ployed a larger number of roots as word-bases than is the case nowadays. — Other examples :
II. In onomatopoeic roots the variation of the interior vowel may be symbolical: Mai. ris stands for a higher, rus for a deeper, “rustling” sound. This phenomenon is extremely common.
III. Some IN languages have sentence-sandhi. Thus in Mentaway a final nasal interchanges regularly with the corresponding tenuis, according to the initial of the following word, e.g., uran with urat, “rain”. The same change is found in Masaretese, but there it does duty in the formation of words: sefen, “angry”, epsefet, “anger”.
Now according to § 47 there are variations in the final of the root which exhibit the hke change, so here again we have fossilized relics of a former Hnguistic vitahty. Examples :
Karo: gěbuk, “cloud of dust”, ahun, “ash”.
Old Jav. : pěpět, “to cover”, simpěn, “to conceal”.
Tontb.: ronkap, “to feel (an object)”, roṅkam, “to touch (an object)”.
49. Besides the ordinary style of speech several languages also possess a higher one, specially appropriated to politeness, sacred things, etc. In these gradations of style root-variation is also employed. Thus in Modern Jav. těpuṅ is the usual, těpaṅ the pohte, word for “to unite”. In the Day. dirge Augh Olo Bahan Hapa Tiwah, p. 215, we find: hasambalut tatekan = “mixed with that which is cut off”; this tatekan is explained by tapekan, so the variant tek denotes the religious,pek the common, form of speech.
50. Root- variation is a complex subject in IN research and will yet afford matter for many an academic thesis. But. at the same time there is no other field of study that holds out such alluring temptations to the constructive fancy as this
