produces no change of meaning in the verb, the vowel is probably a mere phonetic insertion, closely akin to the "connecting vowel" (the German Binde-vocal), which is so important in the conjugation of verbs. The object of that vowel is to preserve the final consonant of a root from all possible injury when it is connected with suffixes beginning with consonants; e.g. in forming the second person of βολ or βουλ, the Greeks insert e before σαι, as βουλ-ε-σαι, βουλ-ε-αι, βούλει, so that in all these changes the λ has not suffered; on the contrary, the Latins, who in a few verbs (as Ves, ved, vel, fer) do not regularly employ a connecting vowel, lost the final consonant in uol-s, uil-s, uis. I cannot agree with Schleicher, who (following Bopp) regards this vowel as a demonstrative root1, whose original form was a (preserved in Sanskrit and weakened in other languages, in Greek to e and o, in Latin to i and u, according to the following sound.) I can see no proof of such a view: and prefer to regard the vowel as simply phonetic, and belonging in its origin to the class which we are here considering; at a later time of course it became one of the arbitrary forms of grammar. It is worth observing that the oldest verbs (so far as we can trace the historical development of the verb) in Sanskrit, in Greek, and in Latin, do not generally possess these connecting vowels; and it is just as likely that they never had them, as that they had them and lost them. Bopp's objection however is no doubt forcible, that a the strongest of the three primary vowels is least of all adapted for a mere phonetic link2; and is not quite met by the reply that a does not occur in Greek and Latin, and that the Sanskrit a is not the full vowel of the primitive language. Still, the evidence seems to me to preponderate for the view that I have given*.

1 Comp. p. 343.

2 Comp. Grammar, vol. 11. p. 694, English translation.

3

• Except perhaps a few verbs, such as ἄγ-α-μαι, πρί-α-μαι, &c.

4 See, on the whole question, Curtius Erlaüt. pp. 107-110 (Engl. trans.).

CH. IX.

The "convowel."

necting

CH. IX.

latter the radical μ has been expelled by the consonant which it joined to produce: and μέμ-β-λωκα stands for μέ-μλω-κα from μολ: ἤμ-β-ροτον stands beside ἁμαρ τάνω. There are a few others of the same kind.

In Latin the only examples which are given by Schleicher1 are the words in which p is inserted between m and s, or m and t: as hiem-p-s, sum-p-tum, &c. The greater ease of sound in the words so modified is obvious. Mr. Ferrar 2 holds the s in words like monstrum to be a similar insertion: I think it much better to suppose (with Corssen) a form mon-es-trum, like fen-es-tra, &c. So also in abstineo, sustineo, ostendo, &c. I believe that the s belongs to the preposition3.

Conclu

sion.

I have thus endeavoured to set forth the main points in which the languages spoken by the Greeks and the Italians varied from the speech of their common forefathers both from that of the Graeco-Italian race, out of which they immediately sprang, and from that of the race to which we, as well as all the civilized nations of Europe, trace our descent. I have endeavoured incidentally to point out any light which these divergencies cast on the character of the different peoples. But my main object has been to point out the common reason of all these changes in language; to shew that they all sprang from the same desire for ease of articulation; whether that tendency produced a weak or an indistinct sound instead of a stronger or a clearer one, the principle was the same and the only cause which can be taken into account as stemming the progress of this change, or (very much more rarely) causing change in the opposite direc

1 Comp. p. 266.

2 Comp. Gram. p. 175.

3 For the form abs and its use, see Corssen, 1. 154. ·

tion, was the instinctive desire to keep distinct and unconfused the terms which expressed distinct conceptions. I have in no case endeavoured to give all the examples which might have been given in support of the views advanced: those who care for the matter will prefer, and will find it far more useful, to seek out others for themselves. I have been obliged in the nature of the case to bring forward many facts familiar to all who are acquainted with even ordinary Greek and Latin grammars. But my aim has been to present facts, old in the main, under a new light. Only so far as I have succeeded in giving the reason for what often appear mere arbitrary anomalies; only so far as I have been able to trace many apparently isolated results to the operation of one common principle; just so far have I attained the object which I had in delivering the course of Lectures, which I now present in a rather fuller and more methodical form.

CH. IX.

NOTE TO CHAPTER III.