Auxiliary verbs are used only for certain tenses, or form the entire
conjugation. The former arises from accidental causes having relation
only to these tenses, not to the verb in general. The latter readily
arises when a substantive verb offers an easy means of conjugation by
uniting with another verb. Sometimes the conjugation by means of an
auxiliary shows that the linguistic sense of a notion sought something
beyond the person and tense signs to express the verbal power itself,
and therefore had recourse to a general verb. This can, indeed, only
be constituted of those elements and a radical; but the want in the
language is thus supplied, once for all, and does not return with
every verb.
An excellent example of this is furnished by the Maya conjugation. In
an analysis of it we find an element that neither belongs to the root,
nor is a person, tense or mode sign, and when their varieties and
changes are compared, there is evident throughout a marked anxiety to
express the peculiar verbal power in the form of the verb.
The conjugation in the Maya language is formed by affixing the
pronouns and mode and tense signs to the stem. The pronoun is,
according to a distinction to be noted hereafter, either the
possessive pronoun or that one which, without verbal power in itself,
yet receives it when a predicate is attached to it to form a sentence.
Besides this, the suffix _cah_ accompanies all verbs in the present
and imperfect; and the suffix _ah_ accompanies all transitive verbs
through the remaining tenses, except the future. Present, 1st person,
sing., _canan-in-cah_, I guard; imperf. 1st pers. sing., _canan-in cah
cuchi_; perf., 1st pers. sing., _in canan-t-ah_. _In_ is the
possessive pronoun, _cuchi_ the sign of the imperfect, _t_ in the
perfect is a euphonic letter.
The idea of transitive verbs is here taken somewhat narrower than
usual. Only those are included which govern a word outside of
themselves. All others are considered intransitive, even those which
of themselves are active, but either have no expressed object (as, I
love, I hate, etc.), or the word which they govern is in the verb
itself, as in the Greek ~oikodomeo, oikoureô~. As these can
govern a second accusative, the object incorporated in the verb is
included in the idea they express.
The tenses of the intransitive verbs, except the present and
imperfect, while they drop _ah_ and the possessive pronoun, are formed
with that pronoun which forms sentences with a predicate.
There are cases where not only the present omits _cah_, but where the
stem, if it ends in _ah_ as is often the case, drops it, and
substitutes _ic_. The signification then alters, and indicates an
habitual action or quality. As _ic_ is the sign of the gerund, this
change appears to be the transformation of the verb into a verbal, and
to effect this, it must be united to that pronoun which serves as the
substantive verb; _ten yacunic_, I love, properly, I am loving
(habitually).
What _cah_ and _ah_ mean by themselves, we are not informed. Where
_cah_ is attached to the stem of some verbs it signifies intensity.
_Ah_ is as a prefix the sign of the male sex, of the inhabitant of a
place, and of names derived from active verbs. Hence it seems to have
meant at first person, man, and later to have become a pronoun, and
finally an affix. It is noteworthy that the same difference exists
between _ah_ and _cah_, as between _en_ and _ten_. The _c_ may
therefore be a radical sound. In the conjugation, _cah_ is treated
wholly as a verb. For in this the possessive pronoun is always
prefixed; and as in the present and imperfect it is placed after the
stem of the verb and before _cah_, it is evident from the difference
between the two forms _canan-in-cah_ and _in-canan-t-ah_, that in the
former _cah_, and in the latter _canan_, are regarded as the verbs.
_Canan-in-cah_ is precisely as the English "I do guard."
_Cah_ is consequently a true auxiliary verb; _ten_, when it appears in
conjunction with _en_ must have the notion of Being understood: _ah_
appears to be of similar nature, but as it appears only in the
conjugation of transitive verbs, it is a verbal sign, and thus
receives its verbal power. That _cah_ and _ah_ do really possess this
powever[TN-8] is evident from the fact that they are never used
whenever either of the pronouns which are always associated with the
notion of Being is present.
Except in the future of transitive verbs, there is no instance in the
conjugation where the stem of the verb is not accompanied by one of
these four syllables, all of which indicate Being, and all of which
have the force of auxiliary verbs.
The future of transitive verbs not only does not take any of these
syllables, but even rejects _ah_ when it is the terminal syllable of
the stem. In this case no other termination replaces it. On the
contrary, all other verbs receive a new suffix in their future,
varying as they are of one or many syllables. The nature of these
suffixes has not been explained.
The definite results of this analysis are as follows:
1. The Maya language possesses in its conjugation, besides the
inflection syllables of the persons and tenses, another element,
which, except in the simple future of transitive verbs, distinctly
carries with it the notion of Being; in the future of most verbs there
is such an element, but of unknown origin, and it only fails in the
future of one class of verbs.
2. This language displays an effort to express, besides the other
purposes of the verb, particularly its synthetic power, which is all
the more apparent as it uses different means in different cases, but
all designed to accomplish the same purpose.
The Yaruri language constructs the whole of its conjugation in a yet
simpler manner by means of an auxiliary verb.
The union of the pronoun and the tense sign which, as we have already
seen, forms the substantive verb, affixed to the stem, completes the
inflections of the one and only conjugation of attributive verbs,
except that the independent pronouns are prefixed. Neither the stem
nor the auxiliary words suffer any changes, except the insertion of an
_n_ in one person. The union remains, however, a loose one, and when
person and tense are manifest by the connection, the auxiliary verb is
omitted. This happens in certain verbs ending in _pa_. These, contrary
to the usual rule, change in the perfect this termination to _pea_, by
which the tense is made apparent, and as the person is evident from
the prefixed personal pronoun, the auxiliary can be dropped without
danger of obscurity.
The formation of certain tenses by means of auxiliaries is also
frequent in American languages.
An optative of this nature in the Lule language has already been
mentioned.
In the Mixteca tongue the imperfect is thus formed from the present,
which carries with it the personal sign, and the perfect without its
personal sign, a proceeding which, however rude and awkward it may be,
shows a just appreciation of the peculiarity of this past tense, which
expresses an action as going on, and therefore present in past time.
The expression of continuous action is placed first, "I sin," then
this is more precisely defined by the mark of past time, "this was
so;" _Yo-dzatevain-di-ni-cuvui_. _Yo_ is the sign of the present, _ni_
of the preterit, _di_ is the pronoun; the other two words, _to sin_
and _to be_: "I was sinning."
The sign of the present, _yo_, is probably an abbreviation of the verb
_yodzo_, I stand upon or over something, and so there is a second
auxiliary in the sentence. This may often be a means of discovering
the origin of tense signs, as, especially in American tongues, tenses
are often formed by the union of verbs, as also occurs in Sanscrit and
Greek.
The Othomi distinguishes certain past tenses, which, however, are
separated by other characteristics, by a prefixed _xa_, which is
called the third person singular of a substantive verb. As these
tenses are precisely those in which the action must be completed, the
perfect, pluperfect and future perfect, not, however, the imperfect
and past aorist, such a connection is very suitable. Of this verb we
have only _xa_, and there is another substantive verb _gui_, which
itself takes _oca_ in its conjugation.
The Totonaca language unites the perfect, in the person spoken of,
with the third person singular of the future of the substantive verb,
to form a future perfect. This is no completed form, but only an
awkward sequence of two verbs; _yc-paxquilh-na-huan_, literally, "I
have loved, it will be,"="I shall have loved."
In similar manner the substantive verb is used to form a tense of the
subjunctive.
The sign of both the perfects in this tongue is the syllable _nit_,
and _niy_ means "to die." It is not improbable that this affix is
derived from this verb. Death and destruction are suitable ideas to
express the past, and some languages employ negative particles as
signs of the preterit. In the Tamanaca this is not exactly the case,
but the negative particle _puni_ added to a word which signifies an
animate thing, intimates that it has died; _papa puni_, the deceased
father, literally, "father not." In the Omagua tongue the same word
signifies old, dead, and not present.
In the Maipure and Carib tongues the negative particles _ma_ and _spa_
are also the signs of the preterit. Bopp's suggestion that the
Sanscrit augment was originally _a_ privative finds support in this
analogy. Yet I would not speak conclusively on this point, as probably
that, the Greek augment ~e~, and the Mexican _o_, are only
lengthened sounds, intended to represent concretely the length of the
past time. At any rate one must regard the negation as an actual
destruction, a "been, and no longer being," not as simply a negation
of the present.