Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

compare the Arabic, Sclav. mjeshu, Polish mieszam, Bohemian misyti, Russian 8-mjeshať, Persian, O. H. G. misc-jan, Lith. maiszyti, Gael. measgaim, Sanscr. miç-ra, &c. From the extreme antiquity and universal prevalence of this compound root, and from the formative affix with which it appears as a verb in most of the Indo-Germanic languages, it is fair to conclude that its origin is to be sought in a pronominal combination analogous in meaning and form to the Irish measg, among," "between," Welsh ym-musk, Greek pe-тá, μé-opa, ué-xpt, μéoσos, Lat. me-dius, Hebrew in, which would serve as a sufficient basis for such a causative verb. It has been mentioned above (p. 76), in a general way, that deb-eo is connected with the important Semitic and Sclavonian root, dhob, and dob, signifying "good." But it will be necessary in this place to justify this comparison with especial reference to the formative syllable of the conjugation. In its impersonal use, oportet corresponds to the personal and impersonal use of debeo, and as the former is clearly connected with opus, so the latter expresses, as Forcellini says, rationem officii, convenire, oportere, obstrictum esse ad aliquid faciendum. In both, the ideas of interest and duty are mixed up, and in general, when we say that it is good for us to do anything, we combine in one notion the thought of a moral fitness or propriety and that of an advantage to be gained. We feel that we owe it to ourselves, when we feel that we owe it to our principles or to our fellowmen. Hence, being in debt, which is the reverse of a good thing, is expressed by an application of the verb, which conveys the idea of justice or moral obligation, just as officium, "duty," belongs to the same family with officit, or obest, "it harms." In English we have only one word for what we "owe" and what we "ought to do;" and the German sollen, "to be in duty bound" (connected with our "shall," and "should"), belongs to the same root as schuld, "a debt." The Greek phrase δίκαιός είμι τοῦτο ποιεῖν, “I am in justice bound to do this" "I ought to do it," shows how the two ideas run into one another. But the most decisive illustration of the etymology of deb-eo is furnished by the affinity between the Greek o-péλw, "to increase," enlarge," "benefit," "aggrandize," o-pelos, "advantage," -φελος, help," "profit," w-peλéw, "to be of service" (all from the root

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

=

phel-, "to swell," and all showing the ordinary meaning of and dob), and their derivatives opλ-σк-á-vw, "to incur an obligation," and o-peiλw=ó-péλ-yw, "to owe," the impersonal use of which opeixet, "it is fitting," reverts to the meaning of the other class of words and of the Latin oportet and opus est. As then o-peiλ=ópéλ-yw, with the same pronominal adjunct ya, forms the expression of duty from that of advantage, so deb-eo by the same machinery passes to the same extension of the primitive dob, " a fitting time," dob-ro, "good, useful," &c.

§ 4. The third or -i Conjugation.

The best general rule for distinguishing between the verbs in -io, which belong to the vowel-conjugation, and those which have for their characteristic the letter i considered as a semiconsonant, or vocalization of a guttural, has been already given (§ 1). With regard to their origin and analysis, we must consider the former as an extension of the -e conjugation, and while the vowel-verbs in -io will thus represent a set of derivatives in which a crude form in -i is strengthened by the affix -ya, in which case there will always be a contraction, the semi-consonantal verbs, which outwardly resemble them, merely strengthen the present and its immediate offspring with a vocalized guttural, to which the person-endings are attached without any intermediate agency. Thus, as we shall see in the next chapter, all verbs of the third conjugation are derived from nouns actually existing in -i, or which may be inferred from the inflexions of existing nouns, while the semi-consonant verbs have no such primitives. We see the manner in which the second conjugation is included in the third, from a verb of the second conjugation, of which the root happens to end in the vowel -i, and which, therefore, is liable to the double contraction observable in all genuine i verbs. From the root ci- (Greek ki-w) we have, with an entire correspondence of meaning, two forms ci-eo and ci-o, and as the perfect is always civi, we must consider the latter as a condensation of the former. The great peculiarity of this verb is that its participle (E. III.) is indifferently citus or citus, the latter being found not only in compounds like concitus, incitus, percitus, but also in the simple form citus, both when it is used as a participle, as in Virgil (Æneid. VIII. 642):

Haud procul inde cite Metium in diversa quadrigæ
Distulerant,

[ocr errors]

where we must take cite with in diversa, "chariots moved in different directions ;" and also when it appears as a simple adjective signifying "swift." The short penultima is contrary to all rule; for the participle of ci-eo must be ci-ìtus=cītus; and we can only explain it as a result of Roman abbreviation. But the existence of the forms cieo and cio is quite sufficient to prove the fact, for which I contend, that true verbs in -i include the formative in -e. And in the next chapter I shall show that, as I have mentioned above (§ 1), the same remark applies also to the a verbs. To this rule, respecting the i verbs, there are only two exceptions-the verb eo (root i) and the verb queo (root quen- or kon-). These two verbs are distinguished from the regular verbs in i by their omission of the e in the imperfect ibam, quibam, and by the adoption of the agglutinate form in the futures i-bo, qui-bo. With regard to the former point, although we have occasional exceptions in the poets, as lenibat, polibant, &c., we generally find that the imperfect of the i verb ends in -iebam, as audi-e-bam; and in this particular it is imitated by the semi-consonant verb in i, which gives capiebam, faciebam, fugiebam, &c. With regard to the future, we rarely, if ever, find an -i verb which follows the analogy of ibo, quibo; but in almost every case we have the subjunctive form in -am (-es, -et, &c.), which is invariably adopted by the consonant verbs. The substitution of e for i in the verb eo, which does not involve the formative element of the second conjugation, leads to some momentary confusion with the e- verb, in those instances in which eo is used as an agglutinate auxiliary to express the passive of certain compounds of do and facio, just as the eo verb stands as the corresponding intransitive to verbs merely differing from it in conjugation. Thus we have inter-eo, "I go between," i. e. vanish, by the side of inter-ficio, “I cause to go between," i. e. make away with; with; per-eo, "I go through," i. e. disappear, by the side of per-do, "I put through,” i. e. annihilate; and similarly, pessum-do (cf. πép¤w); ven-eo (=venum eo), "I go for sale," i. e. "I am sold," by the side of ven-do (=venum-do), "I put up for sale," and ven-dico or vin-dico (=venum-dico), "I declare for sale." But the confusion is only instantaneous, for the first comparison shows that these verbs are distinguished from the neuter verbs mentioned above (as pateo, pendeo, sedeo) both by the conjugation of the present

(in -eo, -es, -et, &c., not -eo, -is, -it, &c.) and by the form of the perfect (which is never in -ivi). On the other hand, we must distinguish the causative verbs in -do, Greek -Ow, from the aorist formations in -Oŋv, -ŋv, which involve the element ya, and have precisely the converse meaning. Of these latter forms enough has been said elsewhere (New Crat. §§ 379, sqq.). I will only remark in passing, that the explanation of these forms will not justify the monstrosity éypnyóplaσt, in which all the grammarians have acquiesced. As this word rests only on a single passage (Hom. Il. X. 419) and as the context shows (cf. Il VII. 371; XVIII. 299) that the true reading is:

οἱ δ ̓ ἐγρήγορθαί τε φυλασσέμεναί τε κέλονται

ἀλλήλοις,

the portentous éypnyóplari should be expunged from all dictionaries and grammars. The 2nd pers. plur. éypnyople, and the infin. épnyopla are easily justifiable. But to return to the Latin verbs in -i, while we observe an obstinate retention of the characteristics in all other inflexions, we not unfrequently find that the perfect and its participle (E. III.) are formed as from the naked root. Thus from amic-io we have amixi, amic-tus, from aper-io, aper-ui, aper-tus, from haur-io, hau-si, haus-tus, from sent-io, sen-si, sen-sus, from ven-io, vēn-i, ven-tus. In all these cases we may conclude that the sense of completion borne by the perfect has enabled it to dispense with the elongating appendage of the present and its subordinate forms.

§ 5. The fourth or Consonant Conjugation.
A. Mute Verbs.

Mute verbs, whether their characteristic be labial, guttural, or dental, do not exhibit any peculiarities of inflexion, which call for detailed examination. The perfect is generally either the reduplicative form (a) or the aorist in -si; the reduplication is sometimes represented merely by lengthening the root-syllable, as in scăbo, scābi, lego, lēgi; sometimes the first syllable is omitted without compensation, as is fidi, scidi; and this is always the case in compounds, as cădo, cecidi, but concido, concidi. Bibo, which is reduplicated in the present, can have no further reduplication in its perfect, which is accordingly bibi. The few verbs which have an agglutinate perfect in -fui must have borrowed this

=

πί-πτ-ω,

lost form of the vowel-conjugation. We are able to justify this surmise by comparing cumbo, cubui with cubo. And of course the same explanation must apply to strepo, -is, strepui, compared with crepo, -as, crepui, frendo, -is, frendui, compared with strideo, &c. The verbs peto and rudo, which form their perfect and its participle as from a verb in -i,—namely, petivi, petītus; rudivi, rudītus;-are shown by this fact alone to be weakened forms of original verbs, in which the vowel i appeared; and this inference is confirmed by their etymology for there can be no doubt that peto is identical with the Gothic bid-jan, Greek Telow Ti0-yw, whence TT-wxós and the Italian pit-occo. Now if the primary meaning of this root is "to fall down" and "make an inclination," like the Hebrew 2, "to make a reaching towards another," so that the root will be contained in pe[d]-8, πi-πT-W, Téd-ov, fotus, "foot," the present must have required the strengthening observed in Tei0w = Ti0-уw, and presumed in peto-pet-yo. It is also clear that rudo is only another form of rugio, which has passed into rudio; compare the Gothic rauhts "fremitus," with the Greek polos, poleiv, púčew, ypúčew, &c. Several of the consonant verbs strengthen the root in the present tense and its derivatives by a nasal insertion analogous to the Sanscrit anusvára: but this insertion is never retained in the perfect, if this tense is or was formed by reduplication; thus we have pu-n-go, pupugi, ru-m-po, rūpi, fra-n-go, fregi, tu-n-do, tutudi, sci-n-do, scidi, &c. The same rule applies to n, when it is appended to the root, for in this case also it appears to be inconsistent with reduplication, not only in the Greek and Latin, but also in their elder sister the Sanscrit, and in the Sclavonian, which furnished the Pelasgian element to both of them. Thus we have da-dâmi, but ap-nômi; didwμı, τίθημι, ἵστημι, but ζεύγνυμι, δάμνημι, ἱκνέομαι; πίπτω for Ti-Téτw, but πiт-vw; bibo, but πí-vw; and, as we shall see, sper-no, but spre-vi, contem-no, but contemp-si. In Sclavonian there is a particular class of verbs, which the grammarians call semel-factive, and in which this nu is the distinctive mark. As then the reduplication clearly denotes iterative or continuous action, we must conclude that n is in these cases the pronominal element denoting separation and distance, which is opposed to the idea of abiding presence connected with that of continuance. Whereas in those cases in which the perfect formation retains the

« PreviousContinue »