Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Or locative of a verbal in -sis, expressing the action of the verb1.

es-se.

PARTICIPLE. E.

Nom. 'sen[t]s (in ab-sens, præ-sens, &c.) originally esen[t]s

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Throughout the Latin verb we may observe, as in the case of ero here, that the element i has vanished from the first person of the future; for ero does not really differ from esum, the present indicative. The explanation of this may be derived from the fact, that in English the first and the other persons of the future belong to different forms: where an Englishman says, "I shall" of himself, he addresses another with "you will;" and conversely, where he asserts of another that "he shall," he tells him, "I will.” The third person plural erunt is only another way of writing erint; us being substituted, as it so frequently is, for is, to which the qualifying i had been ultimately reduced. But besides the form of the future in i, we have in old Latin another expression of it in the inchoative form esco for es-sco (Legg. xi. Tab. apud Gell. XX. i. Tab. 1. fr. 3: Lucret. I. 613: Festus, s. v. escit, p. 77; superescit, p. 302; nec, p. 162; obescet, p. 188: and Müller, Suppl. Annot. p. 386).

The verb fu-, which appears as a supplementary form or auxiliary tense of the substantive verb, is really a distinct verb,

1 New Crat. § 410.

very complete in its inflexions, and connected by many interesting affinities with the other Indo-Germanic languages. It has been shown elsewhere that in these languages, the same root is used to express "light," or "brightness," and "speaking" (New Crat. § 460). To the idea of "light" belongs that of "manifestation," or "bringing to light," and this is simply the idea of "making," or "causing to be." Now the full form of the root pa-, fa-, bhu-, which, in Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, conveys the cognate expressions of "light" and "speech," involves what is called a digamma in auslaut as well as in anlaut; for we learn from the words favonius, vapor, &c. that the full forms must have been FáƑnui, páƑos, &c. (New Crat. § 458). Now this full form is much more obvious in pu-, fac-, signifying "to make," than in the roots which convey the other modifications of meaning; although fax, "a torch," and facies, "the countenance," contain the guttural at the end of the root, which appears in facio, and which is a residuum of the first constituent of the digamma, just as the v in pu- represents the ultimate form of the constituent labial. In the ordinary forms of the Greek, the transitive φύω, φύσω, ἔφυσα, does not seem to difer externally from the intransitive ἔφυν and πέφυκα. But we know from philological induction that the latter must have involved the element ya (New Crat. § 380); and in old Greek we actually find the form puiw corresponding to the Pelasgian fuius and the Greek viós (above, p. 169). The following table will show what remains of the Greek and Latin forms of du paƑ, and fu = fac for faf, "to bring to light," or "cause to be."

=

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

φύς =φυ-ίαντος
πεφυκώς

υἱός = φυιδότε

=

PARTICIPLES. E.

[blocks in formation]

=

The omission of ya in epuv is shown by the quantity of v in the plural; comp. ἔφυμεν with ἐδείκνυμεν. It will be seen at once that the Latin verb is much more complete than the Greek and besides these forms, which admit of direct comparison, the Latin neuter verb has a present subjunctive fuam = fu-iam, a pluperfect indicative fu-eram fuesam, a perfect subjunctive fuerim (or fuero) = fuve-sim, and a corresponding pluperfect fuissem fuve-se-sim. The sr, which appears in the last three of these forms, is best explained by a comparative analysis of répuкa and fui fufui. As i is the regular exponent of guttural vocalization, as the guttural, before it subsides into i, is generally softened into s and h, and as we find k, s, h in the perfect and aorist of Greek verbs, we see that πépuкa compared with fufui presumes an intermediate fufusa, and thus, by a transposition and substitution quite analogous to the French change of through ul into u, we get the following explanation of the existing forms of the Latin perfect, in accordance with the assumption of an original inflexion in -sa.

πέφυ-κα-[μ]

=

fufu-sa-m = fufuis = fufui

Téþυ-Ka-s (or -ða: cf. oio-0a) fufu-sa-tha = fufui-s-ti

[blocks in formation]

The i, which appears before the rs in the mutilated inflexions of the Latin perfect, assumes the weaker form of e in the pluperfect, which must originally have corresponded in termination to the perfect, though the loss of the distinguishing augment has obliged the Latin language to have recourse to a variation of the affixes in the secondary tenses. Thus, while we must have had originally e-fufusa by the side of fufusa, the former has become fueram, while the latter has shrunk into fui. We must take care not to confuse between the i, which represents a lost s in

=

fui, and that which appears as the characteristic of the subjunctive mood in fu-am = fu-iam and in fuerim = fue-sim; for although there is every reason to believe that the s = r of the fut. and perf. is really identical ultimately with the i of the subjunctive, the actual functions are different in the cases which require to be discriminated. Originally, no doubt, fac-sim and forem fu-sim were futures indicative which had corresponding aorists, but, like the Greek conjunctive, which was originally future, they have been remanded to a subordinate position. The loss of the original reduplication might lead us to confuse between forem = fu-sim and fuerim = fufu-sim; but the latter is really a subjunctive formation from the perfect indicative, entirely analogous to τετύφοιμι from τέτυφα. From fuerim we have fuissem = fufu-sa-sim by the same extension which converts sim = esim or esyam into essem = es-sa-im or es-sa-yam. This use of the affix 8 in successive accretions to form the secondary past tenses, although regular in its application to the Latin verb, is quite inconsistent with the use of the same affix in the Greek verb, where it seems to indicate proximate futurity.

The association of the roots es- and fu-, as supplementary tenses of one substantive verb, and the use of the latter to form more or less of the subordinate inflexions of all other verbs, is best explained by the meaning of these two roots themselves. For while es- denotes "continuance of being," i. e. "existence," fu- expresses "beginning of being," or "coming into being." The parallelism therefore between es- and fu- is the same as that between the Greek εἰμί = έσ-μί, and γίγνομαι, which furnishes the materials for the opposition between the systems of Plato and Heracleitus. There is the same association of resemblance and contrast between the Hebrew roots w, which agrees with the Sanscrit as and our es-se, and or, which

TT

coincides in meaning, and ultimately in origin, with the Sanscr. bhu, the Greek yayev, and our fu. And whatever may be the true view with regard to the explanation of the names fo and buddha, there cannot be the least doubt that the much more important name or has reference to the fact,

[ocr errors]

that the God of Revelation is the God who manifests himself historically, so that while D is the Beginning and the End, is the Middle, that is, God manifested in the world, and therefore always in process of being or becoming by his acts of

redemption and creative power1. It is obvious that, with this difference of meaning, es- is adapted to express the continuous tenses of a verb of being, while fu- describes the completion of single acts, coming into being and successively determined. Thus es- will give us the present and imperfect, together with the vague future or potential sim = ero. The perfect and its derivatives will naturally be furnished by fui, "I have become," or "I have come into being." The form forem, which is used as a synonym for essem, is probably an aorist, which, like the Greek optative, has lost its augment (New Crat. § 391). It is therefore, as it stands, externally identical with the original future, of which fuam fu-yam is a mere mutilation. future signification is retained by fo-re, "to become,” which is really a present tense analogous to es-se; for fieri is a later and irregular form.

=

$5. Paucity of Organic Formations in the regular

Latin Verb.

The

The conjugations of these two verbs furnish us with specimens of organic inflexions for all the tenses, in other words, the tenses are formed without the aid of any foreign adjunct except those pronominal elements which contribute to the living machinery of all inflected languages. But this is not the case with

the great mass of verbs which constitute the staple of the Latin language. Although the flexion-forms in s- and i- appear in all these verbs, there is no one of them which is not indebted more or less to fu- for its active tenses; and all verbs form some tenses of their passive voice by calling in the aid of es-.

According to the ordinary classification of Latin verbs, there are three conjugations of vowel-verbs, in a, e, and i, and one conjugation of consonant-verbs, to which we must assign the verbs in uo and some of those in io. Now, as a general rule, we find that all vowel-verbs are secondary to nouns-in other words, they are derived from the crude forms of nouns. But many

nouns are demonstrably secondary to consonant-verbs. Therefore we might infer, as a general rule, that the consonant-verb belonged to a class of forms older or more original than the vowel-verbs. This view is supported by a comparison of the

1 This idea is well developed by Delitzsch, Genesis, pp. 23, 389, 390.

« PreviousContinue »