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.