which we shall have to notice in the Latin; by which e g. con-dic-io passed into conditio, because there was no appreciable difference in the sound. This result oo (TT) seems to be confined to the combination of the hard gutturals and dentals with y. This is worth observing, because in several cases it might seem as though the σσ was formed from yy or dy; e.g. πράσσω, πλńσow, Вpáσowv, &c. But of these, the verbs are really derived from an older form, which contains the hard letter. Thus the pак seems to be guaranteed by the Lith. perl-u and the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, πρακές'. Similarly πλακ is the root of πλάξ and πλακούς, as well as the Lith. plaku, "I strike"." Lastly, Bpȧoowv is probably the comparative of Spaxús, not of Bpadus, to which it is commonly assigned. Other apparent exceptions admit of similar explanations. I have said that σo results only from y (xy) or Ty (Oy). This statement is not disproved by the forms Téσow, évíσow, and some others. The first, Téσow, undoubtedly seems to be from τеπ in πéπшν, &c. But an older form is Tак; and a still older (as far as regards the consonants) is found in the Latin coc. Similarly évíoow seems to belong to the Homeric évitý, víπame, &c. ; yet the simpler form is Jik, found in Latin in the past participle ic-tus; so that evin is a "word thrown," like laußos, where láπ-τw is equally paralleled by the older Latin forın iac-io. Similarly oooa is not from Feπ but the older vak; and oooe, "the eyes," is from /ok, found in the oκкos of Hesychius and the Latin oculus. TW (iv) Where the two sounds coalesce into one single letter. This happens when y is preceded by the soft momentary sounds, & and y. Thus dy = in Copai, from /sed, in ὄζω from Vod, &c., in τράπεζα from (τε)τρα-πεδ-ψα, in Ζεύς from Ayevs (Sanskrit Dyaus). These examples, with CH. VIII. others, are given by Schleicher1: they are so numerous that any one may supply them for himself. They shew the origin of the Greek, a compound letter, denoting first dy, then Sz. Hence the compound letter or dz has the power of lengthening a previous vowel in prosody, which power it could not have had if it had been only a weak sibilant = the French z. The objection to this view, that was a double sound, namely, that the symbol would not have been likely to appear so early in the alphabet, is only valid against the old opinion that z represented ds: the Greek alphabet, undoubtedly, had symbols for both these sounds, and therefore did not require a single symbol to denote them: but it had none for z. Where is dialectically resolved into ad or ds, it must be supposed that the σ was soft, just as s is so often in English. Some philologists believe that z was sounded not as dz, but as the English j, i. e. dj, as in John. There can be no question that this sound springs naturally in our mouths from the two sounds dy, the original parents of : but this is not a conclusive argument for the Greek language: and looking on the whole history of y in Greece, I think the sound of z more probable. The representation of by ss in old Latin seems also to favour the view that it was a clear sibilant in Greece. The statement of Dionysius that was a double letter2 seems strong against its having been merely the French j: but does not make clear whether it was dz or dj (English j). Just as ky passed first into Ty, so yy passed into dy, and then into , as though the dental had been original. Thus στιγ-ψω became στίζω, μεγ-ψων became μέζων in Ionic, the Attic μeilwv, from the desire to compensate for the loss of the original spirant. It has been already mentioned that in the Boeotian the y assimilates itself immediately to 8, and produces e.g. 1 Comp. 231, see Gr. Et. 562, &c. 2 See New Crat. p. 200. φράδδω from φραδ-ψω, not φράζω'. At the beginning of CH. VIII. a word one δ suffices, as Δεύς for Ζεύς. plete Assi We may now pass to incomplete assimilation-when II. Incom the two sounds do not become identical, but only approxi-milation. mate to each other. The principle of course is the same as that which we have seen acting above; only it is not so fully carried out. In this class we have the following main heads: (i) All the euphonic changes of grammar: by which the final hard letter of a root is changed to a soft one before a soft termination, as δόγμα from δοκ, γράβδην from vypap: and vice versa a soft, passes into a hard, as λεκτός, λεχθῆναι, from λεγ. These have been already alluded to, and are too well known to need further description. (ii) Momentary sounds are sometimes nasalised before nasals, as σεμνός from σεβ: yet we have ὕπνος from NoFan. Before μ dentals have a strong tendency to pass into their spirant σ, as πεῖσμα, ὀσμή, ἴσμεν, and numberless others; yet we find odun and Suev in Doric and old Ionic. A nasal could change the class of a momentary sound, in δνόφος for γνόφος, where the y is probably itself γ weakened from κ; compare κvépas. Similarly advós was Cretan for άyvós, whence the name 'Api-ádvŋ. That y ever passed into & without some assimilating influence is improbable. Therefore οὐ Δᾶν is probably = οὐ Ζήνα (i.e. Διάνα) as Ahrens explains it: and Δημήτηρ is either AiFaunτnp or Dyâvâmâter"; she is never called I'ŋμήτηρ. In order that ya should have passed into δα, α parasitic y must have sprung up after y: which is impro 1 E.g. Oepidder for @epigew, Ar. Ach. 947. This is also Laconian. See Lys. 82, 94, &c.: Ahrens (II. 96) gives some glosses from Hesychius to the same effect. 2 As in Ach. 911. 3 Comp. 230. 4 The line τίς ἀχὼ, τίς ὀδμὰ προσέπτα μ' ἀφεγγής; (Aesch. Prom. V. 115) cannot be however regarded as Attic. 5 Theok. IV. 17; VII. 39. 7 According to Max Müller, II. 57. P. E. 6 Gr. Dial. II. 80. 24 (i) "Eu phonic" changes. (ii) Changes caused by nasals. CH. VIII. (iii) bable because it had F(v) after it, as shewn in yun, i. e. y a-a, and aia for Faîa or yaîa1. (iii) Nasals are affected in their turn by the following Changes of consonant: we have συγ-καλέω, and ἀγγέλλω (ἀνά); ἔμπειpos and euẞaivo; and numerous others of the same sort. nasals. (iv) Change of τ to σ. (v) Changes of v. (vi) Other exceptional forms. (iv) In Ionic, Attic, and Lesbian, 7 passes into σ before ; as ongi for pari. This might rather seem a case of simple substitution: but I believe that it first occurred in cases where another vowel followed, as Tλovotos for πλουτ-ψο-ς, πλησίος for πλατ-yo-s: when the change would be due to the assibilating influence of the y: then the softer sound was preferred universally; this σ for τ is also found before v in σú, but in Doric TV is kept: the old form was tva, where again the semivowel could assibilate; and the same is probably true of the suffix -ovm for -Tuvn, Latin -tuna; for there is a Vedic form -tvana2. The Boeotian, like the Doric, preserves T where the Lesbian and Attic have softened it into σ. I have already mentioned the peculiar Laconian weakening of to σ, which may have begun in the same way as the last change, according to my suggestion. (v) The spirant v is altered by assimilation in certain dialects. Thus Fρόδον becomes βρόδον in Sappho, Εράκος is βράκος; we find βράδινος, βρίζα, βρήτωρ, &c. This change is less surprising, for we have seen that F passed into B in Laconian even without any neighbouring sound to influence it". In the word ope we seem to have a hardening of original v to 4. The old form is sva, which in Greek generally became é (through Fe). In this case it is hard to believe that was much more than a spirant. The same change is seen in opo, the dual from tva (whence sva and ov): compare the Latin uo-s, where the t has fallen off. (vi) Lastly come some very peculiar forms which 3 Frag. 69, 2. 5 See p. 327. 1 See page 110. 2 Comp. 459. = seem to be more probably due to assimilation than any CH. VIII. other cause. These are e.g. πτόλις by the side of πόλις, πτόλεμος, &c. : κτείνω by καίνω, &c. It seems impossible to separate Tóλes from Sanskrit pura (also a city) and Latin ple-bs, perhaps also po-pul-us (a reduplicated form); and therefore it must be from the root PAR, to fill, which in Greek appears generally as λa or πλe, in Latin as ple. This evidence excludes any possibility of having originally belonged to the root and then fallen out. It is clearly a Greek insertion. The only explanation of this curious change which I know, does not seem quite satisfactory. It is given by Professor Kuhn1 and adopted by Curtius: that y through indistinct articulation sprang up after T, and was assimilated by the π to т. We have seen above that у never became σo, as the other hards did; but it is not easy to see why, if the sound πy were difficult, it should not have passed into Te or π, instead of the very difficult TT. Possibly however a new parasitic o may have sprung up before the y-the possibility of this will appear in the next chapter-and been afterwards assimilated by the preceding hard letter. This explanation is supported by the form yoés. Here again the dental seems to belong to the Greek only: the Sanskrit form is hyas for ghyas, Lat. heri: and here the Sanskrit gives the necessary y: x0wv, according to Curtius, is another case in point: the older form is preserved in xaμa-í, with which compare xapaλós; and the Latin humus agrees. Here however a different parasitic sound in Sanskrit has produced kshamâ in that language. χθαμαλός Perhaps this explanation of these intrusive letters may stand till a better can be suggested. They are certainly not "euphonic" or "strengthened forms:" why did πós require to be strengthened? Still less are they "metrical licenses:" why should a Greek poet have the liberty of arbitrarily inserting an entirely new letter in order to make a word suit his verse any more than an English writer? 1 Zeitsch. XI. 310, see Gr. Et. 453. 2 Gr. Et. 454. |