the French u) and by Boeotian lov for v as in 
 Tiovxa (e.g. Cauer^ 303). The case is by no means established. 
 Boeotian lov proves nothing for it only occurs after dentals (r, 5, 
 6, X, I/), and hence like the similar Oscan phenomenon^ is to be 
 ascribed to dentalism. The parallel drawn from English is 
 obviously inexact and that in two ways : first, the assigned ex- 
 planation implies that at a time when the Greeks naturally 
 said u they made attempts at saying il, but at first only suc- 
 ceeded in saying iu, whereas the change of u to il in Greek was 
 purely phonetic and therefore unconscious: secondly, Boeotian 
 (with u) is to the rest of Greece (with u) as English (with u) is 
 to French (with u), therefore the initial i and consequent aspi- 
 ration should appear in Boeotian and be wanting elsewhere; 
 which is exactly the reverse of the facts. 
 
 1 Brgm. Grds. §§ 664, 131. » With which Brugm. (1. c.) also 
 
 * Osth. Perf. p. 486. compares it. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 25 
 
 Further, the theory necessitates one of two conclusions, 
 neither of which has been drawn from it, or is in itself probable. 
 The intrusive i- of the hypothesis must have come in either 
 before or after the separation of dialects. If before, the conclu- 
 sion is that Boeotian violated in this case its regular change of 
 i- to spiritus asper\ If after, i.e. in the 6th century B.c.^ it is 
 necessary to suppose that the change of i- to spiritus asper 
 took place independently in the several dialects, and moreover, 
 that in some of them it took place twice, for the traces of i- in 
 the Homeric poems are known to be of the slightest. 
 
 I am therefore reluctantly compelled to record the pheno- 
 menon as unexplained, nor can I offer any attempt to solve the 
 problem ^ 
 
 § 3. Of these five rules, the first three are generally believed 
 to admit of a large amount of exception. Such exceptions obvi- 
 ously are of two kinds : first, words which have not the aspirate, 
 although their derivation brings them under one of the rules: 
 second, words which have the aspirate without coming under 
 the rules. 
 
 The first of these again will fall into three subdivisions. 
 
 a. Original s- becomes * in Greek. 
 
 The evidence for this is most fully given by L. Meyer, pp. 
 89 sqq., whose instances are: — 
 
 eT€09 = Skt. satya- 
 eheOXov, eBacpo^;: eSo9 
 dvev = Skt. sanutar 
 6VL0L : V sm 
 ivaXiy/cio^i : \/ sm 
 €ip6Lv==Jj. severe 
 6p6^ = L. serum 
 
 middle of 6th cent. Roberts, Introd. p. 
 210) before u, which proves u not il. 
 Besides, the lateness of the aspiration 
 is proved by the non-dissimilation, e.g. 
 in i/<pi^. 
 
 ' [See further Excursus II. p. 55 
 inf. C] 
 
 ov\o<; — o\o9 
 
 afjLodev, a/jbrj, &c.: dfModev, &c. 
 
 aOpoo^ = a6p6o^ 
 
 dveiv : avveiv 
 
 OpiTT}^ = OpTTT}^ 
 
 Compounds with a- = sm 
 
 1 As for example in the forms of the 
 relative pronoun (stem to-). 
 
 2 The reasons for fixing the pronun- 
 ciation as u in the 6th cent, are two : 
 Ist the Latin transliterations at the 
 early period of Greek contact, 2nd 9 is 
 found in I. G. A. 524 and others (dated 
 
26 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 dfiepat, aro^, &c.: Lat. satur '£^^1/^9 = 81^1. Saranyu- 
 
 LKfjidf: : Skt. sic- ipveadac = JjSit. servare 
 
 eveire = Lat. in-sec-e d\ao<; = Lat. saltus 
 
 oirdoav '. Lat. socius aXao, &c. : aXXo/nai 
 
 OTTO? = Germ. >Sa/i5 eao) : ^/ su Fest. desivare. 
 
 Of these, TjeXto? is discussed at length below (p. 37). ovXo^ 
 like ot'So9, ovpo<;, &c. is purely dialectal. In d/juodev the initial 
 aspirate disappears by the rule for dissimilation , d/jb66ev : d/jurj 
 then produced dfjuoOev and a/^^. The same holds for dOpoo^, 
 and the other compounds with d- for a-, e.g. dXoxo'i, &c. produce 
 aKoiTt^;, &c. The same rule produces eBedXov e8a</)09 beside eSo9. 
 For ai/€^z/, opTTT)^, dfievai, &c. see pp. 38, 35, 38, respectively. The 
 connexion of cKfid^ with sic- is by no means a certain one. 
 Geldner^ proposes to connect it with Skt. ydgu, Zend, igi, but 
 Duntzer's^ view, who connects iKfiaXiof; l^v<i, &c. with Skt. vij- 
 Germ. weich, is perhaps preferable on account of 
 
 Ki>/cX6<r', d(f)ap Be t€ lKfjLd<; e^rj, Bvvec Be t dXoKJ)?], — P 392, 
 
 which seems to demand the F. The derivation of evveire from 
 V seq was refuted by Brgm. K. Z. 25. 305 and that from V U^q 
 substituted ^ — If it were established that s- could vanish the 
 derivation of oTrdwv from seq- would be highly probable, but it 
 cannot aid in establishing the rule, because it is equally pos- 
 sible to connect it with 07ri9 ' respect ', and so with oq- ' see '. — 
 The comparison of o7ro9 with Germ. Saft is fanciful and still more 
 so that by Curtius with <ja07;9, sapor, or sucus. I believe* the 
 radical meaning to be * bitter ', but do not identify it with the 
 root ak because that involves transition from one class of 
 gutturals to the other. — The derivation of ireo^; from satya- does 
 appear to warrant the rule, and has been frequently adduced 
 to support this and other irregularities. But in fact, except 
 
 ^ K. Z. 27. 265. should be derived from a root dp : op 
 
 ' Ih. 13. 19. which Fick traces in Ved. apds (gen. 
 
 ' ivveire : (veire as explained by sg.), dpas (nom. pi.), Lith. upe, Pruss. 
 
 Wackernagel, K. Z. 25. 262. ape 'river' and possibly in 'A<rwir6s, 
 
 * [In a marginal note Mr Darbishire 'I»'W7r6j. C.J 
 says; 'better as Fick* I p. 15', i.e. dvds 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 27 
 
 ^H fying the two. Briigmann^ and Osthoff^ have vainly tried to 
 ^^B evade the difficulties. Satya- is for I. Eu. snt-io- which would 
 ^B give in Greek nothing but da-cro- which bears no great resem- 
 ^H blance to FereFo. That the latter is a stem in -reF- is 
 ^P proved by Cretan 'Ere^avSpo^'^ (if to be identified with this) 
 but certainly by the weak stem in €tv-/jlo(;. It is thus parallel 
 to 7roc7}Teo<; and the other so-called ' verbal adjectives '. The 
 difference in accent between ireof} and TTonjrio^ is a good ex- 
 ample of Wheeler's rule", for eVeo? is not dactylic. 
 
 The next question is the root: and first as to the digamma. 
 Knos (p. 198) gives the Homeric evidence as follows: — Hiatus 
 before it, B. 300, E. 104, O. 423, M. 217, N. 153, 375, H. 125, 
 7. 122, c. 529, V, 328, tt. 300, 320, r. 216, yjr. 36, ay. 259, 352. 
 Elision before it, H. 359, M. 233, O. 53, X. 305, T. 255, ^. 107. 
 As he follows the derivation satya- he is of course compelled to 
 slight the first instances, and deny the F. The cognates I 
 propose compel me, in the first instance, to make an equally 
 gratuitous assumption that the word has the F, leaving the 
 evidence to be examined later. 
 
 Fe-TeF-o-9 is then the verbal adjective of a root ue, u6 (? u) : of 
 this the present in Greek is ?7j-/jli, 'say', 'speak'. This verb is 
 thus given an independent existence and the rather improbable 
 re-formation^ from the single form tj becomes unnecessary: of 
 course ti/jll cannot be directly for egh-mi. The radical meaning 
 of eVeo? is therefore simply 'what is to be said', and hence 'true', 
 just as the Latin ve-nos, from the same root, arrives at the same 
 meaning through the suffix -ro-. 
 
 The light thus thrown on the original meaning of the word 
 renders intelligible II. xiv. 124, 
 
 KiKacTTO Si 7rdvTa<; 'Axatovs 
 €yp(€ny Ta Se fXiXXer aKOVc/xev, et ereov Trcp, 
 
 1 Curtius' Stud. 9. 334. Perf. p. 175. Bezzenberger's con- 
 
 2 K. Z. 24. 414. nexion {Beitr. 4. 314 f.) with Bulg. 
 
 3 Curtius' Stud. 9. 102, cf. 334. s^tu, Skt. sdman is impossible. Moller, 
 * Nominalaccent im Griech. pp. K. Z. 24. 474 n. seeks to justify the 
 
 60—104. loss of the guttural. 
 
 ^ Wackernagel, K. Z. 23. 467, Osth. 
 
28 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 where the older editions alter el into ws. The sentiment ' if indeed 
 it is true' is clearly inappropriate, or weak at the best, but, giving 
 the word its original sense, 'if I rnay say so' is a perfectly natural 
 softening of the foregoing vaunt, especially in the case of a man 
 praising his own father. 
 
 €Ti]<; is another derivative of this root, but its history is not 
 clear because it is uncertain which of its two main senses 
 ' comrade ' and ' tribesman ' is the older. Probably they come 
 independently from the root-meaning, the one from the daily 
 intercourse of speech, the other from the right of speaking in 
 the assembly ^ 
 
 It is difficult not to believe that this root was originally 
 identical with I. Eu. ye 'breathe' 'blow', Skt. m-, Gk. drjfii,, but 
 their different treatment in Gk. points to an early separation. 
 
 The evidence I have to offer for the F is therefore as follows : 
 First, the frequency of hiatus before it in Homer. Secondly, Lat. 
 verus. Thirdly, Itt/s, which undoubtedly has the digamma (cf. I.G. A. 
 110. 8). Fourthly, the passages in Homer which show elision 
 before it can scarcely be held to disprove the F, especially as in all 
 but one (Y. 255) the elision is of a particle. The new sense given to 
 ireov makes the omission of the particle in some cases more easy, e.g. 
 H. 359 (M. 233), 
 
 Et €T€OV Br/ rovTOv diro a7rovhrj<s ayopcvcts 
 
 'E^ apa Bt] TOL €7r€iTa Oeol <f>p€va^ (oXccav avroi, 
 
 can be translated 'If indeed we are to say "you address him in 
 earnest" then verily the gods themselves, &c.' Y. 255 in which 
 correction is impossible is in a spurious passage (251 — 5) marked as 
 such by Aristonicus. 
 
 The comparison of dvev with Skt. sanutar is also untenable. 
 The parent of the latter is sana- which seems to imply originally 
 'duration in time' (Gk. ei/09, Lat. seneoo, Eng. syne). The 
 meaning 'old' comes naturally from this. The suffix -tar is 
 identical with -rep in Greek in are/j -rep-o- &c., and appears 
 in pratar, antar with the same function as in sanutar. Its force 
 
 1 This word is not connected with 25. 143, for the latter shows no trace 
 houpoi in spite of J. Schmidt, K. Z. of / in Homer (Knos pp. 221 — 2). 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 29 
 
 seems to be that the root to which it is added is contrasted 
 with something else, whence its comparative function, and 
 thus sanutar comes to mean ' far-removed ' — but it is clear 
 that the root could not give the sense without such a suffix, 
 and that the suffix -ney could have this force is entirely un- 
 supported by evidence. On the other hand, the comparison of 
 dvev with Gothic inu, M. H. G. an, O. S. ano (see Kluge, Etym. 
 Wort. s. V. ohne), is justified both by form and by meaning. 
 dvev then would stand for nneu and so be connected with the 
 negative particle. — hiot has been influenced by evL, ivaXljKLOf; 
 by apparent, or actual, composition with eV. — eipecv is from the 
 root Fe/a- see p. 38 : Knos p. 176 is compelled to postulate a 
 root svar in order to bring this into connection with sero. — 6p6<; 
 is not to be compared with serum. It is connected with opyrj 
 and perhaps with Skt. ar- ' be in motion ' ; it therefore had no 
 initial s. — The derivation of ^Eplvv<; from Saranyu- is impro- 
 bable. Mythologic names should always be identified with great 
 caution, and here the phonetic difficulties are considerable, 
 while it seems unlikely that 'Kplvix; is to be separated from 
 "Ept?. — epveaOai is from ?ep- not crep-, see p. 38. — d\(TO(; see 
 p. 51. — aXao &c. see p. 51. — idco is a very difficult word 
 which has not yet been cleared up, but the derivation sug- 
 gested is not plausible enough to overcome the difficulty of the 
 breathing. 
 
 Curtius (Grundz.^ p. 682 sqq.) gives substantially the same 
 list of irregularities, the only additional instances being the 
 perfects earaXKa ea-iraprai, &c. for which I need only refer to 
 G. Meyer, Gr. Gram^ § 544. 
 
 The comparison of eu- and su- I mention only because it 
 seems to be accepted by Hiibschm. {Arm. Stud. p. 37). ev- is of 
 course the stem of iv<; which is connected with Skt. ayics-\ The 
 only other exception which has any authority is drep—sonder^ 
 There does not seem to be any valid reason for preferring this 
 derivation to an equally possible one from Skt. antara-, Germ. 
 ander. 
 
 1 CoUitz, K. Z. 27. 183 sq. 
 
 2 Brugmann, Gr. Gram.^ § 200 {Handb.^ ii. p. 117). 
 
30 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 h. Original i becomes ' in Greek. 
 
 The following are adduced by Curtius, Grundz!' p. 687, vfifie^;, 
 OTTL, 6(f)pa, ajjd dyeearo-L' refjuevecra-L Hesych. which he says 
 belongs ' unzweifelhaft ' to the root ' yag \ Of these the first 
 two are Aeolic ; the third loses its aspirate by dissimilation ; for 
 the fourth the root ag- ' drive ' seems equally possible, but the 
 instance is too dubious to carry much weight. 
 
 L. Meyer, p. 159, gives no further examples. 
 
 Christ (Lautl. p. 154) presents the following: — ij/juap with 
 rjfiepay r]Lo<;=lr]io^, rjinof; = Skt. yapya, rfia, elai^^eiaL 
 
 These words are all uncertain and have been the subject of 
 numerous conjectures. Ascoli* has connected rjiiepa and rj^iap 
 with Skt. vas-, us-, ' burn ', and this is the most widely accepted 
 view. The evidence for the digamma is however insufficient 
 (Tijfiepov : ar/fiepov does not prove it). The derivation to which 
 Christ alludes is presumably that which connects them with 
 Skt. yaman-, and if Latin Idmis may be taken as proof that the 
 original form of Skt. ya- was ia and not ie (Doric shows d/jiipa, 
 afiap^), this derivation is otherwise irreproachable. However I 
 prefer to separate rj/iap from i^fiepa, and refer the latter to 
 V sam seen in Skt. sarria 'year', Zend, hama * summer', 
 O. H. G. sumaVy the last of which may be identical also in 
 suffix. The connexion in sense through 'the bright shining 
 time' is easy. — The words 7]to<i and li]co<; are also of doubt- 
 ful identity; lijtof; may be derived from It) and, if so, rJLo<; 
 may come from the interjection ^, but it is unsafe in princi- 
 ple to go further and assume the identity of Irj and rj thus 
 admitting that i may at one moment appear as 1-, and the 
 next disappear, in one and the same word, especially when 
 that happens to be an interjection. — rjirio^ is also a much- 
 debated word. The earliest guess is Ebel's^ who makes it 
 Latin pius with prefixed ^-. Bechtel* identified it with Lith. 
 opiis (dpus) opia 'fragile'. The derivation which Christ ac- 
 
 1 K. Z. 17. 403 sqq. Stud. Krit. ii. objection is Moller's, K. Z. 24. 474, 
 
 897 sqq. It is the defence and not the with Skt. ahan-, and it is impossible on 
 
 derivation which is due to him, cf. other grounds. 
 
 K. Z. 12. 310. » K. Z. 4. 447. 
 
 « G. Meyer Gr. Gram* § 44. The * Bezz. Beitr. i. 164. 
 only other connexion which avoids this 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 31 
 
 cepts — from Skt. ycipya — was propounded by Pictet\ It seems 
 to have met with a good deal of acceptance, but in my opinion 
 Aufrecht's^ is much superior. He connects it with Vedic apya 
 relationship, api kinsman, and so with the root ap- * connect '. — 
 The concluding instance does not bear upon my subject, for if 
 ^€iai were = elai, the ^ proves that it would be a case of lost '^'-' 
 (not I), which is even more improbable. 
 
 c. Original sy- becomes ' in Greek. 
 
 The instances alleged are : — at, el = Osc. svai svae — acr/jL6vo<i 
 from 7]Bo/jLac — e6o<;, Skt. svadha — errj^; also with sva — 77809 be- 
 side rJSu? — tSfco?, Skt. sva — 1809 Vsuid- iSpco^, &c. 
 
 Brugmann', though with some hesitation, accepts the first 
 of these instances. His attempt however, to explain the loss 
 of the aspirate, carries very little conviction. A little attention 
 to inscriptions would have proved the derivation impossible at 
 once. On the Gortyn inscription for instance al occurs fre- 
 quently : so do numerous other words where initial su- is 
 undoubted, as 6Kaaro<; (l. 9) '6v, eKarepo^ (l. 17) &c.: in all 
 of these the digamma is consistently written ; from al the 
 digamma is as consistently absent. The conclusion is obvious. 
 
 That at, €1, come from some pronominal stem is highly probable : 
 whether it is the same which appears in Skt, idam id itas'^ in 
 e- (esas) &c. in Latin is, id and in Greek -t must remain an open 
 question. 
 
 aa-fjbevo^ is assigned to r/SofjLai, as perfect participle by the Etym. 
 Mag.° which is followed by all authorities down to G. Meyer 
 Gram.^ § 530, who regards it however as sigmatic aorist. This 
 derivation is impossible both from the absence of the aspirate 
 and from the a which ought to be rj. I believe acrfi€vo<; to stand 
 for ¥n-(T-fi€vo<i and so connect it with Skt. van- ' desire ', Lat. 
 Venus &c. As regards the F, the word occurs three times in 
 
 1 K. Z. 5. 42. 4 Whitney, § 502. 
 
 2 16. 5. 359 sqq. cf. Goebel, lb. 10. ^ Lentz, Herodian 11. 358. E. M. 
 399. 155. 23 &cr/J.evos ' i]d(o rb eixppaivb}, 6 
 
 3 Gr. Gram?- § 201. 1. [In Ed. 2 iradrjTtKbs irapaKcl/xevos ^a/xai, tj fiero- 
 p. 225 he accepts Mr Darbishire's cor- xn Wf^^f^os, koL Aafievos rpoir^ tov 97 
 rection. CJ eh a. 
 
32 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 the Odyssey*, always at the beginning of the same line, and 
 twice in the Iliad ^ with paragogic v preceding (Dindorf : Bekker 
 wrote Fao-yLtei^o?). The termination -(t-/jl€vo<; is most frequent 
 with perfect participles, but there is no doubt that it was 
 * abstracted ' as a suffix, and not formed independently in each 
 case from the 3^ sg. (Brgm. M. U. i. 81 n.). It is also possible 
 that Meyer may be right in regarding the a- as the sign 
 of the sigmatic aorist. The accent follows that of other — not 
 perfect — participles. 
 
 In 6^09 the aspirate is lost by dissimilation. — The derivation 
 of eT7;9 from crFe-TT;? 'one's own man' and so 'companion' is 
 most improbable. The suffix -tt;? has a perfectly explicit and 
 well-defined function ; it forms nouns from verbs, and to have 
 it added to a pronominal stem in this way would indeed be 
 remarkable. Hence the derivation from ^tj/jll, suggested above, 
 is to be preferred. The same objection applies to lBw;, which 
 according to the received view is all termination, with the 
 pronominal stem prefixed only to vanish. It is better to derive 
 it from the root uid ' know' which gives the sense satisfactorily. 
 The F is abundantly proved by inscriptions^ — 77809 and ZS09 
 may be taken together. The latter is treated of by Osthoff'* 
 who explains the loss of aspiration as due to dissimilation in 
 the oblique cases, as l86ho<;. The same would then apply to 
 ^809. This is possible, but on the other hand eX,09 under 
 exactly the same conditions does not lose its aspirate, and so it 
 is more probable that we have here a case of sentence doublets' 
 like those given by Brugmann Grundriss I. § 589. 3 (p. 447) — 
 uid, uad beside syid, suad as teg, pek, mer, beside steg, 
 spek, smer. 
 
 § 4. Before passing to the second class of exceptions, it is 
 convenient to bring together those cases in which the presence 
 or absence of the aspiration is not persistent. In some of these 
 both forms are well attested, in others we have only the 
 
 1 I. 63, 566. K. 134. didlav (Biicheler, Rh. Mm. Vol. 40 
 
 2 S. 108. T. 350. Suppl. pp. 13-14, Fick, Ilias p. 559). 
 » e.g. Tab. Heracl. i. 14. (vSod' * Perfect, p. 479. 
 
 l5Lav which Fabretti read on the ° [But see Excursus III. p. 58 
 
 Gortyn inscr. 11. 11 is corrected ivdo- inf. C.J 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 doubtful testimony of late grammarians 
 tinguished by an asterisk. 
 
 the latter are dis- 
 
 fr 
 
 0709 ayo<; 
 
 afjL/j,o<; 
 
 *afjLfio^^ 
 
 ifiv<: 
 
 t r 4 
 
 ahrjv a8r)v 
 
 dvv(o 
 
 dvVTCO 
 
 €1/09 
 
 €vo<; 
 
 a6pe(0 adpio) 
 
 dpKV^ 
 
 apfcv^ 
 
 epav 
 
 eparj 
 
 dOp6o<i aSp6o<s 
 
 avQ) 
 
 av(o 
 
 epaL<; 
 
 6p<TL^ 
 
 aXea akea 
 
 d^^rl^'^ 
 
 t 1 / 
 
 *icrfi6,' 
 
 ia/jLo^ 
 
 a\r)<i a\r)<; 
 
 iSa)\LO<; 
 
 *eB(o\io<:' 
 
 €(TT6 
 
 *^aT6' 
 
 dXvfO dXvco 
 
 eikLKpivr}^ 
 
 el\LKpLvr}<; 
 
 €V(0 
 
 tt 
 €V(0 
 
 cf. aXrj 
 
 iXvQ) 
 
 e\vw oXoL- 
 
 r]6ii6<; 
 
 yOfMO^ 
 
 afia^a afia^a 
 
 
 Tpoxo<; e\if &c. 
 
 rjdw 
 
 r]6co 
 
 afiTj *afi7) 
 
 etpyco 
 
 eipyco 
 
 carcop 
 
 'idToap 
 
 dfirj dfirj 
 
 6X\09 
 
 €A,X09 
 
 opirrj^ 
 
 opirrj^ 
 
 There are three causes to which this want of uniformity 
 may be assigned. 
 
 1. A tendency to misplace the aspirate which is 
 observable in other languages also, and in face of CIA. I. 324, 
 cannot be denied for Greek'. In particular, as the distinction 
 [in sound] between aspirated and unaspirated vowels was lost, 
 misplacement [especially in writing] would naturally become 
 more easy, and hence a breathing which 07ily rests on late 
 tradition is not to be held of much value. Generally speaking 
 however the principle is of unsafe application, and should only 
 be a last resort. Of the above, the only word which cannot 
 be otherwise explained (neglecting those of doubtful authen- 
 ticity) is d/ia^a, dfjua^a of which the derivation is not fixed. 
 
 If from oLfi- and ayw the aspiration is correct and might be lost 
 through the compound apfidfia^a. — 
 
 1 So Liddell and Scott : Passow does 
 not mention it. It seems to rest on 
 v(pafxfxo% in Theophrastus. 
 
 2 •Ionic' Passow. 
 
 3 Only Schol. in Ar. Av. 884. 
 
 * Lex de Spir. 217 gives a popular 
 derivation from ^, fxiueiv which explains 
 the origin of the aspiration. 
 
 5 Only a false MS reading according 
 to Passow. 
 
 6 So Etym. Magn. The MSS of 
 Theocr. waver. Probably aspirated on 
 analogy of wa-re or as = ew$ re. That 
 ?s re is the true derivation is proved 
 by ft' re on the Delphian inscr. Cauer^ 
 204. 40. 
 
 7 [Cf. now Meisterhans, Gramm. 
 Att. ImchrrJ § 38, 32 with Brugm. 
 Gr. Gr.^ p. 73. C] 
 
 D. P. 
 
34 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 2. The word has one breathing by rule, but beside 
 it and connected with it in sense or system stand 
 words which, also regularly, have the other breathing. 
 Then assimilation takes place in one direction or in both. 
 Thus adp6o<; loses its aspiration by the rule of dissimilation, and 
 regains it by the influence of the other compounds with d-. 
 
 This word seems to have been followed by ddpiio, although it is 
 not easy to trace the semasiological connexion. The imaspirated 
 form is of course regular, whatever the derivation. Kluge's^ in- 
 genious identification with Teut. vmn-dro- is impossible as the 
 Homeric evidence is conclusive against the F (see K. 11, M. 391, 
 E. 334, /x. 232, t. 478). 
 
 So dfjLYi is influenced by the loss in dfjuSOev as explained 
 above (p. 26). — So rjOo) loses its aspiration by the same law 
 and regains it from a popular connexion with o-rjdco which in 
 itself is doubtful [see p. 60 footnote 1]. It is better to connect 
 it with aLvco, thus rtdco = sn-^a)^ ahco = sn-i-o. 
 
 The aspirated form was predominant in the time of the scholiast 
 on Ap. Rhod. i. 1294, who therefore prescribes yOpos. For this 
 form the evidence of the Sigeian inscr. (I. G. A. 492, Roberts, 
 Introduction, 42) is adduced. The upper (Ionic) inscription has 
 ijOfxov : the lower (Attic), yOfiov^ unless the H was a slip in copying 
 from the one above, and E added as a correction: compare I. G. A. 
 446 and 482. 
 
 This explanation also holds for the variation in aijco and evco 
 as is fully set forth by Osthofl'^ The unaspirated form epar) is 
 due to the epic iepar) in which the e is anaptyctic and so un- 
 aspirated. 
 
 Slightly different are the following cases, in which the in- 
 fluence is exerted by words of similar meaning. ahr}v I derive 
 like a(r/jL6vo<; from yen — Fn-^T^i; — and trace the aspiration to 
 tiXt^, or dvBdvo). For the digamma compare 
 
 dW tTC fiiv fiLv ifyrjjjiL dBrjv eXdav Ka/corrjTOf;. — €. 290^ 
 
 1 Etym. W(/}-terb. s. v. Wunder ''das 2 Yot the formative suffix cf. rX^-^w, 
 
 germ, wundro- scheint mit gr. ddpiu t/wJ-^w, /xiPij-du), &o. Brgm. Gr. Gram} 
 
 (fiir */'adp4b}) *8ehe, schaue, betrachte', § 116. V. Henry, Comp. Gram. § 92. 
 auf ein idg. Wz. wendh 'anschanen, * Per/. 478 — 493. 
 
 anstaunen', zu weisen." •» Against the digamma is T. 423. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIKITUS ASPER. 35 
 
 So opTTT}^ is the true form. It is to be connected with op- 
 ' swell ' as in opyij and 6p6<; (supr. p. 29). The aspiration is 
 due to apTTT)^ as the young shoots had to be pruned. 
 
 3. The confusion is due to the intermixture of 
 different roots. That is to say: two words of different origin 
 and with different breathings, but otherwise identical in form, 
 bear similar meanings; the result is a complete fusion of the two 
 and the aspiration varies. 
 
 An example in which the distinction is observed is given by 
 Tzetzes (p. 946, Miill.) *E7rtu7ri8a. Aao-cw? fxev cttcdttis, y aKoXovOo^ kol 
 S/xwt's* xf/tXioq Sc CTTWTTt'?, >/ e7ri(rK07rov(ra Koi f^XiTTOvcra irapa toi'9 wTra?. 
 A well known case of complete fusion, is l^^ia from uegh and segh^. 
 
 This principle accounts for a good many of the above doublets. 
 ayo^ and ^709 are referred to different roots by Curtius^ Much 
 confusion is caused by the roots sel and uel. Of these the 
 former opens up a difficulty. The rule is generally laid down 
 that Gk. p, \ and Armenian r, I, correspond to each other 
 and to I.Eu. r, I. This needs modification*. The full system of 
 liquids possessed by Armenian seems to prove that the original 
 language had also two * r's (and two ' Ts), one of which would 
 become in Greek p or \, the other only p. This renders possible 
 identifications which have great inherent probability, as Arme- 
 nian arag with iXacppo^;, Arm. arew with dXia, and ser with sel. 
 Compare also Cretan d(f>aiXrja€a6aL with the ordinary alpeco. 
 
 opix-q &c. point to the root being ser, Skt. sar; but the almost cer- 
 tain derivative of this, saras, compared with cAos^ and salila, points 
 to sel. 
 
 1 More probably than ^fyn-u). question seems to have been modified; 
 
 2 An interesting subject for investi- see The SansJcrit Liquids, pp. 210, 236, 
 gation would be, how far these two 244 and 256 inf. C] 
 
 roots can be separated in Homer by ^ Compare also its derivative iXiKrj, 
 
 means of the digamma. For instance with Lat. salix, Teut. salahd, English 
 
 in A.51/3eXos^Xfireu/c^s, the/ispresent (dial.) sally * the willow', which is 
 
 and the sense also points to uegh : on therefore ' the water-tree '. Exactly 
 
 the other hand, in line 113, <xkol ^x^tv parallel is the connexion of Lat. 
 
 must be scanned oim^x^w (Hartel a?7iMs, Eng. aM<?r with Skt. a?-. 'move'. 
 
 H. St. 3. 41), the digamma must be The common equation of ^Xos with 
 
 absent, and the sense is that of segh. Velia is impossible from the absence 
 
 =* Gmiidz.^ pp. 170-1. of f in Homer, see Knos p. 80. 
 
 * [Mr Darbishire's view on this 
 
 3—2 
 
36 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 The idea 'move' can be distinctly traced in e\tf ekiaaca 
 eX/jLcvt; and eXvco, as well as in eXo? just mentioned. It is also 
 visible in the ' secondary ' root selk whence cXkco eX/co? oXkyj 
 Latin sulcus. eXfcco is thus to be separated from Lith. velkil 
 Lat. ulcus, although Greek may have fused the two roots; but 
 the unaspirated form has left no trace, nor does Homer show 
 the digamma^ see however infr. p. 49. 
 
 The derivatives of the root uel implying * motion round ', 
 Latin volvo, have no aspiration, e.g. etXco, aXrj aXdofiai ciXaof;, &c. 
 Hence the confusion in iXvco iXvco, aXvco dXva), elXiKpivyj^ €iXt- 
 Kpivr}^ (' tested by shaking '), 6XoLTpo)(^o^ 6XoLTpo')(^o^. 
 
 The explanation of the doublets eXXo? eX\,o9 is similar. 
 There are two words of this form, and in both the aspiration 
 is unstable. iXX6<; ' a young deer ' is the true form as proved 
 by the connexion with €Xa<l>o<i Arm. eXn\ The adjective 
 eXXof; is generally supposed to mean ' dumb ', which appears to 
 rest on the fact that fish are called eXXoi by Sophocles Ai. 1297 
 and dvavBoL by Aeschylus Pers. 579. The other meaning given 
 by Hesychius, * swift', is even more appropriate as an epithet 
 of fish"'' and gives an intelligible derivation which the other does 
 not. Assigning it then, with this sense, to sel move, the aspira- 
 tion is regular. The two words eXXo? and eXXo? being otherwise 
 identical in form then interchanged breathings, so that the tra- 
 dition varies in the case of both. The meaning 'quick, lively', 
 for the adjective explains this better than 'dumb'; for the 
 active motions of a young animal are much more characteristic 
 than voicelessness. 
 
 iXXoiI/ does not make against this sense. The second member of 
 the compound is passive as in a-rep-oif/ beside aarrjp Stella. For the 
 breathing cf. Hesych. " cXXittoVtcs rfj's ottos* koI Sao-cts" where kol 
 8ao-€o)s should be read. 
 
 Quite distinct from the root uel just mentioned is another 
 root which appears in Greek as FeX and means 'press, compact'. 
 It is distinguished from the other by forming one of that class 
 
 1 Knos p. 79. ' Cf. lepbu Ixdiv 11. 407, where iepbv 
 
 '-^ Brugmann, M. U. ii. 173; also =hiram from is 'move quickly' 
 
 Windisch K. Z. 27. 168 who compares Grassm. 221 ; also the German phrase 
 
 Skt. enay Lith. 4lni8^ Cymr. elain. 'gesund wie eiu Fisch'. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 37 
 
 of words in which F becomes ' under conditions hitherto unex- 
 plained. 
 
 From this root come a\c^ oXla oXl^o)^, &c. and probably 
 eXcop eXelv aXoovai, &c. 
 
 Possibly also in o;(\o9 which may be ^oXx^os (for the loss of X cf. 
 Grds. § 266) and so to be compared with Skt. vldg.—vjg, but the 
 reason for the x is not apparent^. 
 
 From this root aX?;? must be derived, and hence the spiritus 
 asper is correct. The form aXr)<; is due to supposed contraction 
 from ao\Xr]<;, for w^hich reason the a was wrongly lengthened 
 (Call. Fr. 86). This lengthening separated the word from aXt? 
 which therefore shows no variation. 
 
 do\\rj<s is another derivative of the same root and is not to 
 be connected with Lat. sollus (= Skt. sarvas = 6\os), hut as RoehP 
 surmised, to be compared with aFAavcos in Elean Cauer^ 259. 4, 
 I. G.A.I 13. c. The two words differ only in sentence- accent, 
 siTi-vJ-neu- becoming aFXai/cF-, sm-v]-neu- aFoAvcF- which passes into 
 d-6W-r)<;, losing its initial aspiration by dissimilation, as avto and 
 doa-arjryjp^. Of course the inscription shows a'FXanfs being Elean. 
 
 There is yet another root in Greek of the form FeX, and it 
 also shows the aspirate in its derivatives. The meaning is 
 'shine, burn' and it appears to be identical with Armenian 
 var of the same meaning. From it come eXrj iXavrj (? 'EXevr]) 
 eXXr] &c. It is by analogy with these words that aXea (most 
 probably a\eFa Arm. arew) receives its aspiration. 
 
 This root also explains ■tJ€\Lo<s rationally, for of course the c 
 cannot be ' developed' by the r/-. yJeAtos is for yJ-feX-tos, where the rj- is 
 of the nature of a preposition or verbal prefix as in y-Svvdfxrjv &c. 
 (Osth. Per/, p. 129 n.) and so the whole word is analogous to 
 w-K6avos^ In aeXios"" (cf. d^iXtov &c. G. Meyer, Gr. Gram.^ § 235 
 
 ^ The form is given by KarafeX- 
 fiivuv on the Gortyn inscr. (Cauer^ 
 113. 13), compare iy/rjXrjdicjvTi Tab. 
 Her. I. 152, diroreXioi, CauerS 255. 7. 
 
 '^ [But see further p. 231 inf. C] 
 
 3 I. G. A. p. 178. 
 
 ^ Curtius Grundz.^ No. 460, Brugm. 
 Grds. I. § 135. 
 
 5 It is no proof that Greek tj- cannot 
 
 be Skt. a- to allege that Greek w- is 
 Skt. a-: (jj- and rj- are a case of vowel- 
 gradation (Ablaut) and become alike d- 
 in Sanskrit. 
 
 •^ The root sduel- assumed by J. 
 Schmidt, K. Z. 26. 9, is quite arbitrary 
 for Greek and presents serious difficul- 
 ties. 
 
38 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPEK. 
 
 which proves the f) the a is prothetic (anaptyctic) and so sliort^ see 
 the metrical evidence in Liddell and Scott. deXtos is a mistake from 
 rji\io<i. The smooth breathing in ac'Xtos, tJcA-io?, and dkia seems to 
 have produced uk-q beside ctAry. 
 
 The variation between avvo) and avvco is explained by 
 Osthoff ^ as due to dissimilation from the 2nd sg. pres. indie, 
 mid. of the root av-, — aveaai becoming avehai. This is very 
 improbable, for that form must have been of rare occurrence. 
 The verb is cognate with Skt. san meaning 'accomplish, obtain': 
 but beside this stands another root which approximates to the 
 same sense, namely van, meaning 'desire, obtain', the existence 
 of which in Greek has not hitherto been pointed out. As a 
 matter of fact it has a large number of cognates ; besides 
 dcTfievofi and aSrjv which have already been mentioned, it forms 
 dfievai,, dcro), dadfjbrjv and the other forms generally referred 
 to an imaginary present dco 'take one's fill'; so also darat^ and 
 daTo<; with anaptyctic a. This root then gives dvv(o as san gives 
 dvv(o. 
 
 Similar is the case of eipyco and eipya). The former is con- 
 nected with Skt. rj the latter with vrj. The distinction in 
 sense between these two roots, mentioned by Grassm. 1326, 
 finds its reflex, although considerably obscured, in the canon 
 laid down for the use of the aspiration in Greek, eipyco through 
 some derivative with k (e.g. elp/cTTj) produces epKo^ and a/j/cu?. 
 
 ci/os is connected with Skt. smia- and ci^os with Skt. anya- Lat. 
 per-en-die by common acceptation; but tvrj in ^vrj kol via is generally 
 identified with the former sense. 
 
 c/oo-ts and e/oo-ts result from the two roots fcp and o-cp, the former 
 giving ilpiLv ilprjxrq'^ &c. the latter Ippxi &c. as mentioned above 
 (pp. 22, 29). 
 
 § 5. It appears then, that dissimilation and analogy account 
 for all the certain cases in which s-, i- disappear without leaving 
 the spiritus asper, and that in the group m- a third explanation 
 is possible, resting on the hypothesis of su- y.- doublets in 
 the original language. All derivations, which cannot be ex- 
 
 1 Perfect, p. 479. » G. Meyer, Gr. GramJ §§ 66, 35. 
 
 » Hes. Scut. 101. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 39 
 
 plained in one of these ways, have been shown to be wrong, 
 or at least to admit of alternatives, which by rule have the 
 probability on their side\ 
 
 It remains to touch upon some words which show the 
 spiritus asper although the received etymology does not bring 
 them under any of the above five rules. 
 
 L. Meyer, p. 636, connects aipio) with alrio), atTco<;, alvvfiai 
 and Latin aeruscare, which is absolutely improbable. A more 
 accepted explanation which connects it with Skt. vr- 'choose' is 
 disproved by the absence of F in Horner^ nor is it to be con- 
 nected with at/3&) (Skt. ar- 'set in motion')^, alpeco I regard as 
 ir-i-eie-o, with its aspiration from i- by Rule 2. The root i or- 
 is seen in Skt. (bye-accent form) as Ir- (Grassm. 233) and in 
 meaning it is akin to ar-. The two roots need very careful dis- 
 tinction and for Greek the aspiration is the only test. Thus 
 aplJia apfjio^i dpfjLovia are from ier- while from a?'- come atpco and 
 dpfieva on the Delphian inscr. Cauer''' 216, which means 'move- 
 able' and so 'null and void' as opposed to fiovcfiof;. 
 
 Probably not in apatos as the evidence shows the F (Knos 
 p. 174). For ar- in Latin cf. Brgm. Grds. i. § 499. 
 
 aTTTft) is not to be connected with Latin aptus. The deri- 
 vation given by Christ '' from Skt. saj is quite satisfactory and 
 Clemm, Curt. Stud. 9. 416, brings no evidence to invalidate it. 
 
 ivvia is to be explained as en-neum^ where en is the 
 preposition. This is better than e^ievn^ and than supposing 
 connexion with ei/r; = 'nine'^; but no one of the three deriva- 
 tions explains the aspiration. On the Tab. Heracl. the form is 
 at once explicable by the occurrence of 6kt(o which proves that 
 ef kirrd have produced oktw evvea. But ef eirrd could not 
 produce evvea directly. Therefore as evvea occurs in Attic it is 
 necessary to assume that oktw also did occur, on the evidence 
 of 07807; CIA. I. 325, 13. 
 
 1 Hence derivations like 'AiroWojv the F. 
 
 -Saparyenya (K. Z. 29. 193 fif.), afiviov •* Griecli. Lautl. p. 132. 
 
 = sanguen {ib. 257) are unwarranted. ^ Wackernagel, K. Z. 28. 132. 
 
 2 Knos, p. 172. « G. Meyer, Gr. Gram.^ § 405. 
 
 3 Brugmann (K. Z. 27. 196) offers ? Wackernagel, K. Z. 25. 263. 
 another explanation, which requires 
 
40 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 kopTT) = Skt. vrata-^. Here the e- is anaptyctic'^ and so 
 should be unaspirated: vrta- however passed directly into opTrj, 
 which was falsely supposed a contraction and so produced 
 eopTi]. 
 
 The proper orthography for Homer is therefore ioprt], and so 
 eoprif : opry exactly = iiparj : €p<rri. 
 
 The notion that rjyeo/nai is the causal of ayco is a mistake. 
 It is the causal of a root iag which appears in Skt. (bye-accent) 
 as ij, and as yaj. The original sense of 'set in motion, move ' 
 is retained by ^j and T^yiofiac, but yaj is specialised for the 
 sense of 'move by sacrificing' (Grassm. 1070 No. 4). 
 
 ij was then brought into relation with aj, just as Ir mentioned 
 above (p. 39) was referred to ar, and these two then seem to have 
 formed a type whence Ig from ag &c. 
 
 ^Ka = aga Osthoff, P. and B. B. 8. 290. n., and Perf. p. 170, is 
 another derivation which will not bear scrutiny. The assumed 
 root is ah ' penetrate', but this is impossible, for the forms in Skt. 
 show that ag stands for I. Eu. nk, and therefore the reduplicated 
 stem ag must be comparatively late. As even Brugmann' and 
 apparently G. Meyer* accept this explanation, it must be sup- 
 posed that, against the probabilities, they separate aga entirely 
 from ag, and presumably explain the aspiration by the influence 
 of LTjfii,. On the other hand the view which makes -tjKa the 
 perfect — with or without reduplication — of ^/se^ does not appear 
 open to any serious objection. 
 
 Of course, in either case, the relation of tJkw to -^Ka is the same. 
 
 ^yLtai = Skt. Use, is at once explained by the parallel root 
 sed'\ 
 
 lepo^ = Skt. isiras. First propounded by A. Kuhn', whose 
 theory to account for the aspiration is an ingenious one, which 
 
 > Fick, Wdrterb? i. 211. » Mivi. Soc. Ling. v. 136, cf. Osth. 
 
 2 G. Meyer, Gr. Gram.^ % 101. Perf, p. 382. 
 
 « Gr. Gram. § 134. « Osth. Perf. p. 108. 
 
 * Gr. Gram.^ § 562, but contrast ^ g. z. 2. 260 sqq. 
 §527. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. ' 41 
 
 he endeavours to support by numerous instances, namely, that 
 s became h and then passed over the vowel. His examples in 
 which the s is followed by a consonant, as rj/jLeU, ^fiai, tTTTro? 
 are erroneous, as the theory that s became h in this position 
 has long been abandoned. Where the s stands between vowels, 
 the theory is more attractive, as it gives a convenient explana- 
 tion of L7]/jLi, which by the rule for dissimilation ought to become 
 Lrj/jLi from lhrj/j,t. But even here, it cannot be accepted, for three 
 reasons : — (1) There is no phonetic reason for the transference, 
 (2) All the examples may be explained otherwise, (3) It ought 
 to hold, and does not, for to? beside Skt. isu-, aoacrrjTrjp from 
 I. Eu. sm-soq-, and others. 
 
 His only really strong instance is tcpos. The (equation Boeot. 
 liov = Vioiv = Skt. aham is impossible : tcuv is probably after tJ/acis 
 v/xets and the 3 sing. l. In tiy/xi, form-association restores the 
 aspiration. 
 
 To explain the rough breathing in lepo^, we must take into 
 account the collateral form lp6<^, which, it is needless to remark, 
 cannot be the result of contraction \ OsthofTs attempted ex- 
 planation 2, with its necessary infringement of the law which 
 he and Sievers formulated, is for that very reason open to grave 
 suspicion. Both words are found in Homer without distinction 
 in meaning, but they are really separate in origin. Cor- 
 responding to isircbs the true form is lep6<; (tapo?) beside which 
 stood a derivative of the root vi — t-po9, wuth meaning practically 
 identical: even in Sanskrit the difference in sense between is 
 and vl is very slight. As was inevitable, the two words were 
 assimilated — lp6^ seems to have its accent from te/jo?, and the 
 latter received from 7/309 the quantity of the l^ and the rough 
 breathing. 
 
 If this hypothesis is tenable it explains the striking uncertainty 
 of spelling in this word in Cauer- 204 — Upo- lapo- and lapo- side by 
 
 1 Curtius K. Z. 3. 154 compares would not be parallel. 
 7r6Xei" — 7r6\r which even if it were ^ Perf. pp. 439 — 40. 
 
 true— cf. Brgm. Gr. Gram.^ § 82 — ^ ^ot consistently, but e.g. in P. 455. 
 
42 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 side. The two words are kept distinct on the Cyprian inscriptions — 
 i' ro' nV Coll. 60. 8. 31 but i' e' re' o ' se ib. 38. 3. 
 
 Tjjbepo^ is also to be derived from vl, and not from is, which 
 has its proper representation in ^Icrfxrjvr]. 
 
 The common parallel Uveofiat, : olfco<; : Skt. vig- has often 
 been disputed, but the alternative suggested by L. Meyer^, who 
 refers it to Skt. ag-no-mi, is an unhappy one, for, as was pointed 
 out above, ag stands for nk so that the passage from aK- to ik- 
 in Greek which Curtius^ justly calls 'sehr singular' becomes 
 impossible. Equally untenable is Br^al's theory* of its deriva- 
 tion from ya go' with suffix -k as in 6\eK(o facio &c., while the 
 ordinary derivation is met by the fatal objection that Homer 
 shows no trace of the F^ It seems preferable therefore to trace 
 Xk(o to the root shown by Osthoff^ to exist in LKrap, iviTrra), 
 iviirr) and Latin were. In this case, the k in Uveofiai must 
 have been restored, for the velar ought to become tt before the 
 nasal. The aspiration is to be accounted for by the close paral- 
 lelism of riK(o, and has extended to ifcrap. 
 
 To render this explanation probable, isolated forms of tlie root 
 ought to show the smooth breathing, and instances are not wanting. 
 The root-meaning as shown by Osthoflf, is ' strike ', from which ' reach, 
 arrive' are developed in i/cveo/Aat, but in Ufxivos^ the slightly different 
 one of 'suiting' (compare vor-treff-lich, &c. in German). In this 
 sense therefore iK/u.ei/os remained unaspirated, and the same is true of 
 the Hesychian glosses Ikto,^ and Uap^. There is nothing to show 
 whether tKavos belongs to this root or to Skt. vyac- * umfassen ' 
 (Grassm. 1357) and so 'capax', 'able'. In either case the aspiration 
 must be unoriginal, if any stress is to be laid on iktcu* Kparets, AaKw- 
 ycs in Hesychius '". 
 
 The ordinary form la-Tcop is not accounted for by its almost 
 certain derivation from ?c8. The Homeric form is to-rop 
 
 1 Cj^rian had no sign for h. Saa^wj, rbv Utlov Xiyu olov iropevriKbv . . . 
 
 2 K. Z. 22. 49. - d 5i \j/i\wi, rbv UfAadfadr} Kal lyiK/xov olov 
 '^ Stud. 6. 414. ivvypov Hesych. M. Schmidt Vol. ii. 
 * Mem. Soc. Ling. v. 155. p. 353. 
 
 "^ Knos p. 123. « 1. c. 
 
 » K. Z. 23. 85. » 1. c. p. 352. 
 
 ' e.g. A. 479: compare iK/xevov ei ft.h ^" 1. c. p. 354. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 43 
 
 (^. 501). Curtius* mentions a possible source of the aspiration 
 in L(TTr)fn,, with which it might be connected in the sense of 
 ' umpire ' ' arbitrator ', and that the tradition is by no means un- 
 varying as regards the aspiration. (Lentz, Philologus, Suppl. 
 Bd. I. p. 700.) 
 
 opaco and opovrai. If these are to be connected it must be 
 by the supposition of a doublet like those referred to on pp. 32, 
 48, 49 ; opdw may at least plausibly'^ be connected with Skt. 
 svar- ' leuchten ', while opovrai is commonly referred to 0. H. G. 
 wara Gk. wpa^, but an identification of these two roots is 
 impossible. That opdw does not show F in Horner^ may be 
 explained, with this etymology, on the lines laid down infra, 
 p. 49. 
 
 § G. The above are a few instances of isolated derivations 
 which rest on the assumption of inconsistency in the use of 
 the spiritus asper, but more important than these — because to a 
 certain extent justifying such an assumption — are those words 
 in which the aspiration appears to represent older F, contrary to 
 the usual rule that F becomes the spiritus lenis. In the fore- 
 going pages, derivations involving each of these alternative 
 equivalents have been accepted without comment, and therefore 
 the discrepancy must be discussed, before any approach to an 
 exhaustive treatment has been made. 
 
 A few of the best known instances for ' - f are : — kavo^ Skt. 
 vasana, Iktjtl, €kw Skt. vag-, €vvv/xl Lat. vestioj eparj Skt. vrs, ecnrepo^ 
 Lat. vesjyer, ia-ria Skt. vas, ijAos Lat. vallus^, uaOaL (tpo's) Skt. vl-. 
 
 The total loss of f scarcely requires illustration : aarv, cap, ctKoo-t, 
 Ittos, £tos, iSilv, oiKos, are a few of the commonest examples. 
 
 The examples for each alternative are too numerous for 
 every case of either to be explained by independent analogy, 
 and there is no particle of evidence (except the phenomenon 
 
 1 Grundz.^ p. 686. p. 171. 
 
 2 [Mr Darbishire has put a query to "* Knos p. 142. Its absence in 
 this statement in the margin of his Spovrai, &c. is explained by L. Meyer, 
 own copy. C.J K. Z. 23. 53, as due to the initial o- (?), 
 
 3 Hiibschm. Idg. VocaUyat. § 261, ^ Wackernagel, K. Z. 25. 261. 
 
44 
 
 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 itself) t(j support the view that every F passed through the 
 spiritus asper to the spiritus lenis, for the examples do not differ 
 in date. 
 
 One only possibility remains: that F had two phonetic 
 values. The same then must be true for Sanskrit v and Latin 
 V, and so these languages can give little or no assistance in 
 making a distinction. The language for this purpose is Ar- 
 menian. 
 
 In the examples which follow, Hubschmann's system of tran- 
 scription^ is used, except in one point which is more of consistency 
 than of importance. His contention that a single sign in an alpha- 
 bet ought to be transliterated by a single sign, may receive this addi- 
 tion, that two signs ought not to be transliterated by one, and there- 
 fore it is a defect in his system that he transcribes lul by 'av' but nL 
 by ^u\ and while ' v ' is i^ in lirtil ' kov ' it is /. in imu * ^«^ '• It is 
 better to use w consistently for £,, and keep v for i/ so that ^£. be- 
 comes atOy and /il. ow^ i.e. u. 
 
 It is well known'' that where Sanskrit and Latin show v, 
 Armenian sometimes has g and sometimes v, w. The reason 
 for this variation has not yet been discovered, and will not be, 
 until more has been done for Armenian etymology on compara- 
 tive principles, but the following words, in which the sound is 
 initial, have fairly certain Greek equivalents. 
 
 1. With g, 
 
 Armenian 
 gar garn (64)3 
 geXvin (67) 
 gin (69) 
 gini (70) 
 gitem (72) and thence 
 
 gtanem (77) 
 go-m (73)» 
 gore (75) 
 
 Greek 
 fapv- apv- 
 fipiov ^piov* 
 flovo- wvo- 
 Foivo- dlvo- 
 fideiu Idelu 
 idios (p. 32) 
 fdaref- &<ttv 
 fipyo- ipr^o- 
 fiKaTi elKOffi 
 
 Skt. Lat &c. 
 urana- Skt. 
 varman- Skt. 
 veniim Lat. 
 vlnum Lat. 
 vid- Skt. and thence 
 
 vindumi 
 vas- 'dwell' Skt. 
 werk Teut. 
 viginti Lat. 
 
 1 Umchr. pp. 31—39. 
 
 2 Hiibschm. Arm. Stud. pp. 65 and 
 74, cf. Brgm. Grds. § 162. 
 
 =» The figures in brackets refer to 
 the numbers in Hiibschm. Arm. Stud. 
 
 * fpiov seems to have /, b. 124, but 
 eTpos has not; 5. 135, t. 426. 
 
 ^ Compare also ZDMG. 36. 119. 
 
 *5 K'san for *g-8an, *gi8an, Hiibschm. 
 1. c. p. 65 note. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 45 
 
 2. With V. 
 
 Armenian 
 
 Greek 
 
 Skt. Lat. &c 
 
 var (262) 
 
 feX-T], 'i\7] (p. 37) 
 
 virti Lith, 
 
 vasn (263) 
 
 feK-bvT- eKovT- 
 
 vag-mi Skt. 
 
 vel k' 
 
 Firfko- 7}\o- 
 
 vallus Lat. 
 
 vs ('propter') 
 
 FeK-UTL 'eKTJTl 
 
 vac- Skt. 
 
 Here it will be noticed that those words in which the 
 digamma passes into the spiritus lenis, have in Armenian g 
 as the equivalent of Skt. and Lat. v ; while those in which the 
 digamma becomes the spiritus asper, have in Armenian re- 
 tained V. The conclusion is that the same original distinction 
 underlies both. 
 
 To postulate such a distinction for the original language, 
 involves no innovation in the phonetic field. In the case 
 of the corresponding (palatal) spirant such a distinction is 
 made — it rests upon some slight indications in Sanskrit, but 
 chiefly on the difference of representation in Greek when 
 initials On this analogy there has been already assumed a cor- 
 responding distinction — v and it — in the case of the labial 
 spirant. If this is so, it is not surprising to find the dis- 
 tinction preserved under exactly analogous conditions. 
 
 The result of the foregoing examples may therefore be 
 formulated as follows : — 
 
 
 LEu. 
 
 Skt. 
 
 Arm. 
 
 Gk. 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Teut. 
 
 Bait. Slav. 
 
 1. 
 
 U 
 
 V 
 
 9 
 
 > 
 
 V 
 
 W 
 
 V 
 
 2. 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 r 
 
 V 
 
 W 
 
 V 
 
 [A most important modification of this view of the nature of the 
 two I. Eu. sounds will be found below, p. 197. C] 
 
 It might possibly be thought that Armenian g should represent 
 original v (not ii) in the same way that Greek ^ represented j-, but 
 this is a superficial objection and the above table may easily be 
 shown to give the true correspondence. The distinction between 
 I. Eu. V which cannot become ic and I. Eu. u which can, has 
 been much obscured even in Vedic, but the Skt. root vac shows 
 the reduction to u in so many forms that the original form may 
 be assumed as ueq : now this in Greek gives cttos. Then in the 
 
 1 Brgm. Gi'ds. § 598. 
 
46 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 root vai'd— * water', the weak form iid- can be proved for the original 
 language by Skt. udan, Gk. vScop. Therefore it should be written 
 ua^d: and this in Armenian gives get (68). The result is also what 
 might be expected from the larger number of examples under Class 1, 
 and agrees with another law, which seems to hold for Armenian, 
 that I. Eu. j becomes y but i becomes J, j — for the former compare 
 yoiz-U 'agitation, ferment' with ^cw and Skt. yas-^^ for the latter, 
 see Hubschm. Arm. Stud. §§19 and 22. 
 
 § 7. The small number of examples under 2 — the second 
 and the fourth are practically identical — is no presumption 
 against the truth of the inference which rests on (a) the high 
 probability of those examples, (6) the absence of conflicting 
 evidence. What there is of the latter can soon be examined, 
 for as Armenian has not hitherto been the field for much rash 
 theorizing, the number of unsafe conjectures is fortunately 
 small. The theory could be upset by proving any one of the 
 following four points : 
 
 a. Armenian v- = Greek \ 
 
 b. Armenian v- = Armenian g-. 
 
 c. Greek ' = Armenian g-. 
 
 d. Greek' = Greek'. 
 These we will take in order. 
 a. No evidence adduced. 
 
 h. Also unsupported by facts. It will be observed that 
 this only applies to the sounds as initial. 
 
 c. eairepo^ = giser^ (71). This is by no means exempt 
 from difficulty on other grounds. The rule that s can stand 
 for sq- is invented to suit this solitary case and is a very 
 unlikely one^ The chief argument is the similarity of meaning, 
 which is equally well given by an alternative derivation. 
 Armenian gis- can by the regular phonology of the language 
 stand for I. Eu. ghis-* which is found in Gothic gis-tra-, Latin 
 
 1 For the s lost between vowels see « = « compare ^'osi=Skt. pdmsu (later 
 Hubschm. Ami. Stud. § 44. 1). a. pCimgu) ib. § 34. From Germ, gestei-n 
 
 2 Accepted by Brgm. Gnls. § 561. Gk. x^^J perhaps ghes should be the 
 * Hubschm. 1. c. § 34. form. In that case for the i cf. ib. § 7. 
 ** For </ = gh see Ann. Stud. § 16, for Latin of course is indecisive. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 47 
 
 hem (=gh{s'i). For the suffix -er^ compare j-er from I. Eu. iu-, 
 ardar: Skt. rta-, harjr: Skt. brhat- (Arm. Stud. § 40). 
 
 The meaning presents no difficulty. In all languages with which I 
 am acquainted 'morning' and * to-morrow' are originally identical and 
 it is natural to suppose the same relation between 'evening' and 'yester- 
 day'. In Armenian itself we have erek 'evening', ei-ek 'yesterday'. 
 
 This is confirmed by Diefenbach, Vergl. Worterb. der gotischen 
 Spi'cicJie^ Vol. II. p. 410 no. 34. " gistra-dagis . . .q^ bedeutet eigent- 
 lich vespera wie die moisten gestern bedeutende Worter." Kluge s. v. 
 Gestern (ed. 4 p. US'*) remarks "Offenbar hatte das Grundwort die 
 Doppelbedeutung 'morgan' und 'gestern' (eigtl. 'am andern Tage von 
 heute aus gerechnet')," but the double meaning (cf. e.g. Ulfilas, Matth. 
 iv, 40)is readily explained by adhering to the above sense * evening ' 
 for the root, and tracing the 'otherness' in the comparative suffix tra. 
 
 epvvfjLc = 2-genum (104). This is an extremely probable 
 derivation and only an apparent violation of the rule. The dis- 
 tinction applies only to g and v when initial and as in this 
 word the prefix z- is always present, the v is virtually medial. 
 
 The laws under which medial v, w and g interchange are as yet 
 unknown but certainly do not depend on an original distinction. 
 Thus loganam (124) and laioanaP alike = /rtvo; arew (41) has a 
 derivative aregakn; kov (148) gives kogi (146) : coiu but aor. cogay^. 
 On the other hand a possible derivative of the root, from which the 
 prefix is absent, is vas ('tela subtilis' Rivola) which thus follows the 
 rule. 
 
 d. €p(T7j : aparjv. The derivation of the latter from Skt. 
 vrsan- (Bopp, Benfey) has now been given up. Curtius pre- 
 ferred rsa- on the ground that no trace of F exists in Homer, 
 which Knos (p. 184) will not admit to be decisive. The words 
 are separated by Wackernagel (K. Z. 29, 127, 129), and com- 
 pare Hubschm. J.rm. Stud. (28). 
 
 No confusion of breathings on the lines indicated above (pp. 35, 
 sqq.) arose between these representatives of vrs and rs, because in 
 Greek they diverged in vocalism and meaning^. 
 
 This is absolutely all the evidence against the rule. 
 
 1 Rivola. itselfproduce the change. Or it may be 
 
 2 ZDMG. 36. 118. the strong form (G. Meyer, Gr. Gram.^ 
 ^ Ionic ^pcrjv might be considered § 314). 
 
 assimilation to ^par], but the p could 
 
48 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 § 8. A few new derivations which illustrate the rule may 
 now be added. 
 
 Greek alfi-ao-cay ' wall of dry stones ', Armenian vem, 'petra, 
 lapis'. Not quite certain, as no example is given of ai becom- 
 ing Arm. e, though ei and oi do. The variation may be in 
 Greek : for the termination compare ipy-acrla. 
 
 Greek etpepov (6. 529), Armenian giiH ' slave '. The Greek 
 word is not, therefore, to be connected with servus. See what 
 was said above (p. 38) on the roots ser- and uer-. 
 
 Armenian vaz 'cursus' points to the root vegh, for which v 
 must therefore be assumed. Thus the future of (F)6%a) would 
 be efo), and the correspondence with (<7)6%a), efo), complete. 
 From the same root appears to come Arm. viz 'coUum'; com- 
 pare Lat. cer-vic-. 
 
 Armenian vox 'pavor', Greek a%o?. The derivation of the 
 latter from ak- 'sharp', involved a very difficult aspiration of 
 the guttural. The spiritus asper, representing the v, disappears 
 by dissimilation, as possibly in air-apx-Vy compare Arm. varj 
 'usura'. 
 
 Armenian gez 'hebes'. Germ, weich (?). 
 
 Armenian gowrn ' vas lapideum ', Latin urna. 
 
 Armenian gan 'ulcus', Gothic vunds, Greek adrai, unless 
 vunds is rather to be connected with vnas 'damnum'. Greek is 
 indecisive, as the a- is anaptyctic. 
 
 An interesting illustration is given by Brugmann's able 
 conjecture* that Armenian vec 'six' rests upon an original form 
 without initial s-. That su- (sv-) should become v in Armenian 
 is unlikely as the examples Moir (294) = sijesor-, k'irtn (291)'^ = 
 suid- are distinctly against it. By the rule, Greek ef would 
 be the final form both of sveks and of veks, but the latter 
 form may be clearly traced. Original su- (sv-) passed* 
 through 'F into '. On the Tab. Heracl. this process has 
 been completed, and accordingly we find eKaarav (i. 115), &c. 
 On the other hand we find Fef consistently written just as 
 VUaTi, and hence it is natural to infer that it rests upon veks 
 not sveks. 
 
 » Grdi. § 589. 3. see ZDMG. 35. 170. 
 
 ' Not = Zend aredna as de Lagarde, =* Brgm. Grds. § 166. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRIT US ASPER. 49 
 
 Of course this does not assert that Greek did not possess also the 
 form o-pe^ and hence fLKan c|, Cauer^ 296. 5, supports instead of 
 overthrowing the inference. It may further be noted that the 
 assumption of a stage in the language at which F = su had become ', 
 but F = u remained, will explain why a good many words in Homer 
 which had su show no trace of p: for instance, c^ itself appears 
 not consistent (Knos p. 220), bpano (p. 43 supr.) shows no trace 
 of it, from tSpws &c, it is also absent (Knos p. 223), whereas by 
 the hypothesis proposed, supr. p. 32, T809 &c. ought to show F, but 
 there is no decisive passage^. 
 
 Note. — Another such doublet may be thought to give a 
 better explanation of eX/cw &c., than that on p. 36. 
 
 Thus suelq — Gk. eXKO), Lat. sulcus. 
 
 uelq — Lith. velku, Lat. ulcus, Gk. avAo^^. 
 
 Then the absence of F from cX/cw in Homer is to be explained 
 on the lines just indicated. 
 
 It is possible that the same may be true for the Hesychian 
 eop' Ovydrrjp, which is commonly identified with svasar &c. 
 Then 
 
 suesor, Skt. svasar, Lat. soror, 
 uesor, Gk. eop-, 
 
 but the source of the word is too completely unknown to make 
 this even probable. 
 
 From the identification of Skt. vrj and Gk. elLpyco proposed 
 above, it follows that I.Eu. v must be assumed for this root. The 
 same holds for Skt. vm^sistha- &c., from Fick's^ identification of 
 it with Armenian ver (265), but in these cases no corroboration 
 exists. 
 
 Perhaps the most startling result of the rule is the separa- 
 tion which it involves of ''Ew? from usas. The root ves ' shine ', 
 'burn', which appears in Skt. as vas-, is proved to have had 
 initial v (assuming for the present that my rule holds) by the 
 Greek derivatives ''£0)9, "E^a-rrepo^, earla (dissimilation in 
 iaxapa), and perhaps with Ascoli rjfjbepa {supr. p. 30). But 
 
 1 Only Idiov, Od. xx. 204. 3 Kuhn's Beitr. vii. p. 365, cf. ZDMG. 
 
 2 Referred to eX/cw by Brgm. Grds., 36. 121. 
 § 164 Anm. 
 
 D. P. 4 
 
50 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 the frequency with which m, uchdmi (i.e. us-skho^) &c., occur 
 in Skt. would seem to point to the opposite conclusion. It is 
 therefore necessary to separate us from vas and refer it as weak 
 form to the root aus which appears in avpiov, Aurora, Lesb. 
 ai;w9, Doric "Ao)?, which cannot possibly represent ''Ea)?^ 
 
 For this root see Osthoff's excellent excursus, Perfect pp. 484 — 
 493, and his note on p. 135, which needs comment. He there 
 separates, as I do, vas and us, but to the former he denies any 
 existence, and refers co-ria to a root ues * dwell', Skt. vas, as opposed 
 to ves 'clothe', Skt. vas. But that the list of words which he gives 
 on p. 35 should all be analogical formations on uvdsa, when the 
 latter owes its own existence to a difficult proportion, is in the last 
 degree improbable. Of course the reference of ia-ria to ues would 
 disprove my rule. My scheme is then as follows. 
 
 1. ues * dwell', Skt. 5 vas, Gk. Facrrv ao-rv, Lat. verna. 
 
 2. ves 'clothe', Skt. 3 vas, Gk. Iwvyn ct/aa &c., Lat. vestis. 
 
 3. ves 'shine', Skt. 2 vas, Gk. eo-rta "Ew?, Lat. Vesta. 
 The derivation of cap from 2 ves as ' the clother' must therefore 
 
 be given up. 
 
 § 9. In conclusion, the roots which assume the form FeX in 
 Greek (pp. 36-8) can now be reduced to a more systematic 
 result. The presence or absence of the aspiration being admitted 
 to serve as a guide to the original form, they may be tabulated 
 as follows : — 
 
 1. vel 'bum' (perh. : svel), Gk. eXrj, Arm. var. 
 
 2. vel 'press' 'surround', Gk. aXt,<; &c., Skt. vr vrnoti (nos. 
 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 Grassmann). 
 
 3. uel 'circle' 'wrap', Gk. etXco, Lat. volvo, Arm. gaXel, 
 Skt. vr vrnoti (nos. 1, 5, 6, 9 Grassmann). 
 
 The point of contact of roots 2 and 3 in Skt. may best be 
 seen in no. 9 Grassmann ('to roll up tight') and their fusion 
 probably explains the double type of stem, vrnu- and urnit-. 
 
 1 Moulton, A. J. P. Vol. viii. (whole gen. e-vos-6s=':7/15o5 i^foOs. The stem 
 no. 30) p. 208. of "Ewj (note the difference of accent) 
 
 2 The Homeric form -^(is has the is either ves- es- with formative suflfix 
 prefix T)- mentioned supr. p. 37. Its -ea or a reduplicated one ve-vos-. 
 tiexion is therefore e-v68(-8?)=^a>s, 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 51 
 
 It might seem tempting to derive aXo-o? from the third of these 
 roots, which would give an excellent sense, but the entire absence of 
 F in Homer precludes this. That it should equal saltus (p. 26 sitiw.) 
 is quite improbable, but there seems no reason to question the old 
 connexion with aA.8atVw, and so perhaps refer it to alnus alveus as 
 ' the moist, fresh place '. 
 
 It is from the third of these roots that the explanation of aXao, 
 aXro, a\fM6vo<; (supr. pp. 26, 29) comes. It is curious that the 
 mistaken view of these as * parts' of oWofiac should have caused 
 the evidence for the digamma to be so persistently ignored. 
 It is true that in the frequent connexion avv TeJ^^eo-t dXro 
 ')(a^al^e as well as in vevprj 8e //,67' fca%6 aXro 3' 6l(tt6(; A. 125, 
 the insertion of paragogic v is possible ; but in A. 532, no such 
 artifice is available. aXro^ is a regular unaugmented root-aorist, 
 middle^ of the root uel-, ul-, its exact analogues being x^'^^> 
 avTo: aKfJLevo<^ is the corresponding participle, and hence not to 
 be separated from aXei<^, as is commonly done. In the case of a 
 root like uel- of which the original sense appears very indeter- 
 minate, the senses developed are generally both numerous and 
 varied, but fortunately, enough passages are found in Homer to 
 enable the lines of development to be traced. 
 
 From the root meaning, that of 'collect' is easily deducible: 
 hence its use in H. 714, 
 
 ri Xaovf; 6? Tel')(^o^ ofioKXrjcreie aXijvat, 
 and <|). 607, 
 
 dairao-LOi irporl dcrrv, TroXt? 8* efiirXTjro dXivTCOV, 
 and similarly in <E>. 534, X. 12. 
 
 In the singular, of course, the only possible corresponding 
 sense is 'gather oneself together' and this it has in O. 571, 
 
 0)9 ciTTODv ^A^^iXrja aXel? fjuevev, iv Be ol rjTop ktL 
 
 and in H. 402, 
 
 ^ev ev^earw ivl hi(f>p(p 
 rjcTTo dX€L<i' iic 'yap ttXtj^t) ^peva<i, gk S' dpa ')(eLp(jov 
 rjVLa r)i')(6r]o-av. 
 
 1 The accent aXro rests on a mis- ri<TTo TrXrjro. The difficulty is felt by 
 taken belief that the augment was G. Meyer, Gr. Gram. § 530, p. 465. 
 absorbed: compare also the analogy of 2 q^ Meyer, 1. c, §§ 525-7. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 Not far different is the meaning in X. 308 (= w. 538), 
 
 OL/JLTjaev Be aXek, wa-T aleTo<; vylrtTreTijei^;. 
 
 When an eagle or other bird of prey swoops, it ' gathers itself 
 together ' by folding its wings, and hence the appropriateness of 
 the word. 
 
 The next passage is X. 616, 
 
 7] 8* tpT]^ cS? aXro /car OvXvfjUTrov VL^6evT0<; 
 Tev')(ea /jbapfialpovTa irap * }i(f)aiaToco (ftepovaa. 
 
 In this, the received view necessitates passing to a totally 
 different root and sense, and speaking of the goddess as 'jump- 
 ing', which is not poetical, and further, is not true of a hawk. 
 The proper translation is 'swooped' and so also in A. 531, 
 
 77 fiev eireiTa 
 eh aXa aXro ^aOelav air aly\'^evTo<; ^OXvfjLirov 
 Zeif^ Be eov irpo<i BcofMa^. 
 
 From this to the oft-recurring a-vv reu^^eo-t aXro x^^P^^K^ ^^- 
 volves a very slight change of meaning, but it is in this phrase 
 that probably lies the cause of the derivation from aWop^ai. 
 
 There are three passages (M. 391, T. 353, A. 125) in which 
 the sense is quite distinct, and as two of those reject the di- 
 gamma while the third is doubtful, they may have to be referred 
 to a different root. 
 
 § 10. To sum up. 
 
 1. The spiritus asper is the regular representative in 
 Greek of 
 
 (a) Original s initial 
 
 (b) Original v'^ initial 
 
 1 The unfitness of 'jump' as a any more than to 'jump', but a more 
 
 translation in these two passages was general verb of motion can easily be 
 
 pointed out long ago by Kuhn (K. Z. 5. supplied. &\to itself tends to become 
 
 206-9). I cannot agree with him more general. Cf. 0. 338. 
 
 (and Fick, Ilias, p. 79) in finding difii- 2 [poj. t^e value which Mr Darbishire 
 
 cult the ellipsis of the verb in the ultimately attached to this symbol see 
 
 clause Zcvs 5^ ktL Zeus cannot be the passage already referred to, p. 197 
 
 said to 'swoop' into his own house inf. J 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 53 
 
 (c) Original su(sv) initial 
 
 (d) Original i initial 
 
 (e) Original si initial, and is 
 
 (/) Hysterogene before Greek u initial. 
 
 2. Its phonetic characteristics are, dental in a) labial 
 in b) and c) palatal in d) e) and /). 
 
 3. Apart from the working of the wider laws of analogy 
 and dissimilation, exceptions to the rules are all doubtful. 
 
 4. Etymologies in which the spiritus asper cannot be 
 accounted for by one of the above rules (or by analogy) are 
 open to suspicion. 
 
ADDENDA. 
 
 Excursus I. On 67/., si (page 21, footnote 3). 
 
 The treatment of the groups su- and si- perhaps deserves a 
 fuller explanation. The difficulty of the former when initial is 
 well known, and it forms no part of my present subject to 
 investigate those instances in which Greek represents it by a. 
 As stated in the text, the regular process, when initial, is for 
 the s to assimilate the n to its own breathed character and the 
 u to assimilate the s to a labial spirant, so that the result is u 
 (breathed ^, — initial sounds are not doubled). On the other 
 hand, when medial, the retrospective assimilation of the u to s, 
 instead of being partial, is complete, and we get aa. The 
 treatment of si is analogous, though not identical. When 
 initial, by mutual assimilation we get //, and /, whence \ 
 When medial, according to Brugmann (Grundriss I. p. 119, 
 § 131), the i first suffers epenthesis and then the a is lost. 
 Thus, to-sio, *TOL(ro, rolo. But there is no ground for supposing 
 that a would be lost after ^ any more than before it, and 
 Brugmann himself seems somewhat to have modified his views 
 (cf. Griech. Oram. ed. 2, p. 29). What takes place is really 
 this: to-sio becomes *tot7o and toto by assimilation as above, 
 and of this the Homeric toIo is the direct graphic representa- 
 tion. The further change to too, Att. toO, then requires no 
 explanation. The procedure when a nasal precedes is different 
 and has occasioned some discussion. The most important ex- 
 amples are viaao/xaL and TTTla-a-co, which according to Osthofif, 
 V. i. d. Nominalc. 339 f., are for *vL-va-vo-^aL and '^imva-Loa 
 respectively. Wackernagel (K. Z. 29. 136) prefers *PL-v(r'0-fiac 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. v-. 55 
 
 for the former, remarking " dass j vorausgehendes a zu scharfen 
 vermocht habe, lasst sich Dicht im geringsten wahrscheinlich 
 machen. Wissen wir doch im gegenteil dass intervocalisches 
 aj wesentlich gleich behaodelt wird wie intervocalisches <r." 
 This reasoning is faulty in two respects : 5i is not treated identi- 
 cally with s, although the final form is the same in both cases ; 
 and si in vLvo-io/jbac is not intervocal. Nor does Brugmann con- 
 vince me (Gr. Gram.^ p. 61) in postulating the following series 
 of changes : ^vivatofMai, *vlvoro/jLaL vla-ofxat, vlcraofiai, as the 
 motive for the false analogy by which o-cr replaces cr, which is 
 weak in Trriaa-Q), is almost nil in the case of via-ao/jLai,, and 
 Laroche's authority for vlao^iai is by no means absolute. I see 
 no diflSculty in supposing that the retrospective assimilation 
 which is regular for medial sy^ should not also act for si when 
 in a group of three. *vcvaLOfjLaL then became vlaao/jLac direct : 
 it is not necessary to assume either *viv<TcrofjbaL, via-ao^ai or 
 *vcv(To/jLaL, vio-cro/jLat, either of which would, I admit, be irregu- 
 lar. 
 
 Excursus II. On v- (page 24 f ). 
 
 I regret that I overlooked the attempted explanation of 
 M. Henry (Analogie, p. 74), which renders necessary a fuller 
 statement of the exact difficulties to be encountered. In the 
 first place I must state his view and my reasons for disagreeing 
 with it. He divides words with initial v- into three groups : 
 (1) those in which the aspiration is etymologically correct — nine 
 in number ; (2) those in which the v represents the weak form 
 of a root with initial u — six in number ; (8) those in which no 
 such explanation exists. The second group, he thinks, show in 
 the. aspiration a reminiscence of the F of the strong form, and 
 then these and the first group, fifteen in all, extend the aspira- 
 tion b}'" analogy to the other five. He has however underesti- 
 mated the number of simple words beginning with v-, of which 
 there are 30 at fewest (see list below), and I cannot admit the 
 existence of his second group, because, if the roots began with 
 initial ^, it should regularly become the smooth breathing ; if 
 
56 
 
 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 
 
 on the other hand he supposes that they began with the spirant 
 V and assumes that this becomes the rough breathing in Greek, 
 then such roots would not show u in the reduced form. Further, 
 it is impossible that analogy could have the influence he ascribes 
 to it. Two words which have a very large amount of corre- 
 spondence in form alone might conceivably without any corre- 
 spondence in meaning produce a slight formal modification on 
 each other, but that identity of the initial vowel should suffice 
 is highly improbable. Numerical preponderance plays little or 
 no part : on the one hand, all the words with initial p have not 
 influenced 'Papo?, on the other, compare the influence of steti in 
 the formation of modern Italian perfects. 
 
 I believe M. Henry is right in seeking the explanation in 
 analogy and not in any phonetic law. The analogy, however, 
 is exerted through sense connexion and on individual words, 
 not on an entire group through form alone. In our present 
 state of uncertainty as to the derivations of many of the 
 words in question, it is impossible to exhaust the subject, but 
 the following is an outline of the method I would employ. 
 
 Neglecting one or two words of foreign origin we find : — 
 
 i;aXo9 
 
 
 v\d(o 
 
 VTTVOV 
 
 v(Tk\o<; 
 
 i//3o9, vfipL^; 
 
 v\r) 
 
 v7rvo<; 
 
 Va-fjULVT) 
 
 vyi7](; 
 
 
 Vfjuel^ 
 
 VTTo, yy^ro^ 
 
 vdirkTj^ 
 
 vyp6<i 
 
 
 VfJLTJV 
 
 vpai 
 
 vaaaKO<i 
 
 vBeco 
 
 
 vfjLvo<; 
 
 vpa^ 
 
 V<TT6pa 
 
 vScop 
 
 
 VVl^ 
 
 vptao^, vpov 
 
 varepo^ 
 
 tdXo^ 
 
 
 virap 
 
 ^PXV 
 
 v(f)r} 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 virep 
 
 V, 
 
 t$Q>. 
 
 The aspiration is justified by etymology in 
 
 i;to9, Skt. su-nij,- &c. 
 
 vXrj, cf. Lat. silva. 
 
 ijfivo^, vfiTjv, Skt. syutd- syiinmn- (see below). 
 
 i5/iet9, cf. Gothic ius, Skt. yusmd-, 
 
 VTTVOV, Skt. svdpna-. 
 
 ijpa^, cf. Lat. sorex. 
 
 U9, Lat. sus. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. v-. 57 
 
 vafjbivT], Skt. yudh, 
 
 vw, Skt. SU-, the same root as in su-nu-, the primitive 
 meaning being ' to sprinkle '. 
 
 In vpd^ the existence of avpco, in vpiao^ (and vpov) of the 
 form (Tvpiao<;, renders the assumption of original su- probable. 
 
 Of vvL<;, virap, virvov, vcrK\o<;, ixtttXtj^ the derivation is 
 uncertain. 
 
 For the following words an etymology can be proposed 
 which accounts for the aspiration. 
 
 vXdct) is probably connected with Skt. svar, ' be noisy ' : it is 
 thus perhaps akin with vXtj, i.e. the place of noise or rustling. 
 
 virep and vtto may be taken together. These two words 
 are commonly separated from Lat. super and sub and equated 
 with Skt. upari and upa. This is because the Latin words 
 are supposed to be the reduced forms of e)xuper and e)xub. 
 I prefer to analyse them s-uper and s-up{o), making s- the 
 prefix referred to below (Exc. ill.) and tracing the Greek forms 
 also back to the same. 
 
 varipa is hardly to be connected with uterus. It is more 
 probable that it contains the root iu- (?ius-) seen in Skt. yoni- 
 (cf. yosan-). Its primary meaning seems to be 'encompass', 
 ' contain^ '. 
 
 v<f>rj may be akin to the Skt. (m) u and {vabh) uhh, but 
 it is the exact phonetic equivalent of the Latin iuba, 'mane' 
 (i.e. iubha), and the sense suits admirably, 'tangle' accounting 
 for both. 
 
 Lastly vaXo<;, although the aspiration is accounted for if 
 it be connected with vay (?), may stand for iuu-llo-''^ and so 
 be connected with Lat. iuvat. 
 
 In all the remaining words the derivation goes to show 
 that the breathing should be smooth. Thus 
 
 i5/8o9, v^pi<; are probably connected with Skt. q;, uj, and 
 therefore go back to the root ug. Cf. Brgm. Gi^ds. § 430. 
 
 ^ I cannot feel sure that the root ^ It is curious how exactly this cor- 
 
 ius- must not also be postulated for responds to the E. E. imoel, but there 
 
 vfffiipy}, for dh does not become cr before seems no doubt that this was borrowed 
 
 /u. It may also account for Otr/cXos and from the French. 
 
58 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. 6- PREFIXED. 
 
 Similarly vyt?;? is connected with Skt. vaj-, Lat. vegeo, and 
 so has the V ug (Grds. I. § 402). 
 
 vyp6<; contains the root ug seen in Lat. uvidus. 
 
 v8i(o is explained by Skt. vad and so as u ad: ud. 
 
 v^cop again contains ud (Skt. ud-dn, Lat. unda, cf. 'AXoo-- 
 vB-vTj) the reduced form of yad (Goth. vato). 
 
 vd\o<; is of doubtful etymology : it cannot be = vB-\o<; and 
 so with vBico^. I believe it to contain u-, the weak form of 
 L Eu. y£-, ' speak ' (p. 27), with the suffix -6\o-, for which see 
 Brgm. Grds. ii. p. 201. 
 
 vpxn is equated with Lat. orca urceus : there does not seem 
 to be much authority for the aspiration in this word. 
 
 varepo^y Skt. uttara (? s-ud : ud, as s-upo : u-po, &c.). 
 
 For the word vfjL7]v see Classical Review, Vol. iv. pp. 157, 
 273 [below, p. 62]. For the sense of ' membrane ' a derivation 
 is there proposed involving a smooth breathing. The two words 
 vfjLTjv and vfjuijv were then assimilated to one form (cf eX\6<;, 
 p. 86). The aspiration of vSeay and vdXo<; is most probably 
 due to analogy from vfjbvo<;. Similarly vyp6<; and v8cop may 
 be explained by the aspiration in vo). 
 
 Excursus III. On the prefix s- (page 32 § 3 ad fin.). 
 
 I am now inclined not to consider these as sentence 
 doublets. It is true that, where the s- is followed by an 
 explosive, it might disappear if the preceding word ended in 
 certain other explosives, but such conditions would hardly 
 occur frequently enough to account for the great prevalence 
 of 5-less forms, and further when the s- preceded a sound like 
 ^, it would not disappear even when an explosive preceded. 
 Now many of the doublets do begin with su (cf pp. 48, 49, 50, 
 Brgm. Grds. ii. p. 457). So also for {s)l-, for which see Brgm. 
 in Rh. Mm. XLIII. p. 401, who postulates I. Eu. (s)laiuo- 'on 
 analogy' of (s)teg-, &c., but the instances are too numerous. 
 I regard this s element as a quasi-prepositional prefix or rather 
 
 ^ Brugmann {Grds. ii. p. 202) connects it with vei, but I cannot see the 
 connexion in sense. 
 
NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPEtl. ADDENDA. 
 
 »D 
 
 'element', and believe it also to be found in s-iipei\ vwep, 
 upari ; s-itb, vtto, upa. It would be easy further to assert that 
 it is the reduced form of I. Eu. es (?Gk. e?) and that it is found 
 in eV-?, eV-?, ax/3t-?, ovro)-^, &c., but this would take us back 
 to a state of language so rudimentary as practically to be 
 beyond our knowledge. 
 
 As Dr Brugmann {Gram.^ pp. 30 and 65) thinks my ex- 
 amples insufficient to prove my case for I. Eu. u, v^, I fear I have 
 not made clear my general argument, which takes this line : 
 
 Greek, 
 
 Latin, 
 
 ayios, VfX€Ls. 
 
 both. 
 
 j alike for 
 Sanskrit, 
 
 2/ alike for both, 
 but 
 Sanskrit has yasta )( ista where 
 Greek has ^ew, aytos respec- 
 tively ; 
 
 therefore 
 Gk. ^ )( ' represents an original 
 distinction between j and i. 
 
 Grundriss i. § 117. 
 
 Greek, 
 
 €VVVfXL, CKCOJ', €L\r}j TjXoS, &C. 
 
 Ittos, iSelv, cpyov, otvos, &C. 
 Latin, 
 
 V alike for both. 
 Sanskrit, 
 
 V alike for both, 
 
 but 
 Sanskrit has vavase )(uce where 
 Greek has cwv/xi, Ittos respec- 
 tively ; 
 
 Add to this that in Arme- 
 nian three roots with initial v 
 have been shown to have Greek 
 cognates : in all of these Greek 
 has the rough breathing : viz. 
 vasii €KUiv, var clXy}, veW rjkos, 
 with possibly vem at/x,vAos al- 
 /jMLariai In all the roots where 
 Greek replaces F by ' Armenian 
 shows g initial ; 
 
 therefore 
 there is more evidence for an 
 original distinction here than 
 there is for i, j. 
 
 1 [As before, see p. 197 inf.] 
 
60 NOTES ON THE SPIRITUS ASPER. ADDENDA. 
 
 p. 25 §3 a. G. Meyer, Gram.^ p. 21, gives Frohde's (B. B. 
 7. 85) equation of aai9 with Lat. sentina. This would then be 
 a violation of the rule. But ao-i,^ = nti-s, which is the more 
 primitive form of nti- (Skt. ati-, Greek vrjo-aa), so that the duck 
 is the " marsh-bird ". 
 
 vrj(To<; 7nay be connected with this root if vr)cn(6Tr}<; be taken 
 as proving that it stands for *v7J(tl^ on analogy of x^pao^. 
 
 p. 34, 1. 14. I have here expressed myself carelessly \ I 
 did not intend to imply, as M. Henry seems to think, that 
 7] 6a) regains its aspiration from the etymology which I propose, 
 but from the undoubted popular connexion with arjOw. 
 
 p. 50, 1. 15. I withdraw the comparison of Greek daTv 
 and Latin verna. M. Henry is right in denying that it is 
 possible to derive the former from Vu^s in the present state* 
 of our knowledge. 
 
 I have to acknowledge my indebtedness to M. V. Henry 
 
 in the Revue Critique, 1889, p. 383 f., and to Dr Brugmann in 
 
 the 2nd ed. of his Griechische Grammatik for their criticisms 
 
 and remarks on my essay, of which I have gladly availed 
 myself. 
 
 1 P leave these two paragraphs in with the correction, I confess, the ex- 
 
 the form in which they appeared, as planation is not quite clear to me, but 
 
 a reminiscence of Mr Darbishire's I did not feel justified in omitting the 
 
 most characteristic frankness. The word altogether.) 
 
 sentence on p. 34 (now corrected) In darv I know that Mr Darbishire 
 
 originally ran : * So rjd(a loses its subsequently recognised an d of the 
 
 aspiration by the same law and re- e-series with Bartholomae. C.J 
 gains it from its etymology.' (Even 
 
(4) ON THE DERIVATION OF LAT. OMENTUM. 
 {Classical Review iv, 1890 June p. 273.) 
 
LAT. OMENTUM. 
 
 The conclusions arrived at by Mr Still in his paper (Class. 
 Rev. iv. (1890) p. 157) on the meaning and use of this word will 
 without doubt be generally accepted. The derivation which he 
 prefers is however open to objection. In the first place the 
 correct equivalent of I. Eu. pm in Latin is, not a single m with 
 compensatory lengthening, but mm, e.g. summv s = suip-mo-s. 
 This indeed is not insuperable, as, if we admitted i^mentum 
 from V rup, amentum from \/ ap, and omentum from V op, we 
 might reverse the rule, and explain summus like luppiter. The 
 second objection is more serious. The termination mn-to- is 
 very frequent both in Latin and in Greeks and its function is 
 fairly clear. It is a secondary participial formation, prevailingly 
 with passive force, and consequently attaches regularly to verbal 
 roots. From Greek, Kaaavfxara and Bepfiara are good examples. 
 In Latin, I think, although it is very widespread, it occurs with 
 verbal roots only, alimenta, armenta, caementa, cognomentum, 
 pigmentum, sarmenta, tormentum, and from secondary verbal 
 stems armamenta, fimdamenta, vestlmentum being a few of the 
 commonest : op not being a verbal root in Latin, the derivation 
 from it is therefore without precedent. 
 
 Mr Still does not refer to the most modern etymology — that 
 of Windisch^ who refers it to a root uep, Skt. vapa. This is 
 also open to objection, and is marked as doubtful by Stolz^ 
 
 The other derivation (Vani^ek's), of which Mr Still approves, 
 is really preferable, although Byrne's principles may not be 
 
 » Brgm. Grds. ii. § 82. « MiUler's Handb. 11.2 p. 257. 
 
 2 Lit. Centrum, 1888, col. G68. 
 
LAT. OMENTUM. 63 
 
 deemed a decisive proof. The root found in indiio has really 
 a more widespread existence than is generally recognized. In 
 the modern orthography its forms are eu, ou, ii : from the first 
 form come induo, exuo, through -ouo from -e^o; from the 
 second (probably) Umbrian anovihimu (Tab. Ig. VI. B. 49) ; 
 from the third exuviae. This however does not exhaust the 
 root; omentimi appears to come from the eu- stage (cf. cae- 
 mentum), as instances of o- Ablaut with this suffix seem not 
 to occur. The primary meaning of the root seems to be 'draw', 
 and hence it provides a satisfactory derivation for rumen^, i.e. 
 re-u-men, cf. Serv. Verg. Ed. 6. 54, who defines it^ as eminens 
 gutturis 'pars per qiiam demissus cihus a certis reuocatur anima- 
 libus. Again, to this root may be referred Latin aued and 
 Skt. av\ The Latin verb is causative and so the root-form 
 would be on (like moneo, (f)ope(o), *oued would become aueo by 
 Thurneysen's rule*. The development of sense is of course very 
 simple (cf. attractive), and appears also in Sanskrit. 
 
 Finally I would remark that Mr Still's reference of v/iijv to 
 this root is, so far as I know, new. The accepted derivation^ is 
 from V siti, Lat. suo, which I think is distinctly inferior. The 
 only meaning of the word which it suits is that of marriage 
 (TfjLijv, vfievalo<i &c.) and even for these the sense of 'veiling' 
 given by our root accords much better with all that we know 
 about the Indo-European view of the matter. 
 
 1 Other etymologies : {a) J si-u Curt. voured to prove non-existent {Trans. 
 Grdz.^ 353-4; (h) J rug, Kluge, Etyni. Camb. Phil. Soc. in. 94 [p. 38 above]). 
 Wort. ed. 4, p. 274''. It might also be * p venture to doubt if Mr Darbi- 
 possible to establish a connexion with shire retained this belief in Thurney- 
 Greek epvw. sen's theory, though I can recall no 
 
 2 There is a variant ruma. direct utterance of his on the matter. 
 
 3 Generally equated with the sup- C] 
 
 posed Greek &(a. This I have endea- ^ This originated, I think, with Pott. 
 
(5) ON THE MEANING AND USE OF 
 
 CTTtSe^tos imSi^La, evSe^tos cvSe^ia. 
 
 (Read before the Cambridge Philological Society on March 4, 1890, 
 and printed in the Cmnhriclge Philological Transactions^ Vol. iii. 
 p. 154.) 
 
 This paper was to have been the first of a jyrojected series of ' Con- 
 tributions to Greek Lexicography \ 
 
 D. P. 
 
'E7ri3e^ios cTrtSe^ia, cvSe^tos ivBi^ia. 
 
 These words cannot be satisfactorily discussed without 
 touching upon Seffc09, and the most convenient starting-point 
 is to begin by quoting Liddell and Scott's account of all 
 three words. 
 
 eVtSef to9, ov, towards the right, i.e. from left to right : 
 I. used by Horn, only in neut. pi. as Adv. ; opwad' 
 €^€Lr}<; iinhe^La rise in order heginning with the left hand 
 man, as the wine is served, Od. 21. 141, Plat. Symp. 
 214 B ; iriveiv Tr)v eTrcBe^ca (sc. kvXiko) Eupol. Incert. 
 33, cf. Anaxandr. 'Ay p. 1, Ath. 463 F sq. : hence auspi- 
 cious, lucky, da-rpaTTTCDV eTrcBi^ca (explained by the next 
 words, ivaiaifia crrjp^ara (paivcov) II. 2. 353 ; einhe^La 
 %et/309 Find. P. 6. 19, Theocr. 25. 18:— when strongly 
 opposed to the left, it was written iirl he^id opp. to eV 
 dpiarepd II. 7. 238, Plat. Theaet. 175 E; but rd iTrcBe^ia 
 opp. to rd iirapiarepa Hdt. 2. 93, cf. 4. 191, 6. 33. 2. 
 after Horn, the sense of motion towards died away (cf 
 however Ar. Pax 957) and the word became = Se^to9 on 
 the right hand, Xen. An. 6. 2. 1, etc. ; TdTrtBe^ta the right 
 side, Ar. Av. 1493. II. as Adj., of persons, dexterous, 
 capable, able, clever, Aeschin. 25. 21, Arist. Eth. Nic. 
 4. 8. 5; c. inf. clever at doing. Id. Rhet. 2. 4. 13; eV. 
 7r/309 TV Polyb. 5. 39. 6; irepL ri Plut. Aemil. 37 :— as 
 Adv. eVtSefta dexterously, cleverly, Anaxandr. Incert. 2, 
 Nicom. EtXet^. 1. 27, Plat. Rep. 420 E; and -tox? Polyb. 
 3. 19. 13, 4. 35. 7, etc. 2. lucky, prosperous, rvxn, I^iod. 
 Exc. Vat. p. 5. Cf. eVSef to9. 
 
eTTfcSefto? eTTiSe^ia, eVSefto? ivSe^ca. 67 
 
 eVSef^o?, a, ov: Homer has only the neut. pi. ivBe^ia, 
 towai^ds the right hand, from left to right, mostly as Adv. 
 ^eo?9 ivhe^ta iraa-iv (hvoyoei^ he filled for all the gods 
 frovd left to right, II. 1. 597 ; Setf' evSe^ta Tracnv II. 7- 
 184; /3^ S' tiJLev alrrjacov evBi^ca (pcora e/cao-rov Od. 17. 
 365. The contrary procedure was avoided as unlucky 
 (as in Iceland ganga andsaelis, Scott, to go widdershins, 
 i.e. against the course of the sun, from right to left, v. 
 Jamieson s.v.), cf. Sefto? ; hence ivBe^ca a-rjfjbara pro- 
 pitious omens, II. 9. 236 : cf. einhe^Lo^. 2. after Hom. 
 without any sense of motion = Sefto? on the right, Eur. 
 Hipp. 1360, ivhe^io^ (tw ttoBl on thy 7nght, Id. Cycl. 6. 
 
 II. as Adj. clever, expert, h. Hom. Merc. 454. — Ep. word, 
 also in Eur. 11. c, but never in prose, for in Thuc. 1. 24 etc., 
 iv 8e^ca is now restored, as opp. to iv dp care pa. 
 
 S€^v6<;, a, 6v, on the right hand or side, opp. to dpio-re- 
 p6<;, 8. fjLa^ofi, y\ovT6<;, etc., Hom. etc. ; to 5. (sc. Kepa<;) 
 the right of an army, Xen. Ages. 2. 9, etc. ; cf. 8e^LTepo<^ : 
 — often in adverb, usages, eVt he^id on the right, like the 
 Att. iv 8e^ia (v. sub Be^cd), II. 7. 238, etc.; eVt Be^Locfttv 
 (Ep. gen.) towards the right, 13. 308 ; later also %6t/909 
 ek Tct he^id Soph. Fr. 527 ; iirl 8. %et/)09 Theocr. 25. 18 
 (as iir dpLcrrepd ')(^eip6<; in Hom.) ; 7rpo<; 8e^Ld Hdt. 1. 
 51, 7. 69 ; cf omnino Be^td. II. fortunate, boding good, 
 esp. of the flight of birds and other omens, 8e^cb<i 
 6pvL<; = alaio^, often in Hom. — This sense came from 
 the practice of the Greek augurs, who always looked to 
 the North, so that lucky omens which came from the 
 East were on the right, while the unlucky ones from the 
 West were on the left. To the Romans, on the contrary, 
 who looked South (Liv. 1. 18) the good omens came f^om 
 the left (laeva prosper a existimantur Plin. 2. 55); but 
 the poets mostly followed the Greek usage, v. Coningt. 
 Virg. G. 4. 7. From the Greek preference of the right 
 hand, it was considered lucky to hand wine from left to 
 right, II. 1. 597 ; so also in handing round lots, begging 
 round a table, cf 7. 184, Od. 17. 365, 21. 141, Theogn. 
 938 ; V. iv8e^Lo<;, eVtSef to?. III. metaph. dexterous, ready, 
 
 5—2 
 
68 CTTtSefto? eVtSefm, 
 
 opp. to (TKai6<; (sinister, French gauche) ; and of the mind, 
 sharp, shreiud, clever, first in Pind. I. 5. 77 (4. 61), who 
 has also Sup. in this sense, N. 3. 12; then freq. in Ar., 
 both of persons and things, as Nub. 428, 834; also in 
 Prose, Thuc. 3. 82, etc. ; Be^iov iroielv a clever thing, 
 Antipho 113. 26 ; ^vpiTrlSov Spafjua he^mrarov Strattis 
 ^AvOp. 1 ; B. irepl tc Plat. Hipparch. 225 C : — Adv. Seftw? 
 Antiph. In cert. 5, etc. ; Sup. Be^tcoTara Ar. Nub. 148. 
 
 The facts are by no means so simple as they at first sight 
 appear, and to obtain a clear view of the subject the history of 
 ' right ' V. ' left ' must be briefly sketched. 
 
 The distinction between ' right ' and ' left ' and the superi- 
 ority of the former arise from natural causes. The distinction 
 itself appears to have preceded the consciousness of the 
 distinction, and hence the first conception of the right hand 
 was also the first perception of its importance. A prion 
 then the right hand is that which is to be preferred for 
 all purposes, and the first object of the present paper is to 
 discover how far this conclusion agrees with the use of the 
 words in the Greek and Latin authors. Here we are at once 
 met by an apparent inconsistency. It is generally asserted 
 that the Greeks regarded the right and the Romans the left 
 as the lucky side, for which the great authority is Cicero De 
 Div. II. 39, 82, Ita nobis sinistra uidentur, Graiis et barbaris 
 dextra, meliora. So for example Plautus Pseud. 761, (cf Epid. 
 182), has 
 
 Omnes ordines sub signis ducam, legiones meas 
 aue sinistra, auspicio liquido atque ex sententia. 
 
 The contrary use, which is distinctly later, is generally 
 explained as due to Greek influence. Ovid has auibus sinistms, 
 Her. 2. 115, Virgil has dexter adi, Aen. 8. 802, and see generally 
 for examples Bulenger in Graevii Thes. Ant Rom. v. p. 407 f. 
 
 It thus appears that to the Romans the left was the lucky 
 side in opposition to the Greek usage and, one may add, to 
 expectation. The reason for this inconsistency is deliberated 
 on by Cicero in the passage already quoted and he concludes 
 Sed eerie nostri sinistrum nominauerunt externique dextrum 
 
eV^efto? ivBe^ca, 69 
 
 quia plerumque melius id uidehatur^. Plutarch also debates 
 the question Quaest. Mom. 78. 
 
 "Ata tI toov oicovatv 6 KaXovfievo^; apL(TTepo<; ai<no<i;" 
 TTorepov ovK eart tovto dXrjOe^;, aXXa irapaKpoverai 7roWov<; 
 r) 8id\€KT0<; ; to yap apiarepov o-iVKTrpov ovofjud^ovai, to S' 
 di^elvai aivepe, Koi crlve Xeyovaiv, OTav d^elvai irapaKoXwcri. 
 Tov ovv i^ievTa ttjv irpd^iv olcovov, aivcaTepiov ovTa aivi- 
 (TTpov OVK 6p6(£><^ v7ro\a/JL^dvov(7tv 01 TToWol Koi ovofid^ovacv. 
 rj KaSdirep Atovvaco^; <p7)(T{,v ^KaKaviw vlS Alveiov irapa- 
 TaTT0/JL€p(p TT/oo? IS/le^ivTioi^, d(7Tpa7rr]^ iv dpuaTepa viKrjc^opov 
 >y€vo/jL€prj<; oiayviadixevoi koX 7rpo<; to Xolttov ovtco irapacpv- 
 XoTTOvcnv ; t), q)<; dXXoc Ttv€<;, Alveia tovtov cru/i.Trecroz/To? ; 
 Kal yap Srj^aloL tw dpiaTepca KepaTi Tpeyfrd/juevoL tov'; TroXe- 
 /jbiov<; Kal KpaTi]aavTe<i iv AevKTpot,^; SceTeXeaav iv Trdcracf; 
 Tat9 fJid^ai<; tS dpiaTep^ Trjv rjyeixovlav d7roBL86vT€<;. rj 
 fidXXov, ft)? loySa? (fujal, rot? 7rpo9 Td<; dvaToXd<^ diro^XeTr- 
 ovcTLV iv dpLCTTepa yiveTai to /Sopeiov ; o Brj tov koct/jlov Be^cov 
 evioi TidevTai Kal KaOviripTepov. opa Se /irj ^vaet toI^ ev- 
 (ovvfJiOL^i daOevecTTepoif; ovaiv ol TrapiaTap^evoL tcov olayvaJv olov 
 dvappwvvvovat Kal vTrepeihovai to eXXnre'^ Tr}<^ hvvdp,eco<^ iw- 
 avc(TovvT€<;. rj Ta iiriyeLa Kal dvrjTa rol^; ovpavioi^ Kal Oeloc'; 
 dvTLKelaOai vop,L^ovTe<i movto tcl 7rp6<; r]iJLd<i dpLdTepd tov<; 
 6eov<; diro twv Be^toov irpoireiMireiv ; 
 
 The generally accepted explanation is that the Roman 
 augurs looked to the south, the Greeks to the north : in each 
 case the East was the auspicious quarter: therefore to the 
 former the left hand, to the latter the right, was the favourable 
 side. 
 
 It may be noted that, except in the language of augury, 
 the Roman diction does not differ from that of other peoples. 
 The metaphorical use of dexter is ' clever ' ; of sinister and 
 still more of scaeuos and laeuos is ' stupid,' ' unskilful,* ' per- 
 verse.' Nay, although sinister = ' favourable ' is an early use, 
 we never find the corresponding use of dexter as ' unfavourable.' 
 
 ^ The reading of the passage is not cod. Paris., unde Dav. coni. meliora 
 quite certain — meliiis indiuidebatm; hide uidehantur» 
 
70 eVtStfto? eTrcBe^ca, 
 
 Turning for a moment to the Greek side of the question 
 our natural starting-point is M. 237, 
 
 T?;i/7; 8' olcovoiac ravvTrrepvyeo-ai, KeXevet^; 
 ireLdeadai, toov ovtl /jLerarpiirofi ovS* aXeyl^o), 
 
 etT CTTt 0€^L LCOai, TTpO^ TJOi T TjeXiov Te, 
 
 etr' iir apiarepa rolye irorl ^6(f)ov r^epoevra, 
 
 where it is clear that the place in which the birds appear is 
 not so important as the direction of their flight\ We may 
 accordingly draw the same conclusion for the lightning flash 
 in B. 353, 
 
 daTpaTrrayv eirihe^i* ivaLatixa (T7]/j,aTa <j>alvcov, 
 and I. 236, 
 
 Zev<; Be a(f>i 'K.povLBrj'; evhe^ta arjiMara ^alvwu 
 
 aaTpcLTTTei, 
 
 that is to say in both these cases the flash, like the flight of 
 the birds, is from left to right, and the interpretation whicli 
 makes eVtSefta (eVS.) signify ' on the right hand ' is wrongs 
 The early Roman view is precisely similar. Dionysius Hali- 
 cam. II. 5 has the following important passage. 
 
 fiera Be rrjv €V')(rjv da-Tpairr} BiijXOev i/c twv dpcarepcSv 
 €7rl rd Be^cd. riOevTat Be 'Vw^aloi to^ ck tcou dpiarepwp 
 eVt rd Be^cd da-Tpaird'i alaiov^^ etre irapd TvppTjvwv BcBa^- 
 OevTe<;, etre rSv Traripcov Kad7]yrj(Ta/jLei^(ov Kard TocovBe rcva 
 ft)9 eyot) Treidoixai Xoyia/juov, otl KadeBpa fiev iari, Koi ardo-L^ 
 dplaTrj Toi)v ol(ovol<; /jLavTevo/Juivcov rj ^Xeirovaa 7rp6<; dvaToXd<;, 
 '6dev TjXiov T dva(f>opal ylvovrat Koi creX^vrjf; koI darepcov 
 irXavrjToov re koI dirXav^v ij re rod Koafiov irepi^opd Bi 
 rjv TOT€ fiev virep yrj<; airavra rd ev avTw ylverai, rore 5' 
 viTO 7^9, eKeWev dp^a/juevrf ttjv eyKVKXiov dTroBiBcoac KLvrjaiv. 
 Tol<; Be 7r/3o9 dvaroXd^; ^Xeirovcrtv dpiarepd fiev yiverai rd 
 irpbft rrjv dpKTov eTTia-Tpe<\)0VTa fMepi], Be^td Be rd tt/jo? fJieanj/jb- 
 Ppiav ^epovra' TL/xKorepa Be rd irporepa ire(f>VKev elvai roop 
 
 1 So in CIG 2963 the flight from that ivdi^ta was a dative compound 
 left to right is to be observed; the =iv de^iqi. It is here however ^i/ with 
 omen however is then judged from the accusative (as in Pindar and in 
 the motion of the wings. Latin), which was later supplanted 
 
 2 This is probably due to a belief by is. 
 
ivhe^Lo^ ivBe^ta. 71 
 
 vcTepcov. /jLeT€(opL^6TaL yap diro t(3v ^opeiwv fiepwv 6 rov 
 d^ovof; TToXo? Trepl ov rj rov Koafxov arpo^rj ylverai' kol twv 
 irevTe kvkXcov twv hie^coKorwv rrjv acpalpav 6 Ka\ovfjL€vo<; 
 apKTLKO^; ael rfjhe (f>av6p6^, TaireivovraL 8' cltto twv votIcov 6 
 Ka\ov/jLevo<; avrapKriKOf; kvk\o^ d<pavrj<i Kara tovto to fiepo^i. 
 et/co9 Srj Kpana-ra twv ovpavicov kol iMerapalcov (TTj/jueicov 
 VTrap'X^eLV 6a eK rov KparlaTou ylverac jxepov^' eTreiBy Be rd 
 fiev io-TpajMfjbeva tt/jo? Td<^ dvaTo\a<^ riyefjuovLKcoTepav fiolpav 
 €)(^6L TMV 7rpo<Te<77repL(ov, avTcov Be ye tmv dvaroXiKcov v^^t]- 
 Xorepa rd ffopeta rwv voricov ravr dv elrj KpaTtcrra. &)? Be 
 TiV€<i laTopovaiv eV iraXaiov re koX irplv rj irapd Tvpprjvoop 
 fiadelv TOL<; 'Pcofiaicov 7rpoy6voL<; aiatoc ipo/juL^ovTO at €k tcov 
 dpiarepwy daTpairai ^KaKavico ydp toS e^ Alvelov yeyovoTi, 
 KaO' ov ■)(^p6vov VTTO Tvpprjvoov, oif<; rjye ^acrcXev'; Meo^eyTto?, 
 iTToXe/JuelTo koX ret^/J^?;? ^i/, irepl rrjv rekevTaiav e^oBov, rju 
 dTreyvcoKco^; 7]Brj rwv Trpay/xdrcov e/jueWe irocelaOai, fier 6\o- 
 <l)VpfjLou Tov re. Ala Kal tou? dWov<; alTov/ubei^a) deov^; aXaia 
 cr7]fx€la Tr}<^ i^oBov Bovvai (f)aa\v alOpla<i ovo-7j<; e/c tcov dpiarepcov 
 da-Tpdylrat tov ovpavov. tov 8' dywvo'^ eKelvov Xa/SovTOf; to 
 KpaTiaTOv T6Xo<; Bia/jielvai irapd toI<; eKyovot^; avTov vo/jLc^o/juevov 
 at(TL0v ToBe TO a7]/jLelov. 
 
 These passages make it clear that to both nations alike the 
 right was primitively auspicious, and consequently signs pro- 
 ceeding from left to right were favourable omens. From this 
 the Romans by an easy development came to regard mere 
 appearance on the left as favourable, independently of direction, 
 and so sinister acquired a certain limited acceptation as ' auspi- 
 cious.' The Greeks however never lost sight of the primitive 
 idea, and, as we have seen, the Romans never carried it so far 
 as to give dexter the opposite signification, and were quite ready 
 to restore the earlier acceptation as soon as Greek influence 
 began to be felt. Hence Ovid could even say (Ibis 127) 
 
 dedit ipse mihi modo signa futuri 
 Phoebus et a laeua maesta uolauit auis. 
 
 For the individual observer, then, auspicious signs were 
 those on the right hand, or which travelled from left to Hght. 
 But when attempts began to be made to ascertain the will of 
 
72 eVi^efto? eVtSefia, 
 
 the gods in some more formal and definite way than by such 
 accidental manifestations it became necessary to fix the ob- 
 server's position, or in other words to import an absolute right 
 and left into Nature. The difficulty of this is evident from 
 the divergence of the results, and the reason of this difficulty is 
 twofold : first, either the East or the South may be regarded as 
 the source of light, and consequently the observer may face 
 either of these quarters; secondly, when his position is fixed, 
 the universe may or may not be considered as facing him. 
 
 The Oriental view personified the universe, and selected 
 the East as the quarter which should be faced. Hence the 
 north becomes the absolute Right, the south the Left. So 
 Plutarch De Is. et Os. 32 koI dprjvo^ icmv iepo<^ iirl rod Kpovov 
 ^evofxevo'^, dprjvel Se tov iv toU aptaT€pol<; yevofievov /xepeaiv, iv 
 he To2<; 8eftot9 <t>d€cp6/jL6vov. AlyvirTioi, yap otovrai ra fxev iSa 
 TOV KoafJbov 7rp6(7C07rov elvat, rd Be 7r/oo9 ^oppav Se^id, rd he 
 7rpb<; voTov dpiarepd. (pepoixevo^; ovv eK twv voticov 6 NeiXo?, 
 iv he Toh ^opeioi^ viro Trj<; OaXda-crrj'; KaravaXio-KO/jbevo'i, 
 elKOTcof; Xeyerai rrjv /lev yeveatv ev tol<; dpio-repol^ ^X^^^ "^V^ ^^ 
 <f>Oopdv ev rol<i he^Lol<^. 
 
 The same view^ was taken by the Hebrews and by other 
 Oriental nations and is probably a relic of sun-worship. As 
 much of the Roman system of augury was undoubtedly influenced 
 by Chaldaean astrologers, it is not surprising to find it clearly 
 stated in the above passage from Dionysius, and again in Livy i. 
 18, [augur] regiones ah oriente ad occasum determinauit dextras 
 ad meridiem partes, laeuas ad septentrionem esse diadt, and 
 Servius on Verg. A en. Ii. 693, sinistras autem partes septentrio- 
 nales esse auguriim disdplina consentit et ideo ex ipsa parte 
 signijicatiora essefulmina quoniam altiora et uiciniora domicilio 
 louis. 
 
 On the other hand the Greek philosophers from their a priori 
 view of nature argued that the East must be the absolute 
 Right because the motion of the heavenly bodies began thence. 
 
 The most important passage in this connection is Aristotle 
 De Caelo il. cap. 2. Tlie whole chapter is interesting and in- 
 
 1 [i.e. the view based on the East- that based on personifying the East, 
 ward position of the observer, not C.J 
 
 I 
 
structive but too long for quotation. The course of the argu- 
 ment is briefly this. " We have three pairs of opposites, up 
 and down, backwards and forwards, right and left. Motion 
 upwards is growth, motion forwards is perception, motion right 
 and left motion in space. Therefore everything that has motion 
 in space must have a right and left, but the universe has motion 
 in space and therefore has an absolute right and left." Now 
 follows (p. 285 b 8) the most remarkable statement. Xeyco Se 
 firjKo<i fjiev avTov to Kara tov<; ttoXou ? hidaTrjfia koI tSv ttoXcov 
 Tov fjb€v av(o Tov he KdT(o...Tcov Be ttoXojv 6 fiev virep yjjid^; 
 (fyaivofievo'^ to kcltw fjbepo<i eaTiv, 6 3' r^fjblv dBrjXo^ to dvco. 
 Se^Lov yap e/cdaTov Xiyofiev, oOev rj dp')(rj t?}9 KaTa tottov 
 Kivi^crew^' TOV 8' ovpavov dp^rjv r^? irepK^opd^, Wev at dvaToXal 
 Twv ciaTpcov, w(TTe TOVT tiv eXt] Be^cov, ov S' al BvcreL'; dpiCTTepov. 
 el ovv dp-^eTai re dirb tcov Be^tcov koL eirl tu Be^id irepLCpepeTat, 
 dvdyKT) TO dvod elvai tov dipavrj ttoXoV el yap eaTat 6 <f)avep6<;, 
 eir dpiaTepd eaTat rj Kivrjat<; oirep ov ^a/iiev. Here in the first 
 place it is clear that as the universe is regarded as a sphere 
 there is no question of a subjective right and left facing and 
 opposite to ours, as he himself remarks above (p. 285 a 1) 
 aXX' ev fiev tovtol^ Xeyo/xev to dvco Kal /caro) icai to Be^iov Kal 
 dpL(TT€pbv 7rpb<; tJ/xo.? eirava^epovTe^' rj yap KaTa ra rjfjLeTepa 
 Be^id, axrirep ol /jLdvT€C<;y rj Kad' o/juoLOTTjTa Toh ^/xerepot?, olov 
 Ta TOV dvBpidvTo^ij rj ra ivavTLco^ e^ovTa Trj Beaec, Be^tov fjuev 
 TO KaTa TO r)iJbeTepov dpta-Tepov, dpiaTepbv Be to KaTa to rjixeTepov 
 Be^ibv K.T.X. where the words wairep ol fidvTec^ are especially 
 important as shewing that in augury the heavens were not 
 considered as facing the observer. It also seems clear from 
 Aristotle's words that the common statement^ about Greek 
 augury, viz. that the observer faced the North, is inaccurate. 
 Aristotle's difficulty that the East is not on our right hand 
 proves that, as might be expected, he regards the natural 
 position for observing the heavens to be facing the South. 
 One point alone may be thought obscure. If the East be the 
 left hand and the West the right, surely, although the heavenly 
 bodies cannot be said dp')(^ea6ac dirb twv Be^ccov, they do proceed 
 
 1 e.g. Voss, Krit. Bl. i. 42. 
 
74 eVtSefto? eirihe^La, 
 
 eVt TO, Be^id, and hence his argument about the South Pole 
 breaks down. The explanation is that Aristotle is speaking 
 not only of the visible but also of the invisible course of the 
 heavenly bodies: he regards the point of time at which they 
 rise for Greece as the beginning and consequently as the end 
 of their diurnal course, and thus they begin from the extreme 
 left and circle round to it again aTro twv dpLarepwv iirl rd 
 dpiarepd. Of course Aristotle believed that the sun rose on 
 the Southern hemisphere as he set in this. 
 
 illi cum uideant solem nos sidera noctis 
 cernere et alternis nobiscum tempora caeli 
 diuidere et noctes parilis agitare diebus. 
 
 Thus our West is their East, and accordingly to them the 
 diurnal motion begins on the extreme right and returns to it 
 again \ It is interesting to notice that the words rov S' 
 ovpavov dp'^rjv Trj<; '7r€pi<popd<;, oOev at dvaroXal toov darpwv, 
 coo-re rovT dv evi] Se^cov, from which Aristotle deduces the 
 conclusion that the absolute rising of the sun is when it sets 
 for us, have been taken apart from their context, so that 
 Plutarch says (Plac. Philos. ii. 10) 
 
 Uvdayopa^, HXdrcov^, ^ApL(TT0T6kr}(;, Sefta tov Koo-fjuov rd 
 dvaroXiKa p>iprj, d<^ wv rj dp')(^rj r^? Kcvijaea)^;, dptarepd Se rd 
 BvTiKd. 
 
 We thus have to reckon with two fundamental views con- 
 cerning the observation of the heavens — the one which faced 
 the East and the other which faced the South. It is this 
 double possibility which is alluded to in Artemidorus ('Oz/et- 
 poKp. II. 36, p. 130) 
 
 'I/3t9 Be Be^id fiev opco/xevrj dyaOrj, ev(avvfio<; Be Trovrjpd. 
 Be^idv Be Kal evdovvfjuov ov 7rpo<; tov ovpavov ')(prj voelv, dWd 
 Trpo? TOV ^Xiov. 
 
 1 It would perhaps be more correct South Pole does not affect his argu- 
 
 to say that to them the heavenly ment. 
 
 bodies rise in the West, as Aristotle '^ Probably relying on Legg. vi. p. 
 
 seems to regard the two points as no 760 d. On the contrary Plato says 
 
 less fixed than North and South. This the diurnal motion proceeds iwl de^id, 
 
 also explains how the elevation of the see Tim. p. 36 c. 
 
eV^efto? evhe^ia. 75 
 
 That is, in interpreting signs from the rainbow the East and 
 West are to be considered left and right (tt^o? tov r/Xtov) and 
 not the North and South (tt/jo? tov ovpavov); the reason is 
 obvious : — a rainbow must always be opposite the sun and hence 
 in the northern hemisphere can never appear in the South. 
 
 To return to our passage from Homer : 
 
 €CT eVl Sefr tooai 7rpo9 ^'w r rjiXcov re, 
 eiT iiT apiarepa Tolye ttotI ^ocjyov rjepoevra. 
 
 This surely proves that the East was the right hand and 
 the West the left for the purpose of augury and consequently 
 that the observer must have faced the North. Before ad- 
 mitting this however other passages in Homer which are in 
 point must be examined. 
 
 fo(/>o9 is a word of uncertain etymology, of which the earliest 
 traceable sense is "darkness" and "the underworld." Thus 
 VTTO i6(j)0v r/epoevra '^. 51, \. 57, 155, vtto ^ocjyov r]€p6evT0<i of 
 the slain Trojans ^. oQ. It is coupled with Erebus, leaevwv 
 "EpejSo'iBe viro l^6<f)ov v. 356, cf. p,. 81, and is the domain of 
 Hades O. 191. Thus it does not in itself denote a point of the 
 compass, but the realm of darkness which apparently extended 
 from West to East below the earth. It is thither that the 
 light of day departs 7. 335. 
 
 There are two passages which enable us to fix its meaning 
 when contrasted with r/w r r/eXtov re. These are, first fju. 80 
 (the description of Scylla's cave). 
 
 p^eaao) 3' iv crKOTreXw icnl (TTreo? '^epoeiBe^;, 
 7rpo9 ^6(f>ov eh "E/oe^o? Terpafifjuivov. 
 
 If we may trust the geography assigned to the legend ever 
 since Thucydides (cf IV. 24), the rock of Scylla lay on the 
 Italian coast just outside the Straits of Messina. At this place, 
 however, the coast-line runs nearly East and West, and the 
 rock faces northwards, consequently the cave itself must have 
 faced almost due North. The second passage gives the same 
 conclusion. In t. 22, describing Ithaca, he says : 
 
 a/jL(f)l Se vrjcroi 
 TToXXal vaieTaovai, pudXa (r'^eSov aXXrjXrjaiv 
 
76 eVtSe^to? eTTche^ia, 
 
 AovXl')(^c6v re Xd/jurj re koX vX^ecraa ZdKvv6o<;. 
 avTTj Be 'x^dafiaXrj TravvTrepTaTr) eiv d\l Kelrai 
 7rpb<; ^6<l)ov—al Be r avevOe irpo<; yco t rjeXiov re. 
 
 Cephallenia and Zacynthus lie due South of Ithaca — the 
 position of Dulichium is not certain, but if it was one of the 
 Echinades it lay to the South-east ; thus the widest inter- 
 pretation that can be given to Tr/ao? ^oipov is N.W. to N., and 
 of 7rp6<; rjco kt\. is S.E. to S., so that these two decisive passages 
 are absolutely consistent ^ 
 
 In two other passages the expressions are opposed. 
 
 TJfjLev ocroL vaiova-f, irpo^ rjco t yeXtov re 
 
 rjB' oaaoL ixeroinade irorl ^6(f)ov rjepoevra. v. 240, 
 
 is of course without bearing on the subject. The other 
 
 o3 (fiCKoLy ov yap r iB/nev otttj ^6(f)0<; ovB^ otttj »;&)?, 
 ovS* OTTTJ rjeXco'; ^aeaijM^poro^; etcr' viro yalav 
 ovS' OTTTJ dwelrai. /c. 190, 
 
 is inconsistent according to the ordinary interpretation, which, 
 taking for granted that ^6(\>o^ and r)w<; always have their later 
 meaning of W. and E., makes the following clauses mere 
 repetition. It is possible, though by no means necessary^ to 
 regard these as four distinct alternatives. 
 
 In a former paper {supr, p. 50) I derived 770)9 from the 
 root ves 'shine' with the intensive prefix e. The side-light 
 thus thrown on its primitive meaning agrees with its use in all 
 these passages, and affords an exact parallel to ^6j>o<^. Their 
 developement may be traced through the following stages. 
 Tjm is first of all 'sunshine,' 'daylight,' 'the realms of day,' 
 whence its close conjunction with rie\Lo<^, just as ^ocjyof; is 
 ' darkness,' * the realms of night,' and is coupled with "EpeyQo?. 
 Then, in two passages certainly, TTp6<; ^6(f>ov and tt/do? rjoo r 
 rjeXiov T€ give generally N. and S. direction. Next by a very 
 simple metonymy they come to signify the ' gates of light ' and 
 * of darkness ' respectively, and so ' sunrise ' and * sunset.' 
 
 1 I cannot meet the argument that talking about. It is unanswerable. 
 Homer meant E. and W. in each case ^ xhe passage bears signs of late 
 
 because he did not know what he was origin in the elision before {F)lbix(v. 
 
eVSe^to? evhe^ua. 
 
 77 
 
 There is accordingly no reason for separating M. 239 sq 
 from L 25 sq. and fju. 80 sq., especially when by so doing we 
 introduce a custom in augury not found elsewhere. Accord- 
 ingly here also the observer faces the E. and the flight eVtSef ta 
 is towards the S., and we may suppose that the primitive 
 methods of divination were the same for Greeks and for Ro- 
 mans, and in all probability drawn by both alike from Oriental 
 sources \ 
 
 The direction eirl he^id being that of the apparent course 
 of the sun is another reason for its auspicious character. This 
 indeed is not confined to the Greeks and Romans. In Jamie- 
 son's Dictionary s. v. Widdersinnis there is an interesting quo- 
 tation to shew the Gaelic observance of it, and he adds : " the 
 custom of sending drink round a company from left to right is 
 by many supposed to be a vestige of the same superstition. 
 There are still some, even in the Lowlands, who would reckon 
 it unlucky to take the opposite course "I 
 
 ^ Whether this explanation of 7rp6s 
 ^bipov and Trpos rjG} kt\. be accepted or 
 not, these lines form no justification 
 for the statement which is apparently 
 built on them and them alone, that 
 the Greek augurs looked to the N. 
 I regard the statement on Hector's 
 part as quite general, but if in spite of 
 I. 26 and fi. 81 wphs ^ocpov cannot mean 
 *' towards the N.," his statement must 
 be regarded as referring to this par- 
 ticular omen, to which it would then 
 apply, as he and Polydamas are facing 
 towards the Greek camp and conse- 
 quently N. This is the view taken by 
 [Achillea Tatius] in a passage which 
 might have been quoted above if more 
 examples had been necessary : — rd /a^v 
 odp TTjs d^creojs raOr' iariv rbv 8^ i^rj- 
 yoi^fievov iv de^ia xprj tou ^dpcLOv ir6\ov 
 iX^^v i^^*- ^v a,pL(TTepq. rbv v6tlov. eTretSr; 
 ai dpKTOi iiri dvaroXQu ev 5e^i.a KeUvrat., 
 4v dpiaTepa 5e 6 j'otos. rivh de tCov 
 i^tiyovfi^vuv ^oijXoPTai i/XTrpoadev fiev 
 ras dpKTOVi oTrtVw 5^ rby v6tov, de^id 5^ 
 
 Tas dvaroKdi dpicrrepd d^ T7)v ddcriv ?x^"'» 
 ICTUS dwb tQ)v 'OfJLrjpiKwv lirdv KivrjO^vres 
 Eir' iirl de^C tuai kt\., ovk eldbres W5 6 
 iroir]TT}i Trpbs tt]v tQv tSttuv iKeivoiv 
 diaiVf de^id fieu rd dvaroXiKd, dpiarepd 
 5^ rd dvTiKd elirev. rj 6^ toO K6<XfJ.ov 
 d^<xts Kard wpda-uirov Se^tas ^xet ras 
 dpKTOvs, Kal oirrwj Tidiuai XPV ^W <^<t>o.'i- 
 pav Tbv i^rjyovfxevov. Isag. in Phaenom. 
 35, p. 161 B. This emphatic state- 
 ment combined with the silence of 
 Plutarch {Quaest. Rom. 1. c.) might 
 have prevented any false deductions 
 from the Homeric passage. 
 
 2 The question then naturally arises : 
 why has modern custom changed this 
 and made the reverse order universal ? 
 The answer is that the wide- spread 
 use of time-pieces makes us prefer 
 'clockwise' to 'counter-clockwise.' 
 But if counter-clockwise was the 
 favoured direction previously, why were 
 the first clocks not made with their 
 figures reversed? It has been asserted 
 that this was because the upper half 
 
78 eVtSefto? eVtSefta, 
 
 In applying eirl Be^ta, the lucky direction, to the uses of 
 daily life, one became so especially frequent as to develope a 
 semi-technical acceptation \ This is its application to the course 
 of the wine at feasts, sacrifices, and the like. Homer illustrates 
 this in four passages : 
 
 avrap 6 to?9 dWoiai 6eol<i ivhe^ia iraatv 
 olvo^oei... A. 597. 
 
 KTjpv^ Se ^epoiv av ofiiXov airavTr) 
 3etf* ivhe^ia iraatv aptaTrjeaaiv ^A^acwv. H. 183. 
 
 ^rj S* LfjLeu alrrjacdv ivSe^ia (fx^ra eKaarov. p. 365. 
 
 opvvcrO* €^€Lr}<; iirihe^La 7rdvr€<; eratpot 
 
 dp^dfievot Tov x^/9ou odev ri irep olvo'^oeveL <p. 141. 
 
 Some of the older commentators wished to give to the 
 adverb here its later meaning of ' dexterously,' but this is much 
 less appropriate, especially in the last passage (v. Buttm. Leodl. 
 p. 173). It must be noted that in all the passages the wine 
 circulates from left to right of the feasters, &c. This of course 
 is not altered by the presence of a wine-server, whose duty 
 accordingly begins on his extreme right and proceeds leftwards. 
 This use has become so specialised that the inconsistency of 
 asserting that the cupbearer goes iinhe^ia in such cases is not 
 perceived. 
 
 In this connection may be mentioned an important passage 
 in Herodotus which has occasioned some difficulty. He is 
 enumerating the various points in which the Egyptian usage 
 is contrary to Greek, and concludes ypd/jLfjbaTa ypdcpovaL koI 
 
 was made to correspond to the direction and to reserve iiridi^ia for those in- 
 of our writing. This is not probable. stances in which the development of 
 Rather the first clock face was modelled a secondary sense proves that it is a 
 on a sun-dial and consequently the true adverb. The only passage in 
 hands follow the direction of the sun's Homer where it is strictly literal is 
 shadow. H. 238. iiri de^ta is also correct in 
 1 There appears to be no fixed rule passages like Hdt. ii. 93, Ar. Av. 
 when itrl de^id and when imd^^ia 1493, but probably not in Pind. P. vi. 
 should be written. It is best to write 19, [Theocr.] xxv. 18, where the ad- 
 it as two words, whenever it can be dition of x^tp^s shews the necessity of 
 oonstruecl as a syntactic expression, marking the local sense was felt. 
 
Xoyl^ovrat 'slr'r)<f)OL(TC, ''EX\77^'6? fiev diro twv dpoo'Tepoyv eVl rd 
 Se^ca ^6povr€<; rrjv ^(^elpa, AlyvTrriot Se diro rwv Se^cwv iirl ra 
 dpLdrepd' koL ravra TTOLevvT€<; avrol fxev (f)aai eVtSefta iroieetv, 
 ^'^Wrjva^ he iir dptarepd. II. 36. 
 
 The following quotations illustrate the views which have 
 been taken of this passage : 
 
 Littlebury translates "but the Egyptians... from the Eight 
 to the Left. And yet pretend in doing so, that their line tends 
 to the Right and ours to the Left"\ 
 
 Mr G. C. Macaulay in his translation (Vol. I. p. 132) renders 
 the last words " and doing so they say that they do it them- 
 selves rightwise and the Hellenes leftwise." 
 
 Brugsch, Gram. Demotique (p. 15, § 27), says: "Deja plus 
 haut j'ai fait la remarque que le demotique s'ecrit de droit a 
 gauche. Sous ce titre Herodote nous a conserve une notice 
 infiniment curieuse qui lui est venue des Egyptiens et que 
 voici: ypd/jL/jLara kt\. D'apres notre connaissance du demo- 
 tique, il est evident que cette remarque ne concerne point la 
 direction gdnerale de Tecriture deja tracee mais uniquement la 
 maniere dont on devait ecrire les signes, c'est-a-dire en les 
 commen^ant du c6te gauche et en les termiuant a droite etc." 
 
 The first of these three typical views regards the assertion 
 of the Egyptians as a pure absurdity, which is about as proba- 
 ble as it is that a left-handed man should accuse the normal 
 practice of being gauche. The second view, which Mr Macaulay 
 follows if I understand his words rightly, gives to iinhe^La the 
 sense of 'skilfully,' "they claim that they do it dexterously and 
 the Greeks the reverse." Here also the retort is too obvious 
 " the mode which proceeds eVt he^id, must be the iiriZe^ia 
 mode." This view seems to have found most favour and is 
 certainly the best of the three, but it involves a sense of iin- 
 Be^ta which first occurs in much later authors and hence can 
 only be accepted in default of a better. The third explanation 
 is undoubtedly ingenious but will not bear scrutiny. If stated 
 in full it involves the following interpretation : the Greeks 
 write from left to right and the Egyptians from right to left, 
 
 1 So Voss I.e. 43, 
 
80 eVtSe^to? eVtSefior, 
 
 but, as each nation forms its characters in the opposite direction 
 to that of the writing, the Egyptians claim to write eVtSefta. 
 The proof of the statement concerning the Egyptian characters 
 rests on some indications on papyri, which do not seem very 
 cogent. On the other hand in the hieroglyphic alphabet, on 
 which the demotic is founded, many characters represented 
 animals (v. Rawlinson ii. p. 261) and, although hieroglyphs are 
 written in either direction, the head of the animal is always 
 turned towards the direction from which the hand comes. Thus 
 (unless the writer always began at the tail) the character must 
 have been formed in the same direction as the writing, in the 
 hieroglyphic alphabet, and the same would naturally hold of its 
 derivatives, the hieratic and demotic. Of course the assertion 
 for Greek is supported by no particle of evidence. If any more 
 evidence is needed to disprove this view it can be found in the 
 language of Herodotus, who has carefully left out the important 
 fact of the story, although it would have given him another 
 instance for his topic, which is the perverse customs of the 
 Egyptians — and has moreover selected the unfortunately am- 
 biguous words ypd/jL/jLara ypdipova-c. 
 
 The passage at once becomes clear if we bear in mind the 
 specialised use of eVtSefta. in Homer, which has just been 
 referred to. The four passages quoted above shew that, when 
 a single individual was referred to in relation to a line of others, 
 he was said to go iircSe^ca if he began at his extreme right, 
 because the adverb had reference to the right and left of those 
 who formed the line or circle. It is to this that the Egyptian 
 statement alludes, comparing the written characters to a row of 
 feasters and the writer to the cupbearer. Just as in A. 597 
 Hephaestus goes iirihe^ia beginning at the extreme right (to 
 him) of the row of gods, and as in H. 184 the herald goes iiri- 
 he^va beginning at the extreme right (to him) of a row of chiefs, 
 so an Egyptian goes iirihe^ia beginning at the extreme right 
 (to him) of a row of letters. 
 
 Perhaps an illustration may make this clearer. In Plato 
 Symp. 177 D we have BokcI y/ip fioL '^(^prjvaL eKaarov ijfi&v 
 \6yov elTretv eiraivov "E/dwto? iirihe^ia (vulg. iirl Se^ta) &)9 
 av hvvrjrat koXKictov, dp)(^€iv Be ^atSpov irpwrov, iireihr) koX 
 
evBe^LO<; ivSe^ca. 81 
 
 7r/0ft)TO9 KaraKetTac koI earcv afia irarr^p rod \6yov. As may 
 easily be seen from the context the following diagram shews 
 the position of the guests. 
 
 'Epv^l/xaxos 'Api(rTO(pavr]s 
 
 'ApiffT6dT}fioi^^^^ ^)^-\,. lIai;<ra;'ios 
 
 'AyaSwv 
 ['AXfft/3id57?s] 
 SwKpdrr;? 
 
 Now if a Greek were called upon to write down the 
 names in the above diagram he would start with Sw/fpar?;? 
 and end with <l>atS/)09, but, as the text proves, the iiriBe^ta 
 order begins with Phaedrus and ends with Socrates, so that an 
 Egyptian who would begin with OO^AIAcJ) on the extreme 
 right might justly claim to be writing iirihe^La, 
 
 It may at first sight seem absurd to suppose that written 
 characters could be so far personified as to be credited with a 
 subjective right and left. The thought however is the same 
 as in Aristotle Metaph. N. 6, p. 1093^ 30. He there asserts 
 that the Homeric line (viz. the purely dactylic) ^alverac iv /juh 
 Tft) Se^cQ) ivvea avWaffal^fy iv Be too apio-repw oktco where the 
 right-\\2iYi(i side of the line is clearly the fiyst half, i.e. right and 
 left are applied to the line subjectively \ and, as the scholiast 
 says, TO he^Lov is to y/xiav to airo Trj<; «/3%^9 eo)? rov p^eaov — 
 the first three feet being dactyls contain nine syllables, the last 
 three, two dactyls and a spondee, eight. Its perfectly matter- 
 of-course use in this place by Aristotle (as it were, the heraldic 
 
 1 This explanation and the quotation the larger number. Besides, his di- 
 
 from the scholiast which follows I owe vision of the line at the caesura limits 
 
 to Dr Henry Jackson's lectures, and the statement to dactylic lines with 
 
 consequently I am not compelled to feminine caesura, of which there is no 
 
 respect, as I otherwise should, the hint in the text; that is to say, his 
 
 authority of Bonitz, who takes the con- explanation suits 
 
 trary view. Against his explanation -ax. «/» ' > < /a v ., 
 
 may be urged, m addition to the au- , 
 thority of the scholiast who makes his 
 
 statement most emphatically twice ^^^ ^*^^ 
 
 over, that it is not likely A. would rolai 5' dviffTafMevos |: fieritpT] irdSas wkvs 
 
 have mentioned the second half of the 'AxtXXei^s. 
 line first, especially when it contains 
 
 D. P. 6 
 
82 iinhe^Lo^ eVtSefm, 
 
 right and left) is a strong argument for a similar explanation 
 of the passage in Herodotus \ 
 
 To return to iirthe^ia — the sense at present under discus- 
 sion is frequent throughout Greek literature. In Plato besides 
 the passage already quoted it occurs Symp. 214 B, and in 
 Rep. IV. 420 E, where it seems to make better sense than " scite, 
 eleganter' as some translate it. It bears the same sense in the 
 very obscure quotation from Anaxandrides ap. Athen. xi. 10, 
 p. 463 E sq. and in a quotation from Hippias, lb. xii. 74, 
 p. 600 E. 
 
 Another specialised sense of iiriBe^ia is in connection with 
 the mode of wearing the Ifjudriov, Thus Aristophanes, 
 
 0UT09 TL Bpa<; ; eV apio-rep* outo)? dfjLirex^i' ^ 
 ov fieTa^aXet BolfidrLov c5S* eVt Be^td ; (I. iinhe^ta) 
 
 Av. 1567. 
 
 Here the himation is to be thrown over the left shoulder: con- 
 sequently the adverb does not refer to the motion implied in 
 fiera^aXel but to the direction in which the folds run when 
 the garment is adjusted, viz. from left to right. So also Plato 
 TheaetetuSy p. 175 D f. 
 
 P. 175 D f. OuT09 hr] kicaTepov t/sotto?, w ©eoSw/ae, o fxev rw 
 ovTL iv iXevdepLo. re koX cr')(^o\f) reOpa/Jb/jLevov, ov Brj <f)ik6a-o^ov 
 Kokec^, oS dv€/jL€<T7]T0v evT^Set BoK€Lv KoX ovBevl eJvac, orav eh 
 BovXlkol ifiirecrr) BiaKOv^/JLara, olov aTpoj/jLaroBea-fiov fir) €7ri<TTa- 
 fievov (Tva-Kevdcraardai, fJbrjBe oyjrov rjBvvac rj Owira^ \6yov^' 6 5' 
 av rd fiev roiavra irdvTa Bwafievov Topoo<i re koI o^ecof; BiaKo- 
 vetv, dva^dWeadai Be ovk eirtaTaixevov einBe^ia eXevdepo)^ 
 ovBe y dpfjLOViav Xoycov \a^6vT0<^ opOco^ vfjuvrja-at Oecov re koX 
 dvBpmv evBatfiovcov filov dXrjOi]. 
 
 Here the double ambiguity in eiriBe^ia and dva^dXXeadai 
 caused the interpretation to be doubted at a very early date. 
 Thus one of the scholia runs t(Sv yap diraiBevroiv koI to evBv/jia 
 fcal TO ayrjixa Bopv^wBe^;. dXXoi Be to dva^dXXeadat eirl tmv 
 
 ^ The Greeks seem on the whole to made it possible. Thus in Aristotle 
 have preferred the subjective u'^e of Prohl. k^' 31 p. 943''28, f/0i»pos is said 
 Se^t6i whenever the circumstances to be iirl Se^id of ^op^as. 
 
Kidapwv aKovovat Trjf; ft)3i79, olov to dp')(€<TOaL KiOapH^etv. koX 
 olfiai, ov KaKm' TO re yap TrpOKpovfia T179 Kidapa^ dva^oXrj 
 KoXevTai. 
 
 Athenaeus quotes the passage (i. 18, p. 21 b) and interprets 
 it as referring to the himation. On the other hand Theraistiiis 
 is clearly alluding to it when he says {Or. XXI. p. 263 d) 
 
 apa v^lv 6 TOiovTO^ virap re Kal ovap Bok€l av iroTe Bvvrj- 
 Orjvai a<f>6/jLevo<i tov o-kulov re koI errapiarrepov Tpoirov eirl 
 Se^ui avafidWeaOaL Kal Xa^oiv dpfjuoviav Xoyojv akrjOLvrjv 
 vfivrjaaL ^iov decov Te Kal dvOpwirwv. 
 
 [Puto legendum eTriBe^ta dva^dWeaOai, hoc est, scite atque 
 elegante?' hymnum auspicari. Sic enim dva^dWeadac sumitur. 
 Harduin.] 
 
 And this explanation of Harduin's is right, for the omission 
 of i\€vOepco(; makes it impossible that Themistius could have 
 intended the other. This view seems to have been taken by 
 editors of Plato down to the time of Casaubon, to judge from the 
 words of his note on Athenaeus 1. c. {Notes, p 53) Platonis 
 interjpretes viri eruditissimi vocem dva^dXkea-Oai aliter excepe- 
 runt sed potior apud me Athenaei sententiam qui ad amictum 
 referi. Casaubon's authority however seems to have been 
 followed by all subsequent editors, with an occasional protest 
 (e.g. Sallier Mem. Litt. Acad. Inscr. (1734-7) Vol. xiii. pp. 323 
 and 330). The case could not be better put than it is in 
 Stallbaum's note, and he decides for Casaubon's view, which is 
 clearly the better of the two. A writer of Plato's stamp how- 
 ever does not use his expressions haphazard so to speak, and I 
 do not believe he would use words so completely ambiguous 
 unintentionally. On the other hand none of his readers can 
 have failed to notice the delightful way in which he uses a 
 technical expression with a side-glance at its literal sense, and 
 vice-versa, or at other times plays with the different meanings 
 of a single word. So also here, if we suppose him, as I believe 
 we must, to have selected the expression deliberately and to 
 intend an allusion to both senses, we obtain a fuller and closer 
 correspondence to the first half of the sentence. A servile 
 nature can 'pack a bag' (mere knack of neatness), 'season 
 
 6—2 
 
84 eVfcSefto? eVfcSefta, 
 
 dishes or cook ' (an accomplishment, but still superficial), ' be a 
 master in the use of words ' (the deepest culture of which it is 
 capable). So also a free nature can 'wear his cloak with an 
 air' (mere elegant knack), ' play featly on the lyre in company ' ^ 
 (an accomplishment, but comparatively superficial), ' hymn the 
 life of Truth ' (the truest and deepest culture). 
 
 Up to this point we have been dealing entirely with iiri- 
 Bi^ia (ivB.) as an advb. which originated in the syntactical 
 collocation of the words eVt or iv Se^td, which is of course a 
 common mode of forming adverbs in other languages also. 
 They are not therefore to be regarded as the neuter plurals of 
 the adjectives eVtSefto? and eVSefto? respectively. The use of 
 eVtSef^o? seems to be first found in Aeschines I. (c. Timarch.) 
 § 178, who also uses the regularly formed advb. iinhe^ia)^ II. 
 {de F. L.) § 124. It is not uncommon in later writers : Aristotle 
 uses it three times, Theocritus once {Epigr. xix. 5), and it is 
 frequent in Polybius and Dio Cassius {v. the quotations from 
 Liddell and Scott supr.). 
 
 The natural explanation at first sight is that eVtSefto? has 
 been formed from eVtSefta, which was regarded as an adverbial 
 neut. pi., just as in Latin se(d) dolo became sedulo and this 
 induced an adjective sedidus (cf. Stolz Handb. ii.^ p. 324). 
 The difficulty is that eVtSefto? always means "clever, dexterous," 
 while iinhe^ia, as we have seen, is either literal or used in one 
 of two special senses. It is true that avaffdWecrdai, iTrcBi^ta 
 might come to mean "wearing one's cloak elegantly" and so 
 " cleverly," but this use is scarcely important enough to lead to 
 such a large new development. A simpler explanation of 
 eVtSeffco? is that given by Cope (Arist. Rhet Vol. ii. p. 48 f.), 
 who makes it a compound of Sefto? with the intensive prefix 
 eVt, as eiTiKrjGfKov is of \r)<7^(ov. In this way the meaning 
 " skilful, dexterous," is reached much more easily. 
 
 The objection will at once be raised that the preposition iv 
 is not thus used to limit the meaning of an adjective, and con- 
 
 1 The examples we have already had company : it has been shewn even to 
 
 BuflBciently dispose of Prof. Campbell's apply to a single person outside the 
 
 objection that iTnU^ia could not be company, 
 applied to a single person of the 
 
ivBe^co^ ivhe^ia. 85 
 
 sequently ivBi^to^ must be formed from ivhe^ia, whence it 
 naturally follows that einhe^io^ is a similar formation. This 
 reasoning is good but involves an examination of the authorities 
 for ivhe^iof;. In I 236, 
 
 Zev? he a-(f>L K.poviBr]<; ivBi^ca aijfMara (j>aLV(ov 
 acTTpdirreLy 
 
 ivSe^ia is not an adj. agreeing with arj^iara but an advb. 
 qualifying arnjuara ^aCvcov darpairTei, cf B 353. The other 
 three passages in Homer, A 597, H 184, p 365, have already 
 been cited, and in all it is the adverb. So also in the later 
 Epic, as Callim. Hym, Jov. 69, 
 
 awv repawv, ar ifiolai (f)tKoL<^ ivBi^ia (patvoLf;. 
 
 The passage quoted by Liddell and Scott from Euripides Hipp. 
 1360 is doubtful. Editors are divided between 
 
 Tt9 i(f)eaTriK ivBe^ca irXevpoU^, 
 
 as L. and S. apparently read'*, and 
 
 Tt9 i(f>e(TT7)Kev Be^td 7r\€vpol<;'^. 
 
 The objection to the first is that it violates the anapaestic 
 pause, to the second that Be^cd as an advb. is a dira^ \e<y6fievov 
 in classical authors : it occurs however in the passage quoted 
 above from [Achill. Tat.]. To my mind Hermann's 
 
 Tt9 i<f>€(rT7}K€v Be^towXevpof; 
 
 is convincing. 
 
 The passage from the Cyclops (1. 6), if any reliance is to be 
 placed on it, stands quite apart, and appears to be jestingly 
 formed from ev Be^ia. In any case it aftbrds no parallel to 
 
 The only passage in which evBe^Lo<; is used in the sense of 
 * skilful ' ' clever ' is in Hymn. Horn. Merc, 
 
 Kal yap iydo Movay<Tiv 'OXv/jLTridBea-acv 67r7]Bd<;, 
 rfjat x^P^^ "^^ fiekova-i Kal dyXao^ vp,vo^ doiBri<; 
 
 1 e.g. Musgrave. \Yhat authority have they for making 
 
 2 Is it possible that they regard evS^^to j an adj. of three terminations? 
 ei/S^^ta here as a feminine? If not, '^ e.g. Kirchhoff. 
 
86 eV^Sef^o? iirihe^La, 
 
 Koi fjioXirr] reOaXvla koX Ifiepoei^ ffpo/io^ avXcov 
 aX)C ovTTCO Tt fjLOt (oBe /jLcrd <^pea\v dWo fjbiXrjcreVy 
 Ota viayv^ OaXir)^ ivSi^ta epya ireXovTai. I. 450. 
 
 The last line is clearly an interpolation : the sense is com- 
 plete without it ; it belongs to an epoch when olo<; and 6o-o<; had 
 become interchangeable ; it is a clumsy attempt to sum up the 
 enumerations in the preceding lines (a class to which belongs a 
 considerable number of interpolations) ; and as an expansion of 
 aWo it yields no logical construction. When we add to these 
 facts that it has required emendation to make sense at all, and 
 that it contains the only example of this sense of ivBe^ta, we 
 may think ourselves justified in concluding that the line is of 
 considerably later date than even this latest of the Hymns and 
 that the interpolator, knowing that Homer used both eVtSef ta 
 and ivBe^ca, and knowing that eViSef to? could mean ' clever,' 
 jumped at the conclusion that eVSefio? also existed and could 
 mean * clever.' 
 
 From this brief notice of the principal passages which throw 
 light on the subject, a scheme may be constructed in which 
 chronological order and order of development coincide. 
 
 I. Adverbial. 
 A. iirl Be^id 
 
 a. "Towards the right." H 238, Ar. Pac. 957, 
 Arist. Probl /cr 12, p. 941^ 11, lb. 31. 943"^ 28. 
 In Hdt. II. 3G eVl rd Be^id is used instead to 
 distinguish this sense from B 6. 
 6. " On the right." Hdt. i. 51, IV. 191, Vl. 53; Plato 
 Parm. 129 c ; Xen. Anab. vi. 2. 1. Defined by 
 Xetp6<: Find. Pyth. vi. 19, [Theocr.] xxv. 18. 
 Possibly should be written as one word, but is a 
 distinct line of development from B. 
 
 Hence rd eVi Be^id "the right side" Hdt, 
 II. 93. Ar. Av. 1493. 
 
 * $em corr, Gemoll. 
 
eVSefto? ivhe^La. 87 
 
 B. eTTiBe^ta 
 
 a. Of an oiiiea ' left to right " and hence '' lucky.' 
 B 353, M 239. 
 
 6. Of the wine-cup "left to right" (and hence "lucky") 
 whence "counter-clockwise" generally. </> 141, 
 Hdt. 11. 36, Plato Theaet. 175 E, Symp. 177 D, 
 214 B, Rep. IV. 420 E, Athenaeus &c. 
 
 c. Of the himation "left to right" and hence "grace- 
 fully," "in gentlemanly fashion." Ar. Av. 1568, 
 Plato Theaet. 175 E, Athen. i. 18, p. 21 B. 
 
 C. ivSi^La 
 
 a. Of an omen, like B a. I 236. 
 
 b. Of the wine-cup, like B b. A 597, H 184, p 
 365. 
 
 II. Adjectival. 
 
 A. eVtSef to? " clever," " dexterous " (= 8ef to? with eVt 
 
 prefixed). Aeschines i. (c. Timarc/<.)§ 178; Arist. 
 Eth. Nic. IV. 14. 1128^ 17, ix. 11. 117P 3; Rhet 
 II. 4. 1381*^ 34; Theocr. Epigr. xix. 5 ; Polyb. v. 
 39. 6; Dio Cass. LXix. 10 etc. 
 
 Of this the proper adverb is eVfcSef/a)?, as 
 Aesch. II. {F. L.) § 124; Polyb. ill. 19. 13 etc. 
 
 B. ivhe^Lo<i 
 
 a. = iv Se^ta, Eurip. Cycl. 6. 
 
 b. " clever," formed on the false proportion iirihe^ta : 
 iinSi^w; = ivBi^ia : eVSef to?, Hymn. Horn. Merc. 
 454. 
 
(6) ON THE INDO-EUROPEAN WORDS FOR 
 FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 (Read before the Cambridge Philological Society on Feb. 25, 1892, 
 and printed in Camb. Philol. Transactions, Vol. iii. p. 187.) 
 
FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 "There's always an amicable way out of a dissension, if we get rid of 
 Lupus and Vulpus." One of Our Conquerors, p. 57. 
 
 The exact position which we are to ascribe to the home of 
 the Indo-European language is perhaps still unsettled, but a 
 recent paper by Dr Hirt in Indog. Forsch. I. p. 464 fF. has at 
 least shewn a high probability for the neighbourhood of the 
 Baltic. In this case both fox and wolf must have been familiar 
 incidents in the experience of the inhabitants, and it is natural 
 to suppose that they were not nameless. In fact most inquirers 
 have assumed that the various words in the separate languages 
 are traceable back to I.-E. forms, and that the two animals in 
 question were not only known but also distinguished in the 
 primeval epoch. The latter assumption is I think unjustifiable, 
 and, as far as can be gathered from the scanty indications which 
 our present knowledge affords, both psychological and philo- 
 logical probabilities are against it. 
 
 As regards the former, it is of course difficult to speak with 
 any confidence, for the nearest parallel case which we can 
 observe — the growth of language in a child — is not necessarily 
 analogous in all respects to the primitive development. This 
 much however can be affirmed ^ Language implies thought, 
 and thought implies the existence of mental systems. Such 
 mental systems would at first have a purely subjective cha- 
 racter; the members of the system would agree in their relation 
 
 * For much of what follows refer to and Thought and Language^ in Mind, 
 Mr G. F. Stout's papers on Apper- Vol. xvi. pp. 23 and 181. 
 ception and the Movement of Attention, 
 
FOX AND WOLF. 91 
 
 towards the sentient subject, and not necessarily otherwise. 
 (Period I) 
 
 Subsequently, as mind developed (with the aid of language), 
 a new and more advanced set of mental systems would be 
 formed, of which the members would have a constant objective 
 relation to each other. (Period II.) 
 
 Thus for example Steinthal relates {Einl. p. 403) that his 
 son having acquired the word "nahen" used it not only for 
 "sewing," but also for "mending a broken toy," and even to 
 express a pair of scissors. It is probable that the primitive 
 development was similar, that originally a certain combination 
 of sounds expressed all that affected the speaker in a certain 
 way, so that the same natural object, e.g. a certain tree, would 
 be ' named ' differently according as the idea of eating its fruit 
 or of using its timber was uppermost, while on the other hand 
 different natural objects which agreed in the prominent charac- 
 teristic would not be distinguished in speech. In this second 
 period a notable advance has been made ; the distinction exist- 
 ing in nature between different classes of objects has impressed 
 itself on the mind, and consequently class-names are associated 
 with them, which for the most part come from the earlier 
 descriptive epithets. 
 
 Moreover from the facts to be observed in the Indo-European 
 languages it would not seem that the first period is to be 
 relegated to an inconceivable antiquity. On the contrary these 
 facts appear to shew that, if the transition process had begun 
 during the period of unity, it had not been completed when the 
 dispersal began. 
 
 The following are a few of the more striking or less familiar 
 of these facts ; others can easily be added from Dr Hirt's paper 
 above referred to, or from Fick's Vergl. Worterhuch ed. 4. 
 
 Gk. <^7;709, Lat. fdgus, Eng. beech. I.-E. hhagos connected 
 with hhag "eat" and therefore applied to any tree producing 
 edible fruit. 
 
 Skt. hhurja-y Lit. berzas, Eng. birch. I.-E. bheiyos connected 
 with bherk, "be white," Lit. bersztiy and so "the white tree." 
 
 Gk. ekiKT] (Arcad.), Lat. salix, O. H. G. salaha probably 
 connected with set " to move," and so " the pliant." 
 
92 
 
 FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 Gk. fiaXov, Lat. malum, I.-E. malom from V^m (cf. nia-ter-) 
 and so any juicy fruit. 
 
 Skt. avi, Gk. .of^?, 0I9, Lat. (Sab. ?) om, Lit. am*, and Gk. 
 ofi- in *6fi(i)v6^, olcovo^y Lat. am, both connected with I.-E. 
 Olds and the root eu "to draw, pull, or pluck " (Grds. i. § 171-2, 
 and (7^. jRev. iv. 273 b [=p. 63 sup., where cf. footnote 4]), 
 applied equally to the animal from which wool, and to the bird 
 from which feathers were plucked. 
 
 It is clear then that, if the names applied to fox and wolf 
 can be shewn to have had a similar subjective sense, the exis- 
 tence of two such " descriptive " names will not prove that the 
 two animals were objectively distinguished. 
 
 The object of the present paper is to shew that the more 
 important names for these animals in the several I.-E. lan- 
 guages can ultimately be traced back to derivatives of two 
 roots, the one being tiel (cf. Lat. vel-lo, vol-nus), the other lup 
 (cf. Skt. rup, lup^), each having alike the sense of "plunder" or 
 "destroy." These two roots were modified by formative suffixes 
 and the scheme of their development appears to have been 
 
 Root 
 
 P.S. 
 
 Indo-European 
 
 Facts 
 
 leup 
 losp 
 
 -eko- 
 
 leijpeko- ) ( 
 loupeko- ) \ 
 
 lopdga- 
 aXowes 
 
 lo(u)p 
 
 
 lopeSo- 
 
 &\(iirr}^ 
 
 lup 
 
 -6- 
 
 lupo- 
 
 lupus 
 
 uel 
 
 
 
 vrkd- 
 
 (90I) 
 
 -qo- 
 
 
 vilka- 
 
 Bl 
 
 
 ujao- j 
 
 {OUkos 
 
 «1 
 
 
 
 vulpes 
 
 
 
 
 vulfs 
 
 
 -jo- 
 
 uli6- 
 
 gail 
 
 1 In later Skt. both these forms of 
 root are found : in the Rig- Veda only 
 urupita- (Pada ar-). That an I.-E. ^ 
 reup, rup, also existed is proved by 
 Latin rumpo. For leup, lup, may be 
 
 compared Albanian tup, ' devour,' in 
 which "f- = I. -E. 1 as in tere = (bXivrj (G. 
 Meyer, Etym. TFort. d. Alb. Spr. p. 233). 
 [Cf. pp. 233 and 237 inf. T.] 
 
FOX AND WOLF. 93 
 
 As preliminary remarks on the above table I would observe 
 that the form loiipeko- is slightly more probable than leupeko- 
 as the original of lopd^a- and aXowes (either being phonologi- 
 cally accurate) because it is not certain that I.-E. admitted two 
 e-vowels in consecutive syllables ; and as regards the form 
 uloo-, that we have the same root and suffix combined with 
 different accentual conditions in uelq- (Lit. velku etc/), CI. Rev. 
 VI. 58 [=p. 126 inf.]. Further it will be noticed that I have 
 identified words which do not correspond in sense, by which I 
 intend to imply that the names had not lost their ' descriptive ' 
 sense before the separation of the languages. 
 
 I shall now proceed to discuss separately the modes in which 
 these words are presented in the several languages. 
 
 I. Sanskrit. 
 
 As lopaga- and vrkd- are the direct equivalents of loijpeko- 
 and idqo-, these two words call for no further comment. 
 
 The form lopaka- has been supposed to be borrowed from 
 dXa)7rrj^ (cf. Idg. Forsch. I. 828 if.), but it is more probably a 
 Sanskrit diminutive. 
 
 II. Armenian. 
 1. aXoives. 
 
 This form regularly represents I.-E. loupek-, and so can also 
 be referred to loupeko- by a transition to the consonantal 
 flexion which may further be assumed in Greek (cf Brgm. 
 Grds. II. p. 237). This is rendered almost certain by the occur- 
 rence of a gen. sg. akowesoy, although the more common gen. 
 sg. aXowesotv and gen. pi. akoiuesowc point to a ?i-stem (which 
 is remarkable). The form aXves (in aXvesowVi 'calliditas/ also 
 independently) does not represent an I.-E. ablaut-form Hupek- 
 but is due to Armenian changes^ 
 
 1 The meaning * plunder ' for this Saussure, Mevi. Soc. Ling. vi. 338. 
 
 combination of root and suffix is best ^ Compare generally Bartholomae 
 
 given by Gothic wilwaii, which pro- B. B. x. 294; Hiibschmann, Arm. 
 
 bably goes back to I.-E. uelq-. De Stud. i. no. 62. 
 
94 FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 2. gail. 
 
 This form is of especial importance for my analysis. It is 
 usually referred to ulqo-, but Hlibschmann with his ordinary 
 logical exactness adds "Flir indogerm. *vlko- wlirde ich im 
 Armenischen *galg erwarten. gail entstand aus *gali/ wie ail = 
 alius aus *aly entstanden ist. Wie aber ging *galy aus galg 
 hervor ? ^ " 
 
 Accordingly on p. 74 he gives this as an isolated instance of 
 Arm. ?/ = I.-E. k [q]. This exception is improbable and un- 
 necessary. Armenian y regularly represents I.-E. i medial ; 
 yauray — Trdrpo)^ and yisun from king are to be classed with 
 y-aimem = opw/jLac etc. in which y is prothetic : that is, the 
 initial p has been lost, through h, and then the y has come to 
 precede the initial vowel. This prothetic y is probably due to 
 wrong division, possibly from the final y of certain genitives 
 and 3d persons singular, but it may also have a different ex- 
 planation. It is at all events incorrect to say that y in these 
 words represents p, or to say that it represents t in the 8d sg., 
 as aXay, here; rather, I.-E. t is lost between vowels, probably 
 through a spirant, so that hkereti became hheredi, berei, herey, 
 here, successively. Accordingly all shadow of justification for 
 Arm. y = I.-E. q disappears, and it is absolutely necessary to 
 refer gail to nlip- as ail to l-io- (which gives aWo^ as l-io- does 
 alius). If then the two forms ulqo- and ulio- are proved for 
 I.-E., it is clear that we are dealing with the two very common 
 formative suffixes -qo- and -io-, and therefore the analysis — 7il- 
 qo — , which has often been suggested, becomes convincing. 
 
 III. Greek. 
 1. aXcoTrr}^. 
 
 As explained above, it is to be supposed that this word has 
 changed from the -o- to the consonantal flexion. Its form 
 however has occasioned some difficulty, and Bartholomae (B. B. 
 X. 294) even regards it as a borrowed word from some Oriental 
 source*. This is of course, for the name of so common an 
 
 ^ Arm. Stud. i. p. 24. Gf. Barthol. Forsch. i. p. 328 n., who seems to 
 
 B. B. XVII. 94 note. labour under some strange misappre- 
 
 - So more recently O. Meyer in /</(/. hension. Armenian aXones can not 
 
FOX AND WOLF. 95 
 
 animal, improbable, and, as the word appears to occur as early as 
 Solon, it becomes still more unlikely. Admitting that loup 
 became lop, the equation of dXcoin}^ and lopdca- is regular. It 
 is true that Brugmann, Grundriss I. § 188, questions the possi- 
 bility of this loss of u after o except before m under certain 
 conditions. That this vievv is too narrow has been lately proved 
 by Bechtel (Hauptprob. p. 273 tf.) who extends the cases to m, 
 I, r, s, t and sees no reason .to limit them to any particular con- 
 sonants. As ample material may be found by reference to him, 
 I need only add one or two additional examples which suggest 
 themselves, such as Feist's equation* of 0. Norse hoi with bu 
 (adding (^©Xeo? and Skt. bhumi- with hesitation) ; so Greek 
 K(i)KV(o goes with Skt. kocati, Lith. kaukti; Kpco^a) goes with 
 Kpavyrj and both with Skt. krug\ w%po9 again most probably is 
 connected with avxi^eo), of which the original sense must have 
 been "to be yellow," comparing the sense of av^MP^'^ ^^^ 
 avx/jL€l<i re KaKM<i Kal deiKea eaaat (co 250). That the Latins 
 should have called gold auh-ro-in "the yellow (metal)" rather 
 than mts-o-m "the (metal) of the dawn" seems to me a natural 
 supposition ^ but if Lith. auksas was really borrowed from Latin 
 it appears to confirm Festus' testimony to ausom. On the 
 other hand aurum appears as an exception in Mr Conway's 
 Veiiiers Law in Italy (p. 79), and he has to explain it by 
 popular connexion with Aurora. 
 
 The case for loup becoming lop for the European group of 
 languages at all events is therefore fully established, and al- 
 though the prothetic vowel in Greek needs discussion, it must 
 be reserved for a full examination of that phenomenon. 
 
 2. XuAco?. 
 The immediate precursor of this Greek form must have 
 been lukos, and not nlqas (which would give *d\7ro<;) or even 
 nluqos, as there is no trace of initial f". Of such a form as 
 
 represent aXopes except as = [a]\opekos ^ Got. Etym. p. 16. 
 or [a]\ope80s\ of these the former '^ It is probable that h from gfi 
 corresponds exactly to ?o^(u;a-,thelatter would vanish before r, although in- 
 to nothing whatsoever. Yet dXwTnjI stances of it do not seem to occur, 
 cannot possibly = /o7^m77-, but is clearly ^ e.g. ol 5^ \6koi cSs ends the line t 
 identical with aXoicesV. 156. 
 
yb FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 lukos the only explanation rests upon a theory which was first, 
 I think, advanced by Corssen but has been developed succes- 
 sively by Bugge {K. Z. xx. 2 ff.), v. Bradke {Z.D.M.G. XL. 351) 
 and Osthoff {M. U. v. 77)^ It is that I.-E. had the forms I'u 
 and lu as alternatives for the combinations ur and ul. The 
 evidence in favour of this is not without its weight, but such a 
 complete inversion — consonant becoming sonant, sonant becom- 
 ing consonant, and order transposed — is so difficult to account 
 for logically, and so phonetically strange, that one may be 
 pardoned for not accepting it as a final statement of the facts^. 
 As far as hikos is concerned an easier explanation is possible. 
 From the combinations uru- uh(- the ii would disappear at once 
 by dissimilation. Of this an excellent example is afforded by 
 the forms ofipvco, which contains the root ue7' combined with the 
 F. S. ey,, so that we have types of the form nei'u- nren, and m'u^. 
 The first of these is represented by Greek pepvofiai, the second 
 by pvo/jat (cf BetKi^v- for BtKvev- after BeLfcvv-), the third by 
 i-pvofxac, where the prothetic e shews that its immediate 
 predecessor had initial r, i.e. had lost the y. If then the 2i of 
 lukos is explicable the loss of the u presents no difficulty. 
 
 The frequent presence of v in the neighbourhood of an 
 original velar which becomes a guttural in Greek has excited 
 a suspicion that there is some causal connection between them. 
 The prevailing view seems to be that it is the v which prevents 
 the q from developing the labial affection, and this appears 
 to be taken by Brugmann {Ords. i. §§ 420 — 429), although on 
 p. 316 he distinctly contemplates the possibility that the 
 causation may have to be inverted. 
 
 That the latter is the better view seems to me to follow 
 from these facts. (1) It is not proved that origl. q before 
 origl. u does not labialize in Greek, and the phonetic proba- 
 bilities point the other way. (2) In all the certain examples 
 the V is without etymological justification. It is therefore 
 the presence of the v and not the non-labializing of the velar 
 
 » Cf. also Frohde B. B. xiv. 106 f. » cf. CI. Rev. vi. 58 [p. 126 inf.]. 
 
 ' So P. Persson, Z. Lehre de Wurz- Per Persson's view {op. n't., p. 231," 
 elenceiterung, Ac, p. 132 w. cf. 128) is diflferent. 
 
1. 
 
 kv, 
 
 g^ 
 
 kh^ 
 
 2. 
 
 «k, 
 
 ^g. 
 
 v%h, 
 
 3. 
 
 k", 
 
 g^ 
 
 kh^ 
 
 .4. 
 
 "k, 
 
 "g. 
 
 "kh. 
 
 FOX AND WOLF. 97 
 
 which has to be explained, and that is only to be done by 
 assuming that the velar causes the v. 
 
 I should therefore re-state Brugmann's " 2. Idg. q, q, qh = 
 urgr. k^\ ^^*, M^*" (Grds. I. p. 314) — which in any case should 
 add '""k, ^g, ^kh" the labial affection and the explosive being 
 really simultaneous — as follows 
 
 2. I.-E. q, q, qh = urgr. 
 
 The first and second of these subdivisions then proceed to 
 develope into labials or dentals as he describes ; the third and 
 fourth develope respectively into kv, yv, %u, and vfc, vy, v^- 
 
 As the rule under this aspect is not yet recognized, it may 
 be as well to give the materials for it, beginning with the 
 accepted etymologies. 
 
 These are 
 
 1. vv^ stem vvKT- = n'^kt-. Cf. Lat. noct- ; Skt. akfd 
 (=nqt-). 
 
 2. yvvT} = g^n-. Cf g'^n in fjLvdo/j,ai, and gV- in ^ava. 
 
 3. kvkKo^ = k'^^^kl-o-. C£ Skt. cakras, A.S. hweohl. 
 Generally regarded as reduplicated from the root qel to 
 
 revolve, but there is something to be said for Fick's^ root qeq 
 (cf Skt. kacate) meaning primarily " to bend," then •' to bend 
 round," " girdle," " encompass." 
 
 4. (j)\vf€TL<;, (pXvKraLva, olvo-^Xvy- beside ^Xe^ in ^Xei^. 
 There has been considerable discussion over this root. It 
 
 is not easy to gather from the § in the Grundriss (i. 427 c), 
 whether Brugmann regards the v as generated by the velar or 
 not. Persson {op. cit. p. 173 n. 2) has no doubt that he, Brug- 
 mann, does so regard it, and holds himself that it should be 
 considered suffixal ; comp. ib. p. 223. I cannot regard his con- 
 clusions as altogether satisfactory, for if his assumption of 
 (fiX-v-y enables him to see an exact parallel to (f)Xv8dco it only 
 
 1 Wdrt."^ I. p. 22. 
 D. P. 7 
 
98 FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 does so at the cost of separation from <1>X€0, which cannot 
 possibly be referred to his root bhleua. In view of ^Xvco and 
 (fyXuBaco the possibility of <^\-i»-7 cannot be questioned, but the 
 facts seem to point rather to the following arrangement : — 
 
 (1) V bhlea (whether further to be analysed or not ?) Gk. 
 </>Xey3-, Lat. Jluo {=flouo =fiey^o), and bhla-, bhl^g- in -</)\u7-, 
 ^XvKrh &c. 
 
 (2) a/ bhley, (probably bhl-ey.-^) weak bhlu- in c^Xew, <^\v(o 
 (? = <^\i>-o--a)), in Lat. fluo {= floy^o = fley,o), fluvius (cf. pluo, 
 pluvius), flumen. With secondary form in <f)Xv-^(o, (fyXvBaco &c. 
 (Persson op. cit 131, Brugmann Idg, Forsch. I. 504 nf) 
 
 (3) V bhelqh. O.N. bylgja, Lat. fluctus, fluxi, for *fulctus, 
 *fulxi by the influence of ^i^o, to which they were referred 
 from their sense, aided possibly by the influence of lost perfs. 
 *flexi from fluo = bhleqo and ^flui from fluo = bhleifo. 
 
 5. ovvx^- = {o)n^hh-, cf. the stem na'^qh- in Skt. nakha-, and 
 o?i5'^- in Lat. unguis. 
 
 The ^ in the Latin word is due to assimilation to the nasal. 
 Persson (op. cit. p. 226) regards the v in ovvx- as of the same 
 nature as in ovvfia beside ovo/xa, in which he is probably mis- 
 taken. 
 
 6. Tpv(T(Tco = tr'^k-io beside a-rpaKro^;, M tiller's Handbuch 
 iV p. 235. 
 
 7. ^pvyfio^ is connected with Arm. krdel by Hubschmann 
 Arm. Stud. no. 152, and he makes Arm. c = I.-E. q, but this is 
 not certain. 
 
 To these I venture to add the following with more or lessj 
 confidence. 
 
 8. KvKvo<; is a word of exactly similar formation to no. S] 
 supra and is from a root qa^n of which the radical meaning] 
 may have been "to please." This is nearly retained by Skt. 
 can, but has specialized in kvkvo^ to "pleasing by sight/ 
 " brightness." 
 
 9. KvXX6<i, i.e. kH-io- from the root qel; so KvXivBieo, &c. 
 
 1 For other possible derivatives of a 109, 110, 132, and Feist, Got. Etym. 
 primitive hhl- see Persson op. cit. 35, pp. 20, 21, nos. 103, 105. 
 
FOX AND WOLF. 99 
 
 10. <rKVfjLvo<; = sk^m-no-s from s-qa^m, cf. qa^m in Skt. cam 
 " to suck." 
 
 11. (TKvXaKe^, cf. Hesych. a-irdhaKer /cvve^ (? crTrdXaKes:). 
 
 12. KvXa' rd virotcdrw twv ^\e(f>dp(ov KoCKwixara, Hesych. 
 might be taken with no. 9, but comparing Lat. oculus it is more 
 probably k^-lo- where h'' represents -q- the weak form of oq-. 
 
 13. The suffixes vk [y<y] are the forms which in Greek are 
 assumed by the suffixes -qo- [-qo] in their reduced stage. See 
 Brugmann Grds. ii. pp. 384 — 387. The Ablaut of root and 
 suffix in declension has not yet been thoroughly mastered, but 
 in all probability certain forms had the suffix in the full stage, 
 others in the weak. Hence by opposite levellings Skt. vartakas 
 and Gk. oprv^. So also afxirv^. koXv^ needs a word : it is 
 quite distinct from kvXl^ (see infra) and comes from the root 
 kel, Lat. celo, Gk. KokvirTOi. KaXvirrco however must not be 
 taken as proving original klhiq- : it contains the suffix (or 
 suffixes) -up- also seen in SpvTrra) beside Bepco, Bopd^. kvXl^ 
 on the other hand is from the root qel of nos. 8 and 9: the 
 suffix -fcf is not original but for -uf by dissimilation (cf. ttcvv- 
 t6^^). Uvv^ in all probability does not contain this suffix. 
 
 14. K(OKvco = kokHo from qd(y)q-id. Cf. Skt. kocati, Lith. 
 kaiikti. 
 
 15. Kvo) and Kvap = k^s- from qa^s-. Skt. cas "to split or 
 cleave." 
 
 16. 7rvKv6(; may possibly belong to peq- in irecrcroa &c., if 
 the primary sense was " to knead." 
 
 17. dfjLV(T(T(o is possibly to be referred to Skt. makha-. 
 
 18. yvia — g^s-ia from aas- in jSao-Ta^etv and Latin vera 
 *a spit' (on which meat is raised) = qas-u. Compare also Gothic 
 kas " a vessel " and Feist, p. 64. (Not Latin gero = ges-o.) 
 
 1 Possibly also in Lit. trupus, suifix into -u-p-. Without going thus 
 
 'crumbling,' from the root ter 'to far, I would add Lat. voZ-ttp- which is 
 
 bore,' Per Persson, op. cit. p. 159. to be separated by its sense from eXiris, 
 
 Compare his following pages, whence ^Xwofiai (Skt. varc-). 
 it appears that he would analyse the 2 gee however Idg. Forsch. i. p. 504. 
 
 7—2 
 
100 FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 19. yvfivo^ = g^m-no-. The root is clem, of ^alvco and 
 venio, originally meaning "to move" simply. Any idea that 
 clothes are not a hindrance to motion is based upon imperfect 
 experience of classical over-garments. 
 
 20. yv\io<;' 6 'Hpa/c\?}9, kol dyyelov oBoLiropiKov eh diro- 
 Oeaiv Toov dvayKaioav (p i^pwvTo ol aTparLcoTai Hesych. A 
 connexion with ^aXdvriov seems possible. 
 
 I do not wish to assert that we have here twenty certain 
 examples, but I think that those which are certain, with any 
 additional weight which those that are probable lend them, 
 justify the addition of 
 
 21. Xv/co9 = lukos = y^l^kos = y^lqos. 
 
 The exact conditions which determine this vocalizing of the 
 labial affection (which is clearly a question of syllabism), can 
 hardly yet be laid down : in fact ywrj : fiavd : /juvdofiai, shew 
 that it will not be easily done. 
 
 Finally as regards the examples in which the guttural in 
 Greek is alleged to be due to an v: the above proof is affirma- 
 tive, and would not be vitiated by a complete demonstration 
 that V could cause q &c. to become Gk. k &c., unless the v in all 
 the above words is etymologically accounted for. Otherwise all 
 examples of v + /c &c. =u-\- q &c. merely go to shew that a 
 neighbouring v was a predisposing cause to produce ^k &c., 
 instead of ^^^k &c. But of such examples the only one seriously 
 important is iyyvrj beside voveo, if this be taken as proved. 
 The other example in Grds. I. § 428 c, 429 c (yoyyv^co beside ^otj 
 carries its own refutation in 7009) is i\axv<; which rests per- 
 haps on less evidence than one would believe, for a much 
 quoted word. As a matter of fact it seems to have originated 
 in Pindar's iXaxvTrrepv^ which contains the root In ah- of iXa- 
 <f)p6<i in the form e)lnkh^-. The form iXdxeia then arose as a 
 misreading of Xdxeia in two Homeric passages (t, 116, k 509) 
 imitated in h. Horn. Ap. 197, hence iXdx^o'To^i in h. Horn. Merc. 
 573 for i\ddi(TTo<; but never iXaxv^ in classical Greek. Brug- 
 mann has reverted to this point in Indog. Forsch. I. p. 504 f , 
 where he appears to throw over the opinion ascribed to him by 
 Persson, that the guttural produces the w- vowel. I have 
 
FOX AND WOLF. lOr 
 
 elsewhere endeavoured to shew that his explanation of Kara- 
 a^wo-au through a form zgu- &c. is unnecessary \ and only 
 mention it here because he adds two further examples, vyuri^ 
 beside ySto? and ^ov/c6\o<; beside aliroXo^. As regards the 
 former the derivation seems sufficiently plausible, but as regards 
 the latter the Latin opilio makes it probable that aliroXo'^ and 
 Povk6\o<^ are of different origins. Moreover in Doric ^(ok6\o<; 
 the K is present although v does not precede. 
 
 IV. Latin. 
 
 1. lupus. The accepted explanation of this is that it 
 is a borrowed word, probably from Sabine, as it is referred to 
 y'lqo- and q does not become p in Latin. For reasons given 
 below I am far from being convinced of that rule, and it seems 
 to me highly improbable that a word of this kind should have 
 been borrowed. Names of unfamiliar objects and those peculiar 
 to certain localities are adopted, but it is absurd to suppose that 
 the wolf with its legendary place in Roman history should come 
 under either head. Besides lupo- gives I.-E. lupo- exactly. 
 
 2. vulpes. No amount of ingenuity will equate this 
 with aXcoTTTj^, whereas with the frequent Latin change of 
 class ^ and the ^ as a representative of q, it suits well with 
 'Ulqos. As regards the latter change, it may certainly be a 
 borrowed word, but one fact bearing on the labialism of velars 
 in Latin does not seem to have been taken into consideration. 
 It is this: the abbreviation for the district of Rome called 
 the Subura was svc i.e. sag- as we know from inscriptions, 
 the testimony of Varro {L.L. v. c. 2), Quintilian (i. 7. 29) and 
 Festus (p. 309 MlilL). Now if this were merely evidence 
 that the name Sicbura was derived from a root containing q, 
 it might of course be replied that the district was inhabited 
 by Sabines, and they brought their own name with them ; but 
 it does more than that, it proves that the change took place 
 at Rome between the introduction of writing, say 500 B.C., and 
 classical times, and if there were two different sets of phonetic 
 changes going on in different districts of Rome, why need we 
 
 1 C. R. VI. 277 [p. 106 infr.]. Vulpus not before George Meredith. 
 
102' ' ' FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 be surprised at any number of irregularities in Latin ? Svbura 
 however does not, while vidpes does, conflict with Bugge's 
 view that c| became b only before original u. (B. B. xiv. 59 f ) 
 His alternative suggestion, that the variation depends on the 
 position of the accent, is I think much less likely. Compare 
 Hoffmann's theory that I.-E. qy, became Latin p (B. B. xviii. 
 149). 
 
 V. Gothic. 
 
 1. vulfs. In view of the constant assimilation of % to 
 y by a neighbouring labial, this may be regarded as regular 
 for y,lqos. The other root seems to have no representative. 
 
 VI. Lithuanian. 
 
 1. vilkas is regular. 
 
 2. The only difficulty with this language is that Fick, 
 Worterbuch^ ii. 249, H. D. Miiller, B. B. xiii. 315, and even 
 Brugmann, Grds. il. p. 237, give a Lithuanian form tape as 
 cognate with akwirr}^. This I cannot understand, as, apart 
 from the other difficulties, Lithuanian a does not appear to 
 equal either ey, oy,, oy,, or u. 
 
 In conclusion I should mention that, although mine differs 
 from it, there is an interesting similar attempt to classify 
 these words, by Mr T. C. Snow in the Transactions of the 
 Oxford Philological Society for 1884 — 5, p. 18 f. — that H. D. 
 Miiller I.e. also identifies lupiis with lopaga- (so also Moulton, 
 Proceedings of the Gamb. Phil. Soc. May 22, 1890) and connects 
 Xv/cof; with Xvy^ — and that Fick, Worterbuch^ I. p. 135 also 
 analyses yl-qo- but makes the root id- or yel-y ' to howl,' cf Gk. 
 
 v\aKT€(0. 
 
 My attention was drawn to the word dXwTnj^ in August 
 1891 for reasons which made it necessary to consider its 
 cognates, and in particular its relation to alowes. The result 
 in what is practically the above form was written down at 
 that time. Unfortunately the digression, which could hardly 
 
FOX AND WOLF. 103 
 
 be avoided, on the groups vie &c. in Greek, led directly to two 
 topics — the guttural series, and pre-Greek accentuation — which 
 if followed up would completely have swamped the main 
 subject, Fox and Wolf. I have therefore allowed the form of 
 my paper to remain essentially unaltered, but it may be as 
 well for my own credit, and for the benefit of casual readers, 
 to protest against any idea that the rule propounded on 
 pp. 194 ff. is there proved. Elsewhere* I have stated my belief 
 that to prove a rule there are three things needful. 1. Deri- 
 vations otherwise exact. 2. The precise conditions stated. 
 3. All examples to the contrary disposed of. I have given the 
 positive evidence ; the conditions most probably depend on the 
 two (or one of the two) important subjects just mentioned ; 
 and the examples to the contrary cannot be ascertained till the 
 conditions are known. 
 
 I add two remarks which would have found their place, 
 had the paper been re-written. 
 
 1. If my position as regards 'descriptive' nouns is good 
 it seems to follow that all nouns which defy this analysis are 
 to be classed in one of three groups: {a) borrowings, {b) iso- 
 lations, i.e. all cognates have accidentally been lost, (c) survivals 
 from a more remote period. Of the former two I have no 
 examples to hand ; of the third, words like irvp, fire, the 
 pronouns, and perhaps the numerals may be cited. Such a 
 remote period would not be very far removed from the inter- 
 jectional state of language, and implies a lower degree of 
 mental development than even the formation of ' descriptive ' 
 nouns. These words are moreover siiffixless, and therefore the 
 morphological evidence points also to their greater antiquity. 
 
 It must not be thought that this cuts away the ground 
 for fixing the primitive home of the race, because it postu- 
 lates a period anterior to the ' descriptive,' while the words 
 like "beech" &c., on which so much weight is justly placed, 
 are clearly themselves descriptive in their origin. By the 
 Indo-European language is meant the language as it was 
 spoken (or rather, what we can reconstruct of such language) 
 1 [See pp. 121 f. and 143 inf.] 
 
104 FOX AND WOLF. 
 
 before the dispersal of the race ; and by the home of the 
 Indo-Europeans is meant the last position they occupied 
 before the dispersal began. 
 
 2. Bechtel, in his Hauptprohleme, p. 113 f., discusses some 
 of my examples of Greek v, and gives another explanation. 
 He believes that 9 becomes l in Greek, and that under similar 
 circumstances (not defined) v is preferred in the vicinity of 
 a velar or a labial (of labials producing it he adduces no 
 examples). If his treatment of d were accepted throughout, 
 the whole system of the modern school crumbles about their 
 ears, and in this particular case his best examples for t = a are 
 all capable of other explanations. Perhaps then my empiric 
 rule that the v belongs to the velar may be allowed to sweep 
 away the support which his would receive from kvkXo<; &c. Of 
 course his theory leaves the loss of the initial consonant in 
 \vKo<; out in the cold, and he would probably adhere to v. 
 Bradke's explanation. 
 
(7) ON THE FOKM KaTaa/S^aai HERODAS v. 39. 
 
 (Classical Review, June (p. 277) 1892.) 
 
Karaa-fiiSdaL (HERODAS v. 39). 
 
 Probably few purely classical scholars think it necessary to 
 study a specialist periodical like Indogermanische Forschungen. 
 It may therefore be worth while to draw their attention to the 
 fact that the above form receives an exhaustive discussion and 
 defence from Dr Brugmann in the last number issued (vol. i. 
 p. 501). His argument is this: cr^eo-- is to be analysed into 
 ajS- root and -6<t- suffix (cf. rp-ea- : rp-efjuo), f-eo-- : ^-vco) and 
 so cr^-7}- (cf. 7rX-7j-, nrp-rj-, &c.). Then just as we frequently 
 find a suffix -co- in exactly the same function as -rj- (cf. yv-rj- : 
 yv-co-, f-77- : ^-(o- &c.) so here we may analyse o-^-w-. Or, on 
 the other hand, it is possible that Karaa^coaac represents Kara- 
 (T^orja-aL in which case we ma}^ suppose that beside a^-ea- 
 existed a^-oa- with an alternative form of suffix, in support of 
 which are cited the Hesychian glosses ^oaaov' cr^ecrov and ^oaf;' 
 a^eaet^ which are supposed to contain the root-form zdos-. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to inform even the uninitiated that 
 the harlequin of these transformations is the velar guttural, but 
 they may be pardoned for regarding with some suspicion a 
 science which, after laying down as laws that the velar guttural 
 becomes a labial before o-vowels and a dental before e-vowels, 
 is able by its principles to accept recorded forms zhes-^ zdos-, as 
 confirmation of those laws. However so strangely powerful is 
 the attraction which a subtle proof exercises over the greatest 
 minds, that Dr Brugmann prefers this explanation to his former 
 one. His reason is that <ry9a)- is unattested : but he has no 
 difficulty in assuming *a-^oo-- to explain a-^ea- and *feo-- to 
 explain a doubtful Jbcr-. 
 
^waai. 107 
 
 Karaapooaai. 
 
 For my own part, if I were compelled to choose between 
 these explanations, I should prefer the assumption of *a-(3(o- to 
 Mr Rutherford's Karaa-^eaaai, but if I am not mistaken a still 
 simpler explanation of Karaa-^doaai, will already have occurred 
 to most scholars. 
 
 The aorist ea^ea-a is comparatively speaking isolated. The 
 only aorists which would naturally form with it a mental class 
 (Paul's 'formale gruppe' in its narrowest sense) are rjfjL(f>l€(Ta, 
 iKopeaa, iaropeaa^. The last-named is common in Homer, is 
 found in Trag. and Theocr. Beside it exists the first aorist 
 earpwaa, Trag. and Theocr., with meaning, as far as we can judge, 
 absolutely identical, and the use of both stems is continued, as 
 may be seen from Veitch, by later writers. Now, under these 
 circumstances, is it not possible that Herodas or his contempo- 
 raries using in daily speech, or at any rate finding in their 
 poetic models, the forms a-Topeaav and arpwo-au used indiffer- 
 ently should venture on the analogical formation /caraa^coaat^ 
 as equivalent to Karaa^io-at, and is it not more probable — 
 whether we assign his date to the third century B.C. or agree 
 with Mr Ellis in placing him after Vergil — than that a form 
 <j/3ft)- or o-^oa- should have come down to him from Indo- 
 European times without having once come to the surface in 
 literature ? Homer and post- classical authors demand different 
 treatment in the matter of etymologizing'. 
 
 1 I take these from Kriiger § 39, ten lines below. 
 
 Taf. viii. : the first may almost be ^ Biicheler's analogy of irXQaai lacks 
 
 excluded. a middle term. 
 
 2 I need scarcely point to aKrjKovKas, 
 
(8) SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES {altus, colo, iubar, 
 numen, scio). 
 
 (Read before the Cambridge Philological Society on Feb. 9, 1893, 
 and published in brief in Camh. Univ. Reporter, Feb. 14, 1893.) 
 
SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES. 
 
 Making derivations is a very easy pastime, and I should not 
 consider my having a few new guesses to propose, to be, in itself, 
 a justification for taxing the attention of this Society. My de- 
 sire has been in selecting these few words to draw attention to 
 what I feel to be a matter of some importance for philology in 
 general. Fifty years ago it would have seemed utterly absurd 
 to demand that the meaning of words should be taken into 
 account for etymologies, because etymologists proceeded on very 
 little else. It is true their ideas of what senses could pass into 
 one another were somewhat lax, but there was no Digamma in 
 the category of meanings and accordingly transformations of 
 sense were not so easily produced as transformations of sound. 
 Of late years as we all know the laws of phonological change 
 have been pushed to a great pitch of accuracy, but at the same 
 time by the aid of judicious theorizing they gradually have 
 become extremely wide. A balancing principle became neces- 
 sary and this was applied by insisting upon equal strictness in 
 morphology. This however exercises only a weak control, as 
 formative principles are comparatively few in number, and 
 therefore I feel it not unnecessary to point out that strictness 
 of rule in tracing sense is as important as in phonology. It is 
 true that at present there is scarcely any consensus of opinion 
 as to what is legitimate developement of meaning, but every 
 false developement that is exploded and every true developement 
 that is added helps to provide material for rules. The remarks 
 which follow all bear more or less directly upon this point*. 
 
 * [Compare the fragment on Semasiology in Part II. below. C.J 
 
SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES. Ill 
 
 (1) alius — 'high', 'deep'. 
 
 This word is usually supposed to be identical with the past 
 participle of alo, a view which would seem to be shared even 
 by Brugmann. It appears to be implied in the Grds. ii. pp. 207, 
 218. Gothic alpeis and aids are also supposed to be from the 
 same root, so that we have to suppose the developement of 
 'nourished' into 'high, deep,' for one language and of 'nourish- 
 ment' into 'age' in another. This may be possible but is, I 
 venture to say, not too probable. The fact of alius meaning 
 both ' high ' and ' deep ' is very much against it, for if the past 
 participle did take on the successive senses of ' grown,' ' well- 
 grown,' ' full-grown ' and ' lofty ' there is no step at which the 
 developement of ' deep ' could begin and the ideas of ' height ' 
 and ' depth ' are mentally contrasted not associated. The sense 
 therefore definitely points us to some derivation which shall 
 start from the common characteristic of height and depth, 
 namely " veriical exiension." 
 
 Now consider laius. latus implies lateral extension and by 
 modern laws may be etymologically a doublet of aliu^. On 
 this point there is some difference of opinion. Brugmann and 
 Osthoff would derive both al- and la- initial from the same 
 original sound viz. I, while Bechtel and Mr Thomas would 
 regard la- as a compound of the weak root and the suffix -a-. 
 This is a matter of indifference to the present argument: in 
 either case both alius and latus go back to a root of which the 
 weak form is 1-. Now ideas of relation — among which may be 
 placed that of extension — naturally belong or tend to fall into 
 that class of words which are called pronouns : they are also 
 closely allied to comparatives and superlatives. Therefore in- 
 stead of regarding the -to- suffix as participial I assign it to its 
 other great recognized use and make it superlatival in alius 
 and latus : while the root is obviously to be found in the more 
 or less pronominal ultra, ultro, olim, alius and alter, all of which 
 express the main idea of separation. Now if the original sense 
 was that of " great separation " it is quite consonant with lin- 
 guistic developement to find one of these closely kindred words 
 developing the sense of " great vertical separation " and the 
 
112 SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES. 
 
 other that of " great horizontal separation ", or that in another 
 language the separation should be that of time : for which in- 
 deed cf. olim. I am glad to see that Feist whose views upon 
 sense-developement are much more sober than those of the 
 average etymologist is also of opinion that the reference of old 
 to alo is untenable {Got. Etym. p. 6). 
 
 (2) colere. 
 
 colo is unhesitatingly derived from the root qel and so is 
 referred to Skt. cardmi. This is an excellent example of what 
 may happen in the way of transition when the senses of the 
 Latin and the Skt. word are compared. " Dwelling in " and 
 " wandering about " are dissimilar and hardly to be explained 
 by a social change from a nomad to an agricultural life. But 
 in Latin itself the various meanings are extensive and dissimi- 
 lar. It is true that we are so habituated to regarding the ideas 
 as related and our own language is so full of derivatives from 
 all the senses that there seems an inherent connexion between 
 cult, cultivate and culture and of all with "inhabiting". Gene- 
 rally speaking, however, Latin words develope their meanings 
 along fairly narrow lines, and those which shew wide diversity 
 of sense should excite suspicion that two distinct roots have 
 given formally identical results, which from the general tenden- 
 cies of Latin sound laws is a thing that may easily happen. A 
 further indication of this in the case of colo is the fact that the 
 past participle cultus is not directly traceable to qlto-s which 
 should give quoltus in Ciceronian Latin (Brugm. Grds. I. p. 325, 
 § 432 Anm. 2). 
 
 I think these indications taken together are almost sufficient 
 to justify from Latin alone a conclusion which I had reached 
 from evidence outside Latin, viz. that there existed in Indo- 
 European two distinct roots each of which would give colo in 
 Latin. One of these roots is of course the qel- of kvkXo^ and 
 Skt. carami; the other has not yet I think been shewn to exist: 
 its form was qy^el- and its sense was as emphatically * dwelling ' 
 or 'abiding' as that of qel- was 'motion'. This root justifies 
 its assumption by the number of difficulties it explains. In the 
 
SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES. 113 
 
 first place a plain derivative of this root is to be seen in Skt. 
 hula- R. V. kulapd- ''head of the family", kulayaydt- ' dwelling ' 
 or 'nesting in', kulayin- 'nest-forming'. The derivatives I 
 think make it probable that the sense of the primitive kula- 
 was first 'home' and then 'household' instead of vice versa, as 
 Grassmann seems to suggest. The R. Y. word kulyd a 'stream' 
 'river' lacks a derivation so far as I know, and remembering 
 "the remarkable way in which streams flow past human dwell- 
 ings" (to modify an old jest), it is possible that kulyd also may 
 be from this root. Turning to Greek the existence of the two 
 roots is clearly marked. One of the most serious objections 
 which Dr Fennell has raised to the theory of dentalizing velars 
 in Greek lies in the verb TreXw. He justly says that avareWw 
 is no proof that the form once was *Te\co which became iriXw 
 under the influence of ttoXo? eirXero, &c. I do not indeed con- 
 sider this assumption impossible from the formal point of view, 
 but the sense of ' motion ' is so entirely absent from TriXco that 
 the derivation from *qi^elo is surely preferable, q^ would natu- 
 rally be expected to become tttt in Greek and initially tt-. We 
 thus set -reSXo) irepLTfKofievo^; iroXo^ &c. on the one side from 
 qel with the full sense of motion against rreXo) &c. on the other 
 from qi^el with the full sense of rest. But this is not all: it 
 may be doubted if any Greek word has given more trouble than 
 7roA.fc9, and simply from the ancient domination of Sanskrit. If 
 Greek alone had been considered Tp6')(^L(; comes from rpe^o), 
 aTp6^L<i from arpe^o), Tpoirt^ from rpeirco and why not TroXt? 
 from TreXo) ? But as 7reX(o " I dwell " came from carami ' I 
 move from place to place ' and as TroXt? must necessarily be 
 pur ' a fortified place ', TroXt? and TriXw have been kept apart 
 even at the cruel cost of admitting an "irregular representation 
 of a long sonant liquid." 
 
 By deriving TroXt? from q^ol-i-s we not only escape that 
 pass but we see the cause of the doubled consonant in TrroXt? 
 which has hitherto been unexplained\ 
 
 It may be noted that in a/>K^t7ro\o9 it is impossible to say 
 
 1 [I do not know how Mr Darbishire perhaps be found in varying con- 
 meant to explain the doublet. The ditions of sentence-sanddhi, C.J 
 least objectionable expedient would 
 
 D. P. 8 
 
114 SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES. 
 
 which root is present, as either sense is suitable, but the prefer- 
 ence seems to lie with the sense of ' motion '. 
 
 In Latin if Hoffmann B.B. xvill. 149 is right in his suppo- 
 sition that I. E. g^ becomes p we should expect a present '^pelo 
 of which the past participle would be cultus. Such a dissimi- 
 larity is of course too great to maintain itself and *pelo if it 
 ever existed has disappeared while cultus drove out quoltos. I 
 believe however that *q^elo no less than *qelo could become 
 colo directly. 
 
 (3) iuhar. 
 
 That iubar is from iuba is a proposition as old as Varro 
 (L.L. vi. 2, p. 53 (45)) and as new as Mr Wharton. It seems a 
 pity to disturb it merely on the ground of insufficiency. If a 
 comet has a tail why should not the sun have a mane — or even 
 Phosphor to whom Varro applies it ? 
 
 The fact however remains that in Latin the constant and 
 consistent sense of iubar is ' effulgence ', * radiance ', ' dayshine ' 
 and this sense is given exactly by analysing diu-bhas-. It 
 thus contains two common I. E. roots diu- as in Zeu? lu-piter 
 and dies, and bhas- as in Skt. bhdsati, perhaps Lat. harena. For 
 similar root nouns compare tibicen and Brgm. Grds. ii. § 163, 
 p. 462. 
 
 (4) numen. 
 
 Numen is, I think, another example of what I would call 
 sense-syncretism. It has two perfectly good etymologies and 
 the two together exactly cover all its meanings. The connexion 
 with nuo was of course obvious and was probably consciously 
 present to the Romans themselves. At all events Varro has it. 
 But numen is also the exact equivalent of irvevjia and both 
 represent an original qne^-men-. 
 
 The root qne]i. is in all probability a secondary root formed 
 with the suffix -e^. The simplex then will have the form qen- 
 which is probably to be seen in Skt. kan-, can- * to be pleased, 
 take delight in '. The same root and suffix but with different 
 
SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES. 115 
 
 Ablaut viz. qeiiii- is to be seen in Gothic -ginnan if Bugge's 
 view is right that this is connected with 0. Bulg. po-clna (P. 
 and B.B. 3. 405). The primitive sense will then probably be 
 ' inspire ' of the mental, ' set in motion ' of the physical, range 
 of ideas. 
 
 (5) scio. 
 
 I do not think any even moderately convincing etymology 
 of this word has yet been proposed. Mr Wharton is actually 
 forced to agree with Lewis and Short and connect it with Gk. 
 K€L(o. I think anything more improbable than that the Latin 
 genius would develope the idea of 'split' into that of 'know* 
 can scarcely be conceived. A metaphysical language like Skt. 
 offers no safe analogy. Still perhaps Fick's {Wort. 1* 143) con- 
 nexion of it with Gk. crKcd and Germ, scheinen is even worse. 
 
 I think these etymologists have been led away by seeking 
 for an z-stem. This is not necessary: by Latin rules the verb 
 ending -ip becomes -io after a consonant. If it was so in this 
 case, we have in sc- clearly the weak form of some root, and to 
 the best of my belief there is no reason against its being the 
 weak form of the root segh- which we have in Skt. sah and Gk. 
 eaxov. When the breathed s and the voiced gh came together 
 by the expulsion of the vowel, assimilation necessarily took 
 place, and for Latin the breathed sound would naturally con- 
 quer, scio then is simply ' I grasp '. 
 
 8—2 
 
2. Selections^ from Occasional Writings. 
 
 (1) From a notice of Wharton's Etyma Latina (1891). 
 
 (2) From a notice of Fennell's Indo-European Vowel- 
 
 System (1892). 
 
 (3) Abnormal Derivations (1892), an addition to (1). 
 
 (4) From a notice of Sweet's English Grammar (1892). 
 
 (5) The Gottingen School of Comparative Philology 
 
 (1893). 
 
 1 These selections only include such points which seem of permanent im- 
 passages as contain definite expres- portance, and so much of the context 
 sions of Mr Darbishire's opinion on as was necessary in each case. G. 
 
EXTRACTS FROM A REVIEW OF WHARTON'S 
 ETYMA LATINA 
 
 {Classical Review^ May 1891). 
 
 If we assume, as we are bound to do in default of some 
 definite statement, that Mr Wharton accepts the methods of 
 Brugmann, Paul, OsthofF and other names which will be found 
 in the list of authorities, what are we to say of this book ? It 
 undoubtedly shows much labour; contains useful hints, not few 
 even brilliant derivations; and yet it must be condemned. 
 
 The form of the work is unhappy. Latin is and always will 
 be the despair of scientific philology for reasons which are obvi- 
 ous: in the first place what we are told of the origin of Rome 
 is strongly against any original purity of stock, so that, as Mr 
 Wharton would put it, they must all have begun by talking 
 ' dialectical ly'; and in the second place, our records are doubly 
 imperfect — imperfect in that we have, comparatively speaking, 
 no archaic records, and in that the literature on which we 
 mainly rely is as far from representing the spoken language of 
 the people as any literature could well be. If then — provided 
 that no new storehouse of information becomes accessible — the 
 rules of scientific philology ever reduce to order all the words 
 in the Latin dictionary, it will mean that the rules themselves 
 are so elastic as to be valueless. The extent of our ignorance 
 could not be more clearly exposed than by adopting the diction- 
 ary form, and consequently the temptation to wild conjecture 
 is great. We are told in the Preface that 3055 out of the 4320 
 Latin words which do not 'sufficiently explain their own forma- 
 
120 WHARTON'S ETYMA LATIN A. 
 
 tion' are 'treated' in this work; there could not be a better 
 illustration of our remarks above than the fact that with all 
 Mr Wharton's ingenuity, of which specimens will be given 
 below, over 10 per cent, of these 3055 have to be 'treated' in 
 silence. About 450 are derived from Greek, under 50 with 
 some plausibility from other languages, and about 100 on the 
 assertion of Roman grammarians (which counts for nil on such 
 a point) or with a mere pretence at reason, as when huocus is 
 traced (through 7ru^o<;) to Paphlagonia because Catullus has 
 Cyto7'e buxifer : and rosa is given as Oscan because Vergil has 
 rosaria Paesti. So Gall ids cantheriis relegates cantherius to 
 Gaul, Maurorum attegias makes the latter word Moorish, and 
 the Celtic origin of petorritum assigns all names of wheeled 
 vehicles to the same language. Nay, we have to go to ' some 
 Celtic dialect ' (which is scientific but vague) for quadru- and 
 quadra, the reason being that they conflict with a rule of 
 Mr Wharton's that d before /• becomes t. Parenthetically we 
 may here observe that most of the derivations by which this 
 rule is supported may be considered matters of opinion, but not 
 when we find nutHo ascribed to a root NED in vrjBu/jLo^ (!): we 
 think most readers will prefer the normal analysis vrj-Bv-fjLo^; 
 from the root of Bvi] &c. with the negative prefixed \ The 
 testimony of grammarians to the origin of a word is accepted or 
 not according to the urgency of the case : thus under lanista (of 
 which we may in passing notice the brilliant identification with 
 danista) we find 
 
 * Isid. calls it Etruscan, only because the use of gladiators 
 came from Etruria ' ; 
 
 but under andabata ' Gaulish (cf. Gallics for mirmillo Fast.)?' 
 
 Perhaps however most discredit will be cast on philological 
 method by Mr Wharton's too lively imagination both on the 
 treacherous ground of analogy and in tracing connexions in 
 sense. As regards the former it may be possible to believe 
 that posca owes its termination to esca, but who can credit the 
 statements that marmor has the ending of aequor, celox (=Ke\rj<i) 
 of velox, autem of septem, spwter of tuber, that caepe is ' quasi 
 
 * [Or to read everywhere with Leaf and others ijdvfioi. CJ 
 
Wharton's etyma latina. 121 
 
 Adj. Neut. (like turpe)' and the like ? This dangerous weapon 
 is even employed without necessity, as when facilis is pressed 
 in to account for dapsilis which, like facilis itself, is only 
 another example of the absorbing power of -i- adjectives in 
 Latin as a class. As for the unexplored region which rejoices 
 in the name of semasiology, we fear that no system can be 
 elastic enough to admit such hypotheses as the following. 
 Norma 'a square' is derived from nonus 'ninth' as being 'shaped 
 like L the 9th letter in the Etruscan and Faliscan alphabets.' 
 Now, to begin with, the essential part of a ' square ' is its right 
 angle: the angle of an Etruscan L is anything but a right angle. 
 Nevertheless a Roman preferred to use it as a simile, and, lest 
 he should make himself too clear, he simply described the letter 
 by its numerical order in a foreign abecedarium, leaving it to 
 the hearer's ingenuity to work out the connexion. There is no 
 other example to vie with this, but one or two others must be 
 quoted: parra 'a bird' (surely a misleading translation) is from 
 '*parsa a companion' and goes witli parriclda which is thus 
 reduced to an infraction of the game-laws: no mention is made 
 of Frohde's convincing equation of the first element in pari- 
 clda with the Homeric Trfjot, 'kinsfolk.' Sometimes a needlessly 
 tortuous sense-connexion is traced, as when hracchium is 
 accounted for as being 'shorter than the leg': it of course 
 denotes the fore-arm which is shorter than lacertus, the upper 
 arm. Again the derivation of patro from pater (which had 
 occurred to me independently) is spoilt by the far-fetched 
 explanation of pater patratus 'the father who acts as such.' 
 It really means the pater who had a pater and so excluded all 
 but free-bom citizens (of two generations, if pater be taken 
 = senator). 
 
 Before concluding this notice it may be well to explain why 
 we condemn this attempt, when no better is forthcoming and 
 when scientific methods confessedly yield so imperfect results. 
 The reason is that making etymologies is no more the end of 
 scientific philology than making new fossils is the end of 
 geology. New etymologies, if sound, are welcomed, but it is 
 not for themselves, nor even for the laws to which they lead, 
 but for the proof of those laws, i.e. the reason which underlies 
 
122 Wharton's etyma latin a. 
 
 them. Mr Wharton, by many of his ingenious derivations, does 
 give some new laws, but without any attempt at proof and in 
 the republic of science ipse dixits even backed by the highest 
 reputation are not current coin. Thus the rule that original 
 ' pretonic ' e becomes a in Latin has a very good prima facie 
 case made out for it by the examples, but no proof, and we 
 must moreover take it, on Mr Wharton's assertion, that the 
 accent was pitch, despite all current theories upon Latin 
 accentuation. 
 
 All this, as well as the statement (also ex cathedra) that the 
 Ursprache had a il (short and long) and that the Ursprache^ was 
 once spoken, bears out the hypothesis which we mentioned at 
 first, that Mr Wharton belongs to a different school from that 
 of Brugmann and Paul. If this be so, we can only apologise 
 once more for treating his book according to our lights. 
 
 FROM A NOTICE OF FENNELL'S INDO-EUROPEAN 
 VOWEL-SYSTEM. 
 
 {Classical Review^ Feb. 1892.) 
 
 This is one of the most striking contributions to classical 
 philology which has appeared for some time. The originality 
 of Dr Fennell's views and the freshness of his ideas are only 
 equalled by the pertinence of his attacks on the weak points 
 of his opponents, among whom he is disposed to reckon all 
 Germans. This is scarcely surprising. Dr Fennell's services 
 to philology have not received proper recognition ; the famous 
 sonant-nasal theory was to a great extent anticipated by him, 
 and as early as 1873 he published a refutation of Curtius' then 
 reigning principle of * phonetic ease.' He is therefore naturally 
 indignant at these being hailed as new discoveries by foreign 
 
 * [i.e. spoken as a single, uniform by dialectic peculiarities even at a 
 language; Mr Darbishire means that fairly early stage of its development, 
 it must have been more or less broken C] 
 
FENNELL'S INDO-EUROPEAN VOWEL-SYSTEM. 123 
 
 scholars, and thus the ' Neiigrammatiker ' find small favour in 
 his eyes. We fear that some readers trained in the methods 
 and phraseology of his opponents will be disposed to look down 
 on this work as belonging to an exploded state of the science, 
 but they will be wrong. Where Dr Fennell rejects the dis- 
 coveries or the methods of the new school he does so with 
 his eyes open. His antagonism is of knowledge and not of 
 ignorance. 
 
 The pamphlet before us begins with an explanation of those 
 exceptions to Grimm's law which have hitherto been associated 
 with the name of Verner. Dr Fennell rejects the theory that 
 accent is the disturbing influence and substitutes for it syllabism. 
 The coincidence between the observed facts and the accentua- 
 tion in Sanskrit he proceeds to account for by the hypothesis 
 that accented syllables in Indo-European coutained as little 
 ' consonantal sound ' as possible. Thus, taking two well-known 
 examples hhrater- and mater-, in the former case the accentua- 
 tion is hhrd-ter-, therefore the syllabism is hhrd-ter-, therefore 
 Teutonic has j? : in the latter case the accentuation is mater-, 
 therefore the syllabism is mdt-er-, therefore Teutonic has d. 
 It is obvious that this hypothesis gives us a canon by which to 
 determine I.E. syllabism and this Dr Fennell next proceeds to 
 do, setting out the general rule and the exceptions which are 
 to be made. From this he passes to the main topic of his 
 paper, the vowel-system in Indo-European. Here he propounds 
 a new explanation of the 'light' diphthongs {ei, e^), that they 
 were developed from i, it, by accent, and proceeds to construct 
 a classification of vowel-sounds consisting of four ' keys ' (corre- 
 sponding to what are called 'scales') each containing four major, 
 further analysed into ten minor, subdivisions (roughly corre- 
 sponding to 'stages'), and the paper concludes with a discussion 
 of some exceptions and difficulties. 
 
 The proposed alternative for Verner's law is a brilliant 
 hypothesis and certainly deserves thorough investigation. The 
 statement in its present form is too brief to be satisfactory. As 
 regards the vowel-system we fear that Dr Fennell is not suffi- 
 ciently clear to escape misconception. After his own system 
 he proceeds to print Brugmann's * Ablautsreihen,' as if they 
 
124 FENNELL's INDO-EUROPEAN VOWEL-SYSTEM. 
 
 were to be contrasted. The two systems really supplement 
 each other. Dr Fennell's 'keys/ resting as they do almost 
 entirely on pitch-accent, are in fact an elaboration of the little- 
 worked hypothesis that the e : o variation &c. resulted from 
 variations of pitch. As a tentative expansion of this hypo- 
 thesis (which it can very well bear) his work will be found 
 valuable and in no way conflicting with that of his enemies. 
 His error lies in claiming too much for his own client, pitch- 
 accent, and in not recognizing sufficiently the effects of stress. 
 Thus the accent which could cause to vanish the vowel of the 
 preceding syllable must have been stress : on the other hand 
 we do not think there is the slightest ground for maintaining, 
 as he does (p. 26), that stress could lengthen a vowel. In point 
 of fact however many controversial topics suggest themselves 
 which it would have been impossible to treat in his limited 
 space. As it is, his work suffers greatly from compression 
 and we hope soon to see this pamphlet made the basis of a 
 thorough-going examination into all the evidence both positive 
 and negative. He has himself given us in the last number of 
 the Classical Revieio (vol. v. p. 451) a fuller statement of his 
 views on the sonant nasal, which are here merely referred to in 
 a foot-note. 
 
 We fear that we differ widely from Dr Fennell in our 
 conception of fundamental principles. Such sentences as : 'It 
 is obvious that a vowel is more liable to change in a syllable 
 which ends in a consonant than in a syllable which does not 
 end in a consonant ' (p. 6) — ' The change of aspirates in Greek 
 in {sic) mediae or tenues, as in Xafi^dvo), <rTp6fiffo<;, is more 
 explicable at the end than at the beginning of a syllable' 
 (p. 11) — 'Sanskrit k, g, gh, were respectively changed to c/i, j, 
 h, owing to lax pronunciation of the consonantal part of an 
 accented syllable' (p. 13) — ' eirXe is clearly poetic and also 
 optional' (p. 17) — all seem to rest on the individualistic hypo- 
 thesis that language is the property of the speaker, which he 
 can modify and change at will. If this were so, so were it 
 uttered, but 'tis not so, and 'twas not so, and God forbid it 
 should be so, for the sake of the science of language. 
 
 The issue as regards accent is so all-important that we must 
 
FENNELL's INDO-EUROPEAN VOWEL-SYSTEM. 125 
 
 re-state it at length. Dr Fennell's own words are : ' I have to 
 defend my assumption that stress is to be regarded as distinct 
 from accent' (p. 26). This is not the point. The distinction 
 between stress and (pitch) accent is quite recognized and there 
 is no confusion in thought, however the words are used. What 
 must be defended is the assumption that the Greek accentual 
 system, which was undoubtedly pitch, and which reaches us 
 only from Alexandrian grammarians, can be taken as faithfully 
 representing the Indo-European accent-system, although it 
 conflicts with the testimony of every known language of the 
 family. The remark on p. 32 'The terms irpoawSla and 
 accentus clearly referred to the pitch of the voice ' is obviously 
 only intended to defend the use of the word, and not to prove 
 the fact in issue. 
 
 On the other hand Dr Fennell is distinctly in the right as 
 against ' the German school ' when he denies that diphthongal 
 forms were ' prior to those containing / and U alone ' (p. 18). 
 This might appear fairly obvious ; but as the contrary has been 
 asserted quite recently by so distinguished an exponent of 
 modern views as Dr Wilh. Streitberg, a few words of refutation 
 are advisable. 
 
 Dr Streitberg's own words are : ' herrscht doch daruber 
 meines Wissens allgemeine Uebereinstimmung, dass die Vokale 
 e/ala/o/ und die ihnen entsprechenden Langen — die sog. Voll- 
 stufenvokale also — die einzigen Sonanten oder silbischen Vokale 
 des Indogermanischen waren zu einer Zeit, als die Schwundstufe 
 sich noch nicht ausgebildet hatte,' and again, * Wir haben also 
 prinzipiell flir alle Silben, haupttonige wie nichthaupttonige 
 ursprtinglich einen der vier Vollstu fen vokale anzusetzen.' — 
 Indog. Forsch. i. p. 84. This illustrates the danger of working 
 philology on algebraic methods, and studying symbols until 
 principles are lost sight of. The assumption of a still more 
 primeval epoch than any reached by logical inference, of which 
 it can merely be predicated that stress-accent did not exist — for 
 we defy Dr Streitberg to point to any other distinctive character- 
 istic of this period — is not only unnecessary but even harmful. 
 It is unnecessary, for the sole test of merit in a hypothesis is the 
 number of facts it explains, and this explains none. It is harmful, 
 
126 FENNELL'S INDO-EUROPEAN VOWEL-SYSTEM. 
 
 because it obscures the important fact that there is a priority, 
 but it is logical priority, not chronological. It is quite correct to 
 speak of a root leiq and of a suffix es, of a root uel and of a 
 suffix '^qe, of a root y^er and of a suffix ey, because whenever any 
 one of these roots or suffixes was presented vividly to the con- 
 sciousness it would assume that form. But it is not correct to 
 speak of *leiqes-, uelqe- or y,erey.- as bases, or, as Dr Streitberg 
 does (on p. 89), of *esent(iy for this reason. It agrees with all 
 that we know of stress to suppose that it in Indo-European as 
 elsewhere coincided with emphasis ; but the conditions under 
 which two consecutive syllables are emphasized are rare indeed. 
 Either then the emphasis and therefore the stress is on the 
 root, or it is on the suffix, but not on both. Presumably it is 
 because Dr Streitberg perceives this that he is compelled to 
 throw his ^esenti back into a time anterior to stress, but then 
 other considerations arise. Was there an intervening period of 
 pitch-accent influence or did pitch and stress simultaneously 
 dawn upon a hitherto accentless people ? In either case we 
 ultimately arrive at something dangerously similar to the ex- 
 ploded Lautspaltung, simply because we insist that sound- 
 analysis shall have its historical analogue. There is no need 
 to assume any succession of epochs for the changes in question ; 
 when, and as soon as, a complex was formed from any two of 
 the above simplicia, the mental act at once subordinated one or 
 other of them, and produced leiq-s- or liq es-, y,el-q- or ul-qe-, 
 y,er-u- or y^r-ey- (to say nothing of the more subtle modifica- 
 tions of pitch). These forms have absolutely no priority over 
 one another; they would all exist, potentially at least, at the 
 same time, although not in the same mind at the same time. It 
 is rather late in the day to have to assert that language does 
 not reflect the mental growth of the individual, but this is what 
 it really comes to. We repeat then that we are not justified in 
 assuming any period prior to the I.E. period — meaning thereby 
 that in which stress-accent produced its changes — except the 
 root-period, and our knowledge does not yet justify us in 
 assuming that. 
 
 1 And even by his own showing, this ought to be esevt{ei)\ 
 
FENNELL'S INDO-EUROPEAN VOWEL-SYSTEM. 127 
 
 We conclude this paper with the hope that Dr Fennell will 
 not consider us presumptuous in congratulating a scholar of his 
 name on his most stimulating and refreshing pamphlet. We 
 trust it will be widely read and have the desired effect of call- 
 ing attention to the exact evidence on which our conclusions 
 rest. Na^e Kal /ubifivaa diria-relv is still a good rule, and 
 neglect by German 'authorities' of the first injunction does not 
 justify their English followers in losing sight of the second. 
 
 ABNORMAL DERIVATIONS 
 
 {Classical Remev), April 1892). 
 
 The precise canons which are to decide whether a derivation 
 is or is not justifiable do not yet appear to have been laid down 
 with sufficient strictness ; nor is the task an easy one. Much 
 must always depend upon the logical equipment of the etymo- 
 logizing mind. At the same time I do not despair of seeing 
 certain broad rules formulated which may not be transgressed, 
 and in the faint hope of contributing to this desirable result, I 
 proceed to urge a few objections to a derivation proposed in the 
 last number of this Revieiu. 
 
 I think I may fairly presume that Mr Wharton's paper on 
 p. II [of Class. Rev. Vol. vi.] is elicited by my reference to his 
 derivation of norma in Vol. v. p. 219 [p. 121 siip!\ It is only 
 right therefore to admit that — quite apart from the evidence he 
 brings — if his derivation in Etyma Latina had rested on the 
 same reasoning as he now adduces I should not have referred to 
 it so slightingly. Then he said in effect : ' norma by Latin 
 phonetic laws may mean "ninth," I was the ninth letter in 
 certain non-Latin alphabets, therefore norma can = r; or this: 
 
128 ABNORMAL DERIVATIONS. 
 
 * I was the ninth letter of the genuine Faliscan alphabet, later 
 Faliscan inscriptions in the Latin alphabet have a right-angled 
 Z, therefore the Latin name for a right-angled instrument was 
 "ninth " ' — and the latter line of thought he does not seem to 
 have quite deserted. But now, he also asserts that I was the 
 ninth letter of the Latin alphabet and therefore *nonima 'ninth* 
 could mean I and so be applied to an 1-shaped instrument. We 
 now enter the domain of argument and it is necessary to ex- 
 amine the sequence of the propositions and the evidence to 
 support them. 
 
 The three points which Mr Wharton proposes to prove are 
 not logically sufficient to establish his conclusion: it is necessary 
 for him to prove (1) that I was the ninth letter of the Latin 
 alphabet, (2) that at the same date it contained a right angle, 
 (3) that subsequently nm became rm in Latin, (4) that the 
 change of sense is not too violent. It is essential however to 
 remember that this train of reasoning is self-infirmative and not 
 self-confirmative. 
 
 The only proof of the first proposition that is to be found in 
 Mr Wharton's paper is the conjecture that the early Latin 
 alphabet did not contain G or K. But the very fact that K 
 was not used except in a few abbreviations is proof positive 
 that it never dropped out of its alphabetical position, for if so it 
 would never have been restored. And whoever introduced the 
 character G, and however late it was introduced, it certainly 
 was placed in the position occupied by Z, that is, seventh. This 
 is at once an argument in favour of an early date for its intro- 
 duction, and as near proof as any fact can be, that F and H 
 never stood next each other in alphabetical order. 
 
 Again the rule that nm becomes rm in Latin, is, with all 
 due respect to Mr Wharton, not proven. As *nonima — norma 
 is under discussion, the proof rests on two examples, carmen 
 and germen. If these are to support *nonima — norma they 
 must = *canwien, *genimen respectively. Then the question 
 arises — Why did anima not become *arma^ ? If on the con- 
 trary *canmen *genmen be the original forms these must have 
 
 1 The answer to this may be that *cilninien *gmimen were the forms ; but 
 this would need great hardihood. 
 
ABNORMAL DERIVATIONS. 129 
 
 been formed or at least been in existence after *nonima suifered 
 syncopation. But ex hypothesi *nonima was only formed after 
 200 B.C. and therefore *canmen must have existed later than 
 the time of Plautus. Now as the word occurs twice on the 
 fragments of the XII. Tables which are preserved — and we 
 know how carefully these were cherished — is it likely that a 
 form *canmen if such had existed would have been so completely 
 displaced by the new-fangled carmen (in the middle of only the 
 second century B.C.) that Varro should know no better than to 
 derive carmen like Camena, from *cas-men^ ? Again, at least 
 two alternative derivations are possible for each of these words. 
 Carmen may (1) come from a root kar — cf Oscan carneis 
 Umbr. karu^ — or (2) it may come regularly from cas-men (if 
 Varro's testimony be accepted) either on Mr Conway's hypo- 
 thesis (Verners Law, p. 14) that accentual laws retained the 
 r (z), or by supposing the form to have been *cas-i-men and 
 that syncopation took place after the change from s to r between 
 vowels^ So germen may be from ger, cf. Skt. gir ' verschlingen,' 
 Gk. ffopd &c. — the sense will be 'edible shoots,' or from the 
 root ges oi gero as above. 
 
 The rule is therefore supported by only two examples, both 
 of which are doubtful : if any further consideration is needed to 
 turn the scale against the rule, it may be found in the great 
 improbability of the change on phonetic grounds. 
 
 The morphology of *nonima might be called in question as 
 it is a unique example of a Latin adjective formed from a 
 primary numeral by means of the suffix -mo-, but I pass it by, 
 and turn to the question of sense development. That a word 
 meaning simply ninth could associate itself mentally with a 
 tool similarly shaped, is to me incredible. Of course much 
 must be left to individual taste and judgment in this matter, as 
 
 1 L.L. VII. §26, p. 70 (Steph.). The s-kr-io— Lit. skiriu. The root was 
 passage is corrupt, but I think it cannot therefore s-ka^'r, and gives also kpo- 
 be reasonably doubted that this is the corium, and skr-to- scortum. The gut- 
 sense. Curiously enough he goes on tural may have been velar, see Etyma 
 to derive cano from this same root cas. Latina, s. vv. 
 
 2 /cei'pw may also belong to this root. 3 Compare Brugmann's similar ex- 
 kr-io — Kalpo), which becomes /ce/pw as planation of verna, Grds. ii. p. 137. 
 KTaivu) etc. became Kreipu etc. Cf. 
 
 D. P. 9 
 
130 ABNORMAL DERIVATIONS. 
 
 one will thiok easy what to another seems impossible. I do 
 not think however that any of Mr Wharton's parallels bear him 
 out. ' L-square ' escapes fully two-thirds of the difficulty. Let 
 Mr Wharton try the effect of * Gimme twelve' on the next 
 carpenter he meets, and he will appreciate the position of the 
 luckless Roman workman who first (on his hypothesis) saluted 
 his mate with ' cedo normam/ 
 
 Mr Wharton says the alphabetical order was more familiar 
 to the ancients than to us — a proposition which will not com- 
 mend itself to every one; but even if it were true, the knowledge 
 of the alphabetical order of the letters does not necessarily 
 bring with it a knowledge of their numerical value. Quintilian 
 could use sexta to mean F, but the sense was clear from the 
 context: its proper name was Y-littera (cf. Cic. Be Div. i. 13, 
 23). The parallels from Greek can hardly be taken seriously. 
 The Greek numerical system is of course based on the alphabet*. 
 What right have we to draw analogies from this to Latin which 
 shows no trace of such a system? Had L two numerical 
 values ? 
 
 A new derivation of norma is moreover not wanted, and 
 therefore there is absolutely nothing to be gained by still further 
 loosening the far too lax laws of Latin etymology. It is of 
 course improbable that norma is a borrowed word from the 
 Greek yvcopifjuT), for to begin with the g would not have been 
 lost unless it was a very early borrowing. Still, norma is akin 
 to yv(opifio<i, and is thus derived. There existed in the hypo- 
 thetical 'Ursprache ' a root of the form g(e)n, and a suffix of the 
 form a, e, d% which was affixed to verbal roots in their weak 
 form. We thus get three secondary roots gna, gne, gno. The 
 last named form is found in Latin in (g)nosco. A common 
 adjectival suffix in I.E. was -ro-, which is affixed to this very 
 root in gnarus. We are accordingly justified in postulating a 
 pre-Latin gno-ro-, secondary adjectival form gnorimo-, whence 
 gnormo- and normo- by regular change. As for the sense, take 
 a plank ; there are endless lines to be drawn across it, but only 
 
 ' It is quite probable that the simple ^ These were either one suffix by 
 
 numeration from 1 to 24 preceded the Ablaut, or three independent suffixes. 
 more elaborate decimal system. 
 
ABNORMAL DERIVATIONS. 131 
 
 one which cuts it square. Why should this not be called 
 norma linea * the line to be known' (or even 'well-known' pace 
 Mr Wharton) ? If then the perpendicular were called norma, 
 the tool used to find it might naturally be so called \ To some 
 extent confirmatory of this is the fact that the ethical use, 
 which is the earlier, agrees better with the sense ' perpen- 
 dicular ' than with the tool for finding it. This renders it more 
 probable that the name was transferred from the line to the tool 
 than vice versa. 
 
 The above is not written in any partisan spirit. Mr Wharton's 
 derivation violates no theory of mine, but he has challenged 
 refutation. After weighing to the best of my ability every 
 particle of evidence on both sides I am compelled to believe 
 
 (1) that I never was the ninth letter of the Latin alphabet and 
 
 (2) certainly not in the form L, (.3) that nm does not become 
 rm in Latin, (4) that the change of sense is highly improbable, 
 and (5) that the old derivation is satisfactory. 
 
 FROM A NOTICE OF 'A NEW ENGLISH GRAMMAR: 
 LOGICAL AND HISTORICAL. BY HENRY SWEET, 
 M.A. PART I.' 
 
 {Athenaeum, July 23, 18922.) 
 
 No one who feels the slightest degree of interest in the 
 nature and history of the English language should fail to read 
 Dr Sweet's instructive work. It will, we hope, revolutionize 
 the treatment, or rather the neglect, which English grammar 
 has generally received, and it should do much towards providing 
 a firm and sound basis for the study. A literary grammar this 
 
 1 So regula implies linea, afterwards teristic, and I have therefore ventured 
 transferred to the instrument. to include a few paragraphs which Mr 
 
 2 [These extracts are repubhshed Darbishire himself would, probably, 
 with the consent of the proprietors of not have deemed important enough to 
 the journal. In its thoroughness and be reprinted. CJJ 
 
 in other points the review is charac- 
 
 9—2 
 
132 sweet's ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 
 
 does not claim to be ; as a logical grammar it has features of 
 its own ; as an historical grammar it is worthy of its author's 
 reputation. 
 
 Its chief merits may be briefly indicated. Dr Sweet clearly 
 recognizes that English is not an inflexional language, and he 
 therefore seeks to cut away from his treatment all prepossessions 
 which arise from studying grammar thrmtgh an inflexional 
 language. The result of this is to bring out most clearly and 
 usefully the two great elements of significance in English — 
 position and stress. Dr Sweet's treatment of the latter, indeed, 
 can hardly be too much commended. Another valuable feature 
 is the systematic arrangement by which the several parts of 
 speech are first treated philosophically under the heads of form, 
 function, and meaning, and afterwards historically under Old, 
 Middle, and Modern English; while the pages abound with 
 acute suggestions as to the history and development of in- 
 dividual words, such as the derivation of sidle (p. 431), of -let 
 (p. 483), and the frequent use of proper names to illustrate 
 phonological doublets. The constant use of phonetic tran- 
 scription to show the actual pronunciation is of especial 
 advantage in revealing doublets which the ordinary orthography 
 succeeds in disguising — especially, of course, in particles and 
 auxiliaries. 
 
 With all these excellences, however, there exist grave faults, 
 and in particular we must confess that the " logical " treatment 
 is not satisfactory. For this, those who know Dr Sweet's paper 
 on * Words, Logic, and Grammar ' (Trans. Phil. Soc, 1875 — 6) 
 will be in some degree prepared, for when conclusions are 
 reached which overthrow " the whole fabric of Formal Logic," 
 the cold-blooded sceptic begins by doubting the conclusions. 
 Dr Sweet there fell into the error, which even Jevons did not 
 escape, of regarding proper names as connotative, and this he 
 repeats here (pp. 57 — 59). His proof is that " John " at least 
 implies " male human being " ; but this is not so. " John " may 
 equally well imply a horse or a dog. In fact, as Fowler says 
 (* Formal Logic,' p. 21), "it suggests to me these attributes 
 only through the medium of the common terms to which it is 
 referred." Again, the whole question of subject and predicate 
 
sweet's ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 133 
 
 seems to us to be misunderstood ; see especially p. 46. The 
 constant reference to "logical predicate" is objectionable, as we 
 are nowhere clearly told what it means. If it implies "the 
 predicate as used in logic," all opposition between it and the 
 "grammatical predicate" falls to the ground. If, on the other 
 hand, it means the predicate as that which gives information 
 about the subject, we have a marked contradiction to the 
 statement on p. 18 that "it may sometimes be almost a matter 
 of indifference which idea is regarded as subject and which as 
 predicate." The confusion in the use of the term " subject " is 
 even more serious. It is not only *' grammatical" and "logical," 
 but in the treatment of the passive voice (p. 112), as also on 
 p. 77, it appears to be used in the sense of the " subject of the 
 action expressed by the verb," which is a not uncommon, but 
 wholly different sense. Unfortunately, we have a still deeper 
 objection to make: the opposition of "logical" to "grammatical," 
 which occurs not only in the above connexion, but almost 
 'passim, seems not to have been clearly envisaged. Thus on 
 p. 10 we are told that " every grammatical category is the 
 expression of some general idea — some logical category"; on 
 p. 12 we are introduced to logical categories as substances and 
 attributes, qualifiers, general and special words, &c.; while on 
 p. 19 we find grammatical categories given as words, word- 
 groups, and sentences, followed by derivation, inflexion, and 
 other processes, and proceeding to the parts of speech. But 
 what "logical category" has been given corresponding to a 
 division into words and sentences? Again, on p. 40 it is 
 admitted that logical and grammatical categories may directly 
 contradict each other ; and on p. 191 the influence of analogy 
 is besought to reconcile them. 
 
 The psychology here and there displayed is, if we may say 
 so, a little amateurish. On p. 12 we learn that " substances are 
 known to us solely by their attributes " ; and on p. 13 " that 
 the only way in which we can form an idea of any attribute, 
 such as 'yellow,' is by thinking of a number of yellow sub- 
 stances " ; and below, that " it is easier to think of an attribute 
 apart from its substances than it is to think of a substance apart 
 from its attributes^' while immediately after there is what must 
 
134 sweet's ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 
 
 surely be an oversight when the separation of " fire " from the 
 material objects which are consumed is apparently considered a 
 feat of mental abstraction, not warranted by any distinction in 
 fact. There are also a few departures from the strait path of 
 scientific philology which as a rule Dr Sweet follows so closely, 
 as when on p. 21 we are told that "in English, whenever we 
 hear the sound [ng] — as in king — we know that it cannot form 
 the beginning of a word " ; but in speech phonetic words are the 
 only factors, and the ear is not concerned with resolving them ; 
 the fact is, therefore, that the ear never hears [ng] at the 
 beginning of a word, but no one except a keen observer knows 
 that. On p. 178, " It was mainly by the help of metaphor that 
 primitive man was able to enlarge his originally scanty stock of 
 words so as to find an expression for each new idea as it arose 
 in his mind " is perhaps only carelessly expressed ; so far from 
 metaphor increasing the stock of words, it is a means of 
 retaining them at par. At p. 189 there is a hidden fallacy in 
 the statement that "the efficiency of a form depends on its 
 phonetic distinctness — a hissing consonant such as s being, for 
 instance, preferable to an obscure vowel"; for the fact that we 
 mark difference of form by a hissing consonant may cause us to 
 pay greater attention thereto, and so give it greater " phonetic 
 distinctness," while a people who inflected by vowels would 
 probably develope an acute ear for vowel-distinctions. Nor do 
 we think the explanation of spoke as due to spoken, from the 
 likeness between "he spoke" and "he has spoken" (p. 190), 
 probable on linguistic principles. More probably the bond of 
 connexion is to be sought in the number of verbs which have 
 imperfect and past participle identical, as, for example, all the 
 weak verbs. So also we are inclined to question the explanation 
 of the loss of hr, hi (p. 262). 
 
 As we said above, the historical part is worthy of its author, 
 and hardly admits of any general strictures. The only fault we 
 can find is of omission. Dr Sweet refuses to confine himself to 
 the higher language, but also takes in familiar and even 
 "vulgar" speech. This plan would have been perfection had 
 his knowledge of Northern English been • more thorough ; but 
 he appears to have personal acquaintance only with familiar 
 
sweet's ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 135 
 
 English as spoken south of the Thames, and his treatment is, 
 therefore, correspondingly partial. 
 
 The following passages seem to call for comment : — 
 
 P. 3. " In Parent Arian past time in verbs was regarded as 
 more emphatic — because more definite — than present time, and 
 so was expressed by reduplication." A priori present time 
 seems the more definite, and a posteriori it was expressed by 
 reduplication, which definitely past time was not. 
 
 P. 55. Is not the distinction between singular and plural 
 nouns, as stated, wholly unnecessary ? and is it not drawn from 
 the despised " formal logic " ? 
 
 P. 59. " Proper names are never arbitrary in their origin " 
 — too strong. 
 
 P. 79. " Who and what also differ from he, she, and it in 
 having a common genitive or possessive form whose." Is whose 
 (interrogative) ever neuter ? 
 
 P. 105. The name " preterite future " for " I should see " is 
 bad. 
 
 Pp. 159 and 163 (§§ 456 and 472). The classification which 
 separates " I see you are mistaken " from " You are mistaken, 
 I see," is questionable. 
 
 P. 174. Why is the answer "I do not know" restricted to 
 " special interrogative sentences " ? Dr Sweet is unprepared for 
 the ignorance of some people, who might even give that answer 
 to " Is the moon full to-night ? " 
 
 P. 187. The doublet wi'Q and wi\> has only become dialectal. 
 The latter form is regular in the north of Ireland. 
 
 P. 192. "Latin bibere... the lip-consonant b symbolizes the 
 action of the lips in drinking." May have been true for the 
 primitive speech, but is decidedly doubtful for Latin. 
 
 P. 193. " Language thus arose spontaneously in individuals 
 through the habit of associating sounds with ideas, through 
 mimicry, &c. This was done at first merely for amusement: 
 the idea of using these sounds to communicate wishes, in- 
 formation, &c., to others was an after-thought." We fear this 
 would find small favour with Prof. Paul, whose principles 
 Dr Sweet in the main follows [Cf. p. 156 inf. (7.]. 
 
136 sweet's ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 
 
 P. 198. "This contraction [nt] never occurs except after 
 certain verbs which are themselves isolated in the contracted 
 form." Have, 7nay, could, &c., are used with this contraction 
 without isolation. 
 
 P. 208. " In English this form [the plural men] is so dead 
 that even such a noun as Norman forms its plural Normans.'' 
 On the other hand, we imagine nine people out of ten say 
 "Mussulmen." The reason is that "Nor-" is felt to be un- 
 meaning ; " Mussul-" is dimly supposed to be a " foreign word." 
 
 P. 279. We here find the not uncommon, but wholly 
 erroneous idea that vowels can [of themselves] voice a breathed 
 consonant. 
 
 P. 282. For the loss of w add answer, boatswain, coxswain, 
 and the strong siuord, where the loss must be due to absorption 
 in the o-vowel; or more probably the w disappeared in sounding 
 the original e. 
 
 P. 313. We believe that the plural summonses has been 
 sanctioned by the " Rules of the Supreme Court," and may be 
 heard any day at the temple of Justice in the Strand. 
 
 P. 329. The meaning of elder is- more pregnant than that 
 of older, but surely not " more abstract." 
 
 P. 330. Nigh is by no means obsolete in Northern dialects. 
 
 P. 356 sq. The negative ought is ingeniously explained as 
 due to wrong division of " one nought," " seven nought," &c. 
 This is hardly convincing, as such collocations are very unusual. 
 The interchange of positive and negative words is always 
 mysterious ; the phrase " W^hy sholde ye ought ? " in the * Nut- 
 brown Mayde' seems strange on either hypothesis. Just 
 previously, the very common expression " for aught I know " 
 should have been recognized. 
 
 P. 358. '* In MnE. either is now restricted to the alternative 
 meaning." What of 
 
 On either side the river lie 
 Long fields of barley and of rye 
 
 in the * Lady of Shalott ' ? 
 
 P. 360. A trace of the " conjoint " ff is kept in Jtpence, 
 common in Scotland and the north of Ireland. 
 
sweet's ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 137 
 
 P. 385. " The higher language also keeps full -ed in many 
 forms where the spoken language contracts, as in beloved 
 (bi'l'Bvid) compared with loved." It is obvious that the op- 
 position is between " higher " and " familiar," for both must be 
 " spoken," or the distinction would not come in. 
 
 P. 400. Blent should not be marked as obsolete when it 
 occurs in the best-known lines of Byron. 
 
 P. 403. Another relic of O.E. scadan, " separate," is to be 
 found in the north of Ireland ^ where to shade means "to part 
 the hair," and shade, "the parting," just as schode in O.E. 
 
 P. 412. "The verb alight still keeps the older consonantal 
 inflexion." Surely "Another splendour on his mouth alit" 
 must have occurred to Dr Sweet. 
 
 P. 422. Is there absolute proof that the I was ever pro- 
 nounced in coidd ? It seems natural otherwise to suppose that 
 it was inserted after the I in shotdd had ceased to be pro- 
 nounced. In connexion with dare on the same page it may be 
 noticed what difficulties most people get into when they try to 
 form a preterite to " I dare say." The connexion is too intimate 
 to allow of " I dared say," and yet one can hardly venture on 
 " I daresaid." The form durst does survive, at least in American, 
 but, strangely enough, as a present. 
 
 P. 440. Again, rathe can hardly be called obsolete when 
 the Laureate uses it (' Lancelot and Elaine '). 
 
 P. 489. Property is said to have passed through French 
 changes ; does this imply that it comes from proprete ? 
 
 We are growing accustomed to careless, or rather un- 
 intelligent, proof-reading from the Clarendon Press. On p. xiii 
 (1. 4 from foot) read §1067; p. 36, 1. 2, verbs for "nouns"; 
 p. 154, 1. 11 from foot, yesterday's for "yesterday"; p. 331, 1. 6, 
 (1050) for "(1051)"; p. 364, 1. 12, numerals Q) for "ordinals"; 
 p. 412, 1. 3, vocalic for "consonantal"; p. 429, 1. 6 from foot, 
 adjectives for "adverbs"; p. 494, 1. 3, Pythagorean for "Py- 
 thogorean." Whether the inclusion of ancient and frequent 
 among "dissyllabic adjectives with the stress on the last 
 syllable," on p. 326 (1. 3 from foot), rests with author or printer 
 
 ^ [This was confirmed by Mr Thos. quoted examples of shed = ' parting of 
 Bayne {Athenaeum Aug. 13, 1892) who the hair' from modern Scotch. CJ 
 
138 sweet's ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 
 
 we decline to say ; but we feel strongly disposed to hope that 
 " program " belongs to the misprints. 
 
 We had intended to add a few remarks on Dr Sweet's 
 favourite "posers" cannon-ball and / had rather; but this 
 notice is already long enough, although it has been impossible 
 to criticize the logical part exhaustively without reference to 
 the Syntax, which we hope will soon complete this truly 
 admirable work. 
 
 THE GOTTINGEN SCHOOL OF COMPARATIVE 
 PHILOLOGY. 
 
 (Incomplete, but published after Mr Darbishire's death in the 
 Classical Review, Oct. 1893.) 
 
 The school of philology which has Gottingen for its centre, 
 and which is associated with the names of August Fick and 
 Adalbert Bezzenberger, has a deservedly high reputation. It 
 represents a middle stand-point between the conservatism of 
 Curtius and the daring but somewhat arid speculation of OsthofF 
 and Brugmann without falling into the pessimism of Johannes 
 Schmidt. To judge merely by results the school which has 
 given us Fick's Homeric discoveries and Collitz's paper on the 
 palatals, to which may perhaps be added, without prejudging 
 the objects of this paper, Bezzenberger's on the guttural-series, 
 has laid the study under no slight obligation. Within the last 
 two years two works of great weight have issued from this 
 school, and as they are to a great extent interdependent it 
 seems fitting to discuss them both together. 
 
 The fame of August Fick may indeed be expected to be 
 greater among succeeding generations than in his own: great 
 as his reputation is, I venture to think it is even yet entirely 
 disproportionate to his merits, and that if he had adopted the 
 
GOTTINGEN SCHOOL OF COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY. 139 
 
 usual advertising methods, he would long ago have been en- 
 throned as the king of philologists. 
 
 The fourth edition of his Vergleichendes Worterhuch does 
 not disappoint expectation. More could hardly be said: but if 
 any feature is more worthy of note than the rest, it is the open- 
 ness of mind which has permitted the discarding in this edition 
 of whatever has become antiquated in the third, however 
 valuable it may have been at the time. That this achievement 
 is not unparalleled the history of philology in England will 
 prove: that it is remarkable is shown by numerous examples 
 to the contrary. 
 
 The fact that the work calls itself a dictionary however may 
 lead this encomium to be misunderstood. I do not intend to 
 imply that the latest ' theory ' finds a place in it. On the con- 
 trary the most impressive fact about the volume is that it pre- 
 supposes a carefully thought-out system which those who will 
 may formulate from its pages, but is not set out in a lengthy 
 disquisition. The gratitude which all readers of Fick's Homeric 
 works must feel for the mode he has taken of supporting his 
 view (which on the normal lines should have required volumes 
 of 1000 pp. at least) will therefore be increased by this work in 
 which the author's labour is exactly proportional to the reader's 
 benefit. 
 
 As I give my adherence to Fick's view in almost every case 
 in which Fick differs from other exponents I wish to state what 
 in my opinion are those differences, and the considerations 
 which support my judgment. On the mass of detail which 
 makes up the body of the work it is not my intention to 
 enter ; one word of caution is perhaps necessary. Identifica- 
 tions of the most rash description are to be found on almost 
 every page in apparent violation of all phonetic regularity. 
 It must not be inferred that the author disbelieves in pho- 
 netic laws. He is not constructing a water-tight system into 
 which no exceptions can leak : his work is to bring together 
 from different languages words which are possibly related. 
 True, the equation violates a law. If the law is right the 
 equation is wrong — but if the equation is right the law is 
 wrong. 
 
140 THE GOTTINGEN SCHOOL 
 
 The chief points on which Fick's views are distinctive are : 
 1. The classification of the I.E. peoples. 2. The I.E. system of 
 sounds. The first of these is a well-known difficulty, and Fick's 
 own championship of the Stammbaum theory against Schmidt's 
 attack will be remembered ; in fact to a certain extent the 
 original object of the Worterbuch was to show that successive 
 common epochs could be distinguished by their vocabularies 
 (Sprachschdtze). Brugmann took an intermediate view — he 
 made eight offshoots from the parent stock, but ascribed to 
 them equal independence. Fick now makes twelve separate 
 descendants which are the representatives of three older groups: 
 instead therefore of an 'Asiatic' and a 'European' unity we now 
 have (1) Asiatic, (2) centum and (3) satem branches of the main 
 stock, subdividing into (1) Skt., Zend and Scythian ; (2) Gk., 
 Latin, Celtic, and Teutonic ; and (3) Baltic, Slavic, Thracian, 
 Phrygian, and Armenian respectively. Here I agree with Fick, 
 in his postulate of intermediate unities, but I do not accept his 
 third group. I believe Armenian to belong to the Asiatic 
 branch ; and, if Hirt's assignment of the Thracians and Phry- 
 gians to the centum-people be accepted, Fick's geographical 
 continuity is destroyed. 
 
 On the other point the differences are more important. 
 
 Fick's classification is as follows : — 
 
 [On p. xxix. Fick gives this list of the sounds of the Ur- 
 sprache — 
 
 Vowels, 
 
 e d\ e 5 a, the latter shortened to e o a in ' primary aus- 
 laut,' else uniformly to a. 
 
 Mutes. 
 
 ik kh g gh palatalized to 
 
 \k' k'h g' ^r'/i before * bright sounds ' 
 
 p z zh 
 
 t th d dh 
 
 p ph hh 
 
OF COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY. 141 
 
 Liquids. 
 
 y and v : i and u 
 n and m : n and m 
 
 O o 
 
 r and Z : r and | 
 
 Spirants. 
 
 j, s (/ before soft (weichen) sounds) perhaps also capable of 
 forming a syllable (5). 
 
 But on p. xxxvii. he remarks ' nachtraglich ' that he accepts 
 Bezzenberger's three guttural series {Bezz. Beitr. xvi. 234), and 
 that therefore this scheme needs modification by splitting the 
 k- series into a k- and a q- series ; he does not add whether he 
 considers them to have been both equally liable to palataliza- 
 tion.] 
 
 Now, reserving for discussion below in connexion with 
 Bechtel's book* the controversial topics of the vowels, sonants 
 and gutturals, it must be pointed out how admirably this system 
 is framed. In the first place the recognition that e, 0, a are 
 the onli/ vowels, and that i, u are the ' sonant ' forms of y, v, is 
 strictly logical, and the far-reaching importance of it will be 
 shown immediately ^ In the second place an equally meritori- 
 ous feature is the distinction between 'independent' and 'de- 
 pendent' sounds, which is also novel. It is true the only 
 ' dependent ' sound mentioned is z [Fick's /], but the principle 
 is recognized further by his ignoring n, 79 as independent 
 sounds. In point of fact the distinction is historical, not natu- 
 ral, and its neglect is due to the exaggerated respect for the 
 less-developed ' science ' of phonetics which has done philology 
 much harm. Phonetically speaking m n and n are exactly 
 similar, but philologically they differ, for Indo-European is only 
 supposed to have possessed the sound n because it is easier to 
 say nk than nk. This may be admitted, but it is also easier to 
 say nt than mt and yet we know that the form for * hundred ' 
 was kmtom or komtom. Incidentally it is interesting to notice 
 
 ^ Die Hauptprobleme d. idg. Laut- completed, but see 'The Indo-Euro- 
 lehre, Gottingen, 1892, pean phonological system ' in Part 11. 
 
 2 [This part of the review is not inf. C.J 
 
142 . THE GOTTINGEN SCHOOL 
 
 that Bezzenberger's paper {Bezz. Beitr. xvi. 234) proves that 
 the two classes of ' velar ' gutturals were ' independent/ while 
 Brugmann's view in the Grundriss i. makes them * dependent.' 
 
 Those who know Professor Fick's previous controversial 
 writings will not need to be told that nothing could be more 
 delightful than the style of his introduction or more friendly 
 than its tone towards his opponents and his followers alike. 
 The contrast in this respect on taking up Bechtel is striking 
 and perhaps leads me to do him injustice. 
 
 His book is stimulating like Fick's, but less convincing : its 
 professed aim is to give a historical account of the gradual 
 development which has taken place in philological views since 
 Schleicher. He treats in turn the questions a, e, o; vowel 
 changes; the gutturals; I and r. The preface tells us that 
 chapters on the hard aspirates, on the distinction between i 
 and jy y, and v, and on the original accent were cut out : their 
 loss must be regretted. 
 
 The fight that was fought over each of these questions is 
 already in danger of being forgotten, and hence Bechtel's 
 reminder that the dominant views are so young will be no less 
 useful to students than his history of the contest will be 
 interesting to those who passed through it, and the work on the 
 whole has been admirably done, although the style does not 
 rise above the normal Geiman level. Unfortunately, however, 
 he has put in more than history : at first he sums up judicially 
 the result of the evidence, but by degrees this tends to become 
 more and more an exposition of his own views on the subject in 
 question, and these do not always commend themselves. 
 
 It cannot be forgotten that Bechtel was one of the most 
 bitter critics of the new philology as represented by Brugmann's 
 Griech. Gram. The acerbity of his tone he has greatly modi- 
 fied : it is still the deadly sin not to refer to any previous 
 writer who has thrown out a suggestion in common with your 
 view, but occasionally services are credited even to Brugmann, 
 so that G. Meyer (whose own services by the way are quite 
 neglected) is even deluded into speaking of Bechtel's * Unpar- 
 teilichkeit.' If this be not a mistake, German 'Unparteilichkeit' 
 must be, like French calm, relative. 
 
OF COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY. 
 
 143 
 
 Perhaps the best of Bechtel's expositions are those in which 
 he sums up the evidence against Brugmann's Skt. a=Gk. o 
 theory and in favour of I.E. o from dy, + consonant. 
 
 Less successful is his treatment of 9 which he thinks be- 
 comes in Greek l (or v) as well as a. This, when taken in 
 conjunction with his definition of n as dn (which, he does not 
 deny, appears in Greek as a), gives an extraordinary fluidity to 
 one's ideas. A few plausible examples are given for the rule 
 in each case : it would really seem as if even B. requires to be 
 told of the necessity for cogent proof, at all events he differs 
 from the view I have always been taught to consider right, that 
 observation is not as important as right inference. This accounts 
 for his indignation at any neglect of priority as well as for his 
 own looseness of demonstration. I cannot help however ad- 
 hering to the principle that to establish any rule it is first 
 of all necessary to give some (not necessarily many) strong 
 examples: next to show cause against all recognized derivations 
 which are inconsistent with the rule, and in the third place to 
 define exactly the limits of the rule itself. Some would add a 
 physiological explanation of the phenomenon, but this is I think 
 unnecessary. Once a phonological rule is established by the 
 above method it becomes a fact for phoneticians which they 
 may deal with as they like : the rule itself gains nothing from 
 a physiological description, unless it is otherwise in need of 
 support. It is only the establishment of a rule in this way 
 that gives any claim to possessorship, and no one who has 
 previously hazarded a guess at the result has any claim to 
 priority because he happens to be right. For example, the first 
 man who said * German Vater = Lat. pater, German Bruder 
 = Lat. frater ' did not anticipate Verner's law, and if any one 
 does ever prove that 9 becomes t in Greek, B. has not antici- 
 pated him. 
 
 The treatment of consonantal questions is reduced by the 
 expulsion of a chapter on the breathed aspirates and another 
 on [^ and v] to a discussion of two Hauptprohleme only. One is 
 of course the guttural question in which Bezzenberger is on the 
 whole followed, and the other is the I and r question which 
 contains little of note except an attack on Brugmann for not 
 
144 
 
 THE GOTTINGEN SCHOOL 
 
 accepting Fortunatov's law (B. B. vi. 215 ff. and Grundiiss i. 
 p. 211 note). This is a good example of Bechtel's Unpartei- 
 lichkeit : Brugmann says that Fortunatov's law rests to a great 
 extent on uncertain etymologies : this charge Bechtel considers 
 ' ungerecht ' because out of Fortunatov's thirty- five etymologies 
 twelve may be defended : to these he adds two of F.'s words 
 but rejects his derivation, and produces again two that F. does 
 not mention. Assuming that Bechtel's approval raises these 
 etymologies above the domain of controversy, it seems still fair 
 to describe Fortunatov's proof as grossten Teiles unsicher. As 
 for Brugmann's other charge that es fehlt nicht an unerkldrten 
 Ausnahmen, Bechtel admits some indeed, but dismisses them 
 with an airy appeal to ' difference of dialect,' which is an ex- 
 planation taken from the Grundriss I., but in its application is 
 as unscientific as much of what has been criticized. Brug- 
 mann's position is : Yedic I corresponds to a certain field of 
 European I ; Sanskrit I covers a wider field than Vedic I, but 
 this wide field of I corresponds remarkably to European Z, 
 therefore it cannot have come through the narrower Vedic 
 field and so represents a different dialect. This is good reason- 
 ing, true or untrue, but the exceptions to F.'s law, which B. 
 discusses, are partly Vedic words, and therefore by explaining 
 them as due to dialect he is introducing dialectal differences 
 into the Vedic hymns, which is a very different matter and 
 highly improbable on the face of it\ By way of showing up 
 Brugmann's harsh treatment of F., Bechtel proceeds to imply 
 that he accepts a rule of Weise's in the Grundriss, whereas 
 Brugmann merely parenthetically observes that Weise has 
 formulated it. I think a very little study of the Grundriss 
 shows that more weight is given to a view which is discussed 
 and refuted than to one which is simply credited to the autho- 
 rity on which it rests. 
 
 These remarks are not made with any view to contentious- 
 ness, for the only object of attack should be error, but they are 
 necessary for the very reason that the attack is veiled. There 
 is quite enough to criticize in Brugmann's system without 
 attacking him personally or making insinuations of unfairness: 
 1 £Ses Mr Darbishire's own paper on * The Sanskrit Liquids ' in Part ii. C.J 
 
OF COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY. 
 
 145 
 
 and I sum up my view of Bechtel's book by saying that the 
 controversial parts are mostly barren, the original matter 
 negligible, and the historico-critical parts excellent. 
 
 What then are the main points of the system which these 
 two books represent ? They are three in number. Vocalic 
 formation, sonants, and the guttural system. It must be 
 pointed out to begin with that these three are of very various 
 importance : the last is merely a question of phonology, while 
 the former two are fundamental and radical differences which 
 can hardly be separated in discussion. As is well known, the 
 accepted view places I r 7^ and n approximately on a level 
 with i and u and, as I have said, I would go a step further .... 
 [The MS. ends here, hut see 'The Indo-European Phonological 
 System' inf."] 
 
 D. P. 
 
 10 
 
147 
 
 PART II. UNPUBLISHED ESSAYS IN THE 
 THEORY OF PHILOLOGY AND IN INDO- 
 EUROPEAN PHONOLOGY 
 
 (in the order in which they were written, so far as it can 
 be ascei^tained). 
 
 1. Opening chapters of a (?) Primer of Philology. 
 
 2. Shorter fragments on kindred subjects: 
 
 a. First lecture of a popular course on Philology. 
 y8. What is Correct Speech? 
 7. The Cradle of the Aryans. 
 
 3. Principles of Analysis, especially in Semasiology. 
 
 4. The relation between Phonetics and Phonology. 
 
 5. The Indo-European Phonological System. 
 
 6. The Sanskrit Liquids (completed in July, 1893). 
 
 7. Miscellanea Etymological 
 a. 0-/X- in Greek. 
 
 fi. Gr. dXel^Q), Lat. libo. 
 7. riXaov apovp7j<;. 
 
 10—2 
 
I 
 
149 
 
 1. OPENING CHAPTERS OF A (?) PRIMER OF 
 PHILOLOGY. 
 
 I. Definitions. 
 
 II. On variation in Language and the Unit-Group 
 OF Speakers. 
 
 III. On the Origin of Language. 
 
I. DEFINITIONS. 
 
 (1) Words are spoken sounds, single or combined, 
 to which, by convention, an idea or ideas is or are 
 attached in the mind of the speaker or hearer. 
 
 "spoken sounds." Therefore " the word 'dog','' as used in 
 this book, does not mean the written letters dog but the 
 sounds produced by one who says "dog". 
 
 "single" as "a" in English\ "a,'' "a," "y" in French. Note 
 that "I" in English is not a single sound. 
 
 "by convention." It is sometimes said that certain words 
 express their own meaning by their sound so that they are 
 intelligible on first hearing. In most cases, as in "Ah!" of 
 pain, the meaning is given by the face or by the sharpness of 
 the note. It is clear then that the idea does not attach to the 
 spoken sound and so such words are excluded from our definition. 
 It also excludes spoken sounds which convey an idea of an 
 object in nature by imitating it or some mark of it, as "Meow" 
 of a cat or "Bow-wow" of a dog. Such imitations may event- 
 ually become true words, but as long as they ai-e understood of 
 themselves and not by convention they are simply gestures, 
 and as distinct from true words as prancing about on all fours 
 is from the word "horse". 
 
 "an idea." This includes not only names and actions which 
 are the most numerous and easily grasped ideas, but also all 
 
 ' [When not emphasised : it is complex in I have a hook but not the 
 simple in Not a nuni xcas there, but book. C] 
 
DEFINITIONS. 151 
 
 the mental attitudes, processes and states which in combination 
 make up what we call thought. Thus "futurity" is a mental 
 attitude and hence an idea, and the sounds "will" which express 
 it form a word. Different tongues differ in the extent to which 
 they analyse mental conditions, and hence a word like vincam, 
 "I shall conquer," expresses in itself what requires three words 
 in English. Reject the view that the English /, shall, and 
 conquer express three several parts of the one idea vincam, as 
 well as the view that the -in of vincam is in any way equivalent 
 to the English /; still more any idea that it is a word. A word 
 must be capable of being used alone. The answer to Shall 
 you conquer^ is / shall, but the answer to vincesne? could never 
 be -am. The answer to Who will conquei'? is /, but to Qms 
 vincet? is not -m. 
 
 "speaker or hearer." Thus if I am alone and say "tree," 
 that is a word although no one hears me say it: if I hear a 
 parrot, which I have taught, saying "tree," it is a word although 
 it is attached to no idea in the mind of the parrot. 
 
 (2) Language is the communication of ideas from 
 one brain to another by means of words. 
 
 "communication." The ideas must be communicated. If 
 I speak to a deaf man there is no language because there is no 
 communication of the ideas, as the sounds do not reach his 
 brain. If I speak to an idiot there is no language because 
 there is no communication of the ideas, as the ideas do not 
 reach his brain. 
 
 "brain," not necessarily a human brain. A dog's bark 
 consists of conventional articulate sounds to which both he 
 and his master attach definite ideas : it is therefore a language 
 although a very limited one. 
 
 The case of the phonograph or the parrot is the converse to 
 that of the deaf man or the idiot. Here there is communi- 
 cation to one brain, but it is not from another. It is therefore 
 not language "by means of words." Gesture-language or the 
 language of signs is therefore excluded from our use of the 
 term, and, as we have seen, imitative words belong properly 
 to gesture-language. 
 
152 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 " words " is to be taken strictly in the sense given by the 
 first definition. 
 
 The word "language" has also a concrete sense in which 
 it means an instrument of communication of ideas. In this 
 sense it often appears to mean an aggregate of words, as 
 when we say " Greek is a language," but really it means the 
 special mode in which the Greeks communicated their ideas. 
 
 In this sense " language " will be printed to distinguish it 
 from " Language " as defined above in (2). 
 
 The word "language" should not be used in the sense 
 of " speech," nor " speech " for " language." 
 
 Compare the difference between the abstract and concrete 
 sense of " Writing," as in (1) " Writing is a comparatively 
 modern invention," and (2) "The author left an unfinished 
 writing." 
 
 (3) Philology is the science of language. 
 
 * science.' Manual employment in a laboratory and pulling 
 things to pieces to see how they work is not the essential 
 meaning of this word. It simply means " knowledge," and the 
 business of philology is to know all about language, just as the 
 business of a botanist is to know all about plants. Now a 
 philologist cannot know much about language unless he pulls 
 words to pieces, and hence people often confuse philology with 
 etymology as if its sole object was to derive words. This is as 
 wise as imagining that the object of a botanist is to pull plants 
 to pieces. 
 
 "language." This word must be taken strictly in the 
 sense given by the definition. 
 
 On writing. 
 
 The word language is so regularly applied to written 
 language that the definition given above may seem highly 
 unnatural. However, language existed a very long time before 
 writing was invented and is independent of it. Writing is 
 only a means of rendering permanent and visible what would 
 otherwise pass away in sound : it therefore stands in the same 
 
DEFINITIONS. 153 
 
 relation to language that written music does to music played. 
 In fact it was at first used in the same manner. Just as few of 
 us could read off an opera from the score, but would need 
 to reproduce it on some instrument, so the early reader did 
 not read silently as we do but spoke the words aloud and then 
 listened to what he said. 
 
 Now it does not in the least matter what pictorial repre- 
 sentation of language we use, provided we are agreed exactly 
 as to what the pictures mean. Thus in English we know 
 what sounds are intended by the pictures " house " and 
 " cough," and it is futile to take them to pieces and say that 
 a part of one is " ou " and a part of the other is " ou," and 
 that yet these bits do not represent the same sound. The 
 inconvenience of this arrangement comes in when no direct 
 verbal information is obtainable. Thus if I speak here of 
 " the sound ou in English " it has no possible meaning. Or 
 if English became a dead language and had to be learned from 
 books, a student would be likely to pronounce " ou " the same 
 in every word, which would produce very curious English. 
 
 As a rule such discrepancies between the spoken sounds 
 and their written equivalents are only possible when the 
 written language has had a long existence. When writing is 
 first employed, those who use it will at least endeavour to use 
 the symbols consistently. Accordingly it is much more safe to 
 conclude for Latin that the words were pronounced as they 
 were written than it would be if we were dealing with a 
 modern language ; although we know that even in the time of 
 classical Latin discrepancy between writing and speech had 
 begun. In Greek the discrepancies which arose even down to 
 quite late times were few and unimportant: the reason is 
 partly because Greek pronunciation changed more slowly than 
 Latin, and partly because Greek spelling followed the pro- 
 nunciation more closely. 
 
 But there was a time when both Greek and Latin were 
 spoken but not written, and in tracing the history of words it 
 will frequently be necessary to follow them back into that time, 
 and even to the period when we believe the fore-runners of 
 Greeks and Romans alike spoke practically one language. 
 
154 THE UNIT-GROUP OF SPEAKERS. 
 
 Now, although the words which they used at these far-off 
 times were never in fact written, it is of course necessary for 
 us to write them if we want to put them in a book ; but it is 
 important to be clear when a word is meant which appears in 
 the written records which we possess, and when one is meant 
 which is believed to have been spoken only. Special attention 
 is therefore requested to the following use of letters ^ 
 
 1. Spaced type means that the word was spoken only. 
 
 2. Greek characters for Gk., Italics for Latin and other 
 languages, mean that the word was so written in that language. 
 
 3. If the sound represented by a certain written character 
 in a particular word is specially referred to, then that character 
 is printed in heavy type. 
 
 Thus "It. deico Lat. died" means the word which was 
 pronounced " deico " in Italic times and was written " died " in 
 Latin. (Whether " dico " accurately represents the Latin pro- 
 nunciation or not depends upon circumstances.) 
 
 So "Hel. leiqo Gk. XetTro)" means the word which was 
 pronounced "leiqo" in Hellenic times and was written "\elirw' 
 in Greek. 
 
 Again "I.Eu. ago Gk 070) Lat. ago'' means the word which 
 was pronounced " ago " in Indo-European times and was 
 written "ayw," " ago " in Greek and in Latin respectively. 
 
 And *'Lat. nivem" directs special attention to the sound 
 which was represented by v in the written word "nivem." 
 " Gk XtCirco " directs special attention to the sound which was 
 represented by et in the written word Xeiiray. 
 
 II. [ON VARIATION IN LANGUAGE AND THE 
 UNIT-GROCJP OF SPEAKERS.] 
 
 No two men are precisely similar, and the language of no 
 two men is absolutely the same. This will be clear at once 
 
 1} This suggestion seems worth re- tings and has not therefore been 
 cording, but it was not used by Mr adopted in this book. CJ 
 Darbishire in his more technical wri» 
 
THE UNIT-GROUP OF SPEAKERS. 155 
 
 from the definition, for although two men who have lived all 
 their lives under very similar conditions will have a very large 
 number of their ideas in common, it is clearly not probable that 
 each will have exactly the same number, neither more nor less ; 
 still less that each idea of the one will be exactly equivalent to 
 a correspouding idea of the other; and least of all that each will 
 apply his instrument of speech to expressing his ideas in 
 exactly the same way. Even if this were granted, it would not 
 be sufficient for all the bodily organs which are used in speaking; 
 larynx tongue lips &c. would have also to be precisely similar 
 for both. Therefore it must be affirmed — and it is most 
 important — that no two men have precisely the same lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Still, just as the fact that no two men are exactly alike does 
 not prevent our classifying them as men, so it is also in the case 
 of language. The characteristic of a language is the possession 
 of so many features common to all those who use it as can only 
 coexist with a fundamental unity of structure. This generally^ 
 but not necessarily, implies that the language possesses a large 
 number of characteristics which are peculiar to itself when we 
 compare it with other languages. 
 
 It is found however convenient to proceed from the unit 
 " language " and to make both larger and smaller divisions. 
 Thus certain languages, although now distinct, bear clear traces 
 of having descended at no very remote date from a common 
 source: such languages form a "group." Thus the Romance 
 group can all be traced back to Latin. When the parent- 
 languages of such groups can themselves be regarded as de- 
 scendants of one still more primeval ancestor, then all the 
 languages of those groups (including their intermediate an- 
 cestors) are classed as a " family." 
 
 By way of subdivision languages are treated as follows. 
 Within the limits of a single language there may be several 
 districts in each of which the individual languages of all the 
 inhabitants agree much more closely among themselves than 
 with those of their neighbours. Such a district is said to have 
 a dialect. 
 
 Again, it may be found necessary to subdivide a dialect 
 
156 THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 into sub-dialects, and there is no limit to such subdivision 
 except that of convenience. 
 
 Note that the test of distinction between a dialect and a language is 
 not that of intelligibility. The speaker of one language may be able to 
 make himself understood by that of another, as often happens on the 
 confines of two languages. Or again, the speaker of one dialect of a 
 language may not be able to make himself understood by the speaker of 
 another, as if speakers of the broadest Lancashire and the broadest 
 Devonshire were to attempt conversation. 
 
 The difference between languages and the difference between 
 dialects is thus like in kind, but different in degree. We 
 know that different languages, Spanish, French and the rest, 
 have sprung from what must have been originally merely 
 dialects of Latin. Political, social, and racial reasons all go to 
 form languages of what were dialects. 
 
 When then we have within historic times such a develope- 
 ment of languages out of a single language, it is natural to 
 conclude that similar developements may, or indeed must, have 
 occurred in the times of which we have no historic knowledge. 
 It has long been a commonplace that Greek and Latin present 
 resemblances precisely analogous to those of French and Spanish; 
 and hence the inference is drawn that these languages also are 
 developed out of the dialects of some single original. 
 
 III. [ON THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.] 
 
 If no interchange of thought were possible and every man's 
 knowledge were confined to the direct impressions conveyed 
 from nature to his mind by his own senses, and the inferences 
 he could draw from those impressions, such knowledge would be 
 limited indeed. The bulk of what we know is common property 
 which has been collected by many million sets of senses, com- 
 municated from individual to individual, and handed down from 
 generation to generation, increasing in volume by fresh ad- 
 ditions at every step. This clearly would have been impossible 
 
THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 157 
 
 without some means of exchanging thought, and that is what 
 we have seen language to be. It is therefore principally if not 
 entirely due to the perfection of this instrument that man has 
 taken his present place in the animal kingdom. It is true that 
 animals possess in a limited degree the power of transmitting 
 impressions, but these can only be of the vaguest and most 
 indefinite kind. We have seen that it is essential in language 
 for an idea to be attached by convention to the spoken sounds. 
 This at once distinguishes it from the mere power of calling up 
 the impression in another being. But how? Surely nothing 
 whatever enters our minds from outside during our whole 
 existence except through the medium of our eyes, our ears, or 
 other sense. All else must take place in the individual mind 
 alone: no direct action of one mind on another is possible. 
 How then is any convention possible ? And if the convention 
 be arrived at, how does it effect such an enormous addition to 
 the power of transmitting intelligence ? These are very difficult 
 questions and require an effort of imagination before the answer 
 can be sought. 
 
 It is impossible to suppose that man existed before language. 
 The developement of brain, which is man's special characteristic, 
 can only have taken place by means of the discovery of some 
 such means of communication. To put it in Darwinian terms, 
 that class of man-like animals, which first varied in the direction 
 of a better system of interchange of sounds, were better able to 
 combine against common foes and therefore were able to become 
 a dominant species : at the same time this very variation was 
 necessarily attended by a marked developement in intellectual 
 capacity, so that it is really true to say that language is not 
 only the cause of the extent of human knowledge, but the cause 
 of our being men at all. 
 
 We may imagine then some class of animal (it is unnecessary 
 to speculate on its form), probably living among trees where 
 gestures would be less possible, to have made use of noises in 
 their throat to inform each other of the presence of danger and 
 so forth. Language to this extent we have seen to be possessed 
 by dogs and other animals. Then in some time of great 
 pressure of foreign foes or great dearth of food, only those 
 
158 THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 which were most quick at catching and understanding the 
 signals and repeating them survived, and so the conversational 
 style of the whole race was improved. Thus A is breakfasting 
 in the jungle and sees a bear. He calls out something which 
 means * bear/ and something else which means that the bear is 
 coming towards him. Also a third sound which means that he 
 intends to bolt. B hears all this, takes it in, and A and B get 
 off in safety. But C, not having a good ear, thinks A said the 
 bear was to be attacked by all hands, so he rushes valorously 
 up and gets eaten. D has a slow mind and, although he had 
 heard those sounds before when a bear was near, he had never 
 connected the sound ' bear ' in his mind with the real bear, and 
 not having seen A bolt, he stays where he is and also falls. 
 When it came to combining against scarcity of food, the 
 advantage of the quick minds would be still greater, and all 
 those families who were ' dull in the uptake ' would infallibly 
 starve. 
 
 From a rough instance like this we can see the beginning of 
 a convention. A was quick enough to make a certain sound 
 for bear, and a certain other sound for wolf B was quick 
 enough to notice that A made the distinction and to do the 
 same himself. Then A and B had established a convention, and 
 each knew which animal the other meant and was able to act 
 accordingly. By degrees all A's and B's kindred would pick up 
 the convention, they would have the advantage over the other 
 families and live them down. In each generation there would 
 follow one or two original spirits who would hit upon fresh 
 "conventions," and thus little by little a vocabulary would be 
 formed. It was a long and great subject of controversy whether 
 the origin of language was imitation of natural sounds or not; 
 and the " Bow-wow " theory, as it is called, has had both adhe- 
 rents and opponents; but from this point of view the whole dispute 
 disappears. The first sounds may have been imitative or they 
 may not, or they may have been so in some cases and not in 
 others. Our friend A may have intended to signify a wolf by 
 imitating a wolfs cry, but it was only as soon as the sound is 
 entirely separated from any such association that we have a 
 true word. Or to put it differently. As long as A and B both 
 
THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 159 
 
 signal to each other by imitating the cry of the wolf, so long 
 there is no convention and no language. As soon as B tries to 
 call to A, not what he has heard from the wolf, but what he has 
 heard A utter on previous occasions when a wolf was near, 
 then B is beginning to speak. 
 
 Now comes the second question : how does the existence of 
 a convention facilitate intellectual progress ? ^The MS. ends 
 here."] 
 
2. SHORTER FRAGMENTS ON KINDRED SUBJECTS. 
 
 a. First lecture of a popular course on Philology. 
 
 y3. What is Correct Speech ? 
 
 7. The Cradle of the Aryans. 
 
 D. p. 11 
 
a. WHAT IS PHILOLOGY^ 
 
 {The first lecture^ of a projected course on Philology to a 
 popular audience.) 
 
 Language is the most complex product of human thought. 
 It is one mode, and that the most common, in which thought is 
 expressed. In this it is in the same class as sculpture, music 
 and painting, to which it is also akin in being probably 
 imitative in origin. But it is most nearly akin to music as 
 being composed of sound, and therefore transient, unless 
 artificially preserved, as by written signs. This ilhistration is 
 important because we are prone to regard literature as langvxigey 
 whereas in truth this is no more the case than if we were to 
 consider a volume of printed music equal to a concert. 
 
 Now language may be defined as the communication of 
 ideas by means of speech. Speech therefore differs from 
 language, and it does so in this way. Speech means the 
 physical action which is accompanied by sound and is charac- 
 teristic of all mankind except mutes, and further means that 
 action wholly irrespective of conveying an idea. Thus if a 
 Chinaman were to address us in his native tongue, we should 
 certainly know that he was speaking, but so far from recognizing 
 it as language, we should probably say he was talking 'jargon' 
 or 'gibberish' — unless prevented by having attained superior 
 enlightenment. Conversely, when a parrot says " Polly, put 
 
 ^ [This lecture contains in another form the substance of the ' Definitions,* 
 p. 150 sup. C] 
 
FIRST LECTURE OF A POPULAR COURSE ON PHILOLOGY. 1 63 
 
 the kettle on," sounds strike our ear by which we are ac- 
 customed to receive an idea. If she believed them to come 
 from a human being, Polly might answer " Yes, directly," but if 
 she was aware that they came from a bird, they would cease to 
 be language, because they could not convey an idea which did 
 not exist. Here again we have speech without language. 
 
 Now I should like you to think out what happens in the 
 case of the phonograph for yourselves. 
 
 Language then is speech used for the communication of 
 ideas. It therefore implies the existence of at least two human 
 beings (for the use of language by a single individual for the 
 purpose of more clearly following his thoughts, belongs to 
 psychology), and so is dependent upon the organ of speech, the 
 organ of hearing, and the organ of thought. If any one of 
 these is absent no language is possible. 
 
 The science which deals with the organ of speech is vocal 
 physiology: with the organ of hearing, aural physiology: with 
 the organ of thought, psychology. Phonetics treats of the 
 production of speech sounds by the organ of speech, and their 
 transmission to the brain by the organ of hearing. It must 
 therefore rest upon vocal and aural physiology, and on acoustics 
 or the science of sound. We are now in a position to see what 
 philology is : it is the science of language, and therefore rests 
 on, but is distinct from, all the sciences just enumerated, 
 exactly as language rests on, but is distinct from, speech, voice, 
 hearing, &c. 
 
 Remembering that " brain " has two aspects — mental and 
 physical — we may illustrate the above as follows. (See page 
 164.) 
 
 The objects of Philology. 
 
 The object of every science is to discover laws, and ac- 
 cordingly the object of philology is to discover the laws which 
 regulate the transmission of thought by means of language. 
 Accordingly, just as botanists take various flowers to pieces 
 with a view to discovering the laws which govern the growth 
 
 11—2 
 
164 
 
 FIRST LECTURE OF A 
 
 Philology 
 
 studies the transmission of Thought by means of Language. 
 
 Gesture and Facial Expression, including inarticulate cries (the sub- 
 ject-matter of Physiology) 
 „ .„ , I Speech— Phonetics and Vocal Physiology \ (the subject- 
 [ Song — Music ,, „ y matter of 
 
 Instrumental Sound — Music \ Acoustics) 
 
 I Architecture 
 Creative Arts \ Sculpture 
 I Painting 
 
 Recording Arts < Writing j 
 
 I Musical Notation 
 
 Psychology 
 
 studies the organ of Thought 
 
 of flowers, so in philology we dissect individual languages with 
 a view to finding the laws which govern the growth of language. 
 Now the method of dissecting individual languages is as 
 follows: we take particular words and trace their history as 
 far back as possible, noting all changes which they undergo 
 both in form i.e. sound, and meaning i.e. thought. Then we seek 
 to generalize these changes from a number of examples, and so 
 construct a phonological or a semasiological law. But words 
 are not the only factor in language: inflexions are equally 
 important, and constructions peihaps even more so. These 
 then are similarly treated. Such analysis however in most 
 languages only takes us back a comparatively short way, and 
 in no case are the results comparable with those to be obtained 
 by comparison and inference. Even by comparing only two 
 cognate languages, such as Greek and Latin, we can learn much 
 about their history at a time far before any records existed, 
 and by adding other cognate languages still larger and more 
 
 * [i.e. Metrical Composition which 
 takes a definite artistic form, 
 
 which can be remembered, but is 
 not necessarily written. C.J 
 
POPULAR COURSE ON PHILOLOGY. 165 
 
 certain results are to be obtained. Every new ''derivation" 
 means some new comparison and some new light accordingly- 
 thrown into the past, but new derivations are only the means 
 by which philology traces the development of languages and are 
 not objects in themselves. 
 
 The Prwince of Philology. 
 
 Language is constantly changing. This is not to be 
 wondered at when we remember its complex structure. Every 
 one learns language through the medium of his ears (we will 
 turn to writing presently). Now let us imagine a child learning 
 to communicate thoughts by language. In the first place the 
 people whom he hears talking possibly do not form preciseli/ 
 the -sounds they have in their minds: in the second place the 
 child may not hear exactly the sounds produced : in the third 
 place he may not gather from them exactly the idea they were 
 intended to give : and in the fourth place when he attempts to 
 reproduce them he may fail to produce the sounds he intends. 
 Now any of these aberrations which are serious enough to 
 attract attention will infallibly be corrected in the course of 
 time, but very slight ones will escape notice and be handed on 
 to the next generation which would probably increase them, so 
 that in a few generations the language may have become 
 something that would have been unintelligible to the parents 
 of the child we began with. When we take a language which 
 is learnt partly by eye, as when writing is much used, the 
 causes of change are increased, and the question therefore 
 becomes more complicated ; but these changes are themselves 
 the very province of philology. It is therefore advisable to 
 begin with the simpler problem and study the question of 
 changes of spoken language first. 
 
 Philology applied to Latin and Greek. 
 
 It may at first sight seem absurd to say that the best 
 means of eliminating changes due to writing is to begin with 
 dead languages, but the fact is so, although all our records of 
 
166 FIRST LECTURE OF A POPULAR COURSE ON PHILOLOGY. 
 
 dead languages must obviously be written. The reason is that 
 in early Greek and Latin we have language as it were photo- 
 graphed at the stage when it was first written down, for at 
 first writing was merely a picture of spoken language, and so 
 none of the changes due to learning by eye could possibly have 
 come in. In other words we know that what a Greek wrote 
 down represented exactly what he said as nearly as he could 
 manage it : how far is this from being the case with English ! 
 Moreover the effect of writing is even greater on sentence- 
 construction. It is one thing to have a complicated period 
 unfinished on the paper before you, or even to have a mental 
 picture of how it would look when written ; and quite another 
 to have to hold all of it in your head when you don't know how 
 to write. For this reason the first written records of any 
 language are valuable as showing the language in a simplicity 
 which it soon ceases to retain. Accordingly the most certain 
 and interesting results of philology have been attained in 
 Latin and Greek, and they are rendered still more valuable by 
 being highly developed inflexional languages, and so greatly in 
 contrast to our own. 
 
^. WHAT IS CORRECT SPEECH? 
 
 In recent issues of a foreign scientific publication ^ the 
 question has been discussed : What constitutes correct speech? 
 As most people are ready at a moment's notice to condemn 
 this or that expression as ' wrong ' or even as ' not-English,' it 
 may interest them to learn that the learned doctors have found 
 it by no means easy to answer the above question, and even 
 show the proverbial disagreement in their several views. 
 
 Of these, four are the most important : 1. The historic, 
 that it is only correct to talk as our ancestors did : this may be 
 called the Tory view. 2. The democratic or Radical, whatever 
 most people say is right. 3. The authoritarian view, that 
 nothing is correct unless sanctioned by a great writer. 4?. The 
 Darwinian, that whatever approves itself by fitness is correct. 
 To these our writers now add a fifth, which may be called the 
 utilitarian view : that whatever serves best to convey the 
 speaker's or writer's meaning is correct, and that only. 
 
 Now objections at once suggest themselves to each of the 
 above canons of correctness. The "Tory" view is, as usual, 
 utterly illogical, for it involves fixing on some arbitrary epoch 
 up to which the course of change was permissible, nay ad- 
 vantageous, but after which all further change is interdicted. 
 So the " Radical " view labours under its usual fallacy of sub- 
 stituting what is popular for what is right. Yet probably this 
 view, which is at least as old as Horace and gains currency 
 from his well known line, is the most widely held. If it be 
 
 ' [Noreen, Idg. Forsch. i. p. 95. C.J 
 
168 WHAT IS CORRECT SPEECH ? 
 
 accepted, language becomes a mere fashion. Besides, there is 
 the difficulty that it is almost impossible to tell what the 
 majority is. It is also irrational that a new form, which must 
 necessarily begin with a minority, should be condemned until 
 its supporters just outnumber its opponents, whereupon it 
 suddenly becomes "correct." Moreover, if the principle of 
 Local Government be applied, it is correct and only correct to 
 say "lydy" in London, while in Devonshire we must say 
 " laady," and in Scotland " leddy." Then again, highly useful 
 and thoroughly English words which survive in out-of-the-way 
 places — as " limber " in Ulster (compare Shakespeare Winte7''s 
 Tale I. 2. 47) — are to be condemned because no longer used by 
 the majority. The authoritarian view, like the Tory, has no 
 room for developement, and has no definition of * a great writer.' 
 Now to our mind the test of a great writer is not only that he 
 uses language correctly, but that he expands it, so that to say 
 correctness is the usage of great writers is equivalent to saying 
 a writer may innovate provided he is justified by success. This 
 view therefore, like the fourth or Darwinian, inasmuch as it 
 leaves the test to the result of time, wholly fails as a criterion 
 for present judgment upon speech as correct or incorrect. 
 
 As for the view that language is correct in proportion as it 
 is intelligible, two pertinent objections are raised in the very 
 paper referred to. In the first place it involves a continual 
 change of standpoint — it is correct to speak thus to a carpenter, 
 thus to a Cabinet Minister — and in the second it would award 
 the palm to the style of pleading which, to those who are 
 educated up to it, far exceeds ordinary language in precision. 
 Moreover, why should it be less correct for me to speak as is 
 intelligible to myself, than as is intelligible to John Smith my 
 hearer ? The rule rests on a false inference from the curious 
 fact that in speaking, as in the other functions of life, we act 
 less as we would than as we imagine is expected of us. Thus 
 most of us modify our language and sometimes our pronunciation 
 to suit our hearers. A curious mental inference sometimes 
 drawn is that what the hearer would say must be most in- 
 telligible to him. Hence quite sensible adults talk of a 
 " pitty ickle pitchy-book " to children, and sometimes even 
 
WHAT IS CORRECT SPEECH ? 169 
 
 attempt to aid a foreigner's understanding by talking bad 
 grammar and bad English. 
 
 But are we to resign all hope of a canon because scientists 
 have failed to discover one, or rather have discovered too many? 
 By no means; in this case again lookers-on see the most of the 
 game, and it will occur to any one that the views above given 
 quite fail to draw the most important distinction that exists in 
 language — between spoken and written. The tests of correct- 
 ness in these two are totally and entirely different. No one 
 would think of talking as he would write, and no writer with 
 any claims to merit writes as he talks. Walt Whitman indeed 
 and Dr Furnivall have tried it, but with what results ! Spoken 
 language is a natural product and its laws are the laws of 
 evolution.^ All changes in it are the result of law either phonetic 
 or psychical, and unconscious in either case. Phonetic change is 
 well known, but the other kind is equally important and ma}^ be 
 exemplified by an innovation which is now establishing itself to 
 the dismay of all purists : we mean the misplacement of the 
 adverb in "to regularly attend." Except to students of their 
 language this change is so firmly rooted that the writer spent 
 some time in vain trying to explain to an able professional 
 man — himself a writer — that there was anything remarkable in 
 it. The p'^ychical law which explains it is that the historic 
 mental connexion, which has been retained ever since the " to " 
 was really inseparable from the infinitive, has lately been 
 superseded by a stronger mental connexion between such phrases 
 as " ought-to " " mean-to " " want-to " and numerous others. 
 Hence we say " I don't regularly attend but I ought-to," and so 
 " I know I ought-to regularly attend." 
 
 Here then absolutely no canon of correctness is possible : 
 the whole subject lies in the sphere of evolution, and just as no 
 one can tell what forms of life are destined to survive, so with 
 forms of language. 
 
 But written language belongs to the domain of art. [The 
 MS. ends here^ 
 
 [^ Cf. " Phonetics and Philology " C, page o.J 
 
y. THE CRADLE OF THE ARYANS. 
 
 This enterprising race now fills so much of the world's 
 history that it is only natural if wonderment guesses where was 
 its home. Starting from the streets of Calcutta and sweeping 
 to the streets of San Francisco by way of Piccadilly gives a 
 wide area for choice, but no one has yet been bold enough to 
 select any place west of the Rhine or east of the Caspian for 
 the honourable position. Formerly it never was doubted that 
 the slopes of the Urals were the pastures of the infant race, and 
 that successive migrations betook themselves thence to Iran 
 and Hindostan, to Greece, to Italy, to Britain, to Central Europe, 
 and to the shores of the Baltic Sea. But an antagonistic 
 champion has arisen against each of these dogmas, one which 
 admits the migrations, but traces them to a European site, 
 the other denying any common home and asserting that the 
 parents of each group of languages were themselves quite 
 distinct, but merely dwelt in proximity, like beads on a string, 
 round the central table land of Europe. Then one fine day the 
 string broke and the beads got scattered, one rolling as far as 
 India, the others being satisfied with shorter excursions. 
 
 The last hypothesis was strongly supported by Dr Taylor in 
 his Origin of the Aryans. The chief argument for it is drawn 
 from anthropology, as the measurements of the skulls found in 
 Europe prove that it has been inhabited by the same race 
 since the ice age. It also fits the facts of language tolerably 
 well, for it is undoubtedly true that if Lithuanian, Sanskrit, 
 Greek, Latin, Celtic and Teutonic are arranged in a circle, each 
 language is more like its two neighbours than any other of the 
 
THE CRADLE OF THE ARYANS. I7l 
 
 set. Unfortunately the symmetry is broken by Armenian, 
 which does not stand midway between Greek and Sanskrit in 
 character although it does in position. 
 
 A clever essay ^ on this subject has just appeared in a 
 foreign periodical, and the writer gives his voice entirely for the 
 single home and places it on the shores of the Baltic. Against 
 the craniologists he has the telling argument that, whereas 
 their limit of time is the ice age, the dispersion limit may only 
 go back two or three thousand years before Christ. His own 
 positive conclusions are entirely drawn from the evidence of 
 language. He shows that the names for the birch, the willow, 
 the pine, the oak, the fir and the beech are common to all the 
 European languages, and many of them have traces in Skt., 
 although in their long wanderings over treeless plains to settle 
 in a tropical climate they had lost the identity of use. The 
 word * horse ' is unknown ; farming terms exist, but only the 
 simplest ; and, most important of all, he shows good cause for 
 believing that a common term existed for * sea.' All these 
 facts square with the theory that the 'home' was in the forests 
 on the shores of the Baltic, and with no other. The only hope 
 for anthropologists is to refuse to believe a man who connects 
 tar with tree and mare 'sea' with brackish. [The fragment 
 ends here."] 
 
 1 Hirt in Indog. Forschungen, i. pp. 464 — 485. 
 
» 
 
 3. PRINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS, ESPECIALLY IN 
 SEMASIOLOGY. 
 
^The following note is prefixed to this untitled but most 
 suggestive fragment ; 
 
 "The letter h in Latin, the sounds it represents, and, 
 consequently, the whole subject of the representation of the 
 mediae aspiratae in Latin, have engaged my attention for a 
 considerable period, during which I have found the ground to 
 be preliminarily cleared constantly increasing. The following 
 somewhat disconnected studies deal with some of the questions 
 which present themselves for solution." 
 
 The second of these ^studies' luas to have been, I believe, 
 * The physiology of the Aspirate! of which only the title and a 
 few preliminary notes are left. 0.] 
 
 [PRINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS, ESPECIALLY IN 
 SEMASIOLOGY.] 
 
 The process of tracing back a word to a more primitive 
 state through the sound -changes it has undergone is commonly 
 called by students of language " phonetic analysis." This term 
 is not correctly so used but is more convenient than "phono- 
 logical analysis." I shall use 'analysis' alone in this sense 
 unless ambiguity would result. 
 
 The methods of analysis have in the past few years been 
 
PRINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS, ESPECIALLY IN SEMASIOLOGY. 175 
 
 brought to a high degree of perfection, and although much 
 remains to be done in the way of application, it may probably 
 be said that the limits of their scope have been reached. 
 After all, the number of spoken sounds to be given with 
 certainty to the parent language is limited : not many " roots " 
 contain more than three sounds : and hence we find that the 
 forms, which we are compelled to postulate as primary for 
 widely differing ideas, assume, as we go back, a more and more 
 dangerous similarity of form. 
 
 Moreover, the potency of the modern methods is very tempt- 
 ing to the mere dabbler — a criminal from whom philology has 
 suffered more than any other science. When he is given tools 
 with which he can resolve almost any word into one of a few 
 simple elementary forms, o-Trapdrret warirep aKvXd/ciov, and his 
 imagination runs riot with the result. 
 
 But consider the state of the case. When the vowel of a 
 root may assume six different forms if not more, when the 
 distinction between velar and palatal gutturals is no longer 
 absolute (Note AO, when mediae and mediae aspiratae may 
 alternate in a root, it is hardly to be wondered at if surprising 
 results are to be achieved by the aid of any two dictionaries. 
 
 The analytical methods claimed and received credit for their 
 rigidity : by elaboration this rigidity has been practically 
 nullified, and we now look for some external standard by 
 which they may be controlled. 
 
 There are two departments of the science which may thus 
 be employed: they are morphology and semasiology. 
 
 The scientific student already recognizes the importance of 
 the former of these, but it cannot be too absolutely laid down 
 that for scientific purposes the rules of morphology are as 
 rigid as those of phonology. Hence we get our first limiting 
 canon : If the proposed identification, although phonologically 
 accurate, conflicts in the slightest degree with the use in 
 similar formations — whether it be in the form of the root, the 
 formative suffix, or the mode iu which they are combined — it 
 cannot be accepted. 
 
 1 [Not written. C] 
 
176 PKINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 The other department which may be looked to for this 
 purpose is even more important, but is unfortunately still on a 
 very insecure footing. It stands on the border line between 
 philology and psychology, and will scarcely give satisfactory 
 results until investigated from both sides. My object here 
 is simply to point out that its processes (if we admit the 
 existence of science) are as certain, and its rules as rigid, as 
 those of morphology and phonology. As matters stand at 
 present a few moderate and cautious minds have the sense to 
 reject derivations which involve too difficult a change of 
 meaning, but it must be admitted that the imagination of most 
 etymologists is too strong to be daunted by any difficulty. 
 
 One especially unfortunate consequence follows herefrom : 
 unworthy suspicion is thrown upon identifications which, though 
 at first sight startling, are really possible, and we are thus 
 carried back to phonology fas being the only available test]; 
 which affords another proof, if proof were wanting, how imprac- 
 ticable it is to study independently any branch of the subject. 
 
 This result must be emphasized at the cost of repetition. 
 In phonology there are certain rules which a given derivation 
 must follow in order to be admissible. In morphology there 
 are also certain rules with the same effect. Semasiology must 
 give us a third set of rules, which equally should be followed by 
 any true derivation. A derivation may pass any two of these 
 tests and yet be denied if it fail to pass the third. But as the 
 rules of each are formed from the admissible deriva- 
 tions, we see how important it is that the limitations imposed 
 by the third branch should be as clearly defined as those of the 
 other two. 
 
 Something has already been done to make the formation 
 of such a code of rules possible, notably by Paul in the fourth 
 chapter of his Principien der Sprachgeschichte, and without 
 attempting to exhaust so vast a subject I will mention a few 
 principles which seem to me true, and not sufficiently appreci- 
 ated by etymologists. I shall classify them under three heads : 
 1st General principles. 2nd Principles having their origin in 
 physical causes. 3rd Principles having their origin in mental 
 causes. For convenience I shall refer to these as General, 
 
ESPECIALLY IN SEMASIOLOGY. 177 
 
 Physical, and Mental^, but it must be remembered that from 
 the nature of the subject they all — and not the last alone — are 
 psychical in their application. 
 
 I. The first general consideration to which attention must 
 be called is the similarity (and the difference) between the 
 mental phenomena to be observed among the children of a 
 civilized people and those probably to be assumed for their 
 primitive ancestors. For example on p. 76 f Paul remarks how 
 the 'common^' meaning which a child attaches to a 'singular' 
 use of a term is frequently either too wide or too narrow. The 
 same holds, with a difference, for a primitive people. In the 
 case of the child and of the primitive man alike the singular 
 use precedes the common and in fact the existence of the latter 
 postulates a fairly high stage of mental development. The 
 stage at which the singular use alone exists may be illustrated 
 by those languages which have a word for each kind of tree but 
 no word for 'tree' — a word for the several tails of different 
 animals but no word for ' tail.' This example is not however 
 to be pressed. What I wish to emphasize is that originally the 
 word ' tail ' always meant some particular tail under observation, 
 and only by degrees came to form a general notion. 
 
 A peculiarity of the Indo-European language as compared 
 with those just mentioned will be that of forming general 
 notions of very wide denotation with subsequent specialisation 
 by various means. This again implies that in their case 
 perception of similarity was more acute than that of difference 
 (which may perhaps explain the preference shown by all their 
 philosophers (except George Meredith) for the Identical). 
 
 The primitive speaker then resembles the child in that he 
 uses his terms rather in a singular than in a common way. 
 He differs from the child in the way pointed out by Paul, viz. 
 that the child has his primitive conception of a 'common' 
 
 1 [The following definition, on a mind some similar object.' 
 
 loose sheet, seems to relate to this 2 I use the logical names 'common' 
 
 class. C.J and 'singular' to express what Paul 
 
 'Psychical: the derivation im- calls 'usuell' and 'occasionell.' 
 plies that the article suggested to the 
 
 D. P. 12 
 
178 PRINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS, 
 
 meaning modified and corrected as he hears more and more 
 cases of its application 
 
 [I have here collected from various memoranda a few 'principles' 
 which appear to have been jotted down quite roughly at different 
 times. C.2 
 
 1. Dissimilar meanings which are easily referable to the 
 same personal affection can be identified. 
 
 Thus 0. C. SI. lovii 'chase' = 0. Ir. log 'pretium': acquisi- 
 tion being the root of both. 
 
 2. The number of intermediate steps inserted must be 
 carefully tested by ' length of time.' It is more probable that 
 two widely different meanings each needing numerous steps to 
 trace back to a common root will be found e.g. in Celtic and 
 in Skt. than say in Attic and Argive. 
 
 3. Meanings must not be traced through particulars but 
 through universals. 
 
 4. The primitive meaning is both more particular and 
 more universal, i.e. cognitions are less clear. A simple par- 
 ticular impression is denoted by a root (hence particular) and 
 to it are referred the most remotely similar impressions (hence 
 general). (Paul, p. 76.) 
 
 5. The same language will be generally consistent in its 
 mode of developing meanings and inconsistent chains must not 
 be readily received. It follows that illustrations of similar 
 transition of meaning in another language even though allied 
 are not admissible in proof unless (a) the transition is itself 
 probable; (6) enough language can be adduced to show that the 
 transition was a general one. 
 
 Such transitions are : 
 
 Space : Time, 
 Bright and dull] J Shrill and deep or High 
 in colour, J * ( and low in sound. 
 Cf. the phrase ' chromatic scale.' 
 
 6. Where a word in any language bears several senses 
 these are to be traced back to a single primitive sense by a 
 
ESPECIALLY IN SEMASIOLOGY. 179 
 
 chain not only plausible in itself but plausible considered with 
 respect to the general character of the language in question. 
 Where no such plausible sequence can be suggested, the most 
 common explanation will be that two roots of originally different 
 meaning's have come to assume the same form. 
 
 From the lexicographer's point of view the following corollary- 
 may be added: The test whether such a form is to be catalogued 
 as one word or as two depends on the question whether the 
 fusion was so complete that it was felt as one word, or whether 
 the one sense only could be present to the speaker's conscious- 
 ness at the moment. For example our word hill " a tool " and 
 hill " an account " are two, but hang active and ha7ig neuter are 
 now one, the proof being that hung is as regularly the preterite 
 of the active as of the neuter \ 
 
 1 Of course a dictionary is partly English contains only one verb, and 
 historical and therefore would separate that can be used actively or passively, 
 these uses: but the present spoken 
 
 12—2 
 
4. THE RELATION BETWEEN PHONETICS AND 
 PHILOLOGY 
 
 including a discussion of the alleged distinction between * i and 
 spirant y,' ' y, and spirant w.' 
 
PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 
 
 I do not intend to apologise for using the term philology in 
 the sense of the study of language which it has long borne in 
 English. Objections have been taken to it, mainly because it 
 does not correspond to the German use of "Philologie" but no 
 satisfactory equivalent has been suggested. Jevons indeed 
 declared that the true analogous term was "logology," but it is 
 not to be wondered at that this has found no favour. The 
 German term "Sprachwissenschaft," at all events in its English 
 dress of "Science of Language," is bad because it seems to 
 sanction the narrow view which limits its domain to etymolo- 
 gising. As the true philosopher embraces all wisdom, so the 
 true philologer embraces all language and in its every aspect, 
 and the student of to-day who seeks by comparison and in- 
 ference to penetrate into the mysterious realms of Indo- 
 European, fights, however humbly, in the same camp as the 
 Bentleys, Porsons, Scaligers, and Lachmanns of the past. 
 
 Now w^ith the exception of changes wrought on the surface 
 of the earth, and of actual relics, our whole knowledge of the 
 past doings of mankind is embraced in written language. It 
 therefore follows that philology, at some point or other, touches 
 every science the subject of which is man. This extensive 
 field is all so closely interdependent that it is impossible to 
 treat any portion of it as absolutely distinct, but the broadest 
 line of division is that which opposes language as an expression 
 of thought, to language as the instrument of that expression ; 
 the former being more closely related to the mental, the latter 
 to the physical sciences. 
 
PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 188 
 
 Written language as an instrument of expression has a 
 twofold origin. In the first place it may be developed from 
 attempts to represent graphically a mental cognition as in 
 picture-writing. In the second place it may be developed from 
 similar attempts to express not mental cognitions but their 
 spoken equivalents, as in cuneiform writing. All writing is 
 therefore either graphic or conventional. 
 
 Graphic writing always tends to become conventional as the 
 sign ceases to represent the concept and comes to stand for the 
 concept's spoken equivalent, and thence for the sound-group 
 apart from any meaning. 
 
 The writing of the Indo-European language is all purely 
 conventional. 
 
 There is however a third important use of written language 
 which must not be forgotten. At our present state of develop- 
 ment written language has come to be very nearly, if not quite, 
 a direct picture of what passes through the brain \ Originally 
 this was far from being the case: it rather resembled the 
 description of a picture, the picture itself being of course spoken 
 language. So much was this true that for a very long time 
 written symbols did not convey any idea to the brain through 
 the eye alone : but had always first to be translated into their 
 voice-equivalents^ 
 
 Accordingly we have to deal with this singularly com- 
 plicated state of things. Man developed speech, and speech 
 grew along its own lines and under its own conditions for an 
 indefinite period. Having reached a certain pitch of develop- 
 ment writing was invented and at first faithfully reflected the 
 spoken state. But the conditions of development of written 
 language are very different from those of speech and accordingly 
 written and spoken language soon began to diverge. But to 
 counteract this tendency there always existed the close practical 
 
 1 [Cf. p. 152 sup.] words: a modern young lady would 
 
 2 This is not only proved etymo- have read them at a glance and not 
 logically, as by the equivalence of X^yco fallen into the trap. Of course this 
 and lego, reden and read, but illustrated goes to prove the antiquity of the 
 by such fables as that of Acontius and legend and not a similar state of things 
 Cydippe. The binding force of Cy- in classical times. 
 
 dippe's vow lay in her pronouncing the 
 
184 PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 
 
 tie between them to obliterate such divergence, and accordingly 
 it is hardly too much to say that each underwent all the 
 developments of the other. Under these circumstances progress 
 was exceedingly rapid and the process of tracing it becomes 
 correspondingly difficult. 
 
 As an illustration it may be mentioned that there are at 
 least four kinds of language in common use to-day. 1. Spoken 
 {a) natural language, which is used in daily life, (b) language of 
 print, as of an orator making a speech which, is to all intents 
 read off a book. 2. Written (a) as in the " conversations " of a 
 novel, (b) as in serious works. And each of these more or less 
 influences all the others: thus the language of an evening news- 
 paper is a compromise between 2a and b. 
 
 This then is one of the problems of philology : — to trace the 
 developments of language both written and spoken, and the 
 influence of each in modifying the other. But a simpler 
 problem first presents itself: — to examine how far language 
 was able to proceed independently of writing. This question 
 escapes the complication of the interaction of written and 
 spoken language, but presents of course the difficulty that we 
 depend for our knowledge of language at that time on subse- 
 quent written records. But as has been said, written language 
 in its early stages did not appreciably differ from spoken 
 (except in so far as it was a defective representation of the 
 spoken), and therefore the earliest written records of any 
 language afford us a good field for investigating the stage of 
 development which spoken language reached. 
 
 The development of spoken language is the outcome of two 
 antagonistic principles — phonetic change and analogy. The 
 former of these is purely physical, the latter purely mental. The 
 tendency of the former is to break down form-groups, which are 
 an important factor in language, the tendency of the latter is 
 to construct them. It is often said that phonetic laws are 
 invariable, and they are contrasted with the erratic workings 
 of analogy, but the contrast is unsound. Every individual has 
 his own particular phonetic-system which may vary from time 
 to time or even from day to day, but his individual peculiarities 
 do not affect language. For this result to happen it is 
 
PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 185 
 
 necessary (1) that the phonetic change should affect the speech 
 of all or at least a very large number of the speakers and (2) that 
 it should not prevent^ intelligibility. It follows that the enun- 
 ciation of a phonetic law always tells us what has happened, 
 and therefore it is not a complete statement if it admits of 
 exceptions. For example it will be a phonetic law of Southern 
 English that in the latter half of the 19th century ei passed 
 into ai and hence that the word "day" was pronounced [as 
 educated people at the beginning of that period pronounced the 
 word] "die." But if by reason of some peculiarity in my ear 
 or vocal organs I pronounce "day" as "dee" and manage to 
 make myself understood, there is nothing to prevent me — my 
 peculiarity will not prevent the rule from being general. 
 
 So of analogy. The rules are invariable in exactly the 
 same way. It is true that different minds will form different 
 groups but those which modify language are those which from 
 appropriateness or convenience were formed by a large number 
 of speakers and actually established themselves. Thus I have 
 known speakers confuse the verbs 'ride' and 'row' from the 
 identity of their past tenses. Of course they were at once 
 conscious of the 'mistake' and such an analogy could not exert 
 any lasting or widespread influence. Another example is the 
 formation of a verb "to misle" from the past participle "misled," 
 which is still more curious for three reasons: it is fairly common 
 (I have myself heard two cases and have had two more well 
 attested) : the speakers were all unconscious of any error : and 
 it was an analogy entirely of the eye, so that the very agency 
 which in the case of rode and rowed tends to prevent confusion, 
 tended in this case to create it. 
 
 ^ [The MS. has ' should not conflict to insist on the broader meaning of 
 
 with,' which I think means 'seriously the words he used in a draught not 
 
 conflict with,' 'prevent.' It would finally revised. ] 
 certainly not be fair to Mr Darbishire 
 
186 PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 
 
 Phonetics is the science of vocal sounds and therefore is 
 linked on the one side to acoustics, on the other to physiology. 
 When it appears, as has been shown above, that the first study 
 of philology is the development of spoken language, and that 
 one factor in that development is phonetic change, it is obvious 
 how essential it is that the aid of phonetics should be called in 
 to prove or disprove every assumed law, and it is now held as 
 an axiom that the study of philology is based on phonetics. I 
 do not think however that it is altogether unnecessary to urge 
 a few limitations which should be borne in mind, noting that 
 by philology I mean for the present Indo-European philology : 
 that group of languages being the only one which has as yet 
 been studied on true philological lines. 
 
 1. The province of phonetics is much wider than that of 
 philology. 
 
 This is at once obvious when we remember that phonetics 
 includes all possible human voice sounds — philology only those 
 which can be proved to have existed in the given languages. 
 In fact the statement that the science of phonetics studies the 
 possible, philology the actual seems too plain to be worth 
 making. There is however another sense in which the philo- 
 logical field is narrower than the phonetic which is not obvious 
 at first sight. In phonetics as in philology the actual is only 
 limited by the possible, but in phonetics this 'possible' means 
 'possible for the human organs under any conditions to produce,' 
 in philology it means 'possible for the human organs and at the 
 same time probable with reference to known facts.' While for 
 example it is possible that every distinction known to phonetists 
 existed in Indo-European, it is practically certain that most of 
 them did not, because speech was much less developed then 
 than now, and no one language even at present possesses more 
 than a certain proportion of those distinctions. 
 
 The study of the spoken sounds of any language (as distinct 
 from other languages) is called phonology, which also embraces 
 the study of the changes in those sounds during the history of 
 the language. The system of spoken sounds possessed by any 
 language is called its phonological system or more briefly its 
 phonology. 
 
I 
 
 PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 187 
 
 Thus the field of phonetics embraces the phonological 
 systems of English, French, German, &c., of Arabic, of Chinese, 
 and of every other spoken language utterly regardless of classi- 
 fication. Philology studies the phonology of English and of 
 each of the other Teutonic languages and from them deduces 
 a Teutonic phonology on which they all rest. It studies 
 Romance phonology and the remains of Latin literature and 
 builds up an ' Italic ' phonology. So with Celtic and each of 
 the other branches of the Indo-European family, and finally, by 
 comparison and reference from these various phonologies, it 
 constructs one common Indo-European phonology to serve as a 
 basis for all of them. 
 
 In doing this it must involve the aid of phonetics at every 
 step, for it is continually postulating phonetic changes and it 
 belongs to the phonetist to decide whether such and such a 
 change is or is not likely to have taken place. Or it finds 
 unexplained variations in the changes which certain sounds 
 apparently identical undergo, and may accordingly suppose 
 that these sounds were not really identical ; phonetics again 
 from observed facts must [help to] decide. 
 
 2. The phonetics appealed to should be constructed from 
 the outside and not from the inside. 
 
 A phonetic system constructed on the basis of I.-E. phono- 
 logy and expressly designed to explain its changes is very likely 
 to mislead, as it will tend to make certain distinctions from the 
 knowledge that those distinctions require to be made. This 
 defect must b^ observed in Prof. Sievers' treatise. Thus in 
 order to render easy the now proved fact that n became a in 
 Greek and a pure vowel in certain other languages he asserts 
 that n is as much a vowel as a, which is not true. Again he 
 establishes a consonantal form for certain vowels, viz. i and u^ 
 but knowing that consonantal i {i) assumes two different forms 
 when used initially in certain languages he goes on to say 
 that this i must be sharply distinguished from the spirant j. 
 And when a philologer then proceeds to explain the different 
 representation of this sound by the phonetic distinction between 
 i and J we get a very pretty circular argument. Sievers himself 
 claims that purely phonetic systems are of little use to philology 
 
188 PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 
 
 because they are constructed in ignorance of the problems 
 presented. But for this very reason their testimony is un- 
 impeachable, and it should be an absolute rule not to 
 recognise any distinction for philological purposes which is not 
 recognised by such phoneticians. The converse indeed, as was 
 said above, does not hold [i.e. phoneticians must recognise 
 many distinctions which do not actually occur in (Indo- 
 European) philology]; but, as presumably both our speaking 
 and hearing organs have developed, it is a priori improbable 
 that any sound or any distinction that ever once existed has 
 been utterly lost. 
 
 Now the distinction between spirant and semi-vowel is not 
 to be found in Sweet. 
 
 It is therefore open to us to question the validity of such 
 statements as 
 
 1. (Sievers.) "The Ursprache possessed two distinct 
 sounds j and i" 
 
 2. (Brugmann.) "The difference between Gk. f initial and 
 spir. asp. initial, both corresponding to Skt. y, rests upon the 
 phonetic distinction of j and i for which see Sievers," 
 
 and it becomes necessary to investigate the facts and examine 
 whether this distinction or another best explains them. 
 
 And first as to Sievers' description of the difference between 
 j and i. 
 
 His words are : "Am haufigsten erscheinen als Halbvocale 
 i und u, weil dieselben an sich wegen ihrer starken Engenbil- 
 
 dung geringe Klangfdlle haben " "Mit den 
 
 Spirantischen j und w, die sich durch starkere Engenbildung 
 haufig aus den Halbvocalen i, y, entwickelt haben, durfen 
 diese ja nicht verwechselt werden\" 
 
 I confess that to me it is not easy to see what distinction is 
 here indicated, and it is still more difficult to make a practical 
 distinction in utterance. The greater friction of which he 
 speaks might be produced in one of two ways — by increasing 
 
 P Phonetik^, p. 146. The MS. contains neither quotation nor reference, 
 but I think these words were meant. C] 
 
PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 189 
 
 tlie force of the voice-current, and by narrowing the passage. 
 In the former case we simply get a stressed i. Now almost 
 any consonant may be stressed and yet there is no trace of 
 phonetic variation from that cause in the I.-E. languages. It is 
 therefore against probability that this should be the case here. 
 
 On the other hand Sweet (Handbook, p. 51 § 164) has 
 already shown that the consonantal nature of an i-vowel is due 
 to its being a high one. The passage is so narrowed that a hiss 
 is heard even if breath and not voice be emitted. If then j 
 differs from i in the narrowness of the passage this merely 
 means that j stands to a high i as i does to a normal i, which 
 is clearly not what is meant. 
 
 A more common statement of the distinction is that while 
 j (better written y) is a consonant pure and simple, i is a glide. 
 This again is neither very intelligible nor phonetically accurate. 
 To begin with the definition of a glide as given by Sweet 
 (p. 60 § 189) is that it has no fixed configuration but is com- 
 posed of all the intermediate positions between two other 
 sounds. Now if i is the consonantal form of i it must evidently 
 have exactly the same configuration and hence is not truly a 
 glide at all. 
 
 This confusion of ideas seems to have arisen from the 
 practice of calling ai a diphthong which it properly speaking is 
 not and so regarding the i as a glide-vowel. 
 
 Again what pronunciation is possible which shall enable 
 an untrained ear to distinguish absolutely and sharply between 
 tyeq- where 3/ is a 'consonant' and tie^^- where i is a 'glide'? 
 
 A sort of a posteriori criterion of the distinction is often 
 given as being that i is found in definite functional relations to 
 an i-vowel while y is incapable of such relations. In the ab- 
 sence of any reason why this should be the case, it is of course 
 no explanation, and the statement, however in accordance with 
 facts, does not bear out the distinction between 'consonant' and 
 'glide'; for, as Sweet (p. 37 § 108) shows, the front open voice 
 consonant which he denotes by j is susceptible of reduction to a 
 vowel. And yet it is no glide. 
 
 Lastly there remains the possibility that the distinction 
 meant is that described by Sweet under the name of "buzzing." 
 
190 PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 
 
 It is not very easy to gather what he exactly means by this, 
 for while he defines it in one place as "the audible friction of 
 voice consonants" (p. 31), consonants themselves having been 
 described just above as "the result of audible friction," in other 
 places he appears to make it an accident of consonants as at 
 pp. 37, 38, &c. 
 
 On the whole however it seems clear that he does not 
 recognise any two grades of consonants according as they are 
 buzzed or not buzzed ; e.g. in § 166, "whenever a voiced unshut 
 consonant is pronounced without a distinct buzz it is to the ear 
 at least a vowel while being held." 
 
 Sievers' classification of a, e, i, o, u, I, r, w, n, in the same 
 category leads us to expect a similar series of glides, ' a, ^, i, o, 
 y,, I, r, m, n,' and his third series of spirants should also be com- 
 pleted, viz. * a, e, j, o, v, I, r, m, nf Of course no such three 
 series exist in nature, and therefore the inference is that either 
 there is no ground for his distinction of three series or his 
 classification of a, e, i, o, u, etc., together is erroneous. 
 
 Sievers is so far consistent that he does distinguish between 
 spirant and semi- vowel I and r (Phonetik^, p. 104 § 12), but 
 makes no attempt further to describe the former pair of sounds 
 than by sajdng the distinction is analogous to that between j 
 and i. 
 
 It should moreover be noticed in any theory as to the dis- 
 tinction between these sounds that such distinction is normally 
 made, by any language that makes it, at the beginning of 
 words and there only. Thus Greek shows f and ' where other 
 languages show y only, ' and ' for w, v- and av- for n, fi- and afi- 
 for m, \- and a\- for I, and possibly p- and ap- for r. And 
 Armenian has a similar double representation for each. The 
 fact that — with the exception of the isolated root tyeq which 
 will be discussed below — no such distinction has showed itself 
 in the middle of words is surely not without its significance. 
 If Indo-European possessed a ' spirant ' y, why should it not 
 have occurred in all positions ? And why should it not have 
 become f in Greek ? The old belief that -afo) came from -ajo 
 would then become perfectly natural. 
 
 The foregoing reasons whether sufficient or not have caused 
 
PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 101 
 
 me to feel dissatisfied with the relation between phonetics and 
 philology as inculcated by its latest exponents, and to feel doubts 
 on the system of I.-E. phonology which they have drawn up in 
 accordance therewith. I have no choice then but to attempt to 
 find some better system which agrees with my own views of the 
 extent to which philology depends on phonetics. 
 
 I mentioned above the sharp distinction between the develop- 
 ment of language before and after it began to be written, and 
 observed that early written records may be taken to represent 
 tolerably faithfully the contemporary spoken language. There 
 is now another equally sharp distinction to be drawn which is 
 of the very last importance for philology. 
 
 Let us picture to ourselves a period when writing was 
 unknown. Language would naturally undergo the usual pho- 
 netic changes, an m, say, followed by an s would probably 
 become n and so forth. 
 
 Now in such a condition of things it is possible to suppose 
 two sounds existing, formed with different muscular configura- 
 tions and each representing a modification of two still more 
 different sounds, which to the ear might be practically undis- 
 tinguishable. What would be the result? The succeeding 
 generation which would learn those sounds by ear alone (and 
 never having had the consciousness of the two prior sounds) 
 would make no distinction. From that time onwards those two 
 sounds are philologically one. It follows that for philological 
 purposes, the phonological system of a language not yet written 
 down must consist solely of sounds which are readily dis- 
 tinguishable by ear. Now let us pass to the introduction of 
 writing. Here the conditions become widely different, for the 
 ear is no longer the sole means of knowledge. We now have 
 three possible categories of sounds. 1. Sounds distinguished in 
 writing (because distinguished in production), but not dis- 
 tinguishable by ear. 2. Sounds distinguished by ear but not 
 distinguished in writing. 3. Sounds in which the evidence of 
 ear and eye agree. 
 
 In the first case an example might be imagined as follows : 
 A Greek might produce a vowel intermediate between the a 
 and e positions, but conscious that he was intending to produce 
 
192 PHILOLOGY AND PHONETICS. 
 
 a. To the hearer it might seem as if the vowel were so nearly 
 6 that he himself would reproduce it e. Now in the time anterior 
 to writing that vowel and e would have fused, but when Greek 
 No. 2 sees Greek No. 1 write it a and not e, he is conscious that 
 some distinction is intended which he may preserve when repro- 
 ducing it. Conversely in the second case identity of writing 
 may tend, though very slowly in primitive epochs, to bring 
 about identity of pronunciation. It is quite probable that in 
 the early times of written Sanskrit a had three definite values 
 corresponding to primitive a, e, o, but the distinction was 
 ignored in writing as not being strong enough to produce an 
 addition to their already considerable alphabet. 
 
 It will be remarked that while instances of the former class 
 are in their nature rare and likely speedily to vanish (for one 
 reason because a speaker when he comes to write down his 
 words judges as much if not more by what he hears himself 
 say, as by what \iQ feels himself say) instances of the latter class 
 are frequent in all languages, from the extreme poverty of most 
 alphabetical systems. Moreover, until writing plays a large and 
 important part, written identity rarely leads to spoken. 
 
 We arrive then at the following principles : 
 
 1. A phonological system for an unwritten language must 
 consist of sounds readily distinguishable by ear. 
 
 2. The first written expression of that system will preserve 
 all those distinctions so far as is possible with the available 
 means. 
 
5. THE INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 
 
 This i^aper was only left in the roughest form, in two drafts, 
 both belonging to an earlier date than the jyreceding essay, in ivhich 
 Mr Darbishire probably meant to embody them. 
 
 P. P» 13 
 
THE INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 
 
 The broadest distinction which exists among speech-sounds 
 is between those that have duration and those which have not. 
 These again may be further distinguished as those which must 
 have duration, those which cannot have duration, and those 
 which may or may not have it. 
 
 Every musical note must have duration : hence in a certain 
 sense all voiced sounds must have duration, but in many voiced 
 sounds the element of voice is subordinate to the other charac- 
 teristics, which therefore impart their character to the sound. 
 On the other hand certain sounds consist solely of voice : these 
 must necessarily have duration. The test of such sounds is 
 their becoming inaudible when breathed. 
 
 The essential element of an explosive is a complete stoppage 
 of the breath or voice current at some point in the passage. 
 These sounds then are incapable of duration. It is true the 
 stop may be held for any length of time; but this is not 
 duration but cessation. All other sounds are capable of having 
 their duration shortened until they may be classed as momen- 
 tary, or of having it lengthened to any extent, as if they were 
 pure voice sounds. 
 
 The unit of speech is the syllable*. The second great 
 
 1 [The following paragraphs may be one sound which bears a tonic accent, 
 
 added here from what I think was the There are as many syllables as there 
 
 earlier draft of this paper. C.J are such sounds in the word or words 
 
 •The characteristic of a syllable in in question and no more. It stands 
 
 spoken language is that it contains to reason that tonic accent here in- 
 
THE INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 195 
 
 division of spoken sounds is into those which are capable and 
 those which are incapable of forming syllables. 
 
 This classification is related to the preceding one as follows: 
 No momentary sound can form a syllable. Any sound which 
 has duration may form a syllable, but does not necessarily do 
 so. This is shown by contraction. Sounds which are necessarily 
 accompanied by duration always form a syllable. 
 
 The following is therefore the scheme : 
 
 ^_ ,, , , I Sounds without duration 
 Non-syllable J 
 
 ® ( Sounds capable of duration 
 
 Sounds of duration I 
 
 Syllable forming. 
 
 These are the divisions of sounds which are of the highest 
 practical importance for the development of language, and it 
 is therefore greatly to be desired that a terminology existed to 
 express them. This is however not so, and the uncertainty 
 and ambiguity of the existing terms has often been commented 
 upon. The prevailing popular terminology describes ' syllabic ' 
 sounds as ' vowels,' non-syllabic as * consonants.' This is in- 
 con veuient as giving no term for those sounds which can 
 assume either function. To remedy this the terms ' consonant : 
 sonant' are sometimes employed to express the difference in 
 syllabic functions, and ' consonant : vowel ' to express the 
 difference in form — which is bad as it leaves ' consonant ' am- 
 biguous, and further misleads those who still use 'sonant' in 
 the sense of ' voiced.' I propose therefore to confine the terms 
 consonant and sonant to function as syllable-forming elements, 
 to which use they are clearly adapted. For the other classes, 
 the first or momentary class may be called ' stops,' and the third 
 vowels. For the intermediate class I propose to adopt the term 
 
 eludes all grades to the very weakest, such accent are consonants. Better 
 
 and does not refer to that contrast of terms for these would therefore be 
 
 accent which causes us to speak of an tonics and atonies, but the others are 
 
 unaccented syllable. sauctioned by usage '. 
 All sounds which do not in fact bear 
 
 13—2 
 
196 THE INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 
 
 'adsonants,' which will reflect the fact that in function they 
 may be either consonants or sonants. 
 
 The Indo-European phonological system accordingly assumes 
 the following shape. 
 
 f Breathed q k t p : qh kli th ph 
 Stops ^ Unaspirated Aspirated 
 
 Voiced g g d b : gh gh dh bJi 
 
 
 Breathed s 
 
 Voiced W f I V V' W l V' 
 I I f n m i f( 
 
 €> o o o o o 
 
 __ ( iaeod short ! 
 
 Vowels < Voiced i _ _ _ , 
 
 \ [a e o long J 
 
 Adsonants < Voiced < ( ^ ^ 2' w igi | m short 
 
 I ^ J V ^ W I V ^^^^ 
 
 Consonants 
 
 Sonants 
 
 This system includes all the I.-Eu. sounds which have 
 as yet been shown to have an independent existence. There 
 is no reason to add the sounds commonly written n and 
 7^ since they are not independent but appear only before 
 gutturals. I have however included z, although doubtfully, as 
 it has not been shown to exist except as a form of s before 
 voiced consonants. It is therefore probable that z, if its existence 
 may be taken as proved ^ was at least of later date than the other 
 adsonants. Of course this table is not theoretically complete : 
 the list of stops (and possibly of vowels) may have to be 
 enlarged as the facts work out. 
 
 This classification is not based on phonetic but on philo- 
 logical grounds, i.e. it does not correspond to or embrace the 
 possibilities of speech, but is simply derived from the facts 
 presented by the study of Indo-European. It does not how- 
 ever conflict in any way with the results of phonetics. 
 
 What then are we to conclude as to the'* attempt to 
 construct a class of sounds intermediate between explosives 
 and adsonants, the so-called spirants, written y and w (or j and 
 
 1 Thurneysen, Kiihn's Ztschr. 30, necessary in order to bring either of 
 p. 351. them into harmony with the preceding 
 
 2 [What follows is now somewhat paper, which was written down later, 
 fragmentary. It has been patched The only alternative was to re-write 
 together from the two different drafts, the whole passage, and this I had no 
 and a certain amount of omission was right to do. C7.|| 
 
THE INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 197 
 
 v) corresponding to i and u respectively [v. p. 188 sup.] ? The 
 distinction between y and i is said to be that y can never 
 become a sonant. This [v. sup. ib.] is nothing more than 
 an ex post facto distinction, destitute of all rational basis. It 
 entirely leaves out of account the most important fact in 
 connexion with the difference of treatment in Greek and 
 Sanskrit which it professes to explain, viz. that this difference 
 always shows itself when the sounds are initial (Skt. yasta- : 
 ista-, Greek ' : f-). But in Skt. the supposed combination ay 
 becomes e (sete : Kelrai) just like ai. 
 
 It is therefore much more probable that the dis- 
 tinction was a difference of beginning, the sound 
 usually written i being really i with the gradual 
 beginning (Sweet's H), and the sound written y being 
 i with the clear beginning (Sweet's A)^ These differ in 
 that the first is formed by bringing the organs into position for 
 the sound while breath is actually being emitted, the second by 
 not allowing any breath to escape until the organs have taken 
 up their position. 
 
 From the explanation of sonant and consonant given above 
 it is easy to see that Hi is most likely to pass into the prolonged- 
 sonant ^, while ^i is essentially momentary and so is pre- 
 vailingly consonantal. This explains why a root of the form 
 Hiag would give in its weak form ig, while a root of the form 
 /\ies would become Aids. 
 
 If this view is correct it will follow that after initial t or d — 
 which are formed in much the position of i — the consonantal 
 will be more regular than the sonantal i, and this is borne out 
 by the fact that the past participle of a root tiea is in Skt. 
 tyaktds and in Gk. o-eTrro?^. This account moreover forms a 
 natural basis for explaining the difference which Greek preserves. 
 The one sound began with an exspiration, which when the 
 consonant was devoiced remained as the spiritus asper: the 
 other was liable, through the tongue's being too much raised, 
 to let a slight d- be heard before the i, whence f by rule. 
 
 1 l^Handbook of Phonetics % 195. CJ ti9g + t6s, which may perhaps be di- 
 
 2 Possibly re-formed, on the model rectly represented by the Skt. form if 
 of (re/3o/tat, from *<rairTos = I.-Eu. 9 became a in Skt. after j,. 
 
198 THE INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 
 
 Now it is often a useful guiding principle to assume (for 
 purposes of experiment) that sounds of a similar nature under- 
 went analogous treatment, and the discovery of certain facts 
 about one sound should lead us to look out for indications of a 
 similar treatment of its fellows. 
 
 Accordingly we should anticipate for initial sounds the 
 following scheme : 
 
 ■i 
 
 -u 
 
 -I 
 
 -r 
 
 -m 
 
 -n 
 
 !i 
 
 l» 
 
 \i 
 
 !r 
 
 \W 
 
 l» 
 
 and we may hope to find them all discriminated in those 
 languages which discriminate the first pair 
 
 In a previous paper (on the Greek Spiritus Asper) I 
 endeavoured to show that such a distinction does exist for -j^ 
 and 1^, and that it is plainly preserved in Greek and Armenian, 
 less clearly in Sanskrit. My exposition there was so far 
 wrong that it adopted the prevailing distinction of 
 "spirant" and "glide," which I now believe to be 
 baseless. 
 
 [Here the MS. ends. From a few quite rough notes I 
 conclude that Mr Darbishire was at one time inclined to 
 think that some of the phenomena of prothesis in Greek (at 
 least before Z, r, and m) were to be explained by this diflference, 
 and to assume that I.-Eu. I, r, m with gradual beginning (his -I, 
 -r, -m) became in Greek aX-, ap-, a/x- respectively, but as I do 
 not know whether he came to any decision on the point, the 
 reader will understand that it is mentioned here with all 
 reserve. (7.] 
 
6. THE SANSKRIT LIQUIDS. 
 
 This paper ivas v)7'itten out hij Mr Darhishire no less than three 
 times in thi^ee successive years (1891 — 3); the last version I know to 
 have been icritteyi in the fortnight before his death. The reader may 
 therefore feel confident that Mr Darbishire had finally accepted its 
 jyrinciples after full consideration. The Preface, however, is taken 
 from the second of the three versions, as it had not yet been written 
 for the third. 
 
 The editorial notes marked with T. are by Mr F. W. Thomas, 
 those ivith C. by the editor. 
 
THE SANSKRIT LIQUIDS. 
 
 
 
 Contents. 
 
 
 Preface 
 
 
 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Narrative. 
 
 
 
 II. 
 
 Demonstrative. 
 
 
 
 §!• 
 
 The First Period. 
 
 
 
 §2. 
 
 The Second Period. 
 
 
 
 §3. 
 
 Fortunatov's Law. 
 
 
 
 §4. 
 
 Exceptions due to Changes in 
 
 Period V. 
 
 
 §5. 
 
 Exceptions from other causes. 
 
 
 
 §6. 
 
 The Sixth Period. 
 
 
THE SANSKRIT LIQUIDS. 
 
 Preface. 
 
 The term liquids is conveniently used to denote the sounds 
 I and r, which, although of very different formation, are closely 
 connected and exercise a curious influence over each other in 
 most Indo-European Languages. 
 
 The history of these sounds has not been satisfactorily traced 
 in any of these languages, and accordingly there has been little 
 scope for deducing the primitive state of things. The reason 
 has partly been that Sanskrit — which in general is our main- 
 stay for consonantal sounds — appears to show the wildest 
 confusion in dealing with these particular consonants, while 
 Armenian, which with its full system of liquids should be a good 
 guide, has as yet offered too few words of certain etymology 
 to throw much light behind. It has therefore been the usual 
 practice to assume that Indo-European possessed two liquids 
 I and r, which were dental in articulation, and two liquid sonants 
 corresponding, I and r, — that the European languages and 
 Armenian reflect this difference faithfully — and that Sanskrit 
 is quite irregular^ but with a preponderating number of its 
 Ts corresponding to I.-Eu. I. 
 
 1 No explanation of this irregularity cated roots {Gnh. i. § 282). It will be 
 
 is forthcoming. Brugmann hazards necessary to mention this hypothesis 
 
 only one conjecture ; — that confusion below. The variation in Sanskrit he 
 
 arose in Indo-European times from is compelled simply to record, lb, 
 
 dissimilation in the case of redupli- § 254. 
 
THE SANSKRIT LIQUIDS: PREFACE. 203 
 
 It seemed therefore worth while to attempt to bring some 
 order into the facts presented by Sanskrit, and as any regularity 
 that existed might most naturally be expected in Vedic, my 
 attention is primarily directed thereto. But, as the Vedic 
 remains which have come down to us naturally do not contain 
 a full list of all the words in the language, it seemed useful and 
 interesting to add in each case a few post- Vedic words which 
 obeyed the rule for Vedic. 
 
 Having reached this point I am aware that my proper 
 course in accordance with the most approved models would be 
 to plunge at once into lists of examples, but as it is not 
 necessary that an exposition of results should follow the exact 
 order in which those results were arrived at (and as, moreover, 
 such a course is rather a tax on the reader's patience), I intend 
 to begin by narrating what appears to have been the succession 
 of events in the development of the language, with a statement 
 of the effects which they produce in Vedic Sanskrit. Then 
 shall follow a statement of the rules which express those effects, 
 each accompanied by a complete list of examples. All the 
 words in Vedic Sanskrit which contain I and do not fall under 
 one of the rules shall next be discussed, and then those words 
 which conflict with the rules in other ways. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 NARRATIVE. 
 
 We suppose then that Indo-European had two distinct 
 liquids which in accordance with the received practice may 
 conveniently be denoted by I and r. There is reason to believe 
 that both were dental in articulation, and that they were 
 adsonants, that is they could be either sonantal or consonantal 
 in function. 
 
 It is convenient to adopt the usual notation and distinguish 
 the cases of function as sonants as I, r — the cases of consonantal 
 function as I, r. It is necessary however even at the cost of 
 repetition to emphasize that these two sets, I, r, as against /, r, 
 are phonetically different, and to speak of I, r as including them 
 both is simply equal to saying that, as sonant and consonant 
 are always interchanging, it is convenient to have some general 
 character for both : — if the signs I and r disguise the fact that 
 there were always four phonetically distinct sounds, they are 
 misleading. 
 
 It is further necessary to repeat that, when /, r preceded 
 another sonant, a transitional sound was heard which nearly 
 resembled /, r, but differed in being a glide only. We write 
 accordingly, not -//o- -rri-, but -/'o- -r'l-. 
 
 The subject which has now to be considered is : what was 
 the history of these four sounds between the period of Indo- 
 European unity (which as a working hypothesis may be 
 accepted for the present) and the state of the language which 
 
NARRATIVE. 205 
 
 is known as ' classical ' Sanskrit. For the sake of clearness a 
 succinct dogmatic account of the conclusions which we believe 
 justified will first be given, and then shall follow the facts on 
 which those conclusions rest. 
 
 At the time when the Asiatic contingent of the I.-Eu. family- 
 had reached a position which may be conjecturally placed east 
 of the Caspian and north-east of the present Persia, they still 
 retained the system L I, I, l^ ; 7\ r, r, r'", intact. About this time 
 they divided into two bodies, one of which proceeded south- 
 east and ultimately reached India, while the other kept a 
 southerly and westerly direction, and became the Zend and 
 Armenian branches respectively. (It is also possible that the 
 separation of the Armenian branch was prior to that of the 
 other two.) 
 
 I. We may distinguish then, as the earliest Sanskrit 
 period, that in which the I.-Eu. system of liquids remained 
 unaltered. There probably remained with this the vowel-triad 
 a, e, 0, and the labial affection of the velar gutturals, before 
 all except palatalising vowels. 
 
 II. The second period is marked by a transition of the 
 liquid-group from the dental to the lingual position, and this 
 change was uniformly carried out in the case of those which 
 had sonantal function : but for the consonants the change was 
 prevented under certain conditions which will be given im- 
 mediately. Instead then of 
 
 /, l, I, V : r, r, r, r'" 
 we get 
 
 /, 1, 1, i, V : r, r, r, f, r', 
 
 where the letters in darker type indicate sounds which have 
 lost their original phonetic value. 
 
 This process undoubtedly commenced immediately after 
 the first period. The conditions under which I and r remained 
 (i.e. retained their dental position) were as follows : — 
 
 1. Two liquids in the same word retained each other in the 
 dental position. 
 
206 NARRATIVE. 
 
 (That this statement may possibly be too wide will be 
 explained below.) 
 
 2. A labializing velar, a labial explosive or m, retained / in 
 the dental position, when in the same syllable with it\ 
 
 3. A labial explosive immediately preceded by r causes it 
 to remain dental. 
 
 (This is only highly probable ; see p. 238 fF.) 
 
 III. In the third period must be placed the origin of the 
 class of lingual explosives. This may possibly have begun 
 during the second period, but is logically subsequent to it, as is 
 shown by the constantly increasing number of linguals which 
 are due to the influence of the lingual ?^ during the time of 
 which we have actual knowledge. This third period is however 
 of importance as including the genesis of certain linguals 
 which may possibly be the oldest of the class: these arose 
 whenever an / which had been retained during the last period 
 under the conditions there mentioned happened also to precede 
 immediately a dental consonant: in such a case the / vanished 
 and the dental was replaced by the corresponding lingual 
 (Fortunatov's Law'"^). 
 
 IV. At the commencement of the fourth period we have 
 the following state of things. (The letters in darker type still 
 have the same meaning; the Indo-European scheme is given 
 first for clearness, and the figures refer to the above rules for 
 the second period.) 
 
 Indo-European 
 
 I III' 
 
 r r. T' r 
 
 Sanskrit 
 
 rTi i,M". 
 
 r, r, r, r, r, i*. 
 
 
 (1)(2) 
 
 (1) (3) 
 
 Now at or before this time, the three pairs of sonants, viz. : 
 }» r> I' f j l^ F^ ^^^ approached each other so closely that the 
 distinction between each pair was no longer of practical 
 importance to the ear. This was moreover the time at which 
 
 * [By ♦ in the same syllable ' Mr single sonant, see p. 222 and cf. 220 
 Darbishire means simply that the (as to nilaprltf^-), inf. C.J 
 sounds are at furthest separated by a - ^Bezz. Beitr. 6. 215. C.J 
 
NARRATIVE. 207 
 
 the Rig-veda was first committed to writing*, and these three 
 pairs of sounds were accordingly represented alike — the first 
 by r, the second by ir (€tr), the third by i?' {u7'). Now regard 
 the consonants : it is natural (not necessary) to suppose that 
 as 1 and r approached each other, so would 1 and r. If then 
 their history had been otherwise identical, we might have 
 expected to find one sign ?' for the consonants, just as we have 
 one sign r for the sonants. As a matter of fact however there 
 was a strongly defined distinction — the outcome of different 
 phonetic environment — which opposed /, r (dentals) to 1, r 
 (Unguals). It was this distinction accordingly, — not that be- 
 tween divided and central, which had become unimportant — that 
 was represented in writing, and while the consonantal sign r, 
 corresponding to the lingual sonant r, was used for the two 
 Unguals 1 and j^, the other sign I was reserved for the two 
 dentals I and r. 
 
 The Indian grammarians therefore, who classify I as dental 
 and ?• as lingual, are in full accordance with this hypothesis, 
 and all attempts to see in the Vedic I and r the representatives 
 of Indo-European / and r have necessarily failed. 
 
 But the Vedic poems, even narrowed to the Rig- Veda, are 
 not the composition of a single generation, and there is ample 
 room to distinguish phonological changes even within their 
 limits. 
 
 V. Thus we may call the period covered by the Vedic 
 hymns a fifth period. Its characteristics are the breaking up 
 of the above simple liquid system — I, r, r in the above positions 
 — by the influence of analogy. That this was inevitable will 
 at once be seen. By this time the changes in the gutturals 
 had taken place ; probably then k, g &c. had lost their labial 
 affection ; at all events there was no clear reason why they 
 should be associated with Z; and similarly with the labials. 
 On the other hand r was the common weak form for both, and 
 
 1 [The date of the earliest Indian bar, Ind. Lit. (trans.), pp. 10, 13, &c., 
 
 writing is a question on which widely Burnell, South Indian Palaeography, 
 
 different views have been held : cf. Schroder, Indiens Literatur, pp. 437 
 
 MaxMiiller, H/s<. SA:. Li«.,pp. 497sqq., sqq., Cust, Linguistic and Oriental 
 
 Goldstiicker, Pcinini, pp. 13 sqq., We- Essays, i. pp. 27 sqq. and reff. T.J 
 
208 NARRATIVE. 
 
 hence it is not surprising that the relation al : r lost ground in 
 favour of the more frequent, and apparently more natural, ar : r. 
 These and similar phenomena will be discussed in greater 
 detail below. 
 
 VI. It is convenient to make a sixth period to include 
 later Sanskiit, although this is not usually regarded as the 
 direct descendant of the Vedic dialect, the strongest reason 
 being that I occurs more frequently in classical Sanskrit than 
 it does in Vedic, and that in the majority of these occurrences 
 it corresponds to European I ; whereas if the two liquids had 
 passed through a stage when I and r were fused, it would be 
 unlikely that they should be differentiated in just this way. 
 The question may be left for the present. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 REASONS ON WHICH THE ABOVE NARRATIVE RESTS. 
 
 The controversial points in the above summary have now to 
 be examined in detail. As much of the argument is necessarily 
 from facts to theory, and therefore against the chronological 
 order, it is impossible to take the several periods precisely in 
 the order given. 
 
 The arrangement will be as follows : First, the reasons for 
 the statements concerning the First Period will be given. 
 Next such of the facts from the Rig Veda as support the laws 
 laid down for the Second Period, although of course these facts 
 belong to Period IV. Then shall follow an examination of the 
 grounds for placing Fortunatov's Law in the Third Period. Next 
 the irregularities which make their appearance during the R. V. 
 epoch shall be discussed and classified, and finally any con- 
 clusions that can be drawn to guide us through the maze of 
 I and r in the Sixth Period shall receive attention. 
 
 § 1. The First Period. 
 
 Briefly the reasons for taking perhaps a little unusual view 
 of the relation of the Asiatic languages are these. Dr Hirt's 
 paper on Die Urheimat der Indogermanen, I. F. i. pp. 464 sqq., 
 seems an almost conclusive proof that the home of the language 
 is to be found, if anywhere, on the shores of the Baltic. Now 
 hitherto the question of the relationship of Armenian to the 
 D. P. 14 
 
210 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 other groups has been a matter of doubt, so far as it has been 
 brought into account at all. But if the original home is to be 
 sought near the Baltic, it is absolutely impossible to suppose 
 that so small and isolated a contingent could have made its way 
 thence, alone, to the position in which we find it. As it is more- 
 over highly improbable that it could have crossed the Caucasus, 
 which even to-day is passable only in two places — it becomes 
 almost necessary to assume that they passed east of the Caspian. 
 The question is of course complicated by our ignorance of the 
 dimensions of that variable basin at that time ; but it was 
 probably more extensive than at present, which would render 
 the route between it and the Caucasus (one of the two above 
 referred to) impracticable. If then the Armenians traversed 
 Eastern Europe and passed north and east of the Caspian, the 
 probability is enormous that they did so as part of the Asiatic 
 contingent. 
 
 The view which makes Armenian an earlier offshoot from 
 the clan which afterwards subdivided into the Iranian and 
 Indian branches, although above admitted as possible, is prob- 
 ably wrong for these reasons : the geographical position of 
 Armenian and Persian is against it ; for the latter lies between 
 Armenian and the probable line of march of the whole body. 
 Unless therefore we assume a prolonged sojourn in Turkestan, 
 after which the Armenians and Iranians broke off at successive 
 intervals to march in the same direction, the theory is unten- 
 able. Simpler is it surely to suppose that the body divided 
 into two parts, one continuing its south-easterly course towards 
 India, the other turning more to the west, its most energetic 
 vanguard penetrating as far as Armenia, while the bulk of it 
 settled down in Persia. Again, the reasons for the above view 
 are insufficient ; they are chiefly the facts that Zend and San- 
 skrit both agree in obscuring a, e, o to a, and agree in replacing 
 / by r ; whereas Armenian in both cases agrees with the languages 
 of Europe. But if this were to guide us, we ought to say that 
 Zend had separated from Sanskrit while Armenian was still 
 joined with it ; for Sanskrit has preserved more of the distinction 
 between e and o, and much more of that between r and I, than 
 has Zend. On the other hand, there is no reason for surprise 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 211 
 
 that Zend has gone further than Sanskrit on the same path, if 
 we remember the difference of date at which we begin to know 
 them, and it is no more necessary to assume a unity to account 
 for agreement in such changes as the above than it is to assume 
 a Graeco-Sanskrit unity to account for their agreement in repre- 
 senting n by a. They were kindred by descent ; why should not 
 their inherited tendencies be similar ? They were both ener- 
 vated by similar climates; why should not their languages 
 change in the same direction ? Lastly, an ' efl&cient cause ' for 
 the view challenged is easily found. Older writers believed 
 Armenian to be a mere Persian dialect : they have been proved 
 to be wrong : therefore there never was an Armeno -Iranian 
 identity ! 
 
 Another assertion which may perhaps be thought rash is 
 that the velars retained their labial affection at this period. 
 This is not of enough importance one way or another to my 
 subject to need a full defence, but two points may be adduced 
 which render it probable. One is that, as will be shown, the 
 effect of a labialized velar — by which is meant one that becomes 
 a Skt. guttural — is identical with that of a labial in retaining I 
 as dental, and this is naturally to be ascribed to their common 
 characteristic of labialism. This effect is not produced by a 
 velar which becomes a Skt. palatal, whence the inference that 
 at this period q, q, &c. had become k^, g^, &c. before a, o, u, 
 vowels, &c., but k\ g' , &c., before e, i, d — which after all is not 
 so improbable (Brugmann, Grds. I., § 445 contra). 
 
 The other point which complements this is : Armenian k' 
 represents I.-E. q under certain conditions — c represents 5 before 
 palatalising vowels, k' also represents I.-E. s^. [Armen. s 
 represents I.-E. k and 5.] This points to 
 
 I.-E. 
 
 3 
 
 
 Sll k 
 
 1 i 
 su just as X 
 
 s 
 1 
 
 k' 
 1 
 
 k^ 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 X? 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 s 
 
 The change of the palatal guttural is parallel, but not other- 
 wise important. The point is that the velar guttural has retained 
 
 14—2 
 
212 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 the rounding affection before rounding vowels and lost it before 
 palatalising vowels. After what has been said above it will be 
 clear that such a correspondence need not imply that the two 
 languages suffered this before separation, but since independent 
 arguments show that at a period not very far anterior to the 
 composition of the R. V., Sanskrit (a) retained both liquids, (b) 
 retained a, e, o, (c) retained the labial affection of the velars 
 before rounding vowels, (d) lost it before palatal ditto, and that 
 all these characteristics are also found in Armenian, we may 
 assume with confidence that they were characteristics of the 
 common period. 
 
 But, it will be said, it is nothing new to suppose that 
 Sanskrit and Armenian can be traced back to a common period, 
 and nothing except the geographical argument has yet been 
 adduced to show that the separation of Iranian and Indian did 
 not take place later, as is generally assumed. This is true ; but 
 the first point is to decide what were the common possessions 
 of Sanskrit and Armenian. These we now see to be 
 
 1. a, e, vowels 
 
 2. I, r liquids 
 
 3. labial rounding of velars before rounding vowels, prob- 
 ably becoming more and more separate from the explosive pre- 
 paratory to loss in Skt. and identity with y, in Arm. 
 
 4. loss of labial rounding of velars (or substitution of palatal 
 glide) before e i vowels. 
 
 It follows that on any assumption these must also have been 
 characteristics of the same period of Zend — if it be allowable to 
 use the three names in speaking of their common existence — 
 and the question is whether the separation when it did take 
 place was into Armenian on the one hand and Indo-Iranian on 
 the other, or into Armenian and Iranian on the one hand, and 
 Indian on the other. 
 
 The first of these views was put forward by Hlibschmann in 
 1883, when he published the first part of his Armenische Studien. 
 That a brilliant and conclusive demonstration of an original 
 and important view may occasionally be driven to prove too 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 213 
 
 much is no discredit to the discoverer, and possibly Hiibschmann 
 may have modified his views in the light of subsequent investiga- 
 tions. He shows on p. 82 that the Indian and Iranian languages 
 agree in 
 
 (1) a for a, e, o. 
 a for a, e, o. 
 
 (2) a for sonant nasal. 
 
 (3) r for 7' and I. 
 
 (4) 5^ for s after i, u, k, r: 
 
 Iwhile Armenian has 
 
 (1) [the vowels distinguished]. 
 
 (2) an : a for sonant nasal. 
 
 (3) I \ for I. 
 
 r f X for r. 
 
 (4) s not changed to s in any certain example. 
 
 Now it is a well known principle that mere similar phonetic 
 developments do not prove a common period of history for the 
 languages in which they are found ; they may be the outcome 
 of similar tendencies, not of original unity. As regards the 
 obscuring of the original three vowels into a, that has also been 
 done by Gothic i, and therefore is not a sufi&ciently peculiar 
 change to necessitate unity for those languages in which it 
 happened. So also for the representation of the sonant nasal. 
 On the other hand, if our rules are established, the assumption 
 that Skt. like Zend confused r and / is disproved. In any case 
 the analogy sought is more graphic than real ; for Sanskrit r 
 was a lingual ; Zend r was not. 
 
 As then Indian and Iranian had separated before the former 
 transferred r to the lingual position, and as our rules show that 
 when Indian transferred r to the lingual position r and I were 
 both still existing, it follows that the process of assimilating 
 r and I into one sound belongs to the separate existence of the 
 Iranian branch. 
 
 1 [But V. Brugm. Gr. i. § 67, pp. 57—60. T.J 
 
214 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 Again, those other processes which are referred to the 
 common life of the Indo-Iranians are equally inconclusive. For 
 example the separation of the velar gutturals into two groups 
 by the following vowel quality {Grundriss I. § 445). This has 
 been shown above to have been common to Armenian and 
 therefore belongs to the period of union. Brugraann says 
 "all further changes belong to the separate languages of the 
 (Aryan) family." Naturally, if the fusion of the vowels be- 
 longed to their independent stages. 
 
 Further, a careful weighing of the points of difference which 
 Hubschmann exhibits between the Armenian and Iranian 
 languages, although more than sufficient to prove the absolute 
 necessity of recognising Armenian as the result of a long 
 independence, does not prove that Armenian and Iranian never 
 formed one group, but rather the reverse. 
 
 For it will be noticed that some of the Zend characteristics 
 represent a process which Armenian has carried further, as 
 when the breathed explosives become spirants before conso- 
 nants in Zend and disappear in Armenian. Then it is only 
 necessary to remember the date at which our acquaintance 
 with Zend and Armenian respectively begins to see that there 
 is ample room for ascribing changes, like the fusion of mediae 
 and med. aspiratae, and others, to their independent existence. 
 
 To establish a constructive proof of the converse proposition 
 is not so easy: the test is, which hypothesis yields the best 
 results when worked on. It cannot be said that the Indo- 
 Iranian theory has yielded much fruit as yet. On the other 
 side the following coincidences may be pointed out. 
 
 1. I.-E. 5^ becomes sv in Sanskrit: Armenian k' we have 
 seen to represent ;^^, Zend shows 'xw i.e. XU- 
 
 2. I.-E. ti^- becomes tv- in Sanskrit : Armenian k^ (= ;j^j^- 
 ^0% = ty,) ; Zend shows ^w. 
 
 The only certain example from Armenian is k'o "thy" 
 (Hlibschm. no. 293) : in k^ar- (no. 289) we may have k' = q, 
 although it is certainly probable that qty,r- has become ty^r-. 
 The change of t to the spirant 6 has been mentioned above : 
 here the y changes it to X' 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 215 
 
 3. The palatal k becomes s, the dental sibilant, both in 
 Armenian and in Zend : in Skt. it becomes the palatal sibilant 
 p. In all probability this change had begun during the com- 
 mon period of all three languages and hence k is distinct from 
 q before e in all three languages. It is probable that k had 
 become x «^c., then Armeno-Iranian developed further together 
 and so both reached 5, while Skt. only reached g — or p may have 
 been reached in the common period \ 
 
 4. I.-E. sk and ks are clearly distinguished in Skt., the 
 former becoming ch (cch) the latter ks. On the other hand we 
 find in Zend s for sk but s for ks, and in Armenian for both 
 alike c. That I.-E. ks became Skt. ss and thence ks (Brugm. 
 Gi^ds. I. § 401)js entirely improbable (dveksi is probably analogical 
 to the 3d sg. dvesti which would be the resulting form of *dy,eik-ti 
 as well as of d^eis-ti). That Zend s is only a pis alter for sk is 
 shown by the variant ]> in the Avesta (Grds. I. § 397). Here 
 again in fact we have a clear case of common development in 
 Armeno-Iranian. 
 
 sk becomes sx-^sx '^ss 
 ^s « %s -^ %s ^ ^l 
 
 the last stage being carried through only by Armenian, while 
 Zend still conserves a lingering sense of difference. 
 
 5. I.-E. qh, kh, th, and ph become the breathed aspirates in 
 Sanskrit : in Zend they become the spirants oc, ^, /, exactly as 
 do the breathed explosives : in Armenian they vanish, exactly 
 as do the breathed explosives, except in one instance -sxal- 
 = skhaldmi (Hiibschm. no. 252), where the spirant which was 
 postulated above as preceding disappearance is retained en 
 evidence by the s. Therefore we can now assert both that the 
 breathed aspirates developed together in Zd. and Arm., and 
 also that the breathed explosives developed together. 
 
 These may serve as samples of what results may be expected 
 from working on the hypothesis of an Armeno-Iranian period, 
 
 1 [Fick, as Mr Darbishire was of course aware, ascribes it to the original 
 Indo-European. T.J 
 
216 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 which be it remembered is also favoured by the geographical 
 argument. For proving community of development minute 
 correspondences are of far more weight (because less likely to 
 result from broad general laws) than larger points of resemblance ; 
 it is less likely, e.g., that two languages should independently 
 develope sy, to %^, than that two should independently reduce 
 a, e, 0, to a. And this brings us in conclusion to Hubschmann's 
 fourth distinction between Armenian and Indo-Iranian, that s 
 does not become s after i, u, k, r, in the former and does in the 
 latter, which would be a more or less minute correspondence of 
 the sort. On this there are two remarks to be made — our 
 analysis of sk and ks shows that k did palatalise s in Armenian 
 also — and the equations oi post with Skt. pdinsu' and giser with 
 Lat. heri (Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. iii. 102 [p. 46 sup.']) are 
 tolerably satisfactory. It is likely then that this palatalising 
 of s began under certain conditions in the common epoch and 
 only became the general law in the separate existences of Zend 
 and Skt. respectively. 
 
 § 2. The Second Period. 
 
 In the description of this period it was asserted that 
 
 1. Two liquids in the same word retained each other in 
 the dental position. 
 
 2. A labialising velar, a labial explosive, or m retained 
 I in the dental position — when in the same syllable with it. 
 
 3. A labial explosive immediately preceded by r retained 
 it also in the dental position. 
 
 Subsequently it was asserted that in all other cases both 
 liquids became lingual and that in the Rig- Veda the signs 
 r and I were so apportioned that r represented the lingual 
 sounds and I the dental. 
 
 Therefore 
 
 Every word in the Rig- Veda which shows I should come 
 under one of the following heads. 
 
KEASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 217 
 
 A. It may contain another I, in which case either Z may 
 represent I.-E. r or I. 
 
 B. There may be k, kh, g, gh in the same syllable, in which 
 case the I = I.-E. I. 
 
 0. There may be p, ph, h, hh, m in the same syllable, in 
 which case the I = I.-E. I. 
 
 D. The Z may be immediately followed by a labial ex- 
 plosive, in which case it may either = I.-E. r, or fall under C. 
 
 A. Rig- Veda words containing I, accompanied by I. 
 The examples are : 
 
 alala 
 
 caldcala- 
 
 Idngala- 
 
 salaluka- 
 
 ulukhala- 
 
 tilvila- 
 
 lalama- 
 
 salila- 
 
 kUala- 
 
 nllalohita- 
 
 galmali- 
 
 [kalmali-] 
 
 to which may be added jathala-, patala-, las-. 
 
 Of course the very form of these words brings them in 
 evidence to prove the rule ; but it is advisable to add a few 
 comments on the etymology of each. 
 
 alala (in alaldbhavat-) is simply a cry or ejaculation; but on 
 comparing Greek aXaXd^co, iXeXi^o), oXoXv^co, and Latin idulo 
 it seems probable that some such onomatopoeic reduplication 
 existed in I.-E. Compare also later Skt. ululu-. 
 
 ulukhala-: Grassmann's analysis of this word, which means 
 'a mortar,' into uru- 'wide' and khala- 'a threshing-floor' can 
 hardly be called convincing. If however this be the true 
 derivation, it is interesting to compare it with uruloka-, which 
 should be *ululoka-. The latter, the correct form, is however 
 not found, either because uru-loka- was always mentally 
 identified with the other compounds of uru- so as to take the 
 same form (whereas ulukhala- had quite lost all sense-connexion 
 with uru-) or because it was a fresh compound of uru- and loka- 
 
218 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 belonging to a later epoch. The latter explanation is rendered 
 probable by the fact that uru-loka- is only found in Bk. x. 
 
 Mtdla-. This form would appear to come from a root qaHl-, 
 and a root of exactly this outward appearance will be assumed 
 to exist below (p. 219 infra). No sense-connexion with this word, 
 which means *a sweet drink/ is however possible, while the 
 Greek KipvrjfjuL offers an obvious parallel. We may then assume 
 a root qa^ir- to account for both and suppose that in Greek the 
 velar lost its labial affection. As for the -dla in kildla-, a word 
 dla does exist meaning 'poison': its older sense may have been 
 simply 'drink,' with a development like that of poison from 
 potionem, and of uenenum (see Skutsch De nominihus Latinis 
 suffiad -no- ope formatis, diss. 1890). It is, however, contrary to 
 the genius of the I.-E. languages to prefix a root* to a word 
 already formed, so as to modify its sense, and we shall see that 
 dla- probably meant 'poison' from the first. We therefore 
 analyse kildla- as qlr-e-lo-, — e being the suffix so commonly 
 found afiixed to the weak form of verbal roots. 
 
 A few words on Klpvrj/jLL The difficulty of the verb-formations 
 o-KiBvrjfjLt, TTLTvij/jiL, KLpvr)fit, TTLXvafjuaL (G. Meyer Gr. Gr.^ § 497^; 
 Brugmann Gr. Gr.^ p. 156) is well known. The explanation 
 offered by Moulton (Class. Rev. Vol. ill. p. 45 b — cf. Brugmann 
 I. c. p. 236, Per Persson Zur Wurzelerweiterung &c. p. 176) that 
 
 aKlBvTjfjLL belongs to a root sq[h]aid, sqhid, whence scindo a'^l^o), 
 but aKiBdvvvfiL to a V sqhed, and that the other verbs were 
 formed analogically (Per Persson analyses the roots differently, 
 but agrees in principle), is the only account which possesses any 
 plausibility. But Kipprj/uLL and aKiBvy/jLL may be placed on an 
 equal footing, and this gives a great increase of probability to 
 the explanation. For, in the first place, active forms of 
 (TKiSvafiac are not found ; but only aKiBvarOy aKihvaaOey 
 aKiBvaaOaiy KiBparaL in Homer, while the regular Homeric 
 parts of Kipprj/LLt, ttltvij/jll are KLpva<; i\Kipva irirva &c. If then 
 we account for Kipvrjfxi we can easily explain the less common 
 
 1 [But kllala- may conceivably =« [Cf. also §§ 29, 59. T.J 
 
 stand for *kild-dla-. T.J 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 219 
 
 but similar forms oiiriTvii^i, just as by accounting for o-KiSvafMat 
 we explain the less common but similar forms of iriXvafxaL, 
 Thus 
 
 (TKeSaaev (P 649) : ireXaaev (A 12S) = a KiBvaraL (?; 130) : 
 
 -TTiKvaraL (^ 44) 
 
 Kepaaaev (y 390) : Trirao-aav (A 480) = €\Kipva (rj 182) : 
 
 TTLTVa (<l> 7). 
 
 Kepdvvv^L and o-KeBdvvvfic may be regarded as formed from 
 stems Kep-aa- and aKeS-aa- respectively. The root of the 
 former is shown to be kei^- by the g in Skt. grmdti. The other 
 root qair- whence KipvtjfjLc is also found in Kacp6<;, in Latin 
 caerimonia and probably sincerus. The sense of these words 
 shows that the distinction between Kipvijfjui, and /ulypvfjLi, given 
 by Lid. and Scott s. v. Kpacn^ — that Kipvrjfit, means chemical, 
 as opposed to mechanical, mixture — is incorrect. The sense 
 present in KipvrifiL is that of 'mixing in dice proportion' and 
 hence it suits with the sense of Katpo^ 'due season,' Kaipio^ 
 'seasonable,' cairi-monia 'due rites' &c. So also for the sense 
 of kildla-. 
 
 caldcala- 'tottering' is obviously a reduplicated formation 
 from the root car-, of which the I.-E. form was qel-. The 
 doubled I is therefore as regular as the r in car-^. 
 
 tilvila- 'fruitful' does not at first sight bear any mark of 
 being a true I.-E. word. Perhaps the closest sense-parallel is 
 tarana- 'newly sprouted,' and, if so, the root may be ta^l, which 
 Fick Worterb.'^ I. p. 440 gives for TrfKvyeTo<; draXo^;, Lith. at-toes 
 &c. In this case it is clear that we have in tilvila- the root- 
 form tdl-. Still the formative suffixes remain difficult. 
 
 An alternative derivation from the root tel- of Latin tellus, 
 0. Bulg. tilo, O. H. G. dil, is inferior. 
 
 mlalohita-, a Dvandva compound meaning 'dark blue and 
 red.' It is of peculiar interest as giving a clue to much of what 
 took place in our fifth Period. It may be analysed into two 
 
 ^ ^cardcard-, however, occurs, cf. Grassm. s.v. Cf, p. 261 inf. T.J 
 
220 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 simple adjectives, the first nlla- = nl-lo- from the root net (see 
 below), the second as rohita-, the common Vedic derivative of the 
 widespread I.-E. root reiidh-. The compound therefore re- 
 presents an original nllore^dhdto- which must have been formed 
 while I and r were still dental. Then both remained when 
 other liquids became Unguals, and we get Yedic nUalohita-. 
 But as no compound is more liable to decomposition than a 
 Dvandva, we also get mla- and lohita- used independently. 
 It is true that we find mlalohita only in Bk. x.: but this is 
 probably accidental: mlavat occurs in the earlier books, and 
 also mlaprstha- (which itself would retain the ^ by C infra); 
 so mla- must almost certainly have been decompounded and 
 probably from mlalohita — compare the A. V. passage quoted by 
 Grassmann "nilam asya udaram lohitam prstham" (xv. 1. 7). 
 
 From this it is not an illegitimate conclusion that there 
 may be similar cases of words containing I by decomposition, of 
 which no apparent explanation exists, through the loss of the 
 compounds which produced them. 
 
 The etymology of mla : — 
 
 No very accurate parallel to this word has yet been adduced. 
 It is possible we should recognize a root nei- meaning 'dark,' of 
 which we have possible extensions in nei-d- (cf Per Persson 
 op. cit. p. 35 ff.), whence Gk. 6-veth-o^, Goth, naiteins, Germ. 
 Neid — and in ni-g- (ibid. p. 15 ff.), whence nig-r6-s,'La,tm niger. 
 The simple root gives Skt. mla- 'dark, dark-blue' for *nira- 
 = m-lp-, as explained above, also mra- (not R.V.) meaning 
 "(dark-blue) water" from m-lo- or m-ro-. We have lastly a 
 possible derivative in veio^ 'fresh-ploughed land,' which may 
 easily stand for veLf6<; = nei-y.6-s. 
 
 *^* Of course the ordinary derivation of veto^ as ne^-io-, 
 from z/€f09 'new,' is phonetically accurate. The only difficulty 
 is the accent, which in derivatives with -io- would seem to have 
 been on the root (cf. ndvyas) ^ The dark colour of new-ploughed 
 land is conspicuous: compare 
 
 * Perhaps this is the reason which but he refers to a root net 'nieder' 
 makes Fick also postulate nei- »(o-, {Etym. Wort.*' p. 600). 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 221 
 
 Tol 8e arpeyjraaKov dv 6y/jL0V<; 
 L6/jLevoi veioLO padeir]'^ reXaov iKeadai, 
 rj he /jLeXuLver oirtaOev, 
 
 S 546. 
 
 Idngala- 'a plough' is a word of quite uncertain etymology, 
 and one on which it is scarcely possible even to hazard a 
 guess. 
 
 laldma- fern. lalam% 'with a bright spot on the brow' is a 
 most curious word. It appears to be reduplicated from a root 
 which may either be restored as la^m, in which case cognates 
 [appear to be wanting, or as ra^m, and so connected with 
 e-pafJLttL \ 
 
 galmali- 'a kind of tree.' A probable derivation is hardly 
 to be found. Grassmann proposes to compare garman-, which is 
 not impossible. Latin celo, again, might be referred to, but 
 without much result. It must always be remembered that it is 
 precisely in the names of such natural objects that we are likely 
 to find non-Indo-European words. 
 
 salaluka- 'roaming about.' Undoubtedly a derivative of 
 the root sel- *to move': for the formation Grassmann well com- 
 pares jdgaruka-. 
 
 The two suffixes -ru- and -qo- were added to sel in the 
 thematic form, and we get s\e\loruqo-, which regularly gives 
 salaluka-. 
 
 salila- * flowing' comes from sel-d-lo-, and accordingly is from 
 the same root sel by means of the suffix -lo-. 
 
 It should be noted that the two roots ser- and sel- (cf. 
 Trans. Gamh. Phil. Soc. iii. p. 92 [p. 35 sup."]) are nearly 
 identical in sense, and that by our rule as at present formulated 
 either root would account for these two words last discussed. 
 
 The three words jathala-, patala- and las- have lost one I 
 owing to the changes of Period III. They will therefore be 
 reserved for discussion under Fortunatov's Law. 
 
 Addendum, kalmali- should have been included, although 
 not R.V., on account of kalmallkin-, which appears to be a 
 
 1 [But cf. laldta- * forehead.' T.J 
 
222 
 
 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 derivative. The root is qa^l (see below on kalya-), and of 
 course the second I may be either / or r* (suffix li or ri). 
 
 The result of this etymological discussion is : three words 
 alald; calacala-, and tilvila- probably contain two original Zs; 
 four more — ulukhala-, kildla-, nllalohita-, and salaluka- are 
 shown to contain one I.-E. r, the other being either r or I: in 
 salila- each may be either I or r, while from the remaining 
 three — Idngala-, laldma-, galmali — no positive result can be 
 attained. There is then no necessity to assume for any word 
 that I.-E. r + r becomes Vedic / + /, so that our first rule supra 
 may be narrowed as follows: 
 
 I. '*I.-E. / in the same word with another liquid (r or l) 
 retained that liquid in the dental position and was itself so 
 retained." 
 
 B. Words in R. V. in which I is preceded or followed by a 
 guttural in the same syllable. 
 
 a. With I probably radical. 
 
 alakam 
 
 kalya- 
 
 kulyd- 
 
 phaliga- 
 
 aMkta- 
 
 kdla- 
 
 kloga- 
 
 phalgu- 
 
 uluka- 
 
 kildsa- 
 
 khala- 
 
 laksa- 
 
 ulka- 
 
 kilbisa- 
 
 khalu- 
 
 loka- 
 
 kalaga- 
 
 kula- 
 
 khilya- 
 
 vyalkaga- 
 
 kald- 
 
 kuldya- 
 
 galdd- 
 
 vlag- 
 
 kali- 
 
 kuliga- 
 
 gld- 
 
 gulka- 
 
 kalp- 
 
 kidpha- 
 
 -plaka- 
 
 gloka- 
 
 and their compounds or derivatives. 
 
 b. With I probably or possibly suffixal. 
 
 kila- khargald- puskala- 
 
 kula- khela- -mangala- 
 
 khrgala- dagdngula- mudgala- 
 
 to which may be added Idngala- (supra). 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 223 
 
 c. The following examples given by Fortunatov of his law 
 show I.-E. I retained by the guttural but afterwards vanishing 
 before a dental. How far they are trustworthy will be dis- 
 cussed below p. 242 ff. 
 
 ghat 
 
 kdna- 
 
 kina- 
 
 kunda- 
 
 kanda- 
 
 kuthura- 
 
 khoda- 
 
 khad- 
 
 kuni- 
 
 ghata- 
 
 It remains to consider how far I in these words can be seen 
 to represent I.-E. /. 
 
 (a) alakam 'in vain.' This probably represents I.-E. 
 n-loq-o-m and contains a root leq which possibly appears as 
 leq-s in laksa- ' a mark, sign.' Its sense will be ' to cling to ' 
 so that alakam is literally 'without consequence.' Cognates 
 are not easy to see. Possibly Gk. Xotto? 'skin, bark' is 'that 
 which clings ' ; XeTra? ' a limpet ' from clinging to rocks. It is 
 probable then that the sense of 'skinning' in XeTro) is secondary, 
 but the derivation is by no means a convincing one. See 
 infra under laksa-. 
 
 alakta- ' smeared with poison ' is of interest and import- 
 ance because like mlalohita- it illustrates how irregularities 
 arise. The word ala- 'poison' would clearly have no justifi- 
 cation for its I whatever the derivation, but it happens to 
 occur in RY. only in this compound, where the k at once 
 explains it. 
 
 The latter half of the compound of course contains the 
 root na- 'to smear,' which appears in Lat. unguo &c. 
 
 The first element, ala-, may contain the suffix lo-, in which 
 case the root would hardly be identified. It is better then to 
 analyse ol-o- or ol-a- and refer it to the root ol- ' destroy,' which 
 appears in oWv/jll &c. and belongs to the o or o scale (Hiibschm. 
 Idg. Vocalsystem p. 176). 
 
 uluka- ' owl ' cf. guguluka-. 
 
 On comparing Latin ulula, O.H.G. 4wila, it is clear that the 
 I is probably for I.-E. /. The root is probably ul- ' to cry,' and 
 so as applied to the owl will belong to the class of ' descriptive ' 
 
224 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 names (see Fox and Wolf p. 91). Greek oXoXv^co cannot be 
 compared with safety. 
 
 ulkd 'radiance' undoubtedly goes with varcas, so that 
 ulka = ulqa, varcas = y^elqes-. 
 
 See Fick Wort.^ i. p. 133, who adds /reXx^vo<; = Vulcanns, 
 rfXeKTOdp, rjkeKTpov and dfiXa^' XafiTrpco^ Kvirpioc. Of these 
 the last only — the quotation is from Hesychius — is plausible. 
 A much more probable Greek equivalent is however f eXTrt? and 
 FeXTTOfiaL, and these would probably have been long ago com- 
 pared but for Latin volup, which seemed to prove I.-E. p. This 
 is still to be found in Per Persson (p. 51) ; but while the sense 
 of ' pleasure ' is naturally developed in an extension of y.el ' to 
 wish,' it is by no means so easy to reach that of * hope,' which 
 is more closely akin to that of ' brightness.' Further vol-up, 
 and Gk. KaX-vir-Tco probably contain the same suffix, and it is as 
 probable that Latin volo comes from qel as from y,el. If then 
 volup = apup, its likeness to f eXTrt? is nil. 
 
 For the suffix -up compare also hpyirrw beside hopd. Per 
 Persson would analyse it into u-\- p, cf. Wzeriu. &c. p. 160 ff. 
 
 These are side-issues : if the relation of ulka and varcas is 
 to be affirmed at all, it would be difficult to assign any cause 
 for the variation of I and r except that of the retention or 
 palatalisation of the guttural, which again depends on the 
 vowel that follows it. 
 
 kalaga- ' a vessel, beaker.' This word it is natural to place 
 with KvXi^ and so refer it to the root qel (F. and W. p. 98 sup.). 
 It will be formed with the two suffixes e/o- and ko-, of which 
 the latter is not very common. 
 
 kald *a small part, a sixteenth.' Grassmann compares 
 KCLpd) ; but this is impossible as Skt. gar- shows. It is highly 
 probable that we have here a root qol- in the o scale with non- 
 labial velar in the European languages. This is well represented 
 in Greek by k6Xo9 and its various derivatives, by KoXi6<i ' a wood- 
 pecker,' by KoXaTTTO) ' to peck ' and possibly by K6X-a<j)o^. In 
 Latin we have cul-ter and in-col-umis, while the strong form 
 qol we find in Gk. kooXop and shall meet immediately in kala-. 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 225 
 
 Mr Wharton's reference of incolumis to colo is not so orood 
 
 o 
 
 {Etym. Lat p. 47). No stress can be laid on columis, which 
 occurs only in Isidore's glossary. 
 
 The sense of " cutting " is then plain in all the derivatives, 
 and may be assigned to the root. 
 
 kali-. This is supposed to be a proper name, so it is clearly 
 useless to etymologise. 
 
 kalp- ' create, set in order.' The form of this root brings 
 it under no fewer than three of our conditions : the I may be 
 retained by the k\ or by the p\ or it may represent r before p. 
 Formally therefore we may be dealing either with qelp- or with 
 qerp-, which to begin with excludes Grassmann's citation of 
 Gothic hilpan (kelp- Lith. szelpiu Feist, p. 53). 
 
 Two main ideas seem to underlie the numerous senses of 
 kalp-, that of * forming ' and that of ' setting to rights.' The 
 latter is prominent in the R.V. sankalpas, the former in the 
 later use of -kalpa- as almost adverbial (Whitney* § 1302, 5 
 p. 449). The two senses are not irreconeileable ; but that of 
 " forming " brings in krp- ' body ' ' form ' and krpdna- ' a sword,' 
 which leads naturally to comparing Lith. kerpu ' I cut ' and so 
 gives an original qerp-, qrp-. 
 
 It may be noted however that the causative kalpaydmi^ "I set to 
 rights," corresponds so closely in form and sense to Lat. culpo ( = colpdio) 
 that possibly a doublet qelp : qlp- should be assumed to unite with 
 qerp- : qrp- in Skt. Jcalp- : hrp-. Then culpa will have been formed from 
 culpo : its oldest sense appears to be 'blameworthiness.' 
 
 For Latin corpus see under gilpa {infra p. 238). The root qerp could 
 only give "^quorpus and curpus, whether from qorp- or qrp-, while qerp- is 
 also impossible as que does not become co in accented syllables before a 
 double consonant (cf. quercu^ with colo). This separation of corpus and 
 krp- is another proof that similarity of form and identity of meaning do 
 not always make a good derivation. 
 
 The relation kalp- : krp-, which by our rules results from 
 either qerp- : qrp- or qelp- : qlp-y is displaced after the influencing 
 causes had ceased (viz. in our Period V.) by the innovation, 
 or rather proportional formation, kalp- : kip-. Hence the perfect 
 caklp- and causative aorist clklpa, which are only as early as 
 D. P. 15 
 
226 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 Bk. X. of the R.V. It was for this root that the rare I was 
 introduced (Whitney ^ § 26). The converse levelling by which 
 r = / is " gunated " to ar, we shall find a more common source 
 of irregularity. 
 
 kalya- 'healthy.' Greek Ka\6<^ at once suggests itself: if it 
 is to be identified with kalya-, we must assume that it had a 
 non-lab. velar and a dififerent suffix ; for koXlo'^ would give 
 */faX\o9, while the variation between Hom. KoXo^i and Att. 
 /tfaA-09 points unmistakeably to KoXfo^. This would stand for 
 I.-E. kl]^6-f and it would be tempting to analyse kh^-6- and 
 refer it to the root kle]i> with a sense-developement parallel to 
 that of k\vt6<; — the accentuated -o- suffix commonly forming 
 passive nouns. This would separate Ka\6<i and kalya- com- 
 pletely ; the latter must = qa^l-io-. 
 
 According to Brugmann (Grundriss I. § 439) Slav. cUu, 
 Celt, eel and Gothic hails are related. If however Skt. kalya- 
 is to be referred to this group, it appears that Gothic must 
 show i- epenthesis. This is doubtful and so Feist (p. 47, cf. 
 Grundriss i. § 641) makes hails = I.-E. k^ailo-. Now Slav, eel 
 must = qoil or qail-, but Celt, eel can only = qeil, and as e and a 
 cannot stand in an Ablaut-relation, this proves qoil for the Sla- 
 vonic form. But Gothic hails can also = qoilo-, and hence all three 
 point back to the same form. If then epenthesis took place, it 
 did not take place during the Germanic period, but at an earlier 
 
 epoch. We may then identify kalya- by supposing I.-E. ^ "[to- 
 
 qoL) ^ 
 
 to have become ^ T. \ after the separation of the Asiatic branch. 
 qoilo-] 
 
 For another example of a change being over hastily denied 
 
 because ascribed to too late a period compare Bechtel, Haupt- 
 
 proh. p. 278. 
 
 kala-, 'a defined period of time/ may be identified with 
 Gk. KooXoVf * a member,' and referred to qol- the strong form of 
 qol-, supra p. 224. 
 
 Pott's attempted identification with Kaipo^ (K. Z. ix. 175 
 Anm.) is of course impossible. 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 227 
 
 kilasa-, ' spotted.' If the rules given by Brugmann (Grds. 
 I. §§ 445 ff.) are a complete statement of the facts, il after k 
 must necessarily represent qlK But as his rules fail to explain 
 Ms, Mm, and probably Mia (infra p. 232), and as Gk. rlXko), 
 TikaL and probably Lat. cilium are the nearest parallels to 
 Mlasa-, but show i to be radical, we may be pardoned for 
 doubting the absoluteness of the rule. We may therefore 
 suppose a root *qail-, qil with primary sense ' to scatter.' 
 
 If on the other hand riXai and cilium appear too remote, 
 we may find cognates in Sanskrit itself Cf kalana- ' a spot,' 
 kala- ' black,' and O. B. kalU (black) ' dirt.' Other more distant 
 derivatives are given by Fick p. 26. Then the root is qel. 
 Mlasa however represents the form qdl not qll (which I prefer 
 to write ql^). Hence qdla- -^ kilasa as e-ql^et -^ akirat. (This 
 point of principle will be more fully discussed ; for the present 
 reference to Bechtel pp. 114 ff. must suffice.) 
 
 kilhisa- ' guilt,' probably belongs to the same root. 
 
 [kula- 'family,' 'community 
 
 ,^ _ , , . These two are obviously 
 
 [kuldya- 'nest J 
 
 cognate and may be discussed together. The root may be 
 
 written qy^el, and must be distinguished from qel in carami 
 
 &c., which gives Gk. errXeTo, 7roA,o9, kvkXo^ &c. (Grds. I. § 427 a, 
 
 b, c, and cf. pp. 97 and 112 sup.). The root qel- had as its 
 
 fundamental sense that of 'motion' prevailingly 'in a circle.' 
 
 This could not give the sense of kula-. 
 
 The root q^el on the other hand has not yet been identified 
 
 and was likely to escape detection for obvious reasons. The 
 
 weak form qui however gives us kula- and kidaya- directly 
 
 while the strong qi^ol gives ttoXc^, which is akin to kulaya- even 
 
 in suffix. The perseverance of the attempts to identify TroXt? 
 
 and puri- is only equalled by their want of success. See the 
 
 discussion in the Grundriss I. p. 246 (cf Gr. Gr."" p. 102) and 
 
 note that an irregidar representation of a long sonant liquid is 
 
 the logical result. As for Vedic pur, it may very possibly be a 
 
 derivative of the root pel ' to fill,' and later puri- may be a 
 
 derivative of that; but for Greek and for TrdXt? the sense is 
 
 quite inappropriate, quel- must have here the sense of 'rest 
 
 15—2 
 
228 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 in/ 'dwelling,' which is not the same as 'moving in a circle.' 
 Both roots become combined in Latin colo and Gk. ireko), 
 whence from long habit we have some difficulty in seeing the 
 double sense of 'dwelling' and 'circling.' The principle however 
 of formal merging of different roots is a real and important one: 
 it is precisely analogous to syncretism of uses, and must be 
 recognised in many instances to explain sense-transitions other- 
 wise impossible. For changes of sense follow as invariable laws 
 as those of sound, and it will soon be possible to formulate some 
 at least \ 
 
 A hypothesis must be judged by its works. If we assume 
 a root q^el-y q^ol-, qui meaning ' to dwell/ we explain 
 
 1. kula-, kuldya-. 
 
 2. TToXfc? both in form and sense. 
 
 3. The wide meaning of TriXco and colo (quel + qel). 
 
 4. TTvXr} and irvXaia. 
 
 5. ciiltus == qul-to-s, cf Grds. I. pp. 324 — 5. 
 
 6. TTToXt? as a mistake for ttttoX*? on the analogy of 
 TTToXe/jLo^ [=pi-ol- perhaps]. 
 
 The equation of kulaya- with koXlol (Bechtel p. 131) is less 
 satisfactory. 
 
 *^* Fick, Worterh^ i. pp. 26 and 386, has anticipated many 
 of these identifications, but he identifies them on different lines, 
 and admits other impossible relations. 
 
 kuliga- 'an axe.' Grassmann's analysis into ku-lig- needs 
 modification, as he makes lig- = rig- = epeiK-, and there would 
 then be no reason for the I. Fick (i.^ p. 31) derives it from a 
 post-K V. klig ' to torture,' Slav, klesta ' forceps.' This assumes 
 that qliK- could become qlHk-, which, in itself doubtful, would, 
 as we have just seen, give *kur{g- and must be rejected. 
 
 Grassmann's analysis ku-lig- is obviously the simplest ; but 
 instead of rig- proving that -lig- = rik-, we now see that -lig- 
 proves that rig- = lik-. This then separates rig- from ipeUco, 
 which has already been done by Brugmann {Qrds. i. p. 213), 
 who assigns epeUco to Skt. rikh-, likh-, Lith. rekiu. 
 
 1 CCf. p. 178 sup. C] 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 229 
 
 ku-lig-a- and rig- therefore contain a root lik-, the / becoming 
 r regularly in rig- and remaining under the influence of the k 
 in ku-liga-. This root may also be found in its primitive sense 
 of ' dividing,' ' separating ' in Gk. XUvov ' a winnowing 
 basket.' Possibly also Latin lignum was originally 'split wood,' 
 not ' collected wood,' and lictor was the ' axe-man.' 
 
 kidpha- ' a bone,' seems to have no cognates : it can hardly 
 = K6\a(j>o<^, for which see under kola-. 
 
 kulya- 'a stream.' No cognates seem to have been yet 
 discovered. 
 
 kloga- 'cry.' This is formed from the root qley^k-, whence 
 in the form qlok- for qld(y,)k- (cf. F. and W. p. 95 sup.) comes 
 Greek Kkcocraa). Possibly in this and the parallel root qre^k- 
 (whence kriig- and /cpco^o)) a double type existed, viz. qlei^g- : 
 qle^k-, cf. kX(o^o) and Grds. I. § 469 (7), p. 348. 
 
 khala- 'threshing-floor.' Primitive sense possibly 'beaten 
 or pounded hard,' compare ulukhala-. Hence a connexion is 
 possible with Latin callis ' a beaten path,' and callum * a hard 
 spot,' although derivations involving hard aspirates are at 
 present always dubious. %aA.tf and ;^a\€7ro9 at all events are 
 not connected. 
 
 khalu ' really ' seems to have no cognates. 
 
 khilya- 'barren land,' may be qkdl-io-, and so from the same 
 root as khala-, 
 
 galda ' filtering.' Fick Worterh. i.^ p. 36 (and Brugmann 
 Grundriss I. § 428) has a root ael- whence post-Ved. galati 
 Gk. paXkco &c. and Germ, quellen ; hence also Lith. galas ' end ' 
 and this word. The variations of sense are remarkable, but 
 perhaps not sufficiently so to warrant incredulity. It is note- 
 worthy that galda violates Fortunatov's law, and will be 
 discussed again, p. 248. 
 
 gld- ' to be exhausted, downcast.' This is obviously a root 
 of the type discussed by Brugmann M. U. I. 1 ff".\ and goes 
 
 1 CCf. Grundriss ii. §§ 578 sqq. pp. 951 sqq. T.] 
 
230 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 with 7/a-, jya-, gya-, sd-, gvd-, mid- ; wXtj-, tXtj-, <f>p7j-, 6vr)-, 
 yvTj-, ttXco-, ryvG)-, (TTpo)- ', pie-, cve-, Id-{nus), {e)-rd-{m). It 
 must therefore be analysed gl-d-, but the simple root cannot 
 be found in jar- ' to grow old ' for two reasons ; 1st jar- is 
 proved to have had g by Slav, zir^ti &c., 2nd it is proved to 
 have had r by yepcov &c., whereas gl- postulates ael. It is 
 therefore obvious to conclude that this is an 'extension' of 
 the root just mentioned which has that form. Its sense was 
 probably ' to fall ' or ' drop/ and from that the metaphorical 
 sense of gl-d- is easily obtained. 
 
 -plaka- is only found in kagaplaka-, and the sense is only 
 to be guessed at. Grassmann compares Lith. plak-u, which is 
 formally faultless. It will then belong to the root plaq-, plciQ-, 
 Gk. irXTJaao), TrXrjyr], Gothic fai-fldk. 
 
 phaliga- is very probably a derivative of phala (or its root). 
 See infra. 
 
 phalgu-. The discussion of this word labours under the 
 ' hard-aspirate ' difficulty. It is impossible to suppose any 
 connexion with (jiXiyco &c., fulgur, flamma &c., which come 
 from bhleg-, while the sense is not appropriate. The sense of 
 (|)Xi^jr (j)XvKTC<; &c. (see F. and W. p. 98), is appropriate if we 
 suppose that phalgu- meant ' trembling ' and so ' weak ' 'slight': 
 it is applied to vacas in the only R. Y. passage. 
 
 The inversion of the liquid is not infrequent. See Brug- 
 mann Grds. I. § 259 fin. (and more fully Per Persson p. 97 f.) 
 for examples. His explanation however (if it be so intended) 
 that this depends on the consonantal combination is not 
 satisfactory. Some of the instances favour Dr Fennell's^ view 
 of the repugnance to ' consonantal weight ' shown by accented 
 syllables, but as in many cases both forms are found, e.g. 
 tatrdptha : tatdrptha, it is more probable that the cause lies 
 in the identity of the weak form of root from diphthongs 
 like er &c., and like re &c. Thus trep being reduced to trp 
 was wrongly gunated tarp, cf. Brugm.'s explanation of terreo, 
 Grds. I. p. 430, whereas ib. ii. p. 450 he admits I.-E. metathesis. 
 
 * [v. ♦Indo-European Vowel System,' pp. 3 and 4. T.J 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 231 
 
 laksa- 'a mark, sign' has already been mentioned under 
 alakam, where a root leq- was postulated, meaning ' to cling or 
 adhere to/ but no very certain cognates were adduced. Per- 
 haps however Latin lacio and laqueus are reconcileable in form 
 and sense, when they may either cause us to write the root as 
 laq-, or have pretonic a by Wharton's rule*. 
 
 loka- 'open space.' This word is generally derived from 
 rue- and so = la^y^qo-^ Thus the / is proved, but there also 
 occurs the form roka- which will be discussed below. 
 
 vyalkaga- 'a plant,' bears no trace of I.-E. origin and is 
 exactly the kind of word that would be borrowed. Etymo- 
 logising is therefore useless. 
 
 vlag- 'pressing' cf. ahhivlanga- 'a crowding.' This cannot 
 = Lith. verziu, of which the root is uergh. It is suggested 
 (Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. ill. p. 93 = sup. p. 37) that this root 
 in the reduced form wjq- may give o;^Xo9 i.e. fo\;YXo9, though 
 without any explanation of the aspirate %. The root however 
 would seem to have a still wider range. 
 
 vlag- points to a root of the form y^la^a- (which may be an 
 'extension' of y,el- 'to press'). If we suppose then a double 
 type ula^a and y^la^ah (Grundriss i. § 469 (8) p. 348), we can 
 construct the scheme 
 
 I.-E. 
 
 Skt. 
 
 Gk. Lat. 
 
 ?^.^»'g 
 
 : vlag 
 
 — — 
 
 Ula^n^ 
 
 -vlanga- 
 
 fXa^^-avod [langueo] 
 
 uig 
 
 — 
 
 €-\\a^6 (o- 88 &c.)' vulgus 
 
 uli 
 
 — 
 
 oA-/3o9 
 
 Ula^gh 
 
 — 
 
 \a(j)-vpa 
 
 i^ld^gh 
 
 — 
 
 €l\7](f)a 
 
 Ulgh 
 
 — 
 
 o^ko^ 
 
 1 ll^ransactions of the Philological 304, 540. T.] 
 
 Society, 1888—90, pp. 47 sqq., and 3 [Xhe change of -fX- to -XX- is 
 
 Mem. de la Soc. de Linguistiqiie, pp. not as yet recognised but it may 
 
 451 sqq. T.] perhaps be justified by that of -/>- to 
 
 •^ [Cf. Fick, Worterb.^ i. pp. 121—2, -pp-. G. Meyer, Gr. Gram.^ § 270. T.] 
 
232 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 The Latin langueo corresponds phonetically to y^la'^na, but 
 the connexion in sense is not so clear. The Greek derivatives 
 of the word have with the exception of o;^Xo9 developed along 
 quite other lines. 
 
 gulka- ' purchase-money ' does not present any cognates. 
 
 gloka- ' sound, praise &c.' is a derivative of the wide-spread 
 root kley^- [k\vt6^, Ludvig, loud, Slav, &c.] by means of the 
 suffix -qo-, and so = kle^qo- or klo^qo-. The suffix -qo- is 
 therefore the direct cause of the I as compared with r in gru- . 
 
 (6) Words in which I appears to belong to the suffix. 
 
 , kila- intensive particle appears to belong with kis kim to 
 the relative stem qi- with the suffix -lo-. It does not seem yet 
 to have been explained why the q in these words did not 
 palatalise. 
 
 kula- 'a. precipice/ is probably from ku- 'to look,' i.e. "a 
 place to look out for," and so also contains -lo-. 
 
 The other words cannot be derived with any certainty but 
 all probably contain the same suffix -lo-. They need not be 
 discussed further now, but are of great importance when we 
 come to speak of irregularities. 
 
 (c) These are discussed below. 
 
 The result of this etymological examination is as follows. 
 Thirty- two examples were given at the head of this section in 
 which I was in the same syllable with an unpalatalised guttural. 
 (By 'the same syllable' is not meant any technical description, 
 but simply that the sounds are separated at furthest by a 
 single sonant.) Of these 32, two — viz. kalp- and phaliga — 
 have been referred to other rules ; seven — viz. kali-, kulpha-, 
 kulya-, khalu, phalgu-, vyalkaga-, and gulka — have presented 
 no plausible etymology. For the remaining 23 etymologies 
 have been suggested which may or may not be accepted, but 
 at least no case for the ^ = I.-E. j; can be shown in a single 
 
I 
 
 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 233 
 
 instance. If different derivatives of the same root as alakam 
 and laksa- are counted as one these 23 are reduced to 17. 
 
 We have therefore this evidence to deal with (including h). 
 In 40 Vedic words I appears in the neighbourhood of k, g &c. 
 All of those words which can be certainly derived, and 23 
 which ma}^ be plausibly derived, show that this Z = I.-E. I. 
 None of the remaining words at all favours the assumption that 
 their I = L-E. r. 
 
 Therefore if they are I.-E. words, the I represents I.-E. I. 
 Moreover in all of these words k, g, or kh represent I.-E. non- 
 palatalised velars. Beside certain of the words which can be 
 shown to have had I in the root stand other forms from which 
 the guttural is absent. In those forms the I is replaced by r. 
 
 Therefore the unpalatalised velar is the cause of I.-E. I 
 becoming / in these words. 
 
 No more formal demonstration than this is possible. It is 
 interesting to notice that a hint of the truth was given by 
 0. Weise as long ago as 1880 (B. B. vi. p. 115), when he called 
 attention to the fact that palatal k -\- 1 became gr in Sanskrit, 
 while Skt. kr always was cognate to European kr-. As this was 
 a very partial view, it is easily dismissed by Bechtel {op. cit. 
 p. 389) with the quotation of gloka-, one of our strongest 
 examples, and of glis- which is not Vedic, and so does not fall 
 inside our present period. 
 
 C. Words in E.V. in which I is preceded or followed by a 
 labial in the same syllable. 
 
 a. With radical I. 
 
 
 
 idapa- 
 
 palasti- 
 
 phalgu- 
 
 mla- 
 
 ulba- 
 
 palaga- 
 
 bala- 
 
 mluc- 
 
 kalp- 
 
 palita- 
 
 bali- 
 
 lip- 
 
 kahnali- 
 
 plaka- 
 
 balbaja- 
 
 libuja- 
 
 kilbisa- 
 
 plava- 
 
 bila- 
 
 lubh- 
 
 kidpha- 
 
 plagi- 
 
 bilma- 
 
 lopaga- 
 
 jalpi- 
 
 plusi- 
 
 mala- 
 
 gilpa- 
 
 talpa- 
 
 phala- 
 
 mll- 
 
 
234 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 b. With suffixal L 
 
 apdla- kapila- vigpala- gimbala- 
 
 udumhala- trpala- gabala- su-pippala- 
 
 upala- pipUa- glpala- 
 
 c. With / represented by a lingual by Fortunatov's law. 
 [These words are discussed separately as they involve another 
 element in the problem ; see below § 3, p. 241. C] 
 
 The question is then : how far does I in these words re- 
 present I.-E. I, and in how many cases does the etymology 
 point to original r ? 
 
 a. This list must be considerably lightened for discussion : 
 the following examples, kalp-, kalmali-, kilbisa-, kulpha-, plaka-, 
 phalgu-y are certainly instances which illustrate the rule ; but 
 as the I is doubly supported, they have already been mentioned. 
 ulba-, jalpi-, talpa-, balbaja-, gilpa- have a labial explosive 
 immediately following the I, and therefore may belong to D, for 
 which they are reserved. 
 
 The remaining words are 
 
 ulapa- 'underwood.' This occurs only in Bk. x., and is of 
 uncertain formation. Reference to the root f^el 'to cover' is 
 certainly possible, but no suffix -po- is known. Or the root 
 might be la^p and the initial u like that in uloka-y for which 
 see Bartholomae B. B. xvii. 115 — 16; but for this root again 
 no evidence is found. 
 
 ? Lith. lapas ' a leaf (which Fick i.* p. 536 takes with 
 XeTTO) adding doubtfully Gothic laufs). 
 
 palasti' (only in composition as a proper name) is inter- 
 preted 'grey.' With palaga- 'a leaf,' and palita- 'grey,' it is 
 probably a derivative of pala- ' straw,' which is found not in 
 Vedic but in later Sanskrit. It is cognate with Latin palea 
 ' a straw ' and possibly with TrdXkto and iraX'q. 
 
 plava- * a boat ' and plu- * to swim ' are from the widespread 
 root Pijejf-, plo]^-, cf. TrXeo), ttXoo?, &c. 
 
 ptdgi'. The meaning of this word is doubtful. It only 
 occurs in a single passage (in Bk. x.), where it is joined witli 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 235 
 
 yakrt-. From this slight indication Grassmann conjectured that 
 it meant some internal organ, but Fick Vergl. Worterb. I.* p. 85 
 boldly identifies it with Tr/oaTr/Se? with the remark that " tt = q 
 entstand in irpairihe^ durch Wirkung des labialen Anlautes." 
 By this he apparently means "7r=f," and is applying a principle 
 which he makes frequent use of in identifications, viz. that a 
 root of the form velar + son ant + palatal or labial -f sonant + palatal 
 converts the palatal to velar by assimilation. For instances 
 cf. his work at pp. xxviii., 19, 30, 78, 90, 91, 93, 94. Such an 
 effect is not intrinsically impossible, but as he uses it, it is 
 quite unscientific. The assimilation in question must have 
 been either I.-E. or a feature of an individual language or both. 
 If it were I.-E., we could not get Skt. plagi- corresponding to 
 Greek irpaTrlSe^ ; and the form *hhergd (p. 91) must have 
 become *bhergo. If on the other hand it belonged to the 
 separate languages, why do we find it now explaining Skt. 
 bhai^gas (p. 92), now Lith. peku (p. 78), bligsti (p. 94), and now 
 Gk. irpaiTihe^, although each language has many words which 
 show no such tendency ? 
 
 It will appear from a subsequent section that the sphere 
 of I has already begun to widen in R. V. X., and therefore the r 
 does not make the derivation impossible, but this, combined 
 with the doubt as to the sense, and the abnormal assimilation, 
 are perhaps sufficient to warrant its rejection. 
 
 plusi- * an insect.' The closest parallel appears to be Arm. 
 low *a flea,' Hubschmann, Arm. Stud. I. no. 126, who compares 
 it with Gk. >/ru\Xa, Lat. puleuc, Slav, blucha, Lith. blusa. The 
 Sanskrit word is however closer than any of these, as low points 
 to *plusos. The Greek and Latin words again can only be 
 identified with each other by supposing s-pusl-a to give -^vWa 
 and pusl-ek- pulex. Comparison with plusi- therefore fails, 
 while in the Balto-Slavic words the b is strange for p before I. 
 
 The Teutonic word, our 'flea,' is found in almost every 
 branch of that group. Kluge connects it with fliehen and a 
 root tlei^k- tluk-, which appears to be a modification of Osthoff's 
 tlek- for Gothic ]}laJisjan and Lat. locusta, P. and B. B. xiii. 412 f. 
 
 Feist's observation {Got Etym. p. 122) is certainly to the 
 
236 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 point here: "Fliehen und Springen sind...sehr verschiedene 
 Thatigkeiten, die nur den BegrifF der Bewegung mit einander 
 gemein haben," 
 
 Prof. Skeat derives the word from a root \/I*I^U * to fly or 
 jump.' Without going so far as to find a cognate in Skt. plu-, 
 we may perhaps conjecture that the Teutonic word did contain 
 plu- and so is more or less cognate to low and plusi. 
 
 phala- 'a fruit.' Grassmann compares phdla- 'a ploughshare/ 
 and makes the sense ' bursting ' with root phal-. Others com- 
 pare Gk. 6-(l)6Xo(; (e.g. Hoffmann in B.B. xviii. p. 155). The 
 breathed aspirate makes any identification difficult. Greek 
 <j>a\6<i &c. cannot be compared, as Lith. balu shows that bh was 
 here original. On the whole the best cognates are Skt. sphat-, 
 sphut-, pat-] yjraXh', Lith. spdliai; Germ, spalten, cf. Gk. 
 acr</)aXaf, (nraka^, which are given by Per Persson (see op. cit. 
 p. 33 &c.). 
 
 "^ • ) \ In all these words the h has not yet 
 
 hall- ' offering.' 
 balbaja- ' a grass.' 
 bila- * a hollow.' 
 bilma- ' a wedge.' 
 
 been satisfactorily explained. They 
 
 " may not be I.-E., but if they are, it is 
 
 impossible to give satisfactory cognates. 
 
 mala- ' dirty garment.' Probable cognates are /t^eXa?, Latin 
 mains, Armenian mek 'sin,' Lett, melu, Lith. milyti 'to err,' cf. 
 Fick I.* p. 109. He adds however cognates from a really dis- 
 tinct root, as it is unlikely that Lith. malti, Gk. fivWco, Latin 
 molo, &c. belong to a root meaning * black.' Possibly /xeXeo?. 
 
 Hubschmann (Arm. Stud. i. pp. 42 and 73) prefers to 
 identify me\ with the root mer in dfjuapTavco, &c. The root 
 mel is preferable : for Arm. X represents I.-E. I not r. 
 
 None of Hubschmann 's examples on p. 73 is certain for 
 \ = r. In astX beside aaryp, neX = O. S. naru, we may be 
 dealing with I.-E. doublets — possibly due to formative suffixes. 
 In geXmn we are dealing not with the root y^r, whence fepiov, 
 but with the root j^e/, whence vellus, tana, ovXo<;. As for 
 eXbair=f rater, and aXbear—<\)peap, the position of the liquid 
 shows that the words have a peculiar history. It may be noted 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 237 
 
 that r does not seem ever to precede b in Armenian — for in 
 arbaiieak and arhenam the ar = r. 
 
 mil- 'to close the eyes.' Although this root only occurs 
 once in R. V., it is vouched for by the more frequent mis-, 
 which as an example of Fortunatov's law will meet us below. 
 mil cannot be referred to Lat. mlror, nor to fieiScda). Possibly 
 we should recognize a root meil- ' to soothe ' or * to close the 
 eyes' according as mental or physical sense predominates. This 
 adds /jielX-La 'gifts' and fiei\-L')(o<^. Cf also afitka^y jJuXa^, 'the 
 convolvulus,' which closes its flowers at night. 
 
 mla- ' to soften ' is a root of the same type as gla- {supra, 
 p. 229), and again refers us to M. U. I. 1 (see esp. p. 53). It 
 may then be analysed ml-a^, and the root will be ma^'l-, Lat. 
 molo, Arm. malem, w^here possibly the correspondence of Latin 
 and Arm. a may prove mol in the o-scale according to 
 Bartholomae's rule (B. B. xvii. pp. 91 sqq.). 
 
 This root in the form ml gives Skt. mr and in the form Tni, 
 mur. It is therefore probable that the parallel root mer- 
 postulated by Fick (i.* p. 107) had no existence. Gk. fiapvafiai, 
 of course can equally well come from mer * to die.' Skt. mxir 
 is gunated from mr and mr-ad- is also a Sanskrit development. 
 Zend vira- = mla- (Seldner B. B. xvii. 349) of course proves 
 nothinof. At the same time a root-doublet mel- : mer- is not in 
 itself impossible. See pp. 256 and 260 f. infra. 
 
 mluc- is a derivative of the last mentioned root and will be 
 further discussed under the exceptions. 
 
 lip- ' to besmear.' For this word the / is proved by Lith. 
 limpu, O. B. lepu. The question of its relation to rip belongs 
 also to the section on irregularities. 
 
 lihuja-, * a liana, creeping plant.' Clearly not Indo-European. 
 
 luhh- ' desire eagerly,' cf. Lat. lihet, luhet. 
 
 lopaga- 'a fox, jackal,' I.-E. lo^peho. See Fox and Wolf 
 [p. 92 f. supJ] for cognates and further analysis. 
 
 h. The words with suffixal I need no separate comment and 
 are taken as a class, below p. 256. 
 
238 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 Before discussing C any further it is as well to take the 
 small number of words in which the I immediately precedes a 
 labial into consideration. 
 
 D. Words in R. V. which contain I immediately ^preceding 
 a labial eosplosive. 
 
 kalp' kulpha- talpa- gilpa 
 
 kilbisa- jalpi- balbaja- ulba- 
 
 Of these kilbisa- and kulpha- have already been discussed : 
 in the former I was shown to be original and sufficiently ex- 
 plained by the k, while the latter was shown to have no 
 satisfactory derivation, but at least no suspicion of I.-E. r. 
 Again balbaja- was regarded as non-Indo-European. These 
 may therefore be passed over. 
 
 kalp- supra, p. 225. 
 
 jalpi- ' whispering.' Later Skt. jala ' water ' might possibly 
 suggest a derivation, but according to Per Persson (p. Ill) 
 jala- goes with quellen, which brings us back to ae-l. Of this 
 we have seen several derivatives for Vedic but none that 
 approaches jalpi- in sense. A more simple plan is therefore to 
 refer it to the root jar- 1 as Grassmann does. For -p as a deter- 
 minative cf Persson op. cit. p. 49 f This then refers us back 
 to the wide-spread root ger-, Gk. yijpvo), Lat. garrio, so that 
 jalpi- will represent gerp- (Qerp- if we add Lith. garsas, O. H. G. 
 queran, Fick i.^ p. 35). 
 
 talpa- 'couch/ 'lair,' is obviously torpo-s, the regular -o- 
 noun from the root terp- whence trp- and Tepirco. It is there- 
 fore ' the place where one takes one's pleasure,' and is of special 
 interest as giving just the necessary sense-link to connect repTrco 
 and torpeo, which would otherwise have seemed fanciful. 
 
 gilpa- ' gay.' This sense is post- Vedic and secondary. It is 
 properly a substantive and means 'shape' or 'form,' as is shown 
 by the Vedic compound sugilpa- * with beauteous form.' This 
 suggests a relation with Latin corpus. 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 239 
 
 We saw above that the superficially accurate identification 
 of corpus and krp is impossible on a closer testing ; for corpus 
 cannot be either *querpus or *quorpus whether from *qorp or 
 *qrp. Accordingly Mr Wharton's parallel of irpairlhe^ with 
 its sense-difficulties is also dismissed. Few Latin words are 
 less ambiguous in pointing out their origin than corpus with its 
 stem corpor-. By the regular phonology of the language it 
 must represent korpos- or krpos-, and as we thereby get a 
 neuter es/os stem, the former is at once excluded by the laws of 
 I.-E. ablaut. The neuter stem krp-es- is of course regular, 
 whether we suppose that ffddo^; ird6o<i &c. prove an I.-E. -es- 
 class with Tiefstufe or whether, as is much more probable, we 
 suppose original ablaut between root and F. S., as 
 
 ^evd-oa- kerp-os- temp-os- gen-os- 
 
 ^ad-ea- krp-es- tmp-es- gn"-eS' 
 
 variously levelled as fievOo^, /BdOo^, corpor-, tempor-, gener-. 
 This root kerp in the form ksrp-d- is precisely what is wanted 
 to explain gilpd- (oxytone 6-stems, see G. Meyer Gr. Gr? § 17), 
 both in form and sense, so that the identification is at least 
 tempting. 
 
 ulha- ' egg-shell,' has been reserved to the last because it is 
 ambiguous. In the first place the h may point to a non-I.-E. 
 origin. If not, and perhaps this is the more probable view, it 
 must be regarded as one of those unexplained cases where h=^. 
 But again as regards the root. There are two wide-spread and 
 very similar roots y^el- and ^r-. Both of these go back to the 
 suhjective period of the language (see Fox and Wolf sub init.) 
 when a phonetic group expressed all ideas in the same mental 
 system. Thus the wool of sheep, clothing, wrapping, and 
 drawing on (garments) all belonged to the same and were all 
 expressed alike. Hence all these senses are traceable in dif- 
 ferent developments of the same root. 
 
 Thus from i^el- we find the sense of ' wool ' present in Latin 
 vellus, lana, Germ. Vlies, our wool, Arm. gekmn, Gk. ov\o<;, 
 Skt. urna, Lith. vibia. The sense of ' covering ' is to be found 
 in Gk. eiXco, Skt. vr, &c. The sense of 'wrap' in etXco, dXel^, 
 
240 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 volvo, Arm. gaXel. Of * pluck, pull, &c.' in Lat. vello (= vel-no), 
 and in the extended form u^lq- (see Fox and Wolf). 
 
 Similarly from uer-: the sense of 'wool ' in eptov, *Fprjv, and 
 papvo^, Arm. garn 'lamb,' Skt. urana [and llrna]. Of 'covering' 
 in Skt. vr-, then developed into ' protect ' in fepvofiai, ^pvo/xac, 
 i-pvco, Goth, varjan, and perhaps Lat. vereor (= *voreor causa- 
 tive). Hence again Gk. eipepo^ ' slavery,' Arm. giri 'a slave,' as 
 servits to the root ser- : of ' draw ' in epvco, in Lat. operio, aperio 
 (= op-i^erio, ap-iierio), Lith. -veriu, Brugm. Idg. Forsck. i. 174. 
 The reason for not referring Arm. geXmn and gakel to the 
 second root lies in the separation of Arm. X from I.-E. r (supra). 
 
 It would therefore seem that ulba- may or may not be an 
 example of the rule that I.-E. r becomes Vedic I before a labial 
 explosive. 
 
 We have then kalp-, jalpi-, talpa-, and gilpa- offering fairly 
 simple and plausible derivations if their I can = I.-E. r and 
 leaving us without any explanation if their I = I.-E. /. 
 
 In each of these the I immediately precedes a p, and as the 
 theory was that Vedic I )( r depended on a dental )( lingual and 
 not l)(ir distinction, and that labial influence in some way 
 favoured the dental at the expense of the lingual position in 
 the case of I.-E. I: it is not altogether improbable that in the 
 combination XP the labial might similarly cause a retention of 
 the dental position, and consequently produce Vedic I. 
 
 It is not logical to conclude that the same would have happened for 
 rq; for, as we have seen, Armenian shows that before the separation q 
 
 had become with the ^ following and tending to separation from 
 the h. 
 
 * 
 
 As however there is no word which demands a similar rule 
 for any other labial explosive, it is best to state the rule as 
 narrowly as possible, viz. that " I.-E. x before p becomes I in 
 Vedic *' and consequently elect to refer ulha- to the root ^/. 
 
 Having thus got rid of kalp-y jalpi-, talpa-, and ^Ipa-, and 
 retained ulba-, kilbisa-, kulpha- and balbaja-, we can proceed to 
 analyse the result of C. 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 241 
 
 Nine have no plausible etymology, viz. halmali-, kulpha-, 
 plagi-, bala-, hali-, balbaja-, hila-, bilma-, libuja. 
 
 All the remaining eighteen have been shown to contain 
 I.-E, I, or at least to have a probable case for it. Excluding all 
 double representatives of possibly the same root we reduce 
 these 18 to 15, of which number three are capable of coming 
 under B. 
 
 The inference as before is that the labial is the cause of the 
 I, and hence the other words for which no derivation has yet 
 been found must also show /, if they are Indo-European. 
 
 § 3. On Fortunatov's Law. 
 
 Hitherto the only test to distinguish original I and r 
 Sanskrit has been provided by a law which Fortunatov 
 'propounded in B.B. vi. pp. 215 — 220 to the effect that while 
 r+ dental remained in Skt. l-\- dental invariably became the 
 lingual corresponding to the dental in question. This rule is 
 not accepted by Brugmann {Grds. I. p. 211 note), but has 
 recently been defended by Bechtel {op. cit p. 381 f.y. It is 
 also accepted by Fick, and from the large number of cases in 
 which it is found to work there is considerable difficulty 
 in the way of rejecting it. The evidence is at all events so 
 strong that no account of the liquids in Sanskrit can avoid 
 touching upon it, and if we have made out a case for dis- 
 tinguishing Vedic r and I, it is all the more important to 
 ascertain the relation between this distinction and Fortunatov's. 
 
 It is not contended that this law explains the Skt. Unguals 
 as a class, and hence we are not in a position to say when we 
 have all the examples of the rule before us : more may be 
 added from time to time to explain other instances of the 
 lingual. 
 
 In attempting to fix the date of the change it is important 
 to classify those examples which have been given of the rule 
 
 1 pt is now discussed at length by Bartholomae in I. F. iii. pp. 157 — 
 197. T.J 
 
 D. P. 16 
 
242 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 according as they are or are not to be found in the Rig Veda. 
 These again may be conveniently subdivided at once, according 
 as they do or do not obey our rules for the preservation of I. 
 
 I. R.V. examples of Fortunatov's law. 
 
 1. Containing I, a rounding velar, or a labial. 
 
 akhandala- kunda- pani- mis- 
 
 aghati jathala- pasia- 
 
 kana- pani- phan- 
 
 2. Not containing either of these sounds. 
 anu-f ani-, jathara-, jadhu-y vani-. 
 
 II. Later examples. 
 
 1. Containing I, a rounding velar, or a labial. 
 
 kdnda- 
 
 khad- 
 
 pat- 
 
 phata- 
 
 kina- 
 
 khoda- 
 
 pata- 
 
 bhas- 
 
 kuthara- 
 
 guda- 
 
 patala- 
 
 manava 
 
 kuni- 
 
 ghata- 
 
 patu- 
 
 munda- 
 
 kwndala- 
 
 ghat- 
 
 puta- 
 
 las- 
 
 2. Not containing either of these sounds. 
 
 at, gatu-, jata-, vata-, vata-, hataka-. 
 
 It is necessary briefly to discuss the etymology proposed for 
 each of these words. 
 
 1. akhandala- 'broken,' 'leaky,' is the only R.V. repre- 
 sentative of ^khaiida- which appears to be related to the 
 later khad. This Fortunatov connected with Lith. skeldeti 'to 
 divide,' and the equation is plausible. Cf. also kanda- with 
 the frequent interchange of tenuis and breathed aspirated 
 
 aghati 'cymbals,' is derived by Grassm. from later ghat 
 ' to come together,' which again F. connects with Goth, fra- 
 gildan. This does not seem to have been adduced as a Vedic 
 parallel, so perhaps Grassm.'s derivation is denied. 
 
 » COf. Bartholomae, I. F. iii. pp. 173—4. T.J 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 243 
 
 kana- 'pierced, one-eyed/ (A.y. and Bk. x.) with Lith. 
 kalti^, 
 
 kunda- ' a pot ' with KvXLvSico is a very unsafe etymology, 
 the more so as we have no reason for seeing an identity between 
 Skt. u and Gk. v (F. and W. p. 96 fF.). Further it only occurs in 
 R.V. in derivatives and lastly nd is still an obscure combi- 
 nation 2. 
 
 jathala- ' belly/ is very probably Gothic kitpei^, 
 
 pani' ' miser/ is connected by Grassm. with the later pana- 
 'to traffic/ 'barter^' These words may be discussed together 
 here. Bothl.-R. distinguish -^/pan- 'praise' and -y/pan- 'sell/ 
 Pischel in his Vedische Studien, p. 199, wishes to identify them, 
 remarking that the sense of ' selling ' can come very easily from 
 that of 'praising' or vice versa. He would therefore refer both 
 to the R.V. pa7i (not pan) and make that mean 'buy' (or 'sell'). 
 In this he seems to have a belief in the sporadic appearance 
 of dentals for Unguals in Vedic, as he compares pani-, and 
 therefore does not seem to question Grassmann's sense for it or 
 his etymology (which are open to doubt). This is a dangerous 
 and unsafe doctrine. Moreover the Lith. pelnis 'reward' proves 
 that the sense of ' sell ' must have been anterior to that of 
 'praise/ and therefore the development of sense must be 
 reversed. 
 
 It is more scientific to refuse to connect Vedic pan- with 
 the root pel-n- at all. It obviously would represent pen-, and 
 this may be found in Latin pendo, whether pen-id after Conway 
 or pen-dh-o after V. Henry. In that case the sense of pendo 
 ' I pay ' preceded that of pendo ' I weigh,' and not vice versa, 
 This of course is hazardous : a more probable equation is with 
 Greek ird-a-dfjievo^. Then Pischel's restoration of the sense 
 * pay ' for pan- in R.V. would still hold. 
 
 Whether pani- is or is not connected with pel-n- must, in 
 view of its meaning, remain doubtful. 
 
 1 [v. infr. T.2 3 liMd, p. 194. T.] 
 
 2 [Bartholomae, I. F. in. p. 173. ^ libid. p. 180. T.] 
 
 16—2 
 
244 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 pani- *the hand^' Gk. TraXafir}, &c., see Bechtel op. cit 
 p. 383 and n. 
 
 pasia- Gk. ireWa^, Germ. Fels, Bechtel I.e. 384 and Fick 
 I.* 83. * 
 
 phan- ' to leap,' is a Vedic example which F. seems to have 
 overlooked. It is very probably from phel-n- and so an ex- 
 tension of the root discussed under phala- (supra, p. 236). 
 
 mis- is probably also an addition to his list. V. mtb mil- 
 (supra, p. 237). 
 
 2. anu- 'fine, thin,' F. connects with dXeco 'to pound,' which 
 raises the question of the origin of that word. Fick's identifi- 
 cation of it with Latin molo is highly doubtful, as it is scarcely 
 probable that ml- could become d\-; yet he clings to it in ed. 4 
 (p. 516). The Armenian words play an important part in the 
 answer. They are aXam 'I grind' and aleur 'meal.' Now X 
 and I do not interchange in Armenian, although their precise 
 range has not yet been defined, and Hubschmann points out 
 that aleur can scarcely be dXevpov borrowed because Gk. X is 
 regularly transliterated by X. 
 
 The explanation is probably this: dXevpov and aleur are 
 connected with each other, but not aXeo) and a\am. Verb and 
 substantive are also to be separated in each language. We 
 then get a faultless derivation for each. 
 
 aH-ey,-ro- is a derivative from a^l- ' nourish ' (Latin alo). 
 dXeo) is shown by the aorist dXeaaai to be a-Xecr-o) with d- 
 prothetic. The root is therefore les- : perhaps compare Skt. rs 
 'thump,' 'stab' (or ? ra^a- 'liquid'), and Latin lenis for Hes-ni-s. 
 
 aXam by the regular loss of initial s is from sa^l (perh. sol- : 
 Lat. solum'^), whence salio aXXofiai meaning 'to stamp.' While 
 Latin and Greek developed the sense of 'jump,' Armenian 
 developed that of ' pounding.' 
 
 The derivation of anu- from dXeto must therefore be rejected. 
 Fick I.* p. 123 has a different explanation in which he includes 
 wni- infra. He makes them both come from Ini-, Iwd,- and a 
 
 » [Bartholomae, I. F. m. p. 193. T.J a £,7,,-^, p, 192. t.J 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 245 
 
 root len-, comparing O.H.G. lun, Goth., af-linnan, &c. This is 
 of course absolutely impossible as I could not become at or al 
 in Skt. 
 
 ani-^. Fortunatov's equation with (oXevrj does not give a 
 plausible sense ; for ani- means ' axle/ which is a very different 
 thing from ' elbow.' Moreover (oXe- has its proper representative 
 in ara-tni, which shows that the root was dissyllabic in Skt. 
 also. The sense of ' thinning/ which Fick's derivation (above) 
 would give to it, agrees well with its traditional application to 
 the thin part of the axle on which the wheel revolves, and also 
 to the sense, which Fortunatov quotes, of the leg just over the 
 knee, where it thins. But we have seen that there are 
 difficulties. 
 
 We must admit then that these two words — possibly con- 
 nected and possibly with I lost — have not yet been cleared up. 
 
 jathara- =jathala- belongs of course to our list of substitu- 
 tions of -ra- for -la-. 
 
 jadhu- '? stupid,' or jalhu- must be excluded from proof as 
 the question of the origin of this 3o is still uncertain ^ 
 
 vam- 'a reed,' with Gothic valus 'a staff' (Bechtel, p. 384). 
 
 vdm- ' music,' with Polish wotac ' to call ' (Fick*, i. p. 133). 
 Now there are several R.V. words which must be taken 
 together ; they are 
 
 1. vana- 'an arrow/ 2. vana- 'a pipe,' and 3. vana- 'music' 
 1. vctni- ' a reed/ 2. vam- * song,' * music,' ' noise.' 
 
 It is scarcely possible to believe that these are to be 
 
 separated from one another, and it seems equally impossible 
 
 not to refer them all to va- ' blow.' Hence at once * reed,' then 
 
 (arrow , „ . • , • i i .i fmusic^ 
 
 ■{ . and irom pipe or independently ■{ 
 (pipe ^ ^ ^ *' (song 
 
 The Vedic evidence for I + dental -^ lingual (except under 
 
 the conditions for retaining I) is thus reduced to anu-, ani- 
 
 and vani-, for none of which has a certain etymology been 
 
 1 ^ibid. p. 193. T.] 3 [Of. Johansson, Idg. Forsch. iii. 
 
 2 libid. pp. 178—9. T.] p. 252. T.] 
 
246 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 offered. On the other hand n for n is the substitution of 
 lingual for dental which may be considered fairly common for 
 KV. (Whitney § 46). We are therefore perhaps justified in 
 asserting that it has not been proved that n may not be original 
 for the above words. 
 
 Of course this is a very diflferent thing from allowing that n can stand 
 where the etymology requires n (p. 243, supra). 
 
 This gives at once a satisfactory account of vana, &c. supra, 
 and it suggests that anu- may possibly be n^u- and go with 
 Gk. dvev. 
 
 Later examples. 
 
 kanda-, see akhandala- supra. 
 
 kina-. Lat. callum, but see on khala- {supra, p. 229) ^ 
 
 kuthdra- ' an axe.' Lat. cutter, Lith. kulti. (Or possibly to 
 the root qol- (supra, p. 224) as the u can be due to the I (cf. 
 kuni-) and so Fortunatov — but then kulti is irregular^) 
 
 kuni- ' lame in the arm/ Gk. kvW6<;. Here again u does 
 not correspond to v (see F. and W. p. 96 ff.)'. 
 
 kwndala-, see kuTida- supra. 
 
 khad' ' split,' with Lith. skeldeti (see akhaTidalct)- 
 
 khoda- ' lame,' Gothic halts. We seem to have here a false 
 gunating of khud- where u — I (Fortunatov). 
 
 guda- ' a ball,' with Skt. gola and yavXo^;, Frohde B.B. x. 298 ^ 
 Fick prefers to make it glda- and connect with galda- ' strain- 
 ing.' The sense-connexion I cannot see, and glda- would be- 
 come grda- regularly ^. 
 
 ghat, see aghati supra. 
 
 ghata- *a pot,' German Gelte. Surely rather a wide stretch. 
 
 1 [Bartholomae regards Una as a ]prta. T.J 
 
 Prakrit form for *kma, ibid. pp. 159 ^ ^md, p. 161. T.] 
 
 161. T.'\ * [Frohde mentions, but does not 
 
 2 [Cf. Bartholomae; ibid. pp. 161 adopt, this view. T.] 
 
 —2 and 168, who regards kuphdra and ^ [Cf. Bartholomae, ibid. p. 175. 
 
 pupa as Prakrit forms for krthdra and T.J 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 247 
 
 pat- and sphut- * to split,' cf. Per Persson, op. cit. p. 33. 
 
 pata- ' a garment/ Slavonic platino. ? 
 
 patala- ' a roof/ Gk. irekTrj, O.N. feldr. 
 
 patiL- 'sharp, bitter/ TrXarv^, v. Fick I.* p. 87 \ 
 
 puta- ' a fold/ Gothic /a/]7a7i, our ' fold/ Gk. TrXdato^, cf. 
 Fick 1/ p. 86 f.' 
 
 phata- with phal-, see under phala- (p. 236 supra). 
 
 hhas- ' to bellow ' and ^^las * to speak/ Lith. balsas, Germ. 
 bellen, our 6e^^^ 
 
 ?a5- ' to desire eagerly ' = lals- redup. from las- Xt-XaiOfjuai 
 and las-civ us (perhaps the most convincing of all Fort.'s deriva- 
 tions) ^ 
 
 manava- ' youth/ Prussian malnyx ' child ' 
 
 ?? 
 
 muThda- * bald/ mund- ' to break/ afiaXBvvco, Lith. muldyti. 
 As mentioned before ric? is difficult^ 
 
 a^- ' to wander V Fortunatov explained by aXrj. This is not 
 to be accepted, because Vedic shows at-, and whereas the 
 Unguals encroach frequently upon the dentals, it is not proved 
 that Vedic dentals replace Unguals, as Pischel and Bechtel 
 would maintain (v. Bechtel, op. cit, p. 384). This derivation is 
 accepted by Persson, p. 35. 
 
 cdta- 'friendly words,' Fortunatov compares Gothic hul]>s, 
 but catu- clearly means ' flattering ' i.e. ' deceitful,' and is con- 
 nected with catati 'conceals.' This however is the later form 
 of Vedic catati. 
 
 jata- ' twine.' F. compared Lith. galtinis. Bechtel prefers 
 Frohde's equation with A.-S. cli^e, O.H.G. chletta. The former 
 is better'' as involving no metathesis. 
 
 1 [Bartholomae, I. F. iii. p. 186. ^ iJiUd. pp. 195—6. T.J 
 
 rj 5 lihid. p. 173. T.J 
 
 ^ [v. note on kuthdra-, supra. T.J ^ J[^ibid. pp. 166 — 7.] 
 
 3 libid. p. 195. T.J 7 libid. p. 186. T.J 
 
248 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 vata- 'a cord/ Lith. valtis 'yarn,' Russian voloti, ^uel 
 ' wind's' 
 
 vata- ' an enclosure/ Latin vallum. ? 
 
 hdtaka- 'gold.' Fick i.*, p. 55, equates with O.B. zlato, 
 Gothic gul])s making the original form zholto or zhlto (i.e. gholto 
 ghlto). The root then is ghel ' to be yellow ' or ' green/ Latin 
 helvus, Gk. '^(Xaypo^^. Vedic shows the r in derivatives as hari 
 (which might also be from ^aher, Oepfio^, warm) and hiranya- 
 which is of course regular. 
 
 To sum up, taking those derivations only which are toler- 
 ably safe, we find 
 
 kana-, jathala-, pani-, pasia-, phan-, mis- in R. V. 
 
 kina-, kuthara-, kuni-, khad-, khoda-, guda-, ghat-, pat-, 
 patala-, puta-, phata-, bhas-, las-, sphut-, 
 
 and 
 
 jata-j vata-, hataka-, 
 
 in later Skt. The six examples from R.V. all obey the rules 
 which cause I to be preserved : the later examples obey these 
 rules in 14 cases and disobey them in three or possibly four. 
 
 Examples with nd have been purposely excluded. Then 
 comes the question : when is Fortunatov's law not observed ? 
 
 The exceptions must obviously be classified as Bechtel does 
 (p. 385). 
 
 1. 1 + dental retained in Vedic ; 
 
 2. 1 + dental becoming r + dental ; 
 
 3. r + dental becoming a lingual. 
 
 The only example of the first class is galda- which was dis- 
 cussed above. Pischel Vedische Studien I. 83 rejects that 
 derivation and Grassmann's sense, and substitutes one which 
 makes it an adjective from glah- =gardh- (!). The word galda- 
 occurs once in R.V. and once later, which latter passage P. has 
 to emend to save his interpretation. It is dangerous to be 
 original at so great expense, and as he fails to explain the I 
 
 1 [Bartholomae, 7. F. iii. p. 190. T] « [t6id. p. 186. T.] 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 249 
 
 except airily as ' dialectic/ Bechtel is not to be congratulated 
 on shelving galda- with a mere reference to him. 
 
 Now it may be granted that Vedic and classical Sanskrit 
 represent different though closely cognate dialects ; but to say 
 that the Vedic poems are themselves in a hybrid dialect is a very 
 different thing. An explanation of a Vedic form as ' dialectic ' 
 is therefore ipso facto condemned, as even the irregularities of 
 Book X. may largely be natural developments if not entirely, 
 and galdd- does not belong to Bk. x. 
 
 There are three ways in which galda- might be explained 
 without any sacrifice of principle — two of which are applicable 
 to Pischel's rendering, but until it is better established, there is 
 no good reason for departing from the traditional explanation. 
 
 a. The root Oel- was extended by -d after F.'s law had 
 acted, gal- would be the Skt. form by our rules. For -d as a 
 root determinative cf. Per Persson, pp. 35 ff If it be denied 
 that roots could be so modified as late as this, the formation 
 could still be analogical: cf. mrad-. 
 
 b. galda- was never severed mentally from its simplex and 
 hence retained the I by * Systemzwang.' This applies equally 
 well to Grassmann's and to Pischel's theory. 
 
 c. *gardh- and *gladh- were parallel roots: *garda be- 
 longed to gardh- and received its I from being wrongly referred 
 to glah-. Pischel seems to hint at this view on p. 83. 
 
 For the present, the first of the above explanations may be 
 considered the most satisfactory. 
 
 For exceptions of the second type Bechtel adduces 
 
 Skt. jartu-, Gothic kil]>ei. 
 
 Skt. mardhati ' neglects,' Gk. fiaXOaico^. 
 
 Skt. murdhan-, A.-S. molda ' head.' 
 
 The last two examples Bechtel tacitly explains by the first, 
 which he treats as follows : ' Vedic shows jathara-, later Skt. 
 jartu-: therefore they belong to different dialects, one of which 
 represented lt(h) by t(h) the other by r(t)' On this there are 
 
250 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 one or two remarks to be made. In the first place that later 
 Skt. came from a dialect which gave r for I before a dental 
 is worse than no explanation of the other two R. V. examples. 
 In the second place Fortunatov's law is no law for Vedic alone 
 but also for classical Skt., so that on these three words Bechtel 
 must be understood to build four dialects thus 
 
 R.V. Skt. 
 ^ 
 
 t &c. dialect 
 
 rt &c. dialect 
 
 t &c. dialect 
 
 rt &c. dialect 
 
 pdni- &c. &G. 
 
 mardhati 
 murdhan- 
 
 las- &c. &c. 
 
 jartu- 
 
 to say nothing of the galdd- dialect which is a fifths 
 
 It may be possible not to proceed to such lengths, if we 
 consider each example separately, mllrdhan- disappears at 
 once as the ur can obviously = |, for which F.'s law does 
 not hold : and this is also the explanation of purna- (and 
 urna- if from y.el-) and not Bechtel's ' System zwang.' As for 
 Tuardh-ati = fiaXOaKo^, nothing can be simpler than to suppose 
 as Per Persson does {op. cit. p. 46), that mardh- is gunated 
 from mrdh- = mldh- ^ It would how^ever be possible also to 
 proceed as follows : fxaXOaKo^, a-jxaXhyvco, /uLa\aK6<; : mardh-, 
 mrdu-, Arm. meXk\ and O.H.G. milti show that the root 
 was met with various extensions. Then it is only necessary to 
 refer to the parallel root mer- (p. 236 — 7) to explain mardh- as 
 mer-dh-. 
 
 Lastly jartu- beside Goth, kilpei and Skt. jathara-; and 
 first as regards the breathed aspirate. Feist is probably right 
 in comparing niu-klahs ' new-born,' and hence analysing kilpei 
 as gel-t-. Then the -th- is alternative, see Per Persson 
 pp. 28 ff. Now, as we saw above, Jathara- must be a less 
 original form than jathala-, which accounts for it : jartu- and 
 jathala- must therefore be compared and we get 
 
 Qel-t- [Gothic kilpei, Gk. SiXra] -*- gelt -^jart- ->- jartu-, 
 qel-th-o-lo- g'eltholo -^ jalthala -^jathala, 
 
 with the exact distinction required by our rules. 
 
 1 [Cf. Bartholomae, I. F. iii. pp. 168—9. T.J 
 
 ^ [It may be doubted whether Per Persson means precisely this. T.J 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 251 
 
 Exceptions of the third order adduced by Bechtel are 
 kata- * mat,' O. Pruss. korto. 
 katuka- R. V. ' sharp/ Lith. kartus. 
 kana- ' one-eyed/ 0. B. krUnU. 
 
 Of these the 1st and 8rd are too hazardous to prove ^ 
 anything, while for the second the solution is almost certainly 
 that which Fortunatov himself points out; that beside kart- 
 existed a root kalt-. These we can now write I.-E. qel-t, qer-t 
 The actual presence of R. V. karta-, kartana- makes this 
 almost certain ^ Bechtel prefers to increase his number of 
 dialects. 
 
 What then are we justified in concluding as to the relative 
 dates of Fortunatov's law and the changes of r and I that we 
 have assumed ? Vedic and classical Skt. may again be taken 
 separately. For the former we have found that all the good 
 examples and even all that are moderately probable would 
 have I preserved by our rules. Thus F/s law might have 
 acted subsequently. Further if dkhandala- and jathala- be 
 taken into account the supposition that it did act subsequently 
 explains the I which is otherwise irregular. 
 
 For later Sanskrit we find that the great majority of the 
 examples, again including the most certain, fall under our 
 conditions ; but that for three words the derivation proposed 
 necessitates the supposition that it acted earlier, while three 
 others las- patala- and jartu- necessitate the supposition that 
 it acted later. The evidence for and against therefore amounts 
 to this 
 
 1. Fortunatov's law was anterior to I becoming -! , 
 
 then a. The examples which would show Vedic I by rule 
 are only accidentally numerous. 
 
 b. jathara- is regular. 
 
 c. akliandala- jathala- patala- have substituted -la- for 
 
 -ra- (see p. 256 ff.). 
 
 1 [Cf. Bartholomae, ibid. p. 195 (kata) and pp. 169, 188, 193 (kana). T.J 
 
 2 Ijihid. pp. 190 and 195. T.I 
 
252 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 d. jatd- vata- hataka- have their derivations saved. 
 
 e. las- and jartu- are irregular. 
 
 2. Fortunatov's law acted after / had become \ , 
 
 [r 
 
 then a. The reason why twenty examples obey the rules for 
 preserving I is explained. 
 
 b. jathara- is irregular and belongs to p. 256 fF. 
 
 c. akhandala- jathala- patala- las- and jartu- are 
 
 regular. 
 
 d. The derivations of jatd-, vata-, hataka- must be 
 
 given up. 
 
 All that can be said then is that the weight of evidence 
 is in favour of supposing that F.'s law acted after the division 
 of / into I and r. It would seem also that it was somewhat 
 probable that it acted before Vedic and classical Sanskrit (or 
 rather their prototypes) had separated. 
 
 Note. Windisch's examples of this law in K.Z. (xxvii. 168) have not 
 been included ; for, as Brugmann says of Fortunatov's, they are " ety- 
 mologisch sehr unsicher" and moreover are all examples of n. 
 
 In particular sthuna- may equally well be for sthu-na-^; ena- can 
 hardly go with iW6s and Arm. ekn, for the e is irregular ; more probably 
 
 oi- 
 we have a derivative of ei-no- 'the runner^'; the other examples hardly 
 rise above a guess. 
 
 § 4. Exceptions. Changes in Period V. 
 
 We have now to consider the more striking points of the 
 evidence which may be urged against the above account of the 
 liquids. This it will be convenient to arrange under two 
 heads which correspond to the Fifth and Sixth Periods of our 
 introductory narrative : the Fifth Period including those modi- 
 fications of the natural state of things which intervened 
 between the changes of the Second and Third Periods and 
 
 1 CBartholomae, I. F. in. pp. 170—1. T.] ' [tfttd. p. 172 and note. T.] 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 253 
 
 the composition of the latest R.V. hymns, the Sixth those 
 which are found in classical Sanskrit. 
 
 R. V. Exceptions. 
 
 These naturally are of two kinds : those which show I when 
 by our rules they ought to show r, and those which show r 
 when by the rules they should show I. 
 
 As before those in which the I is apparently suffixal are 
 distinguished from those in which it is radical. 
 
 I. I instead of r 
 
 
 
 a. jaldsa- 
 
 vala- 
 
 galya- 
 
 laya- 
 
 valga- 
 
 sdldvrha- 
 
 lodha- 
 
 velasthana- 
 
 
 b. akrswala- 
 
 madhula- 
 
 gula- 
 
 kevala- 
 
 -migla- 
 
 stold 
 
 casala- 
 
 vidvala- 
 
 sydla- 
 
 trdila- 
 
 vrsala- 
 
 
 bahida- 
 
 cicula- 
 
 
 jaldsa- means 'healing.' The form may uot be Indo- 
 European. If it be, the s excites a suspicion that I may have 
 been lost before it by Fortunate v's law. In that case the 
 form implied will be ger-, gel-, aer- or ael- aHso-. This hints 
 at a possibility of a noun gera-, cf. 3 jar, meaning 'illness' 
 compounded with the root ol 'to destroy' and the suffix so-: 
 so that the sense will be ' illness-destroying.' Then the I falls 
 under class A and is an additional example to prove that 
 Fortunatov's rule acted at a later date. 
 
 laya- ' a missile.' Grassmann is probably right in deriving 
 from r^ 'set in motion,' and the variation is interesting. From 
 a root rei- (cf. rej- and Per Persson op. cit. p. 15) the I.-E. 
 reduplication would be re-roi- for the p£, whence would come 
 regularly lale-. Such forms could not persist in system with 
 the normal r- forms, but they seem to have existed long enough 
 to produce laya-. Confirmatory to some extent is the later 
 intensive from this root leUya-, leldya-, by reduplication 
 rai-ri- (Fick I.* p. 115 rei-rei, but cf. SacSdWo), aiaaw, &c.). 
 Hence also laya- and alayia-. 
 
254 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 lodha- 'a reddish animar from the root rey^dh- rests pro- 
 bably on decomposition. It so happens that we may have 
 preserved for us in Bk. x. what enables us to guess at the 
 compound in question, salavrka- is a compound of vrka- with 
 an irregular I. If an earlier compound *salalodha- had existed 
 it explains both lodha- and sala- at once. 
 
 vala- *a hole.' The derivation from vr- i.e. y.el- is very 
 doubtful. The most frequent sense of the word is as the name 
 of a demon, and proper and mythological names generally resist 
 etymology. Indeed few of them can have been I.-E. 
 
 valga- ' a twig ' is only retained in compounds, and therefore 
 we may suspect that in some one of them I was retained by 
 rule. Indeed sahasravalga- may be a modification of *sahasla- 
 valga to suit sahasra- and its other compounds. 
 
 galya- in x. stands for garya- of the earlier books. It is a 
 derivative of gara- 'reed,' and means 'an arrow.' This is a 
 good instance of the uncertainty of use which had come to 
 pass when Bk. x. was composed. The r is proved by Gothic 
 hairus. 
 
 salavrka-^ see under lodha- supra. 
 
 The second class of exceptions cannot be given with any- 
 thing like completeness, because, it having been hitherto 
 permissible to identify any Skt. r with European Z, many rash 
 derivations have been propounded which must now be given 
 up. Reference may be made to Fick's Worterhuch passim. 
 There are however a certain number of derivations which 
 deserve mention either from their own plausibility or from 
 their frequent repetition. Such are 
 
 angiras prath- hhrama- sphur- 
 
 apra- pru- hhraj- raghu- 
 
 krug- prus- raks- rip- 
 
 cakra- hhargas ramb- mruc- 
 
 The only necessarily irregular forms with suffixal -ra- ri-, 
 &c. are those which contain r or Z in the body of the word 
 These will be discussed below. 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 255 
 
 angiras : ayy6\o<; is one of those superficial derivations of 
 mythological names which used to be popular. They are 
 nearly always certain to be wrong and may be left to 
 mythologists. 
 
 apra- 'busy/ is not from a and pr as Grassmann says. 
 That would require a-pl-o, whence apla- would be regular. 
 Better therefore apra- = op-ro-, \Jop in apas, Lat. opera, &c. 
 
 It seems from Feist that this has already been proposed by Kluge, 
 K. Z. XXV. p. 312, who adds Gothic ahrs. See Feist s.v. 
 
 hrug- ' to scream/ beside kloga- seems absolutely to disprove 
 the rule. It is clear however from Gk. Kpco^co beside kXco^m 
 and KXcoacro) and Lith kraukti that there were two parallel 
 
 k * . . 
 
 roots qleiiq{a)~ and qrei^q(a)-, which give kloga- and krug- 
 respectively ; for the variation of palatal and velar at the end 
 of roots is too frequent to require Fick's " Wirkung der labialen 
 Anlaut " or " Ausgleichung " to account for the Balto-Slavic 
 forms. 
 
 cakra- 'a wheel/ cannot be regularly from qeqlo-, and we 
 might be tempted to adopt Fick's root qeq- (t.* pp. 21, 22) and 
 make it qeq-ro-. There is however an easier explanation, as in 
 Skt. the etymological connection of cakra- and carati was never 
 lost. Cf. e.g. R.V. III. 61. 3 caramydnmna cakrdm iva. But 
 in carati the r represents I regularly. Hence cakra-. 
 
 prath- 'to spread out,' is generally connected with Lith. 
 plotas, Gk. TrXarixf, our flat. The sense however is not identical 
 and probably we should see in prath- a similar formation to 
 that described for pl-a-t(h)- by Per Persson p. 33, but instead of 
 being from the root pi- 'be flat,' as coming from the root 
 pr- ' extend,' cf. Trepa? &c., and probably irapd and irepl, Latin 
 per. 
 
 pru- is not identical with plu-^ although the latter occurs 
 only in Bk. X. (but cf. plava-). They are distinguished in Skt. 
 both in sense and form. For the r in pru- see Per Persson, 
 p. 125. 
 
 'fyrus- and plus- are a similar doublet. 
 
256 REASONS FOE THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 hhargas 'brilliance/ In this word the g is probably not 
 original as the cognates show g, cf. Grds. I. p. 344, § 467 (1). 
 (At the same time Lettish birga- may be remembered.) 
 
 bhrama- 'flickering motion/ has no connexion with Lat. 
 flamma. The root is bhr-em- (cf. Per Persson op. cit p. 68 for 
 cognates). 
 
 hhraj- 'to lighten/ is not to be directly connected with 
 (jyXiyetv. Rather Skt. hhraj, hhrag : hhla^i, Goth, hrakv, M.H.G. 
 brehen : (fiXiyco (Fick, pp. 93, 94) show that we have here again 
 
 k k 
 
 a root varying as bhr- a^ g-, bhl- eg-. 
 
 rahs- beside aXef- is only an apparent exception, as ks here 
 represents k-s. 
 
 sphur- represents sphf-, and is therefore regular. 
 
 raghu- is generally referred to eXa%i;9. For the slightness 
 of the evidence on which the form ikax^^ itself rests see Fox 
 and Wolf (p. 100). The root Inqh- however undoubtedly 
 existed, as it gives i\a(i>p6(;, Goth, lungar, English limber. 
 Besides this however must be assumed a form with r or indeed 
 more probably a distinct form raah (roqh) to account for raghu. 
 This is proved by Armenian arag; for Arm. r cannot = I.-E. 
 / and Arm. a does not = n. 
 
 rip-. Gk. akei<f>eLv is distinct : Xiira may be connected. If 
 so, we must again assume double roots. 
 
 mruc- would be irregular from mel- beside mluc- ; but as a 
 matter of fact it comes from the root mer- of ^apva^ai and 
 mrad-. It is therefore regular. 
 
 § 5. Exceptions from other causes. 
 
 a. On the Suffixes -la and -ra. 
 
 Up to this point the words in which I appeared to form 
 part of a suffix have been passed over and they must now be 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 257 
 
 considered as a class. The lists for the most common suffix -la- 
 (including -la) will be given in eontenso, as what holds for it also 
 holds for the less common -li and -lya. 
 
 We find then 
 
 Mlala-, tilvila-, langala-, salila-^ jathala-, patala-, and per- 
 haps casala- (7) — where -la- is preceded by I, 
 
 kila-, kula-, khrgala-, khargala-, khela-, dagangula-, puskala-, 
 -mangala-, mudgala- (9) — where -la- is preceded by a velar in 
 the same syllable, 
 
 apala-, udumbala-, upala-, kapila-, trpala-, pipUa-, mula-, 
 vigpald, gahala-, g%pala-, gimbala-, supippala- (12) — where -la- 
 is preceded by a labial in the same syllable, 
 
 and the 13 above (p. 253) enumerated in which -la- is not pre- 
 ceded by any of these sounds. 
 
 There are therefore 28 regular forms to 13 irregular, which 
 is a very much larger proportion of irregularity than has been 
 found in any other part of the subject, and the inference is that 
 there must be some special reason underlying it. 
 
 This reason becomes plain as soon as we turn our attention 
 to the parallel suffix -ra-, which greatly surpasses -la- in fre- 
 quency even in the R.V. Indo-European, as is well established 
 by the Western group, had both -ro- and -lo- as very common 
 suffixes (cf. Grundriss, ii. pp. 169 ff., 186 ff.). 
 
 If anything, -lo- was perhaps the more common; and the 
 greater frequency of -ra- in Skt. has hitherto been regarded as 
 a mere instance of that assimilation of the two sounds which 
 Zend carried through completely. Such a position is no longer 
 tenable if Vedic I, r are as regular as we have tried to show. 
 
 In fact just as I, r in Vedic no longer diifer as = I.-E. /, r, 
 but according to their phonetic environment, so -la- and -ra- 
 will no longer correspond in distribution to I.-E. -lo- and -ro-. 
 
 By our rules they will become distributed as follows, 
 
 I..E. lo 
 
 »___ ^ 
 
 1. Preceded by I, r 2. By velar 3. By labial 4. Elsewhere 
 
 I ^ ^ I I I 
 
 -la- -la- -la- -ra- 
 
 D. P. 17 
 
258 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 I.-E. ro 
 
 1. Preceded by I (or r?) 2. Elsewhere 
 
 I " '^ I 
 
 -la- -ra- 
 
 We thus have four cases which would produce Skt. -la- to 
 two that would produce -ra-, but the two latter would include 
 very many more examples than all the rest put together. 
 Besides, as our precise statement of the conditions which for 
 convenience we call 'in the same syllable ^' involved the non- 
 intervention of any explosive between the influencing and the 
 affected sound, it follows that the very common I.-E. F.S. -tlo 
 would always become tra, which indeed is the case. 
 
 Now principle obviously dictates that, where two suffixes 
 existed side by side (and not ' dialectical ly') in I.-E., each had 
 its own definite meaning, and there would be some roots the 
 sense of which would permit derivatives to be formed with each 
 suffix. Suppose that such a pair of derivatives was formed 
 from a root containing a final labial (or labial + sonant final). 
 Then in Skt. it follows that the derivative with -ro- would show 
 -ra-y and that with lo- -la-. So with a velar (rounding). But 
 under all other conditions the two would become identical (see 
 however infra) : in the case of a root containing a liquid both 
 becoming -la-, in all the remaining cases both becoming 
 -ra-. 
 
 Lastly 4a- would appear abnormally in certain forms through 
 being retained in a compound (or derivative) and then de-com- 
 pounded (or de-derived). 
 
 In the R.V. we find 
 
 apara- 
 
 beside 
 
 apala-^ 
 
 upara- 
 
 » 
 
 upala- 
 
 trpra- 
 
 » 
 
 trpala- 
 
 pmkara- 
 
 » 
 
 pmkala 
 
 to which may be added the 
 
 following. 
 
 
 1 [See p. 232 sup.] 
 
 ^ A proper name, and so open to suspicion ; but the flense suits. 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 259 
 
 mula- beside mura- obviously shows that the analysis 
 mur-a- is wrong. Both words mean ' root,' and the connexion 
 with the root mei^- (Lat. moveo, Gk. afievco) meaning * press ' is 
 obvious. It is true that inula- only occurs in x., whence it 
 might be referred to the time of confusion ; but sahamula- 
 preserves the form in the earlier books (ill. 30, 17), and shows 
 that both existed side by side. 
 
 Add that sUarridvat- is a derivative (Bk. x.) of sira-, that 
 silikamadhyama- may point to a form *sira- or *siri-, with 
 which it was once connected, but which is now lost, and that 
 mla- we have seen to be decompounded from mla-lohita-, but 
 postulating a form mra-\ add that all distinction in force 
 between the suffixes had of course been lost during their partial 
 fusion, and it is not to be wondered at that -la- -ra- came to be 
 felt as alternative and in different suffixes, and hence we find 
 
 migla- irregular beside migra- regular 
 -vala- „ „ -vara- „ 
 
 and so on for all the large number of unwarranted -la- forms 
 enumerated above. 
 
 Thus the proof which can be drawn from the forms pre- 
 served is sufficiently strong, and it is hardly necessary to urge 
 that many more doublets may have contributed. 
 
 There is however another way in which the I.-E. double 
 suffix would assist the result which is worth pointing out, as it 
 illustrates a principle of language. It is this : let us suppose 
 exactly those processes to have taken place which we have con- 
 structed, but let I.-E. possess the suffix -lo- only. Then this in 
 Skt. subdivides into la and ra according as it is or is not pre- 
 ceded by the conditions we have mentioned. Now in such a 
 state of things it is true that ra and la might have encroached 
 upon each other, but it is more probable that the relation 
 " (labial) . . la : (dental) . . ra" &c. &c., would have become or 
 remained an unconscious but prevailing principle. 
 
 Such a result was effectually prevented by numbers of 
 words like vipra-, apra-, gubhra-, akra-, agra-, vigra-, &c. &c. 
 (in which -ra- represented I.-E. -ro-), which would at once 
 destroy any mental classification of the kind. 
 
 17—2 
 
260 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 h. Classification. 
 
 Changes in language, taking place unconsciously as they do, 
 are sometimes systematic and thorough. That is to say the 
 pronunciation of a certain sound may change uniformly and 
 that change may be totally uninterfered with by other in- 
 fluences, such as its neighbouring sounds. Among such 
 changes the passing of a, e, o into a in Skt. may be taken 
 as an instance. The operation of these rules can never be 
 interfered with by analogy, for analogy means the smoothing 
 away of differences. 
 
 But the majority of changes in language are limited in 
 their action, affect sounds under certain conditions and not 
 under others, and so give rise to apparently illogical distinc- 
 tions which analogy in all its forms steps in to sweep away. 
 The more absohitely phonetic the change and the less con- 
 nected with obvious reasons, the stronger is the influence of 
 analogy. Thus in Greek Tre^arat seems an utterly irrational 
 perfect to Oeivw, and such instances are innumerable. 
 
 Similarly in the case we are discussing the change in 
 question is interfered with by a purely phonetic influence, 
 and the inconsequence of the results would infallibly lead, 
 and lead at once, to analogical levelling. Indeed the com- 
 paratively small amount of serious irregularity that exists in 
 the earlier Vedic hymns forms a strong additional argument 
 for their high antiquity. 
 
 These modes of analogical interference have already been 
 frequently referred to, but for the sake of clearness they are 
 here brought together. 
 
 1. The apparent capriciousness of the suffixes -la- and 
 -ra-, which has just been explained, accounts for their complete 
 confusion as also for that of -li- and -ri-\ this doubtless was 
 also an important incentive to interchanging the sounds in 
 other conditions. 
 
 2. Very similar both in origin and result is the confusion 
 which arises from the existence of I.-E. roots differing only in 
 this, that one contained I the other jr. These ' dual ' roots are 
 exactly on a par with the ' dual ' suffix ^o-t jjo-, and, as in their 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 261 
 
 case, the variation had probably some original force which we 
 are not now able to trace. The variation was not dialectic; 
 for both forms co-exist, and it cannot be said that one is prior 
 to the other. A considerable number of such roots have 
 already been clearly proved (see ^el and i^er supra pp. 239, 
 240), and probably more will be found by degrees, but those 
 only are important for our purpose which contain a labial or a 
 rounding velar. Of these in accordance with our rules the 
 r-forms would show Skt. r, and the /-forms Skt. I. Thus re]^p 
 rap and le^p- lup- (cf Fox and Wolf, p. 92 and n.) show Skt. 
 7'up- and hip- respectively — qley^k- qre^k- give kloga- and krug- 
 (p. 255) — phi- and pru- give plu- and pru-, and so perhaps ^^p- 
 and rip-, rahh- and labh- are to be explained: cf. also mruc- 
 and mluc-. 
 
 3. Reduplication would play an important part in pro- 
 ducing irregularity: all roots with I initial would necessarily 
 have lei- in the perf, which would give Skt. lal-, although 
 from a root with initial r. These would of course necessarily 
 and at once be severed, new perfects with rar- (e.g. rarahh-) 
 would at once be formed to the r-roots, and the ^aZ-forms 
 would either disappear or give rise to fictitious roots with I. 
 Such we supposed to be the case of ri- : li- on the testimony 
 of the later lellya and Gothic reiran which shows the r. 
 Where the ^ was not initial, the effect would only be produced 
 by "complete" reduplication, as when the root qel- gives 
 calacala- side by side with cardmi. Hence, as was inevitable, 
 caldcala- was referred to a hypothetical root cal- (not pro- 
 ductive, so possibly only grammatical), but on the other hand 
 in Bk. X. caldcala- is replaced by cardcara-. This is some 
 evidence that our view of cakra- may be correct. 
 
 4. All derivatives from /-roots with the suffixes -lo- or -ro- 
 would have their / represented by /, and all derivatives from 
 r-roots with -lo- would have r becoming /, while r would 
 appear in other forms. Hence salila- from ^/sel-, kUdla - from 
 qaHr- &c. 
 
 5. -qo- is a common I.-E. suffix, and added to roots in 
 which / was not protected by an explosive would cause it to 
 
262 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 appear as I. Hence gloka- beside gru from kle]^-, and gulka- 
 from an unknown root. Of. also ulka beside varc. 
 
 6. The fact that the reduced stage of the root shows r in 
 Skt. as representing I.-E. / and r (aided by the similar fusion 
 of |, f : l\ r*"), would exert a great levelling tendency. Thus 
 the root pel- would give in Skt. *pal-, pr-, pur-, pur for pel-, 
 pi-, p{- and pi respectively, so that it is not to be wondered at 
 if the isolated pal- disappeared before the systematic par-. 
 Conversely pulu-kdma- and pulvagha- are incorrect. 
 
 7. Highly important for the question of the 'sonants,' to 
 which attention is being called by Bechtel, Fennell and other 
 writers, is the distinction which we are able to draw between 
 dl and V, as when a velar &;c. precedes, the one appears to 
 give il the other ir, cf kilasa- )( akirat This seems against 
 the ' minimal- vocal' theory; but the subject needs fuller ex- 
 amination. 
 
 8. We saw that in kuliga- (p. 229) the prefix kit- appears 
 to have kept the I which becomes regularly r in rig. Cases 
 like this might — if the sense-connexion were retained — produce 
 lig- and rig- as doublets. 
 
 9. Lastly we saw that decomposition was responsible for 
 the I of ala- and nlla-, and it is not an unfair assumption to 
 suppose that in other cases the same effect was produced by a 
 compound which did not happen to be preserved. 
 
 These nine distinct influences tending to modify the rigidity 
 of the laws are the direct result of the conditions which the 
 laws themselves create : they are therefore a priori probable 
 and more than sufiice to explain the exceptions from the rules 
 which are to be found in R.V. These we have seen with the 
 single exception of the suffix -la- to be few in number compared 
 with the large body of examples in favour of the rules. As 
 usual however the study of the exceptions is the most impor- 
 tant part of the work, and we are fortunate in having just a 
 sufficient number embodied in R.V. to prove that not only were 
 the above nine tendencies a priori probable, but were actually 
 in existence. 
 
REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 263 
 
 § 6. The Sixth Period. 
 
 The Sixth Period or classical Sanskrit cannot be adequately 
 treated with the materials at hand. So many roots have been 
 invented by the grammarians that it is necessary to investigate 
 the authority for each of them, before they are accepted in 
 evidence. As far as ^roots are concerned the state of things 
 is described by Whitney in a remark which Brugmann quotes 
 as sufficient reason for shelving the subject : "there is hardly a 
 root containing I which does not show also forms with r ; words 
 written with the one letter are found in other texts or other 
 parts of the same texts written with the other" (Whitney, 
 Skt Gram} p. 18, cf. Brugm. Grds. I. p. 210). 
 
 Now whether the classical Skt. is or is not a direct de- 
 scendant of Yedic, we have seen enough confirmatory evidence 
 drawn from it to lead us to assume that it had not become 
 separated at the time of the differentiation of r and I. Accord- 
 ingly its history was at least parallel with that of Vedic, and all 
 the just enumerated nine causes of change would affect it in 
 the same way. Therefore, allowing for the greater lapse of 
 time, and taking into account the much greater irregularity which 
 we find in R. V. x., we need not wonder if they have power to 
 produce the state of things described by Whitney at the epoch 
 of classical Skt. The reassuring point is this : the converse of 
 Whitney's statement does not hold true, and roots containing 
 r do not universally show I at some times. This absolutely 
 agrees with the result to be expected from our tendencies, 
 which nearly all favoured the expulsion of Z by r and not vice 
 versa. 
 
 In this connexion it may be of interest to note that in the 
 fourth edition of Fick's Worterbuch, Vol. I., he assigns European 
 r to Skt. I in the five following words (and these only, so far as 
 a not too minute perusal has extended) : 
 
 lellya-, p. 115. 
 likha-, p. 115. 
 loha-j p. 116. 
 
264 REASONS FOR THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 lunc-, p. 119. 
 kalp-, p. 186. 
 
 Of these lellya- and kalp- have been already explained. 
 The explanation of loha- is the same as that of lohita-. lunc- 
 'to tear' is not directly the Latin runcare, Lith. runkti, but 
 again we have a double type of root: the / form has the 
 evidence of \vy^. This then appears in a form in which the 
 velar retained its rounding, likha- again belongs to a doublet 
 rikh- likh-, although there does not seem confirmatory evidence. 
 
 We obtain then a guiding principle for proceeding with the 
 liquids even in later Sanskrit. An etymology in which I and r 
 interchange in accordance with our rules may be looked upon 
 as fairly safe : one in which the rules are violated so that we 
 find Skt. I representing I.-E. / outside the conditions prescribed 
 may also be considered possible: one in which Skt. r represents 
 I.-E. I outside the same conditions must be questioned or a 
 double root suspected, and one in which Skt. I irregularly 
 represents I.-E. r must be established by the strongest possible 
 evidence. 
 
7. MISCELLANEA ETYMOLOGICA. 
 
 a. (TfjL- in Greek. 
 
 I.-E. sm became zm. This zm became in Greek -p,p.- and /a-. 
 Hence fiia represents zmiia from ^sem. 
 
 But the prefix s- still existed : it formed new composita at 
 a later but pre-Homeric date. This sm became a-fju in Gk. 
 possibly by a loss of voice in the fju. 
 
 For this compare 
 
 criiepo- , 
 
 
 with 
 
 d-fJLeph(o 
 
 <Tfid(o, afjbrj'x^co 
 
 cTfiaXepo'; 
 
 apbdpayho^ 
 
 (?. 
 
 a-fjLrjpt<i 
 
 &c.) fjudacra) (?) 
 
 pLa\€p6<; 
 
 fidpayho^ (but perhaps 
 borrowed or cf fidp- 
 yoL and fiapyaplrrj^;). 
 
 (TfjLapayeco 
 
 
 
 fiapda<TCO 
 
 (Tfjidpayva 
 (Tfiapi<; 
 
 
 
 /jbdpayva 
 
 cf. fxaplvo^ (? foreign). 
 
 a/jLrjvo(; 
 
 (TfiTjpLa ( = KLO-a-os 
 
 (Tixrjpiy^ 
 
 a-fjur/pivOof; 
 
 o-fiiySrjv 
 
 Hesych.) 
 
 fjurjpLvdo^ 
 /xLySrjv 
 
 a-/jUKp6(; 
 
 
 
 lUKpO^ 
 
266 
 
 MISCELLANEA ETYMOLOGICA. 
 
 /jLoyepo^i 
 
 fJbOlO^ 
 
 fjLvSpo<; 
 
 o-fiiXr) 
 
 SfjLivOev^ (TfjLiv6o<; (? foreign) 
 
 a/JLivvrj 
 
 (Tfivyepo^) 
 
 (TfjLoyepo^;} 
 
 (T/JLOLO^ 
 ? G-fJLOKOphoOi) 
 
 afjLvSpo<i 
 
 (T/jLvXa (? foreign) 
 
 (TfjLvpaLva 
 a/jLvpl^co 
 (afjLvpL<; foreign) 
 a/jLvpva 
 cr/jLvaa-<o 
 
 a/jLcoyo) 
 
 (TfJLOoBl,^ 
 
 Possibly this reasoning might be applied to the sy,- difficulty. 
 I can't see my way through it at present. July 23. '92. 
 
 fivpacva 
 
 fJLVpi^O) 
 
 cf. /Jivppa (foreign ?) 
 fivcrcrco 
 
 p. Or, aXeiffxo, Lat. libo. 
 
 a\ei(^a) beside Xiirapo^ &c. presents difficulties. Can it not 
 be from lejhh Lat. libo ? 
 
 llho would then combine two roots, as it also = Xei^o). To 
 this the variations in sense between " touch " and " pour " seem 
 to point. libum is a cake 'smeared' with honey. Then 
 perhaps the nature of the initial I differed in the two roots. 
 [Seep. 198. a] 
 
MISCELLANEA ETYMOLOGICA. 267 
 
 7. On Iliad 13. 707. 
 * refiCL ' Si T6 reXcrov dpovp7j<;. 
 
 reXaov dpovprj<; is also used X 544 (cf. 547), where it seems 
 to have the sense of the "extremity" or "boundary of the 
 ploughed land." It is scarcely possible to give it that sense 
 here whether rifiei, or refiel be read with the sense of rifiva). 
 The translations 
 
 " It (the yoke) cuts (or will cut) the boundary of the land," 
 " It (the furrow) cuts (or will cut) the boundary of the land," 
 " The boundary of &c. cuts (or will cut) the furrow (or the 
 
 yoke)," 
 
 are all either nonsense or otiose. 
 
 It may perhaps be that reXa-ov is to be taken differently. 
 
 It answers sufficiently closely to Lat. tellus stem tellus-, the 
 suffix of which is very difficult to analyse ; but of which the 
 root may easily be tels-. In that case TeXaov dpovpr)^ is the 
 * dry ' surface of the field. 
 
i 
 
INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 {The numbers refer to pages.) 
 A. Sanskrit. 
 
 akrsivala- 253 
 
 itas 31 
 
 esas 31 
 
 akta- 97 
 
 id 31 
 
 
 akra- 259 
 
 idam 31 
 
 kata- 251 
 
 agra- 259 
 
 is- 36, 42 
 
 katuka- 251 
 
 angiras 254, 255 
 
 isiras 36, 40, 41 
 
 kapila- 234, 257 
 
 aj- 40 
 
 isus 41 
 
 kalp- 225, 233, 238 
 
 at- 242, 247 
 
 
 kalmati- 233, 241 
 
 anu- 242, 244 
 
 ij- 40 
 
 kalya- 226 
 
 antar 28 
 
 ir- 39, 40 
 
 kana- 242, 243, 248, 251 
 
 antara- 29 
 
 i(?-40 
 
 kanda- 242, 246 
 
 anya- 38 
 
 
 kala- 226 
 
 apala- 234, 257 
 
 uchami 
 
 kina- 242, 246, 248 
 
 apara- 258 
 
 uttara- 24 
 
 kila- 232, 257 
 
 ar- 29, 35, 39, 40 
 
 udan- 46 
 
 kilasa- 227 
 
 avi- 92 
 
 udumbala- 234, 257 
 
 kilbisa- 227, 233, 238 
 
 aropita- 92 
 
 upa 24, 57 
 
 kllala- 257 
 
 a9- 40, 42 
 
 upara- 258 
 
 kuthara- 242, 246, 248 
 
 asan- 22 
 
 upari 24, 57 
 
 kuni- 242, 246, 248 
 
 ahan- 30 
 
 upala- 234, 257 
 
 kunda- 242, 243 
 
 aham 41 
 
 urana- 44, 240 
 
 kundala- 242, 246 
 
 
 ulapa- 233, 234 
 
 kulapa- 113 
 
 a 37 
 
 ulka 262 
 
 kulaya- 227, 228 
 
 akhandala- 242, 251 
 
 ulba- 233, 238, 239 
 
 kuli(?a- 228 
 
 aghati 242 
 
 uvasa 50 
 
 kulpha- 229, 233, 238, 
 
 ani- 242, 245 
 
 us- 30 
 
 241 
 
 api- 31 
 
 usas 50 
 
 kulya 113, 229 
 
 apya- 31 
 
 
 kula- 227, 228, 232, 257 
 
 apra- 254, 255, 259 
 
 urna 239 
 
 kevala- 253 
 
 ayus 29 
 
 urnu- 50 
 
 k6cati 95, 99 
 
 a9a40 
 
 
 kru(?- 254, 255 
 
 ase40 
 
 ena- 36 
 
 klo9a- 229, 255 
 
270 
 
 I NDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 khad- 242, 246, 248 
 khargala- 257 
 khala- 229 
 khalu 229 
 khilya- 229 
 khrgala- 257 
 khela- 257 
 khoda- 242, 246, 248 
 
 galati (post-Ved.) 229 
 galda 229, 248, 249 
 gola- 246 
 
 guda- 242, 246, 248 
 gla- 229 
 
 ghat- 242, 246, 248 
 ghata- 242, 246, 248 
 
 cakra- 97, 254, 255 
 cam- 99 
 cara- 254 
 car ami 112 
 cas- 99 
 casala-, 253, 257 
 
 jata 242, 247, 252 
 jathara- 242, 245, 249, 
 
 251 
 jadhu- 242, 245 
 jartu- 249, 250, 252 
 jalasa- 253 bis 
 jalpi- 233, 238 
 jathala 242, 243, 248, 
 
 251, 257 
 
 tapa- 233, 238 
 talpa- 238 
 tilvUa- 257 
 trdila- 253 
 trpala- 234, 257 
 trpra- 258 
 tyakt4s 197 
 
 da9angala- 257 
 
 nakha- 98 
 
 pat- 242, 246, 248 
 
 pata- 242, 247 
 
 patala- 242, 247, 248, 
 
 251, 257 
 patu- 242, 247 
 pani- 242, 243, 248 
 palasti- 233, 234 
 palacja- 233, 234 
 palita- 233, 234 
 pam(?u, pamsu 46 
 pani- 242, 244 
 pasia- 242, 244, 248 
 pipila- 234, 257 
 puta- 242, 247, 248 
 pur- 227 
 pulukama- 262 
 pulvagha- 262 
 puskara- 258 
 puskala- 257 
 prath- 254 
 pratar 28 
 pru- 254, 255 
 prus- 254, 255 
 plaka- 230, 233 
 plava- 233, 234 
 pla(?i. 233, 234, 241 
 plusi- 233, 235 
 
 phata- 242, 247, 248 
 phan- 242, 244, 248 
 phaia- 233, 236 
 phaliga- 230 
 phalgu- 230, 233 
 
 bala- 233, 236, 241 
 bali- 233, 236, 241 
 balbaja- 233, 236, 238, 
 
 241 
 bahula- 253 
 bila- 233, 236, 241 
 bilma- 233, 236, 241 
 
 bhargas 254, 256 
 bhas- 242, 247, 248 
 bhurja- 91 
 bhumi- 95 
 brhat- 47 
 bhrama- 254, 256 
 bhraj. 264, 266 
 
 makha- 99 
 -mangala- 257 
 madhula- 253 
 mardhati 249, 250 
 mala- 233, 236 
 manava- 242, 247 
 miQra- 259 
 -mipla- 253, 259 
 mis- 242, 244, 248 
 mii- 233, 237 
 munda- 242, 247 
 mudgala- 257 
 mura- 259 
 murdhan- 249, 250 
 mula- 257, 259 
 mruc- 254, 256 
 mla- 233, 237 
 mluc- 233, 237 
 
 yakrt- 23 
 yaj- 23, 40 
 yas- 23, 46 
 ya- 30, 42 
 yaman- 30 
 yapya- 30, 31 
 yavat 23 
 yaQU 26 
 yusma- 23 
 yoni- 57 
 
 raks- 254 
 raghu- 254, 256 
 ramb- 254 
 rip- 254, 256 
 rune- 264 
 
 laksa- 231 
 
 las- 242, 247, 248, 252 
 
 langala- 257 
 
 laya- 253 bis 
 
 likha- 264 
 
 lip- 233, 237 
 
 libuja- 233, 237, 241 
 
 lunc- 264 
 
 lubh- 233, 237 
 
 loka- 231 
 
 lodha- 253, 254 
 
 lopa<?a- 93, 95, 233, 237 
 
INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 271 
 
 vata- 242, 248, 252 
 
 vad- 58 
 
 van- 31, 34, 38 
 
 vapa- 62 
 
 vapus 24 
 
 vartakas 99 
 
 -vara- 259 
 
 varman- 44 
 
 varsistha- 49 
 
 vala-'253, 254, 259 
 
 val<?a- 253, 254 
 
 va? 43, 45 
 
 vasana- 43 
 
 va- 28 
 
 vata- 242, 248 
 
 vani- 242, 245 
 
 vigra- 259 
 
 vij- 26 
 
 vid- 44 
 
 vidvala- 253 
 
 vindami 44 
 
 vipra- 259 
 
 vi?- 42 
 
 viQpala- 234, 257 
 
 vi- 41, 42, 43 
 
 vr- 39 
 
 vrka- 93 
 
 vrj- 38 
 
 vrnu- 60 
 
 vrs-43 
 
 vrsan- 47 
 
 vrsala- 253 
 
 velasthana- 253 
 vyac- 42 
 vyalka(?a- 231 
 vlag- 231 
 vlag- 37 
 vrata- 40 
 
 (?abala- 234, 257 
 (jalya- 253 
 patu- 242, 247 
 QiQula- 253 
 9ilpa- 233, 238 
 <?imbala- 234, 257 
 Qipala- 234, 257 
 <?ubhra- 259 
 (?ulka- 232 
 <?ula- 253 
 <?loka- 232 
 (jva^ura- 23 
 
 sa- 23 
 
 sankalpa- 225 
 saj- 39 
 
 satya- 25, 26, 27 
 san- 38 
 Sana- 28, 38 
 sanutar 25, 28 
 sama 30 
 sar- 35 
 
 Saranyu- 26, 29 
 saras 22, 35 
 sarvas 23, 37 
 
 salila- 35, 257 
 sah- 115 
 sada- 23 
 saman- 27 
 sara- 22 
 Sarameya- 22 
 salavrka- 253, 254 
 sic- 26 
 
 silikamadhyama- 259 
 si- 24 
 Sim 23 
 sira- 259 
 silamavat- 259 
 su- 29 
 
 su-pippala- 234, 257 
 surya- 24 
 sev- 22 
 stola 253 
 sthiina- 252 
 sphut- 247, 248 
 sphur- 254, 256 
 syala- 253 
 syuman- 24 
 sva- 23, 31 
 svadha- 31 
 svapna- 23 
 svar- 43, 57 
 svasar- 49 
 svid- 24 
 
 hataka- 242, 248, 251 
 
 are^na- 48 
 
 B. Zend. 
 
 i9i26 
 
 hama- 30 
 
 alam 244 
 aleur 244 
 alowes 92, 93 
 arag 35, 256 
 ardar 47 
 aregakn 47 
 arew 35, 37, 47 
 
 barjr 47 
 
 C. Armenian. 
 
 gail94 
 gaXel 50, 240 
 gan 48, 240 
 gar 44 
 garn 44 
 gelmn 44, 239 
 get 46 
 gez 48 
 gin 44 
 
 gini 44 
 giser 46 
 giri 48 
 gitem 44 
 gom 44 
 gore 44 
 gowfn 48 
 gtanem 44 
 
272 
 
 e\n36 
 erek 47 
 erek 47 
 
 z-genum 47 
 
 lavanal 47 
 loganam 47 
 
 kogi 47 
 kov 44, 47 
 
 INDEX OF WORDS, 
 krcel 98; 
 meX 236 
 
 yoiz-k* 46 
 
 cogay 47 
 cow 47 
 
 posi 46 
 
 vaz 48 
 
 vax 48 
 vaf 45 
 vas 47 
 vasn 45 
 varj 48 
 vec 48 
 velk' 45 
 vem 48 
 
 k'irtn 48 
 k'oir 48 
 
 ( 
 
 d- 25, 26 
 
 A- 34 
 
 Aarai 38 
 
 ddrat 48 
 
 Aaros 38 
 
 d^^Xiov 37 
 
 &yy€\os 255 
 
 dy^effffi 30 
 
 a7(os 23 
 
 ayv6i 23 
 
 &yos 33 
 
 dyoi 33, 35 
 
 Ayw 40 
 
 AS-qp 33, 34, 38 
 
 oi^r)v 33, 34 
 
 dSjJs 23 
 
 diXios 38 
 
 di^ofiaL 23 
 
 *df\av'f}s, df\apio$ 37 
 
 drffii 28 
 
 ddpiu) 33, 34 
 
 ddp^ta 33 
 
 d^p6os 33, 34 
 
 d^p6os 25, 26, 33 
 
 aZ 31 bis 
 
 alfia 22 
 
 alfiaffid 48 
 
 a^/itcui/ 22 
 
 alvv/JMi 39 
 
 ati/w 34 
 
 alp^w 35, 39 
 
 atput 39 
 
 dWw 253 
 
 D. Greek. 
 
 a'tT^w 39 
 oTtios 39 
 
 &KOLTIS 26 
 
 dXdoyLiat 36 
 
 d\a6s 36 
 
 aXas 22 
 
 dXdaivo) 51 
 
 dX^a 33 
 
 dX^a 33, 37, 33 
 
 dXds 51 
 
 dX^w 244 
 
 dXT7 33, 37, 247 
 
 aX'^j'tti 51 
 
 dXiJs 33, 37 
 
 dXia 37 
 
 dX^fw 37 
 
 dXts 34, 37, 50 
 
 aXXofxai 22, 26, 51, 52 
 
 ' AXocr68vT] 58 
 
 dXoxoi 26 
 
 dXs22 
 
 dXo-o 26, 29, 51 
 
 &Xto 51, 52 
 
 dXtbuai 37 
 
 dXiiTTT/^ 92 S. passim 
 
 aXi/w 33, 36 
 
 dXijo) 33, 36 
 
 a/iaXSiJi/a; 247 
 
 d/wtfa 33 6z« 
 
 a/xa^a 33 
 
 d/xevai 26 6t«, 38 
 
 d/XT; 33 
 
 diX77 33 
 
 dfii) 25, 26, 33 
 dfirj 33, 34 
 dfxfios 33 
 dufios 33 
 d/xviou 9 
 
 dM6^ej' 25, 26, 34 
 d/i^^ei' 25, 26 
 d/x^aaco 99 
 dfx(piiroXos 113 
 dj'tti'Sot 36 
 di'Sdz'w 23, 34 
 dj/eij/ 25, 26 
 dueaat. 38 
 d^eu 25, 28 
 dci/eii' 25 
 du^TO) 33 
 dj'iJw 33, 38 
 dfjJw 38 
 doXXiJs 37 
 doaarjTTip 37, 
 dirapxv 48 
 dirofeXioi. 37 
 'AttoXXwi' 39 
 aTTTW 39 
 dpat6j 39 
 dpapicTKb) 39 
 dpAci;; 33, 38 
 d/)/u,a 39 
 dpfidfxa^a 33 
 dpfxeva 39 
 dpixovla 39 
 dp/x6s 39 
 dpi/- 44 
 
 41 
 
INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 273 
 
 dpira^ 22 
 apTredour] 22 
 dpire^a 22 
 
 dpTTT) 35 
 
 dparju 47 
 
 dadfirjv 38 
 
 da-ii 60 
 
 d<rfjL€vos 31, 33, 34, 38 
 
 d<rr^/9 36 
 
 darv 43, 44, 51 
 
 do-w 38 
 
 drep 28, 29 
 
 aros 26 
 
 avXa^ 49 
 
 aifpiou 50 
 
 auo) 33, 37 
 
 d<pai\-qa-€<rdai 35 
 
 dxos 48 
 
 ai/'t's 33 
 
 atw 38, 63 
 
 pdXKw 229 
 ^a^/d 97 
 ^aard^eiv 99 
 )3pi;7/i6s 98 
 
 yavUs 246 
 yipcov 230 
 yrjpijci} 238 
 yvupi/Mos 130 
 7Uta 99 
 yvfJLv6% 100 
 7w^ 97 
 
 datddWo) 253 
 dep/Mara 62 
 5o/)d 99 
 
 Spi^TTTW 99 
 
 ^ 23, 33 
 
 eai'os 43 
 ^ap 43, 50 
 edw 26, 29 
 eyyuT; 100 
 ^5a0os 25, 26 
 eSos 22, 25, 26 
 eScoXios 33 
 e^po-T? 34, 40 
 
 D. P. 
 
 e^ofiaL 22 
 
 ms 31, 32 
 
 ei 31 bis 
 
 elai 30, 31 
 
 €LKo<n 43, 44 
 
 el'XT/ 38, 59 
 
 er\?70a 231 
 
 eiXiKpLv/js 33, 36 
 
 el'Xw 36, 50 
 
 ei/Att 50 
 
 eipyio 33, 38 6<s, 49 
 
 etpeLu 25, 29, 38 
 
 dpepov 48 
 
 eip-qvr] 38 
 
 elpKTr} 38 
 
 e?s 22 
 
 eKdarav 48 
 
 'iKaaros 31 
 
 CKarepos 31 
 
 ^/C7/Tl 43 
 
 e/fu/o6s 23 
 
 e/cwf 43, 45, 59 
 
 cXdfT; 37 
 
 i\a(Pp6s 36, 256 
 
 ^\axi5s, Adxeia 100, 256 
 
 e\6ty 37 
 
 'BX^i/^ 37 
 
 ^\V 37, 45, 50 
 
 eX/fCT; 35, 92 
 
 eXt^ 33, 36 
 
 k\i<yao3 36 
 
 eX^os 36 
 
 A/cw 36, 49 
 
 i-\\a§e 231 
 
 eXXo's 33, 36 Us 
 
 'i\\o\p 36 
 
 'iXfuv^ 36 
 
 eXiJw 33, 36 
 
 'iXwp 37 
 
 eywi^s 33 
 
 e;/ 29 
 
 ivaXiyKios 25, 29 
 
 ?^9;39 
 
 ^^^29 
 
 ?vtot 25, 29 
 
 ej/v^a 39 
 
 ^uvvfiL 43, 47, 50, 59 
 
 tVos 28, 33, 38 
 
 'd^ 24, 39, 48, 49 
 ^^w 22, 48 
 ^op 49 
 eopTiJ 40 
 ^TTOfxai 22 
 ?7ros 43, 45, 59 
 eirrd 22, 39 
 irruirls 35 
 eiruiris 35 
 ^PYo;/ 41, 59 
 epe^Acw 228 
 'Eptj/iJs 26, 29, 228 
 ^ptou 44, 240 
 "Epts 29 
 ?pAcos 38 
 ?p/*a 22, 38 
 ipfirjpeijs 22 
 'Ep/i^s 22 
 ^PTTW 23, 35 
 ^po-T? 33, 34, 47 
 ^'po-T? 33, 40, 43, 47 
 ^parjv 47 
 epo-tj 33, 38 
 ^pcris 33, 38 
 ipveffdai 26, 29 
 epj^w 96, 240 
 effjxbs 33 
 ecr/ids 33 
 ^(TirapTai 29 
 ^(TTrepos 43, 46, 49 
 laraXKa 29 
 ^(rre 33 
 ecrre 33 
 
 ecrri'a 43, 49, 50 
 iaxdpa 49 
 eraipos 28 
 ^reds 27, 28 
 ^r^s 28, 31, 32 
 iroi 43 
 c3 29 
 efiSw 23 
 ^i5s29 
 effa>33 
 euw33 
 iXio 35, 48 
 ews 23, 33, 49, 50 
 
 fepyov 44 
 
 18 
 
274 
 
 INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 49 
 
 Fipiov 44 
 Fepveadai 29 
 nrefb- 27, 28 
 /Vt77S 28 
 fex^TrevKh 35 
 frjXos 45 
 rTjfil 27, 32 
 fiSeip 44 
 /iStos 31, 44 
 flKari 44, 48, 
 /t^/Ads 26 
 fi<TTU}p 42 
 foXvos 44 
 fwvos 44 
 
 f^w 46, 59 
 f60os 75, 76 
 fu7o»' 59 
 
 ij- 30, 37, 50 
 
 1530 
 
 r?23 
 
 ^27 
 
 TiyiofiaL 40 
 
 ijdoixai 31 6t« 
 
 ^5o5 31, 32 
 
 Tjdvpdfirjv 37 
 
 ^5«5s 22, 31 
 
 i}4\ios 25, 37, 38 
 
 ^f^Xtos 25, 37, 38 
 
 i]d/j,6s 33, 34 
 
 i)efj.6s 33, 34 &ts 
 
 ijdu} 33, 34 
 
 7;^aj 33, 34 
 
 ifiaSO 
 
 ijios 30 
 
 rfXtoj 24, 25 
 
 17X0$ 43, 45, 59 
 
 ^xa 40 
 
 iJKU} 40, 42 
 
 ^fiap 30 
 
 Tj/Aets 41 
 
 i)fjiipa 30 
 
 •^/*at 41 
 
 i7/*f 27 
 
 il/u- 23 
 
 ^Trap 23 
 
 ^Ttos 30, 31 
 
 Tjpcos 22 
 i7c6s50 
 
 I' 23, 40 
 
 iap6s 41 
 
 iapds 41 
 
 tSeti/ 43, 44 
 
 tdiov 49 
 
 rSios 31, 32, 44 
 
 TSos 31, 32, 49 
 
 idpOoj 22 
 
 15/9WS 24, 31 
 
 i-e-re-o-se (Cypr.) 42 
 
 lep6s 41 
 
 iep6s 36, 41, 42 
 
 ifeo-^ai 13 
 
 ^7)30 
 
 £?)to$ 30 
 
 iVt 23, 41 
 
 iKavds 42 
 
 r^cap 42 
 
 iK/xaXhs 26 
 
 t'/c/tds 26 
 
 tKfxevos 42 
 
 iKPiofiai 42 
 
 tKT^ 42 
 
 'iKTap 42 
 
 r/creu 42 
 
 tKO} 42 
 
 t/tds 23 
 
 i;tte/)oj 42 
 
 IV 23 
 
 iVa 23 
 
 l^is 26 
 
 Ws41 
 
 ?7r7ros 41 
 
 i-ro-ni (Cypr.) 42 
 
 ip6i 40, 41, 42 
 
 'I<r/Mi^vri 42 
 
 JfcTTT^yict 23, 43 
 
 tffTup 33, 42 
 
 Ka\6s 226 
 
 ffttXl^TTTW 99 
 
 Kaaavfiara 62 
 KarafikiUpuv 37 
 icaraXc^Toy • ra 7 
 
 xei'puj 129 
 
 Ketw 115 
 
 AcXcifw 229 
 
 k\w(t<to} 95, 229, 255 
 
 Acpwfoj 95, 229, 255 
 
 KTelpio 129 
 
 Kj5ap 99 
 
 kvkXos 97, 227 
 
 KVKPOS 98 
 
 Aci;XX6s 98, 246 
 KiJw99 
 KUKiju} 95, 99 
 /cwXoi' 226 
 
 Xa/AjSdfw 231 
 \d(f>vpa 231 
 Xctxeia 100 
 X^TTtt 256 
 Xi57^ 264 
 \vKos 95 passim 
 
 fiaXepSs 265 
 /xa\9aK6s 249, 250 
 fidpaydos 265 
 fidpaypa 265 
 /xapdacru} 265 
 /xapipos 265 
 fidppa/xai 256 
 ^eiXia 237 
 /xAaj 236 
 fj-vpi-y^ 265 
 fiTJpipdos 265 
 M^a 265 
 fxiydrjp 265 
 IxiKpbs 265 
 /«Xa| 266 
 AuXos 266 
 fxpdofiai 97 
 fioyepSs 266 
 )iiotos 266 
 /jLOPifios 39 
 fji^dpos 266 
 ^Lciyeij/ 33 
 fjjL)^b}p 266 
 fidpaipa 266 
 Atypf^J 266 
 /tiJppa 266 
 nicaut 266 
 
INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 275 
 
 vijffos 60 
 vlffffofiai 54 
 
 J'O/tOS 11 
 
 6 23 
 6- 22 
 
 oydoy 39 
 656s 23 
 oTkos 42, 43 
 olvos 44 
 ors92 
 oiiavbi 92 
 6/CTc6 39 
 6X/3os 231 
 &\iK<a 42 
 6X*fiJ 36 
 
 oXolrpoxos 33, 36 
 oXos 23, 25, 37 
 ofxo- 22 
 e{»'31 
 oj/ux- 98 
 oirdwu 26 
 
 OTTIS 26 
 
 67r6s 26 
 
 opdb) 43 
 
 6/)7iJ 29, 35 
 
 opfMri 22, 35 
 
 opfJLos 22, 49 
 
 opovTai 43 
 
 6/)6s 25, 29, 35 
 
 SpTTT/^ 25, 26, 33, 35 
 
 6pT^40 
 
 oprv^ 99 
 
 OS 23 
 
 OTTI. 30 
 
 ooSos 26 
 
 ouXos 26, 239 
 
 ovpos 26 
 
 60/3a 30 
 
 oxXos 37, 231, 232 
 
 voK&firi 244 
 irapA. 255 
 
 TrAXa 244 
 tt^Xtt? 247 
 irAw 113, 228 
 TT^pas 255 
 irk(S(Xia 99 
 TrXdcrtos 247 
 TrXari^s 247, 255 
 ttX^w 234 
 7rXi7(r(ra; 230 
 TTvevixa 114 
 7r6Xet 41 
 ir6Xt 41 
 
 7r6Xis 113, 125, 228 
 7r6Xos 227 
 wpaTTides 235, 239 
 Trrlcrcrd} 54 
 irvKvb^ 99 
 ttjJXt; 228 
 
 <re7rT6s 197 
 a-fidu 60 
 ailfiepov 30 
 ffK^fivoi 99 
 (r/V^ 48 
 (T/uXa^ 237, 266 
 
 For other words be- 
 ginning with (Tfx see 
 pp. 265 f. 
 
 (TT^pO^p 36 
 
 o-jyro 51 
 
 Tid-qKa 13 
 tAXw 113, 125 
 riprru} 238 
 riffiepov 30 
 Tp{>(T(T(a 98 
 
 f/aXos 57 
 u/36s 57 
 i)/3pts 57 
 U7i7j$ 58 
 vypbs 58 
 yS^w 58 
 
 f!5wp 24, 46, 58 
 O^Xos 58 
 vl6^ 23 
 yXdw 57 
 v'X77 23 
 v/tets 23, 41 
 Hjxixes 30 
 u;ui7»/ 24, 63 
 {J/Aj/os 24 
 ^wap 24 
 
 UTT^p 57 
 f^TTJ'OS 23 
 
 {,ir6 24, 57 
 (JM 23 
 \ipxn 58 
 (Is 23 
 i!<r/cXos 57 
 vafjLiprj 23 
 {Jo-ttXt/^ 57 
 vffT^pa 57 
 v<f)a/xiJ.os 33 n. 
 y^iJ57 
 
 07;76s 91 
 0X^7w 256 
 (f>\€xp 97 
 0X^w 98 
 0Xi;5(ia> 97, 98 
 (pXvKTis {-(pXvy-) 97 
 0a>Xe6s 95 
 
 X^^s 46 
 xXw/56s 248 
 X'L'To 51 
 
 i/'aX/s 236 
 ^jJXXa 235 
 
 (bKeav6s 37 
 wi'os 44 
 dSpa 43 
 wpa 23 
 u;s23 
 
276 
 
 INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 
 E. Latin. 
 
 
 aeruscare 39 
 
 garrio 238 
 
 Numisius 11, 1 
 
 alimenta 62 
 
 germen 128 f. 
 
 Nummius 12 
 
 alnus 35, 51 
 
 
 Numpsius 11 
 
 altus 111, 112 
 
 helvus 248 
 
 Numsius 11 
 
 alveus 51 
 
 heri 47, 216 
 
 
 Apisius 12 
 
 
 opera 255 
 
 Apius 12 
 
 icere 42 
 
 orca 58 
 
 Apus 12 
 
 imperator 7 
 
 ovis 92 
 
 aptus 39 
 
 incolumis 224, 225 
 
 
 armamenta 62 
 
 insece 26 
 
 palea 234 
 
 armenta 62 
 
 is, id 31 
 
 Papesius 12 
 
 Audasio- 11 
 
 iuba 57 
 
 Papirius 12 
 
 aveo 63 
 
 iubar 114 
 
 Papius 12 
 
 avis 92 
 
 iuvat 57 
 
 pendo 243 
 
 Aurora 50 
 
 
 per 255 
 
 aurum 95 
 
 lacio 231 
 
 perendie 38 
 
 
 laevus 69 
 
 pigmentum 62 
 
 caementa 62 
 
 lana 239 
 
 pius 30 
 
 callis 229 
 
 langueo 231 
 
 pulex 235 
 
 callum 229, 246 
 
 laqueus 231 
 
 
 carmen 128 f. 
 
 lascivus 247 
 
 rapio 22, 23 
 
 celo 99, 221 
 
 latus 111 
 
 repo 23 
 
 cervix 48 
 
 lave 47 
 
 ruma 63 
 
 cilium 227 
 
 libet 237 
 
 rumen 63 
 
 Clodius 12 
 
 libo 266 
 
 runcare 264 
 
 cognomentum 62 
 
 lignum 229 
 
 
 colere 112, 114 
 
 lupus 92 ff. passim 
 
 sal 22 
 
 corpus 225, 238 
 
 
 salio 22 
 
 culpo 225 
 
 Maneius 11 
 
 salix 35, 92 
 
 culter 224, 246 
 
 Manilius 11 
 
 saltus 26, 51 
 
 cultus 228 
 
 Manius 11 
 
 salum 22 
 
 
 manus 11 
 
 sanguen 39 
 
 desivare 26 
 
 mad 6, 13 
 
 sapor 26 
 
 devotiones 6 
 
 molo 244 
 
 sarmenta 62 
 sarpo 22, 23 
 
 equasio- 11 
 
 niger 220 
 
 satur 26 
 
 
 nivis 8 
 
 scaevus 69 
 
 facio 13, 42 
 
 norma 127 fif. 
 
 scio 115 
 
 fagus 91 
 
 Numa 11 
 
 sedulo 84 
 
 feci 13 
 
 numasioi 6, 14 
 
 semi- 23 
 
 fefaked 10 
 
 Numasius 10, 11, 12 
 
 senex 28 
 
 feficit 13 
 
 numen 114, 115 
 
 sentina 60 
 
 fluctus 98 
 
 Numerius 11, 12 
 
 serere 25 
 
 fluo98 
 
 numeruB 12 
 
 sero 22, 29 
 
 fundamenta 62 
 
 Numirius 12 
 
 serpo 23 
 
 12 
 
INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 277 
 
 sertum 22 
 serum 25, 29 
 servare 26 
 servus 48 
 silva 23 
 sinister 69 
 socius 26 
 sollus 23, 37 
 somnus 23 
 sorex 23 
 soror 49 
 Stella 36 
 suavis 23 
 sub 57 
 
 Subura 101, 102 
 sucus 26 
 sudum 23 
 sulcus 36, 49 
 super 57 
 sus 23 
 
 tellus 219, 267 
 tetigit 13 
 
 Titidius 11 
 Titinius 11 
 Titius 11 
 Titurius 11 
 Titus 11 
 tormentura 62 
 
 ulcus 36, 49 
 ulula 223 
 ululo 217 
 unda 24, 58 
 unguis 98 
 unguo 223 
 urceus 58 
 urna 48 
 uvidus 58 
 
 Vala 12 
 Valerius 12 
 Valesius 12 
 Valisius 12 
 vallum 248 
 vallus 43, 45 
 
 vegeo 58 
 
 Velia 35 
 
 vellus 239 
 
 venum 44 
 
 Venus 31 
 
 verna 50 
 
 veru 99 
 
 verus 27, 28 
 
 vesper 43 
 
 Vesta 30 
 
 vestio 43 
 
 vestis 50 
 
 vhevhaked 6, 7, 13 
 
 viginti 44 
 
 vimen 23 
 
 vinum 44 
 
 volo 224 
 
 vol pes 92 ff. passim 
 
 volvo 36, 50 
 
 voveo 100 
 
 vulgus 231 
 
 F. OSCAN. 
 
 tribarakat • tins 7 
 
 medicat • inom 7 
 
 Niu/icrSiTjij 11 
 niumsis 11 
 
 niumerio 11 
 Numsi 11 
 
 miom 13 
 
 fefacust 13 
 
 fefacid 13 
 fakurent 13 
 
 Niivlaniii 14 
 
 svai, svae 31 
 
 G. Keltic. 
 
 eel O.Ir. 226 
 
 elain Cymr. 36 n. 
 
278 
 
 INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 H. Teutonic. 
 
 (A.S.= Anglo-Saxon, E.= 
 Old High German, 
 High German.) 
 
 abrs G. 255 
 alder E. 35 
 aids G. Ill 
 alpeis G. Ill 
 an M.H.G. 29 
 ander Mod.H.G. 29 
 ano A.S. 29 
 
 beech E. 91 
 bellen Mod.H.G. 247 
 bol O.Norse 95 
 brahv G. 256 
 brehen M.H.G. 256 
 bylgja O.Norse 98 
 
 fai-flok G. 230 
 fal|>an G. 247 
 feldr O.Norse 247 
 flat E. 255 
 fold E. 247 
 fragildan G. 242 
 
 gelte Mod.H.G. 246 
 gestern Mod.H.G. 46, 47 
 
 English, E.E. = Early English, G. = Gothic, O.H.G.= 
 M.H.G. = Middle High German, Mod.H.G. = Modern 
 
 gistra- G. 46 
 gistra-dagis G. 47 
 
 hails G. 226 
 halts G. 246 
 hilpan G. 225 
 hul>s G. 247 
 hweohl A.S. 97 
 
 inu G. 29 
 iuwel E.E. 57 
 
 jer G. 23 
 
 kas G. 99 
 
 kilt>ei G. 243, 249 
 
 limber E. 256 
 lungar G. 256 
 
 molda A.S. 249 
 
 ohne Mod.H.G. 29 
 
 quellen Mod.H.G. 229 
 
 saft Mod.H.G. 26 
 salaha O.H.G. 35, 92 
 sally E. 35 
 seim Mod.H.G. 22 
 sonder E. 29 
 spalten Mod.H.G. 236 
 sumar O.H.G. 30 
 syne E. 28 
 
 valus G. 245 
 
 vato G. 58 
 
 vlies Mod.H.G. 239 
 
 vortrefflich Mod.H.G. 42 
 
 vulfs G. 102 
 
 vunds G. 48 
 
 wara O.H.G. 43 
 weich Mod.H.G. 27, 48 
 werk Mod.H.G. 44 
 wilwan G. 93 
 wool E. 239 
 wmider Mod.H.G. 34 
 
 I. Balto-Slavic. 
 
 avis Lith. 92 
 
 balsas Lith. 247 
 berszti Lith. 91 
 ber^as Lith. 91 
 birga Lett. 256 
 blucha Slav. 235 
 blusa Lith. 235 
 
 celu Slav. 226 
 
 ^Inis Lith. 36 
 
 galtinis Lith. 247 
 garsas Lith. 238 
 
 kalti Lith. 243 
 
 kaukti Lith. 95, 99 
 kartus Lith. 251 
 kerpu Lith. 225 
 klesta Slav. 228 
 korto O.Pruss. 251 
 kraukti Lith. 255 
 krunfi Slav. 251 
 kulti Lith. 246 
 
INDEX OF WORDS. 
 
 279 
 
 lapas Lith. 234 
 limpu Lith. 237 
 
 malnyx Pruss. 247 
 milyti Lith. 236 
 muldyti Lith. 247 
 
 opia Lith. 30 
 opas Lith. 30 
 
 pelnis Lith. 243 
 
 plaku Lith. 230 
 plotas Lith. 255 
 
 runkti Lith. 264 
 
 s§tu Slav. 27 
 skeldeti Lith. 242, 246 
 spaliai Lith. 236 
 
 valtis Lith. 248 
 
 velkii Lith. 36, 49 
 vilkas Lith. 102 
 vilna Lith. 239 
 virti Lith. 45 
 voloti Russ. 248 
 
 wolac Pol. 245 
 
 zireti Slav. 230 
 zlato Slav. 248 
 
PKINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
m. 
 
 RETURN TO: CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 198 Main Stacks 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 
 Home Use 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS. 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
 Books may be renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FORM NO. DD6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 50M 4-04 Berkeley, California 94720-6000 
 
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CD^t^bfllS7 
 
 i/ 
 
 260778 
 
 r 
 
 #