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:--