"belong to another." I repeat that I am unable to explain this difficulty. ( D.) GRIMM further illustrates this singular etymology by a reference to parallel forms in the Lithuanian, Lettish, and Old Prussian. The Icelandic "skilja" corresponds with the verb "to skill," which has the sense of "to differ." "It skilleth not" is used by Hooker for "it differs not" (see Todd's Johnson in v.). If I understand Grimm rightly, he conceives that the notion of mental "skill" or understanding is based on the material one of cutting in pieces or dissection, as we talk of "analysing a subject." دو Our English word "kill" has, I conceive, no connection with "skila," but represents the A. S. 66 cwellan or "cwal"lan," ," "to quell." If the reading in Macbeth (act ii. sc. 7) be correct, Shakspere uses a substantive "quell" for assassination or killing. I regret the loss of the genuine Teutonic word " manqueller" for "homicide." Wycliffe uses it for "executioner.” Compare Mrs. Quickly's speech. "Thou art a honey-seed: "A man-queller and a woman-queller." 2 Hen. IV., act ii. sc. 1. In a note Grimm adds that the proper meaning of the German "schelten is "to charge another with a debt." Particular persons seem to have been employed to do this publicly to the debtor (compare Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, ss. 613, 953). Their duty would be to declare to the slayer, on the part of the kindred of the slain, that he was called on to pay the "wergeld." "Jemanden quit schelten" is quoted by Adelung (Wörterbuch, in v.) as an obsolete and provincial idiom for declaring a man free from a debt; but Ade 66 lung himself inclines rather to consider "schelten" as a frequentative form of "schellen," "to make a noise or ringing 'sound," than as connected with "schuld." Grimm's researches, however, are probably of more weight than this conjecture. I ought in passing to observe that, if Grimm ist right in the origin which he assigns to "skulan,” all apparent relation in form and in meaning between "sollen,” òøéλλw, ¿peîλw, debeò, voll, &c., will turn out to be purely accidental, and not, as Fr. Thiersch supposes possible, founded on the notion of fulfilling a duty. (See his Homerische Gramm. § 232; compare Philolog. Museum, vol. i. p. 419.) Indeed, independently of Grimm's argument based on the analogy of "dulgs" and other words, the presence in all the earlier forms of this verb of the k or c after the s is very much against the etymological relationship of "sollen," voll,” ỏ-pêλλw, the "sollo" of Festus, and their cognate words. The connection of "dulgs" with the modern German "dolch,” a dagger, is questionable. (See Adelung, Wörterbuch, in v.) (E.) I OUGHT to notice some observations of Mr. Guest on the origin of a Scotch idiom, with which I am unable to agree. That gentleman points out (Trans. of Philolog. Society, vol. ii. pp. 151, 225) that the verb-substantive "is" was formerly in particular cases employed with all three persons, as for instance CHAUCER'S Miller's Tale, 1. 4043. "And therefore is I come and eke Allein." Ibid, 1. 4029. He also observes that Chaucer puts these phrases into the mouth of a person speaking a northern dialect: "Of a town were they born that hight Strother, Tyrwhitt's note on this is-" There is a Struther or Strauther "in the shire of Fife"-meaning, I presume, Anstruther. 66 Mr. Guest then goes on to say,- "This use of 'is' may "have originated in that confusion of forms which often distinguishes a mixed or broken dialect, or it may be a rem"nant of an earlier and simpler grammar than our literature "has handed down to us." The first of these causes is probable enough, but with regard to the second I believe that an earlier grammar would be little likely to be more simple. So far as our knowledge extends, all analogy goes to show that languages drop forms and inflections instead of acquiring them. In a subsequent paper the same writer (p. 225) gives some examples of what he considers the future sense of "is" with all persons, which I cannot think are really such-one instance is from Rob Roy : : "Aweel, aweel," said the Baillie, "we'se let that be a passover." “ So from Tim Bobbin,' and therefore Lancashire :— "I'se think on it." 66 Until I fell in with Mr. Guest's conjecture, I always conceived the Scotch abbreviations "I'se," "we'se," to be nothing inore than corruptions of "I sall," we sall," for "shall," the liquid at the end being slurred over, as is frequently the case. It is quite true that in the West of Scotland, especially it appears in Renfrew, "is" is commonly used with all three persons; but there it is employed for "am" and "art" as a present tense (see Jameson, Dict. in v. "is"). When Andrew Fairservice says, “I'se warrant,” I take “warrant” to be the verb, and the sentence to mean, "I shall warrant.” Mr. Guest would make "is" equivalent to "I shall be;" and "warrant" would be the substantive; but if so what is to be said of the following speech of the same worthy?" I'se "be caution the warst stickler that ever stickit a sermon out 'ower the Tweed yonder, wad lay a ghaist twice as fast as "him, wi' his holy water and his idolatrous trinkets." So in the 'Song of the Outlaw Murray '— 66 "I'se either be king of Ettricke foreste "Or king of Scotlande that outlawe sall be." If "I'se" represents "I shall," then this construction is explicable; but if it stands for "I shall be," then the second verb-substantive "be" would in all these cases seem inadmissible. (F.) CICERO supplies a good example of this formation in his pathetic and indignant letter to Atticus (ix. 10), where he says of Pompey, "Ita sullaturit animus ejus et proscripturit "diu." Does not the difference in the quantity of the u make the connection between the desiderative verbs and the future participle very doubtful? The latter is probably allied to the noun of the agent in or, ōris, and the feminine in ūra; like factor, oris, factura (see Bopp, ConjugationsSystem der Sanscrit Sprache, s. 26). The supine, which is in fact a verbal substantive retaining its governing power, is closely connected with all these forms. just as 73), or would Now it is singular that all the desideratives should be formed in the fourth conjugation, and it has often occurred to me (as it has no doubt done to others) that they are really formed by combining the supine with "eo," "ire ;" Tacitus uses the phrase "ultum ivit" (Ann. iv. “raptum ire” (Hist. ii. 6). In this way "esurire be "esum ire." Again, the analogy of the future passive infinitive formed with "iri" and the supine is favourable to this theory. There is a remarkable passage in Aulus Gellius on this idiom (x. c. 14), which it appears to me cannot be explained unless by supposing that the supine and the infinitive "iri" were taken virtually as coalescing in one word, and, if they so coalesce, we have in fact and in form a desiderative verb. A. Gellius says, "Audio illi injuriam factum ""iri audio contumeliam dictum iri'-vulgo quoque ita dici, vulgo et istam esse verborum figuram jam in medio loquendi usu-idcircoq. exemplis supersedeo. Sed 'con"tumelia illi' vel 'injuria factum itur' paulo est remotius: exemplum igitur ponemus: M. Cato pro se contrà Cassium "'atque evenit ita, Quirites, uti in hâc contumeliâ, qua 66 H But "per hujusce petulantiam factum itur, rei quoque publicæ ""medius fidius miserear Quirites,’—sicut autem ‘contume"liam factum iri' significat 'iri ad contumeliam facien"dam' id est-operam dari quò fiat; ita 'contumelia mihi "factum itur' casu tantum immutato idem dicit.'" surely in "contumeliam factum iri," it is commonly assumed that, "iri" being used as it is called "impersonally," the accusative "contumeliam" is governed by the supine "fac"tum." How, then, can it become the nominative to "fac"tum-itur," unless on the supposition that these two words are in fact one passive verb, of which the active would be "factum ire"? The essence of a passive structure is that the object of the active verb becomes the subject of the passive, which would then be the case. In Pliny (xxxii. 47) we have of Crassus, nec fuit satis nisi totum Parthorum "esurisset aurum," where "esurio" is an active verb, and we might say "esuritur aurum," like the "factum―itur (fac"turitur) contumelia" of Cato. Compare note 68, above, and the reference to the Lexilogus, b. ii. s. 260. 66 In favour of this derivation from "ire" may perhaps be added the existence of such a future as "esuribo" (see Facciol. in v.). Against it, however, we have the change of "eo" into "io," though "ambio" affords a precedent for this as well as for a derivative from "eo," "ire," sometimes, though not always, using the participle present, the gerund, and the imperfect, according to the regular form of the fourth conjugation. Thus in Velleius Paterculus we find "insula quam amnis Euphrates ambiebat,” though in Ovid (Metamorphos. v. 360) the imperfect is ambibat, "ambibat Si"culæ cautus fundamina terræ." Perhaps, too, it may be said that if "esurire" were nothing more than "esum-ire," we ought to find the quantity of the i in "esurītor" different from what it is in the line of Martial (iii. 14)— 66 "Romani petebat esuritor Tuccius." The verbal substantive ambitus, however, retains the short vowel of the supine, though the past participle itself seems tc be long, e. g. |