Page images
PDF
EPUB

Aryan languages, no predicative root can by itself form a word. Thus in Latin there is a root luc, to shine. In order to have a substantive, such as light, it was necessary to add a pronominal or demonstrative root, this forming the general subject of which the meaning contained in the root is to be predicated. Thus by the addition of the pronominal elements we have the Latin noun, luc-8, the light, or literally, shining-there. Let us add a personal pronoun, and we have the verb luc-e-8, shining-thou, thou shinest. Let us add other pronominal derivatives, and we get the adjectives, lucidus, luculentus, &c.

It would be a totally mistaken view, however, were we to suppose that all derivative elements, all that remains of a word after the predicative root has been removed, must be traced back to pronominal roots. We have only to look at some of our own modern derivatives in order to be convinced that many of them were originally predicative, that they entered into composition with the principal predicative root, and then dwindled down to mere suffixes. Thus scape in landscape, and the more modern ship in hardship are both derived from the same root which we have in Gothic, skapa, skóp, skópum, to create ; in Anglo-Saxon, scape, scóp, scôpon. It is the same as the German derivative, schaft, in Gesellschaft, &c. So again dom in wisdom or christendom is derived from the same root which we have in to do. It is the same as the German thum in Christenthum, the Anglo-Saxon dôm in cyning-dom, Königthum. Sometimes it may seem doubtful whether a derivative element was originally merely demonstrative or predicative. Thus the termination of the comparative in

i Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, b. ii. s. 521.

Sanskrit is tara, the Greek teros. This might, at first sight, be taken for a demonstrative element, but it is in reality the root tar, which means to go beyond, which we have likewise in the Latin trans. This trans in its French form très is prefixed to adjectives in order to express a higher or transcendent degree, and the same root was well adapted to form the comparative in the ancient Aryan tongues. This root must likewise be admitted in one of the terminations of the locative which is tra in Sanskrit ; for instance from ta, a de monstrative root, we form ta-tra, there, originally this way; we form anyatra, in another way; the same as in Latin we say ali-ter, from aliud ; compounds no more surprising than the French autrement (see p. 55) and the English otherwise.

Most of the terminations of declension and conjugation are demonstrative roots, and the s, for instance, of the third person singular, he loves, can be proved to have been originally the demonstrative pronoun of the third person. It was originally not s but t. This will require some explanation. The termination of the third person singular of the present is ti in Sanskrit. Thus , to give, becomes dadâti, he gives; dhâ, to place, dadhâti, he places.

In Greek this ti is changed into si ; just as the Sanskrit tvam, the Latin tu, thou, appears in Greek as sy. Thus Greek didõsi corresponds to Sanskrit dadâti ; tithēsi to dadhâti. In the course of time, however, every Greek 8 between two vowels, in a termination, was elided. Thus genos does not form the genitive genesos, like the Latin genus, genesis or generis, but geneo8 = genous. The dative is not genesi (the Latin generi), but geneï = genei. In the same manner all the

regular verbs have ei for the termination of the third person singular. But this ei stands for esi. Thus typtei stands for typtesi, and this for typteti.

The Latin drops the final i, and instead of ti has t. Thus we get amat, dicit.

Now there is a law to which I alluded before, which is called Grimm's Law. According to it every tenuis in Latin is in Gothic represented by its corresponding aspirate. Hence, instead of t, we should expect in Gothic th; and so we find indeed in Gothic habaip, instead of Latin habet. This aspirate likewise appears in Anglo-Saxon, where he loves is lufad. It is preserved in the Biblical he loveth, and it is only in modern English that it gradually sank to s. In the 8 of he loves, therefore, we have a demonstrative root, added to the predicative root love, and this 8 is originally the same as the Sanskrit ti. This ti again must be traced back to the demonstrative root ta, this or there; which exists in the Sanskrit demonstrative pronoun tad, the Greek to, the Gothic thata, the English that; and which in Latin we can trace in talis, tantus, tunc, tam, and even in tamen, an old locative in men. We have thus seen that what we call the third person singular of the present is in reality a simple compound of a predicative root with a demonstrative root. It is a compound like any other, only that the second part is not predicative, but simply demonstrative. As in pay-master we predicate pay of master, meaning a person whose office it is to pay, so in dadâ-ti, give-he, the ancient framers of language simply predicated giving of some third person, and this synthetic proposition, give-he, is the same as what we now call the third person singular in the

Sanskrit is tara, the Greek teros. This might, at first sight, be taken for a demonstrative element, but it is in reality the root tar, which means to go beyond, which we have likewise in the Latin trans. This trans in its French form très is prefixed to adjectives in order to express a higher or transcendent degree, and the same root was well adapted to form the comparative in the ancient Aryan tongues. This root must likewise be admitted in one of the terminations of the locative which is tra in Sanskrit ; for instance from ta, a demonstrative root, we form ta-tra, there, originally this way ; we form anyatra, in another way; the same as in Latin we say ali-ter, from aliud ; compounds no more surprising than the French autrement (see p. 55) and the English otherwise.

Most of the terminations of declension and conjugation are demonstrative roots, and the s, for instance, of the third person singular, he loves, can be proved to have been originally the demonstrative pronoun of the third person. It was originally not s but t. This will require some explanation. The termination of the third person singular of the present is ti in Sanskrit. Thus , to give, becomes dadâti, he gives; dhâ, to place, dadhati, he places.

In Greek this ti is changed into si; just as the Sanskrit tvam, the Latin tu, thou, appears in Greek as sy. Thus Greek didõsi corresponds to Sanskrit dadati ; tithēsi to dadhâti. In the course of time, however, every Greek s between two vowels, in a termination, was elided. Thus genos does not form the genitive genesos, like the Latin genus, genesis or generis, but geneos = genous. The dative is not genesi (the Latin generi), but geneï = genei. In the same manner all the regular verbs have ei for the termination of the third person singular. But this ei stands for esi. Thus typtei stands for typtesi, and this for typteti.

The Latin drops the final i, and instead of ti has t. Thus we get amat, dicit.

Now there is a law to which I alluded before, which is called Grimm's Law. According to it every tenuis in Latin is in Gothic represented by its corresponding aspirate. Hence, instead of t, we should expect in Gothic th; and so we find indeed in Gothic habaib, instead of Latin habet. This aspirate likewise appears in Anglo-Saxon, where he loves is lufað. It is preserved in the Biblical he loveth, and it is only in modern English that it gradually sank to 8. In the 8 of he loves, therefore, we have a demonstrative root, added to the predicative root love, and this 8 is originally the same as the Sanskrit ti. This ti again must be traced back to the demonstrative root ta, this or there, which exists in the Sanskrit demonstrative pronoun tad, the Greek to, the Gothic thata, the English that ; and which in Latin we can trace in talis, tantus, tunc, tam, and even in tamen, an old locative in men. We have thus seen that what we call the third person singular of the present is in reality a simple compound of a predicative root with a demonstrative root. It is a compound like any other, only that the second part is not predicative, but simply demonstrative. As in pay-master we predicate pay of master, meaning a person whose office it is to pay, so in dadd-ti, give-he, the ancient framers of language simply predicated giving of some third person, and this synthetic proposition, give-he, is the same as what we now call the third person singular in the

« PreviousContinue »