consonants M, S, T, of the singular number and of the third person plural, are articulated with a short i", - from which we see that at that time he had not come to the conclusion, as he did later, that mi arose from ma.

In the above exposition our attention is first of all attracted by the reference to SCHEIDIUS, who is said to have already established the principle of composition "very satisfactorily”. He refers to the detailed treatment of the question contained in L. C. Valckenarii observationes acad. et Jo. Dan. a Lennep praelectiones academicae rec. Everardus Scheidius (Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1790), page 275 seq. Leaving it to the reader to enjoy the various etymological fantasies, I will only quote the words of SCHEID which are of interest for the main question. They are as follows:

"Memini equidem, quum ante hos octodecim, et quod excurrit, annos, contubernio fruerer viri summi, quem honoris causa nomino, Joannis Jacobi Schultensii, inter familiares sermones, quibus de linguarum indole agebatur, narrare Schultensium, virum suavissimum et harum rerum elegantissimum arbitrum, Lennepio placuisse, ut, quemadmodum in verbis orientalium, adformantes, quae dicuntur, temporis praeteriti proprie essent syllabae literaeve, a pronominibus antiquis quasi resectae: ita et in Graecorum verborum temporibus personisque eadem fuisset sermonis ratio."

We see from this passage that Bopp's view of the personal endings was finally suggested by Hebrew grammar.

Now that the principle of composition was once recommended in this way, it is no wonder that it was also applied in other cases than in the tenses compounded with as, and in the personal suffixes, - so, for instance, in the optative, whose 7 is first explained in the Analytical Comparison, page 23, as the verb "wish", "desire". Of real inflection in SCHLEGEL'S sense of the term BOPP in the Analytical Comparison retains only certain vowel-changes (so the ai of the middle voice, which he did not then explain by means of composition, as he did later), and reduplication. (Pages 12 and 34.)

After Bopp's view had been formulated in the two ways above mentioned, in the Conjugationssystem and the Analytical

Comparison, it assumed at length a third and final shape, which was first introduced in a series of academical essays, and at last appeared in the Comparative Grammar, and which chiefly differs from the second form in more and more exclusively emphasizing the principle of composition, as well as applying it to those departments of grammar which had not been treated in the Conjugationssystem and the Analytical Comparison.

This theory is now intelligible without further preface, and we can sum it up briefly as follows:

The words of the Indo-European languages must be derived from roots, which are all monosyllabic. There are two classes of roots, viz., verbal roots, from which spring verbs and nouns, and pronominal roots, from which pronouns, primitive prepositions, conjunctions and particles have their origin. (Cf. beside the Vergleichende Grammatik, § 107, also Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1831, page 13 seq.)

The case-endings are at least for the most part 1) pronouns by origin. Thus the s of the nominative is derived from the pronoun sa; the m of the accusative recalls the Sanskrit pronominal stem i-ma; the T-sound of the ablative comes from the same pronominal stem ta to which the neuter d in id also owes its origin, etc. (Cf. Abh. der Akad., 1826, page 98.)

The personal endings of the verb are derived from the pronouns of the first, second and third person; mi is a weakening of the syllable ma, "which in Sanskrit and Zend forms the underlying theme for the oblique cases of the simple pronoun". From mi is further derived m. In the plural ending mas, is found either as, the plural characteristic of nouns, or the pronominal element sma. The v of the dual is only a corruption of the plural m. The endings of the second person in similar fashion go back to tea, those of the third person to ta (for nti v. below, page 15). Bopp does not express a confident

1) "For the most part", because a few endings (os and sum) are not considered as accounted for, and sometimes a symbolical explanation (v. below, page 15) is attempted.

opinion in regard to the middle endings, but he thinks it probable that they are due to the doubling of the corresponding active endings.

As for the characteristics of the present stem, like vo in Ceúyvout, it is most probable that the greater part of these are

pronouns.

The augment, which is mentioned in connection with the imperfect, is considered by BOPP (Vgl. Gr., § 537, and even earlier in the Analytical Comparison, page 27) as identical with a privative, and is therefore regarded by him as a negation of present time. But he also admits the possibility of connecting it directly with the pronominal stem a "that", to which, moreover, he regards the negative particle itself as related.

In the S-aorist the s belongs to the substantive verb, and the explanation of the composition is that the imperfect of as (but without the augment) forms the end of it. "I recognize", he says in § 542, "in this s the substantive verb, with the imperfect of which the first form [of the aorist] wholly coïncides, except that the ã of ásam etc. is lost". The sya of the S-future, such as dāsyáti, BOPP regards as the future of as, which is lost in its isolated use. Beside this, he thinks it probable that all verbs once possessed a future formed by means of ya, and that this ya itself, as well as the sign of the optative, comes from the root i "wish".

In the aya of causatives he discovers the verb i "go" (as well as yā "go" in the ya of the Sanskrit passive), and in the s of desideratives the substantive verb.

The same composition is met with in certain formations of the individual languages, e. g. ama-vī, in which the root bhū can be recognized; ama-rem, where we find the root as, etc.) (Cf. Vgl. Gr., § 521.)

Finally, the stem-forming suffixes are partly of pronominal, partly of verbal origin (e. g. dātar "giver" means really "he who walks through the action of giving", from dā "give" and tar "walk through”).

1) On the other hand, BOPP does not assume that new root-words could arise in an individual language. (Cf. preface to the third section of the Vgl. Gr., 1st edition, page XIV.)

Beside this explanation by composition, a second is sometimes brought forward, the symbolical. Thus the following remark is made concerning the dual: "The dual, inasmuch as it is founded upon a clearer observation than the more indefinite plurality, prefers the fullest endings, as conducing to stronger emphasis and a more vivid personification." (Vgl. Gr., § 206.) The same is true of the feminine, "which in Sanskrit prefers a luxuriant fullness of form, in the stem as well as in the case-endings." (§ 113.) The n is also symbolic in the third person plural -nti, which is supposed to be formed from ti by the insertion of a nasal. He considers that this insertion is the least strange of admixtures, and the nearest approach to the simple lengthening of an already existing vowel. (§ 236; cf. also § 226.)

If we compare this final aspect of BOPP's views with the preceding one, we observe that SCHLEGEL's influence has dwindled down to a slight remnant. For the ai of the middle endings, in which BOPP formerly saw an inner inflection of the root, is now rather explained by composition, and therefore reduplication alone remains as a sort of inner modification of the root. (And even this reduplication, which perhaps was originally the repeated root, cannot be called an "inner" change in any strict sense of the word.)

Accordingly it was natural that Bopp should formally declare his disagreement with FR. SCHLEGEL, by a keen polemic in the Comparative Grammar. The passage referred to is as follows:

"By 'inflection' FR. V. SCHLEGEL understands the inner change of the root-sound, or the inner modification of the root, to which he opposes affixion from without. But if the Greek δίδωμι, δώσω, δοθησόμεθα come from 8ο or δω, what else are the forms μι, σω, θησόμεθα except evident external additions to the root, which in its interior is either not changed at all, or only in the quantity of the vowel? If, then, we are to understand by 'inflection' an inner modification of the root, Sanskrit, Greek etc. scarcely exhibit any inflection at all, with the exception of reduplication, which is derived from the resources of the root itself. If, on the other

hand, cóueda is an inner modification of the root do, simply because it is connected with it, is adjacent to it, and together with it represents a whole, then the notion of sea and main land could as appropriately represent a modification of the sea, or the reverse.'

99

We can characterize the theory of BOPP, as developed above, leaving out the slight symbolical addition, as the composition or agglutination theory 1).

I will not attempt here a more detailed criticism of the agglutination theory, but will leave it for the fifth chapter. I would like, however, to call attention again to the fact that BOPP's explanations have not, as has been supposed, spontaneously arisen as the natural consequence of comparison, but that they have grown out of various and independent views and conclusions. For in addition to the suggestive stimulus resulting from the details of the investigation itself, Bopp had also in mind bits of the learned tradition of former times, as for instance the prejudice in favor of the threefold nature of the parts of speech, which seems to have first given rise to the idea that the substantive verb is to be recognized in the shape of various s's in the verbal forms; further, the transmitted theory that roots are to be regarded as monosyllabic; and finally, the tradition derived from Hebrew grammar, that we have to recognize affixed pronouns in the personal suffixes of the verb.

II. Bopp's method of comparing given languages.

Having discussed BOPP's theory of inflection in the first section of this chapter, I will now treat of his comparison of given individual languages. Of course it cannot be my aim to record the results which have been attained through BOPP's comparison of the Indo-European languages; I will simply attempt to describe the method which BOPP employed.

We must not, however, expect from BOPP a systematic answer, which shall comprehend all separate instances, either on this point or any other. BOPP's method of demonstration is

1) It was so named first by LASSEN, with the intention of casting a slur upon it. (Cf. POTT, Etymologische Forschungen, 1st edition, 1, 179.)