active jacere, passive jacere; active pandere, passive patēre; active pendère, passive pendēre; active scandĕre, passive scatēre; (b) active liquāre, passive liquēre; active parāre, parère, passive parēre; active sedāre, passive sedere. Now it is well known that the insertion of ya between the root and the ending forms the passive voice in Sanscrit (New Crat. § 379), and I have shown (ibid. § 381) that a similar explanation is applicable to the Greek passive aorists in -Onu and -nv; and as one of these aorists is ἔστην = ἔστάγαμι, we may conclude that the irregular stāre, which is opposed to sistère, stands for sta-yere or steh-yere (above, p. 373), and in the same way we shall bring back to this conjugation fugère, which is similarly opposed to fugare. The next section will point out the distinction between these verbs formed with the pronominal ya, and those which have the verb eo, as an auxiliary accretion. With regard to = those now under consideration, as in the case of the subordinate verb-forms in Hebrew, it depends upon the nature of the primary element whether the verb is intransitive, as in the instances just adduced, or causative, intensive, or frequentative, as in others which might be cited. Thus mon-eo, which contains the root men- implying thought and recollection (me-min-i, &c.), bears a causative meaning. Har-eo, like the Greek aip-éw, is an intensive form of a root not unconnected with the Latin hir, "a hand;" Umbrian here, "to take;" Sanscrit, hary, "to love” (see above, pp. 92, 98). The substantive hæres or heres (hærēdhær-vad, above, p. 122) is connected with this verb, in the sense of "property-dependent," just as in English law there is a distinction of immediate or intermediate derivation between a person who takes by limitation, and one who takes by purchase, i. e. from the person last seized. It may be doubted whether "hear,” hören, and their unaspirated derivatives “ear,” ohr, may not be derived from this root, so that hæren will signify "to catch," i. e. a sound. If so, hæres, as implying dependence, will approximate in origin and meaning to cliens, "the hearer,” or hæriger, according to Niebuhr's etymology (H. R. I. p. 323, note 823). In the verbs hab-eo and ten-eo the root-meaning is seriously modified by the affix. For hab-eo must correspond in root to gib-a, gafa, "give," and these, as Grimm has shown (Abh. Ak. Berlin, 1848), fall back upon xéw=xéFw (cf. vpaivw, ipń with O. H. G. wipu, wap; O. N. vef, vaf; Sanscr. vap; 66 66 Engl. "weave"); and the form xiv, which shows a remnant of the F in its, is clearly connected with xéFw (see Hom. Il. XII. 281: ὥστε νιφάδες χιόνος πίπτουσι......κοιμήσας δ' ἀνέμους χέει ἔμπεδον) : similarly, we have χίλιοι from χιλός, " a heap of fodder," also connected with xéw (New Crat. § 163). Consequently, the root hab- must imply originally rather "to pour out and give," than "to have" or "possess." Similarly, ten-eo, which contains the same root as Ta-vu-w, "to stretch out," and ten-do, falls back upon the old epic imperative 7, “take thou.” Although the formative adjunct ya has inverted the ideas of giving and taking in hab-eo and ten-eo, we find that they are only partially kept distinct in the former. Thus, while the root ten-, when strengthened by the adjunct -do, has quite a different meaning from ten-eo, we find that habeo, in its compounds perhibeo, præbeo=præ-hibeo, quite reverts to the primitive meaning of the root, for both these words imply a holding forth and giving, as though præbere meant præ se habere like præ se ferre, or prætendere. The same is the case with exw (see Arnold on Thucyd. I. 9) and still more with wapéxw, whence comes the technical use of wapox", "supplying," "furnishing," and the later parochus, "a purveyor" (Hor. I. Serm. 5, 43), or "entertainer" (id. ibid. II. 8, 36). This technical sense of rapéxw has been overlooked in Thucyd. IV. 39 : βρώματα ἐγκατελήφθη ὁ γὰρ ἄρχων Επιτάδας ἐνδεεστέρως παρεῖχεν ἢ πρὸς τὴν ἐξουσίαν. When habeo denotes a state or condition it generally takes the reflexive pronoun se, where the Greek uses exw absolutely with an adverb in -ws: but Sallust (Cat. 6) has: "sicuti pleraque mortalium habentur" for se habent. Metaphysical considerations (New Crat. § 53) might lead us to infer that habeo not only includes the ideas of holding forth or giving, and of having or keeping, but also conveys the antecedent notion of desiring, under the form aveo or haveo, which falls back on the Semitic But whatever reason we may have for connecting .אָוָה or אָהַב T TT habeo or haveo with this Hebrew root, there are two verbs in -eo, which strongly support the ethnographical theory respecting the Sclavonism of the old Italians, and their consequent Semitic affinities. These are deb-eo, of which I have spoken above (p. 76), and misc-eo. The latter, which appears with a medial auslaut in the Greek uíoyw, is represented under both forms by the Hebrew 70 and (found in the noun "mixed wine"); compare the Arabic مشج Sclav. mjeshu, Polish mieszam, Bohemian misyti, Russian s-mjeshať, Persian, O. H. G. misc-jan, Lith. maiszyti, Gael. measgaim, Sanser. miç-ra, &c. From the extreme antiquity and universal prevalence of this compound root, and from the formative affix with which it appears as a verb in most of the Indo-Germanic languages, it is fair to conclude that its origin is to be sought in a pronominal combination analogous in meaning and form to the Irish measg, among," "between," Welsh ym-musk, Greek μe-tá, μé-opa, Mé-xp, μéoσos, Lat. me-dius, Hebrew in, which would serve as a sufficient basis for such a causative verb. It has been mentioned above (p. 76), in a general way, that deb-eo is connected with the important Semitic and Sclavonian root, dhob, and dob, signifying "good." But it will be necessary in this place to justify this comparison with especial reference to the formative syllable of the conjugation. In its impersonal use, oportet corresponds to the personal and impersonal use of debeo, and as the former is clearly connected with opus, so the latter expresses, as Forcellini says, rationem officii, convenire, oportere, obstrictum esse ad aliquid faciendum. In both, the ideas of interest and duty are mixed up, and in general, when we say that it is good for us to do anything, we combine in one notion the thought of a moral fitness or propriety and that of an advantage to be gained. We feel that we owe it to ourselves, when we feel that we owe it to our principles or to our fellowmen. Hence, being in debt, which is the reverse of a good thing, is expressed by an application of the verb, which conveys the idea of justice or moral obligation, just as officium, "duty," belongs to the same family with officit, or obest, "it harms." In English we have only one word for what we "owe" and what we ought to do;" and the German sollen, "to be in duty bound" (connected with our "shall," and "should"), belongs to the same root as schuld, "a debt." The Greek phrase δίκαιός εἰμι τοῦτο ποιεῖν, “I am in justice bound to do this”= "I ought to do it," shows how the two ideas run into one another. But the most decisive illustration of the etymology of deb-eo is furnished by the affinity between the Greek ó-péλλw, "to increase," enlarge," "benefit," "aggrandize," o-peλos, "advantage," "help," "profit," w-peλéw, "to be of service" (all from the root phel-, "to swell," and all showing the ordinary meaning of i and dob), and their derivatives opλ-σк-á-vw, “to incur an obligation," and o-peiλw=ó-péλ-yw, “to owe," the impersonal use of which opeiλet, "it is fitting," reverts to the meaning of the other class of words and of the Latin oportet and opus est. As then o-peλw-opéλ-yw, with the same pronominal adjunct ya, forms the expression of duty from that of advantage, so deb-eo by the same machinery passes to the same extension of the primitive dob, "a fitting time," dob-ro, "good, useful," &c. § 4. The third or -i Conjugation. The best general rule for distinguishing between the verbs in -io, which belong to the vowel-conjugation, and those which have for their characteristic the letter i considered as a semiconsonant, or vocalization of a guttural, has been already given (§ 1). With regard to their origin and analysis, we must consider the former as an extension of the -e conjugation, and while the vowel-verbs in -io will thus represent a set of derivatives in which a crude form in -i is strengthened by the affix -ya, in which case there will always be a contraction, the semi-consonantal verbs, which outwardly resemble them, merely strengthen the present and its immediate offspring with a vocalized guttural, to which the person-endings are attached without any intermediate agency. Thus, as we shall see in the next chapter, all verbs of the third conjugation are derived from nouns actually existing in i, or which may be inferred from the inflexions of existing nouns, while the semi-consonant verbs have no such primitives. We see the manner in which the second conjugation is included in the third, from a verb of the second conjugation, of which the root happens to end in the vowel -i, and which, therefore, is liable to the double contraction observable in all genuine i verbs. From the root ci- (Greek ki-w) we have, with an entire correspondence of meaning, two forms ci-eo and ci-o, and as the perfect is always civi, we must consider the latter as a condensation of the former. The great peculiarity of this verb is that its participle (E. III.) is indifferently citus or citus, the latter being found not only in compounds like concitus, incitus, percitus, but also in the simple form citus, both when it is used as a participle, as in Virgil (Æneid. VIII. 642): Haud procul inde cita Metium in diversa quadriga where we must take cite with in diversa, "chariots moved in different directions ;" and also when it appears as a simple adjective signifying "swift." The short penultima is contrary to all rule; for the participle of ci-eo must be ci-itus=cītus; and we can only explain it as a result of Roman abbreviation. But the existence of the forms cieo and cio is quite sufficient to prove the fact, for which I contend, that true verbs in -i include the formative in -e. And in the next chapter I shall show that, as I have mentioned above ( 1), the same remark applies also to the a verbs. To this rule, respecting the i verbs, there are only two exceptions-the verb eo (root i) and the verb queo (root quen- or kon-). These two verbs are distinguished from the regular verbs in i by their omission of the e in the imperfect ibam, quibam, and by the adoption of the agglutinate form in the futures i-bo, qui-bo. With regard to the former point, although we have occasional exceptions in the poets, as lenibat, polibant, &c., we generally find that the imperfect of the i verb ends in -iebam, as audi-e-bam; and in this particular it is imitated by the semi-consonant verb in i, which gives capiebam, faciebam, fugiebam, &c. With regard to the future, we rarely, if ever, find an -i verb which follows the analogy of ibo, quibo; but in almost every case we have the subjunctive form in -am (-es, -et, &c.), which is invariably adopted by the consonant verbs. The substitution of e for i in the verb eo, which does not involve the formative element of the second conjugation, leads to some momentary confusion with the e- verb, in those instances in which eo is used as an agglutinate auxiliary to express the passive of certain compounds of do and facio, just as the eo verb stands as the corresponding intransitive to verbs merely differing from it in conjugation. Thus we have inter-eo, "I go between," i. e. vanish, by the side of inter-ficio, “ I cause to go between," i. e. make away with; per-eo, "I go through," i. e. disappear, by the side of per-do, "I put through," i. e. annihilate; and similarly, pessum-do (cf. πép0w); ven-eo (=venum eo), "I go for sale," i. e. "I am sold," by the side of ven-do (=venum-do), "I put up for sale," and ven-dico or vin-dico (=venum-dico), "I declare for sale." But the confusion is only instantaneous, for the first comparison shows that these verbs are distinguished from the neuter verbs mentioned above (as pateo, pendeo, sedeo) both by the conjugation of the present |