been intensified. Thus we have acer from the root ak, 1 Corssen however, I. 395, separates the two words. CH. VI. CH. VI. Different methods of distinguishing them in Greek; especially the employ ment of the existing A into a, Then how did they represent the first step and keep it distinct from the second? Sometimes, as we have seen, by strengthening the verbal stem in different ways; either by reduplication, as ἵστημι for σι-στα-μι, or by nasalisation, as in ȧ(v)8-áv-w, or by suffixes, as in λá(x)-σKW, ἅπτω, φαίνω for φαν-ψω, ἄγ-νυ-μι, &c. But very frequently they employed a vowel-variation ready to hand, one originally phonetic only, but capable of being applied division of to distinguish different shades of meaning1; that division of the a sound, so often mentioned, into a, e, o, which will be fully described as soon as we come to phonetic change. Now o is a heavier sound than e; so that while e is employed for the present stem, the greater intensity of idea implied in the completed action can be expressed by o; as e.g. in πέρθω, πέπορθα; στρέφω, ἔστροφα, &c. But this more frequently is the mechanism employed in the formation of nominal bases. Thus by Téρ0-w we have πόρθ-ο in πτολίπορθος ; by στρέφω, στροφή, and στρόφo-s; by ex-w, ox-o-s, and ox-n, and innumerable others?. Indeed this may fairly be called the most important of all the methods of forming nouns in the language. A slight difficulty arises here from the fact that the ascent from € to o is not always (indeed not generally) the entire process in the verb-formations on this method. 1 This faculty of language may be well illustrated from Prof. Curtius, note 21 on page 31 of his Essay on Comp. Philology and Classical Scholarship. He there says (Engl. trans.): "The distinction between exóμela and exóuelov was surely at first purely phonic, but it subsequently got to be employed to separate the plural from the dual. And the Sanskrit termination of the first person dual vahê is most likely but a variation of the 1st pl. mahê; and scarcely any one would maintain that in the v there is really a significant mark of the dual relation (cf. vayam, plur."we"). Thus too I consider Tévoos as a by-form of málos, one which the phonic tendency alone has brought forward. [See however, p. 163]. There was never any difference between e. g. Béveos and Bálos, although a more refined feeling of the language introduced one between πévoos and Tálos. This is in some degree also the case with the German "Ablaut" [i. e. the change of a vowel to another vowel of a different class according to certain laws], more especially in its application to the formation of words. It can be shewn that the change of i, a, and u, in the verb trinken was there before, and that it arose from very different reasons than the difference in the meaning of Trank and Trunk." 2 See the full list in Leo Meyer, Vergleichende Grammatik, 1. 110, &c. Besides the perfect stem in o and the present stem in e The Latin is not without traces of the same change. Though few and far between, compared with the abundance of the Greek, they are sufficient to shew that it inherited the same method as the sister language, though not the same power of developing it. Thus we find among the verbs the increase from ĕ to o, in moneo, the causal (compare Sanskrit mân-ayâ-mi) by me-min-i (weakened from me-men-i), men-(ti)s. If man-e-o belong (as has been already suggested) to the same root, we have here an example, I believe the only one in Latin, of the triple form in actual use, but with the distinction practically forgotten. Just like moneo is noceo, the causal of něc (in nex, něcis), Indo-European NAK. Passing to nouns 1 This difficulty is ignored by Schleicher in his Compendium, p. 62, where, in treating of the different intensifications of a, he makes e to o one of the first steps. To me it appears certainly a second step in the verbs mentioned above; and in nouns 8xos stands to exw just as σroîxos (second step) is to στείχω (στιχ) and σπουδή to σπεύδω (σπυδ). CH. VI. Traces of the same method in Latin. CH. VI. Advantage we have tog-a from √těg; proc-u-s, "a wooer," by prec-ari; soc-iu-s by seq-ui and ad-sec-la, and others1. We have seen above that has gained a place in of the dif several present stems, sometimes on phonetic grounds, in other cases perhaps by analogy. This gave the Greeks an advantage which they were not slow to use. ferent symbols for long vowels in the Greek. Quantitative in crease. Since w: n:o : e, another method of ascent in the a-scale was gained thereby. Thus from the root (F)pay, present ῥήγνυμι, they formed the perfect ἔρρωγα—in exact analogy, as has been already observed, with the Gothic lat, léta, lailôt. This w makes its way also into nounforms; thus from πτακ (πτήσσω) we get πτώκ-ς “the hare" (the by-form TTάσσw is perhaps a denominative verb formed from it): so also ἀρωγός stands by ἀρήγω, "to help" (root pax): and it occurs regularly in reduplicated nouns, as dy-wy-ó-s and ȧy-wy-n, ax-wк-n, and (perhaps formed on analogy with these) even ed-wd-n from the base EA. Sometimes the long vowel è seems to be employed in the same way in Latin. Thus we have | fră(n)go, frēgi, ăgo, ēgi, păciscor and pă(n)go, pēgi: together from cilium and oc-cul-o, we infer a root KAL to cover (found in c(a)l-am), from which we get caligo and cēlare. Sătus has the vowel short, which is long in Sāturnus, and apparently changed to è in semen. But with respect to the perfects the origin of the ē is not beyond dispute: it may be due to lost reduplication; whilst the other examples, beside being insufficient, shew no clear trace of method. Short e is raised to long e, in Greek rarely, as μé-μŋλ-a (uéλw), and in such cases as tí-On-μ by the side of τí-0eμev: but more commonly in Latin, where we find sēd-es (sěd-eo), tēg-ula (těg-o), lex (lēg-is), and col-leg-a by leg-o, sērus by series; and among verbs ed-i (ed-o). Here the root-vowel was in every case originally ă, as is shewn by the other languages: but it had changed into è in GraecoItalian times. 1 See Schleicher, p. 87. Similarly short o is lengthened, again in Greek more rarely than in Latin: od-wda is lengthened from √od; στώμυλος stands by στόμα: and the δίδωμι class of verbs corresponds to the Tíonu class. In Latin uox (uoc-is) stands to uoc-o in the same relation as lex to lego: perhaps however the ō here may represent a: we have √ in ā: a Sanskrit. We find this change in the verbs often enough, as fodio, fōdi, mõueo, mõui; but here the same remark must be made as about the : persōna is an increase of sound upon son-u-s, and sōp-i-o above sop-or. In these two last cases the o comes from original u: the IndoEuropean roots are SVAN and SVAP respectively, but this does not affect the principle of the increase of the o. As a general rule it would seem that the Latin language preferred the simpler expedient of a merely quantitative increase of sound (ă to ā, ě to ē, o to ō): while the subtler genius of the Greek chose rather a qualitative strengthening, like that of e to o1. CH. VI. I-scale. We may now pass to the i-scale, which may claim the (ii) The merit of being the most perfect and least corrupted exponent of the scheme, both in Greek and Latin. Thus in 1 Mr Roby (Latin Grammar, Preface, p. xxiii) writes: "I have not followed Schleicher and others in the treatment of Latin vocalisation according to what for brevity I may call Sanskrit principles. This method applied to Latin seems to me to fail both in basis and result. Corssen's elaborate treatment of vowel-intensification in the first volume of his new edition is not more satisfactory: and on this point I can refer to Curtius (Studien, 1. 2, p. 294), who, commenting on Corssen's sanguine view of the result of his medley collection of long vowels in root-syllables suffixes and endings, points out that vowel-intensification is after all only a name for the fact that we often meet with a long vowel when we expect a short one." I am not greatly concerned to defend Corssen in this matter: and with Mr Roby's pithy statement of the result of Corssen's work I agree: the cause, however, is clearly the extreme disorganization of the Latin Vocalism, which prevents us from discovering clear traces of a method undoubtedly found in closely cognate languages, and therefore certainly once operative in Latin also, although in a manner which was early obscured, and is now hardly traceable. I may say that Curtius, in the criticism quoted above, seems to me to be referring to one part of Corssen's work only, the "Einlautige Steigerung," not to vowel-intensification in general and even here specially to one point only, the long a in erām, erās, &c. Corssen compares (inter alia) (o)no0a, &c. in Greek and refers the long vowel to this principle. This explanation is certainly not satisfactory: but I do not know a better. That of Schleicher, that eram (for example)=es-aya-m, seems to rest on no good analogy. |