A Comparative Grammar (Bopp 1885)/Characters and Sounds

←

A Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Slavonic Languages (1885)
by Franz Bopp, translated by Edward B. Eastwick

Of the Roots

→

Franz Bopp4555887A Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Slavonic Languages1885Edward B. Eastwick

COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR.

CHARACTERS AND SOUNDS.

Sanskṛit writing distinguishes the long from their corresponding short vowels by particular characters, slightly differing from these latter in form. We distinguish the long vowels, and the diphthongs ए e and ओ o, which spring from i and u united with an antecedent a, by a circumflex. The simple vowels are, first, the three, original and common to all languages, a, i, u, short and long; secondly, a vowel r, peculiar to the Sanskṛit, which I distinguish by ṛ, and its long sound by ṝ . The short ṛ (ऋ) is pronounced like the consonant r with a scarcely-distinguishable i, and in European texts is usually written rĭ; the long ṝ (ॠ) is scarcely to be distinguished from the union of an r with a long i. Both vowels appear to me to be of later origin; and ṛ presents itself generally as a shortening of the syllable ar by suppression of the a. The long ṝ (ॠ) is of much rarer occurrence. In declension it stands only for a lengthening of the ṛ, where, according to the laws of the formation of cases, a short vowel at the end of the inflective base must be lengthened; and in the conjugation and formation of words, those roots to which grammarians assign a terminating ॠ ṝ almost always substitute for this unoriginal vowel अर् ar, इर् ir, ईर् îr, or, after labials, ऊर् ûr. The last simple vowel of the Sanskṛit writing belongs more to the grammarians [G. Ed. p. 2.] than to the language: it is in character, as well as in pronunciation, an union of an ल् l with ऋ ṛ (ऌ), or, when lengthened, with ॠ ṝ (ॡ). We require no representative for this vowel, and shall not further advert to it.

2. Sanskrit possesses two kinds of diphthongs. In the one, a short a united with a following i becomes DEVANAGARI ê (equivalent to the French ai), and with u becomes DEV ô (equivalent to the French au); so that neither of the united elements is heard, but both melt into a third sound. In the second kind, a long â with a following i becomes DEV ai, and with u, DEV au, as in the German words waise, baum; so that the two elements form indeed one syllable, but are both audible. In order, however, to fix the observation on the greater weight of the a in this diphthong, we write âi for DEV, and âu for DEV. That in DEV ê and DEV ô a short, in DEV âi and DEV âu, a long a is bound up, I infer from this, that where, in order to avoid a hiatus, the last element of a diphthong merges into its corresponding semi-vowel, out of DEV ê and DEV ô proceed the sounds DEV ay and DEV av (with short a), but out of DEV âi and DEV âu proceed ây and âv. If, according to the rules of combination, a concluding DEV â, with an DEV i, DEV î, or DEV u, DEV û of a following word, be contracted, like the short a, into DEV ê and DEV ô, but not into DEV âi and DEV âu, this, in my view, is to be understood as if the long a, before its combination with the initial vowel of the following word, had shortened itself. This should the less surprise us, as the long a before a dissimilar vowel of an appended inflexion or a suffix entirely disappears; and, for example, DEV dadâ with DEV us makes neither DEV dadâus, nor DEV dadôs, but DEV dadus. The opinion I have already expressed on [G. Ed. p. 3.] this point I have since found confirmed by the Zend; in which AVESTAN âi always stands in the place of the Sanskṛit DEV âi, and AVE âo or AVE âu for DEV âu. In support, also, of my theory, appears the fact, that a concluding a (short or long) with a following DEV ê or DEV ô, becomes DEV âi and âu; of which it is to be understood, that the short a contained in ê and ô merges with the antecedent a into a long a, which then, with the i of the diphthong ê, becomes âi, and with the u of ô, becomes âu. For example, DEV mamâitat, from DEV mama êtat, is to be understood as if the diphthong DEV ê united its first element a with the preceding a into d, and with this, further united its last element (i) into di. [Compare § 688, p. 917.]

3. Among the simple vowels the old Indian alphabet is deficient in the designation of the Greek epsilon and omicron (e and o) whose sounds, if they existed when the Sanskrit was a living language, yet could only have evolved themselves, subsequently to the fixing of its written character, out of the short a; for an alphabet which lends itself to the subtlest gradations of sound would assuredly not have neglected the difference between a, e, and, if the sounds had been forth- coming.^[1] It is important here to observe, that in the oldest Germanic dialect, namely, the Gothic, the sounds and characters of the short e and o are also wanting, and that either a, i, or u corresponds, in that dialect, to our German short e. For example, faltha, “ich falte,” “I fold,” giba, “ich gebe,” “I give.” In the Zend the Sanskrit DEV a remains usually as AVE a, or has changed itself, according to certain [G. Ed. p. 4.] rules, into AVE e. Thus, for example, before a concluding m we always find ; compare the accusative puthre-m “filium” with a putra-m; and its genitive wo puthra-hé with ga putra-sya. In Greek the Sanskrit a becomes a, e, or o, without presenting any certain rules for the choice on each occasion between these three vowels; but the prevailing practice is, that in the terminations of nominal bases the Greek o answers to the Indian DEV a except in the vocatives, where an e is substituted. In the Latin, besides ǎ, é, and ŏ, u also is employed, in the terminations of nouns of the second declension and of the first person plural, as also in some adverbial suffixes, to replace the Sanskrit a.

4. As in the Greek the short Sanskrit a is oftener replaced by e or o than by a short a, so the long DEV â is oftener represented by n or wo than by a long alpha: and though in the Doric the long a has maintained itself in places where the ordinary dialect employs an a, no similar trace of the long a for w is to be found. ufadadhami. "I place," becomes Tinu; dadámi, "I give," dow; the dual termi- nation 1 tâm answers to TV, and only in the imperative to Twv: on the other hand, the dm of the genitive plural is always represented by wv. Never, if we except peculiarities of dialect, does either nor w stand for the Indian diphthongs or d, formed by or an u following a long á: for the first, the Greek substitutes er or or (because for a, and also for a, e and o are the substitutes), and for the last, cu or ou. Thus, zfa mi, "I go," becomes equ; पत्तेस् pates, "thou mayest fall," winTois; véda, "I know," oida; go, mas. fem. "a bullock or heifer," Bou-s. From this dropping of the i or u in the Indian diphthongs # and it [G. Ed. p. 5.] may happen that a, e, or o, answer to these diphthongs; thus, anca kataras, "one of two," becomes Exάrepos; devri,^[2] "brother-in-law," Latin, levir (nom. 1 dévá, accus. devar-am), becomes dap (from daFip, daiFrp); DEV dêva-s, “God,” Ocós; and the o in Boós, Boi, stands for Bou-ós, Bou-i, the u of which must have passed into F, and certainly did so at first, as is proved by the transition into the Latin bovis, bovi, and the Indian fa gari locative) from go-i.

5. In Latin we sometimes find the long e, which, however, may be shortened by the influence of the following conso- nant, arising from the mixture of a and i, as in the above- mentioned word levir, and in the subjunctive amêmus; cf. kamayema, from kúmaya-ima.

6. If we inquire after the greater or less relative weight of the vowels of different quality, I have discovered, by various but sure appearances, which I shall further illustrate in my treatise on Forms, that in Sanskṛit अ a and आ â are graver than the corresponding quantity of the vowel i; and this discovery is of the utmost importance for every Treatise on special as well as comparative Grammar. It leads us, in particular, to important discoveries with respect to the Germanic modification of vowels. In Latin, also, the i may be considered as lighter than a, and generally takes the place of the latter when a root with an original a would otherwise be burthened with a reduplication of sound. Hence, for example, abjicio for abjacio, tetigi for tetagi. I am compelled by this view to retract an earlier conjecture, that the i in tetigi was produced by a virtue of assimilation in the termination i. I have also to relieve myself from my former theory, that the e in words like inermis, imberbis, instead of [G. Ed. p. 6.] inarmis, imbarbis, springs from a retrospective power of assimilation in the following i, after the fashion of the modification of the vowel in German (Grimm, p. 80), and must place it in the same class with the e in such forms as abjectus and tubicen. The Latin radical a, for instance, is subject to a double alteration, when the root is burthened with antecedent syllables or words: it becomes i in open syllables, but e if the vowel is pressed upon by a following consonant unattended by a vowel. Hence we have tubicen, abjectus, in contrast to tubicinis, abjicio; and inermis, imberbis, not inirmis, imbirbis: on the contrary, inimicus, insipidus, not inemicus, insepidus. In connection with this stands the transition of the first or second declension into the third. As us is the masculine form for a, we ought to say inermus, imberbus; but inermis, imberbis, and other such forms, owe their origin to the lesser weight of the i. With the displacement of the accent, where it occurs, this change of the vowel has nothing to do; but the removal of the accent and the weakening of the vowel are nearly related, and are both occasioned by the composition. In the Lithuanian we find similar appearances; as, for example, pónas, “lord,” at the end of conapounds, is weakened into ponis, as rótponis, “councillor,” Germ. rathsherr.” (See p. 1305, Note *).

7. Sanskrit Grammar gives no certain indication of the relative weight of the u with regard to the other original vowels, The u is a vowel too decided and full of character to allow of its being exchanged in this language, in relief of its weight, for any other letter. It is the most obstinate of all, and admits of no exclusion from a terminating syllable, in cases where a and i admit suppression. Nor will it retire [G. Ed. p.7.] from a reduplicated syllable in cases where a allows itself to be weakened down to i. Thus in Latin we have pupugi, tutudi; while a, in cases of repetition, is reduced to i or ĕ (tetigi, fefelli, &c.) In the Gothic, also, the u may boast of its pertinacity: it remains firm as the terminating vowel of nominal bases where a and i have undergone suppression, and in no single case has it been extinguished or transmuted. No power, however, exists which will not yield at last to time; and thus in the High German, whose oldest records are nearly four centuries younger than Ulphilas, the u has, in many cases, given way, or become in declension similar to i. (See also §§ 490, 584.)

8. If, in the matter of the relative dignity of the vowels, we cast a glance at another race of languages, we find in Arabic the u taking precedence in nobility, as having its place in the nominative, while the declension is governed by the change of the terminating vowel; i, on the contrary, shews itself to be the weakest vowel, by having its place in the genitive, the most dependent case of the Arabic, and one which cannot be separated from the governing word. I, also, is continually used in cases where the grammatical relation is expressed by a preposition, Compare, also, in the plural, the ûna of the nominative with the termination îna of the oblique cases. A stands between the strong u and the weaker i; and under the threefold change of vowels has its place in the accusative, which admits of more freedom than the genitive. In the oblique cases, however, of nouns, and in the two-fold change of vowels, it stands opposed to the u of the nominative, and in the dependent subjunctive of the verb to the u of the independent indicative.

9. Between the vowels and the consonants, or at the close of the list of vowels, are commonly placed two signs, the sounds of which are rather to be considered as [G. Ed. p 8.] appendages to, or modifications of, the preceding vowels, than as independent sounds, and take, also, no place in the alphabet of the Native Grammarians, inasmuch as they are considered neither asconsonants nor vowels, but rather as complements to the latter. The first, which we distinguish by ṅ, is called Anuswâra, “echo;” and is;in fact,a thick nasal echo, which I think is best represented by the nasal n at the end ofa French syllable. The weakness of its expression is discernible in the fact that it does not, like a consonant, impede the euphonic influence of an i or u on a following s, (see Sanskṛit Grammar, R. 101^a). It has its place before semi-vowels (a y, i r, & l, % v), sibilants, and h; and we might thence term it the nasal of the two last lists of consonants, and assign its alphabetical place between them. A concluding 4 m, followed by a consonant of the said two lists, passes into Anuswâra; for example, WeATH tasyâm, “in this,” becomes wei tasyân, with the French nasal pronunciation of the n, if such a word as wat râtrâu, “in the night,” come after. In connection with the 4 s of a verbal termination, a radical q n also passes into Anuswâra; as, éfa haṅsi, “thou killest,” from ¢q han. Great confusion, however, has arisen from the circumstance that the Indian copyists allow themselves to express the unaltered concluding & m, as well as all the nasal alterations, and, in the middle of words, each of the six nasal sounds (the proper Anuswâra included), by Anuswâra.^[3] I have endeavoured, in my Grammar, to remedy this confusion in the simple theory of Anuswara. My predecessors in the treatment of Sanskrit Grammar make no distinction between the real and the supposititious Anuswara. Colebrooke gives it, in [G. Ed. p. 9.] general, the pronunciation of n, and calls it “a shortening of the nasal consonants at the end of a syllable,” which leads to the error, that each of the nasal characters, even the concluding a n, may be abbreviated into Anuswâra. Forster expresses it by the n in the English word plinth; Carey and Yates by the English combination ng; Wilkins by m. All substitute it for the concluding 4 of grammatical terminations: and as they give rules for the transition of the Anuswâra into mA or 7 , the necessary consequence occurs, that we must write abhavan or abhavang, “I was;” dantan or dantang, “a tooth;” not abhavam, dantam. Colebrooke, on the other hand, expressing a Sanskrit inscription in Roman letters (Asiatic Transactions, Vol. VIL.) gives the proper termination m, and before t, by a euphonic rule, n; but he maintains the original m before sibilants and half vowels where Anuswâra is due; as vidwishâm srîmad, for fafgat vidwishân. On the other hand, F. von Schlegel and Frank write n, for the value of Anuswâra, in the place of m in several grammatical terminations, The first, for example, gives danan, “a gift,” for dânam; the second, ahan for aham, “I.” A. W. von Schlegel gives rightly m instead of a spurious or representative Anuswâra at the end of words; and makes, for example, the infinitive termination in tum, not in tun or tung. He, nevertheless, on this important point of grammar, retains the erroneous opinion, that the Anuswâra is a variable nasal, which, before vowels, must of necessity pass into m (Preface to the Bhag. Gita, p. xv.); while the direct converse is the fact, that the concluding m is the variable nasal, which, under certain conditions, passes into the proper Anuswâra; but before vowels is necessarily retained, both in writing and pronunciation. [G. Ed. p. 10.] That Von Schlegel also still continues the original DEV m at the end of words as an euphonic alteration of the dead sound of Anuswâra appears from his mode of printing Sanskrit text, in which he makes no division between a concluding DEV m and the commencing vowel of the following word; while he does make a division after DEV n, and thereby shews that he admits a division after terminating letters which remain unaffected by the influence of the letters which follow. If, however, we write DEV tân abravît, “he said to them,” we must also write DEV tâm abravît, “he said to her;" not DEV tâmabravît, for the DEV of DEV tâm is original, and not, as Von Schlegel thinks, begotten out of Anuswâra. The conjecture of C. Lassen (Ind. Bibl. Book III. p. 39), that the Anuswâra is to be understood, not as an after sound (Nachlaut), not as an echo (Nachhall), but as a sound which regulates itself by that which follows—as it were the term Nachlaut, with the accent on laut^[4]—appears to me highly improbable. Schlegel's nasalis mutabilis would indeed be justified by this view, and the imputation of error removed from the Indian Grammarians, to whom we willingly concede a knowledge of the value of the Sanskṛit signs of sound, and whom we are unwilling to censure for designating a half sound as mutable, in a language whose terminating sounds are almost always governed by the following words. It is true the half sound owes its being to the mutability of a concluding m, but is not mutable itself, since it never has an independent existence of its own at the end of any word: in the middle, however, of a radical syllable, as DEV daṅś, DEV hiṅs, it is susceptible of expulsion, but not of alteration. [G. Ed. p. 11.] That the Indian Grammarians, however, consider the m and not the ṅ as the original but mutable letter in grammatical terminations, like DEV am, DEV bhyâm, &c., appears from the fact that they always write these terminations, where they give them separate, with the labial nasal, and not with Anuswâra. If it be objected that this is of no importance, as dependent on the caprice of the editor or copyist, we can adduce as a decisive proof of the just views of the Indian Grammarians in this respect, that when they range the declensions of words in the order of their terminating letters, the Pronouns DEV idam, and DEV kim, in which they consider the m as primitive, are treated when the turn comes of the labial nasal m, and together with DEV praśâm, “quiet,” from the root DEV śam. (Laghu-Kaumudî, p. 46.)

10. The deadened nasal, which is expressed in the Lithuanian by particular signs over the vowel which it follows, appears to be identical with the Sanskrit Anuswâra; and we write it in the same manner with ṅ. At the end of words it stands for the remainder of an ancient m, in the accusative singular for example; and the deadening of n before s into ṅ presents a remarkable accordance with the Sanskrit rule of euphony before mentioned. From laupsin-u. "I praise," therefore comes laupsinau, "I shall praise;" as in Sanskrit fa hansydmi, "I shall kill," from the root han. In the Prakrit, not only them, but then, at the end of words, has always fallen into Anuswâra, without regard to the follow- ing letters Thus we read in Chezy's edition of the Sakun- talá, p. 70, ***, which is certainly to be pronounced, not bhaaram, but bhaavan, for na bhagavan; [G. Ed. p. 12.] kudhan, for kutham.^[5]

11. The second of the signs before mentioned is named Visarga, which signifies abandonment. It expresses a breath- ing, which is never primitive, but only appears at the end of words in the character of an euphonic alteration of स् 8 and र.. These two letters (s, r) are very mutable at the end of words, and are changed into Visarga before a pause or the deadened letters of the guttural and labial classes (§. 12.). We write this sign h to distinguish it from the true DEV h.

65. We give here a complete summary of the Zend characters.

Simple Vowels: AVE a, AVE ĕ, AVE e; AVE â; AVE i, AVE î; AVE u, AVE o, AVE û.
Diphthongs: AVE, AVE ê, AVE ôi; AVE âi; AVE ô, AVE âo, AVE âu.
Gutturals: AVE k (before vowels and AVE v), AVE c (principally before consonants), AVE kh (from DEV sw, before vowels and AVE y); AVE g, AVE gh.
Palatals: AVE ch, AVE j.
Dentals: AVE t (before vowels and AVE y), AVE ṭ (before consonants and at the end of words), AVE th (before whole and semi-vowels), AVE d, AVE dh.
Labials: AVE p, AVE f (the latter before vowels, semi-vowels, nasals, and AVE s), AVE b.
Semi-vowels: AVE, AVE, AVE y (the two [G. Ed. p. 60.] first initial, the last medial), AVE, AVE r (the last only after AVE f), AVE, AVE v (the first initial, the last medial), AVE w.
Sibilants and h: AVE ś, AVE sh, AVE s, AVE zh (or like the French j), AVE z, AVE h.
Nasals: AVE n (before vowels, semi-vowels, and at the end of words), AVE n (before strong consonants), AVE aṇ (before sibilants, AVE h, AVE th, AVE f, AVE m, and AVE n), AVE ṇ (between AVE a or AVE âo, and AVE h, and between a and r^[6]), AVE ṇ (between AVE i or AVE ê, and AVE h), AVE m.
Remark also the Compounds AVE for AVE ah, and AVE for AVE st.

66. We refrain from treating specially of the Greek, Latin, and Lithuanian systems of sounds, but must here devote a closer consideration to the Germanic. The Gothic a, which, according to Grimm, is always short, answers completely to the Sanskṛit a; and the sounds of the Greek ε and ο are wanting, in their character of degeneration from a, in Gothic as well as in Sanskrit. The ancient a has not, however, always been retained in Gothic; but in radical syllables, as well as in terminations, has often been weakened to i, or has undergone suppression; often, also, by the influence of a following liquid, has been converted into u. Compare, for instance, sibun, “seven,” with DEV saptan; taihun, “ten,” with dasan.

67. We believe ourselves authorized to lay down as a law, that DEV a in polysyllabic words before a terminating s is everywhere weakened into i, or suppressed; but before a terminating th generally appears as i. A concluding DEV a in the Gothic either remains unaltered, or disappears: it never becomes i.

68. In the Old High German the Gothic a either remains [G. Ed. p. 61.] unaltered, or is weakened to e, or is changed by the influence of a liquid to u = perhaps o. According to this, the relation of the unorganic e to the Gothic a is the same as that of the Gothic (§. 66.) to DEV a; compare, for instance, in the genitive of the bases in a DEV vṛika-sya, Gothic vulfi-s, Old High German wolfe-s. In the dative plural wolfu-m stands to vulfa-m in the same relation as above (§. 66.), sibun to saptan. The precedence of a liquid has also, in Old High German, sometimes converted this a into u or o; compare plinte-mu(mo), cœco, with the Gothic blindamma. Also after the German j or y, which in Sanskrit (DEV y) belongs as a semi-vowel to the same class as ṛ, the Old High German seems to prefer u to a; thence plintju, without j also plintu, “cœca,” as a fem. nom, sing, and neuter nom. acc. voc. plural; plinta “cœcam.” The u of the first person present, as kipu, “I give,” Gothic giba, I ascribe to the influence of the dropped personal letter m. Respecting the degeneration of the original a sound to u compare also §. 66. In the Old High German inseparable preposition ki (our German ge) = Gothic ga. Sanskṛit DEV sa or DEV sam, we Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/79 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/80 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/81 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/82 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/83 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/84 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/85 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/86 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/87 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/88 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/89 kh, which is wanting in the Gothic. In this manner is aih related to aigum, " we have," as bauth to buddum, and gaf to gêbum. Probably the pronunciation of the Gothic h was not in all positions the same, but in terminations, and before t and s, if not generally before consonants, corresponded to our ch. The High German has ch as an aspirate of the k: for this tenuis, however, either k or c stands in the older dialects, the use of which, in Middle High German, is so dis- tinguished, that c stands as a terminating letter, and in the middle of words before t, and ch also stands for a double k. (Grimm, p. 422.) This distinction reminds us of the use of the Zend c in contrast to 5k, as also of the trast to t. (§§. 34. 38.)

(2.) The palatals and linguals are wanting in Gothic, as in Greek and Latin; the dentals are, in Gothic, t, th, d, [G. Ed. p. 74.] together with their nasal n. For th the Gothic alphabet has a special character. In the High German 2 (=ts) fills the place of the aspiration of the t, so that the breathing is replaced by the sibilation. By the side of this in the Old High German, the old Gothic-th also maintains its existence.^[7] There are two species of z, which, in Middle High German, do not agree with each other. In the one, t has the preponderance, in the other, s; and this latter is written by Isidor zs, and its reduplication zss, while the reduplication of the former he writes tz. In the Modern High German the second species has only retained the sibilant, but in writing is distinguished, though not uni- versally, from & proper. Etymologically, both species of the Old and Middle High German z fall under the same head, and correspond to the Gothic t.

(3.) The labials are, in Gothic, p, f, b, with their nasal Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/91 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/92 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/93 s is the surd. It is remarkable, in a grammatical point of view, that a concluding s before the enclitic particles ei and th, and before the passive addition a, passes into ; hence, for instance, thizei "cujus," from this "hujus," thanzei "quos," from thans "hos," vileizuh "visne" from vileis "vis," haitaza “vocaris,” from haitis "vocas," or rather from its earlier form [G. Ed. p. 78.] haitas. The root slép, "to sleep," forms, by a reduplication, in the preterite, saizlép, "I or he slept. Other examples are, izvis, "vobis," "vos," razn "house," talzyan, "to teach," marzyan, "to provoke," fairzna, "heel." The High German loves the softening of $ into r, especially between two vowels (see §. 22.); but this change has not established itself as a pervading law, and does not extend over all parts of the Grammar. For instance, in Old High German, the finals of several roots has changed itself into r before the preterite terminations which commence with a vowel; on the other hand, it has remained unaltered in the uninflected first and third pers. sing. indicative, and also before the vowels of the present. For example, from the root lus, comes liusu, "I lose," lds, "I or he lost," lurumés "we lost." While in these cases the termination takes s under its protection, yet the s of the nominative singular, where it has not been altogether dropped, is everywhere softened down to r; and, on the other hand, the concluding s of the genitive has, down to our time, remained unaltered, and thus an organic difference has arisen between two cases originally distinguished by a similar suffix. For instance,

gothic.	old high german.	modern high german.
Nominative blind’-s,	plintê-r,	blinde-r.
NominativeGenitive blindi-s,	plinte-s,	blinde-s.

87. The Germanic tongues exhibit, in respect of consonants, a remarkable law of displacement, which has been first recognised and developed with great ability by Grimm. According to this law, the Gothic, and the other dialects with the exception of the High German, in relation to the Greek, Latin, and, with certain limits, also [G. Ed. p. 79.] to the Sanskrit and Zend, substitute aspirates for the original tenues, h for k, th for t, and f for p; tenues for medials, t for d, p for b, and k for g; finally, medials for aspirates, g for χ d for θ, and b for f. The High German bears the same regular relation to the Gothic as the latter to the Greek, and substitutes its aspirates for the Gothic tenues and Greek medials; its tenues for the Gothic medials and Greek aspirates; and its medials for the Gothic aspirates and Greek tenues. Yet the Gothic labial and guttural medial exhibits itself unaltered in most of the Old High German authorities, as in the Middle and Modern High German; for instance, Gothic biuga, “flecto,” Old High German biuga and piuka, Middle High German biuge, Modern High German biege. For the Gothic f, the Old High German substitutes v, especially as a first letter (§. 86. 3.). In the t sounds, z in High German (= ts) replaces an aspirate. The Gothic has no aspiration of the k, and either replaces the Greek κ by the simple aspiration h, in which case it sometimes coincides with the Sanskṛit ह् h, or it falls to the level of the High German, and, in the middle or end of words, usually gives g instead of k, the High German adhering, as regards the beginning of words, to the Gothic practice, and participating with that dialect in the use of the h. We give here Grimm’s table, illustrating the law of these substitutions, p. 584.

Greek	P	B	F	!	T	D	Th	!	K	G	Ch
Gothic	F	P	B	!	Th	T	D	!		K	G
Old High German,	B (V)	F	P	!	D	Z	T	!	G	Ch	K

[G. Ed. p. 80.]

EXAMPLES.^[8]

sanskṛit.	greek.	latin.	gothic.	old high german.
DEV pâda-s,	GREEK, GREEK	pes, pedis,	fôtus	vuoz.
TODO
DEV śwaśura,	ἐκυρός,	socer,	svaihra,	suehur.
DEV daśan,	δέκα,	decem,	taihun,	zëhan.
DEV jnâ,	γνώμι,	gnosco,	kan,	chan.
DEV jâti,^[9]	γένος,	genus,	kuni,	chuni.
DEV jânu,	γόνυ,	genu,	kniu,	chniu.
महत् mahat,	μέγαλος,	magnus,	mikils,	mihil.
DEV haṇsa,	χήν,	anser,	gans,	kans.
DEV hyas,	χθές,	heri,	gistra,	këstar.
DEV lih,	λέιχω,	lingo,	laigô,	lêkôm.

88. The Lithuanian has left the consonants without displacement in their old situations, only, from its deficiency in aspirates, substituting simple tenues for the Sanskrit aspirated tenues, and medials for the aspirated medials. Compare,

lithuanian.	sanskṛit.
TODO	TODO.

This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

↑ Grimm, Vol. i. p. 594; with whom I entirely concur in this matter; having long abandoned a contrary opinion, which I maintained in 1819 in the Annals of Oriental Literature.
↑ The original has devr, but, as observed in p. 1, in European texts it is usual to write ri for DEV; and the absence of any sign for the vowel sound is calculated to cause embarrassment: it seems advisable, therefore, to express DEV by ri.—Editor.
↑ The practice is not unauthorized by rule. A final 4 is convertible to Anuswâra before any consonant (Pán. 8. 3.23); and a media 4 or @ is convertible convertible to Anuswâra before any consonant except a semi-vowel or a nasal. (Ib. 8. 3. 24.) Such are the rules. In practice, the mutation of the final म is constant: that of the medial nasal is more variable, and in general the change occurs before the semi-vowels and sibilants.—Editor.
↑ This seems intended for an explanation, for Lassen has nothing like it. I have not found an etymological explanation of the term in any grammatical commentary; but it may be doubted if the explanation of the text, or that given by Lassen, be correct. Anuswâra may indeed be termed sequens sonus; but by that is to be understood the final or closing sound of a syllable. Any other nasal may be used as the initial letter of a syllable; but the nasal Anuswâra is exclusively an “after” sound, or final. It is not even capable of blending, as it were, with a following vowel, like a final n or m, as in tân- or tâmabravît. It is the legitimate representative of either of the other nasals when those are absolutely terminal, terminal, and in pronunciation retains their respective sounds, according to the initial consonant of the following word. Again, with regard to its relation to the semi-vowels and sibilants, it may be regarded as appropriate to them merely in as far as neither of the other nasals is so considered. In this sense Anuswâra may be termed a subsidiary or supplemental sound, being prefixed with most propriety to those letters which, not being classed under either of the five series of sounds, have no rightful claim to the nasais severally comprehended within each respective series.—Editor.
↑ No native scholar would read these as bhaavaṇ or kudhaṇ, as the text affirms, but bha-avam, kudham, agreeably to the final DEV represented by Anuswara.—Editor.
↑ E.g. AVE hazaṇra, “a thousand.”
↑ Our Modern High German th is, according to Grimm (p. 525), inorganic, and to be rejected. “It is, neither in pronunciation nor origin, properly aspirated, and nothing but a mere tenuis.”
↑ The Sanskṛit words here stand, where the termination is not separated from the base, or the case not indicated, in their crude or simple form (theme); of the verb, we give only the bare root.
↑ From jan, “to be born.”

[1] Grimm, Vol. i. p. 594; with whom I entirely concur in this matter; having long abandoned a contrary opinion, which I maintained in 1819 in the Annals of Oriental Literature.

[2] The original has devr, but, as observed in p. 1, in European texts it is usual to write ri for DEV; and the absence of any sign for the vowel sound is calculated to cause embarrassment: it seems advisable, therefore, to express DEV by ri.—Editor.

[7_star-3] The practice is not unauthorized by rule. A final 4 is convertible to Anuswâra before any consonant (Pán. 8. 3.23); and a media 4 or @ is convertible convertible to Anuswâra before any consonant except a semi-vowel or a nasal. (Ib. 8. 3. 24.) Such are the rules. In practice, the mutation of the final म is constant: that of the medial nasal is more variable, and in general the change occurs before the semi-vowels and sibilants.—Editor.

[laut-4] This seems intended for an explanation, for Lassen has nothing like it. I have not found an etymological explanation of the term in any grammatical commentary; but it may be doubted if the explanation of the text, or that given by Lassen, be correct. Anuswâra may indeed be termed sequens sonus; but by that is to be understood the final or closing sound of a syllable. Any other nasal may be used as the initial letter of a syllable; but the nasal Anuswâra is exclusively an “after” sound, or final. It is not even capable of blending, as it were, with a following vowel, like a final n or m, as in tân- or tâmabravît. It is the legitimate representative of either of the other nasals when those are absolutely terminal, terminal, and in pronunciation retains their respective sounds, according to the initial consonant of the following word. Again, with regard to its relation to the semi-vowels and sibilants, it may be regarded as appropriate to them merely in as far as neither of the other nasals is so considered. In this sense Anuswâra may be termed a subsidiary or supplemental sound, being prefixed with most propriety to those letters which, not being classed under either of the five series of sounds, have no rightful claim to the nasais severally comprehended within each respective series.—Editor.

[5] No native scholar would read these as bhaavaṇ or kudhaṇ, as the text affirms, but bha-avam, kudham, agreeably to the final DEV represented by Anuswara.—Editor.

[6] E.g. AVE hazaṇra, “a thousand.”

[7] Our Modern High German th is, according to Grimm (p. 525), inorganic, and to be rejected. “It is, neither in pronunciation nor origin, properly aspirated, and nothing but a mere tenuis.”

[8] The Sanskṛit words here stand, where the termination is not separated from the base, or the case not indicated, in their crude or simple form (theme); of the verb, we give only the bare root.

[9] From jan, “to be born.”

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]