here only as being originally parts of nouns or verbs. Numerals, as I have said before, have no right to a separate place at all: they are either adjectives or substantives or adverbs, and should be classed accordingly. (For convenience they are also given, in the ordinary arrangement, in Appendix D.) Pronouns are similarly referable to the other classes.

Understanding by a declension a mode of forming the cases by a separate set of inflexions, I have made two declensions only instead of five. The distinction of the stem is subordinate to this. At the same time it did not appear worth while to separate such forms as filiabus from the more usual forms, and put them under the head of the second class, to which they strictly belong. Pronouns are in their main features clearly words of the first class; but, as the genitive singular is differently formed throughout, they are here kept together in a separate chapter. Qvis of course belongs to the second class, but here again convenience seemed to forbid its separation from qvi.

The ordinary separation of substantives from adjectives, and the gradually growing tendency to confine the term noun to substantives, seems to me, in Latin at any rate, thoroughly wrong and misleading. The difference between substantives and adjectives is almost entirely syntactical, and, even as such, not so great as is generally assumed. What slight inflexional differences there are, will be found noted (cf. $$ 352, 403). The modification of adjectives to express degree in a comparison has clearly as little right to be put in Book II., instead of Book III., as the formation of diminutives, or any other common derivatives, which the language allowed to be formed very much at pleasure from any stem, because it retained a consciousness of the meaning of the suffix. (In Appendix C I have for convenience sake treated the matter more in the ordinary way.)

The formation of participles, &c. ought no doubt to be put in Book III.; but they have so much bearing on the inquiry into the nature of the verbal stem, that I have preferred to leave them as usual in Book II. The formation of the several parts of verbs has been treated under the appropriate heads. The endeavour to form the verbs into classes by combined consideration of their present and perfect and supine stems, as is done in Vaniçek's Grammar, after the analogy of Curtius' Greek Grammar, seems to me to lead

to inconvenience without much compensatory advantage. Chapter xxx. contains a list of so called irregular verbs in alphabetical order, as being that which is far the most useful for ordinary reference.

I have followed the Public Schools Primer in putting generally the future instead of the imperfect next to the present tense.

It is very common, perhaps invariable, to prefix to Book II. a classification of the Parts of Speech. So far as this bears on Book II. I have briefly touched it. But in the main it is of a syntactical nature, and in Book IV. it will therefore be found.

It may surprise some readers to see so imperfect an explanation of the meaning and origin of the inflexions of nouns and verbs. Where I have seen my way tolerably clearly, I have briefly stated the view which appeared most probable, but in many cases I have preferred merely to mention views entertained by others; in some cases I have stopped short at the facts, and left the origin untouched. This indeed seems to me, at any rate at present, the proper position of a Latin grammarian. What can be deduced from the facts of the historical language comes fairly within his province, but more than this can only be done by the light derived from other languages. And greater agreement among philologers is necessary before any theory of the precise origin and meaning of these inflexions can claim more than a very subordinate place in a grammar of historical Latin.

In Book III. will be found fuller lists of Latin words, arranged under their endings,than I have seen in any other grammar, except Leo Meyer's (which has too the advantage of containing lists of Greek words as well as of Latin). My lists are distinguished from his in two ways. His embrace a great many words, often without notice, which are only found in writers after the Silver age; and the arrangement is more subjective and consequently less convenient than that which I have adopted. There is no doubt that almost any arrangement made on some principle brings together words which have a claim for common consideration and thereby may give rise to useful result. The ordinary arrangement, when of an etymological character, has been to class compound endings under

the first part of the suffix, not the last1. This seems to me wrong both as matter of convenience and theory. A word is not so easy to find because the analysis is more uncertain: and the practice contradicts the essential character of a (Latin) suffix, that it is applied at the end of a word. Of course if we were quite certain what is suffix, what is root, either arrangement (i.e. by the first part of the suffix or by the last) would be in some sort natural. But when to the uncertainty, which in many words there is on this point, is added the fact, that though some compound suffixes are apparently used as if they were simple, and are appended at once to a root or simple stem, yet in the majority of cases the last part only of the suffix is to be regarded as truly suffixal in the feeling and apprehension of the people, the safest plan seems to be that followed in the present volume; viz. giving all the words of any importance and certainty, and arranging them under the final suffix, or that final part which, if anything, would be the suffix, or which is at least parallel to what is suffixed in other stems.

There are other principles of division which are followed in some grammars either with or without the above. One is the separation of substantives from adjectives and enumeration of the suffixes under these supreme heads. Besides the general objection to such a division which I have spoken of before, the lists will shew, that in far the majority of instances the suffixes or endings belong to both classes, and the separation of them is cumbrous and misleading.

Another division is according to the part of speech from which the derivatives are formed. This again is liable to the same objections. Many substantives are not so different from adjectives as to render it desirable to establish any sharp distinction between their respective progenies. And though some suffixes are particularly or exclusively applied in derivatives from verbs, others in derivatives from nouns, or, subordinately, from substantives or adjectives, many have no such exclusive attachment.

To treat the 'derivation of adverbs' as coordinate to the derivation of nouns and verbs is the same, as it would be to treat so the

1

Key's Grammar is an exception. See his tables in pp. 26, 28, 38, 39.

derivation of the several persons of a verb or cases of a noun. So far as an adverb is formed with derivative suffixes &c., of the same kind as adjectives, they may belong here, but most adverbs are merely cases of nouns.

Many words formed, so far as we know, directly from a root are, as I have implied (see also § 748), included in these lists. Where any tolerably certain indication of the meaning of these roots was known to me, it has been given; but to add either Sanskrit homonyms or investigations into doubtful etymologies would have been unsuited to my plan.

I have also added to the lists a considerable number of proper names, chiefly of persons. No attempt has been made to be exhaustive in this matter, those only as a rule being given, which are either clearly intelligible and therefore instructive derivatives, or which are names of well-known or at least not merely private persons. There is however probably somewhat more vacillation in the extent to which this enumeration has been carried, than there is in the case of appellatives.

The list of derivative verbs is fuller than I have hitherto seen, though in no way exhaustive as regards stems in a. Still here as in nouns it brings into strong light the comparative prevalence of different classes. And this is a matter which is commonly left with little notice.

The Chapter on Composition deviates considerably from ordinary treatment. In the first place the lists are tolerably complete except in the case of (1) very common classes, e.g. words compounded with numerals or with -sĕro, and the like; and (2) of some momentary formations found in Plautus or Petronius or the like. The result is to shew that, except with prepositions, there was no great development of composition in Latin,—certainly nothing approaching the Greek. Secondly, I have ventured to lay down (§ 979) more broadly than is usual, at least in Latin Grammars, the principle that Composition is simply welding together in one word two words conceived as standing in ordinary syntactical relation with each other. The welding however is a welding of stems, and the changes of letters are simply in accordance with the

general habits of the language and require no separate treatment. Thirdly, the form of the compound word is given by the necessity which produced it. If an adjective was wanted, an adjective was formed; if a verb, a verb; and a suitable derivative or stem suffix was appended, which might or might not be like that possessed by the simple words. No doubt much of this view is identical with the ordinary division into composita determinativa, constructa, possessiva1; but it seems in the ordinary treatment to be regarded rather as a special and adventitious characteristic of some particular classes than as the natural result of the determining cause of all Composition. The compounds with prepositions used absolutely may however, at least with our present notions of prepositions, be a separate class.

Many will doubtless think the lists of words, derivative or compound, needlessly full. But I do not fear the charge from those who desire to study as a whole the formation of Latin words, or to ascertain the meaning or use of particular suffixes, or the laws of combination and change of the several vowels and consonants, or the etymology of particular words. I have indeed found these lists of much use in testing various etymological and phonetic theories which I have seen in other writers or which have occurred to myself. I have especially borne the possibility of this use in mind when the multitude of instances forced me to make a selection only. Indeed many of the instances inserted have been in fact the answers I have found to various doubts which occurred to me respecting the possibility or the behaviour of certain groups of sounds or of certain elements of composition. Nonconformists have a special right to a place in such a representative assembly.

The interjections I have tried to identify with inarticulate sounds of emotion. But a greater knowledge of phonetics and more acquaintance with the habits of peoples of southern Europe than I possess is required to do this clearly and fully.

1 I worked the matter out for myself with the hint given by this division. But L. Tobler's book (über die Wortzusammensetzung, Berlin, 1868) is well worth reading.