The subjunctive, as already stated, has originally primary, the optative secondary end ings; but in Sanskrit the former has taken some secondary endings, and in Greek the latter some primary endings. The:c endings are sig ' niticant. The Optative goes with the imperative and injunctive, modes of wish and command; the subjunctive with the future. shall and may. Delbriick believes that the subjunctive originally expressed will the optative wish. But Ids categorical system of syntax is unable to explain the potential sense of the optative and the future sense of the subjunctive. The subjunctive origi nally connoted a vague shall-will, at time pleasure of the speaker. The primitive subjunctives, gSoilae, (n), are, in fact, simple futures. So the optative expressed both should and might. in Latin the subjunctive is Imitly optative. The llomerie sub junetive is later limited to half of it: fauetions. Sanskrit has a distinct preeative optative to expre:s wi:h. Here, as elsewhere in grammar, linguistic umehinery of a rough sort was slowly adapted to growing needs, and many shades of meaning were expressed Under one foram. Vulgar English shows nintinuall?• how people without discrimination get along very connfortahly with the same tense and mode and ending for many situations. In regard to the imperative, which has seeondary ending:, it was originally used only in the present and for commands, not for Tu'o hibitious. /4 is used with the junctive aorist, and later with the present im perfe4t only as all extension. So a subordinate negative clause takes ah, 6c µi1 gNOn,( 'shall not mine') I. Thence the use was eXteluled with indicative). Some scholars claim that the optative was originally potential, for time pure Optative is used with m of with Fo, (for wish). It is worth not b-ing. confliction with the Greek serondarY s. that when used wit lout augment they may always indicate a command, as in the Sanskrit injunctive, which is an unaugmented preterite.
The of the meaning of eases, of tenses. and of noaal: does not exhaust the store of syntactical problem: upon which light has li,pn thrown by emiqoarative philology: hut these are the most important aspeet: and them show suffi ciently what has been aecomplishe;1. The dis covery of new eases (instrumental and locative) in Sanskrit, not recognized in the classical lan guages, laid the basis for a thorough treatment of ease-relations; as the discovery of the injunc tive and the Vedic values of subjunctive, optative, aorist, and perfect first clarified the problems connected with the verb.
Momma TENDENCIES. A typical example of the relation between the stages of growth in the study of philology is given by etymology (q.v.). Before Pott there was an utter want or scientific method. Pott opposed this looseness. again opposed Pott for thirty years on the ground that Pott was not strict enough. The grammarians" in their turn attacked Curt ius because he refused to admit that phonetic law is irrefragable.
:More recent studies have made etymology much stricter still. To cite a famous example, of all the parallels in the names of Greek and Hindu gods utilized by :Muller in his mythological studies. only one ease. Dyaus-Zeus, is now re garded as certain. On the other baud, in the question of irrefragable phonetic law, the modern tendency has been to claim that the new school went too far. Bechtel. in 1892, and since then other scholars have questioned the validity of the shibboleth of 'changeless law.' Other doubts have arisen in the last decade on other fields. Stress accent has been replaced in part by nor sisal accent in importance. Schmidt's' wave theory has been modified. Semitic influence, as shown in numbers, has been replaced by a puta tive Dravidian influence. but this matter is un settled. In geography, Lyeian and Carian have been definitively removed from the field of the Indo-European languages. The importance and antiquity of Pali (q.v.) has been brought to the fore. The possibility of reconstructing a 'parent language' has been rendered quite doubtful. Syntax has virtually been built up by one great German scholar, Delbriick. It was the latest task of philology. Naturally the principles thus swift ly built into a system by one man are open to revision. Signs are apparent that the categorical
method hitherto employed has ceased to he useful in. helping to discover the genesis of syntactical ehange. Delbriick himself has admitted that his results are founded chiefly on subjective impres si(m. Other scholars question, not the value of the facts amassed by Delbriick, but their interpreta tion, in critieism that began with Whitney and has tacitly been accepted by Brugmann, Speyer, and other interpreters of syntactical data. In like manner the motive of phonetic change as ex plained by Delbriick has recently been attacked by Wundt, :Meyer, and Oertel, who have respec tively sought to show that phonetic change depends largely on ease (or speed), strength of expiration. and geographical environment.
But besides laying stress on new points of view of minor importance, such as haplography, philology has recently brought to the fore one prineiple and elevated it into the dignity of a new branch of the study under the name of semasiology (q.v.). In 1897 BOal published his Eskai de semantique, which organized into a sys tematic whole, under different categories, trans fers of meaning in the evolution of words. Con tigu i ty, and contrast were shown to cause changes of meaning. Our word 'pike' for 'road,' for example, arose from 'turn pike road,' with a gradual reduction of the phrase to its most eharacteristic element (the pike or pole which turned the stile at a tollgate) to represent the whole.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Brugmann and ikthotr, NorBibliography. Brugmann and ikthotr, Nor- phologische Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 18!10) ; Brugmann and Delbriick, Grandriss der rerglei chenden. Sprach wis.senschilf ( Strassburg, 1880 1900 ) ; Cu rt i us, Grandziige der griechischen Etymologie (Leipzig, 1879) id., kritik der neueren, Spruchtrisscnschaft (ib., 1885) ; Fick, Vcryleichendes Worterbuch der inrlogcrinanisclrcn Sprachen (4th ed., vols. i. and ii., 1891-94) Leskien, Die Declination im Slarischen, Litanischen and Gcr•manisehcn (Leipzig., 1870) ; Ludwig, Agglutination oiler Adaption (Prague, 1879) ; Paul, Prinzipicn der Sprachgcschichte (3d ed., Halle, 1898) ; Delbrfick, Syntaktische Porsvhinyen (ib., 1871-88) ; J. Schmidt, Plural bildungen der indogermanisehen Neutra 1889) ; Schrader, Sprachrerylciehang and Urge schichte (Jena, 1890) ; id., I,'euticxikrnt (ler indo germ a n i schen A lt en' h u m sk ?lode ( St rassburg, 1901) ; Max Mfiller, Lectures on. the Science of Language (revised ed., New York, 1891) ; Whit ney, Life and Growth of Language (ib., 1875). For the history of the study, consult: Henley, Geschichle der ,S'praehwissenseha ft 1809) ; Steinthal, Gcschic1rte der Sprachwissen schrift bci den. Gricchen und llomern (2(1 ed., Berl in, 1889) ; DelbnIXk. Pinleit ny in dos Sprachstudium (3d ed., Leipzig, 1893) : Wheeler, Introduction to the Study of the History of Language (New York, 1890). Excellent manuals (ire: Henry, Prr'cis de grammaire compan'e (Paris, 1888) ; Brugmann, Oricehisehe Gram matik; Stolz, Late inisehe Grammatik; Sehmalz, Lateinischc Syntax (the last three in -Biller, Handbuch dcr klassdschen Alterthums-Thissen schaft (3d ed., Munich, 1900). Consult also: Waekernagel, Altindische Grammatik (G?Atin gen, 1890, incomplete) : Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax (Leyden, 1890) ; Franke, Pali and Sanskrit (Strassburg, 1902) ; Gray, [ado-Iranian Phonol ogy (New York. 1902) : Pisehel, Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachcn (Strassburg, 1900) : Br6:11, Essen de sfmantigue (Paris, lS.197; translated with an introduction by Ppstgate, London, 1900) ; Van Wijk, Dcr nominate Genitir-Singular (Leipzig, 1902) ; Knudtson, Die zwei A rzawa Briefe (ib., 1902) Wechsler, Gicbt c.s Lau/ge 1900) : Wundt, Volkerpsychologie ( 1900) ; :Morris, On Principles and Ileth od in syntax (New York, 1901) ; Gertel, Lector's on the Study of Language (ib.. 1901); Dc/briiek, Grandfragen, der Sprachforschung (Strassbnrg, 1901) : Wundt. Spraehgesehichte and Spruch Psychologic (Leipzig, 1901) ; a reply to the last, Delbriiek, Das Wcsen, der Lautgcsetze 1902) ; and Meillet, Introduction. a /'chide des tangoes indo-europeennes (Paris, 1903).