CH. III. by vowel change, and espc. cially by adding consonants at the end weakened form of the secondary1: e.g. we do not know which is older, scalp in scalpo, σkóλoy, or √glab in glaber, yλapupós: the two roots differ slightly both in form and meaning, and yet can apparently be referred to a common source; but which is the older cannot be told with certainty. Sometimes although no addition be made, the form of a root can be modified by internal vowel-change. In this case we get another class of secondary roots. Thus, for example, there is a root TAR, expressing motion with friction from this in its simplest form we get Teipw and Tépny, tero, &c. From the vocalic nature of r, any root in which it occurs can take it either before or after the vowel: hence we get TRATAR-not secondary: but this a can be modified into i and u, and then we get distinct secondary roots TRI and TRU: the first is found in triticum; the second in Tpów, &c. In neither of these is there any variation of sense: but from them, with the simple root, a large number of secondaries of the more common kind can be produced. Thus from TAR we get TARK apparentof the root. ly with the sense of whirling round in torqueo, torques, &c.; and in Greek ȧтрerns, "that which is not turned or twisted," and so "true;" also aтрактоs "the straight," whether arrow or spindle: and-so closely akin in meaning that one must suppose the p to have arisen by labialism from k-Tрéπw and trepidus, "turning round," whether in eagerness or fear. We have next TRAM, whence Tρéμw and tremo, shewing the same sense as the last: and TRAS whence τρέω (i.e. τρεσ-ω) and τρηρός (i. e. τρεσ-ερο-ς) whence Tρnpwv, the timid bird, always used of the pigeon, and terreo (for ters-eo): and TRAN, whence TITρaívw and Tópvos, where more of the original meaning is seen, and Tрavns, apparently "bored right through," "clear," "distinct." Then from TRI we get TRIB in Tρißw and tribula a threshing-machine, whence the ecclesiastical metaphor of tribulatio: whilst from TRU we have TRUP in Tρúπаvov a 1 See Gr. Et. p. 58. borer, and Tρúπaw, and TRUGH in тpúxo to wear out. It is observable that the secondaries of these modified forms keep throughout closer to the meaning of the primary root than its own secondaries do. There has been much speculation upon the origin of these secondary roots. It is not necessary that the new element should always have been dynamic. It may have been sometimes originally phonetic: this agrees with the fact that a change of meaning is not always conveyed by it. But even if phonetic in its origin, it could be used dynamically: just as the phonetic variations of a-a, e, o— were employed, as has been already pointed out. The probability of a phonetic origin is greatest where the new element was nasal. Beside the root GA (= to produce), there existed in Indo-European days a root GAN, with the same sense: MA was expanded into MAN; perhaps the simpler form retained generally more of the simple signification of "measuring," while the latter expressed the abstract idea, needed even in those days, of "thinking." Similarly in Sanskrit HA (= to kill) was expanded to han with the same sense: and if the Greek ev in πé(e)v-w be the same root, the secondary form must also be ascribed to ancient times. The development of BHA (= to shine) into BHAN is found also in Sanskrit and Greek; the new root is well employed but with a curious difference by the two peoples. While the Greeks used the simple root chiefly in the sense of making clear by language, i.e. of speaking, in þaμí, onun1, they employed the secondary root to give the original sense, as paivw, pavý = a torch: the Hindus on the contrary kept the primary sense to the primary root; while bhan appears in the Vedas = to praise. Now this n, since it did not in the majority of cases modify the original idea, may very well 1 The apparent exception páos is probably to be referred to another secondary root paF, which is found in the Pindaric urópauris (Pyth. 2. 76), and úrópavois (Herod. vII. 36); the former word having the derived, the latter the primary meaning. CH. III. Secondary roots formed with a final vowel. have been phonetic in its origin, something like the v ¿peλKVσTIKÓν; or perhaps it nasalises the previous vowel, like the nasal vowels commonly heard in France'. But this explanation will not suit all these "determinatives" as Mr Ferrar well calls them2: final k, or t or d must be accounted for otherwise. A very ingenious hypothesis of Prof. Pott's is that these secondary roots are combinations of two simple roots: thus éo-0-íw is from two distinct roots: √ed and √0e=eat-put; the Sanskrit √yudh being similarly from √yu and √dha3. From this same DHA to place, Pott would compound the Latin ten-do (from √ten) -not improbably. No one doubts that ab-do, condo, &c. are from this root, whose primary meaning was obscured in Latin: it may therefore have come to be regarded as merely a formative element, and employed even in cases like tendo, where the combination is no longer etymologically appropriate. This hypothesis however as well as the first seems hardly adequate for the whole set of determinatives; it is not easy to see what the roots could have been with sense sufficiently vague to supply them all. But it will undoubtedly account for some. Lastly it has been supposed that these letters are "pronominal roots," the nature of which will be explained immediately. Here again we seem to have a satisfactory explanation for those letters which are identical with known pronominal roots, but not for the others. It is by far the most likely that all these methods were in use, and probably others which have not yet been detected. There are a few secondary roots in which the new final element is a vowel. Such are GNA (gno-sco) by the side of GAN (gen-us) and MNA by MAN: and we have many such double roots in Greek, e.g. √τaλ and √τλā, √daμ and dμa, with no difference in meaning; but there is a very decidedly derived sense perceptible in the first 1 See next Chapter. 2 See numerous examples in his Comp. Gram. Vol. 1. p. 189. 3 See G. E. p. 67. two mentioned. Prof. Benfey believes that the final ā was produced by the accent falling upon the connecting vowel between the root and the verbal suffix, e. g. gan-ā-mi, which forced out the radical vowel, and formed thereby a practically new verb ready to bear a different sense. I think this very probable. Still the fact that the radical vowel is lost in each case undoubtedly supports Schleicher's law of the convertibility of position of the radical vowel, e.g. that a root AK implies also a by-form KA, the vowel being able to be sounded before or after the last consonant at pleasure. The new root form could then be taken if wanted, to express a new idea (as GNA): where not such want was felt, the two roots were used indifferently. I think that this law should be at least restricted to cases where the consonant moved is a liquid or nasal: there is then a reason for it, the exceedingly vocal nature of the sound: whilst I can see nothing to account for such a change as AK to KA'. But even if it were so restricted, the law would cover all the distinctly secondary roots so formed. On this hypothesis then GNA does not differ in its origin from TRA, TRI, TRU mentioned above; they may have suffered the vowel to be weakened afterwards: it would therefore not need to be classed separately. It is to be observed that, in any case, the vowel is produced by phonetic, not by dynamic, causes. CH. III. I have spoken above of a "pronominal root," as of Pronomisomething distinct from the roots hitherto considered. nal roots. Those roots are sufficient to explain all verbs and all nouns not that we can always for every verb and noun lay our hands on the actual root: but we do know the roots of so much the larger number of them, that we infer by analogy that the others really have similar roots, though we may not be able to find them. Now by these roots is expressed a possibility of action: the verbs formed from them denote the action itself, the nouns denote a 1 See on this point Prof. Benfey in Gött. Gel. Anzeige for 1865, p. 1376. CK. III. They de note relation in space. person, thing, or state, existent or conceivable, concerned in or resulting from that action. In all these the con nection of each derivative with the root is more or less distinct. DA expresses potential giving: Sidwμt and do, I actually give; Sornp and dator are the giver; donum is the thing given; dóσis is the state of giving. There is no doubt that all these are to be referred to one idea, expressed by a particular root: and though some nouns cannot be accounted for so clearly, we do not doubt that there is some root under which they also could be classified. But what are we to say to the pronouns (as they are called)? or to particles in general? We can take is, ea, id, &c. or mei, mihi and the other cases of the first pronoun, except the nominative, and get to an ultimate form, i in one case and ma in the other. But these are not at all like da above: they denote no action, to which their derivatives can be reasonably and intelligibly referred. No doubt there is a root I, which denotes "going," and another, MA, which expresses "measuring:" and the pronouns have actually been referred to these: but there is no satisfactory connection of meaning1. Pronouns are general, for they are terms convertible not with a particular person or thing, but with many persons and things: and they are in most cases relative, because they denote some relation either to the speaker, or the person or thing spoken of, or between the two. It is obvious that no root denoting action, however unrestricted, is sufficient here. Now the simplest way in which I can conceive of relation between myself and some object is that I am here and it is there; that there is a certain between us; and this or some such conception is absolutely necessary to connect together the objects space 1 The objection to this theory that roots are special, and pronouns general, is not conclusive, for though it is undoubtedly true that most roots were originally special, i.e. denoting not merely "going," for example, but going in some special way, yet it cannot be shewn that all roots were so restricted: this one, 1, seems to have been always used of going, generally. |