Post, or pone, becomes po, in pomærium, pomeridianus. Pro is written prod before a vowel, as in prod-est; it suffers metathesis in pol-liceo, por-rigo, where it approaches to the cognate per, if it is not identical with it.

The inseparable re, really a form of in-ává, is written red before a vowel, or the dentals d, t; compare red-eo, red-do, ret-tuli.

Sine, or sed, appears only as sē.

Sub may change b to the following letter, and sometimes assumes s before t, as in subs-traho.

Trans may be shortened into tra.

Ve, or vehe, is not a preposition, but a particle containing the same root as via-veha, veho, weg, &c.

§ 8. Negative Particles.

Negative particles fall into two main classes essentially different in signification; for they denote either denial, which is categorical negation, or prohibition, which is hypothetical negation; in the former case, we negative an affirmation, i. e. affirm that the case is not so; in the latter, we negative a supposition, i. e. prohibit or forbid an assumed or possible event. As these differences are absolute in logic or syntax, it is necessary that they should be expressed by the forms of the words; and the three classical languages have sufficient, but by no means identical, methods of conveying these distinctions. The Greek language expresses categorical negation by the particle où or ou-k, amounting to a-va-Fa-k, which denotes distance and separation, but takes for the expression of a prohibition or negative hypothesis the particle un, which is connected with the first personal pronoun, and is therefore opposed to ouk as subject is to object (New Crat. § 189). The Hebrew language has the same root 5, which is ultimately identical with the Indo-Germanic na or a-na, to express both negation and prohibition; but while the categorical negative conveys this idea by this idea by a lengthened stress on the vowel which follows the liquid, the hypothetical denotes the prohibition of an act present or intended by an initial breathing which throws the emphasis on the anlaut (Maskil le-Sopher, p. 15). The Latin language, like the Hebrew, contents itself with one pronominal element, namely, n’, signifying "distance" and "separation," for both negation and

לא

prohibition, but distinguishes these in form by adopting a compound or lengthened word for the categorical negative, while the hypothetical word appears without any such strengthening addition. Thus, while the common expression for the categorical negative is non for nenu or nonu, which is obviously ne œnum or ne unum with the ecthlipsis of the final m, we find merely ne in the prohibitive sense, in ordinary Latin. There are traces in single words and in the older authors of a strengthening affix c in this latter use (above, p. 98), corresponding to the affix which appears in ou-x or ov-xi. We must distinguish this affix from the conjunction -que, which appears in the disjunction ne-que (Müller, Suppl. Ann. ad Fest. p. 387). If, then, we compare ou-x-a-va-Fa-x with ne-c, we shall see that they differ only in the inserted element Fa, and there is no reason to suppose that the categorical n'on differs from the hypothetical ne, otherwise than by the strengthening word unum, which is also involved in nullus = n'unu-lus. On the other hand, we see from the categorical use of n'unquam, n'usquam, ne-quidem and neque, that the negative ne may always be used in a denial of facts, if it is only sufficiently strengthened. The identity of ά-va-[Ƒa]-ê and ne-c is farther shown by the use of the negative as a prefix in Latin. Of this we have three forms; the simple ne or ni as in ne-fas, ne-scio, ni-hil, ni-si, &c.; the same with iFa prefixed, as in in-iquus, in-numerus, im-mensus, i-gnavus, &c.; with e affixed, as in nec-opinus, neg-otium, neg-ligo or nec-ligo. As it is quite clear that in these instances the element n is that which gives the negative force, and as this element is common to n'on and ne, it follows that the Romans did not distinguish between the form of the prohibition and categorical negation otherwise than by strengthening the latter. And this extenuation of the negative emphasis in subordinate expressions is also shown by the fact, that, in conditional and final sentences, the mere diminution of assertion expressed by minus took the place of the shorter negative; thus we have si minus for sin, and quominus for quin. It is a question whether the shorter form ne can appear without some strengthening affix, as -dum, -que, or quidem, in the categorical negation. Of the passages quoted some are manifestly corrupt, and it seems that ne is not used categorically, except when it stands for ne-quidem, "not even " (see Drakenborch, ad Liv. VIII. 4; XXXIII. 49). It may be

ὅτι.

doubted in these cases whether there is not a concealed prohibition, as in the Greek un or. On the other hand, when non appears, as it occasionally does, in a final sentence, there is always some reason for the employment of this more emphatical particle. Thus ne plura dicam, or ut ne plura dicam, means merely "not to say more," but ut plura non dicam neque aliorum exemplis confirmem (Cic. pro lege Manil. 15, § 44) implies a more deliberate abstinence from irrelevant details. The difference between ne-quidem and non-quidem or nec-quidem consists in the greater degree of emphasis conveyed by the former, which is much the more usual combination; for ne-quidem means "not even ;” but non (or nec) -quidem denotes merely a qualification of opposed terms, so that quidem is simply the Greek uév: this appears from Quintilian's rendering (IX. 3, § 55) of Demosthenes de Corona, p. 288): οὐκ εἶπον μὲν ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔγραψα δέ· οὐδ ̓ ἔγραψα μὲν, οὐκ ἐπρέσβευσα δέ· οὐδ ̓ ἐπρέσα βευσα μὲν, οὐκ ἔπεισα δὲ Θηβαίους, non enim dixi quidem, sed non scripsi; nec scripsi quidem, sed non obii legationem; nec obii quidem, sed non persuasi Thebanis:" (see Wagner on Virg. Georg. I. 126).

This distinction in emphasis regulates the employment of the negative particles in interrogations, and we observe the same relation between the Greek and Latin particles in this use also— that is, we employ nonne in Latin, where we write ap' ov in Greck; num, which bears the same relation to ne that ipsus does to ipse or necessum to necesse, corresponds to the Greek use of μὴ or μὴ οὖν=μῶν; and the enclitic one is used when no negation appears in Greek; thus we have: ap' ouk éσTIV άσÐεvýs; =nonne ægrotat? when we expect an affirmative answer; apa μή ἐστιν ἀσθενής ; οι μῶν ἀσθενής έστι;=num agrotat ? when we expect a negative answer; and apa άolevýs éσti; =ægrotatne? when we merely ask for information. The employment of the negative in the final sentence really emanates from this use in interrogations, coupled with the prohibitive value of the shorter particle. (See Complete Greek Grammar, Art. 538.) The subordinate sentence, whether affirmative or negative, is generally coupled with that on which it depends by some relative or interrogative particle. In Greek this particle cannot be dispensed with, except in those cases, when the thing feared, denied, or doubted, is expressed by a prohibitive sentence, and here the

usual form of the final or illative sentence is relinquished; but the use of wσTE μn (Gr. Gr. Art. 602) shows that this is merely an idiomatic omission, and dédoika un Oávo might have been written δέδοικα, ὡς μὴ θάνω, οι ὥστε μὴ θανεῖν, “I fear with a view to the result that I may not die." The examples collected by Mr. Allen (Analysis of Latin Verbs, pp. 337, sqq.) sufficiently show that in Latin the relative particle ut may be either inserted or omitted at pleasure, whether the subordinate sentence is affirmative or negative.

CHAPTER XI.

THE THEORY OF THE LATIN VERB.

§ 1. The Latin verb generally defective. § 2. The personal inflexions-their consistent anomalies. § 3. Doctrine of the Latin tenses. § 4. The substantive verbs. §5. Paucity of organic formations in the regular Latin verb. § 6. General scheme of tenses in the Latin verb. § 7. Verbs which may be regarded as parathetic compounds. § 8. Tenses of the vowel-verbs which are combinations of the same kind. § 9. Organic derivation of the tenses in the consonant-verb. § 10. Auxiliary tenses of the passive voice. § 11. The modal distinctions—their syntax. 12. Forms of the infinitive and participle-how connected in derivation and meaning. § 13. The gerundium and gerundivum shown to be active and present. § 14. The participle in -turus. § 15. The perfect subjunctive. § 16. The past tense of the infinitive active.

§ 1. The Latin Verb generally defective.

HE forms of the Latin verb are meagre and scanty in the

one are due to the

They both spring

and comprehensive. The deficiencies of the same cause as the copiousness of the other. from the antiquated condition of the language. An idiom which has been long employed in literature will generally substitute prepositions for the inflexions of cases, and, by the employment of various syntactical devices, increase the expressiveness and significance of the verb. It is just in these particulars that the dialects formed from the Latin differ from their mother-speech, and in the same particulars they approximate to the syntactical distinctness of the Greek.

§ 2. The Personal Inflexions-their consistent Anomalies. The Latin person-endings are, however, on the whole, less mutilated than the corresponding inflexions in the Greek verb. This is because the person-endings are, in fact, case-endings of pronouns, by virtue of which every form of the finite verb becomes complete in itself (see New Crat. § 347), and the caseendings, as has been already observed, are more perfect in Latin than in Greek.

The person-endings of the active verb, as they appear in classical Latin, are -m, -s, -t; -mus, -tis, -nt. But these forms The present

are not maintained throughout all the tenses.

indicative has dropt the characteristic -m, except in the two cases