$7. The Numeral Signs.

This examination of the Latin alphabet will not be complete without some remarks on the signs which were used by the Romans to denote the numeral adjectives. Priscian, in his usual school-boy way, has endeavoured to establish the connexion between the numeral signs as we have them, and the ordinary Roman capitals. Thus, quinque, he tells us, is represented by V, because this is the fifth vowel; quinquaginta is L, because, etymologically, L and N may be interchanged, and N is TevτnKOVтa in Greek; quingenti is D, because this is the next letter to C-and so forth (Priscian, II. p. 388, ed. Krehl).

Now there can be no doubt that the Roman numeral signs are derived from the Tuscans; though in certain cases a Roman capital has been substituted for an Etruscan character which does not correspond to it in value, and though in these instances the figures are either inclined or reversed. The Etruscan characters are as follows:.

It is sufficiently obvious that the first ten of these characters are identical with the Roman figures, the A, &c. being reversed; and as is often written T, and as L, frequently occur on Roman family coins, we may recognise in this character the original of the Roman L, and therefore identify the Etruscan and Roman ciphers from 1 to 99. The Roman C and the Etruscan do not appear to be connected; but the Etruscan 8, or, as it is also written D. is clearly the same as the Roman, O, and clo, for which M was subsequently written; and the same remark applies to the still higher numbers.

If, then, the Roman ciphers were derived from the Tuscans it is obvious that we must seek in the Tuscan language for an interpretation. Now it cannot be doubted that the Tuscan numeral signs are either letters of the alphabet slightly changed,

or combinations of such characters made according to fixed rules. Thus, A is the inverted V = u; T or T is an inverted ↓ = ch1; and 8f. Since, therefore, the position of these letters in the organic alphabet does not correspond to their value as numeral signs, we must conclude that they represent the initials of the numerals in the Etruscan, just as M afterwards denoted mille in the Latin language. We do not know any Etruscan numeral, and therefore cannot pretend to any certainty on this subject; but this is the most probable inference. The manner in which the elementary signs are combined to form the intermediate numerals is more easily and safely investigated. The character denoting unity is perhaps selected from its simplicity; it is the natural and obvious score in every country. This character is combined with itself to form the next three digits, though four is sometimes expressed as 5-1, according to the principle of subtraction so common among the Romans (comp. duodeviginti, &c.). The same plan is adopted to form the numerals between 5 and 10. The number 10 is represented by a combination of two V's -thus, X; and this figure enclosed in a circle indicates the multiplication of 10 by itself, or 100. The letter 8, or O, being assumed as the representative of 1000, its half, or D, would indicate 500; and as multiplication by ten was indicated by a circle in the case of 100, on the same principle 10,000, and its half or I would represent 5000.

would be

These rules for the formation of one numeral from another are more obvious than the origin of the elementary numeral signs. But where certainty is not within our reach, we must be contented with a solution of those difficulties which may be submitted with safety to a philological analysis.

1 It is possible that this character may be the half of that which denotes 100, according to the principle stated below.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE LATIN CASE-SYSTEM.

§ 1. Fulness and deficiencies of the Latin case-system. § 2. General scheme of the case-endings. § 3. Differences of crude form. § 4. Hypothetical forms of the nominative and accusative plural. § 5. Existing forms-the genitive. § 6. The dative and locative. § 7. The accusative singular. § 8. The ablative. § 9. The neuter forms. § 10. The vocative. § 11. Adverbs considered as cases of nouns. § 12. Adverbial expression for the day of the month.

THE

§ 1. HE system of cases, with which the Latin noun is furnished, presents a greater abundance and variety of forms than that of the Greek declension. The Greek noun has no distinct ablative case; its accusative has frequently lost its characteristic termination; the genitive includes the ablative meaning; and the locative is almost obsolete. The greater number and variety of the Latin cases is due to the more ancient state or condition of the language, and perhaps also to its composite structure. As the language degenerates into the so-called Romance idioms, we find that its cases are gradually lost, and their place taken by a number of prefixes, which add indeed to the syntactical distinctness of the language, but purchase this advantage by sacrificing the etymological development. The student of Latin, however, very soon discovers that the variety of case-forms is the very reverse of an advantage. For idiomatic usage has introduced so much confusion into the use of the genitive, dative, and ablative, that the two latter derive all their distinctions from the prepositions attached to the ablative, while the genitive, in many cases, differs from the ablative only as an arbitrary form, and without any reference to a distinction of meaning. If we revert to the Greek language, which still retains the more accurate distinctions of case, we shall see that the genitive, or case of ablation, denotes the origin of motion or action; the dative, or case of accession, denotes juxta-position, immediate proximity, rest and presence; the accusative, or case of transition, denotes the end of motion or action, the object to which something is proceeding. Now the Latin, in most instances, is unable to express this simple relation of unde, ubi, and quo by the mere case-endings. If we except certain adverbs derived from nouns, certain agglutinate

Fulness and deficiencies of the Latin case-system.

forms, such as meridie, postridie, &c., some few nouns, as rus, domus, humus, bellum, militia, and the proper names of cities, we have no locative in Latin, and no case for the simple expression of departure or approach, and are obliged to use prepositions, such as in, ab, ad, to convey these meanings. And even with regard to the forms which are still used as locatives, differences of declension produce endless confusions, which all the old and some modern grammarians have enhanced by making arbitrary rules for differences of case in the syntax of different declensions. Thus because nouns in -a, -us, of the first and second declension, had a locative in -a-iæ, and in -o-i î, we are told that militiæ, Romæ, domi, Cypri are genitive cases; whereas ruri, Carthagine, Athenis are ablatives, because the locative approximates or corresponds to the mutilated ablative in the consonantal declension. These labourers in the work of making the Latin language unlearnable, except by the parrot use of the memory, could not perceive that as dies is masculine when it means day," ho-die and postri-die must belong to the same forms, and that if the former is from ho-i-die, the latter must be from postero-i-die. The fact is that the locative originally ended in -in or -im, and this was corrupted in every form with the exception of such words as partim, enim, &c.; hence, to restore the original ending, we must write, with different amounts of alteration or addition, militia-im (-in), Roma-im (-in), domo-im (-in), Cypro-im (-in), rur-im (-in), Carthagin-im (-in), Athenisim (-in).

§ 2. General scheme of the case-endings.

a

In treating of the Latin cases, our attention is directed to three different aspects under which they may be considered. We may regard them either according to a general scheme derived from all the declensions, or as modified by those varieties in the termination of the crude form which constitute differences of declension; or we may take both of these together, and add to them those additional phenomena which are furnished by the adverb. A supplementary source of information respecting the cases may be derived from those nouns, whether substantive or adjective, which are obviously formed from the oblique cases of other nouns. Thus, we know that the original Greek genitive ended in oo (Sanscr. sya) from the form of the possessive ad

jective Snuórios (Bopp, Vergl. Gramm. p. 294, note). Similarly, a case in -ine, analogous to the Sanscrit instrumental, may be inferred both from the particle sine and from the derivative forms urbanus (= urbăinus), &c., and officina (= officina), &c. If we confine ourselves to the forms of the noun, we get the following general scheme of the case-endings.

§ 3.
3. Differences of crude form.

By taking the different crude forms according to the usual classification, we shall at once see how this scheme is modified and applied. The declensions will be fully discussed in a separate chapter, and it will be sufficient in this place to show how the different cases attach themselves to the different characteristics.

2 For the form in -bus comp. Orelli, Inser. nos. 1628, 1629, 4601, &c.; and K. L. Schneider, Formenlehre, I. pp. 25, 8qq.