For adjectives we will briefly refer to shall-ow (shoal), callow (Germ. kahl), fallow, (Germ. beach), sallow, yellow ; blackish, whitish; to " stony," " boisterous," cruivat, " nimble," mass, I3paxos, &c.; to the Latin ferax, cdax (40), and tear ; to molli-s, turpi-s (beside mollic-ulus, turpicftdus), to tact us, tristia, justus, amicus (beside the irregular yet fairly established comparatives, laetic-ior, tristic-ior, justic-ior, anticit-ior, and the undoubted nouns, laetit-ia, tristit-ia, juatit-ia, In the ease of a verb, as Dr. Johnson has noticed when speaking of our own jingle, sprinkle, the addition of a diminutival suffix implies "a frequency or iteration of small acts." This character belongs essen tially to many verbs, as for example, to the ideas of "rubbing. digging. writing, talking." A suffix then of diminutival power will be well applied in auch cases, and indeed generally to a continued state of things. It is this way that ay or ax, with its varieties plays such an important part in the Greek verbs, specimens of which have been already quoted, as op-ocrow, &c., in the Homeric iterativea in EC le-On,in the Latin so-called inceptives rep uer-ase-o, arcl-csc-o, as also, lac-ess-o, expet-ess-o,incip-iss-o ; the Italian, fin-ise-o ; French. fin iss-ant, and our own fin-ish. Again, the suffix appears almost uncorrupted in pl-ag- (plango), in trap- (traho; traxi), in pl-ec- (plecto), flee- (fieeto), gnic- (nitor), frog- (fruor, fructus, fruges), strut,- (struo, struxi), keg &coo, fluxi); and softened into a labial or semi-vowel vol-v-o (our wallow), solv-o (our sl-aek), and with the consonant alone preserved in spar-g-o, mer-g-o, ver-g-o, ter-g-o.
But passing from these individual words to the secondary or vowel conjugations, the special use of which is. to denote continued action, I there is strong reason for the belief that the vowels which characterise these conjugations, are themselves but the remnants of the diminuti ' val affix agle ; and this is the reason why the first conjugation so thoroughly outnumbers the others. The derived nouns, mirac-ulum , spirac-iclum, orac-colunc, antbidac-rum, larac-runt, when compared with Jac-ilium, tell us in plain terms that the verbs, mire-, spire-, ors-,ambula-, lace-, had once a final guttural ; rorag-o and solac-i am (which is the true form, not solatium), say the same in behalf of verbs, vor-agh, sol-agh. The Greek Doric future yesta/co, as we have already said, gives the best evidence that 7eXa- stands for and so brings it into the closest connection with the German laeh-el-n, and our own laugh. But the pro nunciation of this English verb reminds us, that we have to look for a a labial substitute in the classical language. The verb as well as scalpo and scribo, all three related words, may be taken as examples. But it is in the first conjugation that the labial form most abundantly presents itself, as shown by the four classes of derivatives, which we represent by the examples : a. roc-eh-Own, compared with jac-ulunt ;
b. eontion-ab-undus (over 60), compared with the participle reg-undus ; c. am-ab-ilis, compared with ut-i/is (400), and the tense forms am-ab-am , am-ab-o, which are of course coextensive with the conjugation itself. Thus in am-at-a-nt it is only the third a which, as in er-a-m, o-Tc8e-a, denotes past time, and the junction of the two suffixes makes up the idea of " past imperfect ; " while in am-ab-o, which is without the suffix of past time, we have an imperfect present, and this in many languages is the ordinary form for a future; and the case occurs too in the Greek Eau " I shall go," and the Lat. cr-o " I shall be," neither of which have any special suffix of futurity. The Sanskrit e-kar-ar-ant " I was doing, from the root kri or tar "do," has in the two last syllables, what confirms the explanation of am-ab-a-m. What has been said is far from all that the subject suggests, but it is time to proceed to other matters.
The pronouns of the third person, whether demonstrative, relative, or interrogative, have in all languages an intimate connection with one another. That the so-called definite article had for its original power the idea of this is generally admitted. .Then, as regards what appears at first sight to be a formidable difference, that between the ideas of " this " and " that," Bopp observes in his `Grammar' (§ 371), "That which in Sanskrit signifies this ' means also for the most part `that; the mind (he should rather have said the finger) supplying the place, whether near or remote." Exactly in the same way, it is only by repe tition that the idea of another attaches itself to the Latin word alias. In form it represents the Sanskrit an ya , and, except the last letter, is absolutely in form and origin identical with our own any (Germ. ein-ig), which is but a diminutive of an or one (Germ. cis). Thus, " aliud cat maledicere, aliud accusare," receives its strictest interpre tation in the words "it is one thing to abuse, one to accuse." Then a,oain, the relative is habitually repreeented by words which are admit tedly demou,stratival in power and origin, as in our own phrase, " the man del I saw," or, still more simply," the man I saw," where it is an error tOIrrOdbe that any pronoun is understood. So in Greek, more especially for the lonio dialect, it Is often idle to draw a distinction between the article rev/ and the relative veto. Our old poets, too, use Acre, gestee, with the meaning of srAere, wAtmee. Conversely in Latin conjunctions, such as peerless, the literal translation of eras', In opine of its identity in form with the reletive, is just the same as that of oleos In esocAdete,— namely, " this," referring to the words that follow. Precisely In the seine way, et, so closely connected with the Latin relative that it may be regarded as • shortened form of qsod, marrespenda for the most part in use with our own conjunction that.