virgo, (virgin-); and as the analogy of dŋuó-σios, vrìkă-sya, leads us to an assumption of an original -sius, we must insert s also in the pronominal genitives in -jus, -ius, which, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, are derived from the possessives of the pronouns. We cannot doubt that adjectives in Los=-σLOS are formed from the genitive in -10=-σto, and as these adjectives are only weaker forms of the quasi-comparatives in -wv=-σlov-5, the original form of the genitive must have been -σtov in Greek, which would amount to -siom in Latin; and the plural, originally -σtwv=σtov-s, in the former language, would become siom-s-siúm in Latin, from which it is softened to -sum, just as the -ws of Tóλews falls into us in cu-jus, &c. Compare also the Sanscrit dual -bhyam with the plural -bhyăs or bhis. § 6. The Dative and Locative. In Greek, the dative, as the case denoting rest and proximity, indicates whatever is close at hand, and thus implies the instrument or occasion, as well as that which is receptive of gain, or that which is the locality of the action. In other words, it includes the three Sanscrit cases, which are denoted as the instrumental, the dative, and the locative. These three cases end in -ina, -aya, and -i. There is reason to believe that the first of these affixes is the original type. It is identical with the forms á-vá, -va, originally Fa-va, and it thus appears that it is only partially represented by -p, -bi, -i, which are the usual terminations of the Greek and Latin dative and locative. The Greek pronouns, ἐμίν, τεΐν, τίν, ἵν, σφίν, φίν, ψίν, contain the whole affix, and it always appears in the Greek dual, as in av-Tó-w = autó-piv, where the characteristic of plurality is omitted, as in the Latin plural -sum = -rum. We may also conclude that the Latin -bis, in no-bis, vo-bis, has lost the n necessary to the full form, which is preserved in the particle s-ine, which is presumed in words like officina, and which appears slightly altered from the Sanscrit instrumental in words like partim, enim, olim, istim. The termination -bi = -pɩ is dative and instrumental in ti-bi, vo-bis, but simply local in u-bi, i-bi, &c. Commonly the Latin locative ends in -i, agreeing in this with the Sanscrit. But when the characteristic of the noun is a consonant, it is generally shortened into e, especially if the word is of more than two syllables. The locative of rus is ruri. In the plural the dative and locative are always confused with the ablative; and instances occur even in classical Latin where the dative of an ordinary noun, with the sense of limitation, appears in the form of the ablative in e. In some phrases this is rather the rule than the exception; such are pignore dare, for pignori; IIIviri auro argento ære flando feriundo, for æri; jure dicundo for juri; qui dant quique accipiunt fœnore, for fœnori; &c. (see Schneider, Lat. Gr. II. pp. 200, sqq.; Müller, ad Varro. L. L. V. p. 16). If there is any reason for using the term dativus in reference to the case of a noun, it must surely be applicable to morte in the epitaph of Plautus, quoted by Gellius (N. A. I. 84): Postquam est morte datus Plautus, Comœdia luget,--for here the form in -e actually follows a verb of giving. Thus we see that ore is not the ablative but the dative in (Virgil, Georg. I. 430): si virgineum suffuderit ore ruborem; and that it is a locative in (Georg. III. 439): The m, which marks the accusative singular in Latin and Sanscrit, is only a weaker form of the dental, which appears in Greek. This dental is the residuum of the third pronominal element, and denotes distance and objectivity. We are not to suppose that partem and partim are the same word, or generally that the accusative and locative are the same form. The i which appears in the latter, with or without the accusative affix, constitutes the essential difference between the two cases. Belonging to the second pronominal element, this i is in itself an expression of proximity; and thus, while parte-m denotes that "the part" is an object to be approached or acted on, part-i-m indicates that not only is the part an object, but also that it is close at hand for use or superposition. It is true that the temporal particles quum, tum, nun-c, jam, &c., are not less locative in meaning than olim, and that the causal nam, though accusative in form, coincides in signification with the locative enim. we must remember that quod, quod si, quippe quia-pe, őтi, ÖTε, аTE, &c. are used as general expressions of objectivity; and we must not allow syntactical equivalences to interfere with our etymological discrimination. = But § 8. The Ablative. In ordinary Latin the ablative is used as the case of instrumentality in both numbers; and in the plural there is no distinction between it and the dative. The specimens of old Latin in Chapter VI. have sufficiently shown that the termination of the ablative was d, or, perhaps, at one period of the language, t. The instrumental ending in Sanscrit is, as we have seen, -ina; and the Sanscrit ablative ended, like the Latin, in -d. The tendency of the instrumental and ablative-the case of proximity and the case of derivation,-to interchange their significations, is a phenomenon, in which the philosophical grammarian finds no difficulty. The fact that sine and sed are so nearly synonymous is an obvious exemplification of this tendency. It is a more serious imperfection of the Latin case-system that the ablative, though distinguished in form from the genitive, should sometimes agree with it in meaning, and sometimes coincide in sense with its direct opposite the dative. With regard to the singular number, which has an ablative properly so called, there can be no doubt that in Latin and Sanscrit, as well as in Greek, the genitive and ablative are traceable to a common origin. The full, original, and proper form of the genitive singular was -sion, and this in Greek often appeared as -Oev: cf. Oeós σiós. In Sanscrit the ablative vrikát bears the same relation to the genitive vrikasya that the genitive πόλεως does to a more ancient πολιόσιον, or the adverb καλώs to an original καλο-θεν, or the common τύπτεις to the inevitably assumed TÚTTE-ot. It is well known that the Latin adverbs in -tus correspond to the Greek in -Oev; thus cali-tus oupavó-Oev; and the Greek termination &- in -dns, &c. involves this ending -Oev (New Crat. § 263). There is therefore every reason to believe that the Latin ablative in -d or -t is an apocopated form of a case in -dus or -tus, which is resolvable to an ultimate identity with the genitive. = § 9. = The Neuter Forms. The neuter accusative, which serves also as a nominative (see New Crat. § 236), ends, like the usual accusative, in -m in all nouns of the vowel-declensions. There is no doubt, however, that this m may be traced back through the dental liquid n, which represents it in Greek, to the dental mute -d or -t. Thus we have i-d, illud, quo-d, &c. to the latest period of the language; we have also met, tet, set, or med, ted, sed; ego-met, me-met, ted-ipsum, inter sed (Senat. Consult. de Bacch. 11. 13, 14); and we shall see in the next chapter that the final s or r, in nouns like corpu-s, robo-r, genu-s, &c., is a softening of an original t or d. We must take care not to confuse this t or d with the same letter appearing as the affix of the ablative. The long vowel, which precedes the dental in that case, shows that there is apocope or absorption of something more than a mere consonant, and abundant reason has been given for the inference that this d has passed through th from an original sibilant representing the second pronominal element. On the contrary, the accusative m, n, d or t is merely the residuum of the third pronominal element, denoting simple objectivity. The forms of the neuter-plural show, à fortiori, that the dental affix in the singular was a mere letter, and not a syllable, as in the case of the ablative. For all neuter nouns, to whatever declension they belong, form their plural nominative-accusative in ǎ in the Zend and in the old European languages of this family. Now the Greek language shows us that n, when it stands by itself at the end of a word, or precedes a dental mute, may be changed into ă, and this vowel may even represent the combination -VT. Thus we have πάτερα for πάτερν, τετύφαται for τετύφυται, σωζοίατο for σώζοιντο, πάθος for πένθος, and even δέκα for δέκεντ, and σῶμα for σώμεντ. There is therefore no objection, a priori, to the hypothesis, but rather a presumption, that the plural -ă represents an original -T; and it seems quite reasonable to assume that ξύλα = ξύλεν-τ; for if the objective v or τ of the singular had to be extended into a plural, we should not in this case append the personal or subjective s, as in the case of masculine and feminine nouns, but should rather repeat the objective affix. Now it is known that the neuter plural in Latin originally ended in -d; thus we find in the Senatus Consult. de Bacch. 1. 24: quei advorsum ea-d fecisent. Again, we find in Sanscrit that neuter plurals end in -ni; thus madhu = μév makes madhu-ni-uéov-a; and the final i must be a vocalization of a second n, just as conversely nn is substituted for ni in ξένος = ξένιος = Ceivos. Lastly, while the Erse plural of the third personal pronoun is siad for swiad, the Welsh form of the plural is hwynt for swynt. Putting all these facts together, we must ă come to the conclusion that the neuter accusative singular ended in -m = -n = -t or -d, and that the plural à represents an original -nd = -nt = -nn or -mm. The pronominal neuters in ae, as quæ, hæc, &c., are explained in a subsequent chapter. § 10. The Vocative. = The vocative, i. e. the case of allocution, exhortation, or exclamation, is not distinguished from the nominative except in nouns of the second declension, and in certain Greek words adopted by the classical writers. When a noun in -us has to be used in the vocative, the crude form is employed with the lightest substitution for the characteristic vowel. Thus dominus makes domine. If i precedes the characteristic, the vocative e is absorbed, and filius makes fili filie. The same is the case with meus which has for its vocative mi = mee. As the regular nominative plural of deus is di, the Romans, to avoid confusion, did not use a vocative dee di. This rule does not apply to adjectives, as Cynthie from Cynthius, Sperchie from Sperchius. The vocative Car exposes the common error of pronouncing the dactyl Cažus as a trochee; for if this had been true the vocative must have been Cai-e. In point of fact, Caius is scanned regularly in three syllables; thus we have (Martial, IX. Ep. 93): v. 4. Pervigil in pluma Căžus, ecce, jacet. Quod debes, Cai, redde, inquit Phœbus. v. 7. v. 12. Non mavis quam ter Caius esse tuus. Although the vocative, as a distinct case, is thus limited to a few forms in the language, the Latin writers give it occasionally a very remarkable extension of use. to agree with the nominative tu: as Thus it is made Stemmate quod Tusco ramum millesime ducis, (Pers. III. 27, 28). This is regularly the case in the idiomatic use of macte = magis aucte (i. e. frugibus et mola); thus we have: macte virtute esto, "be increased in virtue" (Hor. I. Serm. II. 31); macte nová virtute puer, "be increased in your young valour" (Virg. Æn. IX. 641). And even in an oblique sentence, as: juberem [te] macte virtute esse (Liv. II. 12). |