form in -ro or -rim used as a mere future to these virtually present verbs; on the contrary, while meminerim and recorder stand in the same subjunctive sentence (Cic. pro Plancio, c. 28 fin.), we have recordabor as the only future for the two verbs (id. in Pison. c. 6). And so of the others. It has been supposed that certain forms in -assere, which occur in Plautus, and seem to have the meaning of a future infinitive (e. g. expugnassere, Amphitr. I. 1, 55; reconciliassere, Capt. I. 2, 59; impetrassere, Aulul. IV. 7, 6), are infinitives corresponding to this tense in ro or -rim, as though formed, e. g., from expugnasso = expugnavero'. Such a formation of an infinitive appears to me simply impossible; and as all these infinitives are referred to verbs of the -a conjugation, I have no difficulty in explaining these words in the same way as I have explained the agglutinate forms in -esso, -essere (above, § 7); and as capes-so = capere-sino, so expugnas-80 = expugnare-sino. With regard to the apparently future signification of the infinitives in assere, it is sufficient to remark that an auxiliary may give this meaning, as in the case of dicere instituo dicam, mentioned above (§ 9); and the future in the Romance languages is always formed by an agglutinate appendage of habeo, as in aur-ai aver-ai = habere habeo. As fuero fueso and fuerim = fuesim oscillate between the forms ero eso and sim = esim, so we find that the plural exhibits a similar freedom of choice; for fuerimus fuerimus or fue-simus represents either erimus, which is shortened in its penultima, or simus, which has lost its initial syllable. In the passive and deponent verbs the loss of the perfect subjunctive is supplied by a periphrastic tense made up of the future ero and the participle in -tus. It is a matter of indifference whether we refer this tense to a period when the future and present subjunctive of the substantive verb were still identical, or whether we suppose that it is an approximation to the Greek paulo post futurum, adopted to meet a syntactical exigency. § 16. = = The Past Tense of the Infinitive Active. The past tense of the infinitive active ends in -isse, when it corresponds to the Greek first aorist, as scripsisse; when 1 Madvig thinks that these forms result from a mistaken attempt to follow the Greek analogy of rú↓ew from rú↓w (Bemerkungen über Lat. Sprl. p. 41). = it is the regular perfect, as tetigisse; and when it is a composite form, as ama-visse = ama-fuisse. It is to be recollected that in all these cases the same tense inserts an 8=r in the second person singular and second and third persons plural of the indicative mood. There can be little doubt that this doubling of the s in the infinitive (-8-se) is to be explained from the indicative mood. As we have fui-s-tis instead of fufusa-tis, so we have fui-sse instead of fufusa-se; and in both cases the additional s is analogous to that in fuissem fui-se-sim, from fuerim = fuesim. This view is in accordance with all the similar phenomena. The other explanations, which have been given, are very unscientific and not even very plausible. It has been supposed that the additional s is designed to represent the lengthening of the penultimate syllable; but why should the termination se re be appended by means of a long syllable to fui any more than to es- in es-se or to dico in dice-re? Bopp is of course ready with his agglutination theory, and explains ama-vi-sse as a compound of amavi and esse (Vergl. Gramm. p. 1227). But, as he must see, this presumes a derivation of fuisse from fui and esse, and of fueram from fui and eram, so that amaveram = ama-fui-eram and amavisse ama-fui-esse. It is only by remembering the great services, which Bopp has rendered to comparative philology, that we can reconcile such suggestions with any claim to a character for critical tact and acumen. The whole theory of inflected language would fall to pieces, if we could not explain even the future and aorist s without falling back upon the existing forms of the substantive verb. There must be some formative machinery in the verb besides the person-endings; and if we cannot explain the inflexions of fui without calling in the aid of sum, how are we to inflect sum itself through its own moods and tenses? It seems to me fallacious to suppose, as Bopp does (p. 1228), that the forms scripse, consum-se, admis-se, divis-se, dic-se, produc-se, abstrac-se, advec-se, are aorists corresponding to the Greek and related to the forms scrip-so or scrip-sim as yрáπ-σa is to e-ураπ-σα. The Latin infinitive is always formed by adding sere to the tense represented by the infinitive, which is merely denuded of its person-endings in order to qualify it for becoming the vehicle of this new appendage. From scrip-so we could only have scrip-sere scrip-sese, as we have scrib-ere from scribo. As we = = have dixti for dic-si-s-ti, extinxem for exting-sis-sem, vixet for vic-sis-set, &c., why should not dire dic-se for dic-sis-se be an analogous abbreviation? Not to speak of the tendency to shorten the forms of words, which generally characterizes the Latin language, the omission of the syllable es or is is invariable in the passive infinitive of all consonant-verbs; for as amari or amarier is formed from amare amase, we ought to have diceri or diceri-er = dic-es-ier from dicere = dicese, but, in point of fact, we always find dicier or dici, which is related to dic-es-ier very much as dic-se is to dic-sis-se. CHAPTER XII. THE LATIN CONJUGATIONS. § 1. The conjugations are regulated by the same principle as the declensions. § 2. The first or -a conjugation. § 3. The second or -e conjugation. § 4. The third ori conjugation. § 5. The fourth or consonant conjugation. A. Mute verbs. § 6. B. Liquid verbs. § 7. C. Semi-consonantal verbs. § 8. Irregular verbs. A. Additions to the present tense. § 9. B. Abbreviated forms. § 10. Defective verbs. § 1. The Conjugations are regulated by the same principle TH as the Declensions. HERE is not much difficulty in seeing that the Latin conjugations ought to be arranged on the same principle as the declensions—namely, according to the characteristic letters of the different verbs. This mode of classification will give us three conjugations of verbs in a, e, i, which are regularly contracted; and one conjugation of consonant verbs, which retain their inflexions uncontracted, whether the characteristic is mute, liquid, or semi-consonant. In the first three conjugations, which contain none but derivative verbs, the crude form of a noun is made the vehicle of verbal inflexions by means of the formative affix ya, which belongs to the second pronominal element. We shall see that, while the a and i conjugations append this formative syllable to crude forms terminating in these vowels respectively, the e conjugation represents the pronominal affix by this vowel alone, because it generally consists of verbs formed from consonantal nouns. In the semi-consonantal forms, there is no difficulty in seeing that the u verbs belong to the fourth and not to the vowel conjugations; but in order to know when a verb ini is to be considered as belonging to the vowel conjugation, and when, on the other hand, it is to be counted as a semi-consonantal verb, we must observe the evidences of contraction which are furnished in the former case by the second person singular of the present indicative, and by the present infinitive. Thus, while audi-o gives us audis audi-is, audi-re audi-ere, and audi-ri = audi-eri, cap-i-o gives us cap-is, cap-ère, and capi. Besides this, as we have already seen (above, Ch. XI. §8), the vowelverb is generally confined to an agglutinate perfect in -vi. There are indeed irregularities, which must be learned by expe = = rience, and which generally flow from the copartnership in different tenses of two distinct verbs, as when peto, pětere have a perfect and participle petivi and petītus, from a lost verb in -io, or when cupio, cupivi, cupītus, have an infinitive cupère, as though the i were a semi-consonantal adjunct. But the general distinctions of conjugations are those which discriminate the declensions of nouns. § 2. The first or a Conjugation. In laying down the general rules for the conjugation of a Latin verb, the grammarian has to consider, in the first instance, whether the perfect indicative (A. III.), or the passive participle (E. III.), present any deviation from the form of the verb; and he must then inquire what is the cause of this irregularity. Now, as we have seen in the previous chapter, the Latin verb has three forms of A. III.: (a) the proper or reduplicated perfect; (B) the aorist perfect in -si; (7) the composite, or agglutinate, perfect in -vi or -ui, from fui. According to the general rule already given, the vowel-verb is properly limited to the third form of the perfect active. In point of fact, there are only two exceptions to this rule in the case of the -a verb, and these two exceptions give us the regular or reduplicated perfect. But the two verbs, in which this form is found, are both of them irregular. For do, which makes A. III. dedi, D. I. dăre, and E. III. dătus, does not fully and properly belong to the vowelverbs, but partly also to the same class as its compounds con-do, con-dis, con-didi, con-dere, con-ditus. It is true that we have dâs for the second person singular of A. I., and that the common form of C. I. is dem, des, det, &c.; but duim is the old form of the latter; and the quantity of a in dăbam, dărem, shows that we have not to do with a verb of which the characteristic is a, but with one which preserves this form of its root or articulation Vowel. The old du-im, compared with the Umbrian, Oscan, and Tuscan tu- (above, pp. 125, 129, 184), the German thun, &c., would lead us to the conclusion that u was the most ancient articulation-vowel of this root. In its primitive meaning, do reverts to the same sense as our "do," and the German thun. Like the Old Norse and Etruscan lata, and like sino in Latin, and sri in Etruscan, do is used not only with prepositions, but with other verbal roots, signifying "doing," or "causing," as |