III.

GRAMMATICA.

ON THE RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS, AND ON THE RECIPROCAL POWER OF THE REFLECTIVE VERB.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, MARCH 22. 1844.

The present paper is upon the reciprocal pronouns, and upon certain forms of the verb used in a reciprocal sense. It is considered that these points of language have not been put forwards with that prominence and care which their value in the solution of certain problems in philology requires. Too often the terms Reciprocal and Reflective have been made synonymous. How far this is true may be determined by the fact that the middle verbs in the Icelandic language have been called by so great a philologist as Rask _reciprocal_ instead of _reflective_. This is equivalent to treating sentences like _we strike ourselves_, and _we strike each other_, as identical. Yet the language with which Rask was dealing (the Icelandic) was the one of all others wherein the difference in question required to be accurately drawn, and fully pointed out. (See Anvisning till Isländskan, pp. 281, 283.)

In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual

## action there are in reality two assertions, viz. the assertion that

A _strikes_ (or _loves_) B, and the assertion that B _strikes_ (or _loves_) A; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expression exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other_ are elliptical for _Eteocles and Polynices killed_--_each the other_. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic. The first is without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.

When words equivalent to _each other_ coalesce, and become compound; it is evident that the composition is of a very peculiar kind. Less, however, for these matters than for its value in elucidating the origin of certain deponent verbs does the expression of reciprocal action merit the notice of the philologist. In the latter part of the paper it will appear that for one branch of languages, at least, there is satisfactory evidence of a reflective form having become reciprocal, and of a reciprocal form having become deponent; this latter word being the term for those verbs whereof the meaning is active, and the form passive.

Beginning with those methods of denoting mutual action where the expression is the least explicit and unequivocal, it appears that in certain languages the reciprocal character of the verb is implied rather than expressed. _Each man looked at his brother_--or some equivalent clause, is the general phraseology of the Semitic languages.

More explicit than this is the use of a single pronoun (personal, possessive, or reflective) and of some adverb equivalent to the words _mutually_, _interchangeably_, &c. This is the habit of the Latin language,--_Eteocles et Polynices invicem se trucidaverunt_: also of the French, although not invariably, e. g. _s'entr'aimer_, _s'entredire_, _s'entrebattre_: also of the Mœso-Gothic--galeikái sind barnam tháim vôpjandam seina _missô_ = ὅμοιοί εἰσι παιδίοις τοῖς προσφωνούσιν ἀλλήλοις = loquentibus ad invicem.--Luc. vii. 32. Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 322, and iii. 13. The Welsh expressions are of this kind; the only difference being that the adverb coalesces with the verb, as an inseparable particle, and so forms a compound. These particles are _dym_, _cym_, or _cy_ and _ym_. The former is compounded of _dy_, signifying _iteration_, and _ym_ denoting _mutual

## action_; the latter is the Latin _cum_. Hence the reciprocal power of

these particles is secondary: e. g. _dymborthi_, to aid mutually; _dymddadlu_, to dispute; _dymgaru_, to love one another; _dymgoddi_, to vex one another; _dymgredu_, to trust one another, or confide; _dymguraw_, to strike one another, or fight; _çyçwennys_, to desire mutually; _cydadnabod_, to know one another; _cydaddawiad_, to promise mutually; _cydwystlaw_, to pledge; _cydymadrawn_, to converse; _cydymdaith_, to accompany; _ymadroddi_, to discourse; _ymaddaw_, to promise; _ymavael_, to struggle; _ymdaeru_, to dispute, &c.

The form, which is at once current, full, and unequivocal, is the one that occurs in our own, and in the generality of languages. Herein there are two nouns (generally pronouns), and the construction is of the kind exhibited above--ἀλλήλους, _each other_, _einander_, _l'un l'autre_, &c.

Sometimes the two nouns remain separate, each preserving its independent form. This is the case in most of the languages derived from the Latin, in several of the Slavonic and Lithuanic dialects, and in (amongst others) the Old Norse, the Swedish, and the Danish,--l'un l'autre, French; uno otro, Span.; geden druheho, Bohemian; ieden drugiego, Polish; wiens wienâ, Lith.; weens ohtru, Lettish; hvert annan (masc.), hvert annat (neut.) Old Norse. See D. G. iii. 84.

Sometimes the two nouns coalesce, and form words to which it would be a mere refinement to deny the name of compounds: this is the case with the Greek--ἀλλήλων, ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλήλους.

Sometimes it is doubtful whether the phrase consist of a compound word or a pair of words. This occurs where, from the want of inflection, the form of the first word is the same in composition as it would have been out of it. Such is the case with our own language: _each-other_, _one-another_.

Throughout the mass of languages in general the details of the expression in question coincide; both subject and object are almost always expressed by pronouns, and these pronouns are much the same throughout. _One_, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the subject. _Other_, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the object, _e. g._ they struck _one another_. The varieties of expression may be collected from the following sketch:--

1. _a._ The subject is expressed by _one_, or some word equivalent, in most of the languages derived from the Latin, in several of the Slavonic dialects, in Lithuanic and Lettish, in Armenian, in German, in English, and doubtlessly in many other languages--_l'un_ l'autre, Fr.; _uno_ otro, Sp.; _ieden_ drugiego, Polish; _wiens_ wienâ, Lith.; _weens_ ohtru, Lett.; _me_ mæants, Armenian; _einander_, Germ.; _one_ another, Engl.

_b._ By _each_, or some equivalent term, in English, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages--_each_ other, English; _elkander_, Dutch; _hver_andre, Icelandic, Danish, Swedish.

_c._ By _this_, or some equivalent term, in Swedish and Danish (_hin_anden); in Lithuanic (_kitts_ kittâ), and in Lettish (_zitts_ zittu).

_d._ By _other_, or some equivalent term, in Greek and Armenian; ἁλλήλους, _ir_ærats.

_e._ By _man_, used in an indefinite sense and compounded with _lik_ in Dutch, _malk_ander (mal-lik manlik).

_f._ By a term equivalent to _mate_ or _fellow_ in Laplandic--_gòim_ gòimeme.--Rask, 'Lappisk Sproglære,' p. 102. Stockfleth, 'Grammatik,' p. 109.

2. _a._ In the expression of the object the current term is _other_ or some equivalent word. Of this the use is even more constant than that of _one_ expressive of the subject--l'un l'_autre_, French; uno _otro_, Spanish; ἁλλήλους, Greek; geden _druheho_, Bohemian; ieden _drugiego_, Polish; weens _ohtru_, Lettish; iræ_rats_, Armenian; ein_ander_, German; each _other_, one an_other_, English.

_b._ In Lithuanic the term in use is _one_; as, wiens _wienâ_. The same is the case for a second form in the Armenian mi_mœa_n.

_c._ In Laplandic it is denoted in the same as the subject; as gòim _gòimeme_.

Undoubtedly there are other varieties of this general method of expression. Upon those already exhibited a few remarks, however, may be made.

1. In respect to languages like the French, Spanish, &c., where the two nouns, instead of coalescing, remain separate, each retaining its inflection, it is clear that they possess a greater amount of perspicuity; inasmuch as (to say nothing of the distinction of gender) the subject can be used in the singular number when the mutual action of two persons (_i. e._ of _one_ upon _another_) is spoken of, and in the plural when we signify that of more than two; e. g. _ils_ (_i. e._ A and B) _se battaient_--_l'un l'autre_: but _ils_ (A, B, C and D,) _se battaient_--_les uns les autres_. This degree of perspicuity might be attained in English and other allied languages by reducing to practice the difference between the words _each_ and _one_; in which case we might say _A and B struck one another_, but _A, B and C struck_ each _other_. In the Scandinavian languages this distinction is real; where _hin_anden is equivalent to _l'un l'autre_, French; _uno otro_, Spanish: whilst _hver_andre expresses _les uns les autres_, French; _unos otros_, Spanish. The same is the case in the Laplandic.--See Rask's Lappisk Sproglære, p. 102.

2. An analysis of such an expression as _they praise one another's_ (or _each other's_) _conduct_, will show the lax character of certain forms in the Swedish. Of the two pronouns it is only the latter that appears in an oblique case, and this necessarily; hence the Swedish form _hvarsannars_ is illogical. It is precisely what _one's another's_ would be in English, or ἄλλων ἄλλων for ἁλλήλων in Greek. The same applies to the M. H. G. _einen anderen_. D. G. iii. 83.

3. The term expressive of the object appears in three forms, viz. preceded by the definite article (l'un _l_'autre), by the indefinite article (one _an_other), and finally, standing alone (each other, einander). Of these three forms the first is best suited for expressing the reciprocal action of two persons (one out of two struck the other); whilst the second or third is fittest for signifying the reciprocal

## action of more than two (one out of many struck, and was struck by,

some other).

The third general method of expressing mutual or reciprocal action is by the use of some particular form of the verb. In two, and probably more, of the African languages (the Woloff and Bechuana) this takes place. In the Turkish there is also a reciprocal form: as _sui-mek_, to love; _baki-mek_, to look; _sui-sh-mek_, to love one another; _baki-sh-mek_, to look at one another; _su-il-mek_, to be loved; _sui-sh-il-mek_, to be loved mutually.--_David's Turkish Grammar._

The fourth form of expression gives the fact alluded to at the beginning of the paper: viz. an instrument of criticism in investigating the origin of certain deponent verbs. In all languages there is a certain number of verbs denoting actions, reciprocal or mutual to the agents. Such are the words _embrace_, _converse_, _strive against_, _wrestle_, _fight_, _rival_, _meet_, and several more. There are also other words where the existence of two parties is essential to the idea conveyed, and where the notion, if not that of reciprocal

## action, is akin to it; viz. _reproach_, _compromise_, _approach_, &c.

Now in certain languages (the Latin and Greek) some of these verbs have a passive form; _i. e._ they are deponents,--_loquor_, _colloquor_, _luctor_, _reluctor_, _amplector_, _suavior_, _osculor_, _suspicor_, Latin: φιλοτιμέομαι, φιλοφρονέομαι, μάχομαι, διαλέγομαι, ἁλέομαι, διαλύομαι, ἁμείβομαι &c., Greek. Hence arises the hypothesis, that it is to their reciprocal power on the one hand, and to the connexion between the passive, reflective and reciprocal forms on the other, that these verbs owe their deponent character. The fact essential to the probability of this hypothesis is the connexion between the reflective forms and the reciprocal ones.

Now for one branch of languages this can be shown most satisfactorily. In Icelandic the middle voice is formed from the active by the addition of the reflective pronoun, _mik_, me, _sik_, him or self. Hence it is known by the terminations _mc_ and _sc_, and by certain modifications of these affixes, viz. _st_, _s_, _z_, _mz_, _ms_. In the oldest stage of the language the reflective power of the middle voice, to the exclusion of a passive sense, is most constant: _e. g. hann var nafnadr_ = he had the name given him; _hann nefnist_ = he gave as his name, or named himself. It was only when the origin of the middle form became indistinct that its sense became either passive or deponent; as it generally is in the modern tongues of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Now in the modern Scandinavian languages we have, on the one hand, certain deponent forms expressive of reciprocal action; whilst on the other we have, even in the very earliest stages of the Old Norse, middle or reflective forms used in a reciprocal sense. Of some of these, examples will be given: but the proof of their sense being reciprocal will not be equally conclusive in all. Some may perhaps be looked on as deponents (_ættust_, _beriast_, _skiliast_, _mödast_); whilst others may be explained away by the assumption of a passive construction (_fundoz_ = they were found, not they found each other). Whatever may be the case with the words taken from the middle and modern stages of the language, this cannot be entertained in regard to the examples drawn from the oldest Norse composition, the Edda of Sæmund. For this reason the extracts from thence are marked _Edd. Sæm._, and of these (and these alone) the writer has attempted to make the list exhaustive. The translations in Latin and Danish are those of the different editors.

1. Ættust, _fought each other_.

2. Beriaz, _strike each other_.

brödur muno _beriaz_. fratres invicem pugnabunt.

Voluspa, 41. Edd. Sæm.

This word is used in almost every page of the Sagas as a deponent signifying _to fight_: also in the Feroic dialect.

3. Bregþaz, _interchange_.

orþom at _bregþaz_. verba commutare.

Helga-Qviþa Hundlingsbana, i. 41. ii. 26. Edd. Sæm.

4. Drepiz, _kill one another_.

finnuz þeir báder daudir---- en ecki vapn höfþu þeir nema bitlana af hestinum, ok þat hygia menn at þeir (Alrek and Eirek) hafi _drepiz_ þar med. Sva segir Ðiodolfr.; "_Drepaz_ kvádu."--Heimskringla. Ynglinga-Saga, p. 23.

The brothers were found dead--and no weapons had they except the bits of their horses, and men think they (Alrek and Eirek) had _killed each other_ therewith. So says Thiodolf.: "They said that they _killed each other_."

5. Um-faþmaz, _embrace each other_. See Atla-Quiþa hin Grænslenzko, 42.--_Edd. Sæm._

6. Földes, _fell in with each other_.--Om morgonet effter _földes_ wy in Kobenhaffn.--Norwegian Letters in 1531, A. D. See Samlingar til det Norske Folks Sprog og Historie, I. 2. 70. The morning after we _fell in with each other_ in Copenhagen.

7. Funduz, _found each other_, _met_. See Vafþrudnis-mal 17.--Sigurd-Quiþ. i. 6. Edd. Sæm.--Fareyingar-Saga, p. 44. _Ðeir funduz_ is rendered _de fandt hverandre_ = _they found each other_, in Haldorsen's Lexic. Island.

ef iþ Gymer _finniz_. if you and Gymer meet. Harbards-l: 24. Edd. Sæm.

8. Gættuz, _consult each other_. See Voluspa, 6. 9. 21. 23. _Edd. Sæm._

9. Glediaz, _rejoice each other_.

vapnom ok vádom skulo vinir _glediaz_, þæt er á sialfom sæmst: vidr-géfendr ok endi gefendr _erost_ lengst vinir ef þat biþr at verþa vel. Rigsmal. 41.

armis ac vestibus amici _mutuo se delectent_, queîs in ipso (datore) forent conspicua: pretium renumerantes et remunerantes _inter se diutissime sunt_ amici si negotium feliciter se dat.

The middle form and reciprocal sense of _erost_ is remarkable in this passage.

10. Hauggvaz, _hack each other_, _fight_.

allir Einheriar Oþins túnom i _hauggvaz_ hverian dag.

all the Einheriar in Odin's towns _hack each other_ every day. Vafþrudnis-Mal. 41. Edd. Sæm.

ef þeir _högvaz_ orþom á. si se maledictis invicem insectentur. Sig-Qvið. ii. 1. Edd. Sæm.

11. Hættaz, _cease_.

_hættomc_ hættingi. _cessemus utrinque_ a minaciis. Harbardslióð, 51. Edd. Sæm.

Such is the translation of the editors, although the reciprocal power is not unequivocal.

12. Hittaz, _hit upon each other_, _meet_. Hittoz, Voluspa, 7. Hittomk, Hadding-skata, 22. Hittaz, Solar-l: 82. Edd. Sæm. Hittust, Ol. Trygv. Sag. p. 90. Hittuz oc beriaz, Heimskringla, Saga Halfd. Svart. p. 4. Hittuz, Yngl. Sag. p. 42. _alibi passim þeir hittu_ is rendered, in Bjorn Haldorsen's Islandic Lexicon, _de traf hinanden_, _they hit upon each other_.

13. Kiempis, _fight each other_,

gaar udi gaarden oc _kiempis_, oc nelegger hver hinanden, goes out in the house and _fight each the other_, and each knocks down the other.

Such is the translation by Resenius, in modern Danish, of the following extract from Snorro's _Edda_, p. 34.--Ganga ut i gardinn og _beriast_, og fellar huor annar. Here the construction is not, _they fell_ (or knock down) _each the other_, but _each fells the other_; since _fellar_ and _nelegger_ are singular forms.

14. Mælast, _talk to each other_, _converse_. Talast, _ditto_.

_Mæliz_ þu. Vafþrudnismal, 9.

_melomc_ i sessi saman = colloquamur sedentes. ib. 19. Edd. Sæm.

_mælast_ þeir _vid_, ádr þeir _skiliast_, at þeir mundi þar _finnast_ þa,--Fóstbrædra-Saga, p. 7.

they _said to each other_ before they _parted from each other_ that they should _meet each other_ there.

Yngvi ok Bera satu ok _töluduz_ vidr.--Heimskr. Yngl. S. p. 24.

Griss mælti; hverír ero þessir menn er sva _tulast vid_ bliðliga? Avàldi svarar; þa er Hallfreydr Ottarson ok Kolfinna dóthir min. Ol. Trygyv. Saga, p. 152. Griss said, who are these persons who _talk together_ so blithely? Avaldi answers, they are Halfrid Ottarson and Kolfinna my daughter. _Talast_ is similarly used in Feroic. _Kvödust_, bespoke each other, occurs in the same sense--þat var einn dag at Brand ok Finbogi _fundust_ ok _kvödust_ blídliga.--Vatnsdæla-Sag. p. 16.

15. Mettæst, _meet each other_, _meet_.

Kungen aff Ffranchriche, kungen aff England, oc kungen aff Schottland skule _motes_ til Chalis.--Letter from Bergen in 1531, from Samlinger til det Norske Folks Sprog og Historie, i. 2. p. 53. The king of France, the king of England, and the king of Scotland should _meet each other_ at Calais.

Throughout the Danish, Swedish and Feroic, this verb is used as a deponent.

16. Rekaz, _vex each other_.

gumnar margir _erosc_ gagn-hollir, enn at virþi _rekaz_. Rigsmal. 32. Edd. Sæm.

multi homines _sunt inter se_ admodum benevoli, sed tamen _mutuo se_ (vel) in convivio _exagitant_.

17. Sakaz, _accuse each other_, _recriminate_.

at vit mynim siafrum _sacaz_, ut nos ipsi mutuo insectemur. Hamdis-Mal. 28.

ef viþ einir scolom sáryrþom _sacaz_. si nobis duobus usu veniat amarulentis dicteriis invicem nos lacessere. Ægis-drecka, 5.

sculoþ inni her sáryrþom _sacaz_. Ibid. 19. Edd. Sæm.

18. Saz, _looked at each other_.

_saz_ i augv fadir ok módir. Rigsmal. 24.

they looked at each other in the eyes, father and mother.

19. Sættaz, _settle between each other_, _reconcile_.--Atla-Mal. 45. Edd. Sæm.

Komu vinir þveggia þvi vid, at þeir _sættuz_, ok lögdu konungar stefnu med _sér_, ok _hittuz_ ok gérdo frit mellum sin.--Heimsk. Yngling-S. 42.

There came friends of both in order that they should be _reconciled_, and the kings sent messages between them, and _met_ and made peace between them.--Also Vatnsd. S. p. 16.

20. Seljas, _to give to each other_.

_seldz_ eiþa. Sig. Qv. iii. 1. Edd. Sæm.

juramenta dederunt inter se.

21. Sendaz, _send, or let pass between each other_.

sato samtýnis, _senduz_ fár-hugi, _henduz_ heipt-yrþi hvarki _sér_ undi. Atla-Mal. 85.

They sat in the same town (dwelling), They _sent between each other_ danger-thoughts, They _fetched between each other_ hate-words, Not _either way_ did they love _each other_.

Here, over and above the use of _senduz_ and _henduz_, _ser_ is equivalent to _hinanden_.

22. Skiliaz, _part from each other_.

_Skiliumz._ Solar-Lioð. 82. _Skiliaz._ Sigurd-Qviþ. i. 24. _Skiliomc._ Ibid. 53. Edd. Sæm. Vit _sjiljiast, we two part_--

Occurs in the poem Brinilda (st. 109) in the Feroic dialect. In Danish and Swedish the word is deponent.

23. Skiptust, _interchange_.

Ðeir _skiptust_ mörgum giöfum _vid_ um vetrinn--Vatns-dæla-S. 10. they _made interchanges with each other_ with many gifts for the winter.

Also in the Feroic.

24. Strujast, _strike one another_, _fight_. Feroic.

og _mötast_ tair, og _strujast_ avlaji lanji.--Fareying-Sag. 18. Feroic text.

ok _mætast_ þeir, ok berjast mjök leingi.--Icelandish text.

de _mödtes_ og strede meget længe imod hinanden.--Danish text.

they _met_ and _fought_ long against _each other_.

at e vilde vid _gjordust_ stålbröir, og _strujast_ ikkji longur.--Feroic text, p. 21.

at við _gerðimst_ fèlagar, en _berjumst_ eigi leingr.--Icelandic text.

at vi skulle blive Stalbröde og ikke _slaaes_ længer--Danish text.

that we should become comrades and not _fight_ longer.

The active form occurs in the same dialect:

_tajr struija nú langji._ 18.

25. Truasc, _trust each other_.

vel mættern þæir _truazc_. För Skirnis. Edd. Sæm.

26. Unnaz. _See_ Veittaz.

27. Vegiz, _attack_ each _other_.

vilcat ec at iþ reiþir _vegiz_. Ægisdrecka 18. Edd. Sæm. I will not that ye two angry _attack each other_.

28. Veittaz, _contract mutually_.

þav Helgi ok Svava _veittuz_ varar, ok _unnoz_ forþo mikit = Helgius et Svava pactum sponsalitium _inter se contraxerunt_, et _alter alterum_ mirifice _amarunt_.--Haddingia-Sk. between 29 and 30.

29. Verpaz, _throw between each other_.

_urpuz_ á orþom. Atl.-M. 39. Edd. Sæm.

verba inter se jaciebant.

Such is a portion of the examples that prove the reciprocal power of the reflective or middle verb in the language of Scandinavia; and that, during all its stages and in each of its derived dialects. It cannot be doubted that to this circumstance certain verbs in Danish and Swedish owe their deponent form: viz. _vi slåss_, we fight (strike one another); _vi brottas_, we wrestle; _vi omgass_, we have intercourse with; _vi mötas_, we meet, Swedish; _vi slaaes_, we fight; _vi skilles_, we part; _vi mödes_, we meet, Danish. In the latest Swedish grammar, by C. L. Daae, this reciprocal (vekselvirkende) power is recognized and exhibited. See Udsigt over det Svenske Sprogs Grammatik. Christiana, 1837. The same is the Molbech's Danske Ordbog in vv. _skilles_, _slaaes_, _mödes_.

Next to the Norse languages the French affords the best instances of the reciprocal power of the reflective verb; as _se battre_, _s'aimer_, _s'entendre_, _se quéreller_, _se reconcilier_, _se disputer_, and other words of less frequent occurrence.

Ces enfans _s'aimaient_, _s'adoraient_, se sont jetés à mes pieds en pleurant.--Les Inséparables, A. 1. S. 1.

Les Républics Italiens acharnés à _se détruire_.--Pardessus II. 65.

This has been recognized by an old grammarian, Restaut, who insists upon the use of the adverb _entre_, in order to avoid the ambiguity of such phrases as "vous _vous_ dites des injures;" "nous _nous_ écrivons souvent;" "Pierre et Antoine _se_ louent à tout moment."

By a writer in the Museum Criticum the reciprocal power of the Greek middle has been indicated. For the classical languages the question has not met with the proper investigation. Passages where the sense is at least as reciprocal as in the line

Χεῖρος τ' ἁλλήλων λαβήτην καὶ μιστώσαντο.--Il. vi. 233,

must be numerous.

In the Dutch language the use of _zich_ for _elkander_ is a peculiarity of the Guelderland and Overyssel dialects; as "zij hebt _zich_ eslagen," for "zij hebben _elkander_ geslagen." See Opmerkingen omtrent den Gelderschen Tongval, in Taalkundig Magazijn ii. 14. p. 403.

Of the use of _ser_ for _hinanden_ or _hverandre_, when uncombined with the verb, we have, amongst other, the following example in the Icelandic version of the Paradise Lost:--

Ef frá tilsyndar- punkti hleyptu _ser_ planetur fram, ok _mættust_ miklum gny ó midjum himni. B. 6.

Similar to this are the phrases _vi se os igjen_, we see us (each other) again, in Danish, and _wir sehen uns wieder_, in German. Examples from the M. H. G. are given in the D. G. iv. The Turkish sign of the reciprocal verb is identical with the demonstrative pronoun, _i. e._ [Turkish: şin]. This may possibly indicate a connection between the two forms.

Other points upon the subject in hand may be collected from the Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 13. 82; iv. 454. Here the adverbial character of the M. H. G. _einander_ for _einandern_, the omission of _ein_, as in _anander_ for _an einander_, and the omission (real or supposed) of _ander_ in "_wider ein_ = _wider einander_," are measures of the laxity of language caused by the peculiarity of the combination in question. At present it is sufficient to repeat the statement, that for one group of languages at least there is satisfactory proof of certain deponents having originally been reciprocal, and of certain reciprocal expressions having originally been reflective.

ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE IDEAS OF ASSOCIATION AND PLURALITY AS AN INFLUENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF INFLECTION.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY. MARCH 9, 1849.

It is well-known that by referring to that part of the Deutsche Grammatik which explains those participial forms which (like _y-cleped_ in English, and like _ge-sprochen_ and the participles in general in German) begin with _ge_ or _y_, the following doctrines respecting this same prefix may be collected:--

1. That it has certainly grown out of the fuller forms _ka_ or _ga_.

2. That it has, probably, grown out of a still fuller form _kam_ or _gam_.

3. That this fuller form is the Gothic equivalent of the Latin _cum_ = _with_.

Such are the views respecting the _form_ of the word in question. Respecting its _meaning_, the following points seem to be made out:--

1. That when prefixed to nouns (as is, not rarely, the case), it carries with it the idea of _association_ or _collection_:--M. G. _sinþs_ = _a journey_, _ga-sinþa_ = _a companion_; O. M. G. _perc_ = _hill_; _ki-pirki_ = (_ge-birge_) _a range of hills_.

2. That it has also a _frequentative_ power. Things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association:--M. H. G. _ge-rassel_ = _rustling_; _ge-rumpel_ = _crumpling_.

3. That it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality:--

A.-S. Eng. A.S. Latin. feax _hair_, _ge_-feax _comatus_. heorte _heart_, _ge_-heort _cordatus_.

This is because every object is associated with the object that possesses it--_a sea with waves_ = _a wavy sea_.

The present writer has little doubt that the Tumali grammar of Dr. Tutshek supplies a similar (and at the same time a very intelligible) application of a particle equivalent to the Latin _cum_.

He believes that the Tumali word = _with_ is what would commonly be called the sign of the plural number of the personal pronouns; just as _me-cum_ and _te-cum_ would become equivalents to _nos_ and _vos_, if the first syllables were nominative instead of oblique, and if the preposition denoted indefinite conjunction. In such a case

_mecum_ would mean _I conjointly_ = _we_, _tecum_ would mean _thou conjointly_ = _ye_.

Such is the illustration of the possible power of a possible combination. The reasons for thinking it to have a reality in one language at least lie in the following forms:--

1. The Tumali word for _with_ is _da_.

2. The Tumali words for _I_, _thou_, and _he_ respectively are _ngi_, _ngo_, _ngu_.

3. The Tumali words for _we_, _ye_, _they_ are _ngin-de_, _ngon-da_, _ngen-da_ respectively.

4. The Tumali substantives have no such plural. With them it is formed on a totally different principle.

5. The Tumali adjectives have no plural at all.

6. The Tumali numerals (even those which express more than unity and are, therefore, _naturally_ plural) _have_ a plural. When, however, it occurs, it is formed on the same principle as that of the plurals of the substantive.

7. The word _da_ = _with_ is, in Tumali, of a more varied application than any other particle; and that both as a _pre_-position and a _post_-position:--_daura_ = _soon_ (_da_ = _in_, _aura_ = _neighbourhood_); _datom_ = _in_ (_with_) _front_ (_face_); _d-ondul_ = _roundabout_ (_ondul_ = _circle_); _dale_ = _near_ (_le_ = _side_), &c.

8. Prepositions, which there is every reason to believe are already compounded with _da_, allow even a second _da_, to precede the word which they govern:--_daber deling_ = _over the earth_ (_ber_ = _earth_).

9. The ideas _with me_, _with thee_, _with him_, are expressed by _ngi-dan_, _ngo-dan_, and _ngu-dan_ respectively; but the ideas of _with us_, _with you_, _with them_ are _not_ expressed by _nginde-dan_, _ngonda-dan_, _ngenda-dan_; but by peculiar words--_tinem_ = _with us_; _toman_ = _with you_; _tenan_ = _with them_.

On the other hand, the following fact is, as far as it goes, against this view, a fact upon which others may lay more stress than the present writer. "_Da_ admits of a very varied application. Respecting its form the following should be observed: (_a._) That _a_ may be elided when it happens to stand as a preposition before words which begin with a vowel: for instance, _ardgen_, 'the valley'; _dardgen_, 'in the valley'; _ondul_, 'the circle'; _dondul_, 'round about in the circle'. (_b._) It changes its _a_ into _ê_, _e_, _i_, _o_, _u_, according to the vowel of the syllable before which the _da_ is placed, or even without any regard to it. Instances of this are found in _diring_, _dorong_, &c.; further instances are, _doromko_, 'into the hut' (_rom_); _dètum_ or _dotum_, 'in the grave.' (_c._) As a postposition it appends an _n_: _adgdan_, 'on the head'; _aneredan_, 'on the day.'" Taking the third of these rules literally, the plural pronouns should end in _dan_ rather than in _da_ and _de_.

It is considered that over and above the light that this particular formation (if real) may throw upon the various methods by which an inflection like that of the plural number may be evolved, and more especially upon the important but neglected phænomena of the so-called _inclusive_ and _exclusive_ plurals, many other points of general grammar may be illustrated.

ON THE WORD _CUJUM_.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, MARCH 9, 1849.

The writer wishes to make the word _cujum_, as found in a well-known quotation from the third eclogue of Virgil,--

Dic mihi Damæta _cujum_ pecus?

the basis of some remarks which are meant to be suggestions rather than doctrines.

In the second edition of a work upon the English language, he devoted an additional chapter to the consideration of the grammatical position of the words _mine_ and _thine_, respecting which he then considered (and still considers) himself correct in assuming that the current doctrine concerning them was, that they were, in origin, genitive or possessive cases, and that they were adjectives only in a secondary sense. Now whatever was then written upon this subject was written with the view of recording an opinion in favour of exactly the opposite doctrine, viz. that they were originally adjectives, but that afterwards they took the appearance of oblique cases. Hence for words like _mine_ and _thine_ there are two views:--

1. That they were originally _cases_, and _adjectives_ only in a secondary manner.

2. That they were originally _adjectives_, and _cases_ only in a secondary manner.

In which predicament is the word _cujum_? If in the first, it supplies a remarkable instance of an unequivocally adjectival form, as tested by an inflection in the way of gender, having grown out of a case. If in the second, it shows how truly the converse may take place, since it cannot be doubted that whatever in this respect can be predicated of _cujus_ can be predicated of _ejus_ and _hujus_ as well.

Assuming this last position, it follows that if _cujus_ be originally a case, we have a proof how thoroughly it may _take_ a gender; whereas if it be originally an adjective, _ejus_ and _hujus_ (for by a previous assumption they are in the same category) are samples of the extent to which words like it may _lose_ one.

Now the termination _-us_ is the termination of an adjective, and is _not_ the termination of a genitive case; a fact that fixes the _onus probandi_ with those who insist upon the genitival character of the words in question. But as it is not likely that every one lays so much value upon this argument as is laid by the present writer, it is necessary to refer to two facts taken from the Greek:--

1. That the class of words itself is not a class which (as is often the case) naturally leads us to expect a variation from the usual inflections. The forms οὗ, οἷ, ἕ, and ὅς, οὗ, ὧ, are perfectly usual.

2. That the adjectives ὃς = ἑὸς,[1] κοῖος = ποῖος, and ὁῖος, are not only real forms, but forms of a common kind. Hence, if we consider the termination _-jus_ as a case-ending, we have a phænomenon in Latin for which we miss a Greek equivalent; whilst on the other hand, if we do not consider it as adjectival, we have the Greek forms ὁῖος, κοῖος = ποῖος and ὃς = ἑὸς, without any Latin ones. I do not say that this argument is, when taken alone, of any great weight. In doubtful cases, however, it is of value. In the present case it enables us to get rid of an inexplicable genitival form, at the expense of a slight deflection from the usual power of an adjective. And here it should be remembered that many of the arguments in favour of a case becoming an adjective are (to a certain extent) in favour of an adjective becoming a case--_to a certain extent_ and _to a certain extent_ only, because a change in one direction by no means necessarily implies a change in the reverse one, although it is something in favour of its probability.

[Footnote 1: hora for wora, κοῖος = _cujus_; ὁῖος = _hujus_; ἑὸς = _ejus_ (1859).]

Probably _unius_, _ullius_, _illius_, and _alterius_, are equally, as respects their origin, adjectival forms with _ejus_, _cujus_, and _hujus_.

Now it must not be concealed that one of the arguments which apply to words like _mine_ and _thine_ being adjectives rather than genitives, does not apply to words like _ejus_, _cujus_, and _hujus_. The reason is as follows; and it is exhibited in nearly the same words which have been used in the work already mentioned.--The idea of partition is one of the ideas expressed by the genitive case. The necessity for expressing this idea is an element in the necessity for evolving a genitive case. With personal pronouns of the singular number the idea of partition is of less frequent occurrence than with most other words, since a personal pronoun of the _singular_ number is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like _some of them_, _one of you_, _many of us_, _any of them_, _few of us_, &c., have no analogues in the singular number, such as _one of me_, _a few of thee_, &c. The partitive words that can combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few, viz. _half_, _quarter_, _part_, &c.; and they can all combine equally with plurals--_half of us_, _a quarter of them_, _a portion of us_. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language. This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the so-called _singular_ genitives, like _mine_ and _thine_, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural genitives _ou-r_, _you-r_, _the-ir_. The two ideas are not in the same predicament.

Again, the convenience of expressing the difference between _suus_ and _ejus_, is, to a certain extent, a reason for the evolution of a genitive case to words like _is_; but it is a reason to a certain extent only, and that extent a small one, since an equally convenient method of expressing the difference is to be found in the fact of there being two roots for the pronouns in question, the root from which we get _ea_, _id_, _eum_, _ejus_, &c., and the root from which we get _sui_, _sibi_, _suus_, &c.

Here the paper should end, for here ends the particular suggestion supplied by the word in question. Two questions however present themselves too forcibly to be wholly passed over:--

I. The great extent to which those who look in Latin for the same inflections that occur in Greek, must look for them under new names. That two tenses in Greek (the aorist like ἔ-τυπ-σα, and the perfect like τέ-τυφ-α) must be looked for in the so-called _double_ form of a _single_ tense in Latin (_vic-si_, _mo-mordi_) is one of the oldest facts of this sort. That the Greek participle in -μενος (τυπτόμενος) must be sought for in the passive persons in _-mini_ is a newer notice.

II. The fact that the character of the deflection that takes place between case and adjective is not _single_ but _double_. It goes both ways. The change from case to adjective is one process in philology; the change from adjective to case another; and both should be recognized. This is mentioned for the sake of stating, that except in a few details, there is nothing in the present remarks that is meant to be at variance with the facts and arguments of five papers already laid before this Society, viz. those of Mr. Garnett on the Formation of Words from Inflected Cases, and on the Analysis of the Verb.

The papers alluded to really deal with two series of facts:--(A.) _Deflection with identity of form._--In this the inflection is still considered an inflection, but is dealt with as one different from what it really is, _i. e._ as a nominative instead of an oblique one. Some years back the structure of the Finlandic suggested to the present writer:--

1. A series of changes in meaning whereby such a term as _with waves_ might equal _wavy_.

2. The existence of a class of words of which _sestertium_ was the type, where an oblique case, _with a convertible termination_, becomes a nominative.

3. The possible evolution of forms like _fluctuba_, _fluctubum_ = _fluctuosa_, _fluctuosum_, from forms like _fluctubus_.

Mr. Garnett has multiplied cases of this kind; his illustrations from the Basque being pre-eminently typical, _i. e._ like the form _sestertium_. If the modern vehicle called an _omnibus_ had been invented in ancient Rome, if it had had the same name as it has now, and if its plural form had been _omnibi_, it would also have been a typical instance.

Words of the hypothetical form _fluctuba_, _fluctubum_, have not been discovered. They would have existed if the word just quoted had been (if used in ancient Rome at all) used as an adjective, _omnibus currus_, _omniba esseda_, _omnibum plaustrum_.

(B.) _Deflection with superaddition._--Here the inflection is dealt with as if it were not inflectional but radical. This is the case with ἴφιος. Words like _it-_, as proved by the genitive _i-t-s_, and the so-called _petrified_ (_versteinerte_) nominative cases of the German grammarians, are of this class.

ON THE AORISTS IN -KA.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, MARCH 11, 1853.

A well-known rule in the Eton Greek Grammar may serve to introduce the subject of the present remarks:--"Quinque sunt aoristi primi qui futuri primi characteristicam non assumunt: ἔθηκα _posui_, ἔδωκα _dedi_, ἥκα _misi_, εἴπα _dixi_, ἥνεγκα _tuli_." The absolute accuracy of this sentence is no part of our considerations: it has merely been quoted for the sake of illustration.

What is the import of this abnormal κ? or, changing the expression, what is the explanation of the aorist in -κα? Is it certain that it _is_ an aorist? or, granting this, is it certain that its relations to the future are exceptional?

The present writer was at one time inclined to the doubts implied by the first of these alternatives, and gave some reasons[2] for making the form a _perfect_ rather than an aorist. He finds, however, that this is only shifting the difficulty. How do _perfects_ come to end in -κα? The typical and unequivocal perfects are formed by a reduplication at the beginning, and a modification of the final radical consonant at the end of words, τύπ(τ)ω, τέ-τυφ-α; and this is the origin of the χ in λέλεχα, &c., which represents the γ of the root. Hence, even if we allow ourselves to put the κ in ἔθηκα in the same category with the κ in ὀμώμοκα, &c., we are as far as ever from the true origin of the form.

[Footnote 2: English Language, p. 489.]

In this same category, however, the two words--and the classes they represent--_can_ be placed, notwithstanding some small difficulties of detail. At any rate, it is easier to refer ὀμώμοκα and ἔθηκα to the same tense than it is to do so with ὀμώμοκα and τέτυφα.

The next step is to be sought in Bopp's Comparative Grammar. Here we find the following extract:--"The old Slavonic _dakh_ 'I gave,' and analogous formations remind us, through their guttural, which _takes the place of a sibilant_, of the Greek aorists ἔθηκα, ἔδωκα, ἧκα. That which in the old Slavonic has become a rule in the first person of the three numbers, viz. the _gutturalization of an original s_, may have occasionally taken place in the Greek, but carried throughout all numbers. No conjecture lies closer at hand than that of regarding ἔδωκα _as a corruption of_ ἔδωσα," &c.... "The Lithuanian also presents a form which is akin to the Greek and Sanscrit aorist, in which, as it appears to me, _k assumes the place of an original s_." (vol. ii. p. 791, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation.) The italics indicate the words that most demand attention.

The old Slavonic inflection alluded to is as follows:--

SINGULAR. DUAL. PLURAL. 1. Nes-_och_ Nes-_ochowa_ Nes-_ochom_. 2. Nes-_e_ Nes-_osta_ Nes-_oste_. 3. Nes-_e_ Nes-_osta_ Nes-_osza_.

Now it is clear that the doctrine to which these extracts commit the author is that of the secondary or derivative character of the form of κ and the primary or fundamental character of the forms in σ. The former is deduced from the latter. And this is the doctrine which the present writer would reverse. He would just reverse it, agreeing with the distinguished scholar whom he quotes in the identification of the Greek form with the Slavonic. So much more common is the change from _k_, _g_ and the allied sounds, to _s_, _z_, &c., than that from _s_, _z_, &c. to _k_, _g_, that the _à priori_ probabilities are strongly against Bopp's view. Again, the languages that preeminently encourage the change are the Slavonic; yet it is just in these languages that the form in _k_ is assumed to be secondary. For _s_ to become _h_, and for _h_ to become _k_ (or _g_), is no improbable change: still, as compared with the transition from _k_ to _s_, it is exceedingly rare.

As few writers are better aware of the phænomena connected with the direction of letter-changes than the philologist before us, it may be worth while to ask, why he has ignored them in the present instances. He has probably done so because the Sanscrit forms were in _s_; the habit of considering whatever is the more Sanscrit of two forms to be the older being well-nigh universal. Nevertheless, the difference between a language which is old because it is represented by old samples of its literature, and a language which is old because it contains primary forms, is manifest upon a very little reflection. The positive argument, however, in favour of the _k_ being the older form, lies in the well-known phænomenon connected with the vowels _e_ and _i_, as opposed to _a_, _o_, and _u_. All the world over, _e_ and _i_ have a tendency to convert a _k_ or _g_, when it precedes them, into _s_, _z_, _sh_, _zh_, _ksh_, _gzh_, _tsh_, and _dzh_, or some similar sibilant. Hence, as often as a sign of tense consisting of _k_, is followed by a sign of person beginning with _e_ or _i_, an _s_ has chance of being evolved. In this case such a form as ἐφίλησα, ἐφίλησας, ἐφίλησε, may have originally run ἐφίληκα, ἐφίληκας, ἐφίληκε. The modified form in σ afterwards extends itself to the other persons and numbers. Such is the illustration of the hypothesis. An objection against it lies in the fact of the person which ends in a small vowel, being only one out of seven. On the other hand, however the third person singular is used more than all the others put together. With this influence of the small vowel other causes may have cooperated. Thus, when the root ended in κ or γ, the combination κ _radical_, and κ _inflexional_ would be awkward. It would give us such words as ἔλεκ-κα, &c.; words like τέτυπ-κα, ἔγραπ-κα, being but little better, at least in a language like the Greek.

The suggestions that now follow lead into a wide field of inquiry; and they may be considered, either on their merits as part of a separate question, or as part of the proof of the present doctrine. In this latter respect they are not altogether essential, _i. e._ they are more confirmatory if admitted than derogatory if denied. What if the future be derived from the aorist, instead of the aorist from the future? In this case we should increase what may be called our _dynamics_, by increasing the points of contact between a _k_ and a small vowel; this being the influence that determines the evolution of an _s_. All the persons of the future, except the first, have ε for one (at least) of these vowels--

τύψ-σ-ω, τύψ-σ-εις, τύψ-σ-ει, τύψ-ε-τον, &c.

The moods are equally efficient in the supply of small vowels.

The doctrine, then, now stands that _k_ is the older form, but that, through the influence of third persons singular, future forms, and conjunctive forms, so many _s_-es became developed, as to supersede it except in a few instances. The Latin language favours this view. There, the old future like _cap-s-o_, and the preterites like _vixi_ (_vic-si_) exhibit a small vowel in _all_ their persons, _e. g._ _vic-s-i_, _vic-s-isti_, _vic-s-it_, &c. Still the doctrine respecting this influence of the small vowel in the way of the developement of sibilants out of gutturals is defective until we find a real instance of the change assumed. As if, for the very purpose of illustrating the occasional value of obscure dialects, the interesting language of the Serbs of Lusatia and Cotbus supplies one. Here the form of the preterite is as follows; the Serb of Illyria and the Lithuanic being placed in juxtaposition and contrast with the Serb of Lusatia. Where a small vowel follows the characteristic of the tense the sound is that of _sz_; in other cases it is that of _ch_ (_kh_)

LUSATIAN. ILLYRIAN. LITHUANIC. LETTISH. Sing. 1. nos_zach_ _do_neso, donije nesziau nessu. 2. nosz_esze_ _do_nese, donije nesziei nessi. 3. nosz_esze_ _do_nese, donije nesziei nesse. Dual 1. nosz_achwe_ nesziewa 2. nosz_estaj_ neszieta 3. nosz_estaj_ neszie Plur. 1. nosz_achmy_ _do_nesosmo, donijesmo neszieme nessam. 2. nosz_eśće_ _do_nesoste, donijeste nesziete nessat. 3. nosz_achu_ _do_nesosze, donijesze neszie nesse.