up." Cf. Plaut. Amph. I. 1, 156: quisquis homo huc venerit, pugnos edet. § 6. Numerals and Degrees of Comparison. In regard to the general discussion of this part of the subject, I have nothing to add to the full investigation which it has received in the New Crat. Book II. ch. 2. For the sake of method, however, it will be desirable to mention a few facts referring more particularly to the Latin language. While unus, more anciently anus or oinos, corresponds in origin to the Greek eis, Ev-, Goth. aina, Celtic aenn, the Sanscrit éka is represented only by the adjective æquus. We have év, with s instead of the aspirate, in sem-el, sim-plex, sem-per, and sin-gulus. The ordinal primus is derived from the preposition præ, just as the Greek TрwTos comes from pó. All the ordinals end in -mus (which is perhaps contained in octavus for octau-mus, nonus for novimus), with the exception of secundus, "following," which is merely the participle of sequor, and of tertius, quartus, quintus, sextus, which represent the Greek -Tos. In tertius this ending is lengthened by the qualitative or possessive -ius, so that ter-t-ius is a derivative of ter-tus, and the same is the case in the Sanscrit dvi-tiyas, tritiyas, and in the Sclavonic tretii, fem. tretiza. The Sclavonic relative kotoroia exhibits a similar extension of a form corresponding to Kóтepos. By the side of duo we have ambo, κότερος. which is nearly synonymous with uterque. The distinction of these words is well known. While duo merely denotes an aggregate of two individuals-the number "two"-ambo signifies "both together," and uterque, "both the one and the other." This is clear from such passages as the following; Ter. Adelph. I. 2, 50: Curemus æquam uterque partem; tu alterum, "Let both the one and the other of us look to his own for to concern yourself with both together is almost to demand back again the boy whom you gave me." Auson. Ep. 91: "vis ambas ut amem? si diligit utraque vellem." "Do you wish me to love both together? If both the one and the other loves me, I should be glad to do so." Hence it is clear that, as Döderlein says (Lat. Et. u. Syn. IV. 349), ambo regards the two as two halves, but uterque as two integral unities: and the former corresponds to άμφω, the latter to ἑκάτερος, and both in diferent cases to dupórepos. The separability of the two constituent units in uterque is farther shown by the fact that this word may have either a singular or plural verb, whereas ambo always takes the plural. The formation of the degrees of comparison in adjectives and adverbs is intimately connected with that of the numerals. For all ordinals are of the nature of superlatives, and the most genuine form of the comparative in the Indo-Germanic languages is the combination of pronominal elements, which forms the third numeral, considered as indicating something beyond two. Although the Latin language is almost the only idiom which exhibits the full development of the separate usage of the form ter=ta-ra (New Crat. § 157), for it has not only the numeral under the forms tres, ter, ter-nio, ter-tius, but also a noun terminus, and a regular preposition trans, it does not use -ter as a comparative suffix except in the case of pronominal forms. For all common words we have instead of -ter, -Tepos, -taras, which are so common in cognate languages, either the merely relative adjective in -ius, corresponding to the Sanscrit -iyas, Greek -10s, or a derivative from this in -ior, corresponding to the Sanscrit -îyans, Greek -twv = -lov-s. Thus we have both al-ter and al-ius, and from the same root ul-tra, ul-tro. Many prepositions have a fixed or adverbial form in -tra, which is extended by the addition of ior into an inflected comparative. Thus we have ci-tra, ci-ter-ior, ex-tra, ex-ter-ior, in-tra, in-ter-ior, ul-tra, ul-ter-ior, &c. The forms an-ter-ior, de-ter-ior, pos-ter-ior, show that there must have been originally derivatives like antra, de-tra, pos-tra, as well as the existing an-te, de, pos-t[e]; and we have seen that pos-tro is still extant in Umbrian. In some words the original affix was -ra only, as in inf-ra, sup-ra, whence inferior, superior. Some prepositions have no intermediate adverb in -tra or -ra, but merely add the termination -ior, as prior from præ, propior from prope; and to this class we must add pejor for pes-ior, from per. All regular adjectives form their comparative in this way—namely, by adding -ior to the crude form of the positive, as dur-us, dur-ior, facil-is, facil-ior, or, if the adjective involves a verbal root, from the crude form of the participle; thus, the comparative of maledicus στερος, is not maledicior, but maledicent-ior. There is no doubt that al-ius and med-ius are comparative words. The regular comparative in -ior, gen. -iōris, is formed from the genitive of these forms, as appears from the Sanscrit -iyans, Gr. -wv=-1ov-s (New Crat. § 165). As the ordinal admits of two forms in -tus and in -mus, and as the superlative is of the nature of an ordinal, we should expect that it would be indicated by one or both of these terminations. And this is the case. We have -mus alone in pri-mus, extre-mus, postre-mus, infi-mus or imus, and sum-mus for supi-mus. We have -ti-mus in ul-timus, in op-timus, "uppermost," from ob, in in-timus, "most inward," from in, in pes-simus (for pes-timus) "most down," from per (cf. pessumdo with per-do, and per-eo). The termination -timus is universally assimilated in the superlatives of ordinary adjectives. For these superlatives are formed, like the comparatives in -tra, -TEpos, from an adverbial form, and not from the crude form of the adjective, like the comparatives in ior (see New Crat. § 165; Gr. Gr. Art. 269, sqq.). The adverb derived from the adjectives in -us or -er, which ended in e or o in ordinary Latin, originally terminated in -ed; and as the supines in -tum of dental verbs generally changed their t into 8, or, in combination with the characteristic, into -ss, we are not at a loss to account for the similar phenomenon in the superlatives: for cessum=ced-tum from cedo, and sessum sed-tum from sedeo, fully correspond to dur-i-ssimus from dured-timus, and moll-i-ssimus from mollid-timus. The change of e into i in the former case is in accordance with the usual practice; cf. teneo, con-tineo, sedeo, assideo, &c. When the crude form of the adjective ends in or r, the t of -timus is assimilated to this letter: thus from celer we have celer-rimus for celer-timus, from facilis we have facil-limus for facil-timus. The junction between the crude form of the adjective and an affix properly appended to a derived adverb is due to the fact that adjectives of this kind may use their neuter and even their crude form as adverbs; thus we have not only faciliter, but facile, and even facul (Festus, p. 87, Müller). = § 7. Prepositions. The most important of the pronominal adverbs, which are used as the basis of degrees of comparison, are the prepositions. One of these, trans, is merely an extension of the affix of the comparative, and they are all employed more or less in qualifying those expressions of case, on which the mutual relations of words so much depend. We have seen that, according to the proper and original distinctions of the oblique cases, the genitive or ablative (for they were originally identical) denotes motion from a place, or, generally, separation; the dative or locative implies rest in a place, or, generally, conjunction; and the accusative signifies motion to a place, or, generally, approach with a view to conjunction; but that these primitive uses of the oblique inflexions have become obsolete in Latin, with the exception of a few general nouns and the proper names of cities. In other instances, motion from and to, and rest in a place, together with the other mutual relations of words, are expressed by some preposition; and in this use of the prepositions, the genitive, as distinct from the ablative, and the dative, whether identified with the locative or distinguished from it, are utterly excluded. The ablative alone is used with those prepositions which signify separation, and takes the place of the dative or locative with those which imply rest or conjunction, while the accusative properly accompanies those which denote approach or motion. It will be convenient to class the Latin prepositions under three heads, corresponding to the three primitive distinctions of the oblique cases—namely, separation or motion from, rest in, and approach or motion to. To each of these may be appended the derived or compounded prepositions, which introduce some new modification of meaning. The three simplest auxiliaries of the primitive relations of case are ab (shortened in a, and extended into abs, absque) for the expression of separation or motion from, with the ablative; in for the expression of rest in or on, with the ablative, as the usurper of the place of the dative or locative; and ad for the expression of approach or motion to with the accusative. There is no doubt as to the origin and linguistic affinities of these prepositions. Ab or abs corresponds in etymology and meaning to the Greek, ἀπὸ or ἄψ, which was originally ἀν-πός, or va-Tos (New Crat. § 169), and, as such, denoted motion from a distant object to the subject, according to the principle which I have stated and elucidated elsewhere (New Crat. §§ 130, 169; Gr. Gr. Art. 77). Practically ab and arò denote motion from the = surface of an object, and are so distinguished from ex (e), ¿§ (ék), which imply that we pass through intermediate proximity; in corresponds in use to the Greek ev and eis=évs, and in origin not only to these prepositions, but also to ává. In with the ablative and év with the dative express the simplest and most elementary notion of locality-the being in a place. With the accusative, in signifies into or unto a place, deriving the expression of motion from the case with which it is connected. When év is connected with the accusative in this sense, it is always expanded to eis évs, except in some of the lyric poets, such as Pindar, who, like the Romans, use év to express both location with the dative and motion with the accusative. There is no doubt that év, eiv, eiví, ává, tva, are ultimately identical, the original form having been Fa-va, which expresses motion through the nearer to the more distant object. Practically, in represents all the uses of év, eis, ává, and even of the negative prefix which corresponds to the last. Thus we have avà pépos in-vicem, év τῇ πόλει = in urbe, εἰς τὴν πόλιν = in urbem, ἀνήριθμος = innumerus. The preposition ad is obviously another form of the conjunctions at "still," and et "too," "and." = = = = The late Professor Hunter showed1 that there was the same relation between the Greek dé, which signifies "too," "in the second place," and the affix -de, as in oikóv-de, "to-home," implying motion to a place. We learn from the other form el-Ta (New Crat. § 193) that e-T is compounded of the second element Fa, and the third; consequently it corresponds in etymology, as it does pretty nearly in meaning, to the Greek eis évs, and to in used with the accusative. = In its use with the ablative of the agent, ab corresponds rather to the Greek vró, than to aró. Thus: mundus a deo creatus est would be rendered ὁ κόσμος ὑπὸ (not ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκτίσθη. But we are not to conclude from this that vπó, áró, are different forms of the same word. The u is found in all the cognate words vπó, sub, vπép, super, subter, uf, ufar, upa, upari; and it is clear that while a-πó-va-Tó, is compounded of the third and first, v-TÓ Fa-Tó is made up of the second and first pronominal elements, and so denotes a passage = 1 A Grammatical Essay on the nature, import, and effect, of certain Conjunctions; particularly the Greek dé: read June 21, 1784. Trans. of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. I. pp. 113-34. |