A Comparative Grammar (Bopp 1885)/Of the Roots

by Franz Bopp

OF THE ROOTS.

[G. Ed. p. 105.] 105. There are in Sanskrit, and the languages which are akin to it, two classes of roots: from the one, which is by far the more numerous, spring verbs, and nouns (substantives and adjectives) which stand in fraternal connection with the verbs, not in the relation of descent from them, not begotten by them, but sprung from the same shoot with them. We term them, nevertheless, for the sake of distinction, and according to prevailing custom, Verbal Roots; and the verb, too, stands in close formal connection with them, because from many roots each person of the present is formed by simply adding the requisite personal termination. From the second class spring pronouns, all original prepositions, conjunctions, and particles: we name them Pronominal Roots, because they all express a pronominal idea, which, in the prepositions, conjunctions, and particles, lies more or less concealed. No simple pronouns can be carried back, either according to their meaning or their form, to any thing more general, but their declension-theme (or inflective base) is at the same time their root. The Indian Grammarians, however, derive all words, the pronouns included, from verbal roots, although the majority of pronominal bases, even in a formal respect, are opposed to such a derivation, because they, for the most part, end with a: one, indeed, consists simply of a. Among [G. Ed. p. 106.] the verbal roots, however, there is not a single one in ă, although long a, and all other vowels, DEV âu excepted, occur among the final letters of the verbal roots. Accidental external identity takes place between the verbal and pronominal roots; e.g. DEV i signifies, as a verbal root, “to go,” as a pronominal root, “he,” “this.”

106. The verbal roots, like those of the pronouns, are monosyllabic; and the polysyllabic forms represented by the grammarians as roots contain either a reduplicate-syllable, as DEV jâgṛi, “to wake,” or a preposition which has grown up with the root, as DEV ava-dhîr, “to despise”; or they have sprung from a noun, like DEV kumâr, “to play,” which I derive from a kumâra, “a boy.” Except the law of their being monosyllabic, the Sanskrit roots are subjected to no further limitation, and their one-syllableness may present itself under all possible forms, in the shortest and most extended, as well as those of a middle degree. This free state of irrestriction was necessary, as the language was to contain within the limits of one-syllableness the whole body of fundamental ideas. The simple vowels and consonants were not sufficient: it was requisite to frame roots also where several consonants, combined in inseparable unity, became, as it were, simple sounds; e.g. DEV sthâ, “to stand,” a root in which the age of the co-existence of the s and th is supported by the unanimous testimony of all the members of our race of languages. So also, in DEV skand, “to go,” (Lat. scand-o) the age of the combination of consonants, both in the beginning and ending of the root, is certified by the agreement of the Latin with the Sanskṛit. The proposition, that in the earliest period of language a simple vowel is sufficient to express a verbal idea, is supported by the remarkable concurrence of [G. Ed. p. 107.] nearly all the individuals of the Sanskṛit family of languages in expressing the idea “to go” by the root i.

107. The nature and peculiarity of the Sanskrit verbal roots explains itself still more by comparison with those of the Semitic languages. These require, as far as we trace back their antiquity, three consonants, which, as I have already elsewhere shewn,^[1] express the fundamental idea by themselves alone, without the aid of vowels; and although they may be momentarily compressed into one syllable, still, in this, the combination of the middle radical with the first or last cannot be recognised as original and belonging to the root, because it is only transitory, and chiefly depends on the mechanism of the construction of the word. Thus, in Hebrew, kâtûl, “slain,” in the fem., on account of the addition âh contracts itself to ktûl (ktûl-âh); while kôtêl, “slaying,” before the same addition, compresses itself in an opposite manner, and forms kôtlâh. Neither ktûl, therefore, nor kôtl, can be regarded as the root; and just as little can it be looked for in ktôl, as the status constructus of the infinitive; for this is only a shortening of the absolute form kâtôl, produced by a natural tendency to pass hastily to the word governed by the infinitive, which, as it were, has grown to it. In the imperative ktôl the abbreviation is not external, subject to mechanical conditions, but rather dynamic, and occasioned by the hurry with which a command is usually enunciated. In the Semitic languages, in decided opposition to those of the Sanskṛit family, the vowels belong, not to the root, but to the grammatical motion, the secondary ideas, and the mechanism of the construction of [G. Ed. p. 108.] the word. By them, for example, is distinguished, in Arabic, katala, “he slew,” from kutila, “he was slain”; and in Hebrew, kôtêl, “slaying,” from kâtûl, “slain.” A Semitic root is unpronounceable, because, in giving it vowels, an advance is made to a special grammatical form, and it then no longer possesses the simple peculiarity of a root raised above all grammar. But in the Sanskṛit family of languages, if its oldest state is consulted in the languages which have continued most pure, the root appears as a circumscribed nucleus, which is almost unalterable, and which surrounds itself with foreign syllables, whose origin we must investigate, and whose destination is, to express the secondary ideas of grammar which the root itself cannot express. The vowel, with one or more consonants, and sometimes without any consonant whatever, belongs to the fundamental meaning: it can be lengthened to the highest degree, or raised by Guna or Vṛiddhi; and this lengthening or raising, and, more lately, the retention of an original a, opposed to its weakening to i or change to u (§§. 66., 67.), belongs not to the denoting of grammatical relations, which require to be more clearly pointed out, but, as I imagine I can prove, only to the mechanism, the symmetry of construction.

108. As the Semitic roots, on account of their construction, possess the most surprising capacity for indicating the secondary ideas of grammar by the mere internal moulding of the root, of which they also make extensive use, while the Sanskrit roots, at the first grammatical movement, are compelled to assume external additions; so must it appear strange, that F. von Schlegel,^[2] while he [G. Ed. p. 109.] divides languages in general into two chief races, of which the one denotes the secondary intentions of meaning by an internal alteration of the sound of the root by inflexion, the other always by the addition of a word, which may by itself signify plurality, past time, what is to be in future, or other relative ideas of that kind, allots the Sanskṛit and its sisters to the former race, and the Semitic languages to the second. “There may, indeed,” he writes, p. 48, “arise an appearance of inflexion, when the annexed particles are melted down with the chief word so as to be no longer distinguishable; but where in a language, as in the Arabic, and in all which are connected with it, the first and most important relations, as those of the person to verbs, are denoted by the addition of particles which have a meaning for themselves individually, and the tendency to which suffixes shews itself deeply seated in the language, it may there be safely assumed that the same may have occurred in other positions, where the annexation of particles of a foreign nature no longer admits of such clear discrimination: one may at least safely assume that the language, on the whole, belongs to this chief race, although in this single point, by admixture or artificial adornment, it has adopted another and a higher character.” We must here preliminarily observe, that, in Sanskṛit and the languages connected with it, the personal terminations of the verbs shew at least as great a similarity to isolated pronouns as in Arabic. How should any language, which expresses the pronominal relations of the verbs by syllables annexed either at the beginning or end of the word, in the choice of these syllables avoid, and not rather select, those which, in their isolated state, also express the corresponding [G. Ed. p. 110.] pronominal ideas? By inflexion, F. von Schlegel understands the internal alteration of the sound of the root, or (p. 35) the internal modification of the root, which he (p. 48) opposes to addition from without. But when from δο or δω, in Greek, comes δίδω-μι, δώ-σω, δο-θησόμεθα, what are the forms μι, σω, θησόμεθα, but palpable external additions to the root, which is not at all internally altered, or only in the quantity of the vowel? If, then, by inflexion, an internal modification of the root is to be understood, the Sanskrit and Greek &c. have in that case—except the reduplication, which is supplied by the elements of the root itself—scarce any inflexion at all to shew. If, however, θησόμεθα is an external modification of the root δο, simply because it is combined with it, touches it, with it expresses a whole; then the idea of sea and continent may be represented as an internal modification of the sea, and vice versâ. P. 50, F. von Schlegel remarks: “In the Indian or Grecian language every root is truly that which the name says, and like a living germ; for since the ideas of relation are denoted by internal alteration, freer room is given for development, the fulness of which can be indefinitely extended, and is, in fact, often wondrously rich. All, however, which in this manner proceeds from the simple root, still retains the stamp of its relationship, adheres to it, and thus reciprocally bears and supports itself.” I find, however, the inference not established; for from the capability of expressing ideas of relation by internal alteration of the root, how can the capability be deduced of surrounding the (internally unalterable) root indefinitely, with foreign syllables externally added? What kind of stamp of relationship is there between μι, σω, θησόμεθα, and the [G. Ed. p. 111.] roots to which these significative additions are appended ? We therefore recognise in the inflexions of the Sanskṛit family of languages no internal involutions of the root, but elements of themselves significative, and the tracing of the origin of which is the task of scientific grammar. But even if the origin of not a single one of these inflexions could be traced with certainty, still the principle of the formation of grammar, by external addition, would not, for that reason, be the less certain, because, at the first glance, in the majority of inflexions, one discovers at least so much, that they do not belong to the root, but have been added from without. A. W. von Schlegel, also, who, in essential points, assents to the above-mentioned division of languages,^[3] gives us to understand, with regard to the so-called inflexions, that they are not modifications of the root, but foreign additions, whose characteristic lies in this, that [G. Ed. p. 112.] regarded, per se, they have no meaning. In the Semitic, the appended grammatical syllables or inflexions have no meaning, at least in so far that they do not, any more than in Sanskṛit, occur isolated in a completely similar state. In Arabic, for instance, antum, and not tum, is said for “ye”; and in Sanskṛit ma, ta, and not mi, ti, are the declinable bases of the first and third person; and at-Ti, “he eats,” has the same relation to TA-m, “him,” that in Gothic IT-a, “I eat,” has to the monosyllabic AT, “I ate.” The reason for weakening the a of the base to i is probably, in the different cases of the two sister languages, the same, viz. the greater extent of the form of word with i (comp. §. 6.) If, then, the division of languages made by F. von Schlegel is untenable, on the reasons on which it is founded, still there is much ingenuity in the thought of a natural history or classification of languages. We prefer, however, to present, with A. W. von Schlegel (l. c.), three classes, and distinguish them as follows: first, languages with monosyllabic roots, without the capability of composition, and hence without organism, without grammar. This class comprises Chinese, where ull is hitherto bare root, and the grammatical categories, and secondary relations after the Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/125 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/126 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/127 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/128 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/129 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/130 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/131 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/132 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/133 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/134 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/135 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/136 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/137 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/138 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/139 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/140 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/141 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/142 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/143 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/144 Page:Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Slavonic languages (Bopp 1885).pdf/145

1. Trans, of the Hist. Phil. Class of the R. A. of Litt, of Berlin for the year 1824, p. 126, &c.
2. In his work on the language and wisdom of the Indians.
3. Nevertheless, in his work, “Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales,” p. 14, &c., he gives three classes, viz. Les langues sans aucune structure grammaticale, les langues qui emploient des affixes, et les langues à inflexions. Of the latter, he says: “Je pense, cependant, qu’il faut assigner le premier rang aux langues à inflexions. On pourroit les appeler les langues organiques, parce qu’elles renferment un principe vivant de developpement et d’accroissement, et qu’elles ont seules, si je puis m’exprimer ainsi, une végétation abondante et féconde. Le merveillevx artifice de ces langues est, de former une immense variété de mots, et de marquer la liaison des idées que ces mots désignent, moyennant un assez petit nombre de syllabes qui, considérées séparément, n’ont point de signification, mais qui déterminent avec précision le sens du mot auqnel elles sont jointes. En modifiant les lettres radicales, et en ajoutant aux racines des syllabes dérivatives, on forme de mots dérivés de diverses espèces, et des dérivés des dérivés. On compose des mots de plusieurs racines pour exprimer les idées complexes. Ensuite on décline les substantifs, les adjectifs, et les pronoms, par genres, par nombres, et par cas; on conjugue les verbes par voix, par modes, par temps, par nombres, et par personnes, en employant de même des désinences et quelquefois des augmens qui, séparément, ne signifient rien. Cette méthode procure l’avantage d’énoncer en un seul mot l’idée principale, souvent déjà trés-modifiée et trés-complexe, avec tout son cortége d’idées accessoires et de relations variables.