rests simply upon the intrinsic probability of the supposition that all the suffixes of the second person belong to one stem. Now this probability is not so overwhelmingly great as to exclude all doubt. For why, BRUGMAN asks (Morph. Unters.; 1, page 135), would it not be just as possible to assume two stems for the pronoun of the second person, as for the pronoun of the first person, where the attempt would certainly not be made to trace back forms like nas and vayảm to the same stem-form?

Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation of the middle. endings by means of the double affixion of pronouns. It is true that their connection with the active endings is indubitable, but the method of development of the separate middle forms can hardly be established with certainty. The following.difficulty must be especially considered. SCHLEICHER and CURTIUS explain the separate forms independently, assuming that the process of composition and mutilation has taken place in the case of each one. But is it not quite as natural to assume that the like endings are partly due to a process of borrowing? The other theory, which discovers a vowel-strengthening in the ai of the middle, cannot command our unqualified approval. I must accordingly hold to the opinion expressed in the Synt. Forsch., 4, page 69, viz. that none of the proffered explanations is secure enough for us to be able to erect hypothetical structures, syntactical or otherwise, upon it.

And the same is true with regard to the other questions which come up in this connection. In each separate instance we seem to find that the means at our command are not sufficient to enable us to choose with certainty between the different possibilities of development which are open to us. We must also bear in mind that the forms which we deduce by comparing the individual Indo-European languages have a long period of development behind them, a development which has perhaps so metamorphosed the forms in question as to render it impossible to recognize their original character.

We have already found in our discussion of the notion "root" that there are two periods to be distinguished in the history of the Indo-European, viz., the pre-inflectional or rootperiod, and the inflectional period. BOPP, it is true, did not express this idea in direct terms, and POTT even rejected it (although inconsistently, as we have seen), but we have shown above (page 76) that it is the inevitable consequence of Bopp's analyses. The inflection itself, however, cannot have attained its completeness in a moment, but must have developed by different stages, and hence the inflectional period must be subdivided. Credit is above all due to CURTIUS for having, in his Chronologie, brought into especial prominence the idea that in the development of language, just as in the stratification of rocks, different layers must be recognized.

But it is another question whether he (or any other, as SCHERER, for example) has succeeded in defining with any degree of probability the periods through which the formation of Indo-European inflection has actually passed. As may be inferred from the opinions expressed in this chapter, I do not feel myself in a position to discuss this question. Every hypothetical structure presupposes the existence of a number of single hypotheses, which may be regarded in themselves as securely established, and can then serve as support for the less certain ones. Now after having adopted a more or less skeptical stand-point in regard to each of the individual formanalyses, I must draw the conclusion that no structure can be reared on such a foundation. I must therefore confine myself to the assertion that inflection undoubtedly developed gradually, and not instantaneously, while I question whether the material we possess is sufficient to enable us to define the periods of its development.

The affair would, indeed, present a different aspect if we were in condition to amass new material; and Ascoli has made this attempt. This distinguished philologist, who is at home in the Semitic as well as Indo-European field, assumes that the Indo-European and Semitic parent speech were derived from a common source, and that they even possess certain noun-stems and the rudiments of declension in common. Were this assumption correct, it would prove that the inflec

tion of the Indo-European began with the formation of nounstems. I have too little familiarity with the Semitic field to pass judgment on ASCOLI's reasoning, and must therefore, to my regret, content myself with referring the reader to Ascoli's own demonstration (most accessible in Kritische Studien, page 21).

Having concluded our special discussion, we will now turn back to the beginning of this chapter, and inquire: has the agglutination theory been verified in individual cases? I can scarcely believe that the patient reader, who has followed me through the whole of the above demonstration, will reply with a confident "yes". For in the individual analyses a certain probability, at best, and not infrequently an empty "non liquet" has been the result. Accordingly, at the end of a long and toilsome pilgrimage we find ourselves no nearer the goal. Even now we cannot go beyond our previous assertion, that the principle of agglutination is the only one which furnishes an intelligible explanation of the forms.

There is nothing else we have met with which deserves the name of principle, certainly not the so-called "symbolical" explanation, in which Bopp in some cases takes refuge, and for which Port exhibits a still greater partiality. I do not feel competent to consider this method of explanation more in detail at present. For so far as I can see, it is so subjective that a discussion pro and con cannot be instituted.

Since, now, after our whole discussion the principle of agglutination is all that survives, the question arises whether it would not be better to relinquish philological metaphysics altogether, and confine ourselves to what can be really known; that is, whether we shall not define as the task of Indo-European philology the deduction of the fundamental forms (in SCHLEICHER'S sense), and the explanation of the individual forms from these. As we saw above, JOHANNES SCHMIDT has expressed an opinion which tends in this direction, and many philologists certainly agree with him.

But I do not believe that this view will become general. The attempts to analyze the parts of speech do not, after all,

depend upon the arbitrary decisions and fancies of scholars, but are founded upon certain linguistic facts (as, for example, the resemblance of the personal and stem-forming suffixes to certain pronouns, and the like), and therefore will probably be repeated in future. Whether, indeed, in after times a more satisfactory result will be attained, it is not the province of the present to decide.

CHAPTER VI.

PHONETIC LAWS. 1)

After having briefly shown in Part First how the notion of phonetic law has been constantly increasing in importance in the field of philology, I now pass to its discussion, which I shall handle in the following manner: I shall first explain the stand-point of GEORG CURTIUS, and then append my own treatment of the subject. I do not aim to say anything new in this discussion, but will merely strive to give a brief though comprehensive outline of what has been said by others.

In order to fully appreciate the stand-point of G. CURTIUS, we must remember (what may be easily forgotten nowa-days, when CURTIUS' principles are often opposed as being too lax) that his especial endeavor was to prove that a more rigorous order exists in the realm of sounds than his predecessors had succeeded in establishing, and thus to place etymology on a surer foundation. In the Grundzüge, 5th edition, page 80 [English translation, 1, page 104], he says:

1 The more recent literature on this subject may be found in the detailed and instructive essay of MISTELI on "Phonetic Laws and Analogy" (Lautgesetz und Analogie), in LAZARUS & STEINTHAL's Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, 11, page 365 seq. In the following pages not only what is quoted by MISTELI, but also the essays of BENFEY and his adherents, on the same topic, are especially taken into account.

"If there really had occurred in the history of language such very sporadic variations and completely diseased and unaccountable corruptions of sound as are confidently assumed by many scholars, we should be obliged to renounce etymologising altogether. For it is only what is regular, and internally coherent, that can be scientifically investigated; what is arbitrary can at most be guessed at, never decided with certainty. The case is however, I believe, not quite so bad as that", but (page 81) "it is precisely in the life of sounds that fixed laws may be most surely discovered, which act almost with the consistency of the forces of nature".

CURTIUS, therefore, although he does distinguish an irregular or sporadic substitution of sounds [Lautvertretung], in opposition to the regular one, would by no means assert that phonetic change is in part exempt from all laws, and given over to chance and arbitrary action. "It is needless to say”, as he remarks farther on (page 90), "that we do not regard either the one or the other class of phonetic change as accidental, but rather start with the opinion that laws penetrate this phonetic side of the language, as they do the whole."

How it is possible, despite this regularity, which prevails throughout language, for corruptions and abnormal changes to occur in the substitution of sounds, will become clear to us if we consider more closely the nature of this regularity.

In the first place, CURTIUS sees in all phonetic movement a pervading tendency or inclination. The fundamental tendency of phonetic change is a descending, diminishing one, or as CURTIUS prefers to call it, "disintegration" [ Verwitterung]. "For in fact it is very natural to make a comparison with the stones, which are gradually diminished and wasted by atmospheric influences, yet in spite of this retain their core so persistently." (Page 409 [trans., 2, page 4].) Of course in the case of sounds the cause of the diminution does not lie in the action of external forces, but depends upon human convenience, which ever strives to make the pronunciation easier and easier. "Convenience is and remains the chief factor in phonetic change under all circumstances." (Page 23, note.) But this convenience displays itself chiefly in two tendencies. First, there is an inclination to exchange the less convenient