(1.) Present, formed by adding _-a_ or _-u_ to the root: _i. e._ to the
imperative form, and changing the vowel.
(2.) Imperfect, by adding _-r_ to the present.
(3.) Aorist, formed by the addition of _-r_ to the
(4.) Perfect; the formation of which is not expressly given, but
which is said to differ from the present in not changing the vowel.
However, we have the forms _xet_ = _find_, _xeṫi_ = _found_; (perf.)
_xetin_ = _found_ (aorist). From the participle of the perfect is formed
the
(5.) Pluperfect by adding _-r_.
(6.) The future is either the same as the present, or a modification of
it.
I give the names of those moods and tenses as I find them. The language
of the Latin grammar has, probably, been too closely imitated.
The first and second persons are formed by appending the pronouns
either in the nominative or the instructive form. That an oblique form
of the pronoun should appear in the personal inflexion of verbs is no
more than what the researches of the late Mr. Garnett, with which we
are all so familiar, have taught us to expect. At the same time, the
extent to which the instructive and nominative forms are alike must be
borne in mind. Let either be appended; and, when so appended, undergo
(under certain conditions) certain modifications, and a double origin
is simulated. That this is the case in the instances of the work under
notice is by no means asserted. The possibility of its being so is
suggested.
The participle of the present tense is formed in _-in_; as
_dago_ = _eat_, _dagu-in_ = _eating_.
The participle of the preterite ends in _-no_; as _xa[c.]e_ = _hear_,
_xa[c.]-no_ = _heard_.
There are auxiliary verbs, and no small amount of euphonic changes; of
which one, more especially, deserves notice. It is connected with the
gender of nouns. When certain words (adjectives or the so-called verb
substantive) follow certain substantives, they change their initial.
Thus ḥaṫxleen _w_a = _the prophet is_, ḥaṫxleensi _b_a = _the
prophets are_, waṡo _w_a = _the brother is_, waṡar _b_a = _the brothers
are_.
Again--naw _j_a = _the ship is_, nawr _j_a = _the ships are_; bstiuno
_j_a = _the wife is_, bstee _d_a = _the wives are_.
This is said to indicate gender, but how do we know what gender is? The
words themselves have neither form nor inflexion which indicates it.
Say that instead of gender it means sex, _i. e._ that the changes in
question are regulated by natural rather than grammatical characters.
We still find that the word _naw_ is considered feminine--feminine and
inanimate. This, however, is grammatical rather than natural, sex--"das
weibliche Geschlecht wird bey _unbelebten_ Gegenständen auch im Plural
durch _j-_, bei _belebten_ durch _a_ ausgedrückt." Then follow the
examples just given. How, however, do we know that these words are
feminine? It is submitted that the explanation of this very interesting
initial change has yet to be given. It recalls, however, to our memory
the practice of more languages than one, the Keltic, the Woloff,
the Kafre, and several other African tongues, wherein the change is
initial, though not always on the same principle.
So, also, the division of objects into animate and inanimate recalls to
our mind some African, and numerous American, tongues.
Such is the notice of the first of the Mizhdzhedzhi or Tshetshents (we
may say Lesgian) forms of speech of which the grammatical structure has
been investigated; a notice which suggests the question concerning its
affinities and classification.
The declension points to the Ugrian, or Fin, class of languages;
with which not only the Tshetshents, but all the other languages of
Caucasus have long been known to have miscellaneous affinities. The
resemblance, however, may be more apparent than real. The so-called
cases may be combinations of substantives and prepositions rather than
true inflexions, and the terminology may be more Ugrian in form than in
reality. Even if the powers of the cases be the same, it will not prove
much. Two languages expressing a given number of the relations that
two nouns may bear to each other will, generally, express the same.
Cases are genitive, dative and the like all the world over--and that
independent of any philological affinity between the languages in which
they occur. The extent to which they are also Caritive, Adessive and
the like has yet to be investigated.
The Ugrian affinities, then, of the Tshetshents are indirect; it being
the languages of its immediate neighbourhood with which it is more
immediately connected. In the way of vocabularies the lists of the
_Asia Polyglotta_ have long been competent to show this. In the way of
grammar the evidence is, still, far from complete. The Georgian, to
which Maggi gives no more than six cases, has a far scantier declension
than the Tushi, at least as it appears here. The Circassian, according
to Rosen, is still poorer.
In the verbs the general likeness is greater.
In the pronouns, however, the most definite similarity is to be found;
as may be seen from the following forms in the Circassian:--
Ab = _father_.
1. S-ab = _my father_. 2. H-ab = _our father_.
W-ab = _thy father_. S'-ab = _your father_.
L-ab = _his father_. S-ab = _their father_.